US Lies, To Justify War

Many, many times we are seeing more evidence of the lengths the US took, to justify an invasion on Iraq. This film goes in further, by revealing the lies, which started previous wars, that the US took part in.

When are the people of the US going to realise what their government is up to. It is the people of America, whose sons are sent to needless wars and killed.

When has the US ever been invaded by another country? Look how many times the US have been invading other countries and according to Freedom House they have no intention of stopping.

There is only one aggressor in this world and that is the USA and past and present history proves this.

The self proclaimed policeman of the world is now destroying it.George Bush gave John Howard the then Prime Minister of Australia the honour of being the ‘policeman’ of the Asia Pacific area.

In 2001 tensions were rising in Taiwan and the George Bush was pressuring John Howard, to sign a new treaty, to show their support, in joining the US if they needed to protect Taiwan against China. This caused, big debate in Australia as the majority did not agree in antagonising China, which is one of the countries larges trading partners.

Then in August 2001 George Bush threatened to pull out of the ANZUS treaty altogether if John Howard did not sign. New Zealand has already pulled out of the agreement in 1984 when it became nuclear free and would not allow any ships into its ports with nuclear missiles.

The opposition was totally opposed to John Howard signing up to a war against China.

Malcolm Fraser stated “I don’t believe America would use nuclear weapons in relation to a conflict with China, and unless they were prepared to do that, I do not believe they could win.

They couldn’t beat Vietnam — much smaller, much more backward, and in spite of half a million men on the ground, the United States in the end was defeated, as we all know.

Now, I believe that a conflict over Taiwan would probably lead to massive destruction of the Taiwan infrastructure and countryside, and that would be tragic.

It would probably mean that the US would bomb areas of China very heavily, and much of that would be destroyed, and that also would be a tragedy.

But, at the end of the day, I would see Chinese persistence, determination winning, as North Vietnamese persistence and determination won.

If you see that as the likely outcome, it would only make being a partner in the conflict all the more difficult, all the more damaging for Australia.

America can go back to the American hemisphere.”

Nevertheless, John Howard flew to to the US to sign the treaty, against the support of the Australian people. Days after arriving in the US, the 9/11 attack took place and the rest is history. John Howard gave his full support to his ‘buddy’ George Bush and along with Tony Blair, became the three wise monkeys. Deaf, dumb and blindly, telling the world lies on weapons of mass destruction to justify war on Iran.

8 thoughts on “US Lies, To Justify War”

  1. 腕時計 メンズ おすすめ


  2. Show The Truth said:

    Noam Chomsky, Why It’s “Legal” When the U.S. Does It

    The Paranoia of the Superrich and Superpowerful

    Washington’s Dilemma on a “Lost” Planet

    By Noam Chomsky

    February 04, 2013 “Information Clearing House” – [This piece is adapted from “Uprisings,” a chapter in Power Systems: Conversations on Global Democratic Uprisings and the New Challenges to U.S. Empire, Noam Chomsky’s new interview book with David Barsamian (with thanks to the publisher, Metropolitan Books). The questions are Barsamian’s, the answers Chomsky’s.]

    Does the United States still have the same level of control over the energy resources of the Middle East as it once had?

    The major energy-producing countries are still firmly under the control of the Western-backed dictatorships. So, actually, the progress made by the Arab Spring is limited, but it’s not insignificant. The Western-controlled dictatorial system is eroding. In fact, it’s been eroding for some time. So, for example, if you go back 50 years, the energy resources — the main concern of U.S. planners — have been mostly nationalized. There are constantly attempts to reverse that, but they have not succeeded.

    Take the U.S. invasion of Iraq, for example. To everyone except a dedicated ideologue, it was pretty obvious that we invaded Iraq not because of our love of democracy but because it’s maybe the second- or third-largest source of oil in the world, and is right in the middle of the major energy-producing region. You’re not supposed to say this. It’s considered a conspiracy theory.

