Externe

alamar
2008-09-11 22:33:02

Scutul anti racheta si rusii...

La inceput n-i s-a explicat in detaliu si de nenumarate ori de catre "specialisti " si 'experti" ca acest viitor scut din Polonia si Cehia , nu este decat o sarada , ca nu va functiona ,ca nu va putea opri nici o racheta ,etc.,etc...
A urmat panica KGB ului si Politburo ului de la Kremlin (se pare acestia nu au luat in serios analizele :"expertilor" , dintre care multi din ei se afla pe statul de plata al KGB ului)...
Dupa care rusii ameninta cu arme nucleare tari vecine precum Polonia si Cehia ( sovieticii au omis sa consulte meteorologii , si sa afle din ce parte bat vanturile in europa , in general, in caz ca vor sa folosesca arme nucleare cu tinte la cateva sute de km, de granita rusiei)...
Astazi generosii si pasnicii sovietii le da permisia polonezilor sa monteze scutul ( care nu va functiona , conform "expertilor") ,dar in schimb doresc ca polonezii sa renunte la sprijinul acordat de ei (polonezi)catre ukrainieni si georgieni...
Hm!...Sa fi ajuns polonezii atat de puternici in regiune , ca sa tulbure balanta puterii din zona in defavoarea sovieticilor ?....Daca este asa , atunci dicursurile ,amenintarile si atacurile Kremlinului asupra tuturor celor care stau in calea lor , nu au fost decat niste vorbe goale ,si in acest caz Rusia este mult mai slaba si vulnerabila decat pe vremea sovietelor...Adevarul este ca economia rusa de astazi, nu s-a schimbat de loc de pe vremea lui Brejnev...Veniturle de astazi ale Rusiei ,ca si in trecut provin din hidrocarburi ( petrol si gaz) si armament...Kremlinul continua sa vanda rachete sofisticate ( la standardul rusilor) , regimurilor conduse de dictaori instabili si nepredictibili precum Adolf Ahmedinajad , Bashir Assad , etc.,etc...Rusii poate se tem ca in viitor mulahii din Iran ( asa cum au promis ) vor lansa rachete de productie sau tehnologie ruseasca spre alta tara ( Israel probabil)...Israelul iar in viitor europa de est , va riposta cu sisteme antiracheta...Acest posibil scenariu nu ar face decat sa expuna (din nou) in fata Lumii , tehonologia rusa , care poate fi anihilata de cea vestica si in special cea americana....Aceasta la randul ei s-ar traduce prin cancelarea multor contracte militare in valoare de sute de miliarde de $ , pe care Rusia le vinde dictatorilor din jurul Lumii , cu promisiunea ca sunt cele mai sofisticate din lume...Orice ofiter cu gradul de locotenent din armata rusa stie ca sistemul antiracheta in discutie , a fost conceput de la inceput ca unul defensiv ( issasi numele acestui sistem o spune in mod clar)...Rusii de fapt nu se tem ca vor fi atacati de americani...Rusii se tem ca tehnologia american va dovedi din nou , cat de inapoiati tehnologic sunt fata de vest...Iar aceasta pe langa orgolilul pana la cer al dlui Putin , va rani deasemnea grav , visteria Rusiei....

octaaa
2008-09-11 22:47:28

Baschiria

Citisem azi cum ca Baschiria ar dori independenta fata de Rusia.
Ar fi foarte logic sa se intample asa. Atat ca stim si noi ca asta nu se va intampla.

Cine vrea sa vada o harta medievala a Rusiei, va observa ca rusii nu prea erau prezenti prin Baschiria. Cum nu erau nici in Basarabia sau Bucovina de Nord. Si nici in Bugeac.
Baschiria si Tatarstanul sint regiuni locuite de multa vreme de populatii turce : baschiri, tatari, bulgari, adica numai populatii turcice. In plus, religia dominanta este islamismul , iar limba vorbita este o limba foarte apropiata de limba turca.
Bineinteles ca ultimii ani au fost "importati" si rusi pe acolo. Cum au fost importanti si in regiunile moldovenesti furate...

Timotei
2008-09-12 12:38:54

Ca sa vomiti mai usor, iti pui un deget pe limba si zici "moskova"

dai afara pana vezi stelute rosii

Bumerang
2008-09-12 15:19:24

Kakaia Troc?

Hai sa fim seriosi. Lavrov incearca sa mai spele imaginea, si penibiliul in care s-a incumetat tata Putin cu a lui mascota Ursulet.

Pai ce ofera Polonia in acest troc? NIMIC. N-o sa mai sprijine Georgia. Pai cum a sprijinit-o pana acum? Cu vorbe. Rusii s-au vazut in fata faptului implinit, si incearca s-o scalde acum, ca cica le-au dat ei voie polonezilor sa puna scutul acolo. Hai sa fim seriosi. De parca cineva i-a intrebat pe rusi ce parere au.

