Forum

  Ca n’est pas la premiere fois qu’un avion de l’Armee de l’Air est perdu en exercise mais la perte de vie qui accompagne cet evenement le rend beaucoup plus douleureux.

  Par ce message je tiens a m’associer a la famille du Capitaine Moriuser et a ses amis proche et leur presenter mes plus sincere condoleances.

Si l\‘on en croit Peter Dale Scott, dont deDefensa a recommandé la lecture (The Road to 9/11), plusieurs déclenchements d\‘opérations militaires américaines depuis la 2e GM ont résulté d\‘opérations conduites par les militaires à l\‘insu du président du moment, lequel s\‘est trouvé pris de court. D\‘autres opérations ont été arrêtées par des présidents mieux avertis, alors que les généraux avaient presque décidé de lancer des frappes.

Si l\‘on en croit la chronique des évènements actuels, la Maison Blanche et les militaires (+ les agences) se battent à front renversé, le premier poussant à la guerre et les autres freinant. C\‘est assez étonnant.

Mais qui est derrière la Maison Blanche pour attaquer l\‘Iran? La composante industrielle du MICC?

C’est marrant, je pensais a cette question l’autre jour, de savoir si le peuple americain etait suffisement solidaire et uni, pour que l’on puisse parler de la nation americaine. Et mon sentiment etait que non. Je me trompe peut etre. C’est juste une impression diffuse.

Vous dites que, je cite, « Ce sentiment de détachement existe chez les démocrates surtout », mais « More Democrats than Republicans say the 2008 contest is unusually important » veut dire que les démocrates plus que les républicains estiment que l’élection sera inhabituellement importante - c’est-à-dire, plus importante que d’habitude.

Les occidentaux dans leur croisade contre l’arrivée du nuclaire au monde musulman ne recule devant rien, on a bien vu le degré grotesque et criminel des mensonges qui ont conduit à la déstruction de l’Irak berceau de la civilisation de l’humanité; le mutisme de l’Europe devant cette tragédie pour ne pas dire sa bienveillante complicité notamment pour l’embargo de 13 ans qui a tué des millions, n’a d’équivalent que son empressement et son aveuglement pour un bis repetita en Iran avec le même entêtement la même haine et la même ignorance. Si Javier Solana s’est fait ridiculisé par les américains lorsqu’il affirmait sans preuve ce qu’on a bien voulu qu’il dise, et si les européens s’engagent tête baissée en Irak et en Afghanistan et tous les drames et les crimes qui s’en suivent dans l’indifférence et l’hypocrésie totale, il est peut être temps que les européens reconsidèrent leur position, et au lieu d’exporter la bonne parole et s’aviser en donneur de leçon, qu’ils analysent un peu cette schyzophrénie de dire ce qu’on ne fait pas “la démocratie” et de faire ce qu’on ne dit pas “la guerre”.

Le piège à c….ns s’est refermé. Hilarant.

Dès lors que la chasse aux armes de destruction de massive et autres choses de cette sorte ne sont que des prétextes destinés à susciter l’adhésion des foules, si ce n’est leur enthousiasme, en tâchant de les convaincre que c’est pour la bonne cause, il n’y a aucune raison sérieuse de penser que la découverte du pot-au-roses à propos de l’un de ces prétextes soit de nature à contrarier en quoi que ce soit le projet lui-même.

Bien entendu, dès lors qu’il a été établi que le motif invoqué n’est qu’un prétexte, une fois de plus, il va falloir rattraper le discrédit jeté sur la voix officielle. L’une des méthodes possibles, peut-être la seule, est d’invoquer des faits cette fois incontestables.
Quoi de mieux qu’une provocation indéniable, que tous peuvent constater de leurs propres yeux… ?
Remarquez que Brzezinski, qu’il est difficile de taxer de fantaisiste, y faisait déjà allusion récemment (cf un article antérieur de dedefensa).

