Forum

Fatiguant de tourner autour du pot dans votre cuisine…
Selbourne, Finkelkraut, Sarkozy, est-il tellement dangereux de demander gentiment leur « religion » à ceux qui nous prêchent ?

Lorsqu’il écrit « The principle of duty : an essay of the Foundations of the Civic Order », Selbourne prévient honnêtement (mais sans rien éclaircir) : « c’est en tant que citoyen parmi les citoyens que j’ai écrit cet essai, en tant que citoyen-étranger juif ». Plus loin il disserte sur le Juif éthique et le Juif ethnique pour apaiser le paradoxe du devoir de « l’étranger » vis-à-vis de l’État.
Un de ses autres écrits (pas très original le coup du manuscrit apocryphe, Voltaire en use avec une autre subtilité) « La Cité de Lumière » n’est qu’une glose vicieuse propre à berner les amateurs de romans historiques qui adorent croire que le terme de roman n’est qu’un clin d’oeil pour révéler les plus grands secrets (Voir les « romanquêtes » du sinistre -de gauche- BHL). Jacob d’Ancône ! Bien sûr pas un Goyim, bien sûr bien avant Marco Polo (même si pour ce dernier on ne soit pas sûr de grand’ chose : cf. les travaux de Frances Wood)

« The Losing Battle Against Islam »  une resucée haineuse de Bernard Lewis et de l’infâme Huntington.

«L’Angleterre a perdu son identité et le sens de la nation» Pas si sûr ! En tout cas, est-ce à un vieil agent de désinformation, piètre écrivain et moraliste éventé confortablement installé au soleil d’Italie de le prétendre ?

Sarko et l’État, Sarko et la Nation ! Est-il vraiment utile de demander à une mouche posée par erreur sur le dictionnaire philosophique de nous faire la lecture ?

Pourrions nous une fois, une fois seulement, débattre des choses humaines en regardant ailleurs que dans le prisme obligatoire de ces petits maîtres à juger qui sont en fait une partie du problème ?

J’avais depuis quelques temps noté des similitudes entre le trident de Bush (Afghanistan Irak et peut-être l’Iran) et celui de Hitler lancé contre les principales villes d’URSS et au sud vers les pétroles du sud soviétique. Les deux tentatives sont parallèles et décalées de quelques degrés et ont finalement des objectifs très proches. Il s’agit dans les deux cas de s’emparer des ressources de “peuples inférieurs”.

Voilà que l’article de defensa.org reprenant celui de Lind vient donner corps à des pressentiments que je n’osais pas formuler en comparant l’Irak à Stalingrad (et l’Afghanistan à Léningrad ?)... On se souvient que l’Allemagne nazie disparut suite à cette erreur. Qu’adviendra-t-il des US qui sont dans une position économique critique si le scénario du plan Barbarossa se répète ?

Le message virtualiste français (sa civilisation transcendante et régulatrice à l’aune d’une histoire au messianisme universel) et la réalité de sa dérégulation :

... Ilfaut rappeler ici que tout le système bancaire français, en faisant pression sur Jacques CHIRAC, a obtenu une dérogation pour une règle acceptée par toute l’Europe :

« Cette norme, appelée IAS 39, avait justement pour objet d’éviter une catastrophe du type de celle qui se produit aujourd’hui. Elle obligeait les banques à informer au quotidien et en fonction des évolutions du marché de la réalité de leurs positions. » (Figaro 28 janvier 2008, ibidem)

Motif invoqué pour demander cette dérogation : le coût trop élevé de sa mise en œuvre !

Aujourd’hui, nous dit Philippe DESSERTINE, on a une ardoise de 7 Milliards € et le démantèlement probable de la Société Générale reconnue comme un grand spécialiste mondial de produits financiers complexes …
Pour conclure, Philippe DESSERTINE se lâche :

« Alors il faut le proclamer dans ce climat délétère : honte à ceux qui érigent le secret en modèle de gestion ! Honte à ceux qui camouflent leurs pertes tant et plus, honte à la désinformation qui domine dans les médias de l’Hexagone quant à la réalité de la crise actuelle ! Qui sont les experts convoqués (…) ? Des chefs économistes de banques, qui, par la nature de leurs fonctions, se doivent d’être optimistes. (…) ce sont leurs déclarations lénifiantes depuis le mois d’août 2007 qui empêchent le pays de se préparer à la réalité qui l’attend. » (Figaro 28 janvier 2008, ibid.)

L’écoeurement nous gagne aussi.

http://www.alexandreanizy.com/article-16358916.html

NB Philippe DESSERTINE, Directeur de l’Institutde haute finance (IHFI), professeur à l’université Paris-X.

Pour bien comprendre la crise economique americaine, il y a 3 parties essentielles:
- L’avant 1907: le modele americain ressemblait fortement au modele europeen du 20ieme siecle; enfin d’apres ce que je m’apercois vu d’ici dans ma ville du Bayou.

