Forum

Le problème pour le clan CHENEY est l’attaque initiale. Apparemment il est bloqué au sein même de l’administration BUSH.

Mais si l’attaque initiale était menée par ISRAEL ? (Israël dispose de plus de 100 F-16i “Soufa” capables de frapper tout le territoire Iranien).

http://www.aerocontact.com/news/ac_news_art.php?ID=00351

Etant donné que AHMADINEJAD ordonnerait une riposte par missile sur le territoire sacré d’ISRAEL, Une contre-attaque US aérienne massive serait déclenchée contre l’IRAN. (vu leurs liens ineffables et indéfectibles, même le congrès serait d’accord)

Et voilà le travail, ONCLE SAM pourrait montrer comment il peut casser un pays -sans intervention de troupes au sol- comme ils l’ont déjà fait en SERBIE.

Une participation du porte avions Charles de Gaulle apportant le soutient moral de la FRANCE est même possible, M. SARKOZY étant un soutien déclaré d’ISRAEL, “dont la sécurité est non-négociable”. 

(NB le Charles de Gaulle a participé ces derniers temps au bombardement de l’AFGHANISTAN en compagnie de l’USS Stennis)

Tout ceci n’est bien sûr que pure prospective, les risques d’une telle opération étant énormes. Quand prend on le plus de risques ? Quand on a plus rien à perdre. C’est le cas de BUSH et d’OLMERT (presque ‘démissionné’ en même temps qu’Amir Peretz il y a quinze jours…),

Alors QUAND ? je ferais une triangulation entre la fin du mandat de TONY BLAIR, la fin du mandat de BUSH, et la fin des législatives FRANCAISES…

L’abondance et la disponibilité des forces aériennes et navales pour cette opération ne pose pas de problème. (Avec ou sans les Français)

Mon commentaire précédent à pour origine la dépêche de RIA, qui parle d’un nouveau missile élaboré à partir des technologies du Topol.

« Le missile est construit en faisant appel aux solutions scientifiques, techniques et technologiques déjà réalisées dans le système Topol-M, ce qui a réduit notablement les délais et les frais de sa conception. »

http://fr.rian.ru/world/20070529/66292756.html

J’ai lu des commentaires disant leur surprise devant la ressemblance du RS-24 et du Topol, avant de conclure qu’il s’agit du même missile modifié (ce qui semble être le cas, juste une variante à têtes multiples-> http://www.russianspaceweb.com/topolm.html)

Quoi qu’il en soit, comme pour le R-500, il y a une certaine confusion dans les annonces autour de cet engin.

“The declaration by President Bush basically restates the U.S. classic line on climate change—no mandatory reductions, no carbon trading and vaguely expressed objectives,” EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said, according to his spokeswoman.

... “Mandatory reductions, carbon trading and specific commitment and timetables have allowed the EU to reduce its emissions by 1.5 percent in 2005 under the 1990 levels, while the U.S. has increased them by more than 16 percent in the same period,” Dimas had said.

( Bush climate plan “the classic U.S. line”: EU http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070601/ts_nm/climate_bush_eu_dc_3 )

Vous évoquez dans cette note la tribu des Cockburn et Counterpunch

“Cockburn, excellent journaliste et auteur, fait partie de la prolifique tribu des Cockburn (les frères Alexander, Andrew et David, Leslie, femme de Andrew), qu’on retrouve souvent sur CounterPunch, dont Alexander assure la co-édition avec Jeffrey St-Clair. Andrew Cockburn est sans aucun doute une source sérieuse et confirmée.”

