Iran: novi front

[Muwan]

kako da kazem nije Zapad terao Ahmadinedzada da pravi konferenciju negatora holokausta i da poredi Izrael sa kancerogenim tkivom koja se mora iseci. da zivim u Izraelu i da to cujem, ne bih, sto kaze Dig, imao ni milisekundu dileme oko toga kako da se postavim prema iranskom nuklearnom programu.

Ali, ti ne živiš u Izraelu i nisi Izraelac. Ja od tamošnjeg naroda ne očekujem drugačije raspoloženje osim pune ili delimične podrške preventivnom napadu na Iran ali očekujem od nekoga ko sedi tri hiljade kilometara odatle i svestrano se interesuje za dešavanja širom sveta, da pokaže malo objektivnosti i ne nastupa sa izraelskih/iranskih pozicija.Slučaj protiv iranskog nuklearnog programa je veoma tanak i počiva na prostoj argumentaciji: "Oni ne smeju da imaju Bombu jer mi tako kažemo". Možeš misliti kako svi treba da se potresemo zbog ugroženog interesa velikih svetskih sila na Bliskom Istoku. Iran pokušava da postane bitan igrač i okrene vodu na svoju vodenicu, što je apsolutno legitimno. Naravno da je legitimno pravo drugih velikih igrača da mu to sabotiraju ali ne vidim zbog čega publika mora da popuši priču po kojoj je to sve iz humanih i demokratskih pobuda. Ko hoće da navija za SAD u tom sukobu, samo napred, to je daleko poštenije od sakrivanja iza univerzalnih vrednosti koje u ovom slučaju ne postoje.

[Аврам Гојић]

Ma daj, ti stvarno mislis da izrael vode ljudi poput Borisa Tadica i Ivice Dacica, pa veruju u sve sto neko od politicara prica sa govornice za potrebe PR-a? Nedzine price su za njih luk i voda.

slazem se, to sam i napisao juce. samo isticem da bi napad bilo veoma lako prodati narodu i da to ovu situaciju cini opasnijom.

Slučaj protiv iranskog nuklearnog programa je veoma tanak i počiva na prostoj argumentaciji: "Oni ne smeju da imaju Bombu jer mi tako kažemo". Možeš misliti kako svi treba da se potresemo zbog ugroženog interesa velikih svetskih sila na Bliskom Istoku. Iran pokušava da postane bitan igrač i okrene vodu na svoju vodenicu, što je apsolutno legitimno. Naravno da je legitimno pravo drugih velikih igrača da mu to sabotiraju ali ne vidim zbog čega publika mora da popuši priču po kojoj je to sve iz humanih i demokratskih pobuda. Ko hoće da navija za SAD u tom sukobu, samo napred, to je daleko poštenije od sakrivanja iza univerzalnih vrednosti koje u ovom slučaju ne postoje.

nesto ne vidim da neko ovde pominje humane i demokratske pobude, ni u Izraelu, ni medju jastrebovima u SAD. za Izrael ovo nema nikakve veze sa demokratijom u Iranu, nego sa pravom Ha`areca da postoji i da Jevrejima vise niko ne preti genocidom, kao sto to, realno, radi Ahmadinedzad svaki put kad stane za govornicu. sto se tice "navijanja za SAD", postoji jedno 60 argumenata da bi napad na Iran u ovom trenutku bio veoma los po Ameriku, ne vidim uopste smisao u njihovom navodjenju.

[stoka]

Ahmadinedžad je jedina prepreka srećnijem i pravednijem svetu ...

[DarkAttraktor]

