|
Culture & Politics » soc.culture.china » Japan is a Colony of the United States
| Japan is a Colony of the United States [message #9177] |
Do, 14 April 2005 10:21 |
|
Japan is a colony of the United States. United States conquered Japan
and
never left. There are still American soldiers and bases in Japan. The
Japanese
constitution is written by the United States. Like a puppet government
of the
United States, Japan always follows American foreign policies. Japan
has never
opposed any American foreign policy.
Because Japan is a colony of the United States, giving Japan a
permanent seat
in the U.N. Security Council is like giving United States another vote
in the
council -- Like a loyal pet, Japan will vote whatever way United States
tells
them to vote.
The real emperor of Japan is George W. Bush -- the American president.
Because
the Japanese emperorship ended when Japan surrendered unconditionally
to the
United States. Real emperors are supposed to have real empires.
The REAL Japanese nationalists already committed hara-kiri to escape
the shame
of allowing united States to conquer Japan into a colony. Tokyo
governor
Shintaro Ishihara and the Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi are clowns
who are
wannabe nationalists. Real Japanese nationalists would never tolerate
Japan
being a colony of any country. Please, everyone, tell Koizumi,
Ishihara, and
to all other Japanese nationalist wannabes, how they are not
nationalists. So
that they would all go away in shame. Once the Japanese nationalist
wannabes
are gone, there will be peace and harmony in East Asia.
|
|
|
| Re: Japan is a Colony of the United States [message #9245 ] |
Do, 14 April 2005 13:32 |
|
and hawaii is a colony of japan
you don't get it yet do you ?
|
|
|
| Re: Japan is a Colony of the United States [message #9255 ] |
Do, 14 April 2005 14:08 |
|
|
Hawaii is occupied by the US. Hawaii is a nation.
|
|
|
| Re: Japan is a Colony of the United States [message #9267 ] |
Do, 14 April 2005 15:06 |
|
|
http://www.stfu.se/
|
|
|
| Re: Japan is a Colony of the United States [message #9295 ] |
Do, 14 April 2005 17:02 |
|
Lmao at Mr. Onigiri... Hawaii will never be a colony of japan. Just
because you brought all the tampons in a drug store doesn't
automatically means you own the drug store.
|
|
|
| Re: Japan is a Colony of the United States [message #9322 ] |
Do, 14 April 2005 17:55 |
|
japan and usa are joined at the hip
you phuc with japan you phuc with uncle sam
that is reality
taiwan might get sold out but japan never
drill away
|
|
|
| Re: Japan is a Colony of the United States [message #9367 ] |
Do, 14 April 2005 20:13 |
|
<JapanIsAColonyOfUSA [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113466860.102056.3710 [at] l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Japan is a colony of the United States. United States conquered Japan
> and
> never left. There are still American soldiers and bases in Japan. The
> Japanese
> constitution is written by the United States. Like a puppet government
> of the
> United States, Japan always follows American foreign policies. Japan
> has never
> opposed any American foreign policy.
>
> Because Japan is a colony of the United States, giving Japan a
> permanent seat
> in the U.N. Security Council is like giving United States another vote
> in the
> council -- Like a loyal pet, Japan will vote whatever way United States
> tells
> them to vote.
>
> The real emperor of Japan is George W. Bush -- the American president.
> Because
> the Japanese emperorship ended when Japan surrendered unconditionally
> to the
> United States. Real emperors are supposed to have real empires.
>
> The REAL Japanese nationalists already committed hara-kiri to escape
> the shame
> of allowing united States to conquer Japan into a colony. Tokyo
> governor
> Shintaro Ishihara and the Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi are clowns
> who are
> wannabe nationalists. Real Japanese nationalists would never tolerate
> Japan
> being a colony of any country. Please, everyone, tell Koizumi,
> Ishihara, and
> to all other Japanese nationalist wannabes, how they are not
> nationalists. So
> that they would all go away in shame. Once the Japanese nationalist
> wannabes
> are gone, there will be peace and harmony in East Asia.
That's why they are totally at a loss.
They suddenly realized that they are isolated in the far east Asia.
I'm sure Japan will move from the total colonial status of the US to a more
independent position, otherwise, there is no respect for Japan from anywhere
in the world, not that it ever existed.
|
|
|
| Re: Japan is a Colony of the United States [message #9368 ] |
Do, 14 April 2005 20:30 |
|
Mr. Onigiri
This is the funniest thing I've heard today. Believe me, Japan and
USA are not joined at the hip. Maybe the japs thinks that way but
definitely not the Americans. Let me put it in another term for ya. You
fuck with uncle sam, he fucks you back 10 times harder. You fuck with
Japan, US will sell you the toys to fuck Japan 10 times harder. You
think uncle sam's best interest is to protect Japan? Nice assumption!
|
|
|
| Re: Japan is a Colony of the United States [message #9486 ] |
Fr, 15 April 2005 05:14 |
|
"Mr. Onigiri" <fujipacific [at] aol.com> writes:
> and hawaii is a colony of japan
>
> you don't get it yet do you ?
That Japan is controlled by the US ?
|
|
|
| Re: Japan is a Colony of the United States [message #9511 ] |
Fr, 15 April 2005 06:44 |
|
"Gos" <gos [at] yours.com> wrote in message
news:1113480498.917449.33250 [at] l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Hawaii is occupied by the US. Hawaii is a nation.
>
You did not know that???
Verno
|
|
|
| Re: Japan is a Colony of the United States [message #9512 ] |
Fr, 15 April 2005 06:42 |
|
"HellBend" <KU.HellBoy [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113490967.724810.24490 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Lmao at Mr. Onigiri... Hawaii will never be a colony of japan. Just
> because you brought all the tampons in a drug store doesn't
> automatically means you own the drug store.
Hawaii can't be colonized because of too many obese
islanders
Verno
|
|
|
| Re: Japan is a Colony of the United States [message #9537 ] |
Fr, 15 April 2005 07:52 |
|
In article <115uhi1jkf7rg02 [at] corp.supernews.com>, v... [at] oyama.bc.ca
says...
>
>
> "HellBend" <KU.HellBoy [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1113490967.724810.24490 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > Lmao at Mr. Onigiri... Hawaii will never be a colony of japan. Just
> > because you brought all the tampons in a drug store doesn't
> > automatically means you own the drug store.
>
> Hawaii can't be colonized because of too many obese
> islanders
>
--
Fake, fake-fake-fake!
The previous post is not an authentic Vernon North post.
Verno
--
Check the headers.
|
|
|
| Re: Japan is a Colony of the United States [message #9538 ] |
Fr, 15 April 2005 07:52 |
|
In article <115uhkmd69srq40 [at] corp.supernews.com>, v... [at] oyama.bc.ca
says...
>
> "Gos" <gos [at] yours.com> wrote in message
> news:1113480498.917449.33250 [at] l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > Hawaii is occupied by the US. Hawaii is a nation.
> >
>
> You did not know that???
>
--
Fake, fake-fake-fake!
The previous post is not an authentic Vernon North post.
Verno
--
Check the headers.
|
|
|
| Re: Japan is a Colony of the United States [message #9560 ] |
Fr, 15 April 2005 09:11 |
|
Your statement naive and drivel crap. What makes you wish that japan is a
isolated
nation? Unless japan stop exporting their
little damn good Honda which i love Honda...
Everyone knows that Honda is far better than Hyundai
"Supertech" <ejone2 [at] global.net> wrote in message
news:Apy7e.1065$zq4.630 [at] newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>
> <JapanIsAColonyOfUSA [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1113466860.102056.3710 [at] l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > Japan is a colony of the United States. United States conquered Japan
> > and
> > never left. There are still American soldiers and bases in Japan. The
> > Japanese
> > constitution is written by the United States. Like a puppet government
> > of the
> > United States, Japan always follows American foreign policies. Japan
> > has never
> > opposed any American foreign policy.
> >
> > Because Japan is a colony of the United States, giving Japan a
> > permanent seat
> > in the U.N. Security Council is like giving United States another vote
> > in the
> > council -- Like a loyal pet, Japan will vote whatever way United States
> > tells
> > them to vote.
> >
> > The real emperor of Japan is George W. Bush -- the American president.
> > Because
> > the Japanese emperorship ended when Japan surrendered unconditionally
> > to the
> > United States. Real emperors are supposed to have real empires.
> >
> > The REAL Japanese nationalists already committed hara-kiri to escape
> > the shame
> > of allowing united States to conquer Japan into a colony. Tokyo
> > governor
> > Shintaro Ishihara and the Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi are clowns
> > who are
> > wannabe nationalists. Real Japanese nationalists would never tolerate
> > Japan
> > being a colony of any country. Please, everyone, tell Koizumi,
> > Ishihara, and
> > to all other Japanese nationalist wannabes, how they are not
> > nationalists. So
> > that they would all go away in shame. Once the Japanese nationalist
> > wannabes
> > are gone, there will be peace and harmony in East Asia.
>
>
> That's why they are totally at a loss.
>
> They suddenly realized that they are isolated in the far east Asia.
>
> I'm sure Japan will move from the total colonial status of the US to a
more
> independent position, otherwise, there is no respect for Japan from
anywhere
> in the world, not that it ever existed.
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Japan is a Colony of the United States [message #9701 ] |
Fr, 15 April 2005 17:17 |
|
In article <115uq8fk62m9v5b [at] corp.supernews.com>, v... [at] oyama.bc.ca
says...
> Your statement naive and drivel crap. What makes you wish that japan is a
> isolated
> nation? Unless japan stop exporting their
> little damn good Honda which i love Honda...
> Everyone knows that Honda is far better than Hyundai
>
If you're going to fake my posts, at least learn to post in competent
English.
You've failed TOEFL -- Test of English as a Forging Language.
BWAAAHAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAHAAA!
Verno
--
Check the headers.
|
|
|
| Re: Japan is a Colony of the United States [message #10357 ] |
So, 17 April 2005 16:56 |
|
Vernon North wrote:
> "HellBend" <KU.HellBoy [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1113490967.724810.24490 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > Lmao at Mr. Onigiri... Hawaii will never be a colony of japan. Just
> > because you brought all the tampons in a drug store doesn't
> > automatically means you own the drug store.
>
> Hawaii can't be colonized because of too many obese
> islanders
>
> Verno
Man, those Islanders can get really big. Somebody told me it's the
starch in their diet. They eat alot of yams and potatos I guess.
|
|
|
| Re: Japan is a Colony of the United States [message #10446 ] |
Mo, 18 April 2005 00:50 |
|
JapanIsAColonyOfUSA [at] hotmail.com wrote:
> Japan is a colony of the United States.
lol...that's news to me! Allie maybe, colony no. Japan for the most
part does what it wants.....as do we all.
> United States conquered Japan and never left. There are still
American > soldiers and bases in Japan.
The U.S. has never left anywhere it's "conquered". That might be a
lesson to others.....but I doubt it.
> Because Japan is a colony of the United States, giving Japan a
> permanent seat in the U.N. Security Council is like giving United
> States another vote in the council.
Only because the U.N. isn't being a good colony of the U.S. lately. lol
> The real emperor of Japan is George W. Bush -- the American
president.
And I'll assume every elected president before and after?
> The REAL Japanese nationalists already committed hara-kiri to escape
> the shame of allowing united States to conquer Japan into a colony.
> Real Japanese nationalists would never tolerate Japan being a colony
of > any country.
First you said they were all dead. Then you say they shouldn't tolerate
it! ...Talk about the dead being restless!
BTW;
Fact: China's 2998 (1 absent) unelected representatives voted
unanamiously to take Taiwan by force if necessary. So maybe you should
look at China's foreign policy before you talk about Japans?
Fact: the U.S. will defend Taiwan from China (they have zero chance of
reclaimation).
Fact: the U.S. will defend S. Korea from N. Korea (also zero chance).
Fact: the U.S. will defend Japan from either (also zero chance).
Notice, the keywords are "U.S. and defend".
Now, doesn't China have some peaceful Bhuddist monks in Tibet to
suppress?
|
|
|
| Re: Japan is a Colony of the United States [message #10456 ] |
Mo, 18 April 2005 01:33 |
|
studio wrote on 4/17/05 3:50 PM:
> JapanIsAColonyOfUSA [at] hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>Japan is a colony of the United States.
>
>
> lol...that's news to me! Allie maybe, colony no. Japan for the most
> part does what it wants.....as do we all.
>
>
>>United States conquered Japan and never left. There are still
>
> American > soldiers and bases in Japan.
>
> The U.S. has never left anywhere it's "conquered". That might be a
> lesson to others.....but I doubt it.
>
>
>>Because Japan is a colony of the United States, giving Japan a
>>permanent seat in the U.N. Security Council is like giving United
>>States another vote in the council.
>
>
> Only because the U.N. isn't being a good colony of the U.S. lately. lol
>
>
>>The real emperor of Japan is George W. Bush -- the American
>
> president.
>
> And I'll assume every elected president before and after?
>
>
>>The REAL Japanese nationalists already committed hara-kiri to escape
>>the shame of allowing united States to conquer Japan into a colony.
>>Real Japanese nationalists would never tolerate Japan being a colony
>
> of > any country.
>
> First you said they were all dead. Then you say they shouldn't tolerate
> it! ...Talk about the dead being restless!
>
> BTW;
> Fact: China's 2998 (1 absent) unelected representatives voted
> unanamiously to take Taiwan by force if necessary. So maybe you should
> look at China's foreign policy before you talk about Japans?
> Fact: the U.S. will defend Taiwan from China (they have zero chance of
> reclaimation).
> Fact: the U.S. will defend S. Korea from N. Korea (also zero chance).
> Fact: the U.S. will defend Japan from either (also zero chance).
> Notice, the keywords are "U.S. and defend".
>
> Now, doesn't China have some peaceful Bhuddist monks in Tibet to
> suppress?
>
Japan is like a shrieking poodle that hides underneath the skirt of the US.
|
|
|
| Re: Japan is a Colony of the United States [message #10462 ] |
Mo, 18 April 2005 01:54 |
|
In article <1113778211.039105.272560 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
studio <tlack [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>JapanIsAColonyOfUSA [at] hotmail.com wrote:
>> Japan is a colony of the United States.
>
>lol...that's news to me! Allie maybe, colony no. Japan for the most
>part does what it wants.....as do we all.
``Japan for the most part does what it wants.....as do we all'' is a
mere assertion and in fact contradicts reality---but who among the US
and the Japanese governments would want to openly admit it. It is
really shame, shame, and shame! But it is simply true, true, and
true!
And despite the two American atom bombs dropped on Japan, there isn't
a whimper from the general Japanese national consciousness about who's
dun it and why. And US troops continue to occupy Japanese land despite
complaints of rapes and other crimes by locals.
Japan is neither free nor independent. Japan used to have its
post-war pacifist constitution, clearly by US demand. But now, the
Japanese government wants to re-militarize the country, again at the
urging of the US government, and to the amazement of the majority of
the Japanese citizens.
From the financing of the wars against Iraq 15 and 2 years ago and
against Afghanistan, at the urging of the US government to the
coordinating of US foreign policy in the UN and Far East Asia . . .
(Even someone who has been only casually familiar with world news can
tell you that the Japanese population was opposed to sending troops to
Iraq but felt that its government had no choice but to comply with the
US government's wishes. In fact while the Germans have been carrying
their collective guilt for WWII for generations; the Japanese have
been feeling forever obliged to the US government for not making them
feel guilty like their German counterparts.)
But don't trust me for it. Instead, look at what the people who have
been paying close attention to Japan's weird lap-dog foreign policy
are telling us.
Indeed, Japan and the United States seem to be on the same page
regarding China, North Korea and even South Korea, which disagrees
with Washington about how to handle North Korea.
On defense and Security Council membership, "Japan's policies are a
subset of U.S. needs," said Ronald Morse, professor of Japan studies
at University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
"If you look at the environment, Iraq, U.S. base reorganization, beef,
illegal prostitution, Taiwan," Japanese foreign policy "is all driven
by Washington's actions," Morse said.
. . .
"The way it's going, Japan might as well give up its ambitions of
winning a permanent U.N. Security Council seat or the fusion energy
project," said Yamamoto, the Waseda professor.
lo yeeOn
========
Yahoo! News Sun, Apr 17, 2005
Japan Foreign Policy Grates Asia Neighbors
Sun Apr 17, 1:19 PM ET
By KENJI HALL, Associated Press Writer
TOKYO - In diplomatic tussles with its neighbors, Japan has long been
inclined to turn the other cheek. Not lately, though.
In recent months, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has talked tough
with South Korea over disputed islets and reasserted Japan's claim to
other islands held by Russia. While China and North Korea continue to
harry Japan over its World War II conduct, Japan is bluntly portraying
those two communist countries as the real source of the region's
problems.
"In the past, Japan always avoided taking a stand on diplomatic
issues. But Japan has realized that tactic doesn't work, and its own
public has criticized it as too weak," said Masaru Ikei, a professor
of international politics at Keio University in Tokyo.
Japan's recent campaign for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security
Council and approval of a textbook that critics say glosses over
Tokyo's wartime aggression set off angry demonstrations in China. But
instead of making the usual conciliatory gestures, Tokyo rejected the
charges and demanded China apologize for allowing violent
anti-Japanese protests.
In Shanghai, police stood by Saturday as 20,000 rioters -- some
shouting "Kill the Japanese!" -- threw stones, eggs and plastic
bottles and broke windows at the Japanese Consulate and damaged
restaurants and cars.
Peaceful protests on Sunday in the southern cities of Shenzhen and
Guangzhou drew thousands. In Shenzhen, as many as 10,000 people
marched past a Japanese-owned department store calling for a boycott
of Japanese goods.
China on Sunday rebuffed Tokyo's demands for an apology, saying it had
never wronged the Japanese people but Japan had "hurt the feelings" of
Chinese. Many Chinese believe Japan has never truly shown remorse for
its prewar invasion of China.
Japan has stirred things up further by announcing it will prospect for
natural gas in an area of the East China Sea where Beijing claims
exclusive economic rights. And on Friday its Foreign Ministry issued a
report accusing China of intruding into Japan's territorial waters
last November. It said it was one of several moves that "threaten
Japan's national security, sovereignty and other rights."
While the statement offered to settle matters through peaceful
dialogue, Japan has also identified China's expanding military and its
threats against Taiwan as top security concerns.
The flare-up comes amid longer-term frictions as the two countries
compete for political and economic dominance in Asia. China is eager
to translate its financial might into diplomatic muscle and a greater
military presence in the Pacific. Japan wants a permanent seat on the
U.N. Security Council, alongside China, Russia, the United States,
Britain and France.
China is not the only country Japan is wrangling with.
In September, Koizumi took a provocative boat trip to the coast of the
Russian-held southern Kuril islands in the North Pacific, and
proclaimed them an "integral part of Japan," delighting his country's
ruling conservatives.
Last month Japan began banning most North Korean ships from Japanese
ports, demanding North Korea reveal more about its abductions of
Japanese nationals in the 1970s and '80s.
It is also at odds with South Korea over a cluster of islands claimed
by both sides.
The tougher posture reflects the bigger ambitions of the globe's
second-largest economy. Tokyo has sent troops to Iraq, is considering
revising its pacifist constitution, and is working with the United
States on a joint missile-defense shield.
Despite Japan's flourishing trade with Asia, analysts say Koizumi has
abandoned all pretense at currying favor with the neighbors.
"Japan's foreign policy isn't guided by philosophy or ideology -- it's
just nationalism. Koizumi is putting on a show for domestic
constituents," said Takehiko Yamamoto, an international relations
expert at Tokyo's Waseda University.
Still, Japan has picked its battles carefully, staying on friendly
terms with Europe and above all the United States, which has more than
50,000 troops stationed in Japan under a decades-old treaty.
Indeed, Japan and the United States seem to be on the same page
regarding China, North Korea and even South Korea, which disagrees
with Washington about how to handle North Korea.
On defense and Security Council membership, "Japan's policies are a
subset of U.S. needs," said Ronald Morse, professor of Japan studies
at University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
"If you look at the environment, Iraq, U.S. base reorganization, beef,
illegal prostitution, Taiwan," Japanese foreign policy "is all driven
by Washington's actions," Morse said.
But Japan stands to lose a lot if it alienates its neighbors.
It needs China's acquiescence to win that Security Council seat. It
has lobbied hard for Russian approval of a badly needed trans-Siberian
oil pipeline. And it needs South Korea's backing in the international
contest for a prestigious and job-generating nuclear fusion energy
project.
"The way it's going, Japan might as well give up its ambitions of
winning a permanent U.N. Security Council seat or the fusion energy
project," said Yamamoto, the Waseda professor.
>
>> United States conquered Japan and never left. There are still
>American > soldiers and bases in Japan.
>
>The U.S. has never left anywhere it's "conquered". That might be a
>lesson to others.....but I doubt it.
>
>> Because Japan is a colony of the United States, giving Japan a
>> permanent seat in the U.N. Security Council is like giving United
>> States another vote in the council.
>
>Only because the U.N. isn't being a good colony of the U.S. lately. lol
>
>> The real emperor of Japan is George W. Bush -- the American
>president.
>
>And I'll assume every elected president before and after?
>
>> The REAL Japanese nationalists already committed hara-kiri to escape
>> the shame of allowing united States to conquer Japan into a colony.
>> Real Japanese nationalists would never tolerate Japan being a colony
>of > any country.
>
>First you said they were all dead. Then you say they shouldn't tolerate
>it! ...Talk about the dead being restless!
>
>BTW;
>Fact: China's 2998 (1 absent) unelected representatives voted
>unanamiously to take Taiwan by force if necessary. So maybe you should
>look at China's foreign policy before you talk about Japans?
>Fact: the U.S. will defend Taiwan from China (they have zero chance of
>reclaimation).
>Fact: the U.S. will defend S. Korea from N. Korea (also zero chance).
>Fact: the U.S. will defend Japan from either (also zero chance).
>Notice, the keywords are "U.S. and defend".
>
>Now, doesn't China have some peaceful Bhuddist monks in Tibet to
>suppress?
>
|
|
|
| Re: Japan is a Colony of the United States [message #10492 ] |
Mo, 18 April 2005 05:41 |
|
lo yeeOn wrote:
> In article <1113778211.039105.272560 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> studio <tlack [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> >JapanIsAColonyOfUSA [at] hotmail.com wrote:
> >> Japan is a colony of the United States.
> >
> >lol...that's news to me! Allie maybe, colony no. Japan for the most
> >part does what it wants.....as do we all.
>
> ``Japan for the most part does what it wants.....as do we all'' is a
> mere assertion and in fact contradicts reality---
Oh really? It's as good as an assertion as your's is.....just a bit
more accurate.
> And despite the two American atom bombs dropped on Japan, there isn't
> a whimper from the general Japanese national consciousness about
who's
> dun it and why. And US troops continue to occupy Japanese land
despite
> complaints of rapes and other crimes by locals.
They know exactly why, what, where, when and who. That would be exactly
5 times more than your understanding of it.
> Japan is neither free nor independent. Japan used to have its
> post-war pacifist constitution, clearly by US demand. But now, the
> Japanese government wants to re-militarize the country, again at the
> urging of the US government, and to the amazement of the majority of
> the Japanese citizens.
Exactly - urging - not dictating to Japan to do the right thing. A
colony would have no choice in the matter. Re-militarization comes from
the new threats that challenge Japan, and Japan has to be made aware of
it, and to prepare for it. And that's not an assumption, that's
reality.
> From the financing of the wars against Iraq 15 and 2 years ago and
> against Afghanistan, at the urging of the US government to the
> coordinating of US foreign policy in the UN and Far East Asia . . .
There's always a price to be paid. Japan sent no tanks, guns, bombs.
Many other countries sent "troops" that did not have particularly close
ties with the U.S. also. As much as many that had close ties. They were
not the deciding factor in liberating Iraq or Afghanistan however from
the dictators who ruled.
You on the other hand, you would rather have a dictator and find
nothing wrong with the Taliban or Iraqi refusal to comply with
international law, or an unstated law of a ruler still ruling after
he's lost a major war.
That's exactly why we usually stay where we conquer, so we don't have
to go back.
However, I can see a time where we don't occupy land....because we'll
make it unoccupiable. And that would be unfortuneate for all
involved....albeit, some more than others.
> (Even someone who has been only casually familiar with world news can
> tell you that the Japanese population was opposed to sending troops
to
> Iraq but felt that its government had no choice but to comply with
the
> US government's wishes. In fact while the Germans have been carrying
> their collective guilt for WWII for generations; the Japanese have
> been feeling forever obliged to the US government for not making them
> feel guilty like their German counterparts.)
Psycho-babble. Had they been attacked and had no cooperation in
rectifying the situation, the amount of troop response would have
obviously been different on all sides.
> But don't trust me for it. Instead, look at what the people who have
> been paying close attention to Japan's weird lap-dog foreign policy
> are telling us.
I don't trust you. I don't trust anyone that supports dictators or has
anything good to say about them.
> lo yeeOn
> ========
>
> Yahoo! News Sun, Apr 17, 2005
> Japan Foreign Policy Grates Asia Neighbors
I read the story a few days ago.
My one question regarding this is; why is Japan making school text
books for Chinese schools? Ask Chinese delegates why. Then ask them to
stop buying them. Case closed. That is, unless they want Chinese people
to be upset, in which case, you have no choice but to be upset.
> >Now, doesn't China have some peaceful Bhuddist monks in Tibet to
> >suppress?
Checkmate......next.
|
|
|
| A little modern Chinese history Re: Japan is a Colony of the United States [message #10564 ] |
Mo, 18 April 2005 13:09 |
|
In article <d3ut0e$k4e$1 [at] reader1.panix.com>,
lo yeeOn <acoustic [at] panix.com> wrote:
>In article <1113778211.039105.272560 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>studio <tlack [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>JapanIsAColonyOfUSA [at] hotmail.com wrote:
>>> Japan is a colony of the United States.
>>
>>lol...that's news to me! Allie maybe, colony no. Japan for the most
>>part does what it wants.....as do we all.
``Japan for the most part does what it wants.....as do we all'' is a
mere assertion and in fact contradicts reality---but who among the US
and the Japanese governments would want to openly admit it. It is
really shame, shame, and shame! But it is simply true, true, and
true!
And despite the two American atom bombs dropped on Japan, there isn't
a sound of protest or discussion from the general Japanese national
consciousness about whodunit it and why. And US troops continue to
occupy Japanese land despite complaints of rapes and other crimes by
locals.
Japan is neither free nor independent. Japan used to have its
post-war pacifist constitution, clearly by US demand. But now, the
Japanese government wants to re-militarize the country, again at the
urging of the US government, and to the amazement of the majority of
the Japanese citizens. Yes, urging as in "you have no choice but to
follow my wishes", just as in the war efforts in the Middle East, much
against the wishes of the people in Japan.
From the financing of the wars against Iraq 15 and 2 years ago and
against Afghanistan, as requested by the US government, to the
coordinating of US foreign policy in the UN and Far East Asia.
