ZNAK SAGITE — više od fantastike — edicija, časopis, knjižara...

Ako sam ovde i želim nešto da kažem, onda ću to da kažem i neću da ćutim. Ako me budeš oterao onda ti ostaje samo Bata, pa ti vidi šta ti je draže.

Da tužim Scallopa, mac, ni meni ne da da idem kod darvilovog topicka i pričam protiv revolucije i majmunisanja   

S tom razlikom što ja polazim od onog što (mislim da) znam i dopuštam da mogu da završim negde drugde. Ti znaš da je Zemlja okrugla, ali polaziš od nečeg drugog jer... ne znam i ne zanima me. Nismo baš slični.

Quote from: mac on 27-03-2017, 15:19:31
kad me Bata neargumentovano kritikuje

Ovo se nikad nije desilo!

Americi ne odgovara miran Bliski istok, tako da Tramp mora da nađe neku mjeru.

Čitajte Pjeračinija!

Neki su još zabrinuti da je Tramp nešto novo u Americi, ali tako staro i već viđeno u ostatku sveta

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOqVW4etYo0

Trump signs legislation rolling back Obama-era regulations

Quote

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Donald Trump signed a handful of measures Monday rolling back Obama-era regulations under the Congressional Review Act.

It's part of a larger GOP effort to eliminate an array of regulations issued during President Barack Obama's final months in office and comes days after Trump's effort to repeal and replace "Obamacare" failed. Trump has made overturning what he deems government over-reach a centerpiece of his first months in office.

"I will keep working with Congress, with every agency, and most importantly, the American people, until we eliminate every unnecessary, harmful and job-killing regulation that we can find," Trump said at a White House signing ceremony. "We have a lot more coming."

Two of the regulations nullified Monday had to do with school performance and teacher preparation programs.

One, issued by the Education Department in October, required that federally funded teacher preparation programs be evaluated based on the academic outcomes of those teachers' students. Republican senators opposed the rules, arguing such matters should be left to the states.

The other aimed to help states identify failing schools and come up with plans to improve them.

Another rule nullified by Trump required federal land managers to consider climate change and other long-term effects of proposed development on public lands. The regulation had been imposed by the Bureau of Land Management, which oversees more than 245 million acres of public lands.

Republicans argued the rule, finalized in December, shifted decision-making authority away from state and local officials to the federal government. The signing came the day before Trump was expected to reverse Obama's signature effort to address climate change, the Clean Power Plan, which restricts greenhouse gas emissions at coal-fired power plants.

The final rule targeted by Republicans had been aimed at forcing government contractors to disclose violations of federal labor laws as they sought more work. The "blacklisting rule" required contractors to disclose violations of 14 federal labor laws, including those pertaining to workplace safety, wages and discrimination.

The White House argued the rule would "bog down" the federal procurement process, while business groups said that it would increase compliance costs.

Republican lawmakers and the Trump administration have made curbing government regulation a top priority this year. Dozens of resolutions pulling back various Obama-era rules have been introduced under an expedited process established through the Congressional Review Act. Under that process, a regulation is invalidated when a simple majority of both chambers pass a joint resolution of disapproval and the president signs it.

Dakle, gluplja deca i više zagađenja 

A s druge strane:

Angela Merkel's White House Visit Was Way More Awkward Than We Knew

Quote

Just when you thought German chancellor Angela Merkel's visit couldn't have been any worse, it has been recently reported that President Donald Trump actually printed out an invoice for $374 billion-money Trump believes Germany owes to NATO, with interest-and handed it to Merkel during their closed doors meeting, The Sunday Times reported.
This is embarrassing for so many reasons. First, it's just plain rude to invite a guest into your home and then hand them a bill. Emily Post must have written a chapter on this somewhere.
Furthermore, this is simply not how NATO defence funding works.
According to CNN, NATO sets a target for how much countries should spend on their own defence forces, the theory being that if all NATO countries have a strong defence, it will benefit all members. Currently the target for spending is 2% of a country's gross domestic product. Germany currently spends 1.2% of GDP on defence while the United States spends 3.61%. Only the U.S., Britain, Estonia, Poland, and Greece actually exceed 2% GDP defence spending.
But 2% is merely a guideline, and the money does not go to NATO as Trump seems to believe. It just means that Germany is spending 0.8% less of its GDP on its own defence, so even if Germany technically "owes" $374 billion in defence spending, it owes those funds to Germany's armed forces, not NATO. Trump basically handed Merkel a bill stating that she owes herself money.
"The president has a very unorthodox view on NATO defence spending," a source told the Times. "The alliance is not a club with a membership fee. The commitments relate to countries' investment in their defence budgets."
Unorthodox is one way to put it. Crazy is another. It's going to be a long four years, folks.

IT rimejk je aktuelan ovih dana, bezobraznici se nasalili, kikiki

Ovo nije nešto što je Tramp direktno kriv, ali jeste mu potencijalno šansa da se pokaže kao čovek....

