War

1. 57

   Candy Beauclairposted 14 years ago

   We have been at war now for about six years and for what. We have fought for every other reason besides what we should of been fighting for. We needed to stay focused on why we went to war in the first place. I feel we could of handled this situation in a different, quicker way. We could of went in there without any one knowing and took care of the problem and got out of their but instead we started a world war. The lives that have been lost are just enormously up in count. Everyday more and more lives are lost. I think it's time for us to go in and take them out at all costs. We really need to stop messing around. We have the man power and the equipment to end this. I think it's time to show these terrorist just who they are messing with. Lets not make this a war like world war two. We need to end this war before it causes any more damage.

   replyreport
   1. 69

      wesleycoxposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Wow, it is nice to find an absolute expert on war and why we went to war. Thanks for your sentiments.  So what's your suggestion, it seems like all you're saying is that we need to end the war.  Ok, how do you suppose to do that?  We should just go and destroy the taliban huh? Ok, how do you recommend we do that?  Should we leave Iraq and Afganistan? What about an exit strategy?  Should we just up and leave?  What exactly are you recommending?

      replyreport
      1. 57

         Candy Beauclairposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I feel we should go in and bomb where necessary just wipe them out. We have our secret services that can do just about anything and our navy seals have quite a bit of special training up there sleeves. If we would of went in secretly in the first place and took care of the situation without anyone ever knowing what hit them we most likely wouldn't be at war right now.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            egivposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            "Just wipe them out." Who? The "evil-doers?" The "bad guys?" They don't just walk around with big signs, and I don't think they are all holed up in one building, so how exactly does bombing to "wipe them out" make any sense?
            
            What would you say if China, or any foreign army, just "wiped out" your neighborhood because there were supposedly bad people hiding there. Americans are so quick to say we should bomb the hell out of other countries, yet have no idea what it's like to be bombed. The closest thing to actual bombing or an attack in the continental US was 9/11, for which the entire world stopped. These situations are very complex, and if someone is unwilling to learn the complexities, statements like these are irresponsible at best.

            replyreport
   2. 69

      rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      How old are you? Really!

      replyreport
   3. 0

      Jawa Lunkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I don't think we have fought for "every other reason besides what we should of been fighting for"
      
      I'm sure if you lived there, you would have a different opinion about the situation.
      
      We have been living the good life here in the USA for too long when people forget what oppression and dictatorship can do.
      
      If it were me or my children there...I would thank God for the US coming in and removing Saddam, and not taking off afterwords leaving us government-less.

      replyreport
2. 74

   FranyaBlueposted 14 years ago

   The government can do just about anything. I think that they are doing exactly as they have planned...I heard somewhere that war is the biggest money maker for the government, so why would they want to end it so soon?

   replyreport
3. 59

   critnourposted 14 years ago

   here's the thing about going in secretly: if we get caught we take on more public scrutiny from around the world, even our allies. i don't care for world opinion of the US, I'm just throwing that out there to think about. originally we wnt in there "balls to the walls" with Bush's shock and awe and it worked. however that was when we were battling a standing nations army. We are now fighting insurgents, terrorists, rebels, and others who don't like us.  They don't exactly fight like a standing army. They like to hide next to the common citizen, so bombing doesn't neccessarily work, and special forces work to an extent but requires cooperation from a scrared civilian population.  Keep in mind two wars went on in Iraq.  Operation Iraqi Freedom, the fight against Sadam's standing army, which we kicked butt and won.  Now the second war is taking place against alqaeda, alqaeda in Iraq, and Iran's plain closed mercs (as confirmed by many sorces). Another reason the secret service and special forces isn't working is because of the assault the left puts on their tactics, which were proven effective wether one agrees with them or not. Yes, they are there, on the ground, and looking for them.  However their hands are tied to what to do about them.  Both of you are right, but unfortunately we all need to keep in mind the political and beaurocratic aspects of the 21st century war... I don't like it either.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      egivposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Well-said.

      replyreport
4. 61

   mikelongposted 14 years ago

   There is much more at work here than you think.
   
   The American military is they force arm of a larger corporate strategy. I can elaborate on this, but only if there is any true interest in such a discussion.
   
