Dodaj do ulubionych

Brzeziński za wycofaniem wojsk USA z Iraku

20.03.06, 20:08
rzeczywistość sobie,pan Brzeziński sobie.
Edytor zaawansowany
  • 20.03.06, 20:17
    Brzeziński rozumuje w kategoriach, które USA od początku w tej wojnie były
    programowo obce.
  • 20.03.06, 20:30
    Skoro Brzeziński uważa, że USA powinny już skończyć swoją okupację w Iraku, tym
    bardziej my Polacy powinniśmy tak postąpić. Nie jestem specjalistą od polityki
    zagranicznej, ale jeśli taka osoba, jak właśnie Brzeziński to mówi, powinniśmy
    tego posłuchać.

    Polskie wojska powinny powrócić do domu!!!

    --
    centrolew.blox.pl
  • 20.03.06, 20:44
    Brzeziński ma racją. Chodzi mi jednak o to, że rozumuje w kategoriach na które
    nie ma dziś konjunktury, ba które są wręcz w pogardzie. On mówi językiem z
    innego świata, który, jak na razie przynajmniej, odszedł.
  • 20.03.06, 20:58
    eva15 napisała:

    > Brzeziński ma racją. Chodzi mi jednak o to, że rozumuje w kategoriach na które
    > nie ma dziś konjunktury, ba które są wręcz w pogardzie. On mówi językiem z
    > innego świata, który, jak na razie przynajmniej, odszedł.

    Mysle ze ocena moralna nie powinna podlegac konjunkturalnej modzie. Na nic nie
    ma konjunktury samej przez sie. Konjunkture - podobnie jak mode, wiadomosci i
    kulture - sie prosze pani robi. Ona nie jest zjawiskiem przyrody lecz wytworem
    konkretnych dzialan i interesow za ktorymi podazaja nastroje, poglady i
    przekonania. Jesli pojawi sie konjunktura na walki gladiatorow to ja jednak
    pozostalbym przy frazeologii "swiata ktory odszedl".
    W ten sposob mozna rozumiec Brzezinskiego jako epigona swiata ktory odszedl albo
    (do wyboru) prekursora tego ktory nadchodzi. Pani taka arbitralna...
  • 21.03.06, 05:42
    German Newspaper Editorial




    Imagine this coming out of Germany, of all places.



    It's fascinating that this should come out of Europe. Matthias Dapfner, Chief
    Executive of the huge German publisher Axel Springer AG, has written a
    blistering attack in DIE WELT, Germany's largest daily paper, against the
    timid reaction of Europe in the face of the Islamic threat.
    EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE

    (Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel Springer, AG)

    A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe@- your family
    name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because
    it's so terribly true. Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their
    lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too
    long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless
    agreements. Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet
    Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe where for
    decades, inhuman suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the
    ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities. Appeasement
    crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though we had
    absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and
    debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from
    halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.
    Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement,
    camouflaged behind the fuzzy word equidistance,"now countenances suicide
    bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.

    Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000
    victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-
    righteousness of the peace-movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to
    George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics
    of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions,
    in the corrupt U.N. Oil-for-Food program.

    And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How
    is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in
    Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim
    Holiday" in Germany? I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial
    fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed,
    the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim
    Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists.
    One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable
    treaty signed by Adolph Hitler, and declaring European "Peace in our time".

    What else has to happen before the European public and its political
    leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially
    perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims,
    focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and
    intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction. It is a conflict that
    will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the
    last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed
    by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such
    gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists
    for signs of weakness.

    Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for anti-
    appeasement: Reagan and Bush. His American critics may quibble over the
    details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan
    ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of
    terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat
    Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War
    against democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a
    number of years have passed.

    In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the
    multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being
    an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great
    powers, America and China. On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves,
    in contrast to those arrogant Americans", as the World Champions
    of "tolerance", which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily
    justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's
    more because we're so materialistic so devoid of a moral compass. For his
    policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional
    national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy -
    because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake -
    literally everything.

