Elaine Luria (VS Huis van Afgevaardigden) wil Biden 'carte blanche' geven voor oorlog tegen China

Oorlogshitser Elaine Luria, Democratisch lid van het VS Huis van Afgevaardigden, wil het Congres buiten spel zetten zodat president Biden zonder instemming van het Congres een oorlog tegen China kan beginnen...... Hoe knettergek in je hersenen moet je zijn om een oorlog met China te wensen, e.e.a. heeft overduidelijk te maken met het feit dat Luria twintig jaar werkte op een fregat van de VS marine...... (dat marine personeel wordt als dat van het leger en luchtmacht volledig gehersenspoeld met valse informatie over landen als China, Rusland en Iran) Met de wens van Luria zou er nog meer geld gaan naar oorlogsvoering ('defensie'), terwijl er nu al volwassenen en kinderen zijn die honger lijden in de VS en het huidige oorlogsbudget zelfs dat van Trump overtreft, meer dan 750 miljard dollar gaat er nu al naar zinloze en ronduit terroristische oorlogsvoering, naar de meer dan 800 militaire VS bases over de wereld en naar het enorme aantal militaire oefeningen langs de Russische westgrens en langs de Chinese territoriale wateren..... De Russen of Chinezen zouden hetzelfde moeten proberen maar dan langs de grenzen van de VS en haar territoriale wateren, gegarandeerd dat het binnen de kortste keren oorlog zou zijn.... Denk aan het voorgaande als je weer eens een idioot hoort zeggen dat Rusland en China een gevaar zijn voor de wereldvrede......

Een oorlog met China zal op zeker leiden tot een nucleaire wereldoorlog (WOIII) en daarbij zullen miljarden mensen het leven verliezen...... Wellicht was de uitspraak die oorlogsmisdadiger Biden onlangs deed geen vergissing, een uitspraak waarmee hij stelde dat de VS Taiwan zal beschermen mocht China haar wettig recht op Taiwan willen afdwingen en heeft hij inderdaad plannen om China aan te vallen..... (die opmerking werd vlak na deze uitlating van Biden door o.a. het Pentagon tegengesproken........)

De leugen in het westen dat een deel van de Chinese luchtmacht zich bij herhaling in het luchtruim van Taiwan zou hebben bevonden, werd door de westerse reguliere media en politici met grote graagte herhaald, terwijl dat deel van het luchtruim niet eens toebehoort aan Taiwan, internationaal wordt dat gebied van het luchtruim niet tot dat van Taiwan gerekend, Taiwan heeft haar luchtruim zelf over een groot gebied uitgebreid, dit zonder internationale instemming, echter daarover spreken die media en politici niet...... Voorts is Taiwan een onderdeel van China, niet voor niets dat men in 1971 Taiwan uit de VN Veiligheidsraad zette en daarvoor in de plaats China opnam in die raad.....

Lees en teken ajb de volgende petitie van CODEPINK over deze zaak en geeft het door, het laatste wat we nodig hebben is een oorlog met China!!!

 

(On the top right hand side of this page you can choose for a translation in the language of your choice, first choose 'Engels' [English] so you can recognise your own language [the Google translation is first in Dutch, a language most people don't understand, while on the other hand most people recognize there language translated in English])

(als je het Engels niet machtig bent, kopieer dan de Engelse tekst en plak die in deze vertaalapp, de app werkt snel en de vertaling is van een redelijk goede kwaliteit)

 

Stop Her!

Madison, CODEPINK

Representative Luria wants to give Biden the power to go to war with China without Congressional approval, risking nuclear war and diverting more of our tax dollars toward militarism — all while U.S. citizens suffer in turmoil at home!

Just four days after the public disclosure that U.S. special operations forces and Marines have secretly been in Taiwan for more than a year conducting training for Taiwan’s ground and maritime forces, Democratic Representative Elaine Luria wrote an op-ed for The Washington Post, entitled “Congress must untie Biden’s hands on Taiwan,” advocating for the passage of Republican Senator Rick Scott’s Taiwan Invasion Prevention Act. By expanding President Biden’s authority to go to war with China over Taiwan, the bill would endanger the entire planet, risking nuclear war.

Before serving as a Congresswoman (including as vice chair of the House Armed Services Committee, HASC), Luria served in the Navy for 20 years. She takes pride in being one of the first women in the Navy nuclear program and having served her entire career on combatant ships. She’s one of the Democratic Party’s most outspoken supporters of U.S.'s funding of Israeli apartheid and war crimes against Indigenous Palestinians. Luria is the last person the United States should trust to prevent more cyclical violence and war.

Send a letter to tell Representative Luria: giving the president the authority to go to war with China makes the entire planet less safe!

Luria’s call for the expansion of the president’s war powers come after China’s recent flights into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone (ADIZ), a concept created by the U.S. Military during the Cold War to counter China. An ADIZ is unilateral, meaning not recognized as sovereign airspace by any international laws or treaties, and the southwest corner of the ADIZ where Chinese war planes flew is nowhere near Taiwan’s actual air defense zone or land. More importantly, the uptick in Chinese military activity in the region follows an increase in Washington’s military footprint and aggressive activity in the region, including fleets of U.S. and ally warships sailing through the Taiwan Strait. As Benjamin Norton, Assistant Editor of The Grayzone News remarks, top U.S. general Douglas MacArthur repeatedly referring to Taiwan as an “unsinkable aircraft carrier” “says a lot about how U.S. imperialists see the island.”

