|
Post by gillianren on Mar 23, 2007 15:38:50 GMT -4
In my head, all Mounties look like Paul Gross--which means you've got an awfully good-looking police force, there.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 24, 2007 5:06:24 GMT -4
Orders need to be given to convert the ship for drone operation. Further, any such drone would need at least a skeleton crew aboard until shortly before it steamed toward Havana, for maintenance and navigation in restricted waters. They would obviously know what was going on. No. A drone ship does not necessarily require any personnel on board for such an operation. Spec out a non-active vessel still functional - navigation, engines - as required for the op. No maintenance needed. Modify it for remote navigation and you're set. Directing it out to "anywhere in Cuban waters" does not require onboard personnel. How is it that US personnel would realize something was fishy, but the Cubans wouldn't? They could, but what they claimed would not matter, anyway. Fake MiGs are not mentioned in this scenario. You have merely added them in an attempt to paper over one of the huge holes in your theory. First, the scenario calls for "blow[ing] up" a ship, not "attacking" a ship. This clearly implies explosives or other sabotage, rather than firing weapons or dropping bombs. Sabotage? Are you serious? Of a (supposedly) fully manned US ship? A few Cubans in dinghies paddle out to the ship at midnight, fling up a rope with a hook that catches to something on the deck. They jimmy up the rope carrying backpacks of bombs, tiptoe around the ship, place the bombs in key locations, then sneak away in their dinghies. Or maybe you've got a better plan? If fake MiG's weren't to be used, or create the appearance of being used, then how else could it give the impression of an attack on the ship by Cuba? The most important thing was to avoid any appearance of a Soviet attack. Cuba did not possess a navy that could stage an attack on US ships - no subs, no destroyers, nothing. How would they spin the cover story? They couldn't say it was torpedoed. Where would they say Cuban bombs were launched from? Havana? A drone ship near Cuban shores can be explained away. This particular point serves as irrefutable evidence of your obvious need to twist the wording of the memo in order to make it mean what you wish it to mean. Just the opposite. Second, who were the pilots who were going to fly this mission?? Orders to menace (but not attack) a civilian airliner, near-miss a merchant ship, or broadcast a fake message stating that one has been shot down are one thing. Orders to attack and destroy a US Navy ship anchored at a US Navy base are quite another. Carrying out such orders clearly would have constituted treason. What were "they" going to do--start asking for volunteers? What about the many pilots who would undoubtedly decline to participate? How were they going to be kept quiet? And if "they" just order eight pilots to participate, how do "they" know that one or more of them won't blow the whistle? Why wouldn't remote controlled "MiG's" be used? They could be, and probably would be, used. No pilots needed. Also, you have previously insinuated that the USS Maine's destruction was a "false-flag" operation. If so, how were "secretly planted explosives" unconvincing in that case?? Because they didn't claim explosives were secretly planted on the ship. The US accused Spain of blasting the Maine with a torpedo or a mine. Neither of which could the US have accused Cuba of doing, which had no navy, as I explained earlier. What would be the point in having an entire crew aware of the false flag operation? The point would be not killing them. LOL! Not quite what I was getting at. I meant - what's the point in having an entire crew aware of the operation when it is entirely unnecessary. Further, your "fake MiGs" would require that a large number of personnel be involved. No, as I pointed out, drones would be used. Because if you have them evacuate the ship secretly, they would then know it was a fake op when mock-victims are then listed as the dead crewmen.The "Conduct funerals for mock victims" scenario has the same problem--why is it acceptable in that case? It's quite different. An evacuated ship would have to list the names of the actual crew, because they are well documented as being assigned to that ship. Their families know they are crewmen of that ship. They would basically have to be placed in a witness protection-type of program, with new identities, etc. because they were "killed" on the ship. A drone ship is '"manned" with "people" created out of thin air. Their military "records" are put on paper. Just like the drone ship was "put into service" out of thin air. If the crew were evacuated by small boats pulling up on the side away from any Cuban observers shortly before dawn, and the explosion occurred 20 minutes later, the crew's absence would be very unlikely to be noticed. Which again brings up the point that none of this is even necessary. There are going to be mock-victims listed, whether the ship was secretly evacuated, or never manned to begin with! So again I ask you, why would they even have a crew to begin with? What is the point in having a manned vessel, which then requires a secret evacuation, which requires a massive "witness protection program", and which results in the entire crew being aware of the operation? The