[Preacherman]

From the Telegraph, London (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$SPIJENG4TIQQTQFIQMGSFF4AVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2003/10/17/wvonb17.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/10/17/ixworld.html):

Germans lap up claim that US plotted Sept 11

By Kate Connolly in Bonn
(Filed: 17/10/2003)

A former cabinet minister is drawing huge crowds and stoking the fires of anti-Americanism in Germany with a book arguing that the US government mounted the Sept 11 attacks as part of a plot to win global domination.

Andreas von Bülow has gone even further than Michael Meacher, Britain's former environment minister, who claims the US knowingly failed to prevent the attacks.

Von Bülow, 66, believes that Sept 11 was staged to justify the subsequent wars on Afghanistan and Iraq.

"If what I say is right, the whole US government should end up behind bars," he says.

The German government has made no official response to the book, although ministers have tried to distance themselves from his views.

But von Bülow's ideas are very popular and polls show a fifth of Germans believe Washington ordered the attacks.

The CIA and September 11, written mainly from internet research, is a besteller, with sales of more than 100,000.

[4570Rick]

Rules of conduct prevent me from saying what I'd like.:cuss:

[Parker Dean]

Von Bülow, 66, believes that Sept 11 was staged to justify the subsequent wars on Afghanistan and Iraq.


Oh yeah?

Well, if that's the case then I'm sure we can come up with something so we can invade Germany if we want...:evil:

[Destructo6]

The CIA and September 11, written mainly from internet research, is a besteller, with sales of more than 100,000.
Hmmn, not surprising.

[Bill Hook]

This guy can find a job in the current Malaysian govt. :rolleyes:

[trooper]

Oh well... we have our share of nutcases, too.
I supppose there IS a reason why he is a FORMER cabinet minister :)


Regards,

Trooper

[feedthehogs]

What do you want from a nation that followed a mass murderer with delusions of world conquest.

[Mark Tyson]

http://www.qsl.net/kc2ufo/5.jpg

[Skunkabilly]

"If what I say is right, the whole US government should end up behind bars," he says.

:p ;)

I'd like to nominate two from New York and one from California :D

[Hutch]

"If what I say is right, the whole US government should end up behind bars," he says.
"Since what you say is wrong, you ought to have your butt kicked up around your neck, giving you another set of shoulders", Hutch said.

For gawdsakes, what's the incentive to kill thousands of our own, causing billions and billions in damages, so that we can then go shed blood in Outer Perturbia, and spend billions and billions? Hmmmm??? I wonder if he is one o' them Holocaust-deniers, too?

[Mike Irwin]

Well, isn't this statement interesting...

"If what I say is right, the whole US government should end up behind bars," he says.

IF?

He's making these sorts of allegations and he's saying IF?


"For gawdsakes, what's the incentive to kill thousands of our own, causing billions and billions in damages,"

Hutch,

That's a concept that isn't foreign to Germans at all... They had no problems killing upwards 1 million German Jews in the 1930s and 1940s, plus 5 million others from Europe...

[trooper]

What do you want from a nation that followed a mass murderer with delusions of world conquest.

That's a concept that isn't foreign to Germans at all... They had no problems killing upwards 1 million German Jews in the 1930s and 1940s, plus 5 million others from Europe...

I don't think that this crap about the US gov being behind the 9/11 attacks is "typical German thinking." There have been stupid conspiracy theories all over the world regarding this issue.

Nutjobs who view America as the root of all evil believe the US administration is capable of just about anything, no matter where they're from.


Regards,

Trooper

[Mike Irwin]

I didn't say "typical German thinking."

I said it's a concept that isn't foreign to Germans. The German people know about the Holocaust.

The Japanese also killed millions, but given how repressed the facts of Japanese agression during WW II are, it's something that your average Japanese citizen doens't have much knowledge of.

In that light alone, I think it's easier for Germans to accept the concept of a legitimate government orchestrating the murders of thousands of its own people.

[trooper]

I understand your point but given the fact that WWII and the Holocaust have been so thoroughly researched, discussed, studied, taught and made into countless movies and books all over the world I don't think that the concept of a government murdering its own citizens for some sinistre reasons is terribly alien to anybody who has even the least interest in 20th century history.

That said, I personally don't know anybody who doubts that 9/11 was solely orchestrated by islamofascists with ties to wealthy Arabic rulers. Even my freaked-out leftist commie brother is that sensible.

That disgruntled paranoid ex-civil servant doesn't equal German public opinion any more than, say, the John Birch Society makes America's.


Regards,

Trooper

[Mike Irwin]

"That disgruntled paranoid ex-civil servant doesn't equal German public opinion any more than, say, the John Birch Society makes America's."

No, certainly doesn't. But it also doesn't come close to explaining the rise, and acceptance of, a disgruntled ex Imperial German Army Corporal.

"I don't think that the concept of a government murdering its own citizens for some sinistre reasons is terribly alien to anybody who has even the least interest in 20th century history."

I think it's a LOT more foreign to someone who lives in a nation where it's never happened on a scale such as that.

[Dave R]

Just wanted to point out that some AMERICAN lawmakers have implied the same charges a little more softly.

Not surprising that a goodly number of anti-Americans might believe it.

[Mike Irwin]

Dave,

Who are the lawmakers who have accused the Administration of orchestrating the 9/11 attacks?

I'd be very interested in hearing their proof, too.

[Skunkabilly]

Prominent, Outrageous = Airtime = Controvery = $$$$$$$$$$$$$

edited: err... €€€€€€€€€€€€€

[trooper]

Mike -

well, a lot smarter people than me have written tons of books on this subject, but if you combine a broken-down, humiliated people with a horrible economic situation, unstable domestic politics and an eloquent, charismatic person who promises to make everything better, restore this particular people's dignity AND present a scapegoat, what do you expect? People are collectively stupid and will always be.

Mind you, I'm not trying to find excuses for what happened. My people have disgraced themselves in a horrible way back then and dished out a world of hurt and humiliation to the victims. I certainly won't argue about that. But I'm pretty sure that, given the above mentioned circumstances, it could happen again to any people. Maybe right now the memories still are too fresh in most people's mind, but this was neither the first nor the last ethnic cleansing in this world. Cruelty, hatred and racial bigotry are not specific German traits.

I don't want to make this a rant, but I'm a bit tired of all those little allegations. I'm not willing to carry this holocaust stigma because of my nationality.

Regards,

Trooper

[mercedesrules]

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE 9/11 ATTACKS (http://geocities.com/vonchloride/)

[TarpleyG]

You know, I went over to that site and read a bit. If our wonderful government were half that coordinated, we'd really be up $hit creek without a paddle. "Git your tin foil here!"

GT

[Mark Tyson]

Most countries have committed or allowed horrific acts to take place at some time in their history, including the US. We had the eugenics movement, slavery and the mistreatment of the Indians to name a few. Nobody's society is immune from the crimes of governments or vigilante mobs or what have you.

As for "the truth about 9-11" according to that site mercedes posted, all I have to say is:

http://www.cockeyed.com/inside/aluminum/aluminum6.jpg

"I'm not crazy ... I'm just so SANE it blew your mind!"

[45R]

Read the second quote on my signature line.

[Malone LaVeigh]

I guess now we know whether the shiny side goes in or out...

[mercedesrules]

(Mark Tyson)Most countries have committed or allowed horrific acts to take place at some time in their history, including the US. We had the eugenics movement, slavery and the mistreatment of the Indians
battleship Maine, Lusitania, Pearl harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, Great White Fleet, Manifest Destiny, White Man's Burden, babies tossed out of Kuwaiti incubators, WMD in Iraq, Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, the Philipines, Panama,......

[Gary H]

It seems that a large percentage of Germans still think in terms of "global domination." They must be thinking about what could have been.

[Hutch]

You asked dave:Who are the lawmakers who have accused the Administration of orchestrating the 9/11 attacks? Does the name Cynthia McKinney (D., GA) strike a familiar chord? 'Course, she got whupped next time she ran....

[Hkmp5sd]

The German people know about the Holocaust.

There are Germans that still claim the evidence about the Holocaust is faked and it never occured. There are also people that think Clinton was a great president. If they look long enough, the media can find someone that believes in any topic in existence.

Shoot, even Madeleine Albright is peddling a book claiming she was a great secretary of state.

[Hkmp5sd]

Does the name Cynthia McKinney (D., GA) strike a familiar chord?

Remember on May 16, 2002, when Hillary Clinton stood on the floor if the US Senate and held up a newpaper with the headline "BUSH KNEW"?

She asked, "The president knew what? My constituents would like to know the answers to that and many other questions."

And the un-biased news media.....

Judy Woodruff (CNN), "President Bush knew that al Qaeda was planning to hijack a U.S. airliner and he knew it before September the 11th."

Charlie Gibson (ABC), "It may put the president under a lot of heat today as the public learns that he knew, through his daily CIA intelligence briefings, that bin Laden had potential terror attack plans underway."

Paula Zahn (CNN), "The White House admits the terrorist attack on 9/11 was not a complete surprise."

Bryant Gumbel (CBS), "How embarrassing to the president."

Dan Rather (CBS), "[demanded to know] why the president never shared what he knew with the public."

Is there any surprise they could take the tiny step from "he knew" to "he planned it"??

[trooper]

It seems that a large percentage of Germans still think in terms of "global domination." They must be thinking about what could have been.

Would you care to explain what you mean?

[LawDog]

*snort* The US Gov't doesn't need a messy excuse to dominate the world.

All the US Gov't has to do is put the right PR 'spin' on World Conquest and the American people would give their blessing.

Besides, we had our chance to rule the world in 1945. Turned it down. We haven't changed that much since then (otherwise the collapse of the Soviet Union would have given us all the excuse we would have needed to burn the UN accords and replace them with the Constitution.)

