Forum

L’europe a été et est toujours à “plusieurs vitesses” : OECE, CEE, AELE, EEE, Union douanière, cas de la Suisse, Zone Euro… et je m’arrête à ces seuls traités signés et gérés par nos gouvernements.

L’Organisation Européenne de Coopération Economique (OECE) de 1948 à 1960 a joué un rôle important dans l’exécution du plan Marshall (l’OECE a été “globalisée” en OCDE)

La CEE ou Marché Commun des six pays fondateurs en 1958 (négociatrice la Grande Bretagne n’a pas participé et annonçait un échec inévitable puisque “le continent s’isolait”!).

L’AELE (Association Européenne de Libre Echange) créée par la Grande-Bretagne en 1959 pour contrebalancer la CEE (quelle ambiguité). Bizarement pas avec la Turquie dont les mêmes britanniques sont les grands champions pour l’UE! Il en reste la Norvège, la Suisse, l’Islande et le Liechtenstein.

La Grande Bretagne a déjà été la première a provoquer l’échec de l’AELE en demandant l’adhésion au Marché Commun en 1961: réalisée en 1973…. 12 ans après le refus Gaullien!

D’autres pays ont ensuite quitté l’AELE pour l’UE: Portugal en 1986, Autriche, Suède et Finlande en 1995.

L’Union douanière de 1995 avec la Turquie (qui suit l’accord d’association entre la CEE et la Turquie de 1993)

L’EEE (Espace Economique Européen) constitué en mai 1992 entre l’UE et trois des pays restants de l’AELE: l’Islande, la Norvège et le Liechtenstein.

La Suisse a quitté l’EEE suite à un referendum. Depuis lors elle a signé des accords bilatéraux exhaustifs, y compris des participations budgétaires aux élargissements ! On peut considérer que c’est une union économique sans union douanière. Inutile de dire que ces accords bilatéraux n’ont pas fait l’objet de referendum. Bref les Suisses “s’accordent” sans plus prendre part aux processus de décision.

Le cas Suisse jette ainsi un éclairage sur la Grande Bretagne: les souverainistes britanniques (principalement les néocons comme Murdoch dont la presse domine l’opinion politique britannique) auraient pu provoquer un référendum de sortie depuis longtemps mais cette menace est plus efficace comme outil de pression pour libéraliser l’UE à leur guise, pas la quitter. Les souverainistes dont les néocons ont trouvé un allié inespéré avec les nonistes.

Vu sous cet angle, il ne paraitrait pas incohérent de voir l’évolution exacerbée de la politique occidentale de ces dernières années, en particulier dans le Monde anglo-saxon (US, UK..) et chez leurs obligés (EU..) se préparer à l’imparable; l’inéluctable insuffisance à venir des ressources pétrolières.

Peu importe alors le prétexte officiel pour tacher de prendre le virage; “Al-Qaida terror” ou sans doute le tocsin vis à vis du réchauffement planétaire façon EU (plus soft mais figurant tt de mème parmi les principaux outils de conditionnement actuels, mème si le phénomène semble réel mais à supporter à plus long terme )

Ce que vous appelez l’américanisme ne serait-il alors qu’une manifestation de l’état de panique de ce qui fait le Pouvoir actuel (quel qu’il soit), qui en arrive à fabriquer et imposer des discours de moins en moins crédibles, et finir par y croire parce qu’ils ne peuvent mème plus s’avouer eux-mèmes cette Terrifiante Réalité, ayant bien dû de temps en temps avoir à en analyser les conséquences ?

Peut-ètre avons nous vécus ces dernières années les premiers soubresauts d’une majeure crise de notre forme de civilisation actuelle, trop embarquée dans le jeu de la consommation systématiquement crescendo des ressources naturelles..

Nihilistement donc!..

Je me suis trompé de lien:
http://www.knowckers.org/content/view/270/3/

Le Rafale “semble” être un danger nucléaire pour les parlementaires US:
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/video/0,47-0@2-3208,54-926290,0.html
Pourtant, la propagande anglo-saxonne a toujours tendance à dénigrer les performances du Rafale…

La corruption lors de grandes commandes militaires
n’est pas un phénomène neuf.

Aussi je me demande si l’ire du DoJ US et de l’OCDE n’est pas d’abord une réaction contre l’achat de 72 Eurofighters 2000 -une paille- par l’Arabie Saoudite.

