Sirija

[Bane5]

@April,ja licno nemam nikakav problem sa tvojim stavom, ali mi je zanimljivo (ne samo u ovom slucaju) gde je granica gde se neke cinjenice mogu prihvatiti ili ne.pritom, s obzirom na istorijat raznih ratova i ntervencija mogu i da razumem svaku vrstu prigovora.pitanje prihvatanja cinjenica uglavnom ne stoji u dobroj korelaciji sa politickim odlukama jer ih one cesto zloupotrebljavaju ili tumace u pogresnom kontekstu, ali narocito u slucaju gde postoji sumnja u velike civilne zrtve one moraju da budu ispitane bez bilo kakvog izgovora. ako je ova inspekcija UN ta koja je najpozvanija da to uradi u ovom slucaju, licno cu prihvatiti svaki njen nalaz kao vrlo relevantan.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Bane5

[April]

@April,ja licno nemam nikakav problem sa tvojim stavom, ali mi je zanimljivo (ne samo u ovom slucaju) gde je granica gde se neke cinjenice mogu prihvatiti ili ne.pritom, s obzirom na istorijat raznih ratova i ntervencija mogu i da razumem svaku vrstu prigovora.pitanje prihvatanja cinjenica uglavnom ne stoji u dobroj korelaciji sa politickim odlukama jer ih one cesto zloupotrebljavaju ili tumace u pogresnom kontekstu, ali narocito u slucaju gde postoji sumnja u velike civilne zrtve one moraju da budu ispitane bez bilo kakvog izgovora.

Ok, sad smo se razumeli.Ja jesam prilično ogorčen na bliskoistočnu politiku Zapada i otud i apatija i nepoverenje. Prosto mislim da nisam usamljen u tome, naprotiv, da je to postao preovlađujući stav u Evropi - to je posebna tema za razgovor, tema koja nas se vrlo tiče.

[nautilus]

Hezbolah u mobilizaciji Hizbullah Mobilizes ahead of Potential U.S. Syria Strike and Fighters Switch Off Their Phones Toliko o Iranskoj osudi Asada. Ove jos posprdno zovu i Hizb u Iran.

Edited September 2, 2013 by nautilus

[Eraserhead]

NOLE PROTIV RATA U SIRIJI: Mi Srbi smo to preživeli!

Sta li Nole misli o ubijanju dece nervnim gasom da mi je znati...

[Roger Sanchez]

Sve je to vazilo i za Gadafija dok dobri pukovnik, avaj, nije zacepio da poveca svoje procente u eksploataciji nafte i gadno se zajeb'o.

Vidim, ovo kao casus belli je već axiom u tvom opusu. Imaš li ikakvih uporišta za to osim anegdotalnih? De podsjeti me.

Ali, hej, sta je to u odnosu na blagodeti od 50 centi za litar benzina?

Tu je otprilike i dalje cijena u Libiji. U US of A nije...

[Budja]

Ništa mi nisi odgovorio: kako su onda gospoda najpozvaniji napravili onoliku svinjariju u Iraku?Postoji milion načina za manipulaciju eksperata, cela Evropa pere ruke od njihovih dokaza, ali ne, to su teorije zavere...ok.Ali, ulazimo u sitna crevca: ja jednostavno sam koncept američkog intervencionizma smatram stranputicom, tako da formalnim izgovorima samo usputno učitavam neke ranije forme.

O cemu ti?UN zapravo NISU potvrdile postojanje icega u Iraku.Cini mi se da mesas US, UK... intelligence i onaj iz UN.I, drugo, ne postoji niko ko negira da je bilo trovanja, verovatno sarinom, ukljucujuci i sirijsku vladu. Pitanje je ko je to ucinio. I tu nastaje problem.

[bergasa19]

Sta li Nole misli o ubijanju dece nervnim gasom da mi je znati...

A sta ti treba ovakva jadnost?

