The threat of war in North Korea are part of a long tradition of basing foreign policy decisions on lies including a recent interview of Joe Lieberman where he said "This goes back to the ‘90s when President Clinton, in really good faith, negotiated an agreement with Kim Jong Un’s father, which gave the North Koreans billions of dollars in return for a promise to stop their nuclear program, to put the brakes on it and then stop it altogether, They essentially took the money and ran." (Lieberman on Trump's North Korea rhetoric: 'Diplomatic language' hasn't worked 08/09/2017) This conveniently omits the fact that it was actually George Bush that pulled out of that deal when he got into office, and neither Alisyn Camerota or Joe Concha or anyone else that I know of from the traditional media bother looking into the history of these negotiations to point this out to the public. Nor did they point out that apparently according the Wikipedia the law firm he joined after leaving the Senate works for Donald Trump creating a conflict of interests.
I went into the history of the conflict with North Korea in several previous articles, including Even Bernie Sanders Ignores History of North Korea Conflict, explaining that even if the current events they're reporting on are mostly true, which I doubt, although it often takes time for all the lies to come out, the events that led up to it could easily have been avoided if previous administration had tried to negotiate a better deal, "in really good faith," as Lieberman says, the situation almost certainly could have been partially, if not entirely, resolved.
However, Lieberman's lies are relatively trivial compared to the long list of lies that have routinely led the United states and many other countries into war, and these lies are routinely only reported by the traditional media briefly before quickly forgetting them and moving on to the lies about the next war. They rarely if ever give them much attention when it might prevent wars based on lies although alternative media outlets, often portrayed as "fringe" or "conspiracy theorists," often report the lies before the wars.
This isn't a conspiracy theory at all; the admissions to many of these lies have come from traditional media outlets, politicians, historians, and government agencies; however they're only reported briefly and the majority of the public has a limited memory so it is easy to stir up their emotions and lead them into one war after another based on lies even though the public record shows that they have no credibility.
The media and government has an amazing knack for admitting to many of these lies on a relatively low level, then quickly forgetting about them; and when peace activists keep track of these lies they accuse them of being conspiracy theorists, while in some cases when war hawks emotionally deny these claims pundits simply decline to check the facts.
This includes many events that are referred to as "False Flag" events that are routinely ridiculed by the mainstream media as conspiracy theories, even though some of them have proven to be at least partially true and lies or plans for potential conflicts to lead the public into war or to distract people from other events have been happening in most if not all major wars including both Iraq Wars, the Iran/Iraq war where the United States supported both sides, the Vietnam war and many coups including in Chile, Iran, Guatemala and many other countries and even a couple plans to unify both the North and the South to prevent or end the Civil war, back when Lincoln was president, although he didn't respond to either of these plans and almost certainly would have been outraged by them both.
The most obvious is clearly the Weapons of Mass Destruction that weren't there and clearly the Bush administration must have known it, unless they're intentionally deceiving themselves into believing their own lies. By now it has been so widely reported that it shouldn't be necessary to provide additional sources for this; however there are still weak attempt to try to patch the claim that it was a mistake, or that the information they had available before the war indicated that the weapons were there, back together so if there is any doubt I included sources for this below. There are also additional sources for most if not all claims on this article as well.
The first Iraq war was also partially if not entirely based on lies as well, including many lies that covered up or down played previous support if Saddam Hussein, prior to the invasion. One of the most famous of these lies was the falsified testimony by Nayirah which was arranged by a public relations firm that worked for the Kuwaiti government that neglected to tell Congress that she was the daughter of a Kuwaiti ambassador.
However this wasn't the biggest or most important lie that led to the first Iraq War, which after reviewing history, clearly could have been avoided. In the eighties when the Iraq and Iran War wasn't going the way the United States wanted it to they restored relations with Saddam Hussein and began selling him weapons, including chemical weapons after they already had evidence to prove that he was using them against Iran in violation of the Geneva Protocol. While serving as Chairman of G. D. Searle & Company, a worldwide pharmaceutical company, Donald Rumsfeld went to Iraq as an envoy for Ronald Reagan to arrange this. U.S. activities that enabled this war go back even further when you consider the coup that enabled the Shah to overthrow a democratically elected leader, instead of renegotiating a more reasonable deal with international oil companies including BP.
