Posted on Jan 22, 2017
Damned Lies – Nine Wars Started Under False Pretexts
2.83K
13
19
7
7
0
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 8
This article is slanted, revisionist garbage. It is true that wars have often been started with a lie & pretense. The victor always determines the historical write ups concerning the conflict for at least the first generation or so and this certainly quantifies that no real history can be written accurately within about a century of the events, give or take a decade or two. Release of historical records, government archives, after action reports, etc. all need to be released for historians to ponder the data. This brings it back to this article, citing inconsequential facts and acting like this sort of thing is a new problem, unforeseen in human history and so the pomposity of the author reeks.
Every war in human history has had some deception attached to it. Leaders galvanize the troops and fire up the national morale into a frenzy for one purpose: to win the fight. The writer cites various wars fought within the spectrum of World War 2 along with its precursor fight with the Japanese invading Chine in the 1930's. Propaganda for the Axis powers was so vital that each one of those powers had entire government ministries dedicated to spreading their "news." Other wars used were the Spanish American War, the Vietnamese War and the Iraq invasion of 2003. No news here that the presidents in power at the time beat up the drums of war but not any where close to other war escalations. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was a dicey operation, full of "he said, I said" innuendo. President Johnson already had a sizable force ashore and he reacted to battle reports. The blowing up of the USS Maine appeared at the time to be the work of Spanish militants; however, forensic evidence plus examination of the hull of the battleship revealed an ammunition bunker exploded due to a poor design of having explosives too close to the boilers. Yellow press journalism in the US editorialized the population to the point that action was demanded. The Iraq invasion of 2003 was proven to be a bad idea. Saddam Hussein himself was a weapon that dispensed mass destruction upon his own people and he needed to go. His heavy hand of allowing no dissent also worked to keep the terrorists at bay and so you shoot the guard dog so then the foxes eat up all of your chickens. That invasion certainly has had long range ramifications as do all military actions but President Bush acted in good faith, within the law, and so the terrible results reinforce the wisdom of looking ahead while counting the costs of an operation.
Finally, this article pontificates and whines concerning forces outside the citizens' control. We vote, we serve our nation with our toil, and we strive to know the past dealings of our leaders so as to scatter those who delight in war. We as a nation would be wise to request that presidents keep the sword sheaved until national interests are directly threatened. Drivel such as this posted article should be ignored as inconsequential.
Every war in human history has had some deception attached to it. Leaders galvanize the troops and fire up the national morale into a frenzy for one purpose: to win the fight. The writer cites various wars fought within the spectrum of World War 2 along with its precursor fight with the Japanese invading Chine in the 1930's. Propaganda for the Axis powers was so vital that each one of those powers had entire government ministries dedicated to spreading their "news." Other wars used were the Spanish American War, the Vietnamese War and the Iraq invasion of 2003. No news here that the presidents in power at the time beat up the drums of war but not any where close to other war escalations. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was a dicey operation, full of "he said, I said" innuendo. President Johnson already had a sizable force ashore and he reacted to battle reports. The blowing up of the USS Maine appeared at the time to be the work of Spanish militants; however, forensic evidence plus examination of the hull of the battleship revealed an ammunition bunker exploded due to a poor design of having explosives too close to the boilers. Yellow press journalism in the US editorialized the population to the point that action was demanded. The Iraq invasion of 2003 was proven to be a bad idea. Saddam Hussein himself was a weapon that dispensed mass destruction upon his own people and he needed to go. His heavy hand of allowing no dissent also worked to keep the terrorists at bay and so you shoot the guard dog so then the foxes eat up all of your chickens. That invasion certainly has had long range ramifications as do all military actions but President Bush acted in good faith, within the law, and so the terrible results reinforce the wisdom of looking ahead while counting the costs of an operation.
Finally, this article pontificates and whines concerning forces outside the citizens' control. We vote, we serve our nation with our toil, and we strive to know the past dealings of our leaders so as to scatter those who delight in war. We as a nation would be wise to request that presidents keep the sword sheaved until national interests are directly threatened. Drivel such as this posted article should be ignored as inconsequential.
(2)
(0)
SGT William Howell
SSgt Robert Marx - I have seen several things on the Maine and I tend to agree that the Maine was not an act of war. I also don't think that it was a plot to engage Spain. It was convenient excuse for a land grab, but I do not believe that anyone in Washington knew that it was not a planned act of war.
(0)
(0)
SGT William Howell
PO3 Donald Murphy - I agree that Iraq was not in a position to deliver WMDs, but I believe they were looking for options. We know now that they were not a threat, but the bad intel said something different. There is a ton of speculation as to if Bush actually knew. Just like the Maine, it was a convenient excuse to unleash the dogs of war. As for the Tonkin incident, the sailors to this day said it happened just like they reported. It was convenient, but there is no proof that it did not happen like they said.
(0)
(0)
PO3 Donald Murphy
SGT William Howell - There were several ships doing illegal "snooping" in the area at the time and so as not to spill the beans, a lot of the information was "invented" to give the ships a reason for being in the area. Like the Maine tho - it was a convenient reason for escalating things which is what LBJ ultimately wanted.
(0)
(0)
SGT Mary G.
I am concerned about false flag ops which are different than "bad intel" but are also driven by "bad intel" when naively believed because it is from a supposed trusted source that is actually untrustworthy.
In the case of Iraq - in fact the entire middle east and also Africa - it was a big mistake that the U.S.A. did not have enough people trained in the languages and cultures and in place from WWI onwards as on-the-ground resources. That mistake was compounded by depending on the propaganda presented as intel from a source that has been deploying "spies" for nefarious purposes, including for the purpose of intentionally providing "bad intel" to U.S.A. as a way to get our nation to fight unholy land grabbing battles.
Bad intel and good faith are a prescription for disaster - always.
In the case of Iraq - in fact the entire middle east and also Africa - it was a big mistake that the U.S.A. did not have enough people trained in the languages and cultures and in place from WWI onwards as on-the-ground resources. That mistake was compounded by depending on the propaganda presented as intel from a source that has been deploying "spies" for nefarious purposes, including for the purpose of intentionally providing "bad intel" to U.S.A. as a way to get our nation to fight unholy land grabbing battles.
Bad intel and good faith are a prescription for disaster - always.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next