• drzewko
  • od najstarszego
  • od najnowszego
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, 02:48
        Fisk niby bezstronny ?

        Ten facet dorobil sie czasownika "fisking".

        www.catb.org/jargon/html/F/fisking.html
        • 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.
  • Powiadamiaj o nowych wpisach

Wysyłaj powiadomienia o nowych wpisach na forum na e-mail:

Aby uprościć zarządzanie powiadomieniami zaloguj się lub zarejestruj się.

lub anuluj

Zaloguj się

Nie pamiętasz hasła lub loginu ?

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.