Former Gitmo detainee now al Qaeda Commander

[Plane]

<<Why do we need to lose?>>

Because of your arrogance.  The arrogance that led you to invade unoffending Third World countries and kill millions of unfortunate people all over the world.  When you got your ass kicked in Viet Nam, the attacks on the rest of the world ceased for a long time.  If you lose big in Afghanistan, it will be a long time before your arrogance leads you to launch other unprovoked attacks on other unfortunate countries.

It is like a schoolyard bully.  If nobody stops him, his attacks continue.  When finally somebody kicks his ass unexpectedly, the bully learns his lesson.  All bullies at heart are nothing but cowards.  When they see that their aggression can get them badly hurt, they cease aggressing.  At least for a time.

You have us quite backwards.

When the Soviet Union shut down we reduced the building of new wepons , retired a lot of old ones and decreased military manpower.

Left free of threat we might just revert to our pre-WWII habit of maintaining very small military force.

What complaint do you have of us that relates not at all to the Cold war?

Most of our history is pre-military industrial complex , that thing that President Eisenhour was alarmed at when he saw it young.

[Michael Tee]

<<Most of our history is pre-military industrial complex , that thing that President Eisenhour was alarmed at when he saw it young.>>

Eisenhower was responsible for the overthrow of the democratically elected Arbenz government of Guatemala in 1953, which ushered in decades of dictatorship, peasant massacres and some of the most barbaric forms of torture ever used in the 20th century.  The blood on his hands goes up to the shoulder.  But that was done, not on behalf of the military-industrial complex but for a couple of very influential corporations, Dole and United Fruit.  This was business as usual in Central America - - the big fruit and steamship companies had a lot of influence in the U.S. government, bought and paid for.  It had always been that way for over a hundred years.

Ike recognized in the military-industrial complex a new kind of threat, one that would drag America into a lot more dangerous territories than the Banana Republics of Central America.  He recognized the pervasiveness of the threat's influence in America and he recognized the dangers that came with the kind of foreign policy that the military-industrial complex's interests demanded.

[Plane]

I don't know much about the Arbenz government , but I know that Dole was not just an American company.

International dealings are a matter of slow improvement , starting with abismal and sometimes rising to merely acceptable.

In hindsight many mistakes look clearly to be mistakes , but you don't have hindsight about the choice you are about to make.

If the US were to choose diffrently than it did each of the choices it got , would te Cold war have still been won.

[Michael Tee]

Seems to me that every fucking crime and atrocity the U.S. ever committed can be justified by you in terms of winning or losing the Cold War.  That's one big fucking crock.  The Cold War itself was manufactured out of whole cloth by anti-Soviet charlatans working in the interests of the military-industrial complex.  And even if the Cold War had really been a response to Soviet aggression it still doesn't justify what happened to millions of innocent human beings tortured and murdered in the name of anti-Communism.  Even accepting your ludicrous belief in a "Cold War," your country totally abdicated its moral responsibilities. 

Interestingly enough, the Nazis used almost the same pathetic excuse as you (anti-Bolshevism) to justify their worst atrocities.

[Plane]

Seems to me that every fucking crime and atrocity the U.S. ever committed can be justified by you in terms of winning or losing the Cold War.  That's one big fucking crock.  The Cold War itself was manufactured out of whole cloth by anti-Soviet charlatans working in the interests of the military-industrial complex.  And even if the Cold War had really been a response to Soviet aggression it still doesn't justify what happened to millions of innocent human beings tortured and murdered in the name of anti-Communism.  Even accepting your ludicrous belief in a "Cold War," your country totally abdicated its moral responsibilities. 

Interestingly enough, the Nazis used almost the same pathetic excuse as you (anti-Bolshevism) to justify their worst atrocities.

The cold war had many casualtys on both sides .

NO wonder you cannot understand the SovietUnion looseing what you didn't even know they were fighting.

[Michael Tee]

<<NO wonder you cannot understand the SovietUnion looseing what you didn't even know they were fighting.>>

I know what they were fighting, alright, they were fighting American aggression.  Somewhere, they lost their way.  IMHO they should have kept their missiles in Cuba and kept them streaming in while totally blockading Berlin.  If Kennedy still didn't get the message, they should have waited for America to strike the first blow, and then annihilated the U.S. East Coast.  Khruschev was right that the U.S.S.R. would lose more people than America in the exchange, but he would have won because the U.S. couldn't have absorbed the punishment that the Russian people could.  That was their biggest moment, and Khruschev's knees buckled.  Fuck them, if that's the kind of Communists they were, they did not deserve to win.