Tell Representative Luria that we don't need more U.S. wars! Send a letter now!

Now Luria is allying with Republican war hawks like Rick Scott to escalate the war on China! Luria argues in her op-ed that expanding the president’s legal authority to use military force against China would “de-escalate the situation” and “deter an all-out war" — never mind the fact that a U.S.-China conflict would de facto be a global conflict. This is a page right out of the U.S. Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex’s playbook, and we’ve seen it end before in mass death, devastation, and more cyclical violence in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Vietnam, and countless other regions. A U.S. Military intervention over Taiwan would severely risk nuclear war, a subsequent nuclear winter, and planetary extinction. The United States already came narrowly close to nuclear war with China and the Soviet Union over the Taiwan Strait in 1958.

Send a letter to tell Representative Luria: U.S. Military interventions don’t make the world safer — they endanger us all!

If Elaine Luria really wants to “deter an all-out war,” she should support life-affirming policies that U.S. citizens so desperately need to address domestic food insecurity, housing and healthcare inequality, climate catastrophes, and more! No U.S. war on China!

Onward toward peace,

Madison, Jodie, the CODEPINK China Is Not Our Enemy campaign, and CODEPINK

P.S. Don't miss the next China Is Not Our Enemy webinar, A View from India: The Quad & AUKUS, THIS Wednesday, 10/27 at 12pm ET with Prabir Purkayastha of Newsclick & CODEPINK co-founder Jodie Evans! RSVP now!

=====================================

Zie ook: 'Brits marineschip provoceert China in de Straat van Taiwan: op weg naar Wereldoorlog III'

'China: Ausländische Schiffe müssen sich in chinesischen Gewässern registrieren' 

'Australië laat zich chanteren door de VS: niet langer 'het beest China' voeren'

'Veronderstel dat er een terreurgroep zou zijn die in bezit was van: drones, kruisraketten, kernkoppen, straaljagers, vliegdekschepen en bases over de hele wereld'

'Militaire bases VS goed voor grote 'defensie uitgaven' en een garantie voor komende oorlogsvoering' 

'BBC met anti-Chinese propaganda over de ontwikkelingshulp die China biedt met de Zijderoute'

'VS agressie politiek ten aanzien van China en Iran is desastreus en gevaarlijk voor de hele wereld'

'Coronavirus: Fort Detrick eindelijk als verdachte van oorsprong aangemerkt'

'EU ministers van Buitenlandse Zaken en de Europese Commissie demoniseren China vanwege de Zijderoute (BRI) en hulp aan Montenegro.....'

'Chinese antipropaganda: de ontwikkeling van supersoldaten...... ha! ha! ha! ha!'

'Rusland en China liggen tegenwoordig aan de Noordzee althans als het gaat om cyberaanvallen en phishing' (!!!!)

'De VS zet zichzelf wat betreft Rusland, China en Iran geopolitiek schaakmat'

'VS wil op militaire manier 'het gevaar China' neutraliseren'

'Kamala Harris, vicepresidentskandidaat voor de Democraten, geeft aan dat China ook onder Biden te maken zal hebben met een koude oorlog'

'Geheime diensten in westen geven toe dat spioneren via het G5 netwerk praktisch onmogelijk is........' (!!!!) Dit daar de VS en daarna de rest van het westen stelde dat het G5 netwerk van de Chinese firma Huawei zou kunnen worden gebruikt voor spionage, een leugen die men desondanks blijft herhalen.....

'VS zend oorlogsschip door de Straat van Taiwan nadat China Trump waarschuwde gereed te zijn voor oorlogsvoering.......'

'VS zet nucleaire raketten in met 'minilading', de weg naar een kernoorlog' (en zie de links in dat bericht)

'VS: China is een gevaar, terwijl China, uh de VS dat land omsingeld heeft met 400 bases...........' (!!!!)

'VS en Japan stoken samen de 'oorlogsboel' op over de Oost-Chinese Zee' (!!!!)

'Chinese marine troeft VS af in Zuid-Chinese Zee'

'Deutschland verschärft die Gangart gegen China' Duitsland stopt met toenadering tot China; met grote instemming van de VS terreurentiteit. 

'NAVO akkoord met plan tegen groeiende Russische dreiging, ofwel: NAVO bereidt zich voor op oorlog'

'NAVO operatie Sea Breeze: oefening in aanval op Rusland'

'Stoltenberg (NAVO) speelt de vermoorde onschuld en doet of hij serieus wil overleggen met Rusland'

'Voltallige top van de Strijdkrachten dient per direct ontslagen te worden, ze hebben zich niet met angst- en haatzaaierij tot het volk te richten' En dat in een zogenaamde democratie.... Zie wat dat betreft ook:

'Psst.nl, oplichters uit het leger die het volk proberen op te jutten meer geld voor Defensie te eisen'

'Tony Blinken (VS minister van BuZa) liegt als hij zegt dat de VS alleen met toestemming van het volk geweld gebruikt in het buitenland' 

