NWS Nieuws & Achtergronden
Discussieer hier diepgaander over de actualiteiten.
Nou, eens kijken welke woorden hip zijn om dat te linken.quote:Op zondag 11 februari 2007 14:54 schreef zakjapannertje het volgende:
[..]
als is aangetoond dat Iran met al-Qaida samenwerkt, dan heeft hij die toestemming al: http://en.wikipedia.org/w(...)se_of_Military_Force
IED? (Check, al gezegd dat dat uit Iran komt.)
raketten om heli's neer te halen?
WMD's?
Anthrax?
Hmmm. Ik wacht wel af wat de neoconservatieven nu weer gaan verzinnen, net zoals Rusland volgens hun iets zou hebben, of Irak. Echt leren doen we nog niet. Keer op keer geloven we die cokesnuivende neoconservatieven weer.
Pentagon gebruikte 'dubieuze' inlichtingen
Vroeger verzonnen ze dat als je iets niet op de foto zag, het zodanig goed gecamoufleerd was dat je het niet zag.
Eventjes later verzonnen ze dat Irak WMD's had.
Ik vraag me ernstig af waarom ik ze nu wel zou moeten geloven.
Bovenstaande tekst = C C 3.0 NL BY-NC-ND - quotes inkorten uitgezonderd.
Het aanvallen van een land, omdat je in het andere (Irak) niet winnen kunt, wordt door de Duitsers heel treffend "Flucht nach vorne" genoemd. Zo viel Hitler uiteindelijk Rusland aan, omdat hij er niet in slaagde de RAF en dus Engeland onder de voet te lopen.
Iran is vele malen groter dan Irak, is veel bergachtiger, niet verzwakt door jarenlange sancties en heeft een ethnisch vrij homogene bevolking die drie keer zo groot is als die van Irak. Daar zullen ze nog een zware kluif aan krijgen. En dit terwijl het in Irak eigenlijk slechts steeds slechter gaat.
Bush speelt met het overwicht van de Westerse wereld en de machtspositie van Amerika. Als deze oorlog door gaat, en maar voor de helft zo slecht verloopt als Irak, dan hebben de VS de komende decennia helemaal niets meer in de pap te brokkelen.
Iran is vele malen groter dan Irak, is veel bergachtiger, niet verzwakt door jarenlange sancties en heeft een ethnisch vrij homogene bevolking die drie keer zo groot is als die van Irak. Daar zullen ze nog een zware kluif aan krijgen. En dit terwijl het in Irak eigenlijk slechts steeds slechter gaat.
Bush speelt met het overwicht van de Westerse wereld en de machtspositie van Amerika. Als deze oorlog door gaat, en maar voor de helft zo slecht verloopt als Irak, dan hebben de VS de komende decennia helemaal niets meer in de pap te brokkelen.
The End Times are wild
Wanneer leert de vs nou eens een keer dat ze het geld beter in hun eigen land kan investeren in plaats een oorlog te starten
There are only two pains in life. The pain of discipline and the pain of regret.
Target Iran: US able to strike in the spring
Despite denials, Pentagon plans for possible attack on nuclear sites are well advanced
Ewen MacAskill in Washington
Saturday February 10, 2007
The Guardian
F18 Hornet jet
A second battle group has been ordered to the Gulf and extra missiles have already been sent out. Meanwhile oil is being stockpiled. Photograph: Reuters
US preparations for an air strike against Iran are at an advanced stage, in spite of repeated public denials by the Bush administration, according to informed sources in Washington.
The present military build-up in the Gulf would allow the US to mount an attack by the spring. But the sources said that if there was an attack, it was more likely next year, just before Mr Bush leaves office.
Neo-conservatives, particularly at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, are urging Mr Bush to open a new front against Iran. So too is the vice-president, Dick Cheney. The state department and the Pentagon are opposed, as are Democratic congressmen and the overwhelming majority of Republicans. The sources said Mr Bush had not yet made a decision. The Bush administration insists the military build-up is not offensive but aimed at containing Iran and forcing it to make diplomatic concessions. The aim is to persuade Tehran to curb its suspect nuclear weapons programme and abandon ambitions for regional expansion.
