Forum

Voilà bien un choix cornélien:

-un F35 qui est très cher et qui n’est pas encore ops. Peut-être veut-on parler du F-22 qui existe, mais qui est non moins cher. Et qu’on vendrait probablement “bridé”.

-un SAAB JAS Grippen premier prix, et qui est opérationnel pour tout, reconnaissance, bombardement, chasse. Et pas cher. Cet avion a déjà remporté six marchés extérieurs…

http://www.gripen.com/en/index.htm

L’économie anglaise allait de plus en plus mal et
au temps de Giscard le PIB français dépassait déjà l’anglais.

Les anglais voulaient entrer dans la CEE, et vite : un vaste marché croissant et rentable.
En plus la production de pétrole en mer du nord juste démarrée, n’arrêtait plus de croître et rescucitait l’économie anglaise.

Me Tatcher s’est attribué tous les mérites de cette embellie inespérée, et les anglais ont méprisé ipso facto le continent.

Miterrand, lui, n’avait pas de pétrole mais des idées : il a donc nationalisé pour voir ... et il a vu ! Retour au “réalisme” en 1983, toujours pas de pétrole et plus d’idées ... et des anglais devenus riches comme des émirs avec leurs “spin doctors” qui ventilent leurs “idées” économiques (quoi ? notre succès dû au pétrole : que nenni, c’est la vertu du libéralisme Tatchérien, gloire à la Grande Timmonière Bleue etc.)

Patatras vers 2000 les Anglais passent leur “peak oil” et la production d’Or Noir ne cesse plus de décliner.

Le syndrôme hollandais (rappelez vous le “social way of life” financé fastueusement par le “gaz hollandais” et que l’état a du abandonner en larmoyant après la chute de pression), le “syndrôme hollandais” donc n’a servi de leçon qu’au Norvégiens (qui économisent une partie de leurs bénéfices dans des fonds souverains, c’est à dire d’état : bof trois fois rien ... simplement les plus lourds d’europe). Le génie Tatchéro-anglais, lui, n’a que faire d’expériences continentales. Bonjour la monarchie bananière.

Ajoutons la mondialisation, l’arrogance militaire impériale, l’avidité financière de banques hésitant maintenant entre la banqueroute et le “dump napolitain”, la déroute du crédit et de l’immobilier. 

On n’arrête plus non plus la chute des indices anglo-saxons dans les structures et les infrastructures ! Voici la France classée première par une étude anglaise dans le secteur des soins de santé ... tandis que les Anglais et autres Etatsuniens se retrouvent au fin fond du classement: 115.000 morts US prématurés par rapport à la France (vous parlez d’une canicule ?) Voici le temps du nécro-virtualisme (prophétisé par le “Thriller” de Michael Jackson?)

Donc les anglais se remettent au nucléaire, manque d’énergie et plus de “spin doctors”, la suite s’annonce encore plus amusante : les anglais commencent à comprendre (rassurez vous : même après 7 ans ils sont assez rares), pour Sarko et le continent il faudra encore plus de temps.

Vous me voyez confus. j’ai oublié le lien vers l’article précedement cité : “Net Assessment: United States”.

(Le site étant payant, j’ai reproduit l’article ici de façon à ce que tout le monde puisse en profiter)

http://www.stratfor.com/regions/north_america

Pour ce détendre un peu en ce début d’année, une mirobolante analyse “géostratégique” de la toute puissance américaniste où il nous est doctement expliqué que nous avons tort de nous inquiéter pour elle car, même quand tout semble aller mal, c’est que nous n’y comprenons vraiment rien car en réalité tout va trés bien…

Net Assessment: United States

January 3, 2008

There are those who say that perception is reality. Geopolitics teaches the exact opposite: There is a fundamental reality to national power, and the passing passions of the public have only a transitory effect on things. In order to see the permanent things, it is important to tune out the noise and focus on the reality. That is always hard, but nowhere more so than in the United States, where the noise is incredibly loud, quite insistent, and profoundly contradictory and changeable. Long dissertations can and should be written on the dynamics of public opinion in the United States. For Stratfor, the root of these contradictions is in the dynamism of the United States. You can look at the United States and be awed by its dynamic power, and terrified by it at the same time.

All nations have complex psyches, but the American is particularly complex, contradictory and divisive. It is torn between two poles: dread and hubris. They alternate and compete and tear at each other. Neither dominates. They are both just there, tied to each other. The dread comes from a feeling of impending doom, the hubris from constantly overcoming it.

