2006/11/30
Russel Kirk
Palavras de 1967. De um conservador americano sobre outro conservador americano. Outros tempos (mas no meio do vietname).
"Even though war might be inevitable in the last resort, men must not expect large benefits to result from victory. From the Second World War, as from the First, no increase of liberty and democracy would come: on the contrary, in most of the world a host of squalid oligarchs must be the principal beneficiaries, whatever side might win. For the United States, then, war was preferable to conquest or to economic ruin; but if those calamities were not in prospect, America should remain aloof. The blood of man should be shed only to redeem the blood of man, Taft might have said with Burke: “the rest is vanity; the rest is crime.”
Taft’s prejudice in favor of peace was equaled in strength by his prejudice against empire. Quite as the Romans had acquired an empire in a fit of absence of mind, he feared that America might make herself an imperial power with the best of intentions – and the worst of results. He foresaw the grim possibility of American garrisons in distant corners of the world, a vast permanent military establishment, an intolerant “democratism” imposed in the name of the American way of life, neglect of America’s domestic concerns in the pursuit of transoceanic power, squandering of American resources upon amorphous international designs, the decay of liberty at home in proportion as America presumed to govern the world: that is, the “garrison state,” a term he employed more than once. The record of the United States as administrator of territories overseas had not been heartening, and the American constitution made no provision for a widespread and enduring imperial government. Aspiring to redeem the world from all the ills to which flesh is heir, Americans might descend, instead, into a leaden imperial domination and corruption."
The Political Principles of Robert A. Taft, by Russell Kirk and James McClellan (1967):
"Even though war might be inevitable in the last resort, men must not expect large benefits to result from victory. From the Second World War, as from the First, no increase of liberty and democracy would come: on the contrary, in most of the world a host of squalid oligarchs must be the principal beneficiaries, whatever side might win. For the United States, then, war was preferable to conquest or to economic ruin; but if those calamities were not in prospect, America should remain aloof. The blood of man should be shed only to redeem the blood of man, Taft might have said with Burke: “the rest is vanity; the rest is crime.”
Taft’s prejudice in favor of peace was equaled in strength by his prejudice against empire. Quite as the Romans had acquired an empire in a fit of absence of mind, he feared that America might make herself an imperial power with the best of intentions – and the worst of results. He foresaw the grim possibility of American garrisons in distant corners of the world, a vast permanent military establishment, an intolerant “democratism” imposed in the name of the American way of life, neglect of America’s domestic concerns in the pursuit of transoceanic power, squandering of American resources upon amorphous international designs, the decay of liberty at home in proportion as America presumed to govern the world: that is, the “garrison state,” a term he employed more than once. The record of the United States as administrator of territories overseas had not been heartening, and the American constitution made no provision for a widespread and enduring imperial government. Aspiring to redeem the world from all the ills to which flesh is heir, Americans might descend, instead, into a leaden imperial domination and corruption."
The Political Principles of Robert A. Taft, by Russell Kirk and James McClellan (1967):
2006/11/29
"Leaving Iraq, Honorably. "
(Via Insurgente), Por Chuck Hagel, Senador Republicano pelo Nebraska.
"The time for more U.S. troops in Iraq has passed. We do not have more troops to send and, even if we did, they would not bring a resolution to Iraq. Militaries are built to fight and win wars, not bind together failing nations. We are once again learning a very hard lesson in foreign affairs: America cannot impose a democracy on any nation — regardless of our noble purpose.
We have misunderstood, misread, misplanned and mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam. Honorable intentions are not policies and plans."
"The time for more U.S. troops in Iraq has passed. We do not have more troops to send and, even if we did, they would not bring a resolution to Iraq. Militaries are built to fight and win wars, not bind together failing nations. We are once again learning a very hard lesson in foreign affairs: America cannot impose a democracy on any nation — regardless of our noble purpose.
We have misunderstood, misread, misplanned and mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam. Honorable intentions are not policies and plans."
Exército americano só sai do Iraque com "democracia estável"
Ou seja, nunca. Ja agora, no Afeganistão também?
Na mesma notícia do Público: "Apesar de tudo, para este porta-voz o nível de violência actual ainda não corresponde à definição militar de guerra civil."
Engraçado, porque a "guerra contra o terrorismo" também não é uma guerra na "definição militar de guerra".
Na mesma notícia do Público: "Apesar de tudo, para este porta-voz o nível de violência actual ainda não corresponde à definição militar de guerra civil."
Engraçado, porque a "guerra contra o terrorismo" também não é uma guerra na "definição militar de guerra".
2006/11/28
Lebanon, Israel, and the Holy See
Hard-Realism
2006/11/27
Histórias do Médio Oriente
Retirado da Wikipedia
1) The Churchill White Paper of 3 June 1922 clarified how Britain viewed the Balfour Declaration, 1917. That Declaration announced the British intent to aid the "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people", wording which became controversial.
The key components of the White Paper are summarized by these quotations from it:
"The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2 November 1917."
'Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. (...) In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development"'.
'it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. .'
2) 1936-1939 Arab revolt in Palestine
In April 1936, the Arab leadership in Palestine, led by Hajj Amin al-Husayni, declared a general strike to protest against, and put an end to Jewish immigration to Palestine. The revolt was driven primarily by Arab hostility to Britain's permission of restricted Jewish immigration and land purchases which Palestinian Arabs believed was leading them to becoming a minority in the territory and future nation-state. They demanded immediate elections which, based on their demographic majority, would have resulted in a democratic Arab government. (...)
Although the British administration didn't officially recognize the Haganah, the British security forces cooperated with it by forming the Jewish Settlement Police, Jewish Auxiliary Forces and Special Night Squads. A smaller Haganah splinter group, the Irgun organization (also called by its Hebrew acronym Etzel), adopted a policy of retaliation and revenge (including against civilians).
* Despite the assistance of 20,000 additional British troops and several thousand Haganah men, the uprising continued for over two years. By the time order was restored in March of 1939, more than 5,000 Arabs, 400 Jews, and 200 Britons were killed.
3) The White Paper of 1939, also known as the MacDonald White Paper after Malcolm MacDonald, the British Colonial Secretary who presided over it, was a policy paper issued by the British government under Neville Chamberlain in which the idea of partitioning the Mandate for Palestine was abandoned in favor of an independent Palestine governed jointly by Arabs and Jews.
1) The Churchill White Paper of 3 June 1922 clarified how Britain viewed the Balfour Declaration, 1917. That Declaration announced the British intent to aid the "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people", wording which became controversial.
The key components of the White Paper are summarized by these quotations from it:
"The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2 November 1917."
'Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. (...) In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development"'.
'it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. .'
2) 1936-1939 Arab revolt in Palestine
In April 1936, the Arab leadership in Palestine, led by Hajj Amin al-Husayni, declared a general strike to protest against, and put an end to Jewish immigration to Palestine. The revolt was driven primarily by Arab hostility to Britain's permission of restricted Jewish immigration and land purchases which Palestinian Arabs believed was leading them to becoming a minority in the territory and future nation-state. They demanded immediate elections which, based on their demographic majority, would have resulted in a democratic Arab government. (...)
Although the British administration didn't officially recognize the Haganah, the British security forces cooperated with it by forming the Jewish Settlement Police, Jewish Auxiliary Forces and Special Night Squads. A smaller Haganah splinter group, the Irgun organization (also called by its Hebrew acronym Etzel), adopted a policy of retaliation and revenge (including against civilians).
* Despite the assistance of 20,000 additional British troops and several thousand Haganah men, the uprising continued for over two years. By the time order was restored in March of 1939, more than 5,000 Arabs, 400 Jews, and 200 Britons were killed.
3) The White Paper of 1939, also known as the MacDonald White Paper after Malcolm MacDonald, the British Colonial Secretary who presided over it, was a policy paper issued by the British government under Neville Chamberlain in which the idea of partitioning the Mandate for Palestine was abandoned in favor of an independent Palestine governed jointly by Arabs and Jews.
Was spy murdered in Russian power fight?
MOSCOW, Russia (Reuters) -- Forget the obvious conclusion that the Kremlin slowly and painfully poisoned former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko.
Consider instead that he died in a bitter domestic power struggle which also included the murder of campaigning journalist Anna Politkovskaya last month.
The theory may sound outlandish but it is shared by opponents of President Vladimir Putin living abroad and some of his supporters inside the country.
Consider instead that he died in a bitter domestic power struggle which also included the murder of campaigning journalist Anna Politkovskaya last month.
The theory may sound outlandish but it is shared by opponents of President Vladimir Putin living abroad and some of his supporters inside the country.
Why it's unlikely the KGB killed him
Este foi o fim de semana do
- eu não sei o que é o neo-conservadorismo
- a culpa foi da implementação, Paul Bremer and all that
- a culpa foi dos objectivos
- os realistas é que tiveram culpa disto tudo, com os anteriores apoios a ditadores (João Pereira Coutinho deve esquecer-se que para combater um regime que tinha até à altura matado umas dezenas de milhares na invasão da Polónia, o tal País que reivindicou também, e obteve, um pedaço da Checoeslováquia em Munique..., o seu "Man of the Century" foi realisticamente apoiar o outro regime que já tinha morto uns largos milhões e igualmente invadido - mas compreendo JPC se tirar a devida conclusão: no fim, esse realismo resultou na vitória de Estaline e na derrota do Império Britânico)
- o importante agora não é atirar pedras, o importante é continuar a fazer mais do mesmo, mas ainda com mais força
- eu nunca critiquei praticamente nada, mas no fundo tive sempre contra, e na prática não me oponho a nada que queiram fazer mais, a não ser que corra ainda pior, aí não tenho nada com o assunto.
- como já tenho pouco que me preocupar, vou arranjar todas as formas de destabilizar Putin e a Rússia, porque um dia, se virmos a Rùssia balcanizada, isso deve ser bom, já consultei a National Review e o VIctor Davis Hansom, e ele (e eles) nunca se engana
- Humm, e temos de fazer alguma coisa com aquelas monarquias absolutas do médio oriente com tanto capitalismo que já têm a sua CNN...
- perdeu-se a paz, mas como é que foi tão fácil mesmo ganhar a guerra? Porque terá sido mesmo...? Meses de centenas de milhares de tropas concentradas em escassos Km2 no Koweit mesmo ali ao lado e existia algum tipo de medo sobre capacidade de misseis e WMD? Em 15 minutos chegavam a Londres (não admira que "alguém" se tenha suicidado cortando os pulsos no meio dos arbustos à moite, o mundo deve ter deixado de fazer sentido...e deprimiu-se)
- eu sempre apoiei e apoio, é tudo culpa dos sunitas
- os suspeitos directos dos recentes assassinatos, apesar de terem uma estranha atracção para se prejudicarem, são tão óbvios, que deve ter sido essa a tática subjacente, o óbvio sera eliminado como hipótese, mas nós não nos deixamos enganar e é mesmo o óbvio, sempre o óbvio e nunca mais do que o óbvio (é que tudo o resto é "Teoria da Conspiração" e eu não posso estar associado a tais desvairios, até porque, depois de ter insistido durante anos que o incêndio do Parlamento Alemão tinham sido dos Nazis, depois vieram a descobrir que foi mesmo um acto solitário...)
- o terrorismo cresce e espalha-se? guerra de civilizações? 10 palestinianos por cada israelita? avós suicidas? não bastava ter os EUA atolados no Iraque, tinhamos que pôr a NATO atoladada no Afeganistão porque não bastava já estar nos Balcãs (tipo proteger o separatismo islâmico contra os cristãos ortodoxos)? Quem morre é porque é Taliban? Onde é que os muçulmanos vão buscar a ideia que o Ocidente está a ocupar terras, pelo contrário, por estar o Ocidente prestes a ser invadido, somos nós que temos de estar lá? A cultura da morte dos árabes é uma coisa, a cultura dos collateral damages (tipo bombas atómicas, 200 anos de lutas religiosas na Europa, 600 000 mortos na guerra civil americana) é outra?
- Munique nunca mais (whatever that means).
- a França cheira a Weimar (whatever that means)
- proibido dizer que o bipartisan politics em Wasghinton cheira a Roma
- a culpa foi da implementação, Paul Bremer and all that
- a culpa foi dos objectivos
- os realistas é que tiveram culpa disto tudo, com os anteriores apoios a ditadores (João Pereira Coutinho deve esquecer-se que para combater um regime que tinha até à altura matado umas dezenas de milhares na invasão da Polónia, o tal País que reivindicou também, e obteve, um pedaço da Checoeslováquia em Munique..., o seu "Man of the Century" foi realisticamente apoiar o outro regime que já tinha morto uns largos milhões e igualmente invadido - mas compreendo JPC se tirar a devida conclusão: no fim, esse realismo resultou na vitória de Estaline e na derrota do Império Britânico)
- o importante agora não é atirar pedras, o importante é continuar a fazer mais do mesmo, mas ainda com mais força
- eu nunca critiquei praticamente nada, mas no fundo tive sempre contra, e na prática não me oponho a nada que queiram fazer mais, a não ser que corra ainda pior, aí não tenho nada com o assunto.
