There was a study done on the wreckage of the USS Maine as the wreckage still exists. The final analysis was it was most likely an accident. Was it used as a touch pin for the war...you bet.
The US also MAY have believed that the Spanish DID indeed blow up the Maine as they had no idea what happened. Forensics were not as advanced as they were. There were no death bed confessions of agents saying they planted charges on the Maine that fateful night. So what you have is a conspiracy and nothing more.
A coincidence is not a reason to say "Well it must have been a planted charge".
True. The US wanted war with Spain... Spain did not want a war with the US. With or w/o the loss of the Maine we would have gone to war. The destruction of the Maine gave the US a rallying cry.
No need for links etc. What you state is only an opinion and a belief. Clearly there are no facts to back up your claim the the US sent CIA like agents to destroy their on ship.
War without a rival attacking first would have been a clear act of aggression on the part of the USA. That's a no-no, even back then.
The ship could have easily been blown up with almost no trace, given the fact that the threat of an accident already existed.
About the culprits: if it were actual American personnel that did it, it would likely have been one lone agent in this case and considering that the operation--if there was one--was a success (i.e. did what it would have been meant to do for the good of the regime), why would the agent ever make it public? It's not as if this was something contrary to the interests of his (her?) state. BTW, the 'agent,' if American would have probably been a private individual communicating indirectly with someone within the regime (the top would likely only have been aware of the 'possibility' and to plan around it).
Although the only reason why I would give the possibility that it was an American national is if he was part of the crew or at least of the same racial background as the crew, thus facilitating non-suspect movement through the ship.
Otherwise, it is more likely that if it was deliberate, anti-Spanish Cubans pulled it off under the direct or indirect guidance of US agents (or alternatively, an independent group of pro-Spanish Cubans 'helped' to carry it out). If this were to be the case, the US connection must exist simply for timing purposes.
At least that's the way it's worked elsewhere in Latin America (including Cuba).
Hmmmm. I will take that as you said it but I find it a coincidence that you use the term "regime" when discussing the US as to a lot of folks who are anti-American call us a regime. Perhaps it is just a coincidence as you say.
Yeah, people do use it in that way (mainly because they don't know it's exact meaning). That said, Canadians (and much of the world's population) are delusional if they think their system is somehow immune to the kind of elitist and ethically-questionable power structures that exist in the USA.
Some do...some don't. All governments are not infallible nor are their institutions and departments. (i.e the military) We are all human.
I know, that's what I said. My comment was that for both to be *highly* (and unusually) fallible in these instances is suspicious.
Well this is a forum and I enjoy it. I do not feel it is a moral obligation but I am a member of the forum and I like to participate.
All I'm saying is that not every Canadian here has a burning hatred for America and Americans. Personally, I have met Americans that are pure gold compared to most of the Canadians I've met, and I have also met Americans that are total barbarians. It's irrelevant: criticism (which means critical analysis, not biased comments btw people--I remember at university a lot of students didn't understand the difference) of the USA is usually in reference to the regime (i.e. the establishment), and specifically those less-than-democratic elements of it that just happen to exist beyond the influence, or sometimes even knowledge of the population. This happens in every country, only the USA happens to be the most powerful of them, so naturally the effects of that power structure represent more of a threat to anyone who is not part of that regime (most Americans included).
Tantamount to murder carries the same weight. It is a shock value.
The Bush Administration inability to predict 9/11 is tatamount to murder translates that Bush is responsible.
The same with FDR and his inability to foresee the attack on the US base at Pearl Harbor.
Exactly: were the theories to be conclusively proven (i.e. made into fact), they would most certainly be responsibe. They didn't plan the murder but they let it happen. Since it hasn't been proven but there is a reasonable doubt, it means they are suspects.
And it makes a great read in books and on the internet because it is more interesting to believe there was something more than what actually happened.
Of course eveyone has a theory but then there is legitimate suspicion. You have to at least admit that both cases (certainly 9/11) are suspicious to at least some degree.
Sorry to see you have little value of your own life that you would take it for making a mistake.
Why should they deny what is ridiculous...meaning a conspiracy.
To make such a huge mistake that could have been so easily avoided, I would resign. The fact it resulted in the deaths of many people (let alone my own citizens), is definitely bullet-to-the-brain material. (People far better than me have done so for far less justifiable reasons.)
If there is the possibility that it wasn't a mistake...well, there have been commities that have raised that very question. So clearly a possibility of conspiracy is not considered to be ridiculous within the USA itself. The results have been inconclusive and have cast doubt (i.e. legitimate suspicion) on those involved. And all that is based purely on who knew what specifics.