Les Soudiens ont osé acheter autre chose que des F-15 Eagle ou F-18 Hornet AMERICAINS. (il n’y a pas eu de pots-de-vins lors de l’achat par les mêmes Soudiens de F-15, peut-être ?) 

En effet, c’est le premier succès à l’exportation de l’Eurofighter 2000, un avion développé par l’Allemagne, l’Angleterre, l’Espagne, et l’Italie.

Je ne sais pas si on peut recommander Eurofighter GmbH aux Saoudiens pour leur prochaine commande ?

Je me permets de résumer, un résumé particulièrement extrème et de plus en forme de jeux de mots

The American Democracy became a “democrazy”

Z.Brzezinski, H.Kissinger et B.Scowcroft.

La video:  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1293592421496787563

La transcription: http://www.csis.org/media/csis/events/070615_nyc_rose.pdf

Reasons Why the Internet Loves Ron Paul

Posted by Mark Nutter

> Wed, 13 Jun 2007

http://www.nuttersmark.com/blog/articles/2007/06/13/7-reasons-why-the-internet-loves-ron-paul

1. Geeks tend to be libertarians

Simply type in the keyword “libertarian” along with any popular online community keyword such as digg or reddit and you’ll see exactly what I mean. Not to mention every major online poll about the Republican candidates consistently sway in favor of Ron Paul. In fact, one of the top search terms on Technorati has been “Ron Paul” for quite some time now. The Internet is a largely unregulated space - it’s the wild west of the modern age. Despite the absence of regulation, however, we Internet geeks have done a pretty decent job policing ourselves. The Internet represents the last truly free stomping grounds where the masses can trump the fat cats and level the playing field.

Geeks realize that if the government stays out of our lives, most problems will eventually sort themselves out. Spend a week or two on digg.com and you’ll understand the power of the self-regulated Internet. Libertarianism and Internet geeks go together like Guantanamo Bay and daily beatings.

2. Ron Paul is one of us.

Let’s face it; Ron Paul is a huge nerd and he’s not afraid to admit it. He’s that kid in the front of the classroom who raises his hand for every question and isn’t afraid to shoot down his fellow classmates. He has a nasally high voice and an air of sickly satisfying self-confidence, not to mention he’s a pretty svelte and un-intimidating guy. Normally I hate that kid, except of course when he’s taking the right people to task. Ron Paul is “one of the geeks” and it is refreshing for the online community to see someone who not only speaks their language, but isn’t afraid of the standard jock-turned-politician fair they are used to seeing.

3. It’s Dr. Ron Paul.

If there’s one thing geeks respect, it’s intelligence. There’s a reason why Gordon Freeman from the Halflife series is such a popular protaganist. None of the other presidential candidates have the title Doctor in front of their names. It may not be a PhD in the sciences but medical school still requires an extraordinary amount of intelligence and discipline, not to mention practicing medicine on a daily basis. There’s just something very cool about the thought that our next president could be “President Dr. Ron Paul”. Beyond that, if anyone has the right background to fix our horrible medical system it’d be Doc Paul.

4. Ron Paul believes in an unregulated Internet.

Ron Paul has consistently voted against bills that propose any sort of regulation of the Internet. Most recently he voted against a bill to ban Internet gambling, pointing to the fact that such a measure would not prevent online gambling but instead delegate it to organized crime who would not be able to settle business disputes using the law, but rather force. Paul is a huge proponent of net neutrality and believes that the Internet must remain free from intervention and regulation.

5. Mainstream media hates Ron Paul, so that must mean he’s great.

If there’s anything that the Internet community has learned over the past 7 years its that the mainstream media has dropped the ball in almost every respect. Instead of covering important issues like the War in Iraq and the decline of the American dollar, we are bombarded with tabloid headlines about Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole Smith. With social news sites like Newsvine and the multitude of social bookmarking sites out there, not to mention the bloggosphere, Internet geeks stopped relying on mainstream media for their news and information long ago. The one thing we have learned is that the mainstream media is usually wrong or tainted, which means that because they seem to be out to smear Ron Paul as much as possible that pretty much solidifies in most geek’s minds that Paul is the real deal.

