Antagoniste


26 juin 2013

Zone de guerre… socialiste ! Afghanistan Gauchistan Irak Terrorisme Venezuela

Venezuela Chavez IraqPour l’année 2012, en moyenne 2,93 Irakiens ont perdu la vie chaque jour, principalement dans des attentats perpétrés par des milices sunnites.

Pour l’année 2012, en moyenne 7,53 Afghans ont perdu la vie chaque jour, principalement dans des attentats perpétrés par les talibans.

Toujours en 2012, dans le paradis des travailleurs vénézuéliens, on a dénombré en moyenne 59,43 meurtres par jour…

Maintenant, dites-moi où se trouve la véritable zone de guerre…

Les rues de Caracas sont plus dangereuses que celles de Bagdad ou Kaboul. Si personne n’en parle, c’est probablement parce qu’il est impossible de blâmer les Américains pour la situation au Venezuela.

Les pleureuses professionnelles de la gogauche devraient garder leurs larmes pour les Vénézuéliens, ils en ont plus besoin que les Irakiens ou les Afghans.  L’héritage d’Hugo Chavez aura été la création d’une génération de criminels encore plus endurcis que les talibans et les milices sunnites irakiennes.  La destruction, voilà quelque chose que le socialisme fait mieux que le capitalisme…

P.-S. Ces trois pays ont des populations équivalentes.


21 janvier 2013

No blood for oil ! Économie États-Unis Irak

No blood for oil !Quand Bush a décidé d’envahir l’Irak, nos grands journalistes ont tous produit de savantes analyses pour nous dire que la véritable raison de cette guerre c’était le pétrole: le méchant Bush voulait mettre la main sur le pétrole irakien pour enrichir les pétrolières américaines.

Dix ans plus tard, cette explication résiste-t-elle à l’épreuve des faits ?  Les journalistes ont-ils eu raison ou ont-ils raconté n’importe quoi pour satisfaire leurs pulsions antiaméricaines ?

À ce jour, les Américains produisent seulement 23,1% du pétrole en Irak.  En fait, une seule pétrolière américaine, ExxonMobil, est présente en Irak.  Le reste du pétrole est produit par des compagnies chinoises, russes, italiennes, britanniques, malaisiennes, néerlandaises et même angolaises !

La prochaine fois que vous lirez une savante analyse d’un journaliste québécois, rappelez-vous qu’ils sont plus intéressés à faire la promotion de leur idéologie antiaméricaine que de vous informer.

Source:
International Energy Agency
Iraq Energy Outlook


2 septembre 2010

Perspective Économie En Chiffres États-Unis Irak

Dans son discours à la nation au sujet de la fin de la guerre en Irak, Barack Obama a mis énormément d’emphase sur le fait que cette guerre a été la source de déficits qui ont fragilisé l’économie américaine.  Il va de soi que cette analyse a été reprise en cœur par les médias québécois (ici, ici & ici).

S’il est vrai que le coût de la guerre en Irak a été astronomique, il serait bon de mettre ces chiffres en perspective.  Voici la valeur des déficits des États-Unis avec et sans la guerre en Irak:

Keynesianisme

La guerre en Irak a coûté 709 milliards de dollars alors que les déficits, depuis 2003, s’élèvent à 4 731 milliards de dollars.  En bref, durant cette période, la guerre en Irak a représenté 15% des déficits aux États-Unis.  Toujours durant cette période, la guerre en Irak a représenté 2,3% des dépenses totales du gouvernement…  À lui seul, le déficit de l’année 2009 de l’Administration Obama est presque 2 fois plus élevé que le coût total de la guerre en Irak.

Il est aussi ironique d’entendre des keynésiens affirmer que la guerre en Irak a ruiné l’économie américaine puisque selon la doctrine keynésienne, les guerres sont des stimuli économiques !

Source:
Congressional Budget Office
The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update


25 mars 2010

Failed State: l’Irak vs. la Californie Économie États-Unis Irak Revue de presse

The Boston Globe

-

Gambling on Iraq’s slow rise from ruin
The Boston Globe

Michael O’Hanlon, who tracks indicators of progress for the Brookings Institution’s Iraq Index, said that “Iraq has continued its remarkable trajectory of improvement.’’

“It is still fairly violent by Mideast standards, but many countries in places like South America have higher overall levels of violence now from crime,’’ he said.

