The U.S millitary planned to attack the United States to provoke a war with Cuba

[OzAurora]

"Dont believe the hype"

[Matthew_Page2000]

The "but it was 40 years ago!" argument doesn't hold water. Taken from the article:

"These were Joint Chiefs of Staff Documents. THE REASON THEY WERE HELD SECRET FOR SO LONG IS THE JOINT CHIEFS NEVER WANTED TO GIVE THESE UP BECAUSE THEY WERE SO EMBARRASSING..."

In other words any equivalent treachery and evil planned or committed during the Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton or Dubya administrations probably won't be brought to light for years, if ever.

That the United States Military would plot to murder American citizens, John Glenn, American military personnel and Cuban refugees because they felt U.S. politicians such as Kennedy were "too Liberal" is stunning really. It certainly serves as a reminder of how badly the Joint Chiefs wanted Kennedy to start a nuclear war with the U.S.S.R. during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Sadly, President Kennedy was "too liberal" to precipitate the destruction of human civilization. It's something of a bummer isn't it?

Are any of the conservative Interferencers out there appalled by these revelations or does your moral outrage only extend to liberal indiscretions?

MAP

[DoctorGonzo]

Yeep, if that happened (and that's a big IF), it happened 40 years ago - long before you were born, probably. So what is your point? You now hate America because of things that happened before you were born?

What the fuck is wrong with you, seriously?

Does it even begin to matter if it happened a year before I was born or 20? Our government planned to commit mass murder and terrorism on a scale that would make Al-Queda blush. Why shouldn't I care? What garuntee do I have that this shit is not going on now?

And I do have basis for that. Every post you make, you see as an opportunity to slam America. Same with Doctor Gonzo. Same with that Patti Jones person

Maybe because in the U.S, the average person hears all day how superfantasticwonderful the U.S is, and how it is "defending freedom", the "leader of the free world", how we never would stoop so low as to become like Osama Bin Laden and how morally superior we are to terrorists, etc, etc, etc.

Because this idea was totally shot down, I have to believe that this type of plan is the exception rather than the rule.

Pick up a copy of What Uncle Sam Really Wants by Noam Chomsky. He simply takes offical U.S government documents and tells you what they say. You will be utterly amazed at all the things that are spelled out quite plainly in government papers, known throughout the rest of the world, but are utterly ignored in the U.S.

What Gonzon and Spano are missing in their broad painting of the government as untrustworthy is that the government actually choose not to implement those plans. If anything, this would seem like an example of our government working.

The fact our government conspired to kill us to launch a war says a lot about it, regardless of who said "no" to it.

Oh my dear Dr. Gonzo.. Bringing in such a hugely old .. over forty years .. topic, in order to make your point..

What would be an acceptable time frame for you, anyway? I fear that you would simply dismiss anything that didn't happen yesterday. I believe the 1960s are sufficently recent to make this a very vaild example of how our government works.

No one here is saying that they Blindly trust the government, but I don't think that we'er out of line by saying that the govt that is in the seat right now, is looking out for our best interest as a country..

Shredding the very values we base our nation on, and engaging in the kind of practices we mock other nations for is hardly "looking our for our best interest". If we undermine what the nation is based on, then we are fighting for a worthless, empty shell of a state that only exists for the sake of existing.

If they have to withhold data, or even give a bit of a fib here or there.. It's ok, Like i've said in many of my posts.. Americans, should not be so needy for information..

The nation was built on the distrust of government. Every branch was designed to overlap onto another, and public scruitny and criticism was encouraged as one of the founding principles of the United States. It prevents tyranny and the very kinds of things that are the subject of this thread.

Americans should be "needy for information". That is the very idea behind our system of government.

the gov't should just handle teh war, and just let us know when its done, there is a responsibility of the gov't to not run amok or fall to enormous amounts of shady tactics, or behind the wire dealings,

You want a Fast Food Government.

"Give me the results, don't bother me with the details, get it done fast and without it directly affecting me too much".

I'm sorry, apathy breeds tyranny. Constant vigilence is required to maintain a free and fair nation. And more importantly, one with some semblance of decency and basic morals.

but let's face it, some bad shit is needed in order to accompolish things.. I

That is a common rationale behind many atrocities througout history.

