Oh, boy!Ultima remarca pe tema asta si ma bucur ca ai observat/inteles in sfarsit problema.Da, in EU somajul a stagnat fata de US care in ultimii 4,5 ani cunoaste aproape dublarea somajului in anumite regiuni!Aici vroiam sa ajung.Ti-am redat de 3 ori in mod special CIFRELE gen.Clark si consider ca cineva care vrea sa le puna intr-o anumita lumina poate ca n-ar fi rau trebuie daca ar aduce alte surse credibile.Altfel totul devine o contrazicere! Genul asta de "discutie",regret ca trebuie sa spun, dar imi aminteste de felul cum cineva(il recunosti?)a inundat lista cu mesaje pro-Nastase prin toamna, gen de discutie fara sens la care NU voi participa!
Am spus(RECITESTE mesajul,te rog) ca pe lista o anumita opinie incepuse sa impuna un fel de dictatura din partea parerilor americane si asta, DA, aduce cu o Political Noise Machine mai degraba decat cu REALITATEA! Din nou, de vei reciti, vei vedea ca m-am referit la cei ce vad peste tot CONSPIRATII, cum din fericire nu este cazul in discutia dintre noi doi! Dupa mesajele in care am raspuns pentru a demonta afirmatile penibile despre conspiratori marxisti-leninisti(afirmatii care de alfel apartin intotdeauna unui TROLL boulean binecunoscut de care ne- am SATURAT cu totii pe toate listele :(),am continuat si pentru a arata ca US nu sunt o coloana inregimentata, o trupa care bate pas de defilare la semnul din mana(mai stim noi pe unul care dadea din mana...:() din partea unui presedinte ce, din pacate, pare a avea unele accese de neacceptare a realitatii(sa nu fiu dur sa spun paranoia), ca America NU inseamna o ICOANA, o religie, o poza cu Bush pe un perete la care sa batem matanii, cum deplasat ar fi reiesit din discursurile avantat-patriotice si de parada ale unora! US sunt o tara VIE, o tara PLINA de CONTROVERSE, o tara cu PROBLEME REALE, o tara cu dispute politice, lucru ce NU REIESEA DELOC din pozitiile colegilor americani de pe lista si imi pare rau, dar asta suna a deformare a realitatii! Respect opinia si nu am nimic impotriva sa sustii pozitia oficiala a Romaniei fata de campania din Iraq.Chiar mi se pare corect pct. tau de vedere din pozitia pe care o ai de student in Romania, cum corect mi se pare si pct. de vedere al d-lui Dicu-Sava care are motivele dumnealui. In ce priveste informatia si internetul, nu este chiar atat de simplu.Sigur ca internetul face cunoscuta informatia la nivel global, usor,rapid, ieftin, dar mai ramane diferenta intre a TRAI intr-un mediu si doar a accesa prin internet informatie din acel mediu, intre a discuta la job/scoala/lunch zilnic cu oameni din mediul respectiv, si doar a citi sporadic articole/opinii pe internet din acelasi mediu.Alt lucru important ar fi multiplele canale de stiriTV/radio cu care iei contact la fata locului si faptul ca detii amanunte despre orientarea surselor de stiri. Deci nu este chiar asa, chiar de internetul aduce informatie, ramane importanta SELECTIA informatiei pe baza altor surse adiacente, uneori chiar mai importante decat internetul! Ca exemplu iti spun ca ai citat chiar DEFAVORABIL NY Times in ce priveste sustinerea campaniei la inceputul lui 2003 si asta pentru fiind la distanta nu prea ai cum sa stii ca NY Times este considerata o tribuna liberala si cam defavorabila administratiei Bush.Daca esti putin atent si nu te avanti sa raspunzi tututor, poti vedea ca inainte sa apuc sa spun aici, deja a aparut pe lista o opinie care critica NY Times din pozitia radical-republicana, ca pe "un ziar de stanga"...Deh, unii au ramas cu "stanga" si "dreapta" la nivelul de cateva decenii in urma... Afirmatiile despre socialisti, sigur ca nu ti se adreseaza.Am comasat cateva raspunsuri tocmai pentru a nu scrie atat de multe raspunsuri pe lista, asa cum fac unii.Regret confuzia. Ce vreau sa intelegem din discutia asta, si ma bucur ca in general pe latura cu ALTI membri pare ca am progresat de la socialisti si ascunderea problemelor americane, este ca in cazul in care pozitia unei persoane din Romania este corecta atunci cand sustine razboiul din Iraq II vis-a-vis de oficialii Romaniei, totusi acela ESTE ireal sa incerce sa convinga pe altcineva din US ca acela ar avea o pozitie incorecta atunci cand critica administratia BUSH, pentru ca oricum prin internet din Romania poti cunoaste la fel de bine situatia din US! In incheiere, pentru ca ai amintit de NY Times si este evident ca nu ai ales sursa cea buna, iti sugerez sa citesti cateva articole spre edificare, articole din 2003, cum spuneai ca ai cunoaste, sau mai recente din 2005: "The Failure to Find Weapons of Mass Destruction," editorial, New York Times (September 26, 2003), p.A24. "New Criticism of Prewar Use of Intelligence," New York Times (September 29, 2003, p. A1). Start a War, No Money Down! By MATT MILLER - Published: May 14, 2005 Thanks to the Republicans, countless Americans are becoming "war profiteers" in their spare time - and you can, too. http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2004-05-26-media- mix_x.htm For the second time in a year, the nation's so-called paper of record, The New York Times, has admitted that the record was flawed. But unlike the Jayson Blair scandal, in which the paper detailed how the reporter