JeuxOnLineForumsPlusConnectés : 624 (sites) | 1071 (forums)Créer un compte
Forums divers
La Taverne
Les forums JOL > Forums divers > La Taverne > L'armée américaine en train de "perdre" la paix ? RSS
   
Répondre
Partager Outils Rechercher
Avatar de Spectre Olaf
Spectre Olaf
Alpha & Oméga
 
Avatar de Spectre Olaf
 
Question

L'armée américaine en train de "perdre" la paix ?

Après avoir protégé les puits de pétrole mais détruit les infrastructures vitales du pays (eau/électricité), qui tardent d'ailleurs à être remises en état de marche.

Après avoir protégé le bâtiment du Ministère du Pétrole (miraculeusement épargné par les missiles), tout en laissant faire le pillage des hôpitaux et des musées archéologiques.

Après avoir utilisé des armes à fragmentation sur des zones résidentielles.

Après avoir sciemment tiré sur des journalistes.

Après l'incident du dépôt de munitions à Bagdad, où ils faisaient imprudemment sauter les munitions au mépris de la sécurité des habitants.

Voilà maintenant qu'ils tirent à vue sur la foule mécontente, tuant des femmes et des enfants.

Source : http://fr.news.yahoo.com/030430/202/36abv.html

La multiplication de ces "bavures" laisse craindre le pire.
Lien direct vers le message - Vieux
Avatar de Garneray
Garneray
Alpha & Oméga
 
Avatar de Garneray
 
En effet
Lien direct vers le message - Vieux
Avatar de Thalack
Thalack [ccj]
Alpha & Oméga
 
Avatar de Thalack
 
L'armée américaine ne peut pas perdre la paix, le gouvernement Bush n'a jamais envoyé ces soldats pour ça
Sinon, que dire si ce n'est que c'est pas vraiment surprenant. Et n en est toujours au même point propagande américaine, propagande irakienne, propagande américaine, propagande irakienne...
ça ne fait pas mois de morts mais on peut douter d'un côté come de l'autre, sur ce qui s'est réellement passé.
Lien direct vers le message - Vieux
Avatar de Aozer
Aozer
Roi
 
Avatar de Aozer
 
Les américains ont laissé volontairement la population irakienne piller et détruire les infrastructures de leurs pays (sauf tout ce qui concerne le domaine pétrolier) afin de pouvoir obtenir un prétexte nécessaire à l'occupation du sol irakien durant les deux années à venir (voire même plus).
Ils n'ont donc rien perdu mais tout à gagner, le transfert des troupes basés en Arabie Saoudite est sur le point de se faire en direction du 51ème Etat américain temporaire, c'est-à-dire l'Irak.
J'ajouterai que plus le pays sera instable et l'islamisme intégriste présent, plus les américains trouveront de prétexte à planter les tentes de leurs GIs sur le sol de l'antique Babylone.
Lien direct vers le message - Vieux
Avatar de lyn steinherz
lyn steinherz [BZT]
Alpha & Oméga
 
Avatar de lyn steinherz
 
Il est clair qu'au vu des manipulations médiatiques maladroites récentes de la part de bush et de hussein, il devient impossible de croire les informations que l'on nous présente...
Lien direct vers le message - Vieux
Avatar de lyn steinherz
lyn steinherz [BZT]
Alpha & Oméga
 
Avatar de lyn steinherz
 
Citation:
Provient du message de Napoléon
Les américains ont laissé volontairement la population irakienne piller et détruire les infrastructures de leurs pays (sauf tout ce qui concerne le domaine pétrolier) afin de pouvoir obtenir un prétexte nécessaire à l'occupation du sol irakien durant les deux années à venir (voire même plus).
Ils n'ont donc rien perdu mais tout à gagner, le transfert des troupes basés en Arabie Saoudite est sur le point de se faire en direction du 51ème Etat américain temporaire, c'est-à-dire l'Irak.
J'ajouterai que plus le pays sera instable et l'islamisme intégriste présent, plus les américains trouveront de prétexte à planter les tentes de leurs GIs sur le sol de l'antique Babylone.
On peut rajouter à cela que bush a commandé, en dépit des ordres du congrès de limiter le nombre d'hommes envoyés en Irak, près de 30.000 miliciens à la société Halliburton (dont Cheney était l'ancien PDG)... vous noterez d'ailleurs que ces hommes équipés plus comme des agents secrets que comme des soldats et que l'on a pu voir fugitivement lors de certains flashs journalistiques n'ont jamais été envoyé au front mais ont servi à couvrir les arrières de l'armée conventionnelle, passant derrière elle dans les villes et villages d'Irak...

