Copyright 1994 - 2018 Bill's Bible Basics
Authored By :
Published On :
December 15, 2003
Last Updated :
February 20, 2012
America's Hypocrisy, 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Elite Nuclear Club, Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Dropping Nukes Wasn't Necessary, Recognizing The Emperor, 1945 Potsdam Proclamation, Military Might Over Diplomacy, Enola Gay At Smithsonian Institute, America's Death Technology Business, Rising American Casualties A Liability, 2004 Election Year Blues, Broken Promises, America Abandons Afghanistan, Bush Underestimates Challenge In Iraq, Shifting The Focus, Bogus War Against Terrorism, Deception Begins, Bush Et Al Insist On Al-Qaeda Link, American And Iraqi War Casualties, Colin L. Powell Admits No Proof Of Saddam Al-Qaeda Link, Powell Before United Nations, New Evidence: Saddam And Bin Laden Had No Desire To Join Forces, American War Case Falls Apart Saddam Now A POW, My Views On Saddam, God Raises Up Leaders
As some of my readers already know, one of the things that really irks me regarding this entire affair, is the depth of the hypocrisy being displayed by the United States. Many of you are familiar with, or have at least heard about the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Signed in 1968 by Great Britain, the United States of America and the Soviet Union, the NPT was a global nuclear arms control document, whereby these nations agreed to not transfer nuclear weapons to any other nations, or to assist or encourage other nations to develop their own nuclear weapons. Since the NPT went into effect in 1970, only four nations have not signed it. These are India, Pakistan, Cuba and Israel. Also, as you may have heard, just recently, North Korea decided to pull out of the treaty.
Now, on the surface, we can all agree that this treaty was a wonderful development; but the sad thing about it, is that with each passing year, fewer and fewer nations are honoring it, and are clandestinely going about acquiring, developing, and testing nuclear arms any way they can. But what also bothers me about this treaty, is the fact that its stated purpose, and its true purpose are quite different. I don't believe for a minute that the motivations of the original signatories were completely selfless. I don't believe that their only concern was that the world would quickly become an even more dangerous place in which to live, unless some kind of control mechanism was placed on the acquisition and development of nuclear weapons. I highly suspect that this treaty was specifically designed to keep other nations out of their elite nuclear club. They didn't want anyone else climbing up their mountain, challenging them, and declaring themselves king of the hill.
I don't know about you, but I find it rather hypocritical that the United States of America is going around using the NPT as a tool to bludgeon other nations in the head, and to pick fights with them, when the USA has not been the most responsible nation in the world when it comes to nuclear technology. Must I remind everyone again that there is only one nation in this world which has ever used its horrible nuclear weapons to murder, maim, scar and deform several hundred thousand civilians in two deadly attacks during the past century? And yes, they were indeed innocent civilians, because they were not enemy combatants. They were everyday people just like you and me, who had children, and who were struggling to survive day to day in this mad world of ours. As a Christian, I may not agree with their main religions, Shintoism and Buddhism, but they were nevertheless people with a desire to live, just like you and me; and they were people who needed to hear about Jesus Christ. Many never did. What they learned about Christian America is that she is one hateful, violent, vengeful nation. They learned nothing about Christian love.
The tragedy here, is that dropping those two hellish bombs was not even necessary in the first place, in order to force Japan to surrender. Following the American victories in the Mariana Islands to the south, which allowed America to make bombing raids over the Japanese mainland, as well the aerial and naval blockades which had been placed around them, the leaders of Japan had already begun to realize that their war was a lost cause. Their primary condition for surrender was that their leader, Hirohito, would continue to be recognized as the Emperor of Japan. While you and I may not agree with it, you must understand that in the Japanese culture, the Emperor was viewed as a god, and their lives revolved around him. To destroy the office of the Emperor, was in essence to destroy the very fabric, the very heartbeat, of the Japanese culture; thus, the Japanese leadership of the time were very adamant about this condition being included in the American's terms of surrender, which it overtly wasn't.
I have read evidence, stated and/or written by government and military officials of the time, which clearly shows that had the Potsdam Proclamation of July 26, 1945 included this clause as a clear condition of surrender, the war could have come to a close before the bombs were dropped. Not only was that term of surrender purposely omitted from the message to the Japanese, but neither were they forewarned of what the USA was about to do to two of their heavily populated cities, if they did not surrender. Furthermore, the US Government did not even wait to see how Japan would react to the first bomb, which had been dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, before it decided to drop the second one on Nagasaki just three days later on August 9, 1945. There is clear evidence which points to the fact that the Japanese were involved in serious talks with the Soviets, in order to try to bring about an end to the war, but these developments were ignored by the American military brass. They were aware of them, as was President Truman, because the messages between Japan and Russia were being intercepted and decoded, but they intentionally chose military might over sound reasoning and patient diplomacy.
