Sirija

[Bane5]

@Schmeling,nisi morao ceo moj post da kopras da bi ilustrovao sa ovim snimkom, ali mozda to za tebe ima nekog smisla.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Bane5

[Budja]

Umesto drugova Symeta i Kima, postavljam Slavujka koji dogadjaje tumaci u kljucu na koji smo vec navikli na forumu (Drug Kim) mada deluje logicno:

Syria is a pseudo-struggleThe ongoing struggle we see is a false one, lacking the kind of radical-emancipatory opposition clearly perceptible in EgyptAll that was false in the idea and practice of humanitarian interventions exploded in a condensed form apropos Syria. OK, there is a bad dictator who is (allegedly) using poisonous gas against the population of his own state – but who is opposing his regime? It seems that whatever remained of the democratic-secular resistance is now more or less drowned in the mess of fundamentalist Islamist groups supported by Turkey and Saudi Arabia, with a strong presence of al-Qaida in the shadows.As to Bashar al-Assad, his Syria at least pretended to be a secular state, so no wonder Christian and other minorities now tend to take his side against the Sunni rebels. In short, we are dealing with an obscure conflict, vaguely resembling the Libyan revolt against Colonel Gaddafi – there are no clear political stakes, no signs of a broad emancipatory-democratic coalition, just a complex network of religious and ethnic alliances overdetermined by the influence of superpowers (US and western Europe on the one side, Russia and China on the other). In such conditions, any direct military intervention means political madness with incalculable risks – say, what if radical Islamists take over after Assad's fall? So will the US repeat their Afghanistan mistake of arming the future al-Qaida and Taliban cadres?In such a messy situation, military intervention can only be justified by a short-term self-destructive opportunism. The moral outrage evoked to provide a rational cover for the compulsion-to-intervene ("We cannot allow the use of poisonous gas on civil population!") is fake . Faced with a weird ethics that justifies taking side of one fundamentalist-criminal group against another, one cannot but sympathise with Ron Paul's reaction to John McCain's advocacy of strong intervention: "With politicians like these, who needs terrorists?"The situation in Syria should be compared with the one in Egypt. Now that the Egyptian army has decided to break the stalemate and cleanse the public space of the Islamist protesters, and the result is hundreds, maybe thousands, of dead, one should take a step back and focus on the absent third party in the ongoing conflict: where are the agents of the Tahrir Square protests from two years ago? Is their role now not weirdly similar to the role of Muslim Brotherhood back then – that of the surprised impassive observers? With the military coup in Egypt, it seems as if the circle has somehow closed: the protesters who toppled Mubarak, demanding democracy, passively supported a military coup d'etat which abolished democracy … what is going on?The most common reading was proposed, among others, by Francis Fukuyama: the protest movement that toppled Mubarak was predominantly the revolt of the educated middle class, with the poor workers and farmers reduced to the role of (sympathetic) observers. But once the gates of democracy were open, the Muslim Brotherhood, whose social base are the poor majority, won democratic elections and formed a government dominated by Muslim fundamentalists, so that, understandably, the original core of secular protesters turned against them and was ready to endorse even a military coup as a way to stop them.But such a simplified vision ignores a key feature of the protest movement: the explosion of heterogeneous organisations (of students, women and workers) in which civil society began to articulate its interests outside the scope of state and religious institutions. This vast network of new social units, much more than the overthrow of Mubarak, is the principal gain of the Arab spring; it is an ongoing process, independent of big political changes like the coup; it goes deeper than the religious/liberal divide.Even in the case of clearly fundamentalist movements, one should be careful not to miss their social component. The Taliban are regularly presented as a fundamentalist Islamist group enforcing with terror its rule – however, when, in the spring of 2009, they took over the Swat valley in Pakistan, the New York Times reported that they engineered "a class revolt that exploits profound fissures between a small group of wealthy landlords and their landless tenants". If, however, by "taking advantage" of the farmers' plight, the Taliban "[raised] alarm about the risks to Pakistan, which remains largely feudal", what prevented liberal democrats in Pakistan as well as the US from similarly "taking advantage" of this plight and trying to help the landless farmers? The sad implication of this omission is that the feudal forces in Pakistan are the "natural ally" of the liberal democracy … The only way for the civil-democratic protesters to avoid being sidestepped by religious fundamentalists is thus to adopt a much more radical agenda of social and economic emancipation.And this brings us back to Syria: the ongoing struggle there is ultimately a false one. The only thing to keep in mind is that this pseudo-struggle thrives because of the absent third, a strong radical-emancipatory opposition whose elements were clearly perceptible in Egypt. As we used to say almost half a century ago, one doesn't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows in Syria: towards Afghanistan. Even if Assad somehow wins and stabilises the situation, his victory will probably breed an explosion similar to the Taliban revolution which will sweep over Syria in a couple of years. What can save us from this prospect is only the radicalisation of the struggle for freedom and democracy into a struggle for social and economic justice.So what is happening in Syria these days? Nothing really special, except that China is one step closer to becoming the world's new superpower while its competitors are eagerly weakening each other.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk Edited September 6, 2013 by Budja