I think this old boy has done watched one too many episodes of Pinky and the Brain.

LawDog

[Hkmp5sd]

Pinky and the Brain
Don't knock the Brain. I've been taking the Brain's world domination course for several years and one of these days, he will succeed! :)

[Gary H]

trooper:

Sure, no problem.

I think that the two World Wars were wars of domination. I believe that much of the anti-U.S. rhetoric that comes from Germany and France is based on the fact that these two countries no longer play a dominant role on the world stage. Some dislike the United States and what it stands for simply because it is not Germany, nor France that currently sits on top of the hill. If the United States was set upon world domination it would be clearly evident to everyone. I don't think that the taxpayer on this side of the Atlantic will feel the pride of domination while they pay out billions of dollars to rebuild Iraq. I do think that we hope that democracy can take hold and change the face of the region.

[Mike Irwin]

"battleship Maine, Lusitania, Pearl harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, Great White Fleet, Manifest Destiny, White Man's Burden, babies tossed out of Kuwaiti incubators, WMD in Iraq, Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, the Philipines, Panama,......"

Not sure where you're going with these...

Are you saying that each and every one of these is somehow the fault of the US Government?

[KRAUTGUNNER]

Lawdog, forget world domination by the USA!

The US-Military can't even rule Iraq.

They hadn't succeeded in pacifying Afghanistan.

Remember Vietnam!

Winning battles is one thing, keeping and ruling hostile countries is a completely different story.

NO, I'm NOT an anti-american Kraut, just a realist.

[trooper]

Gary -

but then there should be plenty of anti-americanism in the UK, right? After all they managed to lose a vast empire.

I think it's little different. I believe what's pissing off people in smaller countries (including, but not limited to Germany and France) is not a hidden desire for world domination but the fact that the US can do pretty much everything they want and nobody can do a damn thing about it.

Most people over here hold the view that decisive unilateral action of a single nation is not something to be desired, they prefer a system in which states, like individuals, are subjects to certain rules and solve their problems cooperatively within certain boundaries.

They see the US as the biggest kid on the block who follows most of the rules most of the time but occasionally oversteps certain lines without anybody being able to prevent or sanction it.


Regards,

Trooper

[KRAUTGUNNER]

Preacherman, that vom Bülow character is a useless socialist and a politically incompetent washout.

His obnoxious drivel is just as important as a statement by Dianne Feinstein or Janet Reno.

Quote: "Dr. Andreas von Bülow geboren 1937 in Dresden. 1960 wurde er Mitglied der SPD, von 1969 bis 1994 vertrat er seine Partei als Abgeordneter im Deutschen Bundestag. Er war sowohl Mitglied des Parlamentarischen Kontrollgremiums zur Überwachung der Geheimdienste als auch des Schalck-Golodkowski-Untersuchungsausschusses des Bundestages. Von 1976 bis 1980 war er Staatssekretär im Verteidigungsministerium und von 1980 bis 1982 Bundesforschungsminister."

That ******* :fire: :cuss: :banghead: :barf: :barf: :barf: was born in Dresden in 1937. 1960 he became a member of the socialist SPD party. 1969-1994 he was a member of the German Bundestag (parliament). He also was a member of the parliamentary commission for supervision of the secret services and an investigator of the "Schalck-Golodkowski" parliamentary investigating committee. He served as undersecretary of the ministry of defence from 1976-1980 and as secretary of the federal ministry of research from 1980-1982.

[Hkmp5sd]

Winning battles is one thing, keeping and ruling hostile countries is a completely different story.
Can you name one country the US conquered and tried to rule? For some reason, the US always kicks out the bad guys and gives the country back to the people. One of the major problems in Vietnam was it was a civil war and the US didn't simply take over the country and then rebuild it. They kept letting the locals try to govern while fighting the war.

In regards to Afghanistan and Iraq, do you think it just might be possible the job isn't done yet and not that the US tried and failed?

[greyhound]

Does the name Cynthia McKinney (D., GA) strike a familiar chord? 'Course, she got whupped next time she ran....

Not only did she blame Bush for 9/11, but when she got whupped for reelection who did her father blame? Quote: "J_E_W_S - Jews".

Whatta piece of work. Anyone know what she's doing now?

[KRAUTGUNNER]

@ HKMp5:
"In regards to Afghanistan and Iraq, do you think it just might be possible the job isn't done yet and not that the US tried and failed?"


I think neither the USA nor any other civilized country in the world can get THOSE jobs done!

Trying to reconstruct countries whose inhabitants are mostly madmen is a futile effort.

Maybe the USA should just kick out the bad guys and leave the mopping up to the natives.

If the next bad guy emerges, kick his sorry butt and stay the hell out of those quagmires.

How much more Iraqs and Afghanistans can the USA afford???

Remember the majority of the US citizens shouting "Hooray! Give'em hell boys! Kill Saddam and his SOB cronies!"

And now that "splendid little war" may very well cost GWB his office.

[mercedesrules]

(Mike Irwin) Not sure where you're going with these...

Are you saying that each and every one of these is somehow the fault of the US Government?

Mike, IMO they all involve some degree of fishy reasons to go to war in some far-flung corner of the world.

For instance, the Lusitania, a passenger ship, was being used to illegally transport war supplies to England. Germany found out and tried to warn tourists (through newspaper ads) not to sail on her since she was considered a warship. American newspapers were pressured by the State Department to kill the warning. President Wilson knew of the danger and didn't issue a warning, passengers were on the ship when she was sunk, and the "outrage" was used as propaganda to get citizens to go along with the unnecessary entry into the war.

MR

[Gary H]

trooper:

I'll accept both your explanation and mine.

I wish that the U.N. had the best interest of the world in mind. In fact, I would be happy if they would simply enforce their own proclamations. I wish that France, Germany and Russia didn't have the burden of hundreds of billions of debt owed by Saddam ( Frisk quoted 200 billion dollars. This seems a bit high to me.) and a fear of non-payment with U.S. intervention. On the other hand, I believe that changing the face of the Middle East is the only long term solution to keeping my homeland safe. This strategy may fail miserably, but short of making the area a parking lot, the elimination of Middle Eastern poverty will be the only security that the U.S. can rely upon. A democratic Iraq is a good starting point. I have my doubts as to if democracy can ever work in that part of the world..but it is worth a try. By the way, I didn't hear many Europeans complaining when, just a few years ago, the U.S. helped in Bosnia.. We have the right to follow policies that make our homeland safe. The new E.U. has 450 million people. That is 160 million more than live in the U.S. Your GDP is a bit larger than the U.S. It is really up to you Europeans as to if you can play at the same level as the U.S. and China. After all, isn't that the whole idea behind the E.U.?

The best government is provided by an enlightened monarch. I think that the real downside of the super-power status is the real possibility that some very evil people will control the world power. I'm especially concerned about China's interest in super-power status.

[Mike Irwin]

Mercedes...

OK, now that I understand the tack you're taking, that's certainly an interesting (and in some cases entirely valid) take on the matter, but there are still some significant problems with the concept of "they all involve some degree of fishy reasons to go to war in some far-flung corner of the world."

I don't believe that all of them did.

The Lusitania incident didn't draw the United States into the war. Wilson worked VERY hard to resist entry into the war at that point, and the US stayed out of the European war for two more years.

What truly drew the United States into the war was the Zimmerman Telegram, which was allegedly a promise by Germany to Mexico to assist the Mexicans in regaining territories lost to the United States during the Mexican-American War.

Pearl Harbor? Not sure what you're beef is there. The Japanese attacked the United States, not the other way around, and killed over 2,500 Americans, and followed that up with almost simultaneous attacks against numerous American possessions in the Pacific. That's not a fishy reason to go to war.

Are you sure you know what the Great White Fleet was? It certainly wasn't a prelude to war. It was a series of American port calls to then-friendly nations around the world. Yes, it was meant to signal the resurgance of the United States as both an international naval and trading power, and as such was not to be trifled with.

And Manifest Destiny? That was levied to describe the expansion of the United States from Atlantic to Pacific on our own continent, certainly not going to war in some far flung corner of the world.

[mercedesrules]

(Mike Irwin) Mercedes...

OK, now that I understand the tack you're taking, that's certainly an interesting (and in some cases entirely valid) take on the matter, but there are still some significant problems with the concept of "they all involve some degree of fishy reasons to go to war in some far-flung corner of the world."

I don't believe that all of them did.

The Lusitania incident didn't draw the United States into the war. Wilson worked VERY hard to resist entry into the war at that point, and the US stayed out of the European war for two more years.
Wilson should have said to all americans shipping war supplies to Britain, "Go ahead and sell to them, but you are on your own to defend yourselves".
What truly drew the United States into the war was the Zimmerman Telegram, which was allegedly a promise by Germany to Mexico to assist the Mexicans in regaining territories lost to the United States during the Mexican-American War.
I'm unfamiliar with this telegram. I'll look into it.
Pearl Harbor? Not sure what you're beef is there. The Japanese attacked the United States, not the other way around, and killed over 2,500 Americans, and followed that up with almost simultaneous attacks against numerous American possessions in the Pacific. That's not a fishy reason to go to war.
Mike, I subscribe to the newer information that President Roosevelt knew about an impending attack, ordered Kimmel and Short to put older ships into the harbor, removed newer ones, and let Pearl Harbor be attacked on purpose. Japan was provoked into attacking by our embargos and really had no face-saving choice. As to "possessions", devouring distant areas near other countries is not the way of peace. Weren't north americans nervous when russia tried to put nukes in Cuba?
Are you sure you know what the Great White Fleet was? It certainly wasn't a prelude to war. It was a series of American port calls to then-friendly nations around the world. Yes, it was meant to signal the resurgance of the United States as both an international naval and trading power, and as such was not to be trifled with.
As I see it, it was a Ku Klux Klan-type parade of 16 11,000 ton battleships sent around the world to announce, "We did it to the Philipines; we can do it to you". How would north americans react to such a blatant show of force off San Francisco or New York?
And Manifest Destiny? That was levied to describe the expansion of the United States from Atlantic to Pacific on our own continent, certainly not going to war in some far flung corner of the world.
Again, the pronouncement that your race has God's mandate to rule a huge area full of other people is not the road to peace and sounds kind of familiar since 1939.
MR

[WvaBill]

As for "the truth about 9-11" according to that site mercedes posted, all I have to say is:

Is that for transmission or reception?:p
73

[Tamara]

As I see it, it was a Ku Klux Klan-type parade of 16 11,000 ton battleships sent around the world to announce, "We did it to the Philipines; we can do it to you". How would north americans react to such a blatant show of force off San Francisco or New York?

