12/7/11 Peal Harbor & Brief Survey of U.S.war casus belli, part 1

digest: U.S. 'smart power' wars for global domination based on 'casus belli'
WWII started in 1939 but the US refused to enter the war until the Pearl Harbor attack it engineered December 7, 1941. Contrary to the 'great anti-fascist war' myth, its entry was delayed until so its 'allies' did most of the dirty ground work because the US strategic goal was not 'anti-fascist': it was defeating the then revolutionary Soviet Union, an anti-imperialist and socialist beacon to oppressed peoples and nations worldwide, the major threat to U.S. global domination. 'Mopping up the 'allies' spoils to restructure world capital with the Marshall Plan secured U.S. finance capitalist supremacy.
The 'GWOT' today, merging soft & hard power, e.g. 'smart power', is the continuation of this same U.S. 'manifest destiny mission, the expansion of its historically unprecedented state terrorist slaughter and destruction in the name of democracy, liberation, human rights and development.
Using the bogus European 'credit crunch', US blames Europe for delaying its 'recession recovery' and maneuvers to tighten dominance of European 'allies' by creating a 'fiscal union' of preferred western nations under IMF and other US dominated vehicles

2000 One year before 9/11, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) called for "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor", which would serve to galvanize US public opinion in support of a war agenda.
2000 “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century”, basis of 2002 US NSS
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

911, "Mini Pearl Harbor", the 'big bang' PNAC needed to launch US GWOT
Pentagon's P20G "Proactive, Preemptive Intelligence Operations Group": provoke 'terrorist attacks' to justify US attacks
DOD 'Preemptive' Intelligence Operations," Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy News, #107, October 28, 2002.
"Into the Dark: The Pentagon Plan to Provoke Terrorist Attacks", Chris Floyd, 11/1/02 http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd1101.html 2005
"Darkness Visible: Pentagon Plan to Foment Terrorism Now in Operation http://collectioncf72.blogspot.com/2005/04/darkness-visible-pentagon-pla...

Pearl Harbor: The REAL History
by Richard K. Moore
6/10/2001 http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html
whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html?q=pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html
"...everything that the Japanese were planning to do was known to the United States..." ARMY BOARD, 1944 President Roosevelt (FDR) provoked the attack, knew about it in advance and covered up his failure to warn the Hawaiian commanders... to sucker Hitler to declare war, since the public and Congress were overwhelmingly against entering the war in Europe...it was the backdoor to war.

"...without some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor..."
Were 1998 Memos a Blueprint for War?
Nightline March 5, 2003. March 10 http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=128491
...Years before George W. Bush entered the White House, and years before the Sept. 11 attacks...the Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, was founded in 1997... the group called for a shift toward a more assertive U.S.... for the post-Cold War era.... in a report before the 2000 election that would bring Bush to power, they predicted the shift could only come about slowly, unless there were "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor." That event came on Sept. 11, 2001...

The Truth about World War 2
from America in Decline by Raymond Lotta, 1984
"When the U.S. entered the war at the end of 1941, it did so with clearly formulated goals. As early as 1940, study groups set up by the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations were laying plans for a new global order dominated by the U.S. The Council, which collaborated with the government, produced high-level memoranda examining prospects for the consolidation and integration of trade and investment within the Western Hemisphere and the Pacific. By 1942, ideas for an international monetary fund, a world bank, and a new league of nations were germinating in the State Department. U.S. war aims were perhaps best summed up by Henry Luce, owner of the Time-Life propaganda empire, who, in his 1941 book, The American Century, lamented that at the close of World War 1 the U.S. had let slip a “...an opportunity unprecedented in all history, to assume the leadership of the world....” Such an opportunity should not be missed again...
In arguing that the U.S. had to invade Iraq, George Bush accused critics of wanting to “appease” rather than confronting "the enemy". "Appeasement" as associated with a 1938 agreement that allowed Hitler to take control of part of Czechoslovakia. British Prime Minister Chamberlain said that this pact would secure peace. America in Decline explains the actual imperialist maneuvering that was going on:
"In order to understand U.S. maneuvers and advances through the Second World War, it is necessary to consider the positions, goals, and strategies of the other great powers. The British strategy for dealing with Germany found initial expression in Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's 'appeasement' policy. The purpose of Chamberlain's 1938 Munich agreement to give the Sudetenland to Germany was, in fact, to push the Germans to the east and into confrontation with the Soviet Union...smashing the socialist Soviet Union had failed immediately after WW1 by the British, Americans, French and other imperialists. But Britain's immediate goal was to prepare better military and political ground for direct confrontation with Germany by weakening it in a war with the Soviets. The U.S. went along with this as part of its strategy of moving in later to “pick up the pieces.” ...There was never any question on the part of Britain or the U.S., of letting the German imperialists swallow the Soviet Union: they wanted the Germans to choke on it. The Soviet Union was determined neither to be swallowed nor to be shattered. Owing to the Soviet need to buy time and the German need to first establish a tenable western periphery before it lay siege to the Soviet Union, the two countries signed a mutual non-aggression pact in August 1939...."