De façon plus générale, il faut, je crois, se faire à l’idée que le seul et unique motif de l’attention, c’est peu dire, que les Etats-Unis portent à la région Caspienne - Golfe Persique est la sécurité et la pérennité (toute relative par ailleurs) de leurs approvisionnements pétroliers. Ce qui n’est qu’une manière édulcorée de dire qu’il s’agit, ni plus, ni moins, que de faire main basse sur les ultimes réserves du globe.
Evidemment, l’annoncer tel quel aux foules risque de provoquer la chute définitive du semblant de civilisation qui reste : le choix sera en effet cornélien entre d’un côté le meurtre, le pillage et tout le cortège de ce qui les accompagnent généralement, et de l’autre le sursis de l’american way of life grâce au pétrole pillé !
Un bon prétexte est tellement plus satisfaisant…

Pour ma part, j’aurais plutot tendance a etre inquiet, et à me dire que les fou-furieux neocons ne laisseront pas tomber. Bref on est dans les conditions idéales pour un attentat majeur destiné a justifier la guerre.

et le rapport NIE pourrait bien etre le piège à c.. idéal. Vous connaissez le système hollywoodien des films d’horreur: on fait monter la pression crescendo, jusqu’au moment attendu par le spectateur du choc, mais au contraire le choc ne se fait pas, alors le spectateur respire, et c’est a ce moment là qu’on envoi la sauce

attendez-vous au meme principe, on est dans la phase de respiration: on est sur qu’il n’y aura pas de guerre. On se persuade que bush a perdu, et que tout va rentrer dans l’ordre, mais….

c’est vrai qu’aujourd’hui on “vend” des politiques ou des guerres comme on vendrait un produit de consommation courante. Le gros problème, selon moi, de trop jouer avec la réalité, de trop déformer la vérité, c’est de profondément déboussoler les gens, la folie est une chose contagieuse. Ainsi il n’est pas dit que la “cohorte” de suiveurs peureux et forcés de la folie actuelle US soient restée tout à fait intacte…

Bush ri des demandes d’excuses de l’Iran : “vous pouvez écrire sur vos carnets que j’ai rigolé” a-t-il dit.

Que Bush s’excuse je m’en moque, d’après moi ceux qui devraient s’excuser ce sont ceux qui “notent sur leur carnet”, justement, ce qu’on leur dit de noter : ADM irakien, iranien, “axe du Mal”, “Etats-Voyoux” etc faisant offices d’organes de communication de la politique bushiste.

Qu’on vente ensuite la “liberté de la presse”, et que cette presse y croit (à sa liberté) et joue à l’intègre, ça fait effet comique aussi, mais cette fois c’est moi qui ris.

——

Bush ‘rigole’ des demandes d’excuses iraniennes
AMéRIQUE mer 5 déc

Le président George W. Bush a tourné en dérision ce mercredi les demandes iraniennes d’excuses et de compensations pour le tort qu’aurait causé l’inexactitude des accusations américaines sur les activités nucléaires de la République islamique.

“Vous pouvez écrire sur vos carnets que j’ai rigolé”, a dit M. Bush à des journalistes lors d’un déplacement à Omaha (Nebraska).

Parmi les officiels iraniens qui ont crié victoire après la publication d’un rapport remettant en question le discours de M. Bush sur le danger que représenteraient les activités nucléaires de la République islamique, certains ont réclamé que les Etats-Unis présentent leurs excuses, voire dédommagent l’Iran.

Ebranlant la diplomatie iranienne des Etats-Unis, un nouveau rapport du renseignement américain indique que l’Iran aurait arrêté en 2003 un programme secret pour fabriquer l’arme nucléaire et paraît moins déterminé aujourd’hui à avoir la bombe atomique.

M. Bush estime cependant que ce rapport ne “change rien” à la politique américaine, que l’Iran reste un danger et que la communauté internationale doit poursuivre ses efforts pour augmenter la pression sur la République islamique.

http://www.rtlinfo.be/news/article/67458/—Bush+rigole+des+demandes+dexcuses+iraniennes

