Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

How Do You Characterize NORTHWOODS?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  

How Do You Characterize NORTHWOODS?
A memorandum that the President scrapped
35%
 35%  [ 7 ]
An "operation" plotted by "govt agents"
55%
 55%  [ 11 ]
Other (specify below)
10%
 10%  [ 2 ]
Total Votes : 20

Author Message
Gopher



Joined: 04 Jun 2005

PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 5:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would only modify what you have said here so that you recognize that these were "hypothetical tactical options." This document makes a preliminary proposal in a specific time and place and in a specific historical context. No more no less. No capabilities to carry such things out existed. Look at the evidence I present, above: CIA could not even drop weapons to an agent on the ground in Cuba; how were the Joint Chiefs of Staff going to carry out NORTHWOODS with covert assets (and what covert assets did they even have, by the way, in the early 1960s? NONE.)

As you get into, it does say a couple of things, however. People at State and CIA might have objected and even resigned rather than make such a proposal (consider the direct evidence I cite, above). The Joint Chiefs of Staff, conversely, seemed willing to go along, at least to an extent, with JFK and RFK. Had the President asked them to carry it out, they might have. Given what I know about the Joint Chiefs of Staff and their belligerency in the 1960s, I think it would have been an even toss -- this was not Colin Powell's Joint Chiefs of Staff.

On the other hand, none of this ever happened. We are talking about an exploratory conversation that the President decided to scrap after he understood where it was going.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
loose_ends



Joined: 23 Jul 2007

PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gopher wrote:
I would only modify what you have said here so that you recognize that these were "hypothetical tactical options."


I think this modification is justified so long as you can explain the difference between a "tactical option" and a "hypothetical tactical option". If you have already done so I apologize. A brief description will do Very Happy


Gopher wrote:
This document makes a preliminary proposal in a specific time and place and in a specific historical context. No more no less. No capabilities to carry such things out existed. Look at the evidence I present, above: CIA could not even drop weapons to an agent on the ground in Cuba; how were the Joint Chiefs of Staff going to carry out NORTHWOODS with covert assets (and what covert assets did they even have, by the way, in the early 1960s? NONE.)

(bolding mine)

Are you able to support this claim? (beyond the comparison you make to dropping weapons)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gopher



Joined: 04 Jun 2005

PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

loose_ends wrote:
...explain the difference between a "tactical option" and a "hypothetical tactical option".


A tactical option is an option that exists that the govt can carry out at will, because it already has the capability and trained men to do it. For example, the govt today can chose to use or not to use tac nukes against Tehran.

A hypothetical tactical option is an option, such as the one we see in NORTHWOODS, that the Joint Chiefs of Staff explain they could further discuss and develop, if directed. But such options remain "in the air," and the govt does not have the means to carry them out without (a) further developing them conceptually, (b) developing a specific plan and budget, and (c) appointing, instructing, funding, and training an actual staff to do it. Another example? ZR/RIFLE.

loose_ends wrote:
Are you able to support this claim?


Yes. No one has ever presented any evidence at all that showed the Pentagon ran covert operations and certainly not on the scale that NORTHWOODS discusses. If you have any such evidence to cite or link, I would be very interested to see it.

They dreamed this document up and committed it to paper when JFK and RFK pressed them to do so. Granted. But that is about it...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
loose_ends



Joined: 23 Jul 2007

PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gopher wrote:
A tactical option is an option that exists that the govt can carry out at will, because it already has the capability and trained men to do it. For example, the govt today can chose to use or not to use tac nukes against Tehran.

A hypothetical tactical option is an option, such as the one we see in NORTHWOODS, that the Joint Chiefs of Staff explain they could further discuss and develop, if directed. But such options remain "in the air," and the govt does not have the means to carry them out without (a) further developing them conceptually, (b) developing a specific plan and budget, and (c) appointing, instructing, funding, and training an actual staff to do it. Another example? ZR/RIFLE.


Sounds very reasonable.



Gopher wrote:
Yes. No one has ever presented any evidence at all that showed the Pentagon ran covert operations and certainly not on the scale that NORTHWOODS discusses. If you have any such evidence to cite or link, I would be very interested to see it.


In all fairness I did ask you to support a negative claim.

you wrote:

Quote:
No capabilities to carry such things out existed


However you asked for...."evidence at all that showed the Pentagon ran covert operations and certainly not on the scale that NORTHWOODS discusses. If you have any such evidence to cite or link, I would be very interested to see it."