I wouldn't be thrilled if we blew upone of our marine squadrons.. but let's face it, that never happened,

Well, by a stroke of luck, it didn't.

The leaders of our millitary tried to make it happen.

Did you live during that time... did you sit in your living room while Cuba had a nuclear missle pointing our way with russia.. No.. neither did I..

Somehow the concept that the ends do not always justify the means has escaped you.

Anyways, it didn't happen...

Second time you've said this, but it doesn't change the fact that it was being planned and lobbied to the administration. The fact that the millitary would even attempt to do such a thing is an indictment of them.

I assume you are the 'mysterious arab league' who is calling the tape a forged document..

When did I become a collection of Arabs?

Well, Let's start a petition here on Interference so Dr. Gonzo can buy an official interpreter.. Have you ever seen goonies with Mouth and teh Spanish Housekeeper.. May you be blessed with such a one when you travel to a foreign country...

Why are you bringing the Osama Bin Laden video into this discussion as if I had mentioned it? Sorry, try again.

Let's all congratulate Gonzo on his six hours of internet search time for bringing such an issue to our eyes. Thank you Gonzo. This was something i didn't know, and an article i read with interest.

Your juvinile attempt to mock me has humilated you in front of the rest of the forum.

[This message has been edited by DoctorGonzo (edited 12-14-2001).]

[Spiral_Staircase]

Regarding the ABC story:
Un-be-freakin-leavable!

I have to say that I thought that all these conspiracy theories out there had absolutely no basis. Well, I now see I was wrong. This is insane.
But I should also say that this by no means leads me to distrust ALL of our government's actions. Because this idea was totally shot down, I have to believe that this type of plan is the exception rather than the rule.

Regarding the rest of the discussion in here:
Be nice.

[speedracer]

Originally posted by Matthew_Page2000:

Are any of the conservative Interferencers out there appalled by these revelations or does your moral outrage only extend to liberal indiscretions?

I'm appalled by these revelations, but not too surprised. And I'm glad Kennedy was a sensible person (in this instance, anyway).

Oh, and Dr. Gonzo--learn to spell, dammit. "Guarantee" and "juvenile" and "vigilance" are all misspelled in your post. The atrocities you have committed against the English language are outrageous.

[Lemonite]

Originally posted by speedracer:
I'm appalled by these revelations, but not too surprised. And I'm glad Kennedy was a sensible person (in this instance, anyway).

I too am quite turned off that these things were even planned.. I wrote that above.. but when I refer to the 'needy information', I am referring to this constant desire to know EVERY single aspect of the war, like the 'intelligence' data that has been shown to many of this world's premier leaders and been confirmed.. yet Americans are 'trashing' the presidency for not releasing something that they say is in the nation's best interest to keep a lid on.. THis is what I refer to when I talk about 'not sharing information'.. I tend to believe in the Men In Black style of governing for a large majority of issues.. That any little concern will set our nation in a free for all of panic.. The tyranny is not in the picture because there is enough information coming to the general folk, as well as the other branches of the gov't to check on one another... It is hardly apathy gonz. when if extreme clamoring for interest in evidence or some other piece of news is going to hurt our national security..

And my dear gonz, I appreciate your ideas and thoughts, I acknowledge you've got some good points.. and some bad ones.. this time some ok ones.. but the vehemence behind your words seems to be nonproductive...or at least witless... and for some reason I didn't convey that my views were not as extreme on this issue as I had written.. I love the keyboard.. I'll be seeing you for round two... I suggest the second Stall with the broken flush handle...

OFf to take my second Final.. Yippee

[80sU2isBest]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeep, if that happened (and that's a big IF), it happened 40 years ago - long before you were born, probably. So what is your point? You now hate America because of things that happened before you were born?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr.Gonzo wrote:
What the fuck is wrong with you, seriously?
Does it even begin to matter if it happened a year before I was born or 20? Our government planned to commit mass murder and terrorism on a scale that would make Al-Queda blush. Why shouldn't I care? What garuntee do I have that this shit is not going on now?