Hubris is built into American history. The American republic was founded to be an exemplary regime, one that should be emulated. This sense of exceptionality was buttressed by the doctrine of manifest destiny, the idea that the United States in due course would dominate the continent. Americans pushed inward to discover verdant horizons filled with riches one after another, indelibly impressing upon them that life was supposed to get better and that setbacks were somehow unnatural. It is hard not to be an economic superpower when you effectively have an entire continent to yourself, and it is especially hard not to be a global economic hegemon once you’ve tamed that continent and use it as a base from which to push out. But the greatest driver for American hubris was the extraordinary economic success of the United States, and in particular its extraordinary technological achievements. There is a sense that there is nothing that the United States cannot achieve—and no limits to American power.

But underlying this extraordinary self-confidence is a sense of dread. To understand the dread, we have to understand the 1930s. The 1920s were a time of apparent peace and prosperity: World War I was over, and the United States was secure and prosperous. The market crash of 1929, followed by the Great Depression, imprinted itself on the American psyche. There is a perpetual fear that underneath the apparent prosperity of our time, economic catastrophe lurks. It is a sense that well-being masks a deep economic sickness. Part of the American psyche is braced for disaster.

This dread also has roots in Pearl Harbor, and the belief that it and the war that followed for the United States was the result of complacency and inattentiveness. Some argued that the war was caused by America’s failure to join the League of Nations. Others claimed that the fault lay in the failure to act decisively to stop Hitler and Tojo before they accumulated too much power. In either case, the American psyche is filled with a dread of the world, that the smallest threat might blossom into world war, and that failure to act early and decisively will bring another catastrophe. At the same time, from Washington’s farewell address to failures in Vietnam or Iraq, there has been the fear that American entanglement with the world is not merely dangerous, but it is the path to catastrophe.

This fault line consistently polarizes American politics, dividing it between those who overestimate American power and those who underestimate it. In domestic politics, every boom brings claims that the United States has created a New Economy that has abolished the business cycle. Every shift in the business cycle brings out the faction that believes the collapse of the American economy is just over the horizon. Sometimes, the same people say both things within months of each other.

The purpose of a net assessment is not to measure such perceptions, but to try to benchmark military, economic and political reality, treating the United States as if it were a foreign country. We begin by “being stupid”: that is, by stating the obvious and building from it, rather than beginning with complex theories. In looking at the United States, two obvious facts come to light.

First, the United States controls all of the oceans in the world. No nation in human history has controlled the oceans so absolutely. That means the United States has the potential to control, if it wishes, the flow of goods through the world’s oceans—which is the majority of international trade. Since World War II, the United States has used this power selectively. In general, it has used its extraordinary naval superiority to guarantee free navigation, because international trade has been one of the foundations of American prosperity. But it has occasionally used its power as a tool to shape foreign affairs or to punish antagonistic powers. Control of the oceans also means that the United States can invade other countries, and that—unless Canada or Mexico became much more powerful than they are now - other countries cannot invade the United States.

Second, no economy in the world is as large as the American economy. In 2006, the gross domestic product (GDP) of the United States was about $13.2 trillion. That is 27.5 percent of all goods and services produced in the world for that year, and it is larger than the combined GDPs of the next four countries—Japan, Germany, China and the United Kingdom. In spite of de-industrialization, industrial production in the United States was $2.1 trillion, equal to Japan’s, China’s and Germany’s industrial production combined. You can argue with the numbers, and weight them any number of ways, but the fact is that the United States is economically huge, staggeringly so. Everything from trade deficits to subprime mortgage crises must be weighed against the sheer size of the American economy and the fact that it is and has been expanding.

If you begin by being stupid instead of sophisticated, you are immediately struck by the enormity of American military power, based particularly on its naval power and its economic power, which in turn is based on the size and relative balance of the economy. The United States is the 2,000-pound gorilla of the international system. That means blows that would demolish other nations are absorbed with relative ease by the United States, while at the same time drawing howls of anguish that would lead you to assume the United States is on the eve of destruction. That much military and economic power does not collapse very easily or quickly.

The United States has two simple strategic goals. The first is to protect itself physically from attack to ensure its economy continues to flourish. Attacks against the United States are unpleasant, but invasion by a foreign power is catastrophic. Therefore the second goal is to maintain control of the seas. So long as the oceans are controlled by the U.S. Navy—and barring nuclear attack—the physical protection of the United States is assured. Therefore the United States has two interests. The first is preventing other nations from challenging American naval hegemony. The second is preventing other nations from acquiring nuclear weapons, and intimidating those who already have them.

