Motanul Incaltat

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Barack Obama: “The one thing we have not done is we have not launched a war”

Iata un foarte interesant articol din The New York Times:

Obama Challenges Republicans on Iran

By HELENE COOPER
Official photographic portrait of US President...

Image via Wikipedia

 

In legatura cu criticile pe care i le aduc Republicanii legate de faptul ca nu incepe un razboi cu Iranul, Obama a spus raspicat ca razboiul nu este un joc. Obama a aratat:

„“This is not a game,” Mr. Obama said during a news conference at the White House timed to coincide with Super Tuesday voting in the Republican primaries in a number of crucial states. Mr. Obama gave a staunch defense of his administration’s actions to rein in Iran’s nuclear ambitions and said tough sanctions put in place by the United States and Europe were starting to work and were part of the reason Iran had returned to the negotiation table.”

“The one thing we have not done is we have not launched a war,” Mr. Obama said. “If some of these folks think we should launch a war, let them say so, and explain to the American people.””

Parerea Opozitiei:

English: Governor Mitt Romney of MA

Image via Wikipedia

„[…]Rick Santorum derided the negotiations with Iran as “another appeasement, another delay, another opportunity for them to go forward while we talk,” and Mitt Romney, before the same group, said, “Hope is not a foreign policy.” Mr. Romney added, “The only thing respected by thugs and tyrants is our resolve, backed by our power and our readiness to use it.””speaking at CPAC in Washington D.C. on Februar...

Destul de belicoase afirmatiile. De observat ca Republicanii sunt in favoarea interventiei militare in Iran. Chiar stateam si ma intrebam: daca va ajunge Presedinte un republican chiar va incepe razboiul cu Iranul…? Sau aceste declaratii tin de campania electorala…?

Replica lui Obama:

„Mr. Obama hit back hard. “There’s no doubt that those who are suggesting, or proposing, or beating the drums of war, should explain clearly to the American people what the costs and benefits would be,” he said, reflecting a belief within the administration and the Obama campaign that Americans, after a decade of war in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, are fed up with conflict if it can be avoided through diplomacy and economic pressure.

Beyond that, Mr. Obama said that administration and intelligence officials — in the United States and in Israel — believe that Iran has not acquired a nuclear weapon yet, and that there is still time for sanctions to force the Iranian regime to give up any weapons program it might have. “At this stage it is my belief we have a window of opportunity,” Mr. Obama said.

“And so this notion that somehow we have a choice to make in the next week or two weeks or month or two months is not borne out by the facts,” the president said.” (subl.mea)

Recomand citirea integrala si in original a intregului articol.

Desigur, e de inteles ca un cetatean american are tot dreptul sa se intrebe si sa stie cat cheltuieste Obama pe Volt. Dar de ce nu s-ar intreba cat ar costa un asemenea razboi – agreat, din cate pot sa constat, de tabara Republicanilor – cu Iranul  si care ar fi beneficiile pentru US si poporul american. Ce e mai bine: sa cheltuiesti pentru ca sa salvezi o mare intreprindere de la faliment si, implicit, locuri de munca sau sa cheltuiesti sume fabuloase pe un razboi devastator din care America n-ar prea avea cine stie ce de castigat – costuri mari, beneficii putine? Trebuie remarcat ca Iranul este o tara mare – are aproape 80 de milioane de locuitori!! Este o tara care, din punctul de vedere al numarului de locuitori, este mai mare decat Irak si Afganistan luate la un loc amandoua si dispune de o forta militara si logistica mai mare decat cele doua. America a cheltuit enorm pe razboaiele din Irak si Afganistan, sub o administratie Republicana, si fara sa se vada beneficii prea mari de pe urma acestor razboaie. Dimpotriva, costurile, vorba lui Obama, au fost uriase!! Cine a suportat aceasta strategie? Nu cumva contribuabilul american? Nu cumva acea „majoritate tacuta„, cum se exprima odinioara Nixon? Cu alte cuvinte, problema e extrem de simpla: se fac razboaie deosebit de costisitoare, cine plateste? Ori plateste contribuabilul, ori se goleste visteria, ori ambele. Si ne intrebam, pe urma, de ce Statul face eforturi ca sa salveze de la faliment firme, care altminteri o duceau bine mersi! Cu alte cuvinte, aceste razboaie deosebit de costisitoare nu duc la altceva decat la contractia masei monetare. Pe urma ne intrebam de ce se tiparesc bani! Sau de ce creste datoria Americii! Sau de ce intra firme in faliment, de ce se prabusesc banci!!