fabricated and plagiarized a string of stories, the note "from the editors" published in Wednesday's newspaper did not single out anyone at theTimes for blame. Instead, in an 1,100-word note, editors said it was "past time" the Times examined its reporting in the lead-up to the Iraq war. NY Times: Holding The Bush Pentagon Accountable For Abu Ghraib Date: August 26, 2004 at 7:22 am PST Holding the Pentagon Accountable: For Abu Ghraib For anyone with the time to wade through 400-plus pages and the resources to decode them, the two reports issued this week on the Abu Ghraib prison are an indictment of the way the Bush administration set the stage for Iraqi prisoners to be brutalized by American prison guards, military intelligence officers and private contractors. The Army's internal investigation, released yesterday, showed that the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib went far beyond the actions of a few sadistic military police officers - the administration's chosen culprits. It said that 27 military intelligence soldiers and civilian contractors committed criminal offenses, and that military officials hid prisoners from the Red Cross. Another report, from a civilian panel picked by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, offers the dedicated reader a dotted line from President Bush's decision to declare Iraq a front in the war against terror, to government lawyers finding ways to circumvent the Geneva Conventions, to Mr. Rumsfeld's bungled planning of the occupation and understaffing of the ground forces in Iraq, to the hideous events at Abu Ghraib prison. That was a service to the public, but the civilian panel did an enormous disservice by not connecting those dots and walking away from any real exercise in accountability. Instead, Pentagon officials who are never named get muted criticism for issuing confusing memos and not monitoring things closely enough. This is all cast as "leadership failure" - the 21st-century version of the Nixonian "mistakes were made" evasion - that does not require even the mildest reprimand for Mr. Rumsfeld, who should have resigned over this disaster months ago. Direct condemnation is reserved for the men and women in the field, from the military police officers sent to guard prisoners without training to the three-star general in Iraq. Still, the dots are there, making it clear that the road to Abu Ghraib began well before the invasion of Iraq, when the administration created the category of "unlawful combatants" for suspected members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban who were captured in Afghanistan and imprisoned in Guant�namo Bay, Cuba. Interrogators wanted to force these prisoners to talk in ways that are barred by American law and the Geneva Conventions, and on Aug. 1, 2002, Justice Department lawyers produced the infamous treatise on how to construe torture as being legal. In December 2002, Mr. Rumsfeld authorized things like hooding prisoners, using dogs to terrify them, forcing them into "stress positions" for long periods, stripping them, shaving them and isolating them. All this was prohibited by the Geneva Conventions, but President Bush had already declared on Feb. 7, 2002, that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to Al Qaeda. In January, the general counsel of the Navy objected, and Mr. Rumsfeld rescinded some of the extreme techniques. Then another legal review further narrowed the list, and Mr. Rumsfeld issued yet another memo on April 16, 2003. The Schlesinger panel said the memos confused field commanders, who thought that harsh interrogations were allowed, and that things could have been made clearer if Mr. Rumsfeld had allowed a real legal debate in the first place. Yet the panel places no fault on Mr. Rumsfeld for the cascade of disastrous events that followed. According to the report, American forces began mistreating prisoners at the outset of the war in Afghanistan. Interrogators and members of military intelligence were sent from Afghanistan to Iraq, and the harsh interrogations "migrated" with them, the report said. But one of the panel's oddest failures is how it deals with this issue. It notes that Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who had been running the prison in Guant�namo Bay, went to Iraq in August 2003, bringing the harsh interrogation rules with him. The report said Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the commander in Iraq, used his advice to approve a dozen "aggressive interrogation techniques," and that General Sanchez was "using reasoning" from the president's own memo. But in the strange logic of this report, that was not the fault of those who made the policies. The report assigns no responsibility to General Miller, nor does it say that he was sent to Iraq by Mr. Rumsfeld's staff. All these decisions were happening in a chaotic context. The Schlesinger reports said the military failed to anticipate the insurgency in Iraq or react to it properly and was unprepared for the number of prisoners it had. Insufficient numbers of military police units were sent to Iraq in a disorganized fashion, many of them untrained reservists. The