Korean Job Discussion Forums

[dbee]

Anyway, as I watching another 911 video on google, I got to wondering exactly how many of the great wars of the 20th century had spectacular and 'unprovoked' atrocities leading up to them.

It's well known that democracies and large populations in general, usually hesitate to go to war unless pushed by their government for some reason or other. I guess that's why modern democratic governments have so little power, and are never given free reign to do anything unless it's in a time of 'emergency'.

Anyway, just a informal catalogue of the great wars of the 20th/21st century (mostly from a Western point of view).

WWI: The sinking of the Lusitania

The British 'passenger' vessel that was sailing from the US to GB. Supposedly carrying only passengers and thus classified as a civilian vessel, it got torpedoed by a German U-boat off the coast of Ireland sinking with nearly 1,200 passengers and bringing the US into the war.

What was covered up at the time, but what has been recently confirmed by dive teams, is that the supposedly 'neutral' vessel, was in fact carrying a large store of gunpowder and ammunition. None of this seemed to be particularly well hidden from German eyes and ears. Much of the ammunition was labelled as 'cheese'. Although it must have been known that the Lusitania didn't have refridgerated units that could carry cheese across the Atlantic.

For this voyage, the ship had been stripped of it's usual escort protection and sailed right into German U-boat territory, although all previous voyages it was protected and always sailed into the protection of St. George's Channel. What exactly happened, we may never know - as the British documents concerning the sinking are still classified, almost 90 years after the event.

WWII: Pearl Harbor

The case of WWII is very much the exception in my argument. Perhaps however - as I'll explain later - the exception that proves the rule. In the case of WWII, the evidence of their being a 'conspiracy' or cover-up is flimsy at best. The vast majority of which is either easily disproven or misunderstood.

With regards to it being the 'exception that proves the rule'. I was of course the only major conflict here that wasn't started by the Western powers. Since the Pearl Harbor attack on the States was followed shortly after by a declaration of war by Nazi Germany on the US.

Interestingly enough though, WWII itself was started by a sham incident, staged by Hitler. When he dressed up German soldiers in Polish uniforms and used them to attack a German radio station. Germany of course was a dictatorship, and this small incident was staged - only to serve as a pretext of war to the foreign powers. Since in a dictatorship, unlike a democracy, the leaders don't need to 'trick' their populations into battle....

Vietnam: Gulf of Tonkin

Pretty well covered ground here. The staged 'Gulf of Tonkin' incident, used by the US administration to justify its war and bombing campaign of North Vietnam. Later proved, not to have happened and acknowledged in hindsight as being 'made up'.

Cuba: Bay of Pigs

The invasion that never happened. At the time the CIA had experimented with various plans with regard to 'proving' to the American people that an agressive act had been committed by Cuba against the US.

The plan chosen in the end, was to fake a graduation party of college students flying near Cuban airspace. And to have the plane 'shot down' by Cuban air defences. The CIA in this case had everything sorted for the mission, they had the remote controlled Boeing aircraft rigged with explosives, they'd set up the fake identities 'victims'. All they needed was the presidential signature.

Kennedy, of course declined to run the mission. The bay of Pigs invasion went ahead anyway, but without American military support and ended up being a total failure. Shortly after that Kennedy was shot by a 'lone gunman' in Dallas, in what has widely been proclaimed as one of the worst/biggest cover ups of the modern era.

Chechnya: The Second Invasion

I'm including this war here, because at the time, Russia was democratic and Moscow is closer to Europe than it is to Asia IMO. But most of all because it's a perfect example of what I'm trying to prove.

Many people heard about the Moscow apartment bombings in Russia, supposedly committed by Chechnen rebels. And used by ex-FSB (KGB) director Vladamir Putin, to justify Russia's second invasion of Chechnya.

What wasn't so widely publicized, was the details of those bombings and where the investigation led. It turned out in fact that the bombs were planted by none-other than the FSB themselves. Indeed suspicious residents in a city in Moscows suburbs reported to police when they saw strange men loading bags into a basement apartment during the daytime.

Police subsquently investigated, and sent in the bomb squad - who confirmed that there was in fact huge amounts of hexogen-based explosives with timers and detonation devices set, in the apartment. After the apartments were evacuated and a general alert was put out. An attentive call operator had the good mind to listen in to a long distance phone call put through to Moscow from that city. As she heard the men discuss exit strategies and ways to avoid the police with their 'superiors', she quickly alerted the police to the call. The police then traced the call to the FSB headquarters in Moscow.

Later the men were picked up trying to leave the city. And shortly afterwards citizens idenitified them as the men who had been packing the basement apartment with explosives. The men then identified themselves as FSB agents and were driven out of the city in an FSB car. One of them was subsequently reported to have been killed in a 'hit and run' accident in Cyprus. Putin was labelled 'Mr. Hexogen' by the free Russian press. The apartment bombing story however was quickly replaced on the news by stories of the invasion and war in Chechnya.

Iraq: September 11

I don't think anyone believes that September 11 went down the way the official version describes it at this stage. The investigation was practically hog-tied by the Bush administration. There are numerous gaping holes in the official cover up version.

The number of troops in Afghanistan is tiny compared to the number in Iraq at the moment. And the troops that are there are dug into 'green zones' and barely have a chance to hunt down Bin Laden.

I think Bush's stereotypical fumbling after the September 11 debacle said it all ....

" We are going to make every effort to hunt down ... emmm ... Saddam Hussein .... errr ... I mean, Osama Bin Laden ..."

[W.T.Carl]

You seem to forget the REASON why you are in KOREA ( if you are or ever were in Korea). And as to the Lusitania, that was in 1915. The US did not declare war until April 2nd, 1917, and then only after the Germans declared unrestricted submarine warfare. This is not to say that this was a good idea- just get your facts straight. If you REALLY want to look at a war that the US should not have been in, simply look to Billy Clinton's war against the Serbs. Was Belgrade a threat to the US? I think not.

[Ya-ta Boy]

[W.T.Carl]

Oh, were the Serbs threatening to invade France or any NATO country?

[bucheon bum]

[deadman]

In response to the OP, excellent summary. Intelligent, free-thinking individuals can see current events from a broader perspective such as this and know there is good reason to be suspicicious. Of course, it in no way proves that what happened is any different to the official version, but it definitely measn we should have ZERO tolerance for:
1. Official obstruction of fair investigation.
2. Official withholding of vital evidence
3. Govt instigated media spin and obfuscation
4. Use of perjorative labels on people who don't accept the govt line by the media

[dbee]

[Boodleheimer]

democracies don't "go to war"! they "liberate"!

[Big_Bird]

[Gopher]

[Boodleheimer]

[dbee]

[dbee]

So, I guess what I'm saying is this. You can judge how free and democratic a country is in terms of it's political structure, press and adherence to international laws, by looking at the size of the 'spectacular provocation' that proceeds it's going into a war of aggression with another country.

Of course there are other factors involved, such as historic land-disputes and the like. But the rule generally holds true. Probably even for smaller countries. Also, it's through the UN and the UN alone - that a country legally and morally should undertake a 'war of aggression'. Although the UN certainly needs to be more democratic and powerful if it is to fulfill it's role competently IMO.

[Moldy Rutabaga]

But to consider Russia a functioning democracy during the Chechnya crises is stretching it, to say the least. It might be more accurate to say that, with notable exceptions, weak or stressed democracies tend to take such extreme steps. Both Lenin and Hitler took advantage of new and unstable democracies to foment trouble.

Without provoking an argument, the events of 9/11 and Iraq II are really too recent to have a clear enough understanding of them, and they might not fit into such a theory later on.

Ken:>

[Big_Bird]