Wojna nadchodzi -- jak mozemy ja zrozumiec?

24.01.06, 06:00
w 2002 r. stalo sie jasne ze rzad amerykanski prowadzi de facto wojne
powietrzna w iraku, zarzuca media swiatowe bullshitem nt. tego jaki saddam
stal sie nagle niebezpieczny (np. bmr), i usa uruchamia logistyke przerzucania
wojsk do kuwejtu i innych panstw zaleznych. typowym tematem rozmow na swiecie
bylo to, CZY wojna bedzie, albo kiedy.

fast forward. mamy 2006 r.

iran jest oczywiscie ulubionym celem usa, od dawna, od kiedy cia spieprzylo
tam co nieco (na ogol to robia), szacha reze pachlawiego wy-rezali, a
ajatollah plus radykalowie pokazal srodkowy palec ameryce i w ogole zrobilo
sie nieprzyjemnie, potem kleske do konca przypieczetowal carter.
teraz z mediow dowiadujemy sie ze moze byc teoretycznie (tak to sie ujmuje)
wojna. ha! dlaczego? bo iran jest bardzo grozny. ok, a moze tak
podyskutowalibysmy o prawdziwych przyczynach, jak w paragrafie 22 ("taak, to
bardzo dobre wyjasnienie!
    • dziadek_piaskowy Re: Wojna nadchodzi -- jak mozemy ja zrozumiec? 24.01.06, 06:25
      bystrzachy ci iranczycy prawda,pozniej tylko siada w wygodnym fotelu,zapala
      kubanskie cygaro i beda obserwowac amerykanska gielde.
    • kyle_broflovski Re: Wojna nadchodzi -- jak mozemy ja zrozumiec? 24.01.06, 06:48
      wojna o surowce , zakrecenie rury pokazalo co to znaczy , sankcje jesli ktos sie
      bedzie w nie bawil podniosa cene rosyjskiego gazu. zachod bez kontroli gazu,
      ropy iranu nie moze przezyc konfrontacji ekonomicznej z chinami czy indiamii
      wiec musi chiny indie odciac od energii. chiny podpisaly z iranem kontrakty na
      ogromne sumy.
      chiny powoli zaczynaja sie pozbywac dolarow. euro nie zgubi ameryki zarowno euro
      jak i dolar jest drukowane przez banki nalezace do tych camych ludzi tyle tylko
      ze na hustawce walutowej mozna zarobic.
    • samsone [...] 24.01.06, 08:51
      Wiadomość została usunięta ze względu na złamanie prawa lub regulaminu.
    • explicit Re: Wojna nadchodzi -- jak mozemy ja zrozumiec? 24.01.06, 09:06
      Just How Dumb Do They Think We Are?
      ===========================================
      Cheney's War Workshop Plots Another Attack

      By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

      2006 is a dangerous year for Americans. The Bill of Rights and Americans' civil
      liberties are being sacrificed on the alter of unaccountable executive power,
      as is the separation of powers, the foundation of our constitutional system.

      The Supreme Court is being packed with a majority that favors more expansive
      executive rule.

      The economy is in danger as the real estate boom unwinds and reduces the asset
      base of consumer demand.

      Political money scandals and evidence of Republican vote fraud in the 2004
      presidential election threaten to undermine confidence in American democracy,
      which President Bush is committed to export by force of arms to the world.

      The Republican plan for amnesty for millions of illegal aliens looms as the
      final blow to US borders and the concept of US citizenship.

      Perhaps the greatest threat of all is Israel's determination to attack Iran,
      either directly or indirectly through its surrogate, the Bush administration.

      We are witnessing the same drumbeat against Iranian WMD as we witnessed in the
      run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Fox "News," which in fact is the most thorough-
      going dispenser of war propaganda since the Nazi Third Reich, provides a parade
      of bought-and-paid-for-consultants who assure credulous audiences that Osama
      bin Laden has forged an alliance with Iran, which will soon be providing al
      Qaeda with nuclear weapons.

