Trump - hoće li biti impeachment ili 8 godina drugačijeg predsednikovanja?

[Lord Protector]

Ameri sada prolaze kroz nuclear scare. Jedan od minusa tog straha od nuklearnog rata je sto posle toga svi drugi ratovi lakse prodju. Ne bih iskljucio da budu u fazonu: ok, NK nam se provukla, al zato ovi nece tj daj da napravimo situaciju u kojoj o tome uopste necemo morati ikada vise da razmisljamo kad je Iran u pitanju

 

Nije to posledica trenutnog straha, to je dugoročna politika održavanja nuklearnog monopola na Bliskom Istoku i rasturanja država i režima koji su ocenjeni kao neprijateljski i opasni. To je matrica u koju sada upada Iran, a pre toga su upali Irak, Libija i Sirija, svako sa svojim pretenzijama koje su ocenjene kao smrtni grehovi neprijateljskih režima.

NK je pak druga priča, po meni je to proxy sukob sa Kinom i deo šireg, globalnog sukoba i rivaliteta između dve najjače ekonomije. Kao što je Ukrajina proxy bojno polje između Amerike i Rusije.

Edited October 15, 2017 by slow

[MancMellow]

Pa dobro, ok. Mislim, ne navijam za taj rat ni u ludilu, samo kažem, ne znamo mi koje su njihove procene koliko Iranu treba do nuklearne bombe tj bojeve glave i šta misle u tom slučaju. Samo kažem da ne bih bio potpuno iznenađen ako bi razmišljali ovako kako sam opisao - daj da mi tu opasnost sasečemo u korenu pa šta košta. 

[Lord Protector]

Samo kažem da ne bih bio potpuno iznenađen ako bi razmišljali ovako kako sam opisao - daj da mi tu opasnost sasečemo u korenu pa šta košta. 

 

Ovde si u potpunosti u pravu, stvari definitivno idu ka tome. Ja samo to vidim kao deo stare politike, ne novog straha.

Edited October 15, 2017 by slow

[marv]

Pa sta jos uopste postoji osim njih i njihovih proksija tamo? Izrael ne racunam, jerbo su po mali milion osnova drugaciji i nekompatibilni sa mejnstrim stanovnistvom u regionu. Ako neko misli da je region bacen u haos uklanjanjem Sadama (i ostalih sekularnih arapskih nacionalistickih diktatora slicnih njemu) neka saceka da vidi na cega ce to sve da lici da lici kada se i preostale tri noge tog stola polome i kad se sve to potpuno nekontrolisano razbuca i raspadne.

 

gore ne moze da bude, a uvek mogu da se vrate baatisti i ostali sekularisti. turska bi bila najmanji problem, samo se treba resiti jednog coveka, iran bi bilo malo komplikovanije, i naravno u tom procesu trebao bi da se ukinu i dosta idiotskih kolonijalnih granica

[ObiW]

commandante, ajde procitaj sta ovde pise o americkoj politici prema Iranu, pa nam reci sta mislis:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/15/newt-gingrich-death-to-america-why-trumps-iran-policy-is-right.htm

 

 

 

In my experience, dictators and revolutionary movements mean exactly what they say. In this case, the Iranians would like to destroy both America and Israel.

l

Edited October 15, 2017 by ObiW

[jms_uk]

[Lord Protector]

Trump Looks Set to Start Blowing Up the Iran Deal

 

By Eli Clifton 10/10/2017

 

Billionaire mega-donor (and steadfast Iran hawk) Sheldon Adelson (DonkeyHotey / Flickr)

 

President Donald Trump is expected to “de-certify” the Iran nuclear deal, claiming it is not in the national interest of the United States. Decertification would begin a 60-day congressional review period during which the administration may propose legislation to “strengthen” the agreement and Congress may decide to re-impose sanctions, according to The Washington Post.

 

If Trump pursues this strategy, he will be going against his own secretary of defense, James Mattis, who told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday that the deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), was in the national security interest of the U.S.

 

He will also be going against the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Joseph Dunford, who told the committee in a written statement last month that “The briefings I have received indicate that Iran is adhering to its JCPOA obligations.” He also warned the administration to abide by the agreement, saying, “It makes sense to me that our holding up agreements that we have signed, unless there’s a material breach, would have an impact on others’ willingness to sign agreements.”

