Dubya Dubya Three - Amazing post I found on Tribe.net

[Oreo]

I absolutely did not write the following but thought everybody should see it. It explains how more often than not countries that start wars lie to their people to justify the attack. It compares the invasion of Poland to the Gulf of Tonkin and now to the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers. Are Israel and the US blowing things out of proportion to justify a larger war and eventually an attack on Iran? Is this the new lie that will lead the sheep to want war?

http://uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/e32ea58d-b0ed-47c9-88c2-b01008bfb87f

Dubya Dubya Three
topic posted Yesterday, 4:10 PM by inna
Dubya Dubya Three

In his work, "The Art of War", Sun Tzu observed that all wars are based on deception.

Simply put, this means that those leaders who wish to start a war must lie to convince their people that war is necessary, as the vast majority of people do not want war, do not wish to risk their life and limb in war, and in general avoid the unpleasantness that war is. Throughout history, wars have usually been started by a ruler playing a dirty trick on his people; a dirty trick that fools them into thinking that they themselves have been, or are about to be attacked.

As an example, Hitler played this trick on the people of Germany by having his soldiers dress up in Polish uniforms and attack a German radio station near the border of Poland. To aid in the illusion, prisoners were dressed in Polish uniforms and shot dead on the scene for the benefit of the radio station's on-air reporting, and later for the German newspapers. World War Two resulted. Germany lost.

Vietnam was transformed from "Advising" to all out war based on the report that North Vietnam had fired torpedoes at the USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin. Armed with that report, President Lyndon Johnson obtained a war declaration from Congress. Later, it was revealed that Johnson knew the report of the attack was a fake. The US lost that war.

The US Government clearly lied about Iraq's 'nookular' weapons to create a public fear of imminent attack. Tony Blair told the British subjects attack was potentially only 45 minutes away. And it looks like the US will lose that war as well, inasmuch as the stated political goals can never be met.

I could go on and on, but I think the point has been made. Any nation wishing to initiate a war has to trick their people into believing that the target has or is about to strike first.

More at link....
-------------------------------------------
EDIT: COPYRIGHT. PLEASE POST ONLY 4 OR 5
PARAGRAPHS FROM THE COPYRIGHTED NEWS SOURCE
PER DU RULES.

[goclark]

1. The Art of War is one of the best books ~ required reading nt

[TAPat]

2. Kick nt

[notadmblnd]

3. it was one of my first thoughts.

provoking Iran so the US has an excuse to jump in.

[Midlodemocrat]

4. GMTA.

And, it scares the crap out of me. Those idiots in PNAC don't care how many are lost as long as they get what they want.

[underpants]

5. 'Wag the Dog' comes to mind

:scared:

[Theres-a]

9. You know

I never looked at things the same way after I saw that.

[Demit]

6. I never thought I would see a world war in my lifetime. And here we are.

The realities that I have been forced to face, one after the other, over the past 5 years, have been so depressing. I feel foolish for having been so naive. We regular people are helpless to stop this. The people who have the power want this to happen. God help us all.

[Redstone]

7. He may very well be right.

Redstone

[ticapnews]

8. I don't buy the crap about FDR and Pearl Harbor

but the rest of the post makes a lot of sense. The fact that Germany blamed Poland for starting WW2 has been in my thoughts lately as well.

Also, many of the reasons cited for why we had to save Kuwait from the Iraqis in Gulf War I was trumped up as well. If you remember hearing about the inhumane slaughter of babies - that was all fictitious. But the American people weren't going to go to war to save a bunch of Arabs from another bunch of Arabs without a cause. Those poor babies became the cause.

[Oak2004]

39. No credible historian believes that FDR created Pearl Harbor

crap. The historical evidence is conclusive -- Pearl Harbor was a genuine suprise attack. Nobody in the US (aside from a few Japanese spies in Hawaii) had any hand in making it happen or letting it happen. The evidence "showing" otherwise suffers from fatal flaws: either it's made up, or badly misinterpreted.

