Bajden - jedno staro i očekivano presidency?

[Ivo Petović]

12 minutes ago, Redoran said:

 

Mesčini da je, barem delom, upravo kubanska kriza odnosno vrhunac hladnog rata inspirisao ovakve govore. Kada uživo prođeš kroz onih "13 dana" gde je samo ludom srećom izbegnuto uništenje planete a nama koji ovo pišemo data šansa da postojimo, onda je vrlo verovatno da ćeš, kada se situacija smiri, veoma intenzivno razmišljati o nekom trajnom i sveobuhvatnom miru. Toga danas nema jer današnji političari nemaju sveže utiske takvog tipa. Nuklearni rat je nekada bio svetska opasnost broj jedan, danas su to klimatske promene i par drugih stvari. Koliko god da su SAD i Rusija svesni nuklearnog bremena koje nose, toj svesti ipak nedostaje neki stvaran scenario reda veličine kubanske krize, jer to su događaji koji podstiču političare na ozbiljno razmišljanje ili dovode na vlast neke drugačije političare. Sve dok su te stvari u domenu teorije i dva predsednika ne osećaju realnu opasnost da njihova deca i svi koji im nešto znače ispare ispod termonuklearne pečurke, biće prostora da se vrte i recikliraju raznorazne prazne priče bez ikakvog suštinskog iskoraka.

 

Ima tu verovatno još podosta faktora koji bi objasnili zašto je onda bio JFK a danas je Bajden, samo mi je ovaj nuklearni nekako baš snažno došao u misli.

 

Ima i toga, naravno. Štaviše, mislim da je taj relativni mir i prosperitet koji svet (makar većina) uživa od 1945.g. na ovamo, kao i činjenica da su tu već generacije i generacije ljudi koji se ne sećaju zla nacizma, niti imaju pojma kako je do toga došlo, jedan od gllavnih razloga i zašto je svet u nekim segmentima otišao u kurac  Kao što je veći deo Evrope (minus mučeni Balkan), neke  1912.g. uživao najdužih 42 godine mira na kontinentu, naveći ekonomski procvat i sve, pa su se dve godine kasnije ubijali na angro i rokali hemisjkim oružjima, zato što je, da pojednostavim...jedan od careva imao kraću levu ruku i bio iskompleksiran zbog toga (ok, ima tu i nešto malo imperijalizma)

 

Opet špekulacija, ali realno je Kenedi i najzaslužniji što je Kuba prošla tako kako je prošla. Da li bi Nikson postupio isto, to je pitanje? Sad već znamo dosta toga o Niksonu.

 

 

Edited June 18, 2021 by Ivo Petović

[namenski]

2 minutes ago, Ivo Petović said:

 

To za Vijetnam je baš interesantno - svi izvori kažu da je, pred kraj 1963.g, Amerikanaca tamo bilo svega oko 16k. Takođe JFK je negde u septembru 1963.g. u intervjuu Kronkajtu najavio njihovo povlačenje. Naravno, to je bilo pre Diemovog ubistva - ko zna šta bi bilo posle toga, čak i sa JFK, tako da je sve ostalo špekulacija.

Slazem se, ali verovatno, ja verujem bez spekulacije, da je novi, podmladjeni duh koji je JFK uneo u americku politiku i uopsta drsutvo, krio u sebi i klicu sopstvene propasti (mozda je ovo prejaka rec): ekipa Maknamara i ostalog drustva zacela je tehnokratski, RAND pristup politici koji je sirom otvorio vrata takozvanom vojnoindustrijskom kompleksu, a eskalacija u Vijetnamu isturila Pentagon i njegove generalske  nacine razmisljanja u prvi plan, povecavajuci im znacaj i uticaj do neslucenih visina, sto, siguran sam, JFK nije imao na umu.

U toj fazi su, mozda, stvari sto se Amerike, a i sire tice krenule u pravcu u kome su danas.

Kubanska kriza nije bila vrhunac Hladnog rata: ona je samo^tm suocila vodjstva obe supersile sa cinjenicom da pobednika nema niti moze biti i i jedne i druge naucila suptilnoj vestini hodanja po ivici i jos suptilnijoj vestini hendlovanja nuzde da se ta ivica niposto ne sme preci: svaka strana je, naravno, vodjena svojim interesima, potrazila i nasla sopstvene odgovore na taj izazov.