At one point or another the U.S. supplied both sides of this war, which isn't the first or last time they did this. They also supplied the Mujaheddin which later created the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Even while Saddam Hussein was massing troops on the border of Kuwait the Bush administration sent mixed messages that indicated that he didn't have a strong objection, if any, to the invasion when Saddam Hussein summoned April Glaspie to discuss the border dispute. a close look at this meeting, the transcript and an attempt by two British reporters to ask her about it clearly indicates that at best they provided weak objections to possible military actions along with some statements that could be interpreted as encouraging including the claim that the Bush administration "Has no opinion" on the border dispute.
The lies that led to the two Iraq wars are serious enough but the lies that led to the Vietnam war were even worse; and there is little or no effort to teach the public about the majority of them either through public education to children or to the rest of the population through the media that still tries to portray this war as defense of Democracy, when it did the opposite like many other conflicts abroad. One of the most widely publicized lie about this war is the Gulf of Tonkin incident, although this has routinely been misrepresented so a large number of people probably don't know that it was mostly if not entirely fabricated.
However the biggest lie or misrepresentation about the Vietnam war was simply refusing to report to the vast majority of the public about the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence. This was never a secret; however the vast majority of the American public is totally unaware of it since it isn't taught in schools and the mainstream media practically never mentions it. The Vietnamese have always been aware of it, and it overwhelmingly indicates that Ho Chi Minh always had far more popular support than any of the puppet regimes installed by the United States government.
If the American Public were aware of this there would be little or no doubt that this war was never to defend democracy at all, but to suppress it!
The vast majority of the American public is almost certainly not aware of the fact that Ho Chi Minh was one of our allies during World War II and that he asked Harry Truman for help preserving independence from France after the war. they certainly didn't help us so that they could evict one set of tyrants and invite the previous set of tyrants back in to colonize their people. the vast majority of the public is almost certainly not aware of the following concerns they expressed in their Declaration:
Declaration of Independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam 09/02/1945
All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
This immortal statement was made in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776. In a broader sense, this means: All the peoples on the earth are equal from birth, all the peoples have a right to live, to be happy and free.
The Declaration of the French Revolution made in 1791 on the Rights of Man and the Citizen also states: “All men are born free and with equal rights, and must always remain free and have equal rights.”
Those are undeniable truths.
Nevertheless, for more than eighty years, the French imperialists, abusing the standard of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, have violated our Fatherland and oppressed our fellow-citizens. They have acted contrary to the ideals of humanity and justice.
In the field of politics, they have deprived our people of every democratic liberty.
They have enforced inhuman laws; they have set up three distinct political regimes in the North, the Center and the South of Vietnam in order to wreck our national unity and prevent our people from being united.
They have built more prisons than schools. They have mercilessly slain our patriots; they have drowned our uprisings in rivers of blood.
They have fettered public opinion; they have practiced obscurantism against our people.
To weaken our race they have forced us to use opium and alcohol.
In the field of economics, they have fleeced us to the backbone, impoverished our people, and devastated our land.
They have robbed us of our rice fields, our mines, our forests, and our raw materials. They have monopolized the issuing of bank-notes and the export trade. Complete article
All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
This immortal statement was made in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776. In a broader sense, this means: All the peoples on the earth are equal from birth, all the peoples have a right to live, to be happy and free.
The Declaration of the French Revolution made in 1791 on the Rights of Man and the Citizen also states: “All men are born free and with equal rights, and must always remain free and have equal rights.”
Those are undeniable truths.
Nevertheless, for more than eighty years, the French imperialists, abusing the standard of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, have violated our Fatherland and oppressed our fellow-citizens. They have acted contrary to the ideals of humanity and justice.
In the field of politics, they have deprived our people of every democratic liberty.
They have enforced inhuman laws; they have set up three distinct political regimes in the North, the Center and the South of Vietnam in order to wreck our national unity and prevent our people from being united.
They have built more prisons than schools. They have mercilessly slain our patriots; they have drowned our uprisings in rivers of blood.
They have fettered public opinion; they have practiced obscurantism against our people.
To weaken our race they have forced us to use opium and alcohol.
In the field of economics, they have fleeced us to the backbone, impoverished our people, and devastated our land.