You aren't asking for evidence in relation to your claim. Instead you are asking for evidence showing that the Pentagon had previously carried something similar through. Well, we may never know for sure, but I do know at the very least there is always a first time for everything.

What evidence we should be focussing on in relation to your claim is if the Pentagon had the capability to carry through such an "option". ie, could they do it with the technology and manpower available at the time? Furthermore, could media successfully be used to spin a false flag into an act of war? etc etc...

One could make a list of necessities for the "hypothetical tactical option" and see if it was actually possible at the time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gopher



Joined: 04 Jun 2005

PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My position is more simple than that: the Pentagon never ran covert operations. My evidence for this claim is the utter lack of evidence that it ever did. Further, the reason the American govt went with a civilian intelligence service in 1943 (OSS) and again in 1947 (CIA) was because neither State nor War/Defense wanted to be involved in covert operations; they wanted to plausibly deny knowledge and involvement. And this is well documented in the CIA creation documents, long available and written about.

In the case of NORTHWOODS, they were asking for control because the Bay of Pigs proved too large a scale for CIA to manage and, they reasoned, if the American govt decided to embark on another large-scale paramilitary operation, the Pentagon wanted to control it. This, too, is old information, Loose_ends. In any case, no one ever carried out the proposals NORTHWOODS articulates and the American govt, of course, as I am sure you know, did not invade Cuba, either.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
loose_ends



Joined: 23 Jul 2007

PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gopher wrote:
My position is more simple than that: the Pentagon never ran covert operations. My evidence for this claim is the utter lack of evidence that it ever did. Further, the reason the American govt went with a civilian intelligence service in 1943 (OSS) and again in 1947 (CIA) was because neither State nor War/Defense wanted to be involved in covert operations; they wanted to plausibly deny knowledge and involvement. And this is well documented in the CIA creation documents, long available and written about.

In the case of NORTHWOODS, they were asking for control because the Bay of Pigs proved too large a scale for CIA to manage and, they reasoned, if the American govt decided to embark on another large-scale paramilitary operation, the Pentagon wanted to control it. This, too, is old information, Loose_ends. In any case, no one ever carried out the proposals NORTHWOODS articulates and the American govt, of course, as I am sure you know, did not invade Cuba, either.

(bolding mine)

Fair enough. Nothing you are saying here is unreasonable and it is all backed up.

However, it is limitted to the Pentogan. There is sufficient evidence linking the CIA to covert operations, including "false flags", on foreign soil.

So I'd say your claim is simple and limitted.

Could the Pentagon have carried out Northwoods? I think one could argue that is was at the very least possible. Would the Pentagon have carried it out if Kennedy asked? Well, you already conceded to this one.

But more importantly, in my opinion, would any of the presidents since Kennedy make a different choice? Northwoods at the very least, shows that such choices exist and are made.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gopher



Joined: 04 Jun 2005

PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

First, I have never argued that CIA did not run covert operations. I do not understand why you feel it necessary to state something as obvious as this as if you were stating something new. Next, I conceded that they might have, Loose_ends. Do not mischaracterize or overstate my position.

Further, NORTHWOODS shows that JFK and RFK asked the Joint Chiefs of Staff to discuss all options re: Castro's Cuba. It does not establish "how all presidents operate in American history," Loose_ends. Do you, for example, have anything that even barely resembles NORTHWOODS that any subsequent president proposed? I know what you really want to say, that NORTHWOODS explains 9/11. Well, then. Where is 9/11's NORTHWOODS document...?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
loose_ends



Joined: 23 Jul 2007

PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 8:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gopher wrote:
First, I have never argued that CIA did not run covert operations. I do not understand why you feel it necessary to state something as obvious as this as if you were stating something new. Next, I conceded that they might have, Loose_ends. Do not mischaracterize or overstate my position.

Further, NORTHWOODS shows that JFK and RFK asked the Joint Chiefs of Staff to discuss all options re: Castro's Cuba. It does not establish "how all presidents operate in American history," Loose_ends. Do you, for example, have anything that even barely resembles NORTHWOODS that any subsequent president proposed? I know what you really want to say, that NORTHWOODS explains 9/11. Well, then. Where is 9/11's NORTHWOODS document...?



