Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cuba

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Hmmmmmm....

    Originally posted by copenhagen View Post
    What is your point exactly .You may have brought an knife to a gunfight here fella. JFK and especially under his brother prosecuted Operation Mongoose via the CIA station "JM Wave" out of Miami in the University of Florida campus. These were operations that included the involvement at the request of the CIA, the Mafia who they felt had a problem in common with Castro and could provide more deniable means of killing him. The go between man was Johnny Rosseli. Nixon as VP knew about it, JFK knew about it, RFK knew about it. The CIA most definitely knew about it and that was a skeleton ( a very illegal) one they didn't want getting out; something they thought the aftermath of the JFK assassination might reveal as the operations of Cuban exile groups to kill Castro were investigated because of it. Who wants it to be known that the government was working with mobsters to assasinate a foreign head of state. Mobsters J.Edgar Hoover had said didn't exist.

    As an aside just before the House Assassination hearings in 1976, when Rosselli was supposed to testify about his work on killing Castro, he was found floating inside an oil drum off the coast of Miami having been chopped up with a chainsaw. Sam Giancana was supposed to testify as well about his involvement. Shot and killed... The definitive reason for both their murders one can only speculate. I believe Jimmy Hoffa was to testify as well. All 3 died/disappeared within a short period of time of each other at a t ime when they were due to give evidence in regards to the operations against Castro...

    If you going to try and take the **** at least know the background of all this first...
    That's a lot to read from a Martian cartoon...

    I'll go back back through my bubble gum card collection & see what else I've missed...
    The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by marktwain View Post
      That's a lot to read from a Martian cartoon...

      I'll go back back through my bubble gum card collection & see what else I've missed...
      You're going to have to do better than that. What don't you agree with /dismiss as lunacy and why? You're going to have to be good though because what I wrote about is well documented. I can only assume you believe I've got crazy ideas about the JFK assassination being to do with aliens or something...
      Last edited by copenhagen; 12 Apr 13, 16:46.

      Comment


      • #18
        I take it when you mention Nixon you mean LBJ? Nixon wasn't VeeP at the time of Mongoose.

        Personally I think Oswald acted alone. However, as you point out, there were so many black ops going on, anything's possible. I just think if professional were going to hit JFK they wouldn't have used a bolt-action rifle firing at a steep angle (or multiple angles, etc). Nor would they have run the risk of hitting Jackie.

        But that's just me.
        Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
          I take it when you mention Nixon you mean LBJ? Nixon wasn't VeeP at the time of Mongoose.

          Personally I think Oswald acted alone. However, as you point out, there were so many black ops going on, anything's possible. I just think if professional were going to hit JFK they wouldn't have used a bolt-action rifle firing at a steep angle (or multiple angles, etc). Nor would they have run the risk of hitting Jackie.

          But that's just me.
          No I meant Nixon. Operation Mongoose was the umbrella name of later operations under JFK to kill Castro. It was however the offspring of previous operations to remove Castro including the Bay of Pigs that were instigated before the election of 1960 under the supervision of Nixon (bay of Pigs ultimately being inherited by JFK) who had taken on more responsibility in the closing year/months of Eisenhowers administration. These operations included the involvement of the Mafia. This was an involvement that all parties had wanted to remain under the carpet. There is research to suggest that Nixon whilst as VP most definitley knew of this with documents to prove it, with the research suggesting this is what the Watergate burglaries were really about....

          As to the assassination. We can only speculate what really happened, however if such things interest you one of the key things to look at when it comes to this man Lee Oswald is to look at the consensus of him being a lone nut recluse with no connections to anyone of note. Look in to that mate and that is where it gets interesting , whatever conclusion you make from it....

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by copenhagen View Post
            I did wonder if you'd turn up for this one...
            Hi Cope

            You seem to have it under control mate.
            I just the remark I commented upon required further investigation as to why that mattered!

            Regards
            "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." Churchill

            "I'm no reactionary.Christ on the Mountain! I'm as idealistic as Hell" Eisenhower

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Andy H View Post
              Hi Cope

              You seem to have it under control mate.
              I just the remark I commented upon required further investigation as to why that mattered!

              Regards
              No mate you get involved. You're going to have good stuff I don't know about in all this for sure!!
              Last edited by copenhagen; 13 Apr 13, 12:04.

              Comment


              • #22
                Cope and Andy H. I did mention the Arbenz experience, which was Guatemala. Yes, we were heavily involved in that. On Iran, no comment since my only reading on it had been the French experience.

