Progenitor of FALSE FLAG OPS

Could all, be a self perpetuated Military Industial Complex, as was first brought to life with Operation Northwoods.

Do bear with me, here, there is a logic in the order I set these quotes up in.
Further more, current news don't help matters look better. More about that in other threads though. More on this history thing.

Bamford himself writes that Operation Northwoods “may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government.”

National Security Archive

FEMA, whose main role is disaster response, is also responsible for handling U.S. domestic unrest.

From 1982 to 1984, Colonel Oliver North assisted FEMA in drafting its civil defense preparations. Details of those plans emerged during the 1987 Iran-Contra scandal. They included executive orders providing for suspension of the Constitution, the imposition of martial law, internment camps, and the turning over of government to the President and FEMA.

house.gov

Lets go a little further back.

By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly
and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.
1920 statement by John Maynard Keynes

berkeley.edu

Almost last peice, I know, yeah, right. This time not so far back.

We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

Eisenshower farewell speech

Take note, this is of interest, briefing from that fateful day. On 9/11;

Q: Senator Levin, you and other Democrats in Congress have voiced fear that you simply don't have enough money for the large increase in defense that the Pentagon is seeking, especially for missile defense, and you fear that you'll have to dip into the Social Security funds to pay for it. Does this sort of thing convince you that an emergency exists in this country to increase defense spending, to dip into Social Security, if necessary, to pay for defense spending -- increase defense spending?

Levin: One thing where the committee was unanimous on, among many, many other things, was that the -- we authorized the full request of the President, including the $18 billion. So I would say that Democrats and Republicans have seen the need for the request.

Q: Mr. Secretary, could you describe what steps are being taken -- defensive measures -- beyond force protection, and whether there's been any operational planning for homeland defense and as to --

Rumsfeld: Those aren't the kinds of things that one discusses.

defenselink


Are these peices of the same puzzle, or am I just off on a tangent here?

I'm sorry, I dunno if I'm lagging behind your train of thought or something, but what are you getting at? A progressively more influencial military-industrial complex?

If so, I think "Those aren't the kinds of things that one discusses" is a rather blunt reply, hey?

But I'm not sure. D'you reckon you could just confirm this for me?

Confirm, did you look at the sources of those links provided?
They are .edu, .gov and .mil, even a .org for good measure. Doesn't that confirm any thing?!

Sort of straight from the horses mouth I thought...



Your not lagging any thing, hit the nail on the head actually. Yes a "more influencial military industrial complex", is what I'm getting at. That's why I had to ask what I did, at the bottom of my above post. Because it all fits together for me, sure some parts of the picture are missing. But so are words on Wheel of Fortune, until it is figured out.

Maybe it's not only Rumsfeild that needs to resign.

Don't fix it if it ain't broke, right? Well, once something breaks too much, and fixing doesn't seem to help. It is time for a new something.

If you want a confirmation, let me know if this does it for you.

Global Military Spending
US alone in 2004 spent over $401 billion, that don't include Iraq and Afghanistan costs.
After 9/11 Former Admirals, Generals, and Pentagon officials agreed that the US can safely reduce the "Pentagon Budget" $60 billion per year, or 15%.

We can meet basic human needs at home, and abroad. By reducing obsolete Cold War weapons and investing 15% of the Pentagon budget the resources could;
Provide head start for all eligible US kids= $2
Provide healthcare for all uninsured US kids= $13
Rebuild Americas Schools over 10 yrs= $12
Achieve energy independance w/clean tech= $ 8
Feed all of the Worlds starving children= $25

That is childrens heath, k-12 education,
humanitarian foreign aid, head start,
and a reduction on oil all for $60 billion

Source:
TrueMajority.org

ADVISOR,

I am really glad to see someone with your credentials on this site putting together a thread like this that points to exactly how we got into this mess in the first place, and even more encouragingly, points to a way out.

