Cel mai bun paragraf de azi

Robert Kagan in Policy Review

“The first illusion, however, is that Bush really changed anything. Historians will long debate the decision to go to war in Iraq, but what they are least likely to conclude is that the intervention was wildly out of character for the United States. Since the end of World War ii at least, American presidents of both parties have pursued a fairly consistent approach to the world. They have regarded the United States as the “indispensable nation”² and the “locomotive at the head of mankind.”³ They have amassed power and influence and deployed them in ever-widening arcs around the globe on behalf of interests, ideals, and ambitions, both tangible and intangible. Since 1945 Americans have insisted on acquiring and maintaining military supremacy, a “preponderance of power” in the world rather than a balance of power with other nations. They have operated on the ideological conviction that liberal democracy is the only legitimate form of government and that other forms of government are not only illegitimate but transitory. They have declared their readiness to “support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation” by forces of oppression, to “pay any price, bear any burden” to defend freedom, to seek “democratic enlargement” in the world, and to work for the “end of tyranny.” ⁴ They have been impatient with the status quo. They have seen America as a catalyst for change in human affairs, and they have employed the strategies and tactics of “maximalism,” seeking revolutionary rather than gradual solutions to problems. Therefore, they have often been at odds with the more cautious approaches of their allies. ⁵ “

A izbucnit din nou pacea in Orientul Mijlociu

Hamas trage din nou cu rachete in Israel. Doamne fereste sa strice Israelul pacea din nou cu vreun nou razboi!

Cel mai bun paragraf de azi

Rudy Giuliani, in Foreign Affairs.

“Idealism should define our ultimate goals; realism must help us recognize the road we must travel to achieve them. The world is a dangerous place. We cannot afford to indulge any illusions about the enemies we face. The Terrorists’ War on Us was encouraged by unrealistic and inconsistent actions taken in response to terrorist attacks in the past. A realistic peace can only be achieved through strength.

A realistic peace is not a peace to be achieved by embracing the “realist” school of foreign policy thought. That doctrine defines America’s interests too narrowly and avoids attempts to reform the international system according to our values. To rely solely on this type of realism would be to cede the advantage to our enemies in the complex war of ideas and ideals. It would also place too great a hope in the potential for diplomatic accommodation with hostile states. And it would exaggerate America’s weaknesses and downplay America’s strengths.”

Cel mai bun paragraf de azi

Christopher Hitchens, in Slate:

“Just look at the gang that strove to prevent the United Nations from enforcing its library of resolutions on Saddam Hussein. Where are they now? Gerhard Schroeder, ex-chancellor of Germany, has gone straight to work for a Russian oil-and-gas consortium. Vladimir Putin, master of such consortia and their manipulation, is undisguised in his thirst to re-establish a one-party state. Jacques Chirac, who only avoided prosecution for corruption by getting himself immunized by re-election (and who had Saddam’s sons as his personal guests while in office, and built Saddam Hussein a nuclear reactor while knowing what he wanted it for), is now undergoing some unpleasant interviews with the Paris police. So is his cynical understudy Dominique de Villepin, once the glamour-boy of the “European” school of diplomacy without force. What a crew! Galloway is the most sordid of this group because he managed to be a pimp for, as well as a prostitute of, one of the foulest dictatorships of modern times. But the taint of collusion and corruption extends much further than his pathetic figure, and one day, slowly but surely, we shall find out the whole disgusting thing.”

Cel mai bun paragraf de azi

Din Slate, Mickey Kaus:

“The New York Times is for withdrawal of U.S. troops from most of Iraq, except maybe the Kurdish north. Even the promising Anbar-type initiatives–which seem to require an aggressive U.S. military presence–are apparently to be abandoned. The Times admits the result of the withdrawal will “most likely” be chaos, including “further ethnic cleansing, even genocide.” But it still prefers withdrawal. Jules Crittenden finds this morally curious, and so do I. … I could be convinced that withdrawal is justified because the ensuing burst of sectarian killing will be short, followed by relative stability–preferable, in the long run, to continued occupation. I could be convinced we should abandon the goal of a unitary Iraqi state and focus on some sort of engineered partition. I hope I couldn’t be convinced that we should abandon Iraqis to “genocide” just because the resulting deaths can be blamed on Bush. Does that mean they don’t count? . …”

E din nou pace in Orientul Mijlociu!

