The Cost of US Security

Hugh Pickens writes "The Atlantic reports that as we mark Osama bin Laden's death, what's striking is how much he cost our nation and how little we've gained from our fight against him. By conservative estimates, bin Laden cost the US at least $3 trillion over the past 15 years, counting the disruptions he wrought on the domestic economy, the wars and heightened security triggered by the terrorist attacks he engineered, and the direct efforts to hunt him down. 'What do we have to show for that tab,' ask Tim Fernholz and Jim Tankersley. 'Two wars that continue to occupy 150,000 troops and tie up a quarter of our defense budget; a bloated homeland-security apparatus that has at times pushed the bounds of civil liberty; soaring oil prices partially attributable to the global war on bin Laden's terrorist network; and a chunk of our mounting national debt.' In 2004 bin Laden explicitly compared the US fight to the Afghan incursion that helped bankrupt the Soviet Union during the Cold War. 'We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy,' said bin Laden, adding that that every dollar spent by al-Qaida in attacking the US has cost Washington $1m in economic fallout and military spending."

Comments

as said before here many times

[Anonymous Coward]

when terrorism makes us become something we are not then terrorism has won - we are less free and less wealthy

Re:as said before here many times

[RsG]

Well, the issue with that is that terrorists don't fulfill any kind of objective by "winning" that way.

Bin Laden was not the Joker. He didn't live specifically to cause chaos for chaos' sake, nor was he a "watch the world burn" kinda guy. He had goals, even if they were poorly thought out and immorally executed ones. Same goes for anyone else who could reasonably be labelled a "terrorist".

You can't say "If we give up our freedoms, the terrorists win" because no terrorist organization that I am aware of specifically wants you to give your own government more power. It's not an objective they can check off on a list. They don't benefit. They might gloat, granted, but whatever possessed them to resort to mass murder in the first place isn't advanced by the erosion of civil liberties in the name of imagined security.

Besides, it shouldn't be about "winning". You can win the war on terror - what would the victory conditions be? The complete eradication of every terrorist everywhere? Good luck with that. While we're wishing, lets hope for the complete eradication of all disease while we're at it. The terrorists have by and large set such unrealistic goals for themselves that they can't win either. Since neither side can ever claim to have met their objectives, how can either ever hope to win?

The issue at hand ought to be prevention of attacks by reasonable and just means. Keep them from hurting innocents, without depriving those same innocents of liberty. This isn't a complicated concept, and it's a lot better than some nebulous war on "terror" as if terror were a nation state that could be conquered or subdued.

Re:as said before here many times

[Anthony Mouse]

You can't say "If we give up our freedoms, the terrorists win" because no terrorist organization that I am aware of specifically wants you to give your own government more power. It's not an objective they can check off on a list. They don't benefit. They might gloat, granted, but whatever possessed them to resort to mass murder in the first place isn't advanced by the erosion of civil liberties in the name of imagined security.

Sure it is. Our liberties are what make us. If we continue on this path of eroding them, it will literally destroy America, which is what the terrorists want.

We so often defend liberty without explaining why it is that we do, because it was so well established so long ago that freedom is superior to the alternative, but we do so at the risk of forgetting the why. Liberty is the right to question and challenge the government, which absolutely necessary to prevent corruption and tyranny. Privacy allows dissenters to build a movement without the knowledge of those who would suppress it. The evils these rights are designed to prevent are very real. Take them away and you open Pandora's box, and it becomes only a matter of time before those evils manifest. A despot will destroy his country in ways that a terrorist can only dream.

Re:as said before here many times

[ifiwereasculptor]

Yeah, it should really go "if we do X, we lose". But I'm afraid people like catchy jargons much more than well thought-out statements, and mentioning "the terrorists" is very trendy. Look at political discourse not only in the US, but pretty much everywhere. Plus most people seem to breathe sports metaphors. "Terrorists winning" is bad only because people automatically think that they will lose, that there are only two teams and one winner. And you do whatever it takes to win. Consequences are not that important because once the game is over, it's over, right? And we won! Fuck yeah! Makes me think if this culture that embraces and glorifies competition (much more pronounced in the US, I don't know if due to all that old capitalism vs communism propaganda) may not be hurting people's ability to think.

Re:as said before here many times

[RsG]

Right, but I think you're missing the point.

"The terrorists" are not some chaotic evil cartoon villains. They have goals and aspirations. They have a vision of the future where they've "won", however unrealistic and unlikely that vision happens to be. Those visions are not of a totalitarian state replacing the United States. If anything, that outcome is worse for them than what they have now (after all, an Orwellian state might break out the nukes in response to a terror attack), and they're probably capable of figuring this out on their own.

There is not, and has never been, a meeting of terrorist leaders where they schemed to destroy your civil liberties by scaring you into implementing dictatorial "security" measures. How idiotic a plan would that be? "Oh gee, lets terrorize them until they go Orwellian, that'll show those western devils!" Nobody outside of fiction goes to such lengths to accomplish so little to their own benefit.

You're "the enemy" to them regardless of whether you're free or not.

Re:as said before here many times

[RsG]

The "if we let the terrorists make us change our society, we lose" line of thinking is much more sound than "if we give up our freedoms, they win".

And you're dead right that there's this sports mentality that says if one side has lost, clearly the other has won. Obviously, that isn't true in real life, but they myth is still pervasive. A good counter argument to keep handy for it is to ask who the "winner" is in a nuclear war, when either side has lost.

But it bears repeating that it works both ways. The terrorists don't gain anything when the US loses its civil liberties to hysteria. One side gains nothing, and the other loses something precious.

Re:as said before here many times

[drooling-dog]

Well said. Unfortunately the Cartoon World is the one in which most of us live, so the moronic "they hate us for our freedom" narrative always gets good traction here.

Re:as said before here many times

[Anthony Mouse]

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it's that simple. The terrorists full well know that the vast, overwhelming majority of the economic damage to us caused by a terrorist attack is our self-inflicted irrational response to it, and that includes adopting policies that promote corruption and autocracy.

More importantly, it doesn't matter what the terrorists think will get them what they want, eroding liberties is the thing most likely to lead to them actually getting what they want.

Re:as said before here many times

[artor3]

That doesn't mean the terrorists win. It just means that we lose. No one ever said war is zero-sum.

Re:as said before here many times

[RsG]

it doesn't matter what the terrorists think will get them what they want, eroding liberties is the thing most likely to lead to them actually getting what they want.

See, this is where I take issue with that.

If the erosion of civil liberties reached its inevitable conclusion, and the US came to resemble the USSR, or whatever totalitarian state you'd prefer to compare it to, the terrorists not only don't get what they want, they actually get the opposite. They're fighting the same nation state they were back when it was a free democracy, only now militarized (dictatorships usually are), and no longer tolerating dissenting opinion regarding such niceties as human rights. Oh yeah, and a nuclear power on top of that. This isn't an outcome they want.

As for the economics of asymmetric warfare, on that I think I agree with you. If they can force the US to spend millions of dollars fighting them for every dollar they spend fighting the US, they've advanced their plans and can claim a "victory", even if in reality what they've done is forced the other side to accept a Pyrrhic victory. I've always held that the rational approach to combating terrorism is one of law enforcement and espionage, rather than overt military action. Subtlety has the added bonus of costing a hell of a lot less.

Re:as said before here many times

[HungryHobo]

ferment civil unrest in America, cause America to piss of many of it's allies and destabalise the political and economic foundation of the country.

you ferment civil unrest and dissatisfaction when the government shits all over it's citizens rights.
Torture camps and whisking away the citizens of other countries to those torture camps helps to strain americas relationship with it's allies.
Finally the cost of wars and the cost of all the anti-terrorism measures fuck with the economic stability of the country.

Keep it going long enough and it all falls apart and they win.
Keeping a superpower fucking around in the mountains of afghanistan already contributed to one superpower falling, perhaps they're hoping the same will happen again.

no need for villians who hate you for your freedom- pissing away money and shitting all over your citizens rights plays right into their hands anyway.

Re:as said before here many times

[curveclimber]

What in the hell are you talking about? The Soviet Union was not any more militarized than we are now. What the terrorists accomplished was drawing us into a modern day crusade against Islam, torture, and being feared and looked down upon by the whole world. If you don't think that was their goal, well I think it worked out pretty well for them anyway. America, the torturing colonizer that covers its prisoners in shit and sics dogs on them.

Re:as said before here many times

[RsG]

Comparing the US and the USSR is apples to oranges. Comparing, say, the USSR to Russia is a better analogy (same country, before and after), except that the demilitarization had more to do with economic collapse and the end of the cold war than it did with with the fall of totalitarianism.

A useful example for comparing a democratic country to a dictatorship would be to contrast the Weimar Republic to Nazi Germany; the totalitarian state militarized extensively as it took over the country (despite promises made to the contrary). There you have a clear before and after picture to work with.

The modern day US has the worlds largest and most overfunded military, bar none. If the US ever became a dictatorship, you could reasonably expect that military to get even larger, as hard a concept as that is to wrap your head around. Or, alternatively, the military might stay the same size but be used more indiscriminately as the government is freed of democratic oversight. Either way, not a good outcome. For anybody.

Re:as said before here many times

[ArcherB]

Well said. Unfortunately the Cartoon World is the one in which most of us live, so the moronic "they hate us for our freedom" narrative always gets good traction here.

Actually, "they hate us for our freedom" is not too far from the truth. Everyone here is playing coy when talking about the goals of terrorists. Of course the terrorists don't care if TSA is feeling up our kids or the government is asking for ID to fly. That's not the freedom they are after.

Sorry, but the goal of "terrorists" is an worldwide Caliphate, or Islamic state.

So govern between the people by that which God has revealed (Islam), and follow not their vain desires, beware of them in case they seduce you from just some part of that which God has revealed to you
—[Qur'an 004:049

It's not our Bill of Rights that they hate, it's our freedom or religion and/or freedom FROM religion. It starts with wanting us out of their "holy land" (Saudi Arabia), which then expands to the entire Mid-East, the Africa, Europe, Asia, and finally the Americas.

Time Magazine can explain it better than I can:

After the infidels have been expelled from the land of Islam, bin Laden, like other Islamic radicals, foresees the overthrow of current regimes across the Muslim world and the establishment of one united government strictly enforcing Shari'a, or Islamic law. This vision harks back to the age of the caliphs, the successors to Muhammad who ruled Islam's domain from the 7th century to the 13th. What might a caliphate look like today? In bin Laden's view, it would look something like the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, which he has praised as "among the keenest to fulfill [Allah's] laws." Bin Laden may imagine himself to be a potential new caliph. One of the titles he uses is "emir," which means ruler. However, he swears allegiance to (and thereby ranks himself below) the Taliban ruler, Mullah Mohammed Omar, so whatever political ambitions bin Laden may have are not yet on display. ...
But for bin Laden, the game is not as simple as taking Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Says Daniel Benjamin, a former National Security Council staff member now writing a book on religious terror: "He is looking for a world in which Islam regains the dominant role, and naturally that would include oil and nukes. But to say it's about oil and nukes suggests it's not a metaphysical struggle, which it is for him. He thinks this is a big moral battle in which he's got Allah's sanction to attack the West." In a 1996 proclamation, bin Laden asked, "O Lord, shatter their gathering, divide them among themselves, shake the earth under their feet and give us control over them."

They don't hate us because we have freedoms. They hate us because we are currently free from them. So it would seem that "they hate us for our freedom" is not so moronic after all.

Re:as said before here many times

[victorhooi]

heya,

I have to agree with the parent.

Have you seen how ruthless modern day Russian is in dealing with terrorists?

Seriously? They've crushed the Cheyan forces - sure, everybody's said "Oh no! You're opressive and violate human rights!" but hey, they've managed to grind them down. These are the same Muslim Chechyan who employ suicide bombers, attack civilians and do all the weird "assymetric warfare" things that their militant Islamic cousins in the Middle East engage in.

I mean, nobody ever accused the KFB/FSB of being too gentle.

Look at how they deal with hostages. In 1985, four Soviet diploamats were taken hostage in Lebanon. Alpha Group, one of Russia's elite CT teams then proceeded to abduct relatives of the hostage-takers, sever their body parts, and send them back to the terorrists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Group

No more Russian hostages were taken in the Middle East for another 20 years, until in 2006 when four more Russian diplomats were abducted in Iraq. In that case, Putin sent in the FSB, who then proceeded to hunt down and kill each of the hostage takers, one by one.

I mean, ruthless sure, and highly unethical, but it makes me wonder when tinfoil-wearing basementers on Slashdot talk about how "Orwellian" the US has become. Sure, they might go there one day, but they're nowhere near there now, slippery slope nothwithstanding.

Trust me, the terrorists don't want to make the US turn into the former USSR. Because then we really won't give two figs about human rights, or what the rest of the world thinks.

We will go in, take their wives and children, slice them into pieces and send them back. Or maybe we'll just roll in the tanks, demolish their houses, then burn down the remains. The US, more or less, plays "nice" - at least compared to our opponents, or to what other nations who deal with terrorism on a daily basis engage in.

Personally, I like it that way - I like living in a free country - but please don't think that us going the way of the USSR is somehow the objective of these whackjobs.

Cheers,
Victor

Re:as said before here many times

[wrook]

Sure it is. Our liberties are what make us. If we continue on this path of eroding them, it will literally destroy America, which is what the terrorists want.

Pretty big generalizations there. I'm willing to bet that every terrorist group has significantly more specific goals than "destroy America". But if I join you in over simplification, I really think that what the terrorists want is for America to stop meddling in what they are doing. Unfortunately, they also believe that America will never stop meddling unless it loses a significant amount of power. The destruction of America is a means to an end, not an end itself.

Now, we can argue until the cows come home over whether America's meddling is justified, wanted, needed, whatever. Many Americans are perfectly happy with the view of America as "the policeman of the world". But it kind of paints a big target on them and every thug who thinks they are going to be impeded by this global policeman is going to be gunning for them. That's the cost of doing business, so to speak.

The more America fights against terrorists by doing things like bombing foreign nations in order to kill terrorist leaders, the more it draws attention to itself. It actually creates the problem it's tackling. As Machievalli explained in his much misunderstood book, the Prince, it's not sufficient to simply kill the head of an organization. You have to systematically track down and kill all of his family, his subbordinates, his subbordinates' families, all their friends and families, etc, etc. Because if you leave just one of them alive, they will raise an army and destroy you. History is littered with examples of this.

You are right when say that creating a police state in America will destroy it, allowing the terrorists to win. But unless America is up for a huge blood bath (and I don't think it is), fighting them in the first place is a big mistake. Let them win, I say.

Re:as said before here many times

[AK Marc]

Those visions are not of a totalitarian state replacing the United States.

Why not? We've shown that as a totalitarian state, we'd spend so much tracking our own citizens that we'd go bankrupt, which is one of their goals. We have plenty of people asserting that they'd sooner have another civil war than live in a totalitarian state (though they seem to politically be very much for totalitarianism, so I can't figure that one out - perhaps it's irrational nationalism).

And even if it doesn't result in totalitarianism, the same things will do a good job of bankrupting the US from our irrational overreactions.

You're "the enemy" to them regardless of whether you're free or not.

Then why aren't they attacking Australia with the same frequency? They have freedom, but don't practice global Christian evangelism as the Bush's made quite clear (the second more than the first). And no, I'm not singling out Republicans, as Reagan and Nixon (and before) weren't pandering to the neo-cons. It's specifically the neo-con push and the two most recent Republican presidents who made public statements about their faith in ways that others have taken to indicate that the US is trying to export and force Christianity on others with the same voracity as the radical Muslims possess.

It seems to me that they are trying to attack the government that's exporting Christianity and Judaism against Muslims, and anything that disrupts the economy or stability of that exporter is a win. And the terrorists have acted in a manner consistent with that statement. And yes, hurting our freedoms is a win under that, because taking the freedoms make the citizens less happy with their government and costs the government money. I agree that if there were some way to take away all our freedoms without costing a penny and still keeping up our exporting of Christianity and Judaism, that wouldn't be considered a win. But in a realistic world, that's simply impossible such that hurting our freedoms does weaken our government politically and cost us money, both of which *are* direct wins for them.

Re:as said before here many times

[AK Marc]

If the erosion of civil liberties reached its inevitable conclusion, and the US came to resemble the USSR, or whatever totalitarian state you'd prefer to compare it to, the terrorists not only don't get what they want, they actually get the opposite. They're fighting the same nation state they were back when it was a free democracy, only now militarized (dictatorships usually are), and no longer tolerating dissenting opinion regarding such niceties as human rights. Oh yeah, and a nuclear power on top of that. This isn't an outcome they want.

But how would the US become totalitarian? I don't think it could. And in its attempt to do so, it would fall. So every step towards a totalitarian government is a win because the costs increase and the political stability decreases. Yes, a full totalitarian government ruled by Emperor George Bush Jr. would be their worst nightmare. But do you think there is any possibility that could ever happen? And if it did so, even if it became a military dictatorship, do you think it could happen peacefully? Because if not, then the civil war would certainly stop our aggression against Muslims.

So yes, Emperor GW Bush is not what they are aiming for. But anything that brings us closer to that is something that would make us weaker and poorer such that it is most certainly a win. So working very hard for the opposite of what they actually want is working 100% towards their goals.

Re:as said before here many times

[Risen888]

al Qaida doesn't want us to "erode our freedoms" or "literally destroy America." They want us out of the Middle East. Whatever you've heard, they don't hate us for our freedoms. They don't give a fuck about our freedoms.

Re:as said before here many times

[ozmanjusri]

the moronic "they hate us for our freedom" narrative always gets good traction here.

As it should.

They do hate you for your freedom. The only mistake most people make is believing the haters are the bearded brown people on the other side of the world.

Real freedom means being able to choose what you do all day and every day. That's something most wage-slaves dream about all their lives and if they're lucky, experience for a few brief twilight years of retirement. For a while there in the late '90s, after the fall of the iron curtain, people started talking about a "peace dividend". Prosperity was an expectation, and real incomes were high. In the west at least, many people were beginning to buy themselves out of their slavery earlier and earlier. Great for them, but a dangerous path for the capitalist economies.

As we've seen in TFA, the USA has spent $3 trillion on the invasions, but money is conserved almost as surely as mass and energy. All of those trillions have gone from the American public to... somewhere. From the outside, it looks like an unwinnable war was chosen as the most efficient way to pump wealth from workers to private industry; arresting one extremist was just the marketing ploy.

Re:as said before here many times

[drsmithy]

Those visions are not of a totalitarian state replacing the United States.

Uh, isn't the ultimate stated goal of a rather large proportion of Islamic terrorists the establishment of a global Caliphate ruled by Sharia law ?

Re:as said before here many times

[siddesu]

Bullshit, they have not "ground them down", they've, just like the Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, bought some of them off. The current president of Chechnya was a terrorist himself before aligning himself with Putin and participating in the hunting of his rival families, and he is still involved in terror in Chechnya, only against his private enemies. He's also heavily involved in redistributing Russian federal aid for Chechnya, and has an awesome private automobile park.

The posturing about the Russian secret services is also just a PR, which is a rather poor substitute for effectiveness. Terrorists acts in the Caucasus and the neighboring regions (and that includes Moscow and St. Petersburg, btw) are still happening to this day, and Putin and the FSB have done almost nothing effective to prevent those. The "piss on them in the toilet" (which probably means they'll catch them turrists with their pants down) phrase Putin became famous for happened 5 years before "mission accomplished", in 1999. The most recent deadly terrorist act in Moscow - in January 2011.

There is only one viable way to "combat" terrorism, and it is to remove the problems that cause it. Which are usually problems of resources and education. Unfortunately, this way lowers the profits of the military manufacturers, the influence of the army commanders involved and, most importantly, of the "investors" in the businesses that pillage the said resources. Also, it isn't particularly useful during election times.

That's why we're not seeing much of it, but we see a lot of romanticized assassinations.