Oare de ce?

WHY? THAT’S THE QUESTION!!

De citit si…

World Powers Agree to Resume Nuclear Talks With Iran

By and

Se arata, printre altele, ca:

„The Israelis are increasingly skeptical that international pressure will lead Iran to abandon its uranium enrichment activities, which Israel and the West suspect are a cover for Iran to achieve the ability to make nuclear weapons. Iran has said the activities are purely peaceful.

At a news conference in Washington on Tuesday, Mr. Obama defended his record on Iran against Republican critics who have called him too lenient. On the contrary, Mr. Obama said, he had deeply isolated the Iranian authorities and had helped to press them to resume negotiations.

Fears of a pre-emptive Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities have driven up oil prices and represent a threat to the already fragile state of a global economy still reeling from a sovereign debt crisis in Europe. At the same time, the Iranians have acutely felt the squeeze from sanctions aimed at pressing the government to freeze its uranium enrichment program.

The resumed talks represent a significant step forward because all six parties agreed to participate. But that may have been the easy part. One senior French official said that a desire to avoid a military confrontation could lead some parties to take a softer stance on Iran, looking for any small concession that could be interpreted as success.” (subl.mea)

si:

On Iran, Questions of Detection and Response Divide U.S. and Israel

By

Printre altele se arata ca:

President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minis...

Image via Wikipedia

„Mr. Obama has said from his days as a candidate for president that he would enter such talks without conditions. Mr. Netanyahu views that as foolish to the extreme. Speaking in Canada before he arrived in Washington, Mr. Netanyahu demanded that before any negotiations begin, Iran must take steps that would preclude it from progressing toward a bomb. Mr. Obama’s advisers say the chances of Iran’s agreeing to that at the outset of a negotiation are zero. And they insist that there is time to try another round of negotiations.

English: Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli politician

Image via Wikipedia

“I have zero doubt that if Iran attempted a breakout, we’d see it,” one senior administration official said several weeks ago. But in the past, there have been doubts. Two years ago, Robert M. Gates, then the secretary of defense, asked: “If their policy is to go to the threshold but not assemble a nuclear weapon, how do you tell that they have not assembled? I don’t actually know how you would verify that.”

The truth is that the answer to the question is unknowable. While American intelligence agencies famously misjudged that Saddam Hussein was advancing on a bomb project when he had none, they also have a long record of missing signs that countries were getting very close to a bomb. They missed the timing of the first Soviet nuclear test in 1949, to President Harry S. Truman’s outrage. They also got the timing wrong on China in the 1960s, India in the ’70s and Pakistan in the ’80s. To this day, even after North Korea has conducted two nuclear tests, no one is sure whether the country’s engineers actually know how to make and deliver a real, working bomb.” (subl.mea)

Recomand citirea integrala si in original a tuturor articolelor.

Martie 7, 2012 - Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

23 comentarii »

  1. Chiar mi-as dori sa stiu de partea cui e Presedintele Basescu… E cu Democratii si cu Obama sau e cu Republicanii lui Santorum…? 🙂
    That’s the question!!
    😀

    And WHY? , of course! 🙂

    Comentariu de Motanul Incaltat | Martie 7, 2012 | Răspunde

  2. Nu stiu daca republicanii sint de acord ca sa atace Iranul, dar stiu cu siguranta ca nu vor sa duca tratative de nici un fel. Don’t do deals with terorrists!

    Apoi, se pare ca legile nu au nici o importanta, again 🙂 Statul are voie sa cheltuie pentru armata, razboi, dar nu are voie sa cheltuie pentru a scoate o companie privata din faliment si sa investeasca intr-o masina care nu vrea s-o cumpere nimeni si piata nici nu o cere.

