Iran wznawia wzbogacanie uranu i odkłada rozmow...

[block-buster]

Jest zawsze wybor-albo bardzo droga ropa i pokoj,jednak pokoj,albo za rok-dwa
bomba A zrzucona na Jerozolime i poczatek trzeciej swiatowej z konsekwencjami
niewyobrazalnymi nawet dla pisarzy sci-fi...

SPOKO!

[meerkat1]

Jestem pewien, ze wiesz kto na kogo pierwszy w razie rzeczywistego zagrozenia
zrzuci! :-)

Jak tu powtarza jeden komuch na forum : No pasaran! :-)

[tmkmk]

zgadza sie, iran nie bedzie miec bomby..

Something unclear about Iran's nuclear?

[yurek11111]

<>Zgadza sie,Iran chce TYLKO zbudowac elektrownie atomowa,i tu sie zasmieje,
hahahahahaha.....
<>To destroy Iran's nuclear bomb program, 350 targets must be hit.....



The Myth of the Iranian Nuclear Threat

The Israeli Defense Forces Chief of Staff, Daniel Halutz, has categorically
denied that Iran represents an immediate nuclear threat to Israel, let along
the United States. According to Haaretz (12/14/05), Halutz stated that it would
take Iran time to be able to produce a nuclear bomb ­ which he estimated might
happen between 2008 and 2015.

Israel's Labor Party officials do not believe that Iran represents an immediate
nuclear threat and that the Sharon government and the Likud war propaganda is
an electoral ploy. According to Haaretz, "Labor Party officialsaccused Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz and other defense officials
of using the Iran issue in their election campaigns in an effort to divert
public debate from social issues".

In a message directed at the Israeli Right but equally applicable to AIPAC and
the Presidents of the Major Jewish Organizations in the US, Labor member of the
Knesset, Benjamin Ben-Eliezer rejected electoral warmongering: "I hope the
upcoming elections won't motivate the prime minister and defense minister to
stray from government policy and place Israel on the frontlines of
confrontation with Iran. The nuclear issue is an international issue and there
is no reason for Israel to play a major role in it" (Haaretz, December 14,
2005).

Israeli intelligence has determined that Iran has neither the enriched uranium
nor the capability to produce an atomic weapon now or in the immediate future,
in contrast to the hysterical claims publicized by the US pro-Israel lobbies.
Mohammed El Baradei, head of the United Nations International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA), which has inspected Iran for several years, has pointed out that
the IAEA has found no proof that Iran is trying to construct nuclear weapons.
He criticized Israeli and US war plans indirectly by warning that a "military
solution would be completely un-productive".

More recently, Iran, in a clear move to clarify the issue of the future use of
enriched uranium, "opened the door for US help in building a nuclear power
plant". Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hamid Reza Asefi, stated "America
can take part in the international bidding for the construction of Iran's
nuclear power plant if they observe the basic standards and quality" (USA
Today, Dec. 11, 2005).

Iran also plans to build several other nuclear power plants with foreign help.
This Iranian call for foreign assistance is hardly the strategy of a country
trying to conduct a covert atomic bomb program, especially one directed at
involving one of its principal accusers.

The Iranians are at an elementary stage in the processing of uranium, not even
reaching the point of uranium enrichment, which in turn will take still a
number of years, and overcoming many complex technical problems before it can
build a bomb. There is no factual basis for arguing that Iran represents a
nuclear threat to Israel or to the US forces in the Middle East.

Scores of countries with nuclear reactors by necessity use enriched uranium.
The Iranian decision to advance to processing enriched uranium is its sovereign
right as it is for all countries, which possess nuclear reactors in Europe,
Asia and North America. Israel and AIPAC's resort to the vague formulation of
Iran's potential nuclear capacity is so open-ended that it could apply to
scores of countries with a minimum scientific infrastructure.

The European Quartet has raised a bogus issue by evading the issue of whether
or not Iran has atomic weapons or is manufacturing them and focused on
attacking Iran's capacity to produce nuclear energy ­ namely the production of
enriched uranium. The Quartet has conflated enriched uranium with a nuclear
threat and nuclear potential with the danger of an imminent nuclear attack on
Western countries, troops and Israel. The Europeans, especially Great Britain,
have two options in mind: To impose an Iranian acceptance of limits on its
sovereignty, more specifically on its energy policy; or to force Iran to reject
the arbitrary addendum to the Non-Proliferation Agreement and then to
propagandize the rejection as an indication of Iran's evil intention to create
atomic bombs and target pro-Western countries.