Worst humanitarian crisis hits as Trump slashes foreign aid

Quote
NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) -- The world's largest humanitarian crisis in 70 years has been declared in three African countries on the brink of famine, just as President Donald Trump's proposed foreign aid cuts threaten to pull the United States from its historic role as the world's top emergency donor.
If the deep cuts are approved by Congress and the U.S. does not contribute to Africa's current crisis, experts warn that the continent's growing drought and famine could have far-ranging effects, including a new wave of migrants heading to Europe and possibly more support for Islamic extremist groups.
The conflict-fueled hunger crises in Nigeria, Somalia and South Sudan have culminated in a trio of potential famines hitting almost simultaneously. Nearly 16 million people in the three countries are at risk of dying within months.
Famine already has been declared in two counties of South Sudan and 1 million people there are on the brink of dying from a lack of food, U.N. officials have said. Somalia has declared a state of emergency over drought and 2.9 million of its people face a food crisis that could become a famine, according to the U.N. And in northeastern Nigeria, severe malnutrition is widespread in areas affected by violence from Boko Haram extremists.


"We are facing the largest humanitarian crisis since the creation of the United Nations," Stephen O'Brien, the U.N. humanitarian chief, told the U.N. Security Council after a visit this month to Somalia and South Sudan.
At least $4.4 billion is needed by the end of March to avert a hunger "catastrophe" in Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, and Yemen, U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said in late February.
But according to U.N. data, only 10 percent of the necessary funds have been received so far.
Trump's proposed budget would "absolutely" cut programs that help some of the most vulnerable people on Earth, Mick Mulvaney, the president's budget director, told reporters last week. The budget would "spend less money on people overseas and more money on people back home," he said.
The United States traditionally has been the largest donor to the U.N. and gives more foreign aid to Africa than any other continent. In 2016 it gave more than $2 billion to the U.N.'s World Food Program, or almost a quarter of its total budget. That is expected to be reduced under Trump's proposed budget, according to former and current U.S. government officials.


"I've never seen this kind of threat to what otherwise has been a bipartisan consensus that food aid and humanitarian assistance programs are morally essential and critical to our security," Steven Feldstein, a former deputy assistant secretary of state in the Obama administration, told The Associated Press.
In an interview last week with the AP in Washington, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell rejected the proposed cuts to foreign aid. "America being a force is a lot more than building up the Defense Department," he said. "Diplomacy is important, extremely important, and I don't think these reductions at the State Department are appropriate because many times diplomacy is a lot more effective — and certainly cheaper — than military engagement."
The hunger crises in Nigeria, Somalia and South Sudan are all the more painful because they are man-made, experts said, though climate change has had some impact on Somalia and Nigeria's situations, said J. Peter Pham, the head of the Africa Center at the Atlantic Council.
South Sudan has been entrenched in civil war since late 2013 that has killed tens of thousands and prevented widespread cultivation of food. In Nigeria and Somalia, extremist groups Boko Haram and al-Shabab have proven stubborn to defeat, and both Islamic organizations still hold territory that complicates aid efforts.
If Trump's foreign aid cuts are approved, the humanitarian funding burden for the crises would shift to other large donors like Britain. But the U.S.'s influential role in rallying global support will slip.
"Without significant contributions from the U.S. government, it is less able to catalyze contributions from other donors and meet even minimal life-saving needs," Nancy Lindborg, president of the United States Institute of Peace, said in prepared remarks to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday.
Meanwhile, neighboring African countries will feel the immediate consequences of famine, experts said. On Thursday, the U.N. refugee chief said Uganda was at a "breaking point" after more than 570,000 South Sudanese refugees had arrived since July alone.
Others fleeing hunger could aim for Europe instead.
"We are going to see pressure on neighboring countries, in some cases people joining traditional migration routes both from the Sahel into Europe, or south into various destinations in Africa," Joseph Siegle, director of research at the Africa Center for Strategic Studies, told the AP.
"You have 19 countries facing some degree of food stress in Africa, and three of them are facing famine conditions. All three of them are facing conflict, and the vast majority of the countries facing more serious crises are non-democratic governments," Siegle said.
He described a series of possible consequences. Most likely there will be increased flows of people migrating from Somalia and the vast Sahel region north into Libya, where trafficking routes are a valuable source of finance for the Islamic State, he said.
Closer to home, people from South Sudan and Somalia seeking food likely will strain the resources of neighboring countries where political will and goodwill to refugees can be fleeting, said Mohammed Abdiker, director of operations and emergencies with the International Organization for Migration.
The regional consequences will depend on how the international community responds, Abdiker said.
Alex De Waal, executive director of the World Peace Foundation, summed up the situation: "Famine can be prevented if we want."

