This is a good article to start:

TOQ-Stephen J. Sniegoski-Pearl Harbor-Vol 1 No 2

Shameful, despicable stuff. I would not expect poison like this from a poster like you.

Now hatred of Americans has become so prevalent and trendy that our own history is being pillaged and turned inside out so that Americans are evil in all circumstances, reagrdless of what happened. Those who died in WWII would be sickened and disgusted. The brutality and sadism of imperial Japan resulted in death, torture, starvation and slaughter for millions - yet you blame Americans.

You are people without shame, decency, character, courage, conscience or honor.

__________________
"Our fears in Banquo
Stick deep; in his royalty of nature
Reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares;
And, to that dauntless temper of his mind,
He hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour
To act in safety."

Macbeth 3:1

I would be happy to agree with you. Unfortunately the realism in USA means conspiracies, assassinations, genocides, occupations, WMDs (incl. DU), betrayal, CIA drug deals, military dictators, greediness for natural resources, waste of resources, environmental devastation, etc. You have two options 1) agree the US system or 2) oppose it and act.

Your own governmental court has made clear decisions on the Pearl Harbor case and Roosevelt and around 30 of other conspirators were found to be guilty for the catastrophe by actively organizing the Japanese attack and making sure that the outcome is so devastating that the Americans would be ready to pay the WW2. You will find all the links below in earlier posts.

Yes, because we all know that we shouldnt have entered WWII.

Here are very good scientific but easy articles about this issue:

Quote:
Parallels Between Pearl Harbor and 9/11
While it occurred some 60 years ago, the attack on Pearl Harbor provides vital information for understanding current events.
Indeed, the White House apparently had, a year before Pearl Harbor, launched an 8-point plan to provoke Japan into war against the U.S. (including, for example, an oil embargo). The rationale for this provocation is that the U.S. wanted to aid its allies in fighting the Nazis and other axis powers, and decided that an attack by Japan would be the most advantageous justification for the U.S. to enter WWII.
It has also recently been discovered that the FDR administration took numerous affirmative steps to ensure that the Japanese attack would be successful. These steps included taking extraordinary measures to hide information from the commanders in Hawaii about the location of Japanese war ships (information of which they would normally be informed), denying their requests to allow them to scout for Japanese ships, and other actions to blind the commanders in Hawaii so that the attacks would succeed.
As with Pearl Harbor, the U.S. government had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks:
According to MSNBC, "There have been a slew of reports over the past decade of plots to use planes to strike American targets".
For example, a 1998 report forwarded from the FBI to the Federal Aviation Administration concluded that "a group of unidentified Arabs planned to fly an explosive-laden plane . . . into the World Trade Center"
The CIA Director had warned congress shortly before 9/11 "that there could be an attack, an imminent attack, on the United States of this nature. So this is not entirely unexpected" according to a broadcast on National Public Radio
It was widely known within the FBI shortly before 9/11 that an imminent attack was planned on lower Manhattan.
An employee who worked in the south tower stated "How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we'd been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on"
Is it a coincidence that "On Sept. 10, NEWSWEEK has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns"
As with Pearl Harbor, the government actively interfered with the military and intelligence agencies' ability to prevent the attack.

George Washington's Blog: Parallels Between Pearl Harbor and 9/11

Quote:
Pearl Harbor, according to top historians, involved hundreds of people. 9/11, in contrast, could have involved fewer people. Indeed, one could argue that it involved ONE person. Let's say -- just as an example randomly pulled out of a hat -- Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney was apparently in charge of the entire U.S. government’s counter-terrorism program prior to 9/11, and in charge of ALL 5 of the war games which occurred on 9/11, and Mr. Cheney also coordinated the government's "response" to the attacks. In addition, a former Los Angeles police department investigator, whose newsletter is read by 45 members of congress, both the house and senate intelligence committees, and professors at more than 40 universities around the world, claims that Cheney was in charge of the entire military and the secret service during the 9/11 attacks, that the secret service has its own communications system which is parallel to and can even cut into normal military communication channels. Cheney has a long-standing history of falsifying and manipulating facts and taking brutal actions in furtherance of his imperial goals.

Years after the 9/11 Commission issued its report, governmental whistleblowers have leaked the following facts:

• The Pentagon and Norad intentionally lied about what happened on 9/11 (free subscription required), and the 9/11 Commission knew this, but concealed this fact from the American people

• The U.S. government was tracking many of the 9/11 hijackers long before 9/11, and the 9/11 Commission was informed of this, but hid this fact from the American people

Moreover, many of the people who carried out 9/11 probably did so for ideological reasons -- they actually believed that killing 3,000 Americans was justified in a "ends justify the means" way as an excuse to carry out their agenda. Never underestimate the conviction of an idealogue.

George Washington's Blog: 9/11: a 7-Man Job

Analyst,

Why do you want so badly to believe in these conspiracies that you were thousands of miles away from and completly removed from?

I fail to see the agenda that blinds you.

__________________

Congratulations President-Elect Obama

Sorry to say - I am reading your official documents hidden to the American public. There are two kinds of realities in USA - 1) the media reality (=propaganda) and 2) the official reality (=fact).
A problem is that the official institutions like government is disseminating the type 1 reality. If you want to find out what is true you should go deep into the archives and research materials. Ordinary people does not have access to this reality type 2.

Incredible. It has just been proved (by dilletante) that there was nothing true in what you claimed previously*, yet you want others to believe you in even less provable claims!