'VS en Japan stoken samen de 'oorlogsboel' op over de Oost-Chinese Zee' (8 november 2018)

 De VS wordt aangevallen door landen die het haat op een manier die alleen de CIA 'kan zien''

'Samenzweringstheorie paniek wordt juist gevoed door 'tegenstanders' daarvan' 

----------------------------------

Hier nog wat voorbeelden van grootschalige VS terreur: 'VS vermoordde meer dan 20 miljoen mensen sinds het einde van WOII........' Dit tot het jaar 2000, wat betreft deze eeuw zijn er intussen meer dan 5 miljoen moorden aan toegevoegd, moorden begaan door de VS en NAVO-lidstaten, inclusief Nederland (waar terreurorganisatie NAVO onder opperbevel stond en staat van de VS...)....

'VS buitenlandbeleid sinds WOII: een lange lijst van staatsgrepen en oorlogen..........'

'List of wars involving the United States'

'CIA 70 jaar: 70 jaar moorden, martelen, coups plegen, nazi's beschermen, media manipulatie enz. enz.........' 

'VS: openlijke militaire oefening met terreurgroep in Syrië......'

'NAVO gaat VS helpen in Zuid-Amerika terreur uit te oefenen: Colombia lid van de NAVO.........'

'VS commando's vechten o.a. in Midden- en Zuid-Amerika, aldus het VS ministerie van oorlog.........'

'De VS, een duivels imperium, dat achter haar psychopathisch moordende troepen staat??'

'De war on drugs is veel dodelijker dan over het algemeen gedacht'

Noord-Korea een agressor? Hier de feiten!

Noord-Korea wordt door de regering van Trump en daarmee door de rest van de westerse landen gezien als een bedreiging...... Niet dat Noord-Korea, zoals de VS, de ene na de andere illegale oorlog begint, of illegale geheime militaire missies uitvoert in landen waar het haar maar uitkomt, zoals de VS al meer dan 100 jaar doet en nee N-K organiseert geen staatsgrepen, of opstanden die tot staatsgrepen moeten leiden, zoals de VS keer op keer doet...... Ondanks dat wordt Noord-Korea niet alleen gezien als een bedreiging voor de VS en andere landen, maar wordt het land zelfs gezien als een bedreiging voor de wereldvrede.........

Ondanks alle 'mooie praatjes' van het beest Trump, de huidige president van de VS, ten spijt, wenst dit 'land' niet in gesprek te gaan met Noord-Korea, zoals een woordvoerder van Tillerson, de VS minister van Buitenlandse Zaken, op 5 augustus jl. in Manilla liet weten........

Het is niet vreemd dat Noord-Korea een eigen atoomwapen wil hebben, immers de VS heeft zoals gezegd al zoveel landen aangevallen, dat het bewind serieus moet vrezen voor een VS aanval op haar grondgebied....... Vergeet daarnaast niet dat de VS maar liefst 15 militaire bases in Zuid-Korea heeft, waarvan er 1 direct aan de grens (gedemilitariseerde zone) van N-K staat en een andere dichtbij die grens. Deze bases zijn voorzien van het modernste militaire moordwapentuig en meerdere massavernietigingswapens.......

Beste bezoeker, lees het volgende artikel waarin nog veel meer feiten op een rij worden gezet, dit artikel werd vorige week donderdag op Information Clearing House gepubliceerd en werd overgenomen van Global Research. Onder het artikel kan u klikken voor een vertaling (neemt wel enige tijd in beslag):

North Korea, An Aggressor? A Reality Check

By Felicity Arbuthnot

“ … war in our time is always indiscriminate, a war against innocents, a war against children.”(Howard Zinn, 1922-2010.)

“All war represents a failure of diplomacy.” (Tony Benn, MP. 1925-2014.)

“No country too poor, too small, too far away, not to be threat, a threat to the American way of life.” (William Blum, “Rogue State.”)   

August 24, 2017 "Information Clearing House" - The mention of one tiny country appears to strike at the rationality and sanity of those who should know far better. On Sunday, 6^th August, for example, The Guardian headed an editorial: “The Guardian view on sanctions: an essential tool.” Clearly the average of five thousands souls a month, the majority children, dying of “embargo related causes” in Iraq, year after grinding year – genocide in the name of the UN – for over a decade has long been forgotten by the broadsheet of the left.

This time of course, the target is North Korea upon whom the United Nations Security Council has voted unanimously to freeze, strangulate and deny essentials, normality, humanity. Diplomacy as ever, not even a consideration. The Guardian, however, incredibly, declared the decimating sanctions: “A rare triumph of diplomacy …” (Guardian 6^th August 2017.)

As US Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, the US’ top “diplomat” and his North Korean counterpart Ri Yong-ho headed for the annual Ministerial meeting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in Manila on 5^th August, a State Department spokesperson said of Tillerson:

“The Secretary has no plans to meet the North Korean Foreign Minister in Manila, and I don’t expect to see that happen”

Pathetic. In April, approaching his hundredth day in office, Trump said of North Korea:

“We’d love to solve things diplomatically but it’s very difficult.”