Je suis bien d’accord pour Counterpunch.Mais je suis -perplexe- ! concernant “Alexander” dont j’ai pu lire un article publié en décembre 2006 dans le Monde Diplo “Le complot du 11 sept n’aura pas lieu”
Lien ci dessous
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2006/12/COCKBURN/14270

Je suis perplexe car je me serais attendu compte tenu de la ligne éditoriale de Counterpunch et de la production par ailleurs d’Alexander Cockburn à une position pour le moins nuancée sur le sujet,voir à l’opposée du conformisme et de l’auto censure de la presse MSM.
Une chose est sûre dans le Monde Diplo il s’incrivait totalement dans une optique de dénigrement des thèses contestataires et cela arrivait après un autre article M.D de septembre 2006 signé Lardellier encore plus dénigrant et pro MSM
Je me perds donc en conjectures sur les motivations De A.Cockburn dans cet article et de son caractère hors cadre, par rapport à sa ligne personnelle, à ce qu’il serait connu pour être par ailleurs ?

Et certes le 9/11 est dépassé d’une certaine manière.Après avoir traversé moi-même toutes sortes d’états d’esprit postérieurement à la découverte des théses de “l’inside job” j’ai ressenti moi aussi que l’essentiel était “Maintenant”
Pourtant je peux en témoigner c’est le point de départ dans mon cas d’une prise de conscience de ce que suite entre autres à la fréquentation de Dedéfensa j’appelle maintenant ,la crise systémique Américaniste.C’est cela qui m’a amené à réfléchir sur tout l’ensemble de la situation mondiale, à fouillé sur Le Web (et à y trouver Dedéfensa par exemple ) .

Et contre-exemple parmi mes proches (et pmoins proches) je constate que c’est ceux qui par principe ,comme par Tabou ! s’interdisent d’aborder cette question du 9/11 et s’efforcent de ridiculiser ceux qui osent “chercher” ,c’est ceux là, qui ont l’analyse la plus conformiste de ds la tranche d’Histoire qui a suivi et des développements actuels. Comme si leur grille de lecture,leur clé n’était pas bonne.

Qu’on m’explique enfin en quoi le fait pour un citoyen lambda de considérer comme possible un inside job, (ou même cas plus fort, le cas de ceux qui militent dans les associations type “reopen 9/11, scholars for 9/11 True,Etc… )en quoi ce fait peut démobiliser les énergies Anti-guerre ? comme le suggère A.Cockburn dans l’article cité

Loin de démobiliser, cela stimule.Inversement la perception de l’ampleur de l’insouciance du plus grand nombre pourrait, elle, décourager, et amener à se dire “que le monde et le système aille donc à son destin”, puisque il se laisse entrainer et semble même y prendre plaisir .
Voir aussi dans cet ordre d’idée : le découragement de Cindy Sheehan dans sa lettre récente, c’est bien l’apathie et l’hostilité des foules qui lui ont fait abandonner.

Vastes questions ?

... Jamais encore la planète n’a été si globalisée… avec des communications instantanées dans le monde entier. Jamais encore le capitalisme de marché n’avait été si bien considéré. Jamais encore tant de nouvelles personnes—en Asie, pour la plupart—n’avaient été si pressées d’entrer sur les marchés modernes.

Et jamais encore le système monétaire mondial, si on peut appeler ça comme ça, n’avait reposé sur un roseau si mince. Les Etats-Unis émettent des dollars papier. Ce dollar n’a pas de valeur intrinsèque. Son émetteur ne garantit rien du tout. Ce n’est qu’un morceau de papier, une note de la Réserve fédérale. Présentez-le à la banque de la Fed, si vous voulez. Tout ce que vous obtiendrez en échange, ce sera un morceau de papier tout à fait identique, rien d’autre. Malgré cela, les étrangers sont prêts à les accepter en échange de biens et de services ; les Américains sont prêts à les dépenser. Tout le monde est content. Mais la quantité et la qualité sont inversement proportionnelles, du moins en termes de marchés de changes internationaux. Plus il y a de dollars parcourant la planète, moins chacun d’entre eux a de pouvoir d’achat.

** Mais voilà le rebondissement unique qui fait de l’histoire de la finance mondiale en l’an de grâce 2007 un tel blockbuster : beaucoup de pays, sinon tous, gagnent leurs dollars en vendant des choses aux Américains. Un dollar en chute, signifiant une hausse de la monnaie locale, met l’économie “vendeuse” dans une position désavantageuse par rapport aux autres fournisseurs des Etats-Unis. La banque centrale locale imprime donc de nouveaux billets pour acheter les dollars—afin de contribuer à faire grimper le billet vert et baisser leur propre monnaie. Plus le dollar s’affaiblit… plus il faut imprimer de devise locale pour aider à le soutenir.