The best way to prevent a challenge by another fleet is to make certain the fleet is never built. The best way to do that is to prevent the rise of regional hegemons, particularly in Eurasia, that are secure enough to build navies. The American strategy in Eurasia is the same as Britain’s in Europe—maintain the balance of power so that no power or coalition of powers can rise up as a challenger. The United States, rhetoric aside, has no interest in Eurasia except for maintaining the balance of power—or failing that, creating chaos.

The United States intervenes periodically in Eurasia, and elsewhere. Its goals appear to be incoherent and its explanations make little sense, but its purpose is single-minded. The United States does not want to see any major, stable power emerge in Eurasia that could, in the long term, threaten American interests either by building a naval challenge or a nuclear one. As powers emerge, the United States follows a three-stage program. First, provide aid to weaker powers to contain and undermine emerging hegemons. Second, create more formal arrangements with these powers. Finally, if necessary, send relatively small numbers of U.S. troops to Eurasia to block major powers and destabilize regions.

The basic global situation can be described simply. The United States has overwhelming power. It is using that power to try to prevent the emergence of any competing powers. It is therefore constantly engaged in interventions on a political, economic and military level. The rest of the world is seeking to limit and control the United States. No nation can do it alone, and therefore there is a constant attempt to create coalitions to contain the United States. So far, these coalitions have tended to fail, because potential members can be leveraged out of the coalition by American threats or incentives. Nevertheless, between constant American intrusions and constant attempts to contain American power, the world appears to be disorderly and dangerous. It might well be dangerous, but it has far more logic and order than it might appear.

U.S. Foreign Policy

The latest American foreign policy actions began after 9/11. Al Qaeda posed two challenges to the United States. The first was the threat of follow-on attacks, potentially including limited nuclear attacks. The second and more strategic threat was al Qaeda’s overall goal, which was to recreate an Islamic caliphate. Put in an American context, al Qaeda wanted to create a transnational “Islamic” state that, by definition, would in the long run be able to threaten U.S. power. The American response was complex. Its immediate goal was the destruction of al Qaeda. Its longer-term goal was the disruption of the Islamic world. The two missions overlapped but were not identical. The first involved a direct assault against al Qaeda’s command-and-control facilities: the invasion of Afghanistan. The second was an intrusion into the Islamic world designed to disrupt it without interfering with the flow of oil from the region.

U.S. grand strategy has historically operated by splitting enemy coalitions and partnering with the weaker partner. Thus, in World War II, the United States sided with the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany after their alliance collapsed. During the Cold War, the United States sided with Communist China against the Soviet Union after the Sino-Soviet split. Following that basic strategy, the United States first sided with and then manipulated the Sunni-Shiite split. In all these cases the goal was to disrupt and prevent the formation of a coalition that could threaten the United States.

Looked at from 50,000 feet, that was the result of the invasion of Iraq. It set the Sunnis and Shia against each other. Whether this idea was subjectively in the minds of American planners at the time is not really relevant. That it played out the U.S. model in foreign policy is what matters. The invasion of Iraq resulted in chaos. About 3,000 American troops were killed, a small number compared to previous multiyear, multidivisional wars. Not only did the Islamic world fail to coalesce into a single entity, but its basic fault line, Sunnis versus Shia, erupted into a civil war in Iraq. That civil war disrupted the threats of coalition formation and of the emergence of regional hegemons. It did create chaos. That chaos provided a solution to American strategic problems, while U.S. intelligence dealt with the lesser issue of breaking up al Qaeda.

The U.S. interest in the Islamic world at the moment is to reduce military operations and use the existing internal tension among Muslims to achieve American military ends. The reason for reducing military operations is geopolitical, and it hinges on Russia.

The total number of U.S. casualties in Iraq is relatively small, but the level of effort, relative to available resources, has essentially consumed most of America’s ground capabilities. The United States has not substantially increased the size of its army since the invasion of Iraq. There were three reasons for this. First, the United States did not anticipate the level of resistance. Second, rhetoric aside, U.S. strategy was focused on disruption, not nation-building, and a larger force was not needed for that. Third, the global geopolitical situation did not appear to require U.S. forces elsewhere. Therefore, Washington chose not to pay the price for a larger force.

