La Presse capitaliste est "libre". Vous y croyez ?

La grande presse capitaliste serait "libre", "neutre" "démocratique" et "indépendante". Elle n' est pas censurée, nous dit-on... En réalité, nous payons pour obtenir des scoops, des informations manipulées, destinés à fabriquer notre opinion. Elle vit principalement de la publicité reçue des grosses sociétés multinationales.

mardi, septembre 16, 2008

s1 761 bases militaires américaines dans le monde, et personne n'en parle

 

From: melusine
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 1:22 PM
Subject: The US Has 761 Military Bases Across the Planet

 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 12:23 PM
Subject: tr: FW: The US Has 761 Military Bases Across the Planet



> Message du 16/09/08 07:00
> De : "cc cc"
> Objet : FW: 761 bases militaires américaines dans   le monde, et personne n'en parle

> > Les mass media occidentaux tapent continuellement sur les Russes, leur
> > reprochant principalement de vouloir reconstituer leur ancien empire (alors
> > que la Georgie et l¹Ukraine sont sans doute plus russes que la Californie et
> > l¹Alaska ne sont américains). Or les Etats Unis auraient 761 bases militaires
> > dans le monde. Et cela sans que le peuple américain ne le sache. Les mass media n¹en parlent pas.
> > Les Américains exploitent à fond l¹idée du terrorisme qu¹ils ont créée. Il
> > suffit qu¹on leur annonce l¹existence d¹un terroriste quelque part dans le
> > monde pour qu¹ils se sentent autorisés d¹y lâcher des bombes ou d¹y envoyer
> > une équipe de tueurs.
> > 
> >  The US Has 761 Military Bases Across the Planet, and We Simply Never Talk
> > About It 
> >
> > It must be understood that none of this world conquest effort has anything to
> > do with the welfare of America or the American people. It is purely a
> > money-power grab, utilizing the American people and their resources to finance
> > and man the undertaking, along with whatever other nationals might be suckered
> > in.  Such a project requires lots of manpower and this country has bred up a
> > bunch.  America did enjoy a measure of Freedom, but only for about ten years,
> > until re-controlled by The City and our 1787 ConJob.  It all started big-time
> > with WW1, which itself first required the establishment of the Federal Reserve
> > in order to enslave the American people to permanently finance world chaos and
> > control.  Of course such a project will ultimately bankrupt its undertakers,
> > and that is what we are now seeing in the daily news.
> > Best regards,. Bob Taft The Taft Ranch Upton, Wyoming (307) 465-2206
> > http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=74897 "We hang the petty
> > thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." Aesop From: William
> > Brumbaugh < mailto:mrproactive@frii.com <mailto:mrproactive@frii.com> >  Sent:
> > Monday, September 15, 2008 1:40 PM To: Proactivelist <
> > mailto:proactivelist@proactive.talklist.com
> > <mailto:proactivelist@proactive.talklist.com> >  Subject: The US Has 761
> > Military Bases Across the Planet, and We Simply Never Talk About It
> >
> > The Proactive News - Host Bill Brumbaugh Story Links
> > ============================================
> > http://www.alternet.org/audits/97913/the_us_has_761_military_bases_across_the_
> > planet%2C_and_we_simply_never_talk_about_it/?page=entire
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------- The US Has 761 Military Bases Across the Planet, and We Simply Never
> > Talk About It By Tom Engelhardt < http://www.alternet.org/authors/837/
> > <http://www.alternet.org/authors/837/> > , Tomdispatch.com <
> > http://www.tomdispatch.com <http://www.tomdispatch.com/> > . Posted September
> > 8, 2008 <
> > http://www.alternet.org/ts/archives/?date%5BF%5D=09&date%5BY%5D=2008&d
> > ate%5Bd%5D=08&act=Go/
> > <http://www.alternet.org/ts/archives/?date%5BF%5D=09&date%5BY%5D=2008&
> > amp;amp;date%5Bd%5D=08&act=Go/>
> > <http://www.alternet.org/ts/archives/?date%5BF%5D=09&amp;date%5BY%5D=2
> > 008&date%5Bd%5D=08&act=Go/>  > .