No it is not. Talk, walk in the other’s psychological shoes. Then, there they were at the same venue but the Trump Administration clearly does not alone live in a land of missed opportunities, but of opportunities deliberately buried in landfill miles deep. This in spite of his having said in the same statement:

“There is a chance that we could end up having a major, major conflict with North Korea. Absolutely.”

A bit of perspective: 27^th July 2017 marked sixty four years since the armistice agreement that ended the devastating three year Korean war, however there has never been a peace treaty, thus technically the Korean war has never ended. Given that and American’s penchant for wiping out countries with small populations which pose them no threat (think most recently, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya) no wonder North Korea wishes to look as if it has some heavy protective gear behind the front door, so to speak.

Tiny North Korea has a population of just 25.37 million and landmass of 120,540 km² (square kilometres.) The US has a population of 323.1 million and a landmass of 9.834 MILLION km² (square kilometres.) Further, since 1945, the US is believed to have produced some 70,000 nuclear weapons – though now down to a “mere” near 7,000 – but North Korea is a threat?  

America has fifteen military bases in South Korea – down from a staggering fifty four – bristling with every kind of weapons of mass destruction. Two bases are right on the North Korean border and another nearly as close. See full details of each, with map at (1.)

North Korea also has the collective memory of the horror wrought by the US in the three year conflict on a country then with a population of just 9.6 million souls. US General Curtis Lemay in the aftermath stated: “After destroying North Korea’s seventy eight cities and thousands of her villages, and killing countless numbers of her civilians … Over a period of three years or so we killed off – what – twenty percent of the population.”

“It is now believed that the population north of the imposed 38th Parallel lost nearly a third its population of 8 – 9 million people during the 37-month long ‘hot’ war, 1950 – 1953, perhaps an unprecedented percentage of mortality suffered by one nation due to the belligerence of another.” (2) 

In context:

“During The Second World War the United Kingdom lost 0.94% of its population, France lost 1.35%, China lost 1.89% and the US lost 0.32%. During the Korean war, North Korea lost close to 30 % of its population.” (Emphasis added.)

“We went over there and fought the war and eventually burned down every town in North Korea anyway, some way or another …”, boasted Lemay.

Gen. Douglas MacArthur said during a Congressional hearing in 1951 that he had never seen such devastation.

“I shrink with horror that I cannot express in words … at this continuous slaughter of men in Korea,” MacArthur said. “I have seen, I guess, as much blood and disaster as any living man, and it just curdled my stomach, the last time I was there.” (CNN, 28^th July 2017.)

Horrified as he was, he did not mention the incinerated women, children, infants in the same breath.

Moreover, as Robert M. Neer wrote in “Napalm, an American Biography”:

‘“Practically every U.S. fighter plane that has flown into Korean air carried at least two napalm bombs,” Chemical Officer Townsend wrote in January 1951. About 21,000 gallons of napalm hit Korea every day in 1950. As combat intensified after China’s intervention, that number more than tripled (…) a total of 32,357 tons of napalm fell on Korea, about double that dropped on Japan in 1945. Not only did the allies drop more bombs on Korea than in the Pacific theater during World War II – 635,000 tons, versus 503,000 tons – more of what fell was napalm …’

In the North Korean capitol, Pyongyang, just two buildings were reported as still standing.

In the unending history of US warmongering, North Korea is surely the smallest population they had ever attacked until their assault on tiny Grenada in October 1983, population then just 91,000 (compulsory silly name: “Operation Urgent Fury.)

North Korea has been taunted by the US since it lay in ruins after the armistice sixty five years ago, yet as ever, the US Administration paints the vast, self appointed “leader of the free world” as the victim.

As Fort-Russ pointed out succinctly (7^th August 2017):

“The Korean Peninsula is in a state of crisis not only due to constant US threats towards North Korea, but also due to various provocative actions, such as Washington conducting joint military exercises with Seoul amid tensions, and which Pyongyang considered a threat to its national security.”

This month “massive land, sea and air exercises” involving “tens of thousands of troops” from the US and South Korea began on 21^st  of August and continue until 31st.

‘In the past, the practices are believed to have included “decapitation strikes” – trial operations for an attempt to kill Kim Jong-un and his top Generals …’, according to the Guardian (11^th August 2017.)

The obligatory stupid name chosen for this dangerous, belligerent, money burning, sabre rattling nonsense is Ulchi-Freedom Guardian. It is an annual occurrence since first initiated back in 1976.

US B-1B bombers flying from Guam recently carried out exercises in South Korea and “practiced attack capabilities by releasing inert weapons at the Pilsung Range.” In a further provocative (and illegal) move, US bombers were again reported to overfly North Korea, another of many such bullying, threatening actions, reportedly eleven just since May this year.

Yet in spite of all, North Korea is the “aggressor.”

“The nuclear warheads of United States of America are stored in some twenty one locations, which include thirteen U.S. states and five European countries … some are on board U.S. submarines. There are some “zombie” nuclear warheads as well, and they are kept in reserve, and as many as 3,000 of these are still awaiting their dismantlement. (The US) also extends its “nuclear umbrella” to such other countries as South Korea, Japan, and Australia.” (worldatlas.com)

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov who also attended the ASEAN meeting in Manila, did of course, do what proper diplomats do and talked with his North Korean counterpart Ri Yong-ho. Minister Lavrov’s opinion was summed up by a Fort Russ News observer as:

“The Korean Peninsula is in a state of crisis not only due to constant US threats towards North Korea, but also due to various provocative actions, such as Washington conducting joint military exercises with Seoul amid tensions, and which Pyongyang considered a threat to its national security.”