panel was right in criticizing General Sanchez for not appreciating the scope of the disaster, but it made only the most glancing reference to the bigger problem: the Iraqi occupation force was too small. And that was a policy approved by Mr. Bush and designed by Mr. Rumsfeld, who wanted a lightning invasion by the sparest force possible, based on the ludicrous notion that Iraqis would not resist. Still, the civilian panel said the politicians had only indirect responsibility for this mess, and Mr. Schlesinger made the absurd argument that firing Mr. Rumsfeld would aid "the enemy." That is reminiscent of the comment Mr. Bush made last spring when he visited the Pentagon to view images of American soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners and then announced that Mr. Rumsfeld was doing a "superb job." It may not be all that surprising from a commission appointed by the secretary of defense and run by two former secretaries of defense (Mr. Schlesinger and Harold Brown). But it seems less a rational assessment than an attempt to cut off any further criticism of the men at the top. Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company http://www.americandaily.com/article/5382 The Times and Iraq Over the last year this newspaper has shone the bright light of hindsight on decisions that led the United States into Iraq. We have examined the failings of American and allied intelligence, especially on the issue of Iraq's weapons and possible Iraqi connections to international terrorists. We have studied the allegations of official gullibility and hype. It is past time we turned the same light on ourselves. In doing so � reviewing hundreds of articles written during the prelude to war and into the early stages of the occupation � we found an enormous amount of journalism that we are proud of. In most cases, what we reported was an accurate reflection of the state of our knowledge at the time, much of it painstakingly extracted from intelligence agencies that were themselves dependent on sketchy information. And where those articles included incomplete information or pointed in a wrong direction, they were later overtaken by more and stronger information. That is how news coverage normally unfolds. But we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged � or failed to emerge. The problematic articles varied in authorship and subject matter, but many shared a common feature. They depended at least in part on information from a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on "regime change" in Iraq, people whose credibility has come under increasing public debate in recent weeks. (The most prominent of the anti-Saddam campaigners, Ahmad Chalabi, has been named as an occasional source in Times articles since at least 1991, and has introduced reporters to other exiles. He became a favorite of hard- liners within the Bush administration and a paid broker of information from Iraqi exiles, until his payments were cut off last week.) Complicating matters for journalists, the accounts of these exiles were often eagerly confirmed by United States officials convinced of the need to intervene in Iraq. Administration officials now acknowledge that they sometimes fell for misinformation from these exile sources. So did many news organizations � in particular, this one. Some critics of our coverage during that time have focused blame on individual reporters. Our examination, however, indicates that the problem was more complicated. Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper. Accounts of Iraqi defectors were not always weighed against their strong desire to have Saddam Hussein ousted. Articles based on dire claims about Iraq tended to get prominent display, while follow-up articles that called the original ones into question were sometimes buried. In some cases, there was no follow-up at all. On Oct. 26 and Nov. 8, 2001, for example, Page 1 articles cited Iraqi defectors who described a secret Iraqi camp where Islamic terrorists were trained and biological weapons produced. These accounts have never been independently verified. On Dec. 20, 2001, another front-page article began, "An Iraqi defector who described himself as a civil engineer said he personally worked on renovations of secret facilities for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in underground wells, private villas and under the Saddam Hussein Hospital in Baghdad as recently as a year ago." Knight Ridder Newspapers reported last week that American officials took that defector � his name is Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri � to Iraq earlier this year to point out the sites where he claimed to have worked, and that the officials failed to find evidence of their use for weapons programs. It is still possible that chemical or biological weapons will be unearthed in Iraq, but in this case it looks as if we, along with the administration, were taken in. And until now we have not reported that to our readers. On Sept. 8, 2002, the lead article of the paper was headlined "U.S. Says Hussein Intensified Quest for A-Bomb Parts." That report concerned the aluminum tubes that the administration