It is a fact that someone who has been only casually familiar with
world news can recognize. For example, such a person can tell you
that the Japanese population was opposed to sending troops to Iraq but
felt that its government had no choice but to comply with the US
government's wishes. The reason why the Japanese feel so impotent in
matter related to US interests is simple. Whereas the Germans have
been carrying their collective guilt for WWII for generations, the
Japanese have never been compelled to do the same. But there is a
price. They have been feeling forever obliged to the US government
for not making them feel guilty like their German counterparts and
they feel they have no choice but do what the US asks every time they
ask.
Remember the fury the Bush war propaganda machine generated against
France when the French thought the war was unjust and refused to go
along, despite Bush's stand of ``you're against us if you aren't with
us''. The propaganda was: ``Ah, France! How ungrateful you are! If
it weren't for America, you'd still be speaking German . . .'' The
meaning is: If we pulled you out of the fire once, you must do what we
tell you forever after or else you're an ingrate!
The propangandists however were deliberately confusing the world by
blurring the difference between the American people and
government, among other things.
Not only did they pretend that the conduct and intention of a
government is an immutable virtue, impossible to be affected by the
change of time and circumstance, but also that the American government
is always good and always represents the conscience of the American
people.
These people wanted to guilt-trip France into supporting an immoral
war against their better judgment. And of course, time has proven
that the French was right and also that Bush and his war propaganda
machine were massive liars.
Nothing can justify the killing and maiming of hundreds of thousands
people just because we want to get its ruler for the charge of being a
dictator. In a society, the justice system does not allow burning
down a whole neighborhood and killing all its residents just to get a
thug, much less can the people's conscience condone the massacre of
all the Iraqis as we have done in Iraq in order to capture its
dictator and overthrow his government. It is just not done by people
with reason and integrity.
And that's exactly why Bush didn't tell the world the truth. On the
one hand. he wanted to topple Saddam and on the other hand he couldn't
tell the world that he would go to war on a nation just to get rid of
a person. So he had to exaggerate his cause of war by claiming that
Saddam's Iraq possessed WMD which would readily harm the rest of the
world and embellished it further with mushroom clouds over big cities
before the domestic audience, a deception later admitted by Pentagon's
second in command Paul Wolfowitz (see below).
Bush didn't tell that he was sending Americans to die in Iraq because
Saddam was a dictator but because he had WMD which was about to hit
us. He lied to steal our support for his dirty war. So Bush has been
proven a massive liar and murderer. Yet when he wanted France to go
to war against Iraq, he would send his thugs to browbeat the French
(but was surprised to find that they wouldn't yield).
Now, can anyone imagine the awkward position the Japanese would find
themselves in if they would so much as to say no to *anything* the US
government asks them? They can never say no because if France, one of
the few important US wartime allies, would be so harshly reacted to,
what would be the punishment for Japan, which has been let off easy,
super-easy because the US government was calling the shots over what
happens in post-war Japan.
(Recall, for instance, Bush's sharp-tongued confidante Ms. Condoleezza
Rice: ``Punish France!'', much like Salome demanded King Herod to get
John the Baptist's head on a silver platter.)
Now if French Fries in Washington could be changed to Freedom Fries
for France's perceived disobedience, what would happen to Japan?
You can bet that clamour will reach a feverish pitch of demanding that
the Japanese emperor be hanged.
(``We were nice to them for having spared them their emperor's neck;
now let's see what the ingrates will get . . .'')
And it is exactly this that is the price that is permanently hanging
over Japan's head.
In many ways, the Germans have set themselves free, much as Christ has
taught by asking us sinners to repent.
But Japanese have not repented; so they continue to be enslaved by
their heinous past.
The German attitude has been well-documented and often written about
in popular magazines. It is not some kind of psycho-babble as some
people might like to claim. But the Japanese attitude toward its
militaristic past is one of haughtiness, evidently a result of its
relationship as a pampered-child with its US guardian.
It is in this sense that the original poster characterize Japan as an
American colony. And it would do well to be more educated and less
ignorant about modern Chinese history. In addition to the blood of
some one million Chinese slaughtered in Nanking in 1939, many more
millions of Chinese perished as a result of the Japanese war of
aggression in China. Furthermore, Japan is known to have conducted
secret germ experiments on Chinese captured in the North East in the
1920s-1930s. They were war crimes. Former soldiers who eye-witnessed
the war crimes had wanted to come to the US to testify about them but
was discouraged or ignored by governments on both sides of the Pacific
Ocean.
In addition, the attitude of the militarist Japan goes back as far as
the late 1800s. First, it was in 1894-5 or thereabouts: you could see
photos from history books (in the United States) of Japanese soldiers
posing with the decapitated bodies of the indigenous fighters they'd
just executed. I've just consulted one which shows the bodies lying
at the feet of the Japanese soldiers, facing the camera, and the four
severed heads of the executed Chinese lying closest to the foreground.
One of the Japanese soldiers were shown wiping the blood of his victim
off from his sword as he smiled. And there are three other soldiers
wearing similar uniforms, carrying long swords in the picture. (There
were also 5 Chinese soldiers standing grim-faced in the back row.)
And that was the aftermath of the Boxers' Rebellion. [Sterling
Professor Jonathan D. Spence (Yale) and (wife and also Yale teacher)
Amping Chin, Random House, 1996]
The Boxers were ignorant; they thought that with their bare hands,
their bravery, and their righteousness, heaven would help them defeat
the foreigners, which included the Japanese. They were dead wrong.
And the impotent Chinese government at the time was forced to have its
soldiers stand there and watch with utter humiliation the barbarous
execution of their own fellowmen. (And the beheading then ran a
parallel to the contemporary beheadings that recently took place in
Iraq.)
But that was only the beginning. On May 4th, 1919, roughly 6 months
after the armistice in November the previous year (1918) was signed in
Versailles as Germany was defeated in WWI and exactly 2 months before
our own Independence Day (July 4th), the Chinese students organized a
large protest which few in the west today are aware of but which
completely changed the psyche of the Chinese people ever since.
The immediate trigger for the protest was the discovery that their
impotent government (at that time already a republican one, as opposed
to the time of the Boxer's Rebellion when it was a monarchy) had at
Versailles agreed to let Japan take over the concession which was
forcibly made to Germany some 25 years ago, even though China wasn't a
party to WWI.
(The protest was to a large extent about the Chinese people feeling
angry with themselves, feeling they were an impotent and totally
humiliated people after seeing what the foreigners were doing to them
in China. They thought, as they had always thought, they were only
minding their own business, and yet the foreigners wouldn't leave them
alone. The protest was to raise the people's consciousness about how
they might pull themselves out of that hapless mess of foreign
domination. They were aware of the fact that they were themselves
largely to blame for their humilation because they realize that it was
rooted in their own backwardness in science, technology, and other
aspects of governing, such as how people should treat each others.
They came to the realization that the world wasn't surrounding them as
the center of the universe to which people come to pay tribute, as
they were used to believe. Rather, they were treated as prey, which
each predator wants a piece of. For this reason, when the Chinese
government finally got itself free of all foreign encroachment and got
on its own feet economically and politically and started catching up
with the rest of the world with the mastery of science and technology,
the Chinese people feel absolutely protective of this piece of new
found freedom. It is a form of self-liberation.)
But aside from the spiritual awakening of the Chinese people, history
also records the imperial Japanese's naked ambition in China. And in
fact Japan planted itself firmly in the Northeast of China, setting up
a strong military presence, knowing the continuous impotence of the
republican government at the time.
At that time, China was also full of warlords which held control of
different part of the country. And in the Northeast, Japan was able
to exercise so much control over the local warlord that he was blown
up in his armored train in the 1920s when he displayed a little
independence. The warlord's son succeeded him as the head of the
Chinese army for that region but the Japanese assassination of his
father had a profound effect on him as to how he should behave in
similar circumstances: He learned the valuable lesson of not trying to
do anything to displease the occupying Japanese.
Finally, the imperial Japanese began their southward invasion in
earnest in 1930s, going way past Beijing and bombing the coast,
targeting Shanghai and its surroundings, which culminated in the
Nanking ``Great Massacre'' in 1937 (Nanking was the capital of the
Chinese government at the time).
In any case anyone who has a casual familiarity with the Chinese
modern history knows that Japan had a continuous militaristic design
for China for over half a century until its defeat in 1945.
No one should ignore the fact that many Chinese had generations of
suffering under the Japanese. Even the official duration of the
Japanese war of aggression in China was 8 years, longer than any in
Europe. And in China it is called the eight-year war of resistance.
Consequently, the decades of occupation and the final 8 years of war
have deeply affected the Chinese psyche. It also explains why so many
Chinese people who went through the war approved of the horrible US
nuclear strategy on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, seeing it as a means to
end the Japanese aggression. (I personally disagree with either the
need or the advisability of the atom bombs but I can't tell the
Chinese people what to think, especially because they were the ones
who have suffered so much.)
In fact one reason why the Chinese communists had come to receive so
much popular support from their countrymen immediately after WWII is
because they were fighting closely with the peasants (left behind by
their fleeing government) against the occupying Japanese, very much
like the French resistance was doing against the Nazi Germans, while
the Wang government which remained in Nanking was very much like the
counterpart to the Vichy government in France, each cooperated with
the occupiers. In China though, the Chiang and his oligarch allies
had fled to the southwest, safely tucked away from the hostility of
war.
So, you see from this brief summary of the Japanese presence in China,
none of it benign, indicates that the Japanese have a heavy burden on
their backs that they haven't tried to unload. They pretend the burden
doesn't exist because they think they have the world's sole superpower
on their side. But precisely because of this indebtedness to America,
they are doing all these things no independent nations in the world
would do. Just listen to what Professor Ronald Morse had to say about
Japan's weird lap-dog foreign policy.
Indeed, Japan and the United States seem to be on the same page
regarding China, North Korea and even South Korea, which disagrees
with Washington about how to handle North Korea.
On defense and Security Council membership, "Japan's policies are a
subset of U.S. needs," said Ronald Morse, professor of Japan studies
at University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
"If you look at the environment, Iraq, U.S. base reorganization, beef,
illegal prostitution, Taiwan," Japanese foreign policy "is all driven
by Washington's actions," Morse said.
. . .
"The way it's going, Japan might as well give up its ambitions of
winning a permanent U.N. Security Council seat or the fusion energy
project," said Yamamoto, the Waseda professor.
Notice that ``Japan's policies are a subset of U.S. needs'', according
to Morse. That is, US needs drives Japan's policies, from A to Z.
lo yeeOn
========
1) On Japanese militaristic past, clintpetra [at] wmconnect.com wrote
I would be very curious to learn if Japanese posters and
pro-Japanese posters have ever read John Toland's history of "the
Great Pacific War," The Rising Sun in two volumes or The Imperial
Japanese Conspiracy by Bengamini.
Those were two objective works, well-documented, clearly
demonstrating war crimes by the Japanese comparable to Nazi
Germany. After reading and rereading dozens of history books about
Japan over the past 20 years, the only thing I see the Japanese
upset about is that they lost the war.
The Rape of Nanking was only the tip of a very bestial iceberg. The
Chinese lost as many as 20 million people in ww2. Most of these
were civilians. Not to mention the Filipinos who suffered losses in
the hundreds of thousands. Tens of thousands of Southeast Asian
forced labor worked to death on railroad constuction in Burmese
jungles. The murder of hundreds of British soldiers and civilians
after the surrender of the British Hong Kong garrison in 1941. The
multiple rape and decapitation of dozens of British nurses from the
same garrison....the Bataan Death March.
Give me a break. You wonder why the Chinese get a little
cranky. The only bloody thing the Japanese didn't do in ww2 was gas
jews.
2) Article with professor Ronald Morse's comments on Japan's foreign
policy being driven by the desire of the US government.
By KENJI HALL, Associated Press Writer
TOKYO - In diplomatic tussles with its neighbors, Japan has long been
inclined to turn the other cheek. Not lately, though.
In recent months, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has talked tough
with South Korea over disputed islets and reasserted Japan's claim to
other islands held by Russia. While China and North Korea continue to
harry Japan over its World War II conduct, Japan is bluntly portraying
those two communist countries as the real source of the region's
problems.
"In the past, Japan always avoided taking a stand on diplomatic
issues. But Japan has realized that tactic doesn't work, and its own
public has criticized it as too weak," said Masaru Ikei, a professor
of international politics at Keio University in Tokyo.
Japan's recent campaign for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security
Council and approval of a textbook that critics say glosses over
Tokyo's wartime aggression set off angry demonstrations in China. But
instead of making the usual conciliatory gestures, Tokyo rejected the
charges and demanded China apologize for allowing violent
anti-Japanese protests.
In Shanghai, police stood by Saturday as 20,000 rioters -- some
shouting "Kill the Japanese!" -- threw stones, eggs and plastic
bottles and broke windows at the Japanese Consulate and damaged
restaurants and cars.
Peaceful protests on Sunday in the southern cities of Shenzhen and
Guangzhou drew thousands. In Shenzhen, as many as 10,000 people
marched past a Japanese-owned department store calling for a boycott
of Japanese goods.
China on Sunday rebuffed Tokyo's demands for an apology, saying it had
never wronged the Japanese people but Japan had "hurt the feelings" of
Chinese. Many Chinese believe Japan has never truly shown remorse for
its prewar invasion of China.
Japan has stirred things up further by announcing it will prospect for
natural gas in an area of the East China Sea where Beijing claims
exclusive economic rights. And on Friday its Foreign Ministry issued a
report accusing China of intruding into Japan's territorial waters
last November. It said it was one of several moves that "threaten
Japan's national security, sovereignty and other rights."
While the statement offered to settle matters through peaceful
dialogue, Japan has also identified China's expanding military and its
threats against Taiwan as top security concerns.
The flare-up comes amid longer-term frictions as the two countries
compete for political and economic dominance in Asia. China is eager
to translate its financial might into diplomatic muscle and a greater
military presence in the Pacific. Japan wants a permanent seat on the
U.N. Security Council, alongside China, Russia, the United States,
Britain and France.
China is not the only country Japan is wrangling with.
In September, Koizumi took a provocative boat trip to the coast of the
Russian-held southern Kuril islands in the North Pacific, and
proclaimed them an "integral part of Japan," delighting his country's
ruling conservatives.
Last month Japan began banning most North Korean ships from Japanese
ports, demanding North Korea reveal more about its abductions of
Japanese nationals in the 1970s and '80s.
It is also at odds with South Korea over a cluster of islands claimed
by both sides.
The tougher posture reflects the bigger ambitions of the globe's
second-largest economy. Tokyo has sent troops to Iraq, is considering
revising its pacifist constitution, and is working with the United
States on a joint missile-defense shield.
Despite Japan's flourishing trade with Asia, analysts say Koizumi has
abandoned all pretense at currying favor with the neighbors.
"Japan's foreign policy isn't guided by philosophy or ideology -- it's
just nationalism. Koizumi is putting on a show for domestic
constituents," said Takehiko Yamamoto, an international relations
expert at Tokyo's Waseda University.
Still, Japan has picked its battles carefully, staying on friendly
terms with Europe and above all the United States, which has more than
50,000 troops stationed in Japan under a decades-old treaty.
Indeed, Japan and the United States seem to be on the same page
regarding China, North Korea and even South Korea, which disagrees
with Washington about how to handle North Korea.
On defense and Security Council membership, "Japan's policies are a
subset of U.S. needs," said Ronald Morse, professor of Japan studies
at University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
"If you look at the environment, Iraq, U.S. base reorganization, beef,
illegal prostitution, Taiwan," Japanese foreign policy "is all driven
by Washington's actions," Morse said.
But Japan stands to lose a lot if it alienates its neighbors.
It needs China's acquiescence to win that Security Council seat. It
has lobbied hard for Russian approval of a badly needed trans-Siberian
oil pipeline. And it needs South Korea's backing in the international
contest for a prestigious and job-generating nuclear fusion energy
project.
"The way it's going, Japan might as well give up its ambitions of
winning a permanent U.N. Security Council seat or the fusion energy
project," said Yamamoto, the Waseda professor.
3) The war against Iraq was not a consequence of 9/11
a) http://informationclearinghouse.info/article8502.htm
Link to Murderous Thugs article.
Paul Wolfowitz, after months of not finding any Weapons of Mass
Destruction....and after hundreds of US soldiers were killed....my son
amongst them....and after tens of thousands of innocent Iraq citizens
were killed....this same Paul Wolfowitz casually explained....with his
kindly charade and his ever so soft voice...that a decision was made
to put forth "Weapons of Mass Destruction" as the need for the
invasion. Essentially, Paul Wolfowitz admitted that he and his fellow
conspirators had decided amongst themselves "...let's just go with the
bit about Weapons of Mass Destruction. It's the one thing that will
scare the American people enough so as to cause them to get behind
this invasion."
As soft-spoken and sincere-sounding as Paul Wolfowitz is, is there yet
any sane adult in this country who's skin does not crawl when this
murderous liar opens his mouth and speaks? Am I the only person in
this room who clearly sees that Paul Wolfowitz is a threat to our
nation's security...and to peace on our beloved earth?"
[On Weapons of Mass Destruction,] Rumsfeld [knew] that Saddam
had been stripped clean of such weapons, that Saddam's ability to
reconstitute such weapons' programs had also been destroyed, and that
any moves Saddam might have made in that direction would have been
observed and stopped, forthwith.
Is there anyone in America who cannot yet see that Donald Runsfeld is
a liar...that he, as with Hitler and Stalin....will say anything so
long as he thinks it will help shape the world to his own liking? Is
there even one, sane adult among us who cannot see that Donald
Rumsfeld is a threat to our nation's security and to peace on our
beloved earth?
Had the Shah of Iran...a
blood-bought servant of US corporate interests...not soon been
overthrown by his own countrymen, the big-wigs at Westinghouse or
General Electric...or perhaps both...would have amassed personal
fortunes from this one project, alone. Some of the stockholders would
have also made bundles on the deal.
In 1975 my son had not yet been born. Today he is in his grave. Dick
Cheney, on the other hand, is now Vice President of the United States,
and he is materially wealthy beyond what any of us would ever pray to
be. This is the same Dick Cheney who during the months leading-up to
the invasion of Iraq said that Saddam Hussein not only has stockpiles
of Weapons of Mass Destruction...more than a hundred metric tons of
the deadly stuff...but he also said that Saddam Hussein was
well-advanced in developing nuclear weapons and that therefore the US
must invade Iraq and dethrone Saddam Hussein. Clean, quick, and simple
according to Dick Cheney. Yet for some time now he has changed his
tune. He now says...as if he had said it all along...that the US
occupation of Iraq will require years of difficult and sometimes
bloody conflict before it will be stable enough to bring our loved
ones home. And too, rather than speak of Weapons of Mass Destruction,
he now uses the word "democracy" a lot.
Is there yet an American who can not clearly see that Dick
Cheney...whether it be 1975 or 2005...will say whatever he thinks is
required to ultimately cause wealth and power to move to himself and
to his friends? ...need I defile this holy place with words like
"Haliburton" and "Kellog, Brown & Root" and "torture" and "US weapons
industry"? Indeed, the Apostle Paul is correct in saying that,
ultimately, the love of money leads to ruin and destruction.
Are we to believe that this administration was, once again, asleep
at the wheel...just as they would also have us to believe that they
were innocently caught off-guard on the morning of September 11,
2001?
b) http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=28769
The link has an excerpt from James Bamford:
The following should be unacceptable as well (for any patriotic
American who serves the best interests of America first):
http://warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=20366
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------
-------------
'A Pretext For War' Pages 261-269 of James Bamford's 'A Pretext for
War' book"
Then Bush addressed the sole items on the agenda for his first high
level national security meeting. The topics were not terrorism--a
subject he barely mentioned during the campaign --or nervousness over
China or Russia, but Israel and Iraq. From the very first moment, the
Bush foreign policy would focus on three key objectives: get rid of
Saddam, end American involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian peace
process, and rearrange the dominoes in the Middle East. A key to the
policy shift would be the concept of pre-emption.
The Blueprint for the new Bush policy had actually been drawn up five
years earlier by three of his top national security advisors. Soon to
be appointed to senior administration positions, they were Richard
Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser. Ironically the plan was
orginally intended not for Bush but for another world leader, Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
At the time, the three officials were out of government and working
for conservative pro-Israel think tanks. Perle and Feith had
previously served in high level Pentagon positions during the
presidency of Ronald Reagan. In a very unusaul move, the former--and
future--senior American officials were acting as a sort of American
privy council to the new Israeli Prime Minister. The Perle task force
to advise Netanyahu was set up by the Jerusalem based Institute for
Advanced Stategic and Political Studies, where Wurmser was working. A
key part of the plan was to get the United States to pull out of peace
negotiations and simply let Israel take care of the Palestinians as it
saw fit. "Israel," said the report, can manage it's own affairs. Such
self-reliance will grant Israel greater freedom of action and remove a
significant lever of pressure used against it in the past.
But the centerpiece of the recommendations was the removal of Saddam
Hussein as the first step in remaking the Middle East into a region
friendly, instead of hostile, to Israel. Their plan "A Clean Break: A
New Strategy for Securing the Realm," also signaled a radical
departure from the peace-oriented policies of former Prime Minister
Yitzhak Rabin, who was assassinated by a member of an extreme
right-wing Israeli group.
As part of their "grand strategy" they recommended that once Iraq was
conquered and Saddam Hussein overthrown, he should be replaced by a
puppet leader friendly to Israel. Whoever inherits Iraq, they wrote,
dominates the entire Levant strategically. Then they suggested that
Syria would be the next country to be invaded. Israel can shape it's
strategic environment, they said.
This would be done, they recommended to Netanyahu, by re-establishing
the principle of pre-emption and by rolling back it's Arab neighbors.
From then on, the principle would be to strike first and expand, a
dangerous and provocative change in philosphy. They recommended
launching a major unprovoked regional war in the Middle East,
attacking Lebanon and Syria and ousting Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Ten, to
gain the support of the American government and public, a phony
pretext would be used as the reason for the original invasion.
The recommendation of Feith, Perle and Wurmser was for Israel to once
again invade Lebanon with air strikes. But this time to counter
potentionally hostile reactions from the American government and
public, they suggested using a pretext. They would claim that the
purpose of the invasion was to halt Syria's drug-money and
counterfeiting infrastructure located there. They were subjects in
which Israel had virtually no interest, but they were ones, they said,
with which America can sympathize.
Another way to win American support for a pre-empted war against
Syria, they suggested, was by drawing attention to its weapons of mass
destruction program. This claim would be that Israel's war was really
all about protecting Americans from drugs, counterfeit bills, and
WMD--nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.
It was rather extraordinary for a trio of former, and potentially
future, high-ranking American government officials to become advisors
to a foreign government. More unsettling still was a fact that they
were recommending acts of war in which Americans could be killed, and
also ways to masquerade the true purpose of the attacks from the
American public.
Once inside Lebanon, Israel could let loose--to begin engaging
Hizballah, Syria and Iran, as the principle agents of aggression in
Lebanon. Then they would widen the war even further by using proxy
forces--Lebanese militia fighters acting on Israel's behalf (as Ariel
Sharon had done in the 80's)--to invade Syria from Lebanon. Thus, they
noted, they could invade Syria by establishing the precedent that
Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by
Israeli proxy forces.
As soon as that fighting started, they advised, Israel could begin
striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove
insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper [emphasis in
original].
The Perle task force even supplied Nentanyahu with some text for a
television address, using the suggested pretext to justify the war.
Years later, it would closely resemble speeches to justify their own
Middle East wars; Iraq would simply replace Syria and the United Staes
would replace Israel: Negotiations with repressive regimes like
Syria's require cautious realism. One cannot sensibly assume the other
side's good faith. It is dangerous for Israel to deal naively with a
regime murderous of its own people, openly aggressive towards its
neighbors, criminally involved with international drug traffickers and
counterfeiters, and supportive of the most deadly terrorist
organizations.
The task force then suggested that Israel open a second front in its
expanding war, with a focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in
Iraq--an important Israel strategic objective in its own right--as a
expanding war, with a focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in
Iraq--an important Israel strategic objective in its own right--as a
means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions.
For years the killing of Saddam Hussein had been among the highest,
and most secret, priorities of the Israeli government. In one stroke
it would pay Saddam Hussein back for launching Scud missiles against
Israel, killing several people, during the Gulf War. Redrawing the map
of the Middle East would also help isolate Syria, Iraq's ally and
Israel's archenemy along its northern border. Thus, in the early
1990's, after the US-led war in the Gulf, a small elite team of
Israeli commandos was given the order to train in absolute secrecy for
an assassination mission to bring down the Baghdad ruler.
The plan, code-named Bramble Bush, was to first kill a close friend of
the Iraqi leader outside the country, someone from Hussein's hometown
of Tikrit. Then, after learning the date and time of the funeral to be
held in the town, a funeral Hussein was certain to attend, they would
have time to covertly infiltrate a team of commandos into the country
to carry out the assassination. The murder weapons were to be
specially modified "smart" missiles that would be fired at Hussein as
he stood in a crowd at the funeral.
But, the plan was finally abandoned after five members of the team
were accidently killed during a dry run of the operation.
Nevertheless, removing Saddam and converting Iraq from threat to ally
had long been at the top of Israel's wish list.
Now Perle, Feith, and Wurmser were suggesting something far more
daring--not just an assassination but a bloody war that would get rid
of Saddam Hussein and also change the face of Syria and Lebanon. Perle
felt their "Clean Break" recommendations were so important that he
personally hand-carried the report to Netanyahu.
Wisely, Netanyahu rejected the task force' plan. But now, with the
election of a receptive George W. Bush, they dusted off their
pre-emptive war strategy and began getting ready to put it to use.
The new Bush policy was an aggressive agenda for any president, but
especially for someone who had previously shown little interest in
international affairs. We're going to correct the imbalances the
previous administration on the Mideast conflict, Bush told his freshly
assembled senior national security team in the Situation Room on
January 30, 2001. We're going to tilt it back toward Israel. . .
.Anybody here ever met Ariel Sharon? Only Colin Powell raised his
hand.
Bush was going to reverse the Clinton policy, which was heavily
weighted toward bringing the bloody conflict between Israel and the
Palestinians to a peaceful conclusion. There would be no more US
interference; he would let Sharon resolve the dispute however he saw
fit, with little or no regard for the situation of the Palestinians.
The policy change was exactly as recommended by the Perle task force's
"Clean Break" report.
I'm not going to go by past reputations when it comes to Sharon, Bush
told his newly gathered national security team. I'm going to take him
at face value. We'll work on a relationship based on how things go.
Then he mentioned a trip he had taken with the Republican Jewish
Coalition to Israel. We flew over the Palestinian camps. Looked real
bad down there, he said with a frown. Then he said it was time to end
America's efforts in the region. I don't see much we can do over there
at this point, he said.
