http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/ [...] 426,0.html
ça chauffe...
 
faire sauter un terminal c'est une chose, faire sauter un très gros pétrolier ce serait autre chose, du point de vue "efficacité", ce pourrait bloquer les exportations un bon moment
je me demande aussi l'effet sur le public, les soldats sont là pour se faire tuer d'une certaine façon, mais faire bruler du pétrole...??

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

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  

vous avez vu l'histoire du footbaleur américain célèbre qui au nom du patriotisme (de foire) s'est lancé dans les marines ?
 
 
il vient de se faire tuer.
 
 
faudrait leur imposer la vision du film "né un 4 juillet" pour leur remettre les idées en place à ces idéalistes idiots.

le pire ca reste le brossage de poil au JT, il est devenu un véritable Héros, sacrifiant sa vie facile de star milionaire pour la mère patrie !

A propos de se battre pour sa patrie: je vois quand même une différence entre se battre pour son pays dans son pays, et se battre pour le pétrôleson pays à l'extérieur de son pays.

http://fr.news.yahoo.com/040425/5/3rghc.html
 a voir  d'urgence.

la barbarie n'est pas forcément où on croit, les bons et les méchants non plus

9 morts US encore aujourd'hui, les pertes s'aggravent.
 
Autrement
 

 
Donc vu que les pays ayant déjà des troupes sur place refuseront probablement de se mettre encore un peu plus dans le bordel, que les USA vont devoir compter sur eux uniquement pour les troupes supplémentaires, je me demande de + en + si la conscription ne va pas bientôt faire l'objet d'un débat public aux Etats-Unis...  
 
On peut déjà prédire que toute opposition à un retour à la conscription sera (bien entendu) considérée comme de la haute trahison, de l'anti-patriotisme ou favoriser le terrorisme (rayer la mention inutile).

la conscription n'existe plus aux USA depuis 1972 (du fait du Viet-Nam)    . L'armée US est composée de professionnels et de voontaires réservistes seulement (plus des immigrant désirant la carte verte).

la conscription se fait en fonction des besoins, et sans doutes apres acceptation du senat. Si bush desire rester en irak, et que tout les rapports indique que le nombre de soldat US n est pas suffisant pour maintenit la main mise des usa sur l irak, il faudra bien demander au senat plus de soldat, d ou la conscription

Aujourd'hui rien de neuf?

Aujourd'hui rien de neuf?

La situation est devenu incontrolable!
Me demande comment vont s'en sortir les americains

Un groupe irakien a menacé de tuer les trois otages italiens qu'il détient si des manifestations hostiles à l'occupation de l'Irak n'ont pas lieu en Italie dans les cinq jours
 
apres avoir demande a l Italie de partir, voila qui demande des manifs, bientot ils vont demander le depart de Raffarin.

La terre tremble au petit royaume du Danemark :  
 
Irak/ADM: deux journalistes danois interrogés et inculpés pour des fuites
 
AFP | 26.04.04 | 19h29  
 
 
Deux journalistes danois ont été interrogés puis inculpés lundi pour avoir rapporté des informations confidentielles livrées par un agent du renseignement de la Défense (FE) mettant en doute l'existence d'armes de destruction massive (ADM) en Irak, a indiqué la police."Ils ont été interrogés puis inculpés" pour avoir divulgué des informations confidentielles, a indiqué l'inspecteur de la police criminelle Ove Dahl, précisant que les deux journalistes "ont plaidé non coupables" durant cet interrogatoire.Jesper Larsen et Michael Bjerre, journalistes du quotidien conservateur Berlingske Tidende, ont été inculpés au titre de l'article 152d du code pénal danois sur le recel d'informations illégalement obtenues.Cet article ne précise pas la peine encourue, mais les contrevenants risquent quelques mois de prison, selon des sources policières.L'enquête est "bientôt terminée à leur sujet", selon M. Dahl. Les deux journalistes devraient être renvoyés devant un tribunal à l'issue de l'instruction.Selon les rapports de FE rédigés pour le gouvernement libéral-conservateur, "aucune information crédible sur des armes de destruction massives opérationnelles" n'existaient en Irak avant l'intervention de la coalition américano-britannique en mars 2003.La présence d'ADM en Irak était l'argument principal invoqué par le Premier ministre libéral Anders Fogh Rasmussen pour justifier l'engagement de troupes danoises aux côtés de la coalition anglo-américaine.L'agent du FE, Frank Soeholm Grevil, inculpé précédemment, avait transmis, "pour libérer sa conscience", des analyses secrètes sur les ADM aux deux journalistes en janvier 2004, et publiées le 22 février.La Fédération européenne des Journalistes (FEJ) a protesté le 17 avril auprès du gouvernement danois contre les poursuites engagées contre les deux journalistes.Dans une lettre au Premier ministre libéral Anders Fogh Rasmussen, la FEJ a averti qu'elle porterait l'affaire devant la Cour européenne des droits de l'Homme si les accusations portées contre les deux journalistes n'étaient pas levées.Le ministre danois de la Défense, Svend Aage Jensby (libéral), a démissionné la semaine dernière pour avoir rendu public le contenu confidentiel d'une réunion de la commission parlementaire de contrôle des services secrets sur les ADM. Les membres de cette commission sont astreints à l'obligation du secret.
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/dh/0,14- [...] 782,0.html

Il y a actuellement une polémique en Israel. D'arpès certains, l'Irak possederait des missiles et des stocks d'armes chimiques. J'ai pas trouvé la source, mais je l'ai entendu aujourd'hui sur France-Info. Si c'est le cas, ça correlerait bien la théorie que j'ai évoqué en pages 134-5.

Ils auraient pas un an de retard sur ce coup là les Istraëliens ?