NB: the u.s. did not just 'know', it provoked the Japanese knowing they were about to surrender
Things You Can't Say in America: FDR knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor
Alexander Cockburn, June 8, 2001
Pearl Harbor. The fact that FDR knew the Japanese were going to attack is something that should by now be solidly established in American historiography...John Flynn made a sound case for Roosevelt's foreknowledge [The Truth About Pearl Harbor (1944) and The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor (1945)]... the historian Charles Beard did it magisterially in 1948 with his FDR and the Coming of the War 1941. John Toland wrapped it with Infamy early in the 1980s. Robert Stinnett made the case all over again a year ago with Day of Deceit.
...By the spring of 1945 the Japanese military had been demolished. The disparities in the casualties figures between the Japanese and the Americans are striking. From 1937 to 1945, the Japanese Imperial Army and Navy suffered 1,740,955 military deaths in combat. Dower estimates that another 300,000 died from disease and starvation. In addition, another 395,000 Japanese civilians died as a result of Allied saturation bombing that began in March 1945. The total dead: more than 2.7 million. In contrast, American military deaths totaled 100,997. Even though Japan had announced its intentions to surrender on August 10, this didn't deter the bloodthirsty General "Hap" Arnold. On August 14, Arnold directed a 1,014 plane air raid on Tokyo, blasting the city to ruins and killing thousands. Not one American plane was lost and the unconditional surrender was signed before the planes had returned to their bases. This raid, as much as the dropping of the A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was aimed at the Soviet Union... designed to impress Stalin with the implacable might of the United States.

pro-US imperialist Pearl Harbor
Pearl Harbor: Official Lies in an American War Tragedy May 24, 2000
Robert B. Stinnett, former Journalist, Oakland Tribune and BBC. Author of Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor.
http://www.independent.org/events/detail.asp?eventID=28
The great question of Pearl Harbor: what did U.S. government officials know and when did they know it has been argued for years. After decades of Freedom of Information Act requests, Robert Stinnett was finally able to examine the long-hidden evidence, shattering every shibboleth of Pearl Harbor. He finds that not only was the attack expected, it was deliberately provoked through an eight-step program devised by the Navy for President Franklin Roosevelt. Could Pearl Harbor have neither been an accident nor a mere failure of U.S. intelligence nor a brilliant Japanese military coup? Could the tragedy at Pearl Harbor have been a carefully orchestrated design, initiated at the highest government levels in order to galvanize a peace-loving American public to go to war?

Pearl Harbor: Hawaii Was Surprised; FDR Was Not
by James Perloff December 4,2008
American commanders in Hawaii were caught by surprise. But that was not the case in Washington. Comprehensive research has not only shown Washington knew in advance of the attack, but deliberately withheld its foreknowledge from our commanders in Hawaii in the hope that the "surprise" attack would catapult the U.S. into World War II. Oliver Lyttleton, British Minister of Production, stated in 1944: "Japan was provoked into attacking America at Pearl Harbor. It is a travesty of history to say that America was forced into the war."
Although FDR desired to directly involve the United States in the Second World War, his intentions sharply contradicted his public pronouncements. A pre-war Gallup poll showed 88 percent of Americans opposed U.S. involvement in the European war. Citizens realized that U.S. participation in World War I had not made a better world, and in a 1940 (election-year) speech, Roosevelt typically stated: "I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars."
But privately, the president planned the opposite. Roosevelt dispatched his closest advisor, Harry Hopkins, to meet British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in January 1941. Hopkins told Churchill: "The President is determined that we [the United States and England] shall win the war together. Make no mistake about it. He has sent me here to tell you that at all costs and by all means he will carry you through, no matter what happens to him — there is nothing he will not do so far as he has human power." William Stevenson noted in A Man Called Intrepid that American-British military staff talks began that same month under "utmost secrecy," which, he clarified, "meant preventing disclosure to the American public." Even Robert Sherwood, the president's friendly biographer, said: "If the isolationists had known the full extent of the secret alliance between the United States and Britain, their demands for impeachment would have rumbled like thunder throughout the land."... if Japan went to war with the United States, Germany and Italy would be compelled to declare war on America — thus entangling us in the European conflict by the back door. As Harold Ickes, secretary of the Interior, said in October 1941: "For a long time I have believed that our best entrance into the war would be by way of Japan."