   In Iraq the United States funded and supplied Saddam Hussein with his arms and much of his chemical weapons program. We gave him incentive and manipulated him into launching a war against Iran, to whom a few years before we had been selling overpriced weapons(Iran-Contra).
   
   We gave Saddam the satellite images of Iranian cities so that they could be bombed, and when he failed at his task he became trouble.
   
   "He attacked Kuwait"........his increasingly foreign indebted nation (and a bastion of OPEC by the way) was being undermined by internal conflicts paid for and armed by the United States, and irritants like slant drilling Iraqi oil from Kuwait along the border region.
   
   Let us remember that the political lines of the "Middle East" were the product of, primarily, the French and British treaty signed during World War One, in which they divide this region of the Ottoman Empire into their own spheres of influence......
   
   The Israeli-Palestinian issue is the central responsibility of the British Government and the U.N. (Britain, the U.S., and France), who decide to support the treaty they signed with the Israelis while ignoring the signed agreements made with Arab leaders.
   
   But not meaning to digress.....there is a document that can be found online entitled "Operation Northwoods" from the early 1960's through which the military sought to exploit or create events with Cuba to create the belief that American troops needed to be sent there.
   
   Read it......
   
   Late in 1999 an article was published in "Foreign Policy", calling for an end to the failed American strategy of funding and arming Kurdish and Shia militias to overthrow Saddam, and a call for "rollback", meaning a way to get American troops on the ground because, in the minds of the strategy policy experts who put this article together, only with American troops could Saddam be toppled.
   
   compare these two things in their own contexts and think about the year 2001.
   
   Pipelines of various types were planned for construction in Afghanistan, with, if I remember correctly, some work to be done in Pakistan. Following the Citibank "Plutonomy" memo, "capitalist-friendly" governments are needed for international corporations to invest and do business. 
   
   We subsidize business ventures, which often time need some type of military assistance to soften up both the locals and local competition.
   
   We can create threats that otherwise either don't exist, or amplify those who don't have the means that have been represented.
   
   The American people are, many if not most, largely ignorant of history, culture (aside from their own), and lack a sense of interest in discovering new, or just under-represented ideas...
   
   What is the School of the Americas?
   
   Who pays for it, and where is it located?
   
   What does it do?
   
   What do its graduates do?
   
   
   
   Who decides what "terrorism" really is?
   
   Who decides when this war is "over"?
   
   
   Remember, we had Bin Laden trapped at Tora Bora.....but U.S. Army high command blocked the order that would have surrounded him....

   replyreport
   1. 93

      Susana Sposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      This is probably the most interesting forum post I have read here - so thanks Mike for sharing your knowledge. You've got a new fan!

      replyreport
      1. 69

         rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         So true and it makes sense.

         replyreport
      2. 67

         Make Moneyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Please digress Mike.  It seems you could teach a lot of people in here a lot of things.
         
         I'll answer the one question.  The School of the Americas is located at Fort Benning, Georgia, USA.  It's sole purpose is to train mercenary soldiers, paid soldiers.  After about 75 days of bombing Belgrade it was reported that prior to the ethnic cleansing of Albanians in Kosovo by Serbians there was ethnic cleansing carried out against Serbians in Kosovo by the Kosovo Liberation Army (Albanians) with the help of a mercenary group from West Virginia.  It was also reported that the Kosovo Liberation Army was made up of drug smugglers that moved heroin from the middle east to the west.  Blackwater is another US mercenary group.

         replyreport
5. 0

   Adnan Habibposted 14 years ago

   Who will decide who is evil or not?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      sneakorocksolidposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Thats easy, anyone who supports islama-nazis are wrong.

      replyreport
   2. 57

      C.J. Wrightposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Right wrong or indifferent, the VICTOR decides who is evil.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Not nesso - they may 'say' the loser is evil, but evil does have a specific definition.

         replyreport
         1. 57

            C.J. Wrightposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Well, thats the difference between conotation and denotation. I was speaking of the cliche, "history is written by the victor". War is a lot like gambling, you can make all the right decisions based on the best information and still loose.

            replyreport
6. 63

   prettydarkhorseposted 14 years ago

   My own opinion on this thing is that for me War is never an option. There is more output if everybody is at peace. The objective of the UN is exactly this one, diversity in unity, respect for all.

