WHY WAR?  WHY NOT? Wheee can win!  Sooner or later. If you define "win" as "destroy".

Seizing Arab Oil - the stated need to Create a Pretext --  shift targets from Saudis to Saddam and Iraq Trickery and Treachery G. Edward Griffin - aggravate  facilitate  insulate Opening Markets and protecting Capital Flows - Thomas P. Barnett Use of Propaganda A look at PRETEXTS and REAL REASONS for PAST AMERICAN WARS Ray McGovern Summary Sept 11 preparations for Martial Law ALSO PRETEXTS for the PATRIOT Act by Michael Chertoff Thomas P. Barnett - Pentagon Expert past Rationalizations for War back to Pretexts for War in the M.E., Saudi Arabia  - home page

Home (start) Page 1 Home Page 1-A (extension) Home Page 1-B (extension) INDEX2 9-11 & Fourth Reich, Nazi history INDEX3 blackbox voting, peak oil, other issues   AudioLinks - poli - (Jones and Parenti) Amazing 9-11 audio-vid Site Map Video-Aud List KEY issues covered up by DISINFO related:   False Flag Operations Profits off 9-11 BACK to "CREATE a PRETEXT"

IMO, this is THE #1 REASON a Federal Dept of Peace is doomed to fail, to be a nothing more than a sick joke.  Are we going to educate the Pentagon on "Peace"? THEY HATE PEACE.  THEY DESPISE PEACE.  ADVOCATING PEACE IS BEING RE-CONSIDERED AS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF SEDITION, subject to arrest and prosecution.  Rockefeller-funded peace studies won't help this, but it will eat up a lot of activist energy and time.

Would the Dept. of Peace have a Bureau of Harmony and Understanding, Office of Sympathy and Trust Abounding?

Most "folks" don't need peace studies, esp. from the Feds, and the ones who do, won't be helped by it.  The Elites know they must spend LOTS of money to promote state violence and to militarize society.  They must terrorize and patriot-ize.  (Heck, the stated purpose of PNAC is to create a peaceful world --- through war.)  They also promote sectarian divisions within society, enemies, people to blame.  It keeps the spotlight off them.  (Every now and then, for entertainment, in-fighting squabbles, they throw one of their own to the wolves of public exposure -- usually with a slap on the wrist.)

The Feds don't need peace studies.  Peace takes very little effort, though changing one's ideology takes effort and willingness. 
Washington and the Founding Fathers spelled it out:  No Foreign Entanglements, Honest Foreign Relations.  I have an ANTIWAR quote by James Madison in my Ledeen section, Conquest page -- paraphrased:  War makes America weak and leads to Tyranny.  Ledeen says war make man strong, and that Pearl Harbor (and by extn 9-11) were LUCKY events.

For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.
Thus pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. It is bad because life is permanent warfare.

What they can't quite figure out is how to assist the Elites who own them to commit total robbery and mass slavery in other countries, without resorting to expensive military violence for enforcement.  They know how to commit mass robbery and fractional slavery on Americans ... they give us a "choice" of robbers.  We can vote for the perceived lesser-evil, get a sense of "managing" the outcome.  We can have have TV, entertainment, bread and circuses.  Most of us will remain docile off the myth of the voting and elections charade.

That's what they are trying in Iraq: "Democracy", i.e. meaningless voting.  Apparently, many people elsewhere are less gullible, less "trained" than "federally-educated" Americans.  When it's clearly outsiders setting up the hard rules for them, and when the robbery and slavery is more extreme, the reject "voting".  Many people in other nations accept robbery anyhow, knowing full well what it is, when they are powerless to fight it.  After all, "we" run their Army and "we" elect their govts.  And if they don't "Shut up", we'll inflict real torture as well as economic pain.

But when it comes to survival, or sometimes even pride and a love of liberty is enough, some common people will do anything.  Even become "insurgents".

Is there really a need to "re-invent the wheel" of PEACE?

Or can we borrow from old commonsense Libertarian-Conservative Tradition

and expose the same old rehashed (and new) scams to a new generation?

Until a short time ago, I did not know there was an old tradition of Peace and Liberty on the opposite side of the spectrum from stereotypical "liberal peace groups".   Conservative, small-govt. types demanded US isolationism.

I thought Peace was the domain of the stereotypical "leftwing peace activists" of the Vietnam era.

I did not know that many Conservative Republicans were peace advocates and that it was Progressive Democrats under Woodrow Wilson who pushed America into World War I and began the theme of "making the world safe for democracy" via violence and warfare.  (The internal goal was to "seize markets for capitalists", "democracy" was the catchphrase.)

Remembering With Astonishment: Woodrow Wilson’s Reign of Terror in Defense of "Freedom"

Progressive Democrats of the 21st century, many are personal friends, and I support their interests and ideals.  This above criticism is necessary to help ALL of us see past labels to substance.