> > America garrison the globe in ways that really are unprecedented, and yet, if
> > you live in the United States, you basically wouldn't know it. Here it is, as
> > simply as I can put it: In the course of any year, there must be relatively
> > few countries on this planet on which U.S. soldiers do not set foot, whether
> > with guns blazing, humanitarian aid in hand, or just for a friendly visit. In
> > startling numbers of countries, our soldiers not only arrive, but stay
> > interminably, if not indefinitely. Sometimes they live on military bases built
> > to the tune of billions of dollars that amount to sizeable American towns
> > (with accompanying amenities), sometimes on stripped down forward operating
> > bases that may not even have showers. When those troops don't stay, often
> > American equipment does -- carefully stored for further use at tiny
> > "cooperative security locations," known informally as "lily pads" (from which
> > U.S. troops, like so many frogs, could assumedly leap quickly into a region in
> > crisis). At the height of the Roman Empire, the Romans had an estimated 37
> > major military bases <
> > http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/09/pentagon-base-stats.html
> > <http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/09/pentagon-base-stats.html> >
> > scattered around their dominions. At the height of the British Empire, the
> > British had 36 of them planetwide. Depending on just who you listen to and how
> > you count, we have hundreds of bases. According to Pentagon records, in fact,
> > there are 761 <
> > http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/09/chalmers-johnson-on-pentagon.h
> > tml
> > <http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/09/chalmers-johnson-on-pentagon.
> > html> >  active military "sites" abroad.
> > The fact is: We garrison the planet north to south, east to west, and even on
> > the seven seas, thanks to our various fleets and our massive aircraft carriers
> > which, with 5,000-6,000 personnel aboard -- that is, the population of an
> > American town -- are functionally floating bases.
> > And here's the other half of that simple truth: We don't care to know about
> > it. We, the American people, aided and abetted by our politicians, the
> > Pentagon, and the mainstream media, are knee-deep in base denial.
> > Now, that's the gist of it. If, like most Americans, that's more than you care
> > to know, stop here.
> > Where the Sun Never Sets
> > Let's face it, we're on an imperial bender and it's been a long, long night.
> > Even now, in the wee hours, the Pentagon continues <
> > http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174936
> > <http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174936> >  its massive expansion of recent
> > years; we spend militarily as if there were no tomorrow; we're still building
> > bases as if the world were our oyster; and we're still in denial. Someone
> > should phone the imperial equivalent of Alcoholics Anonymous.
> > But let's start in a sunnier time, less than two decades ago, when it seemed
> > that there would be many tomorrows, all painted red, white, and blue. Remember
> > the 1990s when the U.S. was hailed -- or perhaps more accurately, Washington
> > hailed itself -- not just as the planet's "sole superpower" or even its unique
> > "hyperpower," but as its "global policeman," the only cop on the block? As it
> > happened, our leaders took that label seriously and our central police
> > headquarters, that famed five-sided building in Washington D.C, promptly began
> > dropping police stations -- aka military bases -- in or near the oil
> > heartlands of the planet (Kosovo, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait) after
> > successful wars in the former Yugoslavia and the Persian Gulf.
> >
> >  < http://www.amazon.com/dp/1844672573/ref=nosim/?tag=nationbooks08-20
> > <http://www.amazon.com/dp/1844672573/ref=nosim/?tag=nationbooks08-20> > As
> > those bases multiplied, it seemed that we were embarking on a new, post-Soviet
> > version of "containment." With the USSR gone, however, what we were containing
> > grew a lot vaguer and, before 9/11, no one spoke its name. Nonetheless, it
> > was, in essence, Muslims who happened to live on so many of the key oil lands
> > of the planet.
> > Yes, for a while we also kept intact our old bases from our triumphant
> > mega-war against Japan and Germany, and then the stalemated "police action" in
> > South Korea (1950-1953) -- vast structures which added up to something like an
> > all-military American version of the old British Raj. According to the
> > Pentagon, we still have a total <
> > http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/09/pentagon-base-stats.html
> > <http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/09/pentagon-base-stats.html> >
> > of 124 bases in Japan, up to 38 <
> > http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/1112/chalmers_johnson_on_imperial_rights
> > <http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/1112/chalmers_johnson_on_imperial_rights> >
> > on the small island of Okinawa, and 87 in South Korea. (Of course, there were
> > setbacks. The giant bases we built in South Vietnam were lost in 1975, and we
> > were peaceably ejected
> > <http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/09/filipinos-gis-pentagon.html>
> > from our major bases in the Philippines in 1992.) But imagine the hubris
> > involved in the idea of being "global policeman" or "sheriff" and marching
> > into a Dodge City that was nothing less than Planet Earth itself. Naturally,
> > with a whole passel of bad guys out there, a global "swamp" to be "drained," <
> > http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,175599,00.html
> > <http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,175599,00.html> >  as key Bush
> > administration officials loved to describe it post-9/11, we armed ourselves to
> > kill, not stun. And the police stations Well, they were often something to
> > behold -- and they still are.