The Western media would echo the US and European governments position that Iran
was responsible for the breakdown of negotiations. The Europeans would then
convince their public that since "reason" failed, the only recourse it to
follow the US to take the issue to the Security Council and approve
international sanctions against Iran.

The US then would attempt to pressure Russia and China to vote in favor of
sanctions or to abstain. There is reason to doubt that either or both countries
would agree, given the importance of the multi-billion dollar oil, arms,
nuclear and trade deals between Iran and these two countries. Having tried and
failed in the Security Council, the US and Israel would, on the scenario of the
War Party, move toward a military attack. An air attack on suspected Iranian
nuclear facilities would entail the bombing of heavily populated as well as
remote regions leading to large-scale loss of life.

The principal result will be a huge escalation of war throughout the Middle
East. Iran, a country of 70 million, with several times the military forces
that Iraq possessed and with highly motivated and committed military and
paramilitary forces could be expected to cross into Iraq. Iraqi Shiites
sympathetic to or allied with Iran would most likely break their ties with
Washington and go into combat. US military bases, troops and clients would be
under fierce attack. US military casualties would multiply. All troop
withdrawal plans would be disrupted. The 'Iraqization' strategy would
disintegrate.

Most likely new terrorist incidents would occur in Western Europe, North
America, and Australia and against US multinationals

Sanctions on Iran would not work, because oil is a scarce and essential
commodity. China, India and other fast-growing Asian countries would balk at a
boycott. Turkey and other Muslim countries would not cooperate. The sanction
policy would be destined to failure; its only result to raise the price of oil
even higher.

Here in the United States there are few if any influential organized lobbies
challenging the pro-war Israel lobby either from the perspective of working for
coexistence in the Middle East or even in defending US national interests when
they diverge from Israel. Although numerous former diplomats, generals,
intelligence officials, Reformed Jews, retired National Security advisers and
State Department professionals have publicly denounced the Iran war agenda and
even criticized the Israel First lobbies, their newspaper ads and media
interviews have not been backed by any national political organization that can
compete for influence in the White House and Congress.

As we draw closer to a major confrontation with Iran and Israeli officials set
short-term deadlines for igniting a Middle East conflagration, it seems that we
are doomed to learn from future catastrophic losses that Americans must
organize to defeat political lobbies based on overseas allegiances.

[kijwoko]

Oto prawdziwe powody dlaczego Iran zostanie zaatakowany (wg www.uruknet.info/.?p=m20481&hd=0&size=1&l=x):

Euro factor to the Iran crisis
Finian Cunningham

February 9, 2006

The referral of Iran to the UN Security Council by the International Atomic Energy Agency is not a step towards resolving the presumed nuclear problem between that country and the 'international community'. It is a step towards further confrontation, with the deliberate intention by the US-UK axis to provide political cover for its real aim: subjugation of Iran.

This is phase three of the Anglo-American 'war on terror' which, deciphered from its Orwellian doublespeak and put into intelligible language, means the ongoing Anglo-American war of aggression on humanity.

The truly worrying thing is that such are the contradictions between the reckless fantasies of Anglo-American neo-imperialism and the limits of its own power that the warmongers may be tempted to actually trigger the very outcome they say they are trying to prevent: a nuclear conflagration.

First of all, let us dispel the latest smokescreen from the IAEA. Iran is being reported to the UN Security Council for alleged breaches of IAEA protocols. But these protocols, such as research into the enrichment of uranium, were only ever put in place by Iran on a voluntary basis. How can someone be in breach of something that they put forward in a non-binding, voluntary capacity? Besides, the ongoing IAEA arrangement was part of a quid pro quo in which the EU-3, Britain, France, Germany, would in return for Iran's cooperation provide specific economic incentives and safeguards concerning Iran's national security.

But as seasoned observer of non-proliferation issues Selig Harrison said: "The EU, held back by the US, has failed to honour this bargain."

