War Plan Red

[Babe Ruth]

Plans have a way of BECOMING operations. That's why they call them plans.

[preacherman76]

Sure it's possible. Many things are possible, but it is not plausible. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

What do you know about evidence? You cant even be bothered to open a link.

If they didn't envisage all possible scenarios, they wouldn't be doing their jobs. Yes, that's exactly what I expect them to do.

Fair enough. You think its the governments job to dream up senerios where we commit false flag operations to provoke a acceptable public responce for war. For no other reason then empire building, or even just cause we dont like thier leader. Personaly I think that makes you, well, to put it in the kindest way I can think of, I guess the word would be misguided. To say the least. The VERY least.

If we were talking about some tin-pot dictator like Idi Amin or some totalitarian regime, like Iran, I would be worried. But we're not. We're talking the world's first modern democratic nation.

Ok, I can accept that. Its a fair statement. I mean after all look how Iran indirectly killed millions of Iraqie babies with crippling sanctions for over 20 years. Of course we will never forget the time Iran killed between 100,000 and a million (depending on who you believe) Iraqies with thier "shock and awe" campaign, where they bombed cities full of innocent people night and day for a week. All the while spouting lies about weapons of mass destruction. Hell Iran is STILL killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Afgans with those damn drones. And it wasnt long ago when Iran killed 30,000 in Lybia through arming AlCIAda, and bombing campaigns. What is with those evil Iranians? You think they would want to be like us a "modern democratic nation".

You mean like Al Qaeda? Hmm, let me think. Would I hold Al Qaeda to the same standards as I would the U.S. government? Um no.

red, please help me understand. Are you not aware that it was in one of those think tank rooms of ours where the invention of alCIAda was created? Have you never heard of Sible Edmons FBI translator, who testified OSBL worked for the CIA right up till the day of 9/11? Let me let you in on something red, alCIAda IS the US government.

Edited February 28, 2013 by preacherman76

[Babe Ruth]

We knew that OBL worked for CIA long before Sibel Edmonds came on the scene.

[redhen]

What do you know about evidence? You cant even be bothered to open a link.

Actually I have. I have read probably 90% of the links submitted as evidence.

Fair enough. You think its the governments job to dream up senerios where we commit false flag operations to provoke a acceptable public responce for war. For no other reason then empire building .... rest of straw man omitted

No, it's their job to think up all possible defensive scenarios. Operation Gladio was a defensive operation against a quite possible Soviet invasion of West Germany.

Ok, I can accept that. Its a fair statement. I mean after all look how Iran indirectly killed millions of Iraqie babies with crippling sanctions for over 20 years.

Is that so?

Of course we will never forget the time Iran killed between 100,000 and a million (depending on who you believe) Iraqies with thier "shock and awe" campaign, where they bombed cities full of innocent people night and day for a week. All the while spouting lies about weapons of mass destruction.

I assume when you say Iran here you mean USA. The USA did not invade Iraq. It was a coalition incursion of many nations of the world.

Hell Iran is STILL killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Afgans with those damn drones. And it wasnt long ago when Iran killed 30,000 in Lybia through arming AlCIAda, and bombing campaigns. What is with those evil Iranians? You think they would want to be like us a "modern democratic nation".

I think you hit on the crux of the matter. In the old days (WWII), the enemy would have been beaten, and they would recognize that they were beaten, like Nazi Germany and Japan. All the countries you mentioned were not beaten in the traditional sense of warfare. Thus, the populations there don't feel like they were beaten. Hell in some provinces they reign supreme.

Cruise missiles and smart bombs do not equal leveling Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

I think it's a good thing that we don't use our full arsenal, as traditional military doctrine would decree. So let's wish for less nuclear threats and proliferation. Sound good, can we agree on that?

red, please help me understand. Are you not aware that it was in one of those think tank rooms of ours where the invention of alCIAda was created? Have you never heard of Sible Edmons FBI translator, who testified OSBL worked for the CIA right up till the day of 9/11?

Yes, I knew he was a CIA trained mujahideen fighting the Commie Russkies for us in Afghanistan. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. It's a military/political maxim. Next?

Let me let you in on something red, alCIAda IS the US government.

Is that right?

[Space Commander Travis]

I assume when you say Iran here you mean USA. The USA did not invade Iraq. It was a coalition incursion of many nations of the world.

Hmmm. Those who George W. Bush could bully into going along with him, I think is probably more accurate. This great Coalition of the Nations of the World suddenly rose up & unanimously decided to invade Iraq?

I think you hit on the crux of the matter. In the old days (WWII), the enemy would have been beaten, and they would recognize that they were beaten, like Nazi Germany and Japan. All the countries you mentioned were not beaten in the traditional sense of warfare. Thus, the populations there don't feel like they were beaten. Hell in some provinces they reign supreme.

There's the point; why should they have done the decent thing and recognised that they had been beaten?

[Q24]

Ok, I can accept that. Its a fair statement. I mean after all look how Iran indirectly killed millions of Iraqie babies with crippling sanctions for over 20 years. Of course we will never forget the time Iran killed between 100,000 and a million (depending on who you believe) Iraqies with thier "shock and awe" campaign, where they bombed cities full of innocent people night and day for a week. All the while spouting lies about weapons of mass destruction. Hell Iran is STILL killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Afgans with those damn drones. And it wasnt long ago when Iran killed 30,000 in Lybia through arming AlCIAda, and bombing campaigns. What is with those evil Iranians? You think they would want to be like us a "modern democratic nation".