Article continues
Robert Gates, the new US defence secretary, said yesterday: "I don't know how many times the president, secretary [of state Condoleezza] Rice and I have had to repeat that we have no intention of attacking Iran."
But Vincent Cannistraro, a Washington-based intelligence analyst, shared the sources' assessment that Pentagon planning was well under way. "Planning is going on, in spite of public disavowals by Gates. Targets have been selected. For a bombing campaign against nuclear sites, it is quite advanced. The military assets to carry this out are being put in place."
He added: "We are planning for war. It is incredibly dangerous."
Deployment
Mr Cannistraro, who worked for the CIA and the National Security Council, stressed that no decision had been made.
Last month Mr Bush ordered a second battle group led by the aircraft carrier USS John Stennis to the Gulf in support of the USS Eisenhower. The USS Stennis is due to arrive within the next 10 days. Extra US Patriot missiles have been sent to the region, as well as more minesweepers, in anticipation of Iranian retaliatory action.
In another sign that preparations are under way, Mr Bush has ordered oil reserves to be stockpiled.
The danger is that the build-up could spark an accidental war. Iranian officials said on Thursday that they had tested missiles capable of hitting warships in the Gulf.
Colonel Sam Gardiner, a former air force officer who has carried out war games with Iran as the target, supported the view that planning for an air strike was under way: "Gates said there is no planning for war. We know this is not true. He possibly meant there is no plan for an immediate strike. It was sloppy wording.
"All the moves being made over the last few weeks are consistent with what you would do if you were going to do an air strike. We have to throw away the notion the US could not do it because it is too tied up in Iraq. It is an air operation."
One of the main driving forces behind war, apart from the vice-president's office, is the AEI, headquarters of the neo-conservatives. A member of the AEI coined the slogan "axis of evil" that originally lumped Iran in with Iraq and North Korea. Its influence on the White House appeared to be in decline last year amid endless bad news from Iraq, for which it had been a cheerleader. But in the face of opposition from Congress, the Pentagon and state department, Mr Bush opted last month for an AEI plan to send more troops to Iraq. Will he support calls from within the AEI for a strike on Iran?
Josh Muravchik, a Middle East specialist at the AEI, is among its most vocal supporters of such a strike.
"I do not think anyone in the US is talking about invasion. We have been chastened by the experience of Iraq, even a hawk like myself." But an air strike was another matter. The danger of Iran having a nuclear weapon "is not just that it might use it out of the blue but as a shield to do all sorts of mischief. I do not believe there will be any way to stop this happening other than physical force."
Mr Bush is part of the American generation that refuses to forgive Iran for the 1979-81 hostage crisis. He leaves office in January 2009 and has said repeatedly that he does not want a legacy in which Iran has achieved superpower status in the region and come close to acquiring a nuclear weapon capability. The logic of this is that if diplomatic efforts fail to persuade Iran to stop uranium enrichment then the only alternative left is to turn to the military.
Mr Muravchik is intent on holding Mr Bush to his word: "The Bush administration have said they would not allow Iran nuclear weapons. That is either bullshit or they mean it as a clear code: we will do it if we have to. I would rather believe it is not hot air."
Other neo-cons elsewhere in Washington are opposed to an air strike but advocate a different form of military action, supporting Iranian armed groups, in particular the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), even though the state department has branded it a terrorist organisation.
Raymond Tanter, founder of the Iran Policy Committee, which includes former officials from the White House, state department and intelligence services, is a leading advocate of support for the MEK. If it comes to an air strike, he favours bunker-busting bombs. "I believe the only way to get at the deeply buried sites at Natanz and Arak is probably to use bunker-buster bombs, some of which are nuclear tipped. I do not believe the US would do that but it has sold them to Israel."
Opposition support
Another neo-conservative, Meyrav Wurmser, director of the centre for Middle East policy at the Hudson Institute, also favours supporting Iranian opposition groups. She is disappointed with the response of the Bush administration so far to Iran and said that if the aim of US policy after 9/11 was to make the Middle East safer for the US, it was not working because the administration had stopped at Iraq. "There is not enough political will for a strike. There seems to be various notions of what the policy should be."
