Presidents and the "Incident"

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

http://harrybrowne.org/articles/Incident.htm

The Incident

by Harry Browne

February 3, 2003

In 1939 England and France went to war with Germany. Franklin Roosevelt assured Winston Churchill privately that the United States would join England in its war, even as he reassured Americans publicly that their sons would never fight and die in a foreign war.

Americans were strongly opposed to getting into the war. So strongly that it was obvious to Roosevelt that he could never fulfill his promises to Churchill unless someone attacked the United States.

Since Hitler was trying very hard to avoid provoking a war with America, Roosevelt turned his attention to Japan — especially after Japan and Germany signed a mutual defense treaty.

Roosevelt's diplomats held secret negotiations with the Japanese — demanding that the Japanese give up their conquered possessions in Southeast Asia, although the U.S. didn't make similar demands that Britain, France, and the Netherlands give up their possessions.

Japan is an island country with virtually no natural resources of any note. It had been necessary to rely on trading with the colonies of Southeast Asia until the European colonial powers began monopolizing those resources. The Japanese leaders decided they had to establish colonies of their own — by force, just as the European powers had.

Roosevelt's only interest in the Japanese' problems was that these problems put Japan in a vulnerable position where its leaders might do something drastic — which is what he wanted. He stepped up the pressure on the Japanese, prohibiting critical exports from America to Japan.

Finally, it became obvious to the Japanese that war with America was inevitable. They knew they had practically no chance to win a war against the world's #1 industrial power. Their only hope lay in the possibility of destroying the American fleet at the outset.

And so the Japanese kept negotiating with the Americans in hope of reaching a peaceful settlement — while making plans to attack Pearl Harbor if the negotiations failed. Roosevelt made sure the negotiations did fail, and the attack came.

That incident — the Pearl Harbor attack — caused the anti-war movement in America to collapse. Even Charles Lindbergh, the most public opponent of war, hurried to the recruiting office to enlist the day after Pearl Harbor.

It was only years and decades later that the full truth came out piece by piece — that the Americans had broken the Japanese diplomatic and military codes and knew the Japanese intentions, that the American military had made a secret agreement with the British and Dutch to go to war with Japan, that Roosevelt had told his cabinet prior to Pearl Harbor that "we are at war; we now have to maneuver the Japanese into firing the first shot," that the American Chiefs of Staff had misled the Pearl Harbor commanders about the possibility of an attack on Pearl Harbor.

(For a brief summary of this deceit, see http://www.independent.org/tii/news/001207Stinnett.html or http://www.independent.org/tii/news/020 ... gnano.html.)

Vietnam

After World War II and the Korean War stalemate, the American people were in no mood to go to war again.

However, the American government had been engaged in a war against Vietnam — both overtly and covertly. The war had started in 1945 when Vietnamese nationalists wanted independence from France and the French government resisted. The U.S. taxpayers financed nearly half the French side before the French threw in the towel.

By that time Vietnam had been divided "temporarily" between the North, run by communist dictator Ho Chi Minh, and the South, run by non-communist dictator Ngo Dinh Diem. The war resumed soon afterward — only now it was a civil war between the two parts of Vietnam. The U.S. aided the South, but the American public was still generally opposed to U.S. troops fighting in another foreign war.

But in August 1964 an incident occurred.

The American navy was covertly aiding South Vietnamese troops making commando raids in North Vietnam. The destroyers Maddox and C. Turner Joy were in the Gulf of Tonkin providing support when they reported being attacked by North Vietnamese torpedo boats.

The U.S. retaliated with air strikes against North Vietnamese Naval bases and oil storage areas. Lyndon Johnson also used the incident to gain support for a Congressional resolution authorizing him to use "all necessary measures to repel any armed attacks against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression." No one seemed interested in asking what "the forces of the United States" were doing in North Vietnam in the first place.

Needless to say, it turned out that there had been no attack against the American destroyers, that the Johnson administration already had plans to widen the war, and that administration officials had used hazy, ambiguous reports from the Gulf of Tonkin to do what they had wanted to do anyway. (In 1970 Congress repealed the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.)

The incident had served the purpose of the American politicians who wanted to escalate the war.

9/11

On September 11, 2001, a single incident transformed overnight a President with a mediocre approval rating into the Glorious Leader of the Free World.

Iraq

So now we come to Iraq.

Since taking office in January 2001 — even before September 11 — George Bush has made it plain that he wants to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. He has never offered any satisfactory reasons for this — only the assertion of secret evidence that Iraq has powerful weapons and intends to use them against America, and that Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda are in cahoots, as well as the obvious fact that Saddam Hussein is a dictatorial leader (supposedly the only such dictator in the world).

In the wake of September 11, most Americans were willing to go along with anything George Bush wanted — provided it was justified in some way as an act of revenge for the September 11 attacks.