answer is that there is no point in it. That's why they suggest using an unmanned drone ship as an alternative to a manned ship. Not a manned ship that gets evacuated in secret. According to you, the US secretly blows up an anchored, now unmanned (previously evacuated) ship in Gitmo Bay. Blame is placed on Cuba for blowing up the ship. So then what? Do they create mock-victims who "died" on the ship? If so, then why would it have been manned to begin with? Please explain what the difference in intent is between the two scenarios. The intent is the same - to make it look like Cuba has attacked a US ship, and killed many or all of its crew. The only difference is in how to achieve that goal - one results in real victims, while the alternative only has mock-victims. Two alternatives, which differ in execution, but which have the same effect on the masses. If real friendly casualties are an option, why is there no scenario that calls for shooting down a real airliner, as opposed to a drone? You mean, there are several plans that have "real" or "simulated" alternatives, but no such alternative for the airliner, thus friendly casualties can not be an option for any of the plans? Yikes! What would such an airliner alternative plan have to say to convince you that friendly casualties were anticipated? "Shoot down a passenger aircraft" - No. You'd say that meant a previously evacuated aircraft flown remotely was to be shot down. You'd call it a "non-drone". You'd still say it had to specifically mention that casualties would occur. Just like with the other plans. Yes, but your contention that the non-drone must necessarily have a crew aboard when it is blown up has been shown to be wholly unsupportable. To the contrary.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 24, 2007 6:46:22 GMT -4
Because a constant claim made by GCT's is that our government, or at least powerful elements within our government, would never plan to harm and/or murder it's own innocent citizens. Not now, not in the past.Please show examples where anyone has claimed this. If it's a "constant claim," you should have no difficulty finding several examples from previous posts here, on baut, or on jref. Otherwise, please concede that your claim is a straw man. As for the most vociferous examples of GCT's who make the claim - Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh come to mind right away. I've seen several posts accusing such thoughts as those of "a traitor", which I can sift back through some forums for examples. The majority simply defend the US governments, past and present, as fully incapable of such an act. To wit, they maintain a position that doesn't believe such an act possible. Not that they aren't seen as corrupt, or such. But there is a definite line drawn at any such considerations of mass murder of citizens. I have relatives who also hold this view. With that, I'd like to ask you... "Our government is entirely capable of considering a plan which causes the mass murder of it's own citizens." Do you agree or not? "Our government has considered a plan which causes the mass murder of it's own citizens." Do you agree or not? "Our government A) has implemented or B) has possibly implemented, a plan which caused the mass murder of it's own citizens." Do you agree with either A or B? They were requested to provide suggestions, as the executive summary shows. Yes, to the Chief of Operations, Cuba Project - Col. Edward Lansdale. And what a sweet collection of suggestions they were! You are implying that JFK and McNamara put the brakes on some sort of runaway operation, however, the summary also makes clear that the decision to attack or not to attack Cuba will be a political one. Of course. And the top political figure(s) vetoed it. No. You continue to insist that the only possible reading of the memo is that it contains options for deliberately causing friendly casualties. As has been demonstrated, other readings are possible. Your claim is clearly extraordinary. You have not provided anything close to extraordinary proof of that claim. Your only reading is that friendly casualties have not even been considered, let alone intended or expected. You invent details which don't exist in the actual plans to support your argument. And which don't even make sense. "Blow up a ship" becomes "Blow up a ship secretly evacuated beforehand." As opposed to "Blow up a drone (unmanned) ship". "Use of MiG type aircraft" for "attacks on surface shipping" That's nothing to worry about, either! They really mean "narrowly miss surface shipping during the attacks." It's not actually stated, but it's more than obvious that they meant it. "Sink a boatload of Cuban enroute to Florida - real or simulated" Now, by suggesting a real boatload of Cubans is sunk, that doesn't mean Cubans will actually drown. No, they mean a real boat is sunk, but not the actual Cubans! It's not specifically mentioned, but it's what they meant to say! Other plans are also careful not to appear potentially harmful... "Lob mortar shells from outside base into base. Some damage to installation." Of course, lobbing mortar shells into the base will not endanger anyone's life, it'll just cause some damage to the buildings! Just so long as by "lobbing", they aren't firing off shells in random directions - we must "lob" them precisely at targets And as long as we know there won't be anybody too close to our targets!