Re:as said before here many times

[the_enigma_1983]

Personally I think the more appropriate slogan is "If we give up our freedoms, we have lost". Unfortunately, I don't think everyone is capable of understanding how we have "lost" when the terrorists haven't technically won either, because in general people aren't familiar with non-zero-sum games explained in such short phrases.

Re:as said before here many times

[Livius]

"they hate us for our freedom" is actually true.

Specifically, the disgraceful and hypocritical double standard that Americans have about freedom and the effort they put into suppressing the freedom of others.

So why is it that Americans think that freedoms are theirs and no-one else's?

Re:as said before here many times

[Livius]

The terrorist presumably do not care about the US becoming totalitarian, but they are likely quite pleased in general with the US engaging in paranoid self-destructive behaviour which is, with rare exceptions, ineffective at impeding the terrorists' actual goals.

Re:as said before here many times

[Evtim]

Hmm, according to Robert Green [http://www.amazon.com/Strategies-War-Joost-Elffers-Books/dp/0143112783/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1305619446&sr=8-1] who dedicated the last chapter in his book to terrorism, the baddies have won on every account.

It was fascinating to read about the origins of this particular type of warfare. As far as I can remember the story went that a group of people from a certain province of the Persian Empire managed to basically bring down the empire in about 20 years by performing no more than 50 (unpredictable) public killings of different figures of authority. 50 killings in 20 years and you defeat an Empire!! Once they started what follows was something like this

- People in power getting more paranoid (check)
- People in power surrounding themselves with ever more protection (check)
- Attacks by the imperial army on the province that did not achieve anything else but spend lost of money and effort for nothing (check)
- Because of all the above the people of the empire felt their rulers are getting ever further from them, both physically and in attitude (check)
- Because of the paranoia and mistrusts the efficiency of governing declined sharply; people started to rumble and grumble against this - the gap between the people and the rulers kept widening (check)

I put the (check) implying that all those things happened to the US (the story repeats itself) and to a lesser extent to their western allies. In our case, due to mass communication and other advances in society the US has the extra “benefit” of

- Negative opinions about the US flourished all over the world including allied countries.
- Scandals about mistreatment, happy trigger solders, torture and shady practices by all kinds of “agencies” are blurring the line between the “good guys” and the “bad guys”.

What I really do not understand at all is – how can it be that nobody from the military said, “let’s look at history and do not repeat the mistakes of the past”. It is basic knowledge to every self-respecting strategist that the worst possible response to terrorism is to attack a country, to wage a war. It only “helps” by bleeding your resources and creating much, much more potential combatants (think the man going to his wedding only to find the place flattered by a drone or guided missile).

Since it is absolutely impossible that the above is not known to the decision makers, that leaves me with a very crazy speculation – that the people who took the decisions did not intend to combat terrorism. What they wanted I don’t know, but what they did was exactly the opposite of what they should have done...

Re:as said before here many times

[Lundse]

All the retoric (from the terrorists themselves) aside, what they really hate is being fucked by the West.

If Israeli rockets were not hitting housing blocks, if the US did not install dictators to give them a good price on oil, if we did not vilify them every step of they way, if they did not live squalid lives while we wallow in luxury based on their natural resources, etc. etc.

Of course religion plays a role here. It functions as a rallying cry. And comfort in your desperation over the non-existent chances of any true success (world caliphate? noone believes that?) and necessary suicide tactics. But mostly, it plays the role of lumping all those disparate grievances together, so they seem to have been perpetrated on the same "us".

The perfect solution is to go back thirty years and not kill and steal. In thirty years, someone will say the same about some new group out for revenge for the shit we are doing now. There is no solution now - but it is never too late to start thinking ahead...

Re:as said before here many times

[DarkOx]

Well they do hate us for our freedom. Granted this was a European paper but remember the reaction when that carton of Mohammad was published? Also Bin Laden stated he objected to our culture and called us infidels. Maybe his immediate plans were for the middle east but Its short silly to think he would not impose an Islamist government on the entire world if he could have, and simply killed some other groups like Jewish people.

So yes I do think the they hate our freedom narrative, while overly simplistic is not incorrect.

Re:as said before here many times

[DarkOx]

More importantly, it doesn't matter what the terrorists think will get them what they want, eroding liberties is the thing most likely to lead to them actually getting what they want.

Great point! The brief group hug after 911 aside, who here thinks this country is more unified now than before? Really let me see a show of hands. The fact is real harm was done to are national morale and its created all kinds of division and disillusionment. America is weaker today than it was on September 10th 2001.

Re:as said before here many times

[kill-1]

They don't hate us because we have freedoms. They hate us because we are currently free from them. So it would seem that "they hate us for our freedom" is not so moronic after all.

No, the islamic terrorists don't want a worldwide caliphate. They would be happy with a caliphate in the Middle East. They hate us because we are occupying their countries and messing with their politics for decades. They hate us because we take their freedom.

Re:as said before here many times

[peragrin]

Bin Laden wanted to bankrupt the American Economy like the Russian Economy fell. It basically worked.

However unlike Russia at that time America doesn't have another Superpower to defend against now, and only has to deal with smaller nations.

Even saying that Bin Laden basically achieved his goal. The American Economy will take 20-30 years to recover from the external and internal damage.

WE really haven't recovered from the dot bomb. The 2000's housing bubble made it seem like we did, but in reality we were slipping farther behind. On the plus side there will be a glut of large cheap modern homes on the market in the next 5-10 years

Re:as said before here many times

[buglista]

Apart from all the non-Muslim terrorists like Shining Path, the Maoist rebels in India, LTTE (Tamil Tigers) as was, the continuity/real IRA, UVF, etc. Terrorists are not all Muslim; there was a viable IED found in a bus not too far from Dublin today.

Re:as said before here many times

[MareLooke]

Or to summarize suicide terrorism (not all of it, but a lot of it): "A man with only the humblest of means will cling to life like a leech to a pig's ass, but a man with nothing cannot know fear."

I have no idea who the quote is from, nor do I remember where I got it from, but it seems appropriate. How can you fear death if you have nothing? If your family is death (killed, probably) and/or there is just no hope of improving your future in any way?

Re:as said before here many times

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not us who is struggling to remain free from them. We, including Britain, and other countries, have been so far up their ass for over 100 years, the natural result was to lash back. And they're using every workable tool available, including the unthinkable, blowing one's self up, because they _are_ that desperate to be rid of us, and our puppets. It is THEY who struggle to be free of us, our central banks, our corporations, our currency, and our military. For a flea bitten, assbackwards, tribalistic, set of lands, they aren't laying down quietly, despite several superpowers expending considerable resources on the "middle east problem" over the last several hundred years. That problem being they won't shut the fuck up and give us their oil quietly, and be happy that we've left them two sticks to rub together. There's a caliphate all right, one that is even at this moment struggling with the not too unlikely possibility of people waking up and figuring out that it's a racket, a multi-headed hydra, composed of governments, central banks, the IMF, and super corporations, that not only are they screwing all the impoverished countries that have resources they want, they're also screwing the 1st world citizens.

Re:as said before here many times

[ArcherB]

They don't hate us because we have freedoms. They hate us because we are currently free from them. So it would seem that "they hate us for our freedom" is not so moronic after all.

No, the islamic terrorists don't want a worldwide caliphate. They would be happy with a caliphate in the Middle East. They hate us because we are occupying their countries and messing with their politics for decades. They hate us because we take their freedom.

Is that why there are emerging Islamic states in Africa? Is that why so many are pushing for Sharia law in Europe and even in the US? Is Chechnya part of the Middle East? What about all the Pacific Islands that are Islamic controlled?

Re:as said before here many times

[kill-1]

Noone is seriously pushing for Sharia law in Europe or the US. Not even Bin Laden was. Bin Laden has made his intentions pretty clear, although this has been willfully suppressed by US media. Just read the transcripts of Bin Laden's video speeches and you will understand what this conflict is all about. Take this one for example:

"Security is an important foundation of human life and free people do not squander their security, contrary to Bush's claims that we hate freedom."

"We fought you because we are free and because we want freedom for our nation. When you squander our security we squander your's."

Re:as said before here many times

[intheshelter]

Oh bullshit. They didn't start all this because they wanted a Caliphate. That is utter crap. They hate us because we put American boots on the ground in their holy land. They hate us because we blindly support Israel. They hate us because we are constantly meddling in their region of the world where we don't belong.

I'm not sympathetic to them, nor do I agree with their response, but US foreign policy has caused this hatred, not some desire for terrorists to take away our freedom. If we keep shitting on them then we shouldn't be surprised if more of them hate us and turn against us.

Re:as said before here many times

[stdarg]

All the retoric (from the terrorists themselves) aside, what they really hate is being fucked by the West.

Yes the poor billionaire Bin Laden family, awfully screwed by the evil West. Why do you buy into their schtick? Hasn't that theory of the downtrodden terrorist been pretty much discarded since --
1. Times Square bomber from an upper class Pakistani family with high level Air Force connections
2. The Underwear Bomber from one of the richest families in Nigeria, whose father was the chairman of a large bank
3. Major Nidal the well educated army psychiatrist
4. The 9/11 conspirators such as Mohammed Atta, son of a wealthy lawyer, educated in top schools in Egypt and Germany
etc

Why are you ignoring all the evidence and assuming terrorism is no more than revenge for crimes committed by the West? The reality is that the only Muslims who have successfully attacked the US are well-connected people with ample resources, including wealth and education.

The other type of terrorism which is mainly confined to Muslim countries is carried out by the uneducated poor. For the vast majority of these attacks, "the West" has almost nothing to do with the attack. In Pakistan, for instance, a great deal of terrorist attacks are committed due to Shia-Sunni divides, attacks on Ahmedis, Christians, and other religious minorities (those are the main groups because most of the other groups have long since fled!), attacks on Sufis and their shrines, attacks on religious processions, and so on.

And guess what. The attacks in Pakistan and India against Western targets have all... wait I'm going to let you guess here.. no I'll tell you. They've all been linked to state support by the ISI and army in Pakistan! The attacks on Mumbai were not the work of a few poor Pakistani peasants who decided that they "have nothing to lose" so they need to travel to another country and kill some Hindus and any Westerners they can find. That's complete bullshit. They were trained as part of the ISI's longstanding and ongoing terrorist support network that allows them to manipulate domestic and foreign politics.

Of course religion plays a role here. It functions as a rallying cry. And comfort in your desperation over the non-existent chances of any true success (world caliphate? noone believes that?) and necessary suicide tactics. But mostly, it plays the role of lumping all those disparate grievances together, so they seem to have been perpetrated on the same "us".

You are completely ignorant of the reality of terrorism. Most of it is inter-religious. Not just Pakistan like I mentioned above -- look at the attacks in Iraq. For every attack directly on the "evil occupying forces", there were a dozen that involved a Sunni group bombing a Shia market, a Shia group shooting up a Sunni neighborhood, and so on.

And "necessary suicide tactics?" You are supporting suicide attacks by terrorists as necessary?

The perfect solution is to go back thirty years and not kill and steal.

That is a ridiculous argument. How is trade stealing?

Hey you know what, those damn oil sheikhs are the ones stealing from us! Let's have a crusade against them! They didn't create the oil, they did nothing to earn it, why are we paying for it?

That sort of stupid rhetoric can go both ways.

Re:as said before here many times

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

" it was so well established so long ago that freedom is superior to the alternative" unsupported. Certainly a way for Judeo Christains from a European background to live and work together and prosper. There are other successful models as shown in China for instance, which had many , many more people than live in democracies, living , working and propering, and it is not a Democracy and only has limited freedoms.

But I digress.

"Liberty is the right to question and challenge the government, which absolutely necessary to prevent corruption and tyranny. Privacy allows dissenters to build a movement without the knowledge of those who would suppress it."

I am confused, Privacy as opposed to Liberty?? I would think the Privacy is one of the cornerstones of the U.S. democracy. Well until yesterday when the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that it was OK for police to enter a home without a warrant, tesor the man living there that was trying to advise them that they did not have a warrant and to stay out. This overtures an 800 year law that a homeowner can defend his property from illegal search and seizure from even the police. A matter of privacy and liberty here.

But privacy is key to allowing people to live their own lives and to form and talk about their own ideas. The point is you should have a system who's ideas stand on their own, have merit and overwhelming support of the people. Lets add, redition, torture, removal of habeas corpus and the above mentioned abonination, and you have a formula where you start to loose support around the world and eventially at home when people wake up to the fact that we are allowing the Facists to take over. The rest of the world can see the pustules on our face way before we do.

Re:as said before here many times

[Elbowgeek]

"after all, an Orwellian state might break out the nukes in response to a terror attack"

This is why others in al Queda were objecting so strongly to Osama's pursuit of large-scale attacks on the US. They realized that the more extreme their attacks the greater potential blowback.

Sadly though it does seem that the goal of bankrupting the US is a very real one. They are counting on the fact that eventually the US will simply not be able to afford to wage war against them, and there will be lessened political and public will to lead incursions into other lawless regions of the world in pursuit of al Queda.

Re:as said before here many times

[stdarg]

There is nobody who does not have "the humblest of means", that doesn't even make sense.

If you want to read something sad and sickening, read the interviews they did with the surviving Pakistani attacker involved in the Mumbai attacks. They were sold as children by their families and raised in a terrorist training camp. Though grown up they were mentally like children in my opinion. They cried and were very dependent on their handler who they called "father". Listen to the cell phone recordings. Their handler is a monster.

Suicide bombers/attackers are not country bumpkins with no means who decided to pick up some bombs and guns and go out in a blaze. They are tools created by other people.

Re:as said before here many times

[kilfarsnar]

This is dead on. I wish I had mod points.

Re:as said before here many times

[stdarg]

Noone is seriously pushing for Sharia law in Europe or the US.

Well that's demonstrably false. Oklahoma passed an anti-sharia ballot measure saying sharia law could not be used in US courts. Seems pretty simple -- religious law should not be used in the US secular judicial system.

Muslims immediately filed suit against it.

You're also ignoring the social aspects of sharia, which do not require the government's involvement at all. Muslims can implement aspects of sharia in their personal lives. There's absolutely no doubt that they are "seriously pushing" for that -- look at the incidents of honor killings, sending their children "back home" if they are getting too Westernized, etc.

Re:as said before here many times

[yog]

"They hate us because we blindly support Israel" "US foreign policy has caused this hatred"

Another Israel hater, how charming.

So, if we withdraw our "blind" support for Israel and let the chips fall where they may, the Islamists will stop hating us?

Hardly. When we convert to their extreme version of Islam and submit ourselves to sharia law and the rule of some caliph dictator based in Mecca, then they will stop hating us, maybe.

Tell you what, you move there and convert, and they'll at least stop hating you, and we'll be rid of one more cowardly moral relativist.

Re:as said before here many times

[stdarg]

it looks like an unwinnable war was chosen as the most efficient way to pump wealth from workers to private industry

This just in, private industry is composed of workers! Turns out workers pumped wealth to themselves!

Re:as said before here many times

[stdarg]

Another big difference between our situation and the Russians' is that we are fighting this war through R&D.

We aren't carpet bombing hundreds of square miles of desert, we're developing new tech like drones, new types of bombs, new body and vehicle armor, new HUD units, tech to detect IEDs, etc. So it's not like we're flushing money down the toilet.

Re:as said before here many times

[kilfarsnar]

It would become totalitarian by keeping the trappings of democracy in place, but having the actual decisions made by unelected plutocrats for the benefit of their narrow interests. The government would become less and less responsive to the needs of its citizens while continuing to tax them and handing the money over to said plutocrats. If one doesn't know they are living under an oppressive government, one can't rebel against it after all! If the people were to get uppity, they could simply be scared into submission by some hyped external threat.

But you know, that's all hypothetical.

Re:as said before here many times

[SvnLyrBrto]

Eh.... If "being fucked by the West" (in particular the United States) were what breeds terrorism; then we should be seeing a hundred terrorists boiling up out of Latin America for every one from a middle eastern or muslim country. We've screwed Latin America over far worse than we've even *thought* about screwing over muslim countries. And we were doing it since a hundred years before most Americans, save for bible scholars, bothered to take notice that the Middle East was even there. In fact, the land I'm sitting on as I type this used to me part of Mexico. And California is considerably larger and nicer a hunk of land than that miserable little scrap that Israel sits on. (ZOMG!!! The west/Jews stole the part of the crumbling Ottoman/British Empire that WE had planned to steal!)

I'm no believer in the bushies' simplistic mantra that: "they hate us for our freedom". But It's equally simplistic, I think, to say that all they've done is a justified response to our (admittedly) crappy foreign policy. I think there IS a fundamental incompatibility between our societies. Otherwise.... where are the MEXICAN (and Panamanian, and Colombian, and Nicaraguan, and etc.) hijackers and suicide bombers?

Re:as said before here many times

[trout007]

You are falling for the lies. The goal of Bin Laden is simple. It's the same as he had for the Soviets. Get the foreigners out of their country. If you bankrupt them they are forced to leave. Simple.

Re:as said before here many times

[Anthony Mouse]

But privacy is key to allowing people to live their own lives and to form and talk about their own ideas.

That's what I said. Read it again.

Re:as said before here many times

[rgviza]

Well said. Unfortunately the Cartoon World is the one in which most of us live, so the moronic "they hate us for our freedom" narrative always gets good traction here.

Actually, "they hate us for our freedom" is not too far from the truth. Everyone here is playing coy when talking about the goals of terrorists. Of course the terrorists don't care if TSA is feeling up our kids or the government is asking for ID to fly. That's not the freedom they are after.

========

Actually they hate us because we meddle in their affairs and support their (arabic people's) enemies.

It's really that simple.

Re:as said before here many times

[rgviza]

yup. well said.

Re:as said before here many times

[cdrguru]

UK, Germany and Australia today have implemented Sharia law to some degree. In Germany the German courts can be circumvented through Sharia law and Muslim clerics. In Australia the police are specifically banned from intefering in cases where Sharia law has been invoked and the parties are being dealt with by clerics.

It is a part of life in these countries today. It will be a part of life in the US where we will have two distinct legal systems, one for Muslims and one for the rest of us. I don't think there is an way for an "open" society to deal with this other than to allow it.

Re:as said before here many times

[cdrguru]

There is only one solution to the "Israel problem" - every single Jewish person in Israel needs to be moved somewhere else. Until the land is returned to Palestinian hands there will be no peace, unless the Palestinian people are allowed to become citizens of existing Arab countries and the camps dismantled.

You do realise that the UN has been maintaining "refugee camps" for the displaced people of Palestine since 1948? The Arab states do not really want the Palestinian people but the UN has been maintaining the camps far in excess of what is actually required. It is a power grab by the UN departments that are in charge of it.

So, how about if we carve out a piece of Montana and give it to the Jews? Empty out Israel and move everyone there. Do you think that would solve the problem? For a people that believe every Jew must be killed? No, I don't really think that is a solution. Killing every Jew might work, but Hitler tried to the shame of the rest of the human race. I don't see that being implemented.

Re:as said before here many times

[rgviza]

Oh yea here we go with the anti-semitism. Typical... Anyone that doesn't like US and Israeli policy is automatically a Jew hating nazi. I have news for you, there are a lot of Jews that don't agree with Israeli and Zionist driven policy too, myself included. I'm not afraid of being called anything you want to call me. Bring it on and I'll wear it proudly.

Give it a rest huh? You know why people hate Israel and Zionists? You dislike/mistrust anyone that's not a Jew and completely fail to be reasonable about anything or anyone that's not in accordance with Zionist goals. It's no wonder. In your eyes, and the eyes of people like you, people are either Jew hating nazis, or they agree with your point of view and support Israel without reservation. There is no in between. It's black and white to you. We're really tired of hearing that line and it's getting old. This issue is not cut and dried or black and white. Disagreement with a country's policy doesn't make you a racist.

The sad thing is you are too self righteous to even see it for what it is. I wish you and Israel good luck. You'll need it. I sure as hell want no part of it. I'm perfectly happy being in the country I was born in. This is my country. I mind my own business.

Re:as said before here many times

[h4rr4r]

US secular judicial system.
That wants people to swear on what again?