Scutul doare, nu pt ca ar ataca Rusia, ci pt ca Ukraina s-ar putea simitii in siguranta, datorita scutului!! Ca daca, sa zicem, Uklraina le de sutul in fund rusilor, si decide sa intre in nato, lucru care ar duce la aspiratia spre independenta a rusilor de acolo, si daca Putin ar trimite o racheta spre Kiew, ea ar putea fi interceptata de scutul american, deoarece Polonioa ar putea sa se fi simtit amenintata de acea racheta. Ca doar cand este in aer nu sti exact unde se duce, nu? Asa ar ramane numai trupele terestre ale rusilor sa intre in Ukraina Care, sa nu uitam, nu e Georgia!

ciucur
2008-09-12 15:20:07

OO DA

toarsu alamar din sua inteleg ca tre sa pupi la stapani,tu ai auzit de f117 doborat cu o racheta sa7 kub din anii 60,da mai stiai ca rusii lea propus americanilor sa faca un teste intre patriot si s400 triumf si acestia au refuzat,oare de ce poate de frica sa nu fie umiliti,dar de rachetele supersonice antinava ai auzit cum ar fi ss-n-22 sunburn,americanii nu au decat rachete subsonice antinava,americanii au recunoscut ca sunt cu 10 ani in ruma rusilor in acest domeniu,da de ss27 topol,am in fata un articol in care americanii recunosc ca poate trece de orice scut antiracheta

alwis46
2008-09-12 15:22:21

Mdeah !

Dupa ce ciolovecii au racnit de li s-a dilatat sfincterul anal si-au facut pe ei de cat de periculos este scutul ala din Polonia iata ca acum in schimbul a aproape nimic muscalii le dau polenezilor incuviintarea sa si-l monteze.
Nici macar nu este vreo manevra cine stie ce inteligenta, a fost garagata doar asa de hoha pen'ca muscalii stiau ca nu ii paste nici un pericol si au cu ce sa riposteze in caz de ceva.
E ca in snoavele si cimiliturile noastre, hotul striga el primul si cat poate de tare: Hotii !

Europeanul
2008-09-12 16:58:58

rezultatele jocurilor cu dictatori (friendly regimes)

La 2008-09-11 22:33:02, alamar a scris:

>...Kremlinul continua sa vanda rachete sofisticate ( la
> standardul rusilor) , regimurilor conduse de dictaori instabili si
> nepredictibili precum Adolf Ahmedinajad , Bashir Assad ,
> etc.,etc...

daca privesti putin inapoi, vei observa ca asa zisii "dictatori stabili" pot fi usor rasturnati / substituiti prin "rascoala" clasica: acuzarea dictatorilor precedenti in numele "boborului" (Iran, Guatemala)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution

In 2000, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright stated:

"In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs"

Cine plateste pretul?

Europeanul
2008-09-12 16:59:55

urmarile jocurilor cu dictatori (friendly regime)

La 2008-09-11 22:33:02, alamar a scris:

>...Kremlinul continua sa vanda rachete sofisticate ( la
> standardul rusilor) , regimurilor conduse de dictaori instabili si
> nepredictibili precum Adolf Ahmedinajad , Bashir Assad ,
> etc.,etc...

daca privesti putin inapoi, vei observa ca asa zisii "dictatori stabili" pot fi usor rasturnati / substituiti prin "rascoala" clasica: acuzarea dictatorilor precedenti in numele "boborului" (Iran, Guatemala)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution

In 2000, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright stated:
"In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs"

acta_derbedeica
2008-09-12 20:34:38

Re: Baschiria

Zici ca-n Evul Mediu in Basarabia si Bucovina de Nord traiau populatii turcice si religia dominanta era islamismul?
Cu tatarii si cu popoarele de religie catolica din vest (polonezi, suedezi, baltici) a fost cam asa: in Evul Mediu ii luau pe rusi la razbele de nu se vedea om cu pom (ca si pe noi de altfel). La un moment dat, rusii au ajuns la concluzia bizara ca nu vor avea liniste daca n-or sa le dea la toti sa se catsere. Atunci cind au devenit puternici, rusii i-au ocupat pe aia beligosi si si-au creat un "cordon sanitar" in jurul lor.
Mai nasol e ca si in Alaska e un curent de independenta, in care cica familia lui Palin e implicata.

