Forum

Mes excuses aux amoureux du bon français et des images cohérentes pour le comique involontaire de « diamétralement opposé à leur valeur faciale ».

Je m’en voudrais de croire naïf le pertinent site De Defensa.Org , mais je doute précisément de ce point:

« Il nous semble hors de question, après une telle campagne tonitruante qui ne va faire qu’en rajouter dans les semaines restantes, qu’un candidat devenu Président sur une telle rhétorique (l’hypothèse d’un Sarko élu) puisse changer un iota dans la politique que la pression des circonstances et l’évidence française lui imposent. »

Vous montrez sans cesse sur votre site à quel point la politique actuelle , en Europe en France et ailleurs , est apte à multiplier les rapports fallacieux entre les valeurs , les discours et les actes.

Sarko a la plus grande décontraction possible comme prince électoral , personne ne fera de serments plus enflammés , et personne ne les oubliera plus vite .(ou ne leur trouvera après coup un sens diamétralement à leur valeur faciale.)

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2411393.ece

Is surge working? US commanders hail fall in Baghdad killings
Six weeks on, and America’s bid to quell the insurgency in the capital is showing signs of success. But violence throughout Iraq is as bad as ever. Raymond Whitaker and Rupert Cornwell report
Published: 01 April 2007

US military commanders in Iraq have accused insurgents of using children in suicide bombings and staging poison gas attacks in a campaign to undermine the month-old security “surge” in Baghdad and Anbar province.

The clampdown in the capital is credited with bringing a sharp reduction in civilian deaths in recent weeks, even though the number of attacks has remained fairly constant. “There are tanks and Humvees on every street corner,” said an independent observer who returned from Baghdad last week. “There is a real change of atmosphere from earlier this year, before the operation began.” According to David Kilcullen, senior counter-insurgency adviser to General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, heightened security has forced suicide bombers to detonate their devices at checkpoints well away from targets such as markets and other public gatherings, “killing far fewer people than intended, and far fewer than in similar attacks last year”.

Colonel Kilcullen, an Australian former special forces officer, added that several bombs failed to explode, “showing a loss of skill as key bomb-makers are taken off the streets”. Other reports show a steep decline in the number of bodies found dumped overnight, indicating that the “surge” is curbing the activities of death squads.

Civilian deaths in Baghdad were at record levels in the final months of last year, and remained high in January. Then, the start of the “surge” around 20 February saw the number of deaths fall in that month by more than two thirds, to 446. But the difficulty of maintaining the improvement was shown by events in March. Another reduction in deaths seemed on the cards until last Thursday, when two suicide attackers wearing explosives vests blew themselves up in a market in the mainly Shia Shaab district, killing nearly 80 people.

Though counter-insurgency officials point out that suicide bombers are increasingly being forced by the security measures to attack their targets on foot rather than in vehicles, and that it will never be possible to prevent all bombings until the populace has been won over by follow-up measures, the dramatic loss of life is still a setback. Yesterday a car bomb killed another five people outside the Sadrayn hospital in the sensitive area of Sadr City, the Shia stronghold in Baghdad.

So far directors of the “surge” have managed to steer a course between Shia and Sunni suspicions. The operation began with heavy fighting in Doura, a heavily Sunni area in the south of the city, followed by clashes in the mixed Haifa Street district. Early this month, American and Iraqi forces moved into Sadr City without resistance from the Mehdi Army of the radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. The onus is now on them, however, to show that they can prevent attacks by Sunni insurgents.

On Friday Nasser al-Rubaie, parliamentary spokesman for Mr Sadr’s bloc, gave crucial support for the operation, saying “there is no alternative ... except anarchy”. But those seeking to provoke anarchy are hitting back. The crackdown in Baghdad is driving violence into other areas, with the US military admitting last week that suicide and car bomb attacks in the whole of Iraq had jumped 30 per cent since the operation began.

Al-Qa’ida in Iraq is accused of involvement in a spate of bombings around Ramadi and Fallujah which have released chlorine gas, while a Pentagon spokesman, Major General Michael Barbero, pointed to two recent suicide attacks using children. In one, a car was allowed through a checkpoint because there were two small children on the back seat. The attackers later abandoned the car, allowing it to blow up with the children still inside.