---

US policy - Seizing Arab Oil "need to create a Pretext" STOP READING: this audio is a good summary:  takingaim_pretexts_excerpt.mp3 020827  Reckless Endangerment (of ruling class) www.takingaimradio.com  download   play  "Oil - The Issue of American Intervention" in Commentary, by Robert Tucker in January 1975, a CIA analyst for the military establishment.  Writing about the need to create a pretext to use military force to invade the Middle East and seize Arab oil. Tucker discusses seizing "a convenient area" of the shoreline of Saudi Arabia between Kuwait and Qatar (just south of Iraq)  "that will satisfy our requirements", how rich it is, 40% of OPEC production, 50% of reserves, "a new El Dorado awaiting it's conquistadors", as a move necessary to prop up western capitalism and prevent a replay of the 1930's economic crash, i.e. to keep the bankers happy. With Vietnam still actually winding down in 1975, with the CIA still engaged in Southeast Asia, with Americans outraged and relieved that that war was finally over, Tucker was planning a NEW WAR to seize this 400-mile bare strip of shoreline without trees or people (no substantial centers of population), as much more feasible than Vietnam. "Seizing Arab Oil" in Harper's, by "Miles Ignotus" in 1975 (a pseudonym for the real Edward Luttwak - some thought H. Kissinger), "a Washington-based professor and defense consultant with intimate links to high-level U.S. policymakers" -- a Pentagon-CIA operative -- about how the 'cruel' Saudi/OPEC cartel  hurts poor helpless Indian farmers who need kerosene (as if he really cared), and hurts poor Americans who want to go to "Yellowstone" in their 8-cyl cars. Or do you think Luttwak was more concerned about OPEC impacting the profit margins of the Ruling Elite bankers and Wall Street corporate directors to whom the Pentagon and CIA owes it's allegiance? Luttwak published this detailed plan for seizing Saudi Arabia in Harper's - a blueprint for invading and seizing Iraq. Lawrence Mosher Pentagon analyst writing in 1978, expressing the need for a pretext to go to war, drafted a plan for use of "the U.S. 100,000 Quick Strike Force, which consists of three divisions rapidly deployable anywhere by air. "... but one needs a 'real bogeyman' to come in and have to be stopped ...". Changing the Target from Saudis to Saddam The Best Enemies Money Can Buy by Mike Ruppert By the mid-80's, the focus had changed from Saudi Arabia to Iraq as a first target.  Brent Scowcroft who once served as National Security Advisor to President George H.W. Bush (41), expands upon this, adding that pressing the United Nations to inititate "an effective no-notice intrusive inspection regime for Iraq"  "anytime, anywhere, no permission required" --- if Saddam refuses any such requests or escalating demands, this "might create the persuasive casus belli", the pretext, to get the public and the world to buy in. (def: casus belli - an event used to start a war) James Baker (Sec of State under Bush 41)  later repeats what Scowcroft says in more detail. On September 23, 1990, U.S. Secretary of State James Baker testified before a congressional committee that the United States sought a "permanent military presence" in the Gulf, but we were rebuffed by Arab residents.  It was James Baker who pushed Saddam to invade Kuwait, via his emissaries, April Glaspie and her assistant Joseph Wilson. "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America" - April Glaspie as taped by Saddam  .. goading Saddam with remarks about Saudi "wimps who don't want to defend themselves." (Joseph Wilson's wife Valerie Plame is currently the focus of the Patrick Fitzgerald prosecution of Scooter Libby, Cheney's adviser, characterized as "A Falling-Out Amongst Theives" by those who know.) Brent Scowcroft was encouraging Kuwait to take liberties with Iraqi borders (seizing 90km of Iraqi land) and oil fields near Rumaila (using equipment from Scowcroft's company Santa Fe Drilling), while simultaneously Joseph Wilson (along with his counterpart April Glaspie) was encouraging Iraq to rectify the border problem created by Kuwait --- a Kissingerian playing of both sides against each other. Joe Wilson was sitting in on high-level meetings with Tariq Aziz of Iraq, encouraging him to invade Kuwait. to "rectify his borders" and take back the 900 sq kilometers Kuwait stole while Saddam's forces were busy helping the US destroy Iran.  (Israel -- a.k.a. America -- was simultaneously funding Iran, secretly from Saddam.) Just prior to this, Brent Scowcroft was secretly encouraging Kuwait to seize Iraqi land and steal Iraqi oil, and Kuwait bought the Santa Fe Drilling Company, owned by Gen. Scowcroft and pals, for $2.3 billion, to start slant-drilling $14 billion worth of Iraqi Oil. "Slant-drilling is enough to get you shot in Texas, and it's certainly enough to start a war in the Mideast." - liberal Mother Jones article This means the real purpose US-UN weapons inspections of Iraq was never meant to legitimately locate and dispose of the WMDs which the US and Germany had sold Saddam in the first place --- though we spent untold millions on that "make-work project" ---  rather, inspections were designed as a ruse to justify later invasion. very brief ARTICLE on IRAQ-US HISTORY in LYING for Empire THE GEORGE H BUSH FORMULA FOR THE WAR WITH IRAQ: PREVENT NEGOTIATIONS AT ALL COST President G.H.W. Bush lied on many occasions to achieve America’s military and foreign policy initiatives. He rejected all of Iraq's efforts to negotiate with counterfeit rationales and he lied about Iraq's military strength and intentions. Denis Haliday and Han von Sponeck quit the Iraq - Oil-for-Food program during the Clinton administration, saying they refused to administer a genocide. Samuel Huntington finally revealed his objective bluntly. He argued shamelessly that it was necessary to find an enemy for America to save it from disintegration. He added that only through identifying enemies, America can define itself and keep its identity from breaking down!   (Ahh, so it's our 'identity' that's at stake.) EARLIER:  In 1961, Iraqi leader Abdel Karim Qassim spoke out very strongly for the return of Kuwait ... the Baghdad CIA station chief gave the order to kill Qassim to an aggressive young hustler named Saddam Hussein. Saddam did the job very well, killed and tortured other radicals and trade unionists and began his rise to power in the Baath Party with our backing. Saddam key in early CIA plot The USA and Western Allies MADE Saddam into their petro-errand boy. United Press International has interviewed almost a dozen former U.S. diplomats, British scholars and former U.S. intelligence officials to piece together the following account. The CIA declined to comment on the report. While many have thought that Saddam first became involved with U.S. intelligence agencies at the start of the September 1980 Iran-Iraq war, his first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim. Of course, the allies all got in their fair share, the UK/FRA/GER Emporium Made Saddam a Most Well Armed Nutjob. And as long as he was doing our killing, we were happy. Now who gave Saddam Hussein the technology to kill? Companies like Matrix Churchill and Industrias Cardoen Limitada. How do I know this? U.S. Rep. Henry Gozalez, Tom Lantos and other members of my government – and even Spiro Agnew’s speechwriter – told me so. How the U.S. Armed Iraq BY WILLIAM SAFIRE George Bush's decision, after the Iran-Iraq war ended, to entrust regional security to Saddam Hussein. What is not yet widely understood is how that benighted policy led to the Bush Administration's fraudulent use of public funds, its sustained deception of Congress and its obstruction of justice. As the Saudi Ambassador, Prince Bandar, was urging Mr. Bush and Mr. Baker to buy the friendship of the Iraqi dictator in August 1989, the F.B.I. uncovered a huge scam at the Atlanta branch of the Lavoro Bank to finance the buildup of Iraq's war machine by diverting U.S.-guaranteed grain loans. Instead of pressing the investigation or curbing the appeasement, the President turned a blind eye to lawbreaking and directed another billion dollars to Iraq. Our State and Agriculture Department's complicity in Iraq's duplicity transformed what could have been dealt with as `Saddam's Lavoro scandal' into George Bush's Iraqgate. The first element of corruption is the wrongful application of U.S. credit guarantees. Neither the Commodity Credit Corporation nor the Export-Import Bank runs a foreign-aid program; their purpose is to stimulate U.S. exports. High-risk loan guarantees to achieve foreign-policy goals unlawful endanger that purpose. Yet we now know that George Bush personally leaned on Ex-Im to subvert its charter--not to promote our exports but to promote relations with the dictator. And we have evidence that James Baker overrode worries in Agriculture and O.M.B. that the law was being perverted: Mr. Baker's closest aid, Robert Kimmett, wrote triumphantly, `your call to . . . Yeutter . . . paid off.' Former Agriculture Secretary Clayton Yeutter is now under White House protection. Second element of corruption is the misleading of Congress. When the charge was made two years ago in this space that State was improperly intervening in this case, Mr. Baker's top Middle East aide denied it to Senate Foreign Relations; meanwhile, Yeutter aides deceived Senator Leahy's Agriculture Committee about the real foreign-policy purpose of the C.C.C. guarantees. To carry out Mr. Bush's infamous National Security Directive 26, lawful oversight was systematically blinded. Third area of Iraqgate corruption is the obstruction of justice. Atlanta's assistant U.S. Attorney Gail McKenzie, long blamed here for foot-dragging, would not withhold from a grand jury what she has already told friends: that indictment of Lavoro officials was held up for nearly a year by the Bush Criminal Division. The long delay in prosecution enabled James Baker to shake credits for Saddam out of malfeasant Agriculture appointees. Annals of Government - [How the US Armed Iraq] In the Loop: Bush's Secret Mission  (more details) The roots of the covert policies go back to November 4, 1979, after the fall of the Shah, when the seizure of hostages at the United States Embassy in Teheran destroyed America's relations with Iran, formerly its surrogate in the region. When Iraq invaded Iran, on September 22, 1980, the United States and Israel found themselves in a bizarre and perplexing three-dimensional chess game. Iran was even more important to Israel than it was to the United States: the Israelis bought oil from and sold arms to Iran. More significant, Iran had provided a counterweight to Saddam Hussein's Iraq, which had long been fiercely anti-Israel, and which if it won, could confront the Israelis with a potentially lethal threat. Officially the United States was neutral in the Iran-Iraq War. But from the onset two factions within the Reagan Administration struggled over which country posed the greater threat to United States interest. That struggle became the most acrimonious intra-Administration foreign conflict of the entire Reagan-Bush era, with each faction funneling substantial amounts of arms to one side or the other. One bloc, which included the national-security adviser, Robert C. McFarlane, and two