- como já tenho pouco que me preocupar, vou arranjar todas as formas de destabilizar Putin e a Rússia, porque um dia, se virmos a Rùssia balcanizada, isso deve ser bom, já consultei a National Review e o VIctor Davis Hansom, e ele (e eles) nunca se engana
- Humm, e temos de fazer alguma coisa com aquelas monarquias absolutas do médio oriente com tanto capitalismo que já têm a sua CNN...
- perdeu-se a paz, mas como é que foi tão fácil mesmo ganhar a guerra? Porque terá sido mesmo...? Meses de centenas de milhares de tropas concentradas em escassos Km2 no Koweit mesmo ali ao lado e existia algum tipo de medo sobre capacidade de misseis e WMD? Em 15 minutos chegavam a Londres (não admira que "alguém" se tenha suicidado cortando os pulsos no meio dos arbustos à moite, o mundo deve ter deixado de fazer sentido...e deprimiu-se)
- eu sempre apoiei e apoio, é tudo culpa dos sunitas
- os suspeitos directos dos recentes assassinatos, apesar de terem uma estranha atracção para se prejudicarem, são tão óbvios, que deve ter sido essa a tática subjacente, o óbvio sera eliminado como hipótese, mas nós não nos deixamos enganar e é mesmo o óbvio, sempre o óbvio e nunca mais do que o óbvio (é que tudo o resto é "Teoria da Conspiração" e eu não posso estar associado a tais desvairios, até porque, depois de ter insistido durante anos que o incêndio do Parlamento Alemão tinham sido dos Nazis, depois vieram a descobrir que foi mesmo um acto solitário...)
- o terrorismo cresce e espalha-se? guerra de civilizações? 10 palestinianos por cada israelita? avós suicidas? não bastava ter os EUA atolados no Iraque, tinhamos que pôr a NATO atoladada no Afeganistão porque não bastava já estar nos Balcãs (tipo proteger o separatismo islâmico contra os cristãos ortodoxos)? Quem morre é porque é Taliban? Onde é que os muçulmanos vão buscar a ideia que o Ocidente está a ocupar terras, pelo contrário, por estar o Ocidente prestes a ser invadido, somos nós que temos de estar lá? A cultura da morte dos árabes é uma coisa, a cultura dos collateral damages (tipo bombas atómicas, 200 anos de lutas religiosas na Europa, 600 000 mortos na guerra civil americana) é outra?
- Munique nunca mais (whatever that means).
- a França cheira a Weimar (whatever that means)
- proibido dizer que o bipartisan politics em Wasghinton cheira a Roma
2006/11/25
Histórias
Comentando um "post" no Insurgente sobre os ataques de islâmicos na Tailândia:
"Tudo o que os críticos da estratégia actual apontam tem-se verificado:
- o terrorismo alarga-se
- o fundamentalismo ganha terreno
- o combate alarga-se ao resto das populações (quem acredita que no Afeganistão ainda é “Talibans versus.. Ocidente?)
- os próprio regimes e Estados ameaçados constantemente pelo “Ocidente” prestam-se a cair e ser substituídos por outras formas de poder.
A guerra civilizacional é uma profecia provocada e induzida. Cada tentativa de ter presença no terreno ou nos acontecimentos internos faz com que apareça e aumente reacção contrária. Ouvir Blair sobre o “trabalho acabado” é aterrador. Não existe trabalho acabado. Quanto mais escalam mais reacção vão obter. É uma guerra de 4ª geração altamente descentralizada. Não existem meios militares contra tal. O Ocidente arrisca-se a ficar exausto nesta última tentativa de colonialismo ilum"inado. Os Neo-conservadores e aquilo que deixam ainda vivo (a total falta de subtileza e realismo) os seus coveiros."
"Recebi os seguintes comentários:
Rui Carmo diz:
25 de Novembro de 2006 às 1:03 pm
“A guerra civilizacional é uma profecia provocada e induzida”
Caro CN,
Qual?
A do sul da Tailândia?
Por quem?
O que fazer?
Assobiar para o lado e colher uma margarida?"
"J diz:
25 de Novembro de 2006 às 1:38 pm
CN, a ver se percebi… o que se passa na Somália, Tailândia, Chechénia, Sudão, etc, é culpa… do Bush???!!!
E a derrota do Benfica em Braga… o culpado é… o Bush???
Homem, tenha juízo, estude um pouco de história em vez de regorgitar disparates."
1) Quanto a "J" gostava bem de saber qual é a sua "História". Será a da descolonização? A do Vietname?
2) Quanto a Rui Carmo, de facto quanto a que fazer era preciso fazer muito menos. Cuidar da segurança das fronteiras parece-me consensual. Espalhar a presença ocidental pelos países muçulmanos, abalar regimes que sendo maus podem vir a ser substituidos por muito pior, fazer o discurso do Islão-fóbico, fazer ver que um israelita vale muito mais do que 10 palestinianos, ver alargar a violência a muito mais do que só Talibans, mde a morte de alguém do clã passa a ser um assunto de todo o clã,e outras coisas que tais, não pode ajudar.
"Tudo o que os críticos da estratégia actual apontam tem-se verificado:
- o terrorismo alarga-se
- o fundamentalismo ganha terreno
- o combate alarga-se ao resto das populações (quem acredita que no Afeganistão ainda é “Talibans versus.. Ocidente?)
- os próprio regimes e Estados ameaçados constantemente pelo “Ocidente” prestam-se a cair e ser substituídos por outras formas de poder.
A guerra civilizacional é uma profecia provocada e induzida. Cada tentativa de ter presença no terreno ou nos acontecimentos internos faz com que apareça e aumente reacção contrária. Ouvir Blair sobre o “trabalho acabado” é aterrador. Não existe trabalho acabado. Quanto mais escalam mais reacção vão obter. É uma guerra de 4ª geração altamente descentralizada. Não existem meios militares contra tal. O Ocidente arrisca-se a ficar exausto nesta última tentativa de colonialismo ilum"inado. Os Neo-conservadores e aquilo que deixam ainda vivo (a total falta de subtileza e realismo) os seus coveiros."
"Recebi os seguintes comentários:
Rui Carmo diz:
25 de Novembro de 2006 às 1:03 pm
“A guerra civilizacional é uma profecia provocada e induzida”
Caro CN,
Qual?
A do sul da Tailândia?
Por quem?
O que fazer?
Assobiar para o lado e colher uma margarida?"
"J diz:
25 de Novembro de 2006 às 1:38 pm
CN, a ver se percebi… o que se passa na Somália, Tailândia, Chechénia, Sudão, etc, é culpa… do Bush???!!!
E a derrota do Benfica em Braga… o culpado é… o Bush???
Homem, tenha juízo, estude um pouco de história em vez de regorgitar disparates."
1) Quanto a "J" gostava bem de saber qual é a sua "História". Será a da descolonização? A do Vietname?
2) Quanto a Rui Carmo, de facto quanto a que fazer era preciso fazer muito menos. Cuidar da segurança das fronteiras parece-me consensual. Espalhar a presença ocidental pelos países muçulmanos, abalar regimes que sendo maus podem vir a ser substituidos por muito pior, fazer o discurso do Islão-fóbico, fazer ver que um israelita vale muito mais do que 10 palestinianos, ver alargar a violência a muito mais do que só Talibans, mde a morte de alguém do clã passa a ser um assunto de todo o clã,e outras coisas que tais, não pode ajudar.
Histórias da 2ª Guerra Mundial
De facto, parece que não existiu nada que os nossos lideres não tivessem dado a Estaline.
Moscow out to harm NATO with release of files: Latvia
Fri Nov 24, 2006 3:33pm ET
RIGA (Reuters) - Latvia said on Friday Moscow's release of documents stating the United States and Britain gave tacit approval to Soviet occupation of the Baltics was an attempt to sour NATO relations ahead of next week's summit.
Russia's foreign intelligence service SVR this week released declassified files and said in a statement the West regarded the removal of pro-German influences from the Baltics and occupation by Soviet forces "a necessary and timely step".
Moscow out to harm NATO with release of files: Latvia
Fri Nov 24, 2006 3:33pm ET
RIGA (Reuters) - Latvia said on Friday Moscow's release of documents stating the United States and Britain gave tacit approval to Soviet occupation of the Baltics was an attempt to sour NATO relations ahead of next week's summit.
Russia's foreign intelligence service SVR this week released declassified files and said in a statement the West regarded the removal of pro-German influences from the Baltics and occupation by Soviet forces "a necessary and timely step".
2006/11/24
"O PAÍS DOS CLÃS E DAS 18 CONFISSÕES"
Público: "No Líbano os chefes dos clãs ou das comunidades religiosas forjam e quebram alianças conforme as vantagens do momento. Não há ódio sectário, mas pactos de ocasião
O delicado balanço do poder no Líbano é mantido com um rígido sistema de quotas e alocação de cargos aos grupos comunitários. Já foi dito que a força do Líbano é a sua fraqueza - o delicado balanço implica que as instituições decisórias sofram de alguma paralisia. A divisão de poder foi essencial para terminar a guerra civil (1975-1990) no Líbano, um país com 18 religiões reconhecidas oficialmente.Mas um sistema em que a partilha é feita pelos quatro grupos principais, cristãos, sunitas, xiitas e drusos, tem como pano de fundo uma complexa teia de divisões de clãs entre cada comunidade. Os chefes dos clãs por vezes são os chefes dos partidos que os representam, como Walid Jumblatt com os drusos; mas outras vezes os clãs servem apenas de base para o apoio a uma figura ou partido. Alguns destes chefes de clãs, e muitos dos líderes políticos actuais, comandaram forças que lutaram na guerra civil. As alianças entre vários clãs e grupos comunitários são muito comuns no Líbano - e os representantes não hesitam em fazer ou desfazer pactos conforme a situação e as vantagens que daí possam tirar.
Os clãs não se esgotam nas tradicionais famílias antigas - a família Hariri, por exemplo, ascendeu à condição de clã com Rafiq Hariri a enriquecer na construção civil e a notabilizar-se na reconstrução de Beirute e a ajudar na negociação dos acordos que puseram fim à guerra civil, para chegar depois a primeiro-ministro; e entretanto o seu filho, Saad Hariri, encabeçou a lista da oposição anti-Síria.A mutabilidade das alianças é visível na actual divisão do país em dois campos principais, anti-sírio e pró-sírio, em que se vêem no mesmo lado da barricada cristãos do clã Gemayel e drusos de Jumblatt (inimigos durante a guerra civil), e reviravoltas como a do general Michel Aoun, que foi obrigado ao exílio depois de ter levado a cabo uma luta contra a Síria, e regressou ao Líbano após a retirada das tropas de Damasco, para acabar por se juntar ao campo pró-sírio.O Líbano é definido pelo sectarismo - embora entre os jovens urbanos a pertença ao grupo já não seja tão definidora, ainda é impossível casar elementos de duas religiões diferentes.
A situação é completamente diferente da das comunidades da antiga Jugoslávia ou do Iraque.
A guerra civil não foi motivada por ódios "naturais" entre xiitas e sunitas, cristãos e drusos. O país tem sido muito influenciado pelos interesses estrangeiros - para quem é fácil escolher um grupo, apoiá-lo e armá-lo - e é assim palco frequente das chamadas "guerras por procuração", como aconteceu no Verão passado. "Se os libaneses parassem de confiar nos estrangeiros", comentava o jornalista britânico Robert Fisk, "e confiassem uns nos outros, acabariam os pesadelos da guerra civil."
A família Gemayel encarna bem a definição do clã típico no Líbano - ainda por cima com vários assassínios (cinco membros foram mortos) e uma história de poder e domínio que passaram nas últimas três gerações, de pai para filho, e iniciada por Pierre Gemayel, avô do deputado também Pierre agora assassinado, que após uma visita à Alemanha nazi - mais concretamente às Olímpiadas de Berlim -, regressou tão impressionado com a disciplina hitleriana que quis seguir o modelo e fundou o Partido da Falange.
Pierre Gemayel, o neto, é filho de Amin, que foi Presidente após o seu irmão Bashir ter sido eleito para o cargo, mas assassinado num atentado atribuído à Síria (por ser aliado de Israel). Também os Gemayel mudaram as suas alianças quer internas quer externas, de pró a anti-Síria, por exemplo. Pierre Gemayel júnior começava a destacar-se na política. Ainda muito novo, era próximo do primeiro-ministro (sunita), Fouad Siniora (homem de confiança do clã Hariri). Foi assassinado quando ia prestar condolências a uma família vizinha que estava de luto". M.J.G.
