Peti oktobar na bliskom istoku i arapskom svetu

[namenski]

meni je tekst na nivou "da bude mir u svetu"

 

 

 

koji ekstremizam, čiji ekstremizam, ko ratuje, zašto, ko je protiv koga?

 

ovako imamo samo blanko "jačanje ekstremizma", kao da je "ekstremizam" pojava sama za sebe a ne pojava koja je vezana za grupu, ciljeve, strahove i partikularne interese.

 

 

 

samo da prestane rat... pa zašto da prestane, ko će da pobedi, ko će definisati mir, ko će istrpeti gorčinu poraza, itd itd.

 

ne znamo, nije bitno, samo da bude mir.

+1

 

Malo moralisanja za domacu upotrebu nikome stete nije donelo, a evo i Eraseru srce na mestu 

[MancMellow]

 

 

At the same time, as Turkey moves toward 

>> a new, more serious Islamic reality, it will be important for them to 

>> realize that we are willing to take serious actions, which can be sustained 

>> to protect our national interests. 

 

...

[Eraserhead]

+1

 

Malo moralisanja za domacu upotrebu nikome stete nije donelo, a evo i Eraseru srce na mestu 

 

Da tako i u Rusiji izadje tekst koji moralise na temu razaranja Alepa jer je to "sve isto". ;)

[MancMellow]

Zapravo meni vest nije sta pise u tekstu (mada se poziva na prekid americke pomoci KSA u slucaju da odbiju 1 savet), vec je pomalo vest da je jedan ovakav tekst uopste izasao kao editorial u NYT. 

 

Nesto ce US morati da menja u pristupu prema ME, ali sta mislim da i sami ne znaju sta tacno

Edited October 11, 2016 by MancMellow

[Budja]

Zapravo meni vest nije sta pise u tekstu (mada se poziva na prekid americke pomoci KSA u slucaju da odbiju 1 savet), vec je pomalo vest da je jedan ovakav tekst uopste izasao kao editorial u NYT. 

 

Nesto ce US morati da menja u pristupu prema ME, ali sta mislim da i sami ne znaju sta tacno

 

To se videlo i u debati, gde je, na srecu, Hilari muljala i muljala i nije rekla nista konkretno.

[Lord Protector]

...At the same time, as Turkey moves toward 

>> a new, more serious Islamic reality, it will be important for them to 

>> realize that we are willing to take serious actions, which can be sustained 

>> to protect our national interests.

 

Erdoganu se izgleda spremao gulenovski svilen gajtan još 2014-te, za svaki slučaj

Edited October 11, 2016 by slow

[Lord Protector]

meni je tekst na nivou "da bude mir u svetu"

 

 

 

koji ekstremizam, čiji ekstremizam, ko ratuje, zašto, ko je protiv koga?

 

ovako imamo samo blanko "jačanje ekstremizma", kao da je "ekstremizam" pojava sama za sebe a ne pojava koja je vezana za grupu, ciljeve, strahove i partikularne interese.

 

 

 

samo da prestane rat... pa zašto da prestane, ko će da pobedi, ko će definisati mir, ko će istrpeti gorčinu poraza, itd itd.

 

ne znamo, nije bitno, samo da bude mir.

 

+1

[Lord Protector]

 

 

Are U.S.-Saudi Relations Finally Souring?

Pressure from human rights organizations like Oxfam to victims of the 9/11 attacks are helping erode the bond between these old political allies, but the results of this election season could squander our chance at change.

By Alli McCracken

Congress recently passed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) allowing families of victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks to sue other governments, including Saudi Arabia, for possible damages.

Despite threats by the Saudi government to sell billions of dollars’ worth of their assets and reexamine the bilateral relationship with the U.S., Congress snubbed the monarchy and passed the bill, then overturned a presidential veto to it almost unanimously.

This is just one of the most overt pieces of evidence that the historically cozy U.S.-Saudi relationship is on the decline.

A couple years ago, few questioned the decades-old political alliance between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. But, amidst a heated election season in the U.S., the bloody Saudi-waged war on Yemen has led to a wave of protest by Capitol Hill lawmakers and human rights organizations who want to reexamine this relationship.

During the Obama administration, a whopping 42 weapons deals have been brokered between the U.S. and the Saudi government, worth over $110 billion. However, the latest deal, amounting to $1.15 billion, was met with unprecedented opposition over concerns of apparent Saudi war crimes in Yemen.

 

In a letter to the White House, 64 members of the House of Representatives asked President Obama to withdraw the weapons deal, and 27 Senators voted in favor of a resolution opposing the deal.

Humanitarian and human rights organizations like Oxfam, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch got involved in the opposition movement too, pointing to the nearly 10,000 deaths and injuries caused by the Saudi war on Yemen using U.S.-made weapons.

Major media outlets like The New York Times penned editorials slamming the deal.

This is a welcome and overdue change for many who believe that Saudi Arabia’s war crimes in Yemen shouldn’t go unpunished, but it’s also an important moment to rethink the entirety of the U.S. alliance with Saudi Arabia and the U.S.’ role in the Middle East.

The tension between the U.S. and the Saudi monarchy isn’t just manifesting in the legislative branch of the government — the executive branch has also sent clear signals that the tides are turning.

In 2015, President Obama, along with Secretary of State John Kerry, orchestrated one of the most successful diplomatic wins of the administration: the Iran nuclear deal. The Saudi monarchy, nervous about the geopolitical and sectarian trends in the Middle East apparently aligning against them, felt threatened by the deal and lobbied in Washington against it.

This didn’t stop the White House and State Department from pushing the deal through, much to the chagrin of the Saudi royal family.