The recommencement of uranium enrichment is Iran's sovereign prerogative. And the plain truth is that Iran has and will be doing nothing outside of the only legally binding statute governing the issue, the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which grants all signatory nations an "inalienable right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful, energy purposes," as already pointed out in this newspaper recently by Ghani Jafar.

For two years Iran has been negotiating with the EU-3 over its nuclear programme. Iran's considerable petroleum and gas reserves are nevertheless finite and like every other fuel supplier the country may indeed have reached 'Peak' the technical term the oil industry uses to mean final reserves lasting perhaps another two decades. Iran has been prudently making the transition to an alternative energy source - nuclear. (In the same way as US President George Bush urged his country during his State of the Union speech last week!)

Iran has always said that its nuclear programme is about civilian use of energy. Despite allowing the IAEA unprecedented access to its nuclear facilities, and the IAEA not being able to find any evidence of clandestine nuclear weapons production, the same sinister allegations and suspicions of 'nuclear ambitions? are relentlessly thrown at Iran by the US and EU.

Several real initiatives put forward by Iran in its efforts to resolve the latest diplomatic 'impasse? and head off a referral to the UN Security Council were haughtily dismissed by the EU-3 as "nothing new". And calls for further dialogue by the Iranian foreign minister were rebuffed. It must be said that Britain has taken the lead in adopting this intransigent attitude by the EU troika. Days before the IAEA ruling, British Prime Minister Tony Blair told his parliament that "not only has Iran breached its international nuclear obligations but it is exporting terrorism around the world."

Clearly this is a soft cop, hard cop routine. There was never any intention of a reasonable, diplomatic 'solution'. The real intention was to set up an appearance of a diplomatic process, which could then be presented as tried, exhausted and failed. Now, it?s over to the hard cop.

Just like phase one and two of the Anglo-American war on humanity in which Afghanistan and Iraq were placed in the firing lines, there were similar attempts to create a diplomatic façade. But all the while, the troops were being readied, the tanks cranked up and the bombers loaded. It is to their Machiavellian credit that the Anglo-Americans appear to have now managed to get the French, Germans, Chinese and Russians on board. We are still some way off the trigger of aggression and these last four mentioned may have no intention of going all the way of endorsing Security Council sanctions. But as we have seen with Afghanistan and Iraq, Washington and London didn?t need UN sanctions to launch into aggression; they just need to create a false sense of crisis in world security. This same process is now happening once again.

The collision course with Iran is a central aim of the Project for the New American Century, the real manifesto for which Bush was elected. This geopolitical strategy for full-spectrum dominance has already taken considerable shape, with US-British military penetration into vast areas of the critical energy territories in Western and Central Asia. Iran being the second-largest source of petroleum and gas is obviously a prize even bigger than Iraq. Its strategic importance is underlined by Iran's existing and potential geopolitical connections to Pakistan, India, China and Russia.

There?s also a revenge factor. Since the Americans and British were kicked out of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979 after more than two decades of a cosy arrangement with their brutal client, the Shah, there would be, for them, the immense satisfaction of 'imperial recovery'.

But here's the real trigger for a military attack on Iran. It's Iran's intention to challenge the all-dominant US petrodollar oil trade by setting up a rival euro oil market.

Many political commentators have pointed out that the deficit-ridden US and British economies have only been able to continue their unsustainable ways because the US dollar enjoys the artificial privilege of being the world?s reserve currency. The world's two existing oil markets, the NYMEX in New York and the International Petroleum Exchange in London, both owned by US capital, insist on all oil transactions being conducted in US dollars. For this reason, all countries must have substantial reserves of dollars to ensure vital supplies of fuel energy. This means that the US economy can go on accumulating stratospheric debts because they can just keep printing more dollars, knowing that the rest of the world will have to take them in order to keep their oil supplies coming.

American political analyst Mike Whitney points out that the US is now running a total debt of $8 trillion, which makes it by far the world's biggest economic basket case.

Whitney said: "America's currency monopoly is the perfect pyramid scheme. As long as nations are forced to buy oil in dollars, the US can continue its profligate spending with impunity. The only threat to this strategy is the prospect of competition from an independent oil exchange, forcing the faltering dollar to go nose to nose with more stable, debt-free currencies such as the euro.