2006/11/23
E o Haiti?
Guardian: The ouster of democracy. In Haiti, Washington confirmed a foreign policy that is driven by self-interest and delivered through force .
In revolutions the people take centre stage and the leaders follow - the popular will outpaces and overpowers the established institutions and moulds something essentially new from the old. But over the past week the Haitian people have been not actors but spectators in their own destiny, watching one band of armed thugs, who supported a leader with diminishing democratic legitimacy, replaced by another band of armed thugs, who support a movement with none at all, with the help of foreign governments. The death squad leaders, army officials and US marines are back. There are no longer any democratic violations to criticise because there is no longer any democracy. What happened was not a revolution but a coup. And no simple domestic overthrow either. This was the kind of regime change that the French and the US could sign up to.
The circumstances of Aristide's departure remain under dispute. Aristide says a huge number of US and Haitian "agents" came to his house and forced him on to a plane that eventually landed in the Central African Republic. The US says Aristide was resigned to exile once it was understood that he could no longer hold on to power, his life was in danger and bloodshed was inevitable.
You do not have to be an apologist for Aristide or an anti-American conspiracy theorist to grasp this. Just follow the quotes from the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, over the past month and the policy shifts are clear. On February 12, Powell told the Senate foreign relations committee: "The policy of the administration is not regime change [this will come as news to the Iraqis], President Aristide is the elected president of Haiti."
On February 17, he said. "We cannot buy into a proposition that says the elected president must be forced out of office by thugs and those who do not respect law and are bringing terrible violence to the Haitian people." By February 26, after a week of shopping around, he decided to buy into it after all. "[Aristide] is the democratically elected president, but he has had difficulties in his presidency, and I think ... whether or not he is able to effectively continue as president is something that he will have to examine." A day later he was selling it, arguing that Aristide, having "the interests of the Haitian people at heart", should "examine the situation he is in and make a careful examination of how best to serve the Haitian people at this time".
Just 48 hours later, after the coup, he was asking the rest of the world to wear it. He explained why the US had not been prepared to go into Haiti and support "an individual who may have been elected democratically but was not governing effectively or democratically".
Two key lessons emerge from this, which go beyond Haiti. The first is that military force is not just the most important element in US foreign policy, it is the beginning and the end of that policy. For the past 10 years, since the US restored Aristide to power, it could have trained the Haitian police and judiciary, invested in projects that shore up civil society and help create a democratic culture, increased aid and encouraged fair trade - all of which would have given Haiti a fighting chance of building a sustainable democracy. Instead, it imposed conditions by the IMF and the World Bank, followed it up with an embargo on the poorest country in the western hemisphere, and when none of that worked, sent in the marines against a nation with no army.
The second is that the US supports democracy when democracy supports the US. When it is inconvenient, as in Aristide's case, Washington will turn its back on it in a heartbeat. Faced with a clear choice of either sending the marines in to protect an elected president, however flawed, or an armed insurrection, they chose the insurrection because they didn't like the president.
"We can't be called upon, expected or required to intervene every time there is violence against a failed leader," said the State Department spokesperson, Richard Boucher, last week. "We can't spend our time running around the world and the hemisphere saving people who botched their chance at leadership."
However, the US can be called upon not to intervene to promote violence against elected leaders. This latest intervention did not prevent a bloodbath - more people were killed on the day Aristide left than on any other - and crushed what was left of democracy. Instead of breaking the spiral of violence, it has given it a new lease of life. Given that kind of legacy, the US should indeed stop "running around the world" to "save people". The Bush administration is doing a good job of botching leadership at home. There is no need to export it.
In revolutions the people take centre stage and the leaders follow - the popular will outpaces and overpowers the established institutions and moulds something essentially new from the old. But over the past week the Haitian people have been not actors but spectators in their own destiny, watching one band of armed thugs, who supported a leader with diminishing democratic legitimacy, replaced by another band of armed thugs, who support a movement with none at all, with the help of foreign governments. The death squad leaders, army officials and US marines are back. There are no longer any democratic violations to criticise because there is no longer any democracy. What happened was not a revolution but a coup. And no simple domestic overthrow either. This was the kind of regime change that the French and the US could sign up to.
The circumstances of Aristide's departure remain under dispute. Aristide says a huge number of US and Haitian "agents" came to his house and forced him on to a plane that eventually landed in the Central African Republic. The US says Aristide was resigned to exile once it was understood that he could no longer hold on to power, his life was in danger and bloodshed was inevitable.
You do not have to be an apologist for Aristide or an anti-American conspiracy theorist to grasp this. Just follow the quotes from the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, over the past month and the policy shifts are clear. On February 12, Powell told the Senate foreign relations committee: "The policy of the administration is not regime change [this will come as news to the Iraqis], President Aristide is the elected president of Haiti."
On February 17, he said. "We cannot buy into a proposition that says the elected president must be forced out of office by thugs and those who do not respect law and are bringing terrible violence to the Haitian people." By February 26, after a week of shopping around, he decided to buy into it after all. "[Aristide] is the democratically elected president, but he has had difficulties in his presidency, and I think ... whether or not he is able to effectively continue as president is something that he will have to examine." A day later he was selling it, arguing that Aristide, having "the interests of the Haitian people at heart", should "examine the situation he is in and make a careful examination of how best to serve the Haitian people at this time".
Just 48 hours later, after the coup, he was asking the rest of the world to wear it. He explained why the US had not been prepared to go into Haiti and support "an individual who may have been elected democratically but was not governing effectively or democratically".
Two key lessons emerge from this, which go beyond Haiti. The first is that military force is not just the most important element in US foreign policy, it is the beginning and the end of that policy. For the past 10 years, since the US restored Aristide to power, it could have trained the Haitian police and judiciary, invested in projects that shore up civil society and help create a democratic culture, increased aid and encouraged fair trade - all of which would have given Haiti a fighting chance of building a sustainable democracy. Instead, it imposed conditions by the IMF and the World Bank, followed it up with an embargo on the poorest country in the western hemisphere, and when none of that worked, sent in the marines against a nation with no army.
The second is that the US supports democracy when democracy supports the US. When it is inconvenient, as in Aristide's case, Washington will turn its back on it in a heartbeat. Faced with a clear choice of either sending the marines in to protect an elected president, however flawed, or an armed insurrection, they chose the insurrection because they didn't like the president.
"We can't be called upon, expected or required to intervene every time there is violence against a failed leader," said the State Department spokesperson, Richard Boucher, last week. "We can't spend our time running around the world and the hemisphere saving people who botched their chance at leadership."
However, the US can be called upon not to intervene to promote violence against elected leaders. This latest intervention did not prevent a bloodbath - more people were killed on the day Aristide left than on any other - and crushed what was left of democracy. Instead of breaking the spiral of violence, it has given it a new lease of life. Given that kind of legacy, the US should indeed stop "running around the world" to "save people". The Bush administration is doing a good job of botching leadership at home. There is no need to export it.
Secession alert
E mais uma Nação:
Público: "O Governo canadiano e o Bloque Quebequés (BQ), separatista, apresentaram duas moções para que se reconheça a província do Quebec como uma "nação". (...)Ao apresentar a sua moção no Parlamento, Stephen Harper afirmou que "os habitantes do Quebec formam uma nação dentro do Canadá", mas não são uma "nação independente do Canadá".Por seu lado, o líder do Bloque Quebequés afirmou que não é o Governo do Canadá (nem o Parlamento) que vai decidir a questão, mas antes os habitantes do Quebec."
Público: "O Governo canadiano e o Bloque Quebequés (BQ), separatista, apresentaram duas moções para que se reconheça a província do Quebec como uma "nação". (...)Ao apresentar a sua moção no Parlamento, Stephen Harper afirmou que "os habitantes do Quebec formam uma nação dentro do Canadá", mas não são uma "nação independente do Canadá".Por seu lado, o líder do Bloque Quebequés afirmou que não é o Governo do Canadá (nem o Parlamento) que vai decidir a questão, mas antes os habitantes do Quebec."
2006/11/22
Histórias do presente
1) Haaretz
ANALYSIS: The accusations against Syria are all too routine
"The accusation leveled at the Syrians by Saad Hariri, son of assassinated former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri, the hints by Prime Minister Fuad Siniora urging the establishment of an international tribunal to try Hariri's killers, and statements by anti-Syrian elements in Lebanon, put Syria at the top of the list of suspects in Tuesday's assassination of Lebanese Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel. However pure political and diplomatic logic makes it difficult to see Damascus behind the assassination. The day Gemayel was killed, Syria chalked up one of its most significant diplomatic achievements since its defeat in Lebanon in April 2005: the renewal of full diplomatic relations with Iraq. (...)"
2) Antiwar: "Poisonous Propaganda The latest story about a KGB 'poisoning' is pure bunk "
"The continuing propaganda campaign directed at Vladimir Putin's Russia has taken a bizarre turn with the alleged "poisoning," in a London restaurant, of Alexander Litvinenko, a former KGB agent now associated with exiled Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky. According to the story being put out by Litvinenko and his friends, a meeting with Italian researcher Mario Scaramella was swiftly followed by Litvinenko's sudden collapse. The diagnosis: thallium poisoning. As far as much of the news media, and certainly the numerous Russophobes in the punditocracy are concerned, it's no mystery as to who's responsible: according to their "logic," since Litvinenko is a vehement critic of the Putin administration, Putin and his KGB were clearly responsible. Case closed… (...)
The stricken man opposed Putin and wrote a book accusing the Russian government of being behind the 1999 terrorist attacks carried out in Russian cities, for which Chechen terrorists were blamed. Therefore, Putin was behind this purported assassination attempt. As an indication of Litvinenko's credibility, he also claims that the KGB secretly funds al-Qaeda and orchestrated the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Litvinenko, in short, is a raving lunatic, who just so happens to enjoy the patronage of a very wealthy man with a very big grudge against Putin and Russia in general: Boris Berezovsky, the exiled oligarch who used his Communist connections to buy up whole sectors of the Russian economy dirt cheap during the rigged "privatizations" of the Yeltsin era, and fled the country when faced with charges of corruption. With much of his vast fortune still intact, Berezovsky has become Putin's nemesis, allying himself with Chechen terrorist leaders, what passes for Russian liberals, and American neoconservatives in a popular front for regime change in the Russian Federation.
(...) The plot thickens – or, rather, coagulates – when we get to the second meeting Litvinenko had on Nov. 1: with Andrei Lugovoi and some character known only as "Vladimir." According to an article posted on the Jamestown Foundation's Web site, before falling into Berezovsky's orbit, Lugovoi, a former FSB major, was a bodyguard to several Kremlin big shots, including Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar. He really made his mark, however, in connection with the escape from custody of former Aeroflot chairman Nikolai Glushkov, a Berezovsky protégé, jailed on charges of money-laundering. Glushkov and several others were charged with stashing over $252 million of Aeroflot's cash in Swiss accounts controlled by Berezovsky. Lugovoi was the warden of the prison Glushkov escaped from, and was compromised by certain phone calls overheard by the FSB. He was arrested and subsequently released under somewhat mysterious circumstances, although other accounts report he was "acquitted." Whatever.
In spite of the numerous interviews Litvinenko appears to have given to the media – a veritable public relations tsunami, in which his absurd conspiracy theory is being touted as unimpeachable fact – he is supposedly too sick to be making statements and finds himself unable to answer queries about what transpired at this meeting, or even where it occurred. Via Alex Goldfarb, president of a Berezovsky front group masquerading as a "human rights" organization, Litvinenko claims "through the agony of his illness, Mr. Litvinenko could not recall details of the meeting." Goldfarb has also suggested that Litvinenko was stricken when poison was poured into drinks at the meeting with Lugovoi and "Vladimir."
The cockamamie narrative being woven around the sudden and very mysterious illness visited on Litvinenko is a direct takeoff on the Yushchenko "poisoning," which goes unsolved to this day in spite of having Ukraine's full investigative capacities allegedly focused on exposing the plotters. That way it's so much easier to blame the KGB.
I won't reiterate my skepticism – to put it mildly – when it comes to the "official" story of how Yushchenko was poisoned with dioxin, a most unlikely candidate for an assassin's arsenal. Go here, here, and here for an extensive investigation into the continuing mystery of Yushchenko's disfigurement, but I want to make a larger point.
The attempt to portray the Russians as mad poisoners intent on assassinating their political opponents no matter where they try to find refuge is a powerful propagandistic theme that, although unsupported by any facts, winds its way through the media narrative on the wings of pure supposition. These people don't care about facts: it's all speculation, unsupported by evidence that passes the most perfunctory smell test.