Spekulacija, i to dosta osnovana je, da li bi se da je JFK potrajao, neki procesi u svetu, uklucujuci i breznjevizaciju kao recidiv staljinizma mozda drugacije odvijali i to na sveopstu korist.

[namenski]

9 minutes ago, Ivo Petović said:

Opet špekulacija, ali realno je Kenedi i najzaslužniji što je Kuba prošla tako kako je prošla. 

Mislim da ovde gresis: Kuba je bukvalno gurnuta u narucje CCCP, sa sve pratecim posledicama, ne toliko zbog JFK, nego zbog jos neumrlog duha primitivnog makartijevsko-dalsovskog antikomunizma kome JFK sigurno nije bio sklon.

Naravno, daleko od toga da je bio simpatizer , ali je mi se cini da je sa tretmanom Kube bukvalno naseo na podmetnuto mu kukavicje jaje.

[Redoran]

19 minutes ago, Ivo Petović said:

 

To za Vijetnam je baš interesantno - svi izvori kažu da je, pred kraj 1963.g, Amerikanaca tamo bilo svega oko 16k. Takođe JFK je negde u septembru 1963.g. u intervjuu Kronkajtu najavio njihovo povlačenje. Naravno, to je bilo pre Diemovog ubistva - ko zna šta bi bilo posle toga, čak i sa JFK, tako da je sve ostalo špekulacija.

 

I meni nešto u sećanju stoji da je ono pravo omasovljavanje u Vijetnamu krenulo tek posle atentata tj. išlo je preko Lindona Džonsona a ne JFK.

[Ivo Petović]

@namenski

 

Mislio sam na krizu 1962.g tj na činjenicu da se sad uopšte dopisujemo ovde

Edited June 18, 2021 by Ivo Petović

[namenski]

10 minutes ago, Ivo Petović said:

Mislio sam na krizu 1962.g tj na činjenicu da se sad uopšte dopisujemo ovde

 

Preterujes: Kuba je i jedne i druge naucila u praksi da na kraju, kao ishod svake krize stoji mogucnost opste kataklizme.

I da se svaka buduca politika, svaka kriza ima voditi imajuci to na umu i to je vestina koju su oba vodjstva savladala do savrsenstva i sto nas je, verovatno, u nekoliko navrata spaslo.

Razularenost kojom su snage koje sam pomenuo, krajem 70-ih krenule u razmestanje Pershing-a, krstarecih, uzdizanje u nebesa takozvane neutronske bombe kao ciste  posledica je upravo gubljenja kontrole nad snagama koje je JFK i u govoru koji si postavio, ako nista drugo i za pocetak - identifikovao.

Sto posle njega nije bio sposoban da uradi ni jedan americki predsednik.

 

Edit: sve do tacke pocetkom 80-ih kada je jedan od novokomponovanih, Regan, javno iskoracio sa takozvanim Ratom zvezda i najavom pobede u Hladnom ratu po svaku cenu, igra koja je mogla da se zavrsi poprilicno krvavije da je u CCCP dosla, prigrabila vlast struja koja bi (a bilo je perioda kada je na to mirisalo) najozbiljnije razmotrila - preventivni udar kao odgovor na beznadezno tehnolosko zaostajanje.

Edited June 18, 2021 by namenski

[Ivo Petović]

5 minutes ago, Redoran said:

 

I meni nešto u sećanju stoji da je ono pravo omasovljavanje u Vijetnamu krenulo tek posle atentata tj. išlo je preko Lindona Džonsona a ne JFK.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Action_Memorandum_263

 

Umeju američki levičari, u svojoj poštenoj antimperijalističkoj borbi, pomalo da zahvate preširoko, da ne kažem da lupaju svašta i sve trpaju u isti koš.

