Ali bo Amerika napadla Iran do 20.3.2006???

Hja, po vsej verjetnosti bojo 'izvedeli', da se v Iranu pod sedmim kamnom na levi skriva Osama...

Žalostno, kar se dogaja zadnje čase...

Zelo bi me presenetilo, če se bodo Američani spustili v Iran. Le-ta nima na prestolu samodržca ala Sadam Husein.
V Iranu si ne bo 80 % ljudi oddahnilo, kot so se prve tedne v Iraku (kar spomnite se navdušenja ob rušenju Sadamovega kipa v Bagdadu). Kakršenkoli napad bi velikansko večino močno raz...dil.
Tam imajo demokracijo (kakršnokoli že) s parlamentom, tako da bodo težko izvedli finto, da prinašajo demokracijo in svobodo.

Ne vem, zakaj ga potem zdaj Iranci biksajo zdaj z uranom???
Naj pocakajo, do 20.3 ker drugace jim bodo vzeli americani to za povod.

V stilu izraelskega bombandiranja iraških pred desetletji?

EDIT: Povezava do opisa bombandiranja Iraških nukelarnih objektov

Thomas:
Kdorkoli prvi uporabi jedrsko orožje izven situacije povračilnega jedrskega udara, bo odprl pandorino škrinjico.
Grožnje so eno, dejanska uporaba le teh pa nekaj povsem tretjega.

Če bi blo to z atomsko bombo tako lahko bi Rusi in Američani že leta nazaj lahko ardili konec človeški zgodovini.

T

Tam imajo demokracijo (kakršnokoli že) s parlamentom, tako da bodo težko izvedli finto, da prinašajo demokracijo in svobodo.

"In the revolution that was achieved in Iran, people were screaming that they wanted Islam; these people did not rise up so their country could have democracy." -Ayatollah Khomeini (in a meeting with the Islamic Republic Television and Radio Committee, Qom, December 10, 1979)

Nej naredijo naftno tržnico v iranskih dinarjih!

To bo naredilo mudžahedine še bolj srečne, njihove evropske navijače pa malo manj.

V resnici se lahko odločijo za katerokoli valuto, ni važno sploh, če jo le kdo hoče.

Za vojaški poseg v Iranu je letos prepozno. Mogoče z več sreče naslednje leto.

Za bombardiranja jedrskih in vojaških objektov je sezona praktično celo leto.
Če bi bilo v tej vojni dovolj samo par odvrženih bomb na strateške cilje to popolnoma drži. Vendar upaš trditi, da bi bilo samo to dovolj? Da bi se ta problem na tak "izi" način rešil.

Tole z Iranom na bo šlo tako na lahko kot z Irakom,saj ima Iran okrog 70 milj. prebivalcev (Irak okrog 25 milj.) .Ima precej močnejšo vojsko kot med iraško-iransko vojno ,predvsem pa ni imel desetletnih sankcij tako kot Irak.
Verjetno ne mislite da bi bila vojna za ameriko cenejša kot pa bi bile tečajna razlike dolar-evro?
Pa tudi ameriška vojska ima dovolj dela v Iraku , Afganistanu....tako da z to vojno na srečo ne bo nič.

EU bi se morala javno zavzemati in dogovarjati z Iranom glede prodaje nafte v Eurih. Zadeva bi bila zelo zanimiva, ker bi se že zaradi tečajnih razlik enkrat splačevalo kupovati nafto enkrat v
eurih, drugič pa v dolarjih. Pa si upajo?

Mogoče pa bi Slovenija lahko kaj rešila? Naš zunanji minister ima vso podporo v Kirgiziji, Tadžikistanu in ostalih pomebnih državah. Lahko pošljemo tja našo elitno enoto gorskih reševalcev in poleg Darfurja rešimo še Iran?

Po moje se bo pa za USa žrtvoval Izrael in izvedel kak preventivni napad. seveda ob skromni neuradni asistenci USa ( obveščevalni podatki, hardware...).

Tale tema niti ni namenjena vprašanju ali naj ima Iran Abombo ali ne. Smo se že pred kratkim v neki drugi temi strinjali, da je Iranu potrebno preprečiti Abombo, v končni fazi tudi z fizičnim uničenjem določenih objektov. Tule se gre bolj za vprašanje ali naj Iran prodaja nafto na globalnem trgu v Eurih in kakšne posledice bi to imelo. Verjetno bi to močno okrepilo položaj Eura, morda razvrednotilo dolar, s čimer pa ne bi bil zadovoljen pretežni del sveta, sploh Azija, ki ima del rezeru tudi v dolarjih.