What I find very surprising, and even alarming, is that in the United States today, there is still the attitude held by some, that the nuclear strikes against Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both necessary and justified. Can you believe that? In fact, at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C., there is an exhibit of the "Enola Gay", which is the bomber which took off from an airstrip located on the island of Tinian in the Mariana Islands, in order to drop its deadly payload over Japan. From what I've read about the exhibit, the information it offers contains some serious inaccuracies regarding the attacks; and relates the events from a biased point of view, which seeks to justify America's unforgivable crimes against the Japanese civilian populations of those two cities. Quite frankly, while I can understand that what occurred in 1945 is a part of American history, I think that it is a shame, and an embarrassment to the nation, that such an exhibit even exists; particularly when it intentionally seeks to distort history, so as to make the two attacks appear as if they were unavoidable necessities, which they were most certainly not.
If any world leader were to perform those same horrible acts of violence in our modern day, he would quickly find himself in The Hague, standing before the International Criminal Court, accused of crimes against humanity; yet the United States has never been held accountable for what she did to the innocent civilians of Japan. Not only that, but since those horrific events of August 1945, the USA has continued to develop nuclear, biological and chemical weapons to use against her enemies in the battlefield; such as Napalm, Agent Orange, etc., as well as so-called "bunker busters", cluster bombs, laser-guided missiles, and an array of other devilish weapons. She has honed her ability to kill, maim and poison into a deadly craft, with which no other can compare. Not only that, but she earns billions of dollars every year by selling such technology of death to other nations who are willing to pay the price, and who support her causes.
As a final note on the above topic, almost two decades later, American president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, commented regarding the horrific events of the 1940's ". . . it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing". I couldn't agree with Mr. Eisenhower more.
Let us return now to Mr. Bush's current problems. Add to his WMD dilemma, the rising death toll of American soldiers, and it becomes clear that President Bush is in the proverbial "hot water", as far as the American electorate is concerned. According to a CNN news report, with the latest attack just yesterday, 500 U.S. servicemen have been killed in Iraq. This includes 346 in hostile action. Since Bush made his premature announcement on May 1st of last year, in which he declared the end of major combat, 361 Americans have been killed, 231 of those in hostile action. This must surely weigh heavily upon the president, given that this year is a make-or-break election year for him. Mr. Bush could very easily be out of office soon, unless there is a sudden and drastic change in the tide of events occurring within Iraq; and I don't know if his theatrics, like his "Top Gun" performance" on the deck of a returning aircraft carrier, or his surprise visit to Iraq, will be enough to save him. Like other presidents before him, Bush is good at made-for-TV shenanigans, which are aired primarily to woo and win the home audience. The rest of the world probably just ignores them, or laughs at them.
So the question is this: Will Mr. Bush survive the political fallout and the accusations of his Democratic presidential opponents? Again, I think a lot has to do with what happens in Iraq during the next ten months. Initially, Iraq was an asset for Mr. Bush, but the rising death toll of soldiers in Iraq, is eroding Bush's popularity, and quickly turning the war into a liability. As one individual recently stated, what is occurring in Iraq right now will be a test of the will of the American people and the Bush administration. If American casualties continue to escalate, and public opinion turns against the war, then I would suspect that Bush would view remaining in Iraq as too much of a liability, and he would seriously consider pulling out before it costs him the next election. Of course, if he were to pull out of Iraq, it would definitely speak volumes regarding his true intentions for going there in the first place. On the other hand, if he were to walk away from Iraq, and were to succeed in winning a second term in office, I think he would still be a happy man. After all, not only would he have won his second four years, but he would also have avenged his father in the process, and neutralized some of the criticisms against his father.
I honestly don't know what Bush is going to do; but if you think it is impossible for him to walk away from Iraq, allow me to make a brief comparison to serve as a wake-up call. As you will know, according to various news reports, there are an estimated 125,000 American military personnel in Iraq at this current time. Of course, I cannot verify that number, but for the sake of argument, let's assume that it is close to accurate. Following the events of 9-11, the United States military invaded and bombed Afghanistan, with the stated purpose of routing the Taliban government, who were hosting al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind of 9-11. Similar to what has occurred in Iraq, with the destruction of much of the Afghan infrastructure by American forces, also came promises from the American government to rebuild the nation in a democratic fashion. All kinds of wonderful promises were made to the newly-installed pro-American puppets.