*: it is difficult to tell which parts you misunderstood and which ones you made up. It is at least clear that you completely made up your claim that the conclusion to which Dilettante referred were "hypothesis", as there was nothing that even remotely suggested it in the document.

__________________
Client: In six days, do you hear me, six days, God made the world. And you are not bloody well capable of making me a pair of trousers in three months!
Tailor: But my dear Sir, my dear Sir, look at the world, and look at my trousers.
(Beckett)

IIIX - not at all. It is just difficult to show anything here as most people replying have not been reading the documents and then they just write that they don't believe. There is a big number of scientific studies about the court hearing and most details have been revealed. If you want to start to study this, read at first the impartial text in the link below and then move to official documents (and most other links have also good reference lists). The doctoral dissertations are very reliable and they show that FDR and about 30 his colleagues were guilty and also convicted - but the decision was ordered to be secret. The material has come to daylight little by little from several sources.

Herte just few pieces with references in the original scientific text (Stephen J. Sniegoski holds a Ph.D. in American diplomatic history and is the author of several historical articles):
Quote:
A recent Pearl Harbor investigator, Daryl S. Borgquist, contends that Don C. Smith, who directed War Services for the Red Cross before WWII, was told by Roosevelt in November 1941 to prepare secretly for an impending Japanese attack on Hawaii. This story came to light in a 1995 letter from Smith's daughter, Helen C. Hamman, to President Clinton dealing with the issue of the culpability of Admiral Kimmel and General Short, which was then being reconsidered by the U.S. government. Roosevelt, Ms. Hamman wrote, told her father that he was to keep this effort secret from the military personnel on Hawaii. Roosevelt said that "the American people would never agree to enter the war in Europe unless they were attack [sic] within their own borders." Borquist was able to confirm the basics of Hamman's story--the Red Cross did quietly send large quantities of medical supplies and experienced medical personnel to Hawaii shortly before Dec. 7, 1941.

The evidence would seem to be clear that Roosevelt provoked the Japanese to attack the United States. It is apparent that the U.S. could have taken alternative policies aimed at the preservation of peace. Furthermore, it seems clear that Roosevelt desired a Japanese attack on an American territory or ship in order to galvanize public support behind a declaration of war that would enable him to honor his commitments in the ADB agreement.

A related argument assumes that allowing the fleet to be destroyed was just too much of a risk for Roosevelt to have taken. But leaders considered "great" have been known for taking risks--think of Napoleon, or Alexander the Great. And the American risk was actually not that great considering what Roosevelt thought to be the alternative if the U.S. did not enter the war--Axis domination of the world that would imperil the U.S.. Moreover, because of the anti-war stance of the American public, Roosevelt realistically believed that only an overt attack on the U.S. could generate the necessary public support for war. Thus, from Roosevelt's point of view, only an attack on the U.S. would enable to U.S. to take the necessary step--i.e., war--for its survival. Any risk would be worth it--
Henry Stimson revealed in his diary that the White House proponents of war could see the positive results of the Pearl Harbor attack from the very outset:
When the news first came that Japan had attacked us my first feeling was of relief that the indecision was over and that a crisis had come in a way which would unite all our people.

TOQ-Stephen J. Sniegoski-Pearl Harbor-Vol 1 No 2

The recent evidence can only show that president FDR was the main person responsible for the P Harbor crime and that he had some 30 assistants in the implementation of the plan.

My analysis is that P Harbor and 9/11 are exactly analogical - and both wanted by the presidents - and in PNAC a new P Harbor was ordered and the outcome was 9/11.

yeah, the world would be a great place if it werent for US entry into WW2. I cry when i think what could have been.

Analyst, even if FDR did lie and deceive, which you have no evidence of except for a minority report that was probably politically motivated, how did it hurt america?

Are you willing to say we would be better off if we hadnt entered the War? the ends are the bottom line in my book.

Compare the American system with that of the Soviet and tell me which is/was worse.

The result would have been quite the same - only the US control in EU would have been more restricted. The fact is that the Soviets destroyed natsism and the US troops only came to EU to be present and control the western countries. The recent history research has shown that USA created the artificial tension between Soviet and the west. USA used e.g. the Gladio programme to maintain the Cold War and made its presence "necessary" in Europe. We still have US occupation in EU and NATO is our burden. Today USA is doing the same in Middle East ... and gives an fahe impression that it is a peace maker there even if the final goal is to control the region and its natural resources. USA does not have any real merits in Europe - other way round.

Ah, yes. If only the iron curtain had been allowed to extend all the way to the Atlantic, we'd likely be living in a worldwide socialist paradise right now.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

And now the US government is saying that if Bush had nor destroyed Iraq all the Americans would be now muslims. It is very easy to manipulate the Americans - maybe your education in global politics is not adequate for this kind of understanding. We Finns have lived all the time at the Soviet border, but have never had problems with them - since WW2. Today only the western EU countries are occupied by foreign troops - not the eastern ones.

Soviets did try twice to take over our country. And then they put in war reparations that they expected to break us. And then they demanded us to be their allies in case of a war. And placed a military base in artillery reach of our capital. And then they placed great numbers of KGB agents here. And then they expected to be able to subvert our country. And then in 1968 (linked to Czechoslovakian crisis) their military was preparing on the border something big, but we had a big military excercise near the border called if I remember correctly "Firestorm" and the activites ceased. And in the 70s they wanted our military to exercise with them. Also they suggested that they could occupy northern Finland. They finally admitted that we were a neutral country in the end of the 80s.

East European countries in your opinion could have gotten rid of the Soviet rule just by asking, right?

So funny when someone rebuttles a point made by someone else that has no relative value.