Colin Powell, Secretary of State for only a few days, was taken by
surprise. The idea that such a complex problem, in which America had
long been heavily involved, could be simply brushed away with the
sweep of a hand made little sense. Fearing Israeli-led aggression, he
quickly objected.
c) This War on Terrorism is Bogus
The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure
its global domination
Michael Meacher
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------
Saturday September 6, 2003
The Guardian
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1036688, 00.html
Michael Meacher MP was environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003
Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons
why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has
focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British
motives too.
The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit,
retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first
step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam
Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of
mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However
this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal
murkier.
We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax
Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald
Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb
Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief
of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was
written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project
for the New American Century (PNAC).
The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the
Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "while
the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in
the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to
Wolfowitz and Libby which said the US must "discourage advanced
industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to
a larger regional or global role". It refers to key allies such as the
UK as "the most effective and efficient means of exercising American
global leadership". It describes peacekeeping missions as "demanding
American political leadership rather than that of the UN". It says
"even should Saddam pass from the scene", US bases in Saudi Arabia and
Kuwait will remain permanently... as "Iran may well prove as large a
threat to US interests as Iraq has". It spotlights China for "regime
change", saying "it is time to increase the presence of American
forces in SE Asia".
The document also calls for the creation of "US space forces" to
dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent
"enemies" using the internet against the US. It also hints that the US
may consider developing biological weapons "that can target specific
genotypes [and] may transform biological warfare from the realm of
terror to a politically useful tool".
Finally - written a year before 9/11 - it pinpoints North Korea, Syria
and Iran as dangerous regimes, and says their existence justifies the
creation of a "worldwide command and control system". This is a
blueprint for US world domination. But before it is dismissed as an
agenda for rightwing fantasists, it is clear it provides a much better
explanation of what actually happened before, during and after 9/11
than the global war on terrorism thesis. This can be seen in several
ways.
First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to
pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries
provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior
Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA
and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big
operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided
included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was
arrested.
It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit
Washington targets with aeroplanes. Then in 1999 a US national
intelligence council report noted that "al-Qaida suicide bombers could
crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon,
the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House".
Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia.
Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in
Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing
visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them
to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in
collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this
operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is
also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure
US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001).
Instructive leads prior to 9/11 were not followed up. French Moroccan
flight student Zacarias Moussaoui (now thought to be the 20th
hijacker) was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor reported he
showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large
airliners. When US agents learned from French intelligence he had
radical Islamist ties, they sought a warrant to search his computer,
which contained clues to the September 11 mission (Times, November 3
2001). But they were turned down by the FBI. One agent wrote, a month
before 9/11, that Moussaoui might be planning to crash into the Twin
Towers (Newsweek, May 20 2002).
All of this makes it all the more astonishing - on the war on
terrorism perspective - that there was such slow reaction on September
11 itself. The first hijacking was suspected at not later than
8.20am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at
10.06am. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from
the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until
after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not? There
were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before
9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched
fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP,
August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft
has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent
up to investigate.
Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or
being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could US air security operations
have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on
whose authority? The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus,
has said: "The information provided by European intelligence services
prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for
either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence."
Nor is the US response after 9/11 any better. No serious attempt has
ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October
2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties negotiated Bin
Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US
official said, significantly, that "casting our objectives too
narrowly" risked "a premature collapse of the international effort if
by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured". The US chairman of
the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that
"the goal has never been to get Bin Laden" (AP, April 5 2002). The
whistleblowing FBI agent Robert Wright told ABC News (December 19
2002) that FBI headquarters wanted no arrests. And in November 2001
the US airforce complained it had had al-Qaida and Taliban leaders in
its sights as many as 10 times over the previous six weeks, but had
been unable to attack because they did not receive permission quickly
enough (Time Magazine, May 13 2002). None of this assembled evidence,
all of which comes from sources already in the public domain, is
compatible with the idea of a real, determined war on terrorism.
The catalogue of evidence does, however, fall into place when set
against the PNAC blueprint. From this it seems that the so-called "war
on terrorism" is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider
US strategic geopolitical objectives. Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted
at this when he said to the Commons liaison committee: "To be truthful
about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to
have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened
on September 11" (Times, July 17 2002). Similarly Rumsfeld was so
determined to obtain a rationale for an attack on Iraq that on 10
separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to
9/11; the CIA repeatedly came back empty-handed (Time Magazine, May 13
2002).
In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC
plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for
military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before
9/11. A report prepared for the US government from the Baker Institute
of Public Policy stated in April 2001 that "the US remains a prisoner
of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising influence
to... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle
East". Submitted to Vice-President Cheney's energy task group, the
report recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to the
US, "military intervention" was necessary (Sunday Herald, October 6
2002).
Similar evidence exists in regard to Afghanistan. The BBC reported
(September 18 2001) that Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign
secretary, was told by senior American officials at a meeting in
Berlin in mid-July 2001 that "military action against Afghanistan
would go ahead by the middle of October". Until July 2001 the US
government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central
Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from
the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan,
through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But, confronted
with the Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, the US
representatives told them "either you accept our offer of a carpet of
gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs" (Inter Press Service,
November 15 2001).
Given this background, it is not surprising that some have seen the US
failure to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating an invaluable pretext
for attacking Afghanistan in a war that had clearly already been well
planned in advance. There is a possible precedent for this. The US
national archives reveal that President Roosevelt used exactly this
approach in relation to Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941. Some advance
warning of the attacks was received, but the information never reached
the US fleet. The ensuing national outrage persuaded a reluctant US
public to join the second world war. Similarly the PNAC blueprint of
September 2000 states that the process of transforming the US into
"tomorrow's dominant force" is likely to be a long one in the absence
of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl
Harbor". The 9/11 attacks allowed the US to press the "go" button for
a strategy in accordance with the PNAC agenda which it would otherwise
have been politically impossible to implement.
The overriding motivation for this political smokescreen is that the
US and the UK are beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy
supplies. By 2010 the Muslim world will control as much as 60% of the
world's oil production and, even more importantly, 95% of remaining
global oil export capacity. As demand is increasing, so supply is
decreasing, continually since the 1960s.
This is leading to increasing dependence on foreign oil supplies for
both the US and the UK. The US, which in 1990 produced domestically
57% of its total energy demand, is predicted to produce only 39% of
its needs by 2010. A DTI minister has admitted that the UK could be
facing "severe" gas shortages by 2005. The UK government has confirmed
that 70% of our electricity will come from gas by 2020, and 90% of
that will be imported. In that context it should be noted that Iraq
has 110 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in addition to its oil.
A report from the commission on America's national interests in July
2000 noted that the most promising new source of world supplies was
the Caspian region, and this would relieve US dependence on Saudi
Arabia. To diversify supply routes from the Caspian, one pipeline
would run westward via Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Turkish port of
Ceyhan. Another would extend eastwards through Afghanistan and
Pakistan and terminate near the Indian border. This would rescue
Enron's beleaguered power plant at Dabhol on India's west coast, in
which Enron had sunk $3bn investment and whose economic survival was
dependent on access to cheap gas.
Nor has the UK been disinterested in this scramble for the remaining
world supplies of hydrocarbons, and this may partly explain British
participation in US military actions. Lord Browne, chief executive of
BP, warned Washington not to carve up Iraq for its own oil companies
in the aftermath of war (Guardian, October 30 2002). And when a
British foreign minister met Gadaffi in his desert tent in August
2002, it was said that "the UK does not want to lose out to other
European nations already jostling for advantage when it comes to
potentially lucrative oil contracts" with Libya (BBC Online, August 10
2002).
The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the "global
war on terrorism" has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to
hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies
required to drive the whole project. Is collusion in this myth and
junior participation in this project really a proper aspiration for
British foreign policy? If there was ever need to justify a more
objective British stance, driven by our own independent goals, this
whole depressing saga surely provides all the evidence needed for a
radical change of course.
Michael Meacher MP was environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003
-------------
lo yeeOn wrote:
> In article <1113778211.039105.272560 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> studio <tlack [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> >JapanIsAColonyOfUSA [at] hotmail.com wrote:
> >> Japan is a colony of the United States.
> >
> >lol...that's news to me! Allie maybe, colony no. Japan for the most
> >part does what it wants.....as do we all.
>
> ["studio"'s] assertion ``Japan for the most part does what it wants
> . . . as do we all'' is a mere assertion and in fact contradicts
> reality---but who among the US and the Japanese governments would
> want to openly admit it. It is really shame, shame, and shame! But
> it is simply true, true, and true!
In response, "studio" wrote:
Oh really? It's as good as an assertion as your's is.....just a bit
more accurate. . . . [more arbitrary "studio" assertions snipped.]
|
|
|
| Re: Japan is a Colony of the United States [message #10565 ] |
Mo, 18 April 2005 13:24 |
|
In article <1113795665.042303.276680 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
studio <tlack [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>lo yeeOn wrote:
>> In article <1113778211.039105.272560 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>> studio <tlack [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >JapanIsAColonyOfUSA [at] hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> Japan is a colony of the United States.
>> >
>> >lol...that's news to me! Allie maybe, colony no. Japan for the most
>> >part does what it wants.....as do we all.
>>
>> ``Japan for the most part does what it wants.....as do we all'' is a
>> mere assertion and in fact contradicts reality---
>
>Oh really? It's as good as an assertion as your's is.....just a bit
>more accurate. . . . [more arbitrary ``studio'' assertions snipped]
>> >Now, doesn't China have some peaceful Bhuddist monks in Tibet to
>> >suppress?
>
>Checkmate......next.
>
You were playing with yourself; so checkmate yourself. In any case,
there are the compliant Buddhists in Tibet and there are the
non-compliant Buddhists who are in India in exile.
The compliant monks in Tibet are kind of like the current Japanese
government who are compliant to the US government.
If you think that the Tibetans are suppressed, try to look at their
literacy rate now and that before 1950. In any case, Tibet is brought
up to confuse the issue.
lo yeeOn
========
clintpetra [at] wmconnect.com said:
I would be very curious to learn if Japanese posters and pro-Japanese
posters have ever read John Toland's history of "the Great Pacific
War," The Rising Sun in two volumes or The Imperial Japanese
Conspiracy by Bengamini.
Those were two objective works, well-documented, clearly
demonstrating war crimes by the Japanese comparable to Nazi Germany.
After reading and rereading dozens of history books about Japan over
the past 20 years, the only thing I see the Japanese upset about is
that they lost the war.
The Rape of Nanking was only the tip of a very bestial iceberg. The
Chinese lost as many as 20 million people in ww2. Most of these were
civilians. Not to mention the Filipinos who suffered losses in the
hundreds of thousands. Tens of thousands of Southeast Asian forced
labor worked to death on railroad constuction in Burmese jungles. The
murder of hundreds of British soldiers and civilians after the
surrender of the British Hong Kong garrison in 1941. The multiple rape
and decapitation of dozens of British nurses from the same
garrison....the Bataan Death March.
Give me a break. You wonder why the Chinese get a little cranky. The
only bloody thing the Japanese didn't do in ww2 was gas jews.
|
|
|
| A little modern Chinese history Re: Japan is a Colony of the United States [message #10566 ] |
Mo, 18 April 2005 13:33 |
|
In article <d3ut0e$k4e$1 [at] reader1.panix.com>,
lo yeeOn <acoustic [at] panix.com> wrote:
>In article <1113778211.039105.272560 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>studio <tlack [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>JapanIsAColonyOfUSA [at] hotmail.com wrote:
>>> Japan is a colony of the United States.
>>
>>lol...that's news to me! Allie maybe, colony no. Japan for the most
>>part does what it wants.....as do we all.
``Japan for the most part does what it wants.....as do we all'' is a
mere assertion and in fact contradicts reality---but who among the US
and the Japanese governments would want to openly admit it. It is
really shame, shame, and shame! But it is simply true, true, and
true!
And despite the two American atom bombs dropped on Japan, there isn't
a sound of protest or discussion from the general Japanese national
consciousness about whodunit it and why. And US troops continue to
occupy Japanese land despite complaints of rapes and other crimes by
locals.
Japan is neither free nor independent. Japan used to have its
post-war pacifist constitution, clearly by US demand. But now, the
Japanese government wants to re-militarize the country, again at the
urging of the US government, and to the amazement of the majority of
the Japanese citizens. Yes, urging as in "you have no choice but to
follow my wishes", just as in the war efforts in the Middle East, much
against the wishes of the people in Japan.
From the financing of the wars against Iraq 15 and 2 years ago and
against Afghanistan, as requested by the US government, to the
coordinating of US foreign policy in the UN and Far East Asia.
It is a fact that someone who has been only casually familiar with
world news can recognize. For example, such a person can tell you
that the Japanese population was opposed to sending troops to Iraq but
felt that its government had no choice but to comply with the US
government's wishes. The reason why the Japanese feel so impotent in
matter related to US interests is simple. Whereas the Germans have
been carrying their collective guilt for WWII for generations, the
Japanese have never been compelled to do the same. But there is a
price. They have been feeling forever obliged to the US government
for not making them feel guilty like their German counterparts and
they feel they have no choice but do what the US asks every time they
ask.
Remember the fury the Bush war propaganda machine generated against
France when the French thought the war was unjust and refused to go
along, despite Bush's stand of ``you're against us if you aren't with
us''. The propaganda was: ``Ah, France! How ungrateful you are! If
it weren't for America, you'd still be speaking German . . .'' The
meaning is: If we pulled you out of the fire once, you must do what we
tell you forever after or else you're an ingrate!
The propangandists however were deliberately confusing the world by
blurring the difference between the American people and
government, among other things.
Not only did they pretend that the conduct and intention of a
government is an immutable virtue, impossible to be affected by the
change of time and circumstance, but also that the American government
is always good and always represents the conscience of the American
people.
These people wanted to guilt-trip France into supporting an immoral
war against their better judgment. And of course, time has proven
that the French was right and also that Bush and his war propaganda
machine were massive liars.
Nothing can justify the killing and maiming of hundreds of thousands
people just because we want to get its ruler for the charge of being a
dictator. In a society, the justice system does not allow burning
down a whole neighborhood and killing all its residents just to get a
thug, much less can the people's conscience condone the massacre of
all the Iraqis as we have done in Iraq in order to capture its
dictator and overthrow his government. It is just not done by people
with reason and integrity.
And that's exactly why Bush didn't tell the world the truth. On the
one hand. he wanted to topple Saddam and on the other hand he couldn't
tell the world that he would go to war on a nation just to get rid of
a person. So he had to exaggerate his cause of war by claiming that
Saddam's Iraq possessed WMD which would readily harm the rest of the
world and embellished it further with mushroom clouds over big cities
before the domestic audience, a deception later admitted by Pentagon's
second in command Paul Wolfowitz (see below).
Bush didn't tell that he was sending Americans to die in Iraq because
Saddam was a dictator but because he had WMD which was about to hit
us. He lied to steal our support for his dirty war. So Bush has been
proven a massive liar and murderer. Yet when he wanted France to go
to war against Iraq, he would send his thugs to browbeat the French
(but was surprised to find that they wouldn't yield).
Now, can anyone imagine the awkward position the Japanese would find
themselves in if they would so much as to say no to *anything* the US
government asks them? They can never say no because if France, one of
the few important US wartime allies, would be so harshly reacted to,
what would be the punishment for Japan, which has been let off easy,
super-easy because the US government was calling the shots over what
happens in post-war Japan.
(Recall, for instance, Bush's sharp-tongued confidante Ms. Condoleezza
Rice: ``Punish France!'', much like Salome demanded King Herod to get
John the Baptist's head on a silver platter.)
Now if French Fries in Washington could be changed to Freedom Fries
for France's perceived disobedience, what would happen to Japan?
You can bet that clamour will reach a feverish pitch of demanding that
the Japanese emperor be hanged.
(``We were nice to them for having spared them their emperor's neck;
now let's see what the ingrates will get . . .'')
And it is exactly this that is the price that is permanently hanging
over Japan's head.
In many ways, the Germans have set themselves free, much as Christ has
taught by asking us sinners to repent.
But Japanese have not repented; so they continue to be enslaved by
their heinous past.
The German attitude has been well-documented and often written about
in popular magazines. It is not some kind of psycho-babble as some
people might like to claim. But the Japanese attitude toward its
militaristic past is one of haughtiness, evidently a result of its
relationship as a pampered-child with its US guardian.
It is in this sense that the original poster characterize Japan as an
American colony. And it would do well to be more educated and less
ignorant about modern Chinese history. In addition to the blood of
some one million Chinese slaughtered in Nanking in 1939, many more
millions of Chinese perished as a result of the Japanese war of
aggression in China. Furthermore, Japan is known to have conducted
secret germ experiments on Chinese captured in the North East in the
1920s-1930s. They were war crimes. Former soldiers who eye-witnessed
the war crimes had wanted to come to the US to testify about them but
was discouraged or ignored by governments on both sides of the Pacific
Ocean.
In addition, the attitude of the militarist Japan goes back as far as
the late 1800s. First, it was in 1894-5 or thereabouts: you could see
photos from history books (in the United States) of Japanese soldiers
posing with the decapitated bodies of the indigenous fighters they'd
just executed. I've just consulted one which shows the bodies lying
at the feet of the Japanese soldiers, facing the camera, and the four
severed heads of the executed Chinese lying closest to the foreground.
One of the Japanese soldiers were shown wiping the blood of his victim
off from his sword as he smiled. And there are three other soldiers
wearing similar uniforms, carrying long swords in the picture. (There
were also 5 Chinese soldiers standing grim-faced in the back row.)
And that was the aftermath of the Boxers' Rebellion. [Sterling
Professor Jonathan D. Spence (Yale) and (wife and also Yale teacher)
Amping Chin, Random House, 1996]
The Boxers were ignorant; they thought that with their bare hands,
their bravery, and their righteousness, heaven would help them defeat
the foreigners, which included the Japanese. They were dead wrong.
And the impotent Chinese government at the time was forced to have its
soldiers stand there and watch with utter humiliation the barbarous
execution of their own fellowmen. (And the beheading then ran a
parallel to the contemporary beheadings that recently took place in
Iraq.)
But that was only the beginning. On May 4th, 1919, roughly 6 months
after the armistice in November the previous year (1918) was signed in
Versailles as Germany was defeated in WWI and exactly 2 months before
our own Independence Day (July 4th), the Chinese students organized a
large protest which few in the west today are aware of but which
completely changed the psyche of the Chinese people ever since.
The immediate trigger for the protest was the discovery that their
impotent government (at that time already a republican one, as opposed
to the time of the Boxer's Rebellion when it was a monarchy) had at
Versailles agreed to let Japan take over the concession which was
forcibly made to Germany some 25 years ago, even though China wasn't a
party to WWI.
(The protest was to a large extent about the Chinese people feeling
angry with themselves, feeling they were an impotent and totally
humiliated people after seeing what the foreigners were doing to them
in China. They thought, as they had always thought, they were only
minding their own business, and yet the foreigners wouldn't leave them
alone. The protest was to raise the people's consciousness about how
they might pull themselves out of that hapless mess of foreign
domination. They were aware of the fact that they were themselves
largely to blame for their humilation because they realize that it was
rooted in their own backwardness in science, technology, and other
aspects of governing, such as how people should treat each others.
They came to the realization that the world wasn't surrounding them as
the center of the universe to which people come to pay tribute, as
they were used to believe. Rather, they were treated as prey, which
each predator wants a piece of. For this reason, when the Chinese
government finally got itself free of all foreign encroachment and got
on its own feet economically and politically and started catching up
with the rest of the world with the mastery of science and technology,
the Chinese people feel absolutely protective of this piece of new
found freedom. It is a form of self-liberation.)
But aside from the spiritual awakening of the Chinese people, history
also records the imperial Japanese's naked ambition in China. And in
fact Japan planted itself firmly in the Northeast of China, setting up
a strong military presence, knowing the continuous impotence of the
republican government at the time.
At that time, China was also full of warlords which held control of
different part of the country. And in the Northeast, Japan was able
to exercise so much control over the local warlord that he was blown
up in his armored train in the 1920s when he displayed a little
independence. The warlord's son succeeded him as the head of the
Chinese army for that region but the Japanese assassination of his
father had a profound effect on him as to how he should behave in
similar circumstances: He learned the valuable lesson of not trying to
do anything to displease the occupying Japanese.
Finally, the imperial Japanese began their southward invasion in
earnest in 1930s, going way past Beijing and bombing the coast,
targeting Shanghai and its surroundings, which culminated in the
Nanking ``Great Massacre'' in 1937 (Nanking was the capital of the
Chinese government at the time).
In any case anyone who has a casual familiarity with the Chinese
modern history knows that Japan had a continuous militaristic design
for China for over half a century until its defeat in 1945.
No one should ignore the fact that many Chinese had generations of
suffering under the Japanese. Even the official duration of the
Japanese war of aggression in China was 8 years, longer than any in
Europe. And in China it is called the eight-year war of resistance.
Consequently, the decades of occupation and the final 8 years of war
have deeply affected the Chinese psyche. It also explains why so many
Chinese people who went through the war approved of the horrible US
nuclear strategy on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, seeing it as a means to
end the Japanese aggression. (I personally disagree with either the
need or the advisability of the atom bombs but I can't tell the
Chinese people what to think, especially because they were the ones
who have suffered so much.)
In fact one reason why the Chinese communists had come to receive so
much popular support from their countrymen immediately after WWII is
because they were fighting closely with the peasants (left behind by
their fleeing government) against the occupying Japanese, very much
like the French resistance was doing against the Nazi Germans, while
the Wang government which remained in Nanking was very much like the
counterpart to the Vichy government in France, each cooperated with
the occupiers. In China though, the Chiang and his oligarch allies
had fled to the southwest, safely tucked away from the hostility of
war.
So, you see from this brief summary of the Japanese presence in China,
none of it benign, indicates that the Japanese have a heavy burden on
their backs that they haven't tried to unload. They pretend the burden
doesn't exist because they think they have the world's sole superpower
on their side. But precisely because of this indebtedness to America,
they are doing all these things no independent nations in the world
would do. Just listen to what Professor Ronald Morse had to say about
Japan's weird lap-dog foreign policy.
Indeed, Japan and the United States seem to be on the same page
regarding China, North Korea and even South Korea, which disagrees
with Washington about how to handle North Korea.
On defense and Security Council membership, "Japan's policies are a
subset of U.S. needs," said Ronald Morse, professor of Japan studies
at University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
"If you look at the environment, Iraq, U.S. base reorganization, beef,
illegal prostitution, Taiwan," Japanese foreign policy "is all driven
by Washington's actions," Morse said.
. . .
"The way it's going, Japan might as well give up its ambitions of
winning a permanent U.N. Security Council seat or the fusion energy
project," said Yamamoto, the Waseda professor.
Notice that ``Japan's policies are a subset of U.S. needs'', according
to Morse. That is, US needs drives Japan's policies, from A to Z.
lo yeeOn
========
1) On Japanese militaristic past, clintpetra [at] wmconnect.com wrote
I would be very curious to learn if Japanese posters and
pro-Japanese posters have ever read John Toland's history of "the
Great Pacific War," The Rising Sun in two volumes or The Imperial
Japanese Conspiracy by Bengamini.
Those were two objective works, well-documented, clearly
demonstrating war crimes by the Japanese comparable to Nazi
Germany. After reading and rereading dozens of history books about
Japan over the past 20 years, the only thing I see the Japanese
upset about is that they lost the war.
The Rape of Nanking was only the tip of a very bestial iceberg. The
Chinese lost as many as 20 million people in ww2. Most of these
were civilians. Not to mention the Filipinos who suffered losses in
the hundreds of thousands. Tens of thousands of Southeast Asian
forced labor worked to death on railroad constuction in Burmese
jungles. The murder of hundreds of British soldiers and civilians
after the surrender of the British Hong Kong garrison in 1941. The
multiple rape and decapitation of dozens of British nurses from the
same garrison....the Bataan Death March.
Give me a break. You wonder why the Chinese get a little
cranky. The only bloody thing the Japanese didn't do in ww2 was gas
jews.
2) Article with professor Ronald Morse's comments on Japan's foreign
policy being driven by the desire of the US government.
By KENJI HALL, Associated Press Writer
TOKYO - In diplomatic tussles with its neighbors, Japan has long been
inclined to turn the other cheek. Not lately, though.
In recent months, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has talked tough
with South Korea over disputed islets and reasserted Japan's claim to
other islands held by Russia. While China and North Korea continue to
harry Japan over its World War II conduct, Japan is bluntly portraying
those two communist countries as the real source of the region's
problems.
"In the past, Japan always avoided taking a stand on diplomatic
issues. But Japan has realized that tactic doesn't work, and its own
public has criticized it as too weak," said Masaru Ikei, a professor
of international politics at Keio University in Tokyo.
Japan's recent campaign for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security
Council and approval of a textbook that critics say glosses over
Tokyo's wartime aggression set off angry demonstrations in China. But
instead of making the usual conciliatory gestures, Tokyo rejected the
charges and demanded China apologize for allowing violent
anti-Japanese protests.
In Shanghai, police stood by Saturday as 20,000 rioters -- some
shouting "Kill the Japanese!" -- threw stones, eggs and plastic
bottles and broke windows at the Japanese Consulate and damaged
restaurants and cars.
Peaceful protests on Sunday in the southern cities of Shenzhen and
Guangzhou drew thousands. In Shenzhen, as many as 10,000 people
marched past a Japanese-owned department store calling for a boycott
of Japanese goods.
China on Sunday rebuffed Tokyo's demands for an apology, saying it had
never wronged the Japanese people but Japan had "hurt the feelings" of
Chinese. Many Chinese believe Japan has never truly shown remorse for
its prewar invasion of China.
Japan has stirred things up further by announcing it will prospect for
natural gas in an area of the East China Sea where Beijing claims
exclusive economic rights. And on Friday its Foreign Ministry issued a
report accusing China of intruding into Japan's territorial waters
last November. It said it was one of several moves that "threaten
Japan's national security, sovereignty and other rights."
While the statement offered to settle matters through peaceful
dialogue, Japan has also identified China's expanding military and its
threats against Taiwan as top security concerns.
The flare-up comes amid longer-term frictions as the two countries
compete for political and economic dominance in Asia. China is eager
to translate its financial might into diplomatic muscle and a greater
military presence in the Pacific. Japan wants a permanent seat on the
U.N. Security Council, alongside China, Russia, the United States,
Britain and France.
China is not the only country Japan is wrangling with.
In September, Koizumi took a provocative boat trip to the coast of the
Russian-held southern Kuril islands in the North Pacific, and
proclaimed them an "integral part of Japan," delighting his country's
ruling conservatives.
Last month Japan began banning most North Korean ships from Japanese
ports, demanding North Korea reveal more about its abductions of
Japanese nationals in the 1970s and '80s.
It is also at odds with South Korea over a cluster of islands claimed
by both sides.
The tougher posture reflects the bigger ambitions of the globe's
second-largest economy. Tokyo has sent troops to Iraq, is considering
revising its pacifist constitution, and is working with the United
States on a joint missile-defense shield.
Despite Japan's flourishing trade with Asia, analysts say Koizumi has
abandoned all pretense at currying favor with the neighbors.