[Budja]

I jedan sramotno los clanak Niala Fergusona, konfuzan, bez glave i repa, sve je tu Turci, Milosevic, Prvi svetski rat, levica u naslovu (ali je nigde u tekstu nema)... uz konstantu da je do jaja kada SAD napada po svetu.

The left's irrational fear of American interventionIn Syria, as elsewhere, US military might is the best available means of preventing crimes against humanityNot for the first time, human rights violations by a Middle Eastern tyrant pose a dilemma for leftists on both sides of the Atlantic. On the one hand, they don't like reading about people being gassed. On the other, they are deeply reluctant to will the means to end the killing, for fear of acknowledging that western – meaning, in practice, American – military power can be a force for good.Ever since the 1990s, when the United States finally bestirred itself to end the post-Yugoslav violence in the Balkans, I have made three arguments that the left cannot abide. The first is that American military power is the best available means of preventing crimes against humanity. The second is that, unfortunately, the US is a reluctant "liberal empire" because of three deficits: of manpower, money and attention. And the third is that, when it retreats from global hegemony, we shall see more not less violence.More recently, almost exactly year ago, I was lambasted for arguing that Barack Obama's principal weaknesses were a tendency to defer difficult decisions to Congress and a lack of coherent strategy in the Middle East. Events have confirmed the predictive power of all this analysis.To the isolationists on both left and right, Obama's addiction to half- and quarter-measures is just fine – anything rather than risk "another Iraq". But such complacency (not to say callousness) understates the danger of the dynamics at work in the Middle East today. Just because the US is being led by the geopolitical equivalent of Hamlet doesn't mean stasis on the global stage. On the contrary, the less the US does, the more rapidly the region changes, as the various actors jostle for position in a post-American Middle East.Syria today is in the process of being partitioned. Note that something similar has already happened in Iraq. What we are witnessing is not just the end of the Middle East of the 1970s. This could be the end of the Middle East of the 1920s. The borders of today, as is well known, can be traced back to the work of British and French diplomats during the first world war. The infamous Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 was the first of a series of steps that led to the breakup of the Ottoman empire and the creation of the states we know today as Syria and Iraq, as well as Jordan, Lebanon and Israel.As we approach the centenary of the outbreak of the first world war, there is no obvious reason why these states should all survive in their present form.It is tempting to think of this as a re-Ottomanisation process, as the region reverts to its pre-1914 borders. But it may be more accurate to see this as a second Yugoslavia, with sectarian conflict leading to "ethnic cleansing" and a permanent redrawing of the maps. In the case of Bosnia and Kosovo, it took another Democrat US president an agonisingly long time to face up to the need for intervention. But he eventually did. I would not be surprised to see a repeat performance if that president's wife should end up succeeding Obama in the White House. After all, there is strong evidence to suggest Obama agreed to the original chemical weapons "red line" only under pressure from Hillary Clinton's state department.Yet the president may not be able to sustain his brand of minimalist interventionism until 2016. While all eyes are focused on chemical weapons in Syria, the mullahs in Iran continue with their efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. The latest IAEA report on this subject makes for disturbing reading. I find it hard to believe that even the pusillanimous Obama would be able to ignore evidence that Tehran had crossed that red line, even if it was drawn by the Israeli prime minister rather than by him.The Iranian factor is one of a number of key differences between the break up of Yugoslavia and the breakup of countries like Syria and Iraq.The Middle East is not the Balkans. The population is larger, younger, poorer and less educated. The forces of radical Islam are far more powerful. It is impossible to identify a single "bad guy" in the way that Slobodan Milosevic became the west's bete noire. And there are multiple regional players – Iran, Turkey, the Saudis, as well as the Russians – with deep pockets and serious military capabilities. All in all, the end of pan-Arabism is a much scarier process than the end of pan-Slavism. And the longer the US dithers, the bigger the sectarian conflicts in the region are likely to become.The proponents of non-intervention – or, indeed, of ineffectual intervention – need to face a simple reality. Inaction is a policy that also has consequences measurable in terms of human life. The assumption that there is nothing worse in the world than American empire is an article of leftwing faith. It is not supported by the historical record.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/06/left-irrational-fear-us-intervention-syria