Le pire c'est que ces hommes étant des civils - même s'ils sont équipés d'arme par le gouvernement bush - ne sont pas des militaires de fait, et donc, s'ils restent sur le territoire irakien, ce dernier ne pourra pas être considéré comme annexé par les US !
Lien direct vers le message - Vieux
Avatar de Yami-Rose
Yami-Rose
Reine
 
Avatar de Yami-Rose
 
C'etait evident, que des le debut de la guerre Bush n'avait qu'une seule idee en tete...
J'espere que les irakiens vont reussir a les virer de leur pays...
(J'espere que ce que j'ai marquer n'ai pas de la difammation ou quelque chose comme ca. Je sais pas trop ce que c'est... Si s'en ai, je m'excuses.)
Lien direct vers le message - Vieux
Mélancolie
Invité
 
[Message effacé à la demande de l'auteur]
[Message effacé à la demande de l'auteur]
Lien direct vers le message - Vieux
Avatar de lyn steinherz
lyn steinherz [BZT]
Alpha & Oméga
 
Avatar de lyn steinherz
 
Citation:
Provient du message de Lumina
Le rôle du gouvernement Bush était de redresser l'économie américaine :
- en obtenant des contrats de pétrole Irakien
- en obtenant des contrats de reconstruction en Irak
Entièrement d'accord, mais on peut également rajouter, sans rougir que l'utilisation d'armes de guerre permet également la relance d'une partie de l'économie directement sur le sol américain, puisque la guerre est destructrice des moyens utilisés : munitions, véhicules, ...
Lien direct vers le message - Vieux
Caepolla
Invité
 
Cool
Je ne pense pas que ce soit ça l'objectif. Les Américains veulent le pétrole du Moyen Orient, certes. Mais ils n'en ont pas véritablement besoin car l'essentiel du pétrole qu'ils consomment provient en majeure partie du continent américain. Seule 18% de cette consommation est importée du Moyen Orient. L’exploitation du pétrole par des multinationales américaines générera des bénéfices attrayants, mais c'est peu au regard de la fortune que leur coûte la guerre.

Quant à leur "économie". La balance commerciale américaine a atteint un déficit de 450 milliards de dollars en 2001 (en gros la différence entre ce qu'elle importe pour consommer et ce qu'elle exporte). Les USA consomment largement plus plus qu'ils ne peuvent produire et sont donc contraints d’importer ce qu’ils ne peuvent produire.

Mais pour financer cette surconsommation, il faut alors des mouvements de capitaux et d'investissement de l'étranger vers les USA. Plus la consommation aux US augmente et plus la dépendance vis à vis de l’étranger augmente. Et lorsque le dollar baisse comme c'est la tendance, l’économie américaine doit payer plus cher ses importations et obtenir plus de financements pour les payer.

Les deux zones dont les USA sont le plus dépendantes sont l'Europe et le Japon d'où elle importe l'essentiel de ses biens et d'où viennent le gros des capitaux investis. Or, ces zones sont en train de se rendre compte qu'elles peuvent très largement se passer des USA, sans quoi, je doute que des pays comme la France, l'Allemagne ou la Belgique se seraient risqués au camouflet diplomatique à l'ONU. Que la France fasse chier, c'est classique, on a toujours aimé se donner de l'importance et jouer aux grands malgré notre puissance limitée. Mais même l'Allemagne qui était il y a encore peu l'allié le plus solide en Europe continentale. En Angleterre, même si Blair a suivi, et malgré les très forts liens qui unissent Royaume-Uni et USA, ça a grogné sec.
Nous n'avons plus autant besoin d'eux pour notre sécurité, maintenant que les menaces ne sont plus celles d'immenses conflits conventionnels comme durant la Guerre froide mais un terrorisme plus sournois et diffus. Nous n'avons pas réellement besoin d'eux pour nos importations, sauf dans certains domaines précis. Nous avons surtout besoin d'eux pour nos exportations et soutenir notre propre production.