Посао није завршен

Доналд Трамп је највероватније одустао од политике детанта с Русијом. Или је немоћан, или је блефирао пре избора

Аутор: Мирослав Лазански

http://www.politika.rs/scc/clanak/377440/Pogledi/Posao-nije-zavrsen

Dajdžest US politike

http://m.journal-neo.org/2017/04/01/us-foreign-policy-hegemony-or-stability-not-both/

Quote from: Pizzobatto on 03-04-2017, 13:52:43
Dajdžest US politike

http://m.journal-neo.org/2017/04/01/us-foreign-policy-hegemony-or-stability-not-both/

Oh, yeah!

Fight, fight, fight, Kotler Vs Trump, suvo zlato. Znao sam od ranije da Filip Kotler ima blog, ali nisam ga čitao poodavno, još od faksa jer mi je bio mrzak posle studioznog bavljenja njime, a posle kad me mrza pustila, zbog obaveza. A sad vidim da najveći živi guru marketinga na svetu kritikuje Trampa.


Trumpovanje  i brendiranje, korporativni imidž prenet na državu, lud'lo.


Pravilo da dobar menadžer ≠ dobar lider treba uramiti!!


http://www.pkotler.org/is-trump-a-great-business-leader/

Kotler: ''A Donald Trump is only possible in a rich nation that failed to pay its workers adequately so that they could live a middle class life.''

I Trump Vučićevića za trku ima. Ako Vučko nastavi ovako brzo da uči,  jebote postaće i dobar lider i dobar menadžer!! 

The real danger is that, inundated with "alternative facts," many voters will simply shrug, asking, "What is truth?" In that world, the leader becomes the only reliable source of truth (Vučiću javi seee).  The battle over truth is now central to our politics.

''It is hard for me to believe that Trump's family, especially Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner, and maybe even his sons and wife Melania would not tell Trump that he is going too far with his attacks on our free press.  If they cannot sober him, this could finally be Trump's quicksand.'' - genijalno!!!

Zamislite Milicu Vučić, alo bre ćale, što cimaš ljude da ti prave sistemske operativne procedure i da te stavljaju u cc kad menjaju vrata, što cimaš Vučićevića da te stavlja u bcc kad šalje mejlove svojim zaposlenima, budi čovek..

http://www.pkotler.org/trump-aims-to-choke-off-free-speech/

Takođe, da dobar menadžer nije u svakoj firmi uspešan.

Narafski. Ima milion stilova vođenja. Sve zavisi od korporativne klime i kulture, politike firme i procedura. Samo, neki stilovi su nam, koliko god efektivni ogavniji od drugih. Nagledao sam se direktorčića i diktatorčića koji preuzimaju zasluge i furaju mirkomenadžment i kurče se kako su sertifikovani, a ne znaju vola u dupe da ubodu, a da ne govirom o tome kakvi su rekruteri i da ne znaju ni faktore motivacije zapsolenih. Ali HR je odavno izgubio smisao, ali ponegde  bar nije podređen ''ja pa ja'' principima.

Da ga nisi malo prepumpao formom? Pročitao sam mnogo menadžmenta i nigde nisam našao da je izričit. Fleksibilniji je nego što izgleda ili što pokušavaju da nam prodaju. Nažalost iluzije pojačavaju konfuziju.

Kada se principi svedu na metod, onda se treba sudariti sa metodom da bi principi ponovo postali vidljivi.

Protesti ne okupljaju opoziciju, nego mobilišu poziciju.

Jel ovaj Kotler Demokrata?

Quote from: Pizzobatto on 04-04-2017, 13:03:10
Jel ovaj Kotler Demokrata?

Političko opredeljenje je kao lažni profil.

Gledam Florens Artman na N1. Izgleda da je i njena karijera pukla, pa nateže svoje teorije. Loše je što na nekim medijima i dalje ima prolaz. Treba biti oprezan sa sistemskim medijskim lažima, one nestaju poslednje.

Forma je jako važna. Adekvatna organizaciona struktura, lanac odgovornosti i podela rada. Ako nemaš dobru formu i dobru organizacnu strukturu, nećeš ni moći da prilagodiš metode principima. nekako mi je Fajol najbiži tu. Naravno imaš i one koji se zalete u poštovanje birokratskih principa i završe na veberovštini.


Imaš i lidere koji su ostali zarobljeni u mekgregorovoj teoriji X upravljanja. Pada mi jedan takav političar na pamet. 


Ne znam da li je Kotler demokrata, ali znam da je najveći živi marketinški mag i da mi je krajnje zabavno da čitam kad piše o Trampu, marketinškom virtouzu.

Iskreno, ne znam kakav je marketing virtuoz, al kad neko počne o post-truth da priča, i dohvati se Trampa, meni sve zabijeli pred očima.

Npr, još ih boli što je Tramp reko da je Hilari prodala uranijum Rusima, ubiše se ljudi da dokažu da to nije tačno, smijurija.

A uranijum prodat, pa to ti je. U toj battle over truth daleko bilo da Tramp laže.

Marketing je istina!

Ali onaj tekst nije o marketingu!

Šta li misli sada Kotler kad je wikileaks rasturio priču o ruskim sajber napadima...