The “provocative actions” also include the threatening over-flights by US ‘planes flying from Guam. However when North Korea said if this continued they would consider firing missiles in to the ocean near Guam – not as was reported by some hystericals as threatening to bomb Guam – Agent Orange who occasionally pops in to the White House between golf rounds and eating chocolate cake whilst muddling up which country he has dropped fifty nine Tomahawk Cruise missiles on, responded that tiny North Korea will again be: “… met with fire and fury and frankly power, the likes of which the world has never seen before.”

It was barely noticed that North Korea qualified the threat of a shot across the bows by stating pretty reasonably:

(The US) “should immediately stop its reckless military provocation against the State of the DPRK so that the latter would not be forced to make an unavoidable military choice.” (3)

As Cheryl Rofer (see 3) continued, instead of endless threats, US diplomacy could have many routes:

“We could have sent a message to North Korea via the recent Canadian visit to free one of their citizens. We could send a message through the Swedish embassy to North Korea, which often represents US interests. We could arrange some diplomatic action on which China might take the lead. There are many possibilities, any of which might show North Korea that we are willing to back off from practices that scare them if they will consider backing off on some of their actions. That would not include their nuclear program explicitly at this time, but it would leave the way open for later.”

are in fact, twenty four diplomatic missions in all, in North Korea through which the US could request to communicate – or Trump could even behave like a grown up and pick up the telephone.

Siegfried Hecker is the last known American official to inspect North Korea’s nuclear facilities. He says that treating Kim Jong-un as though he is on the verge of attacking the U.S. is both inaccurate and dangerous.

“Some like to depict Kim as being crazy – a madman – and that makes the public believe that the guy is undeterrable. He’s not crazy and he’s not suicidal. And he’s not even unpredictable. The real threat is we’re going to stumble into a nuclear war on the Korean Peninsula.” (5)

Trump made his crass “fire and fury” threat on the eve of the sixty second commemoration of the US nuclear attack on Nagasaki, the nauseating irony seemingly un-noticed by him.

Will some adults pitch up on Capitol Hill before it is too late?

Notes

1. https://militarybases.com/ south-korea/
2. http://www.globalresearch.ca/ know-the-facts-north-korea- lost-close-to-30-of-its- population-as-a-result-of-us- bombings-in-the-1950s/22131
3. https://nucleardiner. wordpress.com/2017/08/11/ north-korea-reaches-out/
4. https://www.commondreams.org/ news/2017/08/08/sane-voices- urge-diplomacy-after-lunatic- trump-threatens-fire-and-fury
Featured image is from Socialist Project.

This article was first published by Global Research -

Copyright © Felicity Arbuthnot

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

============================

Zie ook: 'Noord-Korea heeft meermaals aangeboden haar kernwapenprogramma te stoppen, ofwel wat de media verzwijgen......'

       en: 'Putin waarschuwt voor een planetaire nucleaire catastrofe en roept om vreedzame diplomatie met Noord-Korea'

       en: 'Noord-Koreaanse raket zorgt voor belachelijke massahysterie.......'

       en: 'VS buitenlandbeleid sinds WOII: een lange lijst van staatsgrepen en oorlogen..........'

       en: 'Noord-Korea verkeerd begrepen: het land wordt bedreigd door de VS, dat alleen deze eeuw al minstens 4 illegale oorlogen begon........'

       en: 'Raketwetenschappers over Noord-Korea's kernraketten bluf en angstzaaierij in de VS......'

       en: 'North Korea: Killer Sanctions Imposed By The UN Security Council'

       en: 'North Korea Does Not Trust America for a Pretty Good Reason'

       en: 'Only Morons Believe What The US Government Says About North Korea'

       en: 'Noord-Korea een gevaar voor de VS? Daar is N-K niet voor nodig: de VS besmet haar eigen burgers met radioactieve straling!'

       en: 'VS dreigt Noord-Korea met wat je niet anders dan een nucleaire aanval kan noemen........'

       en: 'Noord-Korea: VS negeert de waarschuwing van China niet door te gaan, met voorgenomen militaire oefening tegen N-K.......'

       en: 'NBC presentator geeft toe dat het de taak van NBC is de mensen doodsbang te maken voor Noord-Korea....... Ofwel: 'fake news' op en top!!'

       en: 'Noord-Koreaanse raketten zijn waardeloos, aldus VS generaal Selva.......'

       en: 'Noord-Korea en de VS: de planning van de VS om Rusland en China aan te vallen met kernraketten........'

      en:  'Korea, Afghanistan and the Never Ending War Trap' (met ook daaronder een mogelijkheid tot vertaling)

De werkelijke reden voor de VS atoomaanvallen op Hiroshima en Nagasaki.... Niet om de oorlog met Japan ten einde te brengen.......