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 24, 2007 7:23:30 GMT -4
Sabotage? Are you serious? Of a (supposedly) fully manned US ship? A few Cubans in dinghies paddle out to the ship at midnight, fling up a rope with a hook that catches to something on the deck. They jimmy up the rope carrying backpacks of bombs, tiptoe around the ship, place the bombs in key locations, then sneak away in their dinghies. Or maybe you've got a better plan? Well, they could just leave the ship dirty with coal dust and let it explode, and people (admittedly including the government, in the case I'm thinking of) would still be thinking of conspiracy stories a hundred years later . . . . You're not terribly up on Maine conspiracy theory, are you?
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Mar 24, 2007 17:26:37 GMT -4
No. A drone ship does not necessarily require any personnel on board for such an operation. Spec out a non-active vessel still functional - navigation, engines - as required for the op. No maintenance needed. Modify it for remote navigation and you're set. Directing it out to "anywhere in Cuban waters" does not require onboard personnel. Wishful thinking. The following is from an article on the web site of the Baltic and International Maritime Council: Now, please explain again, turbonium, how the US Navy could have created a drone ship that could have left port and navigated to Cuba with no crew aboard, and being controlled from over the horizon, while avoiding any possible collisions or groundings, and with a very low probability of suffering any major mechanical breakdown. Please also explain how that ship could have been created in just a few months, using 1962 technology. Finally, please explain why the Chief of Naval Operations would have considered this to be feasible. They could, but what they claimed would not matter, anyway.The Soviets wouldn't listen to them? Remember, the primary purpose of Northwoods was to fool the Soviet Union into not intervening. Denying involvement in any of the incidents is one thing. Presenting evidence (such as photographs or witness accounts) of suspicious activity aboard the target ship is another. Sabotage? Are you serious? Of a (supposedly) fully manned US ship? A few Cubans in dinghies paddle out to the ship at midnight, fling up a rope with a hook that catches to something on the deck. They jimmy up the rope carrying backpacks of bombs, tiptoe around the ship, place the bombs in key locations, then sneak away in their dinghies. Or maybe you've got a better plan? A much better plan: Cuban frogmen swim into the harbor and attach magnetic ("limpet") mines to the hull. This occurred several times during World War II. If fake MiG's weren't to be used, or create the appearance of being used, then how else could it give the impression of an attack on the ship by Cuba?See above. The most important thing was to avoid any appearance of a Soviet attack.Why is this important? Cuba did not possess a navy that could stage an attack on US ships - no subs, no destroyers, nothing. How would they spin the cover story? They couldn't say it was torpedoed.Cuba had several ex-US corvettes that could conceivably have sunk an old US destroyer if they had opened fire from surprise (such as during harassment). Just the opposite.I'll leave that to the readers to judge. Why wouldn't remote controlled "MiG's" be used? They could be, and probably would be, used. No pilots needed.To quote Charles Babbage, "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." First, how can you possibly imagine that early-1960's-era technology would have allowed a jet fighter to be remotely controlled well enough to take off, fly to its target, and perform an accurate dive-bombing attack?? If such technology had existed, why wouldn't it have been extensively used during the Vietnam war?? Second, why do you assume that flying an aircraft by remote control requires any less skill than flying one from the cockpit?? How would pilots not still be required?? Because they didn't claim explosives were secretly planted on the ship. The US accused Spain of blasting the Maine with a torpedo or a mine. Neither of which could the US have accused Cuba of doing, which had no navy, as I explained earlier.As noted, Cuban frogmen could have been plausibly claimed to have attached magnetic mines to the ship. Also as noted, Cuba did have a few ships, some of which could have carried torpedoes. I meant - what's the point in having an entire crew aware of the operation when it is entirely unnecessary. [emphasis original]Circular reasoning. You claim the Northwoods memo proves that the US government was willing to kill Americans as part of a false-flag operation. You're trying to use that conclusion as evidence, because willingness to kill the crew is the only way that letting them know what is happening is "entirely unnecessary." No, as I pointed out, drones would be used.See above. Also, these are amazing drone aircraft that can service, fuel, and arm themselves without ground crews, right, turbonium?? Just like the amazing drone ship that can leave port and navigate to Cuba and repair itself along the way?? It's quite different. An evacuated ship would have to list the names of the actual crew, because they are well documented as being assigned to that ship. Their families know they are crewmen of that ship.First, you continue to assume that the point is to fool the American public, when, as discussed, the point is actually to fool the Soviets and other nations. Second, shortly before the ship is sunk, all of the crew could be transferred (they'll need new assignments anyway) or given leave, and replaced with sailors from other ships who would "[perform] the mission under [aliases]" as in the fake shoot-down scenarios. Both groups would be sworn to secrecy ahead of time. Note that the first group won't