cj#484> re: Cuba & saber rattling

1996-03-01

Richard Moore

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996
Sender: Charles Bell <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: cj#480> re: Cuba & saber rattling

On Thu, 29 Feb 1996, Richard K. Moore wrote:
>
>         The U.S. has obviously been preparing to play the Cuba card for
> some time.  This election year is the perfect time for Clinton to get his
> stripes.  No private flight occurs over Cuba if it isn't part of CIA
> stragegy.  The overflights were well-planned and timed provocations, whose
> outcome was predicatable, and which is now being exploited according to
> plan.
>         Stand by for the next in a series of USA neo-blitzkrieg rampages:
> Grenada, Panama, Iraq, and now Cuba.

Richard, your thesis is ... uh ... provocative.

Do you really think Bill Clinton means to ape the idol of his youth and
bring us his own Bay of Pigs?

I'd be willing to bet a fair-sized stack of cyberbucks that this is not
going to happen.


Charles Bell

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Dear Charles,

        That will hardly be the motivation.

        "Bay of Pigs" is of course the name of an abortive invasion,
mounted by poorly armed mercenary terrorists, and with air support
intentionally withheld by CIA operatives who were out to embarrass Kennedy.

        The "Liberation of Cuba" [sick] will be carried out with the same
hitlerian efficiency as the criminal invasions of Panama and Iraq, and with
the same media under-coverage and over-commentary.

        Do you have any particular reason for doubting it?

-rkm


@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996
Sender: •••@••.••• (Matt Febles)
Subject: Re: cj#480> re: Cuba & saber rattling

RE: Cuba incident and propaganda excercise:
>
>        Hank's attitude is exactly what was intended.  It is precisely the
>_opponents_ of a war that are the target of a provocation-incident
>propaganda exercise -- the incident is carefully selected accordingly.

>Don't be duped,
>-rkm
>

Excellent point.  Any incident that causes you to sympathize with the US as
the "victim" requires a deeper analysis and investigation.  This action, the
subsequent media uniformity, and the orthodoxy of political leaders, should
cause not automatic agreement with the US in its "moral outrage", but
absolute skepticism and renewed mistrust.  This is what Chomsky called
"ideological self-defense", perhaps the most important skill for anyone
concerned with political systems and human rights.  When everyone agrees on
a cause for war, disagree.

Again, any incident that appears to show the world's most powerful, wealthy,
and most manipulative nation ever as the "victim" is fraudulent.  Remember
"support our troops"?  Remember Greneda, Gulf of Tonkin - hell, go back and
read Mark Twain on the Spanish-American War 100 years ago.  Remarkable
similarity of events and subsequent public outcry.  Today, due to increased
scrutiny and press coverage, the US must use clandestine actions to initiate
these election-year conquests.

Even if it wasn't the CIA shot down over Cuban airspace, it was the
fascistic Cuban exiles, perhaps stoked to the point of "ultimate sacrifice
for the cause" taught to provoke the actions that will justify US
intervention in their cause.

Seen in this light, the US actions and pontificating in the UN and so forth
are quite sickening, and will only to get worse in the coming days.  Be
prepared to see maximum bullshit levels and more deadly force.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Matt
NYC
"We were not gonna do things according to the previous shitheads" - John Lydon

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996
Sender: "Ruben G. Remus" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: cj#480> re: Cuba & saber rattling

>          If you look at the history of USA-initiated wars, going right back
>   to the Mexican American War, there's a very frequent pattern.  The U.S.
>   provokes an incident which it can then react to.  The media jumps in to
>   sensationalize and demonize.  After that, the actual motivation of the U.S.
>   comes into play, and becomes the agenda for the war.
>
>          War             Incident
>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>          Mexican         border conflict in Texas (caused by belligerent U.S.
>                          scouting parties)
>          Civil           Fort Sumter shelling
>          WWII            Pearl Harbor (forced by FDR oil blockade)
>          Vietnam         Gulf of Tonkin (provocative U.S. Navy maneouvers)
>          Grenada         an assassination (facilitated by the CIA)
>          Panama          shooting of a GI (wandering where it was inevitable)
>          Iraq            invasion of Kuwait (invited by Sec'y State)
>

Funny you missed the closest example to the current situation, the
sinking of the battleship Maine in a Cuban harbor (Havana?) which
precipitated the Spanish-American War.

R. Remus

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@


~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
 Posted by Richard K. Moore  -  •••@••.•••  -  Wexford, Ireland
           (WWW or FTP) --> ftp://ftp.iol.ie/users/rkmoore
 ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
 




Share:

ekbonus bahis forum linkegit.com