This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Prolonging the War is a "Threat to Our National Security"
Congressman Kucinich said today:
America
is in the fight of its life and that fight is not in Afghanistan --
it's here ... We are deeply in debt. Our GDP is down. Our manufacturing
is down. Our savings are down. The value of the dollar is down. Our
trade deficit is up. Business failures are up. Bankruptcies are up.
The
war is a threat to our national security. We’ll spend over $100 billion
next year to bomb a nation of poor people while we reenergize the
Taliban, destabilize Pakistan, deplete our army and put more of our
soldiers’ lives on the line. Meanwhile, back here in the USA, 15
million people are out of work. People are losing their jobs, their
health care, their savings, their investments, and their retirement
security. $13 trillion in bailouts for Wall Street, trillions for war;
when are we going to start taking care of things here at home?
Is he right?
Well,
the director of U.S. national intelligence, retired Admiral Dennis
Blair, said in February that the economic crisis was the biggest
national security threat to the United States. See this and this.
And - contrary to common beliefs - economists say that prolonged wars increase unemployment, shrink the economy, and cause rather than solve recessions. See this, this and this. And to those who say that deficits don't matter, please read this.
As ABC notes:
U.S. intelligence officials have concluded there are only about 100 al Qaeda fighters in the entire country...
With
100,000 troops in Afghanistan at an estimated yearly cost of $30
billion, it means that for every one al Qaeda fighter, the U.S. will
commit 1,000 troops and $300 million a year.
And TalkingPointsMemo reported
yesterday that - in addition to the troops - the US now has more than
104,000 defense contractors in the country. So that drives up the cost
per al Qaeda fighter even higher.
Moreover, a leading advisor to the U.S. military - the very hawkish Rand Corporation - released a study in 2008 called "How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qa'ida". The report confirms what experts have been saying for years: the war on terror is actually weakening national security.
As a press release about the study states:
"Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism."
As one blogger commented in response to a previous essay:
If
we continue to react as we did after 9-11 then al Qaeda will win. This
primarily being a financial site, everyone here should understand ROI
[return on investment]. They invested less than a million and made us
spend 1 trillion+. They could pass the collection plate around at the
average mosque in Pakistan and bankrupt us with 1 more operation. Even
if you are not convinced that we are creating more extremists than we
are killing, we simply cannot afford to "win the war on terrorism".
Fighting fire with fire just makes things burn faster...Keep in
mind as well that most empires that have been defeated were not
annihilated on the battlefield, but rather in the bank account.
Kucinich is right.
- advertisements -
1) Send troops to D.C. to stop future bailouts
2) Send Congress to tax the militants to death, in Afghanistan
I would wager you could have contracted top quality mercenaries from the former USSR or Israel to get rid of Ol' Saddam after the 93 War for a tiny sum (less than 10 million $)
GBush SR, was wiser by far than Jr could ever hope to be.
Sr was bright enough to see the gaping hole that would be filled by Iran.
Well done, GW. And I salute many of the wise, profanity free comments. "Afghanistan is where empires go to die". The real pity is that Bush Sr. lacked the testicles to capture Saddam Hussien during Desert Storm. And that he ever sired that gutless, alcohol addled fool who destroyed a once great Nation with his folly. So much blood on his hands. I wonder how he sleeps at night.
Pierre, the problem is your question is imprecise. "What would you(I) have done after 9-11?" Do you mean if I was Bush, facing an imminent report by news organizations that I had stolen the election 10 months before, that my presidency was illegitimate? What would I, Bush, had done after Andrew Card came up to me in the elementary school room and whispered in my ear that Project Able Danger had achieved orbit, which I had only been told a little about, but which Cheney assured me was going to fix everything?
Or do you mean, "What would I have done?" Well, 9-11 wouldn't have happened on my watch, would be my answer. I wouldn't have needed to teach Wall Street a lesson for cozying up to the Clintons. But, forget that, in your hypothetical world, if 9-11 had just, surprise, surprise, happened, and nobody around me or in the intelligence community confessed to know anything about it, which, of course was not the case, (see memo about Bin Laden Determined to Attack in United States), in addition to perhaps driving the Taliban from power, I would have done a number of things, none of which happened:
#1) Investigate, with no limitations about where that investigation could lead. 3000 people died. Their families deserve it.