But as time has passed, the desire for blood has lessened, and Americans — politicians, writers, and ordinary people — have become more questioning and skeptical about any supposed need to attack Iraq.

If George Bush were to order such an attack tomorrow morning, most Americans probably would support him. The anti-war movement collapsed with Pearl Harbor, and it also collapsed the moment the American military attacked Iraq in 1991 (even though after the war it became clear that skepticism was justified). The argument is along the lines of "my country right or wrong" — no matter how many times my government proves to have been wrong.

But I don't think George Bush wants reluctant support for a war against Iraq. He undoubtedly wants the kind of support he received after September 11. Anything less than that might not get him reelected next year.

He needs an incident. He needs a "smoking gun" provocation so he can "retaliate" against Iraq.

What Might Happen

It seems obvious that Saddam Hussein is determined not to provide such a provocation. Doing so would be tantamount to suicide. He can't win a war with America. He knows that such a war will not only depose him, but probably result in his execution by a to-the-victor-goes-the-spoils war-crimes tribunal.

Consequently, he has allowed inspectors into his country to search for weapons (what other government in the world has done so voluntarily?). He has submitted to UN resolutions. He has carefully avoided doing anything that would allow world opinion to be rallied in favor of an attack against him.

What does all this mean?

I can't predict the future, but I do know this:

If an incident against America occurs — a chemical attack in the U.S., a building destroyed, American troops attacked somewhere — the odds are 1,000 to 1 against the possibility that Saddam Hussein caused it, no matter what "evidence" is asserted or even presented publicly.


If an incident occurs, it will be an answer to George Bush's daily prayers.


If an incident occurs, we most likely won't know the truth behind it until years later — long after the American people have lost interest in the subject, just as with the previous war-inspiring incidents.


Power

The problem isn't George Bush.

The problem is that American Presidents have too much power and not enough hobbies to keep their minds occupied.

We will always be in fear of being dragged into war so long as American Presidents have the power to do whatever they want. As Michael Cloud has pointed out, "The problem isn't the abuse of power; it's the power to abuse."

The power has been abused by Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush. And it will be abused by the next President as well.

Why? Because the power is there — waiting to be abused.

Presidents have too much power over domestic affairs and too much power over foreign affairs.

The Great Libertarian Offer, if enacted, would remove most of the domestic power.

And I have fashioned a Peace Amendment to the Constitution that would remove most of the power to drag us into war.

The Founding Fathers knew that America wouldn't succeed by trying to elect the right politicians to office. So they tried, as Jefferson put it, to "bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution."

And that is what we must do.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

The links for the Great Liberratarian Offer and the Peace Amendment didn't show up.... here are the links.

Im also going to start on threat on the Great Liberatarian Offer, its definatly worth discussing.......

P.S. I had no idea that Harry Browne was this rational and coherent, most 3rd party candidates arent. I think Ill probably vote Liberatarian in 2004 , hopefully he'll run again.


http://harrybrowne.org/GLO/GreatLibertarianOffer.htm

http://harrybrowne.org/articles/PeaceAmendment.htm

[Enricko]

The problem is that American Presidents have too much power and not enough hobbies to keep their minds occupied.

Good old Bill Clinton had a decent hobby, it was call sex scandale...

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

The problem is that American Presidents have too much power and not enough hobbies to keep their minds occupied.

Good old Bill Clinton had a decent hobby, it was call sex scandale...

Of course your ignoring the fact that he "wagged the dog" and bombed the former Yugoslavia to distract the media from this little incident.

[Enricko]

The problem is that American Presidents have too much power and not enough hobbies to keep their minds occupied.

Good old Bill Clinton had a decent hobby, it was call sex scandale...

Of course your ignoring the fact that he "wagged the dog" and bombed the former Yugoslavia to distract the media from this little incident.

I stand corrected... Do you have a solution to offer about the Presidency?

[Enricko]

A simple question here:
Why do you think a president should not declare a war?

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Good old Bill Clinton had a decent hobby, it was call sex scandale...

Of course your ignoring the fact that he "wagged the dog" and bombed the former Yugoslavia to distract the media from this little incident.

I stand corrected... Do you have a solution to offer about the Presidency?

If we followed the Constitution and made an attempt, "to bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution." we could be alright. Basically the problem is that Congress isn't doing its job, they're supose to impeach the president WHENEVER he violates the constitution, regardless of the reasoning behind such a violation. The Founding Father actuaully thought that impeachments would occur quite often when they drafted the constitution. But to answer your question, I think we should elect representitives to Congress and the Senate who actually take the Constitution seriously. The only way I can really think of doing this is to vote Liberatarian, (the members two major parties are largely drunk on power) since they are the only party that is taking a consistent stand against government power.

The Founding Fathers knew that America wouldn't succeed by trying to elect the right politicians to office. So they tried, as Jefferson put it, to "bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution."