Much new light has been shed on Pearl Harbor through the recent work of Robert B. Stinnett, a World War II Navy veteran. Stinnett has obtained numerous relevant documents through the Freedom of Information Act. In Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor (2000)...Stinnett reveals that Roosevelt's plan to provoke Japan began with a memorandum from Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum, head of the Far East desk of the Office of Naval Intelligence. The memorandum advocated eight actions predicted to lead Japan into attacking the United States. McCollum wrote: "If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better." FDR enacted all eight of McCollum's provocative steps — and more....Secretary of War Henry Stimson wrote in his diary: "We face the delicate question of the diplomatic fencing to be done so as to be sure Japan is put into the wrong and makes the first bad move — overt move." On November 25th, the day before the ultimatum was sent to Japan's ambassadors, Stimson wrote in his diary: "The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot...."...

* Though a major exposer of the Pearl Harbor conspiracy, Robert Stinnett is sympathetic regarding FDR's motives. He writes in his book: "As a veteran of the Pacific War, I felt a sense of outrage as I uncovered secrets that had been hidden from Americans for more than fifty years. But I understood the agonizing dilemma faced by President Roosevelt. He was forced to find circuitous means to persuade an isolationist America to join in a fight for freedom." In our view, a government that is allowed to operate in such fashion is a government that has embarked on a dangerous, slippery slope toward dictatorship. Nonetheless, Stinnett's position on FDR's motives makes his exposé of FDR's actions all the more compelling.

United States Lies, Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima and Nagasaki untold Death & Destruction
slowdecline.wordpress.com/2007/10/05/united-states-lies-pearl-harbor-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-untold-death-destruction/
...The Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
But why did the US unleash this untold death and destruction when Japan clearly wanted to surrender? The Soviet’s under their leader Joseph Stalin, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and United States President Harry S. Truman all knew that the Emperor of Japan had accepted the terms of an unconditional surrender 19 days before the first atomic bomb was dropped. President Truman knew the Japanese wanted to surrender however he was not going to allow the Soviet Union to be the peace broker as he feared they would gain the upper hand...From Truman’s handwritten diary an entry on July 18,1945, “Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. (Churchill) of telegram from Jap emperor asking for peace…” This was nineteen days before the bombings, he knew yet he pursued the path of death and destruction. Another diary entry this from an assistant to Secretary of State James F. Byrnes by Walter Brown, the entry from August 3rd, 1945. It was written that Byrnes, Admiral William D. Leahy and President Truman, “agrred [sic] Japas [sic] looking for peace. (Leahy had another report from Pacific) President afraid they will sue for peace through Russia instead of some country like Sweden.”
Manhattan Project scientist Leo Szilard recalled; “(Byrnes) was concerned about Russian postwar behavior. Russian troops had moved into Hungary and Rumania, and Byrnes thought it would be very difficult to persuade Russia to withdraw her troops from these countries, that Russia might be more manageable if impressed by American military might and a demonstration of the bomb might impress Russia.” Truman bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki knowing the Japanese government wanted to surrender...to strengthen the mighty hand of the United States of America....

Geithner-Says-Plan-to-Resolve-Euro-Debt-Crisis-Must-Succeed
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/economy-and-business/Geithner-Says-P...
U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, fearful of the effects of a euro collapse on the fragile American economy, is on a three-day trip to European capitals to prod officials to adopt strong measures..."Of course, the IMF has a role to play in this and we will continue to support ... the fund in the context of the efforts the Europeans are making to build a stronger Europe," Geithner said.

OECD: euro collapse would have 'highly devastating outcomes' worldwide
" Many analysts believe the debt crisis is now accompanied by a serious and growing banking crisis"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/nov/28/oecd-eurozone-world-econo...
The Paris based think tank demanding "substantial relaxation of monetary conditions" – code for the ECB to follow the lead of the US Fed

"The amount of money the central bank parceled out...dwarfed the Treasury Department’s $700 billion TARP. Add up guarantees and lending limits, and the Fed committed $7.77 trillion as of March 2009 to rescuing the financial system"
Secret Fed Loans Helped Banks Net $13B
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-to...