Jedan Zizekov agitatorski tekst jos iz vremena W-ja

Give Iranian Nukes a ChanceIn a mad world, the logic of MAD still worksBY Slavoj ŽižekOn August 2, France, Britain and Germany announced that they might cut off negotiations with Iran and pursue punitive sanctions if the country followed through on its threats to resume its uranium enrichment program. The announcement came a day after the Washington Post reported that American intelligence agencies believe the country is a decade away from producing a nuclear weapon-an assessment that differs with earlier timetables cited by Bush administration officials, who estimated that Iran was only five years away from such a weapon. Responding to the Post story, State Department spokesman Tom Casey dismissed the divergent timetables, noting that both the United States and Europe have concluded that Iran’s nuclear ambitions pose “a threat for the entire international community.”But are nuclear arms in the hands of Iran’s rulers really a threat to international peace and security? To answer the question properly, one has to locate it in its political and ideological context.Every power structure has to rely on an underlying implicit threat, i.e. whatever the oficial democratic rules and legal constraints may be, we can ultimately do whatever we want to you. In the 20th century, however, the nature of this link between power and the invisible threat that sustains it changed. Existing power structures no longer relied on their own fantasmatic projection of a potential, invisible threat in order to secure the hold over their subjects. Rather, the threat was externalized, displaced onto an Outside Enemy. It became the invisible (and, for that reason, all-powerful and omni-present) threat of this enemy that legitimized the existing power structure’s permanent state of emergency. Fascists invoked the threat of the Jewish conspiracy, Stalinists the threat of the class enemy, Americans the threat of Communism-all the way up to today’s “war on terror.” The threats posed by such an invisible enemy legitimizes the logic of the preemptive strike. Precisely because the threat is virtual, one cannot afford to wait for it to come. Rather, one must strike in advance, before it is too late. In other words, the omni-present invisible threat of Terror legitimizes the all too visible protective measures of defense-which, of course, are what pose the true threat to democracy and human rights (e.g., the London police’s recent execution of the innocent Brazilian electrician, Jean Charles de Menezes).Classic power functioned as a threat that operated precisely by never actualizing itself, by always remaining a threatening gesture. Such functioning reached its climax in the Cold War, when the threat of mutual nuclear destruction had to remain a threat. With the “war on terror”, the invisible threat causes the incessant actualization, not of the threat itself, but, of the measures against the threat. The nuclear strike had to remain the threat of a strike, while the threat of the terrorist strike triggers the endless series of preemptive strikes against potential terrorists. We are thus passing from the logic of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) to a logic in which ONE SOLE MADMAN runs the entire show and is allowed to enact its paranoia. The power that presents itself as always being under threat, living in mortal danger, and thus merely defending itself, is the most dangerous kind of power-the very model of the Nietzschean ressentiment and moralistic hypocrisy. And indeed, it was Nietzsche himself who, more than a century ago, in Daybreak, provided the best analysis of the false moral premises of today’s “war on terror”: No government admits any more that it keeps an army to satisfy occasionally the desire for conquest. Rather, the army is supposed to serve for defense, and one invokes the morality that approves of self-defense. But this implies one’s own morality and the neighbor’s immorality; for the neighbor must be thought of as eager to attack and conquer if our state must think of means of self-defense. Moreover, the reasons we give for requiring an army imply that our neighbor, who denies the desire for conquest just as much as our own state, and who, for his part, also keeps an army only for reasons of self-defense, is a hypocrite and a cunning criminal who would like nothing better than to overpower a harmless and awkward victim without any fight. Thus all states are now ranged against each other: they presuppose their neighbor’s bad disposition and their own good disposition. This presupposition, however, is inhumane, as bad as war and worse. At bottom, indeed, it is itself the challenge and the cause of wars, because as I have said, it attributes immorality to the neighbor and thus provokes a hostile disposition and act. We must abjure the doctrine of the army as a means of self-defense just