More recently, an Iraqi police convoy was pursuing a suspicious vehicle in Anbar province. As they passed a 12-to-14 year old boy riding a bicycle, a bomb in his backpack exploded. “These acts - the use of poison gas and the use of children as weapons - are unacceptable in any civilised society and demonstrate the truly dishonourable nature of this enemy,” Gen Barbero said.

Col Kilcullen argued that attacks by Sunnis against members of their own community, including the first use of poison gas in Iraq since Saddam Hussein killed thousands of Kurds in Halabja in 1988, showed “an incredible level of desperation”. They were “own goals” which had contributed to a major shift in Anbar province, where he said only one out of 18 major tribes supported the Iraqi government a year ago. “Today 14 out of the 18 tribes are actively securing their people, providing recruits to the Iraqi police and hunting down al-Qa’ida.”

But Gen Petraeus and his advisers emphasise that their strategy, with the troop “surge” only due to be complete by the end of June, will take time - possibly years - to achieve results. President George Bush’s beleaguered administration in Washington needs dramatic success much more quickly.

TV news bulletins show daily rocket attacks on the supposedly secure Green Zone in Baghdad, and daily mass suicide bombings. While the capital may be getting marginally safer, all viewers in the US know is that slaughter is continuing on a daily basis in Iraq.

The Senate and House of Representatives have both voted for withdrawal next year as part of a military spending bill. All they have to agree on before sending the bill to Mr Bush is which month. The stage is set for a battle over hearts and minds in Washington which will rival any in Iraq for its influence on what happens to American forces on the ground. Unless the security operation in Baghdad can rescue Mr Bush, those conducting it are unlikely to be given the time they say they need.

Adjunct Professor of International Affairs

March 26, 2007

MEMORANDUM FOR: Colonel Michael Meese

Professor and Head Dept of Social Sciences

CC: Colonel Cindy Jebb

Professor and Deputy Head Dept of Social Sciences

SUBJECT: After Action Report—General Barry R McCaffrey USA (Ret)

VISIT IRAQ AND KUWAIT 9-16 March 2007

1. PURPOSE: This memo provides feedback on my strategic and operational assessment of security operations in both Iraq and Kuwait in support of US Central Command. Look forward to providing lectures to the Faculty Seminar and National Security Seminar during upcoming visit on 4 April 2007.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/Iraq%20After%20action.pdf

————————————————————————————————————————

These are the facts.

Iraq is ripped by a low grade civil war which has worsened to catastrophic levels with as many as 3000 citizens murdered per month. The population is in despair. Life in many of the urban areas is now desperate. A handful of foreign fighters (500+)—- and a couple of thousand Al Qaeda operatives incite open factional struggle through suicide bombings which target Shia holy places and innocent civilians. Thousands of attacks target US Military Forces (2900 IED’s) a month—-primarily stand off attacks with IED’s, rockets, mortars, snipers, and mines from both Shia (EFP attacks are a primary casualty producer)—-and Sunni (85% of all attacks—-80% of US deaths—16% of Iraqi population.)

Three million Iraqis are internally displaced or have fled the country to Syria and Jordan. The technical and educated elites are going into self-imposed exile—-a huge brain drain that imperils the ability to govern. The Maliki government has little credibility among the Shia populations from which it emerged. It is despised by the Sunni as a Persian surrogate. It is believed untrustworthy and incompetent by the Kurds.

There is no function of government that operates effectively across the nation—- not health care, not justice, not education, not transportation, not labor and commerce, not electricity, not oil production. There is no province in the country in which the government has dominance. The government cannot spend its own money effectively. ($7.1 billion sits in New York banks.) No Iraqi government official, coalition soldier, diplomat, reporter, foreign NGO, nor contractor can walk the streets of Baghdad, nor Mosul, nor Kirkuk, nor Basra, nor Tikrit, nor Najaf, nor Ramadi—-without heavily armed protection.