The beast that is the MIC was looking for a way to sustain itself in the wake of the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the USSR. 9/11 and the WOT provided just that opportunity. Get everybody behind the flag and push through massive defense spending increases, when what was truly needed was tailoring and reorientation of the military to meet the new threat (purposely manufactured, or otherwise). This might well have been done without the massive defense spending increases, could possibly have been done without any increases at all, even could have meant an overall decrease in defense spending.

Instead, we have these huge defense spending increases coupled with tax cuts for the wealthy, necessitating gutting social programs, infrastructure maintenance, and disaster preparedness apparatus. We are being led down the road to ruin by a President and Administration that has turned out to be socially conservative but fiscally liberal, the exact antithesis of what the nation needs at this juncture in history, imo.

I echo your suggestion that resignations are in order, for the good of the country. For the good of the people.

My concern is that this thread will be swept aside, as Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was, as General Shinseki was, as Bunantine Greenhouse was, as everyone who has had the personal integrity to stand up and voice their concerns about the course we are on, so far has.

Bravo to you, ADVISOR, and keep an eye on your six.

Thank you, for having the inclination to reply. As is obvious, not many do.

Not worried about my six, I know who has my back. Now if only they would stop calling us crunchies...

United we stand, the rest, is not an option©

great work. right on the money.
it's all about 'money'.

the currency of human electricity and the circuits of power distribution.

there is no justice. only money.

Rod Dreher recently published a book touting "Crunchy Conservatism" -- arguing that ecological awareness and a concern for sustainability is part of true conservatism, rather than unthinking acquisitiveness at the expense of workers and the environment.

link

Is this what you mean by Crunchies? If so, I am down with that. Thing is, I don't like the descriptive term much, either. How about Realists? As in get Realist!

I caught a little bit of Hannity and Colmes the other night, and they were actually agreeing on something. They both liked a new book by Judge Andrew Napolitino called "The Constitution in Exile". It seemed to be getting at some of the same issues you are tracking here. I might try to track down a copy.

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Every member of Congress, every president, and every federal judge has sworn an oath to that. And the Constitution itself declares its supremacy. But the federal government has repeatedly evaded, avoided, and contradicted the Constitution.

Today, more than ever, the federal government is defining the parameters of its own power, and the courts are supporting the power-grab, according to Judge Andrew P. Napolitano in his new book, The Constitution in Exile: How the Federal Government Has Seized Power by Rewriting the Supreme Law of the Land.

Thomas Jefferson once said that it is the natural order of things for government power to increase and human liberty to decrease. Now, best-selling author Judge Andrew P. Napolitano upholds that Jeffersonian tradition and shines a 1,000-megawatt spotlight on presidential, congressional, and judicial abuse of power.

link

o.p. by billybob
there is no justice. only money.

Oh, there is justice alright. And the more it is evaded, avoided, and contradicted, the harder it hits when it comes down. There is a whole lot of justice out there just waiting to be served. Its time will come, too. The days of debauchery are numbered, and few.

[edit on 19-4-2006 by Icarus Rising]

It is a start, other things could and should be looked at. No reason getting ahead of ones self though, that is how we got into this situation to begin.

Just imagine what more could be done with say $120 billion, for the greater good. Heck with that much extra a global trust fund could be established. Then when and where ever a disaster struck, Bush and Clinton wouldn't have to ask for donations. It would already be on its way, makeing it that much faster to start recovery.

Global priorities are skewed, especially the leaders.

They say that a hero can save us. I'm not gonna stand here and wait.

Don't forget the War in Iraq has already cost $530 BILLION, and the government has already requested an additional $500 billion for 2007 defense spending, for the War in Iraq.

That will amount to more than $1 Trillion, publically admitted to spent dollars on the "War in Iraq". Office of the Secret ary of Defense


Yet nothing, not a worthless US "$", could be diverted to help those affected by Katrina...


Again, I quote myself;

Don't fix it if it ain't broke, right? Well, once something breaks too much, and fixing doesn't seem to help. It is time for a new something.

This is, in my opinion, the most impressive thread on ATS. I am so much more intellegent having read this. All I've read to this point in my ATS browsing is justified, just because I came to this thread and followed the clues you've pointed out. I've felt this way for so long and here we have a man smarter than I to put it into a perspective I understand.

