Arapske revolucije

[pokojni Steva]

willie is a crazy scottish dude!

[Josephine]

[Melkor]

TRIPOLI, Libya – A cruise missile blasted Moammar Gadhafi's residential compound in an attack that carried as much symbolism as military effect, and fighter jets destroyed a line of tanks moving on the rebel capital. The U.S. said the international assault would hit any government forces attacking the opposition.

Oil prices jumped to nearly $103 a barrel Monday in Asia after the Libyan leader vowed a "long war" amid a second night of allied strikes in the OPEC nation. Jubilant rebels said they expected to bring him down in a matter of days.

It was not known where Gadhafi was when the missile hit near his iconic tent late Sunday, but it seemed to show that while the allies trade nuances over whether the Libyan leader's fall is a goal of their campaign — he is not safe.

Half of the round, three-story administration building was knocked down and pieces of the missile were scattered around, according to Associated Press photographer escorted to the scene by the Libyan government. About 300 Gadhafi supporters were in the compound at the time. It was not known if any were hurt.

Britain said Monday one of its bombing missions was aborted last night to avoid civilian casualties.

"We believe that a number of civilians had been moved within the intended target area," the Ministry of Defense said Monday. State television had said Gadhafi's supporters were converging on airports as human shields.

The U.S. military said the bombardment so far — a rain of Tomahawk cruise missiles and precision bombs from American and European aircraft, including long-range stealth B-2 bombers — had hobbled Gadhafi's air defenses. More missile strikes overnight did new damage to anti-aircraft sites, the Italian military said.

U.S., British and French planes also went after tanks headed toward Benghazi, in the opposition-held eastern half of the country. On Sunday, at least seven demolished tanks smoldered in a field 12 miles (20 kilometers) south of Benghazi, many of them with their turrets and treads blown off, alongside charred armored personnel carriers, jeeps and SUVs of the kind used by Gadhafi fighters.

"I feel like in two days max we will destroy Gadhafi," said Ezzeldin Helwani, 35, a rebel standing next to the smoldering wreckage of an armored personnel carrier, the air thick with smoke and the pungent smell of burning rubber. In a grisly sort of battle trophy, celebrating fighters hung a severed goat's head with a cigarette in its mouth from the turret of one of the gutted tanks.

The strikes that began early Sunday gave respite to Benghazi, which the day before had been under a heavy attack that killed at least 120 people. The calm highlighted the dramatic turnaround that the allied strikes bring to Libya's month-old upheaval: For the past 10 days, Gadhafi's forces had been on a triumphant offensive against the rebel-held east, driving opposition fighters back with the overwhelming firepower of tanks, artillery, warplanes and warships.

Now Gadhafi's forces are potential targets for U.S. and European strikes. The U.N. resolution authorizing international military action in Libya not only sets up a no-fly zone but allows "all necessary measures" to prevent attacks on civilians.

But the U.S. military, for now at the lead of the international campaign, is trying to walk a fine line over the end game of the assault. It is avoiding for now any appearance that it aims to take out Gadhafi or help the rebels oust him, instead limiting its stated goals to protecting civilians.

Britain also is treading carefully. Foreign Secretary William Hague refused Monday to say if Gadhafi would or could be assassinated, insisting he would not "get drawn into details about what or whom may be targeted."

"I'm not going to speculate on the targets," Hague said in a heated interview with BBC radio. "That depends on the circumstances at the time."

A military official said Air Force B-2 stealth bombers flew 25 hours in a round trip from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri and dropped 45 2,000-pound bombs.

What happens if rebel forces eventually go on the offensive against Gadhafi's troops remains unclear.

[Meho Krljic]

Još bestijalne zapadnjačko-globalističke propagande maskirane u izveštavanje:

Dejvid Kameron objašnjava javnosti: Ujedinjene Nacije su sprečile krvavi pokolj u Libiji:

PM: UN Helped Avert Bloody Massacre In Libya

Prime Minsiter David Cameron has told House of Commons that the UN coalition helped to avert what could have been a bloody massacre Benghazi "just in the nick of time". Skip related content


Mr Cameron said the strikes had been a success in crippling Colonel Gaddafi's air defences and confirmed that the coalition operation would soon move from US command to Nato-led command.

Speaking to clear up contradictory statements from MPs about whether the UN can remove Colonel Gaddafi from power, the Prime Minister said his own feelings were clear about the leader.

But he confirmed that it is up to the Libyan people to rid themselves of their leader.

Mr Cameron also reiterated his previous comment that the action in Libya was legal and said world leaders in Paris on Friday had the support of Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq, Jordan and Morocco.

Opposition leader Ed Miliband also lent his support to Britain's role in the UN strikes, saying the action was "a just cause, a feasible mission and had international support".

Mr Cameron hit back at critics who believed action was taken too quickly, saying the rebels in Libya were running out of time, particularly as Colonel Gaddafi had said he would show "no mercy" in Benghazi.

If Colonel Gaddafi was allowed to crush the revolution, Europe would be left with a pariah state festering on its border and exporting terrorism, said Mr Cameron, who insisted action in Libya is in the British national interest.

"The people of Lockerbie know what this man is capable of," he added.

Referring to fears that the UK could be caught up in military action in north Africa indefinitely, the Prime Minister stood by the UN resolution, saying the UK would be involved until the resolution was completed.

More to follow...

Mislim, kako oni pišu ove vesti... Završavaju ih sa "More to follow...", jebote ko neka laka literatura za aerodromske radnje. Kameron objašnjava da bi Libija, da je nisu napali bila "država Parija na evropskoj granici, koja izvozi terorizam". Iako je u pitanju odmereno dobrostojeća afrička država koja se naglašeno distancirala od Al Kaide u poslednjih deset godina.

Pa onda:

Naši su ratni uspesi nemerljivi. Mi ipak imamo krstareće projektile a oni se brane kamilama:

'Gaddafi Forced To Retreat After Airstrikes'

Airstrikes which have pounded Libya for the past two days have been "highly effective" and halted Colonel Gaddafi's march on the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, UK defence officials say.

Speaking at a Ministry of Defence news briefing, Major General John Lorimer said: "We are satisfied that our attacks and those of our partners have been highly effective in degrading the Libyan air defence and command and control capability."

The MoD said coalition bombing raids had forced pro-Gaddafi forces to retreat from Benghazi, but there was evidence elsewhere that assaults were being stepped up.

The Reuters wire agency said that a resident in Misratah reported that at least nine people have killed by pro-Gaddafi forces in the western Libyan city today.

Meanwhile, according to a spokesman for the US Africa command, only 10 to 12 missiles were fired overnight, compared to around 110 missiles launched when action stated on March 19.

"We spent the first 24 hours establishing conditions for a no-fly zone and are now transitioning over to a patrol posture," spokesman Vince Crawley said.

Mr Cameron, speaking in the House of Commons this afternoon, told MPs that Libyan air defences have largely been "neutralised".

He also stressed of greater Arab involvement in the alliance and Libyans deciding on the future of Col Gaddafi.

"I certainly want to build and maintain the widest possible coalition," he said.

"The Libyans need to choose their own future."

During allied airstrikes last night, Libyan officials said an administrative building at the heart of Col Gaddafi's compound was destroyed by a cruise missile.

Described by a coalition official as one of the Libyan leader's "command and control" facility, it was later confirmed to have been targeted by a Royal Navy submarine.

The building was about 50 yards from the iconic tent where Col Gaddafi meets guests in Tripoli.

Smoke was seen rising from within the heavily fortified compound which houses his private quarters as well as military barracks and other installations.