#2) Capture Bin Laden
#3) Fix the problem with the intelligence agencies, firing all the incompetent yahoos who fell asleep at the wheel.
#4) Keep the Saudi royals who happened to be here at the time in the U.S. for questioning, instead of spiriting them away as fast as possible.
#5) Secure the ports. Spend as much money as necessary to improve airplane luggage and cargo security, not just increase passenger harrassment.
#6) Tell Saudi Arabia their special relationship with the U.S. will end until they close down the schools where radical islamists are created, and shut down the funding pipeline to radical groups. Threaten them with invasion if they refuse. In the meantime, earmark half a trillion dollars for alternate energy development and subsidies, to eliminate our corrupt dependency on that dangerous part of the world, so our foreign policy can be driven by principle, not profit. Then, instead of invading, just kiss them good-bye.
All these steps, combined, would be less expensive that what these two stupid wars have cost, and we would be far safer than we are today.
There. Someone has answered your question. Now, will you shut the f up?
Correct Answer
Kucinich is dead right.
Do you dumbasses still believe that Osama ali baba and the 19 cokeheads did 911?
"Is he right?"
Yes. Kucinich is right.
"...to those who say that deficits don't matter..."
You mean "the real enemy," right? (Rhetorical question!)
"...the US now has more than 104,000 defense contractors in the country."
Which highlights a huge institutional problem within our modern military-industrial complex.
Freeing up our uniformed military to actually fight sounds like a great idea in theory; in practice I urge those of you who actually know uniformed military service personnel serving in or who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan to ask them how all these "civilian contractors" effect moral - and operations - in practice.
"Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism."
Well... not quite. Terrorists (and only foreign terrorists - not U.S. citizens) should be identified as such via Executive Branch designation and then hunted down, captured (if possible) and interrogated (again, if possible) and then executed. Period. Terrorists are not "criminals" in a judicial sense.
Hey... to those who think this is too much power to give a President... what in the heck do you think is happening when Presidents order cruise missile strikes?!
Hey... if Congress ever feels a President is abusing/misusing his authority in this regard... well... that's what Impeachment is for.
Bottom line, it's insane for us to have tens of thousands - soon to be approximately 100,000 - of American troops in Afghanistan.
BILL
A little perspective...
Al Queda's primary enemy is not the US. Its the House of Saud. In order to keep the kingdom stable, the US had to give up its very large contingent of troops in-country. Is any reader here naive enough to believe the US was going to relinquish its squatting rights over the world's energy supply?
AQ was never designed to be a traditional army. It exists only to de-stabilize and its goals are to attack any nation that allows the House of Saud to continue to remain in power. There are other powers in the Arab world who also would like the Saudi Royal family to be toppled. Funding AQ is not that difficult as long as the requirement is to inflict massive damage while giving ones life for the cause.
My personal view has always been that once the US left Saudi Arabia the most likely country for a full time military presence was Iraq. Saddam made it easy with his numerous violations of world order.
Now that we've once again built infrastructure in region, the goal is to fight AQ wherever it exists, while maintaining a stable oil supply. This is difficult because cells are scattered throughout nation states where governments are not fully in control of their borders. Just as the Saudi Royal family feared that US soldiers on Saudi soil would de-stabilize control, Pakistan has similar fears. That leaves Afghanistan as the most likely front for the effort to kill the terrorists.
In yesterday's New York Times it was reported that the CIA has received clearance for more predator drones inside of Pakistan. This is an important subtle step in the fight as it will allow the US to strategically attack terror cells in places that were off limits for years, without putting boots on the ground in a weak but nuclear nation.
Regardless of what is said or written, Mid-East policy is always energy related. The issues are made more difficult due to the nomadic/tribal nature of the region and the lack of strong governments.
Given these backdrops, US policy will remain similar regardless of whether the US President is a conservative Republican or a liberal Democrat.