Le problème est que les USA n'ont pas de réels moyens de pression sur ces zones dont elle dépend tant. Son armée de terre, sur-équipée, n'en reste pas moins ridicule et semble incapable de se battre contre autre chose qu'un ennemi incapable de résister. Contre les serbes ils ont été justes bons à bombarder quelques civils de loin. En Somalie, il a suffit de subir une vingtaine de pertes pour les voir plier bagages (pire que ces cheese-eating surrender monkeys, nous quoi, raillés dans les Simpsons). Et en Irak, on a l'impression d'un manque complet de sang-froid de types qui paniquent et multiplient les bavures. Mais contre des adversaires plus consistants (Corée du Nord ou Chine), ils ne sont bons qu'à faire les fanfarons et provoquer de loin.

Ils n'ont pas réellement de moyens de pression économique. Bichette, on a choqué la droite du Congrès. Ca a fulminé, ça a promis des sanctions. Et ? A part avoir vidé quelques bouteilles de vins dans les caniveaux et renommé leur frites en liberty fries ? Une baisse également de la consommation des produits les plus symboliques du pays ou du tourisme. Mais rien d'organisé qui pourrait leur valoir des rétorsions de la part de l'UE. Fait symbolique : c'est le français Sodexho qui a le contrat pour l'alimentation de l'armée américaine. Tellement symbolique et choquant que certains du Congrès avaient fait circuler une pétition pour que ce soit résilié. Comme ça signifierait la mise au chômage d'un grand nombre d'employés américains, ça n'a toujours pas l'air d'être fait.

Ce n'est pas tant plus de pétrole pour eux qu'ils désirent que mettre la main sur le pétrole que l'Europe achète (puisque l'essentiel du notre provient du Moyen-Orient). Le contrôler partiellement pour avoir un moyen indirect de pression lorsque nécessaire.
Ca permet également d'offrir à son armée une parade de pacotille et rassurer une droite blessée dans son orgueil. A la fin de la guerre froide on a eu un temps l'illusion de la domination d'une seule superpuissance. Hormis dans le domaine militaire où elle domine outrageusement, dans tous les autres domaines, et surtout économique, les USA sont surtout en train de devenir une puissance comme d'autres, surtout régionale en Amérique, loin de l'Eurasie et de l'UE qui se construit, du Japon, de la Russie qui se stablise, de la Chine et de l'Inde qui se développent et sur lesquels les USA manquent de plus en plus de leviers de pression.
Et on a l'impression que le gouvernement cherche à entretenir un climat d'instabilité et désigner des ennemis ("axe du mal" ce serait drôle si ce n'était aussi pathétique) pour justifier des interventions unilatérales pour piller ce qu'ils peuvent encore.



P.S. : toutes les choses bêtes de ce message sont de moi. Le rare pas bête s'inspire d'un essai que j'ai trouvé très intéressant d'Emmanuel Todd, Après l'Empire, publié l'été dernier chez Gallimard et presque prophétique sur la crise irakienne.
Lien direct vers le message - Vieux
Avatar de Aden
Aden
Alpha & Oméga
 
Avatar de Aden
 
Citation:
Provient du message de Yami-Rose
J'espere que les irakiens vont reussir a les virer de leur pays...

Je pense pas que ça soit prêt d'arriver, loin de là.
Lien direct vers le message - Vieux
Avatar de Foerdom-ex Demiosien
Foerdom-ex Demiosien
Alpha & Oméga
 
Avatar de Foerdom-ex Demiosien
 


Merci Cæpolla pour ces lignes

Enfin une réponse construite qui m'éclaire sur les probables raisons de cette intervention américaine en Irak.
Lien direct vers le message - Vieux
Avatar de lyn steinherz
lyn steinherz [BZT]
Alpha & Oméga
 
Avatar de lyn steinherz
 
Citation:
Provient du message de Cæpolla
Et on a l'impression que le gouvernement cherche à entretenir un climat d'instabilité et désigner des ennemis ("axe du mal" ce serait drôle si ce n'était aussi pathétique) pour justifier des interventions unilatérales pour piller ce qu'ils peuvent encore.
Tu as tout à fait raison pour une très grande partie de tes explications, même si l'on peut avancer quelques idées supplémentaires expliquant la guerre qui a été menée.