They have robbed us of our rice fields, our mines, our forests, and our raw materials. They have monopolized the issuing of bank-notes and the export trade. Complete article
Just for the sake of argument let's assume that these claims are all lies. If that were true wouldn't the United states want to debunk it so that they could justify their invasion? Of course, yet they didn't; instead they pretended this declaration didn't exist at all and refused to report it to the American public.
One of the most audacious plans for a false flag event was Operation Northwoods which involved a plan for the CIA to conduct terrorist activities and falsely blame it on Cuba as a justification to invade. The Kennedy administration rejected this plan but it shows some of the outrageous things that our distinguished and honorable generals thought were worthy of consideration. This was signed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer, who was the longest serving four star General in history, serving fourteen years with that rank even though he proposed this halfway through this period. this General who was involved in one of the most outrageous plans in history was later appointed to the Commission on CIA Activities within the United States (aka the Rockefeller Commission) to investigate whether the Central Intelligence Agency had committed acts that violated US laws.
How many people are aware that someone planing such an illegal act was appointed to investigate other illegal acts by the CIA? I wasn't until I looked it up.
Operation Northwoods may have been one of the most outrageous proposals to be declassified; however it wasn't the first, which apparently dates back at least to the Civil War when two similar proposals were made by members of the Lincoln Administration, although Lincoln didn't act on either.
When Lincoln was a Congressman he raised doubts about the legitimacy of the Mexican American War fought by James Polk as described by Doris Kearns Goodwin, who is hardly a conspiracy theorist. The following excerpts show how political support for wars based on lies were far stronger than efforts to tell the truth, although it hasn't always been like this and doesn't have to be int he future.
Doris Kearns Goodwin "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln" 2006
From the start, many leading Whigs questioned both the constitutionality and the justice of the war. "It is a fact," Lincoln would later say, "that the United States Army, in marching to the Rio Grande, marched into a peaceful Mexican settlement, and frightened the inhabitants away from their homes and their growing crops.” By the time Lincoln took his congressional oath the combat had come to an end. The peace treaty had only to be signed, on terms spectacularly advantageous for the victorious United States. At this point, Lincoln conceded, it would have been easier to remain silent about the questionable origins of the war. The Democrats, however, would “not let the Whigs be silent.” When Congress reconvened, they immediately introduced resolutions blaming the war on Mexican aggression, thereby demanding that Congress endorse “the original justice of the war on the part of the President.”
On December 13, less than two week after his arrival in Washington, Lincoln wrote his law partner, William Herndon: “As you are all so anxious for me to distinguish myself, I have concluded to do so, before long.” Nine days later, he introduced a resolution calling on President Polk to inform the House “whether the particular spot the blood of our citizens was so shed” belonged to Mexico or the United States. He challenged the president to present evidence that “Mexico herself became the aggressor by invading our soil in hostile array.”
The president, not surprisingly, did not respond to the unknown freshman congressman whose hasty reach for distinction earned him the nickname “spotty Lincoln.” A few weeks later, Lincoln voted with his Whig brethren on a resolution introduced by Massachusetts congressman George Ashmun, which stated that the war had been “unnecessarily and unconstitutionally” initiated by the president.
The following week, on January 12, 1848, Lincoln defended his spot resolutions and his vote on the Ashmun resolution in a major speech. He claimed that he would happily reverse his vote if the president could prove that first blood was shed on American soil; but since he “cannot, or will not do this,” he suspected that the entire matter was, “from beginning to end, the sheerest deception.” Having provoked both countries into war, Lincoln charged, the president had hoped “to escape scrutiny by fixing the public gaze upon the exceeding brightness of military glory—that attractive rainbow that rises in showers of blood—that serpent’s eye that charms to destroy.” He went on to liken the president’s war message to “the half insane mumbling of a fever-dream.” Perhaps recalling the turtles tormented with hot coals by his boyhood friends. Lincoln employed the bizarre simile of the president’s confused mind “running hither and thither, like some tortured creature on a burning surface, finding no position on which it can settle down and be at ease.”