   replyreport
7. 70

   cmlindblomposted 14 years ago

   without war i have no job and make alot less money but still wiping people out is rediculous, you cant do that. ive been over there and there are way more families just living their life then there are "bad guys". are you saying we should go into a neighborhood with a high crime rate and just wipe them out. what about that one little old lady whos lived there all her life you gonna wipe her out too? obviously not and you really cant tell a bad guy from a good guy untill the bullet is coming at you.

   replyreport
8. 0

   sneakorocksolidposted 14 years ago

   Wars have to be fought by the military. Once the decision is made the civilian opinion is finished. No rules of engagement, no ridiculus agreements that only we obey and no interference. You let our kids fight as hard as they can so we can get them back home. I feel for the innocents caught in the middle but I care more for our kids.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      cmlindblomposted 14 years agoin reply to this

           Very true statement. You dont even want to know how I feel about the rules of engagement or letting the civilian populous be involved in what we do once we are engaged in war. I know some of them think they are doing a good thing by creating all these rules soo we dont terrorize people our selfs but its just coming back and getting our own forces killed. its a tricky situation that will probly never get solved.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         sneakorocksolidposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Hear!Hear!

         replyreport
9. 0

   Poppa Bluesposted 14 years ago

   Really, if it were easy we'd have done it already. We were kind of forced into this war in Afghanistan. We publicly said we would do something about the perpetrators of 9/11 and we did, though we never achieved what we really wanted, to bring Bin Laden to justice.
   
   You talk about the lives lost and you're probably only considering the lives of the USA and ally soldiers, but an estimated 600,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in Iraq and in Afghanistan probably another 100,000.
   
   We are in a military standoff. Surely we have the upper hand. We can impose our will but we are constantly harassed by insurgents. This war can easily spread to Pakistan and beyond and with every civilian we kill or maim, we create new enemies that want revenge.
   
   War is a messy business, that's why a decision to go to war must be made with very careful regard for the consequences. There is no easy way out short of a nuclear strike to virtually kill everyone, man, woman, and child.

   replyreport
   1. 57

      C.J. Wrightposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      And despite what folks may say, the Nuclear Option WORKS!  Who has Japan attacked since 1941?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Poppa Bluesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Yes but to use it today with the weapons we have now? Then of course there is the politics of their use. How do you justify telling the rest of the world they need to disarm when at the same time you launch a first strike on a defenseless nation? How would the rest of the world react to that? We could completely isolate ourselves and be left without any allies. It's a risky strategy and may only provide a short term victory.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            It's more complex than that. I would say it depended entirely on why it was being used. Iran should be disarmed because they harbor terrorists. On the other hand, we've had nuclear weapons since WWII (Japan) and have shown ourselves capable of restraint.

            replyreport
            1. 57

               C.J. Wrightposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               The worlds dependency on Middle East Oil funds these terrorist....one problem just leads to another....

               replyreport
            2. 62

               Mishaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Umm, sounds quite funny for an outsider. The only nation ever that actually used nukes on their enemy - showed itself capable of restraint?

               replyreport
               1. 67

                  Flightkeeperposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  I think we should have dropped the big one on the USSR. It was a lost opportunity.

                  replyreport
                  1. 62

                     Mishaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     Yeah, you and us lost the opportunity to see how the nuclear winter looks like

                     replyreport
                     1. 67

                        Flightkeeperposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        Who knows, it might not be too late!

                        replyreport
                  2. 60

                     VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     Imagination has no bounds. During 1961, when the Russian armada heading for Cuba was intercepted by American navy, they found all kinds of bombs, enough to destroy the whole world. Those Russian/ Soviet naval cover keeps the existence of Cuba in tact till date. In a sense, Russians had all the opportunity drop the big bomb on America, from Cuba, but they are more restraintful than Americans!

                     replyreport
                     1. 67

                        Flightkeeperposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        What makes you think the Soviets wouldn't have done it if the US Navy hadn't intercepted it?

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           They would have done it if only their security interests were in danger. US navy intercepted Russian navy... the war would have started there itself... with all the required armaments in the warships... Russians did not retaliate there... and there they showed their restraint.

