Forum

Cette réponse a été refusée
“Ceux qui parlent et ecrivent si franchement contre la guerre, peuvent le faire
grace aux allies en 1944. Visitez les cimitieres en Normandie! Rapellez Oradure-sur-Glane! Combien de villages y a-t-il comme ca en Irak?  Je comprends vos peurs. Je n’aime pas Bush et sa bande, moi non plus. Personne ne veut la guerre, mais, quelquefois c’est juste “
Stuart Tiffin. Citoyen anglais. 50 ans
REPONSE
Cher Ami anglais,
Votre message aurait pu s’intituler :“Leçon à des ingrats”.
Vous vous prévalez de vos cinquante ans. Vous nous donnez la preuve, avec cet argument d’ancienneté, que vous n’étiez pas encore conçu en 1944, lors du débarquement. C’est bien plus tard que vous avez pu juger la signification de ces événements : il faut atteindre au moins l’âge de 15 ou 16 ans pour porter un avis plus ou moins objectif. Vous devez être né vers 1953, et c’est donc en 1970 que vous avez pu essayer de vous former une opinion personnelle sur le passé.
Je pense que votre insularité vous a coupé des récits et des lectures continentales.
Le maccarthysme avait sévi auparavant, dans les années cinquante, et la guerre froide
continuait. Je doute de l’objectivité des cours d’histoire que l’on vous a infligés. Comme
chez nous, on vous a présenté une vérité boiteuse : à cette époque sur le continent, on nous
présentait la guerre d’Algérie comme une opération légitime, de même qu’en 1960, des anciens du contingent soutenaient que notre belle colonie d’Indochine avait été perdue faute d’hommes énergiques au pouvoir.
La belle légende ! les Américains et les Britanniques délivrant, à eux seuls, les populations
européennes de l’esclavage.
Il est certain que si les nazis l’avaient emporté, nous serions dans une dictature pire que celle de Saddam. Heureusement, ce cher Hitler a commis une erreur aussi monstrueuse (pour son régime) que ses camps de la mort : il a rompu le pacte de non-agression signé avec l’URSS.
On a célébré un peu partout la bataille de Stalingrad, des animateurs de radio l’ont même
présentée comme un tournant de l’histoire, ce qui est juste. Mais pourquoi ont-ils insisté sur la “sauvagerie” des troupes russes, au lieu de montrer leur héroïsme. Que dire de la sauvagerie des nettoyeurs de tranchée, en 1914, utilisant des couteaux de boucherie ou encore “Rosalie”, la baïonnette ! Ils n’ont pas lu Dorgelès, ni Gabriel Chevalier, ni Barbusse, ces présentateurs jeunets!
Mais comme disait ce bon vieux Rudyard, ceci est une autre histoire…
Vous nous avez confié votre âge: très bien ! Moi, j’ai soixante-quinze balais. J’avais
17 ans en 1944 : l’âge de raisonner et de réfuter, ce que je faisais continuellement, car j’étais alors en classe de Philosophie. J’ai vécu l’angoisse des bombardements alliés, j’ai connu l’efficacité de la Résistance, qui a immobilisé de nombreuses divisions allemandes, fait qui est minimisé aujourd’hui. Mais en décembre 1944, j’ai connu les affres de la peur lors de l’offensive de von Runstedt, dont les “Panzers” se sont arrêtés à TROIS kilomètres de chez moi, paralysés par une pénurie d’essence. J’ai vu fuir, comme des lapins, les troupes américaines. Les soldats de “Monty” ( général Montgomery) n’étaient pas très fiers, eux non plus.
Et pendant ce temps-là, le “rouleau compresseur russe”(expression de la BBC de l’époque) écrasait inexorablement cette armée allemande dont on avait laborieusement distrait quelques divisions pour infliger une terrible tripotée aux Alliés.
Si la Russie avait été laissée en paix, en juin 1941, nous serions probablement encore asservis.
Et voilà ! Si vous doutez, revoyez votre histoire dans des livres échappant à la propagande nationaliste et néoc…. Eric Hobsbawm a écrit ” The Age of Extremes”.
Ayez donc le courage de lire cette oeuvre magistrale.

I take your hand and shake it vigorously.

http://traprockpeace.org/vxclaims.html
apres le faux dossier, les aveux de generaux irakiens arranges pour les besoins de la propagande, voici le dernier mensonge en date: le VX produit en 91 et que tout le monde cherche ne pouvait pas durer plus de quelques semaines.
UNMOVIC dixit.