- L’apres 1907 jusqu’en 1970: c’est la date marquante ou ce n’etait plus le President qui dirigeait le pays mais les institions financieres. Theodore Roosevelt des 1907 provoqua une crise de confiance et les actionnaires se rebifferent et la crise fut repetee de maniere bien plus profonde avec le krach boursier dans les annees 30 avec FDR. C’est la periode marquante dans l’histoire socio-economique des USA. Les deregularisations ont pris place lentement mais surement poussant la nature humaine dans une nouvelle perspective ultra-economique: les Americains vivent pour travailler et desormais ils n’arrivent plus a separer leur vie professionnelle de leur vie familiale. Les changements economiques ont fortement marque le changement des mentalites americaines durant ces 100 dernieres annees.

- Les annees 70 les annees 90 - le 11 septembre jusqu’a maintenant: une reforme financiere qui n’aboutit a rien car il est trop tard. On reforme d’abord en 1973, puis en 77, (“Metcalf report”) puis on reforme les reformes en 90, puis 95 avant de les re-reformer en 2001 et rien ne change.

Le monde financier americain et europeen compris, tel que je le connais, est malsain car malhonnete. Bien avant la revolution americaine, il y avait deja des pratiques de fraudes, aussi incredule que la pratique de l’esclavage, ou les courtiers en assurances revendaient aux encheres les assurances-vie des Americains malades de plus de 65 a Londres. Les primes militaires aussi des veterans de la premiere guerre mondiale n’ont jamais ete payees par le gouvernement americain jusqu’a 1945 ou bien ils attendaient la mort emminente du veteran pour etre sur qu’il ne toucherait jamais sa prime militaire. Cette pratique, incorrecte et immorale en Europe, est tout a fait ancree dans les moeurs americaines. Par exemple aux USA il est possible de transferer son assurance-sante ou de la revendre a qqn d’autre surtout avec l’arrivee du SIDA aux USA. Des gens atteinds du SIDA ont revendu leur assurance-sante cotees alors $500,000 pour $75,000 (ca s’appelle “viatical contracts” en anglais).
Ca fait 100 ans que les Americains se sont laisses bercer pour leur gouvernement et ils ne se sont pas encore reveilles.
C’est pareil pour l’Europe de toute facon avec Jean-Claude Trichet (le nom devoile le comportement du personnage d’avance) dans le scandale financier du credit lyonnais dans les annees 90.
And the list goes on and on.

Franklin Roosevelt, meme si il avait un cote populiste, etait issu d’une famille qui avait fait des speculations financieres et fonde leur richesse sur le commerce d’opium avec la Chine.
Le systeme financier est completement pourri depuis 1907 ou il est possible de faire fortune en 1 jour en pariant des sommes gigantesques. A l’epoque du boom Internet La premiere societe a avoir donne l’exemple etait Netscape en 1995 (dont je connais bien son cofondateur) ou leurs actions sont passes de $28 a $58 le premier jour de cloture avec plus de 13 millions d’actions. Si j’ai bonne memoire rien que l’ensemble d’actions du monde internet dans les annees 90 representent le volume integral de transactions financieres des annees 60.

Il y a un gros probleme aux USA dans la finance ou les “corporates executives” preferent donner des actions plutot que des salaires a leurs employes, et le but est de s’assurer que le montant de leurs actions ne flechira pas, quitte a mentir aux investisseurs et aux actionnaires. Lorsque vous lisez leur ‘press release’ la plupart du temps ce n’est que du pipeau; l’objectif principal de ces gens-la est de faire comme si tout est beau dans le meilleur des mondes. Les crises en fait sont la perception des gens face au monde financier.

Les scandales financiers helas sont partie integrante de la culture americaine depuis les annees 30, et il semblerait que les choses se sont empiraient juste apres le crash du 11 septembre ou pas un jour ne se passait sans un scandale (Enron, Tyco, ...etc) La societe americaine est avant tout une societe qui nous demande de faire de l’argent, alors les gens n’hesiteront pas a employer n’importe quel moyen pour y arriver. Nous vivons dans une societe materialiste avant tout (vive le post-modernisme).

Cette annee aux USA le gouvernement a decide de donner $600 par tete d’habitant y compris aux gens qui font plus de $100,000 par an afin d’eviter la crise qui reprendra des plus belles a partir du mois de Mai.

Au fait jetez un coup d’oeil sur le trailer de mon dernier documentaire: http://www.whowillstand4us.com/trailer.html
Le shooting est fini, il ne reste plus qu’a assembler le film qui sera disponible en juin 2008 si tout se passe bien. Apres cela, il y aura un nouveau documentaire sur la crise aux USA.

++

Russia challenges US in the Islamic world

By M K Bhadrakumar

When US President George W Bush named Karachi-born Pakistani American Sada Cumber as the first US envoy to the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), the White House announcement of February 27 almost passed off as pork-barrel politics on the part of a lame-duck administration. Cumber is a Texan entrepreneur - and so was Bush.

