Arhiv avgust 2006
Obala in nafta
| 1. avgust 2006 | Svet | Jure
(c) AP
Obala pred Bejrutom, 35.000 ton nafte, toliko kot pri izlitju tankerja Exxon Valdez.
Slovenija - po Ruplovi zaslugi ponovno ameriški hlapci
| 1. avgust 2006 | Slovenija, Svet | Jure
Bravo! Slovenija je ponovno zvesti ameriški hlapec. Po vilnuiški izjavi smo ponovno na strani ZDA. V kolikor večina evropskih držav zahteva takojšnjo ustavitev spopadov v Libanonu, slovenski zunanji minister govori o “pričakovanju, da bo Evropska unija pozvala k čimprejšnjemu premirju.” Ne zahtevala, pozvala! Čimprej (kar po ameriško pomeni - še nekaj tednov), ne takoj! To pa je stališče ZDA in Velike Britanije. Še več, “Slovenija ne podpira nobene strani v izraelsko-libanonskem sporu…” Hm… neverjetno. Izrael napade suvereno državo z očitnim kršenjem mendarodnega prava - a Slovenija je kao “nevtralna”. Izraelci rušijo Bejrut - Rupel je “nevtralen”. Se še spomnite napadov na Sarajevo?
Sramota!
Slovensko zunanje ministrstvo - umetnost leporečja
| 1. avgust 2006 | Slovenija, Svet | Jure
Minister dr. Rupel je v imenu Ministrstva za zunanje zadeve RS in v svojem imenu izrazil sožalje zaradi izgube številnih življenj, predvsem mnogih nedolžnih žensk in otrok. Minister dr. Rupel je zapisal, da si Slovenija z vsemi močmi prizadeva ublažiti negativne humanitarne posledice krize. Obenem je poudaril, da Slovenija podpira predlog o napotitvi mednarodnih mirovnih sil na krizno območje. Vir
Ni kaj, gospodom in gospem v Mladiki gre čestitati. Včeraj so poslali sožalje v Libanon, malo prej humanitarno pomoč… iz niti enega obvestila pa ni jasno, kaj Slovenija meni o tej vojni in ali podpira takojšnje premirje. Ko smo v imenu OVSE-ja letali po svetu, je imel naš zunanji minister stališče o vsem mogočem, o Libanonu pa ???
Libanonska past
| 1. avgust 2006 | Svet | Jure
Zahodni politiki v primeru vojne v Libanonu vztrajno dokazujejo, da nimajo pojma, kako rešiti konflikt. Najboljši primer impotence in zgodovinske skleroze so ideje o namestitvi mednarodnih sil na mejo z Izraelom. V kolikor ste vsaj malo seznanjeni z libanonsko zgodovino veste, da tokratno zahodnjaško posredovanje ne bi bilo prvo. A očitno je nekdo pozabil, kako so se tuje vojske umaknile iz dežele. Četudi so jih na začetku morda pričakali s cvetjem (na kar tokrat ni računati), kot se je to primerilo sirijski vojski, so se kasneje tako zapletle, da je bil umik prej sramoten pobeg kot vrnitev rešiteljev.
Every foreign army - including the Israelis - comes to grief in Lebanon.
So, how come George Bush and Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara - after their inevitable disasters in Afghanistan and Iraq - believe that a Nato-led force is going to survive on the south Lebanese border? The Israelis would obviously enjoy watching its deployment - it will be time for the West to take the casualties - but Hizbollah is likely to view its arrival as a proxy Israeli army. It is, after all, supposed to be a “buffer” force to protect Israel - not, as the Lebanese have quickly noted, to protect Lebanon - and the last Nato army that came to this country was literally blasted out of its mission by suicide bombers. Več
Slovar: crackpot realism
| 1. avgust 2006 | Svet | Jure
Koncept “crackpot realism” (realizem norcev) je leta 1958 v knjigi The Causes of World War Three razvil ameriški sociolog C. Wright Mills. Istega leta je predsednik Eisenhower poslal ameriške marince v Libanon, da bi pomagali silam predsednika Camilla Chamouna.
In crackpot realism, a high-flying moral rhetoric is joined with an opportunist crawling among a great scatter of unfocused fears and demands. In fact, the main content of “politics” is now a struggle among men equally expert in practical next steps—which, in summary, make up the thrust toward war—and in great, round, hortatory principles. (p. 86)
. . . The expectation of war solves many problems of the crackpot realists; it also confronts them with many new problems. Yet these, the problems of war, often seem easier to handle. They are out in the open: to produce more, to plan how to kill more of the enemy, to move materials thousands of miles. . . . So instead of the unknown fear, the anxiety without end, some men of the higher circles prefer the simplification of known catastrophe. (p. 87)
. . . They know of no solutions to the paradoxes of the Middle East and Europe, the Far East and Africa except the landing of Marines. Being baffled, and also being very tired of being baffled, they have come to believe that there is no way out—except war—which would remove all the bewildering paradoxes of their tedious and now misguided attempts to construct peace. In place of these paradoxes they prefer the bright, clear problems of war—as they used to be. For they still believe that “winning” means something, although they never tell us what. (p. 88)
. . . Some men want war for sordid, others for idealistic, reasons; some for personal gain, others for impersonal principle. But most of those who consciously want war and accept it, and so help to create its “inevitability,” want it in order to shift the locus of their problems. (p. 88) Vir Več
Iz teorije v prakso…
Here we have a Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, who gazes at the rubble of Lebanon, at 600,000 refugees being strafed with cluster bombs, and squeaks happily that we are witnessing “the birth pangs of a new Middle East.” Več
Loading ...
