Pieriestrojka II nabiera rumiencow

IP: 193.188.161.* 05.09.03, 09:12
USSA nie potrafia utrzymac pokoju w Irakoriko, prosza o pomoc Albanie,
Honduras, Mongolie i temu podobne demokratyczne ustrojstwa, pod plaszczykiem
ONZ-wicie, rozumicie-przed wyborami nie moga ginac Amerykanie, lepiej miec
zywe tarcze z ONZ.

USSA moga poprosic ONZ o dostarczenie astronautow do NASA-wicie, rozumicie-
nie jest tez tak jak w Irakoriko calkiem bezpiecznie latac na promach
kosmicznych.

USSA moga poprosic ONZ o wyslanie sil pokojowych do zabezpieczenia porzadku i
bezpieczenstwa w miastach USSA, lacznie ze sprzataniem smieci i tepienia
plagi szczurow-wicie, rozumicie-forsy nie ma na uslugi socjalne, czy na
policje, czy tez na strazakow, forsa poszla dla bogatych.

USSA moga tez poprosic ONZ o pomoc w utrzymaniu dostaw energii elektrycznej-
wicie, rozumicie-sroga zima ponoc idzie.

No i najwazniejsze, USSA powinne poprosic ONZ o obserwatorow w
idacych "demokratycznych" wyborach-wicie, rozumicie-te komputery sa pelne
wirusow dzialajacych w jedyna sluszna strone.

No i USSA szukac powinny pomocy ONZ w dostarczeniu nauczycieli hiszpanskiego-
wicie, rozumice-kazdy teraz kto sie ubiega o posade rezydenta Bialego Domu
musi znac ten jezyk, a forsy na nauczycieli nie ma.

Bez sciepki na USSA nie utrzyma sie ten kraj. Nie wiem tylko kto splaci te
500 duzych jednostek dolarow deficytu.....Sciepka biednych krajow to za malo.
************************************************************************
Hey, let's call in the UN

The Hutton inquiry is a complete sideshow to the real issue: did America and
Britain have a legal right to go to war without the backing of the UN?

John O'Farrell
Friday September 5, 2003
The Guardian

Lord Hutton was at a dinner party the other evening and somebody asked: "So
have you been following all this Hutton inquiry stuff?" And Hutton
replied: "Well, I started to read it when it began, but I can't be bothered
with it all anymore."
"I know what you mean, there's just so much of it isn't there? Pages and
pages in the bloody newspaper - we're bored to tears with it all."

"Somebody mentioned it at work the other day but everyone was so uninterested
that we ended up chatting about the cricket instead."

"What work was that?"

"Oh, you know, the Hutton inquiry."

The reason that the deliberations at courtroom 73 are even less thrilling
than ITV's Rosemary and Thyme, The Gardener Detectives, is because it's all a
complete sideshow. The real issue is: did America and Britain have a legal
right to go to war without the backing of the United Nations? An inquiry into
that would be a short one: it doesn't take long to say "nope".

Yet strangely this week has seen a u-turn in George Bush's attitude to the
United Nations. At last he has seen the error of his ways and is now keen to
see UN troops deployed in Iraq as soon as possible. How wonderful it is to
have an American president committed to international law and global
democracy. French fries are back on the menu! Thank God, says Mrs Bush, no
more Californian champagne!

Of course, some sceptics out there will probably say that Bush only wants an
international force involved now because he's realised that lots of American
soldiers are still being killed and this is damaging his popularity rating in
the run-up to next year's presidential election. Honestly, the cynicism of
some people never ceases to amaze me! As it happens, he was prepared to put
American soldiers in the most dangerous parts of Iraq, but this plan was
abandoned when he was told that there was no way of ensuring that these
troops would be Democrat voters from Florida.

George Bush is being very magninimous by bringing in the UN at this most
dangerous time. Indeed, his concern for international cooperation is such
that he is prepared to hand over all sorts of other jobs of great importance
to non-Americans. "Say, guys, Nasa is a bit worried that the Challenger might
blow up again, so we think it would be wonderful gesture to have some United
Nations astronauts on board for the test run. Oh, and we need someone to go
into the gangland of downtown Los Angeles and take all the guns and flick-
knives off the Crips and the Bloods - as a gesture of goodwill we would like
to hand this job over to the United Nations as well. Oh, and the jury in that
big mafia trial have all had death threats - I think what the global
community needs now is UN jurors."