members of his national Security Council staff, Howard Teicher and Oliver North, argued in favor of arming Iran, for two reasons: to enhance Israel's security and to facilitate better relations with an ascendant military, economic, and strategic power in the looming post-Khomeini era. Indeed, as early as 1979 Teicher had written a highly classified study endorsing Israel's view that Saddam's Iraq, not Khomeini's Iran, would ultimately pose the greater threat to the security of the Gulf region. The pro-Iraq faction, led by Secretary of Defense Weinberger, of State George Shultz, and Assistant Secretary Richard Murphy, raised the specter of Iran's Islamic fundamentalism spreading throughout the Persian Gulf and endangering the moderate governments of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and thus the West's oil supplies. "Many of us thought it would be better if Iraq won," Weinberger has told the Los Angeles Times in an interview. ... When, in early 1980, the Israeli Defense Minister, Ariel Sharon, had proposed that Israel covertly sell United States arms to Iran, Carter angrily said no. But Israeli intelligence continued to cultivate contacts with Iran. ... in late 1980, without authorization from the Carter Administration, Israel began covert sales to Iran of American arms from its own stockpiles. Reagan's first Secretary of State, Alexander Haig, spelled out the policy: "Let me state categorically today there will be no military equipment provided to the government of Iran." The American people, George Bush would say in a speech years later, regarded the Ayatollah's Iran with "an understandable animosity, a hatred, really,"  Between December, 1981, and March, 1982, Satterfield said, it became apparent that Israel was not submitting lists for approval and was providing United States arms that went beyond F-4 spare parts. He said he had firsthand knowledge of at least fifty-three million dollars' worth of United States supplies sent to Iran by Israel. In an article in the New York Times last December, Seymour Hersh reported that "Israeli and American intelligence officials acknowledged that weapons, ammunition and spare parts worth several billion dollars flowed to Iran each year during the early 1980's."  The arms transfers appear to violate the Arms Export Control Act, a federal law that prohibits a recipient country from transferring "United States-origin" munitions to a third country without written permission from the United States. When such transfers are made, the same law requires that the President immediately notify Congress. Reports that Iran might win revived fears that the Islamic revolution would threaten America's oil interests in the region. As a report by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee later put it, the choice was "between permitting Iran to dominate the West's oil supply in the Persian Gulf and direct U.S. military intervention." Congress, of course, was unaware of the irony behind the new dilemma: Iran's chances of victory were high partly because the Administration had allowed it to buy United States arms. Weinberger was one of the most vehement opponents of covert arms sales to Iran. "It was insanity," he told us. "How could you send arms to the Ayatollah when he was sworn to destroy us?"  Iraqgate, however, discomforts Weinberger. When he was asked about Defense Department proposals to send arms to Iraq, he said, "The little that I know was that it was all handled by the C.I.A." On being pressed, he admitted, "There might have been a role by some people in the Pentagon. But I didn't keep a hand in that." Finally, he was shown two highly classified memos sent directly to him in 1982 and 1983 outlining Defense Department proposals to arm Saddam Hussein. He then refused to discuss the matter any further on the record, citing national-security concerns. other ways of arming Iraq. One such way - transferring arms through third countries - was outlined in a classified memo written by William L. Eagleton, the chief of the United States-interests section in Baghdad, in October, 1983. "We can selectively lift restrictions on third party transfers of U.S.- licensed military equipment to Iraq," he wrote. Even though the stated United States policy toward the Iran-Iraq War remained one of neutrality, and Congress would never have approved such arms transfers, that year the Reagan Administration began secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs, to Iraq. These shipments may very well have violated the Arms Export Control Act. JONATHAN POLLARD: ....the photos that I turned over to the Israelis were of a number of Iraqi chemical weapons manufacturing plants which the government did not want to admit existed. Why? ....What the administration was really concerned about was being placed in a position where it would have to admit that it had tacitly condoned the creation of an Iraqi chemical weapons manufacturing capability. ABC Radio Interview with Esther Pollard Esther Pollard, wife of the controversially imprisoned Jonathan Pollard. Interviewed by John Batchelor and Aaron Klein. Interview centers on Israeli Army Radio announcement of a proposed deal whereby the U.S. would free Jonathan Pollard in return for Israeli's freeing of jailed terrorist leader and convicted murderer Marwan Barghouti.     * Click here to listen. Al-Qaida is the "invisible enemy", like the Communist Red Menace bogeyman of the Cold War, the casus belli of the Vietnam War and Korea and fifty to sixty-some other US actions since 1945. MORE ON IRAQ Story About Oil You NEED To know - NYMEX and London vs. the Iranian bourse (exchange) BACK TO PREVIOUS Seizing Arab Oil LINK