"Japan's foreign policy isn't guided by philosophy or ideology -- it's
just nationalism. Koizumi is putting on a show for domestic
constituents," said Takehiko Yamamoto, an international relations
expert at Tokyo's Waseda University.
Still, Japan has picked its battles carefully, staying on friendly
terms with Europe and above all the United States, which has more than
50,000 troops stationed in Japan under a decades-old treaty.
Indeed, Japan and the United States seem to be on the same page
regarding China, North Korea and even South Korea, which disagrees
with Washington about how to handle North Korea.
On defense and Security Council membership, "Japan's policies are a
subset of U.S. needs," said Ronald Morse, professor of Japan studies
at University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
"If you look at the environment, Iraq, U.S. base reorganization, beef,
illegal prostitution, Taiwan," Japanese foreign policy "is all driven
by Washington's actions," Morse said.
But Japan stands to lose a lot if it alienates its neighbors.
It needs China's acquiescence to win that Security Council seat. It
has lobbied hard for Russian approval of a badly needed trans-Siberian
oil pipeline. And it needs South Korea's backing in the international
contest for a prestigious and job-generating nuclear fusion energy
project.
"The way it's going, Japan might as well give up its ambitions of
winning a permanent U.N. Security Council seat or the fusion energy
project," said Yamamoto, the Waseda professor.
3) The war against Iraq was not a consequence of 9/11
a) http://informationclearinghouse.info/article8502.htm
Link to Murderous Thugs article.
Paul Wolfowitz, after months of not finding any Weapons of Mass
Destruction....and after hundreds of US soldiers were killed....my son
amongst them....and after tens of thousands of innocent Iraq citizens
were killed....this same Paul Wolfowitz casually explained....with his
kindly charade and his ever so soft voice...that a decision was made
to put forth "Weapons of Mass Destruction" as the need for the
invasion. Essentially, Paul Wolfowitz admitted that he and his fellow
conspirators had decided amongst themselves "...let's just go with the
bit about Weapons of Mass Destruction. It's the one thing that will
scare the American people enough so as to cause them to get behind
this invasion."
As soft-spoken and sincere-sounding as Paul Wolfowitz is, is there yet
any sane adult in this country who's skin does not crawl when this
murderous liar opens his mouth and speaks? Am I the only person in
this room who clearly sees that Paul Wolfowitz is a threat to our
nation's security...and to peace on our beloved earth?"
[On Weapons of Mass Destruction,] Rumsfeld [knew] that Saddam
had been stripped clean of such weapons, that Saddam's ability to
reconstitute such weapons' programs had also been destroyed, and that
any moves Saddam might have made in that direction would have been
observed and stopped, forthwith.
Is there anyone in America who cannot yet see that Donald Runsfeld is
a liar...that he, as with Hitler and Stalin....will say anything so
long as he thinks it will help shape the world to his own liking? Is
there even one, sane adult among us who cannot see that Donald
Rumsfeld is a threat to our nation's security and to peace on our
beloved earth?
Had the Shah of Iran...a blood-bought servant of US corporate
interests...not soon been overthrown by his own countrymen, the
big-wigs at Westinghouse or General Electric...or perhaps both...
would have amassed personal fortunes from this one project, alone.
Some of the stockholders would have also made bundles on the deal.
In 1975 my son had not yet been born. Today he is in his grave. Dick
Cheney, on the other hand, is now Vice President of the United States,
and he is materially wealthy beyond what any of us would ever pray to
be. This is the same Dick Cheney who during the months leading-up to
the invasion of Iraq said that Saddam Hussein not only has stockpiles
of Weapons of Mass Destruction...more than a hundred metric tons of
the deadly stuff...but he also said that Saddam Hussein was
well-advanced in developing nuclear weapons and that therefore the US
must invade Iraq and dethrone Saddam Hussein. Clean, quick, and simple
according to Dick Cheney. Yet for some time now he has changed his
tune. He now says...as if he had said it all along...that the US
occupation of Iraq will require years of difficult and sometimes
bloody conflict before it will be stable enough to bring our loved
ones home. And too, rather than speak of Weapons of Mass Destruction,
he now uses the word "democracy" a lot.
Is there yet an American who can not clearly see that Dick
Cheney...whether it be 1975 or 2005...will say whatever he thinks is
required to ultimately cause wealth and power to move to himself and
to his friends? ...need I defile this holy place with words like
"Haliburton" and "Kellog, Brown & Root" and "torture" and "US weapons
industry"? Indeed, the Apostle Paul is correct in saying that,
ultimately, the love of money leads to ruin and destruction.
Are we to believe that this administration was, once again, asleep
at the wheel...just as they would also have us to believe that they
were innocently caught off-guard on the morning of September 11,
2001?
b) http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=28769
The link has an excerpt from James Bamford:
The following should be unacceptable as well (for any patriotic
American who serves the best interests of America first):
http://warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=20366
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------
-------------
'A Pretext For War' Pages 261-269 of James Bamford's 'A Pretext for
War' book"
Then Bush addressed the sole items on the agenda for his first high
level national security meeting. The topics were not terrorism--a
subject he barely mentioned during the campaign --or nervousness over
China or Russia, but Israel and Iraq. From the very first moment, the
Bush foreign policy would focus on three key objectives: get rid of
Saddam, end American involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian peace
process, and rearrange the dominoes in the Middle East. A key to the
policy shift would be the concept of pre-emption.
The Blueprint for the new Bush policy had actually been drawn up five
years earlier by three of his top national security advisors. Soon to
be appointed to senior administration positions, they were Richard
Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser. Ironically the plan was
orginally intended not for Bush but for another world leader, Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
At the time, the three officials were out of government and working
for conservative pro-Israel think tanks. Perle and Feith had
previously served in high level Pentagon positions during the
presidency of Ronald Reagan. In a very unusaul move, the former--and
future--senior American officials were acting as a sort of American
privy council to the new Israeli Prime Minister. The Perle task force
to advise Netanyahu was set up by the Jerusalem based Institute for
Advanced Stategic and Political Studies, where Wurmser was working. A
key part of the plan was to get the United States to pull out of peace
negotiations and simply let Israel take care of the Palestinians as it
saw fit. "Israel," said the report, can manage it's own affairs. Such
self-reliance will grant Israel greater freedom of action and remove a
significant lever of pressure used against it in the past.
But the centerpiece of the recommendations was the removal of Saddam
Hussein as the first step in remaking the Middle East into a region
friendly, instead of hostile, to Israel. Their plan "A Clean Break: A
New Strategy for Securing the Realm," also signaled a radical
departure from the peace-oriented policies of former Prime Minister
Yitzhak Rabin, who was assassinated by a member of an extreme
right-wing Israeli group.
As part of their "grand strategy" they recommended that once Iraq was
conquered and Saddam Hussein overthrown, he should be replaced by a
puppet leader friendly to Israel. Whoever inherits Iraq, they wrote,
dominates the entire Levant strategically. Then they suggested that
Syria would be the next country to be invaded. Israel can shape it's
strategic environment, they said.
This would be done, they recommended to Netanyahu, by re-establishing
the principle of pre-emption and by rolling back it's Arab neighbors.
From then on, the principle would be to strike first and expand, a
dangerous and provocative change in philosphy. They recommended
launching a major unprovoked regional war in the Middle East,
attacking Lebanon and Syria and ousting Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Ten, to
gain the support of the American government and public, a phony
pretext would be used as the reason for the original invasion.
The recommendation of Feith, Perle and Wurmser was for Israel to once
again invade Lebanon with air strikes. But this time to counter
potentionally hostile reactions from the American government and
public, they suggested using a pretext. They would claim that the
purpose of the invasion was to halt Syria's drug-money and
counterfeiting infrastructure located there. They were subjects in
which Israel had virtually no interest, but they were ones, they said,
with which America can sympathize.
Another way to win American support for a pre-empted war against
Syria, they suggested, was by drawing attention to its weapons of mass
destruction program. This claim would be that Israel's war was really
all about protecting Americans from drugs, counterfeit bills, and
WMD--nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.
It was rather extraordinary for a trio of former, and potentially
future, high-ranking American government officials to become advisors
to a foreign government. More unsettling still was a fact that they
were recommending acts of war in which Americans could be killed, and
also ways to masquerade the true purpose of the attacks from the
American public.
Once inside Lebanon, Israel could let loose--to begin engaging
Hizballah, Syria and Iran, as the principle agents of aggression in
Lebanon. Then they would widen the war even further by using proxy
forces--Lebanese militia fighters acting on Israel's behalf (as Ariel
Sharon had done in the 80's)--to invade Syria from Lebanon. Thus, they
noted, they could invade Syria by establishing the precedent that
Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by
Israeli proxy forces.
As soon as that fighting started, they advised, Israel could begin
striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove
insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper [emphasis in
original].
The Perle task force even supplied Nentanyahu with some text for a
television address, using the suggested pretext to justify the war.
Years later, it would closely resemble speeches to justify their own
Middle East wars; Iraq would simply replace Syria and the United Staes
would replace Israel: Negotiations with repressive regimes like
Syria's require cautious realism. One cannot sensibly assume the other
side's good faith. It is dangerous for Israel to deal naively with a
regime murderous of its own people, openly aggressive towards its
neighbors, criminally involved with international drug traffickers and
counterfeiters, and supportive of the most deadly terrorist
organizations.
The task force then suggested that Israel open a second front in its
expanding war, with a focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in
Iraq--an important Israel strategic objective in its own right--as a
expanding war, with a focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in
Iraq--an important Israel strategic objective in its own right--as a
means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions.
For years the killing of Saddam Hussein had been among the highest,
and most secret, priorities of the Israeli government. In one stroke
it would pay Saddam Hussein back for launching Scud missiles against
Israel, killing several people, during the Gulf War. Redrawing the map
of the Middle East would also help isolate Syria, Iraq's ally and
Israel's archenemy along its northern border. Thus, in the early
1990's, after the US-led war in the Gulf, a small elite team of
Israeli commandos was given the order to train in absolute secrecy for
an assassination mission to bring down the Baghdad ruler.
The plan, code-named Bramble Bush, was to first kill a close friend of
the Iraqi leader outside the country, someone from Hussein's hometown
of Tikrit. Then, after learning the date and time of the funeral to be
held in the town, a funeral Hussein was certain to attend, they would
have time to covertly infiltrate a team of commandos into the country
to carry out the assassination. The murder weapons were to be
specially modified "smart" missiles that would be fired at Hussein as
he stood in a crowd at the funeral.
But, the plan was finally abandoned after five members of the team
were accidently killed during a dry run of the operation.
Nevertheless, removing Saddam and converting Iraq from threat to ally
had long been at the top of Israel's wish list.
Now Perle, Feith, and Wurmser were suggesting something far more
daring--not just an assassination but a bloody war that would get rid
of Saddam Hussein and also change the face of Syria and Lebanon. Perle
felt their "Clean Break" recommendations were so important that he
personally hand-carried the report to Netanyahu.
Wisely, Netanyahu rejected the task force' plan. But now, with the
election of a receptive George W. Bush, they dusted off their
pre-emptive war strategy and began getting ready to put it to use.
The new Bush policy was an aggressive agenda for any president, but
especially for someone who had previously shown little interest in
international affairs. We're going to correct the imbalances the
previous administration on the Mideast conflict, Bush told his freshly
assembled senior national security team in the Situation Room on
January 30, 2001. We're going to tilt it back toward Israel. . .
.Anybody here ever met Ariel Sharon? Only Colin Powell raised his
hand.
Bush was going to reverse the Clinton policy, which was heavily
weighted toward bringing the bloody conflict between Israel and the
Palestinians to a peaceful conclusion. There would be no more US
interference; he would let Sharon resolve the dispute however he saw
fit, with little or no regard for the situation of the Palestinians.
The policy change was exactly as recommended by the Perle task force's
"Clean Break" report.
I'm not going to go by past reputations when it comes to Sharon, Bush
told his newly gathered national security team. I'm going to take him
at face value. We'll work on a relationship based on how things go.
Then he mentioned a trip he had taken with the Republican Jewish
Coalition to Israel. We flew over the Palestinian camps. Looked real
bad down there, he said with a frown. Then he said it was time to end
America's efforts in the region. I don't see much we can do over there
at this point, he said.
Colin Powell, Secretary of State for only a few days, was taken by
surprise. The idea that such a complex problem, in which America had
long been heavily involved, could be simply brushed away with the
sweep of a hand made little sense. Fearing Israeli-led aggression, he
quickly objected.
c) This War on Terrorism is Bogus
The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure
its global domination
Michael Meacher
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------
Saturday September 6, 2003
The Guardian
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1036688, 00.html
Michael Meacher MP was environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003
Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons
why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has
focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British
motives too.
The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit,
retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first
step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam
Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of
mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However
this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal
murkier.
We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax
Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald
Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb
Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief
of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was
written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project
for the New American Century (PNAC).
The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the
Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "while
the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in
the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to
Wolfowitz and Libby which said the US must "discourage advanced
industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to
a larger regional or global role". It refers to key allies such as the
UK as "the most effective and efficient means of exercising American
global leadership". It describes peacekeeping missions as "demanding
American political leadership rather than that of the UN". It says
"even should Saddam pass from the scene", US bases in Saudi Arabia and
Kuwait will remain permanently... as "Iran may well prove as large a
threat to US interests as Iraq has". It spotlights China for "regime
change", saying "it is time to increase the presence of American
forces in SE Asia".
The document also calls for the creation of "US space forces" to
dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent
"enemies" using the internet against the US. It also hints that the US
may consider developing biological weapons "that can target specific
genotypes [and] may transform biological warfare from the realm of
terror to a politically useful tool".
Finally - written a year before 9/11 - it pinpoints North Korea, Syria
and Iran as dangerous regimes, and says their existence justifies the
creation of a "worldwide command and control system". This is a
blueprint for US world domination. But before it is dismissed as an
agenda for rightwing fantasists, it is clear it provides a much better
explanation of what actually happened before, during and after 9/11
than the global war on terrorism thesis. This can be seen in several
ways.
First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to
pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries
provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior
Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA
and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big
operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided
included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was
arrested.
It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit
Washington targets with aeroplanes. Then in 1999 a US national
intelligence council report noted that "al-Qaida suicide bombers could
crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon,
the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House".
Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia.
Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in
Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing
visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them
to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in
collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this
operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is
also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure
US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001).
Instructive leads prior to 9/11 were not followed up. French Moroccan
flight student Zacarias Moussaoui (now thought to be the 20th
hijacker) was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor reported he
showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large
airliners. When US agents learned from French intelligence he had
radical Islamist ties, they sought a warrant to search his computer,
which contained clues to the September 11 mission (Times, November 3
2001). But they were turned down by the FBI. One agent wrote, a month
before 9/11, that Moussaoui might be planning to crash into the Twin
Towers (Newsweek, May 20 2002).
All of this makes it all the more astonishing - on the war on
terrorism perspective - that there was such slow reaction on September
11 itself. The first hijacking was suspected at not later than
8.20am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at
10.06am. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from
the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until
after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not? There
were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before
9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched
fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP,
August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft
has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent
up to investigate.
Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or
being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could US air security operations
have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on
whose authority? The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus,
has said: "The information provided by European intelligence services
prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for
either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence."
Nor is the US response after 9/11 any better. No serious attempt has
ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October
2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties negotiated Bin
Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US
official said, significantly, that "casting our objectives too
narrowly" risked "a premature collapse of the international effort if
by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured". The US chairman of
the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that
"the goal has never been to get Bin Laden" (AP, April 5 2002). The
whistleblowing FBI agent Robert Wright told ABC News (December 19
2002) that FBI headquarters wanted no arrests. And in November 2001
the US airforce complained it had had al-Qaida and Taliban leaders in
its sights as many as 10 times over the previous six weeks, but had
been unable to attack because they did not receive permission quickly
enough (Time Magazine, May 13 2002). None of this assembled evidence,
all of which comes from sources already in the public domain, is
compatible with the idea of a real, determined war on terrorism.
The catalogue of evidence does, however, fall into place when set
against the PNAC blueprint. From this it seems that the so-called "war
on terrorism" is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider
US strategic geopolitical objectives. Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted
at this when he said to the Commons liaison committee: "To be truthful
about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to
have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened
on September 11" (Times, July 17 2002). Similarly Rumsfeld was so
determined to obtain a rationale for an attack on Iraq that on 10
separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to
9/11; the CIA repeatedly came back empty-handed (Time Magazine, May 13
2002).
In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC
plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for
military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before
9/11. A report prepared for the US government from the Baker Institute
of Public Policy stated in April 2001 that "the US remains a prisoner
of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising influence
to... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle
East". Submitted to Vice-President Cheney's energy task group, the
report recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to the
US, "military intervention" was necessary (Sunday Herald, October 6
2002).
Similar evidence exists in regard to Afghanistan. The BBC reported
(September 18 2001) that Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign
secretary, was told by senior American officials at a meeting in
Berlin in mid-July 2001 that "military action against Afghanistan
would go ahead by the middle of October". Until July 2001 the US
government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central
Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from
the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan,
through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But, confronted
with the Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, the US
representatives told them "either you accept our offer of a carpet of
gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs" (Inter Press Service,
November 15 2001).
Given this background, it is not surprising that some have seen the US
failure to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating an invaluable pretext
for attacking Afghanistan in a war that had clearly already been well
planned in advance. There is a possible precedent for this. The US
national archives reveal that President Roosevelt used exactly this
approach in relation to Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941. Some advance
warning of the attacks was received, but the information never reached
the US fleet. The ensuing national outrage persuaded a reluctant US
public to join the second world war. Similarly the PNAC blueprint of
September 2000 states that the process of transforming the US into
"tomorrow's dominant force" is likely to be a long one in the absence
of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl
Harbor". The 9/11 attacks allowed the US to press the "go" button for
a strategy in accordance with the PNAC agenda which it would otherwise
have been politically impossible to implement.
The overriding motivation for this political smokescreen is that the
US and the UK are beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy
supplies. By 2010 the Muslim world will control as much as 60% of the
world's oil production and, even more importantly, 95% of remaining
global oil export capacity. As demand is increasing, so supply is
decreasing, continually since the 1960s.
This is leading to increasing dependence on foreign oil supplies for
both the US and the UK. The US, which in 1990 produced domestically
57% of its total energy demand, is predicted to produce only 39% of
its needs by 2010. A DTI minister has admitted that the UK could be
facing "severe" gas shortages by 2005. The UK government has confirmed
that 70% of our electricity will come from gas by 2020, and 90% of
that will be imported. In that context it should be noted that Iraq
has 110 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in addition to its oil.
A report from the commission on America's national interests in July
2000 noted that the most promising new source of world supplies was
the Caspian region, and this would relieve US dependence on Saudi
Arabia. To diversify supply routes from the Caspian, one pipeline
would run westward via Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Turkish port of
Ceyhan. Another would extend eastwards through Afghanistan and
Pakistan and terminate near the Indian border. This would rescue
Enron's beleaguered power plant at Dabhol on India's west coast, in
which Enron had sunk $3bn investment and whose economic survival was
dependent on access to cheap gas.
Nor has the UK been disinterested in this scramble for the remaining
world supplies of hydrocarbons, and this may partly explain British
participation in US military actions. Lord Browne, chief executive of
BP, warned Washington not to carve up Iraq for its own oil companies
in the aftermath of war (Guardian, October 30 2002). And when a
British foreign minister met Gadaffi in his desert tent in August
2002, it was said that "the UK does not want to lose out to other
European nations already jostling for advantage when it comes to
potentially lucrative oil contracts" with Libya (BBC Online, August 10
2002).
The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the "global
war on terrorism" has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to
hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies
required to drive the whole project. Is collusion in this myth and
junior participation in this project really a proper aspiration for
British foreign policy? If there was ever need to justify a more
objective British stance, driven by our own independent goals, this
whole depressing saga surely provides all the evidence needed for a
radical change of course.
Michael Meacher MP was environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003
-------------
lo yeeOn wrote:
> In article <1113778211.039105.272560 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> studio <tlack [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> >JapanIsAColonyOfUSA [at] hotmail.com wrote:
> >> Japan is a colony of the United States.
> >
> >lol...that's news to me! Allie maybe, colony no. Japan for the most
> >part does what it wants.....as do we all.
>
> ["studio"'s] assertion ``Japan for the most part does what it wants
> . . . as do we all'' is a mere assertion and in fact contradicts
> reality---but who among the US and the Japanese governments would
> want to openly admit it. It is really shame, shame, and shame! But
> it is simply true, true, and true!
In response, "studio" wrote:
Oh really? It's as good as an assertion as your's is.....just a bit
more accurate. . . . [more arbitrary "studio" assertions snipped.]
|
|
|
| A little modern Chinese history Re: Japan is a Colony of the United States [message #10567 ] |
Mo, 18 April 2005 13:39 |
|
In article <d3ut0e$k4e$1 [at] reader1.panix.com>,
lo yeeOn <acoustic [at] panix.com> wrote:
>In article <1113778211.039105.272560 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>studio <tlack [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>JapanIsAColonyOfUSA [at] hotmail.com wrote:
>>> Japan is a colony of the United States.
>>
>>lol...that's news to me! Allie maybe, colony no. Japan for the most
>>part does what it wants.....as do we all.
``Japan for the most part does what it wants.....as do we all'' is a
mere assertion and in fact contradicts reality---but who among the US
and the Japanese governments would want to openly admit it. It is
really shame, shame, and shame! But it is simply true, true, and
true!
And despite the two American atom bombs dropped on Japan, there isn't
a sound of protest or discussion from the general Japanese national
consciousness about whodunit it and why. And US troops continue to
occupy Japanese land despite complaints of rapes and other crimes by
locals.
Japan is neither free nor independent. Japan used to have its
post-war pacifist constitution, clearly by US demand. But now, the
Japanese government wants to re-militarize the country, again at the
urging of the US government, and to the amazement of the majority of
the Japanese citizens. Yes, urging as in "you have no choice but to
follow my wishes", just as in the war efforts in the Middle East, much
against the wishes of the people in Japan.
From the financing of the wars against Iraq 15 and 2 years ago and
against Afghanistan, as requested by the US government, to the
coordinating of US foreign policy in the UN and Far East Asia.
It is a fact that someone who has been only casually familiar with
world news can recognize. For example, such a person can tell you
that the Japanese population was opposed to sending troops to Iraq but
felt that its government had no choice but to comply with the US
government's wishes. The reason why the Japanese feel so impotent in
matter related to US interests is simple. Whereas the Germans have
been carrying their collective guilt for WWII for generations, the
Japanese have never been compelled to do the same. But there is a
price. They have been feeling forever obliged to the US government
for not making them feel guilty like their German counterparts and
they feel they have no choice but do what the US asks every time they
ask.
Remember the fury the Bush war propaganda machine generated against
France when the French thought the war was unjust and refused to go
along, despite Bush's stand of ``you're against us if you aren't with
us''. The propaganda was: ``Ah, France! How ungrateful you are! If
it weren't for America, you'd still be speaking German . . .'' The
meaning is: If we pulled you out of the fire once, you must do what we
tell you forever after or else you're an ingrate!
The propangandists however were deliberately confusing the world by
blurring the difference between the American people and
government, among other things.
Not only did they pretend that the conduct and intention of a
government is an immutable virtue, impossible to be affected by the
change of time and circumstance, but also that the American government
is always good and always represents the conscience of the American
people.
These people wanted to guilt-trip France into supporting an immoral
war against their better judgment. And of course, time has proven
that the French was right and also that Bush and his war propaganda
machine were massive liars.
Nothing can justify the killing and maiming of hundreds of thousands
people just because we want to get its ruler for the charge of being a
dictator. In a society, the justice system does not allow burning
down a whole neighborhood and killing all its residents just to get a
thug, much less can the people's conscience condone the massacre of
all the Iraqis as we have done in Iraq in order to capture its
dictator and overthrow his government. It is just not done by people
with reason and integrity.
And that's exactly why Bush didn't tell the world the truth. On the
one hand. he wanted to topple Saddam and on the other hand he couldn't
tell the world that he would go to war on a nation just to get rid of
a person. So he had to exaggerate his cause of war by claiming that
Saddam's Iraq possessed WMD which would readily harm the rest of the
world and embellished it further with mushroom clouds over big cities
before the domestic audience, a deception later admitted by Pentagon's
second in command Paul Wolfowitz (see below).
Bush didn't tell that he was sending Americans to die in Iraq because
Saddam was a dictator but because he had WMD which was about to hit
us. He lied to steal our support for his dirty war. So Bush has been
proven a massive liar and murderer. Yet when he wanted France to go
to war against Iraq, he would send his thugs to browbeat the French
(but was surprised to find that they wouldn't yield).
Now, can anyone imagine the awkward position the Japanese would find
themselves in if they would so much as to say no to *anything* the US
government asks them? They can never say no because if France, one of
the few important US wartime allies, would be so harshly reacted to,
what would be the punishment for Japan, which has been let off easy,
super-easy because the US government was calling the shots over what
happens in post-war Japan.
(Recall, for instance, Bush's sharp-tongued confidante Ms. Condoleezza
Rice: ``Punish France!'', much like Salome demanded King Herod to get
John the Baptist's head on a silver platter.)
Now if French Fries in Washington could be changed to Freedom Fries
for France's perceived disobedience, what would happen to Japan?
You can bet that clamour will reach a feverish pitch of demanding that
the Japanese emperor be hanged.
(``We were nice to them for having spared them their emperor's neck;
now let's see what the ingrates will get . . .'')
And it is exactly this that is the price that is permanently hanging
over Japan's head.
In many ways, the Germans have set themselves free, much as Christ has
taught by asking us sinners to repent.
But Japanese have not repented; so they continue to be enslaved by
their heinous past.
The German attitude has been well-documented and often written about
in popular magazines. It is not some kind of psycho-babble as some
people might like to claim. But the Japanese attitude toward its
militaristic past is one of haughtiness, evidently a result of its
relationship as a pampered-child with its US guardian.
It is in this sense that the original poster characterize Japan as an
American colony. And it would do well to be more educated and less
ignorant about modern Chinese history. In addition to the blood of
some one million Chinese slaughtered in Nanking in 1939, many more
millions of Chinese perished as a result of the Japanese war of
aggression in China. Furthermore, Japan is known to have conducted
secret germ experiments on Chinese captured in the North East in the
1920s-1930s. They were war crimes. Former soldiers who eye-witnessed
the war crimes had wanted to come to the US to testify about them but
was discouraged or ignored by governments on both sides of the Pacific
Ocean.
In addition, the attitude of the militarist Japan goes back as far as
the late 1800s. First, it was in 1894-5 or thereabouts: you could see
photos from history books (in the United States) of Japanese soldiers
posing with the decapitated bodies of the indigenous fighters they'd
just executed. I've just consulted one which shows the bodies lying
at the feet of the Japanese soldiers, facing the camera, and the four
severed heads of the executed Chinese lying closest to the foreground.