> > Let's start with the basics: Almost 70 years after World War II, the sun is
> > still incapable of setting on the American "empire of bases" -- in Chalmers
> > Johnson's phrase <
> > http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/1181/chalmers_johnson_on_garrisoning_the_plane
> > t
> > <http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/1181/chalmers_johnson_on_garrisoning_the_plan
> > et> >  -- which at this moment stretches from Australia to Italy, Japan to
> > Qatar, Iraq to Colombia, Greenland to the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia,
> > Rumania to Okinawa. And new bases of various kinds are going up all the time
> > (always with rumors <http://www.gulfnews.com/region/Iraq/10231099.html>  of
> > more to come). For instance, an American missile system is slated to go into
> > Poland and a radar system into Israel. That will mean Americans stationed in
> > both countries and, undoubtedly, modest bases of one sort or another to go
> > with them. (The Israeli one -- "the first American base on Israeli territory"
> > -- reports <http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1015879.html>  Aluf Benn of
> > Haaretz, will be in the Negev desert.)
> > There are 194 countries < http://www.state.gov/s/inr/rls/4250.htm
> > <http://www.state.gov/s/inr/rls/4250.htm> >  on the planet (more or less), and
> > officially 39 of them have American "facilities," large and/or small. But
> > those are only the bases the Pentagon officially acknowledges. Others simply
> > aren't counted <
> > http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/09/chalmers-johnson-on-pentagon.h
> > tml
> > <http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/09/chalmers-johnson-on-pentagon.
> > html> > , either because, as in the case of Jordan, a country finds it
> > politically preferable not to acknowledge such bases; because, as in the case
> > of Pakistan, the American military shares bases that are officially Pakistani;
> > or because bases in war zones, no matter how elaborate, somehow don't count.
> > In other words, that 39 figure doesn't even include Iraq or Afghanistan. By
> > 2005, according to the Washington Post, there were 106 American bases in Iraq,
> > ranging from tiny outposts to mega-bases like Balad Air Base and the ill-named
> > Camp Victory that house tens of thousands of troops, private contractors,
> > Defense Department civilians, have bus routes, traffic lights, PXes, big name
> > fast-food restaurants, and so on.
> > Some of these bases are, in effect, "American towns" on foreign soil. In
> > Afghanistan, Bagram Air Base, previously used by the Soviets in their
> > occupation of the country, is the largest and best known. There are, however,
> > many more, large and small, including Kandahar Air Base, located in what was
> > once the unofficial capital of the Taliban, which even has a full-scale hockey
> > rink <
> > http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2008/08/28/186498.aspx
> > <http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2008/08/28/186498.asp
> > x> >  (evidently for its Canadian contingent of troops).
> >
> > You would think that all of this would be genuine news, that the establishment
> > of new bases would regularly generate significant news stories, that books by
> > the score would pour out on America's version of imperial control. But here's
> > the strange thing: We garrison the globe in ways that really are -- not to put
> > too fine a point on it -- unprecedented, and yet, if you happen to live in the
> > United States, you basically wouldn't know it; or, thought about another way,
> > you wouldn't have to know it.
> > In Washington, our garrisoning of the world is so taken for granted that no
> > one seems to blink when billions go into a new base in some exotic, embattled,
> > war-torn land. There's no discussion, no debate at all. News about bases
> > abroad, and Pentagon basing strategy, is, at best, inside-the-fold stuff,
> > meant for policy wonks and news jockeys. There may be no subject more taken
> > for granted in Washington, less seriously attended to, or more deserving of
> > coverage.