 

Tako npr i Čomski, kojeg svi volimo, kad je davao objašnjenje za svoju izjavu da su svi USA predsednici od 1945.g. naovamo ratni zločinci, za JFK je naveo eskalaciju u Vijetnamu (ok, tu može da se nategne neki labavi slučaj), dok je za Kartera (koji nije počeo nijedan rat i arhitekta je najvećeg mira na bliskom istoku ikad) je naveo da je odobrio neku prodaju oružja Indoneziji, za invaziju na istočni Timor, a sa tim oružjem su vršeni zločini..kao i da je, glavna stvar  za osudu, paj sad, mir u Kemp Dejvidu u stvari loš, zato što je Izrael od toga novca finansirao svoju vojsku i dalju agresiju na BI. Argument oboriv sa petinom mozga i dve pročitane knjige.

[Gojko & Stojko]

 

Pogled iz Australije na završeni G7, ali trebalo bi da bude interesantan i na severnoj hemisferi, kako Bajden tretira saveznike koji su se šlepovali za vreme prethodnog mandata. U našem slučaju posebno iritirajući Skot Morison

A PM running on Trump time risks getting left behind by Biden

Scott Morrison thought he had a relatively easy choice to make on climate change at the G7 summit in Cornwall last weekend. In his mind, there was an acceptable position between action and inaction that would assure Australia’s allies of our good intentions and appease his government’s junior Coalition partner, which wants nothing to do with the G7’s agenda.

 

To that end, the Prime Minister used the summit to sign new partnerships on clean energy technology and hydrogen with Japan and Germany, respectively the world’s third and fourth largest economies, while refusing to sign up to the G7’s ambitious targets to halve greenhouse emissions by 2030 and achieve net zero emissions by 2050. He also stayed on in London to strike a free trade agreement with Boris Johnson, Britain’s first such deal since leaving the European Union. In any other age, Morrison’s overseas trip would be big news; a sign of Australian relevance on the global stage.

 

Unfortunately, Joe Biden had no time for the PM’s attempt to chart a middle course on climate change and pointedly avoided a one-on-one meeting with Morrison. It was not the greatest snub an Australian leader has faced from a US president on climate change. Barack Obama, who Biden served as vice president, famously embarrassed Tony Abbott when the Liberal prime minister hosted the G20 summit in Brisbane in 2014. Obama used a speech to students at the University of Queensland urging Australia to step up on climate change.

 

Abbott could console himself that Obama’s agenda was being blocked by a Republican-controlled Senate, and that Canada, the country most like ours in terms of its economic dependency on resources, was still a member of the sceptics club at the time. But Morrison does not have that partisan luxury. Unlike Obama, Biden leads a credible, and accelerating, global push for net zero with every rich nation, including Canada, on board.

 

In Morrison’s version of events, it was his idea to arrange a three-way meeting with the US President and British Prime Minister, the host of the G7 summit.

 

“The President has a busy schedule at these meetings, and he was very generous with his time,” Morrison explained to reporters on Monday. “And we also had the opportunity to speak one on one to each other at that meeting as well and afterwards.”

 

That may be so. Once Morrison knew that Biden had no interest in seeing him on his own, he did well to arrange a backup meeting via Johnson on a concern of mutual interest – security in the Indo-Pacific.

 

 

 

Yet there is every reason to believe that Biden was still sending a clear message to Morrison.

 

Australia was one four countries invited to join the core members of the G7, the US, Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Canada, and the permanent guest, the European Union. The other guests were India, South Korea and South Africa.

 

India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi could not attend because of the ongoing coronavirus crisis at home, while Biden had already hosted South Korean President Moon Jae-in at the White House last month, where they talked about North Korea and climate change. That left Morrison and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa as the two leaders whom Biden had not met going into the summit. Guess who got the one-on-one? Ramaphosa, because as the official readout from his June 13 meeting with Biden showed, he was prepared “to cooperate [with the US] on climate goals in Africa”. The readout of the trilateral meeting between Johnson, Biden and Morrison on June 12 made no mention of climate change. But Johnson did nag Morrison afterwards at their free trade joint press conference.

 

That Biden takes climate change seriously would not be a surprise to Morrison. What may have given the Prime Minister cause for concern is that Biden sees action as a key plank of restoring international respect for the US after the four long years of Donald Trump’s presidency.