For example, there was evidence that war was imminent. Notices of this went out to all of the overseas US military outposts, including Hawaii, and it was that advance warning which led the commanders in Hawaii to issue the disastrous order to line the aircraft up wingtip to wingtip (the commanders feared Japanese-American sabotage and doubted that the Japanese Navy was capable of launching an attack on the US fleet -- or in other words, racism was a big player in making Pearl Harbor into the military disaster that it became). But the limited technology of the time made it physically impossible to get the intelligence that would have identified Pearl Harbor as the target to all of the right people in time to have a meaningful impact. Contemporary Pearl Harbor conspiracists look at the same historical evidence from the point of view of the advanced radar and sonar, computer database, communications satellite, and fiber optic cable world of the 21st century. Then they factor out the effects of human confusion and bureaucratic chains of command that is present, everywhere and always, in history. Then they conclude that there was some sort of willful effort to keep the intelligence from being propagated, interpreted, and acted upon.

That FDR tricked America into WWII has been a meme of the far right ever since the end of WWII. This is not surprising when you realize that the far right in America was openly sympathetic to Nazism, and Axis sympathies were what lie behind their "isolationism". What is disturbing to me is that this meme, this subtle cheer for fascism, has crept into the conspiracy beliefs of many supposed leftists.

Just because some people start wars on trumped up charges (glancing over my shoulder SSW -ward towards a certain capitol on the Potomac) doesn't mean everyone does it.

[Joe Chi Minh]

42. But I bet they believe Churchill kept prior warning of it quiet.

I hate to say it to Americans, but it's a good thing for us he did.

[sam sarrha]

10. we are already at war with china, dumping steel is more effective than bombs

[Ravenseye]

11. Good Analysis

He's right about the pattern. Everyone who entered World War 2 did so by being provoked. The Japanese claimed the Chinese provoked them, captured a soldier, etc. The Germans did it as he mentioned. The US was bombed, the English and French were defending Poland who was invaded, and so on...

It's amazing to me how some people who view the conflicts in the middle east have these brick walls in the past they can't see past. He mentions the shelling of the beach which killed 7 civilans, the assasination of the Palestinian COP (also 'detaining' other members of their government) and shelling into Gaza. Then an Israeli solider disapears and Israel responds, with people claiming they were provoked.

Well of course they were. It's back and forth provoking for 60 years. It didn't just start last month. The Israeli shelling itself was a response. It's always responses.

I just read an article in Newsweek about how Bush is again failing. Before he failed because he wanted go to alone, but now he's failing because he's standing back and not doing anything, as if afraid to act because of how burned he got before. It's one of those articles the right screams "well you just can't let him ever win", but it's not so. The problem is that Bush is black and white, and is incapable of seeing nuance. Of being multilateral while also leading. He doesn't know how to lead. He knows how to inform. That's not leading.

If this blows up into WW3 there will be three groups I blame.
a) The Israeli Government (not the people who for the most part just want to live in peace)
b) The Islamic Terrorists (not the arab people who for the most part just want to live in peace)

Those two groups essentially created each other. They hold most of the blame since they can't just freaking calm down and live together like civilized people.

and c) Bush. Because a leader of the so called 'free world' should have enough power to get these people to stop, cease fire, come to camp david and talk for a bit. To help diffuse the situation. Unfortunately, Bush has destroyed the capablity of the office of the PotUS so we're pretty much screwed.

[ananda]

13. Bush

"Bush. Because a leader of the so called 'free world' should have enough power to get these people to stop, cease fire, come to camp david and talk for a bit. To help diffuse the situation. Unfortunately, Bush has destroyed the capablity of the office of the PotUS so we're pretty much screwed."

Yep

[Joanne98]

12. Russian should put all it's 2000 nukes on high alert.

Tell Dubya to get the fuck out of the Middle East or go to Armageddon. Bring back the cold war. It was peaceful.