Cumber is founder of CACH Capital Management based in Austin, Texas, which is a high-performance wealth management firm with acumen and expertise in rendering advisory services to Muslim countries flushed with disposable petrodollar sovereign wealth funds. But then wouldn’t Bush know the OIC is not an institution for investment selection and portfolio structure?

White House press secretary Dana Perino explained that Bush considered the OIC to be an important organization and that’s why he appointed a special envoy. She said, “The [OIC] has a constructive role to play in the world, and the president is signaling our desire to have a greater dialogue with the organization as well as Muslims around the world.” But the OIC has been existence for 39 years - and Muslims for over a millennium. Why now?

In June last year Bush first articulated the thought of deputing an envoy to the OIC. Why the delay? When the media asked Perino why Bush had taken so long, she merely said, “He [Bush] wanted to find the right person and he found that in Sada Cumber.”

Islamic card in Kosovo
There is reason to believe, however, that it was in the month of February that the Bush administration woke up to a new reality that cultivating the 57-member OIC could indeed make all the difference in the years to come. Around that time, Washington almost instinctively played the “Islamic card” against Moscow, and found to its dismay that what used to be a highly dependable and potent trump card in Cold War politics is no longer so, and, in fact, it turned out to be a dud card.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov succinctly captured Washington’s “OIC heartache” when he commented in an interview with the government newspaper Rossiskaya Gazeta, “It is not without meaning that many nations, including Islamic states, do not intend to recognize Kosovo’s independence.”

With a touch of sarcasm, Lavrov underscored post-Soviet Russia’s reversal of roles with the US in the Muslim world. He added, “I would like to caution against the temptation to succumb to exhortations that are coming from non-Arab and non-Islamic countries but are addressed precisely to Islamic countries to display Islamic solidarity and recognize Kosovo. For, the situation in Kosovo is the most striking example of ethnic separatism.”

He was cautioning the Islamic world to be wary of the US attempt to “Islamize” the geopolitical setting in the Balkans. He warned, “Disturbances have also begun in other regions of the world. To encourage separatist tendencies, I believe, is immoral. You see what is happening in China’s autonomous region of Tibet, the way the separatists are acting there ... And then developments in other parts of the world as well suggest that we see only the beginning of an extremely explosive process. And those who follow this path should not call for a show of solidarity, whether Islamic or Euro-Atlantic. They ought to think of their responsibility in the first place.”

Soon after his interview in Moscow, Lavrov set out on yet another extended tour of the Middle East, but starting with the eleventh summit of the OIC at Dakar, Senegal, on March 13, which was he attending as an “observer” for the second time in a row.

Among the many laurels that Russian President Vladimir Putin gathers as his eight-year tumultuous stewardship in the Kremlin draws to a close, it is often overlooked that history will most certainly judge him as a great bridge-builder between Russia and the Muslim world. Putin’s achievement is extraordinary since Russia had a complex, difficult and hugely controversial relationship with the Islamic world for the better part of the last century.

To be sure, Putin’s effective handling of the Chechnya problem helped remove a potentially debilitating embarrassment with regard to the Muslim world. But that shouldn’t detract from the singular success of his policy in ensuring that no adversary can today hope to get away with manipulating the Muslim world against Moscow in “civilizational” terms in the fashion in which the West managed to do through the Soviet era.

Russia, instead, today is well placed to offer its good offices to mediate a dialogue of civilizations between the Christian West and the Islamic East. In fact, Lavrov in his speech at the Dakar summit of the OIC drew the attention of the Islamic world to the “situation of Muslims in the European countries and the attempts by some politicians to stir up Islamophobia”.

Religions as a panacea for conflicts
Being no longer a citadel of atheism has certainly helped the Kremlin. But it is altogether a new level of exhilaration of the mind and intellect to be able to transmute the newfound religious belief into a hardcore political agenda. Lavrov went on the offensive at Dakar and assured the OIC that Russia is determined to “make its major contribution to ensuring Europe’s civilizational compatibility and promoting tolerance, in particular towards different faiths”. He expressed hope that “a Christian Europe would have been able to find common grounds with other religions more easily”.

In a major political initiative at Dakar, Lavrov sought the support of the OIC for a Russian proposal that an “advisory council of religions” should be set up under the auspices of the United Nations, predicated on the estimation that “the involvement of the religious factor could be of help in settling different conflicts through strengthening confidence and concord of all parties based on international law with full respect of the UN role in international affairs”.

The proposal altogether elevates Moscow’s two-year “dialogue” with the OIC since it gained observer status in the organization to a qualitatively new level. Moscow would know that Washington cannot match the Russian initiative, but at the same time would be hard-pressed to oppose it. Washington’s predicament is that it has no effective way of countering Moscow’s insistent claim that as a multinational and multi-faith society with a centuries-old history, “Russia is also a part of the Islamic world”, to quote Lavrov.