Votre analyse de la “conférence” des Açores est très pertinente.
Vous vous étonnez de la présence d’Aznar ? Moi je m’en inquiète : le personnage compte entrer
au Conseil de l’Europe où il pourrait fort bien jouer le rôle d’ “oeil de Big Brother”.
Ne trouvez-vous pas ?
Encore bravo pour votre site.

CD

L’Attorney général Ashcroft poursuit sans désemparer sa démolition des Droits de l’Homme aux U.S.

Les U.S. tendent à ressembler de plus en plus à un curieux et effrayant mélange d’ayatollisme iranien et de totalitarisme soviétique. Ce qui ne les empêche nullement de prétendre vouloir simultanément exporter, manu militari, la démocratie de par le monde.

http://villagevoice.com/issues/0310/hentoff.php

Ashcroft Out of Control
    Ominous Sequel to USA Patriot Act
    By Nat Hentoff
    Village Voice

    Friday 28 February 2003

    Many of the new security measures proposed by our government in the name of fighting the “war on terror” are not temporary. They are permanent changes to our laws. Even the measures that, on the surface, appear to have been adopted only as long as the war on terror lasts, could be with us indefinitely. Because, as Homeland Security director Tom Ridge himself has warned, terrorism is a “permanent condition to which America must . . . adjust.”  - American Civil Liberties Union, January 29

    Since September 11, 2001, a number of us at the Voice have been detailing the Bush administration’s accelerating war on the Bill of Rights - and the rising resistance around the country. This battle to protect the Constitution, and us, has entered a new and more dangerous dimension.

    On February 7, Charles Lewis, head of the Washington-based Center for Public Integrity, received a secret, but not classified, Justice Department draft of a bill that would expand the already unprecedented government powers to restrict civil liberties authorized by the USA Patriot Act. This new bill is called the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003. Lewis, in an act of patriotism - since this still is a constitutional democracy - put the 86-page draft on the center’s Web site, where it still remains (http://www.publicintegrity.org/).

    On the evening of February 7, Charles Lewis discussed this new assault on our fundamental liberties on Bill Moyers’s PBS program, Now.

    Three days later, on the editorial page of the daily New York Sun, primarily a conservative newspaper, Errol Louis wrote: “[The] document is a catalog of authoritarianism that runs counter to the basic tenets of modern democracy.”

    I have the entire draft of the bill. Section 201 would overturn a federal court decision that ordered the Bush administration to reveal the identities of those it has detained (imprisoned) since 9-11. This sequel to the USA Patriot Act states that “the government need not disclose information about individuals detained in investigations of terrorism until . . . the initiation of criminal charges.”

    Many of the prisoners caught in the Justice Department’s initial dragnet were held for months without charges or contact with their families, who didn’t know where they were. And these prisoners were often abused and out of reach of their lawyers - if they’d been able to find a lawyer before being shifted among various prisons. When, after much pressure, the Justice Department released the numbers of the imprisoned, there were no names attached, until a lower court decided otherwise.

    Under the proposed Ashcroft bill reversing that court decision, for the first time in U.S. history, secret arrests will be specifically permitted. That section of bill is flatly titled: “Prohibition of Disclosure of Terrorism Investigation Detainee Information.” In Argentina, those secretly taken away were known as “the disappeared.”

    Moving on, under Section 501 of the blandly titled Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, an American citizen can be stripped of citizenship if he or she “becomes a member of, or provides material support to, a group that the United States has designated as a ‘terrorist organization,’ if that group is engaged in hostilities against the United States.”

    Until now, in our law, an American could only lose his or her citizenship by declaring a clear intent to abandon it. But~Wand read this carefully from the new bill - “the intent to relinquish nationality need not be manifested in words, but can be inferred from conduct.” (Emphasis added).

    Who will do the “inferring”? A member of the Justice Department. Not to worry. As John Ashcroft’s spokeswoman, Barbara Comstock, says of objections to this draft bill: “The [Justice] department’s deliberations are always undertaken with the strongest commitment to our Constitution and civil liberties.” (This is a faith- based administration.)

    What this section of the bill actually means is that if you provide “material support” to an organization by sending a check for its legal activities~Wnot knowing that it has been designated a “terrorist” group for other things it does - you can be stripped of your citizenship and be detained indefinitely as an alien. While South Africa was ruled by an apartheid government, certain activities of the African National Congress were categorized as “terrorist,” but many Americans provided support to the legal anti-apartheid work of that organization.

    Under Section 302 of John Ashcroft’s design for our future during the indefinite war on terrorism, there is another change in our legal system. Under current law, the FBI can collect DNA identification records of persons convicted of various crimes. But under the USA Patriot Act II, the “Attorney General or Secretary of Defense” will be able to “collect, analyze, and maintain DNA samples” of “suspected terrorists.” And as Georgetown law professor David Cole notes - “mere association” will be enough to involve you with suspected terrorist groups. What does “association” mean? For one thing, “material support,” under which you could lose your citizenship.

    In reaction to the stealth with which the Justice Department has been crafting this invasion of the Bill of Rights, Democratic senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on February 10: “The early signals from the administration about its intentions for this bill are ominous. . . .

    “For months, and as recently as just last week, Justice Department officials have denied to members of the Judiciary Committee that they were drafting another anti-terrorism package. There still has not been any hint from them about their draft bill.”

    Leahy continued: “The contents of this proposal should be carefully reviewed, and the public must be allowed to freely engage in any debate about the merits of any new government powers the administration may seek.”

    But where is the debate in Congress or in the media? After a few initial press stories about the USA Patriot Act II, there has been little follow-up. To be continued here.

    (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Un document du Département d’Etat US révélé par la Los Angeles Times du 14 mars (repris par le site alternatif Truthout http://truthout.org/docs_03/031603B.shtml) exprime le sentiment que la théorie Bushienne des dominos (d’abord la démocratie en Irak et ensuite dans le reste de la région) a peut de chances de se voir confirmer par les faits.

“The report exposes significant divisions within the Bush administration over the so-called democratic domino theory, one of the arguments that underpins the case for invading Iraq.

The report, which has been distributed to a small group of top government officials but not publicly disclosed, says that daunting economic and social problems are likely to undermine basic stability in the region for years, let alone prospects for democratic reform.

Even if some version of democracy took root — an event the report casts as unlikely — anti-American sentiment is so pervasive that elections in the short term could lead to the rise of Islamic-controlled governments hostile to the United States.

“Liberal democracy would be difficult to achieve,” says one passage of the report, according to an intelligence official who agreed to read portions of it to The Times.

“Electoral democracy, were it to emerge, could well be subject to exploitation by anti-American elements.”

The thrust of the document, the source said, “is that this idea that you’re going to transform the Middle East and fundamentally alter its trajectory is not credible.”

Even the document’s title appears to dismiss the administration argument. The report is labeled “Iraq, the Middle East and Change: No Dominoes.” “

(...)

The report was produced by the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, the in-house analytical arm.

The obstacles to reform outlined in the report are daunting.

“Middle East societies are riven” by political, economic and social problems that are likely to undermine stability “regardless of the nature of any externally influenced or spontaneous, indigenous change,” the report said, according to the source.

The report is dated Feb. 26, officials said, the same day Bush endorsed the domino theory in a speech to the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington.

It’s not clear whether the president has seen the report, but such documents are typically distributed to top national security officials.

“A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region,” Bush said.

Other top administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, have made similar remarks in recent months.

But the argument has been pushed hardest by a group of officials and advisors who have been the leading proponents of going to war with Iraq. Prominent among them are Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, and Richard Perle, chairman of the Defense Policy Board, an influential Pentagon advisory panel.

Wolfowitz has said that Iraq could be “the first Arab democracy” and that even modest democratic progress in Iraq would “cast a very large shadow, starting with Syria and Iran but across the whole Arab world.”

Similarly, Perle has said that a reformed Iraq “has the potential to transform the thinking of people around the world about the potential for democracy, even in Arab countries where people have been disparaging of their potential.”

Dans la théocratie U.S., le Ciel n’arrête décidément pas de se manifester. On savait qu’il communiquait régulièrement avec G. W. Bush, mais il communique aussi avec d’autres, Juifs ou Gentils.

Ainsi, la dernière fois que Dieu s’est exprimé, c’est en prenant les apparences d’une carpe, comme nous l’apprend l’Observer du 16 mars 2003…

http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,915125,00.html

Word is made flesh as God reveals himself… as a fish

Edward Helmore New York
Sunday March 16, 2003
The Observer

An obscure Jewish sect in New York has been gripped in awe by what it believes to be a mystical visitation by a 20lb carp that was heard shouting in Hebrew, in what many Jews worldwide are hailing as a modern miracle.
Many of the 7,000-member Skver sect of Hasidim in New Square, 30 miles north of Manhattan, believe God has revealed himself in fish form.

According to two fish-cutters at the New Square Fish Market, the carp was about to be slaughtered and made into gefilte fish for Sabbath dinner when it suddenly began shouting apocalyptic warnings in Hebrew.

Many believe the carp was channelling the troubled soul of a revered community elder who recently died; others say it was God. The only witnesses to the mystical show were Zalmen Rosen, a 57-year-old Hasid with 11 children, and his co-worker, Luis Nivelo. They say that on 28 January at 4pm they were about to club the carp on the head when it began yelling.

Nivelo, a Gentile who does not understand Hebrew, was so shocked at the sight of a fish talking in any language that he fell over. He ran into the front of the store screaming: ‘It’s the Devil! The Devil is here!’ Then the shop owner heard it shouting warnings and commands too.

‘It said “Tzaruch shemirah” and “Hasof bah”,’ he told the New York Times, ‘which essentially means that everyone needs to account for themselves because the end is near.’

The animated carp commanded Rosen to pray and study the Torah. Rosen tried to kill the fish but injured himself. It was finally butchered by Nivelo and sold.

However, word spread far and wide and Nivelo complains he has been plagued by phone calls from as far away as London and Israel. The story has since been amplified by repetition and some now believe the fish’s outburst was a warning about the dangers of the impending war in Iraq.

Some say they fear the born-again President Bush believes he is preparing the world for the Second Coming of Christ, and war in Iraq is just the opening salvo in the battle of Armageddon.

Local resident Abraham Spitz said: ‘Two men do not dream the same dream. It is very rare that God reminds people he exists in this modern world. But when he does, you cannot ignore it.’

Others in New Square discount the apocalyptic reading altogether and suggest the notion of a talking fish is as fictional as Tony Soprano’s talking-fish dream in an episode of The Sopranos .

Stand-up comedians have already incorporated the carp into their comedy routines at weddings. One gefilte company has considered changing it’s slogan to: ‘Our fish speaks for itself.’

Still, the shouting carp corresponds with the belief of some Hasidic sects that righteous people can be reincarnated as fish. They say that Nivelo may have been selected because he is not Jewish, but a weary Nivelo told the New York Times : ‘I wish I never said anything about it. I’m getting so many calls every day, I’ve stopped answering. Israel, London, Miami, Brooklyn. They all want to hear about the talking fish.’

A devout Christian, he still thinks the carp was the Devil. ‘I don’t believe any of this Jewish stuff. But I heard that fish talk.’

He’s grown tired of the whole thing. ‘It’s just a big headache for me,’ he added. ‘I pull my phone out of the wall at night. I don’t sleep and I’ve lost weight.’

40 millions d’Américains (ils sont 254 millions en tout, donc un sur six, à peu près) croient à la proche survenue de l’Apocalypse telle que décrite dans la Bible. Et ce serait en partie ce qui motive leur soutien à Bush. C’est ce que nous explique entre autres cet article du CSM qui nous invite à réfléchir sur le rôle décidément étonnant de la religion aux U.S.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0317/p01s01-uspo.html

“Christian Science Monitor”
from the March 17, 2003 edition

New scrutiny of role of religion in Bush’s policies

The president’s rhetoric worries even some evangelicals

By Jane Lampman | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

President Bush has never been shy about injecting his faith into the public arena - his campaign remark that Jesus Christ was his “favorite political philosopher” was an early signal. But his rising use of religious language and imagery in recent months, especially with regard to the US role in the world, has stirred concern both at home and abroad.
In this year’s State of the Union address, for example, Bush quoted an evangelical hymn that refers to the power of Christ. “‘There’s power, wonder-working power,’ in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people,” he said.

Today’s feature

• If not war, then what? Examining the diversity of the antiwar movement.

• Daily Update: An online roundup of a post-Sept. 11 world.

• War against Iraq: questions and answers

• Full Iraq coverage

  E-mail this story

Write a letter to the Editor

Printer-friendly version

Permission to reprint/republish

 
Now, some critics are wondering whether the influence of Bush’s evangelical faith goes beyond public rhetoric to shape his foreign policy regarding Iraq and the Middle East.

With public speculation in full swing, the Christian Century last week insisted that “the American people have a right to know how the president’s faith is informing his public policies, not least his design on Iraq.”

No one presumes to know how another’s personal faith plays out in public life, and the president’s spokesman insists that Mr. Bush makes his decisions as a “secular leader.”

Not all evangelicals are pleased

Yet among those who share his evangelical Christianity, the satisfaction of having a born-again believer in the White House doesn’t necessarily preclude an uneasiness with some of his rhetoric and policies.

Forty evangelical leaders, for instance, wrote the president last summer seeking an “evenhanded US policy” toward Israel and the Palestinians and rejecting “the way some have distorted biblical passages as their rationale for uncritical support” for Israel. Some evangelical groups are close allies of the Sharon government and work in the US to build support.

Still, the infusion of religious conviction into presidential speeches warms many hearts. To one of his most vocal supporters, Bush is simply using the language of American civil religion.

“George Bush is standing squarely in a tradition as old as the country,” says Richard Land, head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. “Lincoln’s Second Inaugural address is like a sermon. The Declaration of Independence says we are endowed by our Creator with rights and appeals to God for the success of the Revolutionary cause.”

As for the president’s frequent remarks on the US leading the fight of good against evil in the world, he adds, “Saddam Hussein is evil, and compared to him we are pure and good.”

Others applaud Bush’s clarity in a time of national crisis. “He has reintroduced into the culture the language of morality and moral distinctions,” says Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary, in Pasadena, Calif.

Lessons from past presidents

Yet Dr. Mouw worries about explicitly Christian phraseology that Jews and Muslims hear in the light of their own histories. And he sees lessons in how two other presidents communicated their convictions.

Jimmy Carter, for instance, carefully avoided using Christian language in public. Abraham Lincoln, on the other hand, regularly used the language of Scripture, yet invoked the will of God not for one side or the other in war, but to call everyone to humility, repentance, and reconciliation.

“We may have to go to war in Iraq,” Mouw says, but “we are at a place internationally where, if the president does want to use the language of religion, he might do better to admit some of our mistakes. What if he actually asked forgiveness on behalf of a nation that in the past supported Saddam Hussein?”

Some express concern, too, about Bush’s tendency to demonize the enemy, whether it be Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, or the nations of the “axis of evil.”

“Demonization can produce hatred, and all of a sudden, we’re heading toward a battle of civilizations” when we don’t have to be, says Robert Seiple, president of the Institute for Global Engagement, a think tank on religious freedom in St. Davids, Pa.

The Gospel, some evangelicals are quick to note, teaches that the line separating good and evil runs not between nations, but inside every human heart.

Although Bush consistently speaks well of Islam, some Americans worry his religious language makes it easier to connect him and US policy - in the eyes of the world’s Muslims - to evangelical preachers who call Islam “an evil religion.”

And more are beginning to question how the evangelicalism of Bush, key aides such as Condoleezza Rice, and his political constituency might play a role in Middle East policy.

According to evangelicals, the vast majority of them are very supportive of Israel for religious reasons. “The president certainly knows that and may be influenced by the same things,” Mouw says.

Roots of evangelical support for Israel

But the reasons aren’t those usually portrayed by the media. “The idea that evangelicals support Israel because they want to hasten the Second Coming is absolute nonsense,” says Dr. Land. “No human being can do anything to hasten or retard that.”

Evangelical support rests, Land explains, on God’s biblical promise to give the land of Israel to the Jews forever, and on God’s statement that he will “bless those who bless the Jews and curse those who curse the Jews.”

That statement holds considerable power among some evangelicals. “There’s a strong tendency toward uncritical support of Israel and that verse gets thrown at us whenever we are critical of some policy,” says Mouw, one of the leaders to sign the letter to Bush.

“My response to that is that anyone who wants to bless Israel needs to be sure that Israel does justice - the Old Testament prophets loved Israel, but [also] said God was angry with them because they had taken other peoples’ houses and land,” he adds.

Dr. Seiple is disappointed, too, in Bush’s failure to see the moral ambiguity and complexity in the Palestinian-Israeli question. “We went from an honest broker to one-sided emphasis,” he says. “It may play well with his base politically, and he might believe it theologically ... but it’s not where I would give him high marks for moral leadership.”

Even the potential war with Iraq has its biblical resonances. “Iraq as Babylon - I’ve been hearing that a lot lately,” Mouw says. “The two prominent images are the glorious city of Jerusalem and the wicked city of Babylon ... and there’s no question [that] the fact Iraq is the site of ancient Babylon is a motif that influences evangelicals.”

An intriguing question is the extent to which Americans share the apocalyptic views of some evangelicals that we are heading into the last days of the final battle between good and evil. Polls indicate that some 40 million do.

What’s clear is that while evangelicals greatly value the renewed moral tone and religious conviction in the presidency, they, like other Americans, differ over how the president expresses that conviction and the implications for his decisionmaking. Bush has said he tends to make decisions by gut instinct. Many Americans are wondering which religious instincts might hold sway as he acts to determine the course of history.

On mettra au crédit des Etats-Unis que c’est un journal lui-même religieux (du moins par appartenance, parce qu’en fait il s’efforce de rester objectif), le Christian Science Monitor, qui s’interroge sur le messianisme bushien. Mais peut-être est-ce aussi parce qu’il y voit un danger de “backlash” (contrecoup) contre la mouvance chrétienne.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html

Les services secrets fournissent des faux documents et on se demande bien qui a pu ainsi tromper ... ces mêmes services secrets!
Autocensure, comique involontaire ou second dégré, c’est selon.

“Tu dois désarmer pour te conformer aux résolutions de l’ONU, sinon ce sera la guerre”. “De toutes façons quoi que tu fasses, nous t’attaquerons”. Tel est la double contrainte (“double bind”) dans laquelle les US enferment Saddam Hussein. S’il ne désarme pas ce sera la guerre ; et s’il désarme se sera quand même la guerre.
Le résultat totalement surréaliste de cette double contrainte c’est que l’on voit un pays détruire ses missiles alors qu’il sait qu’il va être sûrement être attaqué dans les jours qui suivent.
On a ensuite le culot d’affirmer que “la balle est dans le camp de Saddam”, que “la paix ou la guerre dépendent de lui et de sa bonne volonté”.
On peut n’avoir aucune sympathie pour ce tyran, mais comment pourrait-on avoir de la sympathie pour ceux qui, au nom de la liberté et de la démocratie, mettent autrui dans des dilemmes aussi insolubles ?
Le paradoxe de cette affaire, c’est que c’est finalement le camp des pays anti-guerre qui a facilité la tâche aux bellicistes US : en exigeant des inspections ONU vigoureuses et la destruction des missiles, les pays anti-guerre ont rendu la guerre plus facile à mener.
Ah, les bonnes intentions ! L’enfer en est manifestement pavé.

Il serait en tous cas étonnant qu’à la suite de cet épisode qui constitue probablement une première historique, il puisse encore se trouver des pays acceptant de procéder à un désarmement demandé par l’ONU.
“Face je gagne, pile tu perds”, tel est le type de propositions que la puissance US propose, ou plutôt impose, désormais au monde,  plus clairement que jamais, tout en soutenant haut et fort que chacun est, bien sûr, “libre” de choisir “pile” plutôt que “face”.
Accessoirement, les Américains semblent avoir décidément perdu tout sens de l’honneur : ils sont historiquement le premier pays à faire procéder à un désarmement avant d’attaquer. Quelle grandeur !

Pour moi, c’est simplement la qualité des analyses qui m’a rendu fidèle au site. Je regrette seulement que certains articles, reproduits dans leur anglais original, ne soient pas traduits. J’y arrive, mais c’est plus difficile.

L’Institut Caton (Washington D.C) est un lieu d’analyses politique et
géopolitique qui s’est toujours distingué de la politique pratiquée par
l’administration en cours. Sa position fut particulièrement objective durant la
guerre du Kosovo. En décembre 2002, il a publié une étude visant à
démontrer le caractère nuisible d’une guerre avec l’Irak . En bref, les auteurs
estiment que la stratégie la moins coûteuse est la diplomatie. Hussein est rationnel
au sens où les économistes et les politologues emploie ce terme.
En ne perdant pas de vue que Hussein ne songe qu’à se maintenir au pouvoir,
Washington peut développer une stratégie le dissuadant de mener des actions
au détriment de la sécurité des USA, sans s’engager dans une guerre.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa464.pdf

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31535

Michael Ratner, président du Centre pour les Droits Constitutionnels
qui a son siège à New York (consulter http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/home.asp ),
affirme que la volonté des USA et de l’Angleterre de déclarer la guerre à
l’Irak, sans la permission du Conseil de Sécurité, est le genre de menace auquelles
l’ONU a pensé, en rédigeant, en 1950, sa Résolution 377, baptisée “Union pour la paix”.
Selon Ratner, en invoquant cette résolution, l’Assemblée Générale peut se réunir dans les 24 heures pour considérer le problème, et peut recommander des mesures collectives aux
membres des Nations Unies, y compris l’usage de la force armée pour maintenir ou restaurer la paix et la sécurité internationales.
LES NATIONS-UNIES DECLENCHANT UNE ACTION MILITAIRE CONTRE LES USA ?
Shonna Carter, journaliste, estime qu’il serait légitime pour l’ONU d’utiliser la force militaire pour ” stopper l’agression US”. “Mais je doute que cela puisse se produire”
dit-elle encore. MORALITE : Les puissants peuvent tout se permettre. Quel cuisant`
échec pour le grand espoir que constituait l’O.N.U.dans les années 50 !
Consulter Shonna Carter, Riptide Communications
http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/newsroom/releases/pReleases.asp?ObjID=Bc4VzOSKAL&Content=183

Nos bons amis les neo-cons d’Amerikkkke préparent la suite : après l’Irak, l’Iran. Et c’est au “modéré” Colin Powell que revient la tâche de préparer l’opinion mondiale à une future attaque “pré-emptive”.

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=9C32143D-B768-405D-9B83A41041556807

Quand donc les Européens “atlantistes” finiront-ils par comprendre que les US (en tous cas, leur gouvernement) sont le cancer de cette planète ?