Rapportée par Steve Clemmons sur Washington Note, la réaction du “former General, Labor Party Knesset Member, and former Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh” :
“In response to a question from the floor about the Iran NIE, Sneh said that the “report was a lie.” He asked “why would someone leak this now?”
When later I privately told General Sneh that the report was not leaked and that it was on the home page of the Director of National Intelligence, he emphasized that “it had to be a lie, a deception.” He said that “Israeli and Americans know the same thing and have the same views on Iran.”
Sneh said that for him the release of this report “means that the United States is signaling that it will do nothing on Iran and will abandon its responsibilities.” He continued by saying, “I told them so. I always said that in the end, Israel would have to do this alone.”“
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002562.php#more

http://www.star-telegram.com/business/story/337511.html

Tuesday, Dec 4, 2007
Posted on Mon, Dec. 03, 2007
Taxpayers may pay big F-35 costs

By BOB COX
Star-Telegram Staff Writer
Foreign nations are in no rush to place orders for Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter jets, and that threatens to push the planes’ rising cost even higher and shrink future orders.
The result is that one way or another U.S. taxpayers will likely shoulder most of the cost of getting the F-35 into production, with the bulk of foreign orders not coming until years from now, when jet prices will have dropped dramatically.

Lockheed and the Pentagon have been talking with representatives of the eight nations that have contributed $4 billion-plus to the Lightning II program about placing early orders for production in 2011-13, but the high price is a deterrent.

“Nobody is interested in getting their airplanes earlier unless we can help them mitigate the fact the earlier airplanes cost more,” Tom Burbage, Lockheed executive vice president and F-35 program general manager, said in a recent interview.

Another U.S. ally, Israel, may be in a position to help out. Israeli defense officials have reportedly decided that they want to buy F-35s soon and are talking with the Pentagon and State Department.

Price might not be as big a concern for Israel because it would most likely pay for F-35s using its annual U.S. military-aid package. The Bush administration has already proposed boosting arms financing for Israel from $2.4 billion in 2008 to $3.1 billion in 2011-18.

The Lightning II was conceived a decade ago as a low-cost, multirole jet that would replace numerous older models for U.S. and foreign military services. Its versions—conventional takeoff, short takeoff and carrier-based—and low price were intended to attract foreign sales.

The Pentagon and Lockheed would like to land some early foreign F-35 orders. As the F-35’s total development cost has increased from $30 billion in 2002 to an estimated $40 billion, the Pentagon has paid the bill in part by delaying some planned U.S. military orders.

That has in turn driven up the cost of producing the earliest aircraft when production rates are already low.

The problem is simple economics.

As production begins, each of the relatively few airplanes built is enormously expensive. Prices fall as more planes are made.

The Pentagon’s 2008 budget contains about $2.8 billion for the Air Force and Marines to buy six F-35s each. That’s about $233 million a plane, compared with $50 million for a modern F-16.

Costs come down as production rates go up, but Air Force budget documents indicate that even in 2013, each F-35 it buys will still cost about $100 million—in 2006 dollars, not taking inflation into account.

Plans now call for production to begin on lots of 16 planes in 2009, 32 in 2010 and 47 in 2011, with all but a handful of planes, at most, for the Air Force and Marines. A surge in orders that would boost production to 118 planes is expected in 2012.

Lockheed and the Pentagon would dearly love to land some foreign orders for 2011 so a production increase could be ramped up more gradually and help bring down costs sooner.

If costs grow further, as they seem to inevitably do, even the U.S. armed forces could be tempted to delay purchases further, creating a chain reaction.

Ray Jaworoski, aerospace analyst for Forecast International, says the countries that have partnered with the U.S. on developing the F-35 need to begin replacing their aging fighter fleets in the next few years.

“The big question is, is that near-term potential going to translate into near-term orders?” said Jaworoski, adding that U.S. allies’ political leaders may not be likely to expand defense spending enough to buy more expensive F-35s early.

“It seems likely that the [F-35 production] ramp-up is not going to be as steep” as Lockheed and the Pentagon would like, Jaworoski said.

Britain and the Netherlands will each buy a couple of planes early for testing and training, but at this point, few other early orders are likely.

Israel’s desire to buy F-35s comes with its own complications. Israel, according to published reports, wants to get planes sooner than the U.S. wants to let them out of the country. Pentagon officials don’t want F-35s leaving the U.S. until all planned testing has been completed.

Israel also wants to be able to outfit the planes with its own weapons and other systems, posing more political and technical issues that governments will have to work out.

“We’re not planning on their jets right now,” Burbage said. “But if they choose to buy, we could get a few of their jets into production” for delivery in 2013.