Actually, the "Great White Fleet" had a much more narrowly defined purpose, and succeeded at it spectacularly.

See, in 1904, an upstart, newly expansionist Eastern nation had gone to war with a European power. It first destroyed the small local squadron of the European power's fleet, and then, when the rest of the fleet steamed from Europe, it arrived in such disarray after the long voyage that the upstart Eastern fleet smashed it with ease. This concerned the US, as it was beginning to have conflicting interests with this newly expansionist Eastern nation, which had just signed a treaty with Great Britain, to boot. So, while US naval planners worked on a contingency war plan (Plan Orange), a large US battlefleet was dispatched on a goodwill tour of the world.

They rounded the tip of South America, reached Tokyo Bay in good order and in very little actual sailing time, and, subtle hint delivered that the USN was not going to be handled roughly by the IJN the way they had the Russians, continued with their goodwill tour, most of the world none the wiser to this day just what message TR was sending to the Emperor of Japan.

[Baba Louie]

Stinnet's book was a good read based on probably valid information, but even so, Japan did do the attacking on the Naval Fleet/Base at PH.
Bradleys latest book "Flyboys" has a very enlightening take on Japan's mentality from the 1500's on up to the Chichi Jima WWII secret trials as well as the American POV of "Manifest Destiny", based on currently released information.

Who knows, maybe 50 years from now someone will release the key stack of documents that will point right back to our own government in providing these Saudi's with the scholarships to the Flight School(s) and looking the other way as they boarded the planes with their necessary "Box-cutters"... stranger things have happened... re:WWI German/Mexican connection which very few American students know about (Zimmerman) today.

Adios

[Hkmp5sd]

I subscribe to the newer information that President Roosevelt knew about an impending attack, ordered Kimmel and Short to put older ships into the harbor, removed newer ones, and let Pearl Harbor be attacked on purpose.

I don't buy into the conspiracy for a couple of reasons.

First, there was no need to lose all of the ships and personnel. A surprise attack sinking only a few ships would have served their purpose.

Second, the military and civilian leadership in the US were into the "Battleship" concept. They believed the aircraft carrier was a support vessel. There is no way they would have gambled the entire pacific by sacrificing the Battleships and saving the carriers.

Third, after losing the Battleships, there was a real chance of losing the entire Pacific ocean to the Japanese. Only the lucky wins at Coral Sea and Midway saved the day.

Fourth, even if Roosevelt sacrificed the Battleships and allowed the attack to occur, why didn't he use his remaining ships and submarines to set up an ambush for the Japanese fleet immediately after the attack? If the US submarines and carriers jumped the Japanese carriers while the Japanese aircraft were returning from Pearl Harbor, the majority of the Japanese fleet could have been sunk in one shot. That would allow even more men and materials to go to Europe.

Fifth, Roosevelt didn't want to fight against the Japanese. He wanted to get into the European war against Germany. Only Hitler's completely stupid act of declaring war on the U.S. following Pearl Harbor allowed Roosevelt to adopt the "Europe First" tactic.

If Hitler had not declared war on the US, the nation would have demanded that all of our resources be committed to attacking the back-stabbing Japanese. The US still had no "reason" to fight Germany.

[Mike Irwin]

"Wilson should have said to all americans shipping war supplies to Britain, "Go ahead and sell to them, but you are on your own to defend yourselves"

Uh, you've really got me with this one. The Lusitania was British flagged, British owned, British crewed, and British captained.

The Americans who were on the Lusitania were PASSENGERS. They, nor likely any of the other paying passengers, didn't have knowledge of the cargo, IF (and it's still debated to this day) there was a military cargo on board.

No American military ships escorted the Lusitania.

I'm not really sure what your argument is. It was a widely held view at that time that unrestricted submarine warfare against passenger liners was a war crime.

The American passengers on the Lusitania were that, victims.

"Newer information that President Roosevelt knew about the attack."

There's no NEW information, Mercedes. It's all speculation and, quite frankly BS, based on information that has been known for years. The desire to paint Roosevelt as a warmonger who let the attack happen to draw the United States into war is a premise that fails on far too many levels:

1. It assumes that all of the varied US intelligence agencies worked together and shared their information, even to the point of sharing it with the president. As we know from events of the subsequent 6 decades, that doesn't even happen NOW. If anything, the intra-departmental rivalries were significantly worse in the 1940s. The CIA was, in part, created as a clearing house for information after the war because of the failure of the intelligence services to put together the information that was out there about an impending Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Even if all of the intelligence is looked at, there's also no true indication of the attack point being Pearl Harbor. Most military planners felt that Japan was incapable of launching an attack as war east as Pearl Harbor, and even if they tried it would be an unmitigated disaster. Remember, this was the time when most Navy men still saw the true power as being the guns of the battleships -- most old-line Navy men still dismissed the aircraft carrier as a front-line battle weapon even in light of Gen. Billy Mitchell, Admiral Reeves, and the British strike against the Italian fleet at Taranto.

2. It assumes that Roosevelt wanted to enter the Pacific War. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Roosevelt had been actively pursuing policies that were calculated to draw the United States into the European war on Britain's side -- Cash & Carry, Lend-Lease, Neutrality Patrols, the Arsenal of Democracy. There was simply no overriding reason to want to enter into a Pacific war -- no great trade issues, no great territorial issues, no overt economic issues, nothing. On the other hand, all of that was present in the European conflict.

In fact, had Germany and Italy not declared war on the United States several days after Pearl Harbor, it's very possible that the US wouldn't have entered the European war for months, or even years.

A counter argument goes that once Japan attacked the United States Germany and Italy were obligated by treaty to come in on the side of Japan, effectively doing what Roosevelt wanted. Again, not true. There were no mutual defense clauses in the Tripartied Pact that would force these actions. That can be seen by the simple fact that Germany and Italy had been at war with Britain for over 2 years in Europe, and Japan waited until December 8, 1941, to go to war against Britain.

3. It assumes that Roosevelt had to sacrifice the bulk of the power of the Pacific fleet, and over 2,500 American lives, to draw the nation into the war. Even Roosevelt wouldn't have done that. An attack on a largely empty Pearl Harbor would have accomplished the same thing as an attack with the entire battle fleet in port -- it would have drawn the United States into a Pacific war against Japan. There's simply no credible reason why, had Roosevelt known an attack was imminent on Pearl Harbor, that he wouldn't have ordered the American fleet to sea to preserve it and to immediately strike back against the agressor. To sacrifice virtually your entire defense in order to make a point is ludicrous.

Remember, those battleships weren't just the "older ships," they were the bulk of the American big gun Naval force at the time. They were still considered to be viable surface combatants, and the "newer" battleships and cruisers simply weren't in service in numbers at the time to replace the losses suffered at Pearl Harbor. The North Carolina and Washington were the only two new battleships in commission by December 1941, and would be insufficient to be able to mount a capable defense against the Japanese battlefleet had the older battleships been knocked out.

4. It also assumes that no one in the military structure would ever talk about the President's complicity, even after his death. A conspiracy this explosive would have leaked at some point, and more than likely sooner rather than later. Yet, no military or intelligence figure ever came forward and said 'Yes, Roosevelt KNEW, and allowed it to happen.'

These are the main arguments against the theory that Roosevelt allowed the Japanese to attack a largely undefended fleet, and taken together, they, in my opinion, conclusively shatter the conspiracy theorists who say that the attack on Pearl Harbor was allowed as a gambit to draw the United States into war.

The concept that Japan was "goaded" into attacking the United States is an invention of the "history apologists," the people who are embarassed that the United States has become the sole remaining superpower, as is the entire concept of Japan attacking to "save face." It ignores the Japanese activities and atrocities in China that directly led to the placing of the oil and steel embargo.

"As I see it, it was a Ku Klux Klan-type parade of 16 11,000 ton battleships sent around the world to announce, "We did it to the Philipines; we can do it to you". How would north americans react to such a blatant show of force off San Francisco or New York?"

What, you mean the numerous times that elements of the British, French, Italian, and even Spanish fleets came to call in the United States and at United States possessions in the Pacific?

"Again, the pronouncement that your race has God's mandate to rule a huge area full of other people is not the road to peace and sounds kind of familiar since 1939."

Yes, there's certainly truth to that. But remember that Manifest Destiny was also a movement against the other European powers (Spain, France, Great Britain, and Russia) that held possessions in North America.

You bring up some interesting points, but you ultimately fail to support your initial contention, that all of these activities were designed to engage the United States in "some degree of fishy reasons to go to war in some far-flung corner of the world."

You also ignore (well, you don't ignore it, you simply reinterpret it in light of the revisionist historians mentioned earlier) that the United States, by taking possessions overseas, was ultimately acting in the same manner as European nations had for hundreds of years before.