I find value in Northwoods because it demonstrates that at least one "hypothetical" false flag operation involving "drone" commercial airplanes has at the very least been discussed and written down.

So for those that claim, "The US government would never think of such a thing," Northwoods proves that claim to be wrong.

Northwoods gives context to the array of false flag operations that are at least considered. Coupled with known false flags via the CIA, it demonstrates that there is consideration, capability, and in some cases, desire.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gopher



Joined: 04 Jun 2005

PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Understood. I would caution you on these points, however...

loose_ends wrote:
I find value in Northwoods because it demonstrates that at least one "hypothetical" false flag operation involving "drone" commercial airplanes has at the very least been discussed and written down.


I take no issue with this.

loose_ends wrote:
So for those that claim, "The US government would never think of such a thing," Northwoods proves that claim to be wrong.


But "the US government," Loose_ends, changes all the time. The executive changes and he changes the entire bureaucracy, at least the top three or so levels of it, with the political appointees he brings with him. Congress -- both houses -- changes every two years. The judiciary changes, as well. Laws and regulations change. All the time.

When you talk of "the US government," then, you are talking of a moving target. Yet, many who see conspiracy theories see a static and monolithic American govt. This is bad thinking.

Again, what you are seeing when you look at NORTWOODS, is front-row seating at the Bobby Kennedy Theater of the Absurd. No more no less.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bacasper



Joined: 26 Mar 2007

PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 9:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gopher wrote:
But I will not go down that road and attempt to reason with you on a subject you will clearly not approach reasonably. In your U.S.-centric worldview, CIA killed JFK and, moreover, the Agency and the rest of the military-industrial complex represents a govt within a govt in a very sinister, conspiracy-driven United States dictatorship and police state -- like something from a Jason Bourne film, for example. Nevermind that this is exactly what Cold War-era Soviet propaganda and black propaganda wanted millions of Americans like you to believe. You know "the real truth," and it only has to do with domestic American actors and their hidden agendas.

And nothing I can produce or say will convince you otherwise. Nevertheless, I have offered authentic evidence on this thread -- and you may take it or leave it. I think you will probably prefer to stick with the conspiracy theorists' allegations and the kinds of "documentaries" you asked Adventurer to watch and that this exercise has probably been a complete waste of time.

Please see my response to your bashing of me here on the Official Bashing Thread.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bacasper



Joined: 26 Mar 2007

PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 9:20 pm    Post subject: Re: ... Reply with quote

Nowhere Man wrote:
Two questions for the two debaters:

Do you think you have employed any strawmen in this debate?

What about ad hominem attacks?

#1) I don't believe I have employed any strawmen in this debate. I do believe however that this entire debate has been made into one since Gopher decided to get into it in response to what I tried to make a simple question, essentially, "Did more than one person consider the possibility of implementing any of the activities proposed and described in NORTHWOODS?" Granted, that was not the originally wording and I would like to thank Gopher for forcing me to hone my wording. So I have started a new poll. And the question was not even to him originally, but Ya-ta Boy!

#2) I have not done so here but only on the Official Bashing Thread.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
loose_ends



Joined: 23 Jul 2007

PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gopher wrote:
Understood. I would caution you on these points, however...

loose_ends wrote:
I find value in Northwoods because it demonstrates that at least one "hypothetical" false flag operation involving "drone" commercial airplanes has at the very least been discussed and written down.


I take no issue with this.

loose_ends wrote:
So for those that claim, "The US government would never think of such a thing," Northwoods proves that claim to be wrong.


But "the US government," Loose_ends, changes all the time. The executive changes and he changes the entire bureaucracy, at least the top three or so levels of it, with the political appointees he brings with him. Congress -- both houses -- changes every two years. The judiciary changes, as well. Laws and regulations change. All the time.

When you talk of "the US government," then, you are talking of a moving target. Yet, many who see conspiracy theories see a static and monolithic American govt. This is bad thinking.

Again, what you are seeing when you look at NORTWOODS, is front-row seating at the Bobby Kennedy Theater of the Absurd. No more no less.


Of course governments and positions within change. I'm not suggesting that the US govt is a static entity.

However, I don't think it is hard to demonstrate that some individuals have been able to maintain a career in politics, shifting from government position to government position.

Lets take the VP as a random example.

Quote:
Richard Bruce "Dick" Cheney[1] (born January 30, 1941), is the forty-sixth and current Vice President of the United States. As Vice President, Cheney is also the President of the United States Senate.