80sU2isBest:
Doctor Gonzo, you are something else. And that's being nice. You are a complete enigma. I will never ever understand you. This was NOT a plan devised by the US government. It was devised by certain people in teh government but quickly shot down by superiors. Now, I ask you again - are you going to hold it against the goevernment for a bad plan that was devised by people who were obviously lunatics, but then rightfully rejected by their calmer, more rational supervisors - all over 40 years ago?

[ramblin rose]

This is one of the funniest threads I have every read.

Can we do an age check so I can put some perspective on this discussion?

[Holy John]

While we're in the subject of Cuba, the United States released a list of countries that support terrorism and one of them is Cuba. I just find that ridiculous. While I do not support Castro I00%, I have to give credit to Cuba for being the first country to have openly speaken to create an International Coalition against terrorism (check out the United Nations site in the General Assembly section). Of course, Cuba, being an unimportant country, wasn't heard by the international medias. Also, Cuba sent help in the United States for the victims of the World Trade Center Attacks. That passed unmentionned by the medias, of course. I don't quite believe that Cuba wants to destroy the United States, by helping them in crisis situations like what happened on Sept. II. I know a Cuban spy was being arrested and is subject to prison for life, but every country uses spies. It is to remember that the CIA drops bacteriological stuff on the Cuban Agricultural fields, making devastations (in '97, Cuba lost half of his bovine production).

It is not hating the US for what they did 40 years ago "before we were born". History is important and no one must reject it. While we can't do anything for something that happened 40 years ago, we can still remember and it still does play an important fact regarding the Cuban / USA political relations. It is not because Cuba openly speaks out (check again the United Nations debates) against the politics of the United States that Cuba wants to destroy it. And it is not by the Helms Law that the USA will calm things down. In this debate, every fact is important.

Cheers


------------------
United Nations : www.un.org - UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund) : www.unicef.org
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) : <A HREF="http://www.unesco.org

«Je" TARGET=_blank>www.unesco.org

«Je</A> suis le dernier homme. Contre tous, je me défendrai...»
"I am the last man. Against all, I shall defend myself..."
- 'Rhinocéros', Ionesco

[Lemonite]

Originally posted by Holy John:
While we're in the subject of Cuba, the United States released a list of countries that support terrorism and one of them is Cuba. I just find that ridiculous. While I do not support Castro I00%, I have to give credit to Cuba for being the first country to have openly speaken to create an International Coalition against terrorism (check out the United Nations site in the General Assembly section). Of course, Cuba, being an unimportant country, wasn't heard by the international medias. Also, Cuba sent help in the United States for the victims of the World Trade Center Attacks. That passed unmentionned by the medias, of course. I don't quite believe that Cuba wants to destroy the United States, by helping them in crisis situations like what happened on Sept. II. I know a Cuban spy was being arrested and is subject to prison for life, but every country uses spies. It is to remember that the CIA drops bacteriological stuff on the Cuban Agricultural fields, making devastations (in '97, Cuba lost half of his bovine production).

It is not hating the US for what they did 40 years ago "before we were born". History is important and no one must reject it. While we can't do anything for something that happened 40 years ago, we can still remember and it still does play an important fact regarding the Cuban / USA political relations. It is not because Cuba openly speaks out (check again the United Nations debates) against the politics of the United States that Cuba wants to destroy it. And it is not by the Helms Law that the USA will calm things down. In this debate, every fact is important.

Cheers

I will say this about history and what not.. as I have written this before, but Man is the only animal that does not learn from its mistakes, Wars happen over and over again for teh same reasons, but there never is, and most likely never will be a solution, And going back through history, mankind in general, has made the same errors, and they have caused teh same problems now that they did three hundred years ago.. except a musket was drawn.. powdered.. packed.. aimed.. then aimed again to account for the wind.. then aimed again to account for teh bent barrel, then fired, whereas, now people just pull a nine or an AK and fire freely...

In this respect I do honor history... Well.. that and Ms. Hepburn

[Holy John]

Originally posted by Lemonite:
I will say this about history and what not.. as I have written this before, but Man is the only animal that does not learn from its mistakes, Wars happen over and over again for teh same reasons, but there never is, and most likely never will be a solution, And going back through history, mankind in general, has made the same errors, and they have caused teh same problems now that they did three hundred years ago.. except a musket was drawn.. powdered.. packed.. aimed.. then aimed again to account for the wind.. then aimed again to account for teh bent barrel, then fired, whereas, now people just pull a nine or an AK and fire freely...