Having not been involved in the decision that created the lethal chaos in
Iraq, it's hardly surprising that the UN is unenthusiastic about being
brought in to clear up the mess. It's the same argument as before, with the
positions completely reversed. George Bush is saying: "We cannot simply
bypass the United Nations on Iraq," and Kofi Annan is insisting: "No, please,
the UN has failed to fulfill its historic purpose, so I really feel this job
must fall to America."

In fact, many other countries have already been persuaded to deploy troops,
including Lithuania, Honduras and Mongolia. Even the Albanian army is now in
Iraq. Ha! What chance does the enemy stand now? The Albanians have promised
to bring in their army's mobile unit as soon as they get her back from the
donkey sanctuary. Oh, and the Lithuanian army has promised to bring his
friend.

But the response has been less positive from more developed countries, where
the national leaders have answerphones. In a few months' time they'll bump
into Bush and say: "Oh George, hi, apparently you left some sort of message
about us sending troops to Iraq or something? You know what, I think the
message must have been wiped off, because we would have been there like a
shot if we'd known. Such a shame, remind me to switch to voicemail ..."

If the United Nations really wants to do something for the world it should
leave George Bush to clear up the mess he created in Iraq and let him suffer
the electoral consequences at the polls next year. This is a win-win
situation; don't deploy any troops and help bring about regime change in the
rogue state of America. "Oh they won't get rid of me that easily ..." says
Dubya. "I'm too clever for that. I'm George W Bush. The W stands
for 'smart'. "

    • Gość: Tysprowda Re: Pieriestrojka II nabiera rumiencow IP: 193.188.161.* 05.09.03, 10:28
      USSA z czapka w reku prosza komunistow chinskich--KOMUNISTOW--o pomoc pieniezna
      dla swoich bogatych buszewikow. Pomoc w postaci rewaloryzacji juana.

      Ciekawe czy gdyby Chiny kupowaly rope za euro (jak Saddam sprzedawal) to byly
      by tez oskarzone o posiadanie BMR i byly by rozbrojone?

      Nigdy! Nigdy mocnych USSA nie zaatakuje, i slusznie.

      Cyrk USSA......
      ******************************************************************
      The China Syndrome
      By PAUL KRUGMAN

      A funny thing happened this week: the Bush administration, with its aggressive
      unilateralism, and its contempt for diplomacy and international institutions,
      suddenly staked its fortunes on the kindness of foreigners.

      All the world knows about the Iraq about-face: having squandered our military
      strength in a war he felt like fighting even though it had nothing to do with
      terrorism, President Bush is now begging the cheese-eaters and chocolate-makers
      to rescue him. What may not be equally obvious is that he's doing the same
      thing on the economic front. Having squandered his room for economic maneuver
      on tax cuts that pleased his party base but had nothing to do with job
      creation, Mr. Bush is now asking China to help him out.

      Not, of course, that Mr. Bush admits to having made any mistakes. Indeed, Mr.
      Bush seems to have a serious case of "l'état, c'est moi": he impugns the
      patriotism of anyone who questions his decisions.

      If you ask why he diverted resources away from hunting Al Qaeda, which attacked
      us, to invading Iraq, which didn't, he suggests that you're weak on national
      security. And it's the same for anyone who questions his economic record: "They
      tell me it was a shallow recession," he said Monday. "It was a shallow
      recession because of the tax relief. Some say, well, maybe the recession should
      have been deeper. That bothers me when people say that."

      That is, if you ask why he pushed long-term tax cuts rather than focusing on
      job creation, he says you wanted a deeper recession. It bothers me when he says
      that.

      Of course, nobody says the recession should have been deeper. What critics
      argued — correctly — was that Mr. Bush's economic strategy of tax cuts for the
      rich, with a few token breaks for the middle class, would generate maximum
      deficits but minimum stimulus. "They" may tell him it was a shallow recession,
      but the long-term unemployed won't agree.