I think Howard Zinn  (and his ilk)  provides a naïve viewpoint on war, an honest but relatively weak emotional appeal against war --- which should appeal to broad sectors of society, but is ineffective against strong pro-war propaganda ---possibly his role is intentional, or at least the funding that promotes him knows he's a manageable threat.   Maybe softness and naïveté just Howard's style, OR maybe he's part of the neutered co-opted Left keeping the grants flowing from tax-free foundations tied to the CIA and War Production.  www.leftgatekeepers.com   
I have no idea about Zinn's relationship with grant money or publishing but he seems to avoid serious strong analysis and simplification about WHY we go to war, which the American Public needs to grasp, and which Peace Activists could readily use for serious debate.

I've never heard Zinn talk about the old anti-Interventionist Conservative trend, which pre-dated the 60's and was not confined to Quakers or Pacifists or Socialists.

check these out later, please basic audio talk on neocons Pretexts for War with James Bamford  on the weekendinterviewshow he revealed Operation Northwoods memo in Body of Secrets about the NSA (below) -- an extreme Machiavellian interventionist plan that involved covertly killing Americans to launch World War III --- not the first time for sacrificing Americans to justify war (Phillipines) www.weekendinterviewshow.com/InterviewDisplay.aspx?i=21   The Old Cause of non-interventionism from an old conservative viewpoint www.antiwar.com/stromberg/s092199.html Why Empire - What makes (Uncle) Sammy run? (one viewpoint going back to McKinley in the late 1800's, who was opposed by the conservative non-interventionist, and the anti-Imperialist league) (ironically it was Democrats who became the "tax and spend" imperialist warmongers, who old conservatives say "bought off" the public with federal aid programs, while they expanded govt with buy-in from privileged corporate and financial sectors)  ... review of the specifically American context of the American empire  ...  For all their talk of "free trade," US leaders pursued something very different.  The classic Manchester School doctrine held that free trade simply involves trading with people.  The freer world trade becomes, the more likely it is that there will be peace, as nations become economically interdependent. Richard Cobden, John Bright, and their school never suggested that you first create an international new world order presided over by One Good Power in order then to have free trade.  The neo-mercantilist strategy favored in the US State and Defense (War) departments amounts to what the late Murray Rothbard referred to as "inverted" or "right-wing" Leninism, which accepts the Leninist analysis of the relation between politics and economics but draws the conclusion that imperial shaping of economic life is necessary and good.   In some places they joke about how when the the military was used strictly for defense it was called the War Dept, but when it got hijacked to launch imperialist wars, it was renamed the Defense Dept.   http://pwp.netcabo.pt/netmendo/portfolio%20joseph%20stromberg.htm recent headline:  Bush says Iran "a threat" So many remotely “possible attacks” have been adduced to justify US annexations and preemptive interventions that it takes Weinberg nearly a whole page to list them (see pp. 406-407).   The mind-boggling result “resembles almost a progressive madness, and certainly has all the multiplicity of a crazy quilt” (p. 406).  Such “a hysterical apprehensiveness” (p. 406) and “extremism” derive “from the assumption that since the dangers of international life are not always calculable by reason, defense should err on the side of madness rather than reasonableness.  more below   http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/stromberg_chodorov.html To put it bluntly: Communism (they mean Totalitarianism) will not be imported from Moscow; it will come out of Wall Street and Main Street" – if business itself failed to make the proper distinction between state and market.

 