Thank you.

I wish I could add to it, but, I am here to listen and learn. Not inject my ignorance into a well thought out theory.

Bravo ADVISOR, respect earned here.
Cuhail

Here's the problem though- whether you agree with the war in Iraq or not, the fact is we are there. Simply pulling out isn't a realistic option. Equipment is getting worn out or destroyed, so it needs to be replaced at a much higher rate than during peacetime(i.e. it's expensive fighting wars).
The potential to have issues with other countries in the region(Syria, Iran), as well as N. Korea, China, causes us to have to maintain a capable force. Right now the active Army and USMC are too small(and IMHO so are the Navy and Air Force), and fixing that problem is expensive. Maintaining qualitative and quantitative edges in weaponry is expensive. Unless we adopt a purely isolationist/reactive stance vs. proactive with regards to security and protection of national interests, there's no way to decrease the budget. There are plenty of other areas in government spending where waste is occurring where savings could be realized. I do agree that a lot more fiscally conservative policies need to be implemented. It's absurd the amount of waste that goes on with our tax dollars.

Nah, come on, there has to be better posts, by far there are.

GT100FV
Exactly, we are in Iraq, and at War. It would do nothing for us to pull our troops out, exept make more enemies, and seem like an easier opponent for the extremists.

One thing you are wrong about though, probably due to political propaganda, so it is not really your fault. But the US Armed Forces are NOT undermanned. By far we have more deployable troops than any other conflict or war prevously. The problem is ratios of placement, we have our forces scattered all over the place, and not composed as they should be. Stretched out over the entire world.

We havn't done that before, because it is strategically "suicide". Who would deploy their forces in such a way? Sure as hell not our predecessors, they used specialized teams for that. High speed low drag, in and out, like they are meant to be used.

No, what we need to do, is what one does in a street fight;
"Punch hard and then step back, to see what the situation is, before you decide to punch again."

Don't just look at the immediate, but the area around it. Situational awareness, know what is going on, "around you".

Don't know if I made any sence, but that is what was running through my head as a reply.


[edit on 31-12-2006 by ADVISOR]

ADVISOR,

Ive posted some of this info in my other thread as you might know of "USA ready for takeover by foreign troops", but I thought I could post some of it here as it would contribute to your topic of discussion.

It is details of US military and black budget allocations/spending which was quoted by Phil Schneider in his lecture in 1995, and I quote-

"The Black Budget is a secretive budget that garners
25% of the gross national product of the United States. The Black Budget
currently consumes $1.25 trillion per year. At least this amount is used in black programs, like those concerned with deep underground military bases. Presently, there are 129 deep underground military bases in the United States."

"Recently, I knew someone who lived near where I live in Portland, Oregon. He worked at Gunderson Steel Fabrication, where they make railroad cars. Now, I knew this fellow for the better part of 30 years, and he was kind of a quiet type. He came in to see me one day, excited, and he told me "they're building prisoner cars." He was nervous. Gunderson, he said, had a contract with the federal government to build 107,200 full length railroad cars, each with 143 pairs of shackles. There are 11 sub-contractors in this giant project. Supposedly, Gunderson got over 2 billion dollars for the
contract. Bethlehem Steel and other steel outfits are involved."

"I have some interesting 1993 figures. There are 29 prototype stealth aircraft presently. The budget from the U.S. Congress five-year plan for these is $245.6 million. You couldn't buy the spare parts for these black programs for that amount. So, we've been lied
to. The black budget is roughly $1.3 trillion every two years. A trillion is a thousand billion. A trillion dollars weighs 11 tons. The U.S. Congress never sees the books involved with this clandestine pot of gold. Contractors of stealth programs: EG&G, Westinghouse, McDonnell Douglas, Morrison- Knudson, Wackenhut Security Systems, Boeing Aerospace, Lorimar Aerospace, Aerospacial in France, Mitsibishi Industries, Rider Trucks, Bechtel, *I.G. Farben*, plus a host of hundreds more. Is this what we are supposed to be living up to as freedom - loving people? I don't believe so."