In spite of the president's veto on negotiation with Tehran, the state department has been involved since 2003 in back-channel approaches and meetings involving Iranian officials and members of the Bush administration or individuals close to it. But when last year the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, sent a letter as an overture, the state department dismissed it within hours of its arrival.
Support for negotiations comes from centrist and liberal thinktanks. Afshin Molavi, a fellow of the New America Foundation, said: "To argue diplomacy has not worked is false because it has not been tried. Post-90s and through to today, when Iran has been ready to dance, the US refused, and when the US has been ready to dance, Iran has refused. We are at a stage where Iran is ready to walk across the dance floor and the US is looking away."
He is worried about "a miscalculation that leads to an accidental war".
The catalyst could be Iraq. The Pentagon said yesterday that it had evidence - serial numbers of projectiles as well as explosives - of Iraqi militants' weapons that had come from Iran. In a further sign of the increased tension, Iran's main nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, cancelled a visit to Munich for what would have been the first formal meeting with his western counterparts since last year.
If it does come to war, Mr Muravchik said Iran would retaliate, but that on balance it would be worth it to stop a country that he said had "Death to America" as its official slogan.
"We have to gird our loins and prepare to absorb the counter-shock," he said.
War of words
"If Iran escalates its military action in Iraq to the detriment of our troops and/or innocent Iraqi people, we will respond firmly"
George Bush, in an interview with National Public Radio
"The Iranians clearly believe that we are tied down in Iraq, that they have the initiative, that they are in position to press us in many ways. They are doing nothing to be constructive in Iraq at this point"
Robert Gates
"I think it's been pretty well-known that Iran is fishing in troubled waters"
Dick Cheney
"It is absolutely parallel. They're using the same dance steps - demonise the bad guys, the pretext of diplomacy, keep out of negotiations, use proxies. It is Iraq redux"
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA counter- terrorism specialist, in Vanity Fair, on echoes of the run-up to the war in Iraq
"US policymakers and analysts know that the Iranian nation would not let an invasion go without a response. Enemies of the Islamic system fabricated various rumours about death and health to demoralise the Iranian nation, but they did not know that they are not dealing with only one person in Iran. They are facing a nation"
Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
Despite denials, Pentagon plans for possible attack on nuclear sites are well advanced
Ewen MacAskill in Washington
Saturday February 10, 2007
The Guardian
F18 Hornet jet
A second battle group has been ordered to the Gulf and extra missiles have already been sent out. Meanwhile oil is being stockpiled. Photograph: Reuters
US preparations for an air strike against Iran are at an advanced stage, in spite of repeated public denials by the Bush administration, according to informed sources in Washington.
The present military build-up in the Gulf would allow the US to mount an attack by the spring. But the sources said that if there was an attack, it was more likely next year, just before Mr Bush leaves office.
Neo-conservatives, particularly at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, are urging Mr Bush to open a new front against Iran. So too is the vice-president, Dick Cheney. The state department and the Pentagon are opposed, as are Democratic congressmen and the overwhelming majority of Republicans. The sources said Mr Bush had not yet made a decision. The Bush administration insists the military build-up is not offensive but aimed at containing Iran and forcing it to make diplomatic concessions. The aim is to persuade Tehran to curb its suspect nuclear weapons programme and abandon ambitions for regional expansion.
Article continues
Robert Gates, the new US defence secretary, said yesterday: "I don't know how many times the president, secretary [of state Condoleezza] Rice and I have had to repeat that we have no intention of attacking Iran."
But Vincent Cannistraro, a Washington-based intelligence analyst, shared the sources' assessment that Pentagon planning was well under way. "Planning is going on, in spite of public disavowals by Gates. Targets have been selected. For a bombing campaign against nuclear sites, it is quite advanced. The military assets to carry this out are being put in place."
He added: "We are planning for war. It is incredibly dangerous."
Deployment
Mr Cannistraro, who worked for the CIA and the National Security Council, stressed that no decision had been made.