Traditional Wall Street investors have taken note. Iraq is now considered a safer bet than Argentina, Venezuela, Pakistan, and Dubai — and is nearly on par with the State of California, according to Bloomberg statistics on credit default swaps, which are considered a raw indicator of default risk.

“Compared to California, I’d rather bet on Iraq,’’ Daher said. “Iraq is a country where there are still bombs going off and people getting murdered, but they are less indebted than the United States. California is likely to have more demands on its resources, and there is no miracle where California is going to have more revenue coming out of the sky. Iraq has prospects for tremendously higher revenues, if they can manage to get their act halfway together, which they seem to be doing.’’


16 août 2009

Les hypocrites Afghanistan Coup de gueule États-Unis Hétu Watch Irak Revue de presse Terrorisme

Washington Examiner

-

The netroots agenda: War? What war?
Washington Examiner

It’s not getting much attention, but the Netroots Nation conference (formerly known as YearlyKos, a spinoff from the left-wing website DailyKos) is going on in Pittsburgh this weekend.

I attended the first YearlyKos convention, in 2006, and have kept up with later ones, and it’s safe to say that while people who attended those gatherings couldn’t stand George W. Bush in general, their feelings were particularly intense when it came to opposing the war in Iraq. It animated their activism; they hated the war, and they hated Bush for starting it. They weren’t that fond of the fighting in Afghanistan, either.

Now, with Obama in the White House, all that has changed. Just one percent of Netroots Nations attendees listed « working to end our military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan » as their most important personal priority. Not too long ago, with a different president in the White House, the left was obsessed with America’s wars. Now, they’re not even watching.


14 mai 2009

Le général de Barack Obama Afghanistan États-Unis Hétu Watch Irak Revue de presse Terrorisme

Esquire

-

Acts of Conscience
Esquire

As President Obama taps Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal to run the Afghan war, do these revelations, divulged to Esquire at great personal risk by an elite Army interrogator two and a half years ago, imply the new commander’s aiding and abetting of torture?

Sometime in February or March, then, Jeff reported for duty at an unmarked compound. This was Camp Nama, the home of Task Force 121. From its size to its mission, everything about it was and remains an official secret.

It was a point of pride that the Red Cross would never be allowed in the door, Jeff says. This is important because it defied the Geneva Conventions, which require that the Red Cross have access to military prisons. « Once, somebody brought it up with the colonel. ‘Will they ever be allowed in here?’ And he said absolutely not. He had this directly from General McChrystal and the Pentagon that there’s no way that the Red Cross could get in — they won’t have access and they never will. This facility was completely closed off to anybody investigating, even Army investigators. »

During his first six or seven weeks at the camp, Jeff conducted or participated in about fifteen harsh interrogations, most involving the use of ice water to induce hypothermia. By his reckoning, at least half of the prisoners were innocent, just random Iraqis who got picked up for one reason or another. Sometimes the evidence against them was so slight, Jeff would go into the interrogation without even knowing their names.


22 mars 2009

Road trip en Irak En Vidéos États-Unis Hétu Watch Irak Terrorisme

Les États-Unis sont maintenant en Irak depuis 6 ans. Le bilan ?


6 ans en Irak
Téléchargé par TheEconomist

Pour certains, l’intervention américaine en Irak est un crime de guerre. Si seulement tous les « crimes de guerre » avait un dénouement aussi positif…


8 mars 2009

Négligence professionnelle Chine Économie États-Unis Hétu Watch Irak Israël Moyen-Orient

Richard HétuCertains journalistes n'apprendront jamais.  C'est le cas de Richard Hétu qui, depuis son retour, multiplie les gaffes.

Jeudi dernier, le "collaborateur spécial" a publié un billet dans lequel il affirme que 50% des faillites personnelles aux États-Unis sont liées à des soins de santé impayés.  Si Richard Hétu avait fait son travail convenablement, il aurait découvert que les chiffres publiés dans le magazine Time sont erronés.

Hier, le pitoyable journaliste a publié un billet faisant l'apologie de Chas Freeman, le candidat pressenti par Barack Obama pour diriger le "National Intelligence Council", l'organisme qui coordonne le travail des 16 agences de renseignement américain.

