> Note aux Français: soyez patients, mon introduction ne vous concerne pas
> mais, après avoir lu l'article du Asian Times, vous pourrez certainement
> faire un parallèle avec ce qui se passe en France.
>
> Le 20 juin, ce bon vieux Pepe Escobar nous livrait un petit article
> l'état de notre Guerre Sainte en Irak.
>
> C'est bizarre, lorsqu'on le lit, tous les renseignements que nous
> livrent nos médias et qui semblent n'avoir aucun sens, tombent
> soudainement en place. Au Québec, on a beau avoir Le Devoir, un grand
> journal intellectuel, très indépendant -- ce sont ses artisans qui le
> prétendent! -- , pourtant, jamais on n'y lit d'articles comme celui-là.
>
> Fatalement, je me suis demandé ce qui fait la différence entre les deux
> types de journalistes. Peut-être que certains portent des cravates, les
> autres des boucles, ou des vestons à revers large ou étroit? Je vous
> offre les liens vers leurs photos et vous me dites ce que vous en pensez.
>
> Le directeur du Devoir est Bernard Descôteaux:
>
> <http://www.ledevoir.com/img/photos/descoteaux.gif>
>
> Le rédacteur en chef est Jean-Robert Sansfaçon:
>
> <http://www.ledevoir.com/images/journalistes/jean_robert_sansfacon.jpg>
>
> Ce sont principalement ces deux personnes qui mènent Le Devoir.
>
> Sur cette page:
>
> <http://www.atimes.com/mediakit/aboutus.html>
>
> Cliquez sur le nom Pepe Escobar et vous verrez celui qui écrit ce qui
> suit. Par la suite, comparez les styles et le fond.
>
> Au sujet du SOFA, dont Pepe parle plus bas, il s'agit de "Status of
> Forces Agreement (SOFA)", un accord entre un pays et une force
> d'occupation, ici, l'Irak et les États-Unis.
>
>
> WASHINGTON - Everyone remembers the George W Bush "Mission Accomplished"
> victory speech on board of an aircraft carrier off the San Diego coast
> in the spring of 2003. Over five years - and a trillion dollars - later,
> Bush's last stand is to force a neo-colonial Status of Forces Agreement
> (SOFA) under Iraqi throats by the end of July, acquire the right to go
> on "war on terror" mode in Iraq forever, declare victory and thus win -
> finally - his war, now opposed by a striking majority of Americans.
>
> Call it "occupation forever". But there's one glitch: Iraqis are not
> falling for it.
>
> *I need your oil so bad*
>
> Flash back to September 2001. The neo-conservatives wanted their "new
> Pearl Harbor" really bad - something they had virtually implored for via
> the Project for a New American Century. They got it on September 11,
> 2001. Then the short anti-Taliban war in Afghanistan turned out to be a
> sort of test drive for Iraq. Echoing astute past observations by Hannah
> Arendt, US nationalism and imperialism was coupled with racism (towards
> Arabs and Islam).
>
> And the invasion of Iraq was finally conceptualized as a "demonstration
> project" - the push to create in the Mesopotamian sands a US-style,
> wealthy consumer society, a demilitarized client state under benign US
> protection. Better yet, a 21st century version of the South Korean
> "tiger" miracle - engineered by US military-technological power.
>
> But it all went way beyond Iraq as a new South Korea. David Harvey, the
> brilliant Oxford-educated American geographer who proposes, in his own
> words, long-term geopolitical analysis based on "historical-geographical
> materialism", wrote in 2003 that the invasion of Iraq offered "a vital
> strategic bridgehead ... on the Eurasian land mass that just happens to
> be the center of production of the oil that currently fuels (and will
> continue to fuel for at least the next 50 years) not only the global
> economy but also every large military machine that dares to oppose that
> of the United States."
>
> An empire of military bases and control of oil fields. These two crucial
> "benchmarks", applied to Iraq, are what's left of that alliance between
> the neo-cons and the Christian Right which took over the US government
> with an imperial project of military rule over global oil resources. Now
> it's twilight time; and no wonder the Bush administration has come out
> with all guns blazing. Without a new, US Big Oil-friendly Iraqi oil law,
> and without a SOFA, US$3 trillion - according to Joseph Stiglitz's and
> Linda Bilmes' book - will have been spent for nothing.
>
> However, on Thursday, the New York Times reported that Exxon Mobil,
> Shell, Total and BP were in the final stages of negotiations on
> contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil
> concession to nationalization by Saddam Hussein.
>
> They are reportedly in negotiations with the Oil Ministry for no-bid
> contracts to service Iraq's largest fields. Should the deals go through,
> they would lay the foundation for the first commercial work for major
> Western companies in Iraq since the American invasion in 2003. It is
> expected that Iraq's output could increase to about 3 million barrels a
> day from its current 2.5 million.
>
> Initially, the Bush administration wanted no less than 58 permanent US
> bases in Iraq. There are already 30 in place. It doesn't matter that on
> April 8, US ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker had said the US "will not
> establish permanent bases in Iraq and we anticipate that it will
> expressly foreswear them".
>
> The Bush administration's ploy essentially amounts to turning over legal
> control of US bases to a client regime. Heavy pressure is the name of
> the game. To convince the Iraqis, the Bush administration is holding no
> less than $50 billion of Iraqi money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New
> York. Other "subtle" forms of pressure also apply. The Iraqis wanted to
> sell oil in euros as well as in dollars. The Bush administration issued
> its fatwa - and it's a "no".
>
> This shady deal the Bush administration wants so badly is a SOFA only in
> theory. In fact, it's a smokescreen. Under US law, it would have to be
> submitted to the senate. The Bush administration wants to totally bypass
> the senate.
>
> And the deal is not about Iraq either. It's essentially about Iran - as
> in the neo-con 2003 mantra "real men go to Tehran". That's the meaning
> of the Bush administration demand, according to Iraqi lawmakers, of "the
> right ... to strike, from within Iraqi territory, any country it
> considers a threat to its national security."
>
> http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JF20Ak03.html
>
> Je coupe ici pour que vous alliez sur le site. Croyez-moi, le reste de
> l'histoire n'est pas moins intéressant.
>
> Et n'oubliez pas de vous abonner au Devoir: comme ils disent, leur mise
> en page est impeccable!
>
> P.s.: Hé, d'Iberville, toi qui es militaire, tu ne tombes jamais sur des
> articles comme celui-là? Ça pourrait restreindre le nombre des
> monstruosités que tu débites sur ce forum.