Last month Mr Bush ordered a second battle group led by the aircraft carrier USS John Stennis to the Gulf in support of the USS Eisenhower. The USS Stennis is due to arrive within the next 10 days. Extra US Patriot missiles have been sent to the region, as well as more minesweepers, in anticipation of Iranian retaliatory action.
In another sign that preparations are under way, Mr Bush has ordered oil reserves to be stockpiled.
The danger is that the build-up could spark an accidental war. Iranian officials said on Thursday that they had tested missiles capable of hitting warships in the Gulf.
Colonel Sam Gardiner, a former air force officer who has carried out war games with Iran as the target, supported the view that planning for an air strike was under way: "Gates said there is no planning for war. We know this is not true. He possibly meant there is no plan for an immediate strike. It was sloppy wording.
"All the moves being made over the last few weeks are consistent with what you would do if you were going to do an air strike. We have to throw away the notion the US could not do it because it is too tied up in Iraq. It is an air operation."
One of the main driving forces behind war, apart from the vice-president's office, is the AEI, headquarters of the neo-conservatives. A member of the AEI coined the slogan "axis of evil" that originally lumped Iran in with Iraq and North Korea. Its influence on the White House appeared to be in decline last year amid endless bad news from Iraq, for which it had been a cheerleader. But in the face of opposition from Congress, the Pentagon and state department, Mr Bush opted last month for an AEI plan to send more troops to Iraq. Will he support calls from within the AEI for a strike on Iran?
Josh Muravchik, a Middle East specialist at the AEI, is among its most vocal supporters of such a strike.
"I do not think anyone in the US is talking about invasion. We have been chastened by the experience of Iraq, even a hawk like myself." But an air strike was another matter. The danger of Iran having a nuclear weapon "is not just that it might use it out of the blue but as a shield to do all sorts of mischief. I do not believe there will be any way to stop this happening other than physical force."
Mr Bush is part of the American generation that refuses to forgive Iran for the 1979-81 hostage crisis. He leaves office in January 2009 and has said repeatedly that he does not want a legacy in which Iran has achieved superpower status in the region and come close to acquiring a nuclear weapon capability. The logic of this is that if diplomatic efforts fail to persuade Iran to stop uranium enrichment then the only alternative left is to turn to the military.
Mr Muravchik is intent on holding Mr Bush to his word: "The Bush administration have said they would not allow Iran nuclear weapons. That is either bullshit or they mean it as a clear code: we will do it if we have to. I would rather believe it is not hot air."
Other neo-cons elsewhere in Washington are opposed to an air strike but advocate a different form of military action, supporting Iranian armed groups, in particular the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), even though the state department has branded it a terrorist organisation.
Raymond Tanter, founder of the Iran Policy Committee, which includes former officials from the White House, state department and intelligence services, is a leading advocate of support for the MEK. If it comes to an air strike, he favours bunker-busting bombs. "I believe the only way to get at the deeply buried sites at Natanz and Arak is probably to use bunker-buster bombs, some of which are nuclear tipped. I do not believe the US would do that but it has sold them to Israel."
Opposition support
Another neo-conservative, Meyrav Wurmser, director of the centre for Middle East policy at the Hudson Institute, also favours supporting Iranian opposition groups. She is disappointed with the response of the Bush administration so far to Iran and said that if the aim of US policy after 9/11 was to make the Middle East safer for the US, it was not working because the administration had stopped at Iraq. "There is not enough political will for a strike. There seems to be various notions of what the policy should be."
In spite of the president's veto on negotiation with Tehran, the state department has been involved since 2003 in back-channel approaches and meetings involving Iranian officials and members of the Bush administration or individuals close to it. But when last year the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, sent a letter as an overture, the state department dismissed it within hours of its arrival.
Support for negotiations comes from centrist and liberal thinktanks. Afshin Molavi, a fellow of the New America Foundation, said: "To argue diplomacy has not worked is false because it has not been tried. Post-90s and through to today, when Iran has been ready to dance, the US refused, and when the US has been ready to dance, Iran has refused. We are at a stage where Iran is ready to walk across the dance floor and the US is looking away."