Re:as said before here many times

[kwoff]

Your pay is inversely proportional to how much you work, so actual workers weren't wealth pumpees.

Re:as said before here many times

[stdarg]

So your solution to "too much religion in a supposedly secular system" is... more religion? Doesn't make sense.

Or are you suggesting the US is a Christian theocracy and should have Bibles, religious law, etc?

Either way, banning sharia is the right thing to do.

Re:as said before here many times

[nbauman]

"They hate us because we blindly support Israel" "US foreign policy has caused this hatred"

Another Israel hater, how charming.

So, if we withdraw our "blind" support for Israel and let the chips fall where they may, the Islamists will stop hating us?

Hardly.

Let me contribute some facts here. The Wall Street Journal was across the street from the World Trade Towers. After 9/11, they were barely able to evacuate their offices before the WSJ offices were destroyed.

After 9/11 (and before it was bought up by Murdoch), the WSJ made a major effort to find out *why* terrorists would hate us. They used the resources of their worldwide bureaus and international editions. They *already* had access to leaders of the Arab world, and had been interviewing everybody from top rulers and billionaires to college students in MacDonald's. People subscribed to the WSJ and trusted them. This was the effort in which Daniel Perl was killed.

They got several important answers. One response kept coming up repeatedly. One interview summed it up. The guy said, "I love America. I got my MBA in America. But you must do something about Israel." People around the Arab world are really upset about the Israeli treatment of Palestinians. Some of them are using it cynically, but others are sincere.

I'm Jewish and I'm upset about it. For 20 years B'Tselem has been documenting atrocities that sound like what the Nazis did to the Jews. Now we have the Goldstone report.

The most outrageous and well-documented ones, I think, are the "white flag" cases. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/01/27/60853/israeli-troops-killed-gaza-children.html An Israeli soldier got out of a tank and machine-gunned down a 2-year-old and 7-year-old child, while their grandmother was standing outside their house waving a white flag. This really is the kind of thing the Nazis did to the Jews. There were many cases like this. It's been going on for 20 years. Israel didn't investigate them or prosecute the soldiers involved.

Our government has been supporting Netanyahu and the settlers on this. When reporters go to the site of a massacre like this, they often find equipment stamped "Made in USA". Whenever anybody protests, the Hasbara squad calls him an "Israel hater."

This understandably makes many Arabs hostile towards the U.S. If we hadn't let it get to this point starting 20 years ago, we wouldn't have so many Arabs that hate us. If we made Israel stop, we wouldn't have so many more Arabs hating us.

The solution is simple -- the settlements are illegal, and Israel should obey the law and get them out. Netanyahu won't do that because he's the party of the settlers. Our government won't force them, because the AIPAC lobby has a lock on our government.

I think the most likely solution is that the Palestinians will get their state. That will make the legal status of the settlements even worse. The Israelis will probably wind up with a worse solution than they could have gotten from Arafat. The settlers will have to choose between living as law-abiding citizens under a Palestinian government -- including Hamas -- or getting out. And unlike Gaza, they might not get $200,000 to $300,000 compensation for their homes this time. I just hope theydon't come back to Brooklyn.

Re:as said before here many times

[scot4875]

Another Israel hater, how charming.

Another Israel apologist, how charming.

How about, instead of us moving, you go to Afghanistan and Iraq and fight these "wars" that you so strongly believe in? Not only that, you pay the taxes to support the war effort.

--Jeremy

Re:as said before here many times

[scot4875]

/golfclap

Nice non-rebuttal there. You're technically correct, which is the best kind of correct.

--Jeremy

Re:as said before here many times

[treeves]

Their freedom? Have you had your head in a deep hole for the last, say, six months?
Yeah, sure, we installed Mubarak and propped up Qaddafi, and all that. And if we completely left the middle east, liberty would just abound there, wouldn't it?

Re:as said before here many times

[riverat1]

Nah, then the Saskatchewanders would just become the new Palestinians.

Re:as said before here many times

[riverat1]

... and the US came to resemble the USSR, or whatever totalitarian state you'd prefer to compare it to ...

Of course the US would become a fascist state. We're already halfway there.

Re:as said before here many times

[doccus]

And I've been saying that, also, to people with deaf ears for ten years now.. the minute america shut it's borders and dismantled it's constitution.. the bad guys had, unfortunately won

Re:as said before here many times

[ultranova]

"The terrorists" are not some chaotic evil cartoon villains. They have goals and aspirations. They have a vision of the future where they've "won", however unrealistic and unlikely that vision happens to be. Those visions are not of a totalitarian state replacing the United States.

However, they do include the United States being reduced too weak to interfere with the Muslim world. And one way to do that is to trick you into wasting your resources. Which worked perfectly, judging by US national debt.

Also, given how you always go on about freedom and democracy, could it just perhaps be that someone who hates your guts would love to see you being deprived of those? Just as revenge?

Re:as said before here many times

[ultranova]

" it was so well established so long ago that freedom is superior to the alternative" unsupported. Certainly a way for Judeo Christains from a European background to live and work together and prosper. There are other successful models as shown in China for instance, which had many , many more people than live in democracies, living , working and propering, and it is not a Democracy and only has limited freedoms.

Frankly, I have a hard time imagining there's a single individual on this planet who does not want to be able to live his life as he will, which is what "freedom" means. In fact I don't think it is possible to claim otherwise in a logically coherent manner.

However, I have a very easy time imagining those sitting at the top of the pyramid using such excuses to justify oppressing those under their heel, while pseudo-intellectuals eager to show their "tolerance" do so by enthusiastically cheering for ruthless tyrants, never once noticing the irony of accepting an absurdly racist claim ("only Europeans and their descendants are fit for democracy") in the name of anti-racism.

But I'm sure those Chinese sitting in prison for demanding a freer system appreaciate you telling them it's a fool's quest since they lack the Judeo-Christian background and European genes required for such a system. In fact, let's go tell them right away that they should knock off such silliness and settle for limited freedoms, since democracy is only better for us uberme^H white christians.

Seriously, did you try to sound like a throwback from colonial times, or did you just live up to your username?

Re:as said before here many times

[ultranova]

Even saying that Bin Laden basically achieved his goal. The American Economy will take 20-30 years to recover from the external and internal damage.

It won't recover. The manufacturing base that brought the original success has largely been offshored, the infrastructure is slowly crumbling away from lack of maintenance, and because the nuclear power program was halted it's questionable whether the US can even keep the lights on as the price of oil skyrockets.

Perhaps you can climb back from the bottom one day, but make no mistake: you are on your way there.

Re:as said before here many times

[intheshelter]

Where again did I say I hate Israel? Are you able to read and comprehend the written word?

I said one of the reasons they hate us is because we blindly support Israel.

I'm not a cowardly moral relativist, nor am I an ignorant fool who can't read and who gives any country a blank check to be a an oppressive state, Jewish or Muslim or Christian. Pull your head out of your monster truck party politics and do a little critical thinking before replying next time.

Re:as said before here many times

[intheshelter]

And what does that have to do with the point he just made?

Re:as said before here many times

[peragrin]

Actually the Manufacturing base is slowly being brought back. the $100 a barrel for Oil is driving up the transportation costs significantly. $4 to $5 a gallon for gas will force manufacturer's to bring it back.

The downside is it won't be cheap labor but primarily robot built items that come back first. So the job picture will only slightly change.

True the USA has yet to hit rock bottom. but the USA has dug itself out several times before and can do so again. Remember we have huge piles of copper, Aluminum, iron, as well as Rare Earth metals still in the ground. plus all the stuff in our trash piles.

It may take some time, but we have all the resources we need to rebuild other than oil. Building a new future without oil will be the real trick.

Re:as said before here many times

[Lundse]

Your point is well taken, and I am not claiming that "fucked by the west" must lead to "terrorism". Only that the hateful attitude towards the west and desperate measures owes a large part of its explanation to the fact that these people have been exploited and live squalid lives.
Also, propaganda and religious extremism is being used to spread these claims to have a greater effect than they would in itself. That might be the difference we are looking for, or at least part of it - still not claiming to have _all_ the answers :-)

Re:as said before here many times

[Lundse]

We do not agree so much as to warrant that tone, actually. Calm down :-)

I absolutely agree that religious extremism, political and military intervention are factors. But I do believe that they are primarily factors that redirect and transport the hate, so to speak.

When a poor peasant from religion X blows up poor peasants of religion Y, I think you are totally right that this is most often the result of some kind of manipulation. I have no reason to doubt your example of ISI interference. But I was talking about terrorist attacks against the West...

When relatively well-off people attack the West, this is obviously not out of desperation in their own lives. This was what I meant by religious extremism allowing people to hold on to a communal "us" that has been harmed over time, and over income brackets, obviously.

> You are supporting suicide attacks by terrorists as necessary?

No. A necessary means if one wants to harm the West. Asymetrical warfare, you know?

> That is a ridiculous argument. How is trade stealing?

When you oust a publically elected leader, and insert your own puppet that then makes a profitable deal with you, that is stealing from a country. It is just a dishonest way to do it..

> Hey you know what, those damn oil sheikhs are the ones stealing from us! Let's have a crusade against them! They didn't create the oil, they did nothing to earn it, why are we paying for it?

Actually, We are close to the mark here. The oil sheiks are indeed stealing the profits of entire countries, from their fellow countrymen. And the US makes deals with them, assisting that theft. Of course the sheiks and those who dare not oppose them will name the US the real theif (they are equally culpable, if you ask me), call the West the great Satan, etc. etc.

I never claimed everything that happened is because of Western interference. But when we chose to deal with thieves (and help set some of them up), we are exposing ourselves to the rightful hate of those we (help) steal from. This hate is being twisted, exagerated, harnessed and used against us. Sometimes by well-off oil sheiks with an agenda, sometimes by twisted extremists like Bin Laden.

Re:as said before here many times

[yog]

Your response is so extreme and "black and white" that it's clearly a cut-and-paste from other online debates over Israel's legitimacy and moral correctness.

I don't care what your religion, ethnicity, or creed is. If you wish to discuss the roots of terrorism, that's one thing.

But if you wish to make self-loathing kinds of comments such as the above, you're just engaging in a kind of distancing and self-exoneration out of embarrassment for the behavior of others who share your ancestry.

Re:as said before here many times

[yog]

"Let me contribute some facts here..." "I'm Jewish and I'm upset about it...." "If we made Israel stop, we wouldn't have so many more Arabs hating us"

I don't see any facts in your posting, sorry. You link to the viral rumor about the "white flag" shootings, as reported by unverified Arab witnesses in a region where people fabricate such stories all the time. The Gaza actions were about as cautious and protective of civilian life as could conceivably be done, according to British military witnesses and other reliable reports. You identify yourself as Jewish as though that excuses you to say all kinds of rubbish about a country of which you really have very little knowledge or understanding. Furthermore, there's a strain of anger and self-loathing in your statements which suggests you have a personal ax to grind regarding Israel, as do so many other apologetic liberals, Jewish or not.

Sorry - yours is just another cut-and-paste rant which does not address the topic whatsoever. Go bow to Mecca, now.

Re:as said before here many times

[yog]

Another Palestine hater, how charming.

Criticism of US/Isreal policy does not justify the knee-jerk assumption that there is "Another Israel hater."
It's just as likely that the PP is critical of US/Isreal policy.

There's no criticism elaborated in the gp posting, just another cut-and-paste full of baseless talking points. Why is it that Israel evokes such angry thrashings amongst the liberals?

Israel is a diversionary topic, often mentioned by the Arabs as a justification for almost everything bad that happens in the Middle East. The lack of human rights and democracy, their horrible treatment of women, their backward education and lack of economic opportunity are the real issues and Israel has nothing to do with any of that.

On the contrary, Israel points the way to true economic development for the broad majority, free of the poisonous dependence on oil. The Arabs could benefit so much from Israel, and paradoxically for this reason they hate it all the more.

What's truly despicable, however, is the large number of young Americans who mindlessly repeat the Arabs' sharply critical and largely baseless accusations about Israel. Here, in a country where the facts are available to study, they prefer to rely on viral rumors propagated by Saudi-funded think tanks. If only Israel didn't exist, all the problems in the world would disappear, they say. Truly perverse.

Re:as said before here many times

[yog]

Where again did I say I hate Israel? Are you able to read and comprehend the written word?

I said one of the reasons they hate us is because we blindly support Israel.

I'm not a cowardly moral relativist, nor am I an ignorant fool who can't read and who gives any country a blank check to be a an oppressive state, Jewish or Muslim or Christian. Pull your head out of your monster truck party politics and do a little critical thinking before replying next time.

You put the blame for Muslim terrorism squarely on the U.S. for its "foreign policy" and "blind" support of Israel. That's moral relativism. That's what the Islamists themselves say--you're just a mouthpiece for their propaganda. But it won't save you--they don't distinguish cowardly brown-nosers from those of us who oppose them.

And make no mistake--they want to DESTROY US. You may think you've above the petty politics of supporting a Western ally in the Middle East, or defending the oil supplies, or fighting the Taliban and al Qaeda forces in central Asia--but you're not. You are part of it--every time you drive your car, exercise your right to vote or freely post your drivel on a chat board--you are benefiting from your freedom afforded by U.S. policies.

No one's claiming U.S. foreign policy is perfect, certainly I haven't made such a claim, but a blanket condemnation of the U.S. and linking in its support for Israel (such as it is) as the root cause of Muslim terrorism is ridiculous--and merely reinforces al Qaeda's own propaganda.

Re:as said before here many times

[nbauman]

Just for the record -- the WSJ series, which won a Pulitzer prize, is factual.

The reports of white flag killings were investigated by B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights organization, by the BBC, by other news media and human rights organizations, and by the Goldstone Commission. The checked out the facts as thoroughly as possible, and the facts held up. For example, the BBC reporter noted that the witnesses reported that the IDF soldier was sitting on his tank eating potato chips, and they did find a bag of potato chips on the ground. Most significantly, they gave the Israeli government an opportunity to respond, and the Israeli government refused. That's verification.

Whatever other complaints you have, those are not "unverified" claims. They are unrebutted charges, because the Israeli government didn't rebut them.

I repeat: whenever anybody protests, the Hasbara squad calls him an "Israel hater." That's what you're doing.

I'm not going to debate this with you any more. My only purpose in posting this is to demonstrate to other Slashdotters that the the community that we no longer accept these Israeli crimes. It's bad for Israel and bad for the U.S.

I've always supported Israel but I can't support killing 2-year-old children.

You lost the debate. You're losing public support. Palestine will soon be a state. Go home.

Re:as said before here many times

[jsvendsen]

Otherwise.... where are the MEXICAN (and Panamanian, and Colombian, and Nicaraguan, and etc.) hijackers and suicide bombers?

Killing your asses more effectively than the islamists could ever dream of using heroin, methamphetamine and crack cocaine, and getting filthy rich in the process?

Re:as said before here many times

[yog]

You refer to the BBC and the Goldstone report, neither of which is a reputable source. Goldstone himself has repudiated his report, in fact.

Sorry, but name calling and rank generalizations do not exonerate you from being guilty of the very transgressions of which you accuse others.

Israelis do commit crimes, but certainly not on the scale that you imply (but obviously cannot substantiate, so only pull this one viral rumor off the net).

Ironically, you claim that you "can't support killing 2-year-old children"--just a couple of weeks after one of the most horrendous baby-killing acts by Arabs was committed--even the Arabs condemned the murders. And here we have an Israel-hating troll on Slashdot, frothing at the mouth over an imaginary killing of Arabs.

I must disagree that I have "lost the debate". There was no debate, just some cut-and-paste postings of baseless and snide punch lines to which I responded, and rather calmly I might add. As for public support, Israel is about as popular today among mainstream Americans as always: about 60-70% in the polls, year after year. Not that they need us to ensure their survival--today it's Israeli technology that's going to protect them--and us--from new threats.

Oh, and enjoy using your cell phone (Israeli tech) and your low-power Intel powered computer (Israeli tech) and your encrypted communications (Israeli math). Hope you never need to have a pancreas transplant (pioneered by Israeli doctors). Maybe you've had drip irrigation installed in your garden (Israeli tech). Etc. etc.

Or maybe you're more into Arab technology: I hear they make a pretty state-of-the-art suicide bomb belt.

Re:as said before here many times

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

"Seriously, did you try to sound like a throwback from colonial times, or did you just live up to your username?"

I can't comment on the nature vs nurture roots of cultural expectation, but there are clearly different cultural expectations, as in honor killings in the Middle East, or the idea of face in the orient, or the role of Intellegent Design in our schools (in some parts of the South).

Well that is the trouble with those people that argue with success, or do not look at anthropology or sociology but only work with ideology. There are different models in the world that are successful, each with a different version of what is right and what is wrong and what is allowed and what is not.

Even in your freedom model, you have no true freedom (we call tha anarchy, but if you were making the anarchist argument I missed the point.)

If your argument was not for anarchy, then you must have a set of rules that limit freedom and govern activities between individuals with penalties or remedies for actions not conforming with those rules. These are limits on freedom. So I assume you are talking about a certain set of limited freedoms. In that you are labelling "Freedom" as your vision of freedom and assuming you are correct and everyone else in the world in different systems is wrong. And you do not allow them the freedom to practice their version. That is the great conundrum the democractists face. Lets do some nation building, take over a country, give them democracy and a constitution and let them vote for what they want. Often they come up with a different set of laws and rules, like Sharea law that we find offensive, but then that was their choice. Doesn't freedom require the excersize of choice? Or do you feel that everyone must choose what you feel is the correct version. Sort of Democratic/Freedom PC?

You would probably agree that we need traffic laws right. Stopping at traffic lights so as not to kill or be killed in a side on collision. So a culturally agreed upon limit to freedom eh? What about marriages of people younger than 18 years of age. In some countries that is normal and expected and appropriate. Here there are large barriers to that. A limit on freedom of those under the age of 18 and 21. but then you are for unlimited freedom right.

No I think my point was that there are different models and different expectations and culturally appropriate ways of people living good lives. To deny that is to deny history and current events. Now I might agree with you that there are certain principles that I and many of those living around me think is the best way, but that is not the same as the right way. For example, I have never forgiven the Missionaries for clothing the Tahians. A limit to freedom certainly, for what, for someone else's view of what is proper and what is expected and that is not culturally approriate and downright authoritarian and heavy handed. I have family in China and they are quite happy generally with their life even though their freedoms (like to all internet sites) are curbed. They are too busy going to Starbucks and shopping in high end shopping centers to bother with that. And we have a few people in our jails, and prisons that might complain about their limits on freedom.

  and I still need more coffee, my choice

We Won't Negotiate With Terrorists

[bill_mcgonigle]

But we'll spend trillions of dollars and radically change our society to 'deal' with them.

Re:We Won't Negotiate With Terrorists

[jo42]

There is no profit in peace. There will always be a (invented) bogeyman to carry on the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ war machine.

Re:We Won't Negotiate With Terrorists

[JesseMcDonald]

There's plenty of profit in peace. It's just spread throughout society rather than focused on governments and military contractors.

This is one of democracy's (or perhaps society's) greatest flaws: a small risk or opportunity to each of millions of individuals will almost always lose out to a large risk or opportunity to a small number of individuals, even when the former is much more significant in the aggregate. Few would get worked up over personally losing $1, but a half-dozen well-connected lobbyists will make a major effort to secure $25 million for themselves by taking $1 each from 300 million others (even though half of the total is wasted). Even ignoring the cost of redistribution, society loses 150 million dollars' worth of productivity in the process—but, unlike the prospective recipients, no one has a personal stake in opposing the measure.

In more concrete terms, it's no surprise that the broad benefits which peace brings to an entire society lose out to the much narrower profitability of warmongering to military contractors, military employees, and certain politicians.

I wonder if he really said that...

[rsilvergun]

he'd be pretty dumb if he did. Seriously. The wars have mostly been a money grab for Halliburton and co, which suits the American Corporate ruling class just fine. Hell, fear of terrorists has set back the labor movement in the US 100 years, again, good for the sort of folk that have been in favor of meddling in the Middle East for years. Plus the wars are helping to keep these people in power. 9/11 was the best thing that could happen to global corporations. People stopped asking why their wages are falling and started cringing in fear of all them tarrafyin' tarrarists.