Now, consider the surprising facts. American promises to that nation, and to the American-supported, fledgling government of Hamid Karzai, have not been fully kept. The nation has not been rebuilt to any significant degree. Only a small portion of the promised financial aid has been provided. The Taliban are gradually returning to power, and have been launching a series of attacks in the southern areas of the country. Osama bin Laden has not been captured or killed. The government of Hamid Karzai really only controls the area which immediately surrounds the Afghan capital of Kabul. The remainder of the nation is more or less "the badlands", and is controlled by various warlords. And last of all, according to a recent news report, only 8,500 American soldiers are currently stationed in Afghanistan, compared to 125,000 personnel in Iraq.
Now, what does that tell you? Isn't it obvious? It tells you that Mr. Bush basically abandoned Afghanistan after severely punishing that land, and chose to concentrate his efforts on what he probably assumed would be an easier target, Iraq, for the various reasons I have already stated. Given the rugged terrain of Afghanistan, with its steep, dangerous mountains, where al-Qaeda operatives could easily play a game of hide- and-go-seek with the Americans, and where they could easily pluck off American soldiers, just as they had done years ago with the Russians, I don't doubt that President Bush made the false assumption that Iraq, which compared to Afghanistan, is basically flat, would be a much easier place to wage and win war; the hot desert aside, of course. Obviously, Bush didn't count on the resiliency of the Iraqi resistance. Not only did he initially underestimate the cost of the coming war there, but he also committed the error of assuming that it would be over quickly. Let's not forget that May 1, 2003 speech.
But let's briefly return to the issue of Afghanistan. After 9-11, the American public required an object upon which to vent their rage and frustration. They also needed an event which would restore their self-confidence, as well as their global image as a powerful nation, being as they were feeling rather vulnerable, and perhaps a little broken following such cataclysmic events. Thus, even though fifteen of the nineteen alleged hijackers had passports from Saudi Arabia, the United States chose to attack Afghanistan, the home base of Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network. America had chosen her scapegoat; a backward nation which could not possibly fight back in a very effective manner. It was a sure win; or so it seemed; but has it really been won yet? I think not.
As you may already know, to this day, a lot of unanswered questions remain regarding the events of 9-11, such as who was really behind it; why Saudi Arabia has never received any form of American retribution for the part she played in it; how much the Bush administration really knew before the attacks occurred; how the alleged nineteen men were able to totally evade America's high-tech security system and board and hijack the four airliners; why there were news leaks of America's intentions to attack Afghanistan at least several months before 9-11 ever occurred; etc.; but that is not the focus of this article. Perhaps one of these days, I will find time to address these issues in another article.
In shifting the American public's attention to Iraq, Mr. Bush and his administration skillfully relied upon deception and the power of suggestion, in order to meld the Afghanistan war and the focus on Iraq, into the same "war against terrorism". Exactly how did they accomplish such a feat? By alleging that Saddam Hussein's government had intimate ties with al-Qaeda. In short, their objective was to create the impression that Iraq had become the new center for terrorism; and thus, it was only natural to extend the war against terrorism to Iraq. But, just suggesting that Saddam's Iraq was the new enemy was not enough, so President Bush raised the stakes by repeatedly declaring that these new terrorists possessed something which Osama bin Laden did not have: WMD. And thus the psychological transition from Afghanistan to the new demon, Iraq, was made.
However, after Mr. Bush had begun his war, and after months of not having provided any clear-cut evidence to substantiate his claim of a connection between Saddam Hussein's regime and the al-Qaeda network, President Bush finally admitted this past September, that there was no clear proof of a connection between the 9-11 attacks and Saddam Hussein. However, he, as well as other top level administration officials, still held the position that Saddam Hussein had close ties with Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network. Consider the following quotes taken from a CNN news report dated September 17, 2003:
----- Begin Quotes -----
President Bush said Wednesday there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 -- disputing an idea held by many Americans.
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties," the president said. But he also said, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11" attacks.
The administration has argued that Saddam's government had close links to al Qaeda, the terrorist network led by Osama bin Laden that masterminded the September 11 attacks.
On Sunday, for example, Vice President Dick Cheney said that success in stabilizing and democratizing Iraq would strike a major blow at the "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
And Tuesday, in an interview on ABC's "Nightline," White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said that one of the reasons Bush went to war against Saddam was because he posed a threat in "a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged."
