Forum

Pour poster un commentaire, vous devez vous identifier

réactions

Article lié : Crise mondiale, “Made In Bolton”

Victor

  27/08/2005

Il est assez interessant de constater que 24 h plus tard, les médias français (en ligne en tous cas) ne réagissent pas à l’exception du Figaro ! Pas un mot sur la question, c’est dire s’ils sont à l’aise !

grande erreur

Article lié :

Belven

  27/08/2005

Dans votre article sur les développements en Allemagne, vous confondez STEUBER et STRÖBERLE.

Steuber est le chef de la CSU et Ströberle est un intéressant penseur des VERTS qui est souvent en désaccord avec son parti

Schauble Views On FA: [Europeans] will not identify with a Europe that will border with Iran and Iraq

Article lié :

Stassen

  26/08/2005

German opposition wants more Europe and less Turkey

26.08.2005 - 09:53 CET | By Lucia Kubosova

The hot candidate to head Germany’s future foreign ministry says he wants a more integrated Europe and better relations with the US.

Wolfgang Schauble, foreign affairs adviser in opposition leader Angela Merkel’s pre-election team, said in an interview with the International Herald Tribune that Germany’s international agenda had not changed since the country’s reunification in 1990.

“The fundamentals are more or less the same. Germany’s interests and foreign policy are anchored on a European position and a transatlantic partnership, both going hand in hand and not in competition with each other”, Mr Schauble indicated.

He argues that current chancellor Gerhard Schroder has made several moves against these fundamental principles, referring to his role in undermining the Stability and Growth Pact - the rules underpinning the euro - and Germany’s foreign policy on the invasion of Iraq, which saw the country ally with France and Russia in a bid to oppose the US.

According to the Christian Democrat veteran “this triangular relationship involving Berlin, Paris and Moscow was a dangerous development. It was very dangerous for the small countries in Europe because they perceived it as an axis and you can understand why”.

Reservations about Turkey
Mr Schauble also disagrees with Germany’s current position on Turkey. Despite the US’ support for Ankara’s EU membership, Mr Schauble maintains the country should become the bloc’s privileged parner, rather than a full member.

“What we are concerned about is Europe’s borders and the support of Europeans for EU integration. They will not identify with a Europe that will border with Iran and Iraq. Europe will not exist if the EU’s borders will stretch to Iran and Iraq”, he said in the interview.

Apart from the security issues, Mr Schauble pointed to Turkey’s identity, suggesting “a far bigger part of both Turkey and Russia is definitely not in Europe. That is why Russia could never really integrate into the EU”.

However, he said the new cabinet would not block the kick-start of Turkey’s accession talks due on 3 October, adding “we will stick to the European Council’s decision that the results of these negotiations should be kept open. The negotiations could last for at least 10 years. Things could be very different in 10 years’ time”.

Wolfgang Schauble, in a wheelchair since he was paralysed by an assassination attempt in 1990, was the direct successor to Helmut Kohl at the head of the Christian Democrats after he lost the elections to Gerhard Schroeder in 1998.

He had previously served as Mr Kohl’s chancellery minister and interior minister.

Election date set
While the pre-election campaign in Germany has been well under way, the poll due on 18 September only got the final approval on Thursday (25 August), when the country’s highest court ruled that federal elections can go ahead as planned.

Last week’s surveys suggest the Christian Democrat leader Angela Merkel still has a great chance to win and become Germany’s first woman chancellor, with a support of 43 percent against the Social Democrats on 29 percent.

The new Left party - uniting the former East German communists and Social Democrat defectors - stood at just 10 percent.

http://euobserver.com/?aid=19730&rk=1

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/08/25/news/germany.php

Oui ont peut vivre sans Mc Donald's

Article lié : Analyse du cas Chavez, de son action politique et économique, et de l’impuissance washingtonienne qui lui répond

Benoît Rivet

  25/08/2005

Pourquoi les autre peuples de la monde n’aurais t’il pas le droit d’avoir leurs idées,sans toujours devoir demander la permission aux gringo’s!Brovo Hugo et Merci Fidel..Siempre!