Moscow identifies with Palestine
But it isn’t a matter of oneupmanship. Russia currently enjoys several advantages over the US. The entire regional scenario in the Middle East is loaded against the US. The Bush administration is seen as primarily motivated by Israeli interests. There is a pervasive trust deficit even among the old US allies.

Israel-Palestine relations have deteriorated recently. The acute humanitarian crisis has further deepened in Gaza, compounded by the mindless Israeli military operations with tacit US support. The level of violence has increased sharply since mid-January. The peace process of the Annapolis conference of last November has run aground. The continued exclusion of Hamas by Israel and the US as a full-fledged political participant makes nonsense of the peace process.

On all these fronts, Russia today happens to be standing on the right side of the fence. Moscow has stepped up consultations and coordination with Syria; it unequivocally condemns the construction of Jewish settlements; it seeks the lifting of the Israeli blockade against the Palestinian territories; it keeps in regular touch with the Hamas leadership - Lavrov again met Khaled Meshal in Damascus last week, and, furthermore, he has got Israel to learn to live with such contacts.

The resonance of Russia’s Middle Eastern stances in Arab opinion is extremely favorable for Moscow. Meanwhile, Iraq weighs around the American neck as an albatross. Moscow has sized up that the US is bogged down in a protracted guerrilla war in Iraq. As a Moscow commentator wrote recently, “The end of this conflict is not in sight. Intensive mine warfare is being waged on Iraqi roads. Not a single allied convoy passes without an explosion. Road mining has assumed such a scale that the US Air Force is using its strategic B-1B bombers for remote mine clearance. Weapons and ammunitions are freely crossing Iraq’s lengthy and difficult-to-control borders, while the continued occupation is increasing the mobilization potential of the guerrilla movement.”

Again, if three quarters of politics in the Middle East are about public perceptions, it works to the advantage of Moscow when it insinuates that American oil companies are siphoning off Iraq’s oil wealth and are making a killing out of high oil prices (though these are also provideing Russia with a windfall); that the US strategy is to establish political and military control over the region; that the US “simply does not want stabilization in Iraq, and will keep a sustained conflict”; that the Bush administration may deliberately launch an intensive air attack against Iran with the sole purpose of crippling Iran’s military and economic infrastructure, which would make Tehran’s “claims to regional leadership unrealistic for a long time to come”, to quote Moscow commentators.

Russia is now shifting gear and is extending its involvement in the Middle East by directly challenging the US’s traditional dominance of the region. Lavrov made as the signal tune of his

regional tour the Russian proposal to sponsor an international conference on the Middle East. The Arab countries have nothing against the Russian proposal, though they doubt its efficacy, but Israel bristles. Moscow is aware that Washington expects Israel to stifle the proposal. The issue, again, becomes one of public perceptions. Lavrov tauntingly told the Western media while on a visit to Paris on March 11, “My trip to the Middle East next week will make it clear finally who is ready for a [international] conference, and who is not. If all the parties are ready for that, we will hold such a conference.”

Lavrov claimed all the so-called Quartet members - the US, the European Union, the United Nations and Russia - have “already shown an interest” in Moscow hosting the international conference. Washington would be seething with irritation that it couldn’t afford to publicly contradict the Russian claim.

Similarly, the Kremlin’s policy criss-crosses the “Shi’ite-Sunni” divide that the Bush administration meticulously tried to erect on the Middle East and the Persian Gulf chessboard in recent years. Moscow stresses the “civilizational” aspect of the crisis and dilutes the relevance of the sectarian barriers that the US encourages in the Muslim world. In his message to the Dakar summit, Putin stressed the “danger of the world divided between religions and civilizations”, while he called for efforts “aimed at preventing an inter-faith and inter-ethnic divide”.

To be sure, the Russian policy spontaneously strikes a chord of affinity in the Muslim psyche when Moscow blames the Western world for portraying Islam as a religion that drives international terrorism, whereas, the issue, Russian thinkers maintain, really concerns manifestations of Islamic fundamentalism. As the doyen of Russian “Orientalists” and former prime minister Yevgeny Primakov wrote in an essay some two years ago when the Kremlin’s new thinking towards the Muslim world began to surface, “Islamic fundamentalism is about building mosques, observing Islamic rites, and providing assistance to the faithful. But aggressive, extremist Islamic fundamentalism is about using force to impose an Islamic model of governance on the state and society.”

With a strong undertone of irony, Primakov pointed out, “History knows of periods when Christian fundamentalism grew into Christian-Catholic extremism: Remember the Jesuits or the Crusades.”

Economic gains of friendship
But everything in the Russian policy is not about politics and history, either. Ultimately, Moscow places emphasis on the expansion of economic interests. The “peace dividend” of Russia’s growing friendship with the Islamic world is already not inconsiderable in economic terms. In January, for instance, Russia won an US$800 million tender to construct a 520-kilometer railway line in Saudi Arabia. The Russian arms export monopoly, Rosoboronexport, is on record that Russia was discussing supply of T-90 tanks and armored vehicles to Saudi Arabia worth $1 billion.