Oh, and while we're talking about geo-politics, the Israel/Iran issue remains the real wildcard here.
+++
Not only are the economics hurting our national security, but were almost out of troops to deploy. Watch out for Canada!!! ;) http://washingtonindependent.com/68174/army-data-shows-contraints-on-tro...
Look...this is simple shit.
What was to be done after 911? NOTHING.
Continue the state of WAR and occupation we were already in.
Was the public SURPRISED? YES.
Did they need an EXPLANATION? YES.
What was the appropriate explanation?
Ladies and gentlemen of America, we are an imperial power. We have troops everywhere. We are occupying nations. We extract economic rent with our dollar and financial products scams. We're like Rome with troops and vassal states and Pontius Pilates everywhere. Occasionally, those we are in a state of low-level ARMED conflict with (as evinced by our troop posture on their soil), may actually SUCCEED in killing some of us. This is to be expected; losses and casualties are inevitable on both sides in ANY war. Our standard of living has been artificially enhanced for decades due to this arrangement. If you want it to continue and you like how you live, then you must accept these consequences of it. God Bless America.
The problem is that the public does not understand nor want to face REALITY. We inhabit a self-deceptive mythic narrative where we whitewash shit and build gigantic monuments to ourselves in self-congratulatory orgies.
We're a war nation. Read our history. We are an occupying power. An empire. Simple as that. Empires are in a CONSTANT state of "war" of some kind and with every nation they occupy, though that type of conflict is low level.
Listen, having TROOPS from a foreign power ON YOUR SOIL establishes a martial relationship between two States. So we are inarguably at war and have been continuously for 60 years. During wars, casualties to civilians happen.
Pierre & Missing_link
U fine gents Rock!!
Can anyone tell me, what possess a man to walk into a building 5 times a day, take off his shoes, bend over and sniff the man's ass in front of him?
This is incidentally how Churchill beat Hitler in the Western Campaign.
He directed his bombers to make a night run at Berlin to try to draw Hitler into retaliation. The RAF was under tremendous pressure prior to that, because the Luftwaffe was strictly bombing military assets, airfields, men, planes. After the "insult" of Berlin, which was not strategically significant, Hitler directed the Luftwaffe to begin bombing London proper. This took the pressure off of the RAF, which was in danger of collapsing and yielding air supremacy to the Germans. Military strategy became subordinated to taking it personally.
Afghanistan is untenable. People do not understand this as we are caught up in a mythic narrative over here in the west. It is not that these people do not WANT to live like we do, they are not CAPABLE of it. This is why "democracy" as practiced in the West is REJECTED by most of the 3rd world. If they could be like us, they would be. Don't expect nations full of subcritical IQ mass to embrace liberal democratic institutions. It simply doesn't work that way.
There's a reason the Renaissance was called what it was. You need enough of a concentration of educated and intelligent people to form a critical mass to make quantum leaps in civil society.
Call it a war if you like. Certainly
an armed conflict but not a declared
war. More of a police action or an
occupation. We were attacked so a
military response was required. Our
leaders simply have no choice but to
continue and to escalate. We can not
turn back and we can not win. We will
continue to occupy all unstable regions
that are necessary to the production
and free flow of energy as long as we
are capable of doing so. I have heard
a great deal of banter but I have heard
no viable solution.
Call it a war if you like like. Certainly an armed conflict but not a declared war. More of a police action or an occupation. We were attacked so a military response was required. Our leaders simply have no choice but to continue and to escalate. We can not turn back and we can not win. We will continue to occupy all unstable regions that are necessary to the production and free flow of energy as long as we are capable of doing so. I have heard a great deal of banter but I have heard no viable solution.
Good stuff
GW,
Good post. Keep up the good work. More US citizens should read (or re-read) our first President's farewell address and take his words and admonishments to heart. The ideas and sentiments expressed in that address are timeless, IMO.
Nice writeup GW--
No I'm not buying Obama's new and improved but really old, broken down Afghanistan War.