"In 2006, the U.S. was the world's biggest debtor nation, posting a trade deficit of over $61 billion and total debt of trillions of dollars...."
www.investopedia.com/terms/d/debtor_nation.asp

6/6/09 U.S. the Largest Debtor Nation in World History ...
foxnewsinsider.com/2011/06/09/jim-rogers-u-s-is-now-largest-debtor-nation-in-the-history-of-the-world-and-it%E2%80%99s-getting-worse/

Reuters: The U.S. treasury secretary is expected to expound the model of the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF) that U.S. financial authorities used to jump-start the asset-backed securities market…

Eurozone debt crisis: Geithner rebuffed over cash injection – as it happened
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/sep/16/eurozone-debt-crisis-tim-...
...Geithner said: 'What is very damaging from the outside is to see not just the divisiveness [in Europe] in the broader debate, about strategy, but the ongoing conflict between the governments and the central bank and you need both to work together to do what is essential for the resolution of any crisis. Governments and central banks have to take out the catastrophic risk from markets, they have to definitively remove the threat of…cascading defaults [and avoid] loose talk about dismantling the institutions of the euro...Austria's Finance Minister Maria Fekter told reporters after the meeting. "I found it peculiar that even though the Americans have significantly worse fundamental data than the euro zone, they tell us what we should do and when we make a suggestion ... they say no straight away. Germany's Wolfgang Schäuble is also said to have shot down Geithner's call for a more expansionist fiscal policy to get the European economy growing faster... to leverage-up the reserves in the EFTF fund... Barack Obama is going to meet European heads of state about the finance crisis when in New York for the UN meeting next week. Presuming Tim doesn't get it all sorted out over the weekend....

"...a potentially profound reordering of Europe’s economic management>>>"
European officials to turn to IMF for help
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE1D7173AF93BA35750C0A...
Excerpts from the Pentagon's Feb. 18 draft of the Defense Planning Guidance for Fiscal Years 1994-1999: addresses the fundamentally new situation created by the collapse of the Soviet Union, the disintegration of the internal as well as the external empire, and the discrediting of Communism as an ideology with global pretensions and influence. The new international environment has also been shaped by the victory of the United States and its coalition allies over Iraqi aggression - the first post-cold-war conflict and a defining event in U.S. global leadership. In addition to these two victories, there has been a less visible one, the integration of Germany and Japan into a U.S.-led system of collective security and the creation of a democratic "zone of peace." ...

"…[America] may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."
1997 Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives

“As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan.”
from former NATO Commander General Wesley Clarke's book Winning Modern Wars

The geopolitical framework
http://www.eurasia-rivista.org/u-s-strategy-in-eurasia-and-drug-producti...
Considering today’s main global actors, namely the U.S., Russia, China and India and... their relations in terms of power and world geostrategy, Afghanistan constitutes, with the Caucasus and the Central Asian Republics, a large area whose destabilization offers an advantage to the U.S., at least three geopolitical and geo-strategic opportunities: a) progressive penetration in the Eurasian landmass; b) containment of Russia; c) creation of a vulnus in the Eurasian landmass.
U.S. penetration in Eurasia — U.S. encirclement of Eurasia
As stated by Henry Kissinger... the main vectors of U.S. expansion... first the control of the entire Western hemisphere (North and South America), second the race for hegemony over the Euroafroasian landmass, the Eastern hemisphere....U.S. penetration into the Eurasian landmass, starting from the European peninsula...began, in WWI... The penetration continued during WWII. In April 1945, the so-called “Liberators” occupied the Western part of Europe up to East Berlin... from this date, Washington and the Pentagon have regarded Europe, i.e. the Western side of Eurasia, a U.S. bridgehead linking it to the Eurasian landmass. The U.S. imposed a similar role to the other occupied nation, Japan, representing the Eastern insular arc of Eurasia....With the creation of certain military “tools” like NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) (1949), the security treaty among Australia, New Zealand, US (ANZUS, 1951), the Baghdad Pact, that afterwards evolved into CENTO Pact (Central Treaty Organisation, 1959), the Manila Pact – SEATO (South East Asia Treaty Organization, 1954), the military encirclement of the whole Eurasian landmass was accomplished in less than one decade.
The third step of the U.S. long march towards the heart of Eurasia, starting from its Western side, was carried out in 1956, during the Suez crisis, with the progressive removal of France and, under certain aspects, also of Great Britain as geopolitical actors in the Mediterranean Sea. On account of the “special relationship” between Tel-Aviv and Washington, the U.S. became an important player in the Near Eastern region in a time lapse shorter than 10 years. Following its new role in the Near and Middle East, the U.S. was able either to consolidate its hegemonic leadership within the Western system or to consider the Mediterranean Sea as the starting point of the long road that would eventually enable U.S. troops to reach the Central Asian region. U.S. infiltration into the vast Eurasian zone occurred also in other geopolitical sectors, particularly the South-Eastern (Korea, 1950-1953; Vietnam, 1960-1975).
In accordance with its strategy aimed at dominating the Eastern hemisphere, Washington worked also at the diplomatic level...with Kissinger and Nixon (1971-1972) the U.S. contributed towards exacerbating the fracture inside the so-called socialist field, China and USSR to block any potential “welding” between the two “lungs” of Eurasia, China and Russia...