If ever there was an attempted frame-up, then the Litvinenko "poisoning" is it. They won't really ever know what poisoned Litvinenko, and they can't detect enough thallium in his system, or indeed much of anything. Here is yet another link in the long chain of manufactured incidents meant to provoke a confrontation with Russia. An aggressive propaganda campaign aimed at the Russians has been in high gear for quite some time, and it appears to be reaching a crescendo with this Litvinenko nonsense.
The Russophobes' lobby includes all sorts of unlikely bed partners, including neoconservatives playing footsie with Chechen "freedom fighters" in the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya. What do avidly pro-Israel neocons and radical Islamists have in common? Hatred of Putin and his Russian nationalism is apparently enough to get them to work together.(...)
Here is an issue that both wings of the War Party – by which I mean the leadership of the two major parties – can agree on. Liberal internationalists of the Clintonian mold and those few neocons still left standing can all get behind the regime-change agenda when it comes to Putin's Russia.
Just what we need – more enemies. The War Party has a long list of potential candidates, including not only Russia but also China. If one gives out, there's always another that pops up to take its place. And isn't it funny how that works…
ANALYSIS: The accusations against Syria are all too routine
"The accusation leveled at the Syrians by Saad Hariri, son of assassinated former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri, the hints by Prime Minister Fuad Siniora urging the establishment of an international tribunal to try Hariri's killers, and statements by anti-Syrian elements in Lebanon, put Syria at the top of the list of suspects in Tuesday's assassination of Lebanese Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel. However pure political and diplomatic logic makes it difficult to see Damascus behind the assassination. The day Gemayel was killed, Syria chalked up one of its most significant diplomatic achievements since its defeat in Lebanon in April 2005: the renewal of full diplomatic relations with Iraq. (...)"
2) Antiwar: "Poisonous Propaganda The latest story about a KGB 'poisoning' is pure bunk "
"The continuing propaganda campaign directed at Vladimir Putin's Russia has taken a bizarre turn with the alleged "poisoning," in a London restaurant, of Alexander Litvinenko, a former KGB agent now associated with exiled Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky. According to the story being put out by Litvinenko and his friends, a meeting with Italian researcher Mario Scaramella was swiftly followed by Litvinenko's sudden collapse. The diagnosis: thallium poisoning. As far as much of the news media, and certainly the numerous Russophobes in the punditocracy are concerned, it's no mystery as to who's responsible: according to their "logic," since Litvinenko is a vehement critic of the Putin administration, Putin and his KGB were clearly responsible. Case closed… (...)
The stricken man opposed Putin and wrote a book accusing the Russian government of being behind the 1999 terrorist attacks carried out in Russian cities, for which Chechen terrorists were blamed. Therefore, Putin was behind this purported assassination attempt. As an indication of Litvinenko's credibility, he also claims that the KGB secretly funds al-Qaeda and orchestrated the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Litvinenko, in short, is a raving lunatic, who just so happens to enjoy the patronage of a very wealthy man with a very big grudge against Putin and Russia in general: Boris Berezovsky, the exiled oligarch who used his Communist connections to buy up whole sectors of the Russian economy dirt cheap during the rigged "privatizations" of the Yeltsin era, and fled the country when faced with charges of corruption. With much of his vast fortune still intact, Berezovsky has become Putin's nemesis, allying himself with Chechen terrorist leaders, what passes for Russian liberals, and American neoconservatives in a popular front for regime change in the Russian Federation.
(...) The plot thickens – or, rather, coagulates – when we get to the second meeting Litvinenko had on Nov. 1: with Andrei Lugovoi and some character known only as "Vladimir." According to an article posted on the Jamestown Foundation's Web site, before falling into Berezovsky's orbit, Lugovoi, a former FSB major, was a bodyguard to several Kremlin big shots, including Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar. He really made his mark, however, in connection with the escape from custody of former Aeroflot chairman Nikolai Glushkov, a Berezovsky protégé, jailed on charges of money-laundering. Glushkov and several others were charged with stashing over $252 million of Aeroflot's cash in Swiss accounts controlled by Berezovsky. Lugovoi was the warden of the prison Glushkov escaped from, and was compromised by certain phone calls overheard by the FSB. He was arrested and subsequently released under somewhat mysterious circumstances, although other accounts report he was "acquitted." Whatever.
In spite of the numerous interviews Litvinenko appears to have given to the media – a veritable public relations tsunami, in which his absurd conspiracy theory is being touted as unimpeachable fact – he is supposedly too sick to be making statements and finds himself unable to answer queries about what transpired at this meeting, or even where it occurred. Via Alex Goldfarb, president of a Berezovsky front group masquerading as a "human rights" organization, Litvinenko claims "through the agony of his illness, Mr. Litvinenko could not recall details of the meeting." Goldfarb has also suggested that Litvinenko was stricken when poison was poured into drinks at the meeting with Lugovoi and "Vladimir."
The cockamamie narrative being woven around the sudden and very mysterious illness visited on Litvinenko is a direct takeoff on the Yushchenko "poisoning," which goes unsolved to this day in spite of having Ukraine's full investigative capacities allegedly focused on exposing the plotters. That way it's so much easier to blame the KGB.
I won't reiterate my skepticism – to put it mildly – when it comes to the "official" story of how Yushchenko was poisoned with dioxin, a most unlikely candidate for an assassin's arsenal. Go here, here, and here for an extensive investigation into the continuing mystery of Yushchenko's disfigurement, but I want to make a larger point.
The attempt to portray the Russians as mad poisoners intent on assassinating their political opponents no matter where they try to find refuge is a powerful propagandistic theme that, although unsupported by any facts, winds its way through the media narrative on the wings of pure supposition. These people don't care about facts: it's all speculation, unsupported by evidence that passes the most perfunctory smell test.
If ever there was an attempted frame-up, then the Litvinenko "poisoning" is it. They won't really ever know what poisoned Litvinenko, and they can't detect enough thallium in his system, or indeed much of anything. Here is yet another link in the long chain of manufactured incidents meant to provoke a confrontation with Russia. An aggressive propaganda campaign aimed at the Russians has been in high gear for quite some time, and it appears to be reaching a crescendo with this Litvinenko nonsense.
The Russophobes' lobby includes all sorts of unlikely bed partners, including neoconservatives playing footsie with Chechen "freedom fighters" in the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya. What do avidly pro-Israel neocons and radical Islamists have in common? Hatred of Putin and his Russian nationalism is apparently enough to get them to work together.(...)
Here is an issue that both wings of the War Party – by which I mean the leadership of the two major parties – can agree on. Liberal internationalists of the Clintonian mold and those few neocons still left standing can all get behind the regime-change agenda when it comes to Putin's Russia.
Just what we need – more enemies. The War Party has a long list of potential candidates, including not only Russia but also China. If one gives out, there's always another that pops up to take its place. And isn't it funny how that works…
2006/11/21
E no final vai ficar algum afegão vivo? Vai transformar-se numa federação à Suiça? Com TV com canais pornográficos e tudo?
Histórias da 2ª Guerra Mundial
Canal de História: "Mussolini, A Verdade Sobre A Sua Morte: A Correspondência Secreta Entre Mussolini E W. Churchill, O Partido Comunista italiano foi, por 5 décadas, responsabilizado pela morte de Mussolini e da amante, Clara Petacci. Provas recentes revelam, porém, que o assassino foi um guerrilheiro italiano, a mando dos Serviços Secretos Britânicos e de Winston Churchill. A correspondência secreta entre este e o ditador italiano, mantida ao longo de 20 anos, esteve na origem da ordem de execução."
Wikipedia:
"...Furthermore, he controversially claimed that the Fascism of Benito Mussolini had "rendered a service to the whole world," showing, as it had, "a way to combat subversive forces" — that is, he considered the regime to be a bulwark against the perceived threat of Communist revolution. At one point, Churchill went as far as to call Mussolini the "Roman genius ... the greatest lawgiver among men."[4]"
Wikipedia:
"...Furthermore, he controversially claimed that the Fascism of Benito Mussolini had "rendered a service to the whole world," showing, as it had, "a way to combat subversive forces" — that is, he considered the regime to be a bulwark against the perceived threat of Communist revolution. At one point, Churchill went as far as to call Mussolini the "Roman genius ... the greatest lawgiver among men."[4]"
Histórias da Grande Guerra III
Canal de História: "O Último Dia da I Guerra Mundial"
"Ás 11 da manhã do dia 11 de Novembro de 1918 terminou a I Guerra Mundial. A vitória era garantida e já se tinha chegado a um acordo sobre os territórios. Então, porque é que que nesse dia morreram mais soldados do que no dia D?
Baseado no livro "Hora 11, dia 11, mês 11: Dia do Armistício, 1918", do historiador e biógrafo Joseph Persico, o programa revela com os lideres aliados procuraram as desculpas mais monstruosas para enviar 13 000 homens para a morte contra um exército que já estava derrotado: alguns desejavam uma promoção, outros reclamavam um justo castigo."
"Ás 11 da manhã do dia 11 de Novembro de 1918 terminou a I Guerra Mundial. A vitória era garantida e já se tinha chegado a um acordo sobre os territórios. Então, porque é que que nesse dia morreram mais soldados do que no dia D?
Baseado no livro "Hora 11, dia 11, mês 11: Dia do Armistício, 1918", do historiador e biógrafo Joseph Persico, o programa revela com os lideres aliados procuraram as desculpas mais monstruosas para enviar 13 000 homens para a morte contra um exército que já estava derrotado: alguns desejavam uma promoção, outros reclamavam um justo castigo."
Histórias da Grande Guerra II
* Discovery Channel:
Observando A História: Gallipoli, 25-11-2006 15:00 - Para Churchill, o Dia D foi um dos maiores triunfos da II Guerra Mundial. Mas quase 30 anos antes, na península de Gallipoli, teve lugar outro Dia D, menos conhecido, mas que ia acabando com a sua carreira política. A arqueologia submarina revela agora como os acontecimentos de 1915 se tornaram numa vergonha e numa carnificina.
* No Wikipedia: The campaign was largely successful for the Turks and the Germans and a catastrophe for Russia which eventually would lead to civil war partly due to this unsuccessful campaign.(...) Winston Churchill and the First Sea Lord John Fisher both resigned as a result of the defeat, amid mutual recriminations.
Observando A História: Gallipoli, 25-11-2006 15:00 - Para Churchill, o Dia D foi um dos maiores triunfos da II Guerra Mundial. Mas quase 30 anos antes, na península de Gallipoli, teve lugar outro Dia D, menos conhecido, mas que ia acabando com a sua carreira política. A arqueologia submarina revela agora como os acontecimentos de 1915 se tornaram numa vergonha e numa carnificina.
* No Wikipedia: The campaign was largely successful for the Turks and the Germans and a catastrophe for Russia which eventually would lead to civil war partly due to this unsuccessful campaign.(...) Winston Churchill and the First Sea Lord John Fisher both resigned as a result of the defeat, amid mutual recriminations.
White House brushes off CIA draft on Iran: report
Nov 20, 2006 — WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House dismissed a classified CIA draft assessment that found no conclusive evidence of a secret Iranian nuclear weapons program, The New Yorker magazine reported.
The article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said the CIA's analysis was based on technical intelligence collected by satellites and on other evidence like measurements of the radioactivity of water samples.
"The CIA found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency," according to the article.
"A current senior intelligence official confirmed the existence of the CIA analysis, and told me that the White House had been hostile to it," it said.
The article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said the CIA's analysis was based on technical intelligence collected by satellites and on other evidence like measurements of the radioactivity of water samples.
"The CIA found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency," according to the article.
"A current senior intelligence official confirmed the existence of the CIA analysis, and told me that the White House had been hostile to it," it said.
2006/11/20
Democracia, Guerra e Paz
HH Hoppe: "...democratic-peace theorists have of conflagrations such as World War I must be considered grotesque, at least from the point of view of someone allegedly valuing freedom. For them, this war was essentially a war of democracy against dictatorship; hence, by increasing the number of democracies, it was a progressive, peace-enhancing, and ultimately justified war.
In fact, matters are very different. To be sure, pre-war Germany and Austria may not have qualified as democratic as England, France, or the United States at the time. But Germany and Austria were definitely not dictatorships. They were (increasingly emasculated) monarchies and as such arguably as liberal — if not more so — than their counterparts. For instance, in the United States, anti-war proponents were jailed, the German language was essentially outlawed, and citizens of German descent were openly harassed and often forced to change their names. Nothing comparable occurred in Austria and Germany.
In any case, however, the result of the crusade to make the world safe for democracy was less liberal than what had existed before (and the Versailles peace dictate precipitated World War II). Not only did state power grow faster after the war than before. In particular, the treatment of minorities deteriorated in the democratized post–World War I period. In newly founded Czechoslovakia, for instance, the Germans were systematically mistreated (until they were finally expelled by the millions and butchered by the tens of thousands after World War II) by the majority Czechs. Nothing remotely comparable had happened to the Czechs during the previous Habsburg reign. The situation regarding the relations between Germans and southern Slavs in pre-war Austria versus post-war Yugoslavia respectively was similar.