* Résultat n°1 : De l’argent, de l’argent, de l’argent… par milliers de milliards, partout, des billets de banque… de toutes les couleurs de l’arc-en-ciel… dans autant de langues que la tour de Babel… illustrés de héros nationaux, d’emblèmes, de ponts, de vitraux d’église… et que sais-je encore.

* Résultat n°2 : Une inflation des prix des actifs. Les actions chinoises ont quasiment doublé à ce jour cette année. Les travaux d’Andy Warhol se vendent pour des millions de dollars. Les prix des maisons de prestige grimpent en flèche.

* C’est le résultat n°3 qui nous intéresse à présent. Une bulle d’actifs spéculative basée sur l’inflation devrait être suivie par une correction… un krach… une contraction… un ralentissement… un vague sentiment de nausée… une journée de mauvaise humeur, au moins… mais peut-être aussi une dépression ! Quand ? Où ? Comment ? Nous n’en savons rien. Mais c’est bien ce qui rend tout ça si intéressant…

( http://www.la-chronique-agora.com/lca.php?id=1107 2007-06-01 Memento mori… rappelle-toi que tu vas mourir. Bill Bonner )

Ce sont plutôt les “sondés” de 1997 qui étaient un peu en retard sur les faits.
Quelle conjonction plus favorable pour le dévelopement industriels qu’un réservoir infini de mains laborieuses combiné à des langues sectionnées par un pouvoir fascisant.

Pourquoi «la petite Lituanie»? Consultez un atlas de l’Europe, là dans votre petite Belge.

Deux jours après ma réaction ci dessus je tombe sur la lettre de Cindy Sheehan La mère de Casey mort en Irak .
après des mois de combat pour la paix, surnommée “Peace Mom” découragée par l’inertie des citoyens et le verrouilage du “system” elle abandonne .
Sa lettre vaut le détour : en voici le lien :

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=14950

Et voici quelques lignes extraites :
“while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives.
It is so painful to me to know that I bought into this system for so many years and Casey paid the price for that allegiance. I failed my boy and that hurts the most.

et plus loin :

However, in five, ten, or fifteen years, our troops will come limping home in another abject defeat and ten or twenty years from then, our children’s children will be seeing their loved ones die for no reason, because their grandparents also bought into this corrupt system. George Bush will never be impeached because if the Democrats dig too deeply, they may unearth a few skeletons in their own graves and the system will perpetuate itself in perpetuity.
(...)but I am finished working in, or outside of this system. This system forcefully resists being helped and eats up the people who try to help it.

Good-bye America ...you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can’t make you be that country unless you want it.

It’s up to you now.

LA Times 2007-05-31 US Ranks As One Of World’s Least Peaceful Nations

The United States is among the least peaceful nations in the world, ranking 96th between Yemen and Iran, according to an index of 121 countries.
According to the Global Peace Index, created by the Economist Intelligence Unit, Norway is the most peaceful nation and Iraq is the least, just after Russia, Israel and Sudan.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/05/31/us-ranks-as-one-of-world_n_50130.html
———————————-

Toute la liste : http://www.visionofhumanity.com/rankings/

Cliquer sur un pays pour avoir des détails (tableau comparatif pratique)

SS-26 Iskander (et non Iks…) dans google on ne retrouve ainsi que les articles dedefensa.

La différence est (vraisemblablement) la capacité à envoyer des “véhicules de retour” multiples pour le RS-24.

Global Military Alliance: Encircling Russia and China
US sponsored military partnership in the Far East and the Pacific Rim

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Global Research, May 10, 2007
- 2005-10-05

Email this article to a friend
Print this article

Although Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and Japan are not formally members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), they are linked through military partnerships, affiliated government agreements, a network of partnerships, and bilateral military agreements with the United States and Britain.