The police force is feared as a Shia militia in uniform which is responsible for thousands of extra-judicial killings. There is no effective nation-wide court system. There are in general almost no acceptable Iraqi penal institutions. The population is terrorized by rampant criminal gangs involved in kidnapping, extortion, robbery, rape, massive stealing of public property—-such as electrical lines, oil production material, government transportation, etc. (Saddam released 80,000 criminal prisoners.) 4

The Iraqi Army is too small, very badly equipped (inadequate light armor, junk Soviet small arms, no artillery, no helicopters to speak of, currently no actual or planned ground attack aircraft of significance, no significant air transport assets (only three C-130’s), no national military logistics system, no national military medical system, etc. The Iraqi Army is also unduly dominated by the Shia, and in many battalions lacks discipline. There is no legal authority to punish Iraqi soldiers or police who desert their comrades. (The desertion/AWOL numbers frequently leave Iraqi Army battalions at 50% strength or less.)

In total, enemy insurgents or armed sectarian militias (SCIRI, JAM, Pesh Merga, AQI, 1920’s Brigade, et. al.) probably exceed 100,000 armed fighters. These non-government armed bands are in some ways more capable of independent operations than the regularly constituted ISF. They do not depend fundamentally on foreign support for their operations. Most of their money, explosives, and leadership are generated inside Iraq. The majority of the Iraqi population (Sunni and Shia) support armed attacks on American forces. Although we have arrested 120,000 insurgents (hold 27,000) and killed some huge number of enemy combatants (perhaps 20,000+)—- the armed insurgents, militias, and Al Qaeda in Iraq without fail apparently re-generate both leadership cadres and foot soldiers. Their sophistication, numbers, and lethality go up—- not down—- as they incur these staggering battle losses.

US domestic support for the war in Iraq has evaporated and will not return. The great majority of the country thinks the war was a mistake. The US Congress now has a central focus on constraining the Administration use of military power in Iraq—-and potentially Iran. The losses of US Army, Marine, and Special Operations Force casualties in Iraq now exceed 27,000 killed and wounded. (Note: The Iraqi Security Forces have suffered more than 49,000 casualties in the last 14 months.) The war costs $9 Billion per month. Stateside US Army and Marine Corps readiness ratings are starting to unravel. Ground combat equipment is shot in both the active and reserve components. Army active and reserve component recruiting has now encountered serious quality and number problems. In many cases we are forced to use US contractors to substitute for required military functions. (128,000 contractors in Iraq—-includes more than 2000 armed security personnel.) Waivers in US Army recruiting standards for: moral turpitude, drug use, medical issues, criminal justice records, and non-high school graduation have gone up significantly. We now are enlisting 42 year old first term soldiers. Our promotion rates for officers and NCOs have skyrocketed to replace departing leaders. There is no longer a national or a theater US Army strategic reserve. (Fortunately, powerful US Naval, Air Force, and nuclear capabilities command huge deterrence credibility.)

We are at the “knee of the curve.” Two million+ troops of the smallest active Army force since WWII have served in the war zone. Some active units have served three, four, or even five combat deployments. We are now routinely extending nearly all combat units in both Iraq and Afghanistan. These combat units are being returned to action in some cases with only 7-12 months of stateside time to re-train and re-equip. The current deployment requirement of 20+ brigades to Iraq and 2+ brigades in Afghanistan is not sustainable.

We will be forced to call up as many as nine National Guard combat brigades for an involuntary second combat tour this coming year. (Dr Chu at DOD has termed this as “no big deal.”) Many believe that this second round of involuntary call-ups will topple the weakened National Guard structure—- which is so central to US domestic security. The National Guard Bureau has argued for a call up of only 12 months instead of 18 months. This misses the point—DOD will without fail be forced to also extend these National Guard brigades in combat at the last minute given the continuation of the current emergency situation.

Iraq’s neighbors are a problem—- not part of the solution (with the exception of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait). They provide little positive political or economic support to the Maliki government.

Our allies are leaving to include the courageous and well equipped Brit’s—by January 2008 we will be largely on our own.