I to je marketing! Kao odnos oca i pastorka, otac Kotler i pastorak neverni virtuoz Tramp. 

Ali učenik je prevazišo učitelja!

Čukne starog profesora matematike limuzina, pa izleti bogataš da mu pomogne. Kaže mu da je učio kod njega, a profa ga pita kako je uspeo kad nije imao pojma sa matematikom.
"Lako, profesore. Kupim za dolar, prodam za dva i živim od tih 10%."

Majstorski! Znači marža + provizija 110%, 100% potroši na kocku i žene sumnjivog morala, a živi od 10%!


Podseti me na ono, ''Rok Feler kupi jabuku, proda jabuku, kupi dve jabuke, proda dve jabuke, kupi džak jabuka, proda... i ti misliš tako se obogatio? ne brate, usere ga!''

Budući da se priča da je Tramp studio 54 kadar, nisu jabuke u pitanju!

Quote from: Palmer Eldrič on 04-04-2017, 20:35:33
Majstorski! Znači marža + provizija 110%, 100% potroši na kocku i žene sumnjivog morala, a živi od 10%!

I posle pričaš nama sa autoritetom!!!!

Autoritet je antihristovo načelo. 

Dostojevski


Kalkulacija je laserski precizna za tog lika! Mogao bi da se ubaci i neki app i zavisni troškovi!!!

Kuknjava da će imigranti oduzimati posao Amerikancima je stara koliko i imigracija, ali umesto meksikanaca koji dolaze da peru kola i rade u bašti, srednju klasu u poslednje vreme najviše žulja uvoz Indusa (i drugih) za potrebe programerskih poslova a koji se dovode uz korišćenje H-1B viza koje, opet, treba da služe za privremeno zapošljavanje visokostručnih kadrova kakvih nema u SAD. Klasična zloupotreba, škrguću zubima već godinama američki programeri još uvek opterećeni dugovima od svog skupog fakultetskog obrazovanja dok im Indusi sa diplomom državnog fakulteta uzimaju radna mesta i rade za triput manje para. Da li će Tramp ovo rešiti?
Computer programmers may no longer be eligible for H-1B visas

Quote
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services quietly over the weekend released new guidance that computer programmers are no longer presumed to be eligible for H-1B visas.
What it means: This aligns with the administration's focus on reserving the temporary visas for very high-skilled (and higher-paid) professionals while encouraging low- and mid-level jobs to go to American workers instead. The new guidance affects applications for the lottery for 2018 fiscal year that opened Monday.
What comes next: Companies applying for H-1B visas for computer programming positions will have to submit additional evidence showing that the jobs are complex or specialized and require professional degrees. Entry-level wages attached to these visa applications will also get more scrutiny. The change appears to target outsourcing companies, who typically employ lower-paid, lower-level computer workers.
Lawsuits possible: Releasing this policy change at the start of the application filing window is going to rankle companies who used 17-year-old policy guidance to apply for this year's visas. Some companies may challenge the guidance on the grounds that USCIS didn't provide sufficient notice of the change.
UPDATE (6:15 pm Eastern): A USCIS spokeswoman said the guidance is "not a policy change" and is just clarifying existing policy for a Nebraska call service center.

   
• But an immigration attorney following this process said the memo would increase scrutiny for H1-B applicants for the computer programmer job category. The attorney added that most Silicon Valley companies don't hire entry level programmers, and so the real impact of the change would be felt by offshore companies. "It's not an unsubstantial development," he said.
• There is some confusion over the impact of the new guidance. Bloomberg says it would "bring more scrutiny to [applications] for computer programmers doing the simplest jobs." Endgadget reports a misinterpretation of the guidance "caused many to panic" but programmers can still qualify for H-1B visas.
• Separately, USCIS announced new measures today to rein in abuse of the H-1B program.

Još malo na temu graničnih provera:

'Extreme vetting' would require visitors to US to share contacts and passwords

Benon više nije u savetu za bezbednost:

Bannon Taken Off Trump National Security Council in Shake-Up

Drogaši!

Jared and Ivanka ask what their country can do for them

Quote
Last September, after the handbag designer Ivanka Trump declared that childcare for working families would be her top policy priority if her father were president, I wrote a column about what I thought would happen if Donald Trump won.
My fear was that Trump would run his White House the way he had run his business empire — as a right of inheritance. The convention in Cleveland had made it clear to anyone paying attention that Trump wasn't running as a Republican, but rather as the patriarch of a celebrity clan. I called the column "Ivanka Trump, White House czar."
I was wrong. In an administration where women play only supportive roles, Ivanka has settled for assistant White House czar. The bigger job belongs to her 36-year-old husband, Jared Kushner, whose portfolio so far includes brokering Middle East peace, negotiating trade deals, reconfiguring the federal government, stamping out opioids, establishing ties with China and Mexico and — as of this week — surveying our strategy in Iraq.
I guess all that's left is to put him in charge of financial regulation and criminal prosecutions, and then the entire aging Cabinet can spend the next three-plus years swimming and swing dancing at Mar-a-Lago, like characters from "Cocoon."