Het volgende artikel vond ik 17 maart jl. op het blog van Stan van Houcke. Het artikel komt oorspronkelijk van Global Research en maakt gehakt van de leugen, dat het bombarderen van twee dichtbevolkte Japanse steden met een atoombom, nodig was om een eind te maken aan de oorlog met Japan (WOII). Een grotere oorlogsmisdaad is bijna niet te bedenken........

De echte reden voor de atoomaanvallen was al bekend, maar goed te zien, dat e.e.a. nu ruimschoots terug te vinden is in (officiële) documenten.

Zelfs veel hooggeplaatste militairen spraken zich destijds uit tegen het gebruik van dit barbaarse wapen..........

Jammer dat de meeste mensen die getuige waren van deze vreselijke oorlogsmisdaad (ook de 'getuigen op afstand' zoals in Nederland), intussen zijn overleden..... Hen werd, precies als latere generaties, de leugen ingeprent, dat dit de enige manier was om de oorlog met Japan te beëindigen.......

U kunt in het volgende artikel o.a. lezen, dat de VS, voorafgaand aan het tot 2 keer toe bombarderen met atoombommen, van een dichtbevolkte Japanse stad, een wapenstilstand met Japan weigerde, daar Japan de keizer niet wilde afzetten, laat staan vervolgen. Met die voorwaarde ging de VS na de 2 aanvallen met atoombommen toch akkoord......... Daarmee was het overduidelijk, dat de VS deze aanvallen met atoombommen heeft gebruikt, om de effecten daarvan te zien en te onderzoeken...... De Japanse burgers werden in feite als proefdier gebruikt....... 



Hier het artikel (dat overigens op 2 november 2012 werd gepubliceerd):

The Real Reason America Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan. It Was Not To End the War Or Save Lives.

By Washington's Blog / globalresearch.ca / Nov 2, 2012

Like all Americans, I was taught that the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to end WWII and save both American and Japanese lives.

But most of the top American military officials at the time said otherwise. 

The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that concluded (52-56):

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

General (and later president) Dwight Eisenhower – then Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces, and the officer who created most of America’s WWII military plans for Europe and Japan – said:

The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.

Newsweek, 11/11/63, Ike on Ike

Eisenhower also noted (pg. 380):

In [July] 1945… Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. …the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude….

Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):

It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

General Douglas MacArthur agreed (pg. 65, 70-71):

MacArthur’s views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed …. When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.

Moreover (pg. 512):

The Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face ‘prompt and utter destruction.’ MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General’s advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary.

Similarly, Assistant Secretary of War John McLoy noted (pg. 500):

I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs.

Under Secretary of the Navy Ralph Bird said:

I think that the Japanese were ready for peace, and they already had approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. And that suggestion of [giving] a warning [of the atomic bomb] was a face-saving proposition for them, and one that they could have readily accepted.

***

In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb. Thus, it wouldn’t have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing much more rapidly than they would have if we had not dropped the bomb.

War Was Really Won Before We Used A-Bomb, U.S. News and World Report, 8/15/60, pg. 73-75.

He also noted (pg. 144-145, 324):

It definitely seemed to me that the Japanese were becoming weaker and weaker. They were surrounded by the Navy. They couldn’t get any imports and they couldn’t export anything. Naturally, as time went on and the war developed in our favor it was quite logical to hope and expect that with the proper kind of a warning the Japanese would then be in a position to make peace, which would have made it unnecessary for us to drop the bomb and have had to bring Russia in.

General Curtis LeMay, the tough cigar-smoking Army Air Force “hawk,” stated publiclyshortly before the nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan:

The war would have been over in two weeks. . . . The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.

The Vice Chairman of the U.S. Bombing Survey Paul Nitze wrote (pg. 36-37, 44-45):

[I] concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945.

***

Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a U.S. invasion of the islands [scheduled for November 1, 1945] would have been necessary.

Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence Ellis Zacharias wrote:

Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia.

Washington decided that Japan had been given its chance and now it was time to use the A-bomb.

I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds.

Ellis Zacharias, How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender, Look, 6/6/50, pg. 19-21.

Brigadier General Carter Clarke – the military intelligence officer in charge of preparing summaries of intercepted Japanese cables for President Truman and his advisors – said (pg. 359):

When we didn’t need to do it, and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs.

Many other high-level military officers concurred. For example:

The commander in chief of the U.S. Fleet and Chief of Naval Operations, Ernest J. King, stated that the naval blockade and prior bombing of Japan in March of 1945, had rendered the Japanese helpless and that the use of the atomic bomb was both unnecessary and immoral. Also, the opinion of Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz was reported to have said in a press conference on September 22, 1945, that “The Admiral took the opportunity of adding his voice to those insisting that Japan had been defeated before the atomic bombing and Russia’s entry into the war.” In a subsequent speech at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945, Admiral Nimitz stated “The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war.” It was learned also that on or about July 20, 1945, General Eisenhower had urged Truman, in a personal visit, not to use the atomic bomb. Eisenhower’s assessment was “It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing . . . to use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting [negotiations], was a double crime.” Eisenhower also stated that it wasn’t necessary for Truman to “succumb” to [the tiny handful of people putting pressure on the president to drop atom bombs on Japan.]

British officers were of the same mind. For example, General Sir Hastings Ismay, Chief of Staff to the British Minister of Defence, said to Prime Minister Churchill that “when Russia came into the war against Japan, the Japanese would probably wish to get out on almost any terms short of the dethronement of the Emperor.”