In summary, the US Armed Forces are in a position of strategic peril. A disaster in Iraq will in all likelihood result in a widened regional struggle which will endanger America’s strategic interests (oil) in the Mid-east for a generation. We will also produce another generation of soldiers who lack confidence in their American politicians, the media, and their own senior military leadership.

L’Observatoire du communautarisme publie, en exclusivité, l’introduction du prochain essai de Pierre-André Taguieff, Les Contre-réactionnaires. Le Progressisme entre illusion et imposture (Denoël).

http://www.communautarisme.net/Les-Contre-reactionnaires-Le-Progressisme-entre-illusion-et-imposture_a915.html

http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8934738

NATO, Europe and missile defences
A few interceptors, a big gap

Mar 29th 2007
From The Economist print edition
Some old sores (and a few new ones, too) have been opened by Europe’s muddled reaction to America’s missile-defence plans

ON THE face of things, the argument is all about a handful of missiles which, whatever their wider role, will make no difference to the balance of power in Europe. But the deep, multiple fault lines that the row is laying bare—both within the Atlantic alliance, and between the alliance and Russia—seem all too reminiscent of cold-war politics at their dismal worst.

To cut a lengthening story short, America hopes to deploy parts of an anti-ballistic-missile system on the soil of two NATO allies: just ten fairly simple interceptors in Poland, and a radar system, able to track incoming missiles as they hurtle through space, in the Czech Republic. And senior Russians, especially the top brass, are growling in response. They are adamant that the new installations threaten their national security—despite America’s insistence that the interceptors are aimed only at stopping the rockets from rogue (potential) nuclear powers like Iran.

Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, gave the argument a new twist this week by asserting that shafts used for interceptors could easily be adapted to accommodate offensive weapons. At the same time, indignant Russians add, the new kit is not such a threat that they couldn’t deal with it easily. “Since missile-defence elements are weakly protected, all types of our aircraft are capable of applying electronic counter-measures against them or physically destroying them,” declared one general, Igor Khvorov, this month.

The American in charge of building the new shield, General Henry Obering, has painstakingly spelled out reasons why the system’s location should be a source of reassurance, not concern, to the Kremlin: the sites on NATO’s eastern flank are in the wrong place to stop missiles launched from Russian soil. Moreover, he added this week, France, Germany, Italy and even western Russia are all potential beneficiaries of a system that could, if it works, stop a missile from a pariah state in its tracks.

In any case, Russia’s strategic rocket force still comprises hundreds of launchers, and thousands of warheads; its capacity, like that of America, to annihilate any enemy will remain firmly intact. In franker moments—whether in the private comments of officialdom or the public words of President Vladimir Putin—the Russians admit that their firepower is not really threatened.

Nor can Russia claim to have been surprised. American officials reel off at least ten occasions when they discussed the missile-defence project with Russian opposite numbers. Both Robert Gates, the present defence secretary, and his predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld, told their Russian counterparts about the plan; General Obering has given a briefing in Moscow; and there have been two set-piece discussions in the NATO-Russian Council.

But the dishonesty is not all on the Russian side. Take the muddled reaction of politicians in Germany, and the unconvincing efforts by the left-right coalition to present a united front over the issue.

The instinctive reaction of Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Germany’s foreign minister and a member of the centre-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), was to rebuke America for “startling” Russia with talk of placing fancy new kit in the neighbourhood. “Because the stationing sites are getting closer to Russia, one should have talked with Russia first,” he chided. The SPD chairman, Kurt Beck, went further. He has called the missile-defence plan a prelude to an arms race, and said: “We don’t need new missiles in Europe.”

In a fitting response, perhaps, to an artificial row, Germany’s political masters have devised an artificial solution—at least to the internal German dilemma. Chancellor Angela Merkel, a Christian Democrat whose instincts are more Atlanticist than those of her coalition partners, has signalled through a spokesman that she wants to “NATO-ise” the issue of new missile defences.

What does that mean? Not much, in practice—but this ugly word reflects the political fact that to some European ears, the common deliberations, and ultimately common decisions, of NATO have a slightly softer, fuzzier sound than anything done unilaterally by the United States. NATO, after all, is a partnership in which all members, at least formally, have a say.