And of course, who could for get the Best. Chart. Ever. Thanks Bush. It's amazing how much damage one administration can do in such a short time when you let 'em do whatever the heck they want...

Re:I wonder if he really said that...

[rhook]

You mean like giving trillions to failed banks during the first month in office, oops that was Obama.

Re:I wonder if he really said that...

[Dyinobal]

Because the banks got that way in the first few months and weren't already fail cascading prior to Obama's election.

Re:I wonder if he really said that...

[MimeticLie]

Why are you so sure that it's the American Corporate ruling class that's making money off the wars? Halliburton et al. have made a mint, unquestionably, but foreign firms (some of which are Iraqi/Afghani, some of which are not) have been getting tons of money as well, not to mention the money that has just "disappeared". Allison Stanger's new book does a good job talking about the contractor culture we have now. The wars would have cost a ton even if the US military had been doing it themselves, but instead they've contracted out massive amounts of work to avoid having to start a draft. But the bottom line is that even if some people are profiting, the country is taking a massive loss.

Re:I wonder if he really said that...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi. The TARP bailout was signed by Bush. It's pretty telling that people pin that on Obama. And I don't fault Bush either. A large portion of the bailout for banks has been repaid. Seriously, people.

Re:I wonder if he really said that...

[Repossessed]

Halliburton is a foreign firm too, they moved out to avoid paying taxes.

Re:I wonder if he really said that...

[Ironchew]

You mean like giving trillions to failed banks during the first month in office

I'm fairly certain the Federal Reserve did that, which neither Congress nor the executive have control over.

Re:I wonder if he really said that...

[ATMAvatar]

And McCain wanted to postpone presidential debates so it could be passed quicker. If you think that anyone in Washington put up any serious fight against TARP, you are mistaken.

Re:I wonder if he really said that...

[mevets]

why stop passing it there. I mean, if I take enough hits on the bong, I'll run it through reagan, carter, nixon, lbj, jfk, ike, washington.

As much as I'd like to say 'wow, that Clinton guy was really powerful'; no. 8 years in power is well beyond the passing the buck nonsense.

I do sympathise - after decades of astronomical deficit growth, that short island of fiscal responsibility under Clinton must really grate on some. How high was Rayguns stack of dollar bills before GWB? And After?

Re:I wonder if he really said that...

[superwiz]

No, not large portion. All of it. With interest. The only part of TARP which hasn't been repaid is the part given to the GM.

Re:I wonder if he really said that...

[Risen888]

You are wrong. The market deregulation that ultimately led to the housing bubble and the bank crises were policies enacted by Bill Clinton. That's not passing the buck. That's causality.

Re:I wonder if he really said that...

[Livius]

Of course it was paid back. The point of money-laundering is to destroy the paper trail of the larceny that had already happened.

Re:I wonder if he really said that...

[rhook]

I guess you have never heard of Senator Ron Paul.

Re:I wonder if he really said that...

[rhook]

Nope, in fact the Federal Reserve is a privately owned, for profit, financial institution. The only thing federal about them is the name. Sure they print money when we tell them to, however, they charge us interest on that fiat currency.

Re:I wonder if he really said that...

[mellon]

Halliburton, et al., taking over the U.S. economy gets bin Laden what he wanted: an America with a shrinking economy because all the money has been siphoned out of it. This is precisely his strategy, and it's been depressingly effective. You know that part in Buffy where Willow and Xander say "it's a trap!" and Buffy goes in anyway and gets her ass handed to her? That's us.

Your mistake is thinking that anybody wins in the long term because of the expansion of the military. Nobody wins in the long term. In the short term, a few people win, but the damage to the economy is so severe that it's difficult to recover from. So ultimately even the people who siphoned off all the money lose, because they could have had a larger piece, albeit a smaller percentage, of a bigger pie if they hadn't played winner-take-all.

The way economies prosper is that people make things that are useful. Economies don't prosper when you dump money down a drain.

Re:I wonder if he really said that...

[cforciea]

I'm sorry, could you please clarify? I'm not even sure which tinfoil hat conspiracy you are trying to advance with your incredibly obtuse accusation, other than that you want people to have an icky feeling about the bailout but you aren't clever enough to come up with even a real sounding reason.

Re:I wonder if he really said that...

[Politburo]

Never heard of him..

Re:I wonder if he really said that...

[kilfarsnar]

A large portion of the bailout for banks has been repaid. Seriously, people.

That's not really accurate. A large part of the TARP has been repaid. But the bailout was and continues to be a lot more than TARP. Even now, the big banks can borrow from the Fed a close to zero, and lend that money to the Treasury at 3%. It is literally a money machine. Pretty neat scam, eh?

Re:I wonder if he really said that...

[superwiz]

What are you talking about? I am just telling you the facts. Banks have paid back the TARP with interest long time ago. $50 billion of the TARP money was not spent on bailing out the banks, but on GM. GM has not repaid that money. Conspiracy involves a secret. I am just stating facts which are open to the public. Where do you see a conspiracy in this? Or are you just out of accusation to make up?

Re:I wonder if he really said that...

[superwiz]

Buh... nm. This one is squarely on Slashdot's new "features". It didn't show Livius' post. So it looked like cforciea's post was replying to my post rather than to Livius'.

Re:I wonder if he really said that...

[w_dragon]

It created another post, therefor it can't be a bug right?

Re:I wonder if he really said that...

[scot4875]

Yet you still blame Obama for its actions in the 1st month of his presidency.

--Jeremy

Re:I wonder if he really said that...

[toddestan]

He's a Senator now?

Yay we "won"

[goodgod43]

at what cost? Now we all live in fear. For our jobs. For our privacy, and of each other.

Re:Yay we "won"

[phantomfive]

Really? Do you really live in fear? Because I sure don't. Life is great! I have a freezer full of ice cream, what more can I ask for?

Re:Yay we "won"

[meridian]

Fear of our privacy? Privacy is gone already, for some unlucky few completely. Tried posting this up at http://www.infowars.com/beware-lone-wolves-in-aftermath-of-bin-laden-killing-advisory-says/ where a few others were mentioning they are aware of remote neural monitoring. Unfortunately it is real and affect more and more people.
The best description of what it is like I have found here: http://www.mindjustice.org/2003_survey.htm
Start from “Reported mind control symptoms and descriptions include”
I will paste snips below for your enjoyment (ones that I personal identify with strongly):

Victims are subjected to various kinds of harassment and torture, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, for years on end.

Sometimes victims describe seeing the images of projected holograms. Thoughts can be read. Most victims describe a phenomenon they call “street theater.”

Note: for me street theatre only happened at the start to make me convinced everyone knew I was this person like that dumb movie where everyone watches your life. Took me some time to figure out the truth.

Implanted thoughts and visions are common.

Note: this is only happening to me recently, but I find these easy to identify and they only happen when I am in bed at home (in a place easy for them to control my surroundings)

Microwave hearing, known to be an unclassified military capability of creating voices in the head, is regularly reported.

Wrenching of house/building structures cause loud snapping or crackling noises, often heard at precisely the point where a victim is starting to doze off to sleep.

Note: used to stop you getting sleep or wake you up to limit your sleep and the main mode of torment they use on you once you realise what is going on and can somewhat defend your self mentally from the other attacks

Victims regularly report many types of bizarre and harassive remote manipulation of electrical equipment, phone, car, TV, and computers.

Note: I’ve found it takes them around 2 weeks to make a new modified version of any electronics I buy that assist me in trying to prove they are doing this unless I carry them on me 24 hours a day (such as mp3 player to play soft music while i sleep and a second to record any strange noises)

Hard to believe I know. Consider that the technology you see mostly is what is cheap enough to be consumerable... and that the secret state is somewhere from 10 to 25 years ahead of "known" science in these fields...

Re:Yay we "won"

[TheCouchPotatoFamine]

you are.. shakes eight ball.... INSIPID. next!

Re:Yay we "won"

[phantomfive]

But are you sure terrorists didn't put anthrax in those ice creams? All it takes is an Al Qaeda sleeper agent working in an ice cream factory and the knowledge that American's only weaknesses are junk food and treats.

No, maybe they did. But can you really think of a better way to die than eating ice cream? It doesn't get much better. (This is me showing the fear merited by the situation).

Re:Yay we "won"

[PitaBred]

You're the anomaly, like me. My mom nearly freaked out that I let my kid play in the front yard for 5 minutes by himself, without me watching his every move. She called me in a panic when the planes hit the WTC (I near-ish to a major metro area. By the Rocky Mountains.)

You are not the person that's causing this. People like my Mom, who have been conditioned by decades of the Cold War to always be afraid, are responsible. They've forgotten what separates us from the Soviets, but not the fear-based responses.

Re:Yay we "won"

[phantomfive]

People who live in fear will live in fear, whether there are terrorists or not. It has nothing to do with terrorists (usually).

And I will continue to eat my ice cream.

Re:Yay we "won"

[styrotech]

No, maybe they did. But can you really think of a better way to die than eating ice cream? It doesn't get much better. (This is me showing the fear merited by the situation).

No way! After that much ice cream, you'll end up dying from severe sinus pain - ouch!

Re:Yay we "won"

[adolf]

Seriously?

Re:Yay we "won"

[Jarik_Tentsu]

at what cost? Now we all live in fear. For our jobs. For our privacy, and of each other.

For our jobs? You're really gonna blame lack of job security on the government's response to the war on terror?

Reward

[Doodlesmcpooh]

If they had offered a 1 trillion dollar reward for him we would have had him 10 years ago and saved 2 trillion. Wouldn't actually happen because most of that 3 trillion went to companies that the politicians have interests in.

Bin Laden was right

[bsharp8256]

Because we must follow the rules of war, our costs/losses are going to be exponentially higher. If we waged total war and took no prisoners we would be out of there by now. If Al-Qaida fought "fair" we would be out of there by now. A smaller, more flexible (as in morals/tactics--suicide bombings, hiding behind civilians, etc.) force such as Al-Qaida could bleed any military force dry as long as incoming resources replace those which are lost.
Hold your Troll/Flamebait mods, I'm not advocating we do away with the treaties that restrict us, I'm merely stating a fact. The face of war has changed and conventional warfare is a thing of the past.

Re:Bin Laden was right

[ifiwereasculptor]

Guerrilla is actually as old as army occupation. Machiavelli already said that it was dumb to try to hold a city solely with armed forces because all it did was create unease and spark a difficult conflict, much less straightforward than war.

Re:Bin Laden was right

[zach_the_lizard]

I know, right? We should become indiscriminate mass murderers in order to combat mass murderers. I'm sure the combined response of the world wouldn't put a damper on our genocide in order to defeat one band of people who killed less Americans than cars do in this country. It would certainly not raise tensions in Islamic countries, who would never think that indiscriminate slaughter of their co-religionists is a cause worth fighting against. They don't have a history of flocking to defend a country they think is being taken over by a group they think is out to destroy their religion.

Re:Bin Laden was right

[martin-boundary]

You're not stating a fact, you're stating a dream.

It's a dream, because you assume that if America used a different strategy to conduct its war, then the opponents would still be using the old strategy in return, therefore America would win more easily.

In reality, if America used a different strategy then so would its opponents, leading to a completely different game.

Try playing chess sometime. You can't win the game by pretending that the opponent is still playing yesterday's moves when you make a different opening move.

Re:Bin Laden was right

[the linux geek]

What, because the Russians did so well with that kind of strategy? Nobody wins in Afghanistan.

Re:Bin Laden was right

[shutdown -p now]

Soviet Union actually did pretty well in Afghanistan. The problem was that US was supplying the rebels with some fairly advanced weaponry (notably, Stingers) which were very well suited for that tactic, and even more so the fact that USSR itself was slowly crumbling, to the point where it couldn't really afford waging wars with long-term objectives.

Re:Bin Laden was right

[phantomfive]

Nobody wins in Afghanistan

This is a myth that is propagated by those who are clueless about history. In fact, because of the long written history of the area, Afghanistan has more recorded conquests than most other countries (like Canada, that was only conquered once or something). Most memorably perhaps, the Mongols conquered Afghanistan. Most recently, the Taliban conquered it. If the Taliban can, why can't the US? Among others, it was conquered by the Achaemenids, the Mauryan empire, the Parthians, the Sassanids, the Mughals, even the British maintained control for 40 years until Afghanistan wasn't important anymore, and then they gave them independence.

It's easy to say that the Russians lost to Afghanistan, but in reality they lost to an Afghanistan supported by over a billion dollars in foreign aid. The only way the Taliban can possibly win is if the US leaves, and even then they have an uphill battle against the current government.

Re:Bin Laden was right

[Beetle B.]

Because we must follow the rules of war, our costs/losses are going to be exponentially higher.

I don't recall those rules stating that you must go to war.

Many countries go through worse and choose not to go to war.

Perhaps Bin Laden didn't cost the US trillions. Perhaps the ego and vanity of a nation did.

Re:Bin Laden was right

[Fractal Dice]

The rules of engagement are not the cause of the mismatch - it's asymmetric standards for victory. The west can only win if there is near-perfect security. All that an opponent needs to do is to sew enough chaos to frustrate the population. Our error is not being too civilized, it's positioning ourselves to be responsible for territory that we cannot realisticly hope to secure.

Re:Bin Laden was right

[Risen888]

Afghanistan has more recorded conquests than most other countries

I don't think that means what you think that means.

Most memorably perhaps, the Mongols conquered Afghanistan. Most recently, the Taliban conquered it. If the Taliban can, why can't the US? Among others, it was conquered by the Achaemenids, the Mauryan empire, the Parthians, the Sassanids, the Mughals, even the British maintained control for 40 years until Afghanistan wasn't important anymore, and then they gave them independence.

So what you're saying here is that ultimately, nobody wins in Afghanistan.

Re:Bin Laden was right

[phantomfive]

So what you're saying here is that ultimately, nobody wins in Afghanistan.

Ultimately we all die, so no one wins anywhere, but really, you can't comprehend better than that?

Re:Bin Laden was right

[jopsen]

Because we must follow the rules of war, our costs/losses are going to be exponentially higher.

Your costs maybe... But I really doubt that your losses in terms of lives are higher...

Re:Bin Laden was right

[Jarik_Tentsu]

To some extent, that's because the US exists and to a large extent the rest of the Western world looks to America to fight their battles for them. In Australia, we have a miniscule defense budget compared to America. But just imagine we didn't have a heap of strategic alliances with the US. Just imagine USA had a policy of non-intervention in any external affairs.

Suddenly sitting geographically under a superpower is looking a tad more scary. You can bet we'd up our military budget, and start looking at declaring war on unstable proxy nations supported by China in the area.

The fact that USA does stick their noses in everyone's business does mean a lot of other countries can focus a lot more on welfare, and take a non-aggressive military policy. I wonder if Norway could still be ranked highest by HDI in the world if it didn't have any ties to the rest of the European countries in the area.

So maybe US declaring war on Afghanistan and Iraq made the world worse off, or maybe it made it better. But either way I don't think you can compare the US to other countries. The other question that should be asked is if the US Government's only responsibility is to its own people, or whether it has international responsibility as well.

Re:Bin Laden was right

[mellon]

You mean if we just exterminated everybody in the country? Yes, that would have been quicker. And indeed I think this illustrates nicely the problem with war: the only way to be sure that you are safe is to kill everyone who might be a potential enemy. And that's everybody. So when you're done, you may have won, but you're so much worse off than you were before you started that calling it a victory is meaningless.

Re:Bin Laden was right

[stdarg]

Many countries go through worse and choose not to go to war.

Out of curiosity, which countries are you referring to? Do you have a strong case that countries plagued by worse terrorism are better off by not going to war?

I think India, for instance, should have crushed Pakistan years ago. They had plenty of opportunities. They didn't, and so Pakistan is launching terrorist attacks against India to this day.

Re:Bin Laden was right

[Beetle B.]

Out of curiosity, which countries are you referring to? Do you have a strong case that countries plagued by worse terrorism are better off by not going to war?

Faulty categorization. Why focus only on countries suffering from terrorism? How about when one country routinely screws another causing loss of life?

But focusing on terrorism, Cuba was plagued by terrorists (although perhaps not as bad as 9/11), some of whom found harbor in the US. The US is refusing to turn over suspects, and is also refusing to prosecute - which is an even worse stance than the Taliban took over Bin Laden.

So you're suggesting Cuba going to war would have been better for its people?

I think India, for instance, should have crushed Pakistan years ago. They had plenty of opportunities.

(Sarcasm) Yes, just like their previous 2-3 wars solved that problem. (End sarcasm)

They didn't, and so Pakistan is launching terrorist attacks against India to this day.

To minimal effect on 99.9% of the population. They're more likely to be hurt by antiterrorism policies than actual terrorism.

Even putting aside nuclear weapons, one or two assaults by the Pakistani army can kill far more than the terrorists dream about.

And speaking of India, suicides by farmers due to questionable policies kill more than the terrorists from Pakistan do. Internal strife (various riots, massacres, conflicts) kill more than the terrorists from Pakistan do.

But that's OK: India's more concerned with deflecting attention from those problems to someone else than actually, you know, solving problems.

Re:Bin Laden was right

[stdarg]

Faulty categorization. Why focus only on countries suffering from terrorism?

Because this thread was about terrorism. I didn't realize you were talking about suffering in general.

But focusing on terrorism, Cuba was plagued by terrorists (although perhaps not as bad as 9/11), some of whom found harbor in the US. The US is refusing to turn over suspects, and is also refusing to prosecute - which is an even worse stance than the Taliban took over Bin Laden.

So you're suggesting Cuba going to war would have been better for its people?

That's a good point, there are times when the stronger country is the one engaging in (or at least supporting) terrorism. In that case it wouldn't make sense to go to war.

I think that on the balance most international terrorism is done by weak countries against strong countries though.

(Sarcasm) Yes, just like their previous 2-3 wars solved that problem. (End sarcasm)

You missed my point... India fought wars with Pakistan and absolutely destroyed them on the field. But they didn't ever press their advantages. India would have benefited massively from invading Pakistan, disassembling their military, confiscating or destroying all heavy weapons, etc. They certainly never should have let Pakistan get nukes.

To minimal effect on 99.9% of the population. They're more likely to be hurt by antiterrorism policies than actual terrorism.

Um I don't think you're counting effects other than pure loss of life. The average Indian suffers greatly from the problems caused by Pakistan -- economically. India is far superior to Pakistan militarily so there is little direct threat to life.

And speaking of India, suicides by farmers due to questionable policies kill more than the terrorists from Pakistan do.

That's meaningless. It's like saying more people die in car accidents than are murdered in the US every year, so murder isn't a problem and law enforcement shouldn't be so damn obsessed with catching murderers. They're insignificant!

Internal strife (various riots, massacres, conflicts) kill more than the terrorists from Pakistan do.

Absolutely. India doesn't have just one problem (Pakistan) but a whole range. The question is whether they would be better off had they pressed their advantages in their previous wars with Pakistan (all of the wars were decisively won by India).

Re:Bin Laden was right

[Risen888]

Certainly. I comprehend from your examples that no one can hold Afghanistan. History has yet to provide a single counterexample.

Re:Bin Laden was right

[phantomfive]

Are you really that dumb, or do you just act that way on the internet?

Re:Bin Laden was right

[Risen888]

Thank you for that insightful commentary. I stand uncorrected.

I suppose we could

[Anonymous Coward]

Just let rogue nation states and terrorist organizations crash our own jetliners into civilian buildings and use foul language in return.If we had only just turned the otehr cheek I am sure OPEC would have felt so bad they would even now be lowering the cost of oil.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson

Re:I suppose we could

[hedwards]

No, but we could have made a measured response and actually enlisted the help of other nations when everybody was feeling sorry for us. Hell, even Cuba issued a note of condolence following 9/11. And yet the federal government pissed away all of that goodwill and then some so that the President could be a cowboy and talk tough.