                Should they have happened at all? In an ideal world, no. But we are dealing with the Cold War, and the decision makers of that time had a different perspective than that common today. Still, bits and pieces of it remain. What other explanation can there be for the Cuba embargo?

                U.S. intervention in Latin America has largely been confined to Central America, including Panama, and the Caribbean. Chile is correctly deemed U.S. "involvement". A liberal professor of mine during that time, who had spent some time in neighboring Argentina as a diplomat, termed the hundred million or so dollars reportedly spent in Chile by ITT (?) as: A drop in the bucket of Chile's economy, and not an Ipsa Qua Non underpinning the Chilean coup.
                dit: Lirelou

                Phong trần mi một lưỡi gươm, Những loi gi o ti cơm s g!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Actually

                  Originally posted by PhilipLaos View Post
                  The intriguing aspect of JFK's assassination for me has always been the sheer convenience of Oswald just happening to get a menial job in a conveniently high rise building, at a conveniently exact time, conveniently located in a prime spot overlooking JFK's future motorcade.

                  It looks like too clever and convenient of an arrangement to have been organized by one un-connected menial employee.


                  Philip
                  It was a low wage job in a library wholesale. Oswald is a fit, bright young guy.I would ahve hired him.

                  As George Carlin used to say"
                  "Only Two gunmen , Only TWO? In Texas, with a liberal driving around in clear sight?? Was it the opening day of bass season or something??"


                  Anyhow back to:

                  Despite its proximity, the US government did nothing directly to keep Cuba from going under. Yet in the decade preceding its fall we fought rebels/insurgeants in Greece, defended Korea, and began a massive investmet in arms, equipment and advisors into Vietnam.

                  Why didn't we put 'boots on the ground', or at least air power into Cuba?

                  Was there anything we could have done? It couldn't have been more hopeless than Vietnam.

                  Where's a good source for this period of Cuba?
                  __________________


                  Cuba had been an embarrasment for the USA since the 1903 Pratt amendment.

                  Batista had ruled with bullwhip & Beretta since 1934
                  Last edited by marktwain; 14 Apr 13, 12:22.
                  The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by marktwain View Post
                    First, you
                    worte a two hundred word blurb on how insulted you were by a cartoon pix BECAUSE you linked it to you. That's just silliness...

                    SECOND: There are TWO 'theory choke points' - one - the nieghbour who alerts LHO to the book repository job turns out to be a'humble four square fellow'

                    Two: The person or persons who changes the tour route is key- no change , Oswald's out of reachso, where's your two smoking gun people?? forget , for a moment , about mafias & Cubans popping out of the woodwork.
                    Take the mick all you like. Other peoples jokes about guns in Texas ( he had more threats from Dallas than anywhere else put together and I'd hazard I guess you didn't know that) do not address the issue of Oswald having a legend painted for him in the preceeding year by peoples within the intelligence comunity and connections to militant anti Castro Cubans. Thats not speculation, that is known. Again your internet rhetoric doesnt address that.You clearly aren't widely read on this subject whether that be the assasination itself or the ops against Castro which did involve the mob and as anyone who was widely read would at least entertain the widely known background of Oswald. To be fair most people aren't and wish to stay a part of the mainstream consensus. As I said, I would get attacked for being a kook for just that Oswald background information and that's ok. Comes with the territory....
                    Last edited by copenhagen; 14 Apr 13, 15:17.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      There was nothing the US could to stop Cuba from going under because the US government did support Castro up to a point as they weren't exactly mad about Batista. At this time they didn't understand who Castro really was. They had no concept of him being a communist till he announced post revolution. Very different scanario than say Vietnam...
                      Last edited by copenhagen; 14 Apr 13, 15:20.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Copenhagen, totally in agreement with your #48 [edit, now post #25 above] except for that last tie in with Ho Chi Minh.

                        In 1944-45, when Ho was trying to get OSS support, the situation was quite similar to Fidel's in the situation prior to his taking power. (And some old line Cuban communists still insist that Fidel has never been a 'true' communist.)

                        The only people who knew who Ho Chi Minh really was, beyond a small circle of his Party intimates, were in French intelligence, and no one in China was asking them. Understand that Ho Chi Minh was the name he would assume once he re-entered Vietnam. It was merely his latest pseudonym, and he was busy telling everyone connected to U.S. intelligence that he was not a Communist.