My comment could be translated as : "Remember history not to repeat the same errors". I don't think anyone, whatever their ideas are, are silly enough to repeat over and over the same errors. Well... even if it happens a lot.

I used to be an "extremist pacifist", but now, I'm not angelic no more. I know wars will always happen, but we should do everything to prevent that.


------------------
United Nations : www.un.org - UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund) : www.unicef.org
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) : <A HREF="http://www.unesco.org

«Je" TARGET=_blank>www.unesco.org

«Je</A> suis le dernier homme. Contre tous, je me défendrai...»
"I am the last man. Against all, I shall defend myself..."
- 'Rhinocéros', Ionesco

[sv]

Sulawesigirl, if you say so then I guess that Saddam Hussein and the USSR were just tyring to make weaponized anthrax so they could make a vaccine against them. Very strong argument.

In determining which country makes it for offensive use, and which makes it to cure the world of anthrax, I presume you use precedent - in other words, clearly most of us agree that Saddam and the USSR proved themselves over time to be malignant, at least somewhat offensive powers.

The problem is that you assume the U.S. is not the exact same thing, contrary to all available evidence. Who used nuclear weapons to attack civilians in 1945? Who used napalm, agent orange, and other chemical warfare agents to hideously disfigure and murder the Vietnamese in the late 1960s? The U.S. has bombed over 40 countries over the last 150 years, nearly always to defend our "business interests", i.e. our right to take others' natural resources and make their people starve.

And whose Anthrax is it that's killing Americans now?

[sulawesigirl4]

Originally posted by sv:
Sulawesigirl, if you say so then I guess that Saddam Hussein and the USSR were just tyring to make weaponized anthrax so they could make a vaccine against them. Very strong argument.

Sarcasm duly noted. Please also note that I was not attempting to make an iron-clad case, I was merely posing one possibility out of many in answer to your question.

[speedracer]

Originally posted by sv:
Sulawesigirl, if you say so then I guess that Saddam Hussein and the USSR were just tyring to make weaponized anthrax so they could make a vaccine against them. Very strong argument.

In determining which country makes it for offensive use, and which makes it to cure the world of anthrax, I presume you use precedent - in other words, clearly most of us agree that Saddam and the USSR proved themselves over time to be malignant, at least somewhat offensive powers.

The problem is that you assume the U.S. is not the exact same thing, contrary to all available evidence.

Eh, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Saddam Hussein is a nutcase, and that that makes him an order of magnitude more dangerous than any other head of state.

[kobayashi]

Originally posted by speedracer:

Oh, and Dr. Gonzo--learn to spell, dammit. "Guarantee" and "juvenile" and "vigilance" are all misspelled in your post. The atrocities you have committed against the English language are outrageous.

i t hought the free your mind section of the exam was only marked for structure. damnit.

------------------
against smileys

[sv]

Sulawesigirl, please note that the sarcasm is directed at the argument, not at you. I'm sorry if it appears any other way. No disrespect intended - though I strongly feel that history does not support your viewpoint in this case.

Speedracer, I can't see that there's any question that the most dangerous head of state in the world is the U.S. President. He has nuclear weapons (and his country has used them), he has chemical weapons (and his country has used them), and to boot he has weaponized anthrax (for medicinal purposes, of course). He is influenced by all kinds of war-hawks and oil-hungry maniacs that will do anything to get what they want, and he's not shy about using bombs. He's not interested in treaties and multilateralism except when he needs diplomatic cover to bomb someone.

Saddam is bad, no question. But the danger he poses to the planet pales in comparison to other, stronger heads of state. And any comparison with U.S. heads of state is ludicrous - the U.S. killed 3 million Vietnamese and made the most arable land in the world into a desert. And the U.S. can do it again, at will. Saddam has killed many, but not that many, and he simply doesn't have the reach.

[TylerDurden]

Pretty chilling no matter who thought of it or how long ago it was.

I see there was 'token U2 content' in the article as well. Good work kids.