Article lié :

Le LUI

  25/08/2005

Je trouve que le mot Altermoderne à quand même plus de geule que le mot antimoderne.

DISPARUS DE MOURMELON

Article lié :

PAUL MIRANDE

  23/08/2005

Découvrez le site de cette affaire invraissemblable ou l’état fut condamné pour fautes lourdes ce 26 janvier 2005 :
http://www.disparusdemourmelon.org

election en allemagne

Article lié : Les éléments d’une déstabilisation allemande dans le cadre et les suite des actuelles élections législatives

khetib

  23/08/2005

schroder a prouver durant…sa capacité de reussir son chemin et de faire face aux clonages d’autres murs de berlin.actuellement il a fort besoin d’un bon soutient.

L'incroyable bill ...

Article lié :

Sisko

  22/08/2005

D’abord un extrait du show de Bill “abject man” O’Reilly avec Cindy Sheehan comme invité.

Une incroyable tentative de manipulation grossière des propos de Cindy Sheehan, une grossière vulgarité voir une obscénité dans les idées
et les propos de ce pauvre bill (sans majuscule !). Le fait est que des américains soient encore réceptif à cette manipulation grossière me laisse pantois.
Le lien qu’on croirait tiré d’un mauvais film ou d’un sketch cynique démontant la propagande virtualiste des USA :

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/The-OReilly-Kesterson.wmv

Et un autre texte datant du 30 Mars 2003 : Ce texte de Robert Parry saisit très bien (je trouve) toutes les perpectives glacantes et funèbres
de cette “aventure” en Irak.
La déclaration de la “victoire” des USA comme un fait accompli, sans tenir compte des réalités du terrain et une autre déclaration celle-ci toute “militaire”
et une forme de profession de foi du Gen. Tommy Franks :
“Sir, I think exactly what my secretary thinks, what he’s ever thought, what he will ever think, or whatever he thought he might think (...)”
Bref ce militaire est cynique et franc à la fois (très curieux pour moi !), il se coupe de la réalité en se fondant dans la pensée de Rumsfield.
Et pendant ce temps ... vu du coté virtualiste “We create our own reality” est le “mantra” du gouvernement US ...
D’ailleurs je ne remercierai jamais assez De Defensa pour m’avoir aider à mieux comprendre les arcanes de la géo-politique internationales (sisi !).

L’article démonte bien le “Fox’s super-patriotic tone” en rapport avec le premier lien (la vidéo). Il se finit sur une ultime analogie avec le
Viet Nam : “He’s committed himself – and the nation – to destroying Iraq in order to save it.”

Le lien :
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2003/033003a.html

A+

Foch ou Clémenceau ∫

Article lié : “UAS Road Map” comme “Road Map USA” ?

François

  19/08/2005

(“ma droite recule, ma gauche piétine, mon centre est enfoncé, j’attaque”).

Vous citez Foch, mais ne s’agirait-il pas plutot de Clémenceau ? (pas certain)

Bonne continuation, j’aime bien quand vous parlez d’avion…;o)

François ;o)

Les délires du Pentagone...

Article lié :

luois kuehn

  18/08/2005

Je signale une intéressante analyse apparue sur le site du PINR, au égard des plans américains pour militariser l’espace…

http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=347&language_id=1

“While the implementation of space weapons is likely to increase the capability gap between Washington and other powers at first, a broader vision reveals dangers involved in the move that could affect U.S. interests, for it will likely trigger off determined reactions by its competitors. Competitor states could successfully deploy a small number of low cost orbital weapons, thus forcing the U.S. to design an extremely expensive space defense system. “

l'article

Article lié : Les surprises de la globalisation

tatge

  17/08/2005

Le voulais juste dire que j’ai vraiment apprecié l’article les surprises de la globalisation. Tout ça est tellement flagrant mais personne ne l’avait souligné de manière aussi lumineuse.

Petrole

Article lié :

ymp

  17/08/2005

Un discours sur le petrole de notre premier ministre.