The United States was founded as an exercise in European expansionism, natives be damned, and that was, until well after World War II, still a prevalent attitude in much of the industrialized world.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying it's wrong. It just was, and was supported and promulgated by the men of that time.

We can easily say now, in "enlightened hindsight," that yes, these actions were 100% wrong. And perhaps, at least in the United States, it's a collective sense of guilt that results in the US being the world's largest, by far, purveyor of humanitarian aid

[mercedesrules]

(Tamara)Actually, the "Great White Fleet" had a much more narrowly defined purpose, and succeeded at it spectacularly.

See, in 1904, an upstart, newly expansionist Eastern nation had gone to war with a European power.
So far, so good. None of our freakin' business.
It first destroyed the small local squadron of the European power's fleet,
It protected itself against the occupying force. Gosh, Tamara, there's no such thing as a "local squadron" in my (libertarian anarchist) book.
and then, when the rest of the fleet steamed from Europe,
...to invade...,
it arrived in such disarray after the long voyage that the upstart Eastern fleet smashed it with ease.
Luckily for the defenders. Yay, invasion foiled!
This concerned the US, as it was beginning to have conflicting interests with this newly expansionist Eastern nation, which had just signed a treaty with Great Britain, to boot.
What is an "interest"? Answer, something that a politician uses to get young boys to risk their lives for...but get nothing out of. Whenever I now hear the word, I immediately try to figure out exactly who will benefit from the planned war. If "mercedesrules" is not on the list, I'm anti-war. So, while US naval planners worked on a contingency war plan (Plan Orange), a large US battlefleet was dispatched on a goodwill tour of the world.
Haha! Good one!
They rounded the tip of South America, reached Tokyo Bay in good order and in very little actual sailing time, and, subtle hint delivered that the USN was not going to be handled roughly by the IJN the way they had the Russians, continued with their goodwill tour, most of the world none the wiser to this day just what message TR was sending to the Emperor of Japan.
The exact message I mentioned: "We did it to the Philipines; we can do it to you". A message that great white men were going to rule the barbarian world with our great white ships. Not exactly defense, wouldn't you say?
MR

[Hkmp5sd]

There were no mutual defense clauses in the Tripartied Pact that would force these actions. That can be seen by the simple fact that Germany and Italy had been at war with Britain for over 2 years in Europe, and Japan waited until December 8, 1941, to go to war against Britain.

The major proof of this is the Germans begged Japan to attack the USSR throughout the war. They couldn't even get the Japanese to blockade the Allied ships (that Japan was at war against) hauling supplies to Russia to be used against the Germans.

[mercedesrules]

(Mike Irwin) "Wilson should have said to all americans shipping war supplies to Britain, "Go ahead and sell to them, but you are on your own to defend yourselves"

Uh, you've really got me with this one. The Lusitania was British flagged, British owned, British crewed, and British captained.
Sorry, I meant arms makers, not shipping companies. I don't believe in the concept of the United States Government (USG) protecting americans all over the globe. It's a subsidy born by taxpayers and thus welfare.
The Americans who were on the Lusitania were PASSENGERS. They, nor likely any of the other paying passengers, didn't have knowledge of the cargo,...
As I mentioned, the German government tried to warn them with US newspaper ads.
The German embassy had inserted advertisements in a number of American newspapers warning of dangers in the waters around the British Isles.

Not all contraband was headed for Germany. Lusitania carried some forty-two hundred cases of Remington rifle cartridges destined for the Western Front. Her cargo also included fuses and 1,250 cases of empty shrapnel shells. Although the Germans had no knowledge of this cargo, it is clear that British authorities were prepared to compromise Lusitania's nonbelligerent status as a passenger liner for a small amount of war materiel.
http://europeanhistory.about.com/library/prm/bllusitaniaprm2.htm



It was a widely held view at that time that unrestricted submarine warfare against passenger liners was a war crime.
"War crime" is a shakey rules concept more at home in sport and usually defined by the war-winners after the fact. Putting passengers in harm's way in a war zone isn't too hot, either. According to Ralph Raico, the Lusitania was carrying 5,500 cases of ammunition.



There's no NEW information, Mercedes. It's all speculation and, quite frankly BS, based on information that has been known for years. The desire to paint Roosevelt as a warmonger who let the attack happen to draw the United States into war is a premise that fails on far too many levels:

1. It assumes that all of the varied US intelligence agencies worked together and shared their information, even to the point of sharing it with the president. As we know from events of the subsequent 6 decades, that doesn't even happen NOW. If anything, the intra-departmental rivalries were significantly worse in the 1940s. The CIA was, in part, created as a clearing house for information after the war because of the failure of the intelligence services to put together the information that was out there about an impending Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Even if all of the intelligence is looked at, there's also no true indication of the attack point being Pearl Harbor. Most military planners felt that Japan was incapable of launching an attack as war east as Pearl Harbor, and even if they tried it would be an unmitigated disaster. Remember, this was the time when most Navy men still saw the true power as being the guns of the battleships -- most old-line Navy men still dismissed the aircraft carrier as a front-line battle weapon even in light of Gen. Billy Mitchell, Admiral Reeves, and the British strike against the Italian fleet at Taranto.

2. It assumes that Roosevelt wanted to enter the Pacific War. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Roosevelt had been actively pursuing policies that were calculated to draw the United States into the European war on Britain's side -- Cash & Carry, Lend-Lease, Neutrality Patrols, the Arsenal of Democracy. There was simply no overriding reason to want to enter into a Pacific war -- no great trade issues, no great territorial issues, no overt economic issues, nothing. On the other hand, all of that was present in the European conflict.

In fact, had Germany and Italy not declared war on the United States several days after Pearl Harbor, it's very possible that the US wouldn't have entered the European war for months, or even years.

A counter argument goes that once Japan attacked the United States Germany and Italy were obligated by treaty to come in on the side of Japan, effectively doing what Roosevelt wanted. Again, not true. There were no mutual defense clauses in the Tripartied Pact that would force these actions. That can be seen by the simple fact that Germany and Italy had been at war with Britain for over 2 years in Europe, and Japan waited until December 8, 1941, to go to war against Britain.

3. It assumes that Roosevelt had to sacrifice the bulk of the power of the Pacific fleet, and over 2,500 American lives, to draw the nation into the war. Even Roosevelt wouldn't have done that. An attack on a largely empty Pearl Harbor would have accomplished the same thing as an attack with the entire battle fleet in port -- it would have drawn the United States into a Pacific war against Japan. There's simply no credible reason why, had Roosevelt known an attack was imminent on Pearl Harbor, that he wouldn't have ordered the American fleet to sea to preserve it and to immediately strike back against the agressor. To sacrifice virtually your entire defense in order to make a point is ludicrous.

Remember, those battleships weren't just the "older ships," they were the bulk of the American big gun Naval force at the time. They were still considered to be viable surface combatants, and the "newer" battleships and cruisers simply weren't in service in numbers at the time to replace the losses suffered at Pearl Harbor. The North Carolina and Washington were the only two new battleships in commission by December 1941, and would be insufficient to be able to mount a capable defense against the Japanese battlefleet had the older battleships been knocked out.

4. It also assumes that no one in the military structure would ever talk about the President's complicity, even after his death. A conspiracy this explosive would have leaked at some point, and more than likely sooner rather than later. Yet, no military or intelligence figure ever came forward and said 'Yes, Roosevelt KNEW, and allowed it to happen.'

These are the main arguments against the theory that Roosevelt allowed the Japanese to attack a largely undefended fleet, and taken together, they, in my opinion, conclusively shatter the conspiracy theorists who say that the attack on Pearl Harbor was allowed as a gambit to draw the United States into war.

The concept that Japan was "goaded" into attacking the United States is an invention of the "history apologists," the people who are embarassed that the United States has become the sole remaining superpower, as is the entire concept of Japan attacking to "save face." It ignores the Japanese activities and atrocities in China that directly led to the placing of the oil and steel embargo.
I don't care who the heck was attacking Japan or China or whatever. The Flying Tigers were already "illegally" in operation against Japan, and the USG was trying to disrupt Japan's logistics (by siding with future-communist) China. The Pearl Harbor attack wasn't the first shot. There wasn't any good reason to enter either theater of war because none of the "enemies" could have attacked and conquered the US. All of Roosevelt's Atlantic actions were unconstitutional or violated treaties.The end result was that our "allies" became our powerful enemies, our enemies became our "friends", and millions of people and much land was delivered to murderous communism by our actions. The USG should have sat at home and watched Hitler and Stalin destroy each other.
What, you mean the numerous times that elements of the British, French, Italian, and even Spanish fleets came to call in the United States and at United States possessions in the Pacific?
The word "possessions" sticks in my craw, Mike.

You bring up some interesting points, but you ultimately fail to support your initial contention, that all of these activities were designed to engage the United States in "some degree of fishy reasons to go to war in some far-flung corner of the world."
I only believe in defensive war a la Switzerland. That's when someone comes to my area and tries to take it over and steal my actual property. I don't allow, in my personal philosophy, the legitimacy of any fighting "over there". Since invasion hasn't happened to the USG, IMO, I question all USG wars. I don't believe in war for empire, "interests", lebensraum, racial superiority, religion or any of the other usual suspects. Any war in which my property is not threatened is fishy.

You also ignore (well, you don't ignore it, you simply reinterpret it in light of the revisionist historians mentioned earlier) that the United States, by taking possessions overseas, was ultimately acting in the same manner as European nations had for hundreds of years before.

The United States was founded as an exercise in European expansionism, natives be damned, and that was, until well after World War II, still a prevalent attitude in much of the industrialized world.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying it's wrong. It just was, and was supported and promulgated by the men of that time.