necessarily realize it's a false-flag operation--each one could later get a visit from Naval Intelligence stating that their old ship was destroyed before she could carry out her mission, and that their continued silence is vital, in order to avoid tipping off the Cubans in case a second mission is attempted. So now all of their relatives think they were transferred or otherwise narrowly escaped. In time, someone might hear of a large number of such escapes and connect the dots, but by then it should be too late for the Soviets to intervene. They would basically have to be placed in a witness protection-type of program, with new identities, etc. because they were "killed" on the ship. See above. And even if they were to be sequestered, it would only need to be for a few months. Their military "records" are put on paper. Just like the drone ship was "put into service" out of thin air. Wishful thinking. How would the Soviets not notice that the drone ship never existed before the incident?? They would naturally want to look up information on what class of ship was destroyed, and they would quickly discover that no ship of such name was listed in any directory of American ships. Also, if the drone can have a fake name, why not give the real ship an alias? So again I ask you, why would they even have a crew to begin with? What is the point in having a manned vessel, which then requires a secret evacuation, which requires a massive "witness protection program", and which results in the entire crew being aware of the operation? The answer is that there is no point in it. That's why they suggest using an unmanned drone ship as an alternative to a manned ship. Not a manned ship that gets evacuated in secret. [emphasis original] As demonstrated, the drone will still require a crew. And I dispute your contention that the crew would need to be sequestered. According to you, the US secretly blows up an anchored, now unmanned (previously evacuated) ship in Gitmo Bay. Blame is placed on Cuba for blowing up the ship. So then what? Do they create mock-victims who "died" on the ship? If so, then why would it have been manned to begin with? [emphasis original]To avoid the problems attendant to using a drone (which would still require that a large number of people know about it). Further, as demonstrated, a drone could not get into Guantanamo Bay by itself. The intent is the same - to make it look like Cuba has attacked a US ship, and killed many or all of its crew. The only difference is in how to achieve that goal - one results in real victims, while the alternative only has mock-victims.You have provided no direct evidence that real casualties are intended. Two alternatives, which differ in execution, but which have the same effect on the masses. Again, you continue to assume that the point is to fool the American public. You mean, there are several plans that have "real" or "simulated" alternatives, but no such alternative for the airliner, thus friendly casualties can not be an option for any of the plans? Yikes!Straw man. [edit: I claim there are several features of the various scenario that imply this, not just the lack of destroyed real aircraft.] Further, you are evading the question of why there are no options that call for shooting down an aircraft, if friendly casualties are acceptable. Is that just an amazing coincidence? What would such an airliner alternative plan have to say to convince you that friendly casualties were anticipated? Irrelevant. All of the plans involving airliners clearly call for no casualties. "Shoot down a passenger aircraft" - No. You'd say that meant a previously evacuated aircraft flown remotely was to be shot down. You'd call it a "non-drone". What I would say about that is irrelevant to the issue of what the memo actually intends. You'd still say it had to specifically mention that casualties would occur. Just like with the other plans.No. I said that the issue is that an aircraft can't be safely evacuated in flight. To the contrary.The demonstrated huge lapses of logic in your argument indicate otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Mar 24, 2007 22:42:55 GMT -4
As for the most vociferous examples of GCT's who make the claim - Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh come to mind right away. Please show some examples of something they've written, or a transcript of what they've said. I've seen several posts accusing such thoughts as those of "a traitor", which I can sift back through some forums for examples.There are undoubtedly "some forums" where such thoughts can be found. I asked for examples from here, baut, or jref. I've never seen anyone on a skeptical/debunking forum make such a claim. You have set up this straw man in an to attempt to deflect attention from the fact that none of your conspiracy claims to date have been able to withstand skeptical analysis, and an attempt to handwave away your burden of extraordinary proof for those claims. The majority simply defend the US governments, past and present, as fully incapable of such an act. To wit, they maintain a position that doesn't believe such an act possible. Not that they aren't seen as corrupt, or such. But there is a definite line drawn at any such considerations of mass murder of citizens. I have relatives who also hold this view. Let's have some specific examples, please, rather than just vague pronouncements. Again, if this view is so pervasive, you shouldn't have any difficulty finding three or four. "Our government is entirely capable of considering a plan which causes the mass murder of it's own citizens." Do you agree or not?"Our government" does not consider plans--government officials consider plans. I imagine there are a very few people in government who are capable of such ideas, but the probability of enough of them a) getting together to reach critical mass, and b) trusting