[Gandalf]

I think we should all watch Candian Bacon, gives some cool insights into the issue

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

I think we should all watch Candian Bacon, gives some cool insights into the issue

I think you should learn to think for yourself.

[phongn]

You do not seriously believe that Roosevelt knew that Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked and did nothing?

[Sea Skimmer]

Can't take this guy seriously after paragraphs three and four. That's when the lies begin.

[Ted]

You do not seriously believe that Roosevelt knew that Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked and did nothing?

When your friends the British have been shadowing the fleet that is going to attack Pearl Harbour tell you about the fleet, and tell you the intercepts that state the attack on PH, you gotta know, or you really are a fucking idiot.

[kheegster]

Can't take this guy seriously after paragraphs three and four. That's when the lies begin.

Care to point out a few?

[Sea Skimmer]

You do not seriously believe that Roosevelt knew that Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked and did nothing?

When your friends the British have been shadowing the fleet that is going to attack Pearl Harbour tell you about the fleet, and tell you the intercepts that state the attack on PH, you gotta know, or you really are a fucking idiot.

Care to explain how the British shadowed the IJN when they had no warships or aircraft within the Northern Pacific.

[Montcalm]

You do not seriously believe that Roosevelt knew that Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked and did nothing?

When your friends the British have been shadowing the fleet that is going to attack Pearl Harbour tell you about the fleet, and tell you the intercepts that state the attack on PH, you gotta know, or you really are a fucking idiot.

Care to explain how the British shadowed the IJN when they had no warships or aircraft within the Northern Pacific.

Remember Hong Kong was part of the british empire so they had warships there.

[phongn]

Remember Hong Kong was part of the british empire so they had warships there.

Hong Kong is quite far from the Northern Pacific, and they would require a rather large logistics chain to shadow any Japanese fleet, which was operating under radio silence. Furthermore, why would the RN be in the Northern Pacific? They have no interests there.

[Mr Bean]

Also I'm quite curios as to how we had broken Japanse Military Codes considering we had never encoutered their combat codes before(Finding Japanse Translaters was hell) nevermind you add in the Radio Silence thing, nevermind had they succeded at Pearl Harbor we would have been quite forked when it came to fighting back.....


And more bullshit I find in the Saddamn Pargraphs
Note, Under the 1991 Treaty we had the right to re-invade in 97 when we found him building more and had that right until such time as he got rid of his WMD or we invaded his country and removed him from power

That alone is reason enough to go, Nothing hidden about it, But along with that we have 14 other "hidden" reasons that are so often reported in the media that most people know them than who the top three fokes on the FBI most wanted list are

Also last comment, May I point out the bullshit of this line

Consequently, he has allowed inspectors into his country to search for weapons (what other government in the world has done so voluntarily?)

I dunno, South Africa(Which used to have nukes) Russia for the disarment, North Korea prior to Bill Clinton fudging it up and nevermind the refusal to allow inspectors is a causia belle for war....

[Sea Skimmer]

When your friends the British have been shadowing the fleet that is going to attack Pearl Harbour tell you about the fleet, and tell you the intercepts that state the attack on PH, you gotta know, or you really are a fucking idiot.

Care to explain how the British shadowed the IJN when they had no warships or aircraft within the Northern Pacific.

Remember Hong Kong was part of the british empire so they had warships there.

The biggest British naval craft in Hong Kong where motor torpedo boats and there machine gun armed tender. And that's thousands of miles from the North pacific. There where no military aircraft of significant. Any ship steaming from that base would have to refuel several times to shadow the Japanses force. That means a tanker, and a harbor since the British didn't use UNREP at the time.

The British only brought major naval units into the pacific in early December, after the Japanese had already sailed from northern Japan thousnads of miles away. They remained at Singapore until Dec 8th when both capital units sailed to there death after the war had started.

The reality is, there where no British warships or aircraft in the North Pacific, and non-with the range to have shadowed the Japanese force anyway. The only way to make it all work is some vast conspiracy theory with a cruiser and tanker and a lot of there history being falsified and some magical island with sheltered waters that appears in the North Pacific

And even then there's unexplainable stupidity, like why the base was not warned secretly. The whole fleet could have sailed 8 hour before the Japanese showed up and been saved and the effect on the US public would remain.


Anyway really want to claime all that?

[Enricko]

BlkbrryTheGreat, your argument sounds like one from a conspiracy theorist... As if every wars in America history where planified stuff decided by the Government!

[Sea Skimmer]

The problem is that American Presidents have too much power and not enough hobbies to keep their minds occupied.

Good old Bill Clinton had a decent hobby, it was call sex scandale...

Of course your ignoring the fact that he "wagged the dog" and bombed the former Yugoslavia to distract the media from this little incident.

Desert Fox works for that conspiracy theory, Allied Force doesn't. Of course the fact that both where brought on by signficant external factors sends the theory spiraling down in flames.

[Sr.mal]

Fucking Libertarian bullshit. And they wonder why they never win an election