Does no one read history? Afghanistan is the place where empires go to war and die. Bush got us there, but Obama will the finish the job, namely the bankrupty of the American government.
The rest of the world is laughing at how we are pinned down there. I love that Germany, France won't send troops, Italy reviewing the request, UK sends what 1,000, Australia a handful (and look where they're going -- to the North where there is little to no fighting). The world knows this is our shi#tty war and we will be dying in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan as we bankrupt ourselves in the process.
Mobsters running our country.
1. Banking/Investment Institutions
2. Insurance Companies
3. AIPAC
4. 536 People in Washington DC
1,2 and 3 threaten 4.
The portrayal of Islam as a "religion of peace" is a joke, and that the notion that extremists have "hijacked" the religion is a form of PC for the global masses. But for the oil under the sands, probably the best solution post 911 was to be ruthless, drop a few nukes and end the problem for good, particularly one on Mecca itself since the Saudis funded the whole operation (conveniently ignored all the time in the MSM) but that Colonel Kurtzian solution is also not PC or civilized.
At this point, however, if my sons were called up to "fight" in Afghanistan, I cannot support the effort. I'm not losing one of my kids so that some pussy poppy-growing illiterate Afghan can vote for one of his corrupt governement officials. And I'm not losing one of my kids to "slowly" avenge 911 as long as we have tactical nuclear weapons available to handle the job. Bush failed in the Afghanistan operation - although I note the failure of the Brits above, I'm convinced the dirty little secret post 911 was there was a decision made to give bin Laden a pass to freedom, and thus provide a reason for this clueless "war against terror" to be waged ad infinitum. The silly Homeland security "colors" signifying the "risk level" - please give me a break, all that stuff was done to generate fear in an unquestioning populace. Face it: 9-11 was a fluke, it succeeded because we naively had our guard down, and it could happen again for the same reason. We obviously need to fight groups that plot to blow stuff up, but a super-costly national mobilization and endless war will not solve the problem. I figure they're like cockroaches, and unless you're willing to burn down the house to get rid of them, guess what - you're gonna have them, no matter what lesser steps you take. If the non-PC plan of utterly ruthless war is off the table, all you're left with is the option to control them, not eradicate them.
That being said, throwing our treasure and expending the blood of our finest at this rate will bankrupt and exhaust us from within. So Kucinich may be a putz, but even a broken clock gets it right twice a day. The message, not the messenger.
Yes, the Muslims are fighting for their land on their land (would you be peaceful if the situation were reversed?) If the Muslims are not peaceloving, how do you define Judeo-Christians?! Peace loving? We are the invaders, the occupiers, we are going to their lands to fight them as a matter of national policy.
The last time the West moved into this region with such a conquering force, we called it the Crusades. And it didn't end well that time either. You are letting your emotions get the better of rational decision-making on this
P.s. We initiated the Iraq War to get Saddam and Af/pak to get OBL. We got Sadam but the Iraq war wages on. Even if we get OBL, the Af/Pak war will definitely continue and will spill into Pak. Perputual war in ME is quicksand.
To this to Ned specifically and to GW generally.
As a 100% disabled veteran with my only son in uniform I understand full well the costs of war. The simple fact remains that the whole concept of taking a society to war has been severely compromised. Just look at some of the things we are at war with as a society. Poverty, teen pregnancy, literacy, drugs, crime and of course those connected with 9/11 even if they are not connected with 9/11. As Ned so ably points out the process of conflict in Afghanistan has nothing to do with avenging 9/11 and has everything to do with having an armed US presence in the region for as far as the eye can see. This goal continues to be fulfilled.
GW, to your issue that Main Street is being bled to death over this and other wars. I submit that since at least 1964 the primary purpose of Main Street is not to be the engine of America, but to be the resource pool from which what purports to be the very heart of our society, the money center banks and those industries that provide the best returns to them and the the government the serves them draw their sustenance. This has become abundantly clear over the so called Global Financial Crisis which our own DNI has said is the greatest threat to our national security. So, all pretense has fallen away. It has been determined that everything must be sacrificed in the effort the sustain the sickeningly codependent nature of the relationship between our society and the 1,000 pound persons our government, the money center banks and the public & private institutions that serve them.
