This is how the American think-tanks plan their "wars".
and how they manage to get the American people to support them against the worlds' "evil".
| Quote: |
PRETEXTS TO JUSTIFY US MILITARY INTERVENTION IN CUBA
(Note: The courses of action which follow are a preliminary submission suitable only for planning purposes. They are arranged neither chronologically nor in ascending order.Together with similar inputs from other agencies, they are intended to provide a point of departure for the development of a single, integrated, time-phased plan. Such a plan would permit the evaluation of individual projects within the context of cumulative, correlated actions designed to lead inexorably to the objective of adequate justification for US military intervention in Cuba).
1. Since it would seem desirable to use legitimate provocation as the basis for US military intervention in Cuba a cover and deception plan. to include requisite preliminary actions such as has been developed in response to Task 33c, could be executed as an initial effort to provoke Cuban reactions. Harassment plus deceptive actions to convince the Cubans of imminent invasion would be emphasized. Our military posture throughout execution of the plan will allow a rapid change from exercise to intervention if Cuban responses justifies.
2. A series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces.
a. Incidents to establish a credible attack (not in chronilogical order):
(1) Start rumors (many). Use clandestine radio.
(2) Land friendly Cubans in uniform "over-the-fence" to stage attack on the base.
(3) Capture Cuban (friendly) sabateurs inside the base.
(4) Start riots near the entrance to the base (friendly Cubans). Appendix to Enclosure A 7
(5) Blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires.
(6) Burn aircraft on airbase (sabatage).
(7) Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base. Some damage to installations.
(8) Capture assault teams approaching from the sea of vicinity of Guantanamo City.
(9) Capture militia group which storms the base.
(10) Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires -- napthalene.
(11) Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims (may be lieu of (10)).
b. United States would respond by executing offensive operations to secure water and power supplies, destroying artillery and mortar emplacements which threaten the base.
c. Commence large scale United States military operations.
3. A "Remember the Maine" incident could be arranged in several forms:
a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.
b. We could blow up a drone (unmannded) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both. The presense of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack. The nearness to Havana or Santiago would add credibility especially to those people that might have heard the blast or have seen the fire. The US could follow with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to "evacuate" remaining members of the non-existant crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.
4. We could develop a Communist Cuba terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Flordia cities and even in Washington.
The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seekinghaven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubansenroute to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized.Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful inprojecting the idea of an irresponsible government.
5. A "Cuban-based, Castro-supported" filibuster could besimulated against a neighboring Caribbean nation (in the veinof the 14th of June invasion of the Dominican Republic). We know that Castro is backing subversive efforts clandestinely against Haiti, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, and Nicaragua at present and possible others. These efforts can be magnified and additional ones contrived for exposure. For example, advantage can be taken of the sensitivity of the Dominican Air Force to intrusions within their national air space. "Cuban" B-26 orC-46 type aircraft could make cane-burning raids at night. Soviet Bloc incidiaries could be found. This could be coupledwith "Cuban" messages to the Communist underground in the Dominican Republic and "Cuban" shipments of arms which would be found, or intercepted, on the beach.
6. Use of MIG type aircraft by US pilots could provide additional provocation. Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type planes would be useful as complementary actions. An F-86 properly painted would convince air passengers that they saw a Cuban MIG, especially if the pilot of the transport were to announce such fact. The primary drawback to this suggestion appears to be the security risk inherent in obtaining or modifying an aircraft. However, reasonable copies of the MIG could be purchased from US resources in about three months.
7. Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft should appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the government of Cuba. Concurrently, genuine defections of Cuban civil and military air and surface craft should be encouraged.
8. It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba.The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.
a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be subsituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.
b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the inter- national distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by the destruction of aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow IACO radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the incident.
9. It is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraftover international waters in an unprovoked attack.
a. Approximately 4 of 5 F-101 aircraft will be dispatched in trail from Homestead AFB, Florida, to the vicinity of Cuba. Their mission will be to reverse course and simulate fakir aircraft for an air defense exercise in southern Florida. These aircraft would conduct variations of these flights at frequent intervals. Crews would be briefed to remain at least 12 miles off the Cuban coast; however, they would be required to carry live ammunition in the event that hostile actions were taken by the Cuban MIGs.