    The United States was seriously defeated in Iraq by Iraqi nationalism — mostly by nonviolent resistance. The United States could kill the insurgents, but they couldn’t deal with half a million people demonstrating in the streets. Step by step, Iraq was able to dismantle the controls put in place by the occupying forces. By November 2007, it was becoming pretty clear that it was going to be very hard to reach U.S. goals. And at that point, interestingly, those goals were explicitly stated. So in November 2007 the Bush II administration came out with an official declaration about what any future arrangement with Iraq would have to be. It had two major requirements: one, that the United States must be free to carry out combat operations from its military bases, which it will retain; and two, “encouraging the flow of foreign investments to Iraq, especially American investments.” In January 2008, Bush made this clear in one of his signing statements. A couple of months later, in the face of Iraqi resistance, the United States had to give that up. Control of Iraq is now disappearing before their eyes.

    Iraq was an attempt to reinstitute by force something like the old system of control, but it was beaten back. In general, I think, U.S. policies remain constant, going back to the Second World War. But the capacity to implement them is declining.

    Declining because of economic weakness?

    Partly because the world is just becoming more diverse. It has more diverse power centers. At the end of the Second World War, the United States was absolutely at the peak of its power. It had half the world’s wealth and every one of its competitors was seriously damaged or destroyed. It had a position of unimaginable security and developed plans to essentially run the world — not unrealistically at the time.

    This was called “Grand Area” planning?

    Yes. Right after the Second World War, George Kennan, head of the U.S. State Department policy planning staff, and others sketched out the details, and then they were implemented. What’s happening now in the Middle East and North Africa, to an extent, and in South America substantially goes all the way back to the late 1940s. The first major successful resistance to U.S. hegemony was in 1949. That’s when an event took place, which, interestingly, is called “the loss of China.” It’s a very interesting phrase, never challenged. There was a lot of discussion about who is responsible for the loss of China. It became a huge domestic issue. But it’s a very interesting phrase. You can only lose something if you own it. It was just taken for granted: we possess China — and if they move toward independence, we’ve lost China. Later came concerns about “the loss of Latin America,” “the loss of the Middle East,” “the loss of” certain countries, all based on the premise that we own the world and anything that weakens our control is a loss to us and we wonder how to recover it.

    Today, if you read, say, foreign policy journals or, in a farcical form, listen to the Republican debates, they’re asking, “How do we prevent further losses?”

    On the other hand, the capacity to preserve control has sharply declined. By 1970, the world was already what was called tripolar economically, with a U.S.-based North American industrial center, a German-based European center, roughly comparable in size, and a Japan-based East Asian center, which was then the most dynamic growth region in the world. Since then, the global economic order has become much more diverse. So it’s harder to carry out our policies, but the underlying principles have not changed much.

    Take the Clinton doctrine. The Clinton doctrine was that the United States is entitled to resort to unilateral force to ensure “uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources.” That goes beyond anything that George W. Bush said. But it was quiet and it wasn’t arrogant and abrasive, so it didn’t cause much of an uproar. The belief in that entitlement continues right to the present. It’s also part of the intellectual culture.

    Right after the assassination of Osama bin Laden, amid all the cheers and applause, there were a few critical comments questioning the legality of the act. Centuries ago, there used to be something called presumption of innocence. If you apprehend a suspect, he’s a suspect until proven guilty. He should be brought to trial. It’s a core part of American law. You can trace it back to Magna Carta. So there were a couple of voices saying maybe we shouldn’t throw out the whole basis of Anglo-American law. That led to a lot of very angry and infuriated reactions, but the most interesting ones were, as usual, on the left liberal end of the spectrum. Matthew Yglesias, a well-known and highly respected left liberal commentator, wrote an article in which he ridiculed these views. He said they’re “amazingly naive,” silly. Then he expressed the reason. He said that “one of the main functions of the international institutional order is precisely to legitimate the use of deadly military force by western powers.” Of course, he didn’t mean Norway. He meant the United States. So the principle on which the international system is based is that the United States is entitled to use force at will. To talk about the United States violating international law or something like that is amazingly naive, completely silly. Incidentally, I was the target of those remarks, and I’m happy to confess my guilt. I do think that Magna Carta and international law are worth paying some attention to.

