Solomon, in his ancient writings, stated that, “there is nothing new under
the sun.” This is true in many cases, including the wars of the 20th century
in which the U.S. has played an important role. Four major 20th century “wars”
(I am using the term loosely) possess a strange amount of similarities. World
War I, World War II, the Vietnam War, and the War on Terror, all came about after
presidents had deceivingly pledged opposition to such ideas. Moreover, each war
had a convenient pre-text that propelled the nation into the conflict, and each
one served the purpose of the architects of internationalism.
The Campaign and the Deception
As is often true, politicians say what they need to say in order to get elected.
This was clear in the cases of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon
B. Johnson, and George W. Bush. First, Woodrow Wilson, facing re-election in
1916 while Europe was engaged in war, knew that voters were still very much
attached to the American ideal of non-interventionism. So, his campaign reflected
this opinion as he campaigned on the famous phrase, “he kept us out of
the war.” Next, FDR would campaign in 1940, with war raging around the
globe, on the promise, “I will not send our boys into any foreign wars.”
LBJ was not as emphatic about his anti-war position, but he did state very clearly
that sending U.S. troops to Vietnam “would offer no solution at all to
the real problem of Vietnam.” Finally, President Bush, when campaigning
in 2000, responded to the recent conservative tide of non-interventionism when
he pledged time and time again that his administration would not engage in “nation
All four of these pledges were simply rhetoric and nothing more. In each case,
the president did not even believe his own words. In Wilson’s case, while
he was campaigning on the phrase “he kept us out of the war,” his
close confidant and “independent self,” Colonel Edward M. House,
was secretly plotting with the British Foreign Secretary how the U.S. might
join the Great War. In FDR’s case, the most blatant example of all, he
himself, while campaigning against joining the war, promised Churchill that
the U.S. would join WWII if Germany were to invade Poland. Johnson’s position
against sending troops into Vietnam was proven deceitful by the fact that he
had penned the Tonkin Gulf Resolution (which authorized U.S. troops to be sent
to Vietnam) shortly after his election in 1964 and well before the Gulf of Tonkin
Incident even supposedly occurred. Finally, President Bush’s dishonest
pledge to avoid nation building was proven baseless by his first order of business
as president. His top appointees and foreign policy-makers were extremely interventionist
in philosophy. The fact that these neo-conservatives (who unabashedly favored
regime changes and nation building projects) were appointed by an allegedly
non-interventionist candidate shows that the candidate never had any decisive
commitment to avoid foreign entanglements.
In addition to a false pledge of opposition in each of the cases above, there
was also a convenient event that was allowed to take place in each case, which
served as an opportune pre-text to propel the U.S. into the war. The claim of
conspiracy would not be far-fetched in each of these cases.
First of all, the Lusitania event is surrounded by much suspicion. It was the
sinking of the Lusitania with 195 Americans aboard, more than any other event,
which galvanized American public opinion to favor joining the Great War. The
British “passenger liner” not only carried arms, but also was fully
out-fitted for war and was registered as an armed auxiliary cruiser, a contradicting
fact that caused the captain of the ship to resign. Our government was aware
of this, and the Germans even attempted directly to warn Americans not to travel
on such ships through newspaper advertising. Due to the State Department’s
intervention only one paper in the whole country printed the ad. William Jennings
Bryan tried to get Wilson to warn the American people about the dangers, but
to no avail. The 195 dead Americans served as a convenient reminder of how evil
those Germans were.
The prior knowledge of Pearl Harbor is well documented. Despite immense knowledge
that the Japanese were planning an attack, and despite knowledge that Pearl
Harbor was one of several possible attack sites, no warnings were issued to
Pearl Harbor. Even when the “east wind rain” communication was intercepted,
no warning was issued. And finally, leading up to the attack, when the Japanese
broke off diplomatic ties, and the FDR declared, “this means war,”
no warning was given to the commanders at Pearl Harbor. Most historians simply
assume that FDR and his advisors made grievous errors and the Roosevelt administration
is depicted as a bunch of bumbling idiots. Considering the fact that these were
highly intelligent people, considering that they did have a motive, and considering
FDR’s own words, “nothing in politics happens by accident,”
it is highly likely that the oversight was intentional.
In the case of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, the event that propelled us into
the Vietnam War, it is not even required to build an argument that there was
a conspiracy. The fact is that the “incident” never took place.
This is established fact as evidenced by many witnesses who were there in the
gulf and witnessed no attack.
Finally, in the case of 9/11, government complicity has been well documented
by Alex Jones and others. The neo-conservatives at the Project for a New American
Century had dreamed of a new Pearl Harbor, which would give them the excuse
to wage wars across the globe. Just as FDR had in 1941, our leaders in 2001
got their Pearl Harbor.
The average American takes comfort in the complacency of trust in government,
since it affords them the convenience of avoiding tough questions. However,
such a knee-jerk reaction that simply ridicules allegations of conspiracy is
drawn into question not only when one examines the evidence surrounding the
claims, but also when one considers the famous Northwoods Document. The significance
of the Northwoods Document can hardly be understated. The Northwoods Plan was
the 1962 U.S. Government plan to hi-jack jet airliners, stage terrorist attacks
in Miami and Washington D.C., blow up U.S. ships, and attack U.S. bases, blaming
these activities on the Cubans. The objective was to create a pre-text for military
invasion of Cuba. Fortunately, this was never carried out. The discovery of
this plan in government archives is important because it reveals what government
is capable of. It shows that when our leaders seek war, they will conspire,
if need be, to bring that war about. This gives further credibility to claims
of conspiracy leading up to WWI, WWII, Vietnam, and the War on Terror.
Common denominator: Internationalism
The Common Denominator in each of these cases was the internationalist cause.
The globalists that have controlled U.S. policy for nearly 100 years have always
taken every convenient opportunity to create, legitimize, or empower world government.
Following World War I, the first attempt at creating a world government, the
League of Nations failed as the U.S. Senate elected to maintain national sovereignty.
Then, following World War II, the United Nations came into being. The UN would
be the framework for world federation. The Vietnam War (as the Korean War had)
empowered the United Nations’ subsidiary military organizations (NATO
in Korea and SEATO in Vietnam). Finally, president Bush has pledged many times
to seek UN approval for military actions as well as to use enforcement of UN
resolutions as a basis for military action. Gary Hart went as far as to state
that the 9/11 disaster could be used to help create the “New World Order,”
a phrase that fellow CFR Insiders had used to refer to world government for
nearly a century.
Go to Original Article >>>
The views expressed herein are the writers' own and do not necessarily reflect those of Looking Glass News. Click the disclaimer link below for more information.