J'aimerais juste ajouter que créer un climat d'instabilité dans un pays est la méthode favorite des extrêmistes de droite pour assurer leur position de sauveur :
- Hitler et les incendies terroristes prétenduements provoqués par les communistes (en 1933, si je me souviens bien)
- JM Lepen, qui renforce à grand renfort de discours haineux le sentiment d'insécurité en France
- bush et sa phobie des terroristes ; j'ai lu un excellent article concernant le parallèle entre l'attentat du 11/09, bush et hitler.

Malheureusement en anglais, et j'ai perdu la source
Citation:
When Democracy Failed: The Warnings of History
by Thom Hartmann
The 70th anniversary wasn't noticed in the United States, and was barely reported in the corporate media. But the Germans remembered well that fateful day seventy years ago - February 27, 1933. They commemorated the anniversary by joining in demonstrations for peace that mobilized citizens all across the world.

It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed.
(Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist; the most recent research implies they did not.)
But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation's leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted. He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn't have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world.
His coarse use of language - reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state - and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended the aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in
the government and media. And, as a young man, he'd joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones.

Nonetheless, he knew the terrorist was going to strike (although he didn't know where or when), and he had already considered his response.
When an aide brought him word that the nation's most prestigious building was ablaze, he verified it was the terrorist who had struck and then rushed to the scene and called a press conference.

"You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in
history," he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. "This fire," he said, his voice trembling with emotion, "is the beginning." He used the occasion - "a sign from God," he called it -
to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their evil deeds in their religion.

Two weeks later, the first detention center for terrorists was built in Oranianberg to hold the first suspected allies of the infamous terrorist. In a national outburst of patriotism, the leader's flag was everywhere, even printed large in newspapers suitable for window display.

Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation's
now-popular leader had pushed through legislation - in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it - that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus.
Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers ; police could sneak into people's homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism.

To get his patriotic "Decree on the Protection of People and
State" passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack was over by then, the freedoms and rights would be returned to the people, and the police agencies would be re-restrained. Legislators would later say they hadn't had time to read the bill before voting on it.

Immediately after passage of the anti-terrorism act, his federal police agencies stepped up their program of arresting suspicious persons and holding them without access to lawyers or courts. In the first year only a few hundred were interred, and those who objected were largely ignored by the mainstream press, which was afraid to offend and thus lose access to a leader with such high popularity ratings. Citizens who protested the leader in public - and there were many - quickly found themselves confronting the
newly empowered police's batons, gas, and jail cells, or fenced off in protest zones safely out of earshot of the leader's public speeches. (In the meantime, he was taking almost daily lessons in public speaking, learning to control his tonality, gestures, and facial expressions. He became a very competent orator.)

Within the first months after that terrorist attack, at the
suggestion of a political advisor, he brought a formerly obscure word into common usage. He wanted to stir a "racial pride" among his countrymen, so, instead of referring to the nation by its name, he began to refer to it as "The Homeland," a phrase publicly promoted in the introduction to a 1934 speech recorded in Leni Riefenstahl's famous propaganda movie "Triumph Of The Will." As hoped, people's hearts swelled with pride, and the beginning of an us-versus-them mentality was sewn. Our land was "the" homeland,
citizens thought: all others were simply foreign lands. We are the "true people," he suggested, the only ones worthy of our nation's concern; if bombs fall on others, or human rights are violated in other nations and it makes our lives better, it's of little concern to us.

Playing on this new nationalism, and exploiting a disagreement with the French over his increasing militarism, he argued that any international body that didn't act first and foremost in the best interest of his own nation was neither relevant nor useful. He thus withdrew his country from the League Of Nations in October, 1933, and then negotiated a separate naval armaments agreement with Anthony Eden of The United Kingdom to create a worldwide military ruling elite.

His propaganda minister orchestrated a campaign to ensure the people that he was a deeply religious man and that his motivations were rooted in Christianity. He even proclaimed the need for a revival of the Christian faith across his nation, what he called a "New Christianity." Every man in his rapidly growing army wore a belt buckle that declared
"Gott Mit Uns" - God Is With Us - and most of them fervently believed it was true.