    I merely mention that to illustrate that in the intellectual culture, even at what’s called the left liberal end of the political spectrum, the core principles haven’t changed very much. But the capacity to implement them has been sharply reduced. That’s why you get all this talk about American decline. Take a look at the year-end issue of Foreign Affairs, the main establishment journal. Its big front-page cover asks, in bold face, “Is America Over?” It’s a standard complaint of those who believe they should have everything. If you believe you should have everything and anything gets away from you, it’s a tragedy, the world is collapsing. So is America over? A long time ago we “lost” China, we’ve lost Southeast Asia, we’ve lost South America. Maybe we’ll lose the Middle East and North African countries. Is America over? It’s a kind of paranoia, but it’s the paranoia of the superrich and the superpowerful. If you don’t have everything, it’s a disaster.

    The New York Times describes the “defining policy quandary of the Arab Spring: how to square contradictory American impulses that include support for democratic change, a desire for stability, and wariness of Islamists who have become a potent political force.” The Times identifies three U.S. goals. What do you make of them?

    Two of them are accurate. The United States is in favor of stability. But you have to remember what stability means. Stability means conformity to U.S. orders. So, for example, one of the charges against Iran, the big foreign policy threat, is that it is destabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan. How? By trying to expand its influence into neighboring countries. On the other hand, we “stabilize” countries when we invade them and destroy them.

    I’ve occasionally quoted one of my favorite illustrations of this, which is from a well-known, very good liberal foreign policy analyst, James Chace, a former editor of Foreign Affairs. Writing about the overthrow of the Salvador Allende regime and the imposition of the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet in 1973, he said that we had to “destabilize” Chile in the interests of “stability.” That’s not perceived to be a contradiction — and it isn’t. We had to destroy the parliamentary system in order to gain stability, meaning that they do what we say. So yes, we are in favor of stability in this technical sense.

    Concern about political Islam is just like concern about any independent development. Anything that’s independent you have to have concern about because it might undermine you. In fact, it’s a little ironic, because traditionally the United States and Britain have by and large strongly supported radical Islamic fundamentalism, not political Islam, as a force to block secular nationalism, the real concern. So, for example, Saudi Arabia is the most extreme fundamentalist state in the world, a radical Islamic state. It has a missionary zeal, is spreading radical Islam to Pakistan, funding terror. But it’s the bastion of U.S. and British policy. They’ve consistently supported it against the threat of secular nationalism from Gamal Abdel Nasser’s Egypt and Abd al-Karim Qasim’s Iraq, among many others. But they don’t like political Islam because it might become independent.

    The first of the three points, our yearning for democracy, that’s about on the level of Joseph Stalin talking about the Russian commitment to freedom, democracy, and liberty for the world. It’s the kind of statement you laugh about when you hear it from commissars or Iranian clerics, but you nod politely and maybe even with awe when you hear it from their Western counterparts.

    If you look at the record, the yearning for democracy is a bad joke. That’s even recognized by leading scholars, though they don’t put it this way. One of the major scholars on so-called democracy promotion is Thomas Carothers, who is pretty conservative and highly regarded — a neo-Reaganite, not a flaming liberal. He worked in Reagan’s State Department and has several books reviewing the course of democracy promotion, which he takes very seriously. He says, yes, this is a deep-seated American ideal, but it has a funny history. The history is that every U.S. administration is “schizophrenic.” They support democracy only if it conforms to certain strategic and economic interests. He describes this as a strange pathology, as if the United States needed psychiatric treatment or something. Of course, there’s another interpretation, but one that can’t come to mind if you’re a well-educated, properly behaved intellectual.

    Within several months of the toppling of [President Hosni] Mubarak in Egypt, he was in the dock facing criminal charges and prosecution. It’s inconceivable that U.S. leaders will ever be held to account for their crimes in Iraq or beyond. Is that going to change anytime soon?

    That’s basically the Yglesias principle: the very foundation of the international order is that the United States has the right to use violence at will. So how can you charge anybody?