[Prospero]

Syria: it takes more courage to say there is nothing outsiders can doThe human misery in Syria is agonising to watch. But intervention-lite is a bad idea for all but the politicians' ego

• • Simon Jenkins
  • The Guardian, Thursday 29 August 2013 23.42 BST

'The use of chemical weapons is awful. But to treat their apparently random use to justify an attack on a foreign state is wilful.' Photograph: Flo Smith/NurPhoto/CorbisThe urge of much of Britain's political establishment to attack Syria is in retreat. The prime minister's eagerness to join an American bombing run on Damascus hit a humiliating reverse in the Commons on Thursday evening. The prime minister now appears to accept there will be no British intervention in Syria.Prior to the vote, Downing Street had been swerving and skidding to avoid the Iraq trap. It wisely published the intelligence report indicating the Assad regime used chemical weapons in a raid on a Damascus suburb, possibly in random retaliation for an attempt on his life. Such weapons are illegal under international law. While it was wrong to rush to judgment with inquiries still in train, there is justice in a desire to enforce the law. But enforcement must be meticulous in its legality. Otherwise what is dispensed is anarchy, not law.The government claimed it could attack Syria under the UN's "responsibility to protect" doctrine, where people in a foreign state are abused by their own government. We know from the Iraq invasion that British politicians are adept at finding lawyers to say what they want. But facts are facts. The UN's resolution 1674 on responsibility to protect plainly states that such action must be "through the security council in accordance with the charter". That process was absent.The use of chemical weapons is awful. But to treat their apparently random use to justify an urgent, extra-legal attack on a foreign state is wilful. It had been precipitated by President Obama's unwise warning in the summer that such use would cross a "red line". This is odd from a leader whose own arsenal embraces phosphorous and depleted uranium shells and delayed-action cluster bombs, not to mention nuclear weapons. Why such dreadful weapons are not taboo, and chemical ones are, is a mystery.Obama's intention is currently for a "limited, tailored … clear, decisive shot across the bows" of the Syrian government. The tactical basis for this is obscure. It can hardly claim to deter a chemical attack, since the red line speech tried and failed in that respect. While Assad seems unlikely to repeat the outrage, the idea that he will roll over if bombed and stop killing his people is naive. As for "degrading" his arsenals, if this releases chemical clouds how stupid is that?The likelihood is now of a single burst of destruction by US forces if only and blood-letting, to assuage the do-something lobby. This can hardly alter the balance in the civil war, though it seems certain to increase the refugee flow, alienate Russia and its regional allies, and infuriate a newly moderate Iran. All this is to "punish a dictator" in what seems depressingly like a gesture to allow western politicians to strut tall and feel good.Something-must-be-done wars have a long and wretched history, notably in the Middle East. It was after Ronald Reagan saw television footage of the Sabra and Shatila massacres in 1982 that he ordered his marines into Beirut. He later withdrew them, leaving 265 American dead and Lebanon with a further decade of ghastly civil conflict.In 1986, the US tried to kill Libya's Colonel Gaddafi over a terrorist attack in Berlin, merely ensuring a further burst of Gaddafi-sponsored terrorism. In Kosovo in 1999, the Nato bombing of Belgrade did nothing to impede ethnic cleansing, indeed it probably expedited it. What tipped the Russians into forcing Serbia to back down was the threat of a western land invasion.In 1993, President Clinton bombed Baghdad in retaliation for a claimed plot to kill former president George H Bush. This was followed five years later by the further bombing of Iraq in Operation Desert Fox, this time to deflect attention from the Monica Lewinsky affair. Its declared purpose of eliminating weapons of mass destruction was so botched as to require more bombing and the eventual invasion in 2003. Then as now, the zest for aggression seemed driven as much by the military-industrial complex as by legality or evidence.Overstating the military and political potency of air power – mostly as a "sending of messages" – is as old as air war itself. Tactical bombing is occasionally effective where, as in Libya and initially in Afghanistan, it is in close support of ground forces. When, as now, it is intended as a soft option to ground action, it merely destroys.The one sound strategic reason for intervening in Syria would be to topple President Assad. Cameron was unable to tell the Commons how raining bombs on Damascus contributed to this perhaps as advice was that this might be illegal. The idea that a region afflicted by decades of sectarian conflict will be driven to peace and democracy by a few Tomahawk missiles is absurd. And who was it that Cameron wanted to see take over? Hezbollah or a new (and probably no less brutal) Sunni supremacy?The desire to re-order foreign states – still embedded in parts of the British establishment – has long been subsumed in the constitution of the UN and international courts of justice. These may seem imperfect, but they are how the world has agreed to legitimise actions that infringe the integrity of independent independent countries. When Britain went to war in Kuwait, the Falklands and Libya, it did so with proper UN legal cover.The Syrian civil war is awful to witness but not exceptional. The Lebanese civil war next door claimed 120,000 lives and created millions of refugees. The Iraq war, a similar sectarian conflict, claimed even more lives and continues to do so.Sometimes it takes courage to conclude of foreign conflicts that we can only do more harm than good by meddling in them. But the idea that not meddling constitutes "allowing them" to continue is a short route to madness. The logic of most civil wars is that they end either when the combatants fight each other to exhaustion, or when some neighbouring power invades and quashes them. Dropping a few bombs would have been the nearest the British government got to Cameron's own charge of "standing idly by". It would have been careless of outcome, halfhearted intervention, intervention-lite.In Syria the human misery is intense and agonising to watch. It merits extremes of diplomatic engagement and humanitarian relief, to which outside attention and expense should surely be directed. Bombs are irrelevant. They make a bang and hit a headline. They puff up the political chest and dust their advocates in glory. They are the dumbest manifestation of modern politics.