    Comentariu de Cristina | Martie 7, 2012 | Răspunde

  3. Aici – datele statistice FMI cu privire la situatia economica si financiara din SUA.

    Comentariu de Motanul Incaltat | Martie 7, 2012 | Răspunde

  4. […] Barack Obama: “The one thing we have not done is we have not launched a war” (motanulfilozof.wordpress.com) […]

    Pingback de Sheriff de Arizona se encuentra calificaciones presidencial de Obama forjado « rictvagencianoticias | Martie 7, 2012 | Răspunde

  5. Nu conteaza suma pe care o cheltuie SUA pe chestiuni militare, ci procentul. Asa cum ti-am spus, este constitutional.

    Cit despre cit are voie sa cheltuiasca pe celelalte programe le gasesti la:

    Articolul 1, Sectia 8 si Articolul 2, Sectia 2.

    Multumit?

    Comentariu de Cristina | Martie 8, 2012 | Răspunde

    • Mersi!

      Comentariu de Motanul Incaltat | Martie 8, 2012 | Răspunde

      • Unde in Art. 1, Sectia 8 este interpretabil? Ce interpretatie ii dai?

        Comentariu de Cristina | Martie 8, 2012

      • Uite aici:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_8:_Powers_of_Congress

        Many powers of Congress have been interpreted broadly. Most notably, the Taxing and Spending, Interstate Commerce, and Necessary and Proper Clauses have been deemed to grant expansive powers to Congress.

        Congress may lay and collect taxes for the „common defense” or „general welfare” of the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court has not often defined „general welfare,” leaving the political question to Congress. In United States v. Butler (1936), the Court for the first time construed the clause. The dispute centered on a tax collected from processors of agricultural products such as meat; the funds raised by the tax were not paid into the general funds of the treasury, but were rather specially earmarked for farmers. The Court struck down the tax, ruling that the general welfare language in the Taxing and Spending Clause related only to „matters of national, as distinguished from local, welfare”. Congress continues to make expansive use of the Taxing and Spending Clause; for instance, the social security program is authorized under the Taxing and Spending Clause.

        Poate nu m-am exprimat eu bine… Nu interpretabil, ci faptul ca termenii, spre exemplu general welfare , nu sunt foarte clar definiti si atunci lasa loc de largi interpretari (interpreted broadly), si nu e vorba numai de termenul asta, daca te uiti la ce scrie (am dat cu strong).

        Comentariu de Motanul Incaltat | Martie 8, 2012

      • Sint foarte clar definiti, dar termenii sint ignorati. General welfare within the enumerated powers .

        General walfare este in introducere. Apoi enumera, pentru binele general, care sint functiile legitime ale guvernului.

        Daca general walfare inseamna binele general oricum interpreteaza Congresul, de ce si-au mai pierdut timpul enumerind anumite functii? Daca Congresul poate sa faca orice pentru binele general, Constitutia se termina acolo. De au mai scris atitea articole dupa Preamble?

        Comentariu de Cristina | Martie 8, 2012

      • Pentru ca asa cum spunea candva Churchill: „poti sa nu fi de acord cu mine, dar pentru dreptul tau de a nu fi de acord cu mine dunt in stare sa-mi dau viata „,definind in felul asta democratia, si Constitutia americana lasa la latitudinea Congresului o mai mare libertate de manevra in anumite cazuri, punctandu-se in amendamente ceea ce se considera necesar si acceptat de toata lumea.
        Este limpede cel putin asa apare atunci si faptul ca unele cazuri sunt tinute la Curtile Inferioare 10-15 ani tocmai pentru ca unii termeni sunt neclar definti si poate ca mai exista si alte concepte neclar definite. Si… poate si din alte pricini…
        Da, general welfare e o chestiune, dupa cum se vede, politica. Si eu cred ca e asa…

        Comentariu de Motanul Incaltat | Martie 9, 2012

      • Eu nu vad unde lasa la latitudinea congresului sa interpreteze cum vrea. Asa spun liberalii, pentru ca vor sa faca ce vor ei. Daca constitutia prevede adaugarea de amendamente, cum se face ca nu este nici un amendament in care sa scrie statul are voie sa impuna cetatenilor sa cumpere asigurare medicala de stat? Cum se face ca nu este nici un amendament in care sa permita congresului sa se bage in sectorul privat asa cum considera ei necesar?