 

Indeed, the strategy of decertifying Iran’s compliance with the deal, even when there is no evidence emerging from the intelligence community or the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of Iranian non-compliance, would also go against U.S. public opinion. Sixty-percent of Americans say that the U.S. should participate in the “agreement that lifts some international economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for strict limits on its nuclear program for at least the next decade,” according to recent polling data released by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

 

Even Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s former national adviser, Uzi Arad, has urged the White House and Congress not to abandon the JCPOA.

 

But the White House strategy does have its backers in the most hawkish wings of the Republican Party and a small set of Trump’s biggest political donors.

 

The Post credits Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) with this “fix it or nix it” approach to U.S. compliance with the JCPOA. Indeed, Cotton laid out essentially this very strategy in a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in which he proposed that the president should decertify Iran’s compliance with the nuclear deal based on Iran’s actions in unrelated areas and toughen key components of the agreement, arguing that the deal fails to serve U.S. national security interests.

 

This plan has a low likelihood of success because Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif says that the JCPOA will not be renegotiated and European governments have urged Trump to stick with the pact.

 

Despite the potential pitfalls of Cotton and Netanyahu’s plan, UN Ambassador Nikki Haley embraced the approach. Haley, a possible replacement for embattled Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, tweeted yesterday, “[sen. Tom Cotton] has clear understanding of the Iranian regime & flaws in the nuclear deal. His [CFR] speech is worth reading.”

 

But Cotton has been clear that renegotiating the nuclear deal isn’t his actual intention. In 2015, he made no secret of his desire to blow up diplomacy with Iran, saying:

 

The United States must cease all appeasement, conciliation, and concessions towards Iran, starting with the sham nuclear negotiations. Certain voices call for congressional restraint, urging Congress not to act now lest Iran walk away from the negotiating table, undermining the fabled yet always absent moderates in Iran. But, the end of these negotiations isn’t an unintended consequence of Congressional action, it is very much an intended consequence. A feature, not a bug, so to speak.”

 

Later that same year, Cotton explained his terms for any agreement with Iran, qualities that more closely resemble a surrender document than anything the Iranians would agree to in a negotiation. Cotton said:

 

Any agreement that advances our interests must by necessity compromise Iran’s — doubly so since they are a third-rate power, far from an equal to the United States. The ayatollahs shouldn’t be happy with any deal; they should’ve felt compelled to accept a deal of our choosing lest they face economic devastation and military destruction of their nuclear infrastructure. That Iran welcomes this agreement is both troubling and telling.

 

Indeed, Cotton and his fellow proponents of the president de-certifying Iranian compliance, despite all indications that Iran is complying with the JCPOA, have a not-so-thinly-veiled goal of regime change in Tehran, a position in which the JCPOA and any negotiations with Iran pose a serious threat. Ben Armbruster, writing for LobeLog last week, detailed the ways in which Mark Dubowitz, CEO of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies, pushes for a so-called “better deal” while explicitly calling for regime change in Tehran.

 

But perhaps a bigger pressure on Trump to de-certify comes from three of his biggest political donors: Sheldon Adelson, Paul Singer, and Bernard Marcus. All three have funded groups that sought to thwart the negotiations leading to the JCPOA, including Dubowitz’s FDD, and have given generously to Trump.

 

“I think that Iran is the devil,” said Marcus in a 2015 Fox Business interview.

 

Adelson told a Yeshiva University audience in 2013 that U.S. negotiators should launch a nuclear weapon at Iran during as a negotiating tactic.

 

Adelson may hold radical views about the prudence of a nuclear attack on Iran, but he appears to enjoy easy access to Trump. Adelson and his wife, Miriam, who were Trump’s biggest financial supporters by far during his presidential run, met with the president at Adelson’s headquarters in Las Vegas recently, ostensibly to discuss the recent mass shooting there.

 

But Andy Abboud, senior vice president Government Relations for Adelson’s Sands Corporation, told the Adelson-owned Las Vegas Review Journal that the meeting was “pre-arranged and set to discuss policy,” according to the paper. Adelson has also financed Israel’s largest circulation daily newspaper, whose support for Netanyahu and his right-wing government earned it the nickname “Bibiton.”

 

 

Edited October 15, 2017 by slow

[Lord Protector]

Clinton on Putin: 'Keep an eye on him, because he's not done'

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsUB1ifYsOk

 

 

 

 

Edited October 15, 2017 by slow

[Redoran]

Pa dobro, ok. Mislim, ne navijam za taj rat ni u ludilu, samo kažem, ne znamo mi koje su njihove procene koliko Iranu treba do nuklearne bombe tj bojeve glave i šta misle u tom slučaju. Samo kažem da ne bih bio potpuno iznenađen ako bi razmišljali ovako kako sam opisao - daj da mi tu opasnost sasečemo u korenu pa šta košta. 