On hearing that the atomic test was successful, Ismay’s private reaction was one of “revulsion.”

Why Were Bombs Dropped on Populated Cities Without Military Value?

Even military officers who favored use of nuclear weapons mainly favored using them on unpopulated areas or Japanese military targets … not cities.

For example, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy Lewis Strauss proposed to Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal that a non-lethal demonstration of atomic weapons would be enough to convince the Japanese to surrender … and the Navy Secretary agreed (pg. 145, 325):

I proposed to Secretary Forrestal that the weapon should be demonstrated before it was used. Primarily it was because it was clear to a number of people, myself among them, that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate… My proposal to the Secretary was that the weapon should be demonstrated over some area accessible to Japanese observers and where its effects would be dramatic. I remember suggesting that a satisfactory place for such a demonstration would be a large forest of cryptomeria trees not far from Tokyo. The cryptomeria tree is the Japanese version of our redwood… I anticipated that a bomb detonated at a suitable height above such a forest… would lay the trees out in windrows from the center of the explosion in all directions as though they were matchsticks, and, of course, set them afire in the center. It seemed to me that a demonstration of this sort would prove to the Japanese that we could destroy any of their cities at will… Secretary Forrestal agreed wholeheartedly with the recommendation…

It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion, that once used it would find its way into the armaments of the world…

General George Marshall agreed:

Contemporary documents show that Marshall felt “these weapons might first be used against straight military objectives such as a large naval installation and then if no complete result was derived from the effect of that, he thought we ought to designate a number of large manufacturing areas from which the people would be warned to leave–telling the Japanese that we intend to destroy such centers….”

As the document concerning Marshall’s views suggests, the question of whether the use of the atomic bomb was justified turns … on whether the bombs had to be used against a largely civilian target rather than a strictly military target—which, in fact, was the explicit choice since although there were Japanese troops in the cities, neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki was deemed militarily vital by U.S. planners. (This is one of the reasons neither had been heavily bombed up to this point in the war.) Moreover, targeting [at Hiroshima and Nagasaki] was aimed explicitly on non-military facilities surrounded by workers’ homes.

Historians Agree that the Bomb Wasn’t Needed

Historians agree that nuclear weapons did not need to be used to stop the war or save lives.

As historian Doug Long notes:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission historian J. Samuel Walker has studied the history of research on the decision to use nuclear weapons on Japan. In his conclusion he writes, “The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisors knew it.” (J. Samuel Walker, The Decision to Use the Bomb: A Historiographical Update, Diplomatic History, Winter 1990, pg. 110).

Politicians Agreed

Many high-level politicians agreed. For example, Herbert Hoover said (pg. 142):

The Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945…up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; …if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs.

Under Secretary of State Joseph Grew noted (pg. 29-32):

In the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the [retention of the] dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the [Japanese] Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision.

If surrender could have been brought about in May, 1945, or even in June or July, before the entrance of Soviet Russia into the [Pacific] war and the use of the atomic bomb, the world would have been the gainer.

Why Then Were Atom Bombs Dropped on Japan?

If dropping nuclear bombs was unnecessary to end the war or to save lives, why was the decision to drop them made? Especially over the objections of so many top military and political figures?

One theory is that scientists like to play with their toys:

On September 9, 1945, Admiral William F. Halsey, commander of the Third Fleet, was publicly quoted extensively as stating that the atomic bomb was used because the scientists had a “toy and they wanted to try it out . . . .” He further stated, “The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment . . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it.”

However, most of the Manhattan Project scientists who developed the atom bomb were opposed to using it on Japan.

Albert Einstein – an important catalyst for the development of the atom bomb (but not directly connected with the Manhattan Project) – said differently:

“A great majority of scientists were opposed to the sudden employment of the atom bomb.” In Einstein’s judgment, the dropping of the bomb was a political – diplomatic decision rather than a military or scientific decision.

Indeed, some of the Manhattan Project scientists wrote directly to the secretary of defense in 1945 to try to dissuade him from dropping the bomb:

We believe that these considerations make the use of nuclear bombs for an early, unannounced attack against Japan inadvisable. If the United States would be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race of armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons.

Political and Social Problems, Manhattan Engineer District Records, Harrison-Bundy files, folder # 76, National Archives (also contained in: Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed, 1987 edition, pg. 323-333).

The scientists questioned the ability of destroying Japanese cities with atomic bombs to bring surrender when destroying Japanese cities with conventional bombs had not done so, and – like some of the military officers quoted above – recommended a demonstration of the atomic bomb for Japan in an unpopulated area.

The Real Explanation?

History.com notes:

In the years since the two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, a number of historians have suggested that the weapons had a two-pronged objective …. It has been suggested that the second objective was to demonstrate the new weapon of mass destruction to the Soviet Union. By August 1945, relations between the Soviet Union and the United States had deteriorated badly. The Potsdam Conference between U.S. President Harry S. Truman, Russian leader Joseph Stalin, and Winston Churchill (before being replaced by Clement Attlee) ended just four days before the bombing of Hiroshima. The meeting was marked by recriminations and suspicion between the Americans and Soviets. Russian armies were occupying most of Eastern Europe. Truman and many of his advisers hoped that the U.S. atomic monopoly might offer diplomatic leverage with the Soviets. In this fashion, the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan can be seen as the first shot of the Cold War.