Defence Secretary Liam Fox has suggested that Col Gaddafi is himself a target, despite Pentagon spokesman William Gortney saying: "We are not going after Gaddafi."

However, a senior UK military source confirmed to Sky News this morning that Libya's commander in chief is "a legitimate military target".

The AP later reported that a rebel envoy said the Libyan opposition didn't want Col Gaddafi killed by Western-led strikes as they wanted to oust and try the dictator in a court of law.

Sky's foreign affairs correspondent Lisa Holland, reporting from Tripoli under the supervision of the Libyan government, said the regime was in no doubt that it was being "specifically targeted".

"Col Gaddafi's regime is absolutely furious," Holland said.

"The international community's position, as far as the regime is concerned, is that Colonel Gaddafi is not a target, but they say that any missile that goes near his compound is an attempt to take him out."

Libyan officials took reporters into the area this morning to show them the three-storey building in ruins along with shrapnel apparently from the missile.

It was unclear where Col Gaddafi was at the time of the strike. The attack was part of a renewed allied assault on Libya involving sub-surface and air assets.

A Trafalgar-class submarine stationed in the Mediterranean fired Tomahawk missiles at air defence targets for a second night, the Ministry of Defence said.

A separate mission with RAF Tornado jets from RAF Marham in Norfolk was aborted during darkness after it emerged there were civilians within the target area, the MoD added.

In the eastern rebel stronghold of Benghazi fighting has continued between rebels and pro-Gaddafi troops.

Sky correspondent Emma Hurd, in Benghazi, said: "Last night, there was a heavy fire-fight in the city. The rebels say they came under attack from pro-Gaddafi elements and they sense there is an enemy from within.

"There is also broad confusion among the rebels about what support they can expect under the UN Security Council resolution, and if they advance from Benghazi, what level of air support will be provided by allied forces."

US forces, who have taken the lead in the coalition action so far, said radar and air defence installations have been destroyed along with a military control tower.

The Pentagon said that as a result Col Gaddafi's capacity to deploy his attack helicopters and aircraft has been removed, and the skies are safer for coalition aircraft to police the no-fly zone.

The onslaught on Gaddafi's forces continued despite two ceasefires announced by the Libyan authorities, which were treated with suspicion in London and Washington.

Downing Street said on Sunday that Col Gaddafi remained in breach of his obligations under last week's UN resolution, which the coalition would continue to enforce.

"Everyone will recall that in recent days Colonel Gaddafi declared a ceasefire which was promptly violated," said a spokesman for Number 10.

"We said then we would judge him on his actions not his words - and we will do so again."

RAF Typhoons are now in place at the southern Italian air base of Gioia del Colle, after deploying from RAF Coningsby in Lincolnshire to be within easy range of Libya.

Planes from Arab state Qatar, as well as Belgium, Denmark and Spain, have arrived to join Britain, France, Canada and the US in patrolling the no-fly zone.

MPs will today be given a vote in the House of Commons on Britain's involvement in the Libyan mission.

With all three major party leaders firmly behind the operation, only a handful of MPs are expected to voice opposition.

The UN Security Council will hold closed-door consultations on the Libyan situation later today, diplomats said.

US defence secretary Robert Gates has said he expects the US to hand over command of the mission to a coalition - Mr Cameron told the Commons that coalition would be Nato.

Libyan state TV claimed that at least 60 civilians were killed and more than 100 wounded since the allied action started on Saturday.

However, the claims were dismissed by the US as propaganda and the Ministry of Defence said there was no evidence of any civilian casualties.

There were signs of unease in the Arab world over the scale and nature of the attacks.

Arab League secretary general Amr Moussa said on Sunday: "What has happened in Libya differs from the goal of imposing a no-fly zone. What we want is the protection of civilians and not bombing other civilians."

However, on Monday he said that the group respected the UN resolution and there was "no conflict with it.

Dakle, dok jedni tvrde da samo hoće da zaštite civile od masakra i da se ne bi mešali u to da li Gadafi treba da ostane na vlasti, isti ti jedni onda kažu da žele da umešaju što više država u priču, posebno arapskih, kako bi Libijci sami odlučivali o svojoj budućnosti. Plemenito.

Naravno, Gadafi nije meta, to smo se mi samo šalili:

Libya: Military Chief Rules Out Gaddafi Hit

Ministers appear at odds with military chiefs over whether coalition forces can legitimately target Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.

Liam Fox suggested he could be directly attacked as part of the allies' intervention and William Hague also failed to rule it out.

Downing Street sources also insisted it was legal to target anyone killing Libyan civilians.

But the Chief of the Defence Staff General Sir David Richards flatly declared it was not allowed under the terms of the UN Resolution.

After a meeting of the sub-committee of the National Security Council at No10, he was adamant it was not permitted to attack Col Gaddafi.

He said: "Absolutely not. It is not allowed under the UN resolution and it is not something I want to discuss any further."

The Defence Secretary was also directly contradicted by the US who stressed no one is "going after" the Libyan leader.

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates warned that calls to target the Libyan leader could undermine the cohesion of the international coalition supporting the no-fly zone.

"If we start adding additional objectives then I think we create a problem in that respect," he said.

"I also think it is unwise to set as specific goals things that you may or may not be able to achieve."

Mr Fox's remarks risk damaging international support for the allied mission and alienating the Arab League, whose support is crucial.

The UN resolution allows "all necessary measures" to protect Libyan civilians, but does not mention regime change and rules out a foreign occupation.

David Cameron will be pressed on the exact aim of the strikes in a debate on the military action in the House of Commons this afternoon.

Most MPs support the action, although there will be tough questioning from those who see parallels with the Iraq War.

Sixteen, including two Lib Dems, have signed an early day motion expressing doubt it will lead to democracy.

A Labour source told Sky News they will focus questions on whether the support of the Arab League is faltering, if ground troops will be used and what the exit strategy is.

MPs are also expected to quiz the Government about the desire for regime change and whether the removal of Colonel Gaddafi is the end game.

Meanwhile, Libya was rocked by air strikes for a second night and a building in Col Gaddafi's compound, containing around 300 of his supporters, destroyed.

The leader announced a ceasefire last night but it has been treated with suspicion in London and Washington.

Downing Street said that Gaddafi remained in breach of his obligations under the United Nations resolution, which the coalition would continue to enforce.

There are growing questions about exactly how the allies' involvement will come to an end, with the threat of a debilitating stalemate a real possibility.

Britain has ruled out the use of ground troops but some Cabinet members have hinted this could change. George Osborne said it was only ruled out "for the moment".

Mr Fox's comments further muddied the waters. "Mission accomplished would mean the Libyan people free to control their own destiny," he said.

"This is very clear - the international community wants his regime to end and wants the Libyan people to control for themselves their own country."

He added: "Regime change is not an objective, but it may come about as a result of what is happening amongst the people of Libya... If Colonel Gaddafi went, not every eye would be wet."

The Defence Secretary suggested Col Gaddafi could become a target for air strikes.

"There is a difference between someone being a legitimate target and whether we go ahead and target him," he said.

"You would have to take into account what would happen to civilians in the area, what might happen in terms of collateral damage.

"We don't simply with a gung-ho attitude start firing off missiles."

Mr Hague attempted to steady the line today, by insisting the military intervention would be "nothing more, nothing less" than the UN mandate required.

However, the Foreign Secretary also refused to rule out taking out Colonel Gaddafi, stating "it all depends how people behave".

A senior UK military source has now told Sky News that, as the head of the Libyan forces, Col Gaddafi is a "legitimate military target".

Shadow Cabinet minister Jim Murphy called Dr Fox "irresponsible" and a "rogue" who "should be put back in his box".