Again, Russia delivered to Egypt upgraded S-125 Pechora-2M and Tor M-1 air defense systems despite US control over Cairo’s military-technical policy. On Tuesday, Russia signed a path-breaking agreement with Egypt allowing Russian companies to build nuclear power plants in Egypt and envisaging Russia providing training for Egyptian nuclear technicians and supplying nuclear fuel.

Evidently, Cairo expects that cooperation with Russia will be more advantageous since the US imposes strict conditions, including regular inspections and control. The US has been pressuring Egypt to place its nuclear program under American control, even as a tender is expected to be floated later this year for Egypt’s first nuclear power plant estimated to cost about $2 billion.

Indeed, politics and business are developing between Russia and Egypt on parallel tracks. Speaking after the signing of the Russia-Egypt nuclear power agreement in Moscow, Putin said in the presence of visiting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak that the two countries will work together as “mediators” to end Israel-Palestine violence and that they saw eye-to-eye on the criticality of an accord between Hamas and Fatah before progress could be made on forming an independent Palestinian state.

No less important is the return of the Russian oil company LUKoil to Iraq. The company had a contract with the regime of Saddam Hussein, signed in 1997, to develop Iraq’s largest oil field, West Qurna-2, which has estimated reserves of about 6 billion barrels of oil.

On Wednesday, following talks in Baghdad by a Russian team led by Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Saltanov, the prospects have brightened for reviving LUKoil’s production-sharing agreement over West Qurna-2. (Chevron has been reportedly keen to jettison LUKoil and secure West Qurna-2). Again on Wednesday, one of Russia’s largest engineering firms in the oil sector, Stroytransgaz, signed a protocol on reconstructing the Kirkuk-Baniyas pipeline connecting north Iraqi fields to the Syrian port of Baniyas.

Coincidence or not, the very next day, on Thursday, a Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman said in Moscow, “We are urging political and religious leaders in Iraq to do their utmost to end this fratricidal conflict, creating the necessary conditions for building a democratic and prosperous state. Moscow is convinced that a path to settling the crisis in Iraq lies through comprehensive dialogue, the search for compromise, and the achievement of real national reconciliation and accord between all ethnic and religious communities in the country.”

The Russian challenge is indeed becoming serious for Washington. Kosovo was a wake-up call over the decline of US influence and the rise in Russia’s prestige in the Islamic world. Conceivably, the White House press secretary had a point when she admitted Bush had a hard time locating a personality endowed with the genius of a Renaissance man to be the US’s special envoy to the OIC. Cumber’s background at CACH Capital does give him a keen insight into how economic integration affects the political and cultural relationship between the US and the Muslim world.

M K Bhadrakumar served as a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service for over 29 years, with postings including India’s ambassador to Uzbekistan (1995-1998) and to Turkey (1998-2001).

(Copyright 2008 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

Cette manœuvre est aussi bienvenue parce qu’elle vous réveille de vos illusions sur Sarkozy

Je vois les deux situations comme plutôt symétriques, voire opposées.

Dans le cas de l’Irak, il s’agit d’un pays occupé militairement par les USA, dont le gouvernement est totalement dépendant des USA et de ses forces militaires, et qui n’a qu’une très faible assise populaire, et aucune marge de manoeuvre, ni avec le peuple, ni avec l’occupant. L’Irak est une province de l’empire, aurait dit l’empereur Hadrien.

Le Pakistan est quasiment dans une situation inverse. les USA ont délégué au Pakistan, et notablement à son armée (le Pakistan était communément appelé le pays des trois “A”, Allah, l’Armée et l’Amérique)et à l’ISI qui en est issue, la totalité de sa politique dans la région, et cela est flagrant depuis le règne de Zia Ul Haq. Au Pakistan, au gré des errances de la politique étrangère US dans la région, dont les intérêts sont souvent bien différents de ceux défendus au Moyen Orient (Asie centrale, Russie, Chine, Iran…), ce sont les USA qui dépendent de l’armée pakistanaise, tandis que le pouvoir politique pakistanais, plus ou moins ouverts selon les époques (Bhutto, Sharif, Musharraf) disposait d’une forte assise interne, parfois très localisée géographiquement (Bhutto), parfois très ancrée sur le pouvoir militaire (Musharraf), mais toujours très forte.

Les USA n’ont jamais pu réellement imposer une politique directe et suivie au Pakistan. D’abord favorable aux taleban, comme l’étaient les pakistanais, ils leur devinrent hostiles alors que le Pakistan continuait à les soutenir. Parfois favorable à un partage “ethnique” du pouvoir en Afghanistan, ils s’opposèrent alors aux revendications pakistanaises hostiles à l’entrée dans le jeu des tadjiks ou des ouzbeks.
Menaçant depuis 2001, ils ont pourtant été “baladé” par Musharraf jusqu’à aujourd’hui.