We can easily say now, in "enlightened hindsight," that yes, these actions were 100% wrong. And perhaps, at least in the United States, it's a collective sense of guilt that results in the US being the world's largest, by far, purveyor of humanitarian aid

I want things to change. Of course, we can't change the past, Mike, but maybe we, by enlightening younger folks, can change their minds about allowing themselves to be sent all around the globe, to (###) foreign lands, to be killed for nothing. (Sorry, "greatest generation guys", no one ever seriously threatened my freedoms.)
I think that neither Japan nor Germany could have invaded the US. Our pal, the USSR, maybe could have but maybe not if we had let Hitler kill another 18,000,000 of them. Stalin was way worse than Hitler, anyways.
I want the USG to stop prowling the world and at least protect north america (at least their headquarters). If not, I want them to quit spending my money!
MR

[Mike Irwin]

"It (the Japanese fleet & by extension Japan) protected itself against the occupying force."


GET REAL!

The Russo-Japanese War was about the conflicting imperial territorial ambitions of Japan and Czarist Russia in Manchuria!

The Japanese by this time were well into their expansionist phase as a burgeoning Pacific power.

To say that they were protecting themselves against an occupying force is absolutely WRONG.

And yes, the Russo-Japanese war WAS our business, as it was the business of the French, the Germans, the Dutch, and the British, all of whom had possessions.

Yes, you've indicated that you have a problem with the word possessions. Sorry, but that's what they were. They were lands owned by various European powers.

"And the message was..."

You're only presenting HALF the intended message, and likely the wrong half. As a response to Japan's growing naval power and already established doctrin of expansion (by this time Korea was a Japanese possession), it was a clear message for the Japanese to not even consider casting an eye on American possessions, which the Japanese desparately wanted.


Look, your convictions are apparently truly held, but your grasp of factual history is lacking, Mercedes.

[Tamara]

...to invade...,

Back to the books with ya'. Who was invading whom? :scrutiny:


The exact message I mentioned: "We did it to the Philipines; we can do it to you". A message that great white men were going to rule the barbarian world with our great white ships. Not exactly defense, wouldn't you say?

No, the message was "You shot up the Russian fleet in your war of expansion pretty easily because it sucked and couldn't sail around the world to offer battle. The USN, however, does not suck, and can sail around the world to offer battle." It's very easy to view the events of that time through our modern lens of America The Superpower. Bear in mind that the America of the time was viewed on the world stage as a player on about the level of Japan.

Unless you believe that only caucasian Westerners can engage in petty, imperialistic games of expansion, in which case then, yes, we were oppressing the poor, downtrodden Nipponese (and reminding their British allies who had the third largest fleet in the world...)

[Hkmp5sd]

I only believe in defensive war a la Switzerland. That's when someone comes to my area and tries to take it over and steal my actual property.
So you would prefer the US goes on the defensive and does nothing until a foreign power attacks the nation and then has to fight the conflict inside the US borders?

And by extension, the response to attacks such as 9/11, since the immediate danger of attack was over (the terrorists were dead, so they couldn't be a future threat), would be for the US to remain in a defensive posture, seeking to halt any future attacks by intercepting the BGs after they enter the country, but hopefully before they initiate another attack, instead of taking the fight to the attackers?

Given this desire to act only in defense, if FDR was governed by this position, whether or not he knew about the future Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor is immaterial. He could only act after the first Japanese aircraft appeared in the sky over Hawaii and dropped the first bomb. After all, until that time, it could have been merely a flight of Japanese on a training mission that got lost and were looking for a place to land before they ran out of gas.

[agricola]

returning to the thread title:

Panoply of the Absurd (Der Speigels' response) (http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/english/0,1518,265160,00.html)

[WvaBill]

(Sorry, "greatest generation guys", no one ever seriously threatened my freedoms.)

No, I'm not of that generation.

If one believes that there would be no seroius threats to your freedoms with Europe, Africa, and possibly the western asian land mass controlled by the Germany of 1940, the eastern asian land mass, attached islands, and Australia controlled by Imperial Japan would not be a threat to your freedoms, you should reassess the changing global realities of the 1930's and 1940's. Even if Germany failed to control the western Asia land mass, without the intervention of USA, the best scenario would have been a shared control by two despotic systems of government.
To state that the European Theater of WW II was an imperialistically motivated ignores the Marshall Plan and the ensuing defense treaties(NATO) which were very non-occupational. Likewise the rebuilding of Japan with its self-government remaining.

I don't care who the heck was attacking Japan or China or whatever. The Flying Tigers were already "illegally" in operation against Japan, and the USG was trying to disrupt Japan's logistics (by siding with future-communist) China.

Once again, refer to the above. Japan had made its intentions known by the declaration of The Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Shere and were illegally in Nanking.

IMO, the US did remain out of WW II as long as possible, not due to politics, but logistics. The US military was still rearming at the time of the PH attack. I believe that the size of the USMC at the outbreak of war was smaller than the NYC PD(from an account of Wake Island--no positive references.:(

FDR did realize that the USA would be in WW II, but our forces were 9-18 months from being anywhere near ready: fighting off invasion forces with three carriers(Australia and Midway). It was 11 months b4 any offensive operations were under taken in the ETO (11/8/42) and 9 months b4 a understrength offensive action could be undertaken in the PTO (8/7/42).
The success of both of these operations was far from certain. Evidence of this is in the difficulty in overcoming Vichy French resistance in the initial operations of the North African Campaign and the near debacle of the Casserine Pass in ETO and the Battle of Savo Island in the PTO.

Not all threats to one's freedoms are immediate.

[Cosmoline]

It's like I've been saying for the past few years--the EU is the new great enemy for the US. Not China. China can be dealt with, and has no interest in changing the world in its own image or making everyone "Chinese." It simply wants to make lots of money and regain some old territories.

The EU, on the other hand, still has the same spirit its nations had from the 15th century on--that the world should be re-made in its own image. 200 years ago they sought to make the third world "Christian" and forced them to accept their yolke. Now they want everyone to adopt their left-wing ideals. To accomplish this goal they seek global domination via leadership at the head of the UN. This is what's behind all the attacks to marginalize the US. The old alliance will break apart one way or the other, and we will be fighting with each other for control of the planet. It's as inevitable as the sun rising and setting. We'd better wake up, or it will be our sun that's setting!

[Mike Irwin]

Mercedes,

Yes, I know the Imperial German Embassy placed ads in the newpapers next to the sailing schedules warning passengers that liners MIGHT be subject to attack.

I also know that international maritime law prior to German announcements of unrestricted submarine warfare that numerous international treaties had been enacted between warring nations regarding the treatment of non-military ships, including merchantmen and especially passenger ships. Germany had been in past years a signatory to a number of these treaties, and in fact had been abiding by them at the outbreak of the war.

It wasn't until 1915 that USW was declared, and it was after the sinking of the Lusitania, and the international outcry, not just from the United States, that Germany again halted the practice.


"The Flying Tigers were already "illegally" in operation against Japan,"

The same as the Condor Legion and the Italian air corps (can't remember what they were called!) were in Spain in 1937.

Here's the kicker, though. The Flying Tigers were paid by the Chinese. They weren't American military officers representing the United States. They were, in that sense, the same as the Abraham Lincoln Brigade.


"and the USG was trying to disrupt Japan's logistics (by siding with future-communist) China."

Not sure what the fact that China would be communist in the future has to do with your point. At the time Chaing Kai'Shek was pretty firmly in control of China, and was battling both the Japanese invaders AND the Communists. Since you believe ONLY in defensive war, you should then believe in assisting those who are defending themselves against the agression of invading nations -- in other words, helping China preserve it's national soverignty in the face of Imperial Japanese agression.

"The Pearl Harbor attack wasn't the first shot."

I suppose you could say that the Japanese attack on the river patrol boat Panay in China in December 1937 was the first shot, then. However you want to define it, the Japanese commenced hostile actions FIRST.

"There wasn't any good reason to enter either theater of war because none of the "enemies" could have attacked and conquered the US."

That's hardly the point. As has been proven so many times in the past, an agressor nation doesn't necessarily need to physically occupy another to reduce it to its will.

"All of Roosevelt's Atlantic actions were unconstitutional or violated treaties."

Debatable. With the backing of Congress, Constitutionality becomes a significantly hazier area. Violations of treaties? Diplomacy is made by making, and then breaking, treaties. Germany broke the Treaty of Versailles when it rearmed, for example...

"The end result was that our "allies" became our powerful enemies, our enemies became our "friends", and millions of people and much land was delivered to murderous communism by our actions. The USG should have sat at home and watched Hitler and Stalin destroy each other."

OK... Germany was an old enemy from WW I, and had never really been an ally.

Japan had never really been an ally, either.

Britain, an ally from WW I, became an even stronger ally.

The Soviet Union, which didn't exist before WW I, became an ally.

As for our actions condemning millions to communism, here's a hard-core fact for you. Had the United States sat out the war, the end result would have been the same, with or without US intervention to the Soviet Union.

And tell me, even had Germany won...

Which is better?

A totalitarian Communist regime, or a totalitarian Fascist regime?

Interesting question, eh?

[Baba Louie]

returning to the thread title:

Nice try agricola ;) , interesting read as well... I'd say a major tin-foil hat is necessary for that interpretation of events... but then again, I wouldn't put certain things past any government who feel a need to manipulate their minions into some form of action.

But like Mike pointed out regarding Roosevelt and Pearl Harbor, it'd sure be hard to keep everything secret for very long and I have doubts as to this particular President's ability to be a participant in such an intricate plan; as I think he is a moral and honorable man when compared to, say for example, earlier administrations of another ilk who felt the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune (to coin a phrase) brought upon by vast right wing conspiracies, or Vet-Nom.