Others are now jumping aboard the “NATO-ising” bandwagon, including politicians in the Czech Republic, where a poll showed just 31% of voters in favour of the shield. According to the foreign minister, Karel Schwarzenberg, many Czech legislators would find it much easier to support the installation if “it could be included somehow in the NATO system”.

In hard military reality, the new system cannot be included. The radars and interceptors will be built by America, and controlled by America, and deployed by bilateral agreement with the hosts. If people hope for a non-American, or NATO, finger on interceptor buttons, they will be let down. In Berlin earlier this month, General Obering was asked whether his system should be brought into NATO. “I believe this system would complement NATO very nicely,” he replied carefully.

As it happens, NATO has for years been preparing for the more limited option of a theatre missile defence, which could indeed be jointly procured and managed by the alliance. But strategic interceptors, albeit few in number, are another matter: the Pentagon won’t share the keys with anyone. This week, a Pentagon official stated, at a congressional hearing, that the need for unanimous decision-making in NATO made it the wrong place to decide how missile defences should be deployed.

Even if it is phoney in parts, the missile-defence row cannot be shrugged off easily. Senior American officials find it dispiriting that Russia has again divided Europe. When Russian generals threatened to attack missile-defence sites in Poland and the Czech Republic, some European politicians fretted that Russia was being “pushed into a corner”, to quote Luxembourg’s foreign minister. The fact that Europeans are more protective of Russia than of their newish NATO partners does not bode well for alliance solidarity.

One centre-right German member of parliament, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, said it was “worrisome” that so many German voters, even on the right, proved receptive to Russian arguments. Mr Putin’s anti-American speech at a conference in Munich last month seems—as Mr zu Guttenberg puts it—to have been “rather ridiculous, but effective”.

Even among new NATO members where voters are broadly pro-American, affection is wearing thin, and the Iraq war’s toxic effect is being felt. Iraq explains why 51% of Poles opposed the missile-defence plan in one recent survey, says Radek Sikorski, an Atlanticist Pole who recently lost his job as defence minister amid a row over how exactly to negotiate with the United States over missile defences.

The Polish government may agree to host interceptors, but parliament could still say no, says Mr Sikorski: “This is blowback from Iraq. We used to take things on trust from the United States in the security field”—but that is no longer the case.

America wants a swift decision from Poland and the Czech Republic, ideally this year, so the first interceptors can be in place in 2011 (though Tony Blair’s offer of Britain as an alternative site for interceptor missiles remains on the table). Such assent is not a foregone conclusion.

The missile-defence row has also exposed a second fissure in NATO’s ranks, about the very idea of deterrence. The nuclear states, Britain and France, broadly agree that peace is guaranteed by great powers being able to deter threats credibly: hence France’s (discreet) support for an American shield.

But in some parts of Europe, America’s wish to keep a deterrent capability in the face of new threats is seen as destabilising. Mr Steinmeier asserted this month that peace was “no longer based on military deterrence but on the willingness for co-operation.” Others close to the SPD grassroots are blunter. Rolf Mützenich, an SPD spokesman on disarmament, argues that if missile defence gives a sense of “100% security” to Americans, “that will bring some problems for stability.”

As one NATO hand puts it, the row over missile defences has made plain a broader challenge to America’s moral sway over its old allies. Four years after the assault on Iraq, America can sound a warning about threats from rogue states—only to find many European voters would rather hear the opposite message from Russia.

pourquoi l’introduction est-elle en français? c’est curieux non? ce blog n’est-il pas fait uniquement pour ceux qui parlent anglais?

What about the possibility of pulling out of Iraq, letting Iran invade and lose resources fighting their own kind,
and then come in and mop up the dregs?

Après avoir lu votre dossier “la Commission Européenne et l’alerte à la crise climatique”, on se rend compte de la portée politique (et des possibilités de manipulation) de cette question.

J’ai découvert avec stupéfaction il y a quelques jours une vidéo, d’origine britannique apparemment, qui illustre ce fait en tentant de prouver l’inverse de ce qu’on entend dans tous les médias depuis plusieurs années maintenant (voir lien ci-dessous).

