{"id":76508,"date":"2016-04-06T09:41:29","date_gmt":"2016-04-06T09:41:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2016\/04\/06\/les-candidats-et-la-guerre-god-save-america\/"},"modified":"2016-04-06T09:41:29","modified_gmt":"2016-04-06T09:41:29","slug":"les-candidats-et-la-guerre-god-save-america","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2016\/04\/06\/les-candidats-et-la-guerre-god-save-america\/","title":{"rendered":"Les candidats et la guerre\u00a0: God save America!<\/em>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Les candidats et la guerre : God save America!<\/em><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

Philip Giraldi, ancien officier de la CIA et excellent commentateur, donne, dans UNZ.com<\/em>, le 5 avril, une \u00e9valuation des cinq candidats encore officiellement en lice pour les deux principaux partis, pour ce qui concerne leurs positions vis-\u00e0-vis du principal probl\u00e8me de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 : la guerre. En d’autres mots : quelle serait leur attitude vis-\u00e0-vis de la possibilit\u00e9 de d\u00e9clencher un conflit qui aurait des dimensions mondiales et possiblement nucl\u00e9aires. Vu les qualit\u00e9s de Giraldi, il s’agit d’une excellente \u00ab\u00a0mise \u00e0 nouveau\u00a0\u00bb pour nos appr\u00e9ciations de ce que repr\u00e9sentent ces candidats, en mettant \u00e0 part toutes les hypoth\u00e8ses<\/a>, nombreuses et tr\u00e8s importantes, d’\u00e9v\u00e9nements d\u00e9stabilisants hors du processus \u00e9lectoral lui-m\u00eame. Ainsi peut-on mieux \u00e9carter toutes les fadaises id\u00e9ologiques vieilles d’un si\u00e8cle, les narrative<\/em> convenues, etc., sur lesquelles les \u00e9lites-Syst\u00e8me et les commentateurs-Syst\u00e8me, et aussi nombre d’anti-Syst\u00e8me, appuient leurs jugements. Il s’agit bien du probl\u00e8me fondamental de la guerre caract\u00e9ris\u00e9 par son exclamation de conclusion \u00ab\u00a0God save America!<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb (\u00e0 quoi l’on ajouterait : \u00ab\u00a0…and the world<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0)<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\n

Cette exclamation vient du fait qu’il semble paraître difficile \u00e0 Giraldi que les USA \u00e9vitent un prochain pr\u00e9sident absolument partisan de la guerre. Manifestement, il croit que Clinton a le plus de chances de l’emporter (\u00e0 moins d’une interf\u00e9rence emailgate<\/em>\/FBI), et que derri\u00e8re elle Cruz est bien plac\u00e9 \u00e0 cause du soutien de l’establishment<\/em>\/parti r\u00e9publicain, et tout cela le d\u00e9sole absolument. Les deux candidats que Giraldi estime \u00eatre les plus acceptables dans le sens de ne pas chercher \u00e0 d\u00e9clencher de guerre, sont, dans l’ordre, Sanders et Trump : « Je voterai dans l’ordre, pour Bernie<\/em> [Sanders], puis pour Trump, puis pour Kasich. Je ne pourrais jamais voter pour Cruz ou pour Hillary, dans n’importe quelle circonstance. Dieu prot\u00e8ge l’Am\u00e9rique !<\/em> »<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Encore une fois, car c’est bien comme cela que Giraldi pr\u00e9sente la chose, nous mettons \u00e0 part toutes possibilit\u00e9s d’\u00e9v\u00e9nements collat\u00e9raux interf\u00e9rant gravement sur le processus \u00e9lectoral, et m\u00eame apr\u00e8s sur le processus pr\u00e9sidentiel dans le cas d’une \u00e9lection Cruz ou Clinton (par exemple, une opposition\/r\u00e9volte des chefs militaires contre l’ordre de d\u00e9clencher une guerre<\/strong>). Nous donnons quelques extraits du texte de Giraldi du 5 avril<\/a>, en mettant surtout l’accent sur Cruz qui est le plus mal connu du point de vue des d\u00e9g\u00e2ts qu’il peut occasionner.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

« Ted Cruz wants to increase the Pentagon budget dramatically, wants to carpet bomb Syria to destroy ISIS, establish no-fly zones, arm Ukraine and directly support Kiev against Moscow. He does oppose the interventions in Iraq and Libya in hindsight because they were not successful and based on false intelligence. He would tear up the nuclear agreement with Iran and demand that the Iranians eliminate all their existing nuclear facilities. His zeal in \u00ab\u00a0having Israel’s back\u00a0\u00bb is unmatched by any other candidate with the possible exception of Hillary Clinton and he models his own foreign policy on that of Netanyahu, whom he describes as \u00ab\u00a0Churchillian.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> […]<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

» Cruz is the most hawkish of the Republican candidates and Kasich is a blue collar tough guy who likes to show that he is willing to stand up to bullies. Neither has thought very much about the issue of war and peace because neither has ever had to do so and, like all the other candidates, neither of them has ever served in the military. They both admit in hindsight that Iraq and Libya were failures but they are willing to try again with the same hawkish policies in expectation that this time they will be successful.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

» Cruz’s foreign policy team<\/strong><\/a> of Islamophobes headed by the clinically insane Frank Gaffney is something to behold while Kasich is given to posturing over issues that he barely understands. But would either of them go to war? Kasich might blunder into war or get fooled into doing so by Netanyahu, but Cruz is a different breed of cat. Highly intelligent he could be a poseur, but his in your face Pentecostal religiosity and ties to Zionism suggest that he might be all too ready to jump into a war in the Middle East in fulfillment of prophecy. He has already been endorsed<\/strong><\/a> by Mormon stalwart Glenn Beck as prophet material, so why stop there? He is a man with a maniacal gleam in his eye that scares the shit out of me.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

» So how do I rank them? Bernie is best choice but unlikely to be on the ballot. I then would have to go with Trump in hopes that I can trust him to pay heed to the whispering of his better angels. That leaves Hillary, who is completely corrupted by interest groups and a reliable establishment warmonger. Or Cruz who comes across as a crazed zealot with little in the way of the Christian virtues that he so often cites. Kasich doesn’t seem to actually stand for anything but maybe he would prove to be a tough talking street guy too timid and insecure to be dangerous. It’s a hard choice, but I think that Hillary is capable of doing more damage than Cruz, who would be reined in somewhat by a Congress that truly hates him. I would go with Bernie, then Trump, then Kasich. I could never vote for Cruz or Hillary under any circumstances. God save America!<\/em> »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Mis en ligne le 6 avril 2016 \u00e0 09H43<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Les candidats et la guerre : God save America! Philip Giraldi, ancien officier de la CIA et excellent commentateur, donne, dans UNZ.com, le 5 avril, une \u00e9valuation des cinq candidats encore officiellement en lice pour les deux principaux partis, pour ce qui concerne leurs positions vis-\u00e0-vis du principal probl\u00e8me de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 : la guerre. En… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[10715,934,14456,2787,2645,3278,17424,2785,8327,2639],"class_list":["post-76508","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-breves-de-crise","tag-bernie","tag-clinton","tag-cruz","tag-giraldi","tag-guerre","tag-hillary","tag-kasich","tag-philip","tag-sanders","tag-trump"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76508","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=76508"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76508\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=76508"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=76508"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=76508"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}