samedi 30 avril 2016

USA: élections, "les gens sont malades et fatigués de la relation belliciste de Washington avec le reste du monde"

I30041621:30 - "Tant attendu, le discours très controversé de Donald Trump sur la politique étrangère a été salué par les uns et critiqué par d'autres, mais plus les néocons répugnent à l'horreur de ses idées, plus ceux qui ne sont pas autrement enclins à le soutenir pourrait se rapprocher des idées «radicales» du favori républicain" rapporte Sputnik international citant plusieurs analystes américains avant de conclure que "dans tous les cas, le «sens commun» des vues conservatrices de Trump ne va certainement jamais l'aider à gagner le soutien des élites républicaines bellicistes. Mais il lui a donné l'oreille de ceux qui sont malades et fatigués du business as usual dans la relation politique et militaire de Washington avec le reste du monde".

Le "sens commun" aux USA ou la "sensibilité populaire" en Allemagne sont finalement la même chose dans le sens ou il s'agit, dans les deux contextes, du ras-le-bol des gens de cette politique meurtrière insensée menée par les néocons US et leurs sbires européens à travers la planète et c'est bien la raison pour laquelle nous espérons tant en la victoire de Trump tout en sachant que si elle a lieue, cela provoquera rien de moins qu'une énorme révolution aux Etats-Unis avec des conséquences inimaginables aujourd'hui, aussi bien pour les Américains que pour nous, Européens. Mais pouvons-nous continuer d'accepter cette tuerie universelle ?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Neocons Make Trump Sound Like Peacenik on Foreign Policy 
Sputnik international, le 30 Avril 2016

Titre et inter-titres E Gaillot pour €calypse News, le 30 Avril 2016


___________***___________
tant attendu, le discours très controversé de Donald Trump sur la politique étrangère a été salué par les uns et critiqué par d'autres, mais plus les néocons répugnent à l'horreur de ses idées, plus ceux qui ne sont pas autrement enclins à le soutenir pourrait se rapprocher des idées «radicales» du favori républicain
Donald Trump's long-awaited, much-discussed speech on foreign policy has been praised by some and slammed by others, but the more neocons recoil in horror over his ideas, the more those who are not otherwise inclined to support him might warm up to the Republican frontrunner's 'radical' ideas.
Le discours exploratoire de Trump sur la politique étrangère a eu ses moments lumineux, avec le candidat soulignant que les catastrophes de politique étrangère US au Moyen-Orient ont jeté la région dans le chaos, et en disant que le cycle d'hostilité entre Washington et Moscou doit se terminer ( "À partir d'une position de force " de la part des Etats-Unis, bien sûr).
Trump's exploratory speech on foreign policy had its bright moments, with the candidate emphasizing that US foreign policy disasters in the Middle East threw the region into chaos, and saying that the cycle of hostility between Washington and Moscow must come to an end ("from a position of strength only" on the US's part, naturally).

At the same time, long-standing non-interventionists including Ron Paul Institute political analyst Daniel McAdams weren't as enthusiastic about Trump's proposals, McAdams telling Sputnik that Trump's proposals are a mixed bag, since his advisors appear to be realists, and "that is not super satisfying to a non-interventionist and an anti-war person because realists…lack the philosophy…of avoiding war and avoiding entangling alliances."
Le dénigrement incessant de Trump par des néocons a créé le potentiel pour rendre le candidat attrayant pour les Américains malades de la politique agressive contre la Russie, et ceux qui sont opposés à la guerre sans fin au Moyen-Orient
Nevertheless, the neocons' incessant bashing of Trump has created the potential to make the candidate appealing to those Americans sick of aggressive policy against Russia, and those opposed to never-ending wars in the Middle East.

This holds true in the case of neocon pundit Anne Applebaum, who has previously gone so far as to say that a Trump presidency would mark "the end of the West as we know it."

Responding to Trump's foreign policy speech in an op-ed for the Washington Post, Applebaum suggested that his rhetoric was not only ridiculous and contradictory, but also dangerous (to the neocons, of course).

"On the one hand, he said that 'your friends need to know that you will stick by the agreements that you have with them.' On the other hand, he threatened to 'walk' if those same friends didn't pony up to his demands. He wants to invest heavily in the military, but he wants to stop using the military. He doesn't want to do 'nation-building' but does want to promote 'regional stability'."

Ratcheting up the pretentiousness, Applebaum suggested that "there was no sense" that Trump even "knew what either of those terms meant," adding that unfortunately, neither may many American voters.

By the same token, she said, the 'multiple contradictions' in the speech indicate "that audiences can pick and choose their message. Isolationists and 'realists' heard what they wanted to hear. On the other hand, Trump's call to 'reinvigorate Western values and institutions' might well appeal to those voters who aren't isolationist at all. He says he likes American soldiers and wants to spend more on defense, so what's wrong?"

At the same time, "foreign audiences are already hearing different Trump messages and are picking and choosing the ones that they like. The Russians love the way he talks about foreign policy as if it were a cynical business deal, because that's exactly how President Vladimir Putin sees it. A part of the European left is already warming up to the suggestion the United States withdraw from Europe, because that's what it has always wanted, too. And yes, all concerned will be perfectly capable of ignoring, simultaneously, all of the things about Trump that they should in theory deeply dislike."


Ultimately, Trump's foreign policy proposals do appear to be somewhat contradictory and hazy, in contrast to the more principled approach proposed by Dr. Ron Paul. Nevertheless, the fact that neocons continue to throw a fit over Trump's remarks on foreign policy, despite his status as the presumptive Republican nominee, is an indication that he remains a thorn in the side of Washington's neoconservative foreign policy establishment.
Dans tous les cas, le «sens commun» des vues conservatrices de Trump ne va certainement jamais l'aidé à gagner le soutien des élites républicaines bellicistes. Mais il lui a donné l'oreille de ceux qui sont malades et fatigués du business as usual dans la relation politique et militaire de Washington avec le reste du monde
At the same time, with fellow non-interventionist Bernie Sanders effectively sidelined by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party establishment, Trump may yet prove to be the lesser hawk compared to the former secretary of state, who voted for the Iraq war, pushed the Libyan intervention, and whose aids promoted the Maidan coup d'etat in Ukraine. In any case, Trump's 'common sense conservative' views certainly never helped him win support among hawkish Republican elites. But they have given him the ear of those sick and tired of business as usual in Washington's political and and military relationship with the rest of the world.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chômage ? Finies les angoisses mensuelles, bien joué !

« Le chômage en France? Tout le monde s’en fiche depuis que Macron a décidé de l’escamoter avec l’aide des autres formations politiques e...