The creation of a parallel NATO-like organization in the Far East and the Pacific Rim is part of the international brinkmanship of creating a unified global military alliance.  Ellen Bork, deputy executive director of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and Gary Schmitt, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, have advocated the creation of a military network in Asia similar to NATO in a paper on South Korea written in December of 2006. [1]  The PNAC is a U.S. think-tank whose members include Dick Cheney, George W. Bush Jr., Richard Perle, Lewis Libby, Karl Rove, Zalmay Khalilzhad, Richard Armitage, and Paul Wolfowitz.

The Militarization of Japan

“Japan and the NATO allies are facing the same threats.”  (Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, NATO Secretary-General)

Japan has gradually been amalgamating and harmonizing its military policies with those of the U.S. and NATO. Japan is deeply linked bilaterally and multilaterally to the U.S. military. Japan was controlled by the U.S. military for several years after the Second World War. In 1951 the Japanese government signed the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. This arrangement was expanded on January 19, 1960 with another bilateral treaty between Japan and the U.S. government.

Japan and South Korea are also both part of a grand U.S. military project involving the global stationing of missile systems and rapid military forces, as envisioned during the Reagan Administration. The global military project has been endorsed in Asia as a means to counter the alleged threat of a North Korean missile attack. China has also been identified as a justification for the development of a broad military alliance, involving an integrated military network in the Far East, Southeast Asia and the Pacific Rim.

The Japanese government has also signed its second ever bilateral security treaty with Australia to deepen security and military links. [2] Australia, under the Howard Government, is also heavily involved in military projects in the Asia-Pacific region and more specifically, in the context of a policy of encirclement, in the militarization of China’s eastern borders.

In January 2007, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe made a visit to NATO Headquarters in Brussels, and made subsequent visits, meeting with the leaders of Germany and Britain. In essence, this was a visit to NATO as a whole and to the two separate and defining core branches of NATO, the Franco-German entente largely represented by Germany and the Anglo-American alliance, represented by Britain and the US.  During the first trip by a Japanese leader to NATO Headquarters, the Japanese Prime Minister also pledged that Japan would work closely with NATO in Afghanistan. The continuation of an E.U. weapons embargo against China was also discussed. [3] Additionally, Japan already has military cooperation agreements with NATO.

In 1999, at a time of NATO enlargement and at the onslaught of NATO’s war against Yugoslavia, Japan and the U.S. launched the joint missile defense research program. [4] The Japanese government has also upgraded its Defence Agency into a full-fledged ministry constituting another breach of the Japanese Constitution. The Japanese government is also funding the deployment of the Patriot PAC-3 and the Aegis Standard Missile-3 (SM-3). Japan also allowed its territory to host U.S. military radar facilities linked to the global missile shield project. [5]

Japanese officials also want to revise the Japanese Constitution to allow Japan to formally join military alliances, such as NATO. The U.S., Australia, and NATO have been widely supportive of the Tokyo government’s resolve to militarize Japan.

The Japanese government is candidly in violation of Article 9 of the country’s Constitution, which stipulates that Japan cannot have a military force. In this regard, the Japanese government has initiated a process to amend the Japanese Constitution, which would pave the way for the formal formation of a military force in Japan. Japan has already started developing its military capabilities and armed forces. These legislative moves are designed merely as a step to legalize the underlying initiative.

The Japanese government has pushed forward its militarization agenda despite the fact that the majority of Japanese citizens are opposed to the militarization of their country. Legislation is now being passed through the Japanese Parliament that will allow the Japanese government to rewrite the Japanese Constitution. According to the Japanese Prime Minister this will allow Japan to “remove its limits on collective self-defence and on helping allies under attack.” [6]

Australia and the tightening of the Military Alliance in the Asia-Pacific Perimeter

Australia and Japan have established close military cooperation ties since the Cold War. Australian troops have integrated military operations and missions in Anglo-American occupied Iraq, together with Japanese troops, categorized as “non-combatant personnel.”