each other enough even to discuss such a thing, let alone actually make plans or attempt to carry it out, is extremely low. Therefore, any such claims are perforce extraordinary. This touches on a point that has been raised before. Anyone can blow the whistle on the conspiracy. The conspirators would all have to know this at the outset. So how can they really be certain that someone won't go to the media? Further, you seem to just assume that anyone ordered to commit treason would mindlessly do so. People don't check their ethics at the door when they join the military or become civilian government employees. You yourself have provided evidence that a large number of people find the idea of government-sanctioned mass-murder unthinkable--why do you presume that this view is any less common among government officials? "Our government has considered a plan which causes the mass murder of it's own citizens." Do you agree or not?For the above reasons, I highly doubt that any deliberative council (such as the JCS) has ever done so. "Our government A) has implemented or B) has possibly implemented, a plan which caused the mass murder of it's own citizens." Do you agree with either A or B?As there is no way of proving a negative, we can't know for certain that this has never happened. Again, however, it is extremely unlikely. Yes, to the Chief of Operations, Cuba Project - Col. Edward Lansdale.What is your point? And what a sweet collection of suggestions they were! Your histrionics are irrelevant. Of course. And the top political figure(s) vetoed it.The President vetoes laws, not plans. Again, you are attempting to characterize this as a plan that was moving inexorably forward, rather than a group of suggestions. Your only reading is that friendly casualties have not even been considered, let alone intended or expected. Straw man. I never said that. I have previously stated that a small risk of a few friendly casualties (due to a hung-up bomb accidentally hitting a target, or sailors killed fighting the "napthalene" fires) might well have been considered acceptable. Further, even granting for the sake of argument that certain scenarios might intend deliberate casualties, ambiguity still does not help your case. Again, you are attempting to shift the burden of proof. Because your claim that friendly casualties are intended is clearly extraordinary, you must demonstrate that the only possible reading is that such casualties are intended. Demonstrating ambiguity is sufficient to destroy your claim. You invent details which don't exist in the actual plans to support your argument. And which don't even make sense.This from the person who added remote-controlled MiGs to the "we could blow up a ship" scenario. "Blow up a ship" becomes "Blow up a ship secretly evacuated beforehand." As opposed to "Blow up a drone (unmanned) ship". I have given a perfectly reasonable explanation (your state of denial notwithstanding) for the difference in wording. Again, your extraordinary claim requires that no other readings are possible. "Use of MiG type aircraft" for "attacks on surface shipping" That's nothing to worry about, either! They really mean "narrowly miss surface shipping during the attacks." It's not actually stated, but it's more than obvious that they meant it. Again, you are attempting to create a burden-of-proof confusion, while belittling the evidence I don't need to demonstrate that it's "more than obvious"--I merely need to demonstrate that this is one possible reading. "Sink a boatload of Cuban enroute to Florida - real or simulated"
Now, by suggesting a real boatload of Cubans is sunk, that doesn't mean Cubans will actually drown. No, they mean a real boat is sunk, but not the actual Cubans! It's not specifically mentioned, but it's what they meant to say!I decline to start this argument again--anyone who's really interested and/or masochistic, see here. Other plans are also careful not to appear potentially harmful...
"Lob mortar shells from outside base into base. Some damage to installation."
Of course, lobbing mortar shells into the base will not endanger anyone's life, it'll just cause some damage to the buildings! Just so long as by "lobbing", they aren't firing off shells in random directions - we must "lob" them precisely at targets And as long as we know there won't be anybody too close to our targets!This plan would likely have carried a small risk of friendly casualties--which, as I have stated previously, was possibly acceptable.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Mar 30, 2007 10:06:19 GMT -4
Back in the mid-80's I went on a bike trip with friends in New England and Canada. We crossed back into the US on a small road with a downward incline and we built up some speed before we knew it we were whizzing past both border posts but were waved on. Somehow I doubt that would happen nowadays.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 31, 2007 5:34:14 GMT -4
Sink a boatload of Cuban enroute to Florida - real or simulated
Now, by suggesting a real boatload of Cubans is sunk, that doesn't mean Cubans will actually drown. No, they mean a real boat is sunk, but not the actual Cubans! It's not specifically mentioned, but it's what they meant to say!I decline to start this argument again--anyone who's really interested and/or masochistic, see here. Since you won't re-address it, I'll provide our readers with your earlier response... Again, you are attempting to twist the document's wording in order to read into it the meaning you wish. The parenthetical words "real" and "simulated" are adjectives, which can only modify nouns. The three nouns in the sentence are "we," "boatload," and "refugees." "We" makes no sense, and the meaning is the same whether the modified noun is "boatload" or "refugees." Whether the refugees are "real" or "simulated," the sinking was intended to be real.
