Add2
"New York Times headlines", grupate pe teme le gasiti de azi La Cafelata (Pagini utile) .

Tu scrii cel mai mult aici. Inteligenta ta e invers proportionala cu timpul tau liber.

[...] No other human activity requires the deployment of so much moral energy, political ingenuity, and intellectual prowess as war.
Kavus Voshmgir, the 10th century Persian theoretician of war, wrote about the triple rule of armed conflict. The first phase consists of material, moral, and political preparation. One should move into the second phase only after winning the first. The second phase consists of the actual fighting, which is the least important of the three. Finally, there is the postfighting phase in which you either translate your military victory into political gains or, if you have been defeated, try to minimize your losses.
Now let us apply the triple rule to the United States’ projected war against Saddam Hussein.
[...] When it comes to political preparation, however, the American performance has been amateurish, to say the least.
To start with, there is still confusion about the precise objectives of the looming conflict. It would be much easier to sell this war by stating its objective to be the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. No one, not even the linguist Noam Chomsky or the neo-fascist French politician Jean-Marie Le Pen, two of Saddam’s most ardent fans, would be able to defend his policy of repression, war and genocide in public. The same international public that warmed up to the goal of removing Slobodan Milosevic from power would be open to arguments in favor of toppling Saddam.
There is abundant evidence about atrocities committed by the Saddam regime in Baghdad over the past 30 years. The University of Louvain, in Belgium, has completed an exhaustive research project into Saddam’s use of chemical weapons between 1985 and 1988. It is impossible for anyone to read even a summary and not wish for those responsible to be brought to books. The report by the Dutch politician Max van der Stoel about the destruction of whole communities in southeast Iraq is already a classic in the history of atrocities that a regime could commit against its own people. Various human rights groups, including Amnesty International, have lists of tens of thousands of Iraqis who have disappeared in Saddam’s prisons and hard labor camps during the past three decades.
The Bush administration, however, has highlighted “the disarming of Iraq” as the objective. This is a harder sell. Who is going to find the weapons that Saddam might be hiding in thousands of cleverly camouflaged sites?
Even if such weapons were to be found, it would still be hard to convince the public, including most Americans, that Saddam might, one day, use those weapons against the US or any other country.
[...] The result is that, in some cases, it is the US that is presented as the guilty party. To listen to Chomsky or Jean-Marie Le Pen one might think that it is George W. Bush that has to be toppled, not Saddam Hussein.
The fact that Iraq, under Saddam, is legally still at war with the United Nations is totally forgotten. People talk of “the American war against Iraq” and lament “ the carpet bombing of women and children” even though fighting has not even begun. Chomsky is already projecting “the millions of Iraqis” who are going to die just as he had projected the millions of Afghans who were supposed to perish last year and didn’t. Georg Haider, the Austrian neo-fascist leader, speaks of “America’s war against civilization” as if Saddam Hussein were a modern day Solon.
The US has failed to show the world that the choice in Iraq is between Saddam Hussein and a new regime that would represent the peoples of Iraq.
Some, who do not know the details of this issue, the choice is between the status quo that, though lamentable, is preferable to the prospect of chaos in Iraq. They would rather let Saddam continue killing Iraqis in relatively small numbers for many years to come than take the risk of large numbers of Iraqis dying in a few days of war.
[...] As the fighting phase looms closer, the need to make a clear case for this war becomes more urgent.
That case must be made around the urgent need to rescue the peoples of Iraq from a regime that is also a threat to the region. World public opinion made no objection when the Tanzanian Army marched in to topple Idi Amin in Uganda. Nor did anyone shed tears when the Vietnamese Army marched in to get rid of the Khmer Rouge gangsters in Cambodia. When the Americans invaded Grenada to flush out the Castrist gangsters, the whole world had a sigh of relief. And when the US Navy blockaded Haiti to kick out Raoul Cedras and his band of military thieves, everyone was grateful. The British won all-round plaudits when they kicked out Sanke Foda and his cutthroat associates that had seized power in Sierra Leone. Nor do we know of many people who regretted the overthrow of Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic.
Using force to get rid of obnoxious regimes is nothing new, and requires no apologies.

Zizzy, recunosc, sint cam absconcs in limbaj uneori, dar pina la cenzura mai e. Aici sint pe teren propriu :)

Dorinella, cred ca esti cam optimista in privinta evolutiei lui bro. Lupu-si schimba parul, dar ciorapii ba. Sa-l banuiesti de evolutie inseamna sa-i negi perfectiunea. El este fix si imuabil. Ca Koranul. As good as it gets.

Jack, intrebarile despre SUA-ataca-doar-tari-mici si guvernul-SUA-nu-da-prosperitate sint retorice, sau astepti si eventuale raspunsuri ?

MV, evident Miti se poate apara si singura, dar nu sint doar eu sa-ti spun ca nu faci bine ce faci. Cea mai la obiect a fost Dorinella. Deocamdata.

Bro, explicatiile tale pentru a nu raspunde sint debile, dar cu nimic surprinzatoare. In sfirsit... Eu ma odihnesc weekendul asta, dar tu sa nu lasi garda jos, ca ramine universul fara aparare in fata expansiunii imperialiste. Tine niste materie prima pentru spume poliuretanice la gura.
1. Cum impaci capra "Mai sunt unii care scriu ce cred ei, nu le trebuie trasatori de sarcini" cu varza asta: "de asta sa va doara, nu de rahatul acela de Mafie Texana, hitlerism sharonian si de altzi nehalitzi ca si ei. Mai bine atzi vedea de unde traitzi si, ca rrromâni verzi ce va datzi, sa va ocupatzi de-ai vostri moldoveni la necaz. Lasatzi sforaielile "de bon-ton" americantzo-ovreiesti, daca tot avetzi energie de investit. Uite-aici lucrare de control pentru voi, mai patriotzilor de carton... Bonjouristilor :-)))"
2. Cum poti judeca activitatea stiintifica a cuiva cu un doctorat in fizica daca tu nu ai habar cit e vitea luminii ?
3. Cine/ce iti da dreptul sa te legi de cum arata cineva ? De ce nu-ti faci si tu publice numele, locul de munca (am glumit) si fotografia ? Daca lupti pentru egalitate-nu-doar-pentru-catei, de ce balacaresti pe cineva din spatele anonimatului si nu din aceleasi conditii de expunere publica ?