Australia and its government, led by Prime Minister John Howard, are members of the Anglo-American alliance and full party to their global military project. From the beginning, the Australian government has been in step with the Anglo-American alliance in the military roadmap unfolding under the banner of the “Global War on Terror.” Australian troops are deployed in the Balkans, Anglo-American occupied Iraq, and NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan.

The military forces of Singapore train in Australia. Australian special forces also actively operate in Southeast Asia and the Australian Navy has ships positioned from the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea and Pacific Ocean. Since December 2003, Australia has been a participant in the occupation of Iraq, is a partner in the international U.S. missile shield project, and has been a military research partner of the United States. [7]

Australia also has a role to play in crafting a military challenge to China. Australia has finalized a pact with Japan that is stronger than any of Japan’s defence ties with any country, aside from the United States. At the same time, Australia has entrenched itself further into the Anglo-American camp with the building of a new U.S. military base in Geraldton. Geraldton is in Western Australia, located underneath Indonesia and Malaysia, and faces East Africa and the Middle East from a distance. The new facility in Geraldton is on the Australian shores of the Indian Ocean. This military base follows three years of secret negotiations between the U.S. government and the Australian government. The military base is reported to provide an important link for a new network of international military satellites that will be used by the United States and its allies to fight wars in the Middle East and Asia. [8]

“I think the agreement is really looking at a realignment of security in East Asia, particularly with the ever-present rise of China,” said the head of the Asia security programme at the Royal United Services Institute in London. [9] The Indian Ocean is going to become militarized because of Chinese attempts to ensure the continuous flow and security of African and Middle Eastern energy supplies to China.

North Korea, China, and Russia are being demonized to justify the deepening military integration of Australia, Japan and several other Asia-Pacific nations with the United States and NATO. Isabel Reynolds an international correspondent in Japan reveals in an article for Reuters that the tightening security and military atmosphere in Japan and Australia is aimed at China and Russia;

“Whether or not there is an overt threat, Japan and the so-called ‘littoral allies’ [meaning countries such as the Philippines, Taiwan, and Singapore] in the region have got to address that,” he [military analyst Alex Neil] added.

North Korea’s nuclear and missile tests last year are a source of worry, and China’s shooting down of one of its own satellites with a ballistic missile in January [2007] aroused concern in many capitals.

“We are no longer in an age when either Japan or Australia can rely solely on the United States as an ally,” said military analyst Tetsuya Ozeki, who says both China and Russia are set to become equally influential in the region.” [10]

Australian Prime Minister John Howard, dismissed concerns that the depending alliance between Australia and Japan would harm ties with China. [11]

There are aggressive steps being undertaken by NATO and the U.S. to encircle Russia and China. What the agreement between Australia and Japan (along with the move by the Tokyo government to amend the Japanese Constitution) amounts to, is the formation of an Eastern flank against Russia and China and a parallel sister-alliance to NATO.

NOTES

    [1] Ellen Bork & Gary Schmitt, A NATO for Asia: Helping South Korea despite itself, The Weekly Standard, December 11, 2006.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/asia-20061211.htm

    [2] Australia in Japan security deal, British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), March 13, 2007.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6444207.stm
    [3] Judy Dempsey, Japanese signal new era in ties with NATO: Abe tells alliance it seeks security role, International Herald Tribune, January 12, 2007.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/12/news/nato.php

    [4] Japan’s Cabinet approves joint missile project with US, Xinhua News Agency, December 24,, 2005.

http://english.people.com.cn/200512/24/eng20051224_230550.html
    [5] John C. Rood, International Missile Defence: Challenges for Europe (Remarks to the 8th Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) Missile Defense Conference, London, U.K., February 27, 2007).

http://www.state.gov/t/isn/rls/rm/81242.htm

    [6] Japan moves to loosen army’s role, British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), April 13, 2007.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6553231.stm
    [7] Rood, Remarks to the 8th RUSI, Op cit.

http://www.state.gov/t/isn/rls/rm/81242.htm

    [8] Brendan Nicholson, US gets military base in Western Australia, The Age, February 15, 2007.