He is worried about "a miscalculation that leads to an accidental war".
The catalyst could be Iraq. The Pentagon said yesterday that it had evidence - serial numbers of projectiles as well as explosives - of Iraqi militants' weapons that had come from Iran. In a further sign of the increased tension, Iran's main nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, cancelled a visit to Munich for what would have been the first formal meeting with his western counterparts since last year.
If it does come to war, Mr Muravchik said Iran would retaliate, but that on balance it would be worth it to stop a country that he said had "Death to America" as its official slogan.
"We have to gird our loins and prepare to absorb the counter-shock," he said.
War of words
"If Iran escalates its military action in Iraq to the detriment of our troops and/or innocent Iraqi people, we will respond firmly"
George Bush, in an interview with National Public Radio
"The Iranians clearly believe that we are tied down in Iraq, that they have the initiative, that they are in position to press us in many ways. They are doing nothing to be constructive in Iraq at this point"
Robert Gates
"I think it's been pretty well-known that Iran is fishing in troubled waters"
Dick Cheney
"It is absolutely parallel. They're using the same dance steps - demonise the bad guys, the pretext of diplomacy, keep out of negotiations, use proxies. It is Iraq redux"
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA counter- terrorism specialist, in Vanity Fair, on echoes of the run-up to the war in Iraq
"US policymakers and analysts know that the Iranian nation would not let an invasion go without a response. Enemies of the Islamic system fabricated various rumours about death and health to demoralise the Iranian nation, but they did not know that they are not dealing with only one person in Iran. They are facing a nation"
Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
Joh! Als we die neoconservatieven toch niet hadden hè.
Bovenstaande tekst = C C 3.0 NL BY-NC-ND - quotes inkorten uitgezonderd.
Het gaat echt goed de verkeerde kant op , het duurt niet lang meer of we zien weer 24 uur per dag breaking news berichten vanuit Israel of Iran.
Dat is niet te hopen. Het meest gunstige scenario is dan dat de olieprijs omhoog gaat omdat Iran de oliekraan dichtdraait (en mogelijk zelfs enkele Saoedische en Koeiweitse velden bestookt met raketten) en wat tankers laat zinken in de Straat van Hormuz. Gevolg; recessie en de terugkeer van de autoloze zondag.
Het absolute doemscenario houdt in dat iran raketten afvuurt met een chemische lading op Israel nadat Amerika/Israel een iraanse kerreactor hebben opgeblazen met een nucleaire bunkerbuster. Dan is, zoals wij dat hier zo mooi zeggen, de bok vet. WW3.
Bush heeft het goed verkloot bij de rest van de wereld. Kijk maar naar Putin's recente uitspraken. En laat Rusland nou net olie belangen in Iran hebben alsmede russisch personeel bij de kerninstallaties.
Het absolute doemscenario houdt in dat iran raketten afvuurt met een chemische lading op Israel nadat Amerika/Israel een iraanse kerreactor hebben opgeblazen met een nucleaire bunkerbuster. Dan is, zoals wij dat hier zo mooi zeggen, de bok vet. WW3.
Bush heeft het goed verkloot bij de rest van de wereld. Kijk maar naar Putin's recente uitspraken. En laat Rusland nou net olie belangen in Iran hebben alsmede russisch personeel bij de kerninstallaties.
Je zou bijna wensen dat er een VN-contingent bij N.Y. landt om in washington even 'n president uit 't witte huis te gooien.
I'm trying to make the 'net' a kinder, gentler place. One where you could bring the fuckin' children.
Hmm jaa , preciess zoals de bijbel voorspelt heeft. Alleen China moet zich er nog mee bemoeien en dan is het scenario compleet.quote:Op zondag 11 februari 2007 19:54 schreef RZero het volgende:
Dat is niet te hopen. Het meest gunstige scenario is dan dat de olieprijs omhoog gaat omdat Iran de oliekraan dichtdraait (en mogelijk zelfs enkele Saoedische en Koeiweitse velden bestookt met raketten) en wat tankers laat zinken in de Straat van Hormuz. Gevolg; recessie en de terugkeer van de autoloze zondag.