      And the fact that even with all that red ink the recovery is still jobless
      should lead him to wonder whether he's running the wrong kind of deficits.

      Instead, however, he's decided to plead with the Chinese for help.

      Admittedly, it didn't sound like pleading. It sounded as if he was being
      tough: "We expect there to be a fair playing field when it comes to
      trade. . . . And we intend to keep the rules fair." Everyone understood this to
      be a reference to the yuan, China's supposedly undervalued currency, which some
      business groups claim is a major problem for American companies.

      By the way, even if the Chinese did accede to U.S. demands to increase the
      value of the yuan, it wouldn't have much effect unless it was a huge
      revaluation. And China won't agree to a huge revaluation because its huge trade
      surplus with the U.S. is largely offset by trade deficits with other countries.

      Still, even a modest currency shift by Beijing would allow Mr. Bush to say that
      he was doing something about the loss of manufacturing jobs other than
      appointing a "jobs czar." And so John Snow, the Treasury secretary, went off to
      Beijing to request an increase in the yuan's value.

      But he got no satisfaction. A quick look at the situation reveals one reason
      why: the U.S. currently has very little leverage over China. Mr. Bush needs
      China's help to deal with North Korea — another crisis that was allowed to
      fester while the administration focused on Iraq. Furthermore, purchases of
      Treasury bills by China's central bank are one of the main ways the U.S.
      finances its trade deficit.

      Nobody is quite sure what would happen if the Chinese suddenly switched to,
      say, euros — a two-point jump in mortgage rates? — but it's not an experiment
      anyone wants to try.

      There may also be another reason. The Chinese remember very well that in Mr.
      Bush's first few months in office, his officials described China as
      a "strategic competitor" — indeed, they seemed to be seeking a new cold war
      until terrorism came along as a better issue. So Mr. Bush may find it as hard
      to get help from China as from the nations those same officials ridiculed
      as "old Europe."

      Sic transit and all that. Just four months after Operation Flight Suit, the
      superpower has become a supplicant to nations it used to insult. Mission
      accomplished!
    • Gość: Tysprowda Re: Pieriestrojka II nabiera rumiencow IP: 193.188.161.* 05.09.03, 10:37
      Bushkrieg jak wampir, zyje z krwi niewinnych ludzi.
      ********************************************************************
      Global Eye
    • Gość: Tysprowda Re: Pieriestrojka II nabiera rumiencow IP: 193.188.161.* 05.09.03, 11:16
      Najdłuższy nos świata

      Sekretarz Stanu USA łgał, a teraz łże, że nie łgał.

      W przygotowywaniu świata na inwazję w Iraku głównym widowiskiem był występ
      sekretarza stanu Colina Powella w ONZ 2 lutego 2003 r. W pierwszej chwili nawet
      Francuzom i Niemcom wytrącił z ręki argumenty przeciw wojnie. Następnego dnia
      po spektaklu pojawiły się w mediach USA wypowiedzi wielu dotychczasowych
      przeciwników planów wojennych Busha sumitujących się: No, tak... W tej
      sytuacji... Nie zdawałem sobie sprawy... Rzeczywiście... Cóż...

      Pół roku po efektownej filipice w Radzie Bezpieczeństwa, po zwaleniu wszystkich
      betonowych Husajnów z postumentów i w drugim miesiącu bezradnego ciskania się w
      poszukiwaniu oryginału i zwalczania partyzantki irackiej, przez niektóre media
      w Stanach przemknął raport oceniający prawdziwość ówczesnych twierdzeń
      sekretarza stanu. Powell oficjalnie wciąż stoi za nimi murem, choć w przeddzień
      występu, podczas próby w Hotelu Waldorff-Astoria wyszedł z nerwów i desperacko
      wykrzyknął: Ja tego czytać nie będę! To gówno!

      Zdjęcia satelitarne prezentowane przez szefa Departamentu Stanu miały pokazywać
      Irakijczyków chowających zakazaną broń. Powell zapomniał dodać, że zarówno
      sfotografowane obiekty, jak i inne przeszły 500 kontroli inspektorów ONZ, zaś
      ich szef Hans Blix dzień wcześniej oświadczył, że żadnej kontrabandy nie
      wykryto. Nie wykryto do dzisiaj.