    And no one else has that right.

    Of course not. Well, maybe our clients do. If Israel invades Lebanon and kills a thousand people and destroys half the country, okay, that’s all right. It’s interesting. Barack Obama was a senator before he was president. He didn’t do much as a senator, but he did a couple of things, including one he was particularly proud of. In fact, if you looked at his website before the primaries, he highlighted the fact that, during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006, he cosponsored a Senate resolution demanding that the United States do nothing to impede Israel’s military actions until they had achieved their objectives and censuring Iran and Syria because they were supporting resistance to Israel’s destruction of southern Lebanon, incidentally, for the fifth time in 25 years. So they inherit the right. Other clients do, too.

    But the rights really reside in Washington. That’s what it means to own the world. It’s like the air you breathe. You can’t question it. The main founder of contemporary IR [international relations] theory, Hans Morgenthau, was really quite a decent person, one of the very few political scientists and international affairs specialists to criticize the Vietnam War on moral, not tactical, grounds. Very rare. He wrote a book called The Purpose of American Politics. You already know what’s coming. Other countries don’t have purposes. The purpose of America, on the other hand, is “transcendent”: to bring freedom and justice to the rest of the world. But he’s a good scholar, like Carothers. So he went through the record. He said, when you study the record, it looks as if the United States hasn’t lived up to its transcendent purpose. But then he says, to criticize our transcendent purpose “is to fall into the error of atheism, which denies the validity of religion on similar grounds” — which is a good comparison. It’s a deeply entrenched religious belief. It’s so deep that it’s going to be hard to disentangle it. And if anyone questions that, it leads to near hysteria and often to charges of anti-Americanism or “hating America” — interesting concepts that don’t exist in democratic societies, only in totalitarian societies and here, where they’re just taken for granted.

    Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor Emeritus in the MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy. A TomDispatch regular, he is the author of numerous best-selling political works, including recently Hopes and Prospects and Making the Future. This piece is adapted from the chapter “Uprisings” in his newest book (with interviewer David Barsamian), Power Systems: Conversations on Global Democratic Uprisings and the New Challenges to U.S. Empire (The American Empire Project, Metropolitan Books).

    Excerpted from Power Systems: Conversations on Global Democratic Uprisings and the New Challenges to U.S. Empire, published this month by Metropolitan Books, an imprint of Henry Holt and Company, LLC. Copyright (c) 2013 by Noam Chomsky and David Barsamian. All rights reserved

    This article was originally posted at Tom Dispatch


  3. Show The Truth said:

    USA’s Cowboy Democracy is Terrorism Dressed in Noble Clothes

    By Sergei Vasilenkov

    October 09, 2013 “Information Clearing House – Recent events around Syria have brought up the subject of how the U.S. promotes the ideals of democracy in the world. There is quite a list of countries that have fallen victim to American democracy. For example, Afghanistan has become a heroin power owing to the U.S. power, while Libya has turned into an impoverished country with great wealth.

    The realities of life in the “democratic” Libya

    The Americans are so fond of their own democracy and filled with hatred against dictators (like Gaddafi) that it is always a pleasure for them to bomb and occupy any country where there is something to make money on. What will be the result of the “democratic process” in Libya? As many as 12,000 U.S. troops were redeployed from a military base on the territory of Malta to Libya. They were ordered to take pipelines, refineries and oil production sites under control, said Peter Beynchli, a British military expert.

    Switzerland and Italy sent their soldiers to Libya too. Here it is, the real American democracy – oil, money , oil …

    This is not the establishment of democracy, but, in fact, the occupation of Libya by the armies of other countries to control the nation’s natural resources. The US-created puppet government of Libya can not control the production of oil independently. This, in fact, is what the Americans wanted. If the U.S. takes oil production under control of its military, oil will be supplied at lower prices – approximately $25 per barrel.