    [9] Isabel Reynolds, Defence pact in focus as Australian PM visits Japan, Reuters, March 10, 2007.

    [10] Ibid.

    [11] Howard backs Japan security deal, British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), March 10, 2007.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6437169.stm

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization specializing in geopolitical and strategic issues.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a frequent contributor to Global Research.  Global Research Articles by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Bonjour, je vous signale simplement que l’agence RIA Novosti propose une édition totalement en français de son site à l’adresse suivante:

http://fr.rian.ru

Pourquoi dès lors toujours citer RIA Novosti en anglais? Je trouverais plus juste de faire honneur à cette attention de l’agence envers le public francophone en se servant de cette édition. Et puis pour ceux de vos lecteurs qui ne savent pas l’anglais…

Une analyse de Stratfor:

NATO, U.S.: Ballistic Missile Defense and a Display of Unity
May 24, 2007

Summary

NATO is considering building a new ballistic missile defense site in southeastern Europe to protect its exposed flank. The announcement is a huge development in NATO-U.S. relations, which have been tense because the United States has been acting on its own for the past few years. Though not all the details of the system have been decided on or are even known, a move to cover this last Eastern European flank is a clear signal to Russia that Europe is theoretically protected under the U.S.-led NATO umbrella.

Analysis

NATO is considering building a new ballistic missile defense (BMD) site as an addition to the Greenland-U.K. radar system and the BMD system to be built in Poland and the Czech Republic. The new system will expand Europe’s BMD shield, giving it greater relevance and covering short- to long-range threats to Europe’s southern flank—Turkey, Bulgaria, Greece, Romania, the southern Balkans and southern Italy.

The idea of such a defense system has been circulating since 2002 but was not seriously considered until 2006. After a year of negotiations, the plan seems to be progressing; NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer met with U.S. President George W. Bush in Crawford, Texas, on May 21-22 to finalize plans for a June meeting of NATO foreign ministers on the topic in Oslo, Norway.

But why is this plan moving forward now—especially since BMD has not yet been proven effective? The plan shows how NATO is thinking about the future; not only is it putting defense systems in place to guard against a threat from the Middle East (specifically, Iran), but NATO also is making Russia very aware there is a BMD system next door. Besides that, this is a very significant step in showing a strategic reintegration of NATO and the United States instead of the United States taking international defense matters into its own hands.

From a technical standpoint, a BMD system in southeastern Europe makes perfect sense. Though the United States has satellites designed to detect Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles’ launch plumes, and those satellites can also spot missile launches elsewhere—such as in Iran—ground-based radars or specially modified Aegis warships must track the missiles’ flight paths to make intercepts possible. Essentially, the sooner the system can see the target, the more time it has to intercept it, and the more accurately that intercept can be plotted. A BMD system in southeastern Europe would expand the European missile shield’s field of vision.

In his press conference with Bush, Scheffer said negotiations for the new BMD site should involve NATO as a whole, unlike U.S. negotiations for the sites in the Czech Republic and Poland. Washington did not wait for Europe to get on board with those talks, negotiating instead with the two European states themselves. While most of Europe is not against BMD per se, it did object to defense negotiations of this scale being conducted bilaterally instead of with NATO’s European members as a whole.

This leads to another important fact about Europe’s BMD shield. The interceptors to be based in Poland do not really protect Poland; they are designed for high-altitude intercepts outside the atmosphere (such as intercepts on a ballistic flight path toward the continental United States). In most cases, BMD systems are pushed beyond national borders and positioned much closer to the launch site; this is why the United States is basing missile interceptors in Alaska and Poland to protect the mainland United States. Anyway, Poland and the Czech Republic are far more interested in the protection a U.S. military base on their soil will bring than in the protection of a BMD shield.

