Anyone who is interested in this information, would enjoy the latest edition I have published, which I gave for free to all members of this listserv.
Peace, Arlene Johnson Publisher/Author http://www.truedemocracy.net the home of The Journal of History Click on the icon that says Magazine to access the e-zine. Password to enter is: message It's for all the editions in 2006. -----Original Message----- >From: Vigilius Haufniensis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Jun 6, 2006 12:19 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Cc: cia-drugs@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL >PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL >PROTECTED], "Bicer Veronica (External)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [cia-drugs] KISSINGER TREACHERY IN CHINA > >http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analysis/230/5153/2006-06-05.asp?wid=230&nid=5153 > > KISSINGER TREACHERY IN CHINA > > Monday, June 05, 2006 > > > Not only did Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon betray US interests in > the Vietnam War, they betrayed the South Vietnamese and Taiwanese governments > as well. The latest declassified revelations to surface from the National > Archives are devastating to the sanitized version of events that "Sir Henry" > wrote about in his memoirs. > > This current release of information from the National Security Archive > at George Washington University in Washington DC (not to be confused with the > US government National Archives and Records Administration) covers an > addition release of 28,000 pages, including verbatim transcripts of > negotiations between Henry Kissinger and Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai in 1972. > This follows the 2002 release of declassified material which contained > transcripts of Kissinger's secret visit to Beijing in 1971 to arrange the > summit which eventually led to normalization of US relations with China, > which I will also review in this week's brief. > > In Kissinger's memoirs (1979) Kissinger said, "Chou and I by tacit > agreement did not press controversial issues to the hilt. Taiwan was > mentioned only briefly." The transcripts show that was not true. Chou Enlai > made it clear that the US would have to recognize the People's Republic as > the sole legitimate government of China with no exceptions if relations were > to be normalized. In that first meeting in 1971, according to the summaries > provided by Taiwandc.org [my comments in brackets], "Kissinger volunteered > that the US would not support the Taiwan independence movement, would not > accept a 'two China' or 'one China_one Taiwan' policy and would recognize > Taiwan as an 'inalienable part' of China. He also indicated the US wanted to > fully recognize China sometime within the first two years of Nixon's second > term in office. > > "They also worked out a deal on how Beijing would replace the > Kuomintang's seat in the UN - Washington would withdraw its position that the > question is an important one [an incredible assertion], allowing China to be > voted into the world body by a simple majority vote. Taipei would be voted > out by a two_thirds vote 'as soon as you can get the two_thirds vote for > expulsion,' Kissinger told Zhou [which was not difficult given the large > majority of pro-Communist regimes in the UN General Assembly]. While > Washington would complain loudly about the Taiwan ouster [shows you cannot > trust the rhetoric from our government, only what they do, much of which is > hidden from public view], which its UN envoy [globalist] George Bush did at > the time, it would tacitly accept the switch." > > Taiwan's public Communiqu� Commentary at the time is honest and > telling: " In the transcripts, both Kissinger and Zhou agreed that the > relations with the Kuomintang regime on Taiwan were linked to the war in > Vietnam. The US was seeking China's help in ending the war in exchange for > Washington's switching diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing. These > transcripts show that in his eagerness to get China's help in ending the > Vietnam War - which didn't materialize - Mr. Kissinger tried to trade away > something that wasn't his to give away: Taiwan's future as a free, democratic > and independent country." > > What is worse, when China reneged on its part and refused to halt North > Vietnam's military aggression (which was fully backed by China) the US was > forced to win the war militarily - hence the massive B-52 bombing raids and > mining of harbors in the north. Intelligence from spies in Hanoi indicate > that North Vietnam was devastated by the bombing and the cut off of Chinese > supplies by sea, and ready to capitulate in the next round of Paris "Peace > Talks." Instead, Henry Kissinger gave all that victory away. Not only had he > and Robert McNamara hog-tied American military forces during the war with > restrictive "rules of engagement," provided enemy with numerous safe havens > off limits to US bombing, but gave away all that military advantage after > being forced to win the war militarily anyway. Here is what the new > transcripts show according to the AP: > > "Henry Kissinger quietly acknowledged to China in 1972 that Washington > could accept a communist takeover of South Vietnam if that evolved after a > withdrawal of U.S. troops - even as the war to drive back the communists > dragged on with mounting [Communist] deaths. President Nixon's envoy > [Kissinger] told Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai, 'If we can live with a communist > government in China, we ought to be able to accept it in Indochina.' > > "Pressed by Zhou, Kissinger further acknowledged that a communist > takeover by force might be tolerated if it happened long enough after a U.S. > withdrawal. He