A raft of critics have recently come after Jared and Ivanka, alleging that they don't know a thing about policy (well, yeah) and that they're awash in ethical conflicts (like that matters). But the problem with Washington's newest power couple is larger and more pervasive than any of that, and it illuminates the underlying darkness in this administration.
Before we get to that, though, let's put all this in some context. It's not uncommon for presidents to rely on the guidance of spouses or other relatives, as we all do. But you'd have to go back to the early 1960s to find anything remotely comparable to the familial power center in Trump's White House.
I've just read a terrific forthcoming book called "The Revolution of Robert Kennedy," by the historian John R. Bohrer, which reminded me of how blatantly the Kennedys made their White House a family affair. It was Joseph Kennedy, the president's father, who decreed that another of his sons, Robert, would be the attorney general. No one spoke to John Kennedy more, or had more influence across the entire spectrum of policy, than his brother.
So blatant was it, in fact, that in 1967 Congress passed a law barring any president from naming a relative to the Cabinet or to the helm of any federal agency. (That also applies to posts in the District of Columbia government, in case Trump was thinking of annexing the city and making Tiffany its provincial governor.) This is why Jared can't actually have the jobs of all the Cabinet secretaries he's displacing.


But let's be real: Drawing a line from RFK to Jared Kushner is like trying to compare B.B. King to Drake. By the time he became attorney general at 35, Kennedy — again, with some assistance from his father — had already achieved notoriety as the unflinching lead counsel for a mob-busting Senate committee. He'd been a government prosecutor for a decade.
Kushner hadn't served a day on a school board before Trump put him in charge of, you know, America. Near as I can tell, his sole achievement in his young life — much like his wife's — is to have spent his parents' money on cool stuff, like some buildings and a once trendy newspaper you've never read. (Kushner does have one thing in common with Bobby Kennedy: His father gave a ton of money to Harvard before he attended.)
The Trump family exhibits little defensiveness about Jared. "Nepotism is a kind of factor of life," the sage philosopher Eric Trump told Forbes for a story this week. Which is certainly true if your life begins with the name "Eric Trump," but probably less so if you're one of those voters who want America made great again because your children will not inherit an empire of golf resorts.
And in an interview with CBS this week, Ivanka noted that a lot of these same critics said her father didn't have the qualifications to run for president, and here he is, which I guess was supposed to be a good thing. "Jared is incredibly smart, very talented, has enormous capacity," she said.
Well, OK. But first of all, whatever one thinks of Donald Trump, and I'm a skeptic, let's acknowledge that he did harness the courage to actually run for office and the skills necessary to win. He's accountable to the voters who put him here and to a lot of Americans who did not.
Jared and Ivanka are accountable to exactly no one. Unlike a Robert Kennedy, neither of them even had to be confirmed by the Senate before wielding unparalleled power in the West Wing. No one got to vote on their empty résumés.
As for how smart Kushner is, I've never met him, and I've no reason to doubt he's a quick study and a sharp conversationalist. But, you know, you can't walk down a street on the Upper East Side without bumping into three smart guys with real estate fortunes. It's not as if he represents some rare commodity in public life.


Then there are the ethical quandaries around money, which truly are unprecedented in the executive branch. Ivanka first tried to avoid being subject to any conflict-of-interest rules at all by serving as an informal adviser. When that tactic proved even too cute for the White House legal team, she agreed to take a title as assistant to the president and to remove herself, ostensibly, from the management of her businesses — but not from the profits.
She's still making money off the Trump hotel in Washington, where you can bet a lot of foreign officials will be plunking down cash in the months ahead.
Kushner's already come under scrutiny because of a deal in which an influential Chinese company offered to invest $400 million in a building owned by his family. The Kushners backed off that one, but it's clear enough now that the only thing keeping Jared from mixing our business with his is the threat of public scrutiny.
And this gets to the heart of my issue with Kushner and Ivanka, and with the Trump family acquisition of the White House generally. Basically, they've decided all of a sudden that they'd very much like to run the country for a spell, but they're not willing to sacrifice a damn thing for the privilege.
Robert Kennedy could probably have doubled his fortune had he wanted to stay outside of government and profit from his brother's name. That was never the idea.
Whether you loved the power-thirsty Kennedys or hated them, whether you agreed with their vision for the country or not, no one could reasonably argue that they didn't choose to serve our interests over their own. The same was true for the Bushes, by the way.
Not so with the Trumps, from Donald on down. Public service is a playground to them, an accidental hobby. (Though apparently not as important a hobby as skiing, which is what Jared and Ivanka were doing while the health care bill was cratering.)
The idea that they should lose anything in order to govern, that doing this with integrity should cost them any real wealth or opportunity, seems as foreign and misguided to them as a North Korean haircut.