[speedracer]

Originally posted by sv:

Speedracer, I can't see that there's any question that the most dangerous head of state in the world is the U.S. President. He has nuclear weapons (and his country has used them), he has chemical weapons (and his country has used them), and to boot he has weaponized anthrax (for medicinal purposes, of course). He is influenced by all kinds of war-hawks and oil-hungry maniacs that will do anything to get what they want, and he's not shy about using bombs. He's not interested in treaties and multilateralism except when he needs diplomatic cover to bomb someone.

Saddam is bad, no question. But the danger he poses to the planet pales in comparison to other, stronger heads of state. And any comparison with U.S. heads of state is ludicrous - the U.S. killed 3 million Vietnamese and made the most arable land in the world into a desert. And the U.S. can do it again, at will. Saddam has killed many, but not that many, and he simply doesn't have the reach.

I don't see why I need to defend the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki when there are plenty of respectable historians to do that, so I won't.

The Vietnam War is not so easy to defend. I will simply offer the (somewhat simple) veiw that the war was motivated by the US's immense fear that Communism was a program of worldwide domination headed by the Kremlin. (I wholly reject the notion, championed by Noam Chomsky, that Communism was a straw man set up by the US government to justify US military aggression around the globe.) And I think 3 million is a rough estimate of the total Vietnamese casualties during the war, not all of which can be blamed on the US.

There are also various US interventions into third world countries that were designed to maintain favorable business climates (i.e. force governments to keep supplying US businesses with cheap labor).

So the US has done some lousy things in the past, but for most of them there is some semblance of a legitimate motive.

As for Iraq, can you offer me an explanation of why Saddam Hussein should use mustard gas against Kurds in Northern Iraq? Can you also justify your assertion that Saddam does not currently have the capabilities to wipe out large populations?


[This message has been edited by speedracer (edited 12-17-2001).]

[Holy John]

Speaking of Irak, where is Cuba in the past 3 replies ?

------------------
United Nations : www.un.org - UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund) : www.unicef.org
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) : <A HREF="http://www.unesco.org

«Je" TARGET=_blank>www.unesco.org

«Je</A> suis le dernier homme. Contre tous, je me défendrai...»
"I am the last man. Against all, I shall defend myself..."
- 'Rhinocéros', Ionesco

[sv]

Hi Speedracer: On the point that Saddam is the lowest of lowlifes, we have no argument. That he would use (and probably has used) chemical weapons - no argument. But the comment we were referring to was whether he is "the most dangerous head of state". Both Saddam and the U.S. have used chemical weapons to liquidate large numbers of people. The U.S. has killed many more than Saddam, even by U.S. estimates. The U.S. clearly has a much greater ability to deliver any form of weapons (nuclear, chemical, biological, conventional) it wherever it wants, whenever it wants. Saddam is to some degree constrained by the international community and the U.N.; the U.S. President has no such limitations and has made it clear that he will do whatever he wants. And that's just the direct military action component. If we also consider the financial, infrastructural, and diplomatic aid the U.S. President provides to all kinds of rogues around the world, now THAT'S dangerous.

So I conclude that the U.S. President is much more dangerous than Saddam.

And while the corporate-owned U.S. mass media is currently willing to speak about past crimes and call them "cold war" crimes, the fact is that the U.S. business community and government currently pursue exactly the same imperialistic, destructive, and human-rights-abusive policies now.

To take very simple examples, I would ask what right Chevron has to fly soldiers into Nigerian villages to massacre peasants who object to their lands being usurped for oil development? That occurs now. Or why is it that the U.S. continues to advocate "Plan Columbia", which essentially funnels 1 billion dollars to the "security apparatus" of one of the most brutal governments in history (apparently 16,000 kidnappings/year, primarily by government supported death squads). That happens now. Or if the U.S. is so concerned about Saddam's treatment of the Kurds, then why does the U.S. make Turkey one of its biggest beneficiaries when Turkey pursues the Kurds far more aggressively and continuously than Saddam?

The point of talking about the past is to remind people of what's happening in the present, so at least some of the destruction and loss of life can be prevented. These brutal regimes would have no chance of surviving if the funds, arms, and diplomatic cover provided by the U.S. were withdrawn.