"That would compel central banks to diversify their currency holdings, sending billions of dollars back to America and ensuring a devastating economic crash."

Iran has already given notice to the world that it intends opening this new euro oil market next month. With the devastating blow that this move will cause to the US-British economies, we can expect Washington and Britain to precipitate a pre-emptive confrontation with Iran over its 'nuclear ambitions? and 'threats', using poor little (nuclear-armed-to-the-teeth) Israel as a proxy.

[...]

[mannaznieba4]

kijwoko tomaja być prawdziwe powody?
chyba zatrudniania dziennikarzy.
żadnej wojny z iranem nie będzie bo iran ma broń atomowa i rakiety po testach.

SYJONIZM

[ashkenazi_666]

> kijwoko tomaja być prawdziwe powody?

A jakie sa powody dla ktorych rzad uSSa przygotowal zamach na wlasnych obywateli
11 wrzesnia 2001 roku ?

Jakie sa powody dla ktorych zaatakowal Irak ?

Czy te powody to moze "wielki iSSrajel" ?

Ktore z panstw zyskuja na "wojnie z terroryzmem" i "terroryzmie" ?

> żadnej wojny z iranem nie będzie bo iran ma broń atomowa i rakiety po testach.

Aha ... Irak tez "mial" i jednak go najechali.

iSSrajel ma ponad 200 glowic - nie martwi Cie to ?



"Ataki" z 11 wrzesnia klatka po klatce :

www.911wasalie.com/avalon/index.php?avl_preop=dn&avl_file=911_In_Plane_Site_Directors_Cut.torrent
napisy - tinyurl.com/c8rx6

www.911wasalie.com/avalon/index.php?avl_preop=dn&avl_file=Loose_Change_-divx-rip-_-letsroll911.net-.avi.torrent
napisy - tinyurl.com/9kc66

[polar21]

> żadnej wojny z iranem nie będzie bo iran ma broń atomowa i rakiety po testach.

a skad ty to mozesz wiedziec...czlowieku popierajacy mahmuckie scierwo?

[kijwoko]

> kijwoko tomaja być prawdziwe powody?
> chyba zatrudniania dziennikarzy.
> żadnej wojny z iranem nie będzie bo iran ma broń atomowa i rakiety po testach.

Widzisz, ja tez bym chcial zeby wojny nie bylo - to ze usa boja sie napasc na Koree Pln, to nie dlatego ze jest uzbrojona po zeby, ale dlatego ze nie ma w tym zadnego interesu. A tutaj w gre wchodza jak najbardziej sprawy ekonomiczne, wiec usa nie odpuszcza. Poprzednio Saddam w ramach programu ropa za zywnosc zamarzyl sobie o rozliczaniu sprzedazy ropy w euro i szybciutko go napadnieto, a jak wiadomo obecnie Irak znowu rozlicza wplywy z ropy w dolarach (ciekawe dlaczego, nie?). Teraz jesli zrobi to Iran, to nastepna jest Wenezuela i... gospodarka usa lezy, bo dolar przestanie byc cokolwiek warty. No ale zeby bylo ciekawiej to wszyscy na swiecie w tychze dolarach trzymaja rezerwy, wiec tez malo kto sie napasci sprzeciwi, bo nie wiadomo czy wszyscy nie straca...
Moim zdaniem odliczanie juz trwa, niestety...

[mannaznieba4]

ginter11111 vel yurek1111
haaretz tak jak i nyt pisza sama prawde szczególnie o polskich obozach zagłady.
tak naprawde to dziennikarze musza za coś brac pieniądze a już żydowscy
dzinnikarze piszący o iranie to maja jeszcze stopnie armii "israel sovhoz''
i robia to w ramach obowiązków słuzbowych tzw. propagandy wojennej

[zigzaur]

Czyżby oznaczało to, że ppłk. Wsadź wyszedł na durnia?

No proszę!

[muzg_na_patyku]

I oto blady strach padł na tenże a nie inny naród, który się nie zawahał użyć bomby przeciwko ludziom. Cóż za ironia!

mala atomowa na ich elektrownie w podarunku

[abhaod]

Bombardowania są bardzo prawdopodobne...