This maiden effort was not the tone of the reasoned debate that later characterized Lincoln’s public statements. Nor did it obey his oft- expressed belief that a leader should endeavor to transform, yet heed, public opinion. Compelling as Lincoln’s criticisms might have been, they fell flat at a time when the majority of Americans were delighted with the outcome of the war. The Democratic Illinois State Register charged that Lincoln had disgraced his district with his “treasonable assault on President Polk,” claimed that “henceforth” he would be known as “Benedict Arnold,” and predicted that he would enjoy only a single term. Lincoln sought to clarify his position, arguing that although he had challenged the instigation of the war, he never voted against supplies for the soldiers. Toa accept Polk’s position without question, was to “Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure.” (complete letter in Abraham Lincoln's Warning About Presidents and War 07/13/2012 or for original handwritten letter to William Herndon at Harvard.Edu)
Even the loyal Herndon feared that Lincoln’s antiwar stance would destroy his political future. “I saw that Lincoln would ruin himself,” Herndon later explained, “I wrote to him on the subject again and again.” Herndon was right to worry, for as it turned out, Lincoln’s quest for distinction had managed only to infuriate the Democrats, worry fainthearted Whigs, and lose support in Illinois, where the war was extremely popular. A prominent Chicago politician, Justin Butterfield, asked if he was against the Mexican War, replied: “no, I opposed one War [the War of 1812]. That was enough for me. I am now perpetually in favor of war, pestilence and famine.” In the years ahead Lincoln would write frequent letters defending his position. If he had hoped for reelection to Congress, however, despite the unofficial agreement with his colleagues that he would serve only one term, his prospects evaporated in the fever of war. Indeed, when Stephen Logan, the Whig nominee to replace him was defeated, his loss was blamed on Lincoln.
As Seward understood better than Lincoln, Manifest Destiny was in the air. “Our population,” Seward predicted, “is destined to roll it resistless waves to the icy barriers of the north, and to encounter Oriental civilization on the shores of the Pacific.” Though he wasn’t in favor of the war, Seward’s political astuteness told him it was a mistake to argue against it. He warned that he did not expect to see the Whig party successful in overthrowing an Administration carrying on a war in which the Whig party and its statesmen are found apologizing for our national adversaries.” (Doris Kearns Goodwin "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln" 2006 p.120-5)
From the start, many leading Whigs questioned both the constitutionality and the justice of the war. "It is a fact," Lincoln would later say, "that the United States Army, in marching to the Rio Grande, marched into a peaceful Mexican settlement, and frightened the inhabitants away from their homes and their growing crops.” By the time Lincoln took his congressional oath the combat had come to an end. The peace treaty had only to be signed, on terms spectacularly advantageous for the victorious United States. At this point, Lincoln conceded, it would have been easier to remain silent about the questionable origins of the war. The Democrats, however, would “not let the Whigs be silent.” When Congress reconvened, they immediately introduced resolutions blaming the war on Mexican aggression, thereby demanding that Congress endorse “the original justice of the war on the part of the President.”
On December 13, less than two week after his arrival in Washington, Lincoln wrote his law partner, William Herndon: “As you are all so anxious for me to distinguish myself, I have concluded to do so, before long.” Nine days later, he introduced a resolution calling on President Polk to inform the House “whether the particular spot the blood of our citizens was so shed” belonged to Mexico or the United States. He challenged the president to present evidence that “Mexico herself became the aggressor by invading our soil in hostile array.”
The president, not surprisingly, did not respond to the unknown freshman congressman whose hasty reach for distinction earned him the nickname “spotty Lincoln.” A few weeks later, Lincoln voted with his Whig brethren on a resolution introduced by Massachusetts congressman George Ashmun, which stated that the war had been “unnecessarily and unconstitutionally” initiated by the president.
The following week, on January 12, 1848, Lincoln defended his spot resolutions and his vote on the Ashmun resolution in a major speech. He claimed that he would happily reverse his vote if the president could prove that first blood was shed on American soil; but since he “cannot, or will not do this,” he suspected that the entire matter was, “from beginning to end, the sheerest deception.” Having provoked both countries into war, Lincoln charged, the president had hoped “to escape scrutiny by fixing the public gaze upon the exceeding brightness of military glory—that attractive rainbow that rises in showers of blood—that serpent’s eye that charms to destroy.” He went on to liken the president’s war message to “the half insane mumbling of a fever-dream.” Perhaps recalling the turtles tormented with hot coals by his boyhood friends. Lincoln employed the bizarre simile of the president’s confused mind “running hither and thither, like some tortured creature on a burning surface, finding no position on which it can settle down and be at ease.”