                           replyreport
         2. 57

            C.J. Wrightposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Thats the problem.....it was only safe, Politically speaking to use them when your the only one with them.....My point was this. Do not meet force with equal force, that creates a stand off. Meet force with overwhelming force, that creates victory.

            replyreport
      2. 60

         egivposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         That's the kind of talk we need more of...

         replyreport
         1. 57

            C.J. Wrightposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Its an ugly statement, no doubt.
            
            I find it better than stating "I will NEVER use nuclear weapons...no...I....no...scratch that...."

            replyreport
         2. 61

            mikelongposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            All this quote shows is that there are some who need to brush up on their history....try reading "Eurasian Eclipse: Japan's End Game in World War II" by Yukiko Koshiro.
            
            A major issue of note here is, why did the Soviet Union and Japan remain neutral though all the other factions were at war...and why would the Soviet Union wait to declare war at the very end.....what would Soviet, as opposed to American or British, control of Manchuria mean to Japan's post-war status?

            replyreport
            1. 57

               C.J. Wrightposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               You comments amd mine are mutually exclusive. The reason's behind Japan's  entry into the war are not relevant to how the war ended.  I understand quite clearly why Japan entered the war.....OIL and Regional Influence.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  mikelongposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  First off, I don't see your comment (that I then responded to) having to do with the beginning of Japanese-American hostilities.......my comment spoke directly to the statement that nuclear bombs dropped on Japan were 1) the cause of their surrender, and 2) a deterrent for future "problem" nations.
                  
                  The statement that I made illustrates proof that the atomic bombs had very little to do with Japans surrender....
                  
                  On the note of why Japan entered the war......if that is of any interest.........I would say that oil is only part of the issue.......Japan, Britian, the United States, and Russia were all divvying up China, competing for who would hold rights to resources and economic/political privilege.
                  
                  
                  In a publication written in September of 1926 a Soviet, Comrade Manuilsky, predicted what would be known in the future as the Pacific campaign of World War II.....
                  
                  "where the paths of three imperialist powers stand face to face there (china): the United States, Japan, and Great Britain. The armed clash which may break out there (and did) in the future will be of unimaginable violence and serious consequences.....we may witness a war which, with respect to its grimness and the extent of its losses, will put the great imperialist war of 1914-1918 in the shade."
                  
                  There was much more than oil being fought over....but still.....that is the side point....the issue is, ultimately, that Japan did not surrender because of atomic bombs, but rather because Japan desired political leverage between the Soviets and Americans that would keep Japan in a special place as broker between the two, as opposed to losing perceived status. Japan has always viewed itself as superior to the Chinese and Koreans.
                  
                  That is all I am saying. Too many people are proud of a destructive event that, in light of fact, served little to no purpose aside from destroying hundreds of thousands of lives.
                  
                  How sad is that?

                  replyreport
10. 66

    awareposted 14 years ago

    6 years ?  6 years? try forever. war is old very old . America  didn't invent war . America cant end it either . This is a much larger problem . Bears kill other Bears, Fish kill other Fish, Birds other Birds . Dogs other Dogs. And so on. Humans are the worst. only we think of different ways to do it. Only we do it on such a grand scale. Are we simply animals ? Is there a war gene?  Why do we war for real? Every reason to date that we have seem to me as just excuses .

    replyreport
11. 69

    rhamsonposted 14 years ago

    War is the result of failure to compromise and there in lies the problem.  In most cases the desire to win or own through greedy tendencies is what is the basis for war to perpetuate itself.
    
    The recent advent of nuclear solutions to these tendencies is a scary scenario.  If we could kill them harder is at the root of the dilemma and a far cry from compromise which now is now thought of as defeat.
    
    There is nothing easy when it comes to human relations and greed is at the root of it all.  All wars are based in greed.

    replyreport
12. 62

    Mishaposted 14 years ago

    Unfortunately, you may be very well right on this

    replyreport
13. 67

    Flightkeeperposted 14 years ago

    Misha, buckle up, we're only doing what's expected. Everyone can just be relieved that it's happened and go on from there.

    replyreport
14. 62

    Mishaposted 14 years ago

    Umm, well, talking 2012...

    replyreport
    1. 67

       Flightkeeperposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       The Mayan calendar was off by 3 years, those old calendars are so inaccurate

       replyreport
       1. 80

          manlypoetrymanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Wow...never though of that... (And December is right around the corner...Yikes!)

