It's easy to make any event look suspicious. Name any event you don't think is suspicious and we'll write one of the conspiracy theories.
I dunno...I tend to think every event of this nature is suspicious to some degree. We just happened to be discussing Pearl so I figured I'd post a general comparison with the two other major war-triggering events in US history.
When a government lies and then takes measures to conceal the truth from its citizenry, they call it a conspiracy right? So that's what seems to have happened in all three cases. It's a conservative theory; sticking pretty closely with the official statement and then using some logic to figure out the motive (i.e. as opposed to more radical theories that imply the US directly in 9/11 and so on but that are very difficult to prove).
In this case, I looked at Pearl and thought about what the official justifications reasons for US involvement were, then did a simple cost/benefit analysis and >poof< suspicion. Same with 9/11. The Maine is pretty conclusive but I figured I should add it as it runs along almost exactly the same lines.
What can I say? All 3 examples have a common feature: the US regime knew of the imminent danger but chose not to act (proven via hard evidence in all three cases). As a result, Americans died in an attack that could have been avoided.
As to the motive: Why? Just because the guys running the show are aresholes doesn't mean they're stupid: if they let these things happen, they didn't do it just for the hell of it; there's got to be some gain (also known as a motive). Just look at what they stand to gain and what they stand to lose.
So, use 9/11 as an example:
Reasons for neglecting report of terrorist threat:
a) to allow it to take place
b) incompetence
At that level of government in the most powerful country in the world, you don't just forget stuff. It actually can't happen. It has to be deliberately shelved. No debate really unless there's some other reason that no one has yet to put forward.
Reasons for allowing it to take place:
a) as a means of defending some future action
b) market stress test
They may be corrupt arseholes but fiscal lunatics they are not. Especially when you consider the events following.
Nature of future action:
a) to justify war with culprit
b) ...I can't even think of anything
It's really 2+2=4 as far as 9/11 is concerned.
Reason for war:
a) revenge
b) to corner energy market via pipeline and get base near Iran
People and their passions take revenge. States are cold, calculating entities. There has to be a reason to spend billions. And considering the measures that were taken to make it happen, revenge would be like crying cheater after rigging the game yourself.
Cost: a few civilians die in necessary terrorist attack, soldiers (traditionally known as cannon fodder) die keeping the locals down
Benefit: huge pipeline deal (that suffocates competitors), base near Iran, billions in defence contracts all within their own economy
I mean, feel free to give me a better motive for US governments overlooking this stuff.