----- End Quotes -----
As you can see, while Bush and his cronies did not have the audacity to connect Saddam Hussein directly to the attacks of 9-11, they most certainly presented a united front in trying to convince the general public that he had clear ties with al-Qaeda; which made him just as evil, and just as much a serious threat to the United States; particularly due to the false allegation that he possessed WMD, which he was prepared to use at any moment. Let us not forget those oft repeated words "imminent threat". The reason why President Bush and his associates emphasized the alleged al-Qaeda connection, is because as I have already stated, they were purposely playing upon the fears which had been generated by the events of 9-11, in order to marshal support for their illegal and unprovoked war against Iraq. They were playing a sly game of psychological manipulation with the American public; and millions of patriotic American citizens fell right into their basket; thousands of whom have watched as their sons, daughters, husbands, wives, mothers and fathers have marched off to Iraq, where five hundred of them have already died; and the war is not over yet. Sadly, while Americans may grieve over their hundreds of dead, Iraqis are currently grieving over literally thousands of their dead; but of course, this is not overly emphasized by the American news agencies.
Well, a few months have passed since President Bush made his public admission; and now that Saddam Hussein has finally been captured, we have been given another morsel of truth to digest. First we were told by President Bush that Mr. Hussein could not be connected to the 9-11 attacks. On Thursday of this past week, Secretary of State, Colin L. Powell, chose to amplify that statement, and enlighten us further, by finally admitting that there is no "smoking gun" evidence to point to a link between the ex-government of Saddam Hussein, and the al-Qaeda network. Consider these quotes taken from a New York Times report:
----- Begin Quote -----
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell conceded Thursday that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no "smoking gun" proof of a link between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of Al Qaeda.
"I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection," Mr. Powell said, in response to a question at a news conference. "But I think the possibility of such connections did exist, and it was prudent to consider them at the time that we did."
Mr. Powell's remarks on Thursday were a stark admission that there is no definitive evidence to back up administration statements and insinuations that Saddam Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda, the acknowledged authors of the Sept. 11 attacks. Although President Bush finally acknowledged in September that there was no known connection between Mr. Hussein and the attacks, the impression of a link in the public mind has become widely accepted -- and something administration officials have done little to discourage.
----- End Quotes -----
Of course the Bush Administration did nothing to discourage such thinking! Not only did they subtly plant the idea in the minds of the American public in the first place, through their many insinuations, but such a belief, be it real or imagined, also served their purposes well in building more support for the war. Exactly what was it that Colin Powell had said to the United Nations in February of the previous year, in order to try to convince them of the necessity to launch an unprovoked, pre-emptive strike against Iraq? Let me again share some quotes with you from the same article. It is amazing how these politicians can make such drastic turnarounds, and the American public will barely blink an eye, as if they are in some kind of hypnotic daze:
----- Begin Quotes -----
[Mr. Powell] said that a "sinister nexus" existed "between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder."
"Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network, headed by Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda lieutenants."
"Iraqi officials deny accusations of ties with Al Qaeda. These denials are simply not credible."
----- End Quotes -----
As I noted in part one, with each passing month, more reports and analyses are being released by various organizations and individuals, both official, and non-official, which totally expose the massive deception which was perpetrated upon the American people by President Bush, in order to convince them of the necessity of war against Iraq. To my utter amazement, yesterday evening, while reading the online news, as is my daily custom, I came across yet another piece of powerful evidence, which totally refutes the allegation that Saddam Hussein had ties with the al-Qaeda network. What makes this particular piece of evidence so amazing, is the fact that not only is it coming from official sources, but the origin of the information is none other than Saddam Hussein himself! According to a document found in Saddam's possession at the time of his capture, he specifically warned the resistance fighters to not join forces with the al-Qaeda network. As if that isn't enough, the article goes on to say that American intelligence officials from the CIA discovered that prior to the illegal and unprovoked invasion of Iraq by the Americans, Osama bin Laden had likewise expressed a clear disinterest in working with Saddam Hussein. Following are some excerpts from the January 14, 2004 New York Times report:
----- Begin Quotes -----
Saddam Hussein warned his Iraqi supporters to be wary of joining forces with foreign Arab fighters entering Iraq to battle American troops, according to a document found with the former Iraqi leader when he was captured, Bush administration officials said Tuesday.
The document appears to be a directive, written after he lost power, from Mr. Hussein to leaders of the Iraqi resistance, counseling caution against getting too close to Islamic jihadists and other foreign Arabs coming into occupied Iraq, according to American officials.
It provides a second piece of evidence challenging the Bush administration contention of close cooperation between Mr. Hussein's government and terrorists from Al Qaeda. C.I.A. interrogators have already elicited from the top Qaeda officials in custody that, before the American-led invasion, Osama bin Laden had rejected entreaties from some of his lieutenants to work jointly with Mr. Hussein.