      Opatrzone dramatyczną narracją taśmy z nagraniami spiskujących irackich
      dowódców zawierają, jak się teraz okazuje, wyrwane z kontekstu zdania
      uniemożliwiające trafny osąd, a ich autentyczność nigdy nie została
      udokumentowana. Oficjalni tłumacze stwierdzają, że tłumaczenie konwersacji było
      naginane do celów propagandowych.

      "Tajne dokumenty" irackich fizyków nuklearnych stanowiły 2 lutego dramatyczne
      potwierdzenie ambicji atomowych Husajna. Już nie stanowią: inspektorzy ONZ
      ustalili, że dokumenty były stare i nie miały związku z oskarżeniami.

      Irak się przyznał, że przed rokiem 1991 wyprodukował 8500 litrów wąglika. Gdzie
      to jest?! – bił w dzwon grozy minister spraw zagranicznych USA. W ostatnio
      ujawnionym, tajnym raporcie z września 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)
      sugeruje, że Irak może mieć broń biologiczną, ale nie wiadomo, jaką, w jakim
      stanie ani ile. Trzy tygodnie przed inwazją inspektorzy ONZ raportowali, że
      analizy gleby potwierdziły zniszczenie zarazków wąglika w miejscu, które
      wskazywały władze irackie. Do dziś nie odkryto ani jednego zabójczego mikroba.

      W gruncie rzeczy broń chemiczną już znaleziono – oganiał się od szarpiących go
      za nogawki reporterów George junior podczas konferencji prasowej w Krakowie;
      wskazał dwa barakowozy, na które akurat napatoczyli się na pustyni jego
      gieroje, a które niechybnie – według CIA – były wytwórniami zabójczych
      substancji. Ostatnio DIA wyszeptała, że niestety robiono w nich tylko wodór do
      balonów meteorologicznych. Do dziś wytężone poszukiwania broni biologicznej
      przyniosły rezultat: 0 miligramów.

      Wrażenie w Radzie Bezpieczeństwa zrobiło wideo z Mirage rozpylającym "symulację
      wąglika". Irak wytwarza bezpilotowe samoloty do rozpylania broni biologicznej i
      chemicznej – oświadczył Powell. Mirage rozpieprzono w pierwszej wojnie w roku
      1991. Bezzałogowe samoloty okazały się sennymi koszmarami wodzów USA.

      4 tony gazu nerwowego VX. Jedna kropla VX zabija w ciągu kilku minut. 4 tony –
      oskarżycielski tenor sekretarza stanu niósł się po sali ONZ, w której
      zapanowała trupia cisza. Prokuratorowi Powellowi wyleciało z głowy, że
      większość z 4 ton zniszczono w latach 90. pod nadzorem oenzetowskich
      inspektorów. Twierdzą: Irak dokonał znacznych wysiłków, by udowodnić, że resztę
      też zniszczono. Analizy gleby to potwierdziły. Brytyjscy eksperci dodają, że
      gdyby nawet trochę VX udało się zakamuflować, to do dziś miałby toksyczność
      mleka w proszku. Ale nie znaleziono kompletnie nic.

      Irak ukrywa produkcję zakazanej broni w zakładach cywilnych – oskarżał Powell.
      Nigdy tego nie potwierdzono – ze wstydem wyznają wywiadowcy z DIA; nie ma w tej
      kwestii "wiarygodnych informacji".

      500 ton składników broni chemicznej wyprodukowały na zgubę światu zbiry
      Husajna. Dowody? Żadne. Kaczkę puściła wcześniej CIA, ale była to spekulacja.
      DIA w odtajnionym właśnie raporcie z września 2002 donosi: Brak wiarygodnych
      informacji, czy Irak produkuje i magazynuje broń chemiczną. Do dziś nie
      znaleziono żadnej.