Zenn
2008-09-12 21:15:16

Israeli Military Occupation is not a Bar to EU Partnership

By David Morrison

11/09/08 "ICH" -- - On 1 September 2008, the EU decided that meetings with Russia about a new partnership agreement would be postponed "until [Russian] troops have withdrawn to the positions held prior to 7 August" [1], that is, until no Russian troops are present in Georgia outside South Ossetia.
On 28 November 1995, the EU allowed Israel to become a partner, under Euro-Mediterranean Partnership arrangements with states bordering on the Mediterranean. At the time, Israeli troops were occupying parts of Lebanon and Syria and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (the West Bank and Gaza) and had been for many years – Lebanon since 1978, the rest since 1967.
Had the conditions applied to Russia in September 2008 been applied to Israel in November 1995, the EU would have refused to enter into negotiation with Israel about becoming a partner until all Israeli troops had been withdrawn from Lebanon, Syria and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Clearly, the EU has applied very different standards in its relations with Israel and Russia.
On the one hand, Israel was allowed to become an EU partner in 1995, even though large swathes of territory not its own had been under Israeli military occupation for many years, and is allowed to remain a partner even though most of this territory remains under Israeli military occupation today. What is more, on 16 June 2008 the EU agreed to "upgrade" its relations with Israel, despite this ongoing military occupation of territory not its own.
By contrast, Russia is not allowed to enter into negotiation about a partnership with the EU without ending its month long occupation of parts of Georgia.
It would be interesting to hear the EU justify those extraordinary double standards.
Respecting territorial integrity
There is another extraordinary aspect to the EU’s relations with Israel – the EU has been happy to sign agreements with Israel even though, at the time of signing, Israel has been contravening obligations contained in the agreements themselves.
For example, the Barcelona Declaration, which established the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, obliges its signatories to "respect the territorial integrity and unity of each of the other partners" [2] and a series of other norms of international law.
Lebanon, Syria and Israel signed the Barcelona Declaration and became EU partners in November 1995. At that time, parts of Lebanon and Syria were under Israeli military occupation and the Golan Heights had been annexed by Israel. Clearly, Israel was failing to "respect the territorial integrity and unity" of its Lebanese and Syrian partners in 1995, when it signed the Barcelona Declaration containing this obligation. But the EU turned a blind eye to Israel’s breach of the partnership agreement at the time it signed the partnership agreement – and allowed it to become an EU partner.
And the EU has continued to turn a blind eye ever since and allowed Israel to remain an EU partner, even though today Syrian and Lebanese territory remains under Israeli military occupation and Israeli military aircraft frequently invade Lebanese air space.


Carrying out Security Council resolutions
The Barcelona Declaration also obliges its signatories to "act in accordance with the United Nations Charter", Article 25 of which obliges UN member states "to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council" [3]. In 1995, Israel was violating around 25 Security Council resolutions requiring action by it and it alone, including:-
" resolutions 252, 267, 271 and 298 require Israel to reverse its annexation of East Jerusalem,
" resolutions 446, 452 and 465 demand that Israel cease building Jewish settlements in the territories it has occupied since 1967, including in Jerusalem
" resolution 487 calls upon Israel to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA supervision
" resolution 497 demands that Israel reverse its annexation of the Golan Heights, which were captured from Syria in June 1967
In 1995, Israel was in contravention of these, and other, Security Council resolutions. In 1995, the EU turned a blind eye to this breach of the UN Charter and of the Barcelona Declaration – and allowed it to sign the Barcelona Declaration and become an EU partner. Israel is in contravention of these, and even more, Security Council resolutions today – and it is still an EU partner.


Middle East Zone free of weapons of mass destruction
In the Barcelona Declaration, Israel also signed up to the following:
"The parties shall pursue a mutually and effectively verifiable Middle East Zone free of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical and biological, and their delivery systems.
"Furthermore the parties will consider practical steps to prevent the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as well as excessive accumulation of conventional arms." [2]
Israel is the only state in the Middle East that possesses nuclear weapons (and probably the only one that possesses chemical and biological weapons). So, its disarmament of these weapons is a necessary, and probably a sufficient, condition for bringing about a "Middle East Zone free of weapons of mass destruction", as required by the Barcelona Declaration. However, progress in bringing this about has been noticeable by its absence since Israel signed up to "pursue" this objective in 1995.
There has been no progress either on the Security Council’s demand in resolution 487, passed on 19 June 1981, that "Israel urgently … place its nuclear facilities under IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] safeguards" [4]. 27 years later, Israel still hasn’t opened its nuclear facilities to IAEA inspection, nor is there any noticeable pressure from the EU to make it do so, let alone disarm in order to produce a nuclear free zone in the Middle East, which parties to the Barcelona Declaration are supposed to "pursue".
By contrast, Iran’s nuclear facilities, including its uranium enrichment facilities, are open to IAEA inspection. It is worth noting that, after extensive inspection in Iran, the IAEA has found no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons programme, or ever had one. By contrast, Israel has possessed nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them for around 40 years. It is estimated that today Israel has around 200 nuclear warheads and various delivery systems, including by submarine-launched missiles. It is capable of wiping Iran, and every Arab state, off the map at the touch of a button.
Strange that the EU is actively pressuring Iran about its nuclear activities, but not Israel, despite the requirement in its partnership agreement with Israel to "pursue a mutually and effectively verifiable Middle East Zone free of weapons of mass destruction".
David Morrison - www.david-morrison.org.uk
References:
[1] www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/102545.pdf
[2] trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2005/july/tradoc_124236.pdf
[3] www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
[4] www.david-morrison.org.uk/scrs/1981-0487.htm



http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20734.htm