    While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they
    seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare
    systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing
    our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid
    vacation... Or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "reach out to
    terrorists. To understand and forgive".

    These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands,
    frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber
    breaking into a neighbor's house. Appeasement?

    Europe, thy name is Cowardice.
  • 21.03.06, 03:09
    " Nie jestem specjalistą od polityki
    > zagranicznej, ale jeśli taka osoba, jak właśnie Brzeziński to mówi, powinniśmy
    > tego posłuchać."

    Posluchac dlatego ze on jest Polakiem czy dlatego , ze byl doradca w powszechnie uwazanej za jedna z najbardziej nieudolnych administracji w historii USA ?

    Oczywiscie ten ranking to sie moze jeszcze zmienic, Bushowi ciagle zostaly 3 lata ..
  • 21.03.06, 05:47
    - nie zapominaj, ze Brzezinski to byl czlowiek Cartera, najgorszego prezydenta
    USA,










    German Newspaper Editorial




    Imagine this coming out of Germany, of all places.



    It's fascinating that this should come out of Europe. Matthias Dapfner, Chief
    Executive of the huge German publisher Axel Springer AG, has written a
    blistering attack in DIE WELT, Germany's largest daily paper, against the
    timid reaction of Europe in the face of the Islamic threat.
    EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE

    (Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel Springer, AG)

    A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe@- your family
    name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because
    it's so terribly true. Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their
    lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too
    long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless
    agreements. Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet
    Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe where for
    decades, inhuman suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the
    ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities. Appeasement
    crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though we had
    absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and
    debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from
    halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.
    Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement,
    camouflaged behind the fuzzy word equidistance,"now countenances suicide
    bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.

    Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000
    victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-
    righteousness of the peace-movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to
    George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics
    of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions,
    in the corrupt U.N. Oil-for-Food program.

    And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How
    is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in
    Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim
    Holiday" in Germany? I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial
    fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed,
    the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim
    Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists.
    One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable
    treaty signed by Adolph Hitler, and declaring European "Peace in our time".

    What else has to happen before the European public and its political
    leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially
    perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims,
    focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and
    intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction. It is a conflict that
    will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the
    last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed
    by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such
    gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists
    for signs of weakness.

    Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for anti-
    appeasement: Reagan and Bush. His American critics may quibble over the
    details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan
    ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of
    terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat
    Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War
    against democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a
    number of years have passed.

    In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the
    multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being
    an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great
    powers, America and China. On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves,
    in contrast to those arrogant Americans", as the World Champions
    of "tolerance", which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily
    justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's
    more because we're so materialistic so devoid of a moral compass. For his
    policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional
    national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy -
    because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake -
    literally everything.

    While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they
    seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare
    systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing
    our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid
    vacation... Or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "reach out to
    terrorists. To understand and forgive".

    These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands,
    frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber
    breaking into a neighbor's house. Appeasement?

    Europe, thy name is Cowardice.

  • 21.03.06, 05:25
    Zreszta trudno oczekiwac innego rozumowania od doradcy najgorszego prezydenta
    USA w XX wieku, jesli wogole nie najgorszego.
  • 20.03.06, 20:27
    'sily okupacyjne'. i slusznie., przy czym juz samo bycie okupantem moralnie
    dyskwalifikuje wladze usa

    slowskowyt.blox.pl/
  • 20.03.06, 20:49
    Nieokreslonosc co do daty konca amerykanskiej misji wplywa niekorzystnie na sile oddzialywania USA
    w regionie, w szegolnosci w samymi Iraku.

    Amerykanie, jak sadze w duzej mierze obawiaja sie porownywania sytuacji w Iraku z tym co dzialo sie w
    Wietnamie i ze ich wycofanie bedzie odbierane jako ucieczka i kleska, a Irak zostanie pod wplywem sil
    wspierajcych terroryzm.