Si Richard Hétu avait fait son travail convenablement, il aurait découvert que Chas Freeman a déjà déclaré qu'un conflit ethnique en Irak était impossible parce que les différences entre sunnites et chiites n'étaient pas assez importantes.

Durant la campagne électorale, Richard Hétu avait aussi dénoncé la présence d'un lobbyiste pro-saoudien dans l'entourage du sénateur McCain.  Il convient de rappeler que Chas Freeman était payé par l'Arabie Saoudite pour faire du lobbyisme à Washington.

Pour couronner le tout, Chas Freeman, qui a déjà été ambassadeur en Chine, a dit que les autorités chinoises avaient fait preuve de trop de retenu lors de la répression des manifestations de la place Tian'anmen.

Si Bush avait fait une pareille nomination pour le "National Intelligence Council", Richard Hétu aurait accusé, avec raison, le président républicain d'être un incompétent.  Mais le partial journaliste a plutôt décidé de défendre l'indéfendable parce que Chas Freeman ne porte pas Israël dans son coeur et parce qu'il a été nommé par Obama.


27 février 2009

Occasion d’affaires Économie Irak Mondialisation

Irak

Si Wall Street est en déroute, c'est tout le contraire en Irak. En début de semaine, l'indice ISX de la Bourse de Bagdad a progressé de 8,39% ce qui a permis d'inscrire un nouveau record pour le plus haut sommet jamais atteint par l’ISX.

Le secteur le plus dynamique de la Bourse de Bagdad ? Les banques !

Source:
Aswat Al-Iraq
ISX index hits record high


2 février 2009

Mission accomplie En Citations États-Unis Hétu Watch Irak Terrorisme

Mission Accomplie

Sans tambour ni trompette, l’Irak a tenu des élections samedi dernier marquant ainsi un moment historique pour ce pays. Réaction de Jonathan Kay du National Post:

« George W. Bush made many mistakes during his presidency. But with Saturday’s peaceful, vigorously contested election in 14 of Iraq’s 18 provinces, his overarching ambition of a robust democracy taking root in the heart of the Middle East seems to have become a reality. Notwithstanding the ongoing fawn-fest over Barack Obama, is it too much to ask that Mr. Obama’s predecessor be given his due for accomplishing a task that, just a decade ago, during the dark days of Saddam’s sadistic rule, would have seemed other-worldly? »


24 janvier 2009

Pas si vite… Afghanistan États-Unis Hétu Watch Irak Moyen-Orient Terrorisme

"Don’t hold your breath waiting for Barack Obama to end the war on terror."

Foreign Policy
Think Again: Barack Obama and the War on Terror
By David M. Edelstein, Ronald R. Krebs 

"Obama Will End the War on Terror"

Barack ObamaDon't bet on it. A misconceived "war on terror" has stoked Americans' nightmares since Sept. 11, 2001, and that will in all likelihood continue. Despite having anointed himself the candidate of change, Barack Obama remained wedded to crucial elements of the war on terror throughout his campaign. Not only did he embrace the term, but, like the Bush administration, he portrayed the 9/11 attacks as a turning point in global politics, suggested that transnational terrorism threatened the United States' survival, depicted the tactic of terrorism as the enemy, and laid out an apocalyptic vision of "the next attack." The danger of terrorism was, he declared, "no less grave" than that posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

This portrayal was more than campaign rhetoric. The war on terror has been the country's defining national security narrative since 9/11, and politicians across the political spectrum have paid obeisance to it. Indeed, shortly after the election, Obama portrayed the attacks in Mumbai as evidence of "the grave and urgent threat of terrorism" that the United States faces, as if the perpetrators of that tragedy were necessarily members of a global terrorist brotherhood. Introducing his national security team a few days later, he highlighted the threat posed by a poorly specified "terror" that "cannot be contained by borders," rather than by specific U.S. adversaries who would use terrorist tactics.

As president, Obama will be hard-pressed to jettison the war on terror. His administration's foreign policy will look different from that of its predecessor in many respects, but not this one. With Obama in the Oval Office, the United States seems likely to remain in the war on terror's thrall — to the detriment of the country's priorities, its foreign policy, the tenor of its discourse, and perhaps its people's liberties. Obama promised to lead America on a new path, but deviating from the course set in the past seven years will not be easy.