[angern]

Jedva čekam da krenu Asada da mašrafe.

[Eraserhead]

A sta ti treba ovakva jadnost?

Nole je preziveo bombardovanje, ali Nole nije bio Albanac sa Kosova u to vreme tako da ne zna tu stranu price. Mozda bi da jeste sada pevao drugu pesmu.Ako gospodin vec glumi velikog politicara onda treba da se igra sa kartama koje su podeljene, a to je da je rat tamo u punom jeku. Imam utisak da vecina onih koji su protiv intervencije stavljaju sebe na neki moralni pijedestal - kao da se tamo bira izmedju intervencije i "mira u svetu". Ja takodje ne bih za sebe rekao da sam za intervenciju, ali ovo nije tema koju treba tek tako simplifikovati zbog jeftinih poena u javnosti. Edited September 2, 2013 by Eraserhead

[bergasa19]

Zabranjeno je reci da je protiv rata jer vuce traume iz detinjstva, a da mu se ne nakaci neko sa ovako stupidnim pitanjem kao sto je bilo tvoje?

[dillinger]

Nole je preziveo bombardovanje, ali Nole nije bio Albanac sa Kosova u to vreme tako da ne zna tu stranu price. Mozda bi da jeste sada pevao drugu pesmu.Ako gospodin vec glumi velikog politicara onda treba da se igra sa kartama koje su podeljene, a to je da je rat tamo u punom jeku. Imam utisak da vecina onih koji su protiv intervencije stavljaju sebe na neki moralni pijedestal - kao da se tamo bira izmedju intervencije i "mira u svetu". Ja takodje ne bih za sebe rekao da sam za intervenciju, ali ovo nije tema koju treba tek tako simplifikovati zbog jeftinih poena u javnosti.

Đovakov mir u svetu jednako je daleko od suštine koliko i tvoje pozivanje na (još uvek nedokazanu) upotrebu nervnog gasa

[Eraserhead]

Zabranjeno je reci da je protiv rata jer vuce traume iz detinjstva, a da mu se ne nakaci neko sa ovako stupidnim pitanjem kao sto je bilo tvoje?

Svako normalan je protiv rata, ali rat je VEC tamo. Nece bez intervencije rat nestati u nistavilu.Nije dilema intervencija ili mir.

Đovakov mir u svetu jednako je daleko od suštine koliko i tvoje pozivanje na (još uvek nedokazanu) upotrebu nervnog gasa

Slazem se. Zato to i jeste bio komentar. Edited September 2, 2013 by Eraserhead

[bergasa19]

Svako normalan je protiv rata, ali rat je VEC tamo. Nece bez intervencije rat nestati u nistavilu.Nije dilema intervencija ili mir.Slazem se. Zato to i jeste bio komentar.

Ti nisi pogledao video snimak?

[Muwan]

Realno, tu duboku filozofiju o ratu kao jednom velikom besmislu u kojem nema pobednika mogao je da iznese pre dve godine, prošle godine ili pre šest meseci, dok su desetine hiljada ljudi ginule a stotine hiljada dece odlazile u izbeglištvo. Malo mi je pglu taj antiratni angažman koji se javlja tek kada i Amerikanci hoće malo da se igraju rata a pre i posle toga nismo u stanju da primetimo rat taman da nam se u dnevnu sobu usred gledanja Farme uparkira tenk koji na kupoli nosi neonski natpis dimenzija 4x4m: "U SIRIJI VEĆ DVE GODINE TRAJE UŽASAN RAT U KOJEM NEMA POBEDNIKA".