      Even the Bush administration's chief warmonger, VP Dick Cheney, found the
      Fox "News" charges too absurd to be useful propaganda. Cheney disavowed close
      relations between al Qaeda Sunnis and Iranian Shi'ites: "there's not a natural
      fit there."

      The New York Times, prostituted itself by permitting Judith Miller to use the
      newspaper as a tool for neoconservative war propaganda against Iraq. The Times
      prostituted itself a second time by withholding for an entire year the
      information that President Bush was illegally spying on Americans in violation
      of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and a third time by not reporting
      Al Gore's challenge to the Bush administration's criminal behavior. Now the
      Times is prostituting itself a fourth time in serving as a Bush administration
      propaganda organ against Iran.

      Unlike Israel, which does have nuclear weapons, Iran is a signatory to the
      nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Under the treaty countries are permitted
      nuclear energy. Inspections make certain no weapons are produced. Iran agrees
      to abide by the treaty and to have the inspections.

      Israel, however, and its neocon allies in the Bush administration, claim
      without any evidence that Iran is making a bomb. The nuclear inspectors find no
      evidence of a weapons program. Israel and its neocon allies reply that once
      Iran has the know-how for nuclear power, it will be able to make the material
      from which to make a bomb, therefore, Iran must not be permitted its rights
      under the non-proliferation treaty. Since Iran refuses to give up its treaty
      rights to develop nuclear energy, Israel and the neocons maintain that Iran's
      facilities must be bombed and destroyed.
      Americans will pay a heavy price for Israeli paranoia.

      The entire world knows that Israel cannot bomb Iran without US weapons and
      cooperation.

      A US attack on Iran would be another instance of naked American aggression
      against a Muslim country. Aggression is a war crime under the Nuremberg
      standard established by the US. Such an attack would further isolate the US as
      a rogue country. It would further inflame the Muslim world against the US and
      Israel, making any settlement of the Palestinian issue emotionally impossible
      for Muslims.

      If tactical nuclear weapons are used in the bombing of Iran, as the
      neoconservatives advocate, America will be reviled throughout the world.
      Americans will never recover from the burden of shame and war crimes inflicted
      upon them by the Bush administration.

      An attack on Iran could be the death knell for our troops in Iraq and for our
      puppets in Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The majority Iraqi
      Shi'ites have tolerated the US occupation because the majority Shi'ites are the
      gainers from the US insistence on majority rule. The Iraqi Shi'ites are allied
      with Shi'ite Iran. They will recognize an attack on Iran as a blow struck
      against Shi'ite power. If the Iraqi Shi'ites turn on our troops, US casualties
      will soar.

      The best way to ensure US defeat in Iraq is to attack Iran.

      Would Bush and the neocons accept embarrassing defeat or would they escalate
      the conflict?
      Would a sane government pursue a policy that has no favorable outcome?
      Some analysts believe that Russia and China will protect their Iranian energy
      and trade agreements by vetoing UN sanctions that the Bush administration seeks
      as a pretext for its aggression. These two powers, however, might abstain as it
      is in their interest to let Bush dig a deeper hole for the US. Disruption of
      Iranian oil supplies increases Europe's energy dependence on Russia and serves
      to further weaken US influence in Europe.

      The American people need to understand that with its massive budget and trade
      deficits, the US is able to go to war only because the Chinese, Japanese,
      Europeans, and oil producing countries finance Bush's war by purchasing US debt
      and holding dollar denominated assets. Once Bush has the US over-extended, it
      will be the end of the American superpower if one of our bankers decides to
      rein in the rogue American state by dumping dollar holdings.

      Indeed, a number of thinkers (William Clark and Krassimir Petrov, for example)
      have concluded that the reason that the Pentagon has plans to attack Iran is
      Iran's intention to establish an international oil exchange in which anyone can
      buy or sell oil in any currency.