The geopolitical situation has changed. The U.S. absorption in the Islamic world has opened the door for a more assertive Russia, which is engaged in creating a regional sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union. Following the American grand strategy of preventing the emergence of Eurasian regional powers, the United States must now put itself in a position to disrupt and/or contain Russia. With U.S. forces tied down in the Islamic world, there are no reserves for this mission. The United States is therefore engaged in a process of attempting to reduce its presence in the Islamic world, while repositioning to deal with the Russians.

The process of disengagement is enormously complex. Having allied with the Shia (including Iran) to disrupt al Qaeda, the United States now has shifted its stance toward the Sunnis and against the Shia, and particularly Iran. The U.S. interest is to re-create the balance of power that was disrupted with the invasion of Iraq. To do this, the United States must simultaneously create a balance in Iraq and induce Iran not to disrupt it, but without making Iran too powerful. This is delicate surgery and it makes the United States appear inconsistent. The recent contretemps over the National Intelligence Estimate—and the resulting inevitable public uproar—is part of the process of the U.S. rebalancing its policy in the region.

The Iraqi situation is now less threatening than the situation to the east. In Afghanistan, the United States and NATO have about 50,000 troops facing a resurgent Taliban. No military solution is possible given the correlation of forces. Therefore a political solution is needed in which an accommodation is reached with the Taliban, or with parts of the Taliban. There are recent indications, including the expulsion of EU and U.N. diplomats from Afghanistan for negotiating with the Taliban, that this process is under way. For the United States, there is no problem with a Taliban government, or with Taliban participation in a coalition government, so long as al Qaeda is not provided sanctuary for training and planning. The United States is trying to shape the situation in Afghanistan so those parts of the Taliban that participate in government will have a vested interest in opposing al Qaeda.

Pakistan obviously plays a role in this, since Afghanistan is to some extent an extension of Pakistan. The United States has an interest in a stable Pakistan, but it can live with a chaotic Pakistan provided its nuclear weapons are safeguarded and the chaos is contained within Pakistan. Given the situation in Afghanistan, this cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, American strategy must be to support Pakistan’s military in stabilizing the country, while paying lip service to democratic reform.

The United States has achieved its two major goals in the Islamic world. First, al Qaeda has been sufficiently disrupted that it has not mounted a successful operation in the United States for six years. Second, any possibility of an integrated Islamic multinational state—always an unlikely scenario—has been made even more unlikely by disruptive and destabilizing American strategies. In the end, the United States did not need to create a stable nation in Iraq, it simply had to use Iraq to disrupt the Islamic world. The United States did not need to win, it needed the Islamic world to lose. When you look at the Islamic world six years after 9/11, it is sufficient to say that it is no closer to unity than it was then, at the cost of a fraction of the American lives that were spent in Vietnam or Korea.

Thus, the United States at the moment is transitioning its foreign policy from an obsessive focus on the Islamic world to a primary focus on Russia. The Russians, in turn, are engaged in two actions. First, they are doing what they can to keep the Americans locked into the Islamic world by encouraging Iran while carefully trying not to provoke the United States excessively. Second, they are trying to form coalitions with other major powers—Europe and China—to block the United States. The Russians are facing an uphill battle because no one wants to alienate a major economic power like the United States. But the longer the Americans remain focused on the Islamic world, the more opportunities there are. Therefore, for Washington, reducing U.S. involvement in the Islamic world will be acceptable so long as it leaves the Muslims divided and in relative balance. The goal is reduction, not exit—and pursuing this goal explains the complexities of U.S. foreign policy at this point, as well as the high level of noise in the public arena, where passions run high.

Behind the noise, however, is this fact: The global situation for the United States has not changed since before 9/11. America remains in control of the world’s oceans. The jihadist strategic threat has not solidified, although the possibility of terrorism cannot be discounted. The emerging Russian challenge is not trivial, but the Russians have a long way to go before they would pose a significant threat to American interests. Another potential threat, China, is contained by its own economic interests, while lesser powers are not of immediate significance. American global pre-eminence remains intact and the jihadist threat has been disrupted for now. This leaves residual threats to the United States, but no strategic threats.

Economics

Capitalism requires business cycles and business cycles require recessions. During the culmination of a business cycle, when interest rates are low and excess cash is looking for opportunities to invest, substantial inefficiencies creep into the economy. As these inefficiencies and irrationalities become more pronounced, the cost of money rises, liquidity problems occur and irrationalities are destroyed. This is a painful process, but one without which capitalism could not succeed. When recessions are systematically avoided by political means, as happened in Japan and the rest of East Asia, and as is happening in China now, inefficiencies and irrationalities tend to pyramid. The longer the business cycle is delayed, the more explosive the outcome.