      Głowice broni chemicznej odkryte przez inspektorów ONZ są czubkiem góry
      lodowej – alarmował Powell. Ot, skleroza. Głowice były puste, o czym zapomniał
      dodać. Blix uważa, że to złom z lat 80. Nic nowego nie odkryto.

      Wiemy ze źródeł wywiadowczych, że Husajn ostatnio upoważniał dowódców do użycia
      broni chemicznej. Informacja okazała się wytworem patologicznie rozpalonej
      imaginacji przełożonych sekretarza Powella albo pretekstem mającym
      usprawiedliwić napaść.

      Nic nie wskazuje, by Husajn kiedykolwiek zrezygnował z programu broni
      nuklearnych. To znów z grubej rury; nad salą zawisł straszliwy grzyb.
      Nie mamy żadnych dowodów wskazujących, że Irak odrodził program atomowy –
      konkluzja szefa inspektorów nuklearnych Mohamada ElBaradei. Nie ma dowodów,
      brak danych o programie nuklearnym funkcjonującym przed wojną – konstatacja
      wojennego sojusznika, ministra spraw zagranicznych Hiszpanii Ana Palacio.

      Irak ukrywa kilkadziesiąt zakazanych rakiet Scud. Buduje nowe, o zasięgu 600
      mil. Inspektorzy szukali Scudów wielokrotnie i pilnie. Z wynikiem zerowym. Do
      dziś stale to samo: kamień w wodę albo urojenia.

      Rury aluminiowe miały służyć, zdaniem "większości ekspertów USA", do montażu
      centryfugi wzbogacającej uran. Eksperci z Departamentu Energetyki oraz (sic!)
      specjaliści z Powellowego Departamentu Stanu dezawuują konfabulacje
      spreparowane przez CIA. Rury służyły do pocisków artyleryjskich. Powell upierał
      się, że magnesy importowane przez Irak również służą do centryfug. Są za
      lekkie, nie nadają się – orzekł ElBaradei; zresztą jego inspektorzy
      prześledzili drogę od sprzedawcy do kupującego. Wszystko grało. Żadnego
      programu wzbogacania uranu oczywiście do dzisiaj nie wykryto.



      Zapewne gdzieś w USA trwają supertajne prace nad projektem pt. "Znalezienie
      broni masowego rażenia". Bush musi zamknąć ten śmierdzący rozdział, zanim
      kampania wyborcza nabierze rozmachu.

      Odfajkowując kolejnego anonimowego trupa w Iraku Bush oświadczył w ramach
      propagandy sukcesu, że jego wojsko broni tam bezpieczeństwa USA. Czyjego
      bezpieczeństwa broni Polska uczestnicząca w amerykańskiej ekspedycji? Wszyscy
      razem bronią tam wyłącznie bezpieczeństwa sił okupacyjnych.

      Autor : Piotr Zawodny
    • Gość: Tysprowda Re: Pieriestrojka II nabiera rumiencow IP: 193.188.161.* 05.09.03, 15:31
      Brak dowodu na to, ze Rumsfeldus Germanicus Barbarius jest juz pieriestrojony,
      nie jest dowodem ze nie jest.

      Bedzie dowod na to, ze bedzie jadl frytki francuskie, pil francuskie
      szampanskoje oraz uzywal francuskich wod kolonskich, a takze jadl czekoladki ze
      starej Europy.

      Nie ma dowodu natomiast ze dostal kwiaty oraz czekoladki od wyzwolonych
      Irakijczykow, nawet im nie pozwolil blizej podejsc, bo sie strasznie bal ze
      moze ich nie dostac.
      ************************************************************************
      General Agreement
      Does the U.N. U-turn signal a comeback for Colin Powell?
      By Fred Kaplan
      Posted Thursday, September 4, 2003, at 3:29 PM PT



      Very rummy for old Rummy

      The whiff of a battle royal comes wafting up the Potomac. It has all the
      markings of a bureaucratic stink bomb of a fight, with fisticuffs, body blows,
      and incessant acts of treachery. The gong for the first round sounded in
      today's Washington Post, which reports that President George W. Bush agreed to
      offer more authority to a U.N. peacekeeping force in Iraq after Secretary of
      State Colin Powell, who has long favored a more multilateral approach, came
      into the Oval Office last Tuesday—Bush's first day back from the ranch—and
      announced that the Joint Chiefs of Staff were on his side. Bush's national
      security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, "whose office had been slow to embrace the
      U.N. resolution," the Post notes, "quickly agreed." As, of course, did Bush.