The US rejected the idea of targeting the leader out of hand. US Navy vice-admiral Bill Gortney said: "We are not going after Gaddafi."

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has also made clear his country will not play a "pre-eminent role" in Libya, leaving Britain and France to take the lead.

Russia, one of five countries to abstain in the UN Security Council vote last week, has also weighed in - attacking what it claimed was 'indiscriminate use of force'.

More worryingly, the Arab League - who could be crucial to the mission's success and supported the no-fly zone - has now criticised the severity of the attacks.

Its Secretary General Amr Moussa said: "What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians."

However he later said they respect the UN Resolution.

"We asked the United Nations to implement a no-fly zone and we respect the UN resolution and there is no conflict with it," he said.

"It is for protecting civilians and that is what we care about. We will continue to work on the protection of civilians."

Jer, naravno, kada u Izraelu ili u Saudijskoj Arabiji režimi napadaju civilno stanovništvo, jebiga, to je ipak njihova unutrašnja stvar, ali Gadafi mora da ode ili ćemo ga mi ukloniti - krstarećom raketom.

[Anomander Rejk]

Mislim da će oni ići što brže da završe ovo. Ma koliko mrzeli Gadafija, svaki novi dan agresije i civilnih žrtava, dovešće do besa i nezadovoljstva u arapskom svetu. Žalosno je što su američki sateliti u arapskom svetu dali zeleno svetlo ovoj akciji. Arapi me pomalo podsećaju na Srbe. Puno priče o bratstvu, a totalno razjedinjeni, i stalno ih drugi muzu.
Propaganda stvarno za povraćati  . Više se čak ne trude ni da smisle neku logički prihvatljivu laž. Ostala je samo ogoljena , čista sila.

[Stipan]

Pa šta će logika nekome ko ima onakvu vojnu silu?! To će im trebati tek kad budu imali nekog ravnopravnog protivnika. Zasad su dovoljni nosači aviona i stratosferski bombarderi.

[varvarin]

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/BBEXCLUDE-BNALL-BNSTAFF-BNTEAMS/2011/03/21/id/390198

ZANIMLJIVO:  Varničenje između Putina i Medvedeva.

[Tex Murphy]

Pa šta će logika nekome ko ima onakvu vojnu silu?! To će im trebati tek kad budu imali nekog ravnopravnog protivnika. Zasad su dovoljni nosači aviona i stratosferski bombarderi.

Pa kad budu imali ravnopravnog protivnika, onda im neće padati na pamet da napadnu. A, što reče ex-Eriops, ovo je stvarno za povraćanje. Nije da nismo navikli i na svojoj koži to osjetili, ali me uvijek impresionira njihova ljigavost i licemjernost. Pa i čitava vojna intervencija je počela "jer će Gadafi da napravi masakr na civilima" (obratiti pažnju na futur).

Mr Cameron also reiterated his previous comment that the action in Libya was legal and said world leaders in Paris on Friday had the support of Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq, Jordan and Morocco.

E ovde već čovjek ne zna da li da se smije ili da plače.

[Tex Murphy]

Putin bi trebalo da skloni tog Medvedeva, previše se liže sa onim čokoladnim nobelovcem i ostalom stokom.

[Albedo 0]

Putin bi trebalo da skloni tog Medvedeva, previše se liže sa onim čokoladnim nobelovcem i ostalom stokom.

Ma ovo je klasično dobacivanje lopte, Putin kaže sve najgore o Americi, onda Medvedev ga malo kritikuje, napada ga da je preoštar, pokušava da ublaži situaciju, kao to nije zvaničan ruski stav (a jeste), to je Putinovo lično mišljenje (a Rusi ga većinski podržavaju) blablabla...

Tu foru su i pokupili od Amerikanaca, koji i zajebavaju druge nacije sa toplo-hladno porukama, čime otežavaju da drugi shvate šta stvarno misle. Vladaće oni zajedno još 10 godina.

Naravno, možda griješim ali ovi dupli pasovi su uobičajeni u politici.

[Tex Murphy]

Nadajmo se...

[scallop]

Loše se piše Gadafiju. Meho počeo da piše iz belog. Posebno mi se sviđa ovo: "Mi ipak imamo krstareće projektile a oni se brane kamilama." A od citata najviše me je dojmilo šta su sve "saveznici" sprečili u budućnosti. Naravno, budućnost je još jednom - sprečena.

[Джон Рейнольдс]

Jašta. Pa u Srbiji se dugo najavljuju (a bila su i ponegde sprovođena) "preventivna hapšenja". Nisam video da se neko mnogo buni oko toga. Sprečavanje budućnosti je svetski trend.

[Albedo 0]

Sprečavanje budućnosti je svetski trend.

a naš Karađoz ga je pokrenuo

[Meho Krljic]

Mi se zajebavamo, ali sprečavanje budućnosti, to jest preventivo delovanje da bi se sprečili zločini protiv čovečnosti je maltene direktna posledica (ili makar razvoj u geopolitičkoj filozofiji) srebreničkog masakra i opsade Sarajeva (i, dakako masakra u Ruandi). Da ne ulazimo sad u to kako su se ovi događaji stvarno odigra(va)li, fakat je da prosečan zapadnjak (koji je toga svega uopšte svestan) smatra da je Zapad bio suviše spor da reaguje, da je uvažavao te neke unutrašnje suverenosti i pičke materine, koje su samo korišćene kao izgovor da diktatori i krvožedni militaristi ostvare političke ciljeve preko tela civila. Meni je mnogo zapadnjaka, koji su inače u političkom smislu svakako pre liberalni nego konzervativni reklo da je trebalo da se zapad direktno vojno umeša u ratovanje u Bosni i spreči stvari koje su se desile (stvari koje sam gore pomenuo, da ne bude zabune). Koncept preventivnog delovanja da bi se sprečili zločini nad civilima, a koje nadilazi poštovanje unutrašnje suverenosti prilično je dobro utemeljen u poslednjih petnaestak godina. Rusi su ga takođe rado prizvali onomad kada su upali u Gruziju da spreče "genocid koji se događa u Južnoj Osetiji".

Da li je to dobro... Pa, svakako nije kada se koristi samo kao izgovor da bi se ostvarili drugi geopolitički ciljevi (američka baza na Kosovu, pristup libijskoj Nafti ili šta već...). Ali čisto filozofski gledano, ovaj koncept ide ruku pod ruku sa razvojem zapadne civilizacije koja u ovom trenutku reklo bi se smatra da je ljudski život vrednost po sebi i da je iznad drugih vrednosti. Da li se sa time slažemo? To je tema za razgovor...

...koji verovatno nećemo ovde voditi. Zato evo malo svežih vesti od Asošijejtid Presa:

Buoyed by strikes, Libya rebels try to advance

By RYAN LUCAS, Associated Press Ryan Lucas, Associated Press – Tue Mar 22, 1:12 am ET
ZWITINA, Libya – Coalition forces bombarded Libya for a third straight night, targeting the air defenses and forces of Libyan ruler Moammar Gadhafi, stopping his advances and handing some momentum back to the rebels, who were on the verge of defeat just last week.

But the rebellion's more organized military units were still not ready, and the opposition disarray underscored U.S. warnings that a long stalemate could emerge.

The air campaign by U.S. and European militaries has unquestionably rearranged the map in Libya and rescued rebels from the immediate threat they faced only days ago of being crushed under a powerful advance by Gadhafi's forces. The first round of airstrikes smashed a column of regime tanks that had been moving on the rebel capital of Benghazi in the east.