Other nonpartner nations, notably South Korea and Japan, are seen as potential F-35 buyers. Japan would like to buy Lockheed’s F-22 fighters, but the U.S. has so far indicated that it is unwilling to sell that highly sophisticated jet to other nations.

“If they’re barred from buying the F-22, the question is, where do they go?” Jaworoski said.

But even if the Japanese military bought F-35s, Jaworoski said, it may not do so soon enough to help boost near-term production rates.

F-35 LIGHTNING II

2008 defense spending

Procurement: 12 planes, $2.65 billion

Research and development: $3.5 billion

Planned production

Lot 1, 2006-09: two planes

Lot 2, 2007-10: 12 planes

Lot 3, 2008-11: 16 planes

Lot 4, 2009-12: 32 planes

Lot 5, 2010-13: 47 planes

Lot 6, 2011-14: 118 planes

Planned U.S. purchases

Air Force: 1,763

Navy and Marines: 680

Other countries’ planned purchases

Great Britain: 138

Italy: 131

Australia: 100

Turkey: 100

Netherlands: 85

Canada: 60

Denmark: 48

Norway: 48

Total: 710

Source: Star-Telegram research

du psychisme parlait de trois ordres.
Le symbolique, l’imaginaire et le réel.

C’est l’ordre   symbolique qui structure les effets sur le réel.
L’imaginaire et le symbolique se confondent chez le paranoïaque.
La poursuite éperdue des ADM , de la voyoucratie cela pourrait être cette quête justement jamais gagnée…

Garry Kasparov and the Far-right Cuckoo’s Nest

Mike Whitney – Information Clearing House December 3, 2007

Garry Kasparov should give up politics and do what he does best; stand-up comedy.

Watching Kasparov traipse around Moscow with his basket of sour grapes and his entourage of western media-stooges is like watching “Mr. Bean’s Excellent Kremlin Adventure”—-a particularly lame performance in a dismal B-rated burlesque. It’s painful to watch.

On Sunday, while Putin’s party “United Russia” was screeching to a landslide victory; Reuters News was busy taking mug-shots of the stony-faced Kasparov holding up Florida-style ballots claiming the voting was rigged.

“They are not just rigging the vote,” Kasparov moaned, “They are raping the whole electoral system. These elections are a reminder of Soviet elections when there was no choice…..Putin is going to have a hard time trying to rule like Stalin.”

Stalin? So now Putin is Stalin?

First of all, when did Reuters begin to take an interest in voting irregularities? It must be a recent development, since they were nowhere to be found in the 2000 presidential election. And when did they start to pay attention to “dissenting voices”? They certainly never wasted any video-footage on the antiwar rallies in the US. Are we to believe that they are more interested in democracy in Russia than in America?

And why is Reuters so eager to provide valuable column-space to a washed-up chess-jockey whose only interest is flogging the Russian President while making unsubstantiated charges of voter fraud? Is that news or just propaganda?

As for Kasparov and his silly accusations; he should be glad that he lives in Putin’s Russia rather than Stalin’s or he’d be in leg-irons right now boarding a northbound train to the Siberian outback.

What is Kasparov doing in Moscow anyway? And why is this little man—with virtually no political base—such a big part of the western media narrative? Is he only there to discredit the election and throw a little more muck on Putin or is there more to it than that? Kasparov’s party, the “Other Russia” couldn’t manage even a 2% rating in the polls. The party is a complete dud. In fact, Reuters even (reluctantly) admits as much in its article.

Here’s the clip. Reuters:

“Kasparov and his “Other Russia” dissident movement are not standing in Sunday’s parliamentary election because they could not get registered as a party. THEY ENJOY LITTLE PUBLIC SUPPORT AMONG RUSSIANS BUT HAVE A BIG FOLLOWING IN THE WEST.” (Reuters)

“Big following in the West”? Why doesn’t that surprise me?

So, in other words, Kasparov has no base of support in Russia, and yet he gets his own camera crew and media team to follow him around recording every silly he says. That’s just great. Who do they think he is; Nelson Mandela?