      Talk about "coalition forces"! Powell, whose political demise has been forecast
      practically since he joined this administration, may—once again—be back in
      action, possibly just aft of the helm. And, if that proves true, his route to
      regained power will have been through his foe's own backdoor.

      Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has run a very tight ship at the Pentagon
      until now, concentrating power among his few trusted mates in the E-Ring,
      quashing all outside dissent, and unfurling his mast across the river to Foggy
      Bottom. Last May, a "veteran foreign service officer," troubled by Rummy's
      usurpation of duties usually assumed by the State Department, told the Los
      Angeles Times, "I just wake up in the morning and tell myself, 'There's been a
      military coup,' and then it all makes sense."

      Powell now stands, at the very least, to grab back some of his traditional
      powers. One Pentagon officer told me this afternoon that Powell's move marks
      a "serious shot across Rumsfeld's bow" and "suggests there's a chink in Rummy's
      armor."

      It comes as no surprise that he is aided in his maneuverings by the military
      brass, despite the fact that these officers formally owe their allegiance to
      Rumsfeld. First, Powell, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
      himself, speaks their language. Second, they don't like Rumsfeld—for both
      parochial and sensible reasons. The parochial: Rumsfeld is pushing a brand
      of "military reform" that emphasizes faster, lighter combat forces, and that,
      as a result, would crash the careers of those officers, who have thrived on the
      old ways. The sensible: Rumsfeld tends to reject these officers' advice simply
      because it is their advice; he has committed their soldiers to missions—
      especially in Iraq—with what they have long regarded as insufficient resources.

      Rumsfeld's star rose, to untouchable heights, when he proved his critics wrong
      and conquered Baghdad with little more than three divisions—not even fully
      equipped divisions at that. But now his star has dimmed—nearly collapsed—amid
      the abject failure of his postwar planning (or, rather, the apparent lack of
      such planning). The U.S. occupation in Iraq has now passed a terrible divide—
      the point at which more troops have died since the war officially ended than
      during the war itself. One American soldier a day is dying, and, nearly as
      significant, 10 per day are suffering combat injuries. Rumsfeld and his aides—
      most notably, Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary Douglas Feith,
      and the former chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle—fell all too
      gullibly for the vision held out by Ahmad Chalabi: that he and other exiles
      would restore order quickly, that the American liberators would be greeted with
      flowers and candy, and that the Pentagon would be able to bring home all but
      30,000 soldiers by September (180,000, in fact, remain).

      In short, Rummy and his crew placed their bets not just on the wrong man but—
      worse still, in an administration that claims to value hard-headed power
      politics above all—on a wispy dream. So now, it seems, the chiefs are coming to
      collect on those bets. And Colin Powell, the retired-general-turned-top-
      statesman, is corralling the collectors.

      In an intriguing detail, the Post reporters, Dana Milbank and Thomas Ricks,
      note that Gen. John Abizaid, the new and apparently very smart head of U.S.
      Central Command, "talks frequently with Powell." Clearly it is most unusual,
      perhaps unprecedented since the time of Henry Kissinger or George Marshall, for
      a field commander to hold a regular channel of communication with the secretary
      of state.

      Powell does seem to be running this show. The chronology makes the point. On
      July 27, Gen. Abizaid met in Qatar with Gen. Richard Myers, the chairman of the
      JCS. Myers came back to Washington, convinced that the U.S. mission in Iraq
      required deeper U.N. involvement. On Aug. 8, Myers met with President Bush at
      the ranch and told him so. But nothing happened—Pentagon officials continued to
      dismiss the idea of sharing power with others—until Aug. 26, when Richard
      Armitage, the deputy secretary of state, publicly held out the possibility of
      turning over at least some decision-making to a U.N. authority. Armitage
      reportedly made this comment without clearing it with the White House or the
      Pentagon. It is inconceivable that he could have done so without clearance, if
      not active encouragement, from Powell.