Very well put. For those able to grasp the intended irony of your comments, it is a smack of the stark reality. To believe the argument can be addressed by applying labels like ‘totalitarian regime’ or ‘modern democratic nation’ is terribly unthinking, showing extreme lack of awareness to actual facts on the ground when it come to who is initiating aggression and perpetrating death and killing.

The USA did not invade Iraq. It was a coalition incursion of many nations of the world.

It takes some terrible blinkeredness to attempt that argument - in particular, mendacity of the first sentence.

[Babe Ruth]

Blinkeredness is an apt description. It seems similar to Cognitive Dissonance, which is really testimony to the efficacy of government propaganda. Orwell would be proud.

[+Liquid Gardens]

To believe the argument can be addressed by applying labels like ‘totalitarian regime’ or ‘modern democratic nation’ is terribly unthinking, showing extreme lack of awareness to actual facts on the ground when it come to who is initiating aggression and perpetrating death and killing.

Although I agree that those labels do not fully address it, it would be terribly unthinking to just hand-wave them away. This seems to border on things you and I have discussed before Q, namely your invocation of 'Lysenkoism' in our past arguments 'explaining' why scientists are so silent on the 9/11 conspiracy despite their must having been aware of the 'blatant' demolition for instance. As if it somehow needs explaining that Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany in the mid-20th Century, where all media was very strictly controlled and nonconformity heavily punished, is not really a good analog to 21st Century democratic America. The probability of getting away with a false flag, and maybe more importantly the ramifications from being caught implementing such an operation, are significantly different under those two different government structures and between those time periods.

[Q24]

Although I agree that those labels do not fully address it, it would be terribly unthinking to just hand-wave them away. This seems to border on things you and I have discussed before Q, namely your invocation of 'Lysenkoism' in our past arguments 'explaining' why scientists are so silent on the 9/11 conspiracy despite their must having been aware of the 'blatant' demolition for instance. As if it somehow needs explaining that Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany in the mid-20th Century, where all media was very strictly controlled and nonconformity heavily punished, is not really a good analog to 21st Century democratic America. The probability of getting away with a false flag, and maybe more importantly the ramifications from being caught implementing such an operation, are significantly different under those two different government structures and between those time periods.

The point is that facts, not labels, should define our perception. It’s not good enough to say that a “totalitarian regime, like Iran” (whether that description is actually correct or not is another subject) is more prepared to give lives of its citizens than a “modern democratic nation”. The stereotype attached to those labels might give that impression (and even be true in cases), but the fact is that Iran has not initiated war on another country in over 150 years, since back in the day when it was known as Persia. Contrast that to the U.S. record and it is clear to see in recent history which government has been most prepared to commit their own to death.

PS You are still taking the ‘Lysenkoism’ comparison over-literally. It is demonstration that politics can interfere with science to some degree, that is all.

PPS You are still not considering fail-safes in the operation which reduced if not negated probability of the perpetrators’ discovery to a minimum.

[skyeagle409]

We knew that OBL worked for CIA long before Sibel Edmonds came on the scene.

We know that you have a habit of making up stories.

[skyeagle409]

Operation Northwoods and Operation Himmler (the Gleiwitz incident) are good precedents to the proposed 9/11 false flag attack. You focus only on deaths incurred during the actual operation, which fails to factor in that those operations had the intent of committing whole nations to war where a foreseeable greater many thousands would perish.

9/11 + Afghanistan + Iraq

= approx. 12,000 U.S. killed

There are those who've claimed the U.S. would benefit from the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Nothing was further from the truth.

Osama bin Laden + al-Qaeda = the 911 attacks.

Edited March 4, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Many people use Operation Northwoods as proof that Western governments are very interested in killing their own people. I've countered that private think tanks and government defense analysts are paid to sit around all day and dream up all kinds of threatening scenarios.

As further proof, I've posted links to War Plan Red, the 1930 U.S. plan to invade Canada. According to the plan this would have entailed strategic bombing of cities (yeah I know, many Canadians would be happy to see Toronto leveled) and the use of chemical weapons. Here's a documentary I stumbled on that discusses this plan and the context in detail.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txyUtjVfi6w[/media]

What I found even more startling was Defense Scheme No.1 a planned Canadian invasion of America. Now that's ballsy, lol.

Needless to say, like Operation Northwoods, both these plans sat on the shelves for years collecting dust.

I think that 911 conspiracist forget that there are a number of investigative reporters who are very good at getting at the heart of a good story. One can only wonder why after more than 11 years they have been unable to uncover a single shred of evidence implicating the U.S. government in the 911 attacks.

[Space Commander Travis]

We know that you have a habit of making up stories.

I think there's little doubt that BL was trained & financed by the CIA when the Russkies were in the democratic, peace loving 'Stan where they had no business to be.

[skookum]

If Americans had tried to attack the UK by air in the 1930's it would have failed miserably. Not even the most powerful air force, the Luftwaffe managed to destroy British air defence. The US had to use Rolls Royce Merlin engines to get the performance needed out of the P51. The B17 was never as good or could hold anywhere near the payload of the Lancaster.

When they entered the war in the 40's they got the shock of their lives just how behind they were. Most US ground troops were heavily trained in mounted horse back infantry tactics and hurriedly had to modernize to mechanised warfare. These tactics had to be learned quickly from the allies.

Thankfully they did and were essential in the liberation of Europe but I think 5-10 years earlier the story would have been very different.