    The Libyans will obviously recall dictator Gaddafi in the future. During his rule, Libya enjoyed the highest standard of living among all African countries. The Americans already pursue only one goal – to pump Libyan oil almost for free. They, of course, will provide humanitarian aid to the Libyans (for their own money) . That’s how the US democracy shamelessly plunders the Libyan people. For the United States and NATO, it all came out pretty well. They provided themselves with very cheap oil by instilling some nonsense about democratic values ​​to the Libyans.

    Libyans are now left to enjoy their democracy that they needed so badly and that was gifted to them by “good guys” from America. No positive changes in the country happened. Yet, the poverty-stricken Libya can now be called a “free and democratic country.” According to the updated report from the UN, ill-treatment and torture have become widespread in Libyan prisons. Around 8,000 people are imprisoned after the conflict from two years ago. Most of them were detained without any adequate legal procedures.

    American democracy in Afghanistan

    Let us talk about Afghanistan now. The pretext for the occupation of this country was the so-called terrorist attack in September 2001. But today, everyone understands that there is no Afghan trace in the attack on the twin towers. There are two main reasons for the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. These two reasons are complementary to one another.

    First, the U.S. needed the occupation of Afghanistan to control the region, and further destabilize the situation in Central Asia. Secondly, it is very good for the Americans to have a “banana republic” that is engaged in the production of drugs, since all this rubbish ends up in Russia. Furthermore, this is a very lucrative “business” that can be covered up.

    Thus, the occupation was carried out under the pretext – of establishing democracy in Afghanistan, the destruction of terrorists and the economic development of the state. Interestingly enough, significant changes did occur in Afghanistan during the occupation. The nation’s GDP grew by 66 percent, which is an astounding achievement by any standards. This figure could be referred to as an economic miracle, but…

    The incredible growth of GDP is based on only one article of income – high harvests of opium in Afghanistan. Since the start of the U.S. counter-terrorism operations in Afghanistan, the volume of drug production in the country has grown 2.5 times. For the time being, Afghanistan supplies 93 percent of opium poppy, which is used worldwide for the production of heroin.

    Afghanistan, according to UN estimates, now grows more poppy than the world consumes, director of the UN Office for Drug Control, Antonio Maria Costa said. During the U.S. occupation Afghanistan no longer sells raw opium. Powerful chemical factories were built in the country that let Afghanistan export heroin, rather than opium. The trafficking routes coincide with the countries where U.S. troops are deployed – Iraq , Kosovo, Germany, Spain, Kyrgyzstan, and so on.

    Democracy in the blood

    In general, the United States is an amazing country. The administration, the executive and legislative branches, the Republican and Democratic parties – all of them talk about democracy, freedom and human rights. However, throughout their history, the Americans have been exterminating other nations and conquering the countries that do not agree with their “cowboy” mentality. As Senator Hart Benton said back in 1846, America was doomed to expand and conquer.

    Nowadays, the United States destroy entire nation, kill their leaders hiding behind the slogans of democracy or human rights. The Americans have decided that they are God’s chosen people, that they are exceptional. But no matter where these God’s chosen people come they sow devastation, pain and tears everywhere. Once they exterminated millions of Indians in America.

    How many lives did they claim in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria? Democracy can not be based on aggression – in fact this is not democracy, but terrorism, dressed in “noble clothes.”

    This article was originally published at Pravda


  4. Show The Truth said:

    En route vers la 3ème Guerre Mondiale


  5. Show The Truth said:

    Vietnam John Kerry vs Syria John Kerry “Criminal Hypocrisy”


  6. I tried to watch the video and noticed that their was no end time at the bottom, showing the length in minutes of the video. Apparently, although the written article was there, the video has been removed.


    • I have just checked and the video has been removed from Youtube. We are increasingly have evidence against the terrorists are being removed from Youtube while all the graphic Al Qaeda films still remain. I will see if somebody else has a copy of the film. Thank you for informing us.


  7. danny wirkshire said:

    they are all liars. don’t care about their own citizens or safety of their people. the US intends to invade all middle eastern countries one by one for oil and to destabilize the countries and weaken Islam. or so their trying. for the interests of Israel. history can not dispute this.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s