One of the Japanese soldiers were shown wiping the blood of his victim
off from his sword as he smiled. And there are three other soldiers
wearing similar uniforms, carrying long swords in the picture. (There
were also 5 Chinese soldiers standing grim-faced in the back row.)
And that was the aftermath of the Boxers' Rebellion. [Sterling
Professor Jonathan D. Spence (Yale) and (wife and also Yale teacher)
Amping Chin, Random House, 1996]
The Boxers were ignorant; they thought that with their bare hands,
their bravery, and their righteousness, heaven would help them defeat
the foreigners, which included the Japanese. They were dead wrong.
And the impotent Chinese government at the time was forced to have its
soldiers stand there and watch with utter humiliation the barbarous
execution of their own fellowmen. (And the beheading then ran a
parallel to the contemporary beheadings that recently took place in
Iraq.)
But that was only the beginning. On May 4th, 1919, roughly 6 months
after the armistice in November the previous year (1918) was signed in
Versailles as Germany was defeated in WWI and exactly 2 months before
our own Independence Day (July 4th), the Chinese students organized a
large protest which few in the west today are aware of but which
completely changed the psyche of the Chinese people ever since.
The immediate trigger for the protest was the discovery that their
impotent government (at that time already a republican one, as opposed
to the time of the Boxer's Rebellion when it was a monarchy) had at
Versailles agreed to let Japan take over the concession which was
forcibly made to Germany some 25 years ago, even though China wasn't a
party to WWI.
(The protest was to a large extent about the Chinese people feeling
angry with themselves, feeling they were an impotent and totally
humiliated people after seeing what the foreigners were doing to them
in China. They thought, as they had always thought, they were only
minding their own business, and yet the foreigners wouldn't leave them
alone. The protest was to raise the people's consciousness about how
they might pull themselves out of that hapless mess of foreign
domination. They were aware of the fact that they were themselves
largely to blame for their humilation because they realize that it was
rooted in their own backwardness in science, technology, and other
aspects of governing, such as how people should treat each others.
They came to the realization that the world wasn't surrounding them as
the center of the universe to which people come to pay tribute, as
they were used to believe. Rather, they were treated as prey, which
each predator wants a piece of. For this reason, when the Chinese
government finally got itself free of all foreign encroachment and got
on its own feet economically and politically and started catching up
with the rest of the world with the mastery of science and technology,
the Chinese people feel absolutely protective of this piece of new
found freedom. It is a form of self-liberation.)
But aside from the spiritual awakening of the Chinese people, history
also records the imperial Japanese's naked ambition in China. And in
fact Japan planted itself firmly in the Northeast of China, setting up
a strong military presence, knowing the continuous impotence of the
republican government at the time.
At that time, China was also full of warlords which held control of
different part of the country. And in the Northeast, Japan was able
to exercise so much control over the local warlord that he was blown
up in his armored train in the 1920s when he displayed a little
independence. The warlord's son succeeded him as the head of the
Chinese army for that region but the Japanese assassination of his
father had a profound effect on him as to how he should behave in
similar circumstances: He learned the valuable lesson of not trying to
do anything to displease the occupying Japanese.
Finally, the imperial Japanese began their southward invasion in
earnest in 1930s, going way past Beijing and bombing the coast,
targeting Shanghai and its surroundings, which culminated in the
Nanking ``Great Massacre'' in 1937 (Nanking was the capital of the
Chinese government at the time).
In any case anyone who has a casual familiarity with the Chinese
modern history knows that Japan had a continuous militaristic design
for China for over half a century until its defeat in 1945.
No one should ignore the fact that many Chinese had generations of
suffering under the Japanese. Even the official duration of the
Japanese war of aggression in China was 8 years, longer than any in
Europe. And in China it is called the eight-year war of resistance.
Consequently, the decades of occupation and the final 8 years of war
have deeply affected the Chinese psyche. It also explains why so many
Chinese people who went through the war approved of the horrible US
nuclear strategy on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, seeing it as a means to
end the Japanese aggression. (I personally disagree with either the
need or the advisability of the atom bombs but I can't tell the
Chinese people what to think, especially because they were the ones
who have suffered so much.)
In fact one reason why the Chinese communists had come to receive so
much popular support from their countrymen immediately after WWII is
because they were fighting closely with the peasants (left behind by
their fleeing government) against the occupying Japanese, very much
like the French resistance was doing against the Nazi Germans, while
the Wang government which remained in Nanking was very much like the
counterpart to the Vichy government in France, each cooperated with
the occupiers. In China though, the Chiang and his oligarch allies
had fled to the southwest, safely tucked away from the hostility of
war.
So, you see from this brief summary of the Japanese presence in China,
none of it benign, indicates that the Japanese have a heavy burden on
their backs that they haven't tried to unload. They pretend the burden
doesn't exist because they think they have the world's sole superpower
on their side. But precisely because of this indebtedness to America,
they are doing all these things no independent nations in the world
would do. Just listen to what Professor Ronald Morse had to say about
Japan's weird lap-dog foreign policy.
Indeed, Japan and the United States seem to be on the same page
regarding China, North Korea and even South Korea, which disagrees
with Washington about how to handle North Korea.
On defense and Security Council membership, "Japan's policies are a
subset of U.S. needs," said Ronald Morse, professor of Japan studies
at University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
"If you look at the environment, Iraq, U.S. base reorganization, beef,
illegal prostitution, Taiwan," Japanese foreign policy "is all driven
by Washington's actions," Morse said.
. . .
"The way it's going, Japan might as well give up its ambitions of
winning a permanent U.N. Security Council seat or the fusion energy
project," said Yamamoto, the Waseda professor.
Notice that ``Japan's policies are a subset of U.S. needs'', according
to Morse. That is, US needs drives Japan's policies, from A to Z.
lo yeeOn
========
1) On Japanese militaristic past, clintpetra [at] wmconnect.com wrote
I would be very curious to learn if Japanese posters and
pro-Japanese posters have ever read John Toland's history of "the
Great Pacific War," The Rising Sun in two volumes or The Imperial
Japanese Conspiracy by Bengamini.
Those were two objective works, well-documented, clearly
demonstrating war crimes by the Japanese comparable to Nazi
Germany. After reading and rereading dozens of history books about
Japan over the past 20 years, the only thing I see the Japanese
upset about is that they lost the war.
The Rape of Nanking was only the tip of a very bestial iceberg. The
Chinese lost as many as 20 million people in ww2. Most of these
were civilians. Not to mention the Filipinos who suffered losses in
the hundreds of thousands. Tens of thousands of Southeast Asian
forced labor worked to death on railroad constuction in Burmese
jungles. The murder of hundreds of British soldiers and civilians
after the surrender of the British Hong Kong garrison in 1941. The
multiple rape and decapitation of dozens of British nurses from the
same garrison....the Bataan Death March.
Give me a break. You wonder why the Chinese get a little
cranky. The only bloody thing the Japanese didn't do in ww2 was gas
jews.
2) Article with professor Ronald Morse's comments on Japan's foreign
policy being driven by the desire of the US government.
By KENJI HALL, Associated Press Writer
TOKYO - In diplomatic tussles with its neighbors, Japan has long been
inclined to turn the other cheek. Not lately, though.
In recent months, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has talked tough
with South Korea over disputed islets and reasserted Japan's claim to
other islands held by Russia. While China and North Korea continue to
harry Japan over its World War II conduct, Japan is bluntly portraying
those two communist countries as the real source of the region's
problems.
"In the past, Japan always avoided taking a stand on diplomatic
issues. But Japan has realized that tactic doesn't work, and its own
public has criticized it as too weak," said Masaru Ikei, a professor
of international politics at Keio University in Tokyo.
Japan's recent campaign for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security
Council and approval of a textbook that critics say glosses over
Tokyo's wartime aggression set off angry demonstrations in China. But
instead of making the usual conciliatory gestures, Tokyo rejected the
charges and demanded China apologize for allowing violent
anti-Japanese protests.
In Shanghai, police stood by Saturday as 20,000 rioters -- some
shouting "Kill the Japanese!" -- threw stones, eggs and plastic
bottles and broke windows at the Japanese Consulate and damaged
restaurants and cars.
Peaceful protests on Sunday in the southern cities of Shenzhen and
Guangzhou drew thousands. In Shenzhen, as many as 10,000 people
marched past a Japanese-owned department store calling for a boycott
of Japanese goods.
China on Sunday rebuffed Tokyo's demands for an apology, saying it had
never wronged the Japanese people but Japan had "hurt the feelings" of
Chinese. Many Chinese believe Japan has never truly shown remorse for
its prewar invasion of China.
Japan has stirred things up further by announcing it will prospect for
natural gas in an area of the East China Sea where Beijing claims
exclusive economic rights. And on Friday its Foreign Ministry issued a
report accusing China of intruding into Japan's territorial waters
last November. It said it was one of several moves that "threaten
Japan's national security, sovereignty and other rights."
While the statement offered to settle matters through peaceful
dialogue, Japan has also identified China's expanding military and its
threats against Taiwan as top security concerns.
The flare-up comes amid longer-term frictions as the two countries
compete for political and economic dominance in Asia. China is eager
to translate its financial might into diplomatic muscle and a greater
military presence in the Pacific. Japan wants a permanent seat on the
U.N. Security Council, alongside China, Russia, the United States,
Britain and France.
China is not the only country Japan is wrangling with.
In September, Koizumi took a provocative boat trip to the coast of the
Russian-held southern Kuril islands in the North Pacific, and
proclaimed them an "integral part of Japan," delighting his country's
ruling conservatives.
Last month Japan began banning most North Korean ships from Japanese
ports, demanding North Korea reveal more about its abductions of
Japanese nationals in the 1970s and '80s.
It is also at odds with South Korea over a cluster of islands claimed
by both sides.
The tougher posture reflects the bigger ambitions of the globe's
second-largest economy. Tokyo has sent troops to Iraq, is considering
revising its pacifist constitution, and is working with the United
States on a joint missile-defense shield.
Despite Japan's flourishing trade with Asia, analysts say Koizumi has
abandoned all pretense at currying favor with the neighbors.
"Japan's foreign policy isn't guided by philosophy or ideology -- it's
just nationalism. Koizumi is putting on a show for domestic
constituents," said Takehiko Yamamoto, an international relations
expert at Tokyo's Waseda University.
Still, Japan has picked its battles carefully, staying on friendly
terms with Europe and above all the United States, which has more than
50,000 troops stationed in Japan under a decades-old treaty.
Indeed, Japan and the United States seem to be on the same page
regarding China, North Korea and even South Korea, which disagrees
with Washington about how to handle North Korea.
On defense and Security Council membership, "Japan's policies are a
subset of U.S. needs," said Ronald Morse, professor of Japan studies
at University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
"If you look at the environment, Iraq, U.S. base reorganization, beef,
illegal prostitution, Taiwan," Japanese foreign policy "is all driven
by Washington's actions," Morse said.
But Japan stands to lose a lot if it alienates its neighbors.
It needs China's acquiescence to win that Security Council seat. It
has lobbied hard for Russian approval of a badly needed trans-Siberian
oil pipeline. And it needs South Korea's backing in the international
contest for a prestigious and job-generating nuclear fusion energy
project.
"The way it's going, Japan might as well give up its ambitions of
winning a permanent U.N. Security Council seat or the fusion energy
project," said Yamamoto, the Waseda professor.
3) The war against Iraq was not a consequence of 9/11
a) http://informationclearinghouse.info/article8502.htm
Link to Murderous Thugs article.
Paul Wolfowitz, after months of not finding any Weapons of Mass
Destruction....and after hundreds of US soldiers were killed....my son
amongst them....and after tens of thousands of innocent Iraq citizens
were killed....this same Paul Wolfowitz casually explained....with his
kindly charade and his ever so soft voice...that a decision was made
to put forth "Weapons of Mass Destruction" as the need for the
invasion. Essentially, Paul Wolfowitz admitted that he and his fellow
conspirators had decided amongst themselves "...let's just go with the
bit about Weapons of Mass Destruction. It's the one thing that will
scare the American people enough so as to cause them to get behind
this invasion."
As soft-spoken and sincere-sounding as Paul Wolfowitz is, is there yet
any sane adult in this country who's skin does not crawl when this
murderous liar opens his mouth and speaks? Am I the only person in
this room who clearly sees that Paul Wolfowitz is a threat to our
nation's security...and to peace on our beloved earth?"
[On Weapons of Mass Destruction,] Rumsfeld [knew] that Saddam
had been stripped clean of such weapons, that Saddam's ability to
reconstitute such weapons' programs had also been destroyed, and that
any moves Saddam might have made in that direction would have been
observed and stopped, forthwith.
Is there anyone in America who cannot yet see that Donald Runsfeld is
a liar...that he, as with Hitler and Stalin....will say anything so
long as he thinks it will help shape the world to his own liking? Is
there even one, sane adult among us who cannot see that Donald
Rumsfeld is a threat to our nation's security and to peace on our
beloved earth?
Had the Shah of Iran...a blood-bought servant of US corporate
interests...not soon been overthrown by his own countrymen, the
big-wigs at Westinghouse or General Electric...or perhaps both...
would have amassed personal fortunes from this one project, alone.
Some of the stockholders would have also made bundles on the deal.
In 1975 my son had not yet been born. Today he is in his grave. Dick
Cheney, on the other hand, is now Vice President of the United States,
and he is materially wealthy beyond what any of us would ever pray to
be. This is the same Dick Cheney who during the months leading-up to
the invasion of Iraq said that Saddam Hussein not only has stockpiles
of Weapons of Mass Destruction...more than a hundred metric tons of
the deadly stuff...but he also said that Saddam Hussein was
well-advanced in developing nuclear weapons and that therefore the US
must invade Iraq and dethrone Saddam Hussein. Clean, quick, and simple
according to Dick Cheney. Yet for some time now he has changed his
tune. He now says...as if he had said it all along...that the US
occupation of Iraq will require years of difficult and sometimes
bloody conflict before it will be stable enough to bring our loved
ones home. And too, rather than speak of Weapons of Mass Destruction,
he now uses the word "democracy" a lot.
Is there yet an American who can not clearly see that Dick
Cheney...whether it be 1975 or 2005...will say whatever he thinks is
required to ultimately cause wealth and power to move to himself and
to his friends? ...need I defile this holy place with words like
"Haliburton" and "Kellog, Brown & Root" and "torture" and "US weapons
industry"? Indeed, the Apostle Paul is correct in saying that,
ultimately, the love of money leads to ruin and destruction.
Are we to believe that this administration was, once again, asleep
at the wheel...just as they would also have us to believe that they
were innocently caught off-guard on the morning of September 11,
2001?
b) http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=28769
The link has an excerpt from James Bamford:
The following should be unacceptable as well (for any patriotic
American who serves the best interests of America first):
http://warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=20366
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------
-------------
'A Pretext For War' Pages 261-269 of James Bamford's 'A Pretext for
War' book"
Then Bush addressed the sole items on the agenda for his first high
level national security meeting. The topics were not terrorism--a
subject he barely mentioned during the campaign --or nervousness over
China or Russia, but Israel and Iraq. From the very first moment, the
Bush foreign policy would focus on three key objectives: get rid of
Saddam, end American involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian peace
process, and rearrange the dominoes in the Middle East. A key to the
policy shift would be the concept of pre-emption.
The Blueprint for the new Bush policy had actually been drawn up five
years earlier by three of his top national security advisors. Soon to
be appointed to senior administration positions, they were Richard
Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser. Ironically the plan was
orginally intended not for Bush but for another world leader, Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
At the time, the three officials were out of government and working
for conservative pro-Israel think tanks. Perle and Feith had
previously served in high level Pentagon positions during the
presidency of Ronald Reagan. In a very unusaul move, the former--and
future--senior American officials were acting as a sort of American
privy council to the new Israeli Prime Minister. The Perle task force
to advise Netanyahu was set up by the Jerusalem based Institute for
Advanced Stategic and Political Studies, where Wurmser was working. A
key part of the plan was to get the United States to pull out of peace
negotiations and simply let Israel take care of the Palestinians as it
saw fit. "Israel," said the report, can manage it's own affairs. Such
self-reliance will grant Israel greater freedom of action and remove a
significant lever of pressure used against it in the past.
But the centerpiece of the recommendations was the removal of Saddam
Hussein as the first step in remaking the Middle East into a region
friendly, instead of hostile, to Israel. Their plan "A Clean Break: A
New Strategy for Securing the Realm," also signaled a radical
departure from the peace-oriented policies of former Prime Minister
Yitzhak Rabin, who was assassinated by a member of an extreme
right-wing Israeli group.
As part of their "grand strategy" they recommended that once Iraq was
conquered and Saddam Hussein overthrown, he should be replaced by a
puppet leader friendly to Israel. Whoever inherits Iraq, they wrote,
dominates the entire Levant strategically. Then they suggested that
Syria would be the next country to be invaded. Israel can shape it's
strategic environment, they said.
This would be done, they recommended to Netanyahu, by re-establishing
the principle of pre-emption and by rolling back it's Arab neighbors.
From then on, the principle would be to strike first and expand, a
dangerous and provocative change in philosphy. They recommended
launching a major unprovoked regional war in the Middle East,
attacking Lebanon and Syria and ousting Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Ten, to
gain the support of the American government and public, a phony
pretext would be used as the reason for the original invasion.
The recommendation of Feith, Perle and Wurmser was for Israel to once
again invade Lebanon with air strikes. But this time to counter
potentionally hostile reactions from the American government and
public, they suggested using a pretext. They would claim that the
purpose of the invasion was to halt Syria's drug-money and
counterfeiting infrastructure located there. They were subjects in
which Israel had virtually no interest, but they were ones, they said,
with which America can sympathize.
Another way to win American support for a pre-empted war against
Syria, they suggested, was by drawing attention to its weapons of mass
destruction program. This claim would be that Israel's war was really
all about protecting Americans from drugs, counterfeit bills, and
WMD--nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.
It was rather extraordinary for a trio of former, and potentially
future, high-ranking American government officials to become advisors
to a foreign government. More unsettling still was a fact that they
were recommending acts of war in which Americans could be killed, and
also ways to masquerade the true purpose of the attacks from the
American public.
Once inside Lebanon, Israel could let loose--to begin engaging
Hizballah, Syria and Iran, as the principle agents of aggression in
Lebanon. Then they would widen the war even further by using proxy
forces--Lebanese militia fighters acting on Israel's behalf (as Ariel
Sharon had done in the 80's)--to invade Syria from Lebanon. Thus, they
noted, they could invade Syria by establishing the precedent that
Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by
Israeli proxy forces.
As soon as that fighting started, they advised, Israel could begin
striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove
insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper [emphasis in
original].
The Perle task force even supplied Nentanyahu with some text for a
television address, using the suggested pretext to justify the war.
Years later, it would closely resemble speeches to justify their own
Middle East wars; Iraq would simply replace Syria and the United Staes
would replace Israel: Negotiations with repressive regimes like
Syria's require cautious realism. One cannot sensibly assume the other
side's good faith. It is dangerous for Israel to deal naively with a
regime murderous of its own people, openly aggressive towards its
neighbors, criminally involved with international drug traffickers and
counterfeiters, and supportive of the most deadly terrorist
organizations.
The task force then suggested that Israel open a second front in its
expanding war, with a focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in
Iraq--an important Israel strategic objective in its own right--as a
expanding war, with a focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in
Iraq--an important Israel strategic objective in its own right--as a
means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions.
For years the killing of Saddam Hussein had been among the highest,
and most secret, priorities of the Israeli government. In one stroke
it would pay Saddam Hussein back for launching Scud missiles against
Israel, killing several people, during the Gulf War. Redrawing the map
of the Middle East would also help isolate Syria, Iraq's ally and
Israel's archenemy along its northern border. Thus, in the early
1990's, after the US-led war in the Gulf, a small elite team of
Israeli commandos was given the order to train in absolute secrecy for
an assassination mission to bring down the Baghdad ruler.
The plan, code-named Bramble Bush, was to first kill a close friend of
the Iraqi leader outside the country, someone from Hussein's hometown
of Tikrit. Then, after learning the date and time of the funeral to be
held in the town, a funeral Hussein was certain to attend, they would
have time to covertly infiltrate a team of commandos into the country
to carry out the assassination. The murder weapons were to be
specially modified "smart" missiles that would be fired at Hussein as
he stood in a crowd at the funeral.
But, the plan was finally abandoned after five members of the team
were accidently killed during a dry run of the operation.
Nevertheless, removing Saddam and converting Iraq from threat to ally
had long been at the top of Israel's wish list.
Now Perle, Feith, and Wurmser were suggesting something far more
daring--not just an assassination but a bloody war that would get rid
of Saddam Hussein and also change the face of Syria and Lebanon. Perle
felt their "Clean Break" recommendations were so important that he
personally hand-carried the report to Netanyahu.
Wisely, Netanyahu rejected the task force' plan. But now, with the
election of a receptive George W. Bush, they dusted off their
pre-emptive war strategy and began getting ready to put it to use.
The new Bush policy was an aggressive agenda for any president, but
especially for someone who had previously shown little interest in
international affairs. We're going to correct the imbalances the
previous administration on the Mideast conflict, Bush told his freshly
assembled senior national security team in the Situation Room on
January 30, 2001. We're going to tilt it back toward Israel. . .
.Anybody here ever met Ariel Sharon? Only Colin Powell raised his
hand.
Bush was going to reverse the Clinton policy, which was heavily
weighted toward bringing the bloody conflict between Israel and the
Palestinians to a peaceful conclusion. There would be no more US
interference; he would let Sharon resolve the dispute however he saw
fit, with little or no regard for the situation of the Palestinians.
The policy change was exactly as recommended by the Perle task force's
"Clean Break" report.
I'm not going to go by past reputations when it comes to Sharon, Bush
told his newly gathered national security team. I'm going to take him
at face value. We'll work on a relationship based on how things go.
Then he mentioned a trip he had taken with the Republican Jewish
Coalition to Israel. We flew over the Palestinian camps. Looked real
bad down there, he said with a frown. Then he said it was time to end
America's efforts in the region. I don't see much we can do over there
at this point, he said.
Colin Powell, Secretary of State for only a few days, was taken by
surprise. The idea that such a complex problem, in which America had
long been heavily involved, could be simply brushed away with the
sweep of a hand made little sense. Fearing Israeli-led aggression, he
quickly objected.
c) This War on Terrorism is Bogus
The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure
its global domination
Michael Meacher
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------
Saturday September 6, 2003
The Guardian
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1036688, 00.html
Michael Meacher MP was environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003
Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons
why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has
focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British
motives too.
The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit,
retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first
step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam
Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of
mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However
this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal
murkier.
We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax
Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald
Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb
Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief
of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was
written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project
for the New American Century (PNAC).
The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the
Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "while
the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in
the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to
Wolfowitz and Libby which said the US must "discourage advanced
industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to
a larger regional or global role". It refers to key allies such as the
UK as "the most effective and efficient means of exercising American
global leadership". It describes peacekeeping missions as "demanding
American political leadership rather than that of the UN". It says
"even should Saddam pass from the scene", US bases in Saudi Arabia and
Kuwait will remain permanently... as "Iran may well prove as large a
threat to US interests as Iraq has". It spotlights China for "regime
change", saying "it is time to increase the presence of American
forces in SE Asia".
The document also calls for the creation of "US space forces" to
dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent
"enemies" using the internet against the US. It also hints that the US
may consider developing biological weapons "that can target specific
genotypes [and] may transform biological warfare from the realm of
terror to a politically useful tool".
Finally - written a year before 9/11 - it pinpoints North Korea, Syria
and Iran as dangerous regimes, and says their existence justifies the
creation of a "worldwide command and control system". This is a
blueprint for US world domination. But before it is dismissed as an
agenda for rightwing fantasists, it is clear it provides a much better
explanation of what actually happened before, during and after 9/11
than the global war on terrorism thesis. This can be seen in several
ways.
First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to
pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries
provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior
Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA
and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big
operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided
included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was
arrested.
It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit
Washington targets with aeroplanes. Then in 1999 a US national
intelligence council report noted that "al-Qaida suicide bombers could
crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon,
the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House".
Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia.
Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in
Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing
visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them
to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in
collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this
operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is
also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure
US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001).
Instructive leads prior to 9/11 were not followed up. French Moroccan
flight student Zacarias Moussaoui (now thought to be the 20th
hijacker) was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor reported he
showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large
airliners. When US agents learned from French intelligence he had
radical Islamist ties, they sought a warrant to search his computer,
which contained clues to the September 11 mission (Times, November 3
2001). But they were turned down by the FBI. One agent wrote, a month
before 9/11, that Moussaoui might be planning to crash into the Twin
Towers (Newsweek, May 20 2002).
All of this makes it all the more astonishing - on the war on
terrorism perspective - that there was such slow reaction on September
11 itself. The first hijacking was suspected at not later than
8.20am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at
10.06am. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from
the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until
after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not? There
were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before
9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched
fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP,
August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft
has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent
up to investigate.
Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or
being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could US air security operations
have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on
whose authority? The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus,
has said: "The information provided by European intelligence services
prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for
either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence."
Nor is the US response after 9/11 any better. No serious attempt has
ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October
2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties negotiated Bin
Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US
official said, significantly, that "casting our objectives too
narrowly" risked "a premature collapse of the international effort if
by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured". The US chairman of
the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that
"the goal has never been to get Bin Laden" (AP, April 5 2002). The
whistleblowing FBI agent Robert Wright told ABC News (December 19
2002) that FBI headquarters wanted no arrests. And in November 2001
the US airforce complained it had had al-Qaida and Taliban leaders in
its sights as many as 10 times over the previous six weeks, but had
been unable to attack because they did not receive permission quickly
enough (Time Magazine, May 13 2002). None of this assembled evidence,
all of which comes from sources already in the public domain, is
compatible with the idea of a real, determined war on terrorism.
The catalogue of evidence does, however, fall into place when set
against the PNAC blueprint. From this it seems that the so-called "war
on terrorism" is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider
US strategic geopolitical objectives. Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted
at this when he said to the Commons liaison committee: "To be truthful
about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to
have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened
on September 11" (Times, July 17 2002). Similarly Rumsfeld was so
determined to obtain a rationale for an attack on Iraq that on 10
separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to
9/11; the CIA repeatedly came back empty-handed (Time Magazine, May 13
2002).
In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC
plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for
military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before
9/11. A report prepared for the US government from the Baker Institute
of Public Policy stated in April 2001 that "the US remains a prisoner
of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising influence
to... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle
East". Submitted to Vice-President Cheney's energy task group, the
report recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to the
US, "military intervention" was necessary (Sunday Herald, October 6
2002).
Similar evidence exists in regard to Afghanistan. The BBC reported
(September 18 2001) that Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign
secretary, was told by senior American officials at a meeting in
Berlin in mid-July 2001 that "military action against Afghanistan
would go ahead by the middle of October". Until July 2001 the US
government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central
Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from
the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan,
through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But, confronted
with the Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, the US
representatives told them "either you accept our offer of a carpet of
gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs" (Inter Press Service,
November 15 2001).