Si la situation en Irak a radicalement été modifié depuis la chute de saddam Hussein, il n’en va pas de même au Pakistan, qui continue à jouer le même jeu vis à vis des USA.

C’est vrai qu’en Italie le gens sont très deçues par le gouvernement Prdi et que Berlusconi, profitant du scandale Alitalia/AirFrance, pourrair remonter sur le trone. Mais j’en doute quand meme! On ne va pas faire pour la troisème fois la meme erreur!
Sarkozy, je crois qu’il est en train de transormer la France en une Republique des Bananes, lui aussi, comme Berlusconi l’avait fait avant lui en Italie…
Emigré
http://frenchconspiracy.blogspot.com

Dans la derière mouture, JPM paie *l’équivalent* de 10$ mais dans sa propre monnaie de singe : ses actions.

la direction de BSC a émis 95 Millions d’actions nouvelles, achetées immédiatement par JPM, sans que ses actionnaires ne puissent s’y opposer. Ainsi JPM est sûr d’avoir la majorité lors du vote chez BSC pour approuver ou rejeter cette « offre ».

JPM garantira le 1er B$ de perte sur les « actifs » de BSC ; la NY-FED les 29 B$ suivants.

Cela occulte le véritable enjeu :

JPM est le premier -et de très loin- intervenant sur les produits dérivés (91 *trillons* de $ de notionnel) ; BSC la plus engagée des banques d’affaires sur ces dérivés.

Conclusion : en cas de faillite de BSC, c’est JPM qui s’écroule. Comme c’est l’une des trois plus grandes institutions bancaires (avec C - Citi Group et BAC - Bank of America), c’est en réalité le système qui implose, FED comprise.

L’intervention de la FED n’avait pas pour but de sauver BSC (5è banque d’affaire des US) mais elle-même !

La FED aurait très certainement laissé BSC faire faillite, ruinant ses actionnaires et se obligataires et n’intervenant (ou le Trésor) que pour sauver ses clients. Sa crédibilité et celle de la doctrine du libéralo-capitalisme en serait sorti renforcé.

On mesure ainsi l’état de corruption du système ! au mieux, si j’ose écrire, ça finira en japonisation du système bancaire et financier US.

Ron PAUL est dans le bon timing, mais il ne pourra pas exprimer ses idées, comme le montre le contre-feu allumé avec la fausse question « fallait-il sauver BSC ? » de façon à masquer le véritable problème.

Joseph de Maistre ” considération sur la France”(1796) .
“les scélérats mêmes qui paraissent conduire la Révolution n’y entrent que comme de simples instruments et dès qu’ils ont la prétention de la dominer ils tombent ignoblement”

Il suffit de remplacer le mot Révolution par Mondialisme et le mot scélérats par ce que vous voudrez pour comprendre qu’ainsi va le monde!L’argent change de camp!

Permettez-moi d’être surpris par votre interprétation.
Je verrais plutôt 2 phases. La première où le marché a rempli quelques poches de manière “abyssale”. Puis une seconde, qualifiée de temporaire, où le marché montre des signes évidents de faiblesse et où le joyeux contribuable est tout simplement prié de lui redonner quelques couleurs, le temps que la pompe se réamorce… Et c’est reparti pour un tour !
C’était bien ça, le précédent du Crédit Lyonnais, non ?

Tibet, the ‘great game’ and the CIA
By Richard M Bennett

Mar 26, 2008

Given the historical context of the unrest in Tibet, there is reason to believe Beijing was caught on the hop with the recent demonstrations for the simple reason that their planning took place outside of Tibet and that the direction of the protesters is similarly in the hands of anti-Chinese organizers safely out of reach in Nepal and northern India.

Similarly, the funding and overall control of the unrest has also been linked to Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama, and by inference to the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) because of his close cooperation with US intelligence for over 50 years.

Indeed, with the CIA’s deep involvement with the Free Tibet Movement and its funding of the suspiciously well-informed Radio Free Asia, it would seem somewhat unlikely that any revolt could
have been planned or occurred without the prior knowledge, and even perhaps the agreement, of the National Clandestine Service (formerly known as the Directorate of Operations) at CIA headquarters in Langley.

Respected columnist and former senior Indian Intelligence officer, B Raman, commented on March 21 that “on the basis of available evidence, it was possible to assess with a reasonable measure of conviction” that the initial uprising in Lhasa on March 14 “had been pre-planned and well orchestrated”.

Could there be a factual basis to the suggestion that the main beneficiaries to the death and destruction sweeping Tibet are in Washington? History would suggest that this is a distinct possibility.

The CIA conducted a large scale covert action campaign against the communist Chinese in Tibet starting in 1956. This led to a disastrous bloody uprising in 1959, leaving tens of thousands of Tibetans dead, while the Dalai Lama and about 100,000 followers were forced to flee across the treacherous Himalayan passes to India and Nepal.