[Plane]

<<NO wonder you cannot understand the SovietUnion looseing what you didn't even know they were fighting.>>

I know what they were fighting, alright, they were fighting American aggression.  Somewhere, they lost their way.  IMHO they should have kept their missiles in Cuba and kept them streaming in while totally blockading Berlin.  If Kennedy still didn't get the message, they should have waited for America to strike the first blow, and then annihilated the U.S. East Coast.  Khruschev was right that the U.S.S.R. would lose more people than America in the exchange, but he would have won because the U.S. couldn't have absorbed the punishment that the Russian people could.  That was their biggest moment, and Khruschev's knees buckled.  Fuck them, if that's the kind of Communists they were, they did not deserve to win.

We know now what we didn't know then, Kruchev didn't have the missles he claimed. The soviet Sub launched missles of the time were unreliable . The missle production he claimed was "like sausages" was more like mom and pop butcher shop. If the US had been bolder earyer the USSR would have had to fold. Later when the Soviets had caught up both sides had the blasting power to extinguish civilisation ,if not all animal life . It turned out that the old guys were not absolutely barmy and didn't want a war that hurt worse than the "Great Patriotic War".

Going from a standoff based on bluff to a standoff based on overkill tested the economys of the two cold combatants and of course the Communists were much weaker on that score. When Reagan proposed a series of upgrades ,that havent ever hapened, the Soviet Planners were overwhelmed ,  practily overwhelmed by our bluff.

The Soviet Union fell apart and the Warsaw pact clamored to each join NATO. This removed a great economic strain from the people of Russia. A lot of Submarines were just parked and left unmanned , a lot of equipment was abandoned. And the US took this long awaited oppurtunity to pounce , invadeing on a long frount and airlifting commandoes to key....pfh!

The Soviet Union fell apart and lost iron controll of the people , what rises from the ash might be a friend might not be, but the riseing from the ash is still going on. The US and NATO don't need or want to invade . That was hogwash in the fiftys and was hogwash the whole time.

[Michael Tee]

<<We know now what we didn't know then, Kruchev didn't have the missles he claimed. The soviet Sub launched missles of the time were unreliable . The missle production he claimed was "like sausages" was more like mom and pop butcher shop. >>

So what were the "missiles" that the U.S.S.R. was installing in Cuba?  Dummy sausages?

<<If the US had been bolder earyer the USSR would have had to fold.>>

"Earlier" meaning when it had a nuclear monopoly?   What's up widdat?  Why DIDN'T the U.S.  strike?  The only reasons I can think of are  that  (a) the Russians had already dispersed, so the strike would kill civilians and left the Red Army intact, to roll over Europe to the English Channel at least, taking permanent possession of all of a devastated and war-torn Europe and (b) an early and decisive victoryh over the "Red Menace" would have deprived the military-industrial complex of its primary raison d’être, at least its raison d’être for public purposes, the bogeyman through which it scared most of America into coughing up the shekels.

<<Later when the Soviets had caught up both sides had the blasting power to extinguish civilisation ,if not all animal life . It turned out that the old guys were not absolutely barmy and didn't want a war that hurt worse than the "Great Patriotic War".>>

Any way you slice it, plane, they lost their nerve.   THAT'S the bottom line and that's why they did not deserve to win.

<<When Reagan proposed a series of upgrades ,that havent ever hapened, the Soviet Planners were overwhelmed ,  practily overwhelmed by our bluff.>>

Where do you get this stuff from?  Reagan?  I know that's the "official explanation" but I ain't buyin' none of it.  One day I'm gonna find out the real story of why the U.S.S.R. fell apart.


<<The Soviet Union fell apart and the Warsaw pact clamored to each join NATO.>>

Fuckin A they "clamored" - - with the exception of Poland and the Czech part of Czechoslovakia, they were all former Nazi satellites and huge admirers of Adolf Hitler.  This was a real fine day - -  for Nazis.

<<A lot of Submarines were just parked and left unmanned , a lot of equipment was abandoned. And the US took this long awaited oppurtunity to pounce , invadeing on a long frount and airlifting commandoes to key....pfh!>>

In fact, a lot of Americans took the view that it was all a fake, that the Soviet Union hadn't really fallen apart, but that it was all a huge act put on to get American aid for an economy bankrupted by Star Wars.  The same debate probably occurred in more responsible circles.  How many subs were there, how many were really abandoned, if any? etc.  They didn't know and they couldn't take the chance, not initially.  Later, like jackals, emboldened by what they thought was the true stench of death coming from the U.S.S.R., they DID attack - - first in Afghanistan, then for the Big Prize, Iraq.