[wolf34]

[abhaod]

za te stwierdzenia Achaminedzada na temat Holocaustu w ogole sie nie zdziwie,
chociaz widze, ze zachod sie zalamuje(ze wzgledu na ceny ropy)

[mannaznieba4]

iran posiada najbardziej rozbudowanych w rejonie projekt budowy energetyki
jarowej. dla tego kraju jest to idealne rozwiązanie ze względu na naturalne
możliwości budowy takich elektrowni atomowych jak tez z uwagi na najniższe
koszty produkcji energii elektryczne w ten sposób np. francja jest obecnie
największym producentem energii elektrycznej w europie właśnie ze względu na
wspaniały program rozwoju energetyki jądrowej.
co zaś dotyczy broni jądrowej to w elektrowni atomowej nie da sie budować bomb
atomowych gdyz wymaga to innych reaktorów.
iran musi miec brpń jądrową gdyz "israel sovhoz" posiada taką broń a dla pokoju
trwałego konieczna jest równowaga sił. iran nie okupjue cudzych ziem a "israel
sovhoz" okupuje ziemie palestyńskie i jest w stanie wojny o ziemie prawie ze
wszyswtkimi sąsiadami.

[zigzaur]

Bzdura.

Stosunki Izraela i Egiptu są pokojowe i wręcz przyjazne.

Liban sam prosi o izraelską obronę przed inwazją Syrii.

Jordania także jest grzeczna.

Tylko reżim z Damaszku może lekko podskakiwać ale jest otoczony z 3 stron przez
sojuszników USA i Izraela.

I to tyle o sąsiadach państwa Izrael.

[mannaznieba4]

nie pisze że wszyscy , egipt oczywiście ale liban nikogo nie prosi
bo ma silny i niezależny rząd , jordania też jest samodzielna i duże braki
ziemskie a syria ma uzasadnione pretensje ziemskie i została zrobiona w konia
przez usa po interwencji w zatoce w 1991 r. obiecanki cacanki.
czyli jedynie egipt potwierdził że uznaje twora.

[zigzaur]

Spośród sąsiadów Izraela, Egipt jest największy, naljudniejszy i
najpotężniejszy. I to on nadaje ton regionowi.

Liban nie ma silnego rządu. Liban był wielokrotnie i bardzo długo okupowany
przez Syrię. Libańscy chrześcijanie mają obrońcę swego życia (a co?) tylko w
Izraelu.

Syria jest chorym człowiekiem tego regionu: jest opanowana przez dyktatorski
reżim, popierający terroryzm. W odpowiedniej chwili Izrael zaprowadzi tam porządek.

Słowo "twór" jest skądś znane. Tak Adolf Hitler i Józef Stalin nazywali Polskę w
roku 1939.

zigzaur jest chorym człowiekiem tego forum

[nehdat]

Sam te bzdury wymysliles czy miales wizje jak G.W.Bush przed atakiem na Irak?

[mannaznieba4]

zigzur : sorry miało byc nowotwór!!

[yurek11111]

zigzaur:"> Spośród sąsiadów Izraela, Egipt jest największy, naljudniejszy i
> najpotężniejszy. I to on nadaje ton regionowi."
yurek11111:masz racje,i wlasnie to Szef Bractwa Muzułmańskiego - największego
obok partii rządzącej ugrupowania w egipskim parlamencie - powtórzył słowa
irańskiego prezydenta, który poddał w wątpliwość Holocaust. - Zachodnia
demokracja atakuje każdego, kto nie podziela jej syjonistycznej wizji
Holocaustu, a to przecież tylko mit - stwierdził Muhammad Akef.

serwisy.gazeta.pl/swiat/1,34204,3080699.html
zigzaur: Liban nie ma silnego rządu. Liban był wielokrotnie i bardzo długo
okupowany
> przez Syrię. Libańscy chrześcijanie mają obrońcę swego życia (a co?) tylko w
> Izraelu.
yurek11111:Ci "chrzescijanie" ?18 września 1982 współpracująca z Izraelem
chrześcijańska milicja libańska, dokonała masakry palestyńskich uchodźców na
oczach izraelskiej armii. Ariel Sharon był wówczas izraelskim ministrem obrony.
Według zeznań świadków gwałcono, bito i rozstrzeliwano. Według różnych źródeł
zostało zamordowanych od kilkuset do 1700 osób, przeważnie starców, kobiet i
dzieci.