The CIA established a secret military training camp for the Dalai Lama’s resistance fighters at Camp Hale near Leadville, Colorado, in the US. The Tibetan guerrillas were trained and equipped by the CIA for guerrilla warfare and sabotage operations against the communist Chinese.

The US-trained guerrillas regularly carried out raids into Tibet, on occasions led by CIA-contract mercenaries and supported by CIA planes. The initial training program ended in December 1961, though the camp in Colorado appears to have remained open until at least 1966.

The CIA Tibetan Task Force created by Roger E McCarthy, alongside the Tibetan guerrilla army, continued the operation codenamed “St Circus” to harass the Chinese occupation forces for another 15 years until 1974, when officially sanctioned involvement ceased.

McCarthy, who also served as head of the Tibet Task Force at the height of its activities from 1959 until 1961, later went on to run similar operations in Vietnam and Laos.

By the mid-1960s, the CIA had switched its strategy from parachuting guerrilla fighters and intelligence agents into Tibet to establishing the Chusi Gangdruk, a guerrilla army of some 2,000 ethnic Khamba fighters at bases such as Mustang in Nepal.

This base was only closed down in 1974 by the Nepalese government after being put under tremendous pressure by Beijing.
After the Indo-China War of 1962, the CIA developed a close relationship with the Indian intelligence services in both training and supplying agents in Tibet.

Kenneth Conboy and James Morrison in their book The CIA’s Secret War in Tibet disclose that the CIA and the Indian intelligence services cooperated in the training and equipping of Tibetan agents and special forces troops and in forming joint aerial and intelligence units such as the Aviation Research Center and Special Center.

This collaboration continued well into the 1970s and some of the programs that it sponsored, especially the special forces unit of Tibetan refugees which would become an important part of the Indian Special Frontier Force, continue into the present.

Only the deterioration in relations with India which coincided with improvements in those with Beijing brought most of the joint CIA-Indian operations to an end.

Though Washington had been scaling back support for the Tibetan guerrillas since 1968, it is thought that the end of official US backing for the resistance only came during meetings between president Richard Nixon and the Chinese communist leadership in Beijing in February 1972.

Victor Marchetti, a former CIA officer has described the outrage many field agents felt when Washington finally pulled the plug, adding that a number even “[turned] for solace to the Tibetan prayers which they had learned during their years with the Dalai Lama”.

The former CIA Tibetan Task Force chief from 1958 to 1965, John Kenneth Knaus, has been quoted as saying, “This was not some CIA black-bag operation.” He added, “The initiative was coming from ... the entire US government.”

In his book Orphans of the Cold War, Knaus writes of the obligation Americans feel toward the cause of Tibetan independence from China. Significantly, he adds that its realization “would validate the more worthy motives of we who tried to help them achieve this goal over 40 years ago. It would also alleviate the guilt some of us feel over our participation in these efforts, which cost others their lives, but which were the prime adventure of our own.”

Despite the lack of official support it is still widely rumored that the CIA were involved, if only by proxy, in another failed revolt in October 1987, the unrest that followed and the consequent Chinese repression continuing till May 1993.

The timing for another serious attempt to destabilize Chinese rule in Tibet would appear to be right for the CIA and Langley will undoubtedly keep all its options open.

China is faced with significant problems, with the Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang province; the activities of the Falun Gong among many other dissident groups and of course growing concern over the security of the Summer Olympic Games in August.

China is viewed by Washington as a major threat, both economic and military, not just in Asia, but in Africa and Latin America as well.

The CIA also views China as being “unhelpful” in the “war on terror”, with little or no cooperation being offered and nothing positive being done to stop the flow of arms and men from Muslim areas of western China to support Islamic extremist movements in Afghanistan and Central Asian states.

To many in Washington, this may seem the ideal opportunity to knock the Beijing government off balance as Tibet is still seen as China’s potential weak spot.

The CIA will undoubtedly ensure that its fingerprints are not discovered all over this growing revolt. Cut-outs and proxies will be used among the Tibetan exiles in Nepal and India’s northern border areas.

Indeed, the CIA can expect a significant level of support from a number of security organizations in both India and Nepal and will have no trouble in providing the resistance movement with advice, money and above all, publicity.

However, not until the unrest shows any genuine signs of becoming an open revolt by the great mass of ethnic Tibetans against the Han Chinese and Hui Muslims will any weapons be allowed to appear.

Large quantities of former Eastern bloc small arms and explosives have been reportedly smuggled into Tibet over the past 30 years, but these are likely to remain safely hidden until the right opportunity presents itself.

The weapons have been acquired on the world markets or from stocks captured by US or Israeli forces. They have been sanitized and are deniable, untraceable back to the CIA.

Weapons of this nature also have the advantage of being interchangeable with those used by the Chinese armed forces and of course use the same ammunition, easing the problem of resupply during any future conflict.

Though official support for the Tibetan resistance ended 30 years ago, the CIA has kept open its lines of communications and still funds much of the Tibetan Freedom movement.

So is the CIA once again playing the “great game” in Tibet?

