waarom gebruikt niemand de juiste term atoomwapens zijn zo 1970quote:Op maandag 16 juni 2008 19:18 schreef icecreamfarmer_NL het volgende:
[..]
nee dit verhaal is bevestigd door de iaea, het waren Zwitsers die geavanceerde tekeningen van kleine maar krachtige (denk bomkoffers en iets groter) atoombommen hadden verkocht aan een aantal landen.
Dit is een veel gevaarlijkere ontwikkeling omdat deze klein genoeg zijn om op raketten te plaatsen die veel landen in die regio bezitten.
Het waren trouwens 3 zwitsers alle 3 opgepakt.
SPOILEROm spoilers te kunnen lezen moet je zijn ingelogd. Je moet je daarvoor eerst gratis Registreren. Ook kun je spoilers niet lezen als je een ban hebt.
[ Bericht 0% gewijzigd door GewoneMan op 16-06-2008 21:41:18 ]When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That's relativity.
Yep. Gewoon even binnenvallen en de schrijnende mensenrechtensituatie zal zeer snel verbeteren.quote:Op maandag 16 juni 2008 22:29 schreef Elfletterig het volgende:
Wat mij betreft wordt dat land snel binnengevallen. Ik ben me ervan bewust dat het een populistische en simplistische uitspraak is, maar hoe eerder er een einde komt aan de schrijnende mensenrechtensituatie in dat land, hoe beter. Die kernwapens vind ik maar een bijzaak; een leuke 'kapstok' om een inval aan op te hangen.
Precies, 4 letters, hoe groot kan dat land nou zijn?quote:Op maandag 16 juni 2008 22:47 schreef Monidique het volgende:
[..]
Yep. Gewoon even binnenvallen en de schrijnende mensenrechtensituatie zal zeer snel verbeteren.
quote:Will Israel Attack Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Before the End of the Bush Administration? Joschka Fischer Argues Yes Nouriel Roubini | Jun 2, 2008
I had the pleasure to meet and speak at length over the weekend with Joschka Fischer, former Foreign Minister of Germany and one of the deepest geo-strategic thinkers in the world. He argued with me that – as he fleshed out in a a recent article he wrote for the Project Syndicate – Israel will attack Iran’s nuclear facilities before the end of the Bush administration and that Israel effectively received the green light to this action from Bush during his recent visit to Israel. Fischer was recently in Israel to attend the celebrations for the 60th anniversary of Israel creation. A variety of factors and conversations – fleshed out in his article – have led him to the conclusion that Israel will attack Iran before the end of the Bush administration. This is just an opinion of one – however influential and well-connected – observer; but the arguments that Fischer makes on why Israel may go ahead sound compelling. We certainly don’t know if Israel will act that early – and certainly Israel has signaled that it will not accept an Iran that is nuclear - but let us consider the economic and financial consequences of such action.
First, even before Iran may try to retaliate to this action by trying to block the flow of oil from the Gulf, oil prices would spike above $200 dollar a barrel.
Second, Iran could react militarily to such Israeli action (that would be taken with the tacit support and the military logistic support of the US) by unleashing its supporters in Iraq against the US military forces there. That would trigger a military reaction by the US that would start a sustained air-led bombing campaign against Iran’s military capabilities (air force, anti-aircraft defenses, radar and other military installations, etc.)
Third, Iran would unleash its supporters in Lebanon and Gaza (Hezbollah and Hamas) in a military confrontation with Israel. A broader war will follow in the Middle East.
Fourth, Iran would use both the threat of blocking the flow of oil out of the Gulf and an actual sharp reduction of its exports of oil (an embargo) to spike the price of oil. Oil prices would rapidly rise above $200 per barrel and the US and global economy would spin into a severe stagflationary recession (like those triggered by the sharp spikes in the prices of oil following the staflationary shocks of the Yom Kippur war in 1973, the Iranian revolution in 1979 and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990).
Fifth, while Sunni regimes may – in private – sigh relief following the destruction of the nuclear capabilities of the Shiite Iranian regime – the Sunni Arab street (the masses of poor Sunnis) from Algeria to Egypt and all the way to Pakistan, India and Indonesia may become even more anti-Western and anti-American leading to the risk over time of rise of anti-Western fundamentalist regimes in many Arab countries.
Sixth, the Bush administration whose hands have been tied by the new National Intelligence Estimate (that argued that Iran had suspended its program of development of nuclear weapons) would thus be able to strike Iran – via Israel - before the end of its term. Such October surprise by Israel would also certainly lead to the election of McCain and defeat of Obama as a national security crisis of such an extent would doom the chances of Democrats to win the White House. So both Israel – that prefers McCain to Obama and is hurried to act as it is wary of the constraints that an Obama presidency may put on its ability to act against Iran – and the Bush administration would guarantee the election of McCain.
Now, it is not certain – as argued by Fischer – that Israel will strike that early; this is just a guess and a prediction by one observer even if many others think likewise. But if such action were to be taken by Israel the consequences outlined above would be the clear outcome: a major global recession, wars throughout the Middle East (Iran, Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon, Israel, etc.) and a major increase in geopolitical instability.