<<The Soviet Union fell apart and lost iron controll of the people , what rises from the ash might be a friend might not be, but the riseing from the ash is still going on. The US and NATO don't need or want to invade . That was hogwash in the fiftys and was hogwash the whole time. >>

The U.S. had already invaded the U.S.S.R. once to crush its communist system and there was no reason to think it would not do so again.  In many respects, the U.S., Britain and France overlooked a lot of shit as Nazi Germany rose to power, Hitler having made it crystal clear in Mein Kampf that he regarded the primary threat to Germany (and the world) to be "Jewish Bolshevism" and knowing full well that he would inevitably invade Russia, bleeding to death (they hoped) both Germany and the U.S.S.R. in the process.  Hitler fulfilled their every dream, but unfortunately for them, through a stupid series of miscalculations, also found himself at war with both Britain and France at the same time.  To your "hogwash!" I reply "bullshit!"

[Plane]

Ok , but you have to admit that you don't have any understanding of why simply running out of credit with the west and confidence with their people would destroy the control of the communist party.

Afganistan was a Soviet problem starting particularly during the Carter administration , if turnabout is fair play then it was quite fair to hand the USSR an Vietnam. The Soviets left Afganistan before the disolution.

Why didn't the US and NATO attack in force , ever?   Seemed to work well enough to just out wait them as they were strangling themselves didn't it?


Do you remember Mattias Rust? I wonder how many People realised that his crossing the whole airspace between WGermany and Red Square proved that the air defence was always vunerable?

Mattias seems kinda unfocused , but as activists go he should be remembered as very highly effective. The emporer had no clothes , but does the emporer thank the kid that shows him a mirror?

There is an incident of near war during the Gorbachov era , a single missle seemed to be aimed at Moscow , the radar picture was just a nightmare. Since one missle might be carring six to ten warheads this could have been a decapitation attack to destroy everything valuable near Moscow , an initial attack that would cripple the response attack, or facilitate a coup.

Gorbachov was councelled that rapid response was called for , but he waited .

Soon the radar room called up and stated that the trajectory of the missle would not impact in Russia or any USSR territory. Then somewhat later one ministry finally told to another that the Norwegions had registered a sounding rocket and warned the proper authoritys, but the word had not reached the military yet.

Even though you have to be kinda disconnected from reality to think that Communism is a good idea , the leadership of the USSR never quite got crazy enough to end life on Earth.

BTW most of our missle building programs , which wound up with our owning thousands of atomic warheads , started with Kennedy , Eisenhour didn't see the need to have a lot of them .

[Michael Tee]

<<Ok , but you have to admit that you don't have any understanding of why simply running out of credit with the west and confidence with their people would destroy the control of the communist party.>>

If that's what happened, then that's what happened.  I just don't know enough about it to form any real conclusions.  But I kind of suspect it was a lot more complex than that.

<<Afganistan was a Soviet problem starting particularly during the Carter administration , if turnabout is fair play then it was quite fair to hand the USSR an Vietnam. >>

The analogy holds no water because Vietnam was a conflict in which the Vietnamese people were united behind Ho Chi Minh in an anti-colonial struggle, which the U.S. then made its own by intervening in the place of the departing French colonialists.  Afghanistan was a genuine civil war between factions, one of which had called in the  U.S.S.R.  The U.S. then chose to intervene against the Soviets, making it an international conflict in essence and ultimately leading to the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. itself.

<<The Soviets left Afganistan before the disolution.>>

They left Afghanistan under an Afghan Communist government which was then subverted by U.S. puppet forces, mostly the same kinds of warlords and fascists that then split into anti-American Islamic jihadis and U.S. puppets.

<<Why didn't the US and NATO attack in force , ever?   Seemed to work well enough to just out wait them as they were strangling themselves didn't it?>>

Sure, if that's what really happened.

<<Do you remember Mattias Rust? I wonder how many People realised that his crossing the whole airspace between WGermany and Red Square proved that the air defence was always vunerable?>>

Proved no such thing.  What was he flying, a Piper Aztec?  Piper Cub?  Some four-seater prop plane that posed no threat at all?  Maybe if he'd been flying a B-52, it would have proven something, but, given what he was flying, it was just a stunt.  I'm sure he could have been blown out of the sky, had anyone wanted to waste the missile to do so.

<<Mattias seems kinda unfocused , but as activists go he should be remembered as very highly effective. The emporer had no clothes , but does the emporer thank the kid that shows him a mirror?>>

I think you really overestimated the significance of this punk.

<<There is an incident of near war during the Gorbachov era , a single missle seemed to be aimed at Moscow , the radar picture was just a nightmare. Since one missle might be carring six to ten warheads this could have been a decapitation attack to destroy everything valuable near Moscow , an initial attack that would cripple the response attack, or facilitate a coup.

<<Gorbachov was councelled that rapid response was called for , but he waited .

<<Soon the radar room called up and stated that the trajectory of the missle would not impact in Russia or any USSR territory. Then somewhat later one ministry finally told to another that the Norwegions had registered a sounding rocket and warned the proper authoritys, but the word had not reached the military yet.>>

What can I tell ya?   Shit happens.   Human beings, human error.