as completely as the desire for conquests.Is not the ongoing “war on terror” proof that “terror” is the antagonistic Other of democracy-the point at which democracy’s plural options turn into a singular antagonism? Or, as we so often hear, “In the face of the terrorist threat, we must all come together and forget our petty differences.” More pointedly, the difference between the “war on terror” with previous 20th century worldwide struggles such as the Cold War is that the enemy used to be clearly identified with the actually existing Communist empire, whereas today the terrorist threat is inherently spectral, without a visible center. It is a little bit like the description of Linda Fiorentino’s character in The Last Seduction: “Most people have a dark side … she had nothing else.” Most regimes have a dark oppressive spectral side … the terrorist threat has nothing else. The paradoxical result of this spectralization of the enemy is an unexpected reflexive reversal. In this world without a clearly identified enemy, it is the United States, the protector against the threat, that is emerging as the main enemy-much like in Agatha Christie’s Murder on the Orient-Express, where, since the entire group of suspects is the murderer, the victim himself (an evil millionaire) turns out to be the real criminal.This background allows us to finally answer our initial question: Yes, nukes for Iran-and Noriega and Saddam to the Hague. It is crucial to see the link between these two demands. Why are Timothy Garton Ash, Michael Ignatieff and other internationalist liberals-who are otherwise full of pathetic praise for the Hague tribunal-silent about the idea to deliver Noriega and Saddam to the Hague? Why Milosevic and not Noriega? Why was there not even a public trial against Noriega? Was it because he would have disclosed his own CIA past, including how the United States condoned his participation in the murder of Omar Torrijos Herrera? In a similar way, Saddam’s regime was an abominable authoritarian state, guilty of many crimes, mostly toward its own people. However, one should note the strange but key fact that, when the U.S. representatives were enumerating Saddam’s evil deeds, they systematically omitted what was undoubtedly his greatest crime (in terms of human suffering and of violating international law): the aggression against Iran. Why? Because the United States and the majority of foreign states actively helped Iraq in this aggression. What’s more, the United States now plans to continue Saddam’s work of toppling the Iranian government.As to Iran and nukes, the surprising fact is that the MAD logic still operates today: Why hasn’t the tension between India and Pakistan exploded into an all-out war? Because both sides are nuclear powers. Why have the Arab states not risked another attack on Israel? Because Israel is a nuclear power. So why should this MAD logic not work in the case of Iran? The standard counter-argument is that in Iran, Muslim fundamentalists are in power who may be tempted to nuke Israel. (Iran is the only large Arab state which not only does not diplomatically recognize Israel, but resolutely denies its right to exist as a state). Is, however, the Iranian regime really so “irrational”? Isn’t Pakistan, with its nuclear arms and its secret services’ ties to al-Qaeda, a much greater threat? Furthermore, two decades ago, Iran was brutally attacked by Iraq (with active U.S. support), so it has every right to feel threatened.The last trump card of Western liberals is that nuclear weapons would help sustain the anti-democratic rulers in Iran, thus preventing a democratic revolution there. This argument got a boost a few months ago, with elections in Iraq and Palestine. Was perhaps Paul Wolfowitz correct after all? Isn’t there a chance that (Western) democracy may work and take roots in the Middle East, and that this unexpected process will change the coordinates of the entire Middle East? Isn’t the ultimate unresolvability of the Middle East conflict the fact that the anti-democratic Arab regimes need Israel as the figure of the Enemy that legitimizes their rule? Consequently, isn’t Bush merely accomplishing the work of Reagan? In the same way that Reagan was “naively” convinced that democracy would undermine Communism and that Communism would fall, thus proving all the skeptic specialists wrong, perhaps Bush will be proven right in his “naive” crusade for the democratization of the Middle East.It is here that one approaches the crux of the matter: Such an optimistic reading relies on the problematic belief in a preestablished harmony between the global spread of multi-party Western democracy and the economic and geopolitical interests of the United States. It is precisely because this harmony can in no way be taken for granted that countries like Iran should possess nuclear arms to constrain the global hegemony of the United States.