This maiden effort was not the tone of the reasoned debate that later characterized Lincoln’s public statements. Nor did it obey his oft- expressed belief that a leader should endeavor to transform, yet heed, public opinion. Compelling as Lincoln’s criticisms might have been, they fell flat at a time when the majority of Americans were delighted with the outcome of the war. The Democratic Illinois State Register charged that Lincoln had disgraced his district with his “treasonable assault on President Polk,” claimed that “henceforth” he would be known as “Benedict Arnold,” and predicted that he would enjoy only a single term. Lincoln sought to clarify his position, arguing that although he had challenged the instigation of the war, he never voted against supplies for the soldiers. Toa accept Polk’s position without question, was to “Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure.” (complete letter in Abraham Lincoln's Warning About Presidents and War 07/13/2012 or for original handwritten letter to William Herndon at Harvard.Edu)
Even the loyal Herndon feared that Lincoln’s antiwar stance would destroy his political future. “I saw that Lincoln would ruin himself,” Herndon later explained, “I wrote to him on the subject again and again.” Herndon was right to worry, for as it turned out, Lincoln’s quest for distinction had managed only to infuriate the Democrats, worry fainthearted Whigs, and lose support in Illinois, where the war was extremely popular. A prominent Chicago politician, Justin Butterfield, asked if he was against the Mexican War, replied: “no, I opposed one War [the War of 1812]. That was enough for me. I am now perpetually in favor of war, pestilence and famine.” In the years ahead Lincoln would write frequent letters defending his position. If he had hoped for reelection to Congress, however, despite the unofficial agreement with his colleagues that he would serve only one term, his prospects evaporated in the fever of war. Indeed, when Stephen Logan, the Whig nominee to replace him was defeated, his loss was blamed on Lincoln.
As Seward understood better than Lincoln, Manifest Destiny was in the air. “Our population,” Seward predicted, “is destined to roll it resistless waves to the icy barriers of the north, and to encounter Oriental civilization on the shores of the Pacific.” Though he wasn’t in favor of the war, Seward’s political astuteness told him it was a mistake to argue against it. He warned that he did not expect to see the Whig party successful in overthrowing an Administration carrying on a war in which the Whig party and its statesmen are found apologizing for our national adversaries.” (Doris Kearns Goodwin "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln" 2006 p.120-5)
Goodwin actually only reports on a small portion of Lincoln's major speech which raises even more doubts about the legitimacy of the War and to fully understand it would be better if far more people read the whole thing. This would have been worth serious consideration when Jan Brewer was trying to minimize what she considered unpatriotic education to Hispanic people in 2010. Many educated Hispanics are probably far more familiar this speech and other historical texts, that expose many of the lies that accompanied the "Manifest Destiny" that enabled the United States to expand it's territory. As Goodwin explained there was little or no response from the Polk administration to Lincoln's demand for evidence; and to the best of my knowledge few modern historians or politicians even try to address this issue.
This alone, doesn't guarantee that the Mexican War was based entirely on lies; however, it strongly implies that it was, since, if it wasn't then there would be far more patriotic people doing the research to prove their case. Even Lincoln may have down played the implications of the way this territory and others were absorbed int the United States when he said, "It is comparatively uninhabited," presumably meaning that few Caucasians from Europe were on this land. This would not include the Native Americans that lived on this land. This was standard operating procedure, disregarding the people that lived on the land they invaded, often while either fighting another foriegn power for the right to conquer it, or by purchasing the right to conquer from another European nation, like the Louisiana Purchase, the Florida Purchase or "Onís-Adams Treaty," where John Quincy Adams agreed, on behalf of President Monroe to reimburse Spain for $5 million of damages caused by American Rebels in Florida, even though it wasn't called a purchase, and the Alaska purchase known as Seward's folly. None of these deal involved negotiating with native Americans; and when they did make deals with Native American's they routinely broke them.