It is fascinating to watch a thread turn this way and that and to read the levels of historical knowledge offered by all. I don't always agree with what I read, but I do find it stimulating to read the point/counterpoint as it offers ample opportunity to do some more research on Politics and History from varied points of view.

The United States of America can no longer be the isolationist nation they once tried to stay. I do not always agree with the policies our administrations take, but then I consider the alternatives and I think of (mixing metaphors here) Gary Cooper in High Noon wondering how that script would have ended if he'd have been Communist Russia or China or even Great Britian in today's world. While the USA is far from perfect and suffers from an ego based on the size of our force (both economic and military) and historical destiny allows, I always hope and pray that we're doing the "Most Right" thing for all parties. Hoping of course that we're no longer just a bunch of white guys thinking "Manifest Destiny" (which of course we are politically speaking).

Just wait till Communist China is the Police Power of the world...

But you can't be all (good) things to all (good) people, no matter how hard you try. Sometimes its the carrot... sometimes its the stick.

It usually, no, it always, comes down to money, power and some form of human rights or wrongs.

Adios

[Mike Irwin]

"But like Mike pointed out regarding Roosevelt and Pearl Harbor, it'd sure be hard to keep everything secret for very long and I have doubts as to this particular President's ability to be a participant in such an intricate plan..."

It's amazing to think that anyone could keep such a plan secret for very long given the huge numbers of people who would have access to peripheral information that could cause the entire conspiracy to unravel. The same with September 11.

We have a picture perfect example of what happens to governmental-based conspiracies -- Watergate.

The Nixon Administration was one of the most paranoid and secretive to ever hold the White House. The operation they put together involved a tiny fraction of the number of people who would have been involved in either a Pearl Harbor or 9-11 scenario, and yet it unraveled over the most innocuous of events.

The Watergate Conspiracy's undoing wasn't because one of the biggies gave it up, either. It occurred because a number of mid to low level functionaries, who had only pieces of the entire puzzle, were ferreted out, and gave up that information, not because they wanted the presidency to fall, but because they didn't know it was information vital to keeping the Watergate activities a secret.

Benjamin Franklin wasn't kidding when he said this...

"Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead."

The entire premise behind hundreds, if not thousands, of people being able to withhold information that would preserve the conspiracy is just laughable.

That fact alone is the greatest foil to the Pearl Harbor and 9-11 conspiracy theorists.

[Dashunde]

Would it really surprise you if it were true?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that there is a shred of truth to the story..
However, with that said, consider the following:

We live in bliss relative to other countries.
As individuals, we are nice, caring and compassionate people.
We know that our politicians are often dishonest and serving someone else's agenda.
We know that our media is often biased, telling us their version of a story.
We know that the rest of the world generally dislikes us for various reasons.
We know that we can exert our political will upon any country we choose through finance, trade, and war.
We know that we have come into our position atop the world very quickly... which begs the question - How?

We are nice people, our Government is not...

[mercedesrules]

(Mike Irwin) Yes, you've indicated that you have a problem with the word possessions. Sorry, but that's what they were. They were lands owned by various European powers.
"How to make sure you are always in a war" - have lots of "possessions" and have them strewn all over the globe where they are sure to be attacked by someone.

Personal version: I leave fifty $100 bills at various places around town. Then, when someone begins to touch one, I shoot them.

MR

[mercedesrules]

(Tamara) The USN, however, does not suck, and can sail around the world to offer battle."
But, as a libertarian, you should believe that they shouldn't.

MR

[mercedesrules]

(HKmp5sd) So you would prefer the US goes on the defensive and does nothing until a foreign power attacks the nation and then has to fight the conflict inside the US borders?
Yes. That's what "defensive" means.
In my personal life, I don't go around to all the addresses of ex-cons waving a rifle and shouting, "You had better not come to my house and rob me!"

MR

[mercedesrules]

(WvaBill) Even if Germany failed to control the western Asia land mass, without the intervention of USA, the best scenario would have been a shared control by two despotic systems of government.
Winter was already starting in Russia before "Pearl Harbor". Hitler was finished and his generals knew it.

Two despotic systems fighting each other is better than one huge one (USSR).

MR

[mercedesrules]

(Irwin) Not sure what the fact that China would be communist in the future has to do with your point.
Just how poorly our ill-advised foreign interventions turn out.
At the time Chaing Kai'Shek was pretty firmly in control of China, and was battling both the Japanese invaders AND the Communists. Since you believe ONLY in defensive war, you should then believe in assisting those who are defending themselves against the agression of invading nations -- in other words, helping China preserve it's national soverignty in the face of Imperial Japanese agression.
I only believe in self-defense, not defending everyone in the universe.
an agressor nation doesn't necessarily need to physically occupy another to reduce it to its will.
That's blanket license to shoot anyone.

As for our actions condemning millions to communism, here's a hard-core fact for you. Had the United States sat out the war, the end result would have been the same, with or without US intervention to the Soviet Union.
...minus 290,000 US deaths.

And tell me, even had Germany won...

Which is better?

A totalitarian Communist regime, or a totalitarian Fascist regime?

Interesting question, eh?

Stalin, our pal, killed at least twice as many non-combatants as Hitler. China killed half as many and our "allies", twice as many as our "enemies".

MR

[mercedesrules]

(Irwin) Benjamin Franklin wasn't kidding when he said this...

"Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead."

“In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” - Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

MR

[mercedesrules]

(Dashunde) We are nice people, our Government is not...

Thank you! :D

MR

[Mike Irwin]

"an agressor nation doesn't necessarily need to physically occupy another to reduce it to its will.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That's blanket license to shoot anyone."

No, it's not.

It's justification to be interested in, and proactive in, protecting one's own national and international interests.

The concept of isolationism is a quaint one, but hasn't been even remotely viable for any nation for over 500 years.


"Stalin, our pal, killed at least twice as many non-combatants as Hitler. China killed half as many and our "allies", twice as many as our "enemies"."

Stalin was in control of the Soviet Union for a LOT longer than Hitler held Germany and occupied other European nations.

Do you really think, had Hitler won WW II in Europe, that the death camps and Einsatsgrupen would have disbanded immediately?

The only reason Hitler didn't match Stalin's death toll is because he didn't have time. German activities in occupied Eastern European nations should be a clear indication of that.


"China killed half as many and our "allies", twice as many as our "enemies"."

Oh? Care to tell me which enemy nation you left out of that equasion? Care to come back with a modified figure for your death tallies when you figure it out?


And finally, Roosevelt's quote proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he allowed the bombing of Pearl Harbor, how?

And it negates the simple truth of Benjamin Franklin's observation, how?

[NeverAgain26]

His book has all the makings of a good spy thriller and not much else.

"Rogue group of Gov't Intel agents has info which could avert a massive attack and let it happen anyway in order to capitalize on public sentiment to go to war."

Is there a love story in there somewhere? I am sure if there were enough fast cars and fast women, it make a good read.

But seriously, if there were any truth to someone in U.S. Intel knowing about 9/11 in advance and not stopping it, it would have had to be so far down the line of command as to not filter up to the Administration.

Other than that, has anyone seen my tin hat?

NA26

[jrhead75]

Trooper's right, we've got our nutjobs over here too...after all, somebody had to vote for Feinstein.

I'd like to nominate two from New York and one from California Just one from California? :scrutiny: :D

[mercedesrules]

(Irwin) The concept of isolationism is a quaint one, but hasn't been even remotely viable for any nation for over 500 years.
I distinguish between "isolationism" and non-intervention. I'm all for tourism and trade between nations - if they want it. I just don't believe in alliances, peacekeeping, spreading democracy, protecting world travelers and companies, "interests", or that the USG's way is necessarily superior to others' styles.

Stalin was in control of the Soviet Union for a LOT longer than Hitler held Germany and occupied other European nations.
True, but it's still embarrassing that we were allies and we should learn from that mistake.

Do you really think, had Hitler won WW II in Europe, that the death camps and Einsatsgrupen would have disbanded immediately?
Who knows, but I was way over in Ohio.

The only reason Hitler didn't match Stalin's death toll is because he didn't have time. German activities in occupied Eastern European nations should be a clear indication of that.
O.K.


"China killed half as many and our "allies", twice as many as our "enemies"."

Oh? Care to tell me which enemy nation you left out of that equasion? Care to come back with a modified figure for your death tallies when you figure it out?
Mike, the figures I have are:
Allies
USSR - 42,672,000
China (Kai Shek) - 10,214,000
--------------
52,886,000
Axis
Germany - 20,946,000
Japan - 5,964,000
----------------
26,910,000
(Death by Government - Rummel)
And finally, Roosevelt's quote proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he allowed the bombing of Pearl Harbor, how?

And it negates the simple truth of Benjamin Franklin's observation, how?
Neither. It wasn't an argument - just something I came across.

MR

[Don Galt]

I love how so many people here think the media is full of it, but believe whatever they say when it comes to 9/11. And they also think that Bill Clinton was a liar and everything he said was a lie, but George Bush would never lie.

You are the ones wearing tinfoil hats.

Frankly, I don't know who was behind the 9/11 attacks, and neither do you. We haven't been told. We've only been told who we're supposed to hate... and you guys are dutifly hating them, and castind dispersons on anyone who dares to point out that no evidence has been presented to support the official story about 9/11.

Unfortunately, since the average person apparently doesn't understand what constitutes evidence, they are easily manipulated. Just go on TV and show an un-marred passport and claim that it miraculously escaped the WTC after the Jet crashed into it, and must have been the passport of a hijacker... despite being unburned and found almost immediately, and the masses will believe you.