Jefferson wasn't referring to individuals like Osama bin Laden with that quote, he was referring to tyrants like President George W Bush who forget their place and engage in acts of tyranny.

Re:I suppose we could

[Risen888]

Jeez, you're right. What else could we possibly have done?

Maybe...We could have sent two helicopters full of Navy SEALs over there and shot that motherfucker in the head. Ten years and three trillion dollars ago, I mean.

Isn't this how the USSR ended?

[cyberjock1980]

Does anyone else see this as being very similar to how the USA beat the USSR?

We forced the USSR to spend themselves out of existence. The terrorists are now playing our own game, except against us. Unfortunately, I fear how this will end for the USA if we don't figure out that we can't win this game without changing the rules.

Re:Isn't this how the USSR ended?

[drooling-dog]

Irony is cruel, isn't it? The only amazing thing is that our government has remained so oblivious to it.

Along with cutting taxes on the wealthy in wartime, it plays well with the GOP's ongoing "Starve the Beast" strategy...

Re:Isn't this how the USSR ended?

[timeOday]

We didn't force them to spend themselves out of existence, that's self-congratulatory claptrap. The truth is, communism just doesn't work very well.

Re:Isn't this how the USSR ended?

[RobertM1968]

Irony is cruel, isn't it? The only amazing thing is that our government has remained so oblivious to it.

Along with cutting taxes on the wealthy in wartime, it plays well with the GOP's ongoing "Starve the Beast" strategy...

I prefer calling it karma... but your way works as well. ;-)

Re:Isn't this how the USSR ended?

[istartedi]

There's truth to both viewpoints. The Soviets felt a need to maintain a competitive military, at great expense. Simultaneously, they were trying to do it under a dysfunctional communist system. It was actually kind of quaint, the way the USSR stayed true to its ideals. Gorbachev wanted to do what China did. If he had succeeded, it might have been frighteningly different.

Re:Isn't this how the USSR ended?

[Shark]

Well, to be fair, history shows that empire and nation building doesn't work much better for pretty much the same (economic) reasons.

Re:Isn't this how the USSR ended?

[Mr. Underbridge]

Does anyone else see this as being very similar to how the USA beat the USSR?

Yes. Bin Laden did. As kindly mentioned in the article summary.

Re:Isn't this how the USSR ended?

[hedwards]

Starving the beast is just an excuse to engage in class warfare and take the US back into a previous century. It was never about shrinking the government, it was about ensuring the continued subservience of the lower classes.

Re:Isn't this how the USSR ended?

[superwiz]

We "defeated" USSR? Are you implying that a socialist system is not inherently self-destructive economically? We broke the Warsaw Pact. The economic collapse of the USSR was brought about by the USSR.

Re:Isn't this how the USSR ended?

[imperious_rex]

You're both right (self-congratulatory claptrap) and wrong (communism just doesn't work very well). There was no single factor that caused the economic collapse of the Soviet Union, but the most under-reported significant causes were grain (the USSR had no choice but to buy foreign grain to feed its increasingly urbanized population) and oil (the sharp drop in oil prices was a major economic blow). For a more lengthy look into the role of grain and oil in the USSR's collapse, see this article or download the PDF of the article.

Re:Isn't this how the USSR ended?

[Lord_of_the_nerf]

No, because in Soviet Russia, terrorists pay for YOU!

Re:Isn't this how the USSR ended?

[cbope]

Wow, you better check your history. The USA certainly did not "beat" the USSR. The USSR collapsed, mostly from within. Why do you think it is referred to as the "collapse of the Soviet Union"?

Now, you could say the USA outlasted the USSR and that would be factually correct, but saying the USA beat the USSR is factually inaccurate on so many levels.

Re:Isn't this how the USSR ended?

[stdarg]

Unfortunately, I fear how this will end for the USA if we don't figure out that we can't win this game without changing the rules.

We did change the rules. The USSR favored things like carpet bombing and executing civilians to make examples. We are "winning hearts and minds". Maybe it's not working but it's definitely different.

If this doesn't work, there's always nukes. And without another superpower to defend them, it would probably work out pretty well.

Re:Isn't this how the USSR ended?

[painandgreed]

Wow, you better check your history. The USA certainly did not "beat" the USSR. The USSR collapsed, mostly from within. Why do you think it is referred to as the "collapse of the Soviet Union"?

While that is essentially true, it did happen to occur while the US was engaged in a strategy of encouraging that collapse. The USSR was headed for collapse and everybody saw it. Carter saw it and wanted to avoid such a thing because in such a case the USSR would have the choice of collapse or war. He turned down the cold war and cut spending on the the military, in an effort to allow the USSR to shore up its economy. Instead they invaded Afganistan and we were in a position where our military was not able to respond even if we wanted to. That is why he will be remembered as a bad President. Reagan, meanwhile, ramped up the cold war, increased spending for the military, developed endless money pit projects such as star wars in a strategy to collapse the USSRs economy. While they did collapse because of their own decisions, the USA certainly played on that and manipulated them so that they got the outcome they desired. Essentially, both statements are true.

Re:Isn't this how the USSR ended?

[kesuki]

Does anyone else see this as being very similar to how the USA beat the USSR?

We forced the USSR to spend themselves out of existence. The terrorists are now playing our own game, except against us. Unfortunately, I fear how this will end for the USA if we don't figure out that we can't win this game without changing the rules.

i see the similarities.

Re:Isn't this how the USSR ended?

[TastyCakes]

As others have said, the US did try to force the Soviets to spend money they couldn't afford to maintain military parity. Why they couldn't afford it was a separate issue, but I think it's quite reasonable to assume Reagan's massive defense spending increases helped speed up the collapse. I don't know if the Soviet Union would have collapsed were it not for the US, but I'm pretty sure they would have lasted longer than they did. Many of their costly endeavors, like Afghanistan, their space program, their military and so on, were in direct response to the US. More to the point, the USSR would have been the most powerful country in the world if the US wasn't in the picture. Who knows how history would have progressed if that were the case?

This is a problem?

[dachshund]

Two wars that continue to occupy 150,000 troops and tie up a quarter of our defense budget; a bloated homeland-security apparatus that has at times pushed the bounds of civil liberty; soaring oil prices partially attributable to the global war on bin Laden's terrorist network; and a chunk of our mounting national debt.

In other words, fantastic business for well-connected defense contractors. What, you thought they were going to sit back and make less money just because we defeated the only other global superpower?

In all seriousness, a couple of years ago I attended a meeting with a military organization that was created specifically to deal with the threat to US soldiers created by Improvised Explosive Devices. The purpose of the meeting? To sell them their own computer network.

A computer network in Iraq, or Afghanistan, where the IEDs tend to accumulate? Nope. Just another big installation in Washington DC, costing a fortune to the taxpayer, so an office full of remote staff can have their own redundant equipment and IT staff while the real work gets done overseas.

Re:Social Security et. al.

[MimeticLie]

Yeah, why should the government use tax money to help its citizens? Obviously government's function is to piss it away blowing people up overseas.

Cost of security but what did we gain?

[Rivalz]

So out of the 145million people that filed taxes it cost us 21k each over 15 years.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/10taxstatscard.pdf

But think of all the innovation;
Remote controlled drones with missiles.
Armored K9's
Quiet Helicopters
Body Scans (would be nice if they could detect cancer or a tumor at least while i walk though)
um cannot really think of anything else we came up with for 3 trillion.

I think we got hosed on this deal.

Re:Cost of security but what did we gain?

[Freaky Spook]

There's a small amount of American's who have gotten incredibly rich off all of this as well.

I wonder if they are going to be assisting their fellow citizens in need of food, shelter & work in the coming years while they live off the profits of war.

More then likely though they will be on MTV's My Sweet 16th throwing a 100,000K party for their little angel instead.

Re:Cost of security but what did we gain?

[Repossessed]

No, they'll be moving to Dubai to avoid paying taxes.

Re:Cost of security but what did we gain?

[CaptainLard]

But...its about JOBS!

Re:Cost of security but what did we gain?

[TheCouchPotatoFamine]

damn straight. mod this up through the glass ceiling!

Re:Cost of security but what did we gain?

[superwiz]

Not really hosed, actually. Remote controlled drones significantly reduce air forces expenses... like by 2 orders of magnitude.

Re:Cost of security but what did we gain?

[Falconhell]

For goodness sake dont bring apple into this....

Re:Cost of security but what did we gain?

[Anonymous Coward]

You left off "huge advances in NSA electronic eavesdropping capability"

Just Another Political Tyrade

[cosm]

Ignore the terrorist. When the Russian airport was bombed some months back, people walked over the rubble and got on their connecting flights the same goddam day. Ignore them. And ignore the media, your friends and family, the government, the talk-show host, your teachers, and any other fool who says we need to fear. ignore the stupidity, but DONT GIVE UP. Attempt to have rational conversations. Get don't be polarizing. Be polite. Be honest. Use facts. Check them. If your wrong, admit. Do things the scientific way. Do things morally. Do things honestly.

We all die someday, its terrible. I am related to people who have been physically been harmed by extremist. And you know what. FUCK THE EXTREMIST. Who gives a shit! Its time our society collectively grabs its balls, puts in work, fires to dumbfucking politicians, and accepts collateral damage at being a successful capitalistic country. Yes there exist corporate corruption in the pockets of government. Yes we get screwed by this and that. But fight for what you believe in and research the facts and fuck all the bullshit. Next time you go out, have a conversation with somebody. Mention to them the falling intelligence levels of the country, the deficit spending, the ridiculous wars, the stupid bigotry. Make people see how ignorant and irrational the country as a whole is acting. If enough people talk about it, it will become the subconscious mind-set of the whole. Anything is better than this Lifetime movie induced coma culture suckling away at the 5'o'clock news and twitter and Facebook.

Last time I was at the DMV, an older gentlemen casually said to me "worlds' fallin to shit, ain't", I said yeah and this and that, and he said "so what is your generation doing about it?"

We don't need some stupid violent revolution or anything like that, but an evolution in the way we think about the sustainable of our race. If we are doomed to be Matrix like beings stuck in vats for our protection while some masters sit in a panoptican keeping everybody's nutrients levels up and fear levels low, well, lets go ahead and start that private space industry funding to Titan's moons.

As I say this I just finished a letter to my representative Jamie Boles (NC) regarding him balking at people having legally permitted concealed weapons in restaurants, and his stalling tactics in regards to HB1XX. Take a stand on what you feel is right, and let these fuckers know your watching them. We just have to stop talking amongst ourselves and start reaching out to others who aren't in our little mental circle jerk in all these forums.

For the TLDR crowd: longwinded guy says some political shit, herp derp nub aids

Re:Just Another Political Tyrade

[GodfatherofSoul]

This is a country quick to fear and quick to act. I have zero fear of terrorist bombs when I'm on a plane. You have a better chance being raped by ET than dying in a terrorist attack on a plane. But, OBL made a great boogie man, and when we've got a political system set up to funnel tax revenue to Corporate America at the drop of a hat, you better believe they're going to keep people afraid.

Re:Just Another Political Tyrade

[cosm]

Disclaimer: I am an American citizen, but my post applies to all the other countries in the world. I know you folks over in Austrailia, England, Germany, and other countries all continents abroad deal with this bull-shit. The sooner we make idiocy, stupidity, fear, corruption, and inhumane treatment of our fellow man the most ostracized and looked-down-upon behavior, the better the human race can (hopefully) become. Whatever your political system, fight within the laws of man and literally do unto others as you would have done to you. Aside from all the religious in-fighting and extremist zealotry, I am pretty sure that is what the core of most religions (except the Church of Scientology) are trying to get at. It's not about some 'can't we all just get along', but moreover, can't we all just stop fucking trying to kill each other over things that don't matter 200 years from now.

Re:Just Another Political Tyrade

[ifiwereasculptor]

You have a better chance being raped by ET than dying in a terrorist attack on a plane.

You bastard! You just gave the government reason to start checking anuses on trains and to bomb the moon!

Re:Just Another Political Tyrade

[Princeofcups]

As I say this I just finished a letter to my representative Jamie Boles (NC) regarding him balking at people having legally permitted concealed weapons in restaurants, and his stalling tactics in regards to HB1XX. Take a stand on what you feel is right, and let these fuckers know your watching them. We just have to stop talking amongst ourselves and start reaching out to others who aren't in our little mental circle jerk in all these forums.

OK, I will. I don't want you or any other person to be carrying a gun in public. It's bad enough if you have one at home. Speaking of terrorist fear. Is the boogie man going to get you?

Re:Just Another Political Tyrade

[cosm]

OK, I will. I don't want you or any other person to be carrying a gun in public. It's bad enough if you have one at home. Speaking of terrorist fear. Is the boogie man going to get you?

No, the crackheads that keep robbing houses will. What are you going to do when some jacked up mother fucker comes charging at you and your kids at 3am? Tell him to stop? Get real. The world is full of evil people that want to hurt you. The trick is to not be afraid of them, but to stand up to them when they do come. I could cower all day and have mommy government try and ban all the guns and knives in the world, but if somebody was going to murder you in the first place do you think they really give a shit what the laws are?

Just my opinion, speaking from multiple past break-ins. Never be a victim. Yes guns can kill people. But if the crooks are not going to play by the rules and the scales are tipped towards them, I would rather be prepared. I have no desire to shoot somebody. I do have a desire to live and defend my family against those coming to do harm. Unless you live in a gated community and have private security in your suburban area, you'll realize that some parts of the country are pretty 3rd world.

If you are ever in a convenience store lying on the floor as the guy behind waves a gun around frantically ready to blow the head off the next person who moves, all the police state in the world will not save you. It is mostly chance, but there is a better chance you will live against an execution style killing if you can defend yourself. I wont be the one who lays on the floor and gets blasted, and nor will I wait for the nanny state to come and save me.

Or maybe I am just another teabagging gun-nut. But I'll be the one who isn't getting blown away sucking my thumb begging for my life, I'll be reaching for my SR9 and taking a knee as the safety comes off and the trigger pressure increases, ensuring the area behind the target is clear, clearing for innocents, and making sure the threat is stopped. Some laws are there to save you: http://www.ncrpa.org/ccwfaq.htm

http://www.fayobserver.com/Articles/2010/01/08/966517
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29944382/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/police-gunmans-wife-worked-care-home/

And if enough people like you don't like conceal carry, keep voting it away. I wont move to your state. But next time to move to an area, check the crime rates of conceal carry states versus those who ban it. I think you'll find the statistics quite surprising.

Re:Just Another Political Tyrade

[shoemilk]

Man, you had me right up to the end. I didn't want to post this here as it's rather off topic, but why do you feel that people need to carry concealed weapons in restaurants? There was a day in the past where people could carry them and it was outlawed for very sane reasons.

Re:Just Another Political Tyrade

[cosm]

See my earlier post: http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2160958&cid=36149100

Re:Just Another Political Tyrade

[Falconhell]

You know what? I have never even seen a gun in public. The US has a fascination with violence and revenge.
The reason you have such social problems is lack of a proper health care and Social security system.
You wont be allowed to carry a gun here at all. I feel very sorry that you live in a place so dangerous, and violent you need to carry a gun.

Face it the whole gun thing is, after ignoring the pathetic "reasons" overcompensation, just like the big SUV's.

Still your absurd claims abut guns making anyone safer amuse the civilised world.

Re:Just Another Political Tyrade

[BiggerBoat]

You're right (well, indirectly, anyway), but for reasons I doubt you realize. The reason we have the social problems we do is because we have such an incredibly strong sense of personal liberty. When you have a society which so strongly believes in personal liberties the way we do, along with things like the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness comes the downside of people having the liberty to do bad things to their fellow man. With *real* liberty comes the danger that some people will use that to do terrible things. But that's the price people like us are willing to pay for having such powerful personal liberties.

Meanwhile, you have much fewer personal liberties because you trade it for things like a "proper health care and social security system." That's fine, but stop fooling yourself into thinking that you somehow have it better - you've traded bad for good and good for bad just like we have, just in a different balance.

But your belief that your particular level of trading liberty for safety is more "civilized" is truly precious.

Re:Just Another Political Tyrade

[carvalhao]

Mod parent up! Terrorism only works if well... it creates terror. If it doesn't, it won't get any financing.

Re:Just Another Political Tyrade

[misexistentialist]

Your leaders are never without heavily armed guards protecting them personally. That's your civilization: abjection to power and privilege.

Re:Just Another Political Tyrade

[stewbacca]

The US has a fascination with violence and revenge.

Right, and Muslims (and particularly Arabs) don't?

I'm American and I have a particular fascination with justice. Violence is only one means to that end, but rarely is it the preferred method. This probably explains why we have so many people in prisons, because it's a fascination that many of my law-abiding co-citizens share and many of my not-law-abiding co-citizens don't share.

Re:Just Another Political Tyrade

[stewbacca]

You have a better chance being raped by ET than dying in a terrorist attack on a plane.

As long as he does that finger light thing while he's probing me, I'm ok with it.

Re:Just Another Political Tyrade

[bioster]

I feel very sorry that you live in a place so dangerous, and violent you need to carry a gun.

I don't think they do live in places that dangerous. Ok, so maybe there are specific neighborhoods that are that bad, but the great majority of people in the US don't live anywhere more dangerous than I live in. But there's a perception that they do.

I think one of the major problems in the US is their media. When I turn on my tv and watch the news, I get... news. But when I visited the states (it's been a few years) and I turned on the news, I got... fear mongering. I'm sure that all the murders they reported on weren't made up or anything, but the sheer emphasis on it was beyond anything I'd gotten at home. If that were my daily dose of "how the world is going" I'd have a pretty bleak outlook too.

I'm not sure what the difference was. Maybe it's partly a population density thing and so they were reporting 10 crimes for every crime back home because there were 10x the people. Or maybe it was that the news shows found out that scaring people got good ratings and so started playing it up. What I do know is that from my point of view one of the big things that is wrong with the US is simply their news media.

Frankly, I don't have a serious problem with people being able to walk around with weapons. The majority of people are pretty reasonable, and the ones that are going to flip out... well, let's just say that just because having a weapon is illegal doesn't mean it's that hard to get ahold of one. Outlawing some of the more dangerous weapons might help a bit, but it would only be a bit.

No, the problem isn't guns or not-guns, it's the perceived need for them. It's the state of constant low-key fear that a significant number of people live in.

Re:Just Another Political Tyrade

[shoemilk]

OK, I will. I don't want you or any other person to be carrying a gun in public. It's bad enough if you have one at home. Speaking of terrorist fear. Is the boogie man going to get you?

No, the crackheads that keep robbing houses will. What are you going to do when some jacked up mother fucker comes charging at you and your kids at 3am? Tell him to stop? Get real. The world is full of evil people that want to hurt you. The trick is to not be afraid of them, but to stand up to them when they do come. I could cower all day and have mommy government try and ban all the guns and knives in the world, but if somebody was going to murder you in the first place do you think they really give a shit what the laws are?

Just my opinion, speaking from multiple past break-ins. Never be a victim. Yes guns can kill people. But if the crooks are not going to play by the rules and the scales are tipped towards them, I would rather be prepared. I have no desire to shoot somebody. I do have a desire to live and defend my family against those coming to do harm. Unless you live in a gated community and have private security in your suburban area, you'll realize that some parts of the country are pretty 3rd world.

Aside from the fact that we're debating the validity of concealed weapons in public places, not their usefulness for home security (or lack their of), this is some pretty fine fear-mongering on your part and as per your first post, I'd like to call you out on it. This site was the first hit or so on Google when I searched for "burglary statistics". According to it, and most other places I've heard these stats from, most residential break-ins occur during daylight hours (when everyone is out at school or work). Your nightmare scenario of a deranged crackhead busting in to your house at the middle of the night is just wrong. I've also been the victim of break-ins. Incidentally, I wasn't home. Were you?

To answer your question though, I'd prefer to work on creating a society where there are no crackheads breaking into houses because they can't find employment do to draconian and ineffective drug laws. Letting morons run around with guns won't solve that problem (Side note, I use the term moron to express the fact that I think most people are morons. I'm a proponent of public transportation because I think most people are to moronic to drive. I have no false impressions and I do include myself in that group most of the time).