It certainly has the capability, with a significant intelligence and paramilitary presence in the region. Major bases exist in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and several Central Asian states.

It cannot be doubted that it has an interest in undermining China, as well as the more obvious target of Iran.

So the probable answer is yes, and indeed it would be rather surprising if the CIA was not taking more than just a passing interest in Tibet. That is after all what it is paid to do.

Since September 11, 2001, there has been a sea-change in US Intelligence attitudes, requirements and capabilities. Old operational plans have been dusted off and updated. Previous assets re-activated. Tibet and the perceived weakness of China’s position there will probably have been fully reassessed.

For Washington and the CIA, this may seem a heaven-sent opportunity to create a significant lever against Beijing, with little risk to American interests; simply a win-win situation.

The Chinese government would be on the receiving end of worldwide condemnation for its continuing repression and violation of human rights and it will be young Tibetans dying on the streets of Lhasa rather than yet more uniformed American kids.

The consequences of any open revolt against Beijing, however, are that once again the fear of arrest, torture and even execution will pervade every corner of both Tibet and those neighboring provinces where large Tibetan populations exist, such as Gansu, Qinghai and Sichuan.

And the Tibetan Freedom movement still has little likelihood of achieving any significant improvement in central Chinese policy in the long run and no chance whatever of removing its control of Lhasa and their homeland.

Once again it would appear that the Tibetan people will find themselves trapped between an oppressive Beijing and a manipulative Washington.

Beijing sends in the heavies
The fear that the United States, Britain and other Western states may try to portray Tibet as another Kosovo may be part of the reason why the Chinese authorities reacted as if faced with a genuine mass revolt rather than their official portrayal of a short-lived outbreak of unrest by malcontents supporting the Dalai Lama.

Indeed, so seriously did Beijing view the situation that a special security coordination unit, the 110 Command Center, has been established in Lhasa with the primary objective of suppressing the disturbances and restoring full central government control.

The center appears to be under the direct control of Zhang Qingli, first secretary of the Tibet Party and a President Hu Jintao loyalist. Zhang is also the former Xinjiang deputy party secretary with considerable experience in counter-terrorism operations in that region.

Others holding important positions in Lhasa are Zhang Xinfeng, vice minister of the Central Public Security Ministry and Zhen Yi, deputy commander of the People’s Armed Police Headquarters in Beijing.

The seriousness with which Beijing is treating the present unrest is further illustrated by the deployment of a large number of important army units from the Chengdu Military Region, including brigades from the 149th Mechanized Infantry Division, which acts as the region’s rapid reaction force.

According to a United Press International report, elite ground force units of the People’s Liberation Army were involved in Lhasa, and the new T-90 armored personnel carrier and T-92 wheeled armored vehicles were deployed. According to the report, China has denied the participation of the army in the crackdown, saying it was carried out by units of the armed police. “Such equipment as mentioned above has never been deployed by China’s armed police, however.”

Air support is provided by the 2nd Army Aviation Regiment, based at Fenghuangshan, Chengdu, in Sichuan province. It operates a mix of helicopters and STOL transports from a frontline base near Lhasa. Combat air support could be quickly made available from fighter ground attack squadrons based within the Chengdu region.
The Xizang Military District forms the Tibet garrison, which has two mountain infantry units; the 52nd Brigade based at Linzhi and the 53rd Brigade at Yaoxian Shannxi. These are supported by the 8th Motorized Infantry Division and an artillery brigade at Shawan, Xinjiang.

Tibet is also no longer quite as remote or difficult to resupply for the Chinese army. The construction of the first railway between 2001 and 2007 has significantly eased the problems of the movement of large numbers of troops and equipment from Qinghai onto the rugged Tibetan plateau.

Other precautions against a resumption of the long-term Tibetan revolts of previous years has led to a considerable degree of self-sufficiency in logistics and vehicle repair by the Tibetan garrison and an increasing number of small airfields have been built to allow rapid-reaction units to gain access to even the most remote areas.

The Chinese Security Ministry and intelligence services had been thought to have a suffocating presence in the province and indeed the ability to detect any serious protest movement and suppress resistance.

Richard M Bennett, intelligence and security consultant, AFI Research.

(Copyright 2008 Richard M Bennett.)

C’est un peu comme l’Irak avec les supposées armes de destruction massive, mais en plus amateur. L’administration Bush avait au moins pris la peine de présenter des images satellites comme “preuves”. Mais McCain est un homme pressé, c’est lui l’auteur de l’expression “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”.

Il me semble avoir vu à la télévision le Président
iranien en visite en Irak.A-t-il pu s’y rendre et y séjourner sans l’autorisation bienveillante des USA qui occupent le terrain,alors que l’Iran fait l’objet de sanctions internationales? la presse a parlé discrètement il est vrai de tractations entre l’Iran et les USA au sujet de la sécurité en Irak.
Curieux non? entre les discours de candidats en mal d’électeurs et la real politik il y a une marge .