In the final analysis Ned makes an interesting point. For a nation that appears willing to support the endless expenditure of treasure, both coin & blood in conflicts that last multiples of WWI or WWII the lack of willingness of our national leaders to use the force necessary to defend our nations very survival, which is what going to war is supposed to be all about tells this citizen that the purpose of these wars in not the defense of our nations survival, but the long term profitability of the money centers, the industries that supply the greatest returns to them and those within the public sector who are dependent upon them.
(*NOD*)
Oh... and let's not forget to mention China's continuing military build-up and assertiveness over the past decade and more.
Bleeding blood and treasure in Afghanistan is NOT in our national interest; it's certainly not in the interests of our men and women in the line of fire over there.
Jeezus... this is primary an economic blog - why are so many apparently unfamiliar with the concept of cost/benefit?
Miles. Thank you and please pass on my thanks to your son.
One of my nephews served a tour in Iraq and recently was honorable discharged from the Marines. His brother has done two tours in Iraq - also with the Marines. He's home now (thankfully safe and sound, no injuries) and is looking forward to discharge early next year.
One of my best buddies has done multiple tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He's an MP and very gung-ho. If it were up to him we'd never leave Afghanistan. He's my friend. He's a hero. He's also wrong when it comes to policy.
Folks. There are no direct analogies, but loosely speaking... this mess we're in far more closely mirrors our Vietnam experience than any other major military action we've ever been involved with that I recall.
BILL
Correction: In paragraph 2 there is a segment that reads: and the the government the serves them draw their sustenance. It should read: and the government that serves them draw their sustenance
My apologies to all for my poor editing.
Miles,
Thank you to you and your son for defending our country. My youngest stepson did a tour in Iraq and his unit is scheduled for deployment to Afghanistan in January.
+infinity on your comments directly above these.
War (a very large one) got us out of the last depression---check the Bankster Playbook--
What amazes me is the thought that "it is different this time". Why--because we are all so very enlightened?
Earth to Commander Tom.
It may well be that the US occupation of Afghanistan cost US$ 30 Billion a year. But think for a moment about the gains our monopolistic rights over Heroin production in Afghanistan produce. Drugs are a US$ 80 billion yearly market, and if you pay attention, you will see that US military bases "protect" the world's the biggest producing and consuming countries.
It is a perfect arrangement since its profits consolidate the friendship between our elites and the elites in the provinces of the empire, keep the military-industrial-complex expanding and give the rabble a chance to willingly give their lives for the empire's cause. Finally, wars are deficits financed with bonds, and smart money just love the long-term indentured servitude of indebted nations.
BTW, have you guys noticed how AIPAC sayanim like PierreLegrand get hysterical when somebody dares to think outside his judeofascist propaganda box?
PierreLegrand:
"What would you have done after 9/11?"
Traked down every last islamic mofo gangster/terrorist, whereever they may have been, and killed them. Period.
If they are/were in Syria, Iraq, AfPak, Indonesia, who cares. No different than finding drug barons and killing them, too. Or despots. Do you need to take over an entire country to do it? Maybe, like Afganistan. In other places our military should be allowed to go into PAkistan, Syria, Riyahd, Jakarta and kill them. Strike teams, hit squads, intelligence assets. It means waging war on many countries, but so be it. Weak politicians prevent it and we should throw them out of office.
Look at Israel. You would think any terrorist could walk in there and murder thousands. But they don't because they know Israel will find how who did it and nuke 'em or at least carpet bomb them (Gaza). They have balls. Our government doesn't.
Yes that is exactly what I would have done as well.
This piece puts it better than I can...
The Roots of Peaceby Patrick Stephens
On September 11, the metaphor of the war of ideas between rational civilization and tribalist barbarism became literal description.
Make no mistake about it: The attacks in New York and Virginia were declarations of war. And the war that must follow will be real war of men and guns. American soldiers will fight and American bombs will be dropped. And when our enemies retaliate, more innocent Americans will die. That is the inevitable result of warfare, and we must gird ourselves for the coming conflict.