6. Internet communities cut through bullshit quick.

Just try going into any forum and spouting some BS and you will get called out before you can hit the refresh button. Since Paul spews the least BS of any candidate, he is a natural hero of the Internet. When Rudy Guliani snapped at Paul for suggesting that American foreign policy had something to do with 9/11, the BS meters online were going berserk. Dr. Paul votes the way he believes and that is a rare quality in politics thes days. He does not believe in trading votes and he votes against everything that is unconstitutional in any way. If you want bullshit, listen to Hillary try to explain her way out of having voted for the war or McCain tell us why we need more troops in Iraq.

7. Ron Paul gets gamers.

While candidates like Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton choose to take the irrational hardline stance against video games, Ron Paul isn’t busy playing the blame game for events like the Virginia Tech shootings. This alone is almost enough for most gamers out there to be convinced.

You may or may not be convinced by the reasons I give above, but there is no denying a single and irrefutable fact: Ron Paul looks like freaking Gandalf. If not for any other reason, this is why Internet geeks everywhere have chosen Ron Paul as their favorite candidate.

Lors de tous les marchés d’importance, surtout militaires, ou presque, il y a des pots-de-vin.

Il me semble que l’ire du DoJ (US) se déclenche justement parce que l’Arabie Saoudite a commis la faute inexcusable d’acheter 72 Eurofighters 2000 et non des appareils amé-ri-cains.

Un point à mon avis essentiel semble passer aujourd’hui inaperçu. En effet le nouvel équilibre politique des forces à l’assemblée nationale et au sénat est tel que la révision constitutionnelle qu’une adoption du mini-traité impliquerait, risque d’être rejetée. Les forces de gauche se sont en effet engagées à ne considérer comme seul légitime en la matière, que le recours au référendum.
Claude Animo

Plus on est de fous plus on rit
n’est-ce pas ?

A quand des psychiatres pour examiner la santé
mentale de nos dirigeants .

Je convie les lecteurs de ce site à lire la postface
de Mme Marie France Hirigoyen sur le harcelement moral . Ils y trouveront un commencement d’explication sur cette période trouble et troublée.

Evidemment notre ami français se fait cocardier à l’occasion .

Peut-être devrait-il relire son philosophe préféré
sur Diego ...

Bravo et merci pour vos articles parfois iconoclastes. Mais c’est justement ce qui en fait l’intérêt. Oui l’Europe est une monstruosité, dès le départ ; dans la manière de se construire, ses objectifs, ses méthodes etc…Il n’y a rien de raisonnable et de rationnel là dedans et beaucoup de scélérats. L’Europe est une folie dès le départ.

De profundis

PS : la perversion est partout et permanente dans cette affaire.

Ca c’est du pervertisme !

Le problème du billard à trois bandes, et plus, est qu’il revient trop souvent comme un ... boomerang.

Un Blair ne pourrait-il pas se révéler encore plus spirituel et charismatique à un tel niveau et réussir ?

Peut-être qu’en faisant intervenir le père du traité, Giscard, introduirait-on la dose de pouvoir de nuisance suffisante pour dormir tranquille.

Des faits :
La 2è circonscription de Lozère compte 27 563 électeurs inscrits en 2007 (et 34 374 habitants au recensement 1999)
La 2è circonscription du Val d’Oise compte 114 930 électeurs inscrits en 2007 (et 188 200 habitants en 99)
Le rapport est de 1 à 4.
A Paris, la 3è compte environ 43 000 inscrits, la 21è 75 000.
Le Conseil constitutionnel le remarquait dès 2003, rappelant que la Constitution (art. 3) dispose que “le suffrage est toujours universel, égal et secret”.

depuis http://www.stratfor.com

U.S.: The Real Reason Behind Ballistic Missile Defense
June 18, 2007 14 45 GMT

Summary

The U.S. ballistic missile defense system slated for Poland and the Czech Republic has been continually touted as intended to counter long-range Iranian missiles—which is true—but it is also entirely consistent with long-term U.S. strategy.

Analysis

Washington has spent the last six months trying to convince the world that the expansion of the nascent U.S. ballistic missile defense (BMD) system into Europe poses no threat to Russia’s strategic deterrent, but rather is only intended to counter Iran and other Middle Eastern threats. The U.S. claims are accurate—for now.

In 1998, the world was stunned when North Korea launched a Taepodong-1 that very nearly put its payload into orbit. Through force of willpower, persistence and innovation, North Korean engineers effectively built an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) with little more than Scud missile technology (which essentially is little more than World War II-era German V-2 technology). That launch provided a signpost for the future of strategic security since, if North Korea could do it in 1998, almost any nation in the world might be in a position to threaten the continental United States in the next 50 years.