b. On one such flight, a pre-briefed pilot would fly tail-end Charley at considerable interval between aircraft. While near the Cuban Island this pilot would broadcast that he had been jumped by MIGs and was going down. No other calls would be made. The pilot would then fly directly west at extremely low altitude and land at a secure base, an Eglin auxiliary. The aircraft would be met by the proper people, quickly stored and given a new tail number. The pilot who had performed the mission under an alias, would resume his proper identity and return to his normal place of business. The pilot and aircraft would then have disappeared.
c. At precisely the same time that the aircraft was presumably shot down a submarine or small surface craft would disburse F-101 parts, parachute, etc., at approximately 15 to 20 miles off the Cuban coast and depart. The pilots retuning to Homestead would have a true story as far as they knew. Search ships and aircraft could be dispatched and parts of aircraft found. |
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf
This is a part of the memorandum from the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the Cuban war.
It was called Operation Northwoods, and was rejected by President Kennedy.
A good reference for those who believe that American wars are fought with good justification and with enough transparency to the people.
And this is just one reference, American people have been lied to in almost every international war that America has fought.
Ironically, being perhaps one of very few countries where public opinion matters enough to be capable of determining the decision to go to war, American people hardly ever form an opinion of their own.
Terror sells.
Last edited by xalophus on Wed Oct 05, 2005 9:15 am; edited 1 time in total 3 posts on the same topic? I guess you wanted to make sure you were heard eh? Either that or you have a nervous disorder. 
| S3nd K3ys wrote: |
| 3 posts on the same topic? I guess you wanted to make sure you were heard eh? Either that or you have a nervous disorder. |
Probably rather a database problem. I saw a lot of duplicate posts lately. | Bondings wrote: |
| S3nd K3ys wrote: | | 3 posts on the same topic? I guess you wanted to make sure you were heard eh? Either that or you have a nervous disorder. |
Probably rather a database problem. I saw a lot of duplicate posts lately. |
I had a post a recently where, after I hit submit, it kept me in the "Post a reply" page but posted the thread. I knew I hit the button, so I went to look because I knew something was up.. and sure enough, the thread was there in the forum.
It pays off to do a little research I guess... Funny thing is, you can only get them on the grounds of the immorality of the scheme/war, there's no such thing as binding international law.
I didn't read that article. I was having a hard time getting thru things like these taken from the very first paragraph:
| Quote: |
...
preliminarysubmission...
arearranged ...
areintended...
developmentof...
wouldpermit...
contextof ...
militaryintervention... |
If you're gonna write an article, at least run it thru an ef'n spell checker or figure out where the SPACEBAR is located. Especially if you want anyone to take it seriously. | S3nd K3ys wrote: |
| 3 posts on the same topic? I guess you wanted to make sure you were heard eh? Either that or you have a nervous disorder. |
| S3nd K3ys wrote: |
I had a post a recently where, after I hit submit, it kept me in the "Post a reply" page but posted the thread. I knew I hit the button, so I went to look because I knew something was up.. and sure enough, the thread was there in the forum.
It pays off to do a little research I guess... |
| S3nd K3ys wrote: |
I didn't read that article. I was having a hard time getting thru things like these taken from the very first paragraph:
| Quote: | ...
preliminarysubmission...
arearranged ...
areintended...
developmentof...
wouldpermit...
contextof ...
militaryintervention... |
If you're gonna write an article, at least run it thru an ef'n spell checker or figure out where the SPACEBAR is located. Especially if you want anyone to take it seriously. |
Three posts in this topic, just pointing out the mistakes I made in posting ?
I guess you have nothing relevant to say ? either that or...
The original document is in scanned image format, and it's not easily converted back to plain text.
I'll fix those missing spaces, then you'll have no excuse to not read it
But please don't act like you never made a error in typing, yet I never point those out, they're not such an important part of the discussion.
I've given a link to the PDF document, too. You can read that.
I was hoping for something to be said in reply to the topic, instead of silly mistakes being pointed out.This is of course no surprise to me, and I live not in the US.
I find it amazing that there are still so many americans who believe that their country is the most patriotic nation, full of integrity and it's impossible to suggest otherwise.
I firmly believe there are many good people in America, with over 200 million strong there MUST be.
But....with their governments most public disgrace of share incompetence after the hurricane in New Orleans, their patriotism lies in nothing more than a waving flag of stars and stripes.
And....with their blatant lies to justify invading Iraq, NOT that Saddam and his sons didn't deserve their fate. But to disrespectfully disregard the UN which was founded to prevent such travesties and LIE to the public about the weapons of mass destruction fallacy, which the American media contributed to and are very much to blame.