Given this background, it is not surprising that some have seen the US
failure to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating an invaluable pretext
for attacking Afghanistan in a war that had clearly already been well
planned in advance. There is a possible precedent for this. The US
national archives reveal that President Roosevelt used exactly this
approach in relation to Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941. Some advance
warning of the attacks was received, but the information never reached
the US fleet. The ensuing national outrage persuaded a reluctant US
public to join the second world war. Similarly the PNAC blueprint of
September 2000 states that the process of transforming the US into
"tomorrow's dominant force" is likely to be a long one in the absence
of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl
Harbor". The 9/11 attacks allowed the US to press the "go" button for
a strategy in accordance with the PNAC agenda which it would otherwise
have been politically impossible to implement.
The overriding motivation for this political smokescreen is that the
US and the UK are beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy
supplies. By 2010 the Muslim world will control as much as 60% of the
world's oil production and, even more importantly, 95% of remaining
global oil export capacity. As demand is increasing, so supply is
decreasing, continually since the 1960s.
This is leading to increasing dependence on foreign oil supplies for
both the US and the UK. The US, which in 1990 produced domestically
57% of its total energy demand, is predicted to produce only 39% of
its needs by 2010. A DTI minister has admitted that the UK could be
facing "severe" gas shortages by 2005. The UK government has confirmed
that 70% of our electricity will come from gas by 2020, and 90% of
that will be imported. In that context it should be noted that Iraq
has 110 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in addition to its oil.
A report from the commission on America's national interests in July
2000 noted that the most promising new source of world supplies was
the Caspian region, and this would relieve US dependence on Saudi
Arabia. To diversify supply routes from the Caspian, one pipeline
would run westward via Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Turkish port of
Ceyhan. Another would extend eastwards through Afghanistan and
Pakistan and terminate near the Indian border. This would rescue
Enron's beleaguered power plant at Dabhol on India's west coast, in
which Enron had sunk $3bn investment and whose economic survival was
dependent on access to cheap gas.
Nor has the UK been disinterested in this scramble for the remaining
world supplies of hydrocarbons, and this may partly explain British
participation in US military actions. Lord Browne, chief executive of
BP, warned Washington not to carve up Iraq for its own oil companies
in the aftermath of war (Guardian, October 30 2002). And when a
British foreign minister met Gadaffi in his desert tent in August
2002, it was said that "the UK does not want to lose out to other
European nations already jostling for advantage when it comes to
potentially lucrative oil contracts" with Libya (BBC Online, August 10
2002).
The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the "global
war on terrorism" has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to
hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies
required to drive the whole project. Is collusion in this myth and
junior participation in this project really a proper aspiration for
British foreign policy? If there was ever need to justify a more
objective British stance, driven by our own independent goals, this
whole depressing saga surely provides all the evidence needed for a
radical change of course.
Michael Meacher MP was environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003
-------------
lo yeeOn wrote:
> In article <1113778211.039105.272560 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> studio <tlack [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> >JapanIsAColonyOfUSA [at] hotmail.com wrote:
> >> Japan is a colony of the United States.
> >
> >lol...that's news to me! Allie maybe, colony no. Japan for the most
> >part does what it wants.....as do we all.
>
> ["studio"'s] assertion ``Japan for the most part does what it wants
> . . . as do we all'' is a mere assertion and in fact contradicts
> reality---but who among the US and the Japanese governments would
> want to openly admit it. It is really shame, shame, and shame! But
> it is simply true, true, and true!
In response, "studio" wrote:
Oh really? It's as good as an assertion as your's is.....just a bit
more accurate. . . . [more arbitrary "studio" assertions snipped.]
|
|
|
| A little modern Chinese history Re: Japan is a Colony of the United States [message #10568 ] |
Mo, 18 April 2005 13:43 |
|
In article <d3ut0e$k4e$1 [at] reader1.panix.com>,
lo yeeOn <acoustic [at] panix.com> wrote:
>In article <1113778211.039105.272560 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>studio <tlack [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>JapanIsAColonyOfUSA [at] hotmail.com wrote:
>>> Japan is a colony of the United States.
>>
>>lol...that's news to me! Allie maybe, colony no. Japan for the most
>>part does what it wants.....as do we all.
``Japan for the most part does what it wants.....as do we all'' is a
mere assertion and in fact contradicts reality---but who among the US
and the Japanese governments would want to openly admit it. It is
really shame, shame, and shame! But it is simply true, true, and
true!
And despite the two American atom bombs dropped on Japan, there isn't
a sound of protest or discussion from the general Japanese national
consciousness about whodunit it and why. And US troops continue to
occupy Japanese land despite complaints of rapes and other crimes by
locals.
Japan is neither free nor independent. Japan used to have its
post-war pacifist constitution, clearly by US demand. But now, the
Japanese government wants to re-militarize the country, again at the
urging of the US government, and to the amazement of the majority of
the Japanese citizens. Yes, urging as in "you have no choice but to
follow my wishes", just as in the war efforts in the Middle East, much
against the wishes of the people in Japan.
From the financing of the wars against Iraq 15 and 2 years ago and
against Afghanistan, as requested by the US government, to the
coordinating of US foreign policy in the UN and Far East Asia.
It is a fact that someone who has been only casually familiar with
world news can recognize. For example, such a person can tell you
that the Japanese population was opposed to sending troops to Iraq but
felt that its government had no choice but to comply with the US
government's wishes. The reason why the Japanese feel so impotent in
matter related to US interests is simple. Whereas the Germans have
been carrying their collective guilt for WWII for generations, the
Japanese have never been compelled to do the same. But there is a
price. They have been feeling forever obliged to the US government
for not making them feel guilty like their German counterparts and
they feel they have no choice but do what the US asks every time they
ask.
Remember the fury the Bush war propaganda machine generated against
France when the French thought the war was unjust and refused to go
along, despite Bush's stand of ``you're against us if you aren't with
us''. The propaganda was: ``Ah, France! How ungrateful you are! If
it weren't for America, you'd still be speaking German . . .'' The
meaning is: If we pulled you out of the fire once, you must do what we
tell you forever after or else you're an ingrate!
The propangandists however were deliberately confusing the world by
blurring the difference between the American people and
government, among other things.
Not only did they pretend that the conduct and intention of a
government is an immutable virtue, impossible to be affected by the
change of time and circumstance, but also that the American government
is always good and always represents the conscience of the American
people.
These people wanted to guilt-trip France into supporting an immoral
war against their better judgment. And of course, time has proven
that the French was right and also that Bush and his war propaganda
machine were massive liars.
Nothing can justify the killing and maiming of hundreds of thousands
people just because we want to get its ruler for the charge of being a
dictator. In a society, the justice system does not allow burning
down a whole neighborhood and killing all its residents just to get a
thug, much less can the people's conscience condone the massacre of
all the Iraqis as we have done in Iraq in order to capture its
dictator and overthrow his government. It is just not done by people
with reason and integrity.
And that's exactly why Bush didn't tell the world the truth. On the
one hand. he wanted to topple Saddam and on the other hand he couldn't
tell the world that he would go to war on a nation just to get rid of
a person. So he had to exaggerate his cause of war by claiming that
Saddam's Iraq possessed WMD which would readily harm the rest of the
world and embellished it further with mushroom clouds over big cities
before the domestic audience, a deception later admitted by Pentagon's
second in command Paul Wolfowitz (see below).
Bush didn't tell that he was sending Americans to die in Iraq because
Saddam was a dictator but because he had WMD which was about to hit
us. He lied to steal our support for his dirty war. So Bush has been
proven a massive liar and murderer. Yet when he wanted France to go
to war against Iraq, he would send his thugs to browbeat the French
(but was surprised to find that they wouldn't yield).
Now, can anyone imagine the awkward position the Japanese would find
themselves in if they would so much as to say no to *anything* the US
government asks them? They can never say no because if France, one of
the few important US wartime allies, would be so harshly reacted to,
what would be the punishment for Japan, which has been let off easy,
super-easy because the US government was calling the shots over what
happens in post-war Japan.
(Recall, for instance, Bush's sharp-tongued confidante Ms. Condoleezza
Rice: ``Punish France!'', much like Salome demanded King Herod to get
John the Baptist's head on a silver platter.)
Now if French Fries in Washington could be changed to Freedom Fries
for France's perceived disobedience, what would happen to Japan?
You can bet that clamour will reach a feverish pitch of demanding that
the Japanese emperor be hanged.
(``We were nice to them for having spared them their emperor's neck;
now let's see what the ingrates will get . . .'')
And it is exactly this that is the price that is permanently hanging
over Japan's head.
In many ways, the Germans have set themselves free, much as Christ has
taught by asking us sinners to repent.
But Japanese have not repented; so they continue to be enslaved by
their heinous past.
The German attitude has been well-documented and often written about
in popular magazines. It is not some kind of psycho-babble as some
people might like to claim. But the Japanese attitude toward its
militaristic past is one of haughtiness, evidently a result of its
relationship as a pampered-child with its US guardian.
It is in this sense that the original poster characterize Japan as an
American colony. And it would do well to be more educated and less
ignorant about modern Chinese history. In addition to the blood of
some one million Chinese slaughtered in Nanking in 1939, many more
millions of Chinese perished as a result of the Japanese war of
aggression in China. Furthermore, Japan is known to have conducted
secret germ experiments on Chinese captured in the North East in the
1920s-1930s. They were war crimes. Former soldiers who eye-witnessed
the war crimes had wanted to come to the US to testify about them but
was discouraged or ignored by governments on both sides of the Pacific
Ocean.
In addition, the attitude of the militarist Japan goes back as far as
the late 1800s. First, it was in 1894-5 or thereabouts: you could see
photos from history books (in the United States) of Japanese soldiers
posing with the decapitated bodies of the indigenous fighters they'd
just executed. I've just consulted one which shows the bodies lying
at the feet of the Japanese soldiers, facing the camera, and the four
severed heads of the executed Chinese lying closest to the foreground.
One of the Japanese soldiers were shown wiping the blood of his victim
off from his sword as he smiled. And there are three other soldiers
wearing similar uniforms, carrying long swords in the picture. (There
were also 5 Chinese soldiers standing grim-faced in the back row.)
And that was the aftermath of the Boxers' Rebellion. [Sterling
Professor Jonathan D. Spence (Yale) and (wife and also Yale teacher)
Amping Chin, Random House, 1996]
The Boxers were ignorant; they thought that with their bare hands,
their bravery, and their righteousness, heaven would help them defeat
the foreigners, which included the Japanese. They were dead wrong.
And the impotent Chinese government at the time was forced to have its
soldiers stand there and watch with utter humiliation the barbarous
execution of their own fellowmen. (And the beheading then ran a
parallel to the contemporary beheadings that recently took place in
Iraq.)
But that was only the beginning. On May 4th, 1919, roughly 6 months
after the armistice in November the previous year (1918) was signed in
Versailles as Germany was defeated in WWI and exactly 2 months before
our own Independence Day (July 4th), the Chinese students organized a
large protest which few in the west today are aware of but which
completely changed the psyche of the Chinese people ever since.
The immediate trigger for the protest was the discovery that their
impotent government (at that time already a republican one, as opposed
to the time of the Boxer's Rebellion when it was a monarchy) had at
Versailles agreed to let Japan take over the concession which was
forcibly made to Germany some 25 years ago, even though China wasn't a
party to WWI.
(The protest was to a large extent about the Chinese people feeling
angry with themselves, feeling they were an impotent and totally
humiliated people after seeing what the foreigners were doing to them
in China. They thought, as they had always thought, they were only
minding their own business, and yet the foreigners wouldn't leave them
alone. The protest was to raise the people's consciousness about how
they might pull themselves out of that hapless mess of foreign
domination. They were aware of the fact that they were themselves
largely to blame for their humilation because they realize that it was
rooted in their own backwardness in science, technology, and other
aspects of governing, such as how people should treat each others.
They came to the realization that the world wasn't surrounding them as
the center of the universe to which people come to pay tribute, as
they were used to believe. Rather, they were treated as prey, which
each predator wants a piece of. For this reason, when the Chinese
government finally got itself free of all foreign encroachment and got
on its own feet economically and politically and started catching up
with the rest of the world with the mastery of science and technology,
the Chinese people feel absolutely protective of this piece of new
found freedom. It is a form of self-liberation.)
But aside from the spiritual awakening of the Chinese people, history
also records the imperial Japanese's naked ambition in China. And in
fact Japan planted itself firmly in the Northeast of China, setting up
a strong military presence, knowing the continuous impotence of the
republican government at the time.
At that time, China was also full of warlords which held control of
different part of the country. And in the Northeast, Japan was able
to exercise so much control over the local warlord that he was blown
up in his armored train in the 1920s when he displayed a little
independence. The warlord's son succeeded him as the head of the
Chinese army for that region but the Japanese assassination of his
father had a profound effect on him as to how he should behave in
similar circumstances: He learned the valuable lesson of not trying to
do anything to displease the occupying Japanese.
Finally, the imperial Japanese began their southward invasion in
earnest in 1930s, going way past Beijing and bombing the coast,
targeting Shanghai and its surroundings, which culminated in the
Nanking ``Great Massacre'' in 1937 (Nanking was the capital of the
Chinese government at the time).
In any case anyone who has a casual familiarity with the Chinese
modern history knows that Japan had a continuous militaristic design
for China for over half a century until its defeat in 1945.
No one should ignore the fact that many Chinese had generations of
suffering under the Japanese. Even the official duration of the
Japanese war of aggression in China was 8 years, longer than any in
Europe. And in China it is called the eight-year war of resistance.
Consequently, the decades of occupation and the final 8 years of war
have deeply affected the Chinese psyche. It also explains why so many
Chinese people who went through the war approved of the horrible US
nuclear strategy on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, seeing it as a means to
end the Japanese aggression. (I personally disagree with either the
need or the advisability of the atom bombs but I can't tell the
Chinese people what to think, especially because they were the ones
who have suffered so much.)
In fact one reason why the Chinese communists had come to receive so
much popular support from their countrymen immediately after WWII is
because they were fighting closely with the peasants (left behind by
their fleeing government) against the occupying Japanese, very much
like the French resistance was doing against the Nazi Germans, while
the Wang government which remained in Nanking was very much like the
counterpart to the Vichy government in France, each cooperated with
the occupiers. In China though, the Chiang and his oligarch allies
had fled to the southwest, safely tucked away from the hostility of
war.
So, you see from this brief summary of the Japanese presence in China,
none of it benign, indicates that the Japanese have a heavy burden on
their backs that they haven't tried to unload. They pretend the burden
doesn't exist because they think they have the world's sole superpower
on their side. But precisely because of this indebtedness to America,
they are doing all these things no independent nations in the world
would do. Just listen to what Professor Ronald Morse had to say about
Japan's weird lap-dog foreign policy.
Indeed, Japan and the United States seem to be on the same page
regarding China, North Korea and even South Korea, which disagrees
with Washington about how to handle North Korea.
On defense and Security Council membership, "Japan's policies are a
subset of U.S. needs," said Ronald Morse, professor of Japan studies
at University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
"If you look at the environment, Iraq, U.S. base reorganization, beef,
illegal prostitution, Taiwan," Japanese foreign policy "is all driven
by Washington's actions," Morse said.
. . .
"The way it's going, Japan might as well give up its ambitions of
winning a permanent U.N. Security Council seat or the fusion energy
project," said Yamamoto, the Waseda professor.
Notice that ``Japan's policies are a subset of U.S. needs'', according
to Morse. That is, US needs drives Japan's policies, from A to Z.
lo yeeOn
========
1) On Japanese militaristic past, clintpetra [at] wmconnect.com wrote
I would be very curious to learn if Japanese posters and
pro-Japanese posters have ever read John Toland's history of "the
Great Pacific War," The Rising Sun in two volumes or The Imperial
Japanese Conspiracy by Bengamini.
Those were two objective works, well-documented, clearly
demonstrating war crimes by the Japanese comparable to Nazi
Germany. After reading and rereading dozens of history books about
Japan over the past 20 years, the only thing I see the Japanese
upset about is that they lost the war.
The Rape of Nanking was only the tip of a very bestial iceberg. The
Chinese lost as many as 20 million people in ww2. Most of these
were civilians. Not to mention the Filipinos who suffered losses in
the hundreds of thousands. Tens of thousands of Southeast Asian
forced labor worked to death on railroad constuction in Burmese
jungles. The murder of hundreds of British soldiers and civilians
after the surrender of the British Hong Kong garrison in 1941. The
multiple rape and decapitation of dozens of British nurses from the
same garrison....the Bataan Death March.
Give me a break. You wonder why the Chinese get a little
cranky. The only bloody thing the Japanese didn't do in ww2 was gas
jews.
2) Article with professor Ronald Morse's comments on Japan's foreign
policy being driven by the desire of the US government.
By KENJI HALL, Associated Press Writer
TOKYO - In diplomatic tussles with its neighbors, Japan has long been
inclined to turn the other cheek. Not lately, though.
In recent months, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has talked tough
with South Korea over disputed islets and reasserted Japan's claim to
other islands held by Russia. While China and North Korea continue to
harry Japan over its World War II conduct, Japan is bluntly portraying
those two communist countries as the real source of the region's
problems.
"In the past, Japan always avoided taking a stand on diplomatic
issues. But Japan has realized that tactic doesn't work, and its own
public has criticized it as too weak," said Masaru Ikei, a professor
of international politics at Keio University in Tokyo.
Japan's recent campaign for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security
Council and approval of a textbook that critics say glosses over
Tokyo's wartime aggression set off angry demonstrations in China. But
instead of making the usual conciliatory gestures, Tokyo rejected the
charges and demanded China apologize for allowing violent
anti-Japanese protests.
In Shanghai, police stood by Saturday as 20,000 rioters -- some
shouting "Kill the Japanese!" -- threw stones, eggs and plastic
bottles and broke windows at the Japanese Consulate and damaged
restaurants and cars.
Peaceful protests on Sunday in the southern cities of Shenzhen and
Guangzhou drew thousands. In Shenzhen, as many as 10,000 people
marched past a Japanese-owned department store calling for a boycott
of Japanese goods.
China on Sunday rebuffed Tokyo's demands for an apology, saying it had
never wronged the Japanese people but Japan had "hurt the feelings" of
Chinese. Many Chinese believe Japan has never truly shown remorse for
its prewar invasion of China.
Japan has stirred things up further by announcing it will prospect for
natural gas in an area of the East China Sea where Beijing claims
exclusive economic rights. And on Friday its Foreign Ministry issued a
report accusing China of intruding into Japan's territorial waters
last November. It said it was one of several moves that "threaten
Japan's national security, sovereignty and other rights."
While the statement offered to settle matters through peaceful
dialogue, Japan has also identified China's expanding military and its
threats against Taiwan as top security concerns.
The flare-up comes amid longer-term frictions as the two countries
compete for political and economic dominance in Asia. China is eager
to translate its financial might into diplomatic muscle and a greater
military presence in the Pacific. Japan wants a permanent seat on the
U.N. Security Council, alongside China, Russia, the United States,
Britain and France.
China is not the only country Japan is wrangling with.
In September, Koizumi took a provocative boat trip to the coast of the
Russian-held southern Kuril islands in the North Pacific, and
proclaimed them an "integral part of Japan," delighting his country's
ruling conservatives.
Last month Japan began banning most North Korean ships from Japanese
ports, demanding North Korea reveal more about its abductions of
Japanese nationals in the 1970s and '80s.
It is also at odds with South Korea over a cluster of islands claimed
by both sides.
The tougher posture reflects the bigger ambitions of the globe's
second-largest economy. Tokyo has sent troops to Iraq, is considering
revising its pacifist constitution, and is working with the United
States on a joint missile-defense shield.
Despite Japan's flourishing trade with Asia, analysts say Koizumi has
abandoned all pretense at currying favor with the neighbors.
"Japan's foreign policy isn't guided by philosophy or ideology -- it's
just nationalism. Koizumi is putting on a show for domestic
constituents," said Takehiko Yamamoto, an international relations
expert at Tokyo's Waseda University.
Still, Japan has picked its battles carefully, staying on friendly
terms with Europe and above all the United States, which has more than
50,000 troops stationed in Japan under a decades-old treaty.
Indeed, Japan and the United States seem to be on the same page
regarding China, North Korea and even South Korea, which disagrees
with Washington about how to handle North Korea.
On defense and Security Council membership, "Japan's policies are a
subset of U.S. needs," said Ronald Morse, professor of Japan studies
at University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
"If you look at the environment, Iraq, U.S. base reorganization, beef,
illegal prostitution, Taiwan," Japanese foreign policy "is all driven
by Washington's actions," Morse said.
But Japan stands to lose a lot if it alienates its neighbors.
It needs China's acquiescence to win that Security Council seat. It
has lobbied hard for Russian approval of a badly needed trans-Siberian
oil pipeline. And it needs South Korea's backing in the international
contest for a prestigious and job-generating nuclear fusion energy
project.
"The way it's going, Japan might as well give up its ambitions of
winning a permanent U.N. Security Council seat or the fusion energy
project," said Yamamoto, the Waseda professor.
3) The war against Iraq was not a consequence of 9/11
a) http://informationclearinghouse.info/article8502.htm
Link to Murderous Thugs article.
Paul Wolfowitz, after months of not finding any Weapons of Mass
Destruction....and after hundreds of US soldiers were killed....my son
amongst them....and after tens of thousands of innocent Iraq citizens
were killed....this same Paul Wolfowitz casually explained....with his
kindly charade and his ever so soft voice...that a decision was made
to put forth "Weapons of Mass Destruction" as the need for the
invasion. Essentially, Paul Wolfowitz admitted that he and his fellow
conspirators had decided amongst themselves "...let's just go with the
bit about Weapons of Mass Destruction. It's the one thing that will
scare the American people enough so as to cause them to get behind
this invasion."
As soft-spoken and sincere-sounding as Paul Wolfowitz is, is there yet
any sane adult in this country who's skin does not crawl when this
murderous liar opens his mouth and speaks? Am I the only person in
this room who clearly sees that Paul Wolfowitz is a threat to our
nation's security...and to peace on our beloved earth?"
[On Weapons of Mass Destruction,] Rumsfeld [knew] that Saddam
had been stripped clean of such weapons, that Saddam's ability to
reconstitute such weapons' programs had also been destroyed, and that
any moves Saddam might have made in that direction would have been
observed and stopped, forthwith.
Is there anyone in America who cannot yet see that Donald Runsfeld is
a liar...that he, as with Hitler and Stalin....will say anything so
long as he thinks it will help shape the world to his own liking? Is
there even one, sane adult among us who cannot see that Donald
Rumsfeld is a threat to our nation's security and to peace on our
beloved earth?
Had the Shah of Iran...a blood-bought servant of US corporate
interests...not soon been overthrown by his own countrymen, the
big-wigs at Westinghouse or General Electric...or perhaps both...
would have amassed personal fortunes from this one project, alone.
Some of the stockholders would have also made bundles on the deal.
In 1975 my son had not yet been born. Today he is in his grave. Dick
Cheney, on the other hand, is now Vice President of the United States,
and he is materially wealthy beyond what any of us would ever pray to
be. This is the same Dick Cheney who during the months leading-up to
the invasion of Iraq said that Saddam Hussein not only has stockpiles
of Weapons of Mass Destruction...more than a hundred metric tons of
the deadly stuff...but he also said that Saddam Hussein was
well-advanced in developing nuclear weapons and that therefore the US
must invade Iraq and dethrone Saddam Hussein. Clean, quick, and simple
according to Dick Cheney. Yet for some time now he has changed his
tune. He now says...as if he had said it all along...that the US
occupation of Iraq will require years of difficult and sometimes
bloody conflict before it will be stable enough to bring our loved
ones home. And too, rather than speak of Weapons of Mass Destruction,
he now uses the word "democracy" a lot.
Is there yet an American who can not clearly see that Dick
Cheney...whether it be 1975 or 2005...will say whatever he thinks is
required to ultimately cause wealth and power to move to himself and
to his friends? ...need I defile this holy place with words like
"Haliburton" and "Kellog, Brown & Root" and "torture" and "US weapons
industry"? Indeed, the Apostle Paul is correct in saying that,
ultimately, the love of money leads to ruin and destruction.
Are we to believe that this administration was, once again, asleep
at the wheel...just as they would also have us to believe that they
were innocently caught off-guard on the morning of September 11,
2001?
b) http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=28769
The link has an excerpt from James Bamford:
The following should be unacceptable as well (for any patriotic
American who serves the best interests of America first):
http://warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=20366
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------
-------------
'A Pretext For War' Pages 261-269 of James Bamford's 'A Pretext for
War' book"
Then Bush addressed the sole items on the agenda for his first high
level national security meeting. The topics were not terrorism--a
subject he barely mentioned during the campaign --or nervousness over
China or Russia, but Israel and Iraq. From the very first moment, the
Bush foreign policy would focus on three key objectives: get rid of
Saddam, end American involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian peace
process, and rearrange the dominoes in the Middle East. A key to the
policy shift would be the concept of pre-emption.
The Blueprint for the new Bush policy had actually been drawn up five
years earlier by three of his top national security advisors. Soon to
be appointed to senior administration positions, they were Richard
Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser. Ironically the plan was
orginally intended not for Bush but for another world leader, Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
At the time, the three officials were out of government and working
for conservative pro-Israel think tanks. Perle and Feith had
previously served in high level Pentagon positions during the
presidency of Ronald Reagan. In a very unusaul move, the former--and
future--senior American officials were acting as a sort of American
privy council to the new Israeli Prime Minister. The Perle task force
to advise Netanyahu was set up by the Jerusalem based Institute for
Advanced Stategic and Political Studies, where Wurmser was working. A
key part of the plan was to get the United States to pull out of peace
negotiations and simply let Israel take care of the Palestinians as it
saw fit. "Israel," said the report, can manage it's own affairs. Such
self-reliance will grant Israel greater freedom of action and remove a
significant lever of pressure used against it in the past.
But the centerpiece of the recommendations was the removal of Saddam
Hussein as the first step in remaking the Middle East into a region
friendly, instead of hostile, to Israel. Their plan "A Clean Break: A
New Strategy for Securing the Realm," also signaled a radical
departure from the peace-oriented policies of former Prime Minister
Yitzhak Rabin, who was assassinated by a member of an extreme
right-wing Israeli group.
As part of their "grand strategy" they recommended that once Iraq was
conquered and Saddam Hussein overthrown, he should be replaced by a
puppet leader friendly to Israel. Whoever inherits Iraq, they wrote,
dominates the entire Levant strategically. Then they suggested that
Syria would be the next country to be invaded. Israel can shape it's
strategic environment, they said.
This would be done, they recommended to Netanyahu, by re-establishing
the principle of pre-emption and by rolling back it's Arab neighbors.