Even though Lincoln and many of the other Whigs, many of whom became founders of the Republican Party, didn't support the Mexican War based on lies at least two of them came up with plans to incite wars based on exaggerations or lies to prevent the Civil War or reunite the North and South after four years of fighting as indicated in the following excerpts of Goodwin's book:
Doris Kearns Goodwin "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln" 2006
Seward continued under the heading of “For Foreign Nations,” suggesting that Lincoln deflect attention from the domestic crisis by demanding that Spain and France explain their meddling in the Western Hemisphere and that Great Britain, Canada, and Russia account for their threats to intervene in the American crisis. If the explanations of any country proved unsatisfactory, war should be declared. In fact, some such explanations were eventually demanded, convincing European leaders to be more careful in their response to the American situation. It was Seward’s wilder proposal of declaring war, if necessary, that would arouse the harsh rebuke of biographers and historians. …..
….. The idea of engineering a foreign war to reunify the country did not even rate a response. (Doris Kearns Goodwin "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln" 2006 p.342-3)
Blair presented his proposal, which would essentially postpone the war between the North and the South while the armies allied against the French, who had invaded Mexico and installed a puppet regime in violation of the Monroe Doctrine. Davis agreed that nothing would better heal the raw emotions on both sides “than to see the arms of our countrymen from the North and the South united in a war upon a Foreign Power.” The specifics of this improbable and unauthorized plan, reminiscent of Seward’s proposal four years earlier, were not discussed, though Davis agreed to send Peace Commissioners to Washington “with a view to secure peace to the two Countries.” .. (Doris Kearns Goodwin "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln" 2006 p.690-1)
Seward continued under the heading of “For Foreign Nations,” suggesting that Lincoln deflect attention from the domestic crisis by demanding that Spain and France explain their meddling in the Western Hemisphere and that Great Britain, Canada, and Russia account for their threats to intervene in the American crisis. If the explanations of any country proved unsatisfactory, war should be declared. In fact, some such explanations were eventually demanded, convincing European leaders to be more careful in their response to the American situation. It was Seward’s wilder proposal of declaring war, if necessary, that would arouse the harsh rebuke of biographers and historians. …..
….. The idea of engineering a foreign war to reunify the country did not even rate a response. (Doris Kearns Goodwin "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln" 2006 p.342-3)
Blair presented his proposal, which would essentially postpone the war between the North and the South while the armies allied against the French, who had invaded Mexico and installed a puppet regime in violation of the Monroe Doctrine. Davis agreed that nothing would better heal the raw emotions on both sides “than to see the arms of our countrymen from the North and the South united in a war upon a Foreign Power.” The specifics of this improbable and unauthorized plan, reminiscent of Seward’s proposal four years earlier, were not discussed, though Davis agreed to send Peace Commissioners to Washington “with a view to secure peace to the two Countries.” .. (Doris Kearns Goodwin "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln" 2006 p.690-1)
It shouldn't take much to figure out that even if this far-fetched plan to unite the North and South to either prevent or end the Civil War had worked it would have done nothing to solve the disagreements about slavery, and at best would have delayed the conflict until after another unnecessary war had taken place creating even more atrocities.
It is hard, for most people that don't think this way, to imagine why they would take such absurd plans seriously; and I suspect that the people that come up with these absurd plans, don't understand their own plans or the consequences that would come from them, and that they're totally contradicting the principles of a Democratic Society they claim to defend. However these lies have been reported from sources that even the mainstream media considers reliable although they don't like to remind the public of them very often, and there are many more including coups against Iran, Guatemala, Chile and many other countries, while pretending to defend democracy. The more you check the most reliable sources instead of relying on the propaganda provided by the traditional media the clearer it is that the United States has never been a major supporter of democracy abroad, and even at home when the working class or minorities don't stand up for their rights those with the most political power are constantly trying to chip away at them. When some improvements are made like the Voting Rights Act, establishment of the Environmental Protection agency, or many of the reforms created by FDR or other presidents, if the grassroots becomes complacent those with the most political power are constantly trying to overturn these improvements.