> > Missing Bases
> > Americans have, of course, always prided themselves on exporting "democracy,"
> > not empire. So empire-talk hasn't generally been an American staple and,
> > perhaps for that reason, all those bases prove an awkward subject to bring up
> > or focus too closely on. When it came to empire-talk in general, there was a
> > brief period after 9/11 when the neoconservatives, in full-throated triumph,
> > began to compare us to Rome and Britain at their imperial height (though we
> > were believed to be incomparably, uniquely more powerful). It was, in the
> > phrase of the time, a "unipolar moment." Even liberal war hawks started
> > talking about taking up "the burden" of empire or, in the phrase of Michael
> > Ignatieff, now a Canadian politician but, in that period, still at Harvard and
> > considered a significant American intellectual, "empire lite." <
> > http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/analysis/2003/0110empirelite.htm
> > <http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/analysis/2003/0110empirelite.htm> >
> > On the whole, however, those in Washington and in the media haven't considered
> > it germane to remind Americans of just exactly how we have attempted to
> > "police" and control the world these last years. I've had two modest
> > encounters with base denial myself:
> > In the spring of 2004, a journalism student I was working with emailed me a
> > clip, dated October 20, 2003 -- less than seven months after American troops
> > entered Baghdad -- from a prestigious engineering magazine. It quoted Lt. Col.
> > David Holt, the Army engineer "tasked with facilities development" in Iraq,
> > speaking proudly of the several billion dollars <
> > http://enr.construction.com/news/bizlabor/archives/031020.asp
> > <http://enr.construction.com/news/bizlabor/archives/031020.asp> >  ("the
> > numbers are staggering") that had already been sunk into base construction in
> > that country. Well, I was staggered anyway. American journalists, however,
> > hardly noticed, even though significant sums were already pouring into a
> > series of mega-bases that were clearly meant to be permanent fixtures on the
> > Iraqi landscape. (The Bush administration carefully avoided
> > <http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/09/permanent-iraq-presence.html>
> > using the word "permanent" in any context whatsoever, and these bases were
> > first dubbed "enduring camps.")
> >
> > Within two years, according to the Washington Post <
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/21/AR200505210061
> > 1_pf.html
> > <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/21/AR20050521006
> > 11_pf.html> >  (in a piece that, typically, appeared on page A27 of the
> > paper), the U.S. had those 106 bases in Iraq at a cost that, while unknown,
> > must have been staggering indeed. Just stop for a moment and consider that
> > number: 106. It boggles the mind, but not, it seems, American newspaper or TV
> > journalism.
> > TomDispatch.com has covered this subject <
> > http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/59774/a_permanent_basis_for_withdrawal_
> > <http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/59774/a_permanent_basis_for_withdrawal_> >
> > regularly ever since, in part because these massive "facts on the ground,"
> > these modern Ziggurats < http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174944
> > <http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174944> > , were clearly evidence of the Bush
> > administration's long-term plans and intentions in that country. Not
> > surprisingly, this year, U.S. negotiators finally offered the Iraqi government
> > of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki its terms for a so-called status of forces
> > agreement, evidently initially demanding the right to occupy <
> > http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/12/9578/
> > <http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/12/9578/> >  into the distant
> > future 58 of the bases it has built.
> > It has always been obvious -- to me, at least -- that any discussion of Iraq
> > policy in this country, of timelines or "time horizons," <
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/18/AR200807180130
> > 8.html
> > <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/18/AR20080718013
> > 08.html> >  drawdowns or withdrawals, made little sense if those giant facts
> > on the ground weren't taken into account. And yet you have to search the U.S.
> > press carefully to find any reporting on the subject, nor have bases played
> > any real role in debates in Washington or the nation over Iraq policy.
> > I could go further: I can think of two intrepid American journalists, Thomas
> > Ricks <
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/03/AR200602030299
> > 4_pf.html
> > <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/03/AR20060203029
> > 94_pf.html> >  of the Washington Post and Guy Raz <
> > http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15184773
> > <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15184773> >  of NPR, who
> > actually visited a single U.S. mega-base, Balad Air Base, which reputedly has
> > a level of air traffic similar to Chicago's O'Hare International or London's
> > Heathrow, and offered substantial reports on it. But, as far as I know, they,
> > like the cheese of children's song, stand alone. I doubt that in the last five
> > years Americans tuning in to their television news have ever been able to see
> > a single report from Iraq that gave a view of what the bases we have built
> > there look like or cost. Although reporters visit them often enough and, for
> > instance, have regularly offered reports from Camp Victory in Baghdad on
> > what's going on in the rest of Iraq, the cameras never pan away from the
> > reporters to show us the gigantic base itself.