You can lay down whatever cover story you want and get away with murder... and not only will people believe you, they will make tin foil hat references to anyone who dares point out the difference between assertion and evidence.

There is no evidence showing who was behind 9/11 that has been presented to the public.

[Hkmp5sd]

There is no evidence showing who was behind 9/11 that has been presented to the public.

I don't know, but I think a video tape of bin Laden bragging about the buildings collapsing just might be considered evidence.

And they also think that Bill Clinton was a liar and everything he said was a lie, but George Bush would never lie.

Perhaps because Clinton was guilty of perjury and to date, Bush has not told any lies that I am aware of. He has used incorrect information that was supplied to him and he is tight lipped about some information, but no direct lies AFAIK.

[Don Galt]

Yeah, that proves that this guy they call Bin Laden, if the translation is correct, and if it really is him and not some faked tape, had accesss to CNN or some other news source that told him that there was an attack on the US and the WTC was destroyed.

If I recall, he didn't claim to be responsible for it, and even if he did, it does not count as evidence that its true. The maximum that tape could be is evidence that someone claiming to be Bin Laden, claims to have taken responsibility for something... doesn't give reason to believe he's telling the truth, that he really is Bin Laden (I doubt any of the american public have actually ever met Bin Laden) etc. etc. etc.

People believe that this tape shows bin laden because they have been told thats what it shows. People believe hes saying these things because they've been told that's what he says.

People believe a lot of things, but they know very little. In this case, they know nothing.

All you have to support your conspiracy theory, are your beliefs. But beliefs are not facts.

[WvaBill]

Two despotic systems fighting each other is better than one huge one (USSR).

What about Three despotic systems? If Germany was through prior to 12/7/41, why the pressure from USSR for a 2nd front? The reason for North African landings as early as they were.

Germany and USSR make nice. Germany occupies from UK to easter Poland or the Urals. USSR to Mongolia. Imperial Japan from Mongolia to AK.

It is now known that both Japan and German had designs on attacking CONUS by air. Japan used bio weapons in China. What if they loaded their balloons with that. Germany had already overflown the East Coast with a very large bomber by War's end. Would Germany and Japan allow such a threat as the US to remain after consolidating their gains?


I think that neither Japan nor Germany could have invaded the US. Our pal, the USSR, maybe could have but maybe not if we had let Hitler kill another 18,000,000 of them. Stalin was way worse than Hitler, anyways.

Germany could not invade UK, but came close to defeating them by denying sea passage. Even after Battle of Britain, UK was not receiving enough stores without US support.



Frankly, I don't know who was behind the 9/11 attacks, and neither do you. We haven't been told. We've only been told who we're supposed to hate... and you guys are dutifly hating them, and castind dispersons on anyone who dares to point out that no evidence has been presented to support the official story about 9/11.

So true. All of the talk about box cutters...is there any evidence that box cutters were used on any but the flight that went down in PA...Real Heroes on that one...or how they were employed on any of the flights. We don't even know the METHOD(prolly won't) much less the WHO(Will be debated at least as long as 12/7).

[Cosmoline]

This is an amazing statement:

---
I think that neither Japan nor Germany could have invaded the US. Our pal, the USSR, maybe could have but maybe not if we had let Hitler kill another 18,000,000 of them. Stalin was way worse than Hitler, anyways.
I want the USG to stop prowling the world and at least protect north america (at least their headquarters). If not, I want them to quit spending my money!
MR
-----

Considering the fact that JAPAN DID IN FACT INVADE US! They took several Aleutian islands and repeatedly bombed Dutch Harbor, attacked shipping and made life hell for the tiny military force that was here. Yes, it started out as a diversionary attack in the runup to Midway. But the bottom line is, there was nothing keeping Japan from taking over not just Alaska but much of western Canada as well! In 1942 our standing army was a joke, the air force in the N. Pacific consisted mostly of flying tigers and sea planes, and the navy was absurdly small. The local unorganized militia was so small in number and scattered it could not have done much of anything against an invasion force other than slow it down a bit.

I guess this is why they call it "The Forgotten War."

[Cosmoline]

Yeah, I mean we don't even know if there WAS a plane crash in 9/11. For all I know, the twin towers are still standing and the media is just lying to me. All the post-9/11 photos could have been special effects. For all we know it was gov'ment lasers directing the pilots to crash.

:rolleyes:

[Don Galt]

Cosmoline demonstrates my point-- people can't tell the difference between evidence and belief.

Its quite possible to point out the errors in the Warren Commissions theory, without having to claim that JFK was never shot.

[Mike Irwin]

Mercedes,

Please give the full name of the author whose figures you cite, and the title of the book in which they are cited. If you're talking about RJ Rummel (and I think you are) please don't make me laugh. His figures are, controversial, to say the least, and as far as I know, have found little support among most historians.

His figures are felt to be seriously flawed in a number of very critical areas for many of the regiems.

[mercedesrules]

(Irwin) Please give the full name of the author whose figures you cite, and the title of the book in which they are cited. If you're talking about RJ Rummel (and I think you are) please don't make me laugh. His figures are, controversial, to say the least, and as far as I know, have found little support among most historians.
That's right, Mike, the figures are from R.J. Rummel's book. I don't have any feasible way of checking them. I'm not a historian; I'm a guitarist.
I've enjoyed this discussion and have learned from it. Yes, there is a lot I don't know about WWII and american history. For me, it's an ongoing process.
I do notice that the discussion seems to have settled on WWII and not the other fishy wars I mentioned. I guess it's more accepted that they were terrible mistakes started by power-mad presidents.
Regardless of the details of past wars, it's clear to me that Afghanistan and Iraq weren't threats to my safety. Therefore, I'm angry that the USG has made me so many more enemies than I had a couple of years ago.

MR

[Hkmp5sd]

Given that 99% of the information most people have about 9/11 comes from the same news media that claims bayonet lugs make one gun more deadly than another, I don't use them as a sole-source for info. I've read a couple dozen books about the subject and closely related subjects and I believe that some dude called bin Laden and his network of terrorists planned and carried out the attacks of 9/11.

You might consider reading the most recent release which takes you from the early beginnings of al Qaeda's war on America back in July, 1989, to the present. It is not so much about the terrorists as it is about the screwups of the FBI in dealing with them over a 20+ year time period.

It is titled 1000 Years For Revenge: International Terrorism and The FBI, The Untold Story by Peter Lance.

[Don Galt]

Thanks for the book recommendation... but I'm really only interested in reading investigations that dig into what really happened.

And I'm not talking about the pulply crap conspiracy theorists are going to be putting out.

Actually since there will be so much conspiracy crap, and our government is not going to tell us anything more than they have.... I guess we won't know for a long, long time.

There are enough problems with the official story that I know it is false. But I do not know what really happened... and other than finding out that, I have no interest in 9/11.

That doesn't mean I know bin laden wasn't behind it, just that its clear there was more to it. Possibly the conspiracy in our government was merely to let it happen.

So, what is the evidence behind your belief that it was bin laden? Have you got something independant of the media, independant of the government, and not after-the-fact?

9/11 was compared to Pearl Harbor and it is an apt comparison-- an attack on americans was allowed or orchestrated by our government to get us into a war. This is a war that has gun rights clearly in its crosshairs. Everyone on this forum is a targetted victem of this war, as everyone on this forum is considered a terrorist by our government.

I know most don't believe it-- they have an amazing amount of faith in the government. But I don't have faith, and so I have to reach that conclusion. Look at the actions taken after 9/11-- tightening control over airlines (but not security!). Now anyone travelling with a knife is automatically suspicious, let alone a gun. Etc. Etc. Etc.

So, if this book has a lot of facts and evidence that I'll find useful, tell me, and I'll read it. But if it just takes the government at its word, then I'm not interested.

[Henry]

What was this guy anyway, Minister of Propaganda? Hey, maybe Howard Dean has a spot for him.

[Hkmp5sd]

There are enough problems with the official story that I know it is false. But I do not know what really happened... and other than finding out that, I have no interest in 9/11

Just out of curiosity, since you don't believe the information from the government, the TV news media, newspapers, magazines, books, investigators or witnesses, exactly how could you ever find out what really happened? Crystal Ball? :)

P.S. Since the book attacks the government's (mainly FBI's) handling of intelligence and evidence in the approx. 15 years leading up to 9/11, it does have plenty of facts.

And if you want the PhD level course on the subject, try The High Cost of Peace: How Washington's Middle East Policy Left America Vulnerable to Terrorism by Yossef Bodansky.

[buzz_knox]

People believe a lot of things, but they know very little. In this case, they know nothing.

All you have to support your conspiracy theory, are your beliefs. But beliefs are not facts.

Well said. But, you realize that you should be saying this while looking the mirror, right? All I've seen from you is "[t]here are enough problems with the official story that I know it is false. But I do not know what really happened..."

So, essentially, you are arguing a conspiracy theory (the gov't was responsible) without any evidence beyond "I know it's a lie when I smell it."

[Mike Irwin]

"9/11 was compared to Pearl Harbor and it is an apt comparison-- an attack on americans was allowed or orchestrated by our government to get us into a war."

No evidence of either exists, other than the ramblings of those who desparately wish it to be so.


"What evidence do you have of it being Bin Laden..."

Oh, his statements and the statements of some of his people jump immediatley to mind...

The video tape in which Bin Laden was discussing the effects of the planes crashing in to the buildings being more than what they had hoped for...

That's just the tip of the iceberg, really.

So, what EVIDENCE, stone cold hard evidence, such as videotaped confessions, do you have to support that the US Government allowed or perpetrated Pearl Harbor or the WTC attacks?

