Accueil > Préparatifs d’une attaque US contre la Chine et l’Iran ?

Préparatifs d’une attaque US contre la Chine et l’Iran ?

Publie le mardi 2 février 2010 par Open-Publishing
6 commentaires

D’après l’article de Shamus Cooke du 1er février

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?... Obama, dans la lignée de Bush, se préparerait à attaquer à la fois la Chine et l’Iran.

Rien de tel qu’une bonne maxi-guerre pour détourner le mécontement de son peuple de la crise financière et pour renflouer les finances par les ventes d’armes . Il existe une chance pour lui que nos gouvernements occidentaux, également englués dans leurs difficultés économiques et sociales, lui emboîtent le pas, soi-disant pour sauver nos "démocraties" menacées .

Toujours les mêmes remèdes pour les mêmes maux et les mêmes innocents pour y laisser leur peau.

Messages

  • la boisson,c’est terrible.Le manque d’infos aussi.......

  • J’ai beaucoup de plus en plus de mal à supporter les titres d’article où on dit n’importe quoi et où on s’en tire en mettant un point d’interrogation.

    Chico agent de la CIA ?

    Bellaciao financé par la Corée du nord ?

    Préparatifs d’une attaque US contre la Chine et l’Iran ?

    Si on a une info, on affirme. Si on ne sait pas, on ne dit rien, on garde ses fantasmes pour soi.

    Chico

    • J’ai fait 9 ans d’Anglais de lycée et je ne suis pas capable de traduire un article de presse américain, par contre, quand il commence par "possibility" d’une nouvelle guerre US etc., je me dit qu’il s’agit d’une opinion.
      Sûr que les USA débiteurs de la Chine qui gagne sa guerre commerciale contre le fameux "Tigre de papier" sont excédés par cette dépendance d’autant que la Chine aimerait écarter la prédominance obsolète du Dollar, des échanges internationaux, Dollar imposé désormais par l’unique force de ses armées. Cependant je vois mal comment les USA pourraient gagner une guerre contre la Chine en ne comptant que sur la "libération" du Tibet et le surarmement de Taïwan.

  • Bon on se calme et on cesse de répondre à un "résumé" peu circonstanciée par des invectives ou des voeux pieux.

    Ca devient gonflant les invectives anonymes, et peu constructif.

    On voit là tout le problème de la publication de "résumés" de textes et analyses en langue étrangère sur le forum.

    Le posteur balance un résumé succint d’une "analyse" géopolitique sans même se soucier si les lecteurs seront capables de traduire l’original ni même tentés d’ouvrir le lien.

    Ausi sec, tous ceux qui sont pas du même avis et ceux qui ont peur des réalités, (Si réalités il y a), se répandent en lazzis et en invectives.

    Pour les conclusions on reprendra quand les "moqueurs seront passés chez Berlitz, ou au mieux sur le traducteur Google. Et qu’ils feront une réponse circonstanciée.

    Sans compter qu’il y a pas besoin de "fumer la moquette ou autre chose" pour constater qu’il y a un sale bruit de bottes en ce moment. Et pas qu’en Afghanistan.

    G.L.

    The possibility of yet another U.S. war became more real last week, when the Obama administration sharply confronted both China and Iran. The first aggressive act was performed by Obama’s Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, who “warned” China that it must support serious economic sanctions against Iran (an act of war).

    Clinton said : “China will be under a lot of pressure to recognize the destabilizing effect that a nuclear-armed Iran would have, from which they receive a significant percentage of their oil supply.”

    The implication here is that China will be cut off from a major energy source if they do not support U.S. foreign policy — this, too, would equal an act of war.

    A more direct military provocation occurred later when Obama agreed to honor a Bush-era military pact with Taiwan, a small island that lies off the mainland coast of China, and is claimed by China as its own territory. Taiwan has been a U.S. client state ever since the defeated nationalist forces fled there from China in the aftermath of the 1949 revolution. Taiwan has remained a bastion of U.S. intrigue and anti-China agitation for the past six decades. Obama has recently upped the ante by approving a $6.4 billion arms sale to Taiwan, including :

    “... 60 Black Hawk helicopters, Patriot interceptor missiles, advanced Harpoon missiles that can be used against land or ship targets and two refurbished minesweepers.” (The New York Times, January 30, 2010).