From then on, the principle would be to strike first and expand, a
dangerous and provocative change in philosphy. They recommended
launching a major unprovoked regional war in the Middle East,
attacking Lebanon and Syria and ousting Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Ten, to
gain the support of the American government and public, a phony
pretext would be used as the reason for the original invasion.
The recommendation of Feith, Perle and Wurmser was for Israel to once
again invade Lebanon with air strikes. But this time to counter
potentionally hostile reactions from the American government and
public, they suggested using a pretext. They would claim that the
purpose of the invasion was to halt Syria's drug-money and
counterfeiting infrastructure located there. They were subjects in
which Israel had virtually no interest, but they were ones, they said,
with which America can sympathize.
Another way to win American support for a pre-empted war against
Syria, they suggested, was by drawing attention to its weapons of mass
destruction program. This claim would be that Israel's war was really
all about protecting Americans from drugs, counterfeit bills, and
WMD--nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.
It was rather extraordinary for a trio of former, and potentially
future, high-ranking American government officials to become advisors
to a foreign government. More unsettling still was a fact that they
were recommending acts of war in which Americans could be killed, and
also ways to masquerade the true purpose of the attacks from the
American public.
Once inside Lebanon, Israel could let loose--to begin engaging
Hizballah, Syria and Iran, as the principle agents of aggression in
Lebanon. Then they would widen the war even further by using proxy
forces--Lebanese militia fighters acting on Israel's behalf (as Ariel
Sharon had done in the 80's)--to invade Syria from Lebanon. Thus, they
noted, they could invade Syria by establishing the precedent that
Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by
Israeli proxy forces.
As soon as that fighting started, they advised, Israel could begin
striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove
insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper [emphasis in
original].
The Perle task force even supplied Nentanyahu with some text for a
television address, using the suggested pretext to justify the war.
Years later, it would closely resemble speeches to justify their own
Middle East wars; Iraq would simply replace Syria and the United Staes
would replace Israel: Negotiations with repressive regimes like
Syria's require cautious realism. One cannot sensibly assume the other
side's good faith. It is dangerous for Israel to deal naively with a
regime murderous of its own people, openly aggressive towards its
neighbors, criminally involved with international drug traffickers and
counterfeiters, and supportive of the most deadly terrorist
organizations.
The task force then suggested that Israel open a second front in its
expanding war, with a focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in
Iraq--an important Israel strategic objective in its own right--as a
expanding war, with a focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in
Iraq--an important Israel strategic objective in its own right--as a
means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions.
For years the killing of Saddam Hussein had been among the highest,
and most secret, priorities of the Israeli government. In one stroke
it would pay Saddam Hussein back for launching Scud missiles against
Israel, killing several people, during the Gulf War. Redrawing the map
of the Middle East would also help isolate Syria, Iraq's ally and
Israel's archenemy along its northern border. Thus, in the early
1990's, after the US-led war in the Gulf, a small elite team of
Israeli commandos was given the order to train in absolute secrecy for
an assassination mission to bring down the Baghdad ruler.
The plan, code-named Bramble Bush, was to first kill a close friend of
the Iraqi leader outside the country, someone from Hussein's hometown
of Tikrit. Then, after learning the date and time of the funeral to be
held in the town, a funeral Hussein was certain to attend, they would
have time to covertly infiltrate a team of commandos into the country
to carry out the assassination. The murder weapons were to be
specially modified "smart" missiles that would be fired at Hussein as
he stood in a crowd at the funeral.
But, the plan was finally abandoned after five members of the team
were accidently killed during a dry run of the operation.
Nevertheless, removing Saddam and converting Iraq from threat to ally
had long been at the top of Israel's wish list.
Now Perle, Feith, and Wurmser were suggesting something far more
daring--not just an assassination but a bloody war that would get rid
of Saddam Hussein and also change the face of Syria and Lebanon. Perle
felt their "Clean Break" recommendations were so important that he
personally hand-carried the report to Netanyahu.
Wisely, Netanyahu rejected the task force' plan. But now, with the
election of a receptive George W. Bush, they dusted off their
pre-emptive war strategy and began getting ready to put it to use.
The new Bush policy was an aggressive agenda for any president, but
especially for someone who had previously shown little interest in
international affairs. We're going to correct the imbalances the
previous administration on the Mideast conflict, Bush told his freshly
assembled senior national security team in the Situation Room on
January 30, 2001. We're going to tilt it back toward Israel. . .
.Anybody here ever met Ariel Sharon? Only Colin Powell raised his
hand.
Bush was going to reverse the Clinton policy, which was heavily
weighted toward bringing the bloody conflict between Israel and the
Palestinians to a peaceful conclusion. There would be no more US
interference; he would let Sharon resolve the dispute however he saw
fit, with little or no regard for the situation of the Palestinians.
The policy change was exactly as recommended by the Perle task force's
"Clean Break" report.
I'm not going to go by past reputations when it comes to Sharon, Bush
told his newly gathered national security team. I'm going to take him
at face value. We'll work on a relationship based on how things go.
Then he mentioned a trip he had taken with the Republican Jewish
Coalition to Israel. We flew over the Palestinian camps. Looked real
bad down there, he said with a frown. Then he said it was time to end
America's efforts in the region. I don't see much we can do over there
at this point, he said.
Colin Powell, Secretary of State for only a few days, was taken by
surprise. The idea that such a complex problem, in which America had
long been heavily involved, could be simply brushed away with the
sweep of a hand made little sense. Fearing Israeli-led aggression, he
quickly objected.
c) This War on Terrorism is Bogus
The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure
its global domination
Michael Meacher
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------
Saturday September 6, 2003
The Guardian
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1036688, 00.html
Michael Meacher MP was environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003
Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons
why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has
focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British
motives too.
The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit,
retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first
step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam
Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of
mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However
this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal
murkier.
We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax
Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald
Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb
Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief
of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was
written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project
for the New American Century (PNAC).
The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the
Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "while
the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in
the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to
Wolfowitz and Libby which said the US must "discourage advanced
industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to
a larger regional or global role". It refers to key allies such as the
UK as "the most effective and efficient means of exercising American
global leadership". It describes peacekeeping missions as "demanding
American political leadership rather than that of the UN". It says
"even should Saddam pass from the scene", US bases in Saudi Arabia and
Kuwait will remain permanently... as "Iran may well prove as large a
threat to US interests as Iraq has". It spotlights China for "regime
change", saying "it is time to increase the presence of American
forces in SE Asia".
The document also calls for the creation of "US space forces" to
dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent
"enemies" using the internet against the US. It also hints that the US
may consider developing biological weapons "that can target specific
genotypes [and] may transform biological warfare from the realm of
terror to a politically useful tool".
Finally - written a year before 9/11 - it pinpoints North Korea, Syria
and Iran as dangerous regimes, and says their existence justifies the
creation of a "worldwide command and control system". This is a
blueprint for US world domination. But before it is dismissed as an
agenda for rightwing fantasists, it is clear it provides a much better
explanation of what actually happened before, during and after 9/11
than the global war on terrorism thesis. This can be seen in several
ways.
First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to
pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries
provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior
Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA
and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big
operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided
included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was
arrested.
It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit
Washington targets with aeroplanes. Then in 1999 a US national
intelligence council report noted that "al-Qaida suicide bombers could
crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon,
the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House".
Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia.
Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in
Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing
visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them
to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in
collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this
operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is
also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure
US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001).
Instructive leads prior to 9/11 were not followed up. French Moroccan
flight student Zacarias Moussaoui (now thought to be the 20th
hijacker) was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor reported he
showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large
airliners. When US agents learned from French intelligence he had
radical Islamist ties, they sought a warrant to search his computer,
which contained clues to the September 11 mission (Times, November 3
2001). But they were turned down by the FBI. One agent wrote, a month
before 9/11, that Moussaoui might be planning to crash into the Twin
Towers (Newsweek, May 20 2002).
All of this makes it all the more astonishing - on the war on
terrorism perspective - that there was such slow reaction on September
11 itself. The first hijacking was suspected at not later than
8.20am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at
10.06am. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from
the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until
after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not? There
were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before
9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched
fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP,
August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft
has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent
up to investigate.
Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or
being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could US air security operations
have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on
whose authority? The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus,
has said: "The information provided by European intelligence services
prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for
either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence."
Nor is the US response after 9/11 any better. No serious attempt has
ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October
2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties negotiated Bin
Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US
official said, significantly, that "casting our objectives too
narrowly" risked "a premature collapse of the international effort if
by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured". The US chairman of
the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that
"the goal has never been to get Bin Laden" (AP, April 5 2002). The
whistleblowing FBI agent Robert Wright told ABC News (December 19
2002) that FBI headquarters wanted no arrests. And in November 2001
the US airforce complained it had had al-Qaida and Taliban leaders in
its sights as many as 10 times over the previous six weeks, but had
been unable to attack because they did not receive permission quickly
enough (Time Magazine, May 13 2002). None of this assembled evidence,
all of which comes from sources already in the public domain, is
compatible with the idea of a real, determined war on terrorism.
The catalogue of evidence does, however, fall into place when set
against the PNAC blueprint. From this it seems that the so-called "war
on terrorism" is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider
US strategic geopolitical objectives. Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted
at this when he said to the Commons liaison committee: "To be truthful
about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to
have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened
on September 11" (Times, July 17 2002). Similarly Rumsfeld was so
determined to obtain a rationale for an attack on Iraq that on 10
separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to
9/11; the CIA repeatedly came back empty-handed (Time Magazine, May 13
2002).
In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC
plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for
military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before
9/11. A report prepared for the US government from the Baker Institute
of Public Policy stated in April 2001 that "the US remains a prisoner
of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising influence
to... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle
East". Submitted to Vice-President Cheney's energy task group, the
report recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to the
US, "military intervention" was necessary (Sunday Herald, October 6
2002).
Similar evidence exists in regard to Afghanistan. The BBC reported
(September 18 2001) that Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign
secretary, was told by senior American officials at a meeting in
Berlin in mid-July 2001 that "military action against Afghanistan
would go ahead by the middle of October". Until July 2001 the US
government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central
Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from
the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan,
through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But, confronted
with the Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, the US
representatives told them "either you accept our offer of a carpet of
gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs" (Inter Press Service,
November 15 2001).
Given this background, it is not surprising that some have seen the US
failure to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating an invaluable pretext
for attacking Afghanistan in a war that had clearly already been well
planned in advance. There is a possible precedent for this. The US
national archives reveal that President Roosevelt used exactly this
approach in relation to Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941. Some advance
warning of the attacks was received, but the information never reached
the US fleet. The ensuing national outrage persuaded a reluctant US
public to join the second world war. Similarly the PNAC blueprint of
September 2000 states that the process of transforming the US into
"tomorrow's dominant force" is likely to be a long one in the absence
of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl
Harbor". The 9/11 attacks allowed the US to press the "go" button for
a strategy in accordance with the PNAC agenda which it would otherwise
have been politically impossible to implement.
The overriding motivation for this political smokescreen is that the
US and the UK are beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy
supplies. By 2010 the Muslim world will control as much as 60% of the
world's oil production and, even more importantly, 95% of remaining
global oil export capacity. As demand is increasing, so supply is
decreasing, continually since the 1960s.
This is leading to increasing dependence on foreign oil supplies for
both the US and the UK. The US, which in 1990 produced domestically
57% of its total energy demand, is predicted to produce only 39% of
its needs by 2010. A DTI minister has admitted that the UK could be
facing "severe" gas shortages by 2005. The UK government has confirmed
that 70% of our electricity will come from gas by 2020, and 90% of
that will be imported. In that context it should be noted that Iraq
has 110 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in addition to its oil.
A report from the commission on America's national interests in July
2000 noted that the most promising new source of world supplies was
the Caspian region, and this would relieve US dependence on Saudi
Arabia. To diversify supply routes from the Caspian, one pipeline
would run westward via Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Turkish port of
Ceyhan. Another would extend eastwards through Afghanistan and
Pakistan and terminate near the Indian border. This would rescue
Enron's beleaguered power plant at Dabhol on India's west coast, in
which Enron had sunk $3bn investment and whose economic survival was
dependent on access to cheap gas.
Nor has the UK been disinterested in this scramble for the remaining
world supplies of hydrocarbons, and this may partly explain British
participation in US military actions. Lord Browne, chief executive of
BP, warned Washington not to carve up Iraq for its own oil companies
in the aftermath of war (Guardian, October 30 2002). And when a
British foreign minister met Gadaffi in his desert tent in August
2002, it was said that "the UK does not want to lose out to other
European nations already jostling for advantage when it comes to
potentially lucrative oil contracts" with Libya (BBC Online, August 10
2002).
The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the "global
war on terrorism" has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to
hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies
required to drive the whole project. Is collusion in this myth and
junior participation in this project really a proper aspiration for
British foreign policy? If there was ever need to justify a more
objective British stance, driven by our own independent goals, this
whole depressing saga surely provides all the evidence needed for a
radical change of course.
Michael Meacher MP was environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003
-------------
lo yeeOn wrote:
> In article <1113778211.039105.272560 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> studio <tlack [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> >JapanIsAColonyOfUSA [at] hotmail.com wrote:
> >> Japan is a colony of the United States.
> >
> >lol...that's news to me! Allie maybe, colony no. Japan for the most
> >part does what it wants.....as do we all.
>
> ["studio"'s] assertion ``Japan for the most part does what it wants
> . . . as do we all'' is a mere assertion and in fact contradicts
> reality---but who among the US and the Japanese governments would
> want to openly admit it. It is really shame, shame, and shame! But
> it is simply true, true, and true!
In response, "studio" wrote:
Oh really? It's as good as an assertion as your's is.....just a bit
more accurate. . . . [more arbitrary "studio" assertions snipped.]
|
|
|
| A little modern Chinese history Re: Japan is a Colony of the United States [message #10569 ] |
Mo, 18 April 2005 13:52 |
|
In article <d3ut0e$k4e$1 [at] reader1.panix.com>,
lo yeeOn <acoustic [at] panix.com> wrote:
>In article <1113778211.039105.272560 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>studio <tlack [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>JapanIsAColonyOfUSA [at] hotmail.com wrote:
>>> Japan is a colony of the United States.
>>
>>lol...that's news to me! Allie maybe, colony no. Japan for the most
>>part does what it wants.....as do we all.
``Japan for the most part does what it wants.....as do we all'' is a
mere assertion and in fact contradicts reality---but who among the US
and the Japanese governments would want to openly admit it. It is
really shame, shame, and shame! But it is simply true, true, and
true!
And despite the two American atom bombs dropped on Japan, there isn't
a sound of protest or discussion from the general Japanese national
consciousness about whodunit it and why. And US troops continue to
occupy Japanese land despite complaints of rapes and other crimes by
locals.
Japan is neither free nor independent. Japan used to have its
post-war pacifist constitution, clearly by US demand. But now, the
Japanese government wants to re-militarize the country, again at the
urging of the US government, and to the amazement of the majority of
the Japanese citizens. Yes, urging as in "you have no choice but to
follow my wishes", just as in the war efforts in the Middle East, much
against the wishes of the people in Japan.
From the financing of the wars against Iraq 15 and 2 years ago and
against Afghanistan, as requested by the US government, to the
coordinating of US foreign policy in the UN and Far East Asia.
It is a fact that someone who has been only casually familiar with
world news can recognize. For example, such a person can tell you
that the Japanese population was opposed to sending troops to Iraq but
felt that its government had no choice but to comply with the US
government's wishes. The reason why the Japanese feel so impotent in
matter related to US interests is simple. Whereas the Germans have
been carrying their collective guilt for WWII for generations, the
Japanese have never been compelled to do the same. But there is a
price. They have been feeling forever obliged to the US government
for not making them feel guilty like their German counterparts and
they feel they have no choice but do what the US asks every time they
ask.
Remember the fury the Bush war propaganda machine generated against
France when the French thought the war was unjust and refused to go
along, despite Bush's stand of ``you're against us if you aren't with
us''. The propaganda was: ``Ah, France! How ungrateful you are! If
it weren't for America, you'd still be speaking German . . .'' The
meaning is: If we pulled you out of the fire once, you must do what we
tell you forever after or else you're an ingrate!
The propangandists however were deliberately confusing the world by
blurring the difference between the American people and
government, among other things.
Not only did they pretend that the conduct and intention of a
government is an immutable virtue, impossible to be affected by the
change of time and circumstance, but also that the American government
is always good and always represents the conscience of the American
people.
These people wanted to guilt-trip France into supporting an immoral
war against their better judgment. And of course, time has proven
that the French was right and also that Bush and his war propaganda
machine were massive liars.
Nothing can justify the killing and maiming of hundreds of thousands
people just because we want to get its ruler for the charge of being a
dictator. In a society, the justice system does not allow burning
down a whole neighborhood and killing all its residents just to get a
thug, much less can the people's conscience condone the massacre of
all the Iraqis as we have done in Iraq in order to capture its
dictator and overthrow his government. It is just not done by people
with reason and integrity.
And that's exactly why Bush didn't tell the world the truth. On the
one hand. he wanted to topple Saddam and on the other hand he couldn't
tell the world that he would go to war on a nation just to get rid of
a person. So he had to exaggerate his cause of war by claiming that
Saddam's Iraq possessed WMD which would readily harm the rest of the
world and embellished it further with mushroom clouds over big cities
before the domestic audience, a deception later admitted by Pentagon's
second in command Paul Wolfowitz (see below).
Bush didn't tell that he was sending Americans to die in Iraq because
Saddam was a dictator but because he had WMD which was about to hit
us. He lied to steal our support for his dirty war. So Bush has been
proven a massive liar and murderer. Yet when he wanted France to go
to war against Iraq, he would send his thugs to browbeat the French
(but was surprised to find that they wouldn't yield).
Now, can anyone imagine the awkward position the Japanese would find
themselves in if they would so much as to say no to *anything* the US
government asks them? They can never say no because if France, one of
the few important US wartime allies, would be so harshly reacted to,
what would be the punishment for Japan, which has been let off easy,
super-easy because the US government was calling the shots over what
happens in post-war Japan.
(Recall, for instance, Bush's sharp-tongued confidante Ms. Condoleezza
Rice: ``Punish France!'', much like Salome demanded King Herod to get
John the Baptist's head on a silver platter.)
Now if French Fries in Washington could be changed to Freedom Fries
for France's perceived disobedience, what would happen to Japan?
You can bet that clamour will reach a feverish pitch of demanding that
the Japanese emperor be hanged.
(``We were nice to them for having spared them their emperor's neck;
now let's see what the ingrates will get . . .'')
And it is exactly this that is the price that is permanently hanging
over Japan's head.
In many ways, the Germans have set themselves free, much as Christ has
taught by asking us sinners to repent.
But Japanese have not repented; so they continue to be enslaved by
their heinous past.
The German attitude has been well-documented and often written about
in popular magazines. It is not some kind of psycho-babble as some
people might like to claim. But the Japanese attitude toward its
militaristic past is one of haughtiness, evidently a result of its
relationship as a pampered-child with its US guardian.
It is in this sense that the original poster characterize Japan as an
American colony. And it would do well to be more educated and less
ignorant about modern Chinese history. In addition to the blood of
some one million Chinese slaughtered in Nanking in 1939, many more
millions of Chinese perished as a result of the Japanese war of
aggression in China. Furthermore, Japan is known to have conducted
secret germ experiments on Chinese captured in the North East in the
1920s-1930s. They were war crimes. Former soldiers who eye-witnessed
the war crimes had wanted to come to the US to testify about them but
was discouraged or ignored by governments on both sides of the Pacific
Ocean.
In addition, the attitude of the militarist Japan goes back as far as
the late 1800s. First, it was in 1894-5 or thereabouts: you could see
photos from history books (in the United States) of Japanese soldiers
posing with the decapitated bodies of the indigenous fighters they'd
just executed. I've just consulted one which shows the bodies lying
at the feet of the Japanese soldiers, facing the camera, and the four
severed heads of the executed Chinese lying closest to the foreground.
One of the Japanese soldiers were shown wiping the blood of his victim
off from his sword as he smiled. And there are three other soldiers
wearing similar uniforms, carrying long swords in the picture. (There
were also 5 Chinese soldiers standing grim-faced in the back row.)
And that was the aftermath of the Boxers' Rebellion. [Sterling
Professor Jonathan D. Spence (Yale) and (wife and also Yale teacher)
Amping Chin, Random House, 1996]
The Boxers were ignorant; they thought that with their bare hands,
their bravery, and their righteousness, heaven would help them defeat
the foreigners, which included the Japanese. They were dead wrong.
And the impotent Chinese government at the time was forced to have its
soldiers stand there and watch with utter humiliation the barbarous
execution of their own fellowmen. (And the beheading then ran a
parallel to the contemporary beheadings that recently took place in
Iraq.)
But that was only the beginning. On May 4th, 1919, roughly 6 months
after the armistice in November the previous year (1918) was signed in
Versailles as Germany was defeated in WWI and exactly 2 months before
our own Independence Day (July 4th), the Chinese students organized a
large protest which few in the west today are aware of but which
completely changed the psyche of the Chinese people ever since.
The immediate trigger for the protest was the discovery that their
impotent government (at that time already a republican one, as opposed
to the time of the Boxer's Rebellion when it was a monarchy) had at
Versailles agreed to let Japan take over the concession which was
forcibly made to Germany some 25 years ago, even though China wasn't a
party to WWI.
(The protest was to a large extent about the Chinese people feeling
angry with themselves, feeling they were an impotent and totally
humiliated people after seeing what the foreigners were doing to them
in China. They thought, as they had always thought, they were only
minding their own business, and yet the foreigners wouldn't leave them
alone. The protest was to raise the people's consciousness about how
they might pull themselves out of that hapless mess of foreign
domination. They were aware of the fact that they were themselves
largely to blame for their humilation because they realize that it was
rooted in their own backwardness in science, technology, and other
aspects of governing, such as how people should treat each others.
They came to the realization that the world wasn't surrounding them as
the center of the universe to which people come to pay tribute, as
they were used to believe. Rather, they were treated as prey, which
each predator wants a piece of. For this reason, when the Chinese
government finally got itself free of all foreign encroachment and got
on its own feet economically and politically and started catching up
with the rest of the world with the mastery of science and technology,
the Chinese people feel absolutely protective of this piece of new
found freedom. It is a form of self-liberation.)
But aside from the spiritual awakening of the Chinese people, history
also records the imperial Japanese's naked ambition in China. And in
fact Japan planted itself firmly in the Northeast of China, setting up
a strong military presence, knowing the continuous impotence of the
republican government at the time.
At that time, China was also full of warlords which held control of
different part of the country. And in the Northeast, Japan was able
to exercise so much control over the local warlord that he was blown
up in his armored train in the 1920s when he displayed a little
independence. The warlord's son succeeded him as the head of the
Chinese army for that region but the Japanese assassination of his
father had a profound effect on him as to how he should behave in
similar circumstances: He learned the valuable lesson of not trying to
do anything to displease the occupying Japanese.
Finally, the imperial Japanese began their southward invasion in
earnest in 1930s, going way past Beijing and bombing the coast,
targeting Shanghai and its surroundings, which culminated in the
Nanking ``Great Massacre'' in 1937 (Nanking was the capital of the
Chinese government at the time).
In any case anyone who has a casual familiarity with the Chinese
modern history knows that Japan had a continuous militaristic design
for China for over half a century until its defeat in 1945.
No one should ignore the fact that many Chinese had generations of
suffering under the Japanese. Even the official duration of the
Japanese war of aggression in China was 8 years, longer than any in
Europe. And in China it is called the eight-year war of resistance.
Consequently, the decades of occupation and the final 8 years of war
have deeply affected the Chinese psyche. It also explains why so many
Chinese people who went through the war approved of the horrible US
nuclear strategy on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, seeing it as a means to
end the Japanese aggression. (I personally disagree with either the
need or the advisability of the atom bombs but I can't tell the
Chinese people what to think, especially because they were the ones
who have suffered so much.)
In fact one reason why the Chinese communists had come to receive so
much popular support from their countrymen immediately after WWII is
because they were fighting closely with the peasants (left behind by
their fleeing government) against the occupying Japanese, very much
like the French resistance was doing against the Nazi Germans, while
the Wang government which remained in Nanking was very much like the
counterpart to the Vichy government in France, each cooperated with
the occupiers. In China though, the Chiang and his oligarch allies
had fled to the southwest, safely tucked away from the hostility of
war.
So, you see from this brief summary of the Japanese presence in China,
none of it benign, indicates that the Japanese have a heavy burden on
their backs that they haven't tried to unload. They pretend the burden
doesn't exist because they think they have the world's sole superpower
on their side. But precisely because of this indebtedness to America,
they are doing all these things no independent nations in the world
would do. Just listen to what Professor Ronald Morse had to say about
Japan's weird lap-dog foreign policy.
Indeed, Japan and the United States seem to be on the same page
regarding China, North Korea and even South Korea, which disagrees
with Washington about how to handle North Korea.
On defense and Security Council membership, "Japan's policies are a
subset of U.S. needs," said Ronald Morse, professor of Japan studies
at University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
"If you look at the environment, Iraq, U.S. base reorganization, beef,
illegal prostitution, Taiwan," Japanese foreign policy "is all driven
by Washington's actions," Morse said.
. . .
"The way it's going, Japan might as well give up its ambitions of
winning a permanent U.N. Security Council seat or the fusion energy
project," said Yamamoto, the Waseda professor.
Notice that ``Japan's policies are a subset of U.S. needs'', according
to Morse. That is, US needs drives Japan's policies, from A to Z.
lo yeeOn
========
1) On Japanese militaristic past, clintpetra [at] wmconnect.com wrote
I would be very curious to learn if Japanese posters and
pro-Japanese posters have ever read John Toland's history of "the
Great Pacific War," The Rising Sun in two volumes or The Imperial
Japanese Conspiracy by Bengamini.
Those were two objective works, well-documented, clearly
demonstrating war crimes by the Japanese comparable to Nazi
Germany. After reading and rereading dozens of history books about
Japan over the past 20 years, the only thing I see the Japanese
upset about is that they lost the war.
The Rape of Nanking was only the tip of a very bestial iceberg. The
Chinese lost as many as 20 million people in ww2. Most of these
were civilians. Not to mention the Filipinos who suffered losses in
the hundreds of thousands. Tens of thousands of Southeast Asian
forced labor worked to death on railroad constuction in Burmese
jungles. The murder of hundreds of British soldiers and civilians
after the surrender of the British Hong Kong garrison in 1941. The
multiple rape and decapitation of dozens of British nurses from the
same garrison....the Bataan Death March.
Give me a break. You wonder why the Chinese get a little
cranky. The only bloody thing the Japanese didn't do in ww2 was gas
jews.
2) Article with professor Ronald Morse's comments on Japan's foreign
policy being driven by the desire of the US government.
By KENJI HALL, Associated Press Writer
TOKYO - In diplomatic tussles with its neighbors, Japan has long been
inclined to turn the other cheek. Not lately, though.