Thus, a NATO BMD system in southeastern Europe becomes even more significant in that it will, theoretically, be in a position to protect Europe. Japan’s position is a parallel to the BMD positioning requirements in Europe. Japan and the United States share a goal of protecting against a North Korean missile strike. However, their very different proximity to North Korea requires different foci. Interceptors to protect the United States can be stationed in Alaska; interceptors to protect Japan must be in Japan itself (and that might not even be close enough).

NATO’s proposed BMD system will be a mutually beneficial arrangement with the United States: The southeastern Europe system will give the United States better coverage for its ground-based midcourse interceptors based in Poland and the Czech Republic, and Europe will have a layered missile shield for its own protection in its southeastern periphery. Plus, Washington holds pretty much all the cards in Western BMD research (even the Israeli Arrow system was a joint project), so NATO will not be doing much without U.S. consent and support in this department.

It will be interesting to find out whether the new BMD site was a European initiative or a U.S. initiative. If the Europeans pushed the plan forward, most of the key EU players would have had to agree on it. Furthermore, if the initiative came from the Europeans, it is not only a reaction to the growing Russian and Iranian threats, but also an indication that Europe does not want to be left out of U.S. security plans. (A wave has swept through Europe recently, giving it the most Washington-friendly atmosphere it has had in decades.) If Europe’s major powers agreed to this new system, Russia will have almost no chance of playing Europe off the United States on defense issues as it has before.

If this is a U.S. initiative—which seems more likely—Russia could have an easier time turning certain European states against the U.S. plan, but it also means Washington has made a very clear choice for a military buildup to counter Russia. The United States already has shown that it is shifting its military sector from Western Europe to Eastern Europe, expanding its capabilities eastward and surrounding certain threats (Russia) with a military presence. This, along with the BMD bases, is a sign Washington is serious about expanding its reach and defensive capabilities.

Either way, Russia has made some recent and loud statements about military rejuvenation as it pulls out of various defense treaties, such as the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty and, later on, the -Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. But the United States—possibly with Europe on board—has countered by moving in on Russia’s western flank with BMD technology which, if it works as it is designed to, will seal off (in a very real way) Russian attempts to threaten the United States and Europe.

Copyright 2007 Strategic Forecasting Inc. All rights reserved.

Les Romains ont bien érigés des arcs monumentaux à la gloire de leurs batailles (conquètes victorieuse) il y a des siècles, et leurs temples ne sont plus que des ruines mais ils sont entrés dans l’histoire…Ne serait-ce pas ici un exemple de la folie d’un empire avec un empereur narcissique qui veut laisser une trace indélébile dans le nouveau millénaire?
Chacun sait comment ils ont finis…empoisonnés ou poignardés par leurs généraux ou mème un membre de leur famille!!!
C’est à l’image du dirigant sur le déclin…grotesque, vaniteu, et surement aussi laid que le national muséum de Whashington D.C…
Un monument à la gloire et l’infortune d’une défaite annoncé des plus mauvais généraux bureaucrate que les livres de classe des universités américaines auront a se souvenir…
Le Titre: Bildeberg, Illuminati, Skulls & Bones, le Retour du Jihad. Sous-titre: Comment le peuple veule & crédule ont avalé la pastille du Patriot Act.
Chapitre I: La mascarade des Twin Towers.
Chapitre II:Le congrès américains déclare l’ingérence mondiale sans demander à l’ONU.
Chapitre III:Sous le feux des insurgés Terroristes barbus & méchant (Ils ont une mauvaise haleine).
Chapitre IV:300 milliards de US$ plus tard…
Chapitre V: Le président-Empereur sioniste érige un mémorium en l’honneur du dieu Bush aux cotés de ses apotres près de la plus grande ambassade du monde a Badgad, Irak.
Chapitre VI:A la gloire du plus grand artchitecte de l’univers libéral perdu.
Chapitre VII: La fuite de l’empereur.
Des Témoins rapportent avoir vu trois navettes spatiale décoller le 11 septembre 2031. Le chargé de mission au sol a déclaré que la destination était top secrète, mais soupsonne la colonisation de la planète Mars…