Nor was this a fluke. As under the Habsburg monarchy in Austria, for instance, minorities had also been treated fairly well under the Ottomans. However, when the multicultural Ottoman Empire disintegrated in the course of the 19th century and was replaced by semi-democratic nation-states such as Greece, Bulgaria, etc., the existing Ottoman Muslims were expelled or exterminated. Similarly, after democracy had triumphed in the United States with the military conquest of the Southern Confederacy, the Union government quickly proceeded to exterminate the Plains Indians. As Mises had recognized, democracy does not work in multi-ethnic societies. It does not create peace but promotes conflict and has potentially genocidal tendencies."
Histórias da Grande Guerra
Jaime Nogueira Pinto no Futuro Presente:
"Nostalgias 16: Youssupov,conspirador.
Nas crónicas do não sucedido, há o não sucedido útil e o não sucedido inútil. A morte de Raspoutine, nas vésperas da Revolução de Fevereiro aproveitou pouco à Rússia .Mas de qualquer modo têm mérito os conspiradores patriotas que decidiram pôr termo a criatura tão sinistra. O mais famoso foi o príncipe Félix Youssupov, parente da família imperial, sobrevivente da Revolução(saiu da Rússia nos princípios de 1919)refugiado em Paris, mas com recursos -salvou uma fortuna em jóias-e que ainda há pouco foi aqui , na Blogosfera nacional, lembrado em Je Maintiendrai.P.S.Pensando mais realisticamente, não sei se uma paz separada com a Alemanha , que era um dos pontos da agenda do Raspoutine, não nos teria poupado a revolução bolchevique e todas as desgraças daí derivadas..."
Comentários colocados:
* Li num site de história americano (creio que o Historical News Network) que uma descoberta recente levantava como possível que a morte de Rasputine seria da responsabiildade dos serviços secretos ingleses.È um pena estes "detalhes" não serem mais discutidos.Também tanto quanto sei, Rasputine era já contra a declaração de guerra pelo Czar.Parece que quando o tentava prevenir e demover nos 2/3 dias chave, focou enfermo com febres altas, etc.
* Não só poderia ter poupado a revolução, como provávelmente teria poupado a Europa à substituição das monarquias por repúblicas fascistas e à maldição de Versailles.Mas aqui, deve ser apontada a culpa a Woodrow Wilson (o primeiro internacionalista idealista?), que insistiu que a Rússia continuasse a Guerra, financiando ainda Kerensky, e mais tarde a insistência na queda do Kaiser e satisfação irresponsável pela queda e desmembramento dos Habsburgos.
"Nostalgias 16: Youssupov,conspirador.
Nas crónicas do não sucedido, há o não sucedido útil e o não sucedido inútil. A morte de Raspoutine, nas vésperas da Revolução de Fevereiro aproveitou pouco à Rússia .Mas de qualquer modo têm mérito os conspiradores patriotas que decidiram pôr termo a criatura tão sinistra. O mais famoso foi o príncipe Félix Youssupov, parente da família imperial, sobrevivente da Revolução(saiu da Rússia nos princípios de 1919)refugiado em Paris, mas com recursos -salvou uma fortuna em jóias-e que ainda há pouco foi aqui , na Blogosfera nacional, lembrado em Je Maintiendrai.P.S.Pensando mais realisticamente, não sei se uma paz separada com a Alemanha , que era um dos pontos da agenda do Raspoutine, não nos teria poupado a revolução bolchevique e todas as desgraças daí derivadas..."
Comentários colocados:
* Li num site de história americano (creio que o Historical News Network) que uma descoberta recente levantava como possível que a morte de Rasputine seria da responsabiildade dos serviços secretos ingleses.È um pena estes "detalhes" não serem mais discutidos.Também tanto quanto sei, Rasputine era já contra a declaração de guerra pelo Czar.Parece que quando o tentava prevenir e demover nos 2/3 dias chave, focou enfermo com febres altas, etc.
* Não só poderia ter poupado a revolução, como provávelmente teria poupado a Europa à substituição das monarquias por repúblicas fascistas e à maldição de Versailles.Mas aqui, deve ser apontada a culpa a Woodrow Wilson (o primeiro internacionalista idealista?), que insistiu que a Rússia continuasse a Guerra, financiando ainda Kerensky, e mais tarde a insistência na queda do Kaiser e satisfação irresponsável pela queda e desmembramento dos Habsburgos.
Friedman e o serviço militar obrigatório
Aqui se lembra da oposição de Milton Friedman ao serviço militar obrigatório: Brad DeLong remembers Milton Friedman's opposition to the draft:
Gen. William Westmoreland, testifying before President Nixon's Commission on an All-Volunteer [Military] Force, denounced the idea of phasing out the draft and putting only volunteers in uniform, saying that he did not want to command "an army of mercenaries."
Friedman, a member of the 15-person commission, interrupted him. "General," Friedman asked, "would you rather command an army of slaves?" Westmoreland got angry: "I don't like to hear our patriotic draftees referred to as slaves." And Friedman got rolling: "I don't like to hear our patriotic volunteers referred to as mercenaries." And he did not stop: "If they are mercenaries, then I, sir, am a mercenary professor, and you, sir, are a mercenary general. We are served by mercenary physicians, we use a mercenary lawyer, and we get our meat from a mercenary butcher."
Mas o tema é recorrente:
"Congressman Charles Rangel of New York has introduced a bill that would re-institute military conscription (...) calling it "universal service." (...) Congressman Rahm Emanuel is championing ... conscript every 18-year-old to perform several years of (non-military)"service" to the state.
Gen. William Westmoreland, testifying before President Nixon's Commission on an All-Volunteer [Military] Force, denounced the idea of phasing out the draft and putting only volunteers in uniform, saying that he did not want to command "an army of mercenaries."
Friedman, a member of the 15-person commission, interrupted him. "General," Friedman asked, "would you rather command an army of slaves?" Westmoreland got angry: "I don't like to hear our patriotic draftees referred to as slaves." And Friedman got rolling: "I don't like to hear our patriotic volunteers referred to as mercenaries." And he did not stop: "If they are mercenaries, then I, sir, am a mercenary professor, and you, sir, are a mercenary general. We are served by mercenary physicians, we use a mercenary lawyer, and we get our meat from a mercenary butcher."
Mas o tema é recorrente:
"Congressman Charles Rangel of New York has introduced a bill that would re-institute military conscription (...) calling it "universal service." (...) Congressman Rahm Emanuel is championing ... conscript every 18-year-old to perform several years of (non-military)"service" to the state.
Origens do "islamo-fascismo"
e outros comentários preciosos:
"...Robert Gates, who as assistant CIA director in the late 1970’s was responsible for administering a 500 million dollar dose of growth-hormone to the then fledgling Militant Muslim movement will be insightful. Gates readily admitted his support of this effort in his 1996 memoir, From The Shadows. (...)
That those in Washington believed, and possibly still believe, giving aid and support to Militant Muslims was the right thing to do is revealed in this excerpt from a 1998 interview of Zbigniew Brezezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor.
"Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [From the Shadows], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?
B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the break-up of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.
"...Robert Gates, who as assistant CIA director in the late 1970’s was responsible for administering a 500 million dollar dose of growth-hormone to the then fledgling Militant Muslim movement will be insightful. Gates readily admitted his support of this effort in his 1996 memoir, From The Shadows. (...)
That those in Washington believed, and possibly still believe, giving aid and support to Militant Muslims was the right thing to do is revealed in this excerpt from a 1998 interview of Zbigniew Brezezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor.
"Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [From the Shadows], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?
B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the break-up of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.
Kissinger: Victory not possible
..."but a quick withdrawal of American troops would have "disastrous consequences," former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has said in an interview."
No final, o intervencionismo acaba a alimentar-se das suas próprias consequências.
No final, o intervencionismo acaba a alimentar-se das suas próprias consequências.
2006/11/17
Chamberlain e Churchill, again
"Ou será que duvida que Chamberlain teve um comportamento ético na forma como lidou com Hitler? E que, se calhar, Churchill terá sido menos ético nos seus procedimentos em relação ao ditador alemão? A qual dos dois dá, hoje, razão?"
Um pormenor de um excelente texto de Rui A. no Blasfémias., que não põe em causa o texto, mas...
Foi Chamberlain que por um lado ganhou a moral ao escapar de "casus bellis" menores para defender o erro de espalhar alemães por vários territórios com o Tratado de Versailles, e por outro ganhou tempo para o rearmamento. Lembrar que no caso de "Muniche" -Checoeslováquia, quer a Polónia quer a Hungria reividicaram e ficaram também com "pedaçitos" da Checoeslováquia, alegando as origens nacionais dos habitantes. Ninguém duvida que os alemães sudetas queriam fazer parte da Alemanha (como aliás os que tinham ficado em Danzig, que seria o motivo para o início do conflito).
E para cúmulo, a solução "Ocidental" depois da guerra, foi deslocar (expulsar) todos os alemães da Chechoeslováquia para a Alemanha à boa maneira Estalinista. Ou seja, parece que deram razão a Chamberlain.
Talvez Chamberlain na condução da WWII em vez de Churchill, não se tivesse deixado cegar tanto (motivo? a animosidade contra a Alemanha que era anterior à " WWI"), ao ponto de fazer de Estaline um aliado que acaba por ficar com mais território (e influência no mundo) do que se calhar, o próprio Hitler ambicionava alcançar.
Era uma das possibilidades estratégicas apontadas nos gabinetes de defesa e na boa tradição realista inglesa (de manter a europa continental fora da rivalidade ao seu Império pelas suas divisões e conflitos próprios), fazer com que Estaline e Hitler se combatessem mutuamente. Chamberlain foi mais correcto antes e poderia ter sido mais correcto depois e com isso, o mundo ter sido (mais) poupado ao que resultou da WWII.
Churchill é um caso de admiração pelos discursos e capacidade de oratória e galvanização e as suas idiossincracias pessoais. Também foi assim que os lideres fascistas conseguiam o apoio das massas.
A prática, demonstra-se, ter tido resultados péssimos em toda a linha, quer para o seu Império (e declíno acelerado da Inglaterra), quer com os anos de Guerra Fria que se seguiram.
2006/11/16
A comentar
As minhas razões pró-americanas, José Pacheco Pereira
"Estamos perante um processo de longo prazo, cujas condicionantes não desaparecem lá porque não as queremos ver, e em que as batalhas perdidas são inevitáveis. Se olhássemos para a situação dos aliados em 1940-41 na sua luta contra Hitler e Mussolini, o resultado seria desastroso: derrota após derrota, perdida a França e com a retirada humilhante de Dunquerque. Churchill foi duramente atacado, mas, por muitos erros que cometesse, aquele era o lado, porque numa guerra há lados, mesmo quando Deus não parece estar em nenhum lado. Fica esta prevenção para que se perceba que este é um barco de que não tenho nenhuma intenção de sair, em particular quando ele atravessa os seus mais perigosos estreitos."
Sim, a guerra ao terrorismo arriscas-e a durar mais que a guerra contra Hitler. Falta mencionar que no final dessa guerra foi Estaline que venceu.
"Estamos perante um processo de longo prazo, cujas condicionantes não desaparecem lá porque não as queremos ver, e em que as batalhas perdidas são inevitáveis. Se olhássemos para a situação dos aliados em 1940-41 na sua luta contra Hitler e Mussolini, o resultado seria desastroso: derrota após derrota, perdida a França e com a retirada humilhante de Dunquerque. Churchill foi duramente atacado, mas, por muitos erros que cometesse, aquele era o lado, porque numa guerra há lados, mesmo quando Deus não parece estar em nenhum lado. Fica esta prevenção para que se perceba que este é um barco de que não tenho nenhuma intenção de sair, em particular quando ele atravessa os seus mais perigosos estreitos."
Sim, a guerra ao terrorismo arriscas-e a durar mais que a guerra contra Hitler. Falta mencionar que no final dessa guerra foi Estaline que venceu.
2006/11/14
Histórias do intervencionismo
Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy, by Murray N. Rothbard
"(...) In February 1895, a rebellion for Cuban independence broke out against Spain. The original U.S. response was to try to end the threat of revolutionary war to American property interests by siding with Spanish rule modified by autonomy to the Cubans to pacify their desires for independence.
Here was the harbinger of U.S. foreign policy ever since: to try to maneuver in Third
World countries to sponsor "third force" or "moderate" interests which do not really exist. The
great proponent of this policy was the millionaire sugar grower in Cuba, Edwin F. Atkins, a close
friend of fellow-Bostonian Richard Olney, and a partner of J.P. Morgan and Company.