    Mysle, ze rozsadnym rozwiazaniem byloby STOPNIOWE przekazywanie wladzy/odpowiedzialnosci za
    kolejne "strefy" wladzom Irackim. Co wiaze sie jednoczesnie z zaprzestaniem patrolowania, a potem
    opuszczeniem armii US z tych stref/terenow. Pozwala to na pozostawanie jeszcze jakis czas sil
    amerykanskich w Iraku i bezposrednia mozliwosc ich oddzialywania.
    1. Amerykanie zobacza jak radza sobie sami Irakijczycy z terrorem, pozwoli Irakijczykom uwierzyc w
    siebie i swoje sily, a w razie /katastrofy terrorystycznej/ moga ponownie zajac opuszczone bazy.
    2. Wzmocni to pozycje wladz Irackich w spoleczenstwie, a tym samym rozwiazania demokratyczne
    3. Przy obecnym kursie wladz Iraku nie powinno zagrozic interesom USA w Iraku
    4. Pozwoli tez na stopniowe rozladowanie napiec spolecznych w samych Stanach
    5. Pozwoli odzyskac wigor armi USA, poniewaz nawet supermocarstwo nie jest w stanie prowadzic kilku
    wojen jednoczesnie.

    PS. Porownanie do Wietnamu nie jest przypadkowe. Tu role /Polnocnego Wietnamu/ wspierajaca
    partyzantke terrrorystczna Iraku sa inne kraje, na ktore USA nie odzialywuje.
  • 20.03.06, 20:52
    NIE, MY NIE MOZEMY OPUSCIC IRAKU.
    BO GDZIE BEDZIEMY MOGLI POMPOWAC NAFTE ZA DARMOCHE?
  • 20.03.06, 20:59
    Odpowiedz jest prosta. Podobnie jak w Iraku zreszta: NIGDZIE.
  • 20.03.06, 21:13
    takie sa wyniki sondazy opinii publicznej w w wiekszosci kerajow swiata..
    Inaczej mysla tylko w Izraelu, na Filipinach w Polsce !!! i na jakis
    wyspach....www.panstwozla.pl
  • 21.03.06, 05:26
    A co mnie ochodzi 90% debili ???
  • 20.03.06, 22:22
    Na nastepne nie bedzie czasu i pieniedzy.Dlaczego wielu ludzi jest zadowolonych
    z porazki faszystow z Waszyngtonu?
    Poniewaz ciesza sie tak samo gdy wojne przegral Hitler.
  • 21.03.06, 02:19
    maureen2 napisała:

    > rzeczywistość sobie,pan Brzeziński sobie.

    Tak rzeczywistosc jest inna anizeli ta przedstawiana w mediach USA.
    Ponizej fragment wywiadu Australijskiego dziennikarza specjalisty od Bliskiego
    Wschodu:

    ...ELEANOR HALL: You say the US will have to get out of Iraq, but it will need
    the help of Iran and Syria to do so…

    ROBERT FISK: Of course, of course it will.

    ELEANOR HALL: Now, how would that work?

    ROBERT FISK: It'll need the help of Iran to make sure that all Shi'ite
    resistance to the United States ends during the withdrawal, and it'll need the
    help of the Syrians, who do have a lot of influence along the border with Iraq,
    to make sure that there is some kind of deal with the insurgents that the
    Americans can leave not under fire.

    You see, I mean I've said this before, but the terrible equation, of course
    politically, from an American political point of view as well, in Iraq, is that
    the Americans must leave, and they will leave, and they can't leave.

    And that's the equation that turns sand into blood. And that remains the case.
    It's very easy to invade other people's countries; it's very difficult to get
    out of them. It should be the other way around, but unfortunately it's not.
    That's how it happens.