Het absolute doemscenario houdt in dat iran raketten afvuurt met een chemische lading op Israel nadat Amerika/Israel een iraanse kerreactor hebben opgeblazen met een nucleaire bunkerbuster. Dan is, zoals wij dat hier zo mooi zeggen, de bok vet. WW3.
Bush heeft het goed verkloot bij de rest van de wereld. Kijk maar naar Putin's recente uitspraken. En laat Rusland nou net olie belangen in Iran hebben alsmede russisch personeel bij de kerninstallaties.
Maar een 3e wereldoorlog weet ik niet , ik zie nog nie zo snel Amerikaanse troepen Iran enteren. En btw , ik denk dat Iran niet eens toe kan slaan. (of durft )
Sommige gelovigen willen een apocalyps.quote:Op zondag 11 februari 2007 20:30 schreef feessie het volgende:
[..]
Hmm jaa , preciess zoals de bijbel voorspelt heeft. Alleen China moet zich er nog mee bemoeien en dan is het scenario compleet.
Maar een 3e wereldoorlog weet ik niet , ik zie nog nie zo snel Amerikaanse troepen Iran enteren. En btw , ik denk dat Iran niet eens toe kan slaan. (of durft )
Wat wil je ook, met mensen als deze.
Bovenstaande tekst = C C 3.0 NL BY-NC-ND - quotes inkorten uitgezonderd.
Ik denk dat het niet perse willen het is , het gebeurd toch wel. Koste wat het kost komt die 3e wereldoorlog er , maar t hoef idd allemaal nie zo overdrevenquote:Op zondag 11 februari 2007 20:33 schreef Yildiz het volgende:
[..]
Sommige gelovigen willen een apocalyps.
Wat wil je ook, met mensen als deze.
Ja , maar dat blijft dan beperkt met het heen en weer schieten van raketten en een aanval op Israel. Ik realiseer me nu eigenlijk dat dat ook best heftig isquote:Op zondag 11 februari 2007 21:08 schreef RZero het volgende:
Binnenvallen? Nooit. Maar platgooien met a-bommen is ook een pittig oorlogsverklaring.
Iran kernwapens laten bouwen is ook niet slim , de wereld staat gewoon voor een groot dilemma. Volgens mij is de beste keus om de kerncentrales te bombarderen. Hoe dan ook een oorlog zal er toch wel komen , de tijd van praten is tegenwoordig voorbijquote:Op zondag 11 februari 2007 21:42 schreef RZero het volgende:
Precies.
En hoe zullen andere islamitische landen reageren? Nee Iran aanvallen is niet slim.
quote:
'Dodelijkste bommen van Iraaks verzet komen uit Iran'
Bron : Nu.nl
BAGDAD - Geavanceerde explosieven van Iraanse makelij hebben de afgelopen tweeënhalf jaar aan zeker 170 Amerikaanse militairen in Irak het leven gekost. Ruim zeshonderd militairen raakten gewond door de bommen. Dat hebben Amerikaanse defensiefunctionarissen anoniem laten weten.
De drie functionarissen spraken zondag in Bagdad met enkele journalisten. Volgens hen hebben de Amerikaanse inlichtingendiensten bewijzen verzameld dat de dodelijkste bommen die opstandelingen in Irak inzetten tegen Amerikaanse militairen afkomstig zijn uit Iran. Tot op het hoogste niveau zou de Iraanse regering weet hebben van de smokkel.
Teheran zou het wapentuig exporteren naar radicale sjiitische groeperingen in Irak die ze vervolgens tegen Amerikaanse militairen gebruiken. Het gaat om zogenoemde EFP-explosieven, die zelfs in staat zijn zware Amerikaanse Abraham-tanks te vernietigen. Volgens de VS is Iran het enige land in de regio dat dergelijke specifieke antitankwapens produceert.