[Pachamama]

14. Art of War is a great book in understanding History & the Neo-Nuts too!

For me, I'm trying to get a grasp on what the Neo-Nuts goals are in Dubya-Dubya III starting....I just know that its bad and they are all probably running around today saying "Everything's coming up roses"...

[sinkingfeeling]

18. Read 'Armed Madhouse' by Greg Palast . That will explain the

goals of PNAC.

[emcguffie]

15. Vietnam conflict

War was never declared on Vietnam by Congress.

[Oreo]

21. But a blank check was given....

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/tonkin-g.htm

Joint Resolution of Congress H.J. RES 1145 August 7, 1964

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

That the Congress approves and supports the determination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression.

Section 2. The United States regards as vital to its national interest and to world peace the maintenance of international peace and security in southeast Asia. Consonant with the Constitution of the United States and the Charter of the United Nations and in accordance with its obligations under the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty, the United States is, therefore, prepared, as the President determines, to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom.

Section 3. This resolution shall expire when the President shall determine that the peace and security of the area is reasonably assured by international conditions created by action of the United Nations or otherwise, except that it may be terminated earlier by concurrent resolution of the Congress.

[jollyreaper2112]

16. FDR thing inaccurate

Navy planners had forseen a war with Japan as likely for years. Naval wargames typically were set against the "orange force", orange representing the Japanese.

For the general public, Pearl Harbour was a surprise, much as 9-11 was for our generation. But to people who were informed about the world situation, the nature and scale of the attack may have been surprising but the premise and motivation was not.

Japan was an agressive, expansionist power in the 30's and very keen on gaining control of the entire Pacific region. The invasion of China garnered much sympathy in America. The government ordered the cutting of shipments of fuel oil and scrap metal to Japan in order to starve the military machine. Instead, this spurred the Japanese to lash out to secure those resources.

The fact of the matter is that diplomatic solutions were not possible against either Germany or Japan. Really, the only decent solution for Germany would have been early military intervention, before the Nazi war machine was built. The political realities of the time meant that there would be no support for preemptive war, support would only come when it became a matter of defense.

FDR was aware of these realities. He also knew that the American people would not support a reprise of the first world war and wanted to stay out of this one. Nevertheless, he saw war as coming and unavoidable. That's why he supported aggressive destroyer escorts for supply convoys heading out into the Atlantic as well as lend-lease. He wanted to provide as much support for our future allies as possible before we were dragged into the fight. But he knew he couldn't ask for a war declaration. He figured it would only be a matter of time before the Germans sunk an American ship and all of his military advisors had a feeling that a Japanese attack in the Pacific was likely, probably against the Phillipines. Nobody expected an attack against Pearl Harbor because it was just too audacious, too much of a gamble. But it's a misrepresentation of the facts to say that FDR had to goad the Japanese into a fight. They were spoiling for one. They claimed they were only interested in recreating the Monroe Doctrine in the Pacific, that's all. Right. And Hitler said all he needed was a little lebensraum, that's all.

This was not a war cooked up by neocons, it was very much the fault of the Axis powers. The biggest crime you could fault the Allies with was not doing something about the situation sooner. But that's a hindsight only history can afford.

The difference between WWII and our nanescent WWIII is that Iraq did not pose a credible threat to any Western country. Saddam was an asshole, just like Hitler, but Hitler had the means to make war on a global scale. The Bush administration chose war, chose to fight, and avoided any chance of a peaceful resolution. This latest mess just looks like an excuse to broaden the scope and insanity of the current conflict.

[Oreo]

17. I agree that the Pearl Harbor thing wasn't necessary

The overall post is a brick to the face that major conflicts don't just happen at the drop of a dime. Decisions are made that lead us to war far before most people think.

Just think how much more money Halliburton will make with a regional conflict?

After all... it would be easier for George if he was a dictator. We're getting closer and closer to the announcement by the day.

[huskerlaw]

25. Absolutely correct

The idea that FDR knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor and allowed it to happen is complete bullshit. Nobody's ever been able to prove it and honestly, it doesn't make any sense.