        Pina cind vor exista astfel de amendamente, statul ar trebui sa implineasca Constitutia prezenta.

        Comentariu de Cristina | Martie 9, 2012

      • Acuma, ce se intampla, tu traiesti in US si cred ca stii anumite aspecte mai bine decat mine, traind acolo. Ceea ce as putea spune e ca sunt posibile, ca peste tot de altfel, si derapaje…

        Comentariu de Motanul Incaltat | Martie 9, 2012

    • Art.1, Sectiunea 8 – interpretabil…. 😉 Interpretabil pe acolo, pe la cheltuieli. 😀
      Art. 2, Sectiunea 2 – bine, aici e vorba de puterile Presedintelui, e vorba de altceva.

      Pentru mine e foarte clar. Vad ca pentru tine e neclar! 😀
      Taxing and spending clause… am inteles.
      Oricum nu se dau procente, cel putin n-am vazut… General Welfare e o chestiune politica si e lasata la latitudinea Congresului. 😀 . Imi imaginam ca e asa… Nu stiu de ce… dar stii ce impresie am? Ca am citit ceea ce stiam deja… 🙂

      Am impresia ca toti oamenii de pe Pamant sunt foarte asemanatori unul cu altul. Ca ne asemanam foarte mult…

      Comentariu de Motanul Incaltat | Martie 8, 2012 | Răspunde

    • Conteaza sumele! 903 miliarde, cat s-au cheltuit pe razboaiele din Irak si Afganistan e foarte mult. Iar America, vorba lui Obama, a castigat foarte putin din aceste razboaie. Avand deja un deficit de cont curent mare. Gandeste-te ca deficitul contului curent al balantei de plati era, in 2006, de peste 800 miliarde US$… Mult, mult! El a scazut drastic pana in prezent! Observa ca balanta import-export la petrol e dezechilibrata (Importuri>Exporturi). Raportat la PIB-ul din 2008, dupa calculul meu, cele 903 miliarde US$ cheltuite in Irak si Afganistan inseamna 6,32% din PIB. E o suma!! 607 miliarde $ numai industria de aparare, in 2010 – asta inseamna, dupa calculul meu, 4,18% din PIB, deci apropiat de valoarea care ai dat-o tu. Sunt sume imense.

      Obama a pus problema urmatoare: ce castig are America din asta? Ce castig ar avea de pe urma unui razboi cu Iranul? Daca s-ar face, probabil ca efortul financiar s-ar dubla, deci e posibil, dupa estimarea mea, sa fie de 12-14% din PIB. Deja am vorbi de procente cu 2 cifre!! Care ar fi beneficiile pentru America si pentru americani?

      Comentariu de Motanul Incaltat | Martie 8, 2012 | Răspunde

  6. Numai ca derapajele astea se intimpla de 100 de ani si sint puse multe piedici celor care vor sa intoarca lucrurile spre normal.

    Comentariu de Cristina | Martie 9, 2012 | Răspunde

  7. Repet : pun pariu ca Israelul nu va ataca Iranul…cel putin nu anul asta.Acelasi pariu si-n cazul Iranului.

    Comentariu de marian | Martie 9, 2012 | Răspunde


Lasă un răspuns

Completează mai jos detaliile tale sau dă clic pe un icon pentru a te autentifica:

Logo WordPress.com

Comentezi folosind contul tău WordPress.com. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Poză Twitter

Comentezi folosind contul tău Twitter. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Fotografie Facebook

Comentezi folosind contul tău Facebook. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Fotografie Google+

Comentezi folosind contul tău Google+. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Conectare la %s

%d blogeri au apreciat asta: