Reprise du message précédent :
C'est surtout qu'il ont pensé à court terme, l'invasion de l'Irak, sans réfléchir à ce que signifie rétablir l'ordre et la sécurité dans un pays dont ils ne connaissent rien.  
 
Là encore ils étaient prévenus : on peut gagner la guerre mais perdre là paix qu'on leur disait... Autant parler à des sourds.

 
Tu peux élaborer...?

http://www.romandie.com/ats/news/0 [...] cxid3t.asp

 
ou t'as vu cette information stp ?
 
je met pas en doute mais je trouve quand meme etonannt que sur leur 13 porte avions seulement 4 soient operationnels ça m'interesse de connaitre les details

 
deux source: Marines et histoire de septembre 2003 et une chronique en anglais de Anthony Preston, spécialiste des marines de guerre. Ces deux sources citent des chiffrent officiels de l'état major US de la Navy.
 
Comment en est on arrivé là?
 
Déjà, 12 porte-avions = 8 oppérationnels à un moment donné. Les autres sont en entretien.
 
Ensuite, il y a 2 guerre menés coup sur coup sur une longue période (Afghanistant et Irak). Pour les besoins des oppérations, plusieur navires qui devaient entrer en entretien ont été prolongés(un porte-avion en oppération est tjs à vitesse max -50/60 km/h- pour facilité l'apontage et le décollage des avion). Il y a eu donc d'un coup plus de portes-avion à retirer du service (2 de plus)
 
En plus, tu compte une panne sur un navire et pas mal d'usure dans le matériel volant, et là, tu voi qu'il est facil de se retrouver avec seulement 4 portes-avion.
 
Ils ont pas mal jouer avec des portes-hélicoptères durant période (avec qq Harriers) Depuis décembre, ils ont 6 Porttes-avions opérationnels.

On croit rêver ! Y'a décidément rien à faire pour les américains. Je pensais que seul le gouvernement était à brûler mais là... Bien sûr, il ne s'agit que d'un sondage mais la tendance doit bien être réelle
 
Despite bad news out of Iraq, Bush regains lead in polls
 

La tare du monde c'est bien les USA, y'a rien a dire
 
Comment j'aurais honte d'être Americain !

Sois déja honteux d'être Français ,c'est déja pas mal comme tare(si tu l'es, sinon d'être originaire du pays d'ou tu es)En fait comme l'intelligence, la connerie humaine est la chose la mieux répartie dans le monde, simplement par moment elle est plus visible à certains endroits...

 
can you repeat please ?  

Il veut dire il y a pas mal de merde honteuse ds ton pays d'ou que tu soit, et que la connerie n'est pas specifique au US

 
Clair, mais les US ils ont facilement les 2 premieres place du podium la quand même
 
Ces derniers temps c'est un peu Pierre Richard style ce qu'il font

 
et ?

Il y a qlq temps etait posté sur ce topic une photo d'une etiquette d'un sac a dos us avec marqué dessus en fr un truc anti Bush. Je pensais que c'etait un fake jusqu'a la lecture de ca:
http://fr.news.yahoo.com/040423/5/3rcfa.html

Et quoi ?
 
Si t'as lu l'article du lien de Rasthor, tu dois être capable de mettre des mots formant une phrase compréhensive après ton "et ?"  

Jme demande juste pourquoi tu poste cette photo

Parce que c'est pour le moment la seule photo ou l'on "voit" des soldats américains morts (alors que des Irakiens on en a vu une tripotée).

Ha ok, enfin bon y'a tellement de morts coté Irakiens qu'on pourrais pas tous les montrés, et surtout qui doit pas en resté beaucoup en un seul morceau

hehe :
 

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/ [...] 144,0.html
 
« Re-viens Saddamou reviens, parce que l'Irak, il a besoin de toi ! Ben pourquoi ? »

 
Cette occupation profite surtout au fabricant de drapeaux finalement

 
Ouais mais eux se dopent , pas possible autrement !
 

 
Merci pour le lien, rare (et triste) image.
 
Sinon sur l'article du seattle times, y'a ça en "chapeau" :
 
"A week before a woman was fired for giving The Times a single image, the Air Force released hundreds."  
 
Virée pour ça, c'est nawak, et le 1er amendement?

Ben dans le cas présent il se plante quand même sacrément

excellent    
 
 
J'adore aussi comme le gars se défile quand les journalistes l'interrogent :  
 

 
c'est justement le genre d'image que l'administration Bush ne souhaite pas voir dans les medias, sous couvert de respect pour les familles...alors qu'on sait tres bien quel est le but de la manoeuvre: entretenir le mythe de la guerre propre par les indestructibles americains qui ne meurent jamais. de la pure propagande donc.

[/citation]
 
etrange tout ca!!!!!  

C'est bon la guerre est finie ils ont perdu un sportif :
http://CNN.com
 
Demain ils se retirent
 
Prodigy

US Majority Still Believe in Iraq's WMD, al-Qaeda Ties  
by Jim Lobe
 
WASHINGTON - U.S. public perceptions about former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to al-Qaeda and stocks of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) continues to lag far behind the testimony of experts, boosting chances that President George W Bush will be re-elected, according to a survey and analysis released Thursday.  
 
Despite statements by such officials as the Bush administration's former chief weapons inspector, David Kay; its former anti-terrorism chief, Richard Clarke; former chief United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix, as well as admissions by senior administration officials themselves, a majority of the public still believes Iraq was closely tied to the al-Qaeda terrorist group and had WMD stocks or programs before U.S. troops invaded the country 13 months ago.
 
''The public is not getting a clear message about what the experts are saying about Iraqi links to al-Qaeda and its WMD program'', said Steven Kull, director of the Program'' on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland, which conducted the survey.  
 
''The analysis suggests that if the public were to more clearly perceive what the experts themselves are saying on these issues, there is a good chance this could have a significant impact on their attitudes about the war and even on how they vote in November'', he added.  
 
The survey and analysis found a high correlation between those perceptions and support for Bush himself in the upcoming presidential race in November.
 
Among the 57 percent of respondents who said they believed Iraq was either ''directly involved'' in carrying out the 9/11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon or had provided ''substantial support'' to al-Qaeda, 57 percent said they intended to vote for Bush and 39 percent said they would choose his Democratic foe, John Kerry.  
 
Among the 40 percent of respondents, who said they believed there was no connection at all between Saddam and al-Qaeda or that ties consisted only of minor contacts or visits, on the other hand, only 28 percent said they intended to vote for Bush, while 68 percent said their ballots would go to Kerry.  
 
The survey, which was based on interviews with a random sample of 1,311 respondents in March, was released amid a series of polls that indicate that Bush and Kerry are in a virtual tie less than seven months before the actual election.  
 
While Kerry appeared to be leading in the wake of last month's congressional testimony by Clarke, who accused the administration of being insufficiently seized with the threat posed by al-Qaeda before the 9/11 attacks, Bush, who in recent weeks has spent an unprecedented amount of money on television advertising so early in the campaign, has closed the gap and, according to one 'Washington Post' poll published earlier this week, pulled slightly ahead.  
 
The latest PIPA study is remarkable because it shows that public perceptions about Iraq, or at least about the threat it posed before the U.S. invasion, are lagging far behind what acknowledged experts have themselves concluded and whose findings have been reported in the mass media.
 
Virtually all independent experts and even senior administration officials have concluded since the war that ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda before the war were virtually non-existent, and even Bush himself has explicitly dismissed the notion that Baghdad had a hand in the 9/11 attacks.
 
Yet the March poll found that 20 percent of respondents believe that Iraq was directly involved in the attacks -- the same percentage as on the eve of the war, in February 2003.
 
Similarly, the percentages of those who believe Iraq provided ''substantial support'' to al-Qaeda (37 percent) and those who believe contacts were minimal (29 percent) are also virtually unchanged from 13 months before. As of March 2004, 11 percent said there was ''no connection at all'', up four percent from February 2003.  
 
Some -- but surprisingly little -- change was found in answers to whether Washington had found concrete evidence since the war that substantiated a Hussein-al-Qaeda link. Thus, in June 2003, 52 percent of respondents said evidence had been found, while only 45 percent said so last month.    
 
As to WMD, about which there has been significantly more media coverage, 60 percent of respondents said Iraq either had actual WMD (38 percent) or had a major program'' for developing them (22 percent). In contrast, 39 percent said Baghdad had limited WMD-related activities that fell short of an active program'' -- what Kay as the CIA's main weapons inspector concluded in February -- or no activities at all.  
 
Moreover, the message conveyed by Kay and other experts appears not to be getting through to the public, adds the survey, which found a whopping 82 percent of respondents saying either, ''experts mostly agree Iraq was providing substantial support to al-Qaeda'' (47 percent) or, ''experts are evenly divided on the question'' (35 percent).  
 
Only 15 percent said it was their impression that ''experts mostly agree (that) Iraq was not providing substantial support to al-Qaeda".  
 
There was similar confusion with respect to the WMD question: despite all the publicity given Kay's, Blix's, and the findings of other independent experts that Iraq did not have WMD before the war, nearly two-thirds of respondents said they believed that most experts said it did have them (30 percent) or that experts were evenly divided on the issue (35 percent).  
 
The poll found a high correlation between beliefs about pre-war Iraq with support for going to war with Iraq and for the intentions to vote for Bush in November.  
 
Among those who perceived experts as saying Iraq had WMD, 72 percent said they would vote for Bush, and 23 percent said they would vote for Kerry, while among those who perceived the experts as concluding that Iraq did not have WMD, 23 percent said they would vote for Bush and 74 percent for Kerry.  
 
The opinion of experts was found to be very important in predicting support for Bush or Kerry, as well as support for the war itself, according to Kull. While 38 percent of a discrete sample within the survey said they believed that Iraq had WMD before the war, the percentage dropped to 21 percent after they were informed later in the questionnaire that Kay had concluded that Baghdad was engaged only in minor activities for developing WMD.  
 
Confusion over what the experts are saying, according to Kull, could be due to a number of factors, including the repetition by Bush (most recently in his press conference last week) and other senior officials, such as Vice President Dick Cheney, that Iraq had once used WMD, and the fact that in the electronic mass media, in particular, Iraq is still discussed in the context of the ''war on terror''.  
 
In another misperception, 59 percent of the public believed that world public opinion either favored Washington going to war (21 percent) or believed that global views were ''evenly balanced'' (38 percent). Only 41 percent appeared aware that a majority of world public opinion opposed the U.S.-led war.  
 
Those who were aware or made aware that world opinion opposed the war were more likely to think the decision to attack Iraq was wrong and less likely to support Bush. Those who believed, on the other hand, that world opinion supported the war were substantially more likely to support Bush and think that going to war was correct.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 
Mais putain   c'est pas possible d'être aussi cons. Et n'allez pas me dire que l'échantillonnage peut fausser les résultats, vu l'ampleur des chiffres l'explication ne tient pas
 
C'est à se flinguer    
 

résumé : pour 60% des américains, être américain c'est croire le président sans se poser de questions
propaganda rulez
 
les français ont élu supermenteur, mais au moins on le savait avant...

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/coffin_photos/dover/

Le site est inaccessible. Je parie qu'il a dû subir une attaque type DODS.

Ce n'est qu'une enquête d'opinion, rien de valable  

 
je suis chez wanadoo, c'est lent et j'ai eu un time out une fois, mais sinon je regarde les 361 photos là
 
y a du monde sur le site apparement
 
++

sinon pour ce qui est de la remontée de bush dans les sondages, d'apres ce que j'ai lu ça veut rien dire, ça fait partie du travail sur les electeurs des spin doctors de l'equipe electorale de bush
 
comme pour les infos venant d'irak, ça va pas etre facile d'avoir de bonnes infos sur la guerre pour la maison blanche
 
++

 
OK, c'est un DODS naturel alors  

 
Donc selon toi, on ne peut pas se fier un minimum à ce qui est dit ? Je ne parle pas de prendre à la lettre les chiffres donnés mais de dégager une tendance.

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/ [...] 308,0.html