Wars Started Under False Pretenses?

None of those were put under false pretenses (The closest was the Gulf War, but those involved did believe the weapons were there; they just ignored contrary evidence).

The Gulf on Tonkin incident was in response to an actual incident. In the belief of the time, North Vietnam was a serious threat to the South, and the incident showed it.

9/11 was not an inside job. If you knew anything about science, history, or human nature, you'd know that.

The Reichstag was burnt by a communist. He was arrested and tried for it. No connection between him and the Nazis was never made, even when the police (not controlled by the Nazis at that point) investigated.

The better example is the invasion of the Sudetenland and of Poland. Hitler pretended Germany was attacked as a justification.


Read Staroamers Fate http://is.gd/WdmgqC & Syrons Fate http://is.gd/L2Vzrg

Wow. I thought it was pretty common knowledge that these were lies and false flag operations by now. As far as 9/11 goes I know it is still highly disputed and inconclusive what happened there. I'm sure a lot of people would disagree with you. 9/11 is an enigma for me. But what happened to building 7 is what has made me lean towards the belief that there was perhaps an inside job. And no I don't understand science and what temperature steel burns at and so on but I've watched countless truther documentaries and the scientific evidence presented always seems for the most part very compelling to me but it's true that I am not in anyway an expert so I really can't make a call.

I do know a bit about history, no expert but it's something I enjoy reading and watching movies/documentaries about.

And as far as human nature goes... My biggest skepticism regarding the 9/11 Inside Job movement or whatever is that yes I don't or didn't believe that the Israelis, even the Global Elite, Larry Silverstein, the Bushes or whoever else people have suggested could be behind the attacks could be so evil to carry something like 9/11 out. I mean what is the final motive? Money/Power? Is their money really that good? It seems very sinister and far-fetched and like something out of a fiction novel/movie. But for me the evidence I've seen and read about has been so compelling and what happened with building 7 has driven me to suspect something may have gone on there that is being hidden from the public.

And yeah I forgot about the part with the Sudetenland so that would be an example of a war starting under false pretense then along with the babies in incubators.

Wow. I thought it was pretty common knowledge that these were lies and false flag operations by now.
Not among people who know anything about them.
As far as 9/11 goes I know it is still highly disputed and inconclusive what happened there
Nope. The are delusional people who have made half-baked claims that sound persuasive to some people, but there's no real doubt about what happened, who did it, and how it was done.
what happened with building 7
Yeah. A building become a constructive total loss just because flaming chunks of a bigger building fell on it? Ridiculous!

I mean, I was mildly annoyed when WTC 1 and 2 collapsed, the Pentagon was hit, and four airliners full of people were murdered, but I didn't become outraged until I learned that WTC 7, a building that I and few others outside New York City had never heard of before, was damaged by the attacks.

The Gulf on Tonkin incident was in response to an actual incident. In the belief of the time, North Vietnam was a serious threat to the South, and the incident showed it.


The first one was real, the second Gulf of Tonkin Incident wasn't:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident#Second_attack

The Iraq war was certainly started under false pretences. It came in the wake of 9/11 and the War on Terror, and Bush did claim connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda - which was a load of BS, and they knew it. Then there was the matter of the WMDs, which they knew Saddam possessed - after all, the US had sold them to Saddam years earlier for use against Iran. The US had never been concerned with WMDs in Iraq before, so why now? Bush wanted that war. For one thing, it would seem like he was actually doing something, and for another... oil.

Thanks for the responses.

Bush did claim connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda
And there was one. A minor connection, to be sure and not related to 9/11, but one none the less. This much was obvious even at the time and the Bush Administration did not claim that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11. What those attacks did show, though, was that ignoring instability in south west Asia could have serious consequences.
The US had never been concerned with WMDs in Iraq before,
In fact, it had been a serious concern since before the 1991 war. Evidence was accumulating that the Iraqi WMD programs had resumed and that the sanctions regime was about to collapse. It's quite likely that even a Gore administration would have had to take some action before Iraq did restore a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons capability.
and for another... oil.
Yes, oil. Without oil, Saddam would have had no money to cause any trouble at all. As well instability in a region that produces a significant amount of the world's energy supply is quite dangerous. I do note that thanks in large part to US government policy, Iraq oil industry is controlled by the Iraqi government, and not American corporations, and most of the lucrative oil industry contracts have gone to European firms, particularly ones from countries that did not participate in the 2003 war and occupation.

