Who knew OBL was trying to bankrupt the US?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mactastic, Sep 14, 2006.

  1. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #1
    So if we protect ourselves, the terrorists win?
    And if Osama's plan is to bankrupt us, why are we spending some $8,000,000,000 a month in Iraq again?

    Someone needs to ask Bush this.
     
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #2
    "we had to spend the money in order to save it."
     
  3. xsedrinam macrumors 601

    xsedrinam

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    #3
    And the hits just keep on comin'. When does Chertoff's term expire, with the Bush regime? I honestly don't get it. Framing wrong questions with pretext and spinning it all to a perceived 7th grade level populace? Who are these people? They are not we.
     
  4. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #4
    That sounds suspisciously like my wife's savings plan...
     
  5. CorvusCamenarum macrumors 65816

    CorvusCamenarum

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    #5
    Isn't that more or less exactly how we brought down the USSR? Something about Reagan starting the huge defense buildup and making them spend themselves to death?

    Rather clever it is, actually. We say we can't protect everything everywhere and have to pick and choose, which will just invite aggression on those places we decide we can ignore.
     
  6. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #6
    This does seem like its Bin Laden's only hope because I can see him winning a "real" war(one with army vs army, none of this killing civillians crap)

    So I guess are only option is to hurt him down, kill him, and slowly screw up his plans. And yes its going to cost a lot of money, but if we were not in Iraq, well we could but even more cash into getting him!
     
  7. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #7
    The reagan link to the downfall of the Soviet Union is bogus. The USSR was already failing by the time he was elected. The man responsible for the downfall of the USSR is Gorbachev.


    Is this a tacit acknowledgement that the WoT has gone too far? and that Homeland defense is an expensive joke? Tourism has suffered, universities have suffered. The only ones who've gained belong to the military-industrial complex.
     
  8. xsedrinam macrumors 601

    xsedrinam

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    #8
    There's a duck. Any bets on when they'll run a five year anniversary TV special on the president's promise to hunt OBL down?

    And if this is a brilliant scheme to bankrupt the U.S., it's counting on leadership to stay the course with eyes wide shut.
     
  9. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #9

    As much as I hate spending the money, he need to go after Osama and his troops(not Iraq), he attacked us, now we need to show him we are not going to take it
     
  10. beatsme macrumors 65816

    beatsme

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    #10
    all OBL is doing is forcing us to pump more money into the military/industrial complex, which has been our bread and butter for just about the past 70 years. If he thinks that's going to bankrupt us...pffft...he must have a really poor understanding of how Western economies work. :rolleyes:
     
  11. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #11
    I remember that 2004 statement by OBL. He also mocked our government -- not the people, he pointed mentioned our government -- for running around in circles with its arms up in the air screaming about how the sky is falling.

    Yes, OBL is very canny. Yes, he does indeed hope to bankrupt us -- and so far, with the willing and enthusiastic help of our Sucker-in-Chief, he's doing a pretty good job of it. I don't think Osama, in his wildest dreams, would've thought that we'd put ourselves hundreds of billions of dollars into debt chasing the wrong enemy. How he must be laughing at us!

    Nope. Bush has been Osama bin Laden's number one supporter. It's too bad he's too damn stupid to see that.

    If you want a good argument for "cutting and running", that's it right there.
     
  12. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #12
    A hundred billion bucks in a fourteen-trillion (more?) dollar economy is chump change. I can figure a good many ways to cause larger disruptions of our economy, as can most any engineer or competent terrorist; not sure how to bring them off.

    'Rat
     
  13. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #13
    Did you read the article in the thread on tourism? We're losing money in the international tourism market, our goods are costing us more and more due to increased "insecurity" costs, Japan's selling US treasuries and the countries that own vast amount of US debt aren't exactly bastions of freedom. While the military expenditures may be small, the overall cost is much, much larger.
     
  14. FFTT macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #14
    We can thank Paul Wolfowitz for the PNAC master plan for the fleecing of America.

    Rebuilding America's Defenses.pdf

    Osama was just the necessary evil they needed to pull this off.
     
  15. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #15
    This wasn't his main goal, just a nice side effect.
     
  16. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #16
    Actually my point was less that OBL has a snowball's chance in hades of actually bankrupting us, but rather the duplicity of the government to be giving one rationale for the war in Iraq and the opposite rationale for the lack of aggressive homeland security spending.
     
  17. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #17
    Gotcha, mac.

    But about your "...opposite rationale for the lack of aggressive homeland security spending.": I sorta fail to see much rationale of whatever sort. :D

    Omitting any issue of illegal aliens, we do know that lots of people come across the border in non-approved crossings, right? We know from local sheriffs' reports that some of these evidently are quite possibly middle-eastern. Okay, where are all the federal badges who oughta be following up the sheriffs' allegations?

    I realize it takes time to train Border Patrol agents, but this is 2006, not 2001. Where are all the new Border Patrol agents of whom we've been told? How many National Guard folks have actually been assigned to backup duty for the BP?

    As for tourism, I'm not gonna fly. I'm not gonna tolerate the degradation of today's airports. The Gropers In Training system seems designed to discourage air travel and bankrupt airlines; Osama Wins! "Whaddaya do, Daddy?" "I grope grandmas."

    It looks to me like a ton of money is being spent on homeland security--but not on useful stuff.

    'Rat
     
  18. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #18
    Fair enough. Personally I do see a rationale, but it isn't to find the most effective way to defend the country, it's finding the most effective way to enrich friends and family of the current inhabitants of the WH.

    And how much of our port cargo is inspected now versus 9/10/01? Water supplies any safer? How about those nuclear and chemical plants? Any regulations requiring businesses to increase security there?

    $400,000,000,000 would go a long way towards addressing some of the more pressing security issues facing us. Somehow the government has no problem finding that kind of money for a war in Iraq that arguably makes us less safe by the day, yet they also claim they can't come up with money for basic security fixes. That's shameful, and Bush should be forced to reconcile those two arguments. Same as he should be forced to reconcile the argument that bin Laden is Hitler/Stalin, but at the same time isn't really that important.

    That's fine for you. Most do not have the luxury of that choice.

    Exactly. It's not an aggressive program to make the country safer, it's an aggressive program aimed at making some people richer.
     
  19. coffey7 macrumors 6502a

    coffey7

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    #19
    Richard Clarke said its UBL. And its President Bush not just Bush.
     
  20. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #20
    I've yet to see any agreement on English spelling standardization of arabic. Richard Clarke may have decided that UBL is how he'll spell it. Actually, shouldn't it be UbL?

    Titles are used to show respect, if respect is lacking....
     
  21. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #21

    To true to true

    Bush , Bush ,Bush
     
  22. xsedrinam macrumors 601

    xsedrinam

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    #22
    And Mr. President Musharraf's government has shown their disrespect or disregard for U.S. policy, not just the persona of president, by releasing some 2500 Taliban freedom fighters who've been detained over time. Pakistan was thought to be a trusted ally. That I continue to be disillusioned with U.S. foreign policy and her naiveté indicates that I have had more illusions than previously thought.

    So, will this result in rejuvenated jihadites returning to their original places and power and virtually reset Afghanistan to default? I forget, how much did that success story cost in US$?
     
  23. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #23
    You talking about the frat boy? ;)
     

Share This Page