Cheney was born in Lincoln, Nebraska but soon relocated to Casper, Wyoming where he grew up. He began his political career as an intern for Congressman William A. Steiger, eventually working his way into the White House during the Ford administration where he served as White House Chief of Staff. In 1978, Cheney was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Wyoming; he was reelected five times, eventually becoming House Minority Whip. Cheney was selected to be the Secretary of Defense during the presidency of George H.W. Bush, a position he held for all but two months of Bush's term. During this time, Cheney oversaw the 1991 Operation Desert Storm, among other actions.

Out of office during the Clinton presidency, Cheney was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Halliburton Company from 1995 to 2000.

Cheney joined the presidential campaign of George W. Bush in 2000, who selected him as his running mate. As Vice President, Cheney remains a very public and controversial figure. He continues to assert that the Iraq War and War on Terror must be won by the United States, and many of his other policy recommendations initially drew strong approval, but in his second-term disapproval of his performance has outweighed approval, as measured by national polls. Cheney is generally acknowledged to be one of the most powerful and influential Vice Presidents in U.S. history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney

I do see your point, but at the same time I think it is pretty easy to show that select individuals can maintain powerful careers in politics.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gopher



Joined: 04 Jun 2005

PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 7:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

We call these people "ins-and-outers." They move in and out of academic, business, and/or legal careers and govt.

Govt still changes and is much more complex than this. Elections matter, especially in Congress. And what happened in the Cold War-era Kennedy years re: Caribbean politics, Castro's Cuba, and anticommunism has little to tell us about the post-Cold War W. Bush Administration, Middle Eastern politics, and Islamic extremism, Loose_ends. I keep hammering at "context" to help you get this: things other than domestic American conditions matter; there is a big world out there that acts upon us at least as much as we act upon it. U.S.-centric approaches cannot grasp this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
loose_ends



Joined: 23 Jul 2007

PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 9:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gopher wrote:
And what happened in the Cold War-era Kennedy years re: Caribbean politics, Castro's Cuba, and anticommunism has little to tell us about the post-Cold War W. Bush Administration, Middle Eastern politics, and Islamic extremism, Loose_ends.

(bolding mine)

It can tell us some certain things, as this thread demonstrates. Northwoods demonstrates, once again, the array of options available during "key" times in history. These options have included "hypothetical" false flag operations involving drone commercial airplanes. And this hypothetical option came when covert assets were at a minimum. Imagine covert capabilities and perhaps options now...


Gopher wrote:
I keep hammering at "context" to help you get this: things other than domestic American conditions matter; there is a big world out there that acts upon us at least as much as we act upon it. U.S.-centric approaches cannot grasp this.


If you are implying that I am US-centric you are way off base, at least in your labeling me as such.

The context of this thread is what Northwoods means. The fact remains that it was presented as serious "hypothetical" tactical option for going to war with cuba, a false flag if you will.

If the presedent liked the idea and if the pentagon followed through on it, we would have had a full blown conspiracy plot on our hands. But then, would it have been all that surprising given the long list of known false flags and covert operations carried out by the CIA?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gopher



Joined: 04 Jun 2005

PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You are thinking along U.S.-centric lines when you look only at the American govt -- and an especially sinister one at that, allegedly -- when describing and explaining 9/11.

loose_ends wrote:
Imagine covert capabilities and perhaps options now...


Easy. After the Church Committee and the Carter Administration destroyed most of what had existed between 1947 and 1975? Not much. If former Director of Central Intelligence William J. Casey were alive, I would say "Just ask Casey."

Further, I can refer you to the Agency's history of directors post-1975, especially post-Reagan. A power shift occurred. Directors and Deputy Directors before 1975 came from operations and, in Richard M. Helms's case, foreign intelligence, reflecting the operations directorate's primacy (especially the most powerful ones: Allen Dulles, Richard M. Bissell, a de facto director before the Bay of Pigs, Richard M. Helms, and William Colby); since Reagan, they have come mostly from the intelligence directorate and outside, reflecting the operations directorate's relative decline with respect to the intelligence directorate at CIA (especially Robert M. Gates, George Tenet, and John Mclaughlin).

These are important variables to consider before offering the conclusions that you seem inclined to offer. Again, govt changes, at all levels. You need to take this into account.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International