    And the Brits found that, you know, all over the Middle East. And every time,
    every time, every time the authorities of the occupying power say the same
    things - we will not talk to terrorists. The Americans say it too. And they
    don't read history books, because at the end of the day the Americans will have
    to talk to the insurgents in Iraq, and they will, they will.

    ELEANOR HALL: Now, the victory for Hamas, in the Palestinian elections, how
    closely is the West's reaction to this being watched in the Arab world?

    ROBERT FISK: With its usual cynicism, yes. It's the same old story - we demand
    democracy, we demand they have freedom to vote, and they vote for the wrong
    people, so we try to destroy the government that's been freely elected. We love
    democracy, providing the Muslim nations elect the people we want.

    I mean, we keep hearing the Israelis will not deal with Hamas. The Israelis
    created Hamas. When the PLO were in Beirut, and the Israelis wanted to
    counteract the PLO, they urged Hamas to set up more mosques and social
    institutions in Gaza.

    Even after Oslo a senior Israeli officer, and this was reported on the front
    page of The Jerusalem Post, held official talks with Hamas officials in
    Jerusalem. Israel won't deal with Hamas… this is just a facade of narrative,
    for us, the press.
    There is a narrative being set down for us where there will not be
    negotiations, but there can be any time the Israelis want, and if they find it
    in their interest, they will.

    ELEANOR HALL: And yet you're in no doubt that Hamas, or certain members of
    Hamas, are terrorists?

    ROBERT FISK: Look, I don't use the word terrorist about anybody. This has
    become a semantically meaningless word. Look, there are people in the Hamas
    movement who support the murder of innocent people, yes, of course.

    There are… I'm not trying to make equivalences here, but when you have an
    Israeli air force officer, as we did at one occasion in Gaza, who bombs a block
    of apartments, knowing that he will kill innocent children, as well as a man
    who is believed to be behind suicide bombings, what is that man? What goes on
    in his brain too?

    ELEANOR HALL: Now, you make the point in your book about the targeted killing
    of Hamas leaders coming back …

    ROBERT FISK: The murder. I don't say targeted killing.

    ELEANOR HALL: Okay.

    ROBERT FISK: The murder.

    ELEANOR HALL: The killing of leaders of Hamas will come back to haunt the
    leaders of the West. What do you mean…

    ROBERT FISK: Well, we already did have - a year and a half ago I think - the
    murder of an Israeli Government minister in Jerusalem.

    Um, you see, once you start going for leaderships, you're opening a door that
    can come back at you. And the great danger is once you say, you know, we might
    kill Yasser Arafat, well he died of his own accord, but I mean that was
    constantly said, so then you open the door to someone saying well, let's kill
    the Israeli leadership, or let's kill the British leadership.

    Once you say we're going to kill Osama Bin Laden, what does that allow him to
    do? He doesn't need permission of course. But what doors are you opening…

    ELEANOR HALL: Aren't these doors already open?

    ROBERT FISK: Oh, they've been opened now, yes.

    ELEANOR HALL: But weren't they already open for people like…

    ROBERT FISK: The moment we turned our back on international law and gave up on
    justice and wanted revenge, that was the end.

    ELEANOR HALL: Now, you describe in your book, you were there for Rafiq Hariri's
    killing in Lebanon…

    ROBERT FISK: I was 400 metres away, yes.

    ELEANOR HALL: After that you write you're increasingly stunned by the growing
    tragedy of the Middle East. Now, I would've thought that's a big statement from
    someone who's been reporting from the Middle East for 30 years.

    ROBERT FISK: Yes, but the Middle East has never been in such a terrible
    situation, it's never been so dangerous. I've never found myself going on
    assignments of such danger as I do now. Iraq's the worst assignment I've ever
    been on, ever.

    I think that our hypocrisy towards the Middle East, and the ruthlessness of its
    own leaders, Arab leaders, has reached such a stage now that there's some kind
    of… I mean, some kind of explosion is going to come.