->http://www.premier-ministre.gouv.fr/acteurs/interventions_premier_ministre_9/discours_498/conference_presse_mardi_16_53742.html
c’est a lire car les medias n’ont visiblement jamais fait de résumé de texte et se sont concentrés sur les points de détails traités en annexe et a la fin.

Personnellement je rediendrais surtout cette phrase :” Premièrement, le pétrole est une ressource épuisable, qui va se faire de plus en plus rare ; les réserves connues aujourd’hui sont équivalentes aux besoins de consommation tel qu’estimés d’ici 2030. Mais la raréfaction progressive des ressources face à une demande croissante se fera sentir bien avant cette date ;

Et oui, nos dirigeants sont bien dans le camps des plus pessimistes sur le petrole.
Ils sont probablement correctement informés !
Cette nouvelle est loin d’etre neutre et personne ne la reprend ! C’est pourtant une information stratégique ...

A+

Iran nucléaire

Article lié : Une question sortie de sa bouteille comme un diable : la prolifération nucléaire est-elle une si mauvaise chose?

KIFFER

  16/08/2005

On peut toujours s’interroger comme le font W.Pfaff et P. Buchanan sur l’utilité de lutter contre la prolifération nucléaire. Demain l’Iran sera nucléaire. Qui empêchera ensuite la Turquie (surtout si elle n’intègre pas l’UE)puis l’Egypte, l’Arabie séoudite après demain…ainsi de suite. Est-ce que la planète sera plus sûre ? Mon avis est que lorsqu’on ne peut plus intervenir ou lorsqu’on ne veut pas intervenir pour un tas de bonnes raisons, il est facile de justifier le rôle stabilisateur de l’atome. Mais l’avenir est sombre car la guerre du pétrole est commencée. Il y aura forcément conflit pour accéder aux dernières ressources pétrolières et gazières en 2030 ou avant…quid alors d’un monde nucléarisé ?

La loi martiale aux U.S. ∫

Article lié :

Anamorphose

  15/08/2005

Un article du Washington Post nous apprend que l’idée est bel et bien dans l’air. Et si l’information est distillée dans les médias on peut penser que c’est pour y habituer le citoyen lambda. Décidément on n’arrête pas le progrès au pays de l’Oncle Sam…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/07/AR2005080700843_pf.html

“War Plans Drafted To Counter Terror Attacks in U.S.
Domestic Effort Is Big Shift for Military

By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, August 8, 2005; A01

COLORADO SPRINGS—The U.S. military has devised its first-ever war plans for guarding against and responding to terrorist attacks in the United States, envisioning 15 potential crisis scenarios and anticipating several simultaneous strikes around the country, according to officers who drafted the plans.

The classified plans, developed here at Northern Command headquarters, outline a variety of possible roles for quick-reaction forces estimated at as many as 3,000 ground troops per attack, a number that could easily grow depending on the extent of the damage and the abilities of civilian response teams.

The possible scenarios range from “low end,” relatively modest crowd-control missions to “high-end,” full-scale disaster management after catastrophic attacks such as the release of a deadly biological agent or the explosion of a radiological device, several officers said.

Some of the worst-case scenarios involve three attacks at the same time, in keeping with a Pentagon directive earlier this year ordering Northcom, as the command is called, to plan for multiple simultaneous attacks.

The war plans represent a historic shift for the Pentagon, which has been reluctant to become involved in domestic operations and is legally constrained from engaging in law enforcement. Indeed, defense officials continue to stress that they intend for the troops to play largely a supporting role in homeland emergencies, bolstering police, firefighters and other civilian response groups.

But the new plans provide for what several senior officers acknowledged is the likelihood that the military will have to take charge in some situations, especially when dealing with mass-casualty attacks that could quickly overwhelm civilian resources.

“In my estimation, [in the event of] a biological, a chemical or nuclear attack in any of the 50 states, the Department of Defense is best positioned—of the various eight federal agencies that would be involved—to take the lead,” said Adm. Timothy J. Keating, the head of Northcom, which coordinates military involvement in homeland security operations.