But the war that must follow will be more than a war of men and guns; it will also be a war over values and ideology. Our objective in this conflict is to end the threat of terrorism and to promote a world order that respects individual rights and condemns the practice of terror. America should not seek conquest, but should pursue justice. America should not seek to annihilate civilian populations, but should seek the dissolution of those states that support terrorism and, to prevent their re-emergence, seek the establishment of rights-respecting governments in their place.
A Policy toward Terrorism
Most immediately, the United States must pursue an active and aggressive military policy against terrorists. Men who fly planes into buildings are not open to reason, argumentation, or compromise, nor even to economic pressure. In the wake of this tragedy, we must restore our defenses. We must repair and retaliate. We must not retreat.
America's first response should be simple and direct: to find those responsible for the attacks of September and visit justice upon them. All of them.
However, as the president has recognized, if our response is directed simply at those who participated in the most recent attack, we will have done little to deter future attacks. Indeed, a limited response will only ensure further acts of violence. We must remember that these people who deal in terror do so at the explicit cost of their own lives. They are willing and eager to trade their lives for hundreds of American lives. So if we destroy this terrorist cell and that terrorist cell, but leave the culture and body of terrorism untouched, like a cancer, the cells will continue to grow.
You look at Israel. They do not rise to the level of signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Pact yet rail about others. They create a prison camp to house the majority population, like wardens in fear of their prisoners. The balls they have large and in the sack by some dark blackmail scheme is the US Congress's and a few female privates as well.
War is the nursemaid for executive aggrandizement.
James Madison
I agree George. Yes we should have went after Osamabin Laden 9 years ago. I can't believe Obama bought into Bushes' BS-- The same hogwash "we need to do what the generals say"
We will end up same as the Soviets did, in more ways than one.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_crushing_legacy_of_bush_and_chen...
Paul Craig Roberts:
"No American national interest is served by the war in Afghanistan. As the former UK Ambassador Craig Murray disclosed, the purpose of the war is to protect Unocal’s interest in the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline. The cost of the war is many times greater than Unocal’s investment in the pipeline."
Narco-profits are also laundered with poppy fields (opium).
Link, please ...
""No American national interest is served by the war in Afghanistan. As the former UK Ambassador Craig Murray disclosed, the purpose of the war is to protect Unocal’s interest in the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline. The cost of the war is many times greater than Unocal’s investment in the pipeline."
http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/12.09/puppet.html
Thanks.
Democracies are like christian missionaries, we won't leave until we have converted the "fill in the blank" population to our way of thinking. We stayed and are still in Europe after WWII waiting patiently for communism to fall. We are still in South Korea waiting for North Korea to fall.
Be patient my friends we will be in the Middle East and Afganistan for the rest of our lifetimes at a minimum and yes we may go bankrupt doing it as we have lost our industrial base and we have an economy whose number one export last year was financial instruments???? What the F***!
A small view from abroad....
My history techer in high school always maintained that USA messed up every diplomatic decision they have made since the 50´s and there is some truth in that.
Look at Iran, orginally an ally of the US and a democratic nation - US turns up and now we have a bunch of nutters running the nation intended on developing nuclear weapons. US supported Saddam Hussein like there was no tomorrow and look how that turned out. To make things difficult for the Soviet Union US both trained and gave sh*itload of weapons and money to the taliban and well.... now at war where the taliban can use their training and leftover weapons to kill American soldiers and use their capital to invest in opium production to dump on the west and buy some more weapons.
Venezuela - if the Us would have reigned in a little (not much was needed) the big oil operating in the country it would still be selling its oil to the us and everything would be fine but no - end resault, nutter Chavez as a tyrant and the whole region compromised.
You guys really need to replace your diplomats. Sometimes it pays off thinking 2 or 3 moves in the future.