Monday night, Libyan state TV said a new round of strikes had begun in the capital, Tripoli, marking the third night of bombardment. But while the airstrikes can stop Gadhafi's troops from attacking rebel cities — in line with the U.N. mandate to protect civilians — the United States, at least, appeared deeply reluctant to go beyond that toward actively helping the rebel cause to oust the Libyan leader.

President Barack Obama said Monday that "it is U.S. policy that Gadhafi has to go." But, he said, the international air campaign has a more limited goal, to protect civilians.

"Our military action is in support of an international mandate from the Security Council that specifically focuses on the humanitarian threat posed by Col. Gadhafi to his people. Not only was he carrying out murders of civilians but he threatened more," the president said on a visit to Chile.

In Washington, the American general running the assault said there is no attempt to provide air cover for rebel operations. Gen. Carter Ham said Gadhafi might cling to power once the bombardment finishes, setting up a stalemate between his side and the rebels, with allied nations enforcing a no-fly zone to ensure he cannot attack civilians.

At the United Nations Monday, the Security Council turned down a request by Libya for an emergency session. Libya wanted "an emergency meeting in order to halt this aggression."

Henri Guaino, a top adviser to the French president, said the allied effort would last "a while yet."

Among the rebels, as well, there was a realization that fighting could be drawn out. Mohammed Abdul-Mullah, a 38-year-old civil engineer from Benghazi who was fighting with the rebel force, said government troops stopped all resistance after the international campaign began.

"The balance has changed a lot," he said. "But pro-Gadhafi forces are still strong. They are a professional military and they have good equipment. Ninety percent of us rebels are civilians, while Gadhafi's people are professional fighters."

Disorganization among the rebels could also hamper their attempts to exploit the turn of events. Since the uprising began, the opposition has been made up of disparate groups even as it took control of the entire east of the country.

Regular citizens — residents of the "liberated" areas — took up arms and formed a ragtag, highly enthusiastic but highly undisciplined force that in the past weeks has charged ahead to fight Gadhafi forces, only to be beaten back by superior firepower. Regular army units that joined the rebellion have proven stronger, more organized fighters, but only a few units have joined the battles while many have stayed behind as officers struggle to get together often antiquated, limited equipment and form a coordinated force.

Discord also plagued the coalition. The U.S. was eager to pass leadership off, but the allies were deeply divided on the issue. Turkey was adamantly against NATO taking charge, while Italy hinted Monday it would stop allowing use of its airfields if the veteran alliance is not given the leadership. Germany and Russia also criticized the way the mission is being carried out.

The British parliament lent clear support, voting 557 to 13 in favor of using armed forces to enforce the Security Council resolution to use "all necessary measures" to protect civilians in Libya.

In Libya, a "political leadership" has formed among the rebels, made up of former members of Gadhafi's regime who defected along with prominent local figures in the east, such as lawyers and doctors. The impromptu nature of their leadership has left some in the West — particularly in the United States — unclear on who the rebels are.

The disarray among the opposition was on display on Monday.

With Benghazi relieved, several hundred of the "citizen fighters" barreled to the west, vowing to break a siege on the city of Ajdabiya by Gadhafi forces, which have been pounding a rebel force holed up inside the city since before the allied air campaign began. The fighters pushed without resistance down the highway from Benghazi — littered with the burned out husks of Gadhafi's tanks and armored personnel carriers hit in the airstrikes — until they reached the outskirts of Ajdabiya.

Along the way, they swept into the nearby oil port of Zwitina, just northeast of Ajdabiya, which was also the scene of heavy fighting last week — though now had been abandoned by regime forces. There, a power station hit by shelling on Thursday was still burning, its blackened fuel tank crumpled, with flames and black smoke pouring out.

Some of the fighters, armed with assault rifles, grenade launchers and truck-mounted anti-aircraft guns, charged to the city outskirts and battled with Gadhafi forces in the morning. A number of rebels were killed before they were forced to pull back somewhat, said the spokesman for the rebels' organized military forces, Khalid al-Sayah.

Al-Sayah said the fighters' advance was spontaneous "as always." But the regular army units that have joined the rebellion are not yet ready to go on the offensive. "We don't want to advance without a plan," he told AP in Benghazi. "If it were up to the army, the advance today would not have happened."

He said the regular units intend to advance but not yet, saying it was not yet ready. "It's a new army, we're starting it from scratch."

By Monday afternoon, around 150 citizen-fighters were massed in a field of dunes several miles (kilometers) outside Ajdabiya. Some stood on the wind-swept dunes with binoculars to survey the positions of pro-Gadhafi forces sealing off the entrances of the city. Ajdabiya itself was visible, black smoke rising, apparently from fires burning from fighting in recent days.

"There are five Gadhafi tanks and eight rocket launchers behind those trees and lots of 4x4s," one rebel fighter, Fathi Obeidi, standing on a dune and pointing at a line of trees between his position and the city, told an Associated Press reporter at the scene.

Gadhafi forces have ringed the city's entrance and were battling with opposition fighters inside, rebels said. The plan is for the rebel forces from Benghazi "to pinch" the regime troops while "those inside will push out," Obeidi said. He said a special commando unit that defected to the opposition early on in the uprising was inside the city leading the defense.

Regime troops are also besieging a second city — Misrata, the last significant rebel-held territory in western Libya. According to reports from Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya, new fighting erupted Monday at Misrata, Libya's third-largest city, which the forces have shelled repeatedly over recent days while cutting off most food and water supplies to residents.

So far, allied bombardment has concentrated on knocking out Libyan air defenses, but a significant test of international intentions will be whether eventually the strikes by ship-fired cruise missiles and warplanes will try to break the sieges of Ajdabiya and Misrata by targeting the Gadhafi troops surrounding them.

Al-Sayah said there had been allied strikes against Gadhafi positions outside Ajdabiya early Monday, but there was no independent confirmation, and the troops were still in place Monday afternoon.

Ali Zeidan, an envoy to Europe from the opposition-created governing council, told The Associated Press that rebels want to drive Gadhafi from power and see him tried — not have him killed. He said that while airstrikes have helped, the opposition needs more weapons to win the fight.

"We are able to deal with Gadhafi's forces by ourselves" as long as it's a fair fight, he said in Paris. "You see, Gadhafi himself, we are able to target him, and we would like to have him alive to face the international or the Libyan court for his crime .... We don't like to kill anybody ... even Gadhafi himself."

At the Pentagon, Ham said Monday afternoon that during the previous 24 hours, U.S. and British forces launched 12 Tomahawk land attack missiles, targeting regime command-and-control facilities and a missile facility and attacking one air defense site that already had been attacked.

"Through a variety of reports, we know that regime ground forces that were in the vicinity of Benghazi now possess little will or capability to resume offensive operations," he said.

A spokesman for the French military, whose warplanes have been conducting strikes in the Benghazi region, said there is a "very clear scale-down in the intensity of combat and, therefore, threats to the population" because of the bombardment.

"There still are pro-Gadhafi elements in the zone where we're working. Nevertheless, these elements haven't necessarily been dealt with because they are mixed in, for example with the civilian population," Thierry Burkhard said.

___

Associated Press writers Hadeel al-Shalchi in Tripoli, Libya, Diaa Hadid in Cairo, Jamey Keaten and Cecile Brisson in Paris, and Lolita C. Baldor and Robert Burns in Washington contributed to this report.

Biće zanimljivo istražiti odakle pobunjenicima vojno naoružanje i mehanizacija. Plus, oni tvrde da su 90% civili, pa je isto pitanje odakle im ekspertiza za korišćenje istog.