In any case, a real refugee boat's being sunk by real 3" shells from a real Coast Guard cutter would still be a "real" sinking. A "simulated" sinking would mean either that that no vessel was actually sunk (debris dropped in the water and strafed by US aircraft), or that some vessel other than a refugee boat (such as a disguised yacht) was sunk.[/b] And you later said... Obviously at some point the transcription was slightly mangled; however, "real" and "simulated still must logically refer only to "boatload" or "Cubans."[/b] A "real boatload"? OR "real Cubans"? Entirely illogical. "We could sink a boat load" OK, then - sink a boatload of WHAT? People, obviously. In this case, Cubans. Sink a boatload of Cubans. Blow up a carload of tourists. Shoot down a planeload of Egyptians. A real carload can only mean a real carload of tourists. A real planeload can only mean a real planeload of Egyptians. And a real boatload can only mean a real boatload of Cubans. Not "a real boatload with simulated Cubans", or vice versa. Real or simulated refers to the EVENT. As one. This seems well beyond the need to explain in such finite details. Indeed, it's ridiculous having to do so.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 31, 2007 5:59:07 GMT -4
First, you continue to assume that the point is to fool the American public,. It was. Northwoods' primary objective was to provide the "justification" for America to attack Cuba. That requires fooling the American people, first and foremost, in order to motivate them into fighting a war against Cuba. If the American people don't believe the Cubans have initiated hostilities against them, the plan falls flat from the very start. when, as discussed, the point is actually to fool the Soviets and other nations. Not at all the primary goal. Certainly, the perpetrators would endeavor to fool the entire world. But if the Americans don't buy it, it's a failure. We don't attack Cuba if the Soviets buy it, but we don't.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 31, 2007 16:44:58 GMT -4
when, as discussed, the point is actually to fool the Soviets and other nations. Not at all the primary goal. Certainly, the perpetrators would endeavor to fool the entire world. But if the Americans don't buy it, it's a failure. We don't attack Cuba if the Soviets buy it, but we don't. [/quote] Once again, you're demonstrating a Fundamental Misunderstanding of Cold War Politics (TM). The point here would be that, if Cuba attacked us first, the Soviet Union could not viably use it as a justification to attack us if we declared war on Cuba. Granted, they still might have intervened, but it wouldn't have carried the same weight as an unprovoked US invasion would have. Cuba's nuclear weapons were Soviet; war with Cuba would not have been nuclear unless the Soviets felt justified in bombing us. Surely that's more important?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 1, 2007 9:01:51 GMT -4
Once again, you're demonstrating a Fundamental Misunderstanding of Cold War Politics (TM). The point here would be that, if Cuba attacked us first, the Soviet Union could not viably use it as a justification to attack us if we declared war on Cuba. Granted, they still might have intervened, but it wouldn't have carried the same weight as an unprovoked US invasion would have. Cuba's nuclear weapons were Soviet; war with Cuba would not have been nuclear unless the Soviets felt justified in bombing us. Surely that's more important? It was not as important at the time, although I think your basic points are valid. The stated purpose of Operation Northwoods: From this statement, I consider the first, and most important, goal that must be reached within this plan, is that it must succeed in fooling the American people. As I said earlier, without achieving that goal, they cannot create any justification for the US to attack Cuba - which was the entire purpose of Northwoods. Suppose the Soviets suspected it was an inside job of the US government. Suspicions alone wouldn't be enough to cause a Soviet intervention. Even if they are quite sure it was all staged, they would need to provide solid evidence, in order to validate their accusations to the rest of the world. That would not be the easiest thing for them to accomplish. On the other hand, suppose many Americans suspected it was an inside job (like 9/11!). That would still "justify" an attack on Cuba (or Iraq), as long as the military is onside (ie: fooled) - in adequate numbers. As for the Soviets? The JCS did fret over them, which is noted here... So, even though the Soviets were a problem, they were really considered to be much more of a future concern. Their ties to Cuba were not firmly established in several critical matters, militarily. Also, the JCS only mentioned a potential Soviet problem after a US attack on Cuba. That is, as a military ally coming to their defense in wartime. Not as a nation that saw through the trickery used to frame their ally. The Soviets, in the bigger picture, were certainly the greatest concern of the US. But not within Northwoods, within their urgent time frame for its realization.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 1, 2007 16:15:23 GMT -4