 

Pa koštalo bi ih boga oca. Za Irak, koji je 12 godina bio mariniran i pohovan pre konačnog sasecanja, podigli su nešto tipa polovinu operativnih snaga. Na Iran bi morali bukvalno da bace sve što imaju plus da mobilišu kod kuće. Mislim da ljudi uopšte ne kapiraju koji je red veličine vojske koja bi bila potrebna da se izvrši invazija na Iran i tamo ustoliči neki demokratski režim. Za okupljanje tolike vojske potrebno je doslovce da se privreda i društvo SAD prešaltaju u ratni mod, i to ne medijski nego za pravo, da se gvožđurija štancuje a omladina gine kao u ww2. I opet bi krajnji ishod bio veoma upitan, to jest, za početak bi bilo upitno odakle uopšte mogu da krenu invazione snage, gde da se grupiše njih jedno dva miliona? U Iraku, Turskoj, Avganistanu, Pakistanu, Turkmenistanu...?

 

Ako misliš samo na razvaljivanje iz vazduha (koje može svašta da uradi ali ne može da ustoliči demokratski režim u Teheranu), tu treba da pođeš od toga da bi im trebalo najmanje 2-3 puta više vazdušnih efektiva nego što su imali angažovano iznad SRJ 1999. godine. Realnost je u ovom trenutku takva da oni ne bi mogli da sakupe ni pola od toga a kamoli dvostruko više. Da ne pominjem da su za SRJ mogli da biraju odakle će da poleću i kuda će da preleću, što kod Irana baš i ne bi bio slučaj. Ovde je takođe potrebno da se privreda prešalta na brzo štancovanje svega i svačega, s tim da su izgledi za nekakav uspeh još manji nego u prethodnom scenariju.

 

U oba slučaja ti je jasno šta se dešava sa cenom nafte i još koječega nakon zatvaranja Hormuza za saobraćaj. Jasno ti je i kako će se cela stvar odraziti na Bliski Istok i kako će Rusija reagovati na izbijanje američkih ekspedicionih korpusa na Kaspijsko More. Iran naprosto ne može da se vojno proguta bez pokretanja rata svetskih razmera, to bi izazvalo ništa manji geopolitički haos od nalupavanja Severne Koreje. Najgore je to što je sasvim moguće da bi radile i taktičke nuklearke nakon što dođe do ozbiljnog zaribavanja na pravcima napredovanja ka Teheranu.

[aram]

Ma nema veze, marv je za. I uostalom, i u Turskoj samo treba da koknu Erdogana i gotovo...

[Eraserhead]

Nema od toga nista. Koji je tu end game? Okupacija zemlje od 70 miliona stanovnika? Nikog ovde to ne interesuje. 

[Weenie Pooh]

Pa interesuje istu ekipu već decenijama unazad, a nije da nisu uticajni.

 

Ne računajući 9/11, ne znam kad im je bila povoljnija klima od današnje da se zemlja potera u novo bliskoistočno zaglibljjivanje, imajući u vidu da je impressionable idiot in charge, te da javnost na njegove pokušaje političkih poteza pozitivno reaguje isključivo kad se odluči da pusti vojsku s lanca.

 

End game bi bilo neko fantazmagorično lomljenje osovine zla, coup de grace za Shia Supermuslim kost u grlu. Nigde ne piše da mora da bude realno.

[MancMellow]

Najverovatnije bi bilo razlupavanje svega što misle da je nuklearni kompleks u perspektivi, ne verujem da bi išli na okupaciju zemlje, to je zaista nezamislivo. Ali, ok, i to bi bila katastrofa.

[dillinger]

A da fino to odrade proxiji, osovina KSA-Izrael? Koji qrac ih pumpaju sa najmodernijim naoružanjem, eto prilike da odrade nešto korisno za Sema. I za sebe.

[Budja]

A da fino to odrade proxiji, osovina KSA-Izrael? Koji qrac ih pumpaju sa najmodernijim naoružanjem, eto prilike da odrade nešto korisno za Sema. I za sebe.

 

KSA?

 

Oni sto su se zalgalvil u Jemenu.

 

A Izrael ipak ima samo 5 miliona stanovnika, ili tako nekako.