I'd be willing to give Jared and Ivanka the benefit of the doubt — even absent any obvious humility or aptitude for their jobs — if they were willing to entirely divest themselves from competing interests, as Cabinet secretaries do. They won't, because it's not their way to sacrifice for any greater good, and because they have an evident disdain for those who devote their lives to bettering the country.
To the Trump-Kushner axis, those people are just suckers who don't have what it takes to get rich, or at least to be born that way.
The privileges they inherited are theirs to keep while they meddle around with policies that affect the rest of us. The honor, I guess, is all ours.

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=31969&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Tramp imo sve od srpskih do kineskih dadilja, epohalno!

Niđe protestantske etike, đe Vučić!

Dakle, od priče da je Asad ipak nešto što se mora prihvatiti kao realnost u Siriji koja je važila još početkom ove nedelje, nakon upotrebe hemijskog oružja za koju se još ni ne zna čija je krivica (Rusi tvrde da je granata pogodila skladište u kome je Islamska Država držala bojne otrove), Amerika prvi put otvoreno i direktno deluje protiv Sirijske strane koristeći krstareće projektile.

U.S. launches military strikes on Syria

Quote

WASHINGTON – President Trump unleashed airstrikes on Syria on Thursday to punish its strongman, Bashar Assad, after a chemical attack this week that killed dozens of civilians, including children. The barrage amounted to the most significant military operation ordered by Trump, a newcomer to governing who had warned, before taking office, against escalating America's involvement in the Middle East.
"Tonight, I ordered a targeted military strike on the airfield in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched," Trump said in Palm Springs, Florida. "It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons."
The operation – the first known direct American strike on Syrian government assets since the start of the country's civil war – rained at least 50 cruise missiles from U.S. Navy ships in the Mediterranean on a Syrian airfield thought to be the point of origin for the chemical attack, US officials said. The attack took place at 8:40 p.m. Eastern time.
The decision risked confrontation with Russia, Syria's patron, which reportedly had troops stationed at the airbase, and could mean increased dangers for hundreds of US troops now in Syria to prepare for the assault on the so-called Islamic State's capital, Raqqa. But it also sent a dramatically different message about Washington's willingness to use force in Syria after Barack Obama shied away from enforcing his self-imposed "red line."

The decision to dramatically escalate America's role in a conflict that has left some 500,000 dead, according to human rights groups, was arguably the new president's biggest decision yet, with many unknown consequences. At home, the early response from Congress suggested strong bipartisan support for the strikes, but deep concern about the way forward. Some in Congress, including Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, said Trump should have sought authorization from Congress for a military operation that was not in response to an attack on the U.S.
Trump explained his decision by describing the horrific images from Tuesday's chemical weapons strike in a mostly rebel-controlled area near the Turkish border, saying "there can be no dispute" that Assad's forces were responsible.
"Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad launched a horrible chemical weapons attack on innocent civilians," he said. "Using a deadly nerve agent, Assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women and children. It was a slow and brutal death for so many. Even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack."
So "tonight I ordered a targeted military strike on the airfield in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched," Trump said. "It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons."
The president also urged "all civilized nations to join us in seeking to end the slaughter and bloodshed in Syria."
Congressional Democrats offered measured support for the onslaught, but warned that lawmakers would need to weigh on in any sustained escalation. Some of the lawmakers delivering that message stood idly by while Barack Obama escalated America's role in Iraq and Syra.
The top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Ben Cardin of Maryland, said in a statement that "any longer-term or larger military operation in Syria by the Trump Administration will need to be done in consultation with the Congress."
Cardin also pressed Trump "to inform the legislative branch and the American people about his larger policy in Syria, as well as the legal basis for this action and any additional military activities in that country."
Trump had huddled with top advisers including Tillerson, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, and National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster in Palm Beach, Fla., where he was to hold meetings Friday with Chinese President Xi Jinping. In a sign of how quickly events were unfolding, White House officials had said just a day earlier that McMaster would not travel with Trump.Tillerson told reporters that the president had begun a long, difficult and potentially fruitless effort to push Assad from power.
"The process by which Assad would leave is something that I think requires an international community effort, both to first defeat ISIS within Syria, to stabilize the Syrian country, to avoid further civil war, and then to work collectively with our partners around the world through a political process that would lead to Assad leaving," he said. Pressed on whether he and Trump were working to assemble an international coalition to achieve that goal, Tillerson replied: "Those steps are underway."
The secretary of state also had tough words for Moscow, Assad's patron. "It is very important that the Russian government consider carefully their continued support for the Assad regime," he said.
And he reaffirmed what senior U.S. officials have said since the world first saw footage and photographs of gasping, dying or dead children in Khan Sheikhoun, a locality in the northwestern Syrian province of Idlib — Assad is to blame.
"There is no doubt in our minds and the information we have supports that Syria, the Syrian regime on the leadership of President Bashar al-Assad, are responsible for this attack," Tillerson said.