I try to be a rational skeptic about this even when the United States gets caught with one lie after another, and this is just as well; since thanks to all the times they do get caught it may seem more credible when false claims are made about them conducting more interventions. The media and political establishment routinely ridicule these claims as conspiracy theories, and in many cases they're right. I have focused on the lies that have come from the most reliable sources that I know of and time when the government has admitted to their illegal interventions although they often try to spin them; but there are many more claims about ridiculous false flag efforts that are almost certainly false which often get much more attention from the mainstream media. It doesn't take a genius to realize that by repeating the least credible conspiracy theories, like the ones that Donald Trump, or the extreme right wing that he caters to, comes up with they create stereotypes and make all claims seem like absurd conspiracy theories including the ones that he government has admitted to. Below are some links to additional alleged false flag operations, which come from some more reliable sources, although that doesn't guarantee that all of them are accurate. One of the ones from the Third World Traveler claims that 9/11 was an inside job to get rid of asbestos. the Third World Traveler is usually more reliable but this one is extremely hard to believe, since there is little or no chance that they could keep something so petty secret, or would go to such extremes to accomplish this goal.
Washington's Blog has been reporting on False Flag operations for a long time and is far more reliable than the most extreme right wing conspiracy theorists as well. They claim to have found at least 53 False Flag attacks where the people that committed them admitted to it and cite sources to back it up, although, considering the subject matter the more you check these sources the more reliable it will be for you, since you'll be relying on your own judgement to confirm it.
However this doesn't mean the majority of the public has always supported military intervention and global domination at all. There was an enormous amount of opposition to the first World War and when there was accurate information available to the public there has also been opposition to many other wars although the media often declines to report on the vast majority of protests. These protests were much bigger, or at least they seemed bigger during the Vietnam War; however part of the reason for this might be that the draft was still being implemented and many more people had relatives in the war. Another part of the reason for this might be by the time the Iraq Wars happened the media had escalated their consolidation and with a far less diverse media they were much less likely to report on many of these protests.
But why are there so many people that blindly support all these wars even though they're based on lies? In many cases when people try to tell the truth about them, instead of being outraged at their government for lying to them they often blame the messenger, like when Lincoln and the Whigs tried to question the war with Mexico. How does the government and media manage to convince the majority of the public to forget all these past incidents where they fought one war after another based on lies?
An enormous amount of the problem is that the media has consolidated into a small number of oligarchies and they simply don't cover all the lies very well at all. Nor do they provide coverage to grassroots candidates that address many of the most important issues addressing the vast majority of the public, including wars based on lies. Instead they cover candidates that often pretend to address many of these issues and back them up with political operatives that study propaganda to keep people distracted. And many schools discourage discussion of many of these wars based on lies.
They actually did an enormous amount of research into this going back decades, although they often misrepresented their purpose, claiming they wanted to understand blind obedience, like the Nazis that followed orders without question, so they could prevent it, when they may have actually been trying to understand how to more effectively indoctrinate cadets to convince them to obey orders without question.
I went into this previously in numerous past articles including Philip Zimbardo, Lucifer Effect, Stanford Prison Experiment; Corruption or Bias in the American Psychological Association; and Eli Roth’s Milgram/Obedience experiment much more extensive than most people realize that explain how the military, often with the support of the Office of Naval Research helped fund psychological manipulation tactics in Obedience to Authority and the so-called Stanford Prison Experiment, which were supported or funded by the Office of Naval Research. These experiments claimed that they were designed to prevent people from blindly obeying authorities to prevent another Holocaust; however the military isn't in the business of teaching their recruits to question orders from commanders; as Jack Nicholson famously falsely and loudly claimed "We follow orders or people die!" However whether it was the fictional movie where a cadet was killed as a result of following orders or it is the real world where thousands if not millions of people die not because people disobey orders, but because they follow them.
Another major reason why people blindly obey orders without question is that they're taught to do so even before the military starts indoctrinating them in boot camp, often for religious reasons as I explained in James Dobson’s Indoctrination Machine. James Dobson teaches parents to control their children from an early age by relying on corporal punishment to teach obedience and to believe what they're told to believe as well. This leads to escalating violence starting with bullying in schools or often against their younger siblings and escalating to hazing in the military, and more domestic violence later in life including higher murder rates in the states that use it the most and more support for authoritarian wars based on lies. People that are taught never to question their parents often grow up to trust their political leaders as well even when they get caught at incredibly bad lies.
The enormous amount of support for Donald Trump in the South is a clear example of this. He doesn't even do a good job making up good lies yet his followers have been taught to follow the most belligerent leaders or demagogues without question.