A izbucnit din nou pacea in Orientul Mijlociu! Doamne fereste sa o distruga Israelul declansand vreun nou razboi.

“Talking” works!

Talking is much more powerful than war when dealing with hostage takers. Talking works the first time they do it, the second time they do it, the third time they do it, the fourth time they do it, and the fifth time they do it. And if they do it once more, talking works wonders then, too. And if they keep on taking hostages, talking is going to work tremendously many, many times, every single time. In great contrast, war works only once: the last time they do it.

Sondaj de opinie, de data asta chiar pe bune

Care ar fi mai potrivit pentru Presedentie?

a) “We expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office”

b) “I would not invite Yasser Arafat to anything, anywhere, anytime, anyplace. I don’t forget.”

Am gresit!

Am gresit: Ziua, Gandul sau Evenimentul Zilei nu au publicat stirea cu titlul prezis de mine. Din disperare am citit pana si Jurnalul, unde de obicei standardele sunt joase rau de tot, si tot nu am gasit stirea aceea. Poate si din cauza ca Israelul nu a dat curs amenintarii de a riposta impotriva atacului Hamas, asa ca e in continuare “pace” in Orientul Mijlociu. Indiferent cate rachete trage Hamas in Israel, “razboiul” se declanseaza numai cand Israelul riposteaza.

Nu tot timpul a fost pierdut cautand stirea inexistenta (mai putin partea in care am rasfoit Jurnalul.) Am dat astfel peste doua stiri interesante. Una din ele am sa o comentez mai tarziu, iar cealalta se poate gasi aici.

E rar sa dai peste o stire care se citeste ca un articol de opinie. Nu peste o un articol de opinie deghizat intr-o stire. De acestea e plina presa romana: fiecare articol din pagina internationala a Gandului care sustine ca Bush e tampit e de fapt o opinie a autorului, si nu o stire. Dar incercati sa cititi cu un ton neutru stirea potrivit careia, in Pakistan femeile violate nu mai sunt pedepsite cu moartea prin bataie cu pietre. Ati reusit sa o faceti fara dezgust si dispret pentru natia si religia aia inapoiata?

Da, se pare ca in Pakistan, femeile violate erau condamnate la moarte din cauza ca, in cursul violului au comis adulter. Va veti astepta si ca legea sa prevada ca jefuitilor sa li se confiste averea ramasa sau ca ucigasii sa fie pedepsiti prin a lua familia victimei in sclavie. Dar nu: codul penal e absurd doar pentru femei. Mai vreti o portie de absurd? Legea prevedea ca femeia sa aduca patru martori oculari, toti barbati, pentru a dovedi violul. Dar nu ar trebui, cu patru barbati in apropiere, ca violul nici macar sa nu se produca?

Unii acuza administratia americana de ipocrizie pentru ca desi pretinde ca sustine cauza democratiei in Afganistan sau Irak nu incearca sa il elimine pe dictatorul pakistanez. Stirea asta arata cat de neserioasa si jalnica e pozitia celor care acuza Statele Unite de ipocrizie. Neserioasa pentru ca acuzatorii insisi, multi dintre ei feministi declarati au fost impotriva inlaturarii dictatorilor unde s-a putut, in Afganistan sau Irak. Jalnica pentru ca e clar ca desi e o situatie nefericita, dictatura din Pakistan e mult mai buna decat alternativa. Chiar ar vrea oamenii astia sa il vada pe Musharraf plecat si pe mullahi redactand codul penal?

Este Clinton vinovat pentru 9/11?