      Powell's—now Bush's—proposal for an expanded U.N. authority would still leave
      an American general as the military commander. There is no inconsistency here;
      many U.N. peacekeeping forces, for example in Bosnia and Kosovo, have operated
      with this setup. The conflicts will come over how much power will remain in the
      hands of Paul Bremer, the current provisional command authority, who reports
      directly to Rumsfeld.

      Perhaps there will be other conflicts, in other theaters. Will Powell extend
      his coalition with the chiefs to, say, the nuclear talks with North Korea?
      Though Bush finally agreed with the State Department position to attend these
      talks, the hard-liners at the Pentagon still seem to be in control. Earlier
      this week, Wang Yi, China's vice foreign minister, said the Americans were "the
      main obstacle" to progress at the talks. Keep in mind that, on this issue,
      China is very much on the U.S. side and, to everyone's surprise, has hammered
      the North Korean delegates on the need to dismantle their nuclear-weapons
      program. However, Yi said, the Americans were refusing to negotiate, and North
      Korea can't be expected to give up its nukes—the only resource it has—for
      nothing. It is well-known that certain State Department officials agree with
      this position and want the administration to take a more flexible stance. And,
      because they have concluded that a pre-emptive strike on North Korea would be
      too risky (and an invasion too hard), some of the brass, however reluctantly,
      agree, too.

      And so it seems there's a fight on over the direction of U.S. foreign policy,
      over the legacy of the Bush administration, over—as G.W. Bush might see it—the
      president's soul. Stay tuned.

    • Gość: Tysprowda Re: Pieriestrojka II nabiera rumiencow IP: 193.188.161.* 06.09.03, 15:41
      Politycy zaczynaja puszczac farbe jak to bylo naprawde z 911.....?
      ********************************************************************************
      Meacher sparks fury over claims on September 11 and Iraq war

      Fury over Meacher claims

      Ewen MacAskill, diplomatic editor
      Saturday September 6, 2003
      The Guardian

      Michael Meacher, who served as a minister for six years until three months ago,
      today goes further than any other mainstream British politician in blaming the
      Iraq war on a US desire for domination of the Gulf and the world.

      Mr Meacher, a leftwinger who is close to the green lobby, also claims in an
      article in today's Guardian that the war on terrorism is a smokescreen and that
      the US knew in advance about the September 11 attack on New York but, for
      strategic reasons, chose not to act on the warnings.

      He says the US goal is "world hegemony, built around securing by force command
      over the oil supplies" and that this Pax Americana "provides a much better
      explanation of what actually happened before, during and after 9/11 than the
      global war on terrorism thesis".

      Mr Meacher adds that the US has made "no serious attempt" to catch the al-Qaida
      leader, Osama bin Laden.

      He also criticises the British government, claiming it is motivated, as is the
      US, by a desire for oil.

      The US government last night expressed abhorrence at Mr Meacher's views. An
      embassy spokesman in London said: "Mr Meacher's fantastic allegations -
      especially his assertion that the US government knowingly stood by while
      terrorists killed some 3,000 innocents in New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia -
      would be monstrous, and monstrously offensive, if they came from someone
      serious or credible.

      "My nation remains grateful for the steadfast friendship of the British people
      and Her Majesty's government as we face, together, the serious challenges that
      have arisen since September 11 2001."

      Downing Street also distanced itself from the views of an MP who only a few
      months ago was in the government. "The prime minister has responded to those
      who argue it was about oil," a spokeswoman said, adding that oil profits from
      Iraq are to be fed back into the country's development.

      Former ministers such as Robin Cook and Clare Short have criticised the British
      government for misleading the public over the reasons for going to war. But Mr
      Meacher has gone much further in his analysis of US and British motives.

      He says that the plans of the neo-conservatives in Washington for action
      against Afghanistan and Iraq were well in hand before September 11. He
      questions why the US failed to heed intelligence about al-Qaida operatives in
      the US and the apparent slow reaction of the US authorities on the day, as well
      as the subsequent inability to lay hands on Bin Laden.

