Tag: war

Would Trump Back Iran into a Corner Like FDR Did Japan?

Presidents Trump’s strategy might be to talk tough and then “seal the deal” like he is working towards with North Korea. However, Iran has some more pull with many EU members liking Iranian oil to keep their economies afloat.

Should Trump or the next US president think about backing Iran into a corner runs the risk that FDR had with Japan. For those that never had read anything but US public school history books you might be surprise that FDR took a chapter out of Abe Lincoln’s playbook in causing Japan to “fire the first shot”.

Put yourself in Japan’s shoes by 1941 .. here are some clips from Lew Rockwell:

In 1939 the United States terminated the 1911 commercial treaty with Japan. “On July 2, 1940, Roosevelt signed the Export Control Act, authorizing the President to license or prohibit the export of essential defense materials.” Under this authority, “[o]n July 31, exports of aviation motor fuels and lubricants and No. 1 heavy melting iron and steel scrap were restricted.” Next, in a move aimed at Japan, Roosevelt slapped an embargo, effective October 16, “on all exports of scrap iron and steel to destinations other than Britain and the nations of the Western Hemisphere.” Finally, on July 26, 1941, Roosevelt “froze Japanese assets in the United States, thus bringing commercial relations between the nations to an effective end. One week later Roosevelt embargoed the export of such grades of oil as still were in commercial flow to Japan.”

Do you see this? Economic war whether they be sanctions or targeted tariffs are usually, actually, the first act of war. Trade is the best way towards peace!

FDR desired Japan to act first so FDR could count on Germany also declaring war on the USA .. which is what FDR wanted all along. The commensurate politician in the likes of Abe Lincoln, sociopaths who care less about loss of life.

Roosevelt and his subordinates knew they were putting Japan in an untenable position and that the Japanese government might well try to escape the stranglehold by going to war. Having broken the Japanese diplomatic code, the Americans knew, among many other things, what Foreign Minister Teijiro Toyoda had communicated to Ambassador Kichisaburo Nomura on July 31: “Commercial and economic relations between Japan and third countries, led by England and the United States, are gradually becoming so horribly strained that we cannot endure it much longer. Consequently, our Empire, to save its very life, must take measures to secure the raw materials of the South Seas.”

OK, so in July 1941, the US had already cracked the Japanese code .. so by December 1941:

.. leaders in Washington knew as well that Japan’s “measures” would include an attack on Pearl Harbor.[4] Yet they withheld this critical information from the commanders in Hawaii, who might have headed off the attack or prepared themselves to defend against it. That Roosevelt and his chieftains did not ring the tocsin makes perfect sense: after all, the impending attack constituted precisely what they had been seeking for a long time. As Stimson confided to his diary after a meeting of the war cabinet on November 25, “The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.”[5] After the attack, Stimson confessed that “my first feeling was of relief … that a crisis had come in a way which would unite all our people.

Sick .. unless you are a fellow sociopath. Think about this .. why were only our oldest US Navy assets at Pearl in December 1941? Again, from another Lew Rockwell article:

In 1940, Admiral J.O. Richardson, the fleet’s commander, flew to Washington to protest FDR’s decision to permanently base the fleet in Hawaii instead of its normal berthing on the U.S. West Coast. The admiral had sound reasons: Pearl Harbor was vulnerable to attack, being approachable from any direction; it could not be effectively rigged with nets and baffles to defend against torpedo planes; and in Hawaii it would be hard to supply and train crews for his undermanned vessels. Pearl Harbor also lacked adequate fuel supplies and dry docks, and keeping men far from their families would create morale problems. The argument became heated. Said Richardson: “I came away with the impression that, despite his spoken word, the President was fully determined to put the United States into the war if Great Britain could hold out until he was reelected.” Richardson was quickly relieved of command. Replacing him was Admiral Husband E. Kimmel. Kimmel also informed Roosevelt of Pearl Harbor’s deficiencies, but accepted placement there, trusting that Washington would notify him of any intelligence pointing to attack. This proved to be misplaced trust. As Washington watched Japan preparing to assault Pearl Harbor, Admiral Kimmel, as well as his Army counterpart in Hawaii, General Walter C. Short, were completely sealed off from the information pipeline.

You see how that works?

So IF you got this far you have to be asking, “Swamp Fox, so what? What does this have to do with Trump?”

Well .. rattling a nation’s economy by telling the EU that they can’t buy oil from Iran after November 2, 2018 as the region enters winter is designed to make the Iranian government go on the defensive and the people to start talking regime change (which is at the heart of the neocon agenda, these sociopaths drool over this dream of theirs). However, the US has a history in Iran as in 1953, Teddy Roosevelt’s grandson was a key player in one of the first successful CIA coups .. from Lew Rockwell one more time:

The 1953 CIA coup in Iran was named “Operation Ajax” and was engineered by a CIA agent named Kermit Roosevelt, the grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt.

Do you think the Iranians have forgotten their history LIKE the USA is doing with theirs these days? (SMH) No, they (Iranians) are not a stupid people.