Donald Trump is taking his act to an incredibly bizarre extreme, for one reason or another but he's not the one primarily responsible for the insane escalation of tension in North Korea or many other places, even though his responses to it are more fanatical than the rest of the political establishment. This conflict was going on long before he got elected and the political establishment that is now trying to portray themselves as the rational alternative are the same people that made the decisions leading up to this conflict and many others. They also gave him the obsession amount of coverage that he needed to get elected while rigging the Democratic nomination for Hillary by virtually declaring her to be the inevitable nominee years ago before the public even voted, even though it was clear that she had incredibly low approval ratings outside of the political establishment.
As I said, I try to be a rational skeptic about this but the official version of the truth is incredibly absurd, so even if some of the most far-fetched conspiracy theories are also absurd I wouldn't completely rule out the possibility that some of them might be close to the truth, although I have no doubt that many of them will fall apart on close scrutiny. However, if they fall apart then we have a long list of lies that clearly indicate that eh government is still lying to the public on a regular basis.
The should be no doubt that regardless of what the truth is that we need a much more diverse media; and that we need to allow all candidates for office to get a fair chance to be heard so that the public has access to accurate information to sort through and an opportunity to vote for candidates that actually support their views. this should also include instant run off elections, sometimes referred to as Ranked Choice, or Range voting, which is similar and enables people to vote for their favorite without worrying about the wasted vote argument. If we allow the same small number of people that control the media to limit our candidates by simply refusing to cover honest candidates we're all wasting our votes when we rubber stamp candidates that don't support our views instead of at least trying to vote for candidates that do.
When we accept the lesser of two evils it shouldn't be surprising when they disregard promises to us and get worse every two or four years!
The following are some of the sources for many of the claims on this page including a list of additional false flag operations starting with the lies that got us into the second War in Iraq:
Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction 09/06/2007 by Sidney Blumenthal
The Source of the Trouble: Pulitzer Prize winner Judith Miller’s series of exclusives about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq—courtesy of the now-notorious Ahmad Chalabi—helped the New York Times keep up with the competition and the Bush administration bolster the case for war. June 7, 2004
Lie by Lie: A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq Mushroom clouds, duct tape, Judy Miller, Curveball. Recalling how Americans were sold a bogus case for invasion. Jonathan Stein and Tim Dickinson Sept./Oct. 2006
The CIA Just Declassified the Document That Supposedly Justified the Iraq Invasion 03/19/2015
WikiLeaks, April Glaspie, and Saddam Hussein by Stephen M. Walt 01/09/2011
U.S. Messages on July 1990 Meeting of Hussein and American Ambassador 07/13/1991
CONFRONTATION IN THE GULF; U.S. Gave Iraq Little Reason Not to Mount Kuwait Assault 09/23/1990
April Glaspie - Saddam Hussein Conversation July 25, 1990 Excerpts From Iraqi Document on Meeting with U.S. Envoy The New York Times International Sunday, September 23, 1990
Whatever Happened to April Glaspie? confrontation with two British journalists
Wikipedia: The Nayirah testimony was a false testimony given before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990 by a 15-year-old girl who provided only her first name, Nayirah.
Deception on Capitol Hill 01/12/1992 The girl, whose testimony helped build support for the Persian Gulf war, was identified only as "Nayirah," supposedly to protect family members still in Kuwait. Another piece of information was also withheld: that she is not just some Kuwaiti but the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the U.S.
Wikipedia: United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war
Rumsfeld 'helped Iraq get chemical weapons' 12/31/2002
Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran 08/26/2013
Declaration of Independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam
The second attack on the Maddox has long been disputed, with Johnson saying to then press secretary, Bill Moyers, a year after the attacks, "For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there."
Abraham Lincoln First Inaugural Address Monday, March 4, 1861
US Military and Clandestine Operations in Foreign Countries - 1798-Present Global Policy Forum December 2005
Overthrowing other people’s governments: The Master List By William Blum – Published February 2013
11 Signs Of A False Flag 11/07/2013
10 false flags operations that shaped our world 03/07/2007
42 ADMITTED False Flag Attacks 02/09/2015
53 Admitted False Flag Attacks 02/24/2015
No comments:
Post a Comment