Historically, the business cycle in the United States has tended to average about six years in length. The United States last had a recession in 2000, seven years ago—so, by historical standards, it is time for another recession. But the 2000 recession occurred eight years after the previous one, so the time between recessions might be expanding. Six years or nine years makes little difference. There will be recessions because they discipline the economy and we are entering a period in which a recession is possible. When or how a recession happens matters little, so long as the markets on occasion have discipline forced back upon them.

In the most recent case, the irrationality that entered the system had to do with subprime mortgages. Put differently, money lenders gave loans to people who could not pay them back, and sold those loans to third parties who were so attracted by the long-term return that they failed to consider whether they would ever realize that return. Large pools of money thrown off by a booming economy had to find investment vehicles, and so investors bought the loans. Some of the more optimistic among these investors not only bought the loans but also borrowed against them to buy more loans. This is the oldest story in the book.

The loans were backed by real assets: houses. This is the good news and the bad news. The good news is that, in the long run, the bad loans are mitigated by the sale of these homes. The bad news is that as these houses are sold, housing prices will go down as supply increases. Home prices frequently go down. During the mid-1990s, for example, California home prices dropped sharply. However, there is an odd folk belief that housing prices always rise and that declining prices are unnatural and devastating. They hurt, of course, but California survived the declines in the 1990s and so will the United States today.

In an economy that annually produces in excess of $13 trillion in wealth, neither the subprime crisis nor a decline in housing prices represents a substantial threat. Nevertheless, given the culture of dread that we have discussed, there is a sense that this is simply the beginning of a meltdown in the American economy. It is certainly devastating major financial institutions, although not nearly as badly as the tech crash of 2000 or the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s devastated their sectors. It is having some effect on the financial system, although not nearly as much as one might think, given the level of angst expressed. And it is having a limited effect on the economy.

A liquidity crisis means a shortage of money, in which demand outstrips supply and the cost of money rises. There are, of course, those who are frozen out of the market—the same people to whom money should not have been lent in the first place, plus some businesses on shaky ground. This is simply the financial system rebalancing itself. But neither the equity nor the money markets are behaving as if we are on the verge of a recession any time soon.

Indeed—and here sentiment does matter, at least in the short run—it would appear that a recession is unlikely in the immediate future. Normally, recessions occur when sentiment is irrationally optimistic (recall the New Economy craziness in the late 1990s). What we are seeing now is economic growth, stable interest rates and equity markets, and profound anxiety over the future of the financial system. That is not how an economy looks six months or a year before a depression. Those who believe that major economic disaster is just around the corner have acted on that belief and the markets have already discounted that belief. It would certainly be reasonable for there to be a recession shortly, but we do not see the signs for it.

To the contrary, we see a major stabilizing force, the inflow of money into the American economy from what we might call the dollar bloc. During the period of European imperialism, one of the characteristics was politically enforced currency blocs (sterling, franc, etc.) that tied colonial economies to the mother country. We are now seeing, at least temporarily, a variation on that theme with a dollar bloc, which goes beyond the dollar’s role as a reserve currency.

For a decade, China has been running massive trade surpluses with the United States. Much of that surplus remained as cash reserves because the Chinese economy was unable to absorb it. Partly in order to stabilize currencies and partly to control their own economy, the Chinese have pegged their currency against the dollar, varying the theme a bit lately but staying well within that paradigm. The linking of the Chinese economy to the American led to the linking of the two currencies. It also created a pool of excess money that was most conservatively invested in the United States.

With the run up in the price of oil, another pool of surplus money that cannot be absorbed in native economies has emerged among the oil producers of the Arabian Peninsula. This reserve also is linked to the dollar, since oil prices are dollar-denominated. Given long-term oil contracts and the structure of markets, shifting away from the dollar would be complex and time consuming. It will not happen—particularly because the Arabs, already having lost on the dollar’s decline, might get hit twice if it rises. They are protected by remaining in the dollar bloc.

Those two massive pools of money, tightly linked to the dollar in a number of ways, are stabilizing the American financial system—and American financial institutions—by taking advantage of the weakness to buy assets. Historically (that is, before World War I), the United States was a creditor nation and a net importer of capital. That did not represent weakness. Rather, it represented the global market’s sense that the United States presented major economic opportunities. The structure of the dollar bloc would indicate a partial and probably temporary return to this model.