[kenedi]

a ima neka tekma?

[Roger Sanchez]

Bio je nalik Siriji da bi taj gad dosao. Hoces reci da je Augusto Pinoce sustinski demokratizovao Cile?

Sirija je bila nalik Čileu 1973. u 9 godini Bashar-ćaćinog režima. I naravno da ga nije demokratizirao - ne podmeći tako bijedno - nego je otišao s vlasti bez krvi i razaranja.

[harper lee]

Sirija je bila nalik Čileu 1973. u 9 godini Bashar-ćaćinog režima. I naravno da ga nije demokratizirao - ne podmeći tako bijedno - nego je otišao s vlasti bez krvi i razaranja.

I Milosevic je otisao s vlasti bez krvi i razaranja pa to ne abolira onoliku krv i razaranje dok je bio na vlasti.Poenta nije u tome kako je Pinoce otisao vec kako je dosao na vlast. No, nije bitno, tiranin Aljende se vec odavno ohladio. Ono sto je za mene bitno je to sto imam problem da razumem logiku po kojoj je moralno ispravno vojno se angazovati protiv tiranina kako bi se potom "demokratski i u normalnim okolnostima" dovela na vlast razna Muslimanska Braca, talibani i ostale Al-Kaide, na opste odusevljenje gradjana Sirije drugacijeg ili blazeg verskog opredeljenja. Hej, ali necemo se valjda baviti time sta ljudi biraju na "slobodnim" izborima? Egipat je bar imao vojsku da u krvi ugusi tu i takvu "demokratizaciju". <_<

[Eraserhead]

Uopste ne vidim da su Ameri doveli MB na vlast u Egiptu. Sta vise, deluje da ih je cela stvar docekala nepripremljene i da su se jako dugo drzali po strani nesigurni kako zapravo treba da reaguju.

[harper lee]

Uopste ne vidim da su Ameri doveli MB na vlast u Egiptu. Sta vise, deluje da ih je cela stvar docekala nepripremljene i da su se jako dugo drzali po strani nesigurni kako zapravo treba da reaguju.

Pa, nisu se ni vojno angazovali. Ta recenica sa Egiptom je malo van konteksta posta.

[Gandalf]

1. Ne budi smesan i citaj sta pisem. Intervencija koja sluzi da se zaustavi rat je OK, intervencija koja sluzi da bi nafte uvek gladne zapadne kompanije uvecale profit nisu OK. kakav god da im je kolateral.2. Ne budi smesan x 2. Tens of thousands Cuban troops u vlasnistvu jednog karipskog despota koji pomazu lokalnim ili regionalnim subjektima u jednoj bici nisu nikakva medjunarodna intervencija.

1. procitao ponovo, i prilicno je jasno da sam ispravno protumacio prvi put (citat u spojleru). da li ovo naknadno "pojasnjenje" menja sustinski ista? obzirom da nikada nece postojati intervencija kojom ce se pokusati zaustaviti rat, vec ce svaka intervencija predstavljati ovaj ili onaj interes intervencionista!?2. par 10K Kubanaca koji su se celu deceniju i kusur tukli u juznoj Africi je ojha vojna intervencija. mozda nije medjunarodna, ali jeste vojna. zato su juznoafrikanci i najebali onako nakon pada aparthejda - ne pravi se demokratija na taj nacin, uz pomoc despota i njegove vojske.