The motives have simply not been addressed. That doesn't mean that to suggest this was anything more than incompetence is ridiculous, it just means that it hasn't been addressed (I would guess that this is due to the fact that merely addressing this as a possibility sets a dangerous precedent).
The rise of Nazism was just as much of a threat as was communism.
Sure but only once it was identified as such. Initially, Nazi Germany served as a buffer against perceived Soviet aggression and socialist influences.
Benefits were realized after the war. At the outset and during the war there were doubts. The US was broke. That is why bond drives were so vital to the war effort.
Yes. The war itself was the cost. I'm suggesting that there weren't doubts at the top (as far as involvement is concerned).
Where was the evidence that says they were?
The evidence lies in the documentary evidence that leads one to see a possible motive. Motive is also known as circumstantial evidence. So that means that the motives outweigh the evidence against (i.e. incompetence). This is why it is suspicious.
Yes...broke. The post-war economy was a by product of the war but during the war the US was basically printing money to pay for it.
If there was deliberate negligence involved, then the post-war economy was an *expected* by product and therefore a legitimate motive for invlovement.
As for during the war, industrial potential in war-time is measured in resource output, not dollars. As it happens, a market economy was able to be maintained even in the face of the war requirements. The pure resource output of the USA practicalloy won the war before it began. US presence in Europe was an intervention, not a war of survival. The war economy was hardly on weak footing. As for the pre-war peace-time economy, well, the war and all its later benefits couldn't have come at a better time.
Not so. The documentary evidence proves that we expected an attack, likely in the Phillipines and Hong Kong but not in the direction of Pearl Harbor.
As I said, I don't want to gt into specifics. Suffice to say that don't you think it's a bit odd that US intelligence knew what time a Japanese admiral had his morning Cheerios but had absolutely no idea a fleet was heading for them. There is evidence that it was known. If there was a conspiracy, it is difficult to say whether intelligence would have been complicit in it. Likely not because the goal could've been achieved either way.
Are you serious? Both the Army (Gen Short) and Navy (Adm. Kimmel) commanders were demoted and retired in disgrace. Neither have been fully exonerated from responsibility of the attack on Pearl Harbor to this day.
I heard that they had been. If not, my mistake. I shouldn't have mentioned it because it doesn't really affect the strength of the motive either way.
Where is the relevance? Border-line-insane to whose standards? That was the way they did things in Japan during that time. That was their belief. We can look at it now and say they were insane but the game has long been decided and in hindsight the Japanese war on the US was insane. But only in hindsight.
Fanatical attitudes dominated at the time. Those who would've put a stop to such idiocy lacked sufficient power to do so at that crucial time. Any Japanese who's "success" in China hadn't gone to their heads could easily see the foolishness of war with, let alone attacking the USA.
At the time the emphasis was still on strong battleship forces to win the war. As the war progressed it became clear that Naval Air Power would be the Queen of Battle. Both Japanese and US schools thought strong surfaces forces would be the key to winning the Pacific War. Those schools of thought died hard.
Yeah but those who cling to them are usually too out of touch with reality to be involved in conspiracies. They may still be big names but are nevertheless small players at that point. Otherwise, it doesn't take a military genius to understand the basic physical advantages of air power.
Not true. The carriers were not the primary targets but were one of the primary targets. The battleships were a primary target as shown by the emphasis in training and succesful attack on Battleship Row. Another primary target was the land based air arm of the US and that was also successfully taken out. The two other major targets were the carriers as they were still capital ships. Probably the most important mistake of the attack was the decision to not launch the 3rd wave which was supposed to attack the facilities, fueling stations, and dry docks of the Navy Base. Because of the missing carriers the Japanese became too cautious and cancelled the attack because of the initial success. They had thought they had done enough and for the time being they thought the US was out of commission. A long protracted war was not in their belief.
Of course they were all targets but the carriers represented the highest strategic threat. Many in the navy failed to see this. See my reply concerning fanatical attitudes. As for not completing the mission thinking that any other action would make much of a difference in the end, again, see my reply above. That would be an example of a legitimate case of strategic incompetence. Letting that incompetence become a major war-triggering atrocity on the other hand...
You can't flip flop and say documented history prevails when it suits your argument but specualtive history fills in the missing pieces. The timing of the attack was a failure only because the Japanese Declaration of war was not delivered in time.
Yes, and the circumstances of why that occurred are again suspicious. In that case I would say that considering intelligence was intercepting everything, that interfering in a process that would dramatically reduce the sting of a sneak attack is to be expected if the other aspects of a possible conspiracy were to be proven true. It's when you add it up with everything else that it becomes suspicious.