By the fall of 1895, Olney concluded that Spain could not win, and that, in view of the "large and
important commerce between the two countries" and the "large amounts of American capital" in
Cuba, the U.S. should execute a 180-degree shift and back the rebels, even unto recognizing
Cuban independence. The fact that such recognition would certainly lead to war with Spain did
not seem worth noting. The road to war with Spain had begun, a road that would reach its logical
conclusion three years later.
Ardently backing the pro-war course was Edwin F. Atkins, and August Belmont, on behalf of the
Rothschild banking interests. The House' of Rothschild, which had been long-time financiers to
Spain, refused to extend any further credit to Spain, and instead under-wrote Cuban
Revolutionary bond issues, and even assumed full obligation for the unsubscribed balance.
During the conquest of Cuba in the Spanish-American War, the United States also took the
occasion to expand its power greatly in Asia, seizing first the port of Manila and then all of the
Philippines, after which it spent several years crushing the revolutionary forces of the Philippine
independence movement."
2006/11/13
Secession Alert
Público: Ossétia do Sul vota independência
Os separatistas alimentam esperança numa eventual reunificação com a Rússia.
A Ossétia do Sul, região separatista da Geórgia que goza do apoio da Rússia, realizou ontem um referendo para reafirmar as suas pretensões de independência, em plena crise diplomática entre os governos de Moscovo e de Tbilisi.O voto, cujos primeiros resultados só serão conhecidos hoje e em que terá participado a quase totalidade dos 55 mil eleitores, foi criticado por parte da União Europeia, NATO e Estados Unidos, que temem uma desestabilização no Cáucaso.Aninhada na fronteira russa junto às montanhas, a Ossétia do Sul separou-se da Geórgia no fim de uma guerra, entre 1991 e 1992, na qual morreram centenas de pessoas e dezenas de milhares ficaram desalojadas. "Votei pela independência e por um futuro melhor", afirmou o Presidente incumbente, Edouard Kokoity, que tudo indica será reeleito.A maioria dos habitantes da Ossétia do Sul, pertencentes a uma etnia diferente da dos georgianos, possui passaporte russo e adoptou o rublo. Muitos defendem uma eventual reunificação com a Rússia. Mas a região, a apenas uma centena de quilómetros de Tbilisi, possui inúmeras aldeia habitadas por georgianos - muitos abandonaram as suas casas em zonas controladas por separatistas durante a guerra - que rejeitam o referendo de independência. Em seu lugar organizaram uma votação para eleger o seu líder regional.
Os separatistas alimentam esperança numa eventual reunificação com a Rússia.
A Ossétia do Sul, região separatista da Geórgia que goza do apoio da Rússia, realizou ontem um referendo para reafirmar as suas pretensões de independência, em plena crise diplomática entre os governos de Moscovo e de Tbilisi.O voto, cujos primeiros resultados só serão conhecidos hoje e em que terá participado a quase totalidade dos 55 mil eleitores, foi criticado por parte da União Europeia, NATO e Estados Unidos, que temem uma desestabilização no Cáucaso.Aninhada na fronteira russa junto às montanhas, a Ossétia do Sul separou-se da Geórgia no fim de uma guerra, entre 1991 e 1992, na qual morreram centenas de pessoas e dezenas de milhares ficaram desalojadas. "Votei pela independência e por um futuro melhor", afirmou o Presidente incumbente, Edouard Kokoity, que tudo indica será reeleito.A maioria dos habitantes da Ossétia do Sul, pertencentes a uma etnia diferente da dos georgianos, possui passaporte russo e adoptou o rublo. Muitos defendem uma eventual reunificação com a Rússia. Mas a região, a apenas uma centena de quilómetros de Tbilisi, possui inúmeras aldeia habitadas por georgianos - muitos abandonaram as suas casas em zonas controladas por separatistas durante a guerra - que rejeitam o referendo de independência. Em seu lugar organizaram uma votação para eleger o seu líder regional.
Histórias das "Guerra Civil"
LvMBlog: Mark Twain, who fought on the Confederate side, had chance to discuss military strategy with Grant, and relates to us as he did to Grant, how he would conduct war. He would retreat so often as to never give the enemy a chance to engage him and thus tire him into surrender. He boasted he was better at retreating than the man who invented the retreat!
Had Lee adopted this sound military strategy, the South would have been successful in its secession from the Union and the militarist Lincoln would have been defeated in his election for a second term. But no, men have to fight.
Blame Wilson
A propósito do dia do armistício na guerra que destruiu o que poderíamos denominar de período do liberalismo clássico (nasce como reacção ao absolutismo monárquico e acaba com o nascimento do absolutismo totalitário republicano e o advento da estado-social-democrata) e um monumento dramático aos males que o idealismo pode causar - não é por acaso que Wilson é uma referência do neo-conservadorismo.
Blame Wilson (...) When Wilson, who had already invaded Mexico, Nicaragua, Haiti and the Dominican Republic, finally got Congress to declare war against the Central Powers on April 8, 1917, based on the ridiculous Zimmerman Telegram, the renewal of unrestricted submarine warfare by the Germans, and trumped up charges of atrocities against the Belgians, he didn't just get more than 100,000 Americans killed, he solidified the last century's turn toward warfare and totalitarianism that eventually killed over two hundred million people.
So says Jim Powell, author of Wilson's War: How Woodrow Wilson's Great Blunder led to Hitler, Lenin, Stalin and World War II. (...)Powell makes a compelling argument that by the time the U.S. got involved, World War I was a stalemate. Peace was sure to break out soon. The soldiers on all sides were sick, freezing, and in various states of mutiny.
The Russians in particular had been devastated, many of their soldiers were without weapons, and their luck on the battlefield was running out. (...)Primarily due to his refusal to withdraw from the war, Nicholas II was deposed in a popular uprising on March 15, 1917. As soon as the U.S. Congress declared war less than a month later, Wilson began applying diplomatic pressure and paid the Russians $325 million to continue the fight. An Anglophile to the core, Wilson didn't care about the fate of the Russians. His concern was in keeping German forces split along two fronts. The payoff worked: Russia's provisional prime minister Aleksandr Kerensky kept the Russians involved in the war.Finally, on their fourth try, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin and his sidekick Leon Trotsky seized power.
As Powell says in the book, "If Russia's Provisional Government had quit the war and negotiated peace with Germany in early 1917, we might never had heard of Lenin. (...)"
Wilson's intervention led to the creation of the Soviet Union(...) Without the help of conscripted American soldiers it is much more likely that the Allies would have negotiated sooner and demanded less vengeful terms. And vengeful terms they were: Clause 231 and 232 of the Treaty of Versailles forced the Germans to accept blame for the entire war, and to "make compensation for all damage done to the civilian population of the Allied and Associated Powers" (...) This, as all school children presumably know, caused the German Government to turn on the printing presses, leading to terrible hyperinflation and the complete destruction of the German economy.
One wish of Wilson's was granted: he had demanded that the German Kaiser resign. He would only accept surrender from a "democratic government," presumably meaning one like his.
Due to this decision, the German democrats who had opposed the war were discredited for being those responsible for signing the terrible treaty. The opposition took all the heat, rather than the people who got the country into the war in the first place.(...)
The series of maneuvers Hitler used to seize power were difficult enough as it was. Without the destruction of the German economy by the demands of massive reparations and the discrediting of the moderate factions, Adolph Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers' Party would never have been able to seize power. Hitler's entire propaganda program was based on the idea of punishing the "traitors of 1918" (those who signed the Versailles treaty), and restoring dignity to a country so humiliated by the aftermath of the first world war. Wilson enabled the rise of Nazi Germany and its bloody fruition, World War II – 50 million individuals killed(...)
Wilson's blunder also paved the way for our current conflicts in the Middle East. With the overwhelming victory of the Allies, made possible by US involvement, the British Empire expanded by over a million square miles. The French were able to greatly expand their territories as well. The current nation-states of Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yemen and what was then called Palestine were drawn on a paper napkin by Winston Churchill with no regard for local populations at all. On top of all this, Lord Grey's successor, British foreign secretary Lord Arthur James Balfour, issued his famous "declaration," in the form of a letter to Lord Lionel Rothschild declaring the "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people..." This has been, and will continue to be, a cause of major problems for the West, and the United States in particular, to say nothing of the people who live there.(...)"
Blame Wilson (...) When Wilson, who had already invaded Mexico, Nicaragua, Haiti and the Dominican Republic, finally got Congress to declare war against the Central Powers on April 8, 1917, based on the ridiculous Zimmerman Telegram, the renewal of unrestricted submarine warfare by the Germans, and trumped up charges of atrocities against the Belgians, he didn't just get more than 100,000 Americans killed, he solidified the last century's turn toward warfare and totalitarianism that eventually killed over two hundred million people.
So says Jim Powell, author of Wilson's War: How Woodrow Wilson's Great Blunder led to Hitler, Lenin, Stalin and World War II. (...)Powell makes a compelling argument that by the time the U.S. got involved, World War I was a stalemate. Peace was sure to break out soon. The soldiers on all sides were sick, freezing, and in various states of mutiny.
The Russians in particular had been devastated, many of their soldiers were without weapons, and their luck on the battlefield was running out. (...)Primarily due to his refusal to withdraw from the war, Nicholas II was deposed in a popular uprising on March 15, 1917. As soon as the U.S. Congress declared war less than a month later, Wilson began applying diplomatic pressure and paid the Russians $325 million to continue the fight. An Anglophile to the core, Wilson didn't care about the fate of the Russians. His concern was in keeping German forces split along two fronts. The payoff worked: Russia's provisional prime minister Aleksandr Kerensky kept the Russians involved in the war.Finally, on their fourth try, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin and his sidekick Leon Trotsky seized power.
As Powell says in the book, "If Russia's Provisional Government had quit the war and negotiated peace with Germany in early 1917, we might never had heard of Lenin. (...)"
Wilson's intervention led to the creation of the Soviet Union(...) Without the help of conscripted American soldiers it is much more likely that the Allies would have negotiated sooner and demanded less vengeful terms. And vengeful terms they were: Clause 231 and 232 of the Treaty of Versailles forced the Germans to accept blame for the entire war, and to "make compensation for all damage done to the civilian population of the Allied and Associated Powers" (...) This, as all school children presumably know, caused the German Government to turn on the printing presses, leading to terrible hyperinflation and the complete destruction of the German economy.
One wish of Wilson's was granted: he had demanded that the German Kaiser resign. He would only accept surrender from a "democratic government," presumably meaning one like his.
Due to this decision, the German democrats who had opposed the war were discredited for being those responsible for signing the terrible treaty. The opposition took all the heat, rather than the people who got the country into the war in the first place.(...)
The series of maneuvers Hitler used to seize power were difficult enough as it was. Without the destruction of the German economy by the demands of massive reparations and the discrediting of the moderate factions, Adolph Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers' Party would never have been able to seize power. Hitler's entire propaganda program was based on the idea of punishing the "traitors of 1918" (those who signed the Versailles treaty), and restoring dignity to a country so humiliated by the aftermath of the first world war. Wilson enabled the rise of Nazi Germany and its bloody fruition, World War II – 50 million individuals killed(...)
Wilson's blunder also paved the way for our current conflicts in the Middle East. With the overwhelming victory of the Allies, made possible by US involvement, the British Empire expanded by over a million square miles. The French were able to greatly expand their territories as well. The current nation-states of Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yemen and what was then called Palestine were drawn on a paper napkin by Winston Churchill with no regard for local populations at all. On top of all this, Lord Grey's successor, British foreign secretary Lord Arthur James Balfour, issued his famous "declaration," in the form of a letter to Lord Lionel Rothschild declaring the "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people..." This has been, and will continue to be, a cause of major problems for the West, and the United States in particular, to say nothing of the people who live there.(...)"
2006/11/10
Churchill, gás e os Kurdos, antes de Saddam
Wikipedia:
"In 1920, as Secretary for War and Air, Churchill had responsibility for quelling the rebellion of Kurds and Arabs in British-occupied Iraq, which he achieved by authorising the use of poison gas. At the time he wrote, "I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes" - although Churchill's intention was 'to cause disablement of some kind but not death'.[1] If it occurred, this is the first recorded use of poison gas against a civilian population."
"In 1920, as Secretary for War and Air, Churchill had responsibility for quelling the rebellion of Kurds and Arabs in British-occupied Iraq, which he achieved by authorising the use of poison gas. At the time he wrote, "I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes" - although Churchill's intention was 'to cause disablement of some kind but not death'.[1] If it occurred, this is the first recorded use of poison gas against a civilian population."
Egypt fears Hussein death backlash
Os julgamentos de estadistas por regimes mal sustentados pelo exterior têm toda a probabilidade de acabar mal.
"CAIRO, Egypt (AP) -- Egypt's president came out strongly against hanging Saddam Hussein, saying in remarks published Thursday that it could make Iraq explode into more violence. But Iraq's prime minister said the execution could take place by the end of the year.