    Over… I did a CBC interview in Toronto, which I've got a copy of, three years
    before 2001, and I said an explosion is coming. And obviously…

    ELEANOR HALL: But do you think an explosion is still coming?

    ROBERT FISK: Oh yes. I don't… it doesn't have to be a real physical one
    like 'bang'. It might be. But something is coming. I mean, I feel it very
    strongly.

    When I go back, when I went back for the book, I realised I was feeling it
    because I live there, I live in a Muslim society, I live in the Middle East,
    and all the people around me are Muslims.

    And, clearly, living there, breathing that environment, I knew something was
    going to happen. And I still think something's going to happen. I don't mean
    September 11, but something.

    ELEANOR HALL: But like what?

    ROBERT FISK: Well, I mean, the Americans being driven out of Iraq is one, isn't
    it?

    ELEANOR HALL: But if the Americans leave Iraq the suggestion is that that will
    create more stability there. Is that not likely to…

    ROBERT FISK: Well, I hope it would, yes. Um, yeah but, you see, if the
    Americans leave Iraq it's an enormous blow to US military and political and
    strategic prestige throughout the world, there's no doubt about it.

    ELEANOR HALL: So you've been warned. That's the Middle East Correspondent for
    the British newspaper, The Independent, Robert Fisk, who's been reporting on
    the Middle East for 30 years and is in Australia this week to promote his
    latest book, The Great War for Civilization. He was speaking to me earlier this
    morning.

    www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1584968.htm

  • 21.03.06, 04:51
    oczywiscie brzezinski ma racje, jest doskonalym manipulatorem, on w swoje
    ksiazce juz dawno temu przwidzial potrzebe inwazji Afganistanu. Teraz nurtuje
    go potrzeba wycofania sie z wojny , kterej metody wywoluja obrzydzenie calego
    swiata, metody stosowane w Guanntanamo i o wiele gorsze w wiezieniach Iraku i
    afganistanu polaryzuja caly swiat, wyczerpuja zaoby finansowe Ameryki,
    demoralizuja narod, i sa katalizatorem do zaglady nuklearnej. Brzezinski mowi
    to troche za pozna bo wiadomo ze Bush nie zrezygnuje ze swoich napoleonskich
    ambicji. Jestesmy w okresie kiedy takie wycofanie zagroziloby egzystenci Busha
    i Neokonow. Bedzie gorzej dla Ameryki i Brzezinskiego tez. Po najezdzie na
    Polske w 39 roku nie bylo odwrotu. celem bylo zdobycie Moskwy. Dzis celem jest
    zdobycie Moskwy i Pekinu. Irak i Ran sa jedynie maewrami do prawdziwej
    operacji, Czy Brzezinski cos na ten tema powie?
  • 22.03.06, 22:20
    www.theonion.com/content/node/46450

    --
    There are many ways to praise the Lord. The best, though the hardest one is to
    be a Good Man.

    Jest wiele sposobow na czczenie Pana. Najlepszym, choc najtrudniejszym jest
    bycie Dobrym Czlowiekiem.
  • 22.03.06, 22:22
    www.theonion.com/content/node/43693
    --
    There are many ways to praise the Lord. The best, though the hardest one is to
    be a Good Man.

    Jest wiele sposobow na czczenie Pana. Najlepszym, choc najtrudniejszym jest
    bycie Dobrym Czlowiekiem.

Popularne wątki

Nie pamiętasz hasła lub ?

Zapamiętaj mnie

Nie masz jeszcze konta? Zarejestruj się

Nakarm Pajacyka
Agora S.A. - wydawca portalu Gazeta.pl nie ponosi odpowiedzialności za treść wypowiedzi zamieszczanych przez użytkowników Forum. Osoby zamieszczające wypowiedzi naruszające prawo lub prawem chronione dobra osób trzecich mogą ponieść z tego tytułu odpowiedzialność karną lub cywilną. Regulamin.