Trickery and Treachery - pretexts for other wars   History is boring, after it's been sanitized of intrigue.  I've been studying real history -- not taught in state schools -- about the occasions Americans (and other people) have been tricked into Wars and Systems based on excuses, platitudes, and contrived Shock-and-Awe events.  Edward Bernays' work on mass psychology and propaganda plus High-tech media makes it formulaic to yank the rabble around with emotionally-potent simplifications, subliminal messages, false realities, and staged crises.  The Church Committee heard real testimony on Operation Mockingbird, which was influence and infiltration of domestic media, up to 3000 paid writers.  Your gut must tell you, Mockingbird hasn't gone away, but expanded globally.   Some dark wits call 9-11 "the Zapruder Film Festival".  Sadly, it fits -- more than you know.  A live psy-op with real dead people.  But it's not the first time.   Fabricated crises include sinking of the Maine (Spanish-American War), sinking of the Lusitania (WWI), sinking the Kearny plus Pearl Harbor (WWII), ostensibly the engineered fleecing of the the Great Depression, conflict in North Korea (varying reports on which side invaded to launch this UN war), Cold War paranoia to match Stalin's, Gulf of Tonkin (Vietnam), events around the Iran hostage crisis (Iran-Iraq proxy war, with US and Israel funding opposite sides), Iraq's invasion of Kuwait (Desert Storm), War on Drugs (hysteria campaign for false reasons), Operation "Iraqi Freedom", the misuse of US troops and/or Clandestine Services for proxy conflicts in over sixty locations, threats to "National Interests" --- bloodshed, maimed and dead, scarred souls, grief, moral decay, murdered innocents, destruction, Trillions stolen -- EACH hinged on pretexts and official deceptions. To highlight these I"m going to borrow terms publicized around 9-11 controversy, LIHOP "let it happen on purpose" and MIHOP "made it happen on purpose". By the way, these are 100% identical in terms of govt complicity.  If they "let it happen on purpose", they're guilty of treason.  In some sense, perhaps LIHOP is slightly less evil than MIHOP, but tell that to the jury. LIHOP and MIHOP diverge on the theory and question of actual or fictional hostile enemies, and the hypothetical question of where do WE go from here.  That is to say, if we were attacked by a real Al-Qaeda network, then we still have to address that issue, even IF Bush did know.  (Well chill out, we DO need to fix America's foreign policy of harming innocent people and plunder, but not because Al-CIA-Duh is waging war on us.) The Operation Northwoods memo, declassified and growing in fame, was a plan signed off by the Joint Chiefs in 1962, described in the book Body of Secrets by Bamford.  The military effort was to provoke Cuba to attack US forces -- LIHOP.  The Clandestine fallback plan was to stage elaborate attacks on American military and on civilians in Miami and DC, to lay blame on Cuba.  Clearly a MIHOP plan, with fictional enemies, or total LIE-HOP. G. Edward Griffin, a staid classic conservative libertarian, describes the tactics American leaders used to get into World War I and World War II: with official USG documentation by far right co-founder of the John Birch Society, G. Edward Griffin (careful, the John Birch Society has been tied to the CFR and CIA, the very organizations they claim to oppose, so the "spin" is that THIS is communism) aggravate  facilitate  insulate . Aggravate the intended enemy into attacking you. Facilitate his attack to make it easy with no oppostion. Insulate the victims from any knowledge which would let them escape their fate. This is part of NATIONAL POLICY found in a) Navy Archives written by Lt. Commander Arthur McCollum  October 7, 1940 b) Robert Stinnett’s book, Day of Deceit; The Truth about FDR and Peal Harbor http://www.silverbearcafe.com/infamy.html SERIES:  http://www.silverbearcafe.com/futurecalling.html Griffin denounces collectivism -- a central philosophy with which he describes Fascism, Communism, and Fabianism, all three. (I disagree, but I concede his perspective.) (Griffin was actually one of the founding members of the John Birch Society.  Here's his explanation on how JBS was demonized in the press.) Totalitarian collectivism is the NEO-CONSERVATIVE philosophy.  Changing the world through murder, ostensibly for the greater good of all, except the dead. apologies to any Leftist friends who believe in a Socialism which is grassroots NOT Totalitarian http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/ http://www.silverbearcafe.com/terrorwar.html Griffin reveals how Sinking the Lusitania, driving the USS Kearny in between fighting German and British forces, and Pearl Harbor itself, were all LIHOP events. Internal Govt Memos revealed how the Lusitania was "unfortunately" sunk. Newspaper warnings from the Germans were suppressed by the State Dept, but one popped up in the Des Moines Register. The ship was loaded with ammunition (illegal, confirmed) and sent to sea with 2000 passengers as "human shields" or actually targets. Then as it entered hostile seas near England, 1 of 4 engines were ordered cut, and it's destroyer escort was taken away. So you see, "unfortunately it just had no protection" and "unfortunately the passengers died", and we "unfortunately joined in on World War 1", on which JP Morgan had a huge war bond investment.  See Silverbear or FFI links for more. The sinking of the USS Maine and Gulf of Tonkin were clearly LIE-HOP.  Captain Sigsbee did not believe his friendly Spanish hosts sank his ship, but Hearst newspapers insisted they did.  The Gulf of Tonkin attack never happened at all. Yes, even World War II.  Wall Street investors and US industrialists (mostly in New York) had funded the Hitler campaign since the mid 1930's. They helped Nazi industry like IG Farben before, and even during and after WW2. (Prescott Bush had Nazi dealings thru 1951, according to Hoover and Congress.) Saddam, Al-Qaeda, and various Death Squads were trained and funded for ulterior motives --- similar to the Nazis, killing Leftists and destablizing liberal democratic govts or movements --- on our dime and with our blood, and our loss of Liberty. Operation Mongoose has also been declassified.  The point of that plan was to aggravate Cuba into attacking America --- OR if that didn't work, then Operation Northwoods was the plan to stage elaborate FAKE terrorist attacks on America, and blame them on Cuba. If McNamara and Kennedy had not said "No", the Joint Chiefs would have done that Shock and Awe in 1962, murdering Americans to fight communism, as they turned us into a "communist" dictatorship in the process. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was LIHOP.  On one end, we had Gen. Scowcroft of National Security, selling his Santa Fe Drilling Co. to Kuwaitis, so they could steal Iraqi Oil.  On the other end, agents of the State Dept., including April Glaspie and Valerie Plame's husband Joe Wilson, encouraged Saddam to "rectify his borders".  The big fake scandal of Iraqi abuse of Incubator babies was complete LIE-HOP, as were news videos made by PR firms and fake grassroots groups. Sept 11 skeptics comprise a range of people, from those who use caution and accuracy, to those who seem to be intentionally whacky, who mix-and-match 95% fact with 5% fiction, or stretch fact and mix it with unpalatable "poison pill" issues, like UFO's, overt Jew-bashing, or extreme rightist religion.  Considering the growing sophistication of propaganda since 1963, it is likely that some of these "truth-seekers" are either dupes or agents of the CIA.  This is what N.E.D. does for a living, creates fake Leftist groups, controls unions, and invades grassroots Leftist movements to 'help' them implode, as well as passing on membership lists to their enemies.   Who said "Let Osama go free?"  The past Exec Dir. of the CIA.  Our President basically agreed.  Who fought and won "diplomatic immunity" for Saudi royalty, against legal query into it's accounts?  The Baker-Botts law firm, our President's attorney, fmr Sec-State James A. Baker.  Who created Al-Qaeda in the first place?  The National Security Council appointee Brzezinski, and CIA.  When did we last use them?  Officially, in the 90s in Bosnia, per the Republican Party (quietly).  The existence of an NGO in Chechnya called ACPC seems to mean we're still involved with Islamic Jihadists, under the pretext of peace.  Well, Al-Qaeda is right wing .. it's to be expected. Now, the Global Forever War on Terror, ongoing entanglements with Israel.  Hermann Goering said, "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, denounce the pacifists for their lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."  It's like watching re-runs.  The official reports on Iraq are re-runs of our success in Vietnam news.   Schools, government, news and entertainment, even "alternative", many major industries and finance, most have been infected, subverted, and compromised by Tax-Free Foundations, leftgatekeepers, and PR firms.  Pervasive fear, even hysteria  -- real or imaginary -- is scripted and mixed with banal gossip.  Decent folks driven into chaos, collectivist Totalitarianism, a.k.a. Globalist New Freedom.  "It's for our security."  Bull.  Tyranny is the plan, not a side-effect.   James Madison wrote that war is an enemy leading to domination and loss of freedom.  Marine Gen. Smedley Butler wrote "War is a Racket".  We must wise up, resist the clever puppetmasters, wake up other open-minded people across political lines, and preserve our precious Liberty and Peace while we can still remember these were traditional values. The Plot to Overthrow FDR (Smedley D. Butler)  Video Cassette  BUY expanded version of my LETTER TO COMMONDREAMS- END