As some one who spent most of his life in North Carolina, I'm curious about where you think it's 3rd world-ish. I loved it there and would happily move back given the opportunity.

Personally, I think the concealed gun movement has been brought about by misplaced nostalgia for the old west. There is no benefit to having a weapon on your person, even in those hypothetical situations you brought up. The links you posted also seemed more in favor of demanding tougher gun laws rather than looser. By your logic, the citizens of Japan should be demanding a repeal of the Haitorei Edict (which outlawed carrying swords) because some moron with a survival knife ran around stabbing people in Akihabara.

And if enough people like you don't like conceal carry, keep voting it away. I wont move to your state. But next time to move to an area, check the crime rates of conceal carry states versus those who ban it. I think you'll find the statistics quite surprising.

Since we're looking up stats on crime rates, can we also compare countries with strict gun laws to the US? Or, let's leave guns out of it and compare crime rates between affluent areas to poorer ones. Let's change it and compare crime rates of periods, say pre and post gun laws in Texas.

Re:Just Another Political Tyrade

[cosm]

I agree, a smarter society would solve many of the problems. But places like Sanford, Durham, Charlotte, Fayetteville, well, they are not so nice these days. MS13 and Latin King gang shootings, also armed robberies are on the rise even where I live (golfing/retirement county). I love NC, but when crime rates go up I adjust accordingly. I don't disagree with most of your post, but I am not fear-mongering when I say burglaries are happening. I also used to live in downtown Atlanta. Leaving the office past midnight pretty much meant blowing red-lights in some of the downtown areas lest you be hustled by gangs or people rapping on your window.

I would love to see a society where the need for self-defense is not necessary, I just don't believe we have achieved it. The best way to work towards that society is to educate the youth, those who grow up in the 'hood, those who live in squalor. If its all they know it is all they are destined to do.

I have strayed from my original point from my first post, and that was to not live in fear. As they said in fight club "you have to know, not fear, but know that someday you are going to die" or something like that.

I was home by the way. They kicked the door at around 9pm, twilight was setting in. Our German Shepherd saved whomever the B&E perpetrator was; I sure would not have.

Re:Just Another Political Tyrade

[Falconhell]

Not that dangerous, did you read the post I replied to?

"No, the crackheads that keep robbing houses will."

Frankly I dont trust most people to walk around with a gun safely, never mind keep it an a manner that stops it from being stolen.

Re:Just Another Political Tyrade

[Falconhell]

So having a gun makes you more free than me eh? Free from crime, are you-ah why then do you have a gun murder rate 5X ours. What about Givtmo? Free speech zones? I could go on, you have only an illusion of liberty. Name ONE thing I cannot do in .au apart from owning a gun that you can do! You spend more per capita on healthcare and yet get no free public care.

Neither does Social security break our bank. Our foreign debt is 9% of GDP. Yours is 97%.\By all means continue to the false belief of your so called liberties, but dont expect civile at your naivety world not to laugh.

Believing the US is a civilised country at all is most amusing, you dont play cricket, the hallmark of civilisation!

Re:Just Another Political Tyrade

[Falconhell]

The reason you have so many in prison is your "War on drugs", and the ridiculous attitude to gun control, not a because you value justice more than us!

IF violence is not the preferred method why does the US commit so much of it? 18 countires bombed since WW2!

Re:Just Another Political Tyrade

[scot4875]

And if enough people like you don't like conceal carry, keep voting it away. I wont move to your state. But next time to move to an area, check the crime rates of conceal carry states versus those who ban it. I think you'll find the statistics quite surprising.

I have; the only paper I can find that supports this claim is written by a dude named John Lott, who just happens to be a political hack. The paper is deeply flawed and has very little support, but apparently that's all the evidence someone like you (or my coworker, who is convinced that we live in one of the most violent crime-ridden times in history, DESPITE me showing him statistics otherwise) need to back up your preconceived notions.

Also, for the record, I don't care about guns. I don't think they're the root of the problem, and I also don't think they're a solution. I do find it retarded when someone suggests that the best way to prevent violent incidents is for *everybody* to have guns though.

I'm sorry you live in such shitholes that you've been broken into multiple times. I'd suggest that YOU do some research in crime rates before moving to a new area, though, because in the places I've lived, you DO NOT need a gun to survive.

If you can't afford to live in a safe area, though, then by all means keep your gun. Just don't call the rest of us nanny state wimps when we choose not to because we don't need it. And if you're around me, definitely keep that shit to yourself, because I stick to safe places, and your concealed carry trigger happy ass makes anywhere I'm at LESS safe.

--Jeremy

Re:Just Another Political Tyrade

[scot4875]

This probably explains why we have so many people in prisons, because it's a fascination that many of my law-abiding co-citizens share and many of my not-law-abiding co-citizens don't share.

How quaint and naive.

--Jeremy

Re:Just Another Political Tyrade

[bioster]

Not that dangerous, did you read the post I replied to?

"No, the crackheads that keep robbing houses will."

Yes, I did. My point was that I don't think some "jacked up motherfucker" is going to "come charging at you and your kids at 3am" unless you live in the very worst of the worst neighborhoods. Yeah, it does happen, but how often?

Ok, let's do some napkin math for New York. First, let's assume you live in an "average" area which might be unreasonable because the crime might be concentrated in a few high crime areas. But whatever. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_New_York_City there were about 580 violent crimes committed per 100k people.

So what does that mean? If you live in New York and where you live is statistically average for crime, you have about a .6% chance of being a victim of a violent crime of some sort that year. In 20 years at that rate you have about a 12.3% chance of being a victim of a violent crime.

So if violent crime rates aren't that high, why should he be afraid of some crackhead breaking in and raping up the place? He shouldn't be. It's just perception.

Frankly I dont trust most people to walk around with a gun safely, never mind keep it an a manner that stops it from being stolen.

Well ok, I have to admit I wouldn't trust most people to walk around with a gun safely either. But that's simply because most people are mutton heads, not because I think they're going to try to shoot me. As for it being stolen... seriously, weapons are easy to come by. If you want to go on a killing spree, you sure as heck don't need a gun. A car would work just fine. Or a knife. Or a baseball bat. Or some sort of toxic substance.

The reason you don't see killing sprees all the time isn't a lack of gear... it's a lack of motivation. The vast majority of people simply don't want to kill anyone.

Drop in the bucket

[Anonymous Coward]

US economic output exceed $150 trillion dollars in the last 15 years. $3 trillion could have been better spent, but it's 2%. Current deficit spending will do far more damage to future generations than Bin Laden could ever hope for.

Re:Drop in the bucket

[LynnwoodRooster]

See, your post will get ignored because it doesn't provide a chance to rail against the GOP or the previous Administration... You really must be new around here...

Re:Drop in the bucket

[stewbacca]

What most people fail to understand is most of that money would have been spent on the military regardless. Might as well put them to use and get our money's worth, as some of my less tactful friends would say.

Re:Drop in the bucket

[scot4875]

2% of my income over the last 15 years would add up to tens of thousands of dollars. I can say, with certainty, that I'd have rather had it in my pocket than being used to blow up some other nation's kids, and create PTSD victims with substance abuse problems out of a bunch of our own.

--Jeremy

Re:Social Security et. al.

[Anonymous Coward]

If the government didn't spend money on social services they would be able to lower taxes on everything, decreasing the cost of living and improving the quality of life for the citizens. When you take money from people and give it to others that is thievery. Or as it was known in the USSR, communism.

bin Laden: Mission Accomplished

[Nimey]

He's an evil fuck, but from a professional standpoint I have to admire how well he succeeded in his mission to hurt us, and most of it was psychological.

At least we were spared a pic of /him/ wearing a flight suit.

Gains

[Jiro]

I once had to get my car repaired. After I was done, I was just in the same position I was in before the car broke down in the first place. I had paid money, and I had gained nothing!

Seriously, this is nonsense. Killing bin Laden isn't a gain over there being no bin Laden; it's a gain over him being there but staying alive and in charge. Wars are always expensive; we don't fight them because they produce gains, we fight them so that we can stay in the same place--it's a gain over not being able to stay in the same place, but wars always sucked, and they always will. And the article is really reaching to point out things like the economic boom caused by World War II. We didn't fight World War II to cause an economic boom, and not having one certainly wouldn't mean we shouldn't have fought it.

Re:Gains

[drooling-dog]

For all practical purposes, bin Laden was a myth, and so is al-Qaeda. Yes, they existed, but not as the uber-powerful bogeymen they've been made out to be. In fact, we pretty much created their reality during and after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. But as arch-villains they excel at frightening Americans and creating a hysterical demand for endless war, which we fight not to "defend our freedom" but rather because it is profitable, both politically and - for an influential few - financially.

Home of the Brave, indeed...

Re:Gains

[Repossessed]

What do you mean my internet?

The switch will control the WORLDS internet.

I suggest you start kissing up to us American's now to save time.

Re:Gains

[stewbacca]

...bin Laden was a myth, and so is al-Qaeda. Yes, they existed, but not as the uber-powerful bogeymen they've been made out to be.

What other ass-backward 19th century cretin has had any success killing large quantities of Americans?

Re:Gains

[cforciea]

Car accidents?

Re:Gains

[radtea]

Wars are always expensive; we don't fight them because they produce gains, we fight them so that we can stay in the same place

What a strange thing to say. "The same place" presumably involves, in your view, thousands to millions dead, cities reduced to rubble, and factories diverted from economically productive activity to dead-weight loss generation?

Perhaps we saved one hundred thousand lives

[makubesu]

at the mere cost of 30 million dollars a head.

Re:Perhaps we saved one hundred thousand lives

[CaptainLard]

There is legislation rolling around that would require all new cars sold in the US to have back-up cameras to prevent kids getting run over. Cost: $150-$250 per vehicle. Cost per life saved: $20 million. So you're in the ball park. At least its been put on the shelf due to an avalanche of complaints. (http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/02/nhtsa-postpones-back-up-camera-requirement-rule/)

Re:Perhaps we saved one hundred thousand lives

[stewbacca]

Ahh, the whole "USA started this war" argument. Yep, the World Trade Centers were the definite Command Center of this war, so they had to be taken out.

If We Hadn't Had Terrorists, We'd Have Invented...

[billstewart]

The Bush Administration really wanted to have enemies so they could have wars. Bin Laden was useful, but the Afghanistan War did get in the way of the Iraq War that the Pentagon had been planning since Bush got into office. And all that Patriot Act stuff got put together in a surprising hurry - you'd think the FBI and NSA had been planning to keep proposing power-grabbing rules even before the terrorists got there (pay no attention to that Louis Freeh behind the curtain...)

Terrorists were really convenient, and since the Feds had been trying to scare the public about terrorists with anthrax since at least the second half of the Clinton Administration, it was especially convenient that they used some of that.

(I'm not one of those 9/11 Truther Conspiracy Nuts - I think this was mostly opportunism on the parts of the military-industrial complex folks and the surveillance-state folks who got a chance to do the things they'd been telling us all along they wanted to do. Bush and Cheney got elected as tough-guy militarists, after all, and you don't expect them not to have wanted to help the FBI/NSA eavesdropping types.)

Contrarian Opinion

[Apple Acolyte]

Those who know me personally or know my online record know that I'm one of the biggest deficit and debt hawks around, but I'll provide a contrarian opinion of sorts in this debate. It's not just the hunt for Bin Laden that cost us $3 trillion in this war on terrorism. If tracking down and eliminating Bin Laden was the only thing we spent that money and the rest of our treasure on (most importantly precious American lives), then that would be an unmitigated disaster. But it's obviously farcical and disingenuous to make that claim because killing Bin Laden wasn't the only accomplishment. We took away the safe haven Al Qaeda had in Afghanistan, and then, like it or lump it, we removed a vile dictator named Saddam Hussein and liberated Iraq. Now with the "Arab Spring" setting the Middle East ablaze, we have at least one marginal beachhead Arab state in a semi-stable, semi-functional, semi-democratic Iraq. It's also important to recognize that at the very least we have killed a lot of terrorists and would-be terrorist radicals who otherwise would have been left to plan attacks against us in the future.

Was it necessary to fight these wars? It's an arguable point. At the very least they weren't a total waste, but their efficacy, efficiency and opportunity costs can and should be examined. Did these wars do their part to massively increase our indebtedness? Absolutely they did, but not solely - they were coupled with out-of-control, unconstitutional Entitlements and bloated federal bureaucracies. (It must also be said that national security and national defense are responsibilities of the federal government under the Constitution, whereas the vast majority of Congress' other expenditures are unconstitutional and only permitted because of the post-FDR-New-Deal perversion of the Constitution that Americans have complacently allowed to remain and grow for 80 years.) But to paint the wars as caricatures, which is what is done when people say we spent $3 trillion killing Bin Laden, is at best satire and at worst historical revisionist propaganda.

Re:Contrarian Opinion

[Prune]

Deficit hawk? But why? Why should the US worry about debt eumerated in a currency of which it is the monopoly issuer?

Re:Contrarian Opinion

[superwiz]

about your signature... I still don't believe in Apple... mostly because of the hardcore faithful. I won't touch an Apple product until they are a forgotten myth.

Re:Contrarian Opinion

[Apple Acolyte]

Hey AC, my foolish foe, you should check out what James Madison had to say about the general welfare clause of Article I, Section 8. But since I'm benevolent and know you're probably incapable of doing your own research, I'll start clueing you in: Madison said that the general welfare power granted to Congress there was a grant to carry out the duties expressly written in the rest of that section. Madison said it would be completely invalid to interpret that clause as granting unrestricted power to Congress because that would have made listing the expressed powers unnecessary and superfluous.

The Constitution created a legislature, Congress, with a limited, enumerated set of powers. It most certainly did not grant Congress general, unlimited power and scope to legislate on every matter and tax everything under the sun. All three branches of the US government knew this to be true until the corruption of the country in the 20th Century. Your view, as popular as it may be among the ignorant and their Progressive/Socialist masters, is utterly defective. And it is people like you who are destroying this country.

Re:Contrarian Opinion

[bioster]

Assuming you're suggesting printing vast sums of money to cover the debt: Because there are economic repercussions to printing vast sums of money. The US dollar would suddenly drop in value, and inflation would kick into overdrive. Consider that the US imports a very large amount of goods. Let's say the US dollar dropped to 50% of it's current value (because that makes the math easy). Prices of many of your goods would then double.

I'm not an economist or financial expert (and neither are 99% of the people who make "authoritative" comments on these subjects), but I think this would cause the US economy to tank for several years. Recessions and depressions are pretty painful, so people try to avoid them (sometimes too hard... it's possible that trying to avoid a small or moderate recession is going to cause a worse one later).

Cause and Effect

[gaelfx]

This seems to be a very short-sighted view of the situation. While I don't necessarily feel that the spending on the wars or the "counter-terrorism" is the best use of that money, we can't reasonable expect to see noticeable effect in just 10 years time. These kinds of operations are meant to protect the long-term future of security, and they aren't only meant to help the US, they are meant to help the world. We can't look at a global operation and say "How much good has this done us?" We have to look at the bigger picture, and the truth is the bigger picture is still being developed. Much of the Middle-East is in turmoil at the moment, but turmoil always accompanies change, and we can't say whether or not those changes will be good for us until those changes are complete, or at least what might be reasonably viewed as complete. There's still a lot left to do.

Clinton offered a Reward for Osama

[billstewart]

It was a few million dollars, though I think he raised it to $25m, and he did spend about that much on the cruise missile attacks on the camps in Afghanistan and the medical factory in Sudan.

And Bush didn't have to drop the war effort in Afghanistan just because he had a political opportunity to attack Iraq, but he and Rumsfeld were hardly competent. And so what if Osama got away, that would just mean we'd have a permanent excuse to continue the wars.

Could've been a lot cheaper

[GodfatherofSoul]

If the PNAC guys under Bush didn't decide 9/11 was their excuse to turn Iraq into a hegemony, to hell with the original villains.

Re:Social Security et. al.

[zach_the_lizard]

Pyramid schemes are helping citizens now? Social Security is dependent on there being more current "investors" to pay off the previous ones. The previous investors are now comparatively more numerous and demanding more payments (thanks to medical technology increasing life spans). Better would be simply taking the SS tax money and putting it in a vault somewhere, accessible upon retirement and paid on a fixed schedule.

This is why Osama is laughing from his grave

[MobyDisk]

All he wanted was to cripple us. And where he failed, we did it to ourselves. So ultimately, he won. When a suicide bomber walks into a populated area he knows he is going to die - he just hopes that he can take out at as many people as possible in the process.

Lets put these numbers into perspective:
Osama Bin Laden's estimated damage: $3 trillion
Bill Gates net worth: $56 billion
Apple's market capitalization: $308 billion
2010 stimulus bill: $787 billion

So Bin laden and the resulting spiral of stupidity did more economic damage to the US than Bill Gates + Apple + the economic stimulus put together. From Bin Laden's perspective, our loss is his gain. That means he died the wealthiest most powerful human being on the planet. All because he fooled America into it's own economic death spiral. History will look back on this time as a time when America nearly destroyed itself.

This is like one flea taking down the entire dog because it scratched itself to death.

Re:This is why Osama is laughing from his grave

[MobyDisk]

I didn't mean that Bill Gates + Apple harmed the US, I meant that his damage exceeded the gain from all these great people.

Re:This is why Osama is laughing from his grave

[Osgeld]

no I agree they both did in their own special way =)

Re:This is why Osama is laughing from his grave

[LynnwoodRooster]

Here's another number you missed: US debt growth from March 19, 2009 to May 16, 2011: $3,268,699,050,662. More than the 15 year hunt for bin Laden...

Re:This is why Osama is laughing from his grave

[jesseck]

History will look back on this time as a time when America nearly destroyed itself.

The war on /t/errorism isn't over yet.

Re:This is why Osama is laughing from his grave

[styrotech]

All he wanted was to cripple us. And where he failed, we did it to ourselves. So ultimately, he won.

Not really. Costing the US a huge amount of money was only ever the means to achieve his ends. And none of his real goals were achieved.

The Saudi government is still in control of Mecca. For the most part any fallen Middle Eastern dictators have been replaced by 'free-er'ish regimes rather than fundamentalist theocracies, and Afganistan is no longer a fundamentalist theocracy. The US has a much bigger presence in the Middle East than before. The desire for personal freedom seems to be winning out over jihad across large chunks of the younger populations in the Middle East.

The main reason Osama wanted to attack the US (and allies) was to drive them out of the holy lands (ie mainly the troops in Saudi Arabia during/after Desert Shield) - but they ended up leaving because they weren't needed there anymore not because they were driven out.

I think attacking western civilians on their own soil was a strategic error - it gives the west a good reason to not give up. If you just fight an expensive foriegn war of attrition against western militaries, they are much more likely to loose the political will to continue.

too positive

[bcrowell]

If anything, Hugh Pickens' summary paints too rosy a picture.

The title, "The Cost of US Security," has the words "cost" and "security" in it.

"Security" implies that the US's four wars since 2001 (I count Pakistan as a war) have some positive correlation with US Security. If anything, they have decreased US security. The second Iraq war happened because Bush got Powell to go to the UN and tell them lies about how Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were a security threat. The Pakistan war involves our giving the Pakistani government lots of money so they can work hand in glove with terrorists. What exactly has the Afghanistan war accomplished, other than killing lots of young Americans and putting a corrupt Afghan government in power and allowing it to fake elections?

The word "cost," along with all the dollar figures, encourages us to measure the outcome in terms of money. The outcome should be measured in terms of the destruction of domestic civil liberties, crapping on the constitution, torturing people who didn't do anything wrong, crippling and killing teenage Americans, and killing innocent civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

Re:too positive

[Repossessed]

Nah, security has improved.

They put locks on the cockpit doors. This was a great idea.

Re:too positive

[werdnapk]

Clarification... the Iraq war was for oil disguised as a war for security. What the US did in Iraq is nothing short of craptastic.