          replyreport
15. 62

    Mishaposted 14 years ago

    Oh, you mean we just have a couple of months to go?

    replyreport
    1. 67

       Flightkeeperposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       It doesn't take that long to drop the big one.

       replyreport
16. 69

    rhamsonposted 14 years ago

    We just need to find out who we should pay off to end the war in Afganistan.  Now that Karzai has been allowed to resume his democratic regime we may be able to get to the right warlords to pay to defend it.

    replyreport
17. 61

    visitmaniacposted 14 years ago

    uh just to put this out there its been  8 years almost 9 now since we have been at war not 6

    replyreport
18. 60

    The Ropeposted 14 years ago

    The "war" is now propping up the socio-economic system and for more than just the US.  The world can't afford for war to stop.  Just like the tax system in the US can't be changed without a fail-safe system in place, how do you put all those people to work in a system that isn't prepared for hundreds of thousands of workers that make their wages from war and war by-products.  We have already been experiencing the time it takes for a "trickle down" effect to work.  As cold as it sounds, how would you keep the world from a complete free-fall?

    replyreport
19. 61

    mikelongposted 14 years ago

    The "world" as a whole is not yet totally touched by this way of thinking......
    
    And there is no justification, even selfishness, for this way of behaving.
    
    It is also remembering the face of real war.....
    
    Nigeria is the most populous of African nations. A former British colony, after gaining independence this nation was made up of mostly farmers. They produced enough food to feed themselves, and for export.
    
    Since oil has been discovered, and the Nigerian government opened its nation up to oil exploitation, it has lost its ability to self-sustain itself food wise, and now has to import just to keep most of the people fed..most, but not even close to all,..if the research is honest..
    
    While oil rich, if you lived in Nigeria you would find it increasingly difficult and expensive to fill up your own car's fuel tank...if you could afford such a thing...
    
    The per-capita income in Nigeria is $1400 per year....less than Senegal, which exports food stuffs, while Nigeria sits on more oil than the entire United States and Mexico combined....
    
    Western backed corporations like Shell Oil use weak, pliable-again-profit friendly governments to get rid of peoples that they deem to be "in the way"....
    
    Shell, earlier this year, paid out 15.5 million dollars (the largest settlement ever between a multi-national corporation and a group of people) in an out of court settlement the night before being taken to trial in New York for human rights violations.
    
    Shell, as shown by numerous points of corroboration, paid units of the Nigerian military to illegally arrest, detain, and execute the core leaders for the Ogoni people, who were organizing in order to better negotiate with the Shell subsidiary that was extracting over 20000 barrels of oil per day from their lands.
    
    Shell supplied weapons, ammunition, gun-boats.......  When Shell, on its own webpage, speaks of the Ogoni, they frame it as the "Ogoni Issue."
    
    But Shell is allowed to profiteer in the United States......to keep their prices high in light of the increasing economic hardship of the American people...as a Citigroup memo states:
    
    "The rich are such a massive part of the economy (spending), that their relative insensitivity to rising oil prices makes $60 oil something of an irrelevance. For the poorest in society, high gas and petrol prices are a problem. But, while they are many in number, they are few in spending power, and their economic influence is just not important enough to offset the economic confidence, well-being, and spending of the rich."
    
    -Citigroup memo titled "Equity Strategy-Revisiting Plutonomy: The Rich Getting Richer" published March 5, 2006.
    
    With all of this said, I believe that until people within the United States, Britain, France, and other prospering nations around the world realize that they are being victimized as well as those stuck in the post-colonial "developing" or "undeveloped" worlds there will be no real change...
    
    As long as people (not most, because the actions of most people are not necessary for change to occur) remain complacent, remain apathetic, and choose to let opportunites for activism to pass by, then there is little that can be done.
    
    By altering the political culture locally first, and then through individual states, at least in the United States, there is hope for the future.
    
    But, that may begin with doing things that are deemed, or will be deemed by many to be radical.
    
    I believe, personally, that all public money in political campaigns should be banned.
    
    I believe that the government, on all levels, should allocate equal funds to each candidate or cause, and that each side must then compete with what they have.
    
    If the public wishes to contribute, they can donate funds to the government elections fund, and if contributions outweigh the need of any particular election the remainder should spill over to the next...so on and so forth.
    