One must always remember the U.S. GDP—$13.2 trillion—in measuring any number. Both the annual debt and the total national debt must be viewed against this number, as well as the more troubling trade deficit. The $13.2 trillion can absorb damage and imbalances that smaller economies could not handle. We would expect a recession in the next couple of years simply based on the time since the last period of negative growth, but we tend to think that it is not quite here yet. But, even if it were, it would simply be a normal part of the business cycle, of no significant concern.

Net Assessment

The operative term for the United States is “huge.” The size of its economy and the control of the world’s oceans are the two pillars of American power, and they are intimately connected. So long as the United States has more than 25 percent of the world’s GDP and dominates the oceans, what the world thinks of it, or what it thinks of itself, is of little consequence. Power is power and those two simple, obvious facts trump all sophisticated theorizing.

Nothing that has happened in the Middle East, or in Vietnam a generation ago or in Korea a generation before that, can change the objective foundations of American power. Indeed, on close examination, what appears to be irrational behavior by the United States makes a great deal of sense in this context. A nation this powerful can take extreme risks, suffer substantial failures, engage in irrational activity and get away with it. But, in fact, regardless of perception, American risks are calculated, the failures are more apparent than real and the irrational activity is more rational than it might appear. Presidents and pundits might not fully understand what they are doing or thinking, but in a nation of more than 300 million people, policy is shaped by impersonal forces more than by leaders or public opinion. Explaining how that works is for another time.

The magnitude of American power can only be seen by stepping back. Then the weaknesses are placed into context and diminish in significance. A net assessment is designed to do that. It is designed to consider the United States “on the whole.” And in considering the United States on the whole, we are struck by two facts: massive power and cultural bipolar disorder. But the essence of geopolitics is that culture follows power; as the United States matures, its cultural bipolarity will subside.

Some will say that this net assessment is an America-centric, chauvinistic evaluation of the United States, making it appear more powerful, more important and more clever than it is. But in our view, this is not an America-centric analysis. Rather, it is the recognition that the world itself is now, and has been since 1992, America-centric. The United States is, in fact, more powerful than it appears, more important to the international system than many appreciate and, if not clever, certainly not as stupid as some would think. It is not as powerful as some fantasize. Iraq has proved that. It is not nearly as weak as some would believe. Iraq has proved that as well.

The United States is a powerful, complex and in many ways tortured society. But it is the only global power—and, as such, it is the nation all others must reckon with.

Si tu veux t’informer, évite ce “journal” daté du lendemain et qui ne publie que les nouvelles d’hier !

c’est creux, du vent, des mots :

- “les économistes”—donc *tous*, bien sûr ; ou parfois “ce spécialiste reconnu”—au cas où il existerait des spécialiste *non* reconnus ; ils n’utilisent plus “selon des sources bien informées” ni “d’après les milieux autorisés” ridiculisés par Coluche.

- “Paul Jorion, économiste aux Etats-Unis” P Jorion est anthropologue, il a travaillé aux US, mais vit en France.

Bien sûr, n’est pas abordé le thème essentiel : quels “conduits” (produits dérivés hors bilan) lient BoA et CFC ? si CFC fait faillite alors BoA doit provisionner la totalité de ces engagements : c’est la faillite ... en chaîne. Ce n’est pas pour sauver CFC que cette manoeuvre est engagée, mais pour sauver BoE.

Il y a plusieurs choses.

1) D’abord, nous sommes en France. L’appel à dons est un rituel dans les campagnes électorales américaines. Amasser des dons y est non seulement nécessaire, mais aussi un sujet de fierté revendiquée. En France comme vous le savez on n’a pas trop le même rapport à l’argent (malgré le Téléthon et autres manifestations putassières, qui ne sont probablement pas le pain quotidien de vos lecteurs).

2) Vous n’avez pas tant de lecteurs que ça. Sur la masse de lecteurs occasionnels il ne faut pas espérer plus de 2% de dons. Parmi les lecteurs réguliers vous pouvez espérer entre 10 et 20% (chiffres totalement arbitraires de ma part, mais que je pense lucides).

3) Si vous comptez faire des campagnes régulières il faudrait éviter en plus ces remontrances au bout de quelques jours, sinon les gens risquent de se lasser. Laissez faire le temps, ou alors relancez sur un ton moins insistant.

4) Je pense que beaucoup ont envie de savoir quels sont les évolutions en préparation sur le site dedefensa et ses satellites.

cela rappelle l’implication passionnée de tous les politiques et de tous les medias en France l’été 2004 pour une mythomane qui s’était dessinée une croix gammée au crayon feutre sur la peau.