My prayer is that Iran resist the urge to “do something” with a similar patience that Russia has had with US sanctions .. as war is not preferable as  some in high places (insulated from the effects and most times in aposition to benefit economically from the use of military power) might argue.

“War is the health of the state” – Randolph Bourne  So the state needs to be countered by those (a healthy society who can think critically) who can understand the unintended consequences of war. Do we have as many thinkers today as the thirteen colonies had back in 1776? From most statistics, 250,000 copies of Thomas Paine’s book “Common Sense” sold within six months to a population of 2.5 million. Ten percent of society were exposed to his words and philosophy. Do we even have 250 thousand people (out of 325 million, or less than 1%) today who would even read 49 pages of a book about liberty?

I leave you with this. Consider Thomas Jefferson’s quote below:

I abhor war and view it as the greatest scourge of mankind. The insults & injuries committed on us by both the belligerent parties, from the beginning of 1793 to this day, & still continuing, cannot now be wiped off by engaging in war with one of them. I have seen enough of one war never to wish to see another. One war, such as that of our Revolution, is enough for one life. The most successful war seldom pays for its losses. War is as much a punishment to the punisher as to the sufferer. War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses. We have obtained by a peaceable appeal to justice, in four months, what we should not have obtained under seven years of war, the loss of one hundred thousand lives, an hundred millions of additional debt, many hundred millions worth of produce and property lost for want of market, or in seeking it, and that demoralization which war superinduces on the human mind. Great sacrifices of interest have certainly been made by our nation under the difficulties latterly forced upon us by transatlantic powers. But every candid and reflecting mind must agree with you, that while these were temporary and bloodless, they were calculated to avoid permanent subjection to foreign law and tribute, relinquishment of independent rights, and the burthens, the havoc, and desolations of war.

When Your Family is Abused by US Military

“.. After several semi-decisive battles in this area, the Union Army set up shop and began patrolling the area to help convince the locals that they might want to stand with the Union rather than fall with the Confederates. Many residents felt the devastation of Union forces on their crops, supplies, servants and homesteads. With supplies running short, Union soldiers and their leaders took what they needed in the name of their cause. This not only included supplies, but labor as well. Many black freedmen, as well as those slaves who had not been granted their freedom, were enslaved by Union forces in this area for cheap labor.

Enter Jack Hinson. Two of his sons joined the Confederate Army, yet he tried to stay cordial to both sides. Understanding his decision is difficult for us looking through the lens of history, but he was a tobacco farmer who had freed his slaves, all of whom stayed on to work with him on his farm, and he obviously felt that he had a need to stay neutral. Perhaps he truly had not picked the Confederate cause to support.

This all changed one day when two of his other sons headed to the woods to hunt near the Hinson family farm, Bubbling Springs. The Hinson property lay near Dover, Tennessee. The sons were arrested by a Union patrol, accused of being bushwhackers and executed on the spot…

No justice is given “on the spot” when military forces move in. Abe Lincoln had suspended the writ of habeas corpus (please do yourself a favor and look this up if you do not understand what this is)

Their bodies were taken into Dover. Their remains were dragged around the courthouse square, and then, as a further insult, their heads were cut off and placed in a burlap sack. The patrol then rode to Jack’s farm and placed the heads of his executed sons on the gateposts of his fence. The soldiers searched Jack’s home and surrounding barns from top to bottom looking for contraband, which in this case would be guns. Luckily, they were well hidden.

Jack Hinson picked a side. He swore to himself that he would invoke the law of vengeance for the death and mutilation of his two boys. …”

This guy understood “blowback” .. and he made sure the Union troops understood it by the end of this War Against Southern Independence

Question#1: Why do people call this war a “civil war” when the southern seven states that seceded did NOT want to conquer the WHOLE country? .. duh!

Question#2: Why did Lincoln never admit the states seceded? Because he used the insurrection law from the 1790s (thanks George Washington for helping Congress do this) to call up 75,000 volunteers to put down the “insurrection”.

From Guns-n-Ammo

Which Slaves Did Abe Lincoln Free?

The easy answer is none.

The Emancipation Proclamation was written to only free the slaves that were behind enemy lines. Those slaves were not under his jurisdiction.

The Emancipation Proclamation declared the slaves in ten states free, but there were seventeen states in which blacks were held as slaves…

There were exemptions as well .. as Abe readily admitted that this move was a “war measure” (i.e. hoping to incite a slave uprising to end the war earlier, as he had no real desire initially to “make slaves free”)

..the portions of Virginia and Louisiana which were occupied by Union forces were exempt from it, meaning that their slaves were not freed. This was made clear by a circular issued by Union Provost Marshall Captain A.B. Long in New Liberia, Louisiana on April 24, 1863. In it, he informed the slaves in St. Martin Parish who thought that they were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation that they were not because that Parish was exempted in it … Lincoln declared the slaves not under his control free, but not those who were under his control.

This make perfect sense as Abraham Lincoln had offered perpetual slavery in the states that had seceded IF they returned to “the Union” according to his first inaugural address when he referenced the Corwin Amendment.