[luba]

delovi izvestaja na hiljadu strana, koga zanima, bez mnogo tehnikalija, one ce (sto se ne preskraba) sutra.

"The agency has serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme""After assessing carefully and critically the extensive information available to it, the agency finds the information to be, overall, credible.""This information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device.""The information also indicates that prior to the end of 2003, these activities took place under a structured programme, and that some activities may still be ongoing.""Given the concerns identified above, Iran is requested to engage substantively with the agency without delay for the purpose of providing clarifications.""Information indicated Iran has done work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing of components."(The IAEA called on Iran) "to engage substantively with the agency without delay for the purpose of providing clarifications."

a ovo su, prema IAEA, sve poznate lokacije. ne nadgledaju ih sve.

- Natanz enrichment facility, central Iran: Iran revealed the existence of the Natanz plant to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 2002. The site is probably the best known nuclear installation in Iran and is under UN supervision. There are now more than 8,400 centrifuges at Natanz, including 4,600 active ones. Underground installations at Natanz can hold up 50,000 centrifuges. - Qom enrichment facility, central Iran: Iran revealed the secret uranium enrichment plant in the region of Fordo in September 2009, infuriating the West and prompting the United Nations to strengthen sanctions against Tehran. The facility was built deep inside a mountain near the Shiite shrine city of Qom, some 150 kilometres (95 miles) southwest of Tehran. (Earlier this year, Tehran announced it would start transferring its 20-percent uranium enrichment activities to the Fordo site and the first centrifuges were installed over the summer. According to media reports, the facility can take some 3,000 centrifuges.) - Isfahan conversion facility, central Iran: At this plant, raw mined uranium is transformed into "yellowcake" -- a concentrate of uranium oxides -- which is then transformed into uranium tetrafluoride (UF4) and then into uranium hexafloride (UF6), a feed gas for the actual process of enrichment. The plant was industrially tested in 2004 upon its completion and is under UN supervision. - Isfahan nuclear fuel facility, central Iran: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inaugurated the facility on April 9, 2009. The plant can produce 10 tonnes of nuclear fuel annually to feed the heavy water 40-megawatt Arak reactor and 30 tonnes for light water reactors such as the Bushehr nuclear plant. The opening of the fuel plant indicated that Iran had mastered the complete nuclear fuel cycle from uranium mining to enrichment, even as world powers urged the Islamic republic to suspend its programme. In 2010, Tehran also started building a facility there to enrich uranium to 20 percent and it was expected to start churning out the fuel needed for the Tehran research reactor in spring 2012. - Arak heavy water plant, central Iran: Work on the Arak heavy water research reactor on the outskirts of the village of Khondab has been delayed and the reactor, whose official function is to produce plutonium for medical research, should not be completed before 2013, according to Iranian officials. Heavy water reactors do not need enriched uranium fuel in order to function. The site also includes a production plant for heavy water to be used as coolant and moderator for the reactor. - Bushehr nuclear plant, south Iran: Iran's first nuclear power plant, built by Russia, began operating at 40-percent capacity in September, after more than three decades' delay, and will gradually increase to full capacity by March 2012 before it is plugged into the power grid. The Bushehr project was first launched by the US-backed shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, in the 1970s using contractors from German company Siemens. In 1995, Moscow however signed a one-billion-dollar agreement with Iran to complete construction of the plant, three years after Germany declined to resume work citing the threat of proliferation of sensitive nuclear technology. Russia continues to deliver nuclear fuel for the plant, which remains under IAEA control. - Tehran nuclear research centre: Iran obtained the five-megawatt research reactor from the United States before the 1979 Islamic revolution that toppled the US-backed shah. The reactor is under IAEA supervision. - Saghand uranium oxide extracting mine, south Iran: The mine has reserves estimated between 3,000-5,000 tonnes of uranium oxide, which can be used to make yellowcake for the Isfahan conversion plant. - Parchin suspected nuclear site: Satellite imagery apparently shows an unlisted nuclear installation at the Parchin military site 30 kilometres from Tehran, possibly used for blast tests. Iran has already produced over 4,500 kilogrammes of uranium enriched at five percent or less, as well as 70 kilogrammes of 20-percent enriched uranium, according to IAEA estimates in September. Uranium can be used as fuel for nuclear plants when enriched at five percent or less, and as fuel for research reactors at 20 percent. Over 90 percent, it may be used to make a bomb.

[Roger Sanchez]

Žižek naravno ima pravo, Bomba jest defanzivno oružje, osim ako si totalni luđak ili očajnik bez nade.

[stoka]

Ako će uklanjanje Ahmadinedžada doprineti da u svetu više ne potekne nijedna dečija suza, ja sam - ZA!

Edited November 8, 2011 by stoka

[Caligula]

Ne mislim da je rasprava nemoguća, ali je suviše da još jedan topic zatrpaš otkrivanjem tople vode da velike sile imaju svoje interese i nisu baš fer u njihovom ostvarivanju.

Topla voda je i Hitlerov napad na Poljsku odnosno odnos nemackog javnog mnjenja prema tom napadu. Zato i kazem da je ovo ideolosko pitanje. To sto se desilo pred WWII je prirodno, ocekivano i toplovodnoMada, sto rece premudri i nadasve konstruktivni Dabovic

ah, ode i ovaj topic. dugo je i trajao.nista, vracacu se jednom u mesec dana da podjebavam, sta drugo se pa moze

+1... so, srecan vam rat, junaci.

[burekdzija]

Žižek naravno ima pravo, Bomba jest defanzivno oružje, osim ako si totalni luđak ili očajnik bez nade.