The plans present the Pentagon with a clearer idea of the kinds and numbers of troops and the training that may be required to build a more credible homeland defense force. They come at a time when senior Pentagon officials are engaged in an internal, year-long review of force levels and weapons systems, attempting to balance the heightened requirements of homeland defense against the heavy demands of overseas deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Keating expressed confidence that existing military assets are sufficient to meet homeland security needs. Maj. Gen. Richard J. Rowe, Northcom’s chief operations officer, agreed, but he added that “stress points” in some military capabilities probably would result if troops were called on to deal with multiple homeland attacks.
Debate and Analysis

Several people on the staff here and at the Pentagon said in interviews that the debate and analysis within the U.S. government regarding the extent of the homeland threat and the resources necessary to guard against it remain far from resolved.

The command’s plans consist of two main documents. One, designated CONPLAN 2002 and consisting of more than 1,000 pages, is said to be a sort of umbrella document that draws together previously issued orders for homeland missions and covers air, sea and land operations. It addresses not only post-attack responses but also prevention and deterrence actions aimed at intercepting threats before they reach the United States.

The other, identified as CONPLAN 0500, deals specifically with managing the consequences of attacks represented by the 15 scenarios.

CONPLAN 2002 has passed a review by the Pentagon’s Joint Staff and is due to go soon to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and top aides for further study and approval, the officers said. CONPLAN 0500 is still undergoing final drafting here. (CONPLAN stands for “concept plan” and tends to be an abbreviated version of an OPLAN, or “operations plan,” which specifies forces and timelines for movement into a combat zone.)

The plans, like much else about Northcom, mark a new venture by a U.S. military establishment still trying to find its comfort level with the idea of a greater homeland defense role after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Military officers and civilian Pentagon policymakers say they recognize, on one hand, that the armed forces have much to offer not only in numbers of troops but also in experience managing crises and responding to emergencies. On the other hand, they worry that too much involvement in homeland missions would diminish the military’s ability to deal with threats abroad.

The Pentagon’s new homeland defense strategy, issued in June, emphasized in boldface type that “domestic security is primarily a civilian law enforcement function.” Still, it noted the possibility that ground troops might be sent into action on U.S. soil to counter security threats and deal with major emergencies.

“For the Pentagon to acknowledge that it would have to respond to catastrophic attack and needs a plan was a big step,” said James Carafano, who follows homeland security issues for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington think tank.

William M. Arkin, a defense specialist who has reported on Northcom’s war planning, said the evolution of the Pentagon’s thinking reflects the recognition of an obvious gap in civilian resources.

Since Northcom’s inception in October 2002, its headquarters staff has grown to about 640 members, making it larger than the Southern Command, which oversees operations in Latin America, but smaller than the regional commands for Europe, the Middle East and the Pacific. A brief tour late last month of Northcom’s operations center at Peterson Air Force Base found officers monitoring not only aircraft and ship traffic around the United States but also the Discovery space shuttle mission, the National Scout Jamboree in Virginia, several border surveillance operations and a few forest firefighting efforts.
‘Dual-Use’ Approach

Pentagon authorities have rejected the idea of creating large standing units dedicated to homeland missions. Instead, they favor a “dual-use” approach, drawing on a common pool of troops trained both for homeland and overseas assignments.

Particular reliance is being placed on the National Guard, which is expanding a network of 22-member civil support teams to all states and forming about a dozen 120-member regional response units. Congress last year also gave the Guard expanded authority under Title 32 of the U.S. Code to perform such homeland missions as securing power plants and other critical facilities.

But the Northcom commander can quickly call on active-duty forces as well. On top of previous powers to send fighter jets into the air, Keating earlier this year gained the authority to dispatch Navy and Coast Guard ships to deal with suspected threats off U.S. coasts. He also has immediate access to four active-duty Army battalions based around the country, officers here said.

Nonetheless, when it comes to ground forces possibly taking a lead role in homeland operations, senior Northcom officers remain reluctant to discuss specifics. Keating said such situations, if they arise, probably would be temporary, with lead responsibility passing back to civilian authorities.