I think that adds to the spending you were refering to in your initial post. If these black op budgets were put towards fixing the economy and ensuring the health and safety of every citizen, the USA would be the model country in almost every aspect you could think off.

But the money and the potential power is like a junkie looking for his next hit, and for the next hit to be bigger and better - they are riding on a monetery and power trip wave that keeps getting bigger and bigger and one that knows no bounds until the point that the Black Government overtakes the one that we know for that is the only move left to achieve their grandeur plans of a perverted NWO society with civilian enslavement.

Man this # works me up!!!!!

Originally posted by ADVISOR
Nah, come on, there has to be better posts, by far there are.

GT100FV
Exactly, we are in Iraq, and at War. It would do nothing for us to pull our troops out, exept make more enemies, and seem like an easier opponent for the extremists.

One thing you are wrong about though, probably due to political propaganda, so it is not really your fault. But the US Armed Forces are NOT undermanned. By far we have more deployable troops than any other conflict or war prevously. The problem is ratios of placement, we have our forces scattered all over the place, and not composed as they should be. Stretched out over the entire world.

We havn't done that before, because it is strategically "suicide". Who would deploy their forces in such a way? Sure as hell not our predecessors, they used specialized teams for that. High speed low drag, in and out, like they are meant to be used.

No, what we need to do, is what one does in a street fight;
"Punch hard and then step back, to see what the situation is, before you decide to punch again."

Don't just look at the immediate, but the area around it. Situational awareness, know what is going on, "around you".

Don't know if I made any sence, but that is what was running through my head as a reply.

[edit on 31-12-2006 by ADVISOR]

Here's where I disagree on the manpower issue. By doctrine, you want a 3 to 1 advantage on the offense(we'll never have that vs. NK and China until airpower could attrit them enough- lots of airpower).
For every unit deployed it takes 2 more units for a proper rotation, to ensure readiness(i.e. 1 unit training to go, 1 unit gone, 1 unit rotating back). This isn't taking into account the fact that you probably want enough reserve to respond to additional crisises as well(i.e. the concept of being able to fight 2 Desert Storms simultaneously).
Modern firepower has minimized the amount of troops needed to attack something, but to hold something and maintain presence in multiple locations still requires boots on the ground.
As for Sea and Air power, if you wish to be able to control vast areas, or provide continual support for ground ops, you need to be able to generate a lot of sorties. If a ground op can't occur when the manuever commander wants because he might not have the aviation support due to crew rest/maintenance/station time limits/etc... that require more air frames/crews to mitigate. We went into Iraq light, and one the conventional part readily, but more forces early on might could've stabilized the situation more than what has occurred. Generals have said that even surging the present force in Iraq by 20,000 is only possible for a few months, because it's not sustainable. That's why Gen. Schoomaker wants to increase the end size of the active force(and the Marines do to), and he isn't a BS kind of guy.
www.army.mil...

In summary, making do with a smaller force means that you're always having to compromise somewhere(number of threats you can respond to simultaneously, the frequency with which a unit has to deploy vs. time spent training and refitting, the amount of risk one must accept due to manpower limitations, the amount of reliance on reservists/national guard). The 90s were like the 70s(i.e. Hollow force), with the myth of the peace dividend. The powers that be placed too much emphasis on technology, when its the people that win or lose wars. Gen. Schoomaker would like to increase the force by 2 Divisions(that's a good start). Given my druthers, we'd have a force the size we had in '91, but with modern equipment too(not realistic of course, but hey why dream small).

I must bump this thread, it deserves more attention from everyone.

Great work ADVISOR.

I love this thread and I agree great work Advisor.
Thanks for being diligent and connecting some dots

yea it's all a mess. If you want to see fema at work, Los Angels May 1st police beatings. It's going down soon, how long before the police state becomes a normal part of everyday safety ???

Just loop linking, since the subject has been resurrected as it is.
ABC news uncovers "operation northwoods" and why IMO

Thats scary stuff if true