Pour les besoins des uns et des autres, pas besoin de vérifier, l’effet journalistique est plaisant, le sujet est à la mode (la violence innée des pas très blancs), le déchaînement a eu lieu.

Dans le détroit, la matérialité de l’incident décrit était quasi-impossible. Mais à quoi bon vérifier?
L’Iran est coupable, nous vous le démontrons!

Que le démontage du faux ait lieu presque aussitôt ne leur fait pas monter pas le rouge aux joues.

Bon
Ca vient évidemment un peu tard - après la bataille , comme toujours…
A propos du New Hampshire et de Clinton…

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5553

Juste histoire de ricaner!

Eh oui, tout ceci n’est qu’un arrangement monaitaire comme vous dites. Ceux qui ont un peu de culture économique le savent bien. Un peu de clairvoyance et une seconde d’honnêteté chez les brits, ça fait plaisir à lire.

A propos du soi-disant non conformisme du Président je crois qu’il faut faire la difference entre ce qui relève de la communication et ce qui découle des tendances naturelles.
Un système de communication bien rodé gère en continu l’image présidentielle en exploitant le profil du chef de l’Etat pour faire diversion .
le Président ne s’en plaignant pas ,certains disent qu’il est exhibitionniste.
Si on décode un tant soit peu la situation ,on voit un gouvernant sans grands moyens,craignant la vindicte populaire d’autant plus qu’il est là pour faire passer en force des directives venues de structures supra-nationales.Il cherche une parade,il trouve un stratagème :il se met en scène
avec d’autant plus de facilité qu’il est un acteur -metteur en scène né.
il se montre donc avec complaisance sous le jour d’un homme presque ordinaire avec ses déboires ses succès ,ses qualités et ses défauts,son côté parvenu ,bref une célébrité décomplexée vis à vis de l’argent indifferente aux commérages ,l’idole
de ses admirateurs et la tête de turc de ses détracteurs.Il y a là de quoi occuper tout le monde,et pendant que se déversent des rivières d’encre à son sujet la politique suit son cours le vrai, celui que l’on ne peut pas voir parce que nous regardons ailleurs.
Ne nous y trompons pas ,le chef de l’Etat n’est pas un intermittent du spectacle ni un citoyen ordinaire,parvenu en haut de l’échelle le pouvoir d’achat n’a plus qu’une importance secondaire à ses yeux ,il a des préoccupations plus dignes de sa fonction ,il nous couve une politique de civilisation.
Arrêtons d’être hypnotisés par le décor !ou le réveil sera douloureux.

Quelle déception cet article.

Bank of America rachète Countrywide, une des banques US les plus à l’origine de la crise des subprimes.

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3234,36-998734@51-975400,0.html

Bank of America est une des premières banques des Etats Unis :
http://newsroom.bankofamerica.com/index.php?s=community#

je ne suis pas un spécialiste des affaires et des circuits financiers, mais apparemment, on franchit une étape supplémentaire dans cette crise. Les pertes des banques de prêt immobiliers sont injectées dans le bilan des banques généralistes en somme. Ces dernière sont forcées d’assumer des risques vitaux pour tenter de sauver le système, et de le reconnaître publiquement.

Pour répondre à JP Immarigeon, la probabilité qu’un navire militaire en mouvement sur la surface de l’eau .. (contrairement à l’USS Cole attaqué par une vedette rapide alors qu’il était au mouillage..) ne puisses détecter dans ses écrans radar   la route et la vitesse réelle&  relative de vedetttes iraniennes parait “nul”.. Surtout qu’à la vue de la vidéo présentée par les agences de communication US.. la mer était calme ce jour là ,donc aucune confusion avec un faux écho provoqué par les vagues.. Cette affaire est un montage assez grossier des pieds nickelés du Pentagone ou d’ailleurs..  avec une voix “off”  sur un canal de navire à navire qui peut provenir de n’importe quel lieu en mer.. .. même de la terre étant donné la proximité de la côte lors de l’incident..  Il est vrai que ce type de montage-provocation comporte de sérieux risques d’embrasement .. Cela me rappelle une histoire vécue en mer dans les parages du détroit de gibraltar , celle d’une voix polluante et menacante durant plusieurs heures de réprésailles apocalyptique sur le canal 16 (sécurité,sécurité,sécurité) .. un navire américain croisant dans les parages.. que cela fit intervenir de facon énergique   le MRCC du secteur   contre cette intrusion à “notre sécurité collective” ..Je me rappelle pas avoir frôler la guerre mondiale cette nuit là..mais que si nous avions eu un probléme quelconque cette nuit là  à bord, c’était mal barré...
Salutations à vous ,et Bonne Année à nos chers dedéfensa.