De 170 omgekomen militairen vormen overigens een fractie van de ruim 3100 Amerikaanse soldaten die sinds de invasie in Irak in maart 2003 zijn gesneuveld. De meeste doden zijn gevallen door aanslagen van soennitische opstandelingen. De soennieten waren onder de vroegere dictator Saddam Hussein de belangrijkste machtsfactor, de sjiieten zijn op dit moment de dominante partij.
Spanningen
De Amerikaanse beschuldigingen richting Iran komen op het moment dat de spanningen tussen beide landen steeds verder lopen. Behalve aan de vermeende Iraanse infiltratie in Irak wil de Amerikaanse regering een einde maken aan het Iraanse nucleaire programma. De VS beschuldigen Teheran ervan in het geheim te werken aan een atoombom.
Iran bouwt geen kernwapens. Als jij zegt dat het wel zo is, welk bewijs heb je daarvoor?quote:Op zondag 11 februari 2007 22:39 schreef feessie het volgende:
[..]
Iran kernwapens laten bouwen is ook niet slim
De wereld? Israel en de VS hebben een probleem met Iran.quote:de wereld staat gewoon voor een groot dilemma.
"De wereld" zelf heeft meer last van Israel en de VS dan van Iran.
Klopt, als je gaat bombarderen komt de oorlog er inderdaad. Goeie logica.quote:Volgens mij is de beste keus om de kerncentrales te bombarderen. Hoe dan ook een oorlog zal er toch wel komen , de tijd van praten is tegenwoordig voorbij
Het is toch zo gemakkelijk om voor bombardementen te pleiten als ze ergens ver weg gaan vallen...
Als Iran zo graag kernwapens wil, dan geven we ze er toch een paar?
"Welfare culture is bad not just because, as in Europe, it's bankrupting the state, but because it enfeebles the citizenry, it erodes self-reliance and resourcefulness."
-Mark Steyn
-Mark Steyn
Net zoals ze reageerden toen Irak werd binnengevallen, een hoop geblaat en wat vlaggen verbranden, en verder helemaal niks.quote:Op zondag 11 februari 2007 21:42 schreef RZero het volgende:
Precies.
En hoe zullen andere islamitische landen reageren? Nee Iran aanvallen is niet slim.
Radical islam is the snake in the grass.
Moderate islam is the grass that hides the snake.
Moderate islam is the grass that hides the snake.
Dus die gezamenlijke verklaring van Amerikaanse ex-diplomaten en officieren dat het beleid van de neocons de belangen van Amerika voor tientallen jaren had beschadigd was eigenlijk nergens voor nodig?quote:Op maandag 12 februari 2007 02:54 schreef Hathor het volgende:
[..]
Net zoals ze reageerden toen Irak werd binnengevallen, een hoop geblaat en wat vlaggen verbranden, en verder helemaal niks.
Former U.S. diplomats say Bush's Iraq policies have hurt their country
Pffft, zolang ze met dollars blijven wapperen doen ze toch wel zaken in die regio. Het hoeven ook geen dikke vrienden te zijn, dat zijn ze sowieso nooit geweest, maar ze hebben elkaar gewoon nodig. Nog wel tenminste, als de oliebronnen in de Arabische landen uitgeput raken heeft helemaal niemand ze meer nodig.quote:Op maandag 12 februari 2007 03:20 schreef NorthernStar het volgende:
[..]
Dus die gezamenlijke verklaring van Amerikaanse ex-diplomaten en officieren dat het beleid van de neocons de belangen van Amerika voor tientallen jaren had beschadigd was eigenlijk nergens voor nodig?
Former U.S. diplomats say Bush's Iraq policies have hurt their country
Radical islam is the snake in the grass.
Moderate islam is the grass that hides the snake.
Moderate islam is the grass that hides the snake.
Pentagon blames Iran for 170 US deaths
America today blamed Iran for the deaths of 170 US troops inside Iraq, accusing Teheran of supplying insurgents with increasingly sophisticated bombs.
(even de link klikken om hem te begrijpen)
America today blamed Iran for the deaths of 170 US troops inside Iraq, accusing Teheran of supplying insurgents with increasingly sophisticated bombs.
(even de link klikken om hem te begrijpen)