Tale o strateskem bombardiranju Iranskih nuklearnih virov je pa bosa no...
Saj nismo v racunalniski igrici. Pa se tam nimas te moznosti. Poleg tega bi kaj takega povzrocilo kontaminacijo.
USA niti katera druga vojska v slabih dveh mesecih NI sposobna izvest tako zahtevne vojaske akcije kot je napad na Iran. Veliko sil ima zunaj, pripravljenih zato premalo, podpora javnosti je vprasljiva poleg tega pred vojasko operacijo pride do razprav v ZN, resolucij...

Tudi ce bi dobili mandat ZN in s tem podporo v vojaski sili mora malo daljse obdobje pretec.

Miško, proti enmu temule miškotu ni heca (aja, cela dva vojaka ga "šofirata"):

Washington Post o Iranu :
.....

Bush's Choice on Iran

By Jackson Diehl

Monday, January 30, 2006; Page A17

The debate on Iran is drifting toward the ugly question that the Bush administration would most like to avoid. That is: Is it preferable for the United States to live with the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran, or with those of a unilateral American military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities?

President Bush has never answered that question; instead, he and his State Department have repeatedly called an Iranian bomb "intolerable" while building a diplomatic coalition that won't tolerate a military solution. But two of our more principled senators, Republican John McCain and Democrat Joe Lieberman, have this month faced the Iranian Choice -- and both endorsed military action. McCain was most direct: "There is only one thing worse than the United States exercising a military option," he said on "Face the Nation." "That is a nuclear-armed Iran."

It's easy to see why the Bush administration prefers ambiguity to McCain's decisive judgment. After all, both options are terrible, and everyone can agree that diplomacy is worth a try. Yet Bush and both parties in Congress ought to be thinking through their own answers to the Iranian Choice, for two reasons. First, it looks more likely than not that the United States will, in the end, have to make that decision; and, second, the answer to the question ought to shape how the coming diplomatic phase is managed.

One driver of the choice is the ranting of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about Israel and the Holocaust -- which, contrary to what a Western secular sensibility might suggest, is not necessarily a bluff. As Lieberman put it in his "Face the Nation" appearance a week ago, "if we should have learned one thing from 9/11 . . . it is that when somebody says over and over again, as Osama bin Laden did during the '90s, 'I hate you and give me the chance, I will kill you,' they may mean it and try to do it." If the West is going to gamble that it can contain a religious fanatic who possesses nuclear weapons and vows to wipe Israel from the map, it should do so knowingly, and not because it failed to provide for the possibility that an extremist would not respond to conventional diplomacy.

Another decision forcer is that, for all the talk among Iran watchers about opposition within the regime to Ahmadinejad, there is no evidence that anyone in Tehran disagrees with his judgment about negotiations with the West -- which is that Iran has no need to make a deal. Iranian leaders were universally dismissive of the offer made last summer by the European Union. There is no indication that any senior leader or faction favors giving up uranium enrichment, under any circumstances. Not even the democratic opposition wants it.

So the United States must approach the coming maneuvering in and outside the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency board, and any last-minute negotiations in Vienna, Moscow or Tehran, the way the Iranians probably do: not as an end in itself but as a prelude to more meaningful action. If the ultimate intent is to contain, rather than attack, the Iranian nuclear program, then dilatory and fruitless negotiations -- like those of the past two years -- are worthy and even desirable. Not only do they slow Iran's bomb-building but they help to cement a global coalition that might be able to deter the regime from actually using an eventual weapon over a long twilight era, Cold War-style.

If this is the choice, then aggressive efforts to support the Iranian democratic opposition also make sense, since over time the regime might be undermined from within. Russia and China should be courted. Brinkmanship -- like interrupting Iranian oil exports, or prompting Tehran to do so -- is to be avoided, since there is no military option to fall back on if the mullahs don't blink.