    The same article quotes a Chinese government official who responded, accurately, by calling the arms sale “… a gross intervention intoChina’s internal affairs, [and] seriously endanger[ing] China’s national security…” In 1962, When Russia supplied missiles to Cuba, nearFlorida’s coast, the U.S. interpreted this to be an act of war.

    China responded harshly to the Taiwan arms deals, imposing “an unusually broad series of retaliatory measures… including sanctions against American companies that supply the weapon systems for the arms sales.” These U.S. arms manufacturers are giant corporations who have huge political influence in the Obama administration, and are likely to further push the U.S. government towards an even more aggressive response.

    Obama’s polices against China have been far more aggressive than Bush’s, making a farce out of his campaign promises of a more peaceful foreign policy. Obama’s same, deceitful approach is used inSouth America, where he promised “non-intervention” and then proceeded to build military bases in Colombia on Venezuela’s border, while giving a green light to the coup in Honduras.

    Hillary Clinton also threatened China about internet censorship last week, while Obama consciously provoked China by agreeing to talks with the Dalai Lama, who advocates the removal of Chinese influence from Tibet.

    Still fresh in the memories of both the U.S. and China is the recent trade flair up, when Obama imposed taxes on Chinese imports ; and China responded with protectionist measures against U.S. companies, which brings us to the heart of the matter.

    The attitude of the U.S. government towards China has nothing to do with the Dalai Lama, internet censorship, or human rights. These excuses are used as diplomatic jabs in the framework of a larger, geopolitical brawl. Chinese corporations are expanding rapidly in the wake of the decline of the U.S. business class, and Obama is using a variety of measures to counteract this dynamic, with all roads leading to war.

    This grand chessboard of corporate and military maneuvering reached a dangerous standoff yesterday, with the U.S. military provoking Iran. The New York Times explains :

    “The Obama administration is accelerating the deployment of new defenses against possible Iranian missile attacks in the Persian Gulf, placing special ships [war ships] off the Iranian coast and antimissile systems in at least four [surrounding] Arab countries, according to administration and military officials.” (January 30, 2010).

    The same article mentions that U.S. General Petraeus admitted that “… the United States was now keeping Aegis cruisers on patrol in the Persian Gulf [Iran’s border] at all times. Those cruisers are equipped with advanced radar and antimissile systems designed to intercept medium-range missiles.” Iran knows full well that “antimissile systems” are perfectly capable of going on the offensive — their real purpose.

    Iran is completely surrounded by countries occupied by the U.S. military, whether it be the mass occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the U.S. puppet states that house U.S. military bases in Arab nations. Contrary to the statements of President Obama, Iran is already well contained militarily. Iran’s government — however repressive it may be — has every right to defend itself in this context.

    It is possible that these aggressive U.S. actions will eventually force Iran’s government to act out militarily, giving the U.S. military the “defensive” excuse it’s been waiting for, so the tempers of the U.S. population can be cooled.

    A separate New York Times editorial outlines the basic agreement onIran shared by the Democrats and the Republicans. It says :

    “It is time for President Obama and other leaders to ratchet up the pressure with tougher sanctions.”

    And :

    “If the [UN] Security Council does not act quickly, then the United States and Europe must apply more pressure on their own [Bush’s Iraq war strategy]. The Senate on Thursday approved a bill that would punish companies for exporting gasoline to Iran or helping Iran expand its own petroleum refining capability [another act of war]” (January 29, 2010).

    The U.S. anti-war movement must organize and mobilize to confront the plans of the Obama administration. Obama’s policies not only mirror Bush’s, but have the potential to be far more devastating, with the real possibility of creating a wider, regional war. Iran and China are far more militarily capable than puny Afghanistan or Iraq ; the consequences of a war with either will cause countless more deaths.

    Bring All the Troops Home !

    U.S. Military Out of the Middle East !

    Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org). He can be reached at shamuscook@yahoo.com

    Shamus Cooke is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Shamus Cooke

  • Pour plus d’info et plus d’explication.
    URL de cet article
    http://www.legrandsoir.info/Une-autre-guerre-Americaine-Obama-menace-la-Chine-et-l-Iran.html

  • bonjour a mon avis cette geurre il vont la perde les u.s.a ne son pas si puissant que ca il arrive meme pas a son sortir en afghanisten en irak alors la chine est l iran il faut pas revait est regarder la veriter en face l iran est la chine son des tres grosses puissances est en beaucoup d armement peut etre nucleaire