Barnett has a cute, compelling article in Esquire "Dear Mr. President" and several books out.  He wants peace with Iran, for Iran to help "stabilize" Iraq, and peace with China --- both with strings attached --- and he wants threats-possibly-leading-to-war with North Korea, with options of exiling or killing Kim il-Jong.  All in the name of Future Peace and Prosperity for his children.

He paints a pretty picture of the Pentagon at times, using euphemisms for war and prosperity, talks like a teenager about "cool exploits".  He says the military does great things -- like protecting Wall Street and creating global wealth by joining with allies in the Core, making allies out of potential military rivals in the young Core (China), and by waging war and 'peacekeeping' against "enemies" in the Gap -- the poor ---  forcing them to "shape up" and join Globalization with the prospect of Western prosperity.  Like El Salvador and Bolivia.  Like Africa.

"Gap" countries do include some 'primitive' cultures which are partly ruled by feudal religions (Afghanistan). 

But Barnett doesn't discuss how we helped to put the warlords in power over others deemed "too Left" --- how the IMF and World Bank blackmail intentionally engineered poverty in "the Gap" to make them ripe for exploitation via cheap labor and free resources.  Resistance to such repression and thievery is often the only thing that labels these "Gap" countries "terrorist".

Tom Barnett supports a vision of "benign global prosperity" brought about by forces John Perkins describes as Economic Hitmen, backed by freelance "jackals" - assassins -  who have CIA support, and if all else fails, the US military.

watch this stunning interview later

www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/03/1435206&mode=thread&tid=25

www.johnperkins.org

"world of intrigue reads like a spy novel…."

“Resisting threats and bribes, Perkins has produced an unflinching and forceful insider’s look at how the U.S. government, multinational ‘aid’ organizations and corporations are following a dangerous path in their pursuit of oil and other resources.”

www.economichitman.com

Former “Economic Hit Man” John Perkins on “The First Truly Global Empire” and its Impact on Latin America

about his former work going into various countries to create a secret empire through economics after being recruited by the National Security Agency.

ARE AMERICANS WILLING TO GO TO WAR FOR WALL STREET INTERESTS and the "global prosperity by force", which Barnett makes his entire career engineering?