Re:too positive

[carvalhao]

The thing about sending teenagers to war that strikes me the most is that they are considered underage to buy alcohol or enter a casino yet old enough to carry around heavy weapons, kill and die for their country.

Iraq War Wasn't bin Laden's Fault

[billstewart]

Yes, you can blame the WTC and Clinton's cruise missile attacks and to some extent even the Afghanistan* War on bin Laden, but the article also blames him for the costs of Bush's Iraq War, which had nothing to do with him and which cost a lot more than Afghanistan. Saddam Hussein was the kind of corrupt secular dictator bin Laden hated, and American troops based in the Holy Land (that's Saudi Arabia, in this case) were one of the things bin Laden got most upset about.

Bush may have used bin Laden as an excuse, along with "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and "Saddam tried to kill my daddy after my daddy tried to kill Saddam", but the Pentagon was planning the Iraq War from the first week Bush got into office. (See Bamford's book "A Pretext for War" for more details - Cheney, Condi Rice, Rumsfeld, and Cheney's neo-con buddies were all at those early planning meetings. And Iraq was a logical target since Bush 41's war had never really been finished, so the Pentagon should have been doing at least some planning in case the politicians wanted to finish the war.)

* And even the Afghanistan War was mostly an attempt to impose a non-Taliban winner onto the civil war that the Taliban had mostly won, and while they were permitting bin Laden to operate in their country, bombing the place in response to 9/11 was a bit like the Brits bombing the Irish parts of Boston and San Francisco after an IRA bombing in London.

Re:Iraq War Wasn't bin Laden's Fault

[Repossessed]

While its true Bush;'s cronies wanted to go into Iraq from the get go, they sold the idea to Bush because Bush wanted to attack a second country to demonstrate the we were serious about the war on terror, Bush didn't actually give a shit about Iraq himself, despite all the psychobabble about him wanting to follow in his fathers footsteps.

Re:Iraq War Wasn't bin Laden's Fault

[PitaBred]

So... it's only $1 trillion or so that Bin Laden has directly cost us? Along with our freedoms? In that case, never mind.

Re:Iraq War Wasn't bin Laden's Fault

[Dr. Hok]

Yes, you can blame the WTC and Clinton's cruise missile attacks and to some extent even the Afghanistan* War on bin Laden, but the article also blames him for the costs of Bush's Iraq War, which had nothing to do with him and which cost a lot more than Afghanistan.

It's even worse: the turmoil after the war in Iraq allowed Al-Qaida to gain a foothold there. So while pretending to fight them, the US strengthened Al-Qaida. I'm surprised that nobody anticipated that.

Re:Iraq War Wasn't bin Laden's Fault

[Daniel Phillips]

So... it's only $1 trillion or so that Bin Laden has directly cost us? Along with our freedoms? In that case, never mind.

Losing freedoms over Bin Laden was a self inflicted wound, as was most of that trillion.

Re:Iraq War Wasn't bin Laden's Fault

[kilfarsnar]

+1: Insightful

Re:Iraq War Wasn't bin Laden's Fault

[PitaBred]

So? He played the US government for fools, and caused that. Whether it's self-inflicted or not doesn't change the damage that was caused or the catalyst that caused it.

The problem is we're still blaming the catalyst rather than the reagents. We have not fixed our fear-based behavior, and as long as we don't do that, the terrorists have won.

Re:Iraq War Wasn't bin Laden's Fault

[billstewart]

No, they didn't, funny thing about that....

But it wasn't that long ago that I walked into a pub in San Francisco and found Noraid fundraising literature.

Unaccountable

[sugarmotor]

The amounts that were spent do not necessarily equal the costs.

Who knows spending 1% may have had the same effect.

S

Nothing to do with security.

[korgitser]

The biggest problem of any modern military is getting rid of old weapons and equipment. The cheapest way to do that is a war.
The biggest problem of any modern democracy is justifying the existance of government. The easiest way to do that is by creating fear.
The actual threat from terrorism or bin Laden is not that big. The important thing here is that bin Laden was spinned as an argument to make war and seed fear, that is, as a means to an end. Now that Obama spent the bin Laden card on his re-election, i wonder what will the government put in it's place to avoid actually dealing with the real problems.

Re:Social Security et. al.

[Anthony Mouse]

If the government didn't spend money on social services they would be able to barely balance the budget

FTFY.

Re:If Bin Laden hadn't existed

[dgatwood]

There is another theory which states that this has already happened.

Re:If We Hadn't Had Terrorists, We'd Have Invented

[Hijacked Public]

he Bush Administration really wanted to have enemies so they could have wars.

That is a cornerstone of neo-con philosophy, but it is for extremist muslims as well. The philosophies of Leo Strauss and Sayyid Qutb are more alike than they are different.

Yeah but

[w1nt3rmute]

Yeah but before you get all crazy about spending $3 trillion on Osama without any real reward, consider the cost-benefit of the credit crisis. It could possibly double the Osama number... how did most of you (and me) benefit from that cost? It may not have been a public policy decision, but it sure was a private-sector risk management decision made by all of the top US financial services companies. I sure didn't sell my house before the credit markets tanked, anticipating that - of the banks who were underwriting the bonds that were financing my mortgage - more than half would fail. But the financial structuring guys and the Wall Street traders all got paid (record years and record bonuses after the crisis happened). Public funds bailed them out afterwards, which is even worse, and now savings yields are nearly 0%. How is this really that much different? I may even feel better about spending $3 trillion on Osama... at least I got some satisfaction out of that event.

A more accurate argument/headline

[JakeD409]

3 trillion dollars spent on matters that are in some way related to some subjects that may indirectly be connected to Bin Laden or people he has spoken to at least once in the past.

Re:If We Hadn't Had Terrorists, We'd Have Invented

[Trailer Trash]

The Bush Administration really wanted to have enemies so they could have wars.

Um, you may have missed it, but Bush isn't President anymore. It's Obama now - the guy who you rubes thought would end all these wars and such.

Cost vs Value

[milgram]

I understand the terms I will use could be viewed as callous, but I do not have better terms. My issue with the cost of the wars is not based in cost, but value. We have spent this much money, and neither our economic nor political standing has improved.

We seem to be fighting a war as if our enemy was the old USSR, when in fact our enemy is quite different. This type of conflict requires more human intelligence, and in country resources. As anyone in security knows, a static defense can be bypassed given time and effort. Does anyone really feel safer with Wal-Mart dropouts running the security at the airport? This is not where we should be putting our money, but it makes people feel better about security.

Re:Social Security et. al.

[Trigun]

Social security is also dependent on the taxpayers paying back all of the IOUs that have been written when government took money from the funds to pay for other projects. But that is often neglected when the government wants to funnel more of your money into large corporations. The government, the banks, and wall street all know that in order for the bubble to continue long enough to get rich, they have to keep feeding the monster. Social security is not the pyramid scheme here, the US version of capitalism is the pyramid scheme.

He's right

[gte275e]

He's right when he said this: 'We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy,' said bin Laden, adding that that every dollar spent by al-Qaida in attacking the US has cost Washington $1m in economic fallout and military spending."

How would the economic outlook of the US (and by extension the world) economy be if 9/11 didn't happen? There wouldn't be a post-9/11 down fall obvious. How money would NOT have been spent on Afghanistan and then Iraq? How much money would be saved without formation of the DHS and the expansion of the TSA? How much money would have been saved if there was no PATRIOT Act? Money spent goes to to profit someone but for the average American, they face an improving but not terribly optimistic economic future from a country burdened with a rapidly expending national deficit that is not completely but definitely attributed to this "war" on terrorism.

Re:He's right

[TheCouchPotatoFamine]

so damn true. I'm saddened, extremely so terrorism has its price.. and we PAID.

The Cost of US Security

[jackie8612]

You never realize what a great country we live in until you've gone to another country and had the ability to be able to make a an unbiased comparison. Not what you read or hear on the news, but determine on your own, just how valuable what we do here in America.

Re:The Cost of US Security

[shutdown -p now]

Are you saying that, if not for that $3 trillion, everything that is valuable in America would suddenly cease to exist?

Re:The Cost of US Security

[fritsd]

You never realize what a great country we live in until you've gone to another country and had the ability to be able to make a an unbiased comparison. Not what you read or hear on the news, but determine on your own, just how valuable what we do here in America.

What is your great country going to do after 2011-08-02 then:

This delays any breaching of the limit to 2 August. Congress is currently negotiating an increase to the limit, without which the US risks defaulting on its debt.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Re:If We Hadn't Had Terrorists, We'd Have Invented

[RobertM1968]

The Bush Administration really wanted to have enemies so they could have wars.

Um, you may have missed it, but Bush isn't President anymore. It's Obama now - the guy who you rubes thought would end all these wars and such.

Ah yes... dunno why he hasn't. I've seen all the magical and seemingly impossible things that "The Easy Button" can do while watching all those Staples commercials.

Who won the war on terrorism

[harrytuttle777]

It wasn't the Islamic Fundamentalists, who who have a lot in common with the founders of the United States. It wasn't the United States as explained in the article.
However, China has been racking up economically while they finance our war on terror through the purchasing our our debt.

If I wanted to destroy an nation, getting it involved in an endless war on terror, while I Build up my economy would be a great way to go. This is what I would think if I did not have the main stream media to do my thinking for me and tell me it was Islamic terrorism that brought down the trade center.

I always believe the media because they have a crack team of impartial investigative journalists. (who are all investing in China)

My two cents

[brit74]

It's too bad that Clinton didn't manage to kill Bin Laden back in the late 90s when he launched a cruise missile strike on Afghanistan. Reportedly, Bin Laden narrowly missed being at that location when the cruise missiles came in. (And, I still remember how all the foreign press went apeshit about how Clinton did the strike to distract everyone from the Lewinski affair. I thought the foreign press was a bunch of short-sighted parasites then, and I still think so today.)

"bin Laden cost the US at least $3 trillion over the past 15 years ... every dollar spent by al-Qaida in attacking the US has cost Washington $1m in economic fallout and military spending."
Really? Because that works out to al-Queda spending only 3 million dollars over the past fifteen years. I think that's a bullshit number. There's no way al-Queda spent only 3 million dollars for everything, including hiding Bin Laden for the past ten years.

The Big Banks (Federal Reserve Members) Win

[EdwardJohansson]

The USA financial system is structed in a way that encourages crazy amounts of spending (see: War on Terror) in order the fill the big banks pockets. Look at this (2010 stats): Annual Tax Revenue: $2.162 trillion US Govt Spending: $3.456 trillion This means that the US government is spending $1.294 trillion more than what it earns. Now, what does the government do when it needs more money? it is not allowed to print it's own money so it sells Treasuries (IOUs in the form of Notes, bonds, securities) Who buys these treasuries? Foreign countries, the public - but, the biggest buyers by far are the Federal Reserve Banks (and tricky intra government debt). The Fed loans out money to banks at 0.00% interest, who in turn buy US Treasuries that pay approximately 4% per annum. Can you say "We're making money out of thin air"? The banks sure can. It's in their best interest that the government remains in debt and constantly requires money to continue to provide services, pay off their debt payments (to prevent a default) - and most importantly PROLONG a hugely expensive war! On top of that it's the most highly out-sourced and privatised war in history (I'll loan you the money, and then I'll get it back from you) - but that's a whole other story - and it applies to 99% of government spending. Note: I've intentionally simplified this and left out many other factors - if I were to talk about everything I would be here all day.

Re:The Big Banks (Federal Reserve Members) Win

[EdwardJohansson]

Sorry, I'm a noob. I didn't realise formatting was manual:

The USA financial system is structed in a way that encourages crazy amounts of spending (see: War on Terror) in order the fill the big banks pockets.
Look at this (2010 stats):
Annual Tax Revenue: $2.162 trillion
US Govt Spending: $3.456 trillion
This means that the US government is spending $1.294 trillion more than what it earns.

Now, what does the government do when it needs more money? it is not allowed to print it's own money so it sells Treasuries (IOUs in the form of Notes, bonds, securities)
Who buys these treasuries? Foreign countries, the public - but, the biggest buyers by far are the Federal Reserve Banks (and tricky intra government debt).

The Fed loans out money to banks at 0.00% interest, who in turn buy US Treasuries that pay approximately 4% per annum. Can you say "We're making money out of thin air"? The banks sure can. It's in their best interest that the government remains in debt and constantly requires money to continue to provide services, pay off their debt payments (to prevent a default) - and most importantly PROLONG a hugely expensive war!

On top of that it's the most highly out-sourced and privatised war in history (I'll loan you the money, and then I'll get it back from you) - but that's a whole other story - and it applies to 99% of government spending.

Note: I've intentionally simplified this and left out many other factors - if I were to talk about everything I would be here all day.

Obama speaks in Egypt

[mdsolar]

President Obama gave a speech in Egypt where all the theory of bin Laden came from. Egypt experiences Arab Spring overturning all that theory. Getting bin Laden was less important than this, but it is a sign of a large difference is competence compared with the former administration.

Re:Social Security et. al.

[The Dawn Of Time]

Probably because that isn't one of the functions the government is allowed to do, absent a ridiculously broad interpretation of the words "general welfare."

By the way, you know how you can tell they didn't intend that to mean "the government is mommy and daddy to everyone" by those words? Because they didn't do that themselves.

Re:If We Hadn't Had Terrorists, We'd Have Invented

[jesseck]

You know, I deployed to Iraq in 2005. And the imagery of the country (Iraq) that our maps had was dated 9/11/2001. Of course, that could also have been the day of the last satellite flyover.

Small problem...

[WaffleMonster]

Iraq had nothing to do with Osama.

Re:Small problem...

[superwiz]

If you are gonna be a knee jerk leftist, at least quote the right meme. You are supposed knee jerk into "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11." Cause "Iraq had nothing to do with Osama" is a boneheaded lie. Thousands of Al Qaeda operatives were killed in Iraq. And Osama headed Al Qaeda.

Re:Small problem...

[Falconhell]

If you are going to try and correct someone, know your facts. Saddam and AQ were enemies. It was the US invasion that
poularized and brought AL Quaeda to Iraq. For you to call antone boneheaded liar is rich indeed, coming from an ignorant knee jerk bonehead!

Re:Small problem...

[stewbacca]

People who dismiss Iraqi - AlQaida connections pre-Iraq invasion are ignorant of the facts. While it is true that US forces in Iraq brought thousands of jihadi's there to fight them, Zirqawi and his wing of Unity and Jihad (later renamed to AlQaida in Iraq) were already there, with sworn allegiances to bin Laden. It is also true that the US and the Bush cabinet overstated the role of Towheed walJihad, but it was also politically expedient to point to yet ONE more reason to invade Iraq...I gently remind everyone that there was a long list of reasons, with "to defeat bin Laden and AlQaida" not being near the top, rather, because "we gave Hussein a deadline to let inspectors in and he didn't abide", being at the top (along with some other stuff that turned out to be not so true, but I digress).

What really pisses me off is people who claim he only came there because we were there. He actually went to Iraq to fight against other Muslims first, and then stayed with the pending invasion set in motion by UN proclamations. By all accounts, Zirqawi was in, or had been in Iraq before the US invasion of Iraq. He didn't come later because we invaded, but it was a good reason for him to stay.

And what pisses me off even more than that is you people stick to whatever side you believe (liberals say it was a detour, conservatives think Hussein bombed the twin towers), but the REALITY is somewhere in the middle. That is it was a very muddled and confusing network of loosely related bad guys that all had each others' backs (as long as it benefited themselves) until bombs started dropping. The real jihadi's stuck it out (Zirqawi, bin Laden, and they got theirs), while the fake Muslims (the Husseins) used their citizens and government to ruin their country.

Re:Small problem...

[superwiz]

I don't know why you would be reminding them "gently". The left are complete and utter boneheads on this issue. Hussein agreed to every condition he was accused of violating. He agreed to have US planes fly over to ensure he wasn't bombing Kurds. He agreed to weapons inspections. And then he DID play cat'n'mouse with the inspectors. The fact alone that he locked radar on our planes and took shots at them is an act of war. There is not need to apologize for invading Iraq. That is NOT to say that Bush did the right thing. Invading was the right thing. Not winning quickly and, in fact, nearly losing is where he went it wrong. And the fact that Al Qaeda was drawn into Iraq was actually not a bad strategy. Fighting them in Iraq (even if it did mean that there would be more of them fight) is still much better than fighting them on US territory.

Re:Small problem...

[stewbacca]

I hate being on the unpopular side of a debate, especially when there are many intelligent people on the wrong side. This stage of history just makes me so mad. I'm off reading old stories and links online right now and it's funny to see just how revisionistic we've become. "Bush LIED!" Well, actually, an Iraqi scientist lied, in hopes of goading the US into invading so as to kick out Hussein. "Rumsfield FAKED audio intercepts!" Well, actually, the Iraqi ISS planted those radio transmissions smack dab in the middle of the known radio frequency, ensuring US eavesdroppers would intercept it.

The biggest mistake that was made was the utter lack of skepticism by the Bush/Blair governments. They were looking for evidence that would support their thesis, instead of looking at the evidence without bias. To insinuate anything more sinister than that takes you right into citizenship of Kooksville.

Re:Small problem...

[WaffleMonster]

People who dismiss Iraqi - AlQaida connections pre-Iraq invasion are ignorant of the facts. While it is true that US forces in Iraq brought thousands of jihadi's there to fight them, Zirqawi and his wing of Unity and Jihad (later renamed to AlQaida in Iraq) were already there

Ignorant of what facts? Sources?

There are terrorists in every country of the world including the US. The key issue is not were terrorists present but what if any state support do they enjoy.

According to the CIA Zarqawi activly refused to join with Osama on a number of occassions until quite a number of years later. He had his own terror group and did not have the same views on the Northern alliance.

Sources speak louder than words so here they are:
  http://intelligence.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=298775

See pg 90
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

Re:Small problem...

[superwiz]

Al Qaeda is network bound by philosophy rather than by actual personal affiliations. The individual cells or subgroups may not actively cooperate, but that doesn't mean they are not part of the same network.

Re:Small problem...

[stewbacca]

"The presence of Al-Qa'ida militants on Iraqi soil poses many questions. We are uncertain to what extent Baghdad is actively complicit in this use of its territory by al-Qai'da operatives for safehaven and transit. Given the pervasive presence of the Iraq's security apparatus, it would be difficult for al-Qai'da to maintain an active, long term presence in Iraq without alerting authorities, or without at least their acquiescence."

(Emphasis mine).

In other words, nobody really knows the bin Laden-Zarqawi-Saddam Hussein connection other than the three of them were loosely connected due to Zarqawi's presence in Iraq and his allegiance to bin Laden, before the US invasion occurred. To say Zarqawi didn't come to Iraq until the US invasion is wrong. To say Zarqawi had no allegiance to bin Laden is wrong. To say Saddam Hussein provided material support to Al-Qai'da is most likely wrong, but unproven (nor did I ever make that claim, for the record).

What I'm trying to say is that most people will pick the news bite they hear that best supports their belief and run with that. My example being many people who are anti-Iraq-War will swear up and down that Zarqawi was never even in Iraq (which is funny, since he DIED in Iraq), or that he wasn't in Iraq until the US invasion (also wrong).

There are a lot of easier things to pick on than this detail (yellow cake, meetings in Prague that never happened, mobile chemical weapons vehicles, etc.).

Re:Small problem...

[superwiz]

No, its membership is not exclusive to those who have sworn loyalty. Its leadership is decentralized. Al Qaeda connections was only one of many reasons for invading Iraq. There was no one reason that was given for the invasion. It was the totality of reasons that made the case compelling. Anyone who claims that the sole reason given for the invasion was WMDs is an outrageous lair. We weren't putting Iraq on trial on multiple charges where each charge had to be proven in some sort of a court case. Iraq was acting as a military enemy. So we treated it as such.

Re:If We Hadn't Had Terrorists, We'd Have Invented

[PitaBred]

Careful there. If you don't throw in Black Helicopters to prove your insanity the government may deem you actually dangerous instead of just a conspiracy nut...