Washington has now placed a rudimentary ground-based midcourse defense (GMD) system in Alaska to counter the North Korean threat. The same system is slated for deployment in Poland and the Czech Republic to counter a similar threat from Iran in the near future.

Such a BMD system accomplishes three things:

1. It protects the United States from a small-scale rogue missile launch from very specific regions of the world.

2. It undermines the use of a yet-to-exist Iranian or North Korean ICBM as a negotiating tool.

3. It deters the development of such systems (which represent a huge national investment for countries like Iran and North Korea).

While the U.S. plan is all well and good, is it worth the price? There is certainly an economic argument in favor of BMD. If the system stopped a nuclear missile from striking a large U.S. city, then the costs of development (already at some $110 billion since former President Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative) would pale in comparison to post-nuclear-strike reconstruction costs.

But building a crude nuclear device is difficult enough. The specialized materials and technical skill required to miniaturize a weapon and harden it against the strain of launch, the cold of space and the heat of re-entry is prohibitive for all but a handful of nations. If BMD is to be understood as a defense against nuclear terrorism, then there are far more likely scenarios to be considered, and the massive investment would be better spent elsewhere—such as on port security, where a much more rudimentary device could be slipped into the United States.

The true utility of BMD is measured by its congruence with the five imperatives that have dominated U.S. strategy for the better part of two centuries:

1. maintaining control over North America

2. securing strategic depth for the continental United States

3. controlling sea approaches to North America

4. dominating the oceans

5. keeping Eurasia divided

BMD is not just consistent with one of these themes; it is the logical outgrowth of three of them, and has contributed incidentally to a fourth (e.g., rivalries within Eurasia). At the end of the 19th century, Rear Adm. Alfred Thayer Mahan advocated the foundational importance to U.S. geopolitical security of a strong Navy. Now as in Mahan’s time, the U.S. Navy provides North America the buffer that has been the foundation of U.S. geopolitical security and stability since the mid-1900s. BMD will help secure the same strategic depth for the continental U.S. and extend control of the sea approaches and dominance of the ocean into space.

So while Iran tries to cobble together a few more centrifuges and Russia rattles its saber, Washington is extending its technological military dominance across and above the same oceans that have protected it for the better part of two centuries—and building the foundations for a far more capable BMD system. Follow-on technology will dramatically improve what is now a barely-functional system. It can become more robust, flexible and mobile. Specific land-based sites will eventually become more or less irrelevant.

The current debate therefore is extremely shortsighted. In the long term, BMD is about one thing: space . Poland and the Czech Republic are about to be equipped with the rudimentary technological precursor to a series of systems that are truly the technological beginnings of the full-fledged national missile defense shield Reagan once envisioned. These incremental steps—of which nascent BMD systems extending across both the Atlantic and Pacific are only an early instance—will attempt to solidify for the U.S. military the same dominance of space that it now enjoys on the planet’s blue water, and in so doing extend Mahan’s vision of North American continental security from the steam-powered warship to the anti-satellite weapon.

And therein lies the true leap. BMD is not just about missiles; it is about the technology and sensors necessary to dominate space. The U.S. Air Force already has a claim to that dominance of space. But it is currently a fragile dominance—perhaps less fragile than open sources would suggest, but far more fragile than most realize. Space-based assets are a keystone of the Pentagon’s technological superiority. The United States has been so successful in this realm, in fact, that it is becoming a cornerstone of U.S. economic prosperity. This dependence creates a potentially significant vulnerability, however, meaning the ability to counter an anti-satellite weapon launched via missile is of direct relevance to the next generation of BMD technology.

BMD is also about the capability to deny the utility of space to adversaries (in accordance with the official 2004 Air Force Counterspace Operations doctrine). The difference between intercepting a ballistic missile warhead 500 miles above the earth and hitting a satellite at the same altitude is simple: It is harder to hit the ballistic missile warhead.

Thus, the debate about placing a BMD radar in the Czech Republic, and the distinction between Poland and Azerbaijan, is immaterial in the long run. The United States is pushing ahead with the technological development and operational deployment necessary to build the knowledge base and technical capacity to take these next steps toward not only defending itself in space, but also fighting there.