advertised insistently as components for the manufacture of nuclear weapons fuel. The claim came not from defectors but from the best American intelligence sources available at the time. Still, it should have been presented more cautiously. There were hints that the usefulness of the tubes in making nuclear fuel was not a sure thing, but the hints were buried deep, 1,700 words into a 3,600-word article. Administration officials were allowed to hold forth at length on why this evidence of Iraq's nuclear intentions demanded that Saddam Hussein be dislodged from power: "The first sign of a `smoking gun,' they argue, may be a mushroom cloud." Five days later, The Times reporters learned that the tubes were in fact a subject of debate among intelligence agencies. The misgivings appeared deep in an article on Page A13, under a headline that gave no inkling that we were revising our earlier view ("White House Lists Iraq Steps to Build Banned Weapons"). The Times gave voice to skeptics of the tubes on Jan. 9, when the key piece of evidence was challenged by the International Atomic Energy Agency. That challenge was reported on Page A10; it might well have belonged on Page A1. On April 21, 2003, as American weapons-hunters followed American troops into Iraq, another front-page article declared, "Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War, an Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert." It began this way: "A scientist who claims to have worked in Iraq's chemical weapons program for more than a decade has told an American military team that Iraq destroyed chemical weapons and biological warfare equipment only days before the war began, members of the team said." The informant also claimed that Iraq had sent unconventional weapons to Syria and had been cooperating with Al Qaeda � two claims that were then, and remain, highly controversial. But the tone of the article suggested that this Iraqi "scientist" � who in a later article described himself as an official of military intelligence � had provided the justification the Americans had been seeking for the invasion. The Times never followed up on the veracity of this source or the attempts to verify his claims. A sample of the coverage, including the articles mentioned here, is online at nytimes.com/critique. Readers will also find there a detailed discussion written for The New York Review of Books last month by Michael Gordon, military affairs correspondent of The Times, about the aluminum tubes report. Responding to the review's critique of Iraq coverage, his statement could serve as a primer on the complexities of such intelligence reporting. We consider the story of Iraq's weapons, and of the pattern of misinformation, to be unfinished business. And we fully intend to continue aggressive reporting aimed at setting the record straight. � Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company --- In [email protected], "Mihai Zodian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Da, somajul este in sine o problema, dar ganditi-va ca in tari > dezvoltate ca Germania, Franta, Italia sau Spania acesta se situeaza > pe la 10% (cu mari diferente regionale). Indicatorul a stagnat de > circa un deceniu in unele tari. > Pai criticati "American conservative-Republican Noise Machine" sau pe > cei care vad republicani si democrati peste tot??? E un fel de > contradictie. Repet, indiferent de origine si de partid, discursurile > electorale intra intr-o categorie aparte, care are mai mult de-a face > cu obtinerea de voturi decat cu realitatea la care se refera si > atunci cand sunt citate, este preferabil sa fim avertizati. --- In [email protected], Mihai Zodian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Era mai bine sa fi fost precizat contextul, se intelegea mai clar despre ce era vorba. Nu am sustinut ca toti cei ce critica razboiul din Irak sunt anti-americani, sau socialisti deghizati. > > De cand exista Internet-ul nu prea are mare importanta unde te afli, pentru a afla pozitiile intr-o anumita problema. Discursul domnului Clark chiar era din campanie (si nu mi-a placut Fahrenheit, dar asta e o chestiune de gust). Nu era vorba de minimalizare, ci de contextualizare. > > Daca prin pozitie oficiala va referiti la participarea Romaniei la campania din Irak, am declarat deschis ca o sustin. In general cam cunosc toate criticile la adresa politicii administratiei americane. Daca va intereseaza, New York Times are un dosar bun despre WMD si motivele invoate pentru interventia din 2003. > > Restul argumentelor probabil se adreseaza ltora, care vad socialisti peste tot. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> DonorsChoose. A simple way to provide underprivileged children resources often lacking in public schools. Fund a student project in NYC/NC today! http://us.click.yahoo.com/EHLuJD/.WnJAA/cUmLAA/RR.olB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> *** sustineti [romania_eu_list] prin 1% din impozitul pe 2005 - detalii la http://www.europe.org.ro/euroatlantic_club/unulasuta.php *** Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/romania_eu_list/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