Ray McGovern has clearly stated that Tonkin was a LIE, but a "lie of convenience".  It popped up, LBJ needed a pretext, so he just ran with it. On the other hand, Bush's lies are pre-meditated and made up wholecloth.  Ray McGovern is now a "peace activist" leading a Public Inquiry for Bush and Co. on War Crimes.  He's retired CIA, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.   He's probably a decent Christian man as he describes his background and activities with religion and bringing good to the world.. What CIA and Ruling Elites really fear -- besides the CIA being sidelined by the neocons' own intelligence outfit  -- is the economic cost of full-out war, ugly war disasters, and especially a new Vietnam syndrome, a widespread revulsion to war and evaporation of passive trust for government within the mainstream American public, a mental inoculation against very expensive war propaganda.  They hate being exposed as a bunch of goddamn lying imperialist trash killers. Bush is helping to bring about their worst fears in ways that Kerry could never have done.  Kerry would have soothed us to sleep.  Many "peace activists" also work with Democrats to lull the populace to sleep. I first saw McGovern pop up in a film called Uncovered with all kinds of spooky Pentagon and CIA hitmen, like Rand Beers, Robert Baer, Stansfield Turner, and Joseph Wilson.  You have to listen to one of the talks on www.takingaimradio.com  about Gentlemen Killers of the CIA, or the Libby-Plame-Fitzgerald affair to really get a full grasp of who these 'peace-mongers' are.  They seem friendly but are not our friends, even though they oppose Bush. They actually SET Bush and Cheney UP for a massive failure and scandal with fake intelligence, because of their opposition to a 'cowboy' neocon military -- but in favor of a ruthless CIA world empire of economics and assassination and terrorism. from Daniel Ellsberg's "Secrets", pp 419: Nixon observed to Kissinger: "The only place where you and I disagree is with regard to the bombing. You're so godammed concerned about the civilians and I dont give a damn. I don't care." Kissinger responded: "I'm concerned about the civilians because I don't want the world to be mobilized against you as a butcher." www.financialsense.com/transcriptions/Kaplan.htm ROBERT KAPLAN: Well, first of all, realism has a specific definition in foreign affairs. Here are a few parts of the definition. Realism in foreign affairs assumes that domestic politics operates within the confines of law. Foreign policy, though, operates in a lawless realm. The kind of morality we apply overseas in dealing with our adversaries is a more limited, sadder morality than we apply at home. Realism also means that all moral questions of human rights, democracy, etc. are ultimately questions of power. Realism assumes that sometimes you have to perpetrate a certain amount of evil in order to do a greater amount of good. These are all aspects of realism in foreign affairs. I think the United States, right now, under President Bush, is what I would call a classically realist foreign policy. blogger's comment:  Kaplan's style of pompous bootlicking and childish notions of realpolitick never go out of style. Kaplan's Nazi statement -- which is part of US policy and public thinking -- means that discussions of Morality cannot "assume" morality as a pre-existing argument or human value. These guys are proud of being AMORAL and inhuman, and many take pleasure in ruthlessness.  This sideways plays into the Bohemian Grove thing where world leaders participate in a "Cremation of Care" ritual involving simulated human sacrifice. My personal argument is, I WOULD KILL someone who attacked me --- and worry about mushy morality later --- but not wage war over some vague "threat" or manufacture a PRETEXT for murder.  I've never killed anyone because they "dissed" me or because I "felt threatened". Anyhow, McGovern does not exactly say he's for 'peace'. He says he's for 'sanity'. But so did Shinseki and others fired by Rummy, who said we needed a draft and 500,000 men to take down Iraq -- or nothing.  It's more strategic differences.  They'd much rather have milked their little oil puppet Saddam with another decade or more of sanctions and UN 'peacekeeping' control combined with daily bombings.  They engineered that scam 27 years ago.  Why fix what's not broken?  They equate "peace" with "pacification", whereas we all know that peace is gentle whereas "pacification" is wrought through terror, the eupehmism first brought up during Vietnam, "pacification of the Vietnamese people". "Winning Hearts and Minds" was mostly a euphemism for terror.  Their 'peace' includes what UN directors of Oil-for-Food Halliday and Von Sponeck called "genocide" when they quit in protest.  When people die of dysentery, typhoid, cholera, starvation, radiation poisoning etc. they die quietly and relatively peacefully compared to 2000 lb bombs, but they are just as dead. That's why the co-opted branch of the peace movement (UFPJ and 2) wants to limit discussion to "Bring Troops Home Now" --- which is woefully inadequate.  It's a catchy slogan, but when most of the troops come home -- which is what the CIA and Brzezinski and Kissinger types want anyhow -- you're out of business, and the real problems are nowhere near being solved or even addressed.  The public is kept stupidified and passified. So, is Ray McGovern seriously for peace and justice and liberty?  Or just against crazy Neo-Cons?  I think the latter.

www.smplanet.com/imperialism/gift.html

counterpoint:

In the months following the Spanish-American War, the winds of expansionism blew strongly across the United States. There was a lot of talk about "Manifest Destiny," and many people suggested that America should assume its role as a world power.
In Congress, legislators called for the annexation of all Spanish territories. Some newspapers even suggested the annexation of Spain itself.
Expansionists such as Roosevelt, former President Harrison, and Captain Mahan argued for creating an American empire. Others, including Grover Cleveland, Andrew Carnegie, and Mark Twain, opposed these ideas.  An anti-imperialist essay by Andrew Carnegie

"Congratulations," Andrew Carnegie wrote to a leading expansionist. "You seem to have about finished your work of civilizing the Filipinos. It is thought that about eight thousand of them have been completely civilized and sent to heaven. I hope you like it."
John D. Rockefeller was a protégé of Carnegie, yet he was quite ruthless, in business and in world governance.  I think that shows the split btw. the Tri-Lateral Commission types seeking economic domination and clandestine ops, vs. the more overt military types.