I malo američkih premišljanja u celoj priči:

International alliance divided over Libya command

President Barack Obama, speaking in Santiago, Chile on Monday, defended his decision to order U.S. strikes against Libyan military targets, and insisted that the mission is clear.

And like a parade of Pentagon officials the past few days, Obama insisted that the United States' lead military role will be turned over—"in days, not weeks"—to an international command of which the United States will be just one part.

The only problem: None of the countries in the international coalition can yet agree on to whom or how the United States should hand off responsibilities.

The sense of urgency among White House officials to resolve the command dispute is profound: with each hour the U.S. remains in charge of yet another Middle East military intervention, Congress steps up criticism that Obama went to war in Libya without first getting its blessing, nor defining precisely what the end-game will be. (On Monday, Obama sent Congress official notification that he had ordered the U.S. military two days earlier to commence operations "to prevent humanitarian catastrophe" in Libya and support the international coalition implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1973.)

Below, an explainer on the military mission in Libya, the dispute over who should command it after its initial phase, and whether the military is concerned about mission creep.

What is the U.S. military task in Libya?

The military mission in Libya is implementing U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, which calls for Gadhafi's forces to pull back from rebel-held towns, and the establishment of a no-fly zone to protect Libyan civilians from attack by Gadhafi, and for civilians to be allowed access to food, water and other humanitarian supplies.

Is the U.S. military trying to kill Gadhafi?

No, the U.S. military is not authorized to kill Gadhafi, said Gen. Carter Ham, the commander of U.S. African Command at a press conference in Stuttgart, Germany, Monday. Ham's command is currently leading the first phase of the international coalition effort to establish a no-fly zone in Libya, together with the United Kingdom and France. Nor is the U.S. military currently coordinating with anti-Gadhafi rebels or authorized to provide them military support, Ham said.

The main objective, Ham stressed, is to protect civilians from attack. "The military mission is very clear, frankly. What is expected of us to do is establish a no fly zone to protect civilians, to get withdrawal of regime ground forces out of Benghazi," Ham said. "What we look forward to is the transition to designating the headquarters" of the command of the next phase of operations.

How can the coalition reconcile a military mission that could leave Gadhafi in power with the many calls for his removal?

On Monday, Obama answered this by underlining the language of UN Security Council resolution 1973, which calls for protecting civilians from attack. That narrow military mission is distinct, Obama said, from the larger political goal of seeing Gadhafi step down—a call that Obama himself has repeatedly echoed, along with other major Western diplomatic players such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and French President Nicolas Sarkozy. The international community has other non-military tools to achieve that goal, Obama said, such as economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, international war crimes investigation, and cutting off the Gadhafi regime's access to financial assets abroad.

"First of all, I think it is very easy to square our military actions and our stated policies," Obama said in Chile Monday. "Our military action is in support of an international mandate from the UN Security Council that specifically focuses on the humanitarian threat posed by Gadhafi to his people."

Who is currently commanding the international military coalition?

U.S. African Command (AFRICOM), the U.S. regional military command dealing with the continent of Africa, and its commander Gen. Carter Ham, are leading the first phase of what the Pentagon has dubbed  "Operation Odyssey Dawn" to suppress Libya's air defenses to establish a no-fly zone over Libya.

Other early members of the international coalition imposing a no-fly zone over Libya include France and the United Kingdom, joined Monday by Belgium and Canada.

Ham and other Pentagon officials have said the U.S. is eager to turn over the lead role in the operation to international coalition partners, but as yet the command of the next phase has not been agreed.

What's really at issue in the dispute over who should command the next phase of the international mission over Libya?

Put simply, the members of the international coalition are at odds over whether the international coalition command should be led by NATO, or not.

The French, Turks, and Germans reportedly object to NATO running the operation, all for their own reasons. The Italians, the UK, and the United States, among others, think that NATO is best equipped to be able to take swift control of the mission.

"There is not only one problem. Each player has its own perspective, sensitivity, priority," said one European defense official on condition of anonymity given the sensitivity of the dispute Monday. "You have the weak, the prudent, the strong, the opportunists."

"The problem is, the Italians are calling for it to be a NATO operation, but it's not clear all members of NATO support this," said Anthony Cordesman, a veteran defense analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "It's also clear that the French initiated part of this operation. And behind it is the reality that it is only the United States that has the combination of satellite targeting and precision strike capabilities in terms of cruise missiles that are critical to overall command and control and situational awareness."

Why do the French and others object to a possible NATO command structure?

"There are technical considerations and political ones," said Justin Vaisse, of the Brookings Institution Center for the United States and Europe. Sarkozy has two basic objection, Vaisse explains: "One, NATO is radioactive in the Arab world and seen as a tool of US imperialism. And two, there's also the question of not having Turkey and Germany [who have expressed reservations about the Libya military mission], impede" the international mission in Libya, given that NATO is a consensus organization.

Turkey reportedly resents that French president Sarkozy did not invite Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to his Paris summit on Libya Saturday with other world leaders. (The perceived insult is "completely absurd," a French official said, explaining that the summit was open to any country interested in implementing the Libya UN resolution, and France did not "send 200 invites to all members of the UN." A Turkish official said the Ankara would have gladly sent a representative had they been invited.)

Germany reportedly is not interested in participating in a military mission in Libya, but could opt-out but approve NATO being otherwise involved.

NATO ambassadors met in Brussels Monday to debate the issue.

When is the command issue likely to be resolved?

U.S. officials insist it has to be resolved soon--"days, not weeks," as Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes said Sunday.

"I would not put a date certain on this," Gen. Carter Ham said Monday. "The first thing that has got to happen is identification of what that organization is. We have been from the start planning how to effect this transition once that follow-on headquarters is established. It's not so simple as to have a handshake and say, 'you're now in charge.' "

Does the top U.S. commander worry about mission creep?

"No, I don't worry too much about mission creep," Ham said after a pause Monday. "I think the mission is clear, and moving forward and achieving the military objectives consistent with our mission."

(A group of protesters angry about international intervention in Libya blocked the path of U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon as he left a meeting at the Arab League.: Nasser Nasser/AP)

[Albedo 0]

Mi se zajebavamo, ali sprečavanje budućnosti, to jest preventivo delovanje da bi se sprečili zločini protiv čovečnosti je maltene direktna posledica (ili makar razvoj u geopolitičkoj filozofiji) srebreničkog masakra i opsade Sarajeva (i, dakako masakra u Ruandi). Da ne ulazimo sad u to kako su se ovi događaji stvarno odigra(va)li, fakat je da prosečan zapadnjak (koji je toga svega uopšte svestan) smatra da je Zapad bio suviše spor da reaguje, da je uvažavao te neke unutrašnje suverenosti i pičke materine, koje su samo korišćene kao izgovor da diktatori i krvožedni militaristi ostvare političke ciljeve preko tela civila.

pa nema problema, samo u čitavom tom ratu ubijeno je 55 000 Bošnjaka i 27 (a možda i 30) 000 Srba

ali to zaključno sa 1995. godinom. Ako već tvrde da je do eskalacije došlo u Srebrenici, dakle u 1995, mene zanima koji je bio odnos npr 1993? 1994? Tad im nije napadalo na pamet da reaguju na ubijanje Srba u tom istom srebreničkom regionu, a o Izetbegovićevom intervjuu u kojem kaže da mu je Klinton ponudio intervenciju ako u npr Srebrenici IZAZOVE masovan pokolj, što je ovaj i učinio. Prvo je Naser Orić poklao 2-3 hiljade Srba na tom prostoru, a onda su Srbi odradili odmazdu, da li jaču ili ne- svejedno.