“Secretary of State Colin Powell says revelations in recent days about the extent of Iran’s nuclear program vindicate the Bush administration’s tough approach toward the Islamic government in Tehran. In congressional testimony Thursday, Mr. Powell also stressed U.S. support for Iranian reformers and their youthful supporters.

Mr. Powell says new information about Iran’s nominally-peaceful nuclear program, which emerged after a visit to previously secret nuclear sites in that country by U.N. inspectors, has reinforced deep concerns among U.S. officials that Iran is using its nuclear power infrastructure to develop nuclear weapons.”

La suite de ce texte se trouve sur

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=9C32143D-B768-405D-9B83A41041556807

Les Etats-Unis sont ils une démocratie ou une théocratie ? A la lecture de ce texte de pieuse April Shenandoah (que l’on peut trouver sur le site ultra-conservateur GOPUSA http://www.gopusa.com/), la réponse devient de plus en plus évidente : théocratie !

“Wall of Separation” Will Lead To Slaughter
By April Shenandoah
March 10, 2003

The San Francisco 9th circuit, federal appeals court, that outraged much of the country last summer when it declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because of the words “under God”, has refused to reconsider that ruling. It will most likely go to the Supreme Court. The three judge panel that handed down that decision said the phrase “under God” violates the separation of church and state mandated by the Constitution. Excuse me? The phrase or anything relating to “separation of church and state” is NOT in the Constitution! Why isn’t someone in government disputing this publicly? A Presidential press conference is in order to let the American people know they have been hoodwinked.

Have we not learned anything in this country the last two years. When we were frightened out of our wits by terrorists we certainly had no problem acknowledging God. We had prayer vigils across the country and church services that were televised from Washington, DC and New York City. Attending these services were President Bush and members of the House and Senate. Does anyone think that God might be trying to get our attention?

Recently, Fox News reported that Governor Bob Riley from Alabama was being accused of violating the separation of church and state by holding a Bible study on government property and having staff members attend voluntarily. Well, for all those who are monitoring all the people who are getting together in the name of “God” on Capitol Hill - listen up. There are dozens of Bible studies in the House and the Senate and it has been a privilege for me to participate in most of them. The Chaplain of the Senate, Dr. Lloyd Olgilvie has been holding a weekly Bible study every Friday afternoon in the Senate building for sometime, and it even includes lunch. A “ladies tea” presents the gospel where Congressional wives share their spiritual experiences. Each February, during The National Prayer Breakfast, there are luncheons conducted by Media Fellowship held in the Senate building. There is a weekly Bible study in the White House Executive Offices. President Bush prays often in the Oval Office, with Heads of State. When Clinton was in office a small group was allowed to walk and pray through the White House after hours. And of course, each session of the House and Senate is opened in prayer. So you Godless minded folks who are offended by all these religious-goings- on, have your work cut out for you. Just remember, as you attempt to remove God and replace Him with Humanism, your soul is at risk.

The notion that Christians do not belong in the political arena has been adopted by the misguided church - God’s plan was for His people to rule over all the earth. The Soviet Union’s constitution and other secularized nations tell us that religion must be kept out of public debates and that religion only belongs in the church. However, the more the nations buy into this “Godless lie” of keeping religion out of schools and politics, the more society falls apart. When we eliminate God we remove His hand of protection. God does not hang around where He is not welcome. So if God isn’t invited to call the shots, guess who does?

The hypocrisy of today’s political system is maddening. When Rev. Jesse Jackson pushes his agenda around through Rainbow Push Coalition it seems perfectly acceptable, but if Pat Robertson or a Christian activist shares a political opinion publicly it is considered taboo. Rev. Jackson and Bill Clinton make the rounds of churches, campaigning for their party—a conservative is likely to be arrested for doing so. Rev. Barry Lynn, Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, is deemed an expert on the subject and is a regular guest on national television. True experts on the subject, from a Biblical and historical point of view, are usually denied TV time.

In an increasing Godless society, the person who lives by Biblical standards is considered an outcast and even criminal. The “good citizen” is anyone who accepts the lower standards of morality and abides by the “liberal agenda.” The “wall of separation” between church and state is not a wall - it’s a coffin for Christians and Jews. The abominable “wall of separation” in America, is subtly leading us to future slaughter. Wars on foreign soil will mean little, compared to the battlefield we will face (are facing) here at home. Those of faith, I implore you to stand your Ground.

These Godly men who helped lay the foundation of our country understood what today’s Godless leaders do not.

George Washington: “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.”

John Adams: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people…

Thomas Jefferson: “The Bible is the cornerstone of liberty ...students’ perusal of the sacred volume will make us better citizens, better fathers, and better husbands.”