On dirait que les renseignements US ont réellement décidé de mettre les bâtons dans les roues de Bush. La divulgation d’un rapport de la CIA sur les armes nucléaires israéliennes vient à un moment tel qu’il est impossible de croire à un hasard. Le site iranien de la radio iranienne irib.ir n’a pas raté l’info.

————————————————————————-
La CIA déclassifie un rapport sur un arsenal nucléaire israélien

La CIA déclassifie un rapport sur un arsenal nucléaire israélien
Les services des renseignements américains ont déclassifié et fait publier des documents, levant le voile sur les activités nucléaires israéliennes en 1974. LA CIA, l’agence de renseignements américaine, a révélé hier être au courant de l’existence d’un arsenal nucléaire israélien depuis 1974. Après 34 ans, la CIA a soudainement déclassifié et autorisé hier à la publication un rapport datant de 1974 qui affirmait, selon la CIA, qu’Israël disposait d’un arsenal nucléaire.’’ Un nombre restreint’’ selon le rapport mais avec une capacité israélienne de ‘‘production et de stockage’’ de cet arsenal nucléaire. Sur cette base, le rapport, mis au point communément en 1974 par le bureau central du service des renseignements US et le bureau des recherches et des renseignements du département d’Etat américain, divulguait que les Américains avaient informé depuis l’existence d’un arsenal atomique d’Israël. Les agents secrets américains étaient d’ailleurs au courant des investissements gigantesques de Tel-Aviv, destinés à la fabrication de diverses sortes de missiles sol-sol, aptes à être dotés d’ogive nucléaire. Certes, les hommes politiques américains ne semblent pas s’inquiéter sur la prolifération par Israël des armes nucléaires, car ils excluent qu’au moment où Israël se focalise sur ses objectifs politiques et sécuritaires, il songe à proliférer à la fois les armes atomiques, avec pour but de chercher ses objectifs économiques. L’intéressent est qu’on n’entendait jusque là que des rumeurs sur le programme nucléaire israélien, ce qui n’avait jamais été officiellement confirmée. Mais, il n’y a aucun doute sur les révélations à ce propos. Ce document, qui est resté classé “top-secret” pendant ces 34 dernières années, a été soudainement “déclassifié” et publié cette semaine, au moment même où le président américain Georges Bush se touvait en Israël pour une visite historique. De nombreuses voix ses sont de plus élévées hier à propos de la coïncidence troublante entre la déclassification de ce rapport et la récente publication du rapport des services de renseignements américains affirmant que l’Iran avait gelé son programme nucléaire militaire en 2003. Officiellement,et selon le Traité de Non-Polifération Nucléaire, seuls cinq pays sont juridiquement reconnus comme « états dotés de l’arme nucléaire »: Les Etats-Unis, la Russie, la République Populaire de Chine, la France et la Grande-Bretagne. L’Inde et le Pakistan, bien que non-signataires du Traité de Non-Prolifération Nucléaire, disposent d’un arsenal nucléaire depuis leurs premiers essais effectués en 1998. La Corée du Nord est fortement suspectée de posséder une dizaine d’ogives nucléaires, et avait selon les experts, effectué un essai nucléaire le 9 octobre 2006.

Source

http://french.irib.ir/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5240

Sur les vidéos on constate une chose : des canots iraniens se sont approchés à quelques encablures de frégates US, et même dans l’angle mort des armes lourdes. Comme nos navires high-tech sont désormais sous-équipés en canons légers de proximité, on peut imaginer qu’en cas d’attaque sérieuse, les frégates US seraient rapidement débordées… et coulées.

Les Américains répondront qu’en ce cas ils auraient stoppé les canots plus tôt et plus loin. Rien n’est moins certain, leur signal radar étant quasi nul au milieu des vagues. Et puis il n’y a pas si longtemps, les Chinois ont bien réussi à faire entrer un de leur sous-marin dans une task force US sans que les Américains ne le repèrent jusqu’à ce qu’il fasse, exprès, surface.

Non décidément, dans le Golfe ou dans les faubourgs de Bagdad, c’est plus comme à Hollywood.

C’est tragique, le réel.