Tako da ja nisam siguran šta to oni preventivno sprečavaju osim zločina koje sami izazivaju

A o tome da Amerikanci ostavljaju višestruko više leševa iza sebe nego zaraćene strane da i ne pričamo.

[Anomander Rejk]

Pa ti lepo filozofski to obradi. Ispade da živimo u najhumanijem dobu, gde najveće svetske sile intervenišu u ime ljudskih prava , ne praveći razliku između hrišćana i muslimana, različitih nacija i rasa...
Ja volim bajke, ali ipak ne živimo u svetu bajki, nego u stvarnom svetu. Koncept zaštite ljudskih prava je široko zloupotrebljen, i omogućava razaranje suverenih država i njihovo pretvaranje u poslušničke banana-polukolonije. Meni je stvarno smešno da iko veruje da je Sarkoziju stalo da spreči nekakav masakr u Libiji. Pa to je čovek koji je proterivao Rome, čiji su policajci nemilosrdno pendrečili te iste Afrikance po francuskim predgrađima.

[Джон Рейнольдс]

@ Meho (ovi gore su brzi ko munje)

Ne slažemo se.  

Primer Rusije je loš zato što je Rusija reagovala da zaštiti svoju, rusku "manjinu" u Južnoj Osetiji. U Libiji i na Kosovu i Metohiji Zapad reaguje agresivno, sa jasnim geopolitičkim i geostrateškim ciljevima (baza, nafta, pljačka...) pod maskom "preventive".

Zašto nije reagovao kad su njima podređene države u krvi gušile ovakve pobune?

Zato što, čisto filozofski gledano, zapadna "civilizacija" ima samo jedan vidljiv koncept - licemerje.

[Stipan]

Licemerje = Koristolublje = Preživljavanje = Puna guzica.

[scallop]

Mi se zajebavamo, ali sprečavanje budućnosti, to jest preventivo delovanje da bi se sprečili zločini protiv čovečnosti...
Ali čisto filozofski gledano, ovaj koncept ide ruku pod ruku sa razvojem zapadne civilizacije koja u ovom trenutku reklo bi se smatra da je ljudski život vrednost po sebi i da je iznad drugih vrednosti. Da li se sa time slažemo? To je tema za razgovor...
Biće zanimljivo istražiti odakle pobunjenicima vojno naoružanje i mehanizacija. Plus, oni tvrde da su 90% civili, pa je isto pitanje odakle im ekspertiza za korišćenje istog.

Evo šta je ostalo kad sam pobrisao đubre imperijalističko.
Naravno da se ne slažemo. Da neko sa strane nije u svim pomenutim događajima imao šićarđijske, manje ili veće planove, bio bi postignut osnovni cilj (vidi boldovano). Ovako se kerovi otresaju na sve strane i tvrde da nisu ulazili u vodu.

[Meho Krljic]

Znam ja da mi ovde ne cenimo ljudski život iznad svega, samo sam proveravao temperaturu glasačkog tela 

[Albedo 0]

11:22 Srušio se američki avion u Libiji
Američki borbeni avion F-15E srušio se u jedno polje u Libiji zbog mehaničkog kvara, a polota su spasili pobunjenici, objavio je danas britanski list Dejli telegraf na svom sajtu. O padu aviona F-15E Igl (orao) izvestio je dopisnik lista sa terena u Libiji. Američke zvaničnike nije bilo moguće kontaktirati radi komentara, navela je agencija Rojters.

[scallop]

Znam ja da mi ovde ne cenimo ljudski život iznad svega, samo sam proveravao temperaturu glasačkog tela 

Vi ovde možda i ne cenite, ali mi ovde svakako cenimo. 

[Meho Krljic]

Ali cenimo više državnu suverenost, poslovnu disciplinu itd. 

[scallop]

Pa, i Gadafi bi samo disciplinu, a ovi bi da mirno protestvuju.

[Josephine]

Koncept preventivnog delovanja da bi se sprečili zločini nad civilima, a koje nadilazi poštovanje unutrašnje suverenosti prilično je dobro utemeljen u poslednjih petnaestak godina. Rusi su ga takođe rado prizvali onomad kada su upali u Gruziju da spreče "genocid koji se događa u Južnoj Osetiji".

Da li je to dobro... Pa, svakako nije kada se koristi samo kao izgovor da bi se ostvarili drugi geopolitički ciljevi (američka baza na Kosovu, pristup libijskoj Nafti ili šta već...). Ali čisto filozofski gledano, ovaj koncept ide ruku pod ruku sa razvojem zapadne civilizacije koja u ovom trenutku reklo bi se smatra da je ljudski život vrednost po sebi i da je iznad drugih vrednosti. Da li se sa time slažemo? To je tema za razgovor...

Da. Koncept je zloupotrebljen mnogo puta, ali je nastao na osnovama vrhunske vrednosti ljudskog života.

[mac]

Genetski i kulturni diverzitet je "vrhunskiji" od pojedinačnog života. "Neka cveta hiljadu cvetova", i te fore...

[Stipan]

D. - Taj koncept je zloupotrebljen toliko puta da je osnovna zamisao obezvređena.
Ljudska vrsta jednostavno ne ume da ga koristi. Slično je bilo sa komunizmom.
Ili sa Nobelovim izumom - dinamitom.

[Albedo 0]

Jesus ChrisD.


dakle ako neko ne prihvata ljudski život kao ''univerzalnu vrednost'' taj kolje sve što stigne? Momci i djevojke, vi ste duboko zabradili u apstrakciju radi apstrakcije, duplo golo.

Danas se vodi više ratova nego ikad otkad je svijeta i vijeka. Ispade da su se ljudi mnogo manje ubijali kada život nije bio ''univerzalna vrednost''. Razmislite malo o tome.

[Josephine]

Ma ne govori se ovde o zloupotrebljenosti/ivosti koncepta, već o njegovoj osnovi i filozofskoj uvezanosti sa razvojem zapadne civilizacije.

[Josephine]

Danas se vodi više ratova nego ikad otkad je svijeta i vijeka. Ispade da su se ljudi mnogo manje ubijali kada život nije bio ''univerzalna vrednost''. Razmislite malo o tome.

Možda razvoj oružja (za masovno uništenje) i njegova hiper produkcija imaju neke veze sa ovom činjenicom...

[Джон Рейнольдс]

U koliko je ratova korišćeno WMD i ko ga je koristio?

[Albedo 0]

Možda činjenica da su ''univerzalne vrednosti'' i ''oružje za masovno uništenje'' stvoreni u ISTOJ ZEMLJI imaju neke veze sa tom činjenicom...

Usput, količina i kvalitet oružja ne može da utiče na BROJ RATOVA (koji je danas najveći ikada), štaviše, atomska bomba je spriječila rat između SSSRa i SADa, dakle sama varijabla o oružju je složenija i nestabilnija.

S druge strane, činjenica je da DRŽANJE DO KONCEPTA KAO PIJAN PLOTA nije smanjilo već uvećalo stradanja na ovoj planeti.

[Meho Krljic]

Nisam siguran da je sasvim tačno to da je broj stradanja uvećan, ali nisam siguran ni da imam dovoljno znanja da ulazim u tu priču. Hoću reći, da li se rat NATO bratije protiv Libije može porediti sa prvim ili drugim svetskim ratom po količini ljudske patnje a da li se oni mogu porediti sa ratovima koji su se u Evropi vodili u Srednjem veku?