Kasparov is a contributing editor of Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal; so he already has a regular platform for launching his tirades on the “tyrannical” Mr. Putin. Normally, one doesn’t get a spot on the op-ed page of the WSJ unless their politics are somewhere to the right of Augusto Pinochet. That’s probably the case with Kasparov, too.

In Saturday’s edition of the WSJ, Kasparov delivered his latest absurd soliloquy- disparaging Putin and recounting his agonizing 5 day ordeal in the Moscow poky. What a travesty. It seems that Kasparov’s delicate physical make-up made it impossible for him to eat prison food so “thanks to growing pressure , they allowed me to receive food packages from home”. (WSJ)

Did you hear that, Bobby Sands?

Kasparov also added, “Some commentators even suspected I wanted to provoke my own arrest for publicity, a chess players far-sighted strategy.”

Heaven forbid! Who could possibly think that this was all a stage-managed publicity stunt orchestrated by western power-brokers? What cynicism? “Is that T-bone done to your liking, Mr. Kasparov, or should we open another ‘food package from home”’?

Although Kasparov has garnered little public support in Russia, he appears to have a loyal following among the Washington elite. According to Wikipedia:

“In 1991, Kasparov received the Keeper of the Flame award from the Center for Security Policy (a US think tank), for anti-Communist resistance and the propagation of democracy. Kasparov was an exceptional recipient since the award is given to “individuals for devoting their public careers to the defense of the United States and American values around the world”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Kasparov

Hmmmm….“For devoting their public careers to the defense of the United States and American values around the world”? Isn’t that a definition of an American agent?

Again, according to Wikipedia:

In April, 2007 it was asserted that Kasparov was a board member of the National Security Advisory Council of the Center for Security Policy, a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security”. Kasparov confirmed this and added that he was removed shortly after he became aware of it. He noted that HE DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT THE MEMBERSHIP and suggested he was included in the board by an accident because he received the 1991 Keeper of the Flame award from this organization. But Kasparov maintained his association with the neoconservative leadership by giving speeches at think tanks such as the Hoover Institute.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Kasparov Here’s a list of some of the other fellow travelers who’ve been given the “Keeper of the Flame Award”:

2007-Senator Joe Lieberman. 2004-General Peter Pace. 2003- Paul Wolfowitz. 2002- General Richard Meyers. 1998-Donald Rumsfeld. 1996-Newt Gingrich. 1995-Ronald Reagan. 1990-Casper Weinberger.

Is Kasparov an anomaly or does he fit right in with this coven of far-right loonies?

And who are some of the prominent members of the Center for Security Policy?

Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Frank Gaffney, James Roche and Laura Ingraham.

Oh, boy. The whole front office of the neocon’s cuckoo’s nest.

Now tell me, dear reader, with friends like that; what should we really think about Kasparov’s performance in Moscow? Is he really interested in “democracy promotion” as he claims or is their acting out a script that was prepared in Washington?

In the US, Kasparov has become the focal point of the Russian elections—-the primary source of “unbiased” analysis. NPR reiterates his spurious claims every half hour. The other news agencies are no better. He has become the distorted lens through which Americans view Russian democracy. This says a lot more about the choke-hold the neocons still have on the media rather than anything objective about Russia.

The Kasparov fiasco gives us a chance to see the inner-workings of the establishment media. It’s nothing more than a propaganda bullhorn for far-right organizations executing their bloody imperial strategy. Fidel Castro summed it up best just days ago when he said:

“It is the most sophisticated media ever developed by technology, employed to kill human beings and to subjugate or exterminate peoples”.

Amen to that, Fidel.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18821.htm

Quand même DID n’y croit plus…

F-35 JSF Hit by Serious Design Problems (updated)

On May 3, 2007, during the 19th test flight of the prototype of the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a serious electrical malfunction occurred in the control of the plane. After an emergency landing the malfunction could be identified as a crucial problem, and it became clear that redesign of critical electronic components was necessary. Producer Lockheed Martin and program officials first announced there was a minor problem, and later on they avoided any further publicity about the problems…

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f-35-jsf-hit-by-serious-design-problems-04311/?camp=newsletter&src=did&type=textlink

Le F-35 est à l’aéronautique ce que John. Bolton est à la diplomatie…