William Penn: “If we will not be governed by God, then we will be ruled by tyrants.”

Ulysses S. Grant: “Hold fast to the Bible as the sheet anchor of your liberties; write its precepts in your hearts and practice them in your lives. To the influence of this Book we are indebted for all the progress made in true civilization and to this we must look as our guide in the future. ‘Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.’”

Après avoir lu ces lignes édifiantes, si vous souhaitez prier pour le Président Bush et quelques uns de ses fièles serviteurs (Saint-Donald-Rumsfeld, Sainte Condoleeza-Rice…) vous pouvez vous rendre sur le site de prière du président : http://www.presidentialprayerteam.com/
Soyez “compassionate”, priez pour eux : si par on ne sait quelle aberration divine, l’enfer existait vraiment, cela leur donnerait peut-être une toute petite chance d’y échapper et de ne pas devoir y manger des French fries, pardon, des “Freedom” fries, pendant toute l’éternité; surtout que comme disait Woody Allen, “L’éternité c’est long, surtout vers la fin”...

De “L’ Orient, Le Jour” (Beyrouth)
12 mars 2003

http://www.lorientlejour.com/

LES BUTS ANNONCES
Acquisition et contrôle de réserves pétrolières supplémentaires, démocratisation du Moyen-Orient, lutte contre le terrorisme : tels sont les objectifs plus ou moins affichés par l’Administration Bush pour justifier et promouvoir une guerre contre l’Irak.
BUT REEL (Thierry Hentsch)
Pour Thierry Hentsch, spécialiste de la pensée politique et des relations internationales à l’Université du Québec à Montréal, de passage à Beyrouth, l’objectif principal de la guerre est ailleurs. « Contrôler militairement le Moyen-Orient permettrait aux États-Unis de modifier leur rapport de force pas tant par rapport aux Arabes que par rapport à leurs concurrents plus sérieux que sont l’Europe et le Japon », explique M. Hentsch. « Et derrière ces intérêts économiques généraux se cachent les intérêts économiques spécifiques de ce que le général Eisenhower avait qualifié de “complexe militaro-industriel” », ajoute M. Hentsch. Des intérêts qui se comptent en milliards de dollars.
LES VRAIS INTERETS- LE MESSIANISME AVEUGLE DE BUSH.
Pour M. Hentsch, « des gens, des groupes, des entreprises ont intérêt à ce que la planète aille mal ». « Certains de ceux qui promeuvent le plus activement le recours à la force contre l’Irak savent pertinemment que cette guerre, loin d’affaiblir le terrorisme, va plutôt le renforcer. Une guerre en Irak serait en effet un vrai combustible pour le terrorisme. » Ce qui sert leurs intérêts. M. Hentsch note que le président américain lui-même ne s’inscrit peut-être pas dans cette logique. « Certains politologues américains soulignent que George W. Bush se croit véritablement investi d’une mission. Mais des membres de son entourage ont su manipuler cette tendance messianique de telle sorte qu’elle serve les intérêts du complexe militaro-industriel », précise-t-il. Michael Klare, professeur à l’université Hampshire Massachusetts, a d’ailleurs mis en lumière dans les colonnes du bimestriel Manière de Voir, l’Empire contre l’Irak, l’expansion impressionnante du secteur de la défense américaine.
LE DEVELOPPEMENT EXPONENTIEL DE L’ARMEE US
Bien avant de faire de la lutte contre le terrorisme l’axe unique de sa politique étrangère, M. Bush s’était en effet donné « deux autres priorités stratégique », écrit M. Klare : « la modernisation et le développement des capacités militaires américaines ainsi que l’acquisition de réserves pétrolières supplémentaires ».
Deux objectifs que la lutte antiterroriste à l’échelle planétaire sert au mieux. Deux objectifs difficiles à justifier dans un monde apaisé. Côté militaire, le président américain avait précisé dès 1999 « la manière dont il comptait accomplir la “transformation” de ses forces militaires » : le développement d’un bouclier antimissile et d’armes de pointe afin d’assurer l’invulnérabilité du territoire national et le « développement de la capacité des États-Unis à envahir des puissances régionales hostiles ». Ces puissances seront plus tard
rassemblées sous l’épithète de l’axe du mal.
Derrière les mots, derrière la « révolution de la pensée militaire », pour reprendre une expression du président américain, se cachent d’énormes perspectives d’expansion pour l’industrie militaire. « Une telle ambition réclame l’acquisition de nouveaux équipements souvent de haute technologie. » En chiffres, cela se traduit par un budget de la Défense pour 2003 de 379 milliards de dollars, soit une augmentation de 45 milliards de dollars par rapport à 2002. De quoi effectivement satisfaire certains groupes.