> > More than five years after ground was broken for the first major American base
> > in Iraq, this is, it seems to me, a remarkable record of media denial.
> > American bases in Afghanistan have generally experienced a similar fate.
> > My second encounter with base denial came in my other life. When not running
> > TomDispatch.com, I'm a book editor < http://www.americanempireproject.com/
> > <http://www.americanempireproject.com/> > ; to be more specific, I'm Chalmers
> > Johnson's editor. I worked on the prophetic Blowback: The Costs and
> > Consequences of American Empire <
> > http://www.amazon.com/dp/0805075593/ref=nosim/?tag=nationbooks08-20
> > <http://www.amazon.com/dp/0805075593/ref=nosim/?tag=nationbooks08-20> > ,
> > which was published back in 2000 to a singular lack of attention -- until, of
> > course, the attacks of 9/11, after which it became a bestseller, adding both
> > "blowback" and the phrase "unintended consequences" to the American lexicon.
> > By the time The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the
> > Republic < http://www.amazon.com/dp/0805077979/ref=nosim/?tag=nationbooks08-20
> > <http://www.amazon.com/dp/0805077979/ref=nosim/?tag=nationbooks08-20> > , the
> > second volume in his Blowback Trilogy, came out in 2004, reviewers, critics,
> > and commentators were all paying attention. The heart of that book focused on
> > how the U.S. garrisons the planet, laying out Pentagon basing policies and
> > discussing specific bases in remarkable detail. This represented serious
> > research and breakthrough work, and the book indeed received much attention
> > here, including major, generally positive reviews. Startlingly, however, not a
> > single mainstream review, no matter how positive, paid any attention, or even
> > really acknowledged, his chapters on the bases, or bothered to discuss the
> > U.S. as a global garrison state. Only three years later did a major reviewer
> > pay the subject serious attention. When Jonathan Freedland reviewed <
> > http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20251 <http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20251>
> > >  Nemesis, the final book in the Trilogy, in the New York Review of Books, he
> > noticed the obvious and, in a discussion of U.S. basing policy, wrote, for
> > instance:
> >
> > "Johnson is in deadly earnest when he draws a parallel with Rome.  He swats
> > aside the conventional objection that, in contrast with both Romans  and
> > Britons, Americans have never constructed colonies abroad. Oh, but they  have,
> > he says; it's just that Americans are blind to them. America is an  'empire of
> > bases,' he writes, with a network of vast, hardened military  encampments
> > across the earth, each one a match for any Roman or Raj outpost."
> >
> > Not surprisingly, Freedland is not an American journalist, but a British one
> > who works for the Guardian.
> > In the U.S., military bases really only matter, and so make headlines, when
> > the Pentagon attempts to close some of the vast numbers of them scattered
> > across this country. Then, the fear of lost jobs and lost income in local
> > communities leads to headlines and hubbub.
> > Of course, millions of Americans know about our bases abroad firsthand. In
> > this sense, they may be the least well kept secrets on the planet. American
> > troops, private contractors, and Defense Department civilian employees all
> > have spent extended periods of time on at least one U.S. base abroad. And yet
> > no one seems to notice the near news blackout on our global bases or consider
> > it the least bit strange.
> > The Foreshortened American Century
> > In a nutshell, occupying the planet, base by base, normally simply isn't news.
> > Americans may pay no attention and yet, of course, they do pay. It turns out
> > to be a staggeringly expensive process for U.S. taxpayers. Writing of a major
> > 2004 Pentagon global base overhaul (largely aimed at relocating many of them
> > closer to the oil heartlands of the planet), Mike Mechanic of Mother Jones
> > magazine online points out <
> > http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/09/mission-creep-bush-rumsfeld.ht
> > ml
> > <http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/09/mission-creep-bush-rumsfeld.h
> > tml> >  the following: "An expert panel convened by Congress to assess the
> > overseas basing realignment put the cost at $20 billion, counting indirect
> > expenses overlooked by the Pentagon, which had initially budgeted one-fifth
> > that amount."