So said, so their integrity was done!
The American people must stop supporting such audasity and read between the lines to seek the truth. But instead they prefer to "BOOO" Michael Moore and dubb him a communist when in fact he seems to be the most patriotic of the bunch who is actually trying to show you the REAL truth.....maybe a little exaggerated at times, but how else can he get a blinded nation to see??
Well....his truths are now very publicly for ALL to see and cannot be dismissed any longer.
For all of you decent Americans I apologize for hitting below the belt. But your country affects the entire world to ensure "The American way of life", more so than any other nation and is therefore partly my business.
Thanks for reading 
| xalophus wrote: |
...
But please don't act like you never made a error in typing, yet I never point those out, they're not such an important part of the discussion.
|
Actually, I didn't think you typed it. I thought it was released like that.
| Quote: |
I was hoping for something to be said in reply to the topic, instead of silly mistakes being pointed out. |
Sure, here you go...
While I agree that ALL governments do pretty much the same thing in this or other circumstances to some degree, I must ask you (a) this article is from an incident from over 40 years ago, and contains (from what I can see) nothing but speculation and conspiracy theory; is there ANY proof that ANY of those things actually happened they way it is portrayed? (I"m not denying, I'm just asking) and (b) do you believe that this happened EVERY SINGLE TIME THE GOVERNMENT DID SOMETHING MILITARILY?
Some more questions come to mind...
Do you think WWI & II brought the same 'justification'??
Do you think Russia was not a threat?
Do you think terrorists are not a threat?
Do you think the US will stop at Iraq/Afghan?
Do you think the next administration, repub or dem, would not continue the war against terrorists world wide? | S3nd K3ys wrote: |
| Actually, I didn't think you typed it. I thought it was released like that. |
You blamed me nonetheless 
Now
| S3nd K3ys wrote: |
While I agree that ALL governments do pretty much the same thing in this or other circumstances to some degree, I must ask you (a) this article is from an incident from over 40 years ago, and contains (from what I can see) nothing but speculation and conspiracy theory; is there ANY proof that ANY of those things actually happened they way it is portrayed? (I"m not denying, I'm just asking) and (b) do you believe that this happened EVERY SINGLE TIME THE GOVERNMENT DID SOMETHING MILITARILY?
Some more questions come to mind...
Do you think WWI & II brought the same 'justification'??
Do you think Russia was not a threat?
Do you think terrorists are not a threat?
Do you think the US will stop at Iraq/Afghan?
Do you think the next administration, repub or dem, would not continue the war against terrorists world wide? |
Perhaps other governments do wrong to justify their wars too and none of it is right.
But it's different with America, they play policeman to the world, besides being the country with the power to annihilate any other.
America starting a war on such pretext, or their think tanks planning things like this is more than just wrong.
Such policy makers if incharge of America, can be destructive to the whole world. worse than the terrorists themselves.
as for the 40 year old incident, I said that this was rejected by then President.
However, this doesn't do much good to any future justification America offers. America loses its credibility as a land of justice.
There is solid reason to believe that they are misleading their people into supporting a war, or at worse, fabricating evidence.
In Iraq particularly when their primary argument, namely WMDs, has been invalidated by their own intelligence.
And especially when certain members of PNAC, the American think-tank which suggested the need of another Pearl Harbor, are senior officials in the current American government.
Russia was a threat, yes, but to America and not the whole world.
They were a threat because they then had potential to challenge American world dominance, and to play spoil sport in American aspirations of a unipolar world.
Terrorists are a threat, yes, but Iraq was no immediate threat to America. I think we can continue the Iraq discussion in the other thread.
And lastly, America most definitely won't stop at Iraq. No.
There are other strategically important countries to be conquered, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria to name a few. | xalophus wrote: |
| S3nd K3ys wrote: | | Actually, I didn't think you typed it. I thought it was released like that. |
You blamed me nonetheless
|
Oh, really?
Which orifice did you pull that out of? Are you just so paranoid that you think everyone is targeting you?
Again you attempt to portray things as they are not. What is it with you constantly taking things out of or not putting things into context??
If you're thinking it was from this, you're wrong...
| Quote: |
If you're gonna write an article, at least run it thru an ef'n spell checker or figure out where the SPACEBAR is located. Especially if you want anyone to take it seriously.
|
It is referring to the author of the article, not ilibrium or you. :paranoid:
| Quote: |
...
But it's different with America, they play policeman to the world, besides being the country with the power to annihilate any other.