"Obama Will Wage the ‘Battle of Ideas' Better Than George W. Bush"

Doubtful. Yes, Obama, by his presence and personality, has changed the atmospherics of U.S. foreign relations. America's reputation around the world has for some time been at a nadir, so there is nowhere to go but up. But the United States' poor image abroad has not been the result of a marketing failure, and, thus, better public diplomacy will not lead to victory in the "Battle of Ideas." Anti-Americanism thrives, not because others misunderstand the United States, but because they perceive its aims and tactics all too well. The Bush administration's greatest perceived foreign-policy failures — Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantánamo, unimpeded global warming — could not have been overcome with better public diplomacy, and recent improvements in trans-Atlantic relations cannot be credited to an improved sales pitch. The world is rightly waiting to see if Obama will match his words with actions. Public diplomacy can matter only at the margins.

As much as he might wish it, Obama does not enter the Oval Office with a clean slate. The sizable U.S. presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, combined with the aggressive hunt for al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan's tribal areas, will continue to rankle in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Elsewhere, criticism of U.S. foreign policy predated Bush — the French expressed alarm at American "hyperpower" during the "good old days" of Clintonian multilateralism — and will persist after he leaves office. Notwithstanding the financial meltdown and U.S. travails in Iraq, the United States remains the world's largest economic and military power by far. Its penchant for pursuing its global interests unilaterally lies at the root of many others' suspicions, and there will be times that even an Obama administration will chafe at and throw off any self-imposed shackles. When that happens, those high-flying expectations will come crashing back to earth.

"Withdrawing from Iraq Will Bring Victory Closer in Afghanistan"

Wishful thinking. Sure, getting out of Iraq will in principle make available U.S. soldiers and materiel, but don't expect these additional resources to pay large dividends in Afghanistan.

First, insurgent fighters enjoy a safe haven in the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan, and it is not for lack of U.S. firepower or troops in Afghanistan that they operate freely. The Pakistani government's reluctance and inability to bring the region to heel is the chief problem, and a reduced U.S. commitment to Iraq will not make that political nut easier to crack. Second, even if the security situation were to improve thanks to more U.S. troops and money, the challenge of governing Afghanistan's ethnically diverse and geographically challenging landscape will remain. Third, all this presumes that the United States has the political will to undertake and sustain a much more substantial long-term military presence in Afghanistan, and such political will — if it ever existed — is now at best a wasting asset.

Americans were ready to bring the troops home from Iraq even before the recession intensified the usual guns-versus-butter debates. The budget crunch has prompted calls for slashing military spending, and many will see in the troop drawdown in Iraq an opportunity to free funds to aid Americans at home — not an opportunity to redouble U.S. commitment to Afghanistan.

"Ending the War in Iraq Will Help the Fight Against Terrorism"

Not really. A U.S. pullout from Iraq would, on its face, redress a grievance held not only by al Qaeda, but by many Muslims. Al Qaeda, however, found reason to target the United States and its interests before Iraq, and many of those reasons remain — from U.S. support for Arab regimes perceived as illegitimate, to the U.S. role in the festering Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to the grand religiopolitical vision of reestablishing the caliphate. Iraq was an unusual recruiting boon, but al Qaeda and its affiliates have no shortage of justifications for continued violence, and some of these reasons remain highly resonant in the Muslim world.

Liberals sometimes argue that because the war in Iraq became a rallying cry for Islamist terrorist groups, drawing thousands into the fold, its end will dry up the pool of recruits. But the ardor of those converted by Iraq will not quickly cool, and the war's memory will continue to inspire would-be terrorists for the foreseeable future. Conservatives sometimes argue that the country's terrorist enemies will take heart at even a gradual U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and undertake a new wave of mass-casualty attacks. But it is hard to imagine that America's adversaries will be any more emboldened by the withdrawal from Iraq than they were by the United States' flailing and failures there.

Most fundamentally, the United States has found itself the victim of terrorism because it is so strong and its adversaries are so weak. That will not change soon, and terrorist tactics will continue to appeal to America's enemies — less because they are especially bloodthirsty or immoral (though they may be), than because, given the imbalance of power, more conventional tactics don't promise the same payoff.

"Capturing Osama bin Laden Should Be a Top Priority"

Not now. As a candidate, Obama pledged that he would capture or kill Osama bin Laden if he were elected president. This pledge was good politics, but it does not make for an effective counterterrorism strategy. Although the capture or death of bin Laden would be welcome, the U.S. military and intelligence community have better ways to spend their time and money.