En résumé, le gaz carbonique (CO2) émis dans l’atmosphère par de nombreuses activités humaines (combustion de pétrole, de charbon, etc…) s’accumule et crée un “effet de serre” responsable du réchauffement de la température globale sur la terre. (rapports du groupe GIEC - ONU - 2.500 scientifiques cautionneraient ces rapports).

Eh bien, cette vidéo voudrait nous “démontrer” que c’est faux. Ce serait une fraude, tout simplement de la propagande. L’augmentation de CO2 serait une conséquence du réchauffement, et non pas la cause, qui serait naturelle, à savoir une augmentation de l’activité solaire.

Au delà de l’aspect scientifique, il y a des aspects politico-économiques énormes en jeu. En effet, si l’activité humaine (accumulation de CO2) est la cause du réchauffement et de son cortège de catastrophes climatiques, l’homme doit prendre des mesures rapidement pour gérer la situation. Mesures qui seront impopulaires et coûteuses, du moins au départ. Par contre si la cause est naturelle, on ne peut rien y faire, l’effet s’inversera tôt ou tard, et donc on peut se contenter de gérer les conséquences. Fameuse différence ...

J’avoue que j’ai de la peine à m’y retrouver dans ce sac de noeuds. Démêler les intérêts des partisans de l’énergie nucléaire (qui ne produit pas de CO2), des pétroliers (qui vendent de quoi fabriquer le CO2), des pays émergents (qui achètent en dollars ou en euros), des ultra libéraux, des écologistes, etc…, ça me dépasse un peu ...

Si d’aventure le sujet intéresse, je lirai les réactions avec grand intérêt.

Merci pour votre attention,

http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-4123082535546754758&hl=fr

Campagnol

En effet, on se demande comment une telle affaire ne s’est pas produite avant. - Et aussi comment, en menant une politique étrangère aussi américaine et dédaigneuse des européens continentaux, l’Angleterre aurait pu ne pas se retrouver seule devant cette situation. C’est le résultat d’une longue histoire. G. Orwell appelait cette “chose”:oceania, et le Royqume Uni “airstrip one”.
Il ne reste en effet à Blair qu’à assumer sa solitude (ah! perfide Albion!) face à des Européens sans doute enfermés dans leurs valeurs de confort démocratique et inertes. Et à observer si Bush est aussi solidaire qu’il le laisse croire.
Mais aussi, n’oublions pas que ces militaires sont en service commandé, et que ce sont eux qui pourraient bien servir de fusibles. Plus tard, bien plus tard, ils auront des médailles. Entre temps, Blair aurqit eu le temps d’attendre, et de saliver lentement pour avaler les couleuvres américaines.
Car, c’est ça, “Océania”. Vous savez: “la paix, c’est la guerre”, etc.
Yodalf

bonjour,
A Berlin se sont invités les peuples non invités a travers un sondage,qui n’est bien sur qu’un sondage:

Le premier sondage indépendant de tous les 27 Etats membres de l’Union européenne, publié pour coïncider avec le sommet de Berlin

23 March 2007

COMMUNIQUE DE PRESSE : SOUS EMBARGO JUSQU’AU 23 MARS 22 00H GMT

Le sondage a été réalisé par TNS par téléphone et interviews face à face en mars 2007, auprès d’un échantillon de 17,443 personnes âgées de 18 ans et plus. TNS a sondé l’opinion de 1,000 personnes en France, Allemagne, Italie, Espagne, Pologne, Grande-Bretagne et Roumanie, et 500 personnes dans tous les autres états membres. En Bulgarie, La République Tchèque, Estonie, Hongrie, Lettonie, Lituanie, Pologne, Slovaquie et Roumanie, les sondages ont été menés par interviews face à face. Dans tous les autres pays les interviews ont été menés par téléphone.

http://openeurope.org.uk/media-centre/pressrelease.aspx?pressreleaseid=32  

Mais de quoi parle t’on?
Du principe d’un texte (pour l’instant, ne précisons pas s’il s’agirait d’un traité ou d’une constitution)nécessaire à l’organisation de pouvoir plus étendus pour l’Union Européenne et ses institutions, en substitution des prérogatives des états membres?
Ou parle t’on du contenu dudit texte, sans discuter de son opportunité qui paraîtrait acquise?