The slaves in the District of Columbia had been freed by act of Congress on April 16, 1862, and those in U.S. territories by the same on June 17, 1862, before the Emancipation Proclamation was issued. Lincoln then tried to get Delaware to be the next entity to free its slaves, but the state refused. Under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, Washington, D.C. and the territories were the only jurisdictions over which the Federal Government had authority. Authority over slavery in the states was reserved to the states themselves.

So Lincoln had no authority under the Constitution .. but we know that many presidents of the United States have disregarded that document ever since. Even George Washington’s “Whiskey Rebellion” move was not constitutional.

So what law actually freed the slaves in the United States of America?

The date on which the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified was the date upon which the last of the slaves were truly freed. Therefore, December 6 should be celebrated as Emancipation Day.

From Abbeville Institute

Lysander Spooner had it right:

 

US (Israel/ISIS) UNINVITED Involvement in Syria is Over?

There are signs that the long expected liberation of the Daraa region in southwest Syria is about to begin. After a month of negotiations between Russia, Israel, Jordan and the U.S. no peaceful solution has been found. The various terrorist forces in the (green) area, including al-Qaeda aligned HTS and groups loyal to the Islamic State, have rejected all negotiations. For over a month Russian negotiators tried to convince locals to give up and to reconcile with the government. But the hardliners under the rebels have killed anyone who talked with the Russians. The U.S. government has warned against a Daraa operation and threatened to intervene.

From Moon of Alabama

So things changed over the weekend since this article was written the middle of last week as demands from the US to NOT start this clean-up in southwestern Syria have diminished … and it seems that this might be one of the major agreements that John Bolton is prepping for the July Putin-Trump summit.

About 4:50 minutes into Ron’s Paul’s Liberty Report you will hear some of the great news. I would hope this signals the end to the stupid CIA move to attempt to use their ISIS forces in Syria to further the USA’s distribution of democracy which has ruined the infrastructures in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya not to mention making millions of war refugees and driving Christians from all three of these countries.

Reflecting back over 150 years ago, just imagine if the British Empire would have not only inserted rebels in the United States but then followed up with “boots on the ground” for force “regime change” to get Lincoln out of office. Yup, you got it, the same people today who says Assad has to go would not be for the first Republican president being overthrown by another nation’s rebel-backed forces or forces of their own.

Maybe someone looked at history this weekend and remembered how complicated it was then major forces are at work in areas under wartime duress. Maybe they remembered the “Trent Affair” where:

So on November 8, 1861, he [ U.S. naval officer, Captain Charles Wilkes ]steamed out into the Bahama Channel, fired twice across the Trent’s bow, sent a boat’s crew aboard, seized the Confederate commissioners, and bore them off in triumph to the United States, where they were held prisoner in Boston. Wilkes was hailed as a national hero. Congress voted him its thanks, and Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles commended him.

This triggered an uproar in Britain. Eleven thousand British troops were sent to Canada, the British fleet was put on a war footing, with plans to capture New York City, and a sharp note was dispatched to Washington demanding return of the prisoners and an apology. Lincoln, concerned about Britain entering the war, issued an apology and ordered the prisoners released.

From Fandom CSA Wiki

US Forces in Syria (Uninvited and Supporting ISIS Activities)

Southeast Syria- Where the US/Israeli/UK/Saudi backed rebels continue to interfere in an area wanted for future pipeline projects.  Personally I agree with Ron Paul in bringing US troops home from Afghanistan, Iraq AND Syria .. this is NOT our fight and this is NOT “defense” of the United States.

red: Syrian Army; green: U.S. zone around al-Tanf crossing to Iraq; grey: ISIS; yellow: U.S./Kurdish SDF

“… Another serious incident followed last night when U.S. supported Maghawhir al-Thawra “rebels” (which include ‘former’ ISIS fighters) attacked Syrian government forces:

A Syrian army officer was killed in a U.S strike on a Syrian army outpost near a U.S. base close to the Iraqi-Syrian border, a commander in the regional alliance supporting President Bashar al-Assad told Reuters.The Pentagon, said, however, that a U.S.-backed Syrian rebel group stationed in the Tanf garrison had engaged on Thursday evening an “unidentified hostile force” outside a “deconfliction zone” around the garrison, forcing it to retreat. It said there were no casualties on either side.

… The Syrian Observatory claims that eight Syrian soldiers were killed in the attack. There is some footage of a desert chase with “technicals” that is supposed to be from these clashes. They took place in al-Halba, 70 kilometers northwest of al-Tanf and only 50 kilometers from Palmyra.

The U.S. sent “rebels” it trains at al-Tanf outside its self declared 55 kilometers deconfliction zone around Tanf to attack Syrian government forces. It supported them by air strikes. U.S. special forces are said to have taken part. This is likely the case as only U.S. special forces can call in such airstrikes.

It seems obvious that the U.S. is using ISIS, U.S. trained “Maghawhir al-Thawra” rebels, and its air power in another attempt to cut the land route between Syria and Iraq…”

From Moon of Alabama