Un film difuzat de ABC atribuie o parte din responsabilitatea pentru 9/11 lui Clinton si administratiei sale. Democratii au cerut modificarea sau interzicerea difuzarii filmului, pentru ca, spun ei, contine inexactitati. Acest argument e foarte asimetric: cand republicanii au cerut modificarea sau interzicerea difuzarii unui film despre Reagan, din cauza ca avea inexactitati, democratii i-au acuzat de cenzura si reprimarea libertatii cuvantului. Sunt foarte surprins ca nimeni nu ii acuza acum pe democrati de cenzura, mai ales ca intr-o tara ca America unde puterea e destul de bine impartita intre cele doua partide, nu e neaparat nevoie sa fii “la putere” pentru a fi capabil de cenzura.

Dar exista si un argument simetric, si ceva mai serios, impotriva atribuirii vinii pentru 9/11 lui Clinton. Imediat dupa 9/11, cativa americani au ajuns la concluzia ca vina pentru 9/11 apartine nu teroristilor ci Americii. Dupa cum spune Timothy Noah de la Slate (in primul segment marcat cu galben), cand niste idioti de extrema stanga (poate Chomsky?) au sustinut ca America e vinovata pentru 9/11, din cauza ca America promoveaza globalizarea si neocolonialismul, democratii s-au delimitat public si foarte vehement de aceste idei. La fel ar trebui sa se delimiteze si republicanii de aceasta noua incercare de a da vina pe America pentru 9/11 care vine de data asta din tabara lor.

Noah are dreptate, democratii s-au delimitat clar de idiotii de extrema stanga. Dar la fel au facut si republicanii cand idiotii de extrema dreapta au sustinut ca America e vinovata pentru 9/11. Cand Jerry Falwell si Pat Robertson au spus ca America e vinovata pentru 9/11 pentru ca America ii tolereaza prea mult pe homosexuali si nu ii pedepseste pe divortati si adulteri, republicanii s-au dezis prompt de aceste declaratii. Si bine au facut: nu fundamentalistii islamici din Afganistan decid care e legislatia Americii in legatura cu homosexualii, divortul sau adulterul, ci americanii. Daca americanii, si sper ca si voi, considera ca e bine ca homosexualii sa aiba aceleasi drepturi ca heterosexualii sau ca e bine ca adulterii sa nu fie omorati, talibanii nu au nici un cuvant de spus in acesta chestiune. Si bine au facut si democratii cand s-au delimitat de extremistii lor: talibanii nu au un cuvant de spus nici in politica externa a Americii. Neocolonialismul american pana la 9/11 a inclus eliberarea Kuweitului, incercarea nereusita de oprire a macelului in Somalia, si incercarea reusita de oprire a macelului in Bosnia si Kosovo, toate actiuni bune dupa parerea americanilor, si sper ca si a voastra.

Intr-un fel, daca cadem de acord ca politica interna si externa a Americii inainte de 9/11 a fost buna, a acuza America pentru 9/11 e ca si cum ai acuza victima unui jaf pentru jaf, din cauza ca e prea bogata. Adica ar fi stupid: a fi bogat e bine, a fura e rau, nu e vina celui care are pentru ca hotul fura. Dar filmul difuzat de ABC, din cate am citit pentru ca nu l-am vazut, nu acuza America pentru 9/11, ci pe Clinton si administratia lui. Filmul nu acuza victima jafului pentru ca e prea bogata, ci pe paznic pentru ca nu si-a facut bine datoria. Nu e acelasi lucru! Daca intr-adevar Clinton a refuzat sa lupte serios impotriva terorismului, daca a refuzat sa il elimine pe Osama bin Laden care era implicat in atacurile impotriva ambasadelor si impotriva USS Cole, vina pentru 9/11 ii apartine si lui Clinton, la fel cum vina pentru jaf ii apartine si paznicului daca dormea in timpul serviciului. Desigur, doar a-l acuza pe Clinton nu inseamna neaparat si imediat si a dovedi ca e vinovat. Dar a te intreba daca Clinton (si Bush, pentru anul cat a fost presedinte inainte de 9/11) sunt vinovati pentru 9/11 nu e o intrebare care trebuie ignorata ca si acuzele lui Falwell si Chomsky.