                        If you ever get the urge and time, you might find Dixee Bartholomew-Feis's "The OSS and Ho Chi Minh" an interesting read.
                        Last edited by GCoyote; 14 Apr 13, 21:23. Reason: reference correct post after editing thread.
                        dit: Lirelou

                        Phong trần mi một lưỡi gươm, Những loi gi o ti cơm s g!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          JFK discussion moved to it's own thread http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...d.php?t=135012
                          Any metaphor will tear if stretched over too much reality.

                          Questions about our site? See the FAQ.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by lirelou View Post
                            Well, despite the leftist view that the U.S. set up and supported dictatorships throughout Latin America, the fact was that they did not, until after Cuba.

                            Banana wars took place in Cuba, where the Platt Amendment allowed the U.S. military intervention in the Dominican Republic (1916-24), Honduras, Haiti (1915-34), Mexico (1916-19), Nicaragua (see U.S. military interventions in Nicaragua 1909-1925 and 1926-1933) and Panama.
                            http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/US-Late...he_Beziehungen
                            Dominican republic:
                            Trujillo's finest hour came with the U.S. occupation of the country (1916-1924). 1918 he joined the newly founded National Guard, where he struck up a steep career officer in the sequence and in 1924 already held the rank of Major.
                            http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_...rujillo_Molina

                            Honduras:
                            1919 Rafael Lpez Gutirrez, after an US invasion:
                            In October 1920 he won shamelessly undemocratic presidential elections. In 1920 there were four rebellions against his dictatorial rule. He called a state of emergency.

                            Haiti 1915:
                            On 28 July 1915, immediately after a crowd had lynched President Jean Vilbrun Guillaume Sam, Haiti was occupied by the United States. Official goal of the intervention was to public order in the country torn by internal conflicts to restore.
                            But according to historians it was also directed against the German influence in Haiti. The small group of German immigrants (about 200 to 1910) then dominated the economy of the country and in Washington, it was feared that the German Empire could set up naval bases in the Caribbean Republic
                            http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geschichte_Haitis

                            Nicaragua 1909:
                            The new Conservative President Adolfo Daz, until his election accountant of a North American mining company took in Nicaragua, 1911 at U.S. banks on millions of loans, leaving the safety of U.S. government direct control of the Nicaraguan customs revenue. A year later, the Daz administration had to be rescued from an insurgent army of the former War Minister Lus Mena by U.S. Marines on 14 August 1912 landed in Nicaragua and the cities of Managua, Granada and Len occupied. The Marines remained in the country until 1933 and mostly supported the conservative-liberal government against rebels
                            [QUOTE=lirelou;2497581]
                            http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by lirelou View Post
                              Cope and Andy H. I did mention the Arbenz experience, which was Guatemala. Yes, we were heavily involved in that. On Iran, no comment since my only reading on it had been the French experience.

                              The overthrow of the elected Prime Minister of Iran 1953:
                              http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mossadegh

                              Originally posted by lirelou View Post
                              Should they have happened at all? In an ideal world, no. But we are dealing with the Cold War, and the decision makers of that time had a different perspective than that common today. Still, bits and pieces of it remain. What other explanation can there be for the Cuba embargo?

                              U.S. intervention in Latin America has largely been confined to Central America, including Panama, and the Caribbean. Chile is correctly deemed U.S. "involvement". A liberal professor of mine during that time, who had spent some time in neighboring Argentina as a diplomat, termed the hundred million or so dollars reportedly spent in Chile by ITT (?) as: A drop in the bucket of Chile's economy, and not an Ipsa Qua Non underpinning the Chilean coup.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                                Despite its proximity, the US government did nothing directly to keep Cuba from going under. Yet in the decade preceding its fall we fought rebels/insurgeants in Greece, defended Korea, and began a massive investmet in arms, equipment and advisors into Vietnam.

                                Why didn't we put 'boots on the ground', or at least air power into Cuba?

                                Was there anything we could have done? It couldn't have been more hopeless than Vietnam.

                                Where's a good source for this period of Cuba?
                                Two suppositions:

                                1. Popular, and practical internal support, of the people to meaningful and lasting degrees.

                                2. A buddy of mine puts things of this nature quite succinctly. "Often, it's more about keeping the worst ******* out, than getting the best man in". You know, that old Hobson's Choice about killing Hitler, but now we might inherit a real lunatic to have to deal with that just might know what the hell he's doing.
                                Youthful Exuberance Is No Match For Old Age And Treachery.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X