Within a year of the terrorist attack, the nation's leader
determined that the various local police and federal agencies around the nation were lacking the clear communication and overall coordinated administration necessary to deal with the terrorist threat facing the
nation, particularly those citizens who were of Middle Eastern ancestry and thus probably terrorist and communist sympathizers, and various troublesome "intellectuals" and "liberals." He proposed a single new national agency
to protect the security of the homeland, consolidating the actions of dozens of previously independent police, border, and investigative agencies under a single leader.

He appointed one of his most trusted associates to be leader of this new agency, the Central Security Office for the homeland, and gave it a role in the government equal to the other major departments.

His assistant who dealt with the press noted that, since the
terrorist attack, "Radio and press are at out disposal." Those voices questioning the legitimacy of their nation's leader, or raising questions about his checkered past, had by now faded from the public's recollection as his central security office began advertising a program encouraging people to phone in tips about suspicious neighbors. This program was so successful that the names of some of the people "denounced" were soon being broadcast on radio stations. Those denounced often included opposition politicians and celebrities who dared speak out - a favorite target of his regime and the media he now controlled through intimidation and ownership by corporate
allies.

To consolidate his power, he concluded that government alone
wasn't enough. He reached out to industry and forged an alliance, bringing former executives of the nation's largest corporations into high government positions. A flood of government money poured into corporate coffers to
fight the war against the Middle Eastern ancestry terrorists lurking within the homeland, and to prepare for wars overseas. He encouraged large corporations friendly to him to acquire media outlets and other industrial concerns across the nation, particularly those previously owned by
suspicious people of Middle Eastern ancestry. He built powerful alliances with industry ; one corporate ally got the lucrative contract worth millions to build the first large-scale detention center for enemies of the state.
Soon more would follow. Industry flourished.

But after an interval of peace following the terrorist attack, voices of dissent again arose within and without the government. Students had started an active program opposing him (later known as the White Rose Society), and leaders of nearby nations were speaking out against his bellicose rhetoric. He needed a diversion, something to direct people away from the corporate cronyism being exposed in his own government, questions of his possibly illegitimate rise to power, and the oft-voiced concerns of civil libertarians about the people being held in detention without due process or access to attorneys or family.

With his number two man - a master at manipulating the media - he began a campaign to convince the people of the nation that a small, limited war was necessary. Another nation was harboring many of the suspicious Middle Eastern people, and even though its connection with the terrorist
who had set afire the nation's most important building was tenuous at best, it held resources their nation badly needed if they were to have room to live and maintain their prosperity. He called a press conference and publicly delivered an ultimatum to the leader of the other nation, provoking an international uproar. He claimed the right to strike preemptively in self-defense, and nations across Europe - at first - denounced him for it, pointing out that it was a doctrine only claimed in the past by nations seeking worldwide empire, like Caesar's Rome or Alexander's Greece.

It took a few months, and intense international debate and
lobbying with European nations, but, after he personally met with the leader of the United Kingdom, finally a deal was struck. After the military action began, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain told the nervous British people that giving in to this leader's new first-strike doctrine would bring "peace for our time." Thus Hitler annexed Austria in a lightning move, riding a wave of popular support as leaders so often do in times of war. The Austrian government was unseated and replaced by a new leadership friendly to Germany, and German corporations began to take over Austrian resources.

In a speech responding to critics of the invasion, Hitler said, "Certain foreign newspapers have said that we fell on Austria with brutal methods. I can only say; even in death they cannot stop lying. I have in the course of my political struggle won much love from my people, but when I crossed the former frontier [into Austria] there met me such a stream of love as I have never experienced. Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators."

To deal with those who dissented from his policies, at the advice of his politically savvy advisors, he and his handmaidens in the press began a campaign to equate him and his policies with patriotism and the nation itself. National unity was essential, they said, to ensure that the
terrorists or their sponsors didn't think they'd succeeded in splitting the nation or weakening its will. In times of war, they said, there could be only "one people, one nation, and one commander-in-chief" ("Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer"), and so his advocates in the media began a nationwide campaign charging that critics of his policies were attacking the nation itself. Those questioning him were labeled "anti-German" or "not good Germans," and it was suggested they were aiding the enemies of the state
by failing in the patriotic necessity of supporting the nation's valiant men in uniform. It was one of his most effective ways to stifle dissent and pit wage-earning people (from whom most of the army came) against the "intellectuals and liberals" who were critical of his policies.