New Scientist reported in 2005:

The US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was meant to kick-start the Cold War rather than end the Second World War, according to two nuclear historians who say they have new evidence backing the controversial theory.

Causing a fission reaction in several kilograms of uranium and plutonium and killing over 200,000 people 60 years ago was done more to impress the Soviet Union than to cow Japan, they say. And the US President who took the decision, Harry Truman, was culpable, they add.

“He knew he was beginning the process of annihilation of the species,” says Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University in Washington DC, US. “It was not just a war crime; it was a crime against humanity.”

***

[The conventional explanation of using the bombs to end the war and save lives] is disputed by Kuznick and Mark Selden, a historian from Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, US.

***

New studies of the US, Japanese and Soviet diplomatic archives suggest that Truman’s main motive was to limit Soviet expansion in Asia, Kuznick claims. Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union began an invasion a few days after the Hiroshima bombing, not because of the atomic bombs themselves, he says.

According to an account by Walter Brown, assistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima that Japan was “looking for peace”. Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb.

“Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan,” says Selden.

John Pilger points out:

The US secretary of war, Henry Stimson, told President Truman he was “fearful” that the US air force would have Japan so “bombed out” that the new weapon would not be able “to show its strength”. He later admitted that “no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb”. His foreign policy colleagues were eager “to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip”. General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project that made the bomb, testified: “There was never any illusion on my part that Russia was our enemy, and that the project was conducted on that basis.” The day after Hiroshima was obliterated, President Truman voiced his satisfaction with the “overwhelming success” of “the experiment”.

We’ll give the last word to University of Maryland professor of political economy – and former Legislative Director in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, and Special Assistant in the Department of State – Gar Alperovitz:

Though most Americans are unaware of the fact, increasing numbers of historians now recognize the United States did not need to use the atomic bomb to end the war against Japan in 1945. Moreover, this essential judgment was expressed by the vast majority of top American military leaders in all three services in the years after the war ended: Army, Navy and Army Air Force. Nor was this the judgment of “liberals,” as is sometimes thought today. In fact, leading conservatives were far more outspoken in challenging the decision as unjustified and immoral than American liberals in the years following World War II.

***

Instead [of allowing other options to end the war, such as letting the Soviets attack Japan with ground forces], the United States rushed to use two atomic bombs at almost exactly the time that an August 8 Soviet attack had originally been scheduled: Hiroshima on August 6 and Nagasaki on August 9. The timing itself has obviously raised questions among many historians. The available evidence, though not conclusive, strongly suggests that the atomic bombs may well have been used in part because American leaders “preferred”—as Pulitzer Prize–winning historian Martin Sherwin has put it—to end the war with the bombs rather than the Soviet attack. Impressing the Soviets during the early diplomatic sparring that ultimately became the Cold War also appears likely to have been a significant factor.

***

The most illuminating perspective, however, comes from top World War II American military leaders. The conventional wisdom that the atomic bomb saved a million lives is so widespread that … most Americans haven’t paused to ponder something rather striking to anyone seriously concerned with the issue: Not only did most top U.S. military leaders think the bombings were unnecessary and unjustified, many were morally offended by what they regarded as the unnecessary destruction of Japanese cities and what were essentially noncombat populations. Moreover, they spoke about it quite openly and publicly.

***

Shortly before his death General George C. Marshall quietly defended the decision, but for the most part he is on record as repeatedly saying that it was not a military decision, but rather a political one.

========================
Zie ook:
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/05/09/the-real-reason-america-dropped-the-atomic-bomb-it-was-not-to-end-the-war/ 


'In de VS berichtte men in 1945, dat Hiroshima 'a military base' was.......'

'Hiroshima, één van de grootste oorlogsmisdaden ooit, 71 jaar later redenen te over voor herdenking!'

'Hiroshima en Nagasaki, aanvallen zijn niet te verdedigen enorme oorlogsmisdaden >> The Indefensible Hiroshima Revisionism That Haunts America To This Day'

'Atoomaanvallen op Hiroshima en Nagasaki, één van de grootste oorlogsmisdaden uit de menselijke geschiedenis'

'Overlevenden atoomaanval op Hiroshima vragen om een verbod op kernwapens'

'Hashima en de Japanse ontkenning van wreedheden tijdens WOII'

en zie voor verdere VS-terreur na WOII:
'VS vermoordde meer dan 20 miljoen mensen sinds het einde van WOII........'

'VS buitenlandbeleid sinds WOII: een lange lijst van staatsgrepen en oorlogen..........'

'List of wars involving the United States'

'CIA 70 jaar: 70 jaar moorden, martelen, coups plegen, nazi's beschermen, media manipulatie enz. enz.........'

'Noord-Korea verkeerd begrepen: het land wordt bedreigd door de VS, dat alleen deze eeuw al minstens 4 illegale oorlogen begon........'

Voor meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande, klik op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht terug kan vinden, dit geldt niet voor de labels: Halsey, MacArthur, Manhattan Project, Marshall en Potsdam,