    By removing special interest money I believe that several layers of corrupt men and women, who have fallen victim to a larger corrupted system, will fall away. 
    
    This is just one concept....we are not passed the point of no return....we just have to be willing to accept the labor and struggle that an alterior future requires...
    
    
    Regarding Shell.....I remember when I was in the D.A.R.E. program in elementary school....the LAPD officer would tell us that buying marijuana supports criminals and terrorists.......remember where your money goes every time you need some fuel...

    replyreport
20. 67

    Make Moneyposted 14 years ago

    This must be the Operation Northwoods pdf that you mentioned Mike.
    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf
    
    Without reading it all James Bamford covers it fairly quickly in this 4 1/2 minute video.
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 813472857#

    replyreport
    1. 69

       rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       MM that is some scary stuff.  We have always known that war is good for business and is something Eisenhower warned us of in his farewell address. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY
       
       The tendency of this country to suffer from instant amnesia when same scenarios crop up is just too easy.  With less stress being put on subjects like history in our classrooms it is amazing that we have enough people paying attention or knowing the tell tale signs.  The naysayers will once again point to how unamerican it is to critisize our government actions through covert military actions as someting not patriotic.  Smoke and mirrors, smoke and mirrors. so tragic.

       replyreport
21. 61

    mikelongposted 14 years ago

    It really should be read in order to fully appreciate it.  It helps to have an understanding of U.S.-Cuban relations from at least the antebellum period to the Bautista era....
    
    What are your thoughts about what you have come across?

    replyreport
    1. 67

       Make Moneyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Okay I've read the Operation Northwoods pdf now.
       http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf
       
       Man that zionist General Lyman Lemnitzer that devised the plan or in his own words "terror campaign" was a true megalomaniac akin to Hitler or Stalin.  This gives a different outlook on who assassinated JFK seeing he didn't carry out the plan and fired Lemnitzer and that he was assassinated the following year.  And it gives a lot more credence to the suggested more recent false flag operation mentioned in the James Bamford video.
       http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 813472857#
       
       Have you seen the video about the Canadian with testicular fortitude?

       replyreport
       1. 69

          rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          I read it too and it is a hair raiser.  The institute of dirty tricks is alive and well.  These plans and scenarios have been something you know is true but can't prove until years later when most of the actors are dead or near dead.  It kind of makes you wonder about the Gulf of Tonkin and Vietnam. I know McNamara came clean on this before his death but that doesn't make it right. I really view them as treason against the American people.  It is a shame when our military and government callude to perpetrate criminal acts and get away with it.  Who pays for any of it other than the soldiers with their lives and the taxpayers for footing the bill?

          replyreport
22. 67

    Make Moneyposted 14 years ago

    Yeah I'll read the whole pdf.  My thoughts are that the last part of the James Bamford video are definitely plausible when you consider Lyman Lemnitzer's Operation Northwoods proposal.  Thank God JFK refused to carry out the plan and fired Lemnitzer.

    replyreport
23. 0

    sneakorocksolidposted 14 years ago

    This is more proof to support pulling back to our own borders, closing them and protecting the US. It would cost awhole lot less it would be easier to manage and if we were attacked then we could do whatever we want in retaliation because our hands would be clean.

    replyreport
    1. 69

       rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       What about the oil?

       replyreport
24. 61

    mikelongposted 14 years ago

    Or perhaps that's what they wanted you to think.
    
    When one looks at how much "developing" has to be done (Op. Northwoods) it makes you wonder what they can't come up with.
    
    The documents clearly state that Cuba was a prime target to be picked off because the Soviet Union was not yet supporting the island nation, so there was a "window of opportunity" so to speak of picking off a weak state before anyone could say otherwise....all this under the "Peace and Security" leader of the United Nations........
    
    Not only does one then look at the death of President Kennedy differently, but other more recent events within this 21st century can be brought into question.
    
    Has anyone looking at Operaton Northwoods checked out the plan involving the remote control plane blowing up over Cuba?

    replyreport
25. 0

    oldenuf2nobetterposted 14 years ago

    American response to 911 was poorly conceived and poorly executed.Our strategy and tactics have not produced the desired results.Our task as a nation is to prevail.Everything else is bologni.

    replyreport