America starting a war on such pretext, or their think tanks planning things like this is more than just wrong. |
DING DING DING!! WINNER!
You're right. The US IS the police of the world. They ARE the most powerful. They DO try to spread freedom and protect the world's freedom from those that would try to take it away! Is the US going to be able to make everybody happy? Hell no! Is the US out to conquer the world, (which they probably could do, and have been able to do for quite a long time)? Hell no! Is the US trying to protect itself and the rest of the free world from idiot terrorists that obviously do want to conquer the world? Hell yes!
| Quote: |
..America loses its credibility as a land of justice.
There is solid reason to believe that they are misleading their people into supporting a war, or at worse, fabricating evidence. |
Fabricating evidnece? Like what? Got links? I believe the US was specifically wrong, but generally and justifiably correct in it's actions in Iraq AND Afgan, and future actions in Iran, Syria, N. Korea, Saudi Arabia and any other country that harbors/supports/trains/funds or otherwise supports terrorists of ANY kind.
Do you know anyone in Iraq? Either living there or serving there? I do. I know several of both. Although you wouldn't hear it in the US media, ~99% of the people there are grateful for our attempt to liberate them. (I know this from first hand accounts from friends serving there and from first hand account of a few Iraqi citizens I know personally.)
| Quote: |
Russia was a threat, yes, but to America and not the whole world.
They were a threat because they then had potential to challenge American world dominance, and to play spoil sport in American aspirations of a unipolar world.
|
Considering the option of communism, I have NO problem with the US continuing it's 'aspirations of a unipolar world' provided that world is based on freedom of the world's people to dictate thier own form of government, so long as it does not threaten the world's freedom in general.
| Quote: |
And lastly, America most definitely won't stop at Iraq. No.
There are other strategically important countries to be conquered, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria to name a few. |
Conquered is a pretty powerful word. Perhaps you're not aware that the US is trying to provide Iraq with the means to defend themselves and govern themselves? Or is that a lie too? Like everything else the US does?
I believe it will be Syria and/or Iran first. Then we should work on North Korea and Saudi Arabia. These are the biggest threats to world freedom at the moment. (Well, aside from the big ol meanie USA running around conquering the world...) | S3nd K3ys wrote: |
| I believe it will be Syria and/or Iran first. Then we should work on North Korea and Saudi Arabia. These are the biggest threats to world freedom at the moment. (Well, aside from the big ol meanie USA running around conquering the world...) |
You bring up a brilliant point. Whether or not one agrees with your point that the U.S. should 'protect our national interests abroad,' I would suggest that we consider the grander question:
Liberals have accused the current administration of nation building in Iraq. Conservatives vehemently deny this. Why is nation-building such a taboo idea? My question is this: Is nation building such a bad thing? Name me one instance in history where one country, who stuck with the entire process, miserably fail in their pursuit to improve the conditions of another country. (As you all contemplate this, make a mental tally of the number of things that you, or someone you know, own that are made in Japan, Germany, Hong Kong (not a country.. but hey) and S. Korea.) | illini319 wrote: |
| S3nd K3ys wrote: | | I believe it will be Syria and/or Iran first. Then we should work on North Korea and Saudi Arabia. These are the biggest threats to world freedom at the moment. (Well, aside from the big ol meanie USA running around conquering the world...) |
You bring up a brilliant point. Whether or not one agrees with your point that the U.S. should 'protect our national interests abroad,' I would suggest that we consider the grander question:
Liberals have accused the current administration of nation building in Iraq. Conservatives vehemently deny this. Why is nation-building such a taboo idea? My question is this: Is nation building such a bad thing? Name me one instance in history where one country, who stuck with the entire process, miserably fail in their pursuit to improve the conditions of another country. (As you all contemplate this, make a mental tally of the number of things that you, or someone you know, own that are made in Japan, Germany, Hong Kong (not a country.. but hey) and S. Korea.) |
Nation-building is a bad thing because we are imposing our will on those nations. Supposedly. The majority of people in Iraq (we're talking more than 95% from my estimates) want democracy. Those that don't are the ones that rule the country now, (or like to think they do)
The contries that the USA has 'conquered' in the past have not only survived, most have thrived because we've helped the rebuild. | S3nd K3ys wrote: |
| Nation-building is a bad thing because we are imposing our will on those nations. Supposedly. The majority of people in Iraq (we're talking more than 95% from my estimates) want democracy. Those that don't are the ones that rule the country now, (or like to think they do) |
How do you reconcile your above statement, with the one below?
| S3nd K3ys wrote: |
The contries that the USA has 'conquered' in the past have not only survived, most have thrived because we've helped the rebuild. |
I'm a bit confused as to what you think about it given the apparent contradiction between your two paragraphs.