Editorial: Gloom, but Not Doom
"Mr. Obama appears to understand the challenges"
12/8/04 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/opinion/04thu1.html
There’s been a fair amount of hand-wringing since the nation’s intelligence community surveyed the world of 2025: America losing dominance; China and India rising; fierce competition for water, food and energy; increased danger that terrorists will get a nuclear weapon. That’s all sobering. But the headlines from “Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World,” published by the National Intelligence Council, are not the whole story.
President-elect Barack Obama is inheriting a world that is more complicated and more frightening than the one George W. Bush found in 2001. But while the trends may be apparent, the end results are not inevitable. Decisions Mr. Obama and other leaders make will matter more...
It is the new conventional wisdom that this will be the century of China or India. But both face serious economic, demographic and other challenges — including the threat of terrorism, as the Mumbai attacks so tragically demonstrated.
A relative decline in power also does not mean the United States will not remain powerful. This country can and must continue to lead...
The report suggests that Al Qaeda’s indiscriminate use of violence and its failure to focus on problems like poverty and unemployment could diminish its appeal. But other extremist groups that curry favor with social programs will likely have more staying power. The next administration will have to counter their influence by promoting economic development in the Middle East as well as a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Warnings that terrorists will have an easier time acquiring nuclear, biological and advanced conventional weapons argue for serious new initiatives to control the spread of these horrifying weapons. Mr. Obama appears to understand the challenges.

The Pentagon's "Joint Vision 2020", blueprint the United States Department of Defense.
http://www.dtic.mil/jointvision/jvpub2.htm
"The label full spectrum dominance implies that US forces are able to conduct prompt, sustained, and synchronised operations with combinations of forces tailored to specific situations, and with access to and freedom to operate in all domains - space, sea, land, air and information. Additionally, given the global nature of our interests and obligations, the United States must maintain its overseas presence forces and the ability to rapidly project power worldwide in order to achieve full spectrum dominance."

3/8/11 U.S. Post 9/11 Public and Cultural Diplomacy
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/DIME/documents/Public%20Diplomacy%20US%20Wo...
http://publicandculturaldiplomacya.blogspot.com/2011/03/us-post-911-publ...
...Since the failure of Bush’s public diplomacy agenda, “telling America’s story to the world”, has not managed to restore US credibility on world stage, the Obama administration is promoting the new “engaging with the world” agenda... clearly evident in his speech in Cairo, where he expressed US willingness to adopt more collaborative relations with the Muslim world tackling global challenges...
After consolations with foreign embassies, NGO’s and the private sector, the US state department announced a new strategic framework for public diplomacy in the 21st century. According to the new framework, USA aims to achieve foreign policy goals and objectives by expanding and strengthening relationships with foreign nations expected to advance the national interest and improve national security. There are five strategic imperatives put forward by the State Department... imperative two: “expand and strengthen people-to-people relationships”, represents a very different approach of the current administration, paying particular attention to the use of on-line social media, such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, to expand contact especially with the young generation across the globe as a new type of platform to ensure policy viewpoints are communicated through the ever expanding social media...seems to encourage citizens to engage with foreign public, an important role for ordinary citizens in shaping foreign opinion.
Inevitably, the new strategic framework is a step in the right direction for the USA towards restoring trust and respect on the world stage. However public diplomacy itself can not change the negative perception of America of foreign publics. If USA continues hard power diplomacy, the effectiveness of public diplomacy will remain questionable.

President has Sole Power to Declare Citizen’s Enemies
12/2/11

"... Not if, but when, it comes to America, fascism will be wrapped in the American flag carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis

1994 "We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."
David Rockefeller to UN Business Council, 1994

2003 General Franks, led U.S. military war in Iraq, Oct. 2003 pointed to ..a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world - it may be in the USA - that causes our population to question our Constitution and begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event..to muster support for the imposition of military rule in America.
General Tommy Franks calls for Repeal of US Constitution, November 2003, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/EDW311A.html