All FDR would have needed to get the US involved in WWII was to have Japan or Germany blow up one boat. There's no way he'd set it up so that the entire Pacific fleet was tied end to end in a harbor, thus ensuring that they would be completely destroyed and therefore unable to launch an immediate counter-attack.

They did think that Japan was going to attack US interests, but they assumed it would be in the Phillipines. That's why they moved the Pacific fleet from San Diego to Hawaii...they'd be closer to the action but still safe (or so they thought).

You're also correct about why they had escorts for supply convoys in both the Atlantic and Pacific. In the Atlantic, we were doing our damndest to arm England, which was at the verge of collapse to the Axis powers on more than one occasion, and without our supplies certainly would have fallen long before we got involved in fighting the Germans. In the Pacific, we were dealing with the reality that Japan was likely going to attack us sooner or later.

FDR didn't know that Pearl Harbor was going to happen. The fact that our entire Pacific fleet was virtually wiped out proves it.

[Cygnusx2112]

19. While I understand completely what you're saying...

and can certainly envision this...I don't understand how the PNAC cabal can benefit from an all out war (?), possibly involving Russia and China as enemies.

[Oreo]

20. More money for corporations

The bigger the war the higher the profit. While it may very well not happen, I can't help but think that the neocons only want to line their pockets. Gas prices would skyrocket as would the oil companies' profits.

I wouldn't put anything past neocons after what we've seen so far. We all know they don't have the ability to play out all possible scenarios. Maybe they would just assume the Russians would stay out of a regional ME conflict just as they assumed the Iraqis would welcome us with flowers?

[Cygnusx2112]

30. But if the world is plunged into WWIII level chaos,

will the corporations still be turning a profit?
Gas prices would skyrocket, but other sectors would suffer heavily, I'd imagine...

Do they really think we can we fight a third front?
Don't they realize the level of opposition to a draft?
Don't they realize they are losing the will of the armed forces every day?

Would this still be a WWII style conflict with conventional weapons?

(not trying to be argumentative...just trying to follow the line of thought thru to its most "illogical" conclusions).

I just think the neocons have to realize there is going to be some internal blowback to their asinine policies at some point...

[Virginia Dare]

33. This is what is scary about a global economy....

corporations simply aren't dependent on one particular sector in the world in order to be profitable. As my friend Jefferson's Ghost sagely pointed out the other day, wealth is never lost it's merely transferred.

and if you look closely at what's been happening in Congress over the last five years, the banking industry and other big corporate interests have been busy making sure their asses are covered in the event of economic collapse.

[Oreo]

35. As is Cheney

He's investing all of his money outside of the US

[Virginia Dare]

22. And it could bring fascism and or totalitarianism to the U.S....n/t

[Cygnusx2112]

31. While again, I understand the intent here

fascism / totalitarianism, , how many people (army, nat. guard, hired guns)...will be needed to enforce something like this before people have had enough (our military included)?

I've lurked on this board long enough to read about all the various scenarios...but I just can't figure how a group of 100 / 1000 necons can logistically carry this out.

Perhaps I'm being naive... :)

[Virginia Dare]

32. Not at all....

It's very hard to envision, but think about how fast the American people were ready to give up their Constitutional rights after 9/11, via the Patriot Act.

We are now tolerating torture and abuse of individuals who have been detained indefinitely without benefit of trial. We have no idea who these people are or why they were detained. We are allowing the government to snoop into our private communications for the sake of security.

Now take 9/11 and multiply that by 2,3,5,10? What would it take for people to let it happen?

By the way, welcome to DU!

[Oreo]

37. Your problem is that you're thinking logically!

Lord knows logic is a word the current regime knows nothing about! ;)

[bvar22]

40. Goering said it best.

From the docks at Nuremburg:
"“Naturally the common people don’t want war. But after all, it is the
leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it’s always a
simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a
fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every
country.”
--- Hermann Goering, Hitler’s Reich Marshall, at the Nuremberg
Trials after World War II.