      He argues that the explanation makes sense when seen against the background of
      the neo-conservative plan.

      "From this it seems that the so-called 'war on terrorism' is being used largely
      as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives."

      He adds: "Given this, it is not surprising that some have seen the US failure
      to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating an invaluable pretext for attacking
      Afghanistan in a war that had clearly already been well planned in advance."

      Mr Meacher, who was environment minister, says: "The overriding motivation for
      this political smokescreen is that the US and the UK are beginning to run out
      of secure hydrocarbon energy supplies."

      He is critical of Britain for allegedly colluding in propagating the myth of a
      global war of terrorism. He asks: "Is collusion in this myth and junior
      participation in this project really a proper aspiration for British foreign
      policy?"

    • Gość: Tysprowda Re: Pieriestrojka II nabiera rumiencow IP: 193.188.161.* 06.09.03, 16:51
      a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/03sep20030800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/03-22543.htm

      Tlumaczenie z angielskiego na amerykanski:

      I find that the removal of Iraqi property from that country ...and that it is
      in the interest of the United States
      to confiscate certain additional property of the former Iraqi regime, ...I
      intend that such property, shall be
      transferred to the Development Fund for Iraq. Such property shall be used to
      meet the humanitarian needs
      of the Iraqi people, (Haliburton Prisons) for the economic reconstruction and
      repair of Iraq's infrastructure,
      (Bechtel) for the continued disarmament of Iraq, (Carlyle Group) for the costs
      of Iraqi civilian administration,
      (Exxon-Mobil) and for other purposes benefiting the Iraqi people.(Pepsi)
    • Gość: Tysptowda Re: Pieriestrojka II nabiera rumiencow IP: 193.188.161.* 07.09.03, 11:37
      Mowilem mu jak dziecku,
      po rusku po niemiecku,
      perfuma nie jest po to by ja pil,
      pil, pil......

      No ale jak tak bardzo chcial sobie sam zaszkodzic i sie nie sluchal, coz mozna
      zrobic...

      *********************************************************************
      Bush: Bardzo niskie poparcie

      Poparcie dla prezydenta USA George'a W. Busha spadło jeszcze bardziej - wynika
      z dwóch sondaży, których wyniki opublikowano w niedzielę. Wg jednego z nich,
      jest ono najniższe od początku kadencji.

      Bush, którego za ponad rok czeka ponowna walka o fotel prezydencki, stracił
      bardzo wiele w sondażu Zogby America, odzwierciedlającym aktualne nastroje
      elektoratu. W najnowszej ankiecie tej instytucji prezydenta oceniło pozytywnie
      tylko 45 procent respondentów, o siedem procent mniej niż w sierpniu. Jest to
      najniższy wynik od stycznia 2001 r., to jest od czasu objęcia władzy przez
      Busha.

      W innym sondażu, przeprowadzonym przez Time/CNN poparcie dla Busha zmalało do
      52 procent, z 63 procent w maju.

      "Głównym powodem niepokoju jest gospodarka" - ocenił John Zogby, przypominając,
      że jednocześnie wzrosła liczba osób obawiających się utraty pracy w ciągu
      najbliższego roku.

      Opublikowane w piątek dane ministerstwa pracy USA wykazały niespodziewany
      wzrost liczby bezrobotnych ubiegających się po raz pierwszy o zasiłki, co
      dowodzi słabości rynku pracy.

      Wg Zogby''ego, dodatkowym negatywnym czynnikiem jest sytuacja w Iraku, gdzie
      żołnierze amerykańscy codziennie narażeni są na ataki zbrojne.

      "Panuje coraz większe zaniepokojenie i zniecierpliwienie wojną, rosną
      wątpliwości, czy jest ona warta" strat - ocenił Zogby.

      Bush ma wystąpić w niedzielę wieczorem z przemówieniem do narodu na temat Iraku
      i wojny z terroryzmem.

      Skomentuj ten artykuł »

      Busha moze uratowac tylko natychmiastowe wywolanie wojny z Chinami...
      ~Genialny Strateg
      CIA powinna natychmiast wymyslec jakas prowokacje w China ...


Pełna wersja