Military exercises code-named Vital Archer, which involve troops in lead roles, are shrouded in secrecy. By contrast, other homeland exercises featuring troops in supporting roles are widely publicized.
Legal Questions

Civil liberties groups have warned that the military’s expanded involvement in homeland defense could bump up against the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which restricts the use of troops in domestic law enforcement. But Pentagon authorities have told Congress they see no need to change the law.

According to military lawyers here, the dispatch of ground troops would most likely be justified on the basis of the president’s authority under Article 2 of the Constitution to serve as commander in chief and protect the nation. The Posse Comitatus Act exempts actions authorized by the Constitution.

“That would be the place we would start from” in making the legal case, said Col. John Gereski, a senior Northcom lawyer.

But Gereski also said he knew of no court test of this legal argument, and Keating left the door open to seeking an amendment of the Posse Comitatus Act.

One potentially tricky area, the admiral said, involves National Guard officers who are put in command of task forces that include active-duty as well as Guard units—an approach first used last year at the Group of Eight summit in Georgia. Guard troops, acting under state control, are exempt from Posse Comitatus prohibitions.

“It could be a challenge for the commander who’s a Guardsman, if we end up in a fairly complex, dynamic scenario,” Keating said. He cited a potential situation in which Guard units might begin rounding up people while regular forces could not.

The command’s sensitivity to legal issues, Gereski said, is reflected in the unusually large number of lawyers on staff here—14 compared with 10 or fewer at other commands. One lawyer serves full time at the command’s Combined Intelligence and Fusion Center, which joins military analysts with law enforcement and counterintelligence specialists from such civilian agencies as the FBI, the CIA and the Secret Service.

A senior supervisor at the facility said the staff there does no intelligence collection, only analysis.

He also said the military operates under long-standing rules intended to protect civilian liberties. The rules, for instance, block military access to intelligence information on political dissent or purely criminal activity.

Even so, the center’s lawyer is called on periodically to rule on the appropriateness of some kinds of information-sharing. Asked how frequently such cases arise, the supervisor recalled two in the previous 10 days, but he declined to provide specifics.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

Plan Iranien devoile ou invente∫

Article lié : Au fait, l’Iran comme l’Irak?

http://politiquesusa.blogspot.com

  14/08/2005

J’ai trouve un texte interessant qui rentrent dans vos analyses avec ce que Schroeder a dit avec l’Iran:

U.S. prepared to grab Iran’s southwestern majority Arab and oil-rich province after saturation bombing of Iranian nuclear, chemical, and command, control, communications & intelligence (C3I) targets. According to sources within the German Federal Intelligence Service (Bundesnachrichtendienst - BND), the Bush administration has drawn up plans to hit Iran’s nuclear, other WMD, and military sites with heavy saturation bombing using bunker buster bombs and tactical nuclear weapons. The attack will be coordinated with urban and rural critical infrastructure sabotage carried out by elements of the People’s Mujaheddin (MEK), Pentagon Special Operations units, and other Iranian dissident groups.

The German intelligence comes from classified briefings provided by elements within the CIA that are concerned the neocons in the Bush administration will, in attacking Iran, set off a chain of events that will lead to world war. Intelligence on U.S. plans to attack Iran has also been passed by CIA agents to counterparts in France, Britain, Canada, and Australia. The Bush war plans for Iran also entail quickly seizing Iran’s southwestern Khuzestan Province, where most of Iran’s oil reserves and refineries are located. Khuzestan has a majority Shia Arab population that has close links with their ethnic and religious brethren in Iraq. The Bush plans call for a U.S. military strike across the Iraqi border and from naval forces in the Persian Gulf in answer to an appeal for assistance from the Al Ahwaz Popular Democratic Front and Liberation Organization rebel forces in Khuzestan, which will declare an independent Arab state of the Democratic Republic of Ahwaz and receive diplomatic recognition from the United States and a few close U.S. allies.

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/