While this eroding relationship is a much welcomed change after years of watching the U.S. government turn a blind eye to human rights abuses committed by Saudi Arabia and other regional allies, the path forward isn’t clear.

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both have problematic visions for the United States’ future relationship with the regime.

Trump, a notorious Islamophobe who called for an open ban on Muslims coming to the United States (and who’s blamed Saudi Arabia for 9/11), hasn’t proposed a clear vision in terms of the future relationship between the two countries.

On the other hand, a Clinton administration will likely opt to continue the business-as-usual blank check support to our traditional allies in the region, including Saudi Arabia.

So while it seems like we’re entering a new moment of opportunity to change U.S. policy regarding the regime, real change won’t come in the next few weeks and months.

It’ll take years of hard work to persuade the next administration how rethinking our role abroad is in the best interest of America, nations in the Middle East, and the innocent victims of violence between the two.

Edited October 11, 2016 by slow

[namenski]

Da tako i u Rusiji izadje tekst koji moralise na temu razaranja Alepa jer je to "sve isto". ;)

Ovakvi ili onakvi, kakvi god da su - Rusi ne moralisu kad su ovakve stvari u pitanju.

Ne pokusavaju da prodaju muda za bubrege niti bilo sta drugo iz moralizatorskog arsenala, od ljudskih prava, preko NVO ljugavljenja, do propovedanja istine i pravde.

Ili, da prevedem na srpski: neuporedivo manje - seru.

[Eraserhead]

A pa onda je sve ok.

[MancMellow]

 

Ili, da prevedem na srpski: neuporedivo manje - seru.

 

[Anduril]

Ovakvi ili onakvi, kakvi god da su - Rusi ne moralisu kad su ovakve stvari u pitanju.

Ne pokusavaju da prodaju muda za bubrege niti bilo sta drugo iz moralizatorskog arsenala, od ljudskih prava, preko NVO ljugavljenja, do propovedanja istine i pravde.

Ili, da prevedem na srpski: neuporedivo manje - seru.

 

Pa naravno da se u ruskoj ili recimo u srpskoj javnosti manje moralise, tj. vecina oseca mucninu kad se pocne o ljudskim pravima, vladavini prava, demokratiji, itd..

 

Po mom misljenju je razlog prilicno prost - radi se drustvima sa nizim etickim standardima posto se ljudska prava, institucije i zakoni ni u samom drustvu ne postuju a kamoli izvan.

To je ocigledno na svakom koraku. Zato je vecini u Rusiji ili u Srbiji (bilo) manje vise svejedno kad su im razni rezimi kroz istoriju proterivali ili ubijali (bivse) sugradjane. Zakon jaceg i to je to.

 

Takve stvari su u zapadnim drustvima malo problematicnije, eticki standardi su visi jer postoji duza tradicija postovanja zakona i ljudskih prava u samom drustvu a jaci ne mogu bas sve.

 

Problem je tu tome sto je ta tradicija u raskoraku sa medjunarodnom politicko-ekonomskom realnoscu gde opet vazi uglavnom zakon jaceg izvan zapadnih medjunarodnih institucija.

Tu zapadna javnost mora da bira i uglavnom balansira (za razliku od drugih) posto su i nafta/pare vazan politicko-ekonomski faktor kao i eticki standardi.

 

I onda se ljudi kod nas gade takvog licemerja posto cene da je bolje nemati uopste nikakve eticke standarde i biti strejt in the face (otuda paljenje na populiste) nego imati neke polustandarde i balansirati kao jajara. Jedini problem sa tim je sto je u takvom drusvu sledeca klanica i gazenje programirano a onda je kasno zaliti se...

[Lord Protector]

Smešno je ovo što pišeš Andurile u jesen 2016. godine... sve smo već videli, tu od etike ni na jednoj strani nema ni "e"...

Edited October 12, 2016 by slow

[MancMellow]

Nije u pitanju tradicija, po mom skromnom sudu, nego shvatanje sopstvenog, pojedinacnog i kolektivnog interesa. Neka se notira da je ovde ne govorim o tome da li je to shvatanje ispravno ili u skladu sa realnoscu, samo konstatujem da se moralne norme kako kod pojedinaca tako i kod percepcije medjunarodnih odnosa, ali i samih medjunarodnih odnosa raspadaju onda kada se kod subjekata konacno utvrdi uverenje da one ne samo da vise ne rade za njega, nego rade direktno protiv njegovih zivotnih interesa. Mada, ok, vraticu se posle na ovo...

[Anduril]

Nije u pitanju tradicija, po mom skromnom sudu, nego shvatanje sopstvenog, pojedinacnog i kolektivnog interesa. Neka se notira da je ovde ne govorim o tome da li je to shvatanje ispravno ili u skladu sa realnoscu, samo konstatujem da se moralne norme kako kod pojedinaca tako i kod percepcije medjunarodnih odnosa, ali i samih medjunarodnih odnosa raspadaju onda kada se kod subjekata konacno utvrdi uverenje da one ne samo da vise ne rade za njega, nego rade direktno protiv njegovih zivotnih interesa. Mada, ok, vraticu se posle na ovo...

 

Kao sto rekoh, nisam siguran da se moralne norme u unutrasnjoj i spoljnoj politici mogu razluciti. 

I shvatanje tog interesa je deo politicke tradicije, kako spoljne tako i unutrasnje. 

Recimo, drzavama sa federalnim uredjenjem i separacijom poluga moci ce biti lakse da vide interes u nekim zajednickim medjunarodnim institucijama nego rezimima koji nisu navikli na institucije nego na druge vrste stvaranja dogovora.