A u manje turobnom tonu:

War breaks out between the Steve Bannon and Jared Kushner factions in the White House

Quote

As White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon stepped down from the National Security Council this week, tensions between him and senior adviser Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump's son-in-law, burst into the open.
Several reports in recent days have detailed the brewing conflict. The Daily Beast reported Thursday that Bannon had called Kushner a "cuck" behind his back.
Bannon also told his associates, "I love a gunfight," according to an Axios report, which said that "the hatred between the two wings" in the White House was "intense and irreconcilable."
The stories of civil war in the White House started rolling out in earnest this week after the White House announced Trump was reorganizing the NSC and that Bannon would no longer be on it. In January, Trump signed a controversial memorandum that removed some of the nation's top military and intelligence advisers as regular attendees of the NSC's principals committee and elevated Bannon.
Bannon quickly went into damage-control mode, with his allies selling the NSC demotion as a "natural evolution" rather than a sign of his waning influence, according to The New York Times.

The Times also reported that despite his efforts to play it cool with the media, Bannon resisted his removal from the NSC and at one point threatened to quit over it. Axios reported, however, that Bannon had been telling associates that such stories were "100% nonsense."
In any case, tensions clearly are running high.
The civil war might not have started with the decision to remove Bannon from the NSC — New York Magazine reported that it started with the failed effort by Republicans to pass a healthcare-reform bill — but now that the narrative about Bannon has shifted to one of him losing power, the infighting has become more public.
The Daily Beast reported that fighting had been nonstop between Bannon and Kushner for weeks and that the two often clashed face-to-face. One official told the news outlet that Bannon said Kushner was trying to "shiv him and push him out the door." They said Bannon recently vented about Kushner "being a 'globalist' and a 'cuck.'"
"He actually said 'cuck,' as in 'cuckservative,'" they said.
A senior official told The Daily Beast the friction between the Bannon and Kushner camps boiled down to policy. They said there was tension "on trade, health care, immigration, taxes, [terrorism] — you name it."
Bannon is frequently described as a populist and a nationalist, and Trump embraced some of these sentiments on the campaign trail as he appealed to voters with an "America First" message. Kushner, the husband of Trump's daughter Ivanka, is seen as a more moderating force on Trump.
CNN reported that Bannon's removal from the NSC signaled a power shift in the White House and Trump moving away "from the more hard-line ideological bent of Bannon." And sources told Politico that Bannon felt as though Kushner and his allies were trying to undermine his populist approach.
A person familiar with Bannon's thinking told Politico that the "big fight is between nationalists and the West Wing Democrats."
It seems that, for now, the latter wing is coming out on top. As Bannon is marginalized, Kushner's star is rising.
Kushner recently went on a high-profile trip to Iraq and has found allies in Gary Cohn, the National Economic Council director, and Dina Powell, the deputy national security adviser for strategy, who have become more influential.
Bannon can count Attorney General Jeff Sessions, policy adviser Stephen Miller, and presidential counselor Kellyanne Conway among his allies, according to Axios. But Trump has been known to keep his family close, and that would include Kushner.
Trump might also have political reasons to reign in Bannon. Media outlets have reported that Trump has been annoyed with the credit Bannon has received for the Trump administration's agenda, illustrated by a "Saturday Night Live" skit portraying Bannon as a puppet master.
The fighting between Bannon and Kushner has had a trickle-down effect, according to Politico.
"As we get further away from Inauguration Day, it is very obvious that no one cares what happens to the people who worked for the campaign or who have loyalty to the president," one former Trump campaign aide told Politico. "The swamp is winning the battle. And longtime campaign staffers are proving to be the first casualties."

toliko o moci trampove ruske veze kontra moci americke vojske etc. kratko trajao taj us-jelzin.

Opet Markale.

Quote from: scallop on 07-04-2017, 09:30:52
Opet Markale.

Opet. Amerikanci, ali i ovi ovdašnji nikako ne mogu da shvate da od 22.11.1963 nema predsedničke autonomije u bilo čemu, predsednik je tamo samo jedna figurina, izvršitelj radova na terenu, koji bude i prođe, sistem, interesi, to je važno, sve ostalo baci u vodu, pa vodu prospi, a interese određuje onaj koji daje pare. Može neko da se zalaže i za tradicionalizam, šta god da im je to, ali ima da glasa za rat u kome se vojna snaga SAD upotrebljava za račun Saudija. I tako (da budem malo ki Radašin) može Denis napast da klimata glavudžom koliko hoće, da se krevelji i pravi pametan, al hidžabi će mu se namnožiti po avlije... Jednostavno, pare su u pitanju, a i osnivač "religije mira" je bio kapitalista - trgovac, tako da... pričaće jedno, raditi drugo, a misliti treće. Sve se čini da će neko od istoričara, sa dve ili tri glave, ako neko uopšte i preživi da napiše u knjizi istorije da je u ranim jutarnjim časovima 07.04.2017 počeo treći svetski rat, koji niti je izbio zbog sukoba kapitalizma i komunizma, niti zbog Kube, nego zbog dva ludaka koji umesto da zajedničkim snagama razbucaju trećeg nađoše za shodno da ratuju jer im beše dosadno.

http://www.b92.net/info/vesti/index.php?yyyy=2017&mm=04&dd=07&nav_category=78&nav_id=1248010


Rusija suspenduje memorandum o sprečavanju incidenata

[/size]Moskva -- Posle napada SAD na bazu sirijske vojske Rusija suspenduje memorandum o sprečavanju incidenata i obezbeđivanju letova avijacije tokom operacije u Siriji.

