Dodaj do ulubionych

Rząd planuje oszczędności

07.10.03, 19:14
"Według wicepremiera do spraw gospodarczych Jerzego Hausnera,
program oszczędności będzie o tym, co rząd chce zrobić, nie
pytając o przyzwolenie.". A cóż to za bełkot? O czyje
przyzwolenie? Tych, których i tak nie musi pytać, czy tych,
których musi ale nie zamierza?
Obserwuj wątek
    • Gość: Tygiel... Nie ma lekko u speców od zapóźniania reform, brak wody IP: *.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl 07.10.03, 20:58
      sodowej może się źle odbić na kondycji rządu i optymiźmie
      wypowiedzi. Co robi minister finansów?

      kataryna.kataryna napisała:

      > "Według wicepremiera do spraw gospodarczych Jerzego Hausnera,
      > program oszczędności będzie o tym, co rząd chce zrobić, nie
      > pytając o przyzwolenie.". A cóż to za bełkot? O czyje
      > przyzwolenie? Tych, których i tak nie musi pytać, czy tych,
      > których musi ale nie zamierza?
    • Gość: Wojna? Re: Rząd planuje oszczędności IP: *.client.attbi.com 08.10.03, 03:50
      The Middle East road map finally met its untimely but expected
      demise over the weekend when Israeli bombs landed near
      Damascus, aimed at an alleged terrorist training camp.


      The question this week in diplomatic circles is not how to
      salvage the peace process but how to avert global mayhem. It's
      not a question, however, that worries the Bush administration,
      which appears content to let the Middle East hurtle down the
      path to possible armageddon.


      Supporting the Israeli action, the president said, "Israel's
      got a right to defend herself, that Israel must not feel
      constrained in terms of defense of the homeland." This
      weekend's Israeli attack on Syria shows how far Israeli leader
      Ariel Sharon will go – and just how willing Bush will cover for
      his excesses. When the issue came before the UN Security
      Council on Sunday, Kofi Annan and most of the other delegates
      correctly described the attack as a violation of international
      law and the UN Charter.


      In contrast, the Americans decided that any resolution had to
      be "balanced" with a condemnation of terrorism in general, and
      the Haifa bombing in particular. (There is no doubt that the
      Haifa suicide attack was horrific, but the Syrians had no
      provable or likely connection whatsoever with the bombers.) The
      Israeli ambassador to the UN, Dan Gillerman, showed equal
      chutzpah in decrying Syria's request for an emergency Security
      Council meeting. He said, "For Syria to ask a debate in this
      council is comparable only to the Taliban calling for such a
      debate after 9-11, it would be laughable if it was not so sad."


      The attacks on Syria mark the end of any hope that the U.S.
      will take a firmer line with Sharon. "One-sided," "biased,"
      or "unbalanced" are the knee-jerk reactions to greet UN
      resolution (or indeed any TV program, or any printed article)
      that suggests that Israeli government behavior is less than
      perfect. Relentless reiteration by Israel's supporters, the
      Bush administration, and Tony Blair's government have shifted
      the terms of the debate to the point that one suspects that any
      action of Israel, however outrageous, could not be condemned
      without the insertion of such "balancing" references, or more
      likely vetoed outright using the handy justification of self-
      defense against terrorism.


      Last week, Kofi Annan condemned Israeli plans to build 600 new
      homes for settlers in the Occupied Territories as "serious
      obstacles to the achievement of a two-State solution," and said
      that the settlements are "a clear breach of the Fourth Geneva
      Convention and also contradict Israel's commitments under the
      Quartet's Road Map." The U.S. deemed both statements to
      be "unhelpful," and so far, has shown no signs to suspend the
      aid that pays for these unhelpful breaches of international
      law.


      The exception was the administration's announcement that it may
      deduct some of the construction cost for the Israeli security
      wall separating Israel from the West Bank from the $9 billion
      in U.S. loan guarantees to Israel as authorized by Congress. UN
      Human Rights Rapporteur John Dugard, a South African anti-
      apartheid activist and lawyer, recently issued a report that
      found that those "living between the Wall and the Green Line
      will be effectively cut off from their farmlands and
      workplaces, schools, health clinics and other social services.
      This is likely to lead to a new generation of refugees or
      internally displaced persons." Unsurprisingly, the Israelis
      immediately denounced Dugard's report as "biased and one-sided"
      even though it had refused to even meet with him during his
      visit to the region.


