iamangry wrote:
blademaster wrote:
well U.S. gave all those nukes to Israel, now Israel has so many nukes its crazy. But the video is kind of interesting nothing I found surprising U.S. does things like that all the time all over the world, just read the "Manufacturing Consent" by Herbart Chomsky .
WRONG
USA refused to give nukes to Israel. Britain did.
WRONG
Israel made their own nukes, with fissile material gained from reactors given to them by France.
DesertFox423 wrote:
Who the hell didn't know about the Liberty? That's the only issue I have with them.
Many, many people. I would wager the majority of the world didn't know about the Libterty. It's not a topic that comes up much in general conversation.
Ottomania wrote:
James-M-II wrote:
Ottomania wrote:
like 9/11, blaming osama, change your strategy usa....
thats a kinda stupid thing to say isnt it? i dont think the usa would stage 9/11 just to invade a shit hole like afghanistan.... jeez how old are you
then tell me why no jews died at wtc? and a quick tip; afghanistan is neighbour of iran from west. ring a bell?
Not so sure where you got your information on those who died in the WTC attacks, but there were indeed Jews that died in the attacks.
oug wrote:
I think your analogy to the corporate world is poor and misleading. If this was just a plan of some private corporation then you're right, it would be completely insignificant and I wouldn't pay much attention to it.
Thing is though, this was created by the government. The people you voted, the ones you trust to protect you.
If its the idea of your boss at work, fine. If its the President, or the Minister of Defence etc then you got yourself a major scandal.
Also, if X= find a way to reduce cost, fine. But if X=kill American citizens to promote a war against fucking Cuba, then its NOT fine at all...
And you know what? I don't even care if it was ever implemented. Many will say it hasn't, others think it has on quite a number of occasions (the USS Liberty being one of them). The thought itself constitutes a capital offence against the people. Its treason.
In my analogy, X would be the destabalization of the Cuban government.
You're missing the whole point of the Northwoods document. It was finding ways to destabilize Castro. It was offering possible options. That's what we pay plans officers for. When you're ordered to offer options, that's what you do.
oug wrote:
blisteringsilence wrote:
And just because a piece of paper with the plan surfaces 40 years later does NOT mean that the US was actually considering killing its own citizens to further the anti-Castro movement.
Actually, that's exactly what it means. The US government WAS considering killing its own citizens to further the anti-Castro movement.
Actually, that's not what it means. The opinions of a junior staffer / junior plans officer in the department of defense are NOT the policy of the United States, any more than the opinions of the German justice minister are the policy of the German government.
I think that the Northwoods document is a bunch of hullabaloo about nothing. It was a bad idea that was identified as such, and as a result was not acted upon.
Just because we have a warplan in a file cabinet somewhere for nuking all of Canada, invading, and taking over, does not mean that we'd do it.
I don't know if you're familiar with what the US DOD calles "red teams," but if you read one of their reports, you'd shit yourself. A red team is tasked with waging war against the United States. Right now, in a room somewhere in the Pentagon, there is a group of men and women who are planning chemical and biological attacks against the people of the United States. They are arguing about how to best deploy canisters with weaponized anthrax for the purpose of killing as many of their fellow citizens as possible. And they're paid by the government.