[scallop]

Pa, ako potraje... Koncentracija je visoka. Dva krstareća projektila po žrtvi! Samo prave štetu naokolo. Stoka je to, moj Meho. Kad su nama bacili grafitna vlakna da izazovu prekid struje, morao sam da držim kanistere i lavore sa vodom na terasi. Kenjenje po spisku im nikada neću oprostiti.

[Albedo 0]

Meho, pa WW takođe pripada diskursu ''svetog ljudskog života'', to što su nacisti dopisali ''svetog njemačkog života'' ne mijenja stvar. Veliko je pitanje koliko se zapravo razlikuju ideologije i metodi Amerikanaca i Njemaca, da li su razlike kvantitativne ili kvalitativne?

George Carlin je to genijalno sročio: In WWII Germany lost but fascism won.

[Meho Krljic]

Pa, ako potraje... Koncentracija je visoka. Dva krstareća projektila po žrtvi! Samo prave štetu naokolo. Stoka je to, moj Meho. Kad su nama bacili grafitna vlakna da izazovu prekid struje, morao sam da držim kanistere i lavore sa vodom na terasi. Kenjenje po spisku im nikada neću oprostiti.

Ma, jasno, ali naše povremeno nemanje struje svakako nije ljudska patnja uporediva sa onim što je narod pogađalo tokom, štatijaznam, krstaških ratova, kojekakvih tridesetogodišnjih ratova itd. Naravno, u proseku njihov kvalitet života je bio mnogo niži od našeg kako god da okreneš, ali se i ratovalo sa mnogo manje obzira prema ljudima...

Meho, pa WW takođe pripada diskursu ''svetog ljudskog života'', to što su nacisti dopisali ''svetog njemačkog života'' ne mijenja stvar. Veliko je pitanje koliko se zapravo razlikuju ideologije i metodi Amerikanaca i Njemaca, da li su razlike kvantitativne ili kvalitativne?

George Carlin je to genijalno sročio: In WWII Germany lost but fascism won.

Sve to stoji, nije to sporno, ali opet se vraćam na ono da Amerikanci imaju Gvantanamo, ali nemaju Aušvic, da su po Afganistanu bacakali MOAB na raju, ali da nisu streljali sto za jednoga itd.

[Джон Рейнольдс]

Sve to stoji, nije to sporno, ali opet se vraćam na ono da Amerikanci imaju Gvantanamo, ali nemaju Aušvic, da su po Afganistanu bacakali MOAB na raju, ali da nisu streljali sto za jednoga itd.

Hoćeš reći, od dva zla, ovo sad je nešto manje... Pa... Dobro...

[Josephine]

U koliko je ratova korišćeno WMD i ko ga je koristio?

Zato stoji zagrada. Mislila sam na oružje uopšte (i na potrebu da se proizvodnja u vojnoj industriji održava stalnim trošenjem oružja/izazivanjem/učestvovanjem u ratovima; i trgovanjem oružjem za masovno uništenje). Oružje za masovno uništenje više služi kao stalna pretnja stabilnosti u svetu.

Možda činjenica da su ''univerzalne vrednosti'' i ''oružje za masovno uništenje'' stvoreni u ISTOJ ZEMLJI imaju neke veze sa tom činjenicom...

Pa to u slučaju da je vojna industrija osmislila i univerzalne vrednosti. Napredna zemlja biće napredna u svim oblastima (u filozofiji/kreiranju međunarodnog prava kao i u vojnoj industriji). Uticaj ekonomije na kulturu i kreatore politike već je druga priča (i tu se sve izvrgava u zloupotrebu koncepta vrednosti ljudskog života).

Usput, količina i kvalitet oružja ne može da utiče na BROJ RATOVA (koji je danas najveći ikada), štaviše, atomska bomba je spriječila rat između SSSRa i SADa, dakle sama varijabla o oružju je složenija i nestabilnija.

Jedan primer u kom je oružje sprečilo rat ne čini varijablu nestabilnijom (kada već koristimo rečnik metodologije naučnog istraživanja - u broju dosadašnjih ratova, jedan primer ne bi imao velikog uticaja na varijablu; daj još primera). A tehničko usavršavanje oružja, njegova kupovina, razmena i sl. itekako doprinose većem broju ratova. Vojna industrija je žila kucavica američke ekonomije.

S druge strane, činjenica je da DRŽANJE DO KONCEPTA KAO PIJAN PLOTA nije smanjilo već uvećalo stradanja na ovoj planeti.

Opet, meni se čini da je Meho više mislio na zasnovanost koncepta na vrednosti ljudskog života, nego na njegovo zloupotrebljavanje. Uostalom, i drugi filozofski koncepti zloupotrebljavani su u sukobima. Podložnost manipulaciji konceptom nije sporna, i nije sporno da se to dešavalo.

I opet, ni država ne može da opstane bez policije i vojske da joj brani unutrašnji i spoljašnji mir. Jeste da svet nije država, i jeste da se SAD nameće kao svetski policajac, ali je možda pravo pitanje, u stvari, treba li svetu svetski policajac i mešanje u unutrašnje stvari država? Treba li svetu međunarodno javno pravo (zasnovano na principu očuvanja ljudskog života)?

Mislim da ovde bitnu ulogu igra racionalizacija američkih ciljeva i uverenost u ispravnost postupka (ulaženja u rat) ako to doprinosi očuvanju njihovog životnog standarda. To za njih nije pogrešan ili neispravan cilj. E, tu već može da se priča o tome da li može da se stavi znak jednakosti između "svetog nemačkog života" i "svetog američkog života"; ili je u pitanju uverenost Amera da je njihov način života svačiji i univerzalan. To je polje za relativizaciju koncepta očuvanja ljudskog života.

[Albedo 0]

oni su ubijali i 200 za jednog, ako ćemo pošteno, nisu ih poređali pa streljali ali žrtve su žrtve.

Sve ostalo je ipak američka naknadna pamet, nijedan ''nacista'' danas neće praviti Aušvic (loša reklama), ali to ga ne čini manjim ''nacistom''.

Njemci su bili gori, to stoji, ali bili je prošlo vrijeme množine glagola biti.

Sadašnje, ili kad su već uvukli i futur u priču, i buduće vrijeme pripada Amerima. Oni jesu današnji neprijatelj.

Da se razumijemo, i Lenjin je bio poguran spolja, ali on ne bi ni uspio u svojoj namjeri da nije imao narodnu podršku. Ovo danas je čisto silovanje.

[Anomander Rejk]

Bolivijski predsednik Morales pozvao Baraka Obamu da vrati Nobelovu nagradu za mir :
,, On treba da vrati tu nagradu, jer je nije dostojan. Obama ne podstiče mir, već rat i nasilje. ''

[Albedo 0]

Podložnost manipulaciji konceptom nije sporna, i nije sporno da se to dešavalo.

problem je što ti misliš da je moguće ne manipulisati konceptom. U stvari, jedino rješenje je napuštanje koncepta.

Pa to u slučaju da je vojna industrija osmislila i univerzalne vrednosti.

To je vjerovatnije nego da je neki dobrica prije 500 godina sjeo i napisao ''iskreno'' i iz ''duše'' koliko voli čovječanstvo.

Bolje se ne bavi nečim o čemu ništa ne znaš.

Eto i taj Džon Lok, koji je prvi sistematski obradio oblast ljudskih prava, je svoje Dvije rasprave o vladi pisao nakon što je srušio vlast britanskog kralja i ograničio je parlamentarnim sistemom.

Njegova knjiga je najobičniji pokušaj legitimisanja čitavog rušilačkog procesa i tada samo način da se zaštite prava vladajuće kaste, a ne svih ljudi. Uostalom, čitava poenta masovnih pokreta 19. vijeka jeste da se termin nacija, koji se do tada koristio samo za aristokrate dok su ostali bili raja, primijeni na sve, a to nije učinjeno do dana današnjeg.