      Such an exchange, it is argued, would spell the dollar's death as the currency
      in which oil is billed. With countries no longer needing dollars in order to
      pay their oil bills, the demand for dollars and dollar denominated assets would
      decline. The dollar would further depreciate, bringing crisis to import-
      dependent America.

      As Bush's ill-fated adventure in Iraq has proved, the US is not the superpower
      it believed itself to be. If the US wishes to retain a leadership position, it
      must abruptly change course. The massive budget and trade deficits must be
      immediately curtailed before the currency is destroyed, and the US must pursue
      peace instead of war in the Middle East.

      The US breeds terrorism by its 60-year old policy of interfering in the
      internal affairs of Muslim lands and ruling them through surrogates. The US
      assaults Muslim sensitivities with the export of "American culture," a
      euphemism for sexual promiscuity. The US creates enormous animosity by
      appearing to exploit Muslim oil wealth and by turning a blind eye while Israel
      expropriates the West Bank.

      Doesn't it make more sense to mend our ill-considered ways than to go to war
      against Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and who else? Is there no one in the
      Republican or Democratic parties who is capable of intelligent leadership? How
      many more Americans and Muslims are going to pay for Bush's insane policy with
      their lives, arms, legs, and eyes? How stupid are the American people?

      Paul Craig Roberts has held a number of academic appointments and has
      contributed to numerous scholarly publications. He served as Assistant
      Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. His graduate economics
      education was at the University of Virginia, the University of California at
      Berkeley, and Oxford University. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good
      Intentions. He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com

    • t0g Re: Jak mozemy ja zrozumiec? - odpowiedz 24.01.06, 09:56
      znajdziesz kliknawszy na ten link (uprzednio wlaczywszy glosniki):

      urlcut.com/jak_mozna_rozumiec
      • you-know-who Re: Jak mozemy ja zrozumiec? - odpowiedz 25.01.06, 01:53
        masz racje t0g, sounds right. tego sie obawiam.
    • felusiak1 Najpierw trzymajmy sie faktow 24.01.06, 18:39
      co jak widze jest niezwykle trudne.
      you-know-who napisał:
      > w 2002 r. stalo sie jasne ze rzad amerykanski prowadzi de facto wojne
      > powietrzna w iraku, zarzuca media swiatowe bullshitem nt. tego jaki saddam
      > stal sie nagle niebezpieczny (np. bmr),....
      ************************************
      Mowisz ze stalo sie jasne dopiero w 2002? A nie wczesniej?
      O kilka lat wczesniej?

      "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We
      want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
      destruction program."
      - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

      "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of
      his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
      - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

      "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since
      1983."
      - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

      "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
      Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air
      and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat
      posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
      Letter to President Clinton.
      - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

      "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
      destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has
      made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
      - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

      "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
      destruction and palaces for his cronies."
      - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
      ====================================
      Nie ma potrzeby tworzenia "faktow" na poparcie wlasnego stanowiska wobec
      polityki Bialego Domu. Pozostawanie w opozycji nie wymaga podpierania sie
      wypotami z pogranicza oddzialu zamknietego.
      Reszta wywodu jest zenujaca i mija sie ze zdrowym rozsadkiem i nawet sladowa
      logika.
      • you-know-who Re: Najpierw trzymajmy sie faktow 25.01.06, 01:52
        dzieki felusiak. liczylem co prawda na nieco wiecej, ale coz, skoro tylko tyle
        masz do powiedzenia nt przyczyn nadchodzacej wojny, to trudno.

        byla eskalacja, ale w 2002 osiagnela poziom godny miana wojny powietrznej:
        wszystkie cele warte zniszczenia zostaly zniszczone, razem z setkami
        przechodniow znanych jako collateral damage. co to ma do rzeczy? chcesz sie
        klocic w ktorym roku zaczeli? wybierz sobie rok a ja sie zgodze, bo to
        bezsensowna dyskusja.
Pełna wersja