From this statement, I consider the first, and most important, goal that must be reached within this plan, is that it must succeed in fooling the American people. Why? It doesn't say who they're trying to justify it to, now, does it? What makes your assumption that it was the American people more plausible than mine that it was the Soviet government?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 2, 2007 1:23:35 GMT -4
Why? It doesn't say who they're trying to justify it to, now, does it? What makes your assumption that it was the American people more plausible than mine that it was the Soviet government? Look again at the primary purpose of the plan.... Justification for US Military Intervention in CubaObviously, in order to justify a US attack on Cuba, it has to be seen as justified by the American people, first and foremost. After all, the US is going to be the country going to war! The JCS wants the USSR, and the rest of the world, to view any subsequent American attack on Cuba as being justified. That is, to sympathize with the US, as outside observers. They point out the specific importance of fooling the American people in the plan.... Indignation - Anger aroused by something unjust, mean, or unworthy. Americans need to feel justified in attacking Cuba. The JCS certainly hopes that the Soviets, and the rest of the world, view any US attack on Cuba as justified. It is undoubtedly the intention of the planners. But largely, it is not needed. Not nearly as much as it is needed for America. If they can't justify an attack on Cuba to the American people (at least to a significant degree) - the people who must be motivated into taking up arms - the plan will be a complete failure. If they can justify an attack on Cuba to the American people, but not to the rest of the world, the attack can still proceed, and the primary goal of the plan will be achieved.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 2, 2007 5:41:40 GMT -4
Why? It doesn't say who they're trying to justify it to, now, does it? What makes your assumption that it was the American people more plausible than mine that it was the Soviet government? Look again at the primary purpose of the plan.... Justification for US Military Intervention in CubaUm, yes. As opposed to justification for Norwegian military intervention in Cuba. It would indeed by intervention by the US military. Yes. Whereas the average American person doesn't have nuclear weapons, and the Soviets did. Yes. Yes, they do. That's entirely different from the average American sympathizing, however. And I'm not disputing that. I am disputing that, in the context of the Cold War, that would be the primary concern. Yeah, because the American people were up in arms over McCarthyism. Except oh, wait. Yes, it's important, but not as important as avoiding being bombed by nuclear weapons. Until the US is bombed by nuclear weapons. Edit: fixed tags
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Apr 2, 2007 9:07:45 GMT -4
OK, then - sink a boatload of WHAT?
People, obviously. In this case, Cubans.
Sink a boatload of Cubans. Blow up a carload of tourists. Shoot down a planeload of Egyptians.
False analogy. As I have pointed out numerous times, it is possible to sink a ship or a boat with few or no casualties among the occupants. It is not possible to shoot down an airliner with few or no casualties to the occupants.
A real carload can only mean a real carload of tourists. A real planeload can only mean a real planeload of Egyptians. And a real boatload can only mean a real boatload of Cubans.
I never denied that it did. My point is that the real refugees don't necessarily have to die.
This seems well beyond the need to explain in such finite details. Indeed, it's ridiculous having to do so.
The issue is that you have improperly equated "sink" with "kill," and therefore assume that I'm not getting the point that the refugees might be real.
In fact, we can find examples where ships have been sunk with little or no loss of life.
"U-81 sank a shipload of British sailors." (HMS Ark Royal, one death out of over 1000 crew.)
"U-30 sank a shipload of civilians." (SS Athenia--a handful of deaths caused by the actual sinking--most killed were in a lifeboat that was run down by a "rescue" ship. Over 1000 passengers.)
"A 'friendly' mine sank a shipload of American troops." (SS President Coolidge, two deaths out of several thousand troops and sailors aboard).
More examples to follow, but I have to go for now.
Finally, thank you for setting the precedent that we can quote from each other's posts on other forums.
|
|