Bin Laden did it all?

[evilviper]

By conservative estimates, bin Laden cost the US at least $3 trillion over the past 15 years,

It's great the way our problems with Al Qaeda, Taliban, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. can all be lumped on Bin Laden.

By that same logic, the butterfly that set off Hurricane Katrina was one hella expensive insect. Never mind the decades of poor decisions that came before, to make it what it was...

Hell, I wanna get on that bandwagon too! If it weren't for bin Laden, the USA would still have the wonderful warm relationship with the Arab world it previously enjoyed. The bastard!

Re:Bin Laden did it all?

[stewbacca]

It's great the way our problems with Al Qaeda, Taliban, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. can all be lumped on Bin Laden.

Or muslims....just sayin'

That wasn't a Contrarian Opinion

[nhtshot]

That's not a contrarian opinion. It's nothing but a collection of the usual bile.

"vile dictator named Saddam Hussein"

You do remember that we CREATED him? We (the US) put him in power and provided the weapons he used to fight against Iran, against his own people and eventually against us.

I'm all for deficit reduction,et al.. But I really wonder when these self-declared "conservatives" will wake up and realize that all the preaching in the world isn't going to change anything. You can rail against "entitlement" programs and bureaucracies until you're blue in the face, but I guarantee you wouldn't want to live without them. Might I point out that the money we spent on Iraq is enough to permanently fix social security?

I assume you're not old enough for Social Security, but I bet your parents are and claimed it. Since you're using your computer and posting to a website, you've benefited from the FCC and the DoEnergy. If you drove on any US highway or ridden on an airplane, you've benefited from the DOT. I assume you were educated in the US,probably attended college and probably used at least some amount of student loans to pay for it. You can thank the DoEducation for that.

If you really want to change something, why don't you take the time to actually learn what all of these agencies do. Instead of being spoon fed by Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin, take the time to do the research. Then, you can make some intelligent arguments about how to improve the system. For all the rhetoric, the "conservative" movement is nothing more then the same old crap in a different wrapper. Reagan raided SS and filled it with bonds to finance his deficit spending. The Bush's both wanted to raid it entirely and give it to their wall-street buddies in the form of "private accounts." The only people that would have benefited from that are the investment bankers. I think we've given them enough handouts already.

So, back to my original point: Unless you have a better proposal that's well thought-out and actually implementable, you have no standing.

If all you can say is that we should do away with all of it, you've only demonstrated your own ignorance.

Re:That wasn't a Contrarian Opinion

[Apple Acolyte]

That's not a contrarian opinion. It's nothing but a collection of the usual bile. "vile dictator named Saddam Hussein"

Awww, pathetic little leftist so sad to read the truth. What, do you think Hussein wasn't a vile dictator? The fact that the US supported him at one point in time is immaterial to the point that he was a vile dictator. Most all Iraqis would agree with my characterization, so much so that many call him a "Jew" (even though he was himself an ardent Jew-hater, antisemitism is so ingrained in the culture that anyone who is hated becomes derogatorily referred to as "Jew").

You can rail against "entitlement" programs and bureaucracies until you're blue in the face, but I guarantee you wouldn't want to live without them. Might I point out that the money we spent on Iraq is enough to permanently fix social security?

You can guarantee I wouldn't want to live without them? You're foolish if you really think you can make such a guarantee. I would gladly sign on to a national referendum abolishing all federal entitlements for those not near retirement age if I could. I don't believe in intergenerational theft, and I don't believe in government authorized pyramid schemes. My generation is getting raped by these failing Socialist schemes, which we have to pay into but won't get any benefit from. Worse, if we don't massively change course from the record-setting, enormous Obama deficits, the country will shortly end up in the same situation as Greece is in currently. Is that really what you want? Do you have any concept of the destructiveness of the debt we continue to run up? Do you know what debt service means? I sincerely doubt you do.

I assume you're not old enough for Social Security, but I bet your parents are and claimed it.

I am thankfully far away from that age. My mother isn't retirement age yet, either, and won't be for a number of years to come. So you're wrong on that account as well.

Since you're using your computer and posting to a website, you've benefited from the FCC and the DoEnergy. If you drove on any US highway or ridden on an airplane, you've benefited from the DOT. I assume you were educated in the US,probably attended college and probably used at least some amount of student loans to pay for it. You can thank the DoEducation for that.

1. Yes, I'm on a computer on the Internet, but I don't know what the FCC or the DOE have to do with either. The DoD developed the forerunner to the Internet, which took off in academia and then was embraced by the free market. I appreciate the US government's contributions to the creation/maintenance of the Internet, but like I've indicated I have no problems with justified defense programs and research; since the Internet came from defense research originally, I don't have a beef with government having spent on it. 2. The federal government spending on interstate transportation projects facilitates regular interstate commerce and thus is constitutional. And transportation spending is small in comparison to the bankrupting entitlements and bureaucracies I argue against. 3. Yes, I attended university and graduated with high honors, but no, I didn't take out student loans to finance any of my education. I'm very proud of that fact.

If you really want to change something, why don't you take the time to actually learn what all of these agencies do.

You have such a weak argument you have to assume I don't know what federal agencies do. That's false. I've already shown that many of your other assumptions are faulty. You can't argue on the merits so you have to instead demagogue Reagan and Bush. Yes, Reagan allowed Congress to overspend especially on the domestic side, and he regretted it publicly in his farewell address. (Senate Majority Leader Tip O'Neill broke his promise to institute spending cuts, so Reagan only deserves a portion of that blame.) As for President Bush (43)

Re:That wasn't a Contrarian Opinion

[Anonymous Coward]

Might I point out that the money we spent on Iraq is enough to permanently fix social security?

I think you have demonstrated your own ignorance of the issues your are talking about and claiming to know. You can never put enough money into social security to fix it in its current incantation. The current system is a pay as you go system, which also means it can never be "bankrupt". Only that it can no longer afford to pay out at the current level of benefits.

Social security is essentially a pyramid scheme and eventually it will collapse. It was only designed to be a short term solution to solve a major problem during its time, but has become outdated. The so called privatization of social security is an actual well thought-out and actually implementable program that would allow for people to retain their money in a forced savings account. There are many variations of plans that allow for people to do what they wish, but the point of it being that it is there money to do what they will with, whether invest in mutual funds or government bonds, etc... This would also allow for people to leave inheritance for their children as the money would be theirs. The current system a person could pay into for 48 years and die by the age of 64 never having received a single penny of the potentially millions of dollars they have invested. Both in real and opportunity costs associated with the money they have paid.

Maybe before blasting someone for not knowing the facts you should actually learn some yourself.

Re:That wasn't a Contrarian Opinion

[sjames]

It's funny how the same people who claim they don't have two quarters to scrape together when they hear that the citizens need health care and jobs can suddenly find an extra half a trillion to wage a war. Of course when the soldiers come home broken after the war, the funds promptly dry up again.

They found plenty to bail out the banks, but can't seem to find any to bail out homeowners (even though that would have also bailed out the banks).

Re:That wasn't a Contrarian Opinion

[nhtshot]

Awww, pathetic little leftist so sad to read the truth.

So, you start off by insulting your opponent? It's not even a correct insult. I'm actually a card-carrying libertarian. I'm also intelligent enough that I realize that all of these issues are multi-dimensional and require real research. The talking heads aren't nearly enough.

What, do you think Hussein wasn't a vile dictator? The fact that the US supported him at one point in time is immaterial to the point that he was a vile dictator.

We put him in power. Actually, to be precise, the Reagan administration put him in power. That's most certainly relevant. We either knew he was crazy and didn't care, or we didn't and are covering up our mistakes. In any case, it's very relevant.

Most all Iraqis would agree with my characterization, so much so that many call him a "Jew" (even though he was himself an ardent Jew-hater, antisemitism is so ingrained in the culture that anyone who is hated becomes derogatorily referred to as "Jew").

Irrelevant. We put him in there via treachery and then we had to get rid of him when he stopped being our puppet. We shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place.

You can guarantee I wouldn't want to live without them? You're foolish if you really think you can make such a guarantee. I would gladly sign on to a national referendum abolishing all federal entitlements for those not near retirement age if I could.

LOL. Seriously, LOL. That means, you'd basically abolish nothing. I assume you also wouldn't touch medicaid. Or, do you believe that because a child is born to poor parents, they deserve to die from diarrhea or some other trivially manageable disease? In any case, the only program you'd end up eliminating is the food stamp program. Food stamps (of which, 76% got to households with children... should we starve the poor children too while we're at it?) only cost $28.6B per year. That number is a rounding error in the federal budget.

I don't believe in intergenerational theft, and I don't believe in government authorized pyramid schemes. My generation is getting raped by these failing Socialist schemes, which we have to pay into but won't get any benefit from. Worse, if we don't massively change course from the record-setting, enormous Obama deficits, the country will shortly end up in the same situation as Greece is in currently. Is that really what you want? Do you have any concept of the destructiveness of the debt we continue to run up? Do you know what debt service means? I sincerely doubt you do.

I don't believe in pyramid schemes either. But, I don't see you making any proposals to fix it. For the record, it's not a pyramid scheme. It IS pay as you go. When it was created, they didn't anticipate your grandparents having nearly as many children as they did. Furthermore, our parents generation reduced their own taxes (greedy bastards) and stole, "borrowed", from the fund. Now, they expect us to pick up the tab. Well, shit.. what do we do with that? We either throw it all away, which we'll never be able to do. Even you said "for those not near retirement age". Does that mean that I get to pay into it for the next 20 years and never collect? Screw that. Pay the thing up to where it needs to be and move on. You won't get rid of it, but you won't pay for it either.

1. Yes, I'm on a computer on the Internet, but I don't know what the FCC or the DOE have to do with either. The DoD developed the forerunner to the Internet, which took off in academia and then was embraced by the free market. I appreciate the US government's contributions to the creation/maintenance of the Internet, but like I've indicated I have no problems with justified defense programs and research; since the Internet came from defense research originally, I don't have a beef with government having spent on it. 2. The federal

Re:That wasn't a Contrarian Opinion

[misexistentialist]

And all he wanted to do was fight Saddam.

Re:That wasn't a Contrarian Opinion

[stewbacca]

You do remember that we CREATED him? We (the US) put him in power

Uh, your history is not correct. Hussein spent the better part of the 60s working on overthrowing the government and finally succeeded in 1968. There was no US influence at all. The US had NO role in putting Hussein in power.

provided the weapons he used to fight against Iran, against his own people and eventually against us

NO, no and no. The Iraqi Army was fully equipped with Soviet era order-of-battle equipment. They used T-62/72/80 tanks (Russian), BTRs (Russian), BMPs (Russian), and all of their fixed and rotary wing aircraft were Russian, as well as their artillery, machine guns and small arms (AK-47s, also Russian). Germany and France did provide arms to Iran, and it's no secret that the CIA funneled stuff to the enemy of our enemy, but saying that any of that was left to use against us in 1990 is just stupid.

God I hate slashdot some days.

Re:That wasn't a Contrarian Opinion

[scot4875]

God I hate slashdot some days.

It must really suck to be shown reality that disagrees with your own.

Start with this and this.

You're generally an "Islamists are teh ebil!" type though, so I doubt if this will change your already made-up mind. You can probably rationalize both of those links as being "liberal media misinformation."

--Jeremy

Re:That wasn't a Contrarian Opinion

[stewbacca]

Considering Saddam Hussein and the Baathists took over power in 1968, I fail to see how the US "CREATED" Saddam Hussein. Hell he became official President in 1979, a few years before the US started taking sides in the Iran-Iraq war.

I didn't say we didn't support Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war. I said the support we gave them was not used against us in the 1st Gulf War war, like you suggest in the second link and like the first guy straight up said in his post. Your second link is pro-iranian garbage. Listing a bunch of conspiracy theories like the US shipped botulinum and anthrax to Iraq has no credibility. Where's the evidence that the US supplied Iraq with chemical weapons and why am I, a former intelligence professional specializing in Iraq, just now hearing about this in 2011? You citing it as a reference shows a severe lack of judgment. But thanks for the link. I have a new sample for my class on teaching how to recognize bias on the Internet.

you can probably rationalize both of those links as being "liberal media misinformation."

I am a liberal--so much for that theory. But the second link is biased Iranian garbage, regardless of my political ideology.

Saddam Hussein wasn't an an Islamist. He was a secularist that pretended to be a muslim, to maintain power over his people. Therefore, in this case, Islamists weren't the evil, Saddam Hussein was. But yeah, Islamist are "the ebil", they just weren't part of either of the Iraq - US wars.

Re:That wasn't a Contrarian Opinion

[riverat1]

The only problem with Social Security is the question of whether the federal government is going to pay back what they've borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund or not. Social Security itself is in fine shape until sometime in the 2030's when the trust fund runs out and even then it will still be able to pay 70-80% of scheduled benefits. An easy fix would be to raise the cutoff point where you don't have to pay FICA from it's current $106,000 (approximately) to something like $250,000. Social Security will only fail if people like you get their way.

In the future, 911 will be regarded

[Anonymous Coward]

as the single most cost-effective military operation in history.

the name of the strategy

[superwiz]

This attrition strategy is known in modern parlance as "death by a million paper cuts."

Weapons industry

[dutchwhizzman]

The weapons industry would have found something else to spin so they could continue to sell their products. They needed a new "enemy of the state" after the cold war was over and OBL fitted the bill just fine. Russia, nor OBL were the cause of spending the money, the US people were. They let themselves be suckered into the theory that there was one or another big enemy that needed to be fought with lots of weapons. The truth is, the enemy is within.

USA will always find new enemies

[Cigarra]

It's not Bin Laden per se, he was just the occasional enemy. A war-driven super power as USA needs enemies, always, as the military-industrial complex controls the political system.

Commies yesterday, "terrorists" today... who's coming tomorrow? No one knows, no one really cares. But there WILL be an enemy to fight and spend money on.

actually....

[decora]

i can't remember the exact instance, but i'm pretty sure that I read somewhere about Nazi and Soviet spy operations where the goal was to make the enemy leaders go fucking insane with paranoia and start wiping out their own people. alot of false flag stuff etc.

i wish i could remember the exact thing .. but my mind is moosh right now sorry.

wait who what?

[decora]

the 'terrorists' apparently also hate Saudi Arabia for it's freedoms.. beacuse they blow themselves up there too.

Re:wait who what?

[siddesu]

They blow themselves up in Saudi Arabia because they perceive its government as a puppet of the US. Which is not very far from the truth.

Re:wait who what?

[Anonymous Coward]

They hate the current government of Saudi certainly, yes. The massively pro-western government that is becoming hugely rich from what are considered immoral and corrupt means, by many of the zealots.

This is surprising or news to you?

sooo take money and give it to halliburton?

[decora]

is that theft too?

Re:If We Hadn't Had Terrorists, We'd Have Invented

[Risen888]

Bush and Cheney got elected as tough-guy militarists

They absolutely did not. Bush ran in 2000 on a damn near isolationist foreign policy platform. "No more nation building," "No more Kosovos."

Re:If We Hadn't Had Terrorists, We'd Have Invented

[Risen888]

What is your point, troll?

Re:Social Security et. al.

[Risen888]

If the government didn't spend money on social services they would be able to lower taxes on everything, decreasing the cost of living and improving the quality of life for the citizens.

Of course. That happens all the time. When the government cuts services, they lower taxes! When services are cut, the quality of living goes up and the cost of living goes down! It's amazing!

Actually, none of those things are true, and you're a fucking idiot.

Re:Social Security et. al.

[Risen888]

You are completely wrong about everything you just said.

Social Security is dependent on there being more current "investors" to pay off the previous ones.

No it's not. Learn about how Social Security works and where that money goes. I don't even have the interest to explain all the reasons that this is nonsense.

The previous investors are now comparatively more numerous and demanding more payments (thanks to medical technology increasing life spans).

No it's not. The "life spans are longer" argument is bullshit. Infant mortality continues to fall, driving the average life span up. That doesn't mean people are living longer. They are not. Learn about statistics.

Better would be simply taking the SS tax money and putting it in a vault somewhere, accessible upon retirement and paid on a fixed schedule.

No it's not. Inflation means your money is worth less tomorrow than it was this morning. Learn about economics.

I disagree

[jeti]

As far as I can make out, the goal of Islamists to establish societies which follow Islam law. In the center of their effort are countries with a mostly Muslim population and secular governments. People in these countries have to decide how to live their lifes and what form of government they want. The western living style is perceived as attractive because it has always been associated with wealth, personal safety and personal liberties.

In response to terrorist attacks, western countries are giving up what has made their societies attractive and play directly into the hands of Islamists.

Irish dissidents

[gilesjuk]

Irish dissidents are planning on attacking the UK mainland again, in the past many Irish Americans have helped fund them.

So it would be nice if they didn't, in the UK we have to protect against Irish dissidents, Islamic extremists and we're in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya along side US forces.

Dictatorship simplifies takeover

[Kupfernigk]

I think you may be missing a point. From the point of view of Bin Laden, a totalitarian US would actually be easier to subsume into Islam. It is very hard to take over a truly pluralist society. Hitler was able to take over Germany because it was actually run by a military junta. He had only to persuade, by force and a significant minority at the ballot box, the military rulers that they should make him Chancellor. Once he was at the top of the pyramid, there was no effective opposition.

For Al Queda, the US reverting to Christian fundamentalism is a good thing, because the power structure of Christian fundamentalism is similar to fundamentalist Islam, and so it is easier to take over from within. It is exactly the same mechanism by which German communists were among the most likely to become fanatical Nazis - people who are already fanatics are ripe for conversion to a different brand of fanaticism.

Re:Dictatorship simplifies takeover

[c6gunner]

Right, because the Muslim nations had such an easy time subsuming the European nations during the Crusades.

While a "truly pluralist society" may be difficult to turn as a whole, it is infinitely easier to turn than a Christian theocracy would be.

Yes, but read Arab history

[Kupfernigk]

As the soldier, diplomat and historian John Bagot Glubb pointed out, the Arab problem is that they are unable, for cultural reasons, to avoid their states fragmenting through tribal clashes and the mechanisms of gaining power. A global caliphate is as probable as a world union of all C programmers with a set of common beliefs and goals.

Re:Yes, but read Arab history

[Sique]

But in the attempt to create one anyway they can cause enough havoc to really bother us.
We might be rightly convinced that a global caliphate won't exist for long and will break down due to internal conflicts and feuds. But that's no reason not to be irritated about all the little and big disruptions to our normal life.

Symptoms of schizophrenia

[Kupfernigk]

You are presenting with a number of symptoms of schizophrenia. Either you know this and are trolling or you need to consult s physician urgently.

Re:Symptoms of schizophrenia

[meridian]

No shit.

Re:Symptoms of schizophrenia

[Joey Vegetables]

Schizophrenia, paranoia, depression, and various psychoses can be induced through drugs rather easily. How large quantities of these drugs could be delivered to specific individuals without their awareness, or how lower levels of those drugs might be delivered to a much broader population, I will leave as an exercise to the reader.

Re:Social Security et. al.

[The Master Control P]

I'd like to visit your world, where the existence of a largely free, open, safe, well-developed state like America - where you take it for granted that the lights will work, your car will probably save you in an accident, the roads will be drivable, the food is 100% safe to eat, the water is 100% safe to drink from the tap, your employer can't work you to death with impunity, and your home won't be robbed as soon as you leave - is free, and no one is "stolen from" to pay for the government that supports it all.

As a resident of the Internet, I've seen some dumb claims, but this "taxation is slavery and government theft and communism" is about as dumb as it's possible to get and still have coherent grammar. Have you literally never spent one second thinking about what makes your western life possible?

Re:Social Security et. al.

[AK Marc]

Uh no. That's wrong. If we eliminated all social services (and cut the taxes collected only in their names) we wouldn't be able to balance the budget.

Re:Social Security et. al.

[AK Marc]

It's insurance. It's called insurance, and it works like insurance. So, what's the problem?

Not counting civilian casualties in Afghanistan...

[