Here's the short answer. There isn't any, other than the aforementioned ramblings of those who desparately wish it to be so.


I've repeatedly poked holes in the December 7 theory by pointing out that a war against the Japanese is NOT the war that Roosevelt wanted, and that a Japanese attack was NO guarantee that the United States would be drawn into the European war.

Yet, that inconvenient fact is ignored as if it's not important...

Sorry, it's a FATAL error in the conspiracy theorists' montage.

[Baba Louie]

It only took Robert Stinnett 16 years to run into the brick wall, but he did find some interesting things on the way and tried to put 2 and 2 together.

Break out your tin-foil hats...

http://www.independent.org/tii/forums/000524ipfTrans.html

A small cut and paste from the above link...

Could this be possible, and again, what lessons can we learn? During World War I, the British journalist, Randolph Bourne coined the phrase, “War is the health of the state.” The Oxford University Press book, Crisis and Leviathan, by our senior fellow, Robert Higgs (editor of The Independent Review) shows that government power has primarily expanded in American history as a series of discrete, major leaps. These leaps have occurred largely at the time of real or imagined war crises as declared by political leaders. Throughout history, wartime has always been presented by rulers of any stripe to a public as a time when the normal rules of civil society are inadequate and must be disbanded, so that government officials can act without the inconvenient and limiting restraints of the rule of law. Special government powers are then marshaled in order to conscript, tax and control the public in order to deal with the peril, real or imagined.

The “funny” thing that happens, however, is that after each crisis has passed, the special war powers accumulated by governments, seldom, if ever, are reduced, but carry on as if the conflict was still a reality. The result is a ratchet-type effect in which real or imagined crises form the justification to continue to expand statism, essentially sweeping away due process, constitutional rights, and the rule of law itself. Government-enforced cartels, corporate welfare, predatory tax rates, government surveillance, and a similarly unlimited assortment of regulations, shakedowns and assaults persist to cater to people who directly benefit from the new powers that government has been given.

You can disagree with Stinnett's findings but there is a modicum of truth to the above paragraphs. Some interesting links for the "tin-foil" crowd in the above link, but its 60 year old news just coming to light, or putting pieces of that puzzle together using hindsight.

It COULD be that GW knew about something or that certain factions within the beltway (or out in the field) knew bits and pieces or even that ALL of the pieces were known, just left lying around loose... all speculation.
Now, you'll never ever convince my Mom. She KNOWS GWB knew all about it and even PLANNED it (don't know HOW she knows, call it a dyed in the wool Democrat Mom thing) and thats why he was selected to win Florida (lotsa tin-foil in my family tree) and keep the Oil flowing at the right prices...

I'll be dead long before the truth (whatever that is) comes to see the light of day concerning the WTC/Pentagon 9-11-01, as to who, what and why.
All I know is we're in Afghanistan and Iraq, Kuwait, parts of Africa, Saudi Arabia, Italy, now Czech Republic, etc and things are still "Turmoil as usual" in the Mid-East.

And... Stinnett served with GWH Bush in the big one, so that's gotta prove something...:D

Adios

[Don Galt]

Like I said-- you do not distinguish between what you believe and evidence.

Bin Laden making a tape is not evidence, as I've pointed out.

A pristine passport that somehow escaped the infurno of the WTC on the other hand IS evidence... only it doesn't support the government's position.

Frankly, try as you might to pin a conspiracy theory on me, you can't do it, because I'm not saying I know what happened on 9/11... only that the official story doesn't add up. (The passporti s a good example... having the 19 hijackers already determined is another... and the cellphone calls from the planes is just a pathetic attempt.)

You, on the other hand, have a conspiracy theory and you will ramble on about how videotaped "confessions" of people claiming responsibilty after the fact proves its true-- even though it proves nothing.

People don't know the difference between belief and evidence. You think your belief is evidence and when you get an excuse to support your belief, you call that evidence.

I remain neutral on what happened--- I'd like to see some real evidence and some real testimony. Hell, we haven't even been allowed to read the probably bogus official report on the subject.

You want conspiracy theories, look at the Warren commission. You want evidence? Look at the history of the US government, how they have acted and what they have gotten away with.

IF you aren't skeptical, you're a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory believer and the feds are happy to have your unquestioning submission.

[Destructo6]

And you complain about evidence? You have absolutely nothing to substantiate this assertion:
9/11 was compared to Pearl Harbor and it is an apt comparison-- an attack on americans was allowed or orchestrated by our government to get us into a war.
Your assertion is purely faith-based.

[Justin Moore]

Related to the thread title ;)

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html

N E W Y O R K, May 1 — In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

Details of the plans are described in Body of Secrets (Doubleday), a new book by investigative reporter James Bamford about the history of America's largest spy agency, the National Security Agency. However, the plans were not connected to the agency, he notes.

The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.

"These were Joint Chiefs of Staff documents. The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing," Bamford told ABCNEWS.com.

"The whole point of a democracy is to have leaders responding to the public will, and here this is the complete reverse, the military trying to trick the American people into a war that they want but that nobody else wants."

Gunning for War

The documents show "the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government," writes Bamford.

The Joint Chiefs even proposed using the potential death of astronaut John Glenn during the first attempt to put an American into orbit as a false pretext for war with Cuba, the documents show.

Should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, they wrote, "the objective is to provide irrevocable proof … that the fault lies with the Communists et all Cuba [sic]."

The plans were motivated by an intense desire among senior military leaders to depose Castro, who seized power in 1959 to become the first communist leader in the Western Hemisphere — only 90 miles from U.S. shores.

The earlier CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba by Cuban exiles had been a disastrous failure, in which the military was not allowed to provide firepower.The military leaders now wanted a shot at it.

"The whole thing was so bizarre," says Bamford, noting public and international support would be needed for an invasion, but apparently neither the American public, nor the Cuban public, wanted to see U.S. troops deployed to drive out Castro.

Reflecting this, the U.S. plan called for establishing prolonged military — not democratic — control over the island nation after the invasion.

"That's what we're supposed to be freeing them from," Bamford says. "The only way we would have succeeded is by doing exactly what the Russians were doing all over the world, by imposing a government by tyranny, basically what we were accusing Castro himself of doing."

'Over the Edge'

The Joint Chiefs at the time were headed by Eisenhower appointee Army Gen. Lyman L. Lemnitzer, who, with the signed plans in hand made a pitch to McNamara on March 13, 1962, recommending Operation Northwoods be run by the military.

Whether the Joint Chiefs' plans were rejected by McNamara in the meeting is not clear. But three days later, President Kennedy told Lemnitzer directly there was virtually no possibility of ever using overt force to take Cuba, Bamford reports. Within months, Lemnitzer would be denied another term as chairman and transferred to another job.

The secret plans came at a time when there was distrust in the military leadership about their civilian leadership, with leaders in the Kennedy administration viewed as too liberal, insufficiently experienced and soft on communism. At the same time, however, there real were concerns in American society about their military overstepping its bounds.

There were reports U.S. military leaders had encouraged their subordinates to vote conservative during the election.

And at least two popular books were published focusing on a right-wing military leadership pushing the limits against government policy of the day. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee published its own report on right-wing extremism in the military, warning a "considerable danger" in the "education and propaganda activities of military personnel" had been uncovered. The committee even called for an examination of any ties between Lemnitzer and right-wing groups. But Congress didn't get wind of Northwoods, says Bamford.

"Although no one in Congress could have known at the time," he writes, "Lemnitzer and the Joint Chiefs had quietly slipped over the edge."

Even after Lemnitzer was gone, he writes, the Joint Chiefs continued to plan "pretext" operations at least through 1963.

One idea was to create a war between Cuba and another Latin American country so that the United States could intervene. Another was to pay someone in the Castro government to attack U.S. forces at the Guantanamo naval base — an act, which Bamford notes, would have amounted to treason. And another was to fly low level U-2 flights over Cuba, with the intention of having one shot down as a pretext for a war.

"There really was a worry at the time about the military going off crazy and they did, but they never succeeded, but it wasn't for lack of trying," he says.

After 40 Years

Ironically, the documents came to light, says Bamford, in part because of the 1992 Oliver Stone film JFK, which examined the possibility of a conspiracy behind the assassination of President Kennedy.

As public interest in the assassination swelled after JFK's release, Congress passed a law designed to increase the public's access to government records related to the assassination.

The author says a friend on the board tipped him off to the documents.

Afraid of a congressional investigation, Lemnitzer had ordered all Joint Chiefs documents related to the Bay of Pigs destroyed, says Bamford. But somehow, these remained.

"The scary thing is none of this stuff comes out until 40 years after," says Bamford


Warms your heart doesn't it? ;)

Galt :)

[buzz_knox]

Bin Laden making a tape is not evidence, as I've pointed out

It's evidence in every court on the planet. It's called a confession.

As for Project Northwoods, yup. But the key thing to remember is that no matter what the planners wanted, it didn't happen because the chain of command worked and refused to allow it to proceed.

[Destructo6]

The military plans for all sorts of things, some likely, some remote. I would not be a bit surprised if there were plans filed away to battle an alien invasion, just in case.

[Justin Moore]

The military plans for all sorts of things, some likely, some remote

You mean like comitting acts of terrorism on US soil, ala Operation Northwoods? I don't think it was a contingency plan, my friend ;)

Do I know what happened on 9/11? I'm with Galt on that, no I do not. All I know is what we have be told by the likes of Dan Rather and Peter Jennings. And the neo-cons on Foxnews. By the way, as a real conservative I'm allowed to use the word 'neo-con' unlike say the people who write for "The Nation" magazine ;)

[Destructo6]

All I know is what we have be told by the likes of Dan Rather and Peter Jennings.
That explains it.