Nonetheless, once the "small war" annexation of Austria was
successfully and quickly completed, and peace returned, voices of opposition were again raised in the Homeland. The almost-daily release of news bulletins about the dangers of terrorist communist cells wasn't enough to rouse the populace and totally suppress dissent. A full-out war was necessary to divert public attention from the growing rumbles within the country about disappearing dissidents; violence against liberals, Jews, and union leaders; and the epidemic of crony capitalism that was producing empires of wealth in the corporate sector but threatening the middle
class's way of life.

A year later, to the week, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia; the nation was now fully at war, and all internal dissent was suppressed in the name of national security. It was the end of Germany's first experiment with democracy.

As we conclude this review of history, there are a few milestones worth remembering.

February 27, 2003, was the 70th anniversary of Dutch terrorist Marinus van der Lubbe's successful firebombing of the German Parliament (Reichstag) building, the terrorist act that catapulted Hitler to legitimacy and reshaped the German constitution. By the time of his successful and brief action to seize Austria, in which almost no German blood was shed, Hitler was the most beloved and popular leader in the history of his nation. Hailed around the world, he was later Time magazine's "Man Of The Year."

Most Americans remember his office for the security of the
homeland, known as the Reichssicherheitshauptamt and its SchutzStaffel, simply by its most famous agency's initials: the SS.

We also remember that the Germans developed a new form of highly violent warfare they named "lightning war" or blitzkrieg, which, while generating devastating civilian losses, also produced a highly desirable "shock and awe" among the nation's leadership according to the authors of
the 1996 book "Shock And Awe" published by the National Defense University Press.

Reflecting on that time, The American Heritage Dictionary
(Houghton Mifflin Company, 1983) left us this definition of the form of government the German democracy had become through Hitler's close alliance with the largest German corporations and his policy of using war as a tool to keep power : "fas-cism (fbsh'iz'em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."

Today, as we face financial and political crises, it's useful to remember that the ravages of the Great Depression hit Germany and the United States alike. Through the 1930s, however, Hitler and Roosevelt chose very different courses to bring their nations back to power and prosperity.

Germany's response was to use government to empower corporations and reward the society's richest individuals, privatize much of the commons, stifle dissent, strip people of constitutional rights, and create an illusion of prosperity through continual and ever-expanding war. America
passed minimum wage laws to raise the middle class, enforced anti-trust laws to diminish the power of corporations, increased taxes on corporations and the wealthiest individuals, created Social Security, and became the employer of last resort through programs to build national infrastructure, promote the arts, and replant forests.

To the extent that our Constitution is still intact, the choice is again ours.

Thom Hartmann lived and worked in Germany during the 1980s, and is the author of over a dozen books, including "Unequal Protection" and "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight." This article is copyright by Thom Hartmann, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media
so long as this credit is attached.
Lien direct vers le message - Vieux
Avatar de Yami-Rose
Yami-Rose
Reine
 
Avatar de Yami-Rose
 
Citation:
Provient du message de Aden
Je pense pas que ça soit prêt d'arriver, loin de là.
C'est dommage... Quand je vois Bush pret a faire la guerre juste pour des puits de petrole, ca me desole...
Lien direct vers le message - Vieux
Avatar de Foerdom-ex Demiosien
Foerdom-ex Demiosien
Alpha & Oméga
 
Avatar de Foerdom-ex Demiosien
 
Citation:
Provient du message de Yami-Rose
C'est dommage... Quand je vois Bush pret a faire la guerre juste pour des puits de petrole, ca me desole...
Tu devrais lire le post de Cæpolla, juste un peu plus haut...
Lien direct vers le message - Vieux
Répondre
Les forums JOL > Forums divers > La Taverne > L'armée américaine en train de "perdre" la paix ?
   

Connectés sur ce fil

 
1 connecté (0 membre et 1 invité) Afficher la liste détaillée des connectés

Outils Rechercher
Rechercher:

Recherche avancée

Thème visuel : Fuseau horaire GMT +1. Il est actuellement 12h02.
   

© JeuxOnLine, le site des MMO, MMORPG et MOBA. Tous droits réservés. - Conditions générales d'utilisation - Conditions d'utilisation des forums - Traitement des données personnelles - ! Signaler un contenu illicite