      The U.S. may not have offered unqualified support for the Wall,
      but in a typical show of "balanced" policymaking, during the
      same week, it vetoed a resolution condemning Israel's
      statements threatening to exile and if necessary assassinate
      Yasser Arafat (who for all his faults is the only freely
      elected leader of the Arab world). U.S. Ambassador John
      Negroponte predictably insisted that resolution
      lacked "balance."


      The degree of support for U.S. policy in the Middle East can be
      measured by the vote in the UN General Assembly to condemn
      Israel for its threats on Arafat. It makes the so-
      called "coalition of the willing" look impressive. The United
      States and Israel were joined by Micronesia and Marshall
      Islands, two tiny states totally dependent on Washington for
      their budget, as the only states to vote against the
      resolution.


      Bush's position on the attack on Syria has disturbing
      implications for the world, coming on the heels of Kofi Annan's
      speech to the General Assembly warning of the dangers of
      unilateralism. In many ways, it's the administration's own
      actions that have led the way down this dangerous road of "hot
      preemption." If the U.S. can attack Iraq on suspicion of
      possessing weapons of mass destruction and harboring terrorism,
      then how can it call Ariel Sharon to order when he wants to
      whack an old enemy in a fit of pique? And down the line, what
      does Washington tell New Delhi if India decides to strike
      Pakistan or if China takes action against Taiwan?


      The Bush White House, however, is far more intent on pursuing
      its own plan for global payback, irrespective of its
      consequences. Its position on the Israeli attacks was hardly
      coincidental. There is every sign that the Bush administration
      is relapsing to its bad old ways. An anonymous administration
      official told the Knight-Ridder News Services that hawks within
      the administration are still hoping for "regime change" in
      Syria, and recently asked the CIA to come up with a list of
      replacements for Syrian President Bashar Assad. The Congress in
      tandem is considering the Syria Accountability Act, which
      authorizes the Bush administration to impose new economic and
      diplomatic sanctions on the nation.


      The reality is that there is more resistance inside the Israel
      Defense Forces to Sharon's policies than there is in
      Washington. Twenty four officers of the Israeli air force in
      recent weeks refused to participate in raids on the Israeli-
      occupied West Bank and Gaza, especially the assassination raids
      against the leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The officers
      felt too many innocent civilians were being killed in the
      attacks. It's a pity that neither Bush nor Sharon have any such
      qualms.

    • Gość: POLAK Czy bedzie wojna swiatowa? IP: *.client.attbi.com 08.10.03, 03:50
      The Middle East road map finally met its untimely but expected
      demise over the weekend when Israeli bombs landed near
      Damascus, aimed at an alleged terrorist training camp.


      The question this week in diplomatic circles is not how to
      salvage the peace process but how to avert global mayhem. It's
      not a question, however, that worries the Bush administration,
      which appears content to let the Middle East hurtle down the
      path to possible armageddon.


      Supporting the Israeli action, the president said, "Israel's
      got a right to defend herself, that Israel must not feel
      constrained in terms of defense of the homeland." This
      weekend's Israeli attack on Syria shows how far Israeli leader
      Ariel Sharon will go – and just how willing Bush will cover for
      his excesses. When the issue came before the UN Security
      Council on Sunday, Kofi Annan and most of the other delegates
      correctly described the attack as a violation of international
      law and the UN Charter.


      In contrast, the Americans decided that any resolution had to
      be "balanced" with a condemnation of terrorism in general, and
      the Haifa bombing in particular. (There is no doubt that the
      Haifa suicide attack was horrific, but the Syrians had no
      provable or likely connection whatsoever with the bombers.) The
      Israeli ambassador to the UN, Dan Gillerman, showed equal
      chutzpah in decrying Syria's request for an emergency Security
      Council meeting. He said, "For Syria to ask a debate in this
      council is comparable only to the Taliban calling for such a
      debate after 9-11, it would be laughable if it was not so sad."


      The attacks on Syria mark the end of any hope that the U.S.
      will take a firmer line with Sharon. "One-sided," "biased,"
      or "unbalanced" are the knee-jerk reactions to greet UN
      resolution (or indeed any TV program, or any printed article)
      that suggests that Israeli government behavior is less than
      perfect. Relentless reiteration by Israel's supporters, the
      Bush administration, and Tony Blair's government have shifted
      the terms of the debate to the point that one suspects that any
      action of Israel, however outrageous, could not be condemned
      without the insertion of such "balancing" references, or more
      likely vetoed outright using the handy justification of self-
      defense against terrorism.