The statement from President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt broke an uneasy silence among Arab leaders over Sunday's verdict by an Iraqi court, which convicted Hussein for the killings of some 150 Shiite Muslims after an assassination attempt against him in 1982.
Mubarak, a regional heavyweight and a top U.S. ally, appeared to speak for many in the region who are uneasy about seeing a former Arab president tried and sentenced -- no matter how much they disliked Hussein's regime. Analysts suggested Arab leaders are worried about the precedent an execution would set, and said Arab publics often identify with their leaders.
"Carrying out this verdict will explode violence like waterfalls in Iraq," Mubarak was quoted as saying by state-run Egyptian newspapers. Hanging Hussein "will transform (Iraq) into blood pools and lead to a deepening of the sectarian and ethnic conflicts.""
"CAIRO, Egypt (AP) -- Egypt's president came out strongly against hanging Saddam Hussein, saying in remarks published Thursday that it could make Iraq explode into more violence. But Iraq's prime minister said the execution could take place by the end of the year.
The statement from President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt broke an uneasy silence among Arab leaders over Sunday's verdict by an Iraqi court, which convicted Hussein for the killings of some 150 Shiite Muslims after an assassination attempt against him in 1982.
Mubarak, a regional heavyweight and a top U.S. ally, appeared to speak for many in the region who are uneasy about seeing a former Arab president tried and sentenced -- no matter how much they disliked Hussein's regime. Analysts suggested Arab leaders are worried about the precedent an execution would set, and said Arab publics often identify with their leaders.
"Carrying out this verdict will explode violence like waterfalls in Iraq," Mubarak was quoted as saying by state-run Egyptian newspapers. Hanging Hussein "will transform (Iraq) into blood pools and lead to a deepening of the sectarian and ethnic conflicts.""
Duas democracias ainda se põem em guerra...
Paris protesta com Israel por causa do Líbano
"A França manifestou ontem o seu descontentamento com o comportamento do Exército israelita no Líbano. O embaixador de Israel em França, Daniel Shek, foi convocado ao Ministério dos Negócios Estrangeiros para prestar explicações sobre o incidente militar ocorrido no Líbano a 31 de Outubro: dois caças da aviação israelita desceram em voo picado na direcção de uma posição ocupada por soldados franceses da UNIFIL, a força da ONU no Líbano. "Os nossos soldados só evitaram uma catástrofe por um triz", afirmou a ministra da Defesa, Michèle Alliot-Marie, ao revelar o incidente na Assembleia Nacional. "Um voo a pique de aviões militares é, de forma perfeitamente clara, uma postura de ataque correspondendo à largada de bombas ou a disparos", acrescentou. Os soldados franceses preparam-se para ripostar e abater os aviões. Nesse momento, os caças inverteram a trajectória. "Mais dois segundos, e havia disparos contra os aviões que ameaçavam directamente a nossa tropa","
"A França manifestou ontem o seu descontentamento com o comportamento do Exército israelita no Líbano. O embaixador de Israel em França, Daniel Shek, foi convocado ao Ministério dos Negócios Estrangeiros para prestar explicações sobre o incidente militar ocorrido no Líbano a 31 de Outubro: dois caças da aviação israelita desceram em voo picado na direcção de uma posição ocupada por soldados franceses da UNIFIL, a força da ONU no Líbano. "Os nossos soldados só evitaram uma catástrofe por um triz", afirmou a ministra da Defesa, Michèle Alliot-Marie, ao revelar o incidente na Assembleia Nacional. "Um voo a pique de aviões militares é, de forma perfeitamente clara, uma postura de ataque correspondendo à largada de bombas ou a disparos", acrescentou. Os soldados franceses preparam-se para ripostar e abater os aviões. Nesse momento, os caças inverteram a trajectória. "Mais dois segundos, e havia disparos contra os aviões que ameaçavam directamente a nossa tropa","
Secession alert
2006/11/09
Várias intervenções
* Sobre Putin e a "ambição de reconstituição do poder imperial russo que constitui uma ameaça potencial à segurança europeia"(FCG)
Esta história do poder imperial russo é como a do Pedro e dos Lobos ou se calhar os moinhos de D Quixote, e já agora, o quanto mais a Europa tinha sido segura no século 20 se de facto, o poder imperial russo do czar nunca tivesse caído e aliás, pelo qual, estupidamente se fez a Primeira Guerra Mundial com o resultado de provocar precisamente (e tragicamente) a queda do Império Russo e emergência do comunismo.
As contas da ciência oculta da geo-estratégia saiem com frequência erradas e com o resultado exactamente oposto.
Assim como começar a WWII por causa da Polónia e esta cair sob o domíno de Estaline. Quase que podiam chamar as duas “boas guerras” pela vitória do comunismo.
Putin tem o apoio da população e tenta recuperar a dignidade de uma “great power”. É a “segurança europeia” que explorando os novos nacionalismos do independentismo-separatismo das ex-republicas russas, sempre dispostas a receber ajuda seja de quem for para se afirmarem (sim hoje da Nato, mas amanhá da China?), induzem a uma reacção mais do que esperada pelos Russos que vêm outros pipelines e outras ambições pelo médio -oriente, afeganistão e outros quintais do que já foi desde tempo imemoriais, Rùssia.
A ciência oculta da geo-estratégia vive de vêr inimigos em todo o lado.
* Sobre a Nicarágua e Cuba
“Former US Lt. Col. Oliver North, who helped organize and raise funds for a terrorist organization that decimated Nicaragua in the 1980s, returned to that country’s ground zero in late October to warn the citizens there against re-electing Daniel Ortega.
Ortega first came to power in a 1979 revolution led by the Sandinistas, which overthrew the brutal Washington-backed dictatorship of Anastasio Somoza. The Somoza family had ruled the country since US Marines invaded and occupied Nicaragua from 1927-1933.
But the US Central Intelligence Agency soon brought guns and money to the enforcers of the toppled dictatorship, Somoza’s hated National Guard. Before long these re-named “contras” were killing health care workers, teachers, and elected officials – the CIA actually prepared a manual which advocated the assassination of the latter. The contras preferred attacking these “soft targets” rather than the national armed forces. In that sense they were very much a terrorist organization; they also used torture and rape as political weapons.
These atrocities brought the contras universal condemnation from humans rights groups such as Amnesty International and Americas Watch. The Sandinistas took the United States to the World Court for its terrorist actions—the same court where the US had won a judgment against Iran just a few years earlier, for the taking of American hostages. The court ruled in favor of Nicaragua, ordering reparations estimated at $17 billion.
The heinous nature of these crimes and the direct involvement of the Reagan Administration disgusted millions of Americans, even more so after Ortega was democratically elected in 1984. Led by activists in the religious community, some hundreds of thousands of US citizens organized against US funding for the contras and convinced Congress to cut it off. That’s where Ollie North came in: on behalf of the Reagan Administration, he illegally sold arms to Iran and used the proceeds to fund the contras. This became the infamous “Iran-Contra” scandal of twenty years ago.
North was convicted of various felonies for his Iran-Contra crimes, but never served time because his conviction was overturned due to a technicality on appeal. In 1990 the Sandinistas were voted out of office by a public weary of war, with President George H.W. Bush making it clear that the violence would continue if the Sandinistas were re-elected.
Nicaragua’s economy never recovered from the war and the US embargo. Today it is the second poorest country in the hemisphere, with a per capita income less than it was in 1960. "
Quanto a Cuba também é um bom exemplo. Cuba foi "libertada" pelos EUA do jugo da Coroa Espanhola, tranformando-se num protectorado que acaba com mais uma revolução dos anteriormente “libertados”, depois, quer o embargo quer as sucvessivas tentativas de assassinato e invasão só ajudaram o regime.
Esta história do poder imperial russo é como a do Pedro e dos Lobos ou se calhar os moinhos de D Quixote, e já agora, o quanto mais a Europa tinha sido segura no século 20 se de facto, o poder imperial russo do czar nunca tivesse caído e aliás, pelo qual, estupidamente se fez a Primeira Guerra Mundial com o resultado de provocar precisamente (e tragicamente) a queda do Império Russo e emergência do comunismo.
As contas da ciência oculta da geo-estratégia saiem com frequência erradas e com o resultado exactamente oposto.
Assim como começar a WWII por causa da Polónia e esta cair sob o domíno de Estaline. Quase que podiam chamar as duas “boas guerras” pela vitória do comunismo.
Putin tem o apoio da população e tenta recuperar a dignidade de uma “great power”. É a “segurança europeia” que explorando os novos nacionalismos do independentismo-separatismo das ex-republicas russas, sempre dispostas a receber ajuda seja de quem for para se afirmarem (sim hoje da Nato, mas amanhá da China?), induzem a uma reacção mais do que esperada pelos Russos que vêm outros pipelines e outras ambições pelo médio -oriente, afeganistão e outros quintais do que já foi desde tempo imemoriais, Rùssia.
A ciência oculta da geo-estratégia vive de vêr inimigos em todo o lado.
* Sobre a Nicarágua e Cuba
“Former US Lt. Col. Oliver North, who helped organize and raise funds for a terrorist organization that decimated Nicaragua in the 1980s, returned to that country’s ground zero in late October to warn the citizens there against re-electing Daniel Ortega.
Ortega first came to power in a 1979 revolution led by the Sandinistas, which overthrew the brutal Washington-backed dictatorship of Anastasio Somoza. The Somoza family had ruled the country since US Marines invaded and occupied Nicaragua from 1927-1933.
But the US Central Intelligence Agency soon brought guns and money to the enforcers of the toppled dictatorship, Somoza’s hated National Guard. Before long these re-named “contras” were killing health care workers, teachers, and elected officials – the CIA actually prepared a manual which advocated the assassination of the latter. The contras preferred attacking these “soft targets” rather than the national armed forces. In that sense they were very much a terrorist organization; they also used torture and rape as political weapons.
These atrocities brought the contras universal condemnation from humans rights groups such as Amnesty International and Americas Watch. The Sandinistas took the United States to the World Court for its terrorist actions—the same court where the US had won a judgment against Iran just a few years earlier, for the taking of American hostages. The court ruled in favor of Nicaragua, ordering reparations estimated at $17 billion.
The heinous nature of these crimes and the direct involvement of the Reagan Administration disgusted millions of Americans, even more so after Ortega was democratically elected in 1984. Led by activists in the religious community, some hundreds of thousands of US citizens organized against US funding for the contras and convinced Congress to cut it off. That’s where Ollie North came in: on behalf of the Reagan Administration, he illegally sold arms to Iran and used the proceeds to fund the contras. This became the infamous “Iran-Contra” scandal of twenty years ago.
North was convicted of various felonies for his Iran-Contra crimes, but never served time because his conviction was overturned due to a technicality on appeal. In 1990 the Sandinistas were voted out of office by a public weary of war, with President George H.W. Bush making it clear that the violence would continue if the Sandinistas were re-elected.
Nicaragua’s economy never recovered from the war and the US embargo. Today it is the second poorest country in the hemisphere, with a per capita income less than it was in 1960. "
Quanto a Cuba também é um bom exemplo. Cuba foi "libertada" pelos EUA do jugo da Coroa Espanhola, tranformando-se num protectorado que acaba com mais uma revolução dos anteriormente “libertados”, depois, quer o embargo quer as sucvessivas tentativas de assassinato e invasão só ajudaram o regime.
Paradoxo
"Remember, thousands of people have sacrificed their lives so you can have the right to force their children to fight for that right."
2006/11/08
Pois
Israeli Artillery Shelling Kills 19 Civilians in Gaza
Israel Leaves Gaza Town to Count Dead
57 Unarmed Palestinian Minors Killed by Israel Since June
Intel to invest up to $1B in Vietnam
2006/11/07
Não estão a ver que eles até desocupam, o que querem mais?
Extra! Andrew Sullivan quotes The American Conservative:
Anwar: Today, Andrew Sullivan quotes the following passage from The American Conservative:
Faced on Sept. 11, 2001 with a great challenge, President Bush made little effort to understand who had attacked us and why—thus ignoring the prerequisite for crafting an effective response. He seemingly did not want to find out, and he had staffed his national-security team with people who either did not want to know or were committed to a prefabricated answer.
As a consequence, he rushed America into a war against Iraq, a war we are now losing and cannot win, one that has done far more to strengthen Islamist terrorists than anything they could possibly have done for themselves. Bush’s decision to seize Iraq will almost surely leave behind a broken state divided into warring ethnic enclaves, with hundreds of thousands killed and maimed and thousands more thirsting for revenge against the country that crossed the ocean to attack them. The invasion failed at every level: if securing Israel was part of the administration’s calculation—as the record suggests it was for several of his top aides—the result is also clear: the strengthening of Iran’s hand in the Persian Gulf, with a reach up to Israel’s northern border, and the elimination of the most powerful Arab state that might stem Iranian regional hegemony.