Problem sad MAD je sto ima smisla samo ako obe strane garantuju medjusobno unistenje. To jos uvek vazi samo za USA i Rusiju. Nijedna druga nuklearna sila (cak ni Kina sa 400 bombi) ne moze da garantuje MAD. Po meni tu lezi siva zona, sta Severnoj Koreji znace obe bombe? Ili Indiji i Pakistanu? Ili Iranu? Tu MAD na zalost prestaje da vazi i verovatnoca da se bomba zaista upotrebi upotrebi raste (u ma kom besmislenom kontekstu kao sto ti rekao, ludak, ocajnik, whatever). Nije narocito velika, ali ipak veca nego sto je bila dok je vazio MAD.To je ono sto je novo u odnosu na hladni rat.

[Roger Sanchez]

Nije potreban MAD, to oružje je shvaćeno i prihvaćeno kao Juuuriiiiš oružje, dovoljno je ''osigurati'' glavu dovoljne snage da prouzroči neprihvatljive žrtve i razaranja i osigurati njenu točnu dostavu. Pakistan i Indija, kao što si primjetio, nemaju za MAD ali se ponašaju kao nuklearne sile, na svom mini teatru. Jedino što će iranska njuk neposredno prouzročiti je eksponencijalni porast želje za nuklearnim oružjem kod njihovih drugih regionalnih suparnika - Izrael je već miran, može pulverizirati Tehran, Qom, Isfahan i Najaf u jednom plotunu.

[luba]

kako ne voleti bradatu mrcinu :D

It is a little bit like the description of Linda Fiorentino’s character in The Last Seduction: “Most people have a dark side … she had nothing else.”

[Roger Sanchez]

Dobro, nećemo ga baš potpuno pozlatiti, Iran nije semitska država nego prava Arian Nation.

[luba]

Dobro, nećemo ga baš potpuno pozlatiti, Iran nije semitska država nego prava Arian Nation.

kul, kul, nego ja sve zamisljam lindu u onoj tesnoj crnoj dokolena suknji kako vuce ahmadadzndanadaja za revere ka nuklearnom reaktoru.

[burekdzija]

Nije potreban MAD, to oružje je shvaćeno i prihvaćeno kao Juuuriiiiš oružje, dovoljno je ''osigurati'' glavu dovoljne snage da prouzroči neprihvatljive žrtve i razaranja i osigurati njenu točnu dostavu. Pakistan i Indija, kao što si primjetio, nemaju za MAD ali se ponašaju kao nuklearne sile, na svom mini teatru. Jedino što će iranska njuk neposredno prouzročiti je eksponencijalni porast želje za nuklearnim oružjem kod njihovih drugih regionalnih suparnika - Izrael je već miran, može pulverizirati Tehran, Qom, Isfahan i Najaf u jednom plotunu.

Sad idemo offtopic posto je tema Iran a ne nuklearni sukob.Ali slazem se da kad bi Iran imao dovoljno bombi da moze u svom lokalnom teatru da namiri svakoga, bomba nikad ne bi bila upotrebljena -- tu je taj lokalni MAD jer Izrael moze sve da ih ispari. Ali u ovoj sivoj zoni gde Iran moze da ima par bombi, raste verovatnoca da u nekoj sumanutoj situaciji bace jednu, dve i prime takodje jednu, dve (scenario: nismo to bili mi nego teroristi). Ne verujem da bi Izrael u slucaju ogranicene razmene ispario ceo bliski Istok. Sto se tice Pakistana i Indije, interesantna simulacija kako bi njihova ogranicena razmena sjebala celu planetu: http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockToonSciAmJan2010.pdf

[minka]

Sta bi Iran dobio da pretvori 200.000 Jevreja i bar 50.000 arapa muslimana, arapa hriscana i ostalih u radioaktivni French Fries? Evaporaciju 14 milionskog korpusa koji danas zivi samo u ona 4 nabrojana grada gore? I verovatno unistenje drzave i naroda od strane neke nove Koalicije voljnih. Ni u Iranu ni u Izraelu ne sede u valdi ovce i budale. Izrael samo ne zeli da izgubi nesto sto ima sada, a Teheran zeli da dobije ono sto nema. Ali tu nikome ne pada na pamet stvarno nukovanje, aman.