      Last week, Kofi Annan condemned Israeli plans to build 600 new
      homes for settlers in the Occupied Territories as "serious
      obstacles to the achievement of a two-State solution," and said
      that the settlements are "a clear breach of the Fourth Geneva
      Convention and also contradict Israel's commitments under the
      Quartet's Road Map." The U.S. deemed both statements to
      be "unhelpful," and so far, has shown no signs to suspend the
      aid that pays for these unhelpful breaches of international
      law.


      The exception was the administration's announcement that it may
      deduct some of the construction cost for the Israeli security
      wall separating Israel from the West Bank from the $9 billion
      in U.S. loan guarantees to Israel as authorized by Congress. UN
      Human Rights Rapporteur John Dugard, a South African anti-
      apartheid activist and lawyer, recently issued a report that
      found that those "living between the Wall and the Green Line
      will be effectively cut off from their farmlands and
      workplaces, schools, health clinics and other social services.
      This is likely to lead to a new generation of refugees or
      internally displaced persons." Unsurprisingly, the Israelis
      immediately denounced Dugard's report as "biased and one-sided"
      even though it had refused to even meet with him during his
      visit to the region.


      The U.S. may not have offered unqualified support for the Wall,
      but in a typical show of "balanced" policymaking, during the
      same week, it vetoed a resolution condemning Israel's
      statements threatening to exile and if necessary assassinate
      Yasser Arafat (who for all his faults is the only freely
      elected leader of the Arab world). U.S. Ambassador John
      Negroponte predictably insisted that resolution
      lacked "balance."


      The degree of support for U.S. policy in the Middle East can be
      measured by the vote in the UN General Assembly to condemn
      Israel for its threats on Arafat. It makes the so-
      called "coalition of the willing" look impressive. The United
      States and Israel were joined by Micronesia and Marshall
      Islands, two tiny states totally dependent on Washington for
      their budget, as the only states to vote against the
      resolution.


      Bush's position on the attack on Syria has disturbing
      implications for the world, coming on the heels of Kofi Annan's
      speech to the General Assembly warning of the dangers of
      unilateralism. In many ways, it's the administration's own
      actions that have led the way down this dangerous road of "hot
      preemption." If the U.S. can attack Iraq on suspicion of
      possessing weapons of mass destruction and harboring terrorism,
      then how can it call Ariel Sharon to order when he wants to
      whack an old enemy in a fit of pique? And down the line, what
      does Washington tell New Delhi if India decides to strike
      Pakistan or if China takes action against Taiwan?


      The Bush White House, however, is far more intent on pursuing
      its own plan for global payback, irrespective of its
      consequences. Its position on the Israeli attacks was hardly
      coincidental. There is every sign that the Bush administration
      is relapsing to its bad old ways. An anonymous administration
      official told the Knight-Ridder News Services that hawks within
      the administration are still hoping for "regime change" in
      Syria, and recently asked the CIA to come up with a list of
      replacements for Syrian President Bashar Assad. The Congress in
      tandem is considering the Syria Accountability Act, which
      authorizes the Bush administration to impose new economic and
      diplomatic sanctions on the nation.


      The reality is that there is more resistance inside the Israel
      Defense Forces to Sharon's policies than there is in
      Washington. Twenty four officers of the Israeli air force in
      recent weeks refused to participate in raids on the Israeli-
      occupied West Bank and Gaza, especially the assassination raids
      against the leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The officers
      felt too many innocent civilians were being killed in the
      attacks. It's a pity that neither Bush nor Sharon have any such
      qualms.

    • emes-nju Re: Rząd planuje oszczędności 08.10.03, 10:31
      kataryna.kataryna napisała:

      > "Według wicepremiera do spraw gospodarczych Jerzego Hausnera,
      > program oszczędności będzie o tym, co rząd chce zrobić, nie
      > pytając o przyzwolenie.". A cóż to za bełkot? O czyje
      > przyzwolenie? Tych, których i tak nie musi pytać, czy tych,
      > których musi ale nie zamierza?


      Ciekawe czy waaaadza zechce zadac pytanie czy narod chce kryzysu? Skoro nie
      chce zadawac pytan o oszczednosci w celu unikniecia kryzysu...?

Nie pamiętasz hasła

lub ?

 

Nie masz jeszcze konta? Zarejestruj się

Nakarm Pajacyka