U toj istoj knjizi Lok je implicirao da je zemlja beskonačan resurs, te da će svaki sin moći da nađe svoje mjesto pod suncem. Budući da su stariji sinovi nasljeđivali zemlju od očeva, mlađi su postajali krstaši, konkvistadori i ostali imperijalisti, pa se npr kod Španaca i zovu Segundones, to jest drugi sinovi.

To jest, Lok budući da je svakome garantovao korpus ljudskih prava na život i svojinu to činio ODUZIMAJUĆI PRAVA NEEVROPLJANIMA, i direktno je odgovoran za racionalizacije koje i danas vladaju u izmijenjenom PR obliku, od raznih bioloških teorija o rasnoj superiornost Segundonesa u odnosu na ljude druge boje kože do toga da su Ameri neki bajni poštovaoci ljudskih prava, a u stvari su posljednja zemlja na ovoj planeti u kojoj je postojao robovlasnički sistem (koji u nekom obliku postoji i danas).

Samo kažem, dosta licemjerja.

[Josephine]

To je vjerovatnije nego da je neki dobrica prije 500 godina sjeo i napisao ''iskreno'' i iz ''duše'' koliko voli čovječanstvo.

Pre bih rekla da je to tvoja alternativa. Moja je da je u pitanju samozaštita. Ako propišeš ljudski život kao prvu vrednost, time štitiš i svoj život.

Samo kažem, dosta licemjerja.

E, ovde bi već bio potreban taj dobrica... Čini mi se da ne možeš da opovrgavaš altruizam nekog koncepta u jednoj prilici, a da ga tražiš u drugoj.

[varvarin]

Danas se vodi više ratova nego ikad otkad je svijeta i vijeka. Ispade da su se ljudi mnogo manje ubijali kada život nije bio ''univerzalna vrednost''. Razmislite malo o tome.

Možda razvoj oružja (za masovno uništenje) i njegova hiper produkcija imaju neke veze sa ovom činjenicom...

Tehnologija je učinila svoje, naravno.
Samo što  pohlepa, veliki profiti, beskrupuloznost i totalno obezvređivanje tuđeg života kad je moja dobrobit u pitanju (kao i uvek), čine ostalo.

[Anomander Rejk]

O čemu mi diskutujemo ? Amerikanci ne štite ljudski život malih naroda, već svoje interese, naftu, energente, geostrateške pozicije, svoju vojnu industriju. Sad super je kao koncept, mala falinka što on služi samo kao izgovor za ovo nabrojano. Nisu imali Aušvic, ali su ( po meni, opet ograđujem se, moje subjektivno mišljenje ) počinili najstrašniji zločin u istoriji čovečanstva, tehnički su ubili najviše ljudi za najkraće vreme ( Hirošima i Nagasaki 45, oko 200 000 za dva dana ), plus generacije koje su kasnije ispaštale.

[Albedo 0]

Ako propišeš ljudski život kao prvu vrednost, time štitiš i svoj život.

Ako je tebi život postao propis, ti si se sama ubila.

ini mi se da ne možeš da opovrgavaš altruizam nekog koncepta u jednoj prilici, a da ga tražiš u drugoj.

Kojoj drugoj?



Šta bre ''pravo'' na život, to ''pravo'' je ETIKETA, to je ŽIG na TELEĆEM GRLU. Nemam ja šta da tražim ''pravo'', ja život već imam, pokušaj da mi ga uzmeš. Sad ispade treba neko da mi garantuje nešto što već imam.

Ali čitava poenta te pičkaste filozofije je da ti nekakav državni organ garantuje ''pravo'', pa ti možeš da postaneš mali kilavi jadnik koji ne mora da se bori ni za šta u životu, jer će taj državni organ da bombarduje neku zemlju za koju ne znaš ni na kojem kontinentu se nalazi, od silnog altruizma naravno.

Ako neko nije sam sposoban da se odbrani neka ne izmišlja nikakva ''prava'', molio bih.

Prava koja ne razumije 70% čovječanstva nisu univerzalna niti to mogu biti.

[Josephine]

Pa nije život propis, nego vrednost. Time štitiš vrednost, a sa njom i živote.

"Prestanak licemerja" je altruistički koncept.

Vrlo često se dešava da neko nekom pokušava da oduzme život (ko bi rekao?). Pravo na život ne daje ti "dozvolu da živiš" već te štiti od (budućih) napada i sankcioniše oduzimanja života.

[scallop]

Kada je koncept apsurdan svako obrazloženje njegovih vrednosti je cinizam. Odbrana prava pande da jede bambus je cinična dok krompir košta 100 dinara kilo. Mentalitet koji se nameće kroz "odbranu američkih vrednosti" pogibeljniji je od lebensraum filozofije. Možda se moj zahtev da ne bude upotrebe toaleta bez povlačenja vode čini beznačajnim, ali bih sigurno dobio neke pristalice da sam pomenuo tuširanje.
Ustvari, problem forumske komunikacije je što se argumenti ignorišu.

[Meho Krljic]

Sve to stoji, nije to sporno, ali opet se vraćam na ono da Amerikanci imaju Gvantanamo, ali nemaju Aušvic, da su po Afganistanu bacakali MOAB na raju, ali da nisu streljali sto za jednoga itd.

Hoćeš reći, od dva zla, ovo sad je nešto manje... Pa... Dobro...

Pa, hoću, jer to implicira da zapadna civilizacija ipak ide unapred, to jest da ovi danas nisu isti kao oni od pre pedeset ili petsto godina i da nisu ni gori od njih nego bolji. I dalje loši, po nekom idealnom standardu ali makar se ide u neku stranu koju svi vidimo kao bolju.

Sem ako neko nema kontrakomentar  

Nisu imali Aušvic, ali su ( po meni, opet ograđujem se, moje subjektivno mišljenje ) počinili najstrašniji zločin u istoriji čovečanstva, tehnički su ubili najviše ljudi za najkraće vreme ( Hirošima i Nagasaki 45, oko 200 000 za dva dana ), plus generacije koje su kasnije ispaštale.

Ovo bi mogao biti takav kontrakomentar ali ja i dalje mislim da se može argumentovati da je UŽASAN čin kao što je bacanje nuklearnih bombi na Hirošimu i Nagasaki i kvalitativno i kvantitativno ipak u drugoj ravni u odnosu na Aušvic makar na ime industrijske uređenosti Aušvica i njegovog mesta u geocidnom projektu. To su sad možda filozofske dileme, ali masovno ubistvo koje su Amerikanci počinili i koje je nastavilo da nanosi patnju kroz generacije je sa jedne strane a projekat uništenja čitave etničke grupe je sa druge strane i meni ta druga strana deluje kao veće zlo. Ali možda sam to samo ja.

Ovo što Albedo piše o Loku i konceptu ljudskih prava koji je građen pre svega na ideji da "ljudskost" ipak treba malo uže da se definiše je na mestu, ali to mesto je ipak istorijska perspektiva. Jasno, ni danas se život libijskog građanina ne ceni koliko život američkog, ali stvari se ipak kreću u nekom smeru, to se istorijski vidi.

[Josephine]

To su sad možda filozofske dileme, ali masovno ubistvo koje su Amerikanci počinili i koje je nastavilo da nanosi patnju kroz generacije je sa jedne strane a projekat uništenja čitave etničke grupe je sa druge strane i meni ta druga strana deluje kao veće zlo. Ali možda sam to samo ja.

Možda je ovo jedan ok argument...