> >
> > And that's only the most obvious way Americans pay. It's hard for us even to
> > begin to grasp just how military (and punitive) is the face that the U.S. has
> > presented to the world, especially during George W. Bush's two terms in
> > office. (Increasingly, that same face is also presented to Americans. For
> > instance, as Paul Krugman indicated recently
> > <http://www.truthout.org/article/john-dont-go> , the civilian Federal
> > Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] has been so thoroughly wrecked these last
> > years that significant planning for the response to Hurricane Gustav fell on
> > the shoulders of the military's Bush-created U.S. Northern Command.)
> > In purely practical terms, though, Americans are unlikely to be able to
> > shoulder forever the massive global role the Pentagon and successive
> > administrations have laid out for us. Sooner or later, cutbacks will come and
> > the sun will slowly begin to set on our base-world abroad.
> > In the Cold War era, there were, of course, two "superpowers," the lesser of
> > which disappeared in 1991 after a lifespan of 74 years. Looking at what seemed
> > to be a power vacuum across the Bering Straits, the leaders of the other power
> > prematurely declared themselves triumphant in what had been an epic struggle
> > for global hegemony. It now seems that, rather than victory, the second
> > superpower was just heading for the exit far more slowly.
> > As of now, "the American Century," birthed by Time/Life publisher Henry Luce
> > in 1941, has lasted but 67 years. Today, you have to be in full-scale denial
> > not to know that the twenty-first century -- whether it proves to be the
> > Century of Multipolarity, the Century of China, the Century of Energy, or the
> > Century of Chaos -- will not be an American one. The unipolar moment is
> > already so over and, sooner or later, those mega-bases and lily pads alike
> > will wash up on the shores of history, evidence of a remarkable fantasy of a
> > global Pax Americana.
> > Not that you're likely to hear much about this in the run-up to November 4th
> > in the U.S. Here, fantasy reigns in both parties where a relatively upbeat
> > view of our globally dominant future is a given, and will remain so, no matter
> > who enters the White House in January 2009. After all, who's going to run for
> > president not on the idea that "it's morning again in America," but on the
> > recognition that it's the wee small hours of the morning, the bender is
> > ending, and the hangover Well, it's going to be a doozy.
> > Better take some B vitamins and get a little sleep. The world's probably not
> > going to look so great by the dawn's early light.
> > [Note on Sources: It's rare indeed that the U.S. empire of bases gets anything
> > like the attention it deserves, so, when it does, praise is in order. Mother
> > Jones online has just launched a major project to map out and analyze U.S.
> > bases worldwide. It includes a superb new piece on bases by Chalmers Johnson,
> > "America's Unwelcome Advances"
> > <http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/09/chalmers-johnson-on-pentagon.
> > html>   and a number of other top-notch pieces, including one
> > <http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/09/iraq-sofas.html>   on "How to
> > Stay in Iraq for 1,000 Years" by TomDispatch regular Frida Berrigan (the
> > second part of whose Pentagon expansion series will be posted at this site
> > soon). Check out the package of pieces at MJ by clicking here
> > <http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/09/mission-creep.html> . Perhaps
> > most significant, the magazine has produced an impressive online interactive
> > map of U.S. bases worldwide. Check it out by clicking here
> > <http://www.motherjones.com/military-maps/> . But when you zoom in on an
> > individual country, do note that the first base figures you'll see are the
> > Pentagon's and so possibly not complete. You need to read the MJ texts below
> > each map to get a fuller picture. As will be obvious, if you click on the
> > links in this post, I made good use of MJ's efforts, for which I offer many
> > thanks.]  
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------- To subscribe, send an email (and cash, check, or Money order of $5
> > or more  or click on my name in Paypal)[(mrproactive@frii.com
> > <mailto:mrproactive@frii.com> )] & email mrproactive@frii.com <
> > mailto:mrproactive@frii.com <mailto:mrproactive@frii.com> >  saying subscribe.
> > William Brumbaugh                               36067 WCR 27
> > Eaton, CO.  80615                   http://www.proactivenews.com
> > Phone: 970-454-2346
> >
> >
> > ------ Fin du message transféré
>
>