Izdržao sam negde do polovine Obaminog naklapanja, više nisam mogao. Previše licemerja u jednom tekstu.
Iako znam da je dotični samo maneken, ili glumac u najnovijem američkom rialiti šou, ne mogu, a da ne osetim gađenje nad ovakvim govorima, i nad činjenicom da se "nagrada za mir" dodeljuje takvim "veličinama" poput njega, Ahtisarija i Gora...
Ako se ne varam, i Hitler beše predložen za Nobela, pre nego što je napravio malu grešku koja mu je pokvarila imidž.
Preporuke:
0
0
3
subota, 12 decembar 2009 18:36
Ala
Ma ,sve neki pozeri.Ala su se sekretari namucili da napisu ovakav dosadn i dugacak humanitarni" govor.
Prebrzo se uziveo u ulogu.
Preporuke:
0
0
4
nedelja, 13 decembar 2009 03:09
Aleksandar
And most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan.
There is no evidence of that. Quite to the contrary, the extremist elements in the Islamic world were generated by enormous investment made by the US under Carter's administration and beyond. There is no Islamic terrorism beyond those CIA assets, required for false flag operations and "justifying" aggressions against in advance targeted countries and regions.
In today's wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers;
US is responsible for most deaths in wars since the end of Cold War. That civilians die more than soldiers has to do with the way US is fighting wars against weaker nations using air power and bombing from high altitudes. This was clear in 1999 during aggression against Yugoslavia where targets were mostly nonmilitary, civilian infrastructure, as well as in both gulf wars against Iraq.
... drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War...recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.
There is nothing in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights--which is by the way nonbinding, just a declaration—that could possibly suggest that appeals to protection of human rights—allegedly being abused in some country according to some vague source, such as an international NGO or a powerful government, could render aggression decriminalized under the guise of the oxymoronic "humanitarian (military) intervention."
Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace.
If post-World War II is the subject, could it be that this newfound European peace had more to do with the stability of Cold War in the bipolar power structure of that period. Certainly, it had nothing to do with respect for human rights.
Preporuke:
0
0
5
nedelja, 13 decembar 2009 03:24
Aleksandar #2
Billions have been lifted from poverty.
Absolutely not true. Poverty has increased, particularly since Cold War ended, as a result of neoliberal economics of the Washington consensus.
And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.
What is wrong with old ways, proclaiming aggression as the supreme crime in international law?
There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.
But not as aggression, there is no morally justified aggression, no matter how much US invests in the propaganda turn its imperialist aggressions into morally justified wars.
So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace.
Contradiction in terms. War is not peace, and war does not contribute to peace because (trite but true) war is war.
I -- like any head of state -- reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation.
Only in case of a defensive war you would be right, and unilateral or not irrelevant entirely.
The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense.
But Afghanistan did not attack the US, and even if we agree it did atack on a single day with four airplanes, this could not possibly justify eight years and counting of an ongoing occupation.
Furthermore, America -- in fact, no nation -- can insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don't, our actions appear arbitrary and undercut the legitimacy of future interventions, no matter how justified.
No intervention is legitimate. Legitimacy, whatever it is, cannot render what is illegal—aggression—legal.
Preporuke:
0
0
6
nedelja, 13 decembar 2009 15:13
KninjaNIN
Gospodine Bariću,jeste li dobro?Fale mi vaši komentari..Javite se ponekad...
Preporuke:
0
0
7
ponedeljak, 14 decembar 2009 06:35
Kiza
Pare za Nobelovu nagradu dolaze, izmedju ostalog, jos uvek i od eksploziva. I dok spin-doktori tvrde da su to eksplozivi za rudarske i slicne potrebe, istina je da jedna od Nobelovih kompanija proizvodi eksploziv za americke Hellfire rakete kojima americke bespilotne letelice vrse atentate i ubijaju civile po Pakistanu i Afganistanu. Time se lepo zatvara krug cele price: rat je mir, borba za slobodu je terorizam, a dobitnici nagrade za mir su ...
.jpg)
Iako znam da je dotični samo maneken, ili glumac u najnovijem američkom rialiti šou, ne mogu, a da ne osetim gađenje nad ovakvim govorima, i nad činjenicom da se "nagrada za mir" dodeljuje takvim "veličinama" poput njega, Ahtisarija i Gora...
Ako se ne varam, i Hitler beše predložen za Nobela, pre nego što je napravio malu grešku koja mu je pokvarila imidž.
Prebrzo se uziveo u ulogu.
There is no evidence of that. Quite to the contrary, the extremist elements in the Islamic world were generated by enormous investment made by the US under Carter's administration and beyond. There is no Islamic terrorism beyond those CIA assets, required for false flag operations and "justifying" aggressions against in advance targeted countries and regions.
In today's wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers;
US is responsible for most deaths in wars since the end of Cold War. That civilians die more than soldiers has to do with the way US is fighting wars against weaker nations using air power and bombing from high altitudes. This was clear in 1999 during aggression against Yugoslavia where targets were mostly nonmilitary, civilian infrastructure, as well as in both gulf wars against Iraq.
... drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War...recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.
There is nothing in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights--which is by the way nonbinding, just a declaration—that could possibly suggest that appeals to protection of human rights—allegedly being abused in some country according to some vague source, such as an international NGO or a powerful government, could render aggression decriminalized under the guise of the oxymoronic "humanitarian (military) intervention."
Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace.
If post-World War II is the subject, could it be that this newfound European peace had more to do with the stability of Cold War in the bipolar power structure of that period. Certainly, it had nothing to do with respect for human rights.
Absolutely not true. Poverty has increased, particularly since Cold War ended, as a result of neoliberal economics of the Washington consensus.
And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.
What is wrong with old ways, proclaiming aggression as the supreme crime in international law?
There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.
But not as aggression, there is no morally justified aggression, no matter how much US invests in the propaganda turn its imperialist aggressions into morally justified wars.
So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace.
Contradiction in terms. War is not peace, and war does not contribute to peace because (trite but true) war is war.
I -- like any head of state -- reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation.
Only in case of a defensive war you would be right, and unilateral or not irrelevant entirely.
The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense.
But Afghanistan did not attack the US, and even if we agree it did atack on a single day with four airplanes, this could not possibly justify eight years and counting of an ongoing occupation.
Furthermore, America -- in fact, no nation -- can insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don't, our actions appear arbitrary and undercut the legitimacy of future interventions, no matter how justified.
No intervention is legitimate. Legitimacy, whatever it is, cannot render what is illegal—aggression—legal.