Ludlo pred Tilersonov dolazak u Moskvu.

12. april

Duginu napad na Siriju uvod u WWIII

http://www.geopolitica.ru/en/article/third-world-war-beginning

"The formal decision to attack was taken by Donald Trump. In doing so, he stopped being Trump, and became Hillary disguised as a man, a kind of transvestite."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/deleted-daily-mail-online-article-us-backed-plan-for-chemical-weapon-attack-in-syria-to-be-blamed-on-assad/5339178

Great.

        Russia Walks Back Threats of Retaliation If US Strikes Syria Again 

Quote
            Kremlin officials on Monday publicly distanced themselves from a what appeared to be a threat by commanders on the ground in Syria to attack US interests if the Trump administration orders any more strikes against the regime of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.
The move came in reaction to a statement published by the Assad-friendly Al-Watan newspaper and attributed to the joint command center in Syria that is shared by Russia, Iran, Hezbollah militia and other forces supporting the regime in the ongoing civil war.
Related: Team Trump Still in Search of a Coherent Syria Policy
"The aggression against Syria oversteps all red lines," the statement said. "We will react firmly to any aggression against Syria and to any infringement of red lines, whoever carries them out."
The statement was plainly a reaction to the decision by President Trump last Thursday to fire 59 cruise missiles at a Syrian airbase in retaliation for the Assad regime's apparent use of chemical weapons against the civilian population of the town of Idlib, an attack that killed dozens, including children. It also came not long after top Trump administration officials said plainly that more attacks against Syria were possible if the regime continues to target civilians.
"The strike was a message to Bashar al-Assad that your multiple violations of your agreements at the UN, your agreements under the chemical weapons charter back in 2013 that those would not go without a response in the future," Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said in an interview with ABC News broadcast Sunday morning.
Related: Trump Bombed Syria's Airfield. Now, Here Comes Putin's Response
"Our objective was to deter continued use of chemical weapons," said National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster. "We're prepared to do more." However, the Russian leadership, while it condemned the US attack, quickly repudiated the statement published in Al-Watan.
"We are not aware about that; we cannot confirm that, and we do not know where Reuters got this and where these anonymous sources appeared from again," said Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, referring to one of the news wires that reported on the statement.
Until the promise of retaliation was published, Russian officials had been very careful in their condemnation of the US attack, claiming that it violated international law, among other things, but not threatening action against the United States.
Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev warned that the missile attacks had placed the US "on the verge" of conflict with Russia in a highly critical Facebook post.
Related: Here's What Firing 59 Tomahawk Missiles at Syria's Airfield Cost
"The Trump administration proved that it will fiercely fight the legitimate Syrian government, in a tough contradiction with international law and without UN approval, in violation of its own procedures stipulating that the Congress must first be notified of any military operation unrelated to aggression against the US. On the verge of a military clash with Russia."
Medvedev added, "This military action is a clear indication of the US President's extreme dependency on the opinion of the Washington establishment, the one that the new president strongly criticized in his inauguration speech. Soon after his victory, I noted that everything would depend on how soon Trump's election promises would be broken by the existing power machine. It took only two and a half months."
As a backdrop to this, senior US officials including UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain over the weekend all suggested that US sanctions against Russia should be tightened as a consequence for ongoing Kremlin support for the Assad regime.
The further deterioration of the relationship between Washington and Moscow comes just days before Secretary of State Tillerson is scheduled to visit Russia for high-level talks with senior officials.         

Da bismo bili bar na obodu teme red je da sve nazovemo pravim imenom.


Ako smo na zemlji koju nazivamo Zemljom, u toku je pokušaj ustanka Države protiv zavojevača Globalnog neoliberalizma u ratu koji je formalno započeo pre skoro četrdeset godina. Jedna društveno politička ideologija je tada procenila da je Država suvišna i započela sa uništavanjem svih njenih hiljadugodišnjih vrednosti. Trebalo je da se promeni vlasnik svekolikog stanovništva i da se uspostavi sistem dužničkog ropstva.


Moguće je da se taj proces osetio ugroženim dešavanjima u svetu koje je teško precizno nabrojati, a ja Trumpov slučaj vidim kao pobunu protiv sistema u kojoj je trebalo deo globalnog sistema vratiti u Državu. Kako stoje stvari, nije izgubio protiv filijale Globala u Demokratskoj stranci, nego ga taj isti Global davi krof filijalu u Republikanskoj stranci. Sistematski su mu eliminisali podršku i zamenili je svojim sledbenicima. Vidim ga kao žrtvu u ratu.