First point:
According to your definition it is one country imposing its will on another. (which is too general a definition btw... are economic sanctions nation-building???) I believe that the ones that 'rule' Iraq at the moment are democratically elected people. You can always argue that the ruling class will always be the ruling class.. a boy's club if you will. But either way, they were presumably elected, AND are friendly to the western powers. Is this not nation-building? Are there not a significant number of American companies vying for lucrative reconstruction contracts to help rebuild Iraq? If this is not nation building (key word: building), then please explain to me the primary difference? Having said that, it brings me to my second point regarding your second paragraph.
Second point:
If you believe that 'nation-built' countries, which have been helped by the U.S. in the past, are now thriving, then how is nation-building bad?
Here is one example:
Very little is said about what happened in Japan in the preceding years following WW2. As we know, the US and its allies helped rebuild Japan post WW2. As we also know, the Japanese people, as a whole, were generally welcome to this idea (if for nothing else than a fear of another h-bomb). What is less well known are the numerous popular riots (some of which were violently deadly) that occured because many Japanese were NOT so happy with what they felt was US occupation. Terrorism was not a factor, as terrorism was not in 'vogue.' However, there was a significant amount of animosity towards western nations particularly the US in Japan during those early years after the war. Many regime changes, mostly democratic, ensued and finally after much change we have what we have today in Japan.
Change is clearly painful. But, given this example, is it not worth it in the end? or not (and why)? | Quote: |
| Nation-building is a bad thing because we are imposing our will on those nations. Supposedly. |
I haven't found the :sarcasm: smilie yet. Imposing our will? Well, I guess if we take a stand against agression and do something when peoples' human rights are being endangered, I guess that's what it would be considered....but then there is the alternative of letting tyrants do what they will to other people, I guess some would consider those people sub-human and not deserving of the basic human rights. If that's the case, I would lean towrds the anti-war side. But it is NOT. The Iraqi people have no hope other than help from outside. They were under a tyranical regime AND are surrounded by countries who could care less and would gladly support the stomping out of any individual thinking, religious and politcal choice making. The situation is much deeper than WMD or not and oil prices. There are people there who need real help. I guess it's easy to turn a blind eye when you have everything (within reason) that you want. You're free, you have endless choices and opportunities. maybe some people could use a trip to the middle east to see first hand what it's all about. I have. I learned alot.
| ewfdemon wrote: |
| Imposing our will? Well, I guess if we take a stand against agression and do something when peoples' human rights are being endangered, I guess that's what it would be considered....but then there is the alternative of letting tyrants do what they will to other people, I guess some would consider those people sub-human and not deserving of the basic human rights. If that's the case, I would lean towrds the anti-war side. But it is NOT. The Iraqi people have no hope other than help from outside. They were under a tyranical regime AND are surrounded by countries who could care less and would gladly support the stomping out of any individual thinking, religious and politcal choice making. The situation is much deeper than WMD or not and oil prices. There are people there who need real help. I guess it's easy to turn a blind eye when you have everything (within reason) that you want. You're free, you have endless choices and opportunities. maybe some people could use a trip to the middle east to see first hand what it's all about. I have. I learned alot. |
Whoa. Did everyone msis the sarcasm but me?? | S3nd K3ys wrote: |
| Whoa. Did everyone msis the sarcasm but me?? |
I think so. ewfdemon, I believe S3nd K3ys thinks that it was morally justifiable to oust Saddam.so I got worked up for nothing. lol.
USA doesn't want to conquer the World, it has ALREADY conquered the World, at least a massive part of it.
Just take a look at the cultural-social submission of other countries around and try to figure out...
The US is protecting itself, not concquering anything. When you conquer a nation you don't set up a government for them, you don't give them their own army, or supply them with weapons. You don't set them up to stand on their own. To conquer a nation is to leave it helpless on it's own. If we pulled out of Iraq right now it would be helpless. Insurgency is rampant and The US is the only one willing to knock it down.
Nowadays there are another domination ways. Propaganda is one of the more efficient ways. Economical tricks, fear corporation, cocaine and des-information just walk together.
But I will not argue about, FBI can kill me! 