On the other hand, if McCain is right, then the current diplomatic campaign should be compressed. As in the case of Iraq, the United Nations and sanctions should be explored just long enough to show that the United States has tried them. That's because the timeline for military action is much shorter than that of containment: While it might not complete work on a weapon for five or even 10 years, according to most intelligence estimates, Iran will probably pass what Israel calls the "point of no return" far sooner. After that point, when Tehran will have acquired all the means it needs to manufacture a bomb, it would be considerably more difficult to stop the Iranian program by force. So, if military action is preferable to containment, then brinkmanship is called for, while promotion of Iranian democracy, or painstaking cultivation of Russia and China, is a waste of time.

So what is the Bush administration doing? It is allowing talks to drag on, and slowly courting Russia and China, but doing next to nothing to help Iranian democrats; it is drawing up lists of sanctions that, if imposed, might trigger a crisis, but it is also laying the groundwork for long-term containment. Perhaps the president has decided what course he will choose if Iranian uranium enrichment proceeds in spite of negotiations, U.N. resolutions or even sanctions. If so, his administration's current tactics show no sign of it.

So, še posebej tisto kitajsko ambasado so dobro zadeli

Mhm...raketa ni zatajila dobr si to povedu. Mel so pa stare lokacijske načrte Beograda, to pa.

Janša je v enem prvih govorov po zmagi bluzil, da "Slovenci nismo več zamudniki, kot smo bili".

Ja no, če bi bral tale (kak drug) forum bi videl, da smo. Navijačev za "Irance" je pri nas še kar veliko. Ne morš verjet.

Hm....na temo...ne v dveh mesecih napada ne bo. Potem pa Izraelci in 30 bombic vrste A...naee...palestinci bojo strelali u luft in na izraelske vojake metali kamenje...ti bodo na čase streljali nazaj s pravo municijo..in ko bo kak izraelski civilist, šel prepričan da je varen, po kruh, bo priletela od bogsigavedi kje bomba, in bo ubila njega, kup otrok in še par arabskih novinarjev. Iran čakajo mučni pogovori Z EU in USA in če ne zagrešijo množičnega samomora, od besa, dolgčasa ali neumnosti, potem še sankcije, revščina in na koncu poraz...hm ja sami bodo temu rekli zmaga.(hahahla ahvahahla nekako tako se sliši arabsko pa na žalost ne znam). To ne pomeni, da lucifer počiva. Ne ne. Vse kar v tem forumu omenjate, nekako dozoreva in se goji s tragikomedijo zgornjih vrstic. prej ali slej se zdi, da beda kričečih človečnjakov le doživi razsvetlitev v obliki množice delta kril z dvemi ali več šoferji in svetlimi lučmi na obzorju. No in če bomo leta za tem tako sedeli opečenih riti v nekih gnilih kleteh in se spraševali: What the hell went wrong?...Ah klinc ne takrat spraševat...zdaj je čas za to! Zdaj! Lahko pa je tudi bolje in lahko je tudi...

velik je tega kle za skritizirat in za povedat...sam pustmo to za drugic..;)

je pa zanimivo da npr. ZDA ipd. obtozujejo in zavajajo svet itd...folk itak naseda..kaj pa oni? oni majo lahko use - itak sj to je za samoobrambo in za varnost sveta..itd..;)

obramba je najbolsi napad!

S Klemenov sva tukaj povsem somišljenika. "Pod dominacijo ZDA" se da povsem dobro in znosno živeti. Vse druge dominacije bi bile IMO pasje. Zato naj ZDA naredijo vse, kar se jim zdi potrebno, da odstranijo razne "tekmece" tipa Iran.

Edini pogoj, ki jim ga zastavljam je - do it!

> "Pod dominacijo ZDA" se da povsem dobro in znosno živeti.

No, trditi nekaj takega je rahlo trapasto. Ne ves tega, dokler tega ne izkusis. Znosnost je precej relativna.

Če bo nafta prodajana v evrih bo dolar ogromno zgubil in amriško gospodarstvo se bo zamajalo, posledica, še višji evro in še nižji dolar. Koneckoncev je čas, da bo spet evropa vodilna v svetu.

Atomska bomba je izredno uničujoče orožje, ki pusti dolgotrajne posledice. Nobena država je ne bi smela posedovati, zato podpiram ZDA, če bodo napadle Iran. Res je, spet bodo trpeli tudi nedolžni, ampak v vsaki vojni je tako.