 

Speaking to reporters last Sunday, June 13, after the release of the G7 communique, Biden noted that fellow leaders had thanked him for “recognis[ing] that there is global warming”.

 

“And I know that sounds silly, but, you know, we had a President who last — who basically said it’s not a problem — global warming. It is the existential problem facing humanity, and it’s being treated that way.”

 

When Morrison was asked if he agreed with the G7 that climate change was, indeed, an existential threat he waffled: “Well, of course, we heard today from David Attenborough and I mean, the science on these matters, we understand all very well. And what is more important now, as I’ve been saying for some period of time, the destination is clear. I’ve made it very clear that we are moving towards net zero.”

 

Morrison hedges at the risk of alienating Biden because the National Party won’t support net zero. As the Nationals Senate leader Bridget McKenzie told Alan Jones on Sky News this week: “We will not let our people be put under the bus to chase some fake ambition to appease overseas masters.”

 

Here in Australia, it seems we still want to run on Trump time.

 

This should worry Morrison because Biden has no tolerance for that brand of politics.

 

Biden isn’t just resetting America’s relations with the autocrats like Russia’s Vladimir Putin, who took advantage of Trump. He is re-schooling the democratic leaders who mimicked Trump, namely Johnson and Morrison.

 

Biden had once described Johnson as the “physical and emotional clone” of Trump. While there were no hard feelings between the two at the G7, Biden still drew a red line with Johnson on the British leader’s most Trumpian policy, Brexit.

 

Biden’s administration warned Johnson ahead of his own one-on-one meeting with the President, via an authorised briefing to The Times newspaper, that Brexit should not be allowed to undermine the 1998 Good Friday peace agreement in Northern Ireland. Biden’s people have gone as far as telling Johnson that a free trade deal between the US and the United Kingdom is off the table if the peace agreement collapses over a dispute about the Irish border.

 

It is worth underlining this point: Biden is playing hardball with Johnson, even as the two are tag-teaming Morrison on climate change.

 

The question for Morrison is what Biden might have in mind if his Coalition government continues to avoid the issue of climate change?

 

Biden might sympathise with Morrison’s domestic dilemma. After all, the US President is walking on eggshells in the US Senate, where Democrat Senator Joe Manchin, who represents West Virginia, the nation’s largest employer of coal miners, holds the effective balance of power.

 

But why should Biden give Australia a free pass when Canada is committed to net zero?

 

The US may always be the guarantor of our security. But it does not owe us a living, and Biden is shaping up as the president who might just make us pay if we continue to prevaricate on climate change.

 

George Megalogenis

 

SaE

[iDemo]

Biden tells Putin certain cyberattacks should be 'off-limits'.

 

Quote

Biden wasn't explicit about which areas he wanted out of bounds, but spoke of 16 kinds of infrastructure - an apparent reference to the 16 sectors designated as critical by the U.S. Homeland Security Department, including telecommunications, healthcare, food and energy.

 

[mustang]

 

 

Ovo se desi kad se debili vode emocijama i kada te mrznja obuzme. I sto je najgore, bajdenovci bolesnici nisu sposobnosti da rezonuju sta se desava. 

 

 

 

Edited July 15, 2021 by mustang

[braca]

https://theprint.in/world/now-trump-blames-obama-and-biden-for-all-the-crises-hes-facing/448790/

[Redoran]

Ko hoće da piše o prošlogodišnjim izborima i glasovima, postoji posebna tema za to. Ko hoće da piše o Trampu, i on ima svoju temu. Ovo je tema o predsedniku Bajdenu.

 

Za sada prebacujemo postove gde treba, a ako se ovo fladovanje nastavi preći ćemo na brisanje.

[mustang]

 

Znamo. Znamo. Srecom postoji rumble

 

 

Edited July 16, 2021 by mustang

[Ivo Petović]

Evo ga predsednik Bajden, o Avganistanu i spoljnoj politici, based as ever, taman za beowla (od 1:50 najinteresantniji deo) 

 

 

 

Edited July 16, 2021 by Ivo Petović

[3opge]

 

treba evakuisati 70000 ljudi iz Avganistana koji su saradjivali sa Amerima.

talibani su vec pobili dosta njih.