Officials said Mr. Hussein apparently believed that the foreign Arabs, eager for a holy war against the West, had a different agenda from the Baathists, who were eager for their own return to power in Baghdad. As a result, he wanted his supporters to be careful about becoming close allies with the jihadists, officials familiar with the document said.
As President Bush sought to build a case for war with Iraq, one of the most hotly debated issues was whether Mr. Hussein was in league with Mr. bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Senior officials at the Pentagon who were certain that the evidence of connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda were strong and compelling found themselves at war with analysts at the C.I.A. who believed that the evidence showed some contacts between Baghdad and the terrorist organization, but not an operational alliance.
At the Pentagon, several officials believed that Iraq and Al Qaeda had found common ground in their hatred of the United States, while at the C.I.A., many analysts believed that Mr. bin Laden saw Mr. Hussein as one of the corrupt secular Arab leaders who should be toppled.
----- End Quotes -----
As you the reader can now hopefully see, all of President Bush's accusations concerning connections with the al-Qaeda network, as well as Saddam's alleged active development and possession of WMD, were based upon assumptions, worse-case scenarios, hunches, possibilities and a clear exaggeration of the truth. I suppose we should include bad intelligence as well, but intelligence which was undoubtedly influenced by pressure from the White House to give it what it wanted to hear, so that it could present a convincing case to the American public. There was never any clear-cut evidence to support any of Mr. Bush's claims. The American public was systematically fed a bunch of unsubstantiated allegations; and it was based upon these unproven allegations, that the United States of America, in conjunction with Great Britain, -- who else, of course -- unilaterally attacked and invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq. The USA launched an illegal, pre-emptive strike based upon the flimsiest of evidence, which turned out to be no real evidence whatsoever, by their own admission.
Furthermore, after having illegally attacked and invaded that sovereign nation -- and not for the first time -- she hunted down its leader, in order to either assassinate or capture him, depending on the situation which existed when the moment arrived. Having finally accomplished her goal, she has then kept Mr. Hussein away from the eyes of the world, in a secret location, where she has interrogated him according to her own whim. It was only a few days ago that, probably due to global pressure, she granted Saddam Hussein the wartime status of Prisoner of War, and has agreed to give the Red Cross access to him. As of this writing, I don't know if that has actually occurred yet.
Before continuing, allow me to make an important point. While I am writing rather candidly concerning my views regarding America's unprovoked, illegal war in Iraq, I would like the reader to understand that this should not be interpreted as meaning that I am a fan of Saddam Hussein, or that I think he is one nice guy, because I most certainly don't. If you read some of my other articles where I mention him, you will see that based on the information I have read about him, he very much seems like a tyrant and a thug. However, be that as it may, nevertheless, he was the globally-recognized leader of Iraq, regardless of what questionable means he may have used to come to power, or for that matter, to remain in power. We must not forget that the Bible clearly states that God is the one who raises up leaders, be they good or evil, and not man. Please consider these verses:
"Lift not up your horn on high: speak not with a stiff neck. For promotion cometh neither from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south. But God is the judge: he putteth down one, and setteth up another."
Psalms 75:5-7, KJV
"Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his: And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding:"
Daniel 2:20-21, KJV
"This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men."
Daniel 4:17, KJV
So again, God is the one who sets up world leaders, even if elections, or the lack thereof, may be the mechanism which He uses to bring them to power, in order to perform His Will and Divine Purposes. As I have explained before, some world leaders are specifically raised up to be God's "vessels of wrath", such as the Pharaoh of Egypt, King Nebuchadnezzar, General Titus in 70 AD, etc. If they are evil, then God will judge them in His own time, and in His own way. This is a Biblical fact and principle. Study the Scriptures, and you will plainly see this for yourself.
As we continue this discussion in part three of our series, we will examine such issues as the sovereignty of Iraq, the US campaign against Hans Blix and the UNMOVIC team, Blair's foolish mistake, Bush's "shoot now and ask questions later" policy and the dangers it presents, continuing attacks and rising American casualties, a situation out of control, Bush caught in a quagmire, Israel's nuclear status and America's partiality, the hypocrisy of the elite nuclear club, mistrust between the USA and Russia, the US inability to find WMD in Iraq, unwinding the deception, how much did Bush really know, America's short memory span, possibility of planted evidence, softening up the American public and Mr. Bush's re-election strategies, the UN's hesitation to assist Mr. Bush, US damage control, endtime deception, the Iraq War stain and weaknesses of the Bush Administration. I trust that you will join me, as we still have a lot of information to cover.
⇒ Go To The Next Part . . .