Oui, la distinction entre constitution et traité est importante, et pas seulement parce que l’une me paraît devoir être soumise aux dispositions de l’article 89 de la constitution, tandis que l’autre relève des articles relatifs aux traités, européens ou pas, d’ailleurs. Cette distinction importe aussi du fait de l’importance du texte, de son effet sur les institutions françaises.

Quoiqu’en disent les médias et politiques, le rejet du projet de 2005 était aussi le fait de personnes rejetant de nombreuses parties du texte, après l’avoir lu! De nombreuses dispositions étaient l’image d’un recul démocratique, sinon social, par rapport à l’état actuel du droit français, à l’exemple de l’initiative de présenter des lois au vote de l’assemblée…

Que l’on accepte de voir se créer un espace européen, que l’on accepte qu’il est alors nécessaire de créer un corpus législatif dans ce but, n’empêche pas d’abdiquer toute lecture critique des textes en question et de pouvoir refuser toute disposition qui viendrait diminuer les droits issus de la représentation populaire, par exemple.

C’est pour cela que paraît vraiment pathétique et révoltant ces efforts désordonnés pour imposer aux peuples européens un texte, qu’il soit qualifié de traité ou de constitution, sans consultation, et surtout d’en refuser une élaboration citoyenne au profit d’une rédaction par quelques technocrates politiquement orientés.

Quelle tristesse, lorsque j’ai appris que le texte qui devait représenter un acte de naissance d’une nouvelle “nation européenne” serait rédigé par Giscard d’Estaing, homme du passé, sinon du passif (sic…)

Pour élaborer une constitution, toute société se doit d’abord de disposer d’une représentation populaire crédible et capable de former une assemblée constituante qui élaborera etproposera le texte aux citoyens; pour faire ratifier un traité, c’est la consitution française qui doit s’appliquer.

Un traité constitutionnel n’existe pas en droit. Et jouer sur une définition aussi vague ne prouve que le trouble des gouvernants européens.

China paying in euros for Iranian oil : Reuters http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/27/business/euros.php

Une autre guerre à ajouter à la liste dans “Coûts, méfaits et dangers du dollar” par Rudo de Ruijter 06/03/2007 http://www.europe2020.org/spip.php?article402&lang=fr

Les anglo saxons ouvrent les yeux?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1oPEfa9Lws

“Une peur étouffante règne sur l’Amérique” : cet article de Robert Fisk racontant une conférence donnée deux fois la même semaine, à l’université du Caire et le campus de Valdosta, dans le Deep South des Etats-Unis, exprime avec très grande vigueur cette peur.

juste un extrait : “Et je réalise que la fille au séminaire du Dr Noll n’avait pas débité ce truc à propos des « djihadistes » qui viendraient d’Iraq en Amérique parce qu’elle soutient Bush. Mais parce qu’elle est tout simplement effrayée. Elle a réellement peur de toutes ces alertes à la « terreur », ces prétendues menaces « djihadistes », ces alertes rouges à la « terreur », ces alertes pourpres et tous ces autres instruments aux couleurs classées de la peur. Elle croit son président, et son président a fait le travail à la place d’Osma bin Laden : il a broyé la détermination et le courage de ces jeunes femmes.

Mais l’Amérique n’est pas en guerre. Il n’y a pas de coupures d’électricité sur le campus chaud et verdoyant de Valdosta avec ses bâtiments de style espagnol et sa belle église étroite. Il n’y a pas de rationnement de nourriture. Il n’y a pas d’abris antiaériens, ni de bombes, ni de « djihadistes » chassant ces gens pieux. C’est l’armée américaine qui est en guerre, engagée dans un conflit iraquien qui provoque des dégâts d’une façon bien plus subtile à la structure sociale de l’Amérique.”

à lire : http://www.protection-palestine.org/impression4762.html