The war will continue as long as Bush is in office, for no other reason than the feckless president can’t face the embarrassment of admitting defeat. The chain of events is not complete: Bush, having learned little from his mistakes, may yet seek to embroil America in new wars against Iran and Syria.
Meanwhile, America’s image in the world, its capacity to persuade others that its interests are common interests, is lower than it has been in memory."
Faced on Sept. 11, 2001 with a great challenge, President Bush made little effort to understand who had attacked us and why—thus ignoring the prerequisite for crafting an effective response. He seemingly did not want to find out, and he had staffed his national-security team with people who either did not want to know or were committed to a prefabricated answer.
As a consequence, he rushed America into a war against Iraq, a war we are now losing and cannot win, one that has done far more to strengthen Islamist terrorists than anything they could possibly have done for themselves. Bush’s decision to seize Iraq will almost surely leave behind a broken state divided into warring ethnic enclaves, with hundreds of thousands killed and maimed and thousands more thirsting for revenge against the country that crossed the ocean to attack them. The invasion failed at every level: if securing Israel was part of the administration’s calculation—as the record suggests it was for several of his top aides—the result is also clear: the strengthening of Iran’s hand in the Persian Gulf, with a reach up to Israel’s northern border, and the elimination of the most powerful Arab state that might stem Iranian regional hegemony.
The war will continue as long as Bush is in office, for no other reason than the feckless president can’t face the embarrassment of admitting defeat. The chain of events is not complete: Bush, having learned little from his mistakes, may yet seek to embroil America in new wars against Iran and Syria.
Meanwhile, America’s image in the world, its capacity to persuade others that its interests are common interests, is lower than it has been in memory."
Tragedy, Farce, and Worse
Lewrockwell:
"But no one has yet explained why precisely the American people should celebrate what is so obviously a victory of Shiite ultras bent on establishing a fundamentalist regime.
Sure, it's fun to dance in the streets, but the Republicans might take a second look at who their partners are.
The "Islamo-fascists" that the pundit class warns us about are the group that wins if Saddam is killed. His execution virtually guarantees further civil war and American deaths.
Further, it unleashes the Shiite death-squads against the Sunni minority, as never before, and inspires the Sunnis to step up extreme suicidal tactics, while leaving the few Christians and handful of Jews remaining in Iraq to the mercy of their sworn enemies.
And this is supposed to be good news?
One can only rub one's eyes in disbelief at the disconnect between the rhetoric and the reality.
The Bush administration and its apologists have used talk of democracy and freedom to justify their war on Iraq, and raise the specter of fanatical Islamic extremists as the great bogeyman of the moment.
And yet what does US policy in Iraq amount to? Handing over the central state to sectarians and executing the man they hate precisely because he did not make Islamic law the civil code of Iraq. (...)
Iraq invaded Iran in 1980 with US approval. Reagan removed Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries. The US shipped weapons and the Department of Defense provided intelligence to assist Iraq. A 1983 National Security Directive said that the US would do everything possible to prevent Iran from winning. In 1983, Rumsfeld even met with Saddam to assure him of US support. The CIA supported Iraq's mustard gas attacks on Iran.
In other words, the government that now says that Saddam has to be killed for his crimes is the very same government that supported him while he was committing those crimes. There ought to be a word more poignant than hypocrisy to describe such a case as this.
If you want to make the best case for the US's support of Saddam in the 1980s, it would observe that despite his brutal methods of political control, he remained the only non-theocratic and relatively liberally minded dictator in the region. The country was booming commercially, it had religious liberty – Christians and Jews lived there peacefully and securely whereas they were not safe in neighboring states – and there were separate codes governing religious and secular life.
Hop forward all these years, and we see the US orchestrating the killing of Saddam in the name of making the region safe for democracy"
"But no one has yet explained why precisely the American people should celebrate what is so obviously a victory of Shiite ultras bent on establishing a fundamentalist regime.
Sure, it's fun to dance in the streets, but the Republicans might take a second look at who their partners are.
The "Islamo-fascists" that the pundit class warns us about are the group that wins if Saddam is killed. His execution virtually guarantees further civil war and American deaths.
Further, it unleashes the Shiite death-squads against the Sunni minority, as never before, and inspires the Sunnis to step up extreme suicidal tactics, while leaving the few Christians and handful of Jews remaining in Iraq to the mercy of their sworn enemies.
And this is supposed to be good news?
One can only rub one's eyes in disbelief at the disconnect between the rhetoric and the reality.
The Bush administration and its apologists have used talk of democracy and freedom to justify their war on Iraq, and raise the specter of fanatical Islamic extremists as the great bogeyman of the moment.
And yet what does US policy in Iraq amount to? Handing over the central state to sectarians and executing the man they hate precisely because he did not make Islamic law the civil code of Iraq. (...)
Iraq invaded Iran in 1980 with US approval. Reagan removed Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries. The US shipped weapons and the Department of Defense provided intelligence to assist Iraq. A 1983 National Security Directive said that the US would do everything possible to prevent Iran from winning. In 1983, Rumsfeld even met with Saddam to assure him of US support. The CIA supported Iraq's mustard gas attacks on Iran.
In other words, the government that now says that Saddam has to be killed for his crimes is the very same government that supported him while he was committing those crimes. There ought to be a word more poignant than hypocrisy to describe such a case as this.
If you want to make the best case for the US's support of Saddam in the 1980s, it would observe that despite his brutal methods of political control, he remained the only non-theocratic and relatively liberally minded dictator in the region. The country was booming commercially, it had religious liberty – Christians and Jews lived there peacefully and securely whereas they were not safe in neighboring states – and there were separate codes governing religious and secular life.
Hop forward all these years, and we see the US orchestrating the killing of Saddam in the name of making the region safe for democracy"
2006/11/06
Sobre ratos que abandonam os navios
Michael Ledeen: The Best There Ever Was
Much of the blurghosphere is gaping in slack-jawed amazement at Michael Ledeen this afternoon. And rightfully so. Others in the right-wing's core of frothing foreign policy lunatics are spectacular liars, landing the equivalent of double and triple axels with ease. But Ledeen has flown far beyond what anyone had dreamed possible for human beings. Behold, the nonuple axel of lying:
I do not feel "remorseful," since I had and have no involvement with our Iraq policy. I opposed the military invasion of Iraq before it took place and I advocated—as I still do—support for political revolution in Iran as the logical and necessary first step in the war against the terror masters.
(...) BARNICLE: So Michael, that begs the question that if we continue to go down this road, as articulated by President Bush at West Point, do we really need as a nation more enemies around the globe?
LEDEEN: I don't think winning this war will create enemies, quite the contrary. I think that enemies would take heart from our failure to wage this war and even more so from our failure to win the war. I don't believe for a minute that the European leaders from today are saying go slow, take it easy...
They know we're going to win this war and they cannot stay out of it. It's just too damaging to them. So I think you'll see a huge change once the war starts and I think that if President Bush is to be faulted for anything in this so far, it's that he's taken much too long to get on with it, much too long.
Much of the blurghosphere is gaping in slack-jawed amazement at Michael Ledeen this afternoon. And rightfully so. Others in the right-wing's core of frothing foreign policy lunatics are spectacular liars, landing the equivalent of double and triple axels with ease. But Ledeen has flown far beyond what anyone had dreamed possible for human beings. Behold, the nonuple axel of lying:
I do not feel "remorseful," since I had and have no involvement with our Iraq policy. I opposed the military invasion of Iraq before it took place and I advocated—as I still do—support for political revolution in Iran as the logical and necessary first step in the war against the terror masters.
(...) BARNICLE: So Michael, that begs the question that if we continue to go down this road, as articulated by President Bush at West Point, do we really need as a nation more enemies around the globe?
LEDEEN: I don't think winning this war will create enemies, quite the contrary. I think that enemies would take heart from our failure to wage this war and even more so from our failure to win the war. I don't believe for a minute that the European leaders from today are saying go slow, take it easy...
They know we're going to win this war and they cannot stay out of it. It's just too damaging to them. So I think you'll see a huge change once the war starts and I think that if President Bush is to be faulted for anything in this so far, it's that he's taken much too long to get on with it, much too long.
2006/11/03
Sempre as razões erradas
De repente, ainda que se note há já algum tempo, começa-se a notar o incómodo da inevitável secessão do Kosovo, pós- intervenção da NATO. Porquê? Porque existem russos na Geórgia que movem pretensões de Secessão (e isso não pode ser...). Ver FCG na DIA D.
E claro, porque lembram-se tarde de mais que o Kosovo foi libertado pelos "freedom fighters" islâmicos do KLA. "Freddom fighters" ou Terrorismo. É um pouco como a história dos vencedores. A linguagem sempre foi um veiculo de cinismo.
As razões erradas como sempre. Não é a secessão em si do Kosovo que deve ser criticada, mas sim o facto de antes do intervencionismo militar-politico-humanitário ser claro que uma das coisas que iria acontecer era precisamente isso.
Os Sérvios foram castigados porque pretendiam lutar contra o desmembramento. Ao mesmo que pretendiam pôr em causa que os enclaves de Sérvios em outras regiões já declaradas como independentes não pudessem reclamar também a secessão.
E as guerras civis são sujas já o sabiamos. Na dos EUA morreram mais de 600 000 pessoas, o equivalente com a população de hoje a 4 milhões.
O que temos de criticar acima de tudo foi mesmo uma campanha de bombardeamento pela NATO incentivada por Clinton.
Se agora resulta em Secessão aberta ou não, podemos vir a concluir que o processo foi iniciado e facilitado pela NATO. A Secessão em si pertence à vontade (poderei dizer "democrática"?) dos povos. Ou mais realisticamente, à história em movimento.
Em cada época os Status Quos são sempre dados como inabaláveis. Mas nunca o são. O que define quem assume o monopólio da violência sobre um dado território (Estado) é apenas a relação de forças de vontade de vontade da forças.
PS: FCG apresenta-se preocupado com a possibilidade de um novo Império Czarista. Mas para já, teria sido mesmo muito bom para a humanidade e civilização que este nunca tivesse desaparecido em primeiro lugar. Em segundo, o "Império" foi capaz de aceitar pacificamente a secessão múltipla, incluindo de novos países que nunca o tinham sido. Em terceiro, quanto existe um com bases militares em 100 países e ocupa militarmente dois e tenta rodear a Rússia com bases militares da NATO, diria que apenas tenta conservar a sua dignidade como grande nação. No fundo é isso que incomoda.
E claro, porque lembram-se tarde de mais que o Kosovo foi libertado pelos "freedom fighters" islâmicos do KLA. "Freddom fighters" ou Terrorismo. É um pouco como a história dos vencedores. A linguagem sempre foi um veiculo de cinismo.
As razões erradas como sempre. Não é a secessão em si do Kosovo que deve ser criticada, mas sim o facto de antes do intervencionismo militar-politico-humanitário ser claro que uma das coisas que iria acontecer era precisamente isso.
Os Sérvios foram castigados porque pretendiam lutar contra o desmembramento. Ao mesmo que pretendiam pôr em causa que os enclaves de Sérvios em outras regiões já declaradas como independentes não pudessem reclamar também a secessão.
E as guerras civis são sujas já o sabiamos. Na dos EUA morreram mais de 600 000 pessoas, o equivalente com a população de hoje a 4 milhões.
O que temos de criticar acima de tudo foi mesmo uma campanha de bombardeamento pela NATO incentivada por Clinton.
Se agora resulta em Secessão aberta ou não, podemos vir a concluir que o processo foi iniciado e facilitado pela NATO. A Secessão em si pertence à vontade (poderei dizer "democrática"?) dos povos. Ou mais realisticamente, à história em movimento.
Em cada época os Status Quos são sempre dados como inabaláveis. Mas nunca o são. O que define quem assume o monopólio da violência sobre um dado território (Estado) é apenas a relação de forças de vontade de vontade da forças.
PS: FCG apresenta-se preocupado com a possibilidade de um novo Império Czarista. Mas para já, teria sido mesmo muito bom para a humanidade e civilização que este nunca tivesse desaparecido em primeiro lugar. Em segundo, o "Império" foi capaz de aceitar pacificamente a secessão múltipla, incluindo de novos países que nunca o tinham sido. Em terceiro, quanto existe um com bases militares em 100 países e ocupa militarmente dois e tenta rodear a Rússia com bases militares da NATO, diria que apenas tenta conservar a sua dignidade como grande nação. No fundo é isso que incomoda.
Agora aparecem os críticos apressados
Christopher Hitchens e Andrew Sullivan:
Check out Christopher Hitchens and Andrew Sullivan castigating our Leader for the mass death and destruction in Iraq - as though it’s not their fault too.