In recent months, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has talked tough
with South Korea over disputed islets and reasserted Japan's claim to
other islands held by Russia. While China and North Korea continue to
harry Japan over its World War II conduct, Japan is bluntly portraying
those two communist countries as the real source of the region's
problems.
"In the past, Japan always avoided taking a stand on diplomatic
issues. But Japan has realized that tactic doesn't work, and its own
public has criticized it as too weak," said Masaru Ikei, a professor
of international politics at Keio University in Tokyo.
Japan's recent campaign for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security
Council and approval of a textbook that critics say glosses over
Tokyo's wartime aggression set off angry demonstrations in China. But
instead of making the usual conciliatory gestures, Tokyo rejected the
charges and demanded China apologize for allowing violent
anti-Japanese protests.
In Shanghai, police stood by Saturday as 20,000 rioters -- some
shouting "Kill the Japanese!" -- threw stones, eggs and plastic
bottles and broke windows at the Japanese Consulate and damaged
restaurants and cars.
Peaceful protests on Sunday in the southern cities of Shenzhen and
Guangzhou drew thousands. In Shenzhen, as many as 10,000 people
marched past a Japanese-owned department store calling for a boycott
of Japanese goods.
China on Sunday rebuffed Tokyo's demands for an apology, saying it had
never wronged the Japanese people but Japan had "hurt the feelings" of
Chinese. Many Chinese believe Japan has never truly shown remorse for
its prewar invasion of China.
Japan has stirred things up further by announcing it will prospect for
natural gas in an area of the East China Sea where Beijing claims
exclusive economic rights. And on Friday its Foreign Ministry issued a
report accusing China of intruding into Japan's territorial waters
last November. It said it was one of several moves that "threaten
Japan's national security, sovereignty and other rights."
While the statement offered to settle matters through peaceful
dialogue, Japan has also identified China's expanding military and its
threats against Taiwan as top security concerns.
The flare-up comes amid longer-term frictions as the two countries
compete for political and economic dominance in Asia. China is eager
to translate its financial might into diplomatic muscle and a greater
military presence in the Pacific. Japan wants a permanent seat on the
U.N. Security Council, alongside China, Russia, the United States,
Britain and France.
China is not the only country Japan is wrangling with.
In September, Koizumi took a provocative boat trip to the coast of the
Russian-held southern Kuril islands in the North Pacific, and
proclaimed them an "integral part of Japan," delighting his country's
ruling conservatives.
Last month Japan began banning most North Korean ships from Japanese
ports, demanding North Korea reveal more about its abductions of
Japanese nationals in the 1970s and '80s.
It is also at odds with South Korea over a cluster of islands claimed
by both sides.
The tougher posture reflects the bigger ambitions of the globe's
second-largest economy. Tokyo has sent troops to Iraq, is considering
revising its pacifist constitution, and is working with the United
States on a joint missile-defense shield.
Despite Japan's flourishing trade with Asia, analysts say Koizumi has
abandoned all pretense at currying favor with the neighbors.
"Japan's foreign policy isn't guided by philosophy or ideology -- it's
just nationalism. Koizumi is putting on a show for domestic
constituents," said Takehiko Yamamoto, an international relations
expert at Tokyo's Waseda University.
Still, Japan has picked its battles carefully, staying on friendly
terms with Europe and above all the United States, which has more than
50,000 troops stationed in Japan under a decades-old treaty.
Indeed, Japan and the United States seem to be on the same page
regarding China, North Korea and even South Korea, which disagrees
with Washington about how to handle North Korea.
On defense and Security Council membership, "Japan's policies are a
subset of U.S. needs," said Ronald Morse, professor of Japan studies
at University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
"If you look at the environment, Iraq, U.S. base reorganization, beef,
illegal prostitution, Taiwan," Japanese foreign policy "is all driven
by Washington's actions," Morse said.
But Japan stands to lose a lot if it alienates its neighbors.
It needs China's acquiescence to win that Security Council seat. It
has lobbied hard for Russian approval of a badly needed trans-Siberian
oil pipeline. And it needs South Korea's backing in the international
contest for a prestigious and job-generating nuclear fusion energy
project.
"The way it's going, Japan might as well give up its ambitions of
winning a permanent U.N. Security Council seat or the fusion energy
project," said Yamamoto, the Waseda professor.
3) The war against Iraq was not a consequence of 9/11
a) http://informationclearinghouse.info/article8502.htm
Link to Cindi Sheehan's Murderous Thugs article (Cindi Sheehan is
mother of Casey Sheehan, US soldier who died in vain in Iraq.
Paul Wolfowitz, after months of not finding any Weapons of Mass
Destruction....and after hundreds of US soldiers were killed....my son
amongst them....and after tens of thousands of innocent Iraq citizens
were killed....this same Paul Wolfowitz casually explained....with his
kindly charade and his ever so soft voice...that a decision was made
to put forth "Weapons of Mass Destruction" as the need for the
invasion. Essentially, Paul Wolfowitz admitted that he and his fellow
conspirators had decided amongst themselves "...let's just go with the
bit about Weapons of Mass Destruction. It's the one thing that will
scare the American people enough so as to cause them to get behind
this invasion."
As soft-spoken and sincere-sounding as Paul Wolfowitz is, is there yet
any sane adult in this country who's skin does not crawl when this
murderous liar opens his mouth and speaks? Am I the only person in
this room who clearly sees that Paul Wolfowitz is a threat to our
nation's security...and to peace on our beloved earth?"
[On Weapons of Mass Destruction,] Rumsfeld [knew] that Saddam
had been stripped clean of such weapons, that Saddam's ability to
reconstitute such weapons' programs had also been destroyed, and that
any moves Saddam might have made in that direction would have been
observed and stopped, forthwith.
Is there anyone in America who cannot yet see that Donald Runsfeld is
a liar...that he, as with Hitler and Stalin....will say anything so
long as he thinks it will help shape the world to his own liking? Is
there even one, sane adult among us who cannot see that Donald
Rumsfeld is a threat to our nation's security and to peace on our
beloved earth?
Had the Shah of Iran...a blood-bought servant of US corporate
interests...not soon been overthrown by his own countrymen, the
big-wigs at Westinghouse or General Electric...or perhaps both...
would have amassed personal fortunes from this one project, alone.
Some of the stockholders would have also made bundles on the deal.
In 1975 my son had not yet been born. Today he is in his grave. Dick
Cheney, on the other hand, is now Vice President of the United States,
and he is materially wealthy beyond what any of us would ever pray to
be. This is the same Dick Cheney who during the months leading-up to
the invasion of Iraq said that Saddam Hussein not only has stockpiles
of Weapons of Mass Destruction...more than a hundred metric tons of
the deadly stuff...but he also said that Saddam Hussein was
well-advanced in developing nuclear weapons and that therefore the US
must invade Iraq and dethrone Saddam Hussein. Clean, quick, and simple
according to Dick Cheney. Yet for some time now he has changed his
tune. He now says...as if he had said it all along...that the US
occupation of Iraq will require years of difficult and sometimes
bloody conflict before it will be stable enough to bring our loved
ones home. And too, rather than speak of Weapons of Mass Destruction,
he now uses the word "democracy" a lot.
Is there yet an American who can not clearly see that Dick
Cheney...whether it be 1975 or 2005...will say whatever he thinks is
required to ultimately cause wealth and power to move to himself and
to his friends? ...need I defile this holy place with words like
"Haliburton" and "Kellog, Brown & Root" and "torture" and "US weapons
industry"? Indeed, the Apostle Paul is correct in saying that,
ultimately, the love of money leads to ruin and destruction.
Are we to believe that this administration was, once again, asleep
at the wheel...just as they would also have us to believe that they
were innocently caught off-guard on the morning of September 11,
2001?
b) Bush started planning the Iraq war from day 1 of his presidency,
not a reaction to 9/11
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=28769
The link has an excerpt from James Bamford:
The following should be unacceptable as well (for any patriotic
American who serves the best interests of America first):
http://warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=20366
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------
-------------
'A Pretext For War' Pages 261-269 of James Bamford's 'A Pretext for
War' book"
Then Bush addressed the sole items on the agenda for his first high
level national security meeting. The topics were not terrorism--a
subject he barely mentioned during the campaign --or nervousness over
China or Russia, but Israel and Iraq. From the very first moment, the
Bush foreign policy would focus on three key objectives: get rid of
Saddam, end American involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian peace
process, and rearrange the dominoes in the Middle East. A key to the
policy shift would be the concept of pre-emption.
The Blueprint for the new Bush policy had actually been drawn up five
years earlier by three of his top national security advisors. Soon to
be appointed to senior administration positions, they were Richard
Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser. Ironically the plan was
orginally intended not for Bush but for another world leader, Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
At the time, the three officials were out of government and working
for conservative pro-Israel think tanks. Perle and Feith had
previously served in high level Pentagon positions during the
presidency of Ronald Reagan. In a very unusaul move, the former--and
future--senior American officials were acting as a sort of American
privy council to the new Israeli Prime Minister. The Perle task force
to advise Netanyahu was set up by the Jerusalem based Institute for
Advanced Stategic and Political Studies, where Wurmser was working. A
key part of the plan was to get the United States to pull out of peace
negotiations and simply let Israel take care of the Palestinians as it
saw fit. "Israel," said the report, can manage it's own affairs. Such
self-reliance will grant Israel greater freedom of action and remove a
significant lever of pressure used against it in the past.
But the centerpiece of the recommendations was the removal of Saddam
Hussein as the first step in remaking the Middle East into a region
friendly, instead of hostile, to Israel. Their plan "A Clean Break: A
New Strategy for Securing the Realm," also signaled a radical
departure from the peace-oriented policies of former Prime Minister
Yitzhak Rabin, who was assassinated by a member of an extreme
right-wing Israeli group.
As part of their "grand strategy" they recommended that once Iraq was
conquered and Saddam Hussein overthrown, he should be replaced by a
puppet leader friendly to Israel. Whoever inherits Iraq, they wrote,
dominates the entire Levant strategically. Then they suggested that
Syria would be the next country to be invaded. Israel can shape it's
strategic environment, they said.
This would be done, they recommended to Netanyahu, by re-establishing
the principle of pre-emption and by rolling back it's Arab neighbors.
From then on, the principle would be to strike first and expand, a
dangerous and provocative change in philosphy. They recommended
launching a major unprovoked regional war in the Middle East,
attacking Lebanon and Syria and ousting Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Ten, to
gain the support of the American government and public, a phony
pretext would be used as the reason for the original invasion.
The recommendation of Feith, Perle and Wurmser was for Israel to once
again invade Lebanon with air strikes. But this time to counter
potentionally hostile reactions from the American government and
public, they suggested using a pretext. They would claim that the
purpose of the invasion was to halt Syria's drug-money and
counterfeiting infrastructure located there. They were subjects in
which Israel had virtually no interest, but they were ones, they said,
with which America can sympathize.
Another way to win American support for a pre-empted war against
Syria, they suggested, was by drawing attention to its weapons of mass
destruction program. This claim would be that Israel's war was really
all about protecting Americans from drugs, counterfeit bills, and
WMD--nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.
It was rather extraordinary for a trio of former, and potentially
future, high-ranking American government officials to become advisors
to a foreign government. More unsettling still was a fact that they
were recommending acts of war in which Americans could be killed, and
also ways to masquerade the true purpose of the attacks from the
American public.
Once inside Lebanon, Israel could let loose--to begin engaging
Hizballah, Syria and Iran, as the principle agents of aggression in
Lebanon. Then they would widen the war even further by using proxy
forces--Lebanese militia fighters acting on Israel's behalf (as Ariel
Sharon had done in the 80's)--to invade Syria from Lebanon. Thus, they
noted, they could invade Syria by establishing the precedent that
Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by
Israeli proxy forces.
As soon as that fighting started, they advised, Israel could begin
striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove
insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper [emphasis in
original].
The Perle task force even supplied Nentanyahu with some text for a
television address, using the suggested pretext to justify the war.
Years later, it would closely resemble speeches to justify their own
Middle East wars; Iraq would simply replace Syria and the United Staes
would replace Israel: Negotiations with repressive regimes like
Syria's require cautious realism. One cannot sensibly assume the other
side's good faith. It is dangerous for Israel to deal naively with a
regime murderous of its own people, openly aggressive towards its
neighbors, criminally involved with international drug traffickers and
counterfeiters, and supportive of the most deadly terrorist
organizations.
The task force then suggested that Israel open a second front in its
expanding war, with a focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in
Iraq--an important Israel strategic objective in its own right--as a
expanding war, with a focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in
Iraq--an important Israel strategic objective in its own right--as a
means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions.
For years the killing of Saddam Hussein had been among the highest,
and most secret, priorities of the Israeli government. In one stroke
it would pay Saddam Hussein back for launching Scud missiles against
Israel, killing several people, during the Gulf War. Redrawing the map
of the Middle East would also help isolate Syria, Iraq's ally and
Israel's archenemy along its northern border. Thus, in the early
1990's, after the US-led war in the Gulf, a small elite team of
Israeli commandos was given the order to train in absolute secrecy for
an assassination mission to bring down the Baghdad ruler.
The plan, code-named Bramble Bush, was to first kill a close friend of
the Iraqi leader outside the country, someone from Hussein's hometown
of Tikrit. Then, after learning the date and time of the funeral to be
held in the town, a funeral Hussein was certain to attend, they would
have time to covertly infiltrate a team of commandos into the country
to carry out the assassination. The murder weapons were to be
specially modified "smart" missiles that would be fired at Hussein as
he stood in a crowd at the funeral.
But, the plan was finally abandoned after five members of the team
were accidently killed during a dry run of the operation.
Nevertheless, removing Saddam and converting Iraq from threat to ally
had long been at the top of Israel's wish list.
Now Perle, Feith, and Wurmser were suggesting something far more
daring--not just an assassination but a bloody war that would get rid
of Saddam Hussein and also change the face of Syria and Lebanon. Perle
felt their "Clean Break" recommendations were so important that he
personally hand-carried the report to Netanyahu.
Wisely, Netanyahu rejected the task force' plan. But now, with the
election of a receptive George W. Bush, they dusted off their
pre-emptive war strategy and began getting ready to put it to use.
The new Bush policy was an aggressive agenda for any president, but
especially for someone who had previously shown little interest in
international affairs. We're going to correct the imbalances the
previous administration on the Mideast conflict, Bush told his freshly
assembled senior national security team in the Situation Room on
January 30, 2001. We're going to tilt it back toward Israel. . .
.Anybody here ever met Ariel Sharon? Only Colin Powell raised his
hand.
Bush was going to reverse the Clinton policy, which was heavily
weighted toward bringing the bloody conflict between Israel and the
Palestinians to a peaceful conclusion. There would be no more US
interference; he would let Sharon resolve the dispute however he saw
fit, with little or no regard for the situation of the Palestinians.
The policy change was exactly as recommended by the Perle task force's
"Clean Break" report.
I'm not going to go by past reputations when it comes to Sharon, Bush
told his newly gathered national security team. I'm going to take him
at face value. We'll work on a relationship based on how things go.
Then he mentioned a trip he had taken with the Republican Jewish
Coalition to Israel. We flew over the Palestinian camps. Looked real
bad down there, he said with a frown. Then he said it was time to end
America's efforts in the region. I don't see much we can do over there
at this point, he said.
Colin Powell, Secretary of State for only a few days, was taken by
surprise. The idea that such a complex problem, in which America had
long been heavily involved, could be simply brushed away with the
sweep of a hand made little sense. Fearing Israeli-led aggression, he
quickly objected.
c) This War on Terrorism is Bogus
The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure
its global domination
Michael Meacher
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------
Saturday September 6, 2003
The Guardian
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1036688, 00.html
Michael Meacher MP was environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003
Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons
why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has
focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British
motives too.
The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit,
retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first
step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam
Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of
mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However
this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal
murkier.
We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax
Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald
Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb
Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief
of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was
written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project
for the New American Century (PNAC).
The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the
Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "while
the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in
the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to
Wolfowitz and Libby which said the US must "discourage advanced
industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to
a larger regional or global role". It refers to key allies such as the
UK as "the most effective and efficient means of exercising American
global leadership". It describes peacekeeping missions as "demanding
American political leadership rather than that of the UN". It says
"even should Saddam pass from the scene", US bases in Saudi Arabia and
Kuwait will remain permanently... as "Iran may well prove as large a
threat to US interests as Iraq has". It spotlights China for "regime
change", saying "it is time to increase the presence of American
forces in SE Asia".
The document also calls for the creation of "US space forces" to
dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent
"enemies" using the internet against the US. It also hints that the US
may consider developing biological weapons "that can target specific
genotypes [and] may transform biological warfare from the realm of
terror to a politically useful tool".
Finally - written a year before 9/11 - it pinpoints North Korea, Syria
and Iran as dangerous regimes, and says their existence justifies the
creation of a "worldwide command and control system". This is a
blueprint for US world domination. But before it is dismissed as an
agenda for rightwing fantasists, it is clear it provides a much better
explanation of what actually happened before, during and after 9/11
than the global war on terrorism thesis. This can be seen in several
ways.
First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to
pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries
provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior
Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA
and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big
operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided
included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was
arrested.
It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit
Washington targets with aeroplanes. Then in 1999 a US national
intelligence council report noted that "al-Qaida suicide bombers could
crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon,
the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House".
Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia.
Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in
Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing
visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them
to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in
collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this
operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is
also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure
US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001).
Instructive leads prior to 9/11 were not followed up. French Moroccan
flight student Zacarias Moussaoui (now thought to be the 20th
hijacker) was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor reported he
showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large
airliners. When US agents learned from French intelligence he had
radical Islamist ties, they sought a warrant to search his computer,
which contained clues to the September 11 mission (Times, November 3
2001). But they were turned down by the FBI. One agent wrote, a month
before 9/11, that Moussaoui might be planning to crash into the Twin
Towers (Newsweek, May 20 2002).
All of this makes it all the more astonishing - on the war on
terrorism perspective - that there was such slow reaction on September
11 itself. The first hijacking was suspected at not later than
8.20am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at
10.06am. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from
the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until
after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not? There
were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before
9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched
fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP,
August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft
has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent
up to investigate.
Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or
being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could US air security operations
have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on
whose authority? The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus,
has said: "The information provided by European intelligence services
prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for
either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence."
Nor is the US response after 9/11 any better. No serious attempt has
ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October
2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties negotiated Bin
Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US
official said, significantly, that "casting our objectives too
narrowly" risked "a premature collapse of the international effort if
by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured". The US chairman of
the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that
"the goal has never been to get Bin Laden" (AP, April 5 2002). The
whistleblowing FBI agent Robert Wright told ABC News (December 19
2002) that FBI headquarters wanted no arrests. And in November 2001
the US airforce complained it had had al-Qaida and Taliban leaders in
its sights as many as 10 times over the previous six weeks, but had
been unable to attack because they did not receive permission quickly
enough (Time Magazine, May 13 2002). None of this assembled evidence,
all of which comes from sources already in the public domain, is
compatible with the idea of a real, determined war on terrorism.
The catalogue of evidence does, however, fall into place when set
against the PNAC blueprint. From this it seems that the so-called "war
on terrorism" is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider
US strategic geopolitical objectives. Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted
at this when he said to the Commons liaison committee: "To be truthful
about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to
have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened
on September 11" (Times, July 17 2002). Similarly Rumsfeld was so
determined to obtain a rationale for an attack on Iraq that on 10
separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to
9/11; the CIA repeatedly came back empty-handed (Time Magazine, May 13
2002).
In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC
plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for
military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before
9/11. A report prepared for the US government from the Baker Institute
of Public Policy stated in April 2001 that "the US remains a prisoner
of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising influence
to... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle
East". Submitted to Vice-President Cheney's energy task group, the
report recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to the
US, "military intervention" was necessary (Sunday Herald, October 6
2002).
Similar evidence exists in regard to Afghanistan. The BBC reported
(September 18 2001) that Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign
secretary, was told by senior American officials at a meeting in
Berlin in mid-July 2001 that "military action against Afghanistan
would go ahead by the middle of October". Until July 2001 the US
government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central
Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from
the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan,
through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But, confronted
with the Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, the US
representatives told them "either you accept our offer of a carpet of
gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs" (Inter Press Service,
November 15 2001).
Given this background, it is not surprising that some have seen the US
failure to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating an invaluable pretext
for attacking Afghanistan in a war that had clearly already been well
planned in advance. There is a possible precedent for this. The US
national archives reveal that President Roosevelt used exactly this
approach in relation to Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941. Some advance
warning of the attacks was received, but the information never reached
the US fleet. The ensuing national outrage persuaded a reluctant US
public to join the second world war. Similarly the PNAC blueprint of
September 2000 states that the process of transforming the US into
"tomorrow's dominant force" is likely to be a long one in the absence
of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl
Harbor". The 9/11 attacks allowed the US to press the "go" button for
a strategy in accordance with the PNAC agenda which it would otherwise
have been politically impossible to implement.
The overriding motivation for this political smokescreen is that the
US and the UK are beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy
supplies. By 2010 the Muslim world will control as much as 60% of the
world's oil production and, even more importantly, 95% of remaining
global oil export capacity. As demand is increasing, so supply is
decreasing, continually since the 1960s.
This is leading to increasing dependence on foreign oil supplies for
both the US and the UK. The US, which in 1990 produced domestically
57% of its total energy demand, is predicted to produce only 39% of
its needs by 2010. A DTI minister has admitted that the UK could be
facing "severe" gas shortages by 2005. The UK government has confirmed
that 70% of our electricity will come from gas by 2020, and 90% of
that will be imported. In that context it should be noted that Iraq
has 110 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in addition to its oil.
A report from the commission on America's national interests in July
2000 noted that the most promising new source of world supplies was
the Caspian region, and this would relieve US dependence on Saudi
Arabia. To diversify supply routes from the Caspian, one pipeline
would run westward via Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Turkish port of
Ceyhan. Another would extend eastwards through Afghanistan and
Pakistan and terminate near the Indian border. This would rescue
Enron's beleaguered power plant at Dabhol on India's west coast, in
which Enron had sunk $3bn investment and whose economic survival was
dependent on access to cheap gas.
Nor has the UK been disinterested in this scramble for the remaining
world supplies of hydrocarbons, and this may partly explain British
participation in US military actions. Lord Browne, chief executive of
BP, warned Washington not to carve up Iraq for its own oil companies
in the aftermath of war (Guardian, October 30 2002). And when a
British foreign minister met Gadaffi in his desert tent in August
2002, it was said that "the UK does not want to lose out to other
European nations already jostling for advantage when it comes to
potentially lucrative oil contracts" with Libya (BBC Online, August 10
2002).
The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the "global
war on terrorism" has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to
hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies
required to drive the whole project. Is collusion in this myth and
junior participation in this project really a proper aspiration for
British foreign policy? If there was ever need to justify a more
objective British stance, driven by our own independent goals, this
whole depressing saga surely provides all the evidence needed for a
radical change of course.
Michael Meacher MP was environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003
-------------
lo yeeOn wrote:
> In article <1113778211.039105.272560 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> studio <tlack [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> >JapanIsAColonyOfUSA [at] hotmail.com wrote:
> >> Japan is a colony of the United States.
> >
> >lol...that's news to me! Allie maybe, colony no. Japan for the most
> >part does what it wants.....as do we all.
>
> ["studio"'s] assertion ``Japan for the most part does what it wants
> . . . as do we all'' is a mere assertion and in fact contradicts
> reality---but who among the US and the Japanese governments would
> want to openly admit it. It is really shame, shame, and shame! But
> it is simply true, true, and true!
In response, "studio" wrote:
Oh really? It's as good as an assertion as your's is.....just a bit
more accurate. . . . [more arbitrary "studio" assertions snipped.]
|
|
|
| Re: A little modern Chinese history Re: Japan is a Colony of the United States [message #10602 ] |
Mo, 18 April 2005 17:39 |
|
Censorship of my responses will get you no where.
Trying to drive wedges in countries that get along peacefully will get
you no where.
Dictators and supporting dictators will get you no where.
Answer my questions;
doesn't China have some peaceful Bhuddist monks in Tibet to suppress?
Doesn't China have some people to throw in jail who dare formulate
their own thoughts?
Hasn't China "voted" unanaimously to take Tiawan by force if necessary?
Hardly arbitrary assertions on their part.
> lo yeeOn wrote:
> > In article <1113778211.039105.272560 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> > studio <tlack [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >JapanIsAColonyOfUSA [at] hotmail.com wrote:
> > >> Japan is a colony of the United States.
> > >
> > >lol...that's news to me! Allie maybe, colony no. Japan for the
most
> > >part does what it wants.....as do we all.
> >
> > ["studio"'s] assertion ``Japan for the most part does what it wants
> > . . . as do we all'' is a mere assertion and in fact contradicts
> > reality---but who among the US and the Japanese governments would
> > want to openly admit it. It is really shame, shame, and shame!
But
> > it is simply true, true, and true!
>
> In response, "studio" wrote:
> Oh really? It's as good as an assertion as your's is.....just a bit
> more accurate. . . . [more arbitrary "studio" assertions snipped.]
|
|
|
| Re: Japan is a Colony of the United States [message #11224 ] |
Do, 21 April 2005 12:20 |
|
Hawaii sucks too,
"Gos" <gos [at] yours.com> wrote in message
news:1113480498.917449.33250 [at] l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Hawaii is occupied by the US. Hawaii is a nation.
>
____________________________________________________________ ___________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
|
|
|
| Re: Japan is a Colony of the United States [message #11225 ] |
Do, 21 April 2005 12:22 |
|
Add obesity, hatred for the White man, welfare , drugs, and an 8th grade
education. = Hawaii
Hey braddah da kin waddah go beat dem fuckin haolie boy cuz I I be a Wainea
beef brah.
"Vernon North" <v... [at] oyama.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:115uhi1jkf7rg02 [at] corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> "HellBend" <KU.HellBoy [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1113490967.724810.24490 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> Lmao at Mr. Onigiri... Hawaii will never be a colony of japan. Just
>> because you brought all the tampons in a drug store doesn't
>> automatically means you own the drug store.
>
> Hawaii can't be colonized because of too many obese
> islanders
>
> Verno
>
>
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________ ___________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
|
|
|
| Re: Japan is a Colony of the United States [message #11481 ] |
Sa, 23 April 2005 01:22 |
|
JapanIsAColonyOfUSA [at] hotmail.com wrote in message news:<1113466860.102056.3710 [at] l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>...
> Japan is a colony of the United States.
You mean it figuratively, right? Americans cannot go and live in Japan
and need a visa to stay there. Japanese cannot tell an American from a
German or a Russian. All look the same to them- all are gaijin.
Japanese landlords do not want to rent to firegners, Americans
included. America has a deficit with Japan- a huge one. One does not
have deficits with colonies. Japanese use thier own money and are a
sovereign nation.
Now, if you use the word "ally" then I will agree.,
If they were a colony like Puerto Rico, things would be different.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Mo Feb 6 13:30:51 CET 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,11451 Sekunden |