Hello crothman,
please allow me a comment on your statement:
"The better example is the invasion of the Sudetenland and of Poland. Hitler pretended Germany was attacked as a justification."
I think these two cases are different from each other, in various points:
1) The vast majority of inhabitants of the Sudetenland were Germans, at the time. There were czech inhabitants, too, but of these, a high percentage had been sent there from 1919 et seq. by the Czech Government to occupy official positions, such as customs officials, P.O. administrators, policemen, members of the Public Transportation (that meant, in these days, mostly railroad officials and workers); also there were many czech teachers who had migrated there in the post-war years. - At the same time a corresponding (I guess, more than corresponding) number of german officials and employees had been laid off.
Which makes me suppose that, although many of the inhabitants of the Sudetenland did not really "like" Hitler and the Nazi movement, many of them were simply fed up with the Nationalism prctised at their expense by the Czechs, in other words, most german people there preferred to live under a German rule (which they knew was anything else than a democracy!) than to live further under the constant "pressure" from the Czechs. Which doesn't mean that there hadn't been lots of Czechs who were on the best terms with their german neighbours (my own grand-parents had no problems with the Czechs before 1945 - there wasn't any deep-rooted hatred between the two people; it was instigated during the War years, on both sides, but mostly from the Czechs).
All in all, I think the cession of the Sudetenland to the Reich was in full compliance with the principles which no less a leading politician had proclaimed than President Woodrow Wilson. (In 1918 et seq. the Czechs and others didn't want to hear anything about that. Germany was weak and defeated, then. But it's no big surprise that when that had changed, the German Government tried and managed to rectify that injustice. It was tragic that it was the Nazi Government in lieu of, e.g., Stresemann or any other well-respected democratic leader who scored that success! But it surely wasn't contrary to the People's right of Self-Determination (I don't know how the term is in English; in german it reads Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Völker).
As to the occupation of the so-called Rest-Tschechei (inner parts of Bohemia and Moravia) in March 1939, it was, of course, a gross contravention against just the right of self-determination the Germans had claimed some months ago. But you mentioned only the Sudetenland.
2) As to Poland / September 1939 - well, that's quite a different story! Even should the Polish regime have been quite as brutal as the Germans assured the world more than one time (it's possible but the German case had been "warped", in September 1939, by the fact that there were obvious exaggerations in the number of victims of the Polish violence - so that the world was lead to believe all accusations were groundless. They weren't, for sure, BUT the so-called Polish Corridor had a very mixed population, it was much more difficult to draw a clear line of separation between the two people, AND there had been a deep-rooted antagonism between both, for decades BEFORE 1914.
Dangerous as the situation may have been for the Germans under Polish rule in 1939, that could not justify the armed invasion. (And it certainly didn't improve the Germans' situation but imperilled them still more, for awhile... think about the events in and around Bromberg /now Bydgoscz, and similar massacres...)
Summary:
as to 1 - the Sudetenland retrocession can't be considered as a violation of the International Law (and wasn't treated as such by Great Britain, France, other Great powers; that did change only after WWII had started; e.g. from 1942 dates the declaration of the British that they consider the Munich Treaty nul and void from now on).
as to 2 - the War between Germany and Poland was an outright invasion, despite all the provocations by the Poles, and despite the suffering of the German minority (in parenthesis: the other minorities weren't better off, too). It is true, the Germans had offered a last-minute-plan of, I think, 13 points to the Poles which they did not even care - to my knowledge - to respond upon; the reason for that stubbornness was the British "blank check" from March 1939, offering assistance; and the Western Powers unnecessarily extended the German-Polish conflict into a worldwide war; but that's no excuse for the Germans having invaded a (seemingly) peace-loving neighbour state. Diplomacy had not been at the end of its means; that's the impression all the world had then, and I fear it will last forever.
This was written in a hurry and without checking back, as to the grammar, spelling, prepositions, interpunction, etc. - so please excuse misprints etc. :-)
Kind regards
sprendlinger