The world most powerful man, Obama, is said to be an avid golfer. Obama, who has the power to destroy the world, went to the ranch to sharp his driving skill and distance (power). He ordered a large bucket of white, innocent and helpless looking golf balls and started ponding those little white balls without mercy. Excited and delighted, Obama hit the first bucket of balls extremely well with high confidence. Unsatisfied, he ordered one more bucket of balls. Unlike the first bucket, he could not hit the second bucket with full force of power. Obama, being obama, the world most powerful man, decided to hit the third bucket of white, innocent and helpless looking balls. Now, obama hit the third bucket of balls like he was the commander of the army, left,right, left, right, never straight, unlike the first two buckets of balls. Undeterred, Obama, the world most powerful man, ordered the fourth bucket of balls. Then, he ordered the fifth, sixth and seventh bucket of balls. Now, Obama, the world most powerful man, can barely raise his hands and hold the driver steadily. Forced by the fact, Obama, the world most powerful man, decided he better not to hit those innocent, helpless looking balls so as to spare his own life.
At the end of day, those innocent, helpless looking golf balls won and the world most powerful man lose in disgrace.
Those " terrorists" in Afg and Pak and elsewhere are similar to those innocent, helpless looking golf balls. There are so many golf balls out there without fearing of death. At the end of the day, the world most powerful man will eventually lose for not having enought money to keep ordering buckets after buckets.
Oh, I forgot to mention: For each golf ball killed, 10 or more new balls are created.
Happy golfing!
What a crock of shit you spew...
Before we went into Iraq Pew did a poll in what has been called the example of the moderate Islamic State, Indonesia. Guess what?
They fucking loved Bin Laden... in 2003 58% said claimed to have a lot of confidence in Bin Laden.
Btw would you rate Mohammed a moderate? If he is not a moderate then exactly WHAT are muslims supposed to do if they are true believers?
You keep asking a question that does not discuss the topic of the post. the question is not what we should have done after 9/11. the question is do we increase troop levels now after 8 years. we have removed the taliban, and chased the terroists out of the country, we are have spent a fortune on the war already with diminsihing results at a time when the unite states needs to conserve resources. THAT IS THE TOPIC OF CONVERSATION
IT IS NOT 9/11 CONSPIRACY, OR WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE AFTER 9/11.
TOPICS THAT ARE GERMANE ARE HISTORICAL FIGURES THAT WARN ABOUT HOW LIBERTY WOULD BE TAKEN AWAY IN AN EXCUSE TO FIGHT WARS. THIS HAS HAPPEND, AND OUR LEADERS WARNED OF SUCH THINGS.
you attack some very good posts that provide much supporting data with links to support their view. In turn you provide no evidence to support you view. your postings are without any rational logic to them. the sure sign someone is wrong is the degree of anger he has towards those with facts to support their view when he has none. He hopes by yelling the loudest others will listen. He doesn't understand that he makes himself look foolish. Write up something worth reading and post it. Then people may listen
Your name should be Zero Cred.
Its just the usual anti-super power America jealousy....The world delighted in the 9/11 attacks....True muslims are pacifists.
May I suggest you keep your Bloody foching language in a respectful tone when addressing members of this community!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA9vcTrhJ8g
what an asshole u r!!
go get some mouthwash first after all that shit coming out of ur mouth!
u r arguing less and shouting more...and u know when that happens!!
hey look out, there is a terrorist with a bomb aimed at ur prickly arse!!
Bring them home. I still remember Obama making a speech to some soldiers at a base in Iraq, early in his Residency. He told them he would bring them home. They cheered that.
Maybe you 101st fighting cheerleaders should join up so that some of them can come home.
Punks.
War is the least of our problems... why turn this site into a Dennis Kucinich / Cindy Sheehan fest...? Honestly, that last post about war being bad for the environment was about the lamest thing I've read in a long time. Please, consider posting over at Huffington instead of here.
you're right, it's not costing us a thing and we have plenty of money. (aside from all the legal, moral, historical, and security realted issues discussed above) As other sage folks have observed, it's not a "left" or "right" thing, whatever the hell that means, so quit making it one.
Suprising to see the Neo Con Pussies out on Zero Hedge.
These Cockroaches never sleep.