Nu is het officieel iran doet alleen nog maar zaken in euro'squote:
quote:Op maandag 30 juni 2008 16:07 schreef Stupendous76 het volgende:
Iran zet de feestartikelen al vast klaar voor de Amerikanen: Iran to ready thousands of graves for enemy soldiers
http://www.timesonline.co(...)t/article4232021.ecequote:Iran has moved ballistic missiles into launch positions, with Israel’s Dimona nuclear plant among the possible targets, defence sources said last week.
The movement of Shahab-3B missiles, which have an estimated range of more than 1,250 miles, followed a large-scale exercise earlier this month in which the Israeli air force flew en masse over the Mediterranean in an apparent rehearsal for a threatened attack on Iran’s nuclear installations. Israel believes Iran’s nuclear programme is aimed at acquiring nuclear weapons.
The sources said Iran was preparing to retaliate for any onslaught by firing missiles at Dimona, where Israel’s own nuclear weapons are believed to be made.
Voor zover mij bekend is de geldende doctrine bij Defensie in Iran dat men een aanval wil afschrikken met de mogelijkheid terug te slaan met vernietiging.quote:Op maandag 30 juni 2008 16:16 schreef Basp1 het volgende:
Wanneer iran een reactor in israel plat gooit heeft men zelf toch ook last van de fall out omdat de windrichting meestal richting het westen is.
Wat doe jij hier dan en ga je niet in de VS wonen.quote:Op woensdag 5 maart 2008 21:05 schreef AryaMehr het volgende:
[..]
Hetzelfde geldt voor Amerika? Amerika hangt politieke activisten ook in het openbaar op? Amerika stenigt ook vrouwen? Je moet niet proberen alles te bagatelliseren.
En nee, ik heb geen banden met de PMOI. Alsof er 2 maar kanten zijn: of je bent voorstander van de huidige Iraanse regering, of je bent voorstander van de PMOI, wat een onzin. Ik ben geen van beide. Ik ben voorstander van een vrij Iran zonder enig invloed van de Islam.
En ik vraag me af wat je hier in Nederland doet als je de Iraanse regering en Ahmadinejad steunt.
Ik begrijp weinig van de redenering. Het heeft dus voornamelijk nadelen om aan te vallen dus waarom zouden de VS dit steunen? Hoge olieprijs, aanvallen op hun troepen in Irak, instabiel midden-oosten, wat is het nut? Dat McCain dan wint ipv Obama geloof ik ook wel, maar partijpolitiek kan toch niet zo cynisch zijn dat het alle andere nationale belangen opzij zet.quote:Op dinsdag 17 juni 2008 14:16 schreef mr.marcus het volgende:
al wel wat ouder maar wel interessant:
http://www.rgemonitor.com/blog/roubini/252723/
[..]
Maar de kans is dan redelijk dat Iran een raketje terugstuurt naar Israel's militaire fabriekjes ofzo.. en dan ziet de USA weer z'n kans om daar weer op terug te slaan...quote:Op vrijdag 11 juli 2008 16:39 schreef Darklight het volgende:
Amerika zal idd niet aanvallen, zal Israel wel doen
Met toestemming van Bush
gezien de hulp van iraq, zal deze ook ernstig bestookt worden door iran. Zeker met al die US Bases.quote:Op vrijdag 11 juli 2008 16:44 schreef Xith het volgende:
[..]
Maar de kans is dan redelijk dat Iran een raketje terugstuurt naar Israel's militaire fabriekjes ofzo.. en dan ziet de USA weer z'n kans om daar weer op terug te slaan...
http://www.motherjones.co(...)rael-war-threat.htmlquote:"My sense is the Pentagon would be worried or opposed to an Israeli attack," says David Wurmser, former Middle East advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney, who left the White House job late last summer. "They are afraid it would inflame the situation in Iraq, which could undermine the US position there.
"Ultimately, my gut tells me that most of the administration on most levels would push back very hard," on Israeli pressure on Washington to authorize it to strike Iran, Wurmser added. "What those in the administration who don't want Israel to act probably won't want is for it to be taken to the highest level. They would always be afraid that [the president] might not be so tough on the Israelis. If the Israeli [government] really intends to do something, they would go to the highest level without a lot of people knowing."
Last week, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen visited Israel, during which Mullen is reported to have told Israeli leaders that, speaking for the highest levels of the Bush administration, they did not have a green light from Washington for military action on Iran. Now, Mother Jones has learned, a parade of senior Israeli government officials is making its way to Washington over the coming two weeks, to discuss the Iran issue with top Bush administration officials. Among those scheduled to arrive, Mother Jones has confirmed with Israeli sources in Washington and Israel: Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak, who departs Israel Monday for meetings in Washington with President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Pentagon officials; and the Israeli Defense Forces chief of staff Gabi Ashkenazi, who comes the following week on his first visit to Washington in that position. A former Pentagon intelligence official who spoke with Mother Jones also alleges that Meir Dagan, the chief of the Israeli intelligence service, the Mossad, held secret meetings with officials in the White House on Wednesday. Neither the Israeli embassy nor National Security Council would comment on whether Dagan had been at the White House.
(...)
"Even beyond the question of whether McCain or Obama wins, the Israelis are afraid that no new administration is really going to be able to get its act together quickly to be able to mobilize a plan and do something," Wurmser said.
Wurmser put the odds of Israel striking Iran before Bush leaves office at "slightly, slightly above fifty/fifty."
| Forum Opties | |
|---|---|
| Forumhop: | |
| Hop naar: | |