Eliminating bin Laden would undoubtedly please Americans, boost Obama's ratings, and undermine morale within al Qaeda. But al Qaeda has recovered, perhaps substantially, from the beating it took immediately after 9/11, and the death of its leader is unlikely to be devastating. It is a resilient organization: Dozens of high-ranking al Qaeda officials have been killed or captured since 2001, but they were eventually, and often swiftly, replaced. And beware what one wishes for: A younger, more energetic, equally charismatic, and more organizationally skilled leader might take bin Laden's place.

The benefits of capturing or killing bin Laden are likely to be short-lived, and the intelligence and military assets diverted to the task could be better used elsewhere. Rather than devote resources to hunting bin Laden, the Obama administration should instead target both the instability off which violent Islamism feeds and the local organizations, usually affiliated only loosely with al Qaeda, that have more often been responsible than al Qaeda itself for the terrorist attacks carried out since 9/11.

Americans' ramped-up expectations about the war on terror are exceeded only by the challenges the Obama administration will face. The politics of the war on terror have the potential to upset the Obama administration's priorities, but the economic crisis offers an opportunity to right America's foreign policy and consign the war on terror to its proper place. In this sense, the economic crisis, as Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has suggested, would be a terrible thing to waste.

David M. Edelstein is assistant professor in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service and the department of government at Georgetown University, and a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

Ronald R. Krebs is associate professor in the political science department at the University of Minnesota.


15 décembre 2008

Liberté d’expression États-Unis Hétu Watch Irak Terrorisme

George Bush

De passage à Bagdad pour une conférence de presse, George Bush a été "attaqué" par un journaliste irakien qui lui a lancé ses souliers au visage. Richard Hétu et sa clique semblent avoir trouvé l'incident assez amusant.

Je me demande combien de journalistes ont pu lancer leurs chaussures au visage de Saddam Hussein et vivre assez longtemps pour raconter l'histoire.

Le geste de ce journaliste prouve une chose: la liberté en Irak est telle qu'on peut désormais lancer ses chaussures au visage d'un politicien sans risquer sa vie. Merci pour cette démonstration !


17 novembre 2008

Victoire En Vidéos États-Unis Hétu Watch Irak Terrorisme

Pour ceux qui doutent encore du succès du « surge » et de la victoire de la démocratie en Irak:

Dire que Barack Obama était contre le « surge »…


7 novembre 2008

Pas si vite ! États-Unis Hétu Watch Irak Terrorisme

Irak États-Unis Surge

Par l'intermédiaire de son ministre des affaires étrangères, Hoshiyar Zebari, l'Irak a exprimé le souhait que Barack Obama ne précipite pas le retrait des troupes américaines. Selon le gouvernement irakien, tout geste précipité pourrait compromettre les gains réalisés depuis le "surge".


2 novembre 2008

Le prix à payer Élection 2008 En Chiffres En Vidéos États-Unis Hétu Watch Irak Terrorisme

Avec plus de 12 millions de visionnements, voici quel a été le vidéo politique le plus populaire sur You Tube durant la campagne présidentielle:

Voici les pertes civiles et militaires en Irak depuis l'intervention américaine:

Irak

Irak

En 2002, sous Saddam Hussein, il y avait 0 télévision, 0 radio et 0 journal indépendant.  L'indice de liberté de la presse était de 79,00 (100 étant le pire) selon Reporters Sans Frontière.  Aujourd'hui, il y a en Irak 54 stations de télévision, 114 stations de radio et 268 journaux indépendants. L'indice de liberté de la presse est passé à 59,38.

Sous Saddam Hussein, il y avait 833 000 personnes disposant d'un téléphone.  Aujourd'hui, ils sont 13 360 000.

Sous Saddam Hussein, il y avait 4 500 personnes disposant d'une connexion internet.  Aujourd'hui, ils sont 261 000.

Sous Saddam Hussein, le pays produisait 95 000 mégawatts/heure d'électricité. Aujourd'hui, le pays produit 112 960 mégawatts/heure.

Source:
Brookings Institution
Iraq Index: Tracking Variables of Reconstruction & Security in Post-Saddam Iraq