said that if civil war broke out a month after a peace deal > led to U.S. withdrawal and an exchange of prisoners, Washington would > probably consider that a trick and have to step back in. > > "If the North Vietnamese, on the other hand, engage in serious > negotiation with the South Vietnamese, and if after a longer period it starts > again after we were all disengaged, my personal judgment is that it is much > less likely that we will go back again, much less likely." There it is: > Kissinger directly colluding with enemy assuring them of the low > probabilities of American re-involvement if China and Vietnam did their dirty > work slowly. > > "Kissinger's comments appear to lend credence to the 'decent interval' > theory [there it is again] posed by some historians who say the United States > was prepared to see communists take over Saigon as long as that happened long > enough after a U.S. troop departure to save face." This response came after > China demanded that the US force out the Saigon government and directly > betray South Vietnam to the North. Kissinger could do that and save face, so > he opted for the wink-and-a-nod betrayal instead. > > However, the ever-wily Henry Kissinger had a ready excuse for the media > after these embarrassing revelations surfaced. In one interview he said, "One > of my objectives had to be to get Chinese acquiescence in our policy." This > is ludicrous. His public policy was to "get out of Vietnam as soon as > possible." His larger hidden policy was to lose the war and forever embitter > the American public about fighting wars to contain Communism. While this > larger globalist agenda of undermining US sovereignty was helpful to Chinese > aggression, it and the "cut-and-run" policy was very much in line with > China's goals of wearing down the US and gaining its withdrawal. So, how > difficult was it for Kissinger to get China to "acquiesce to our policy?" Not > very. Kissinger went so far as to tell Zhou the United States respected its > Hanoi enemy as a permanent factor in the region, and had "no interest in > destroying it or even defeating it." > > Other allies like Japan were given secret briefings on the progress of > the Kissinger China talks and encouraged to recognize Red China as the sole > representative of the Chinese people. Always the hypocrite, Kissinger > referred to the haste in which Japan recognized Red China as "treacherous." > He should know. > > Kissinger then ultimately blamed his policy (getting out of Vietnam) on > Watergate: "We succeeded in it, and then when we had achieved our goal > (holding off Communist aggression in Vietnam), our domestic situation made it > impossible to sustain it." Actually, it was the other way around. As I > pointed out in prior briefs, the entire Watergate scandal was a set-up by the > dark side of government (intimately connected with Kissinger's real bosses) > specifically to undermine Nixon and force him into a defensive position where > he could no longer effectively function as President. Nixon was an > insider-wannabe but was never allowed to join the club. He spent the rest of > his days after his resignation trying to play-up to the Powers That Be (PTB) > and get them to say nice things about him in the press. > > WHY DO GLOBALISTS FACILITATE COMMUNIST REVOLUTION? Those on the Left who > view globalists like Kissinger only as "greedy capitalists" have no > explanation for Kissinger's seemingly contradictory conduct. Betraying > Vietnam and Taiwan certainly wasn't helping to promote Capitalism. Why have > CFR controlled governments, under both Democrats and Republicans, > consistently undermined pro-Western governments and covertly assisted > Communist takeovers? Why are they , even now, shielding their citizens from > knowledge of Russia's continual preparations for nuclear war? Conservatives > have always believed it was because the Communists had infiltrated many parts > of the US government-especially the Dept. of State. However, most of these > agents of influence (Alger Hiss, etc) were globalists, not Communists - > facilitating Communist spying and influence for purposes hidden even from the > Communists invited inside. > > Their real purpose was to set the world stage for future conflict and > globalist intervention to spur on the dominance of world government, > controlled by them. That's the real reason for continued warmongering in the > Middle East. By using Communism or Leftist tyrants to break down nations, > these target nations were unknowingly being set up (after 20 or so years of > tyranny) for being "saved" from Communism by moderate appearing globalist > interveners, replacing a radical form of Socialism with a more benign form, > falsely labeled free market capitalism. What globalists are really after is > "Third Way" Socialism (private ownership with heavy regulatory control) where > the production can be syphoned off to support socialist benefits (without > totally killing the markets as Communism does). Free markets are only the > bait, not the end object. The globalist hook is embedded in the financial > bondage created by international loans and the implementation documentation > of regional government and world trade regulatory bodies (WTO, EU, FTAA, etc) > that these newly liberated nations are induced to sign on to. > > > > Joel Skousen > > Editor: World Affairs Brief > > > View all articles by Joel Skousen > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free. See how. http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/vseplB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Complete archives at http://www.sitbot.net/ Please let us stay on topic and be civil. OM Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cia-drugs/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