Według prawa międzynarodowego armia kraju który zajmuje dany teren ponosi pełną
odpowiedzialność za znajdującą się na tym terenie ludność cywilną. Mówi się
jednak o istnieniu wyraźnego rozporządzenie Sharona, by armia izraelska nie
mieszała się do działań chrześcijańskiej milicji.

zigzaur:> Syria jest chorym człowiekiem tego regionu: jest opanowana przez
dyktatorski
> reżim, popierający terroryzm. W odpowiedniej chwili Izrael zaprowadzi tam
porzą
> dek.
yurek11111:"chorym człowiekiem tego regionu" jest Izrael, i to z nim w
odpowiednim czasie bedzie zrobiony porzadek.

zigzaur:> Słowo "twór" jest skądś znane

yurek11111:tak,mianem "sztuczny twor" cywilizowany swiat okresla Izrael.

[mannaznieba4]

gdzyby "israel sovhoz" w ramach zachowania swojej przewagi atomowej zdecydował
sie zaatakować irańskie instalacje atomowe to odpowiedź iranu będzie straszna
a nowe rakiety dalekiego zasięgiu juz są uzbrajane w ładunki A albo B albo C.

[ivergon]

mannaznieba4 napisała: odpowiedź iranu będzie straszna
> a nowe rakiety dalekiego zasięgiu juz są uzbrajane w ładunki A albo B albo C.

To, że Iran ma bombę A jest możliwe mógł ja kupić albo od Rosjan
tam można było wszystko kupić za odpowiednie pieniadze,
albo od Korei Pół. która jest dość biedna we wszystko inne
poza rakietami i bombami Atomowymi.

[mannaznieba4]

ivergon
własnie własnie dobrze myślisz i ma tego więcej niż jedna glowicę!!
i 'israel sovhoz" o tym wie i żadnego ataku nie będzie na iran ale co by robili
dziennikarze ?

kto sie dziwi Iranowi?

[cynik9]

Pod koniec tego roku jest wiecej niz prawdopodobne ze Saddam Husein bedzie wisiec.
Bo nie mial bomby a mial rope. Nie mniejszy od niego dyktator Korei Pln Kim Il
Sung spi za to spokojnie. Bo juz ma bombe i nikt na niego nie napadnie.

Trudno sie dziwic Iranowi, ktory widzac co sie przydarzylo sasiadowi wyciaga
pewne wnioski...

India a potem Pakistan wyprodukowali A bombe i

[nehdat]

nagle zostali przyjaciolmi. Jeszcze nigdy w histori tych panstw nie bylo tak
dobrych sasiedzkich stosunkow. A bomb uspakaja.

cynik9 napisał:

> Pod koniec tego roku jest wiecej niz prawdopodobne ze Saddam Husein bedzie
wisi
> ec.
> Bo nie mial bomby a mial rope. Nie mniejszy od niego dyktator Korei Pln Kim
Il
> Sung spi za to spokojnie. Bo juz ma bombe i nikt na niego nie napadnie.
>
> Trudno sie dziwic Iranowi, ktory widzac co sie przydarzylo sasiadowi wyciaga
> pewne wnioski...

szczegolnie przyjaznie zachowuja sie w Kaszmirze:)

[kropekus]

[mannaznieba4]

co chcesz prowadzą rozmowy pokojowe na najwyższym szczeblu nie ma wojny
i będzie zawarty trwały pokój.gdzyby nie mieli broni A pokoju na pewno by nie
było.

US zawsze opoznione z aktualna wiedza o swiecie

[nehdat]

[slawq2]

Po co to przeciagać Sami sobie szkodzimy że przeciagamy te rozmowy a oni tam
pewnie maja bombe, ale myslę że interesy zachodu maja wieksze znaczeni jak
ludzie, bo ta zabawa trwa za długo. Główny problem to strata wielkich pieniędzy
dla zachodu.
Pozdrawiam Slawomir Cz