[Virginia Dare]

34. There simply isn't enough oil or other resources for all of us...

and someone is going to have to ultimately control what's left of it. When they tell us that we aren't at peak production yet, they're lying. We're past it. This is all about oil and other natural resources that must be controlled. I don't think China is much in a sharing mood anymore.

[rman]

41. Control over resources, continued economic exploitation

of developing nations.

[femrap]

23. When's the Draft going to be

reinstated?

[chill_wind]

24. Just as soon as we can finish up the last handful of permanent bases n/t

[chill_wind]

26. Some links and reading on the bases and camps, with quaint nicknames

like "Burger King"..

http://indexresearch.blogspot.com/2006/04/us-bases-in-iraq-part-i-baghdad.html


"All bases had/have US names, as if they were next door to Walmart in Washington, D.C. - crass insensitivity to the rest of the world’s right to existence."

More at above site (links in left-hand column)

US/UK Bases in Iraq, Part II. The South
US Bases in Iraq: Part I: Baghdad
PNAC: Part II - "Special Interests" - The Persian Gulf
PNAC: Part I - Blueprint for Imperialism

[chill_wind]

27. And just a very quick and telling description of the US Embassy...

The Green Zone

Parsons was contracted to build “T Walls” in 11.04. In the summer of 2005, a Kuwaiti firm was ‘awarded’ the $592m contract for the new US embassy in Baghdad, to be completed by 2007. Built to withstand attack, this Ozymandius on the Tigris, composed of a cluster of 21 buildings, will have “a gym, swimming pool, barber and beauty shops, a food court and a commissary. In addition to the main embassy buildings, there will be a large-scale US Marine barracks, a school, locker rooms, a warehouse, a vehicle maintenance garage, and six apartment buildings with a total of 619 one-bedroom units. Water, electricity and sewage treatment plants will all be independent from Baghdad's city utilities. The total site will be two-thirds the area of the National Mall in Washington, DC.” It will be the largest US embassy in the world. For that reason, I have included this US Embassy in Baghdad amongst US Bases in Iraq.

For an honest view of the Green Zone and military facilities around Baghdad airport, read the Daily Iraqi Cheese Grader"

more: http://indexresearch.blogspot.com/2006/04/us-bases-in-iraq-part-i-baghdad.html

[newspeak]

29. it's the New (old) World Order, baby!!!!

Can't have the corporate new world order with a pesky Constitution or "the will of the people." Doncha know? My belief, America is being brought down, so that certain "old" time money players can dictate--remember who attempted to overthrow FDR? Well, there back!!!!! Which reminds me, I was pondering how Hitler speedily strengthened the military--after the Treaty of Versailles, Germany"s military under the treaty was contained-only a certain amount of soldiers and equipment. Also, Germany owed steep reparations to France and Great Britain (which included raw resources). When the allies saw Germany strengthening the military, why didn't they act, as it was against the treaty. We know some of the industrialists who financed Hitler, Franco, and Mussolini-but after such devastating human and economic losses, why did said countries turn a blind eye?

[chill_wind]

38. A Brave New World order, it is. Our shiney project for a new American

Century. Just 6 years in and we probably haven't even begun to see the real fun yet. Oh how the Bush cabal must have loved the historically dated symbolism of their literal occupation of the WH in the brand new year 2001. Right on schedule to start getting The Republic's trains running on time.

It's going to be a long one for our descendants. If there are any. I'm sure theirs will be well provided for, though. That's the nice thing about being filthier than filthy rich.

[rndmprsn]

28. K+R'ed

[WinkyDink]

36. I don't think Israel has to phony up attacks on her people, do you?

Munich 1972 is but one example that comes to mind.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

43. Every previous President I can remember tried to "cool down"

invasions and outbreaks in the Middle East and West/Central Asia. But, because of his "pre-emption" doctirine, Dubya cannot criticize any invasion anywhere without hypocrisy. When Israel invades Lebanon, or Syria enters Lebanon, or India skirmishes with Pakistan, they're not doing anything much differerent from what we are doing, just one country away in Iraq or Afghanistan.