<<Even though you have to be kinda disconnected from reality to think that Communism is a good idea , the leadership of the USSR never quite got crazy enough to end life on Earth.>>

Craziness is not the same thing as human error.  IMHO, there are no limits to the adverse consequences of simple human error.  Craziness doesn't even have to enter the picture.

<<BTW most of our missle building programs , which wound up with our owning thousands of atomic warheads , started with Kennedy , Eisenhour didn't see the need to have a lot of them .>>

I think it goes beyond the judgment of one man.  Vast programs like that arise from a variety of factors, national security being only one of them.

[Plane]

How does haveing atomic wepons enhance National security?



[][]][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

The analogy holds no water because Vietnam was a conflict in which the Vietnamese people were united behind Ho Chi Minh in an anti-colonial struggle, which the U.S. then made its own by intervening in the place of the departing French colonialists.  Afghanistan was a genuine civil war between factions, one of which had called in the  U.S.S.R.  The U.S. then chose to intervene against the Soviets, making it an international conflict in essence and ultimately leading to the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. itself.

Distinction without a diffrence.

  The Soviet Union was telling the familys of casualtys that they were victims of accidents untill late in the war. Was this for shame or for morale?

Assisting the liberation of Afganistan , actually assisting the Mujhadeen , caused 9-11?

Proves that no good deed goes unpunished.

[Michael Tee]

<<How does haveing atomic wepons enhance National security?>>

It's like asking how would having a handgun make you more secure against the attacks of the schoolyard bully.  Obviously, the bully, whether or not he's armed himself, would rather find an unarmed victim to fuck with.

So it is in the world today.  Why did the international bully, the U.S.A., attack Iraq but not North Korea?  When you pack a nuclear punch, you have the potential to inflict a lot of damage on an attacker.  If you don't have the nukes, you have two choices when the bully comes calling:  submit, or fight and watch as the bully devastates your country and rapes, tortures and murders your citizens.  With nukes, the bully has to consider:  Do I really want to fuck with these people, or can I find another victim, one who doesn't pack a nuclear punch?  Even if the bully attacks anyway and you are going to suffer the devastation of retaliatory nuclear attack, at least you can go down with the satisfaction of having royally fucked up the bully at the same time.  As opposed to NOT having nukes and being fucked over by the bully almost as badly.



[][]][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]


<<Distinction without a diffrence.>>

I made that point for a reason, but I forget now what it was.  Not worth revisiting.

  <<The Soviet Union was telling the familys of casualtys that they were victims of accidents untill late in the war. Was this for shame or for morale?>>

What's the difference?  They all do it.  The U.S. tried to disguise its battle deaths in Viet Nam as non-combat-related for years.  See the study, "Friendly Fire," which began when an Iowa mother was falsely told that her son had died from sunstroke.  I think the military doesn't like to admit its casualty rate especially against out-gunned low-tech Third World forces, because it makes them look like losers and wimps.  Also, they may be afraid that if the real casualty rates become known, their bosses might pull them out of the fight, then they'd really be humiliated.  So there's always going to be pressure to underreport the real casualty count.

<<Assisting the liberation of Afganistan , actually assisting the Mujhadeen , caused 9-11?

<<Proves that no good deed goes unpunished.>>

Not really; it proves that karmic law really works.

[sirs]

<<How does haveing atomic wepons enhance National security?>>

It's like asking how would having a handgun make you more secure against the attacks of the schoolyard bully.  Obviously, the bully, whether or not he's armed himself, would rather find an unarmed victim to fuck with.

Wow, Tee just nailed the whole idiotic notion of "gun free zones", in 1 simple sentence.  *golf clap*

[Plane]

<<How does haveing atomic wepons enhance National security?>>

It's like asking how would having a handgun make you more secure against the attacks of the schoolyard bully.  Obviously, the bully, whether or not he's armed himself, would rather find an unarmed victim to fuck with.

Wow, Tee just nailed the whole idiotic notion of "gun free zones", in 1 simple sentence.  *golf clap*

I think he has painted a true picture of North Koreas attitude too. They were not happy with decades of not being attacked , they want greater security for being proactive. They are going to sink a ship or two , kill a dozen or three people and what are you gonna do about it?

Unfortuneately it does not seem to work for the worlds greatest nuclear power the same way.

[Michael Tee]

<<They [North Korea] were not happy with decades of not being attacked , they want greater security for being proactive. They are going to sink a ship or two , kill a dozen or three people and what are you gonna do about it?>>

I guess one thing you could do about it would be not to hold your next joint naval exercises with the U.S.A. twenty miles off their shores.