Zasto je toliko tesko poverovati da postoje ljudi koji imaju principijelan stav o bilo kojoj intervenciji koji se zadrzava na "treba - ne treba"? Moje misljenje je da ne treba sve dok se ne uspostavi medjunarodno-pravni okvir koji ce tretirati teske zloupotrebe vlasti u pojedinim drzavama. Svestan sam da verovatno nikada nece doci do toga da ce se taj okvir moci primenjivati bas na sve drzave i da ce supersile uvek biti iznad toga ali mi govorimo o tri ili cetiri drzave koje bi bile izuzete od nekih dvestotinak koliko ih ima, pa to i nije toliko bitno. Bez tog okvira mislim da ne treba vojno da intervenise niko i nigde jer postoji vrlo verovatna bojazan da ljudski zivot vise kosta ukoliko se radi o ljudima koji zive na atraktivnoj resursnoj ili geopolitickoj lokaciji...U slucaju da se nikada ne uspostavi taj okvir o kojem govorim, moj je stav, koliko god zvucao cinicno, da stvari treba prepustiti evoluciji.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Gandalf

[Gandalf]

Primer je JAKO los.Ovde je rec o JA koja intervenise po Namibiji i Angoli, a ne Kubancima koji napadaju JA.

ovde se ne radi o nekakvim usporedbama i paralelama.ja sam reagovao na ono sto je napisao harper - sam Mandela je misljenja da je kubanska vojna intervencija znacajno doprinela padu aparthejda. u tom ratu su kubanski saveznici bili i pripadnici Umkhonto ve Sizve, vojnog krila ANC.

[Budja]

ovde se ne radi o nekakvim usporedbama i paralelama.ja sam reagovao na ono sto je napisao harper - sam Mandela je misljenja da je kubanska vojna intervencija znacajno doprinela padu aparthejda. u tom ratu su kubanski saveznici bili i pripadnici Umkhonto ve Sizve, vojnog krila ANC.

Lose si reagovao jer nisi demantovao Harpera.Aparthejd se jeste unistio sam od sebe. Juzna Afrika je ratovala vani, a nije bila napadnuta. Niko ih nije bio po usima.Dakle, Harper je u pravu.Kao sto niko nije tukao vojnu huntu u Argentini da napada Malvine, i time izgubi podrsku i Amera i susednog diktatora. (Slicno ali u manjoj meri svakako moze se reci i za SSSR i Aganistan)E, sad, zasto i ti pribegavas zameni teza tako sto agresiju na jednu zemlju (Siria) izjednacavas sa agresijom koju zemljva vrsi napolju (Juzna Afrika), ne znam.

[Indy]

levica u naslovu (ali je nigde u tekstu nema)...

Naslov je sam po sebi zanimljiv kao pozoriste. Niti je strah od intervencije iracionalan (dapace), niti ima neke narocite veze sa tzv levicom.

[bradilko]

Uopste ne vidim da su Ameri doveli MB na vlast u Egiptu. Sta vise, deluje da ih je cela stvar docekala nepripremljene i da su se jako dugo drzali po strani nesigurni kako zapravo treba da reaguju.

potpuno si u pravu ali sad su se ameri dozvali u pamet i krenuli utabanim stazama.jebeno lepo.@Gandalf spoilerkakvo prosipanje!jesi svestan sta si napisao?okvir treba da postoji za sve,bez jebenog izbora!!latentni velikosrb!ovo kao uvreda jednostavnaevolucija je li?sjajnono te izdasne savrsene demokracije,da li su oni generatori tih "nekoliko problematicnih' rezima na planetu?je li to sloboda iz reklama ili skole?bez ikakve kriticne misli ni u tragovima.jasni su bili tzv anti-bilo sta iz 70-ih i 80-ih,mnogo cemera, ali danas?ee ti jurisnice,koliko si ti jednostran,samo to.

[francuski sobar]

U međuvremenu, Putin zavodi G20 raskalašnošću...

Nevezano za ovo orgijanje, očit je jak uticaj domaćeg terena na tok i zaključke tog samita. Već u Vilnusu i po povratku kućama čuje se druga pesma.Tako mislim da dugoročno nije pametno za US da preskače UN i SB jer je First Avenue vruć domaći teren, sam po sebi zaslužan za brojne diplomatske pobede.

Mogo bi, ne daj bože, Vuk ili neko luđi jednom stavit na glasanje preslenje hedkvotera negde drugo. Ajd dobro ne bi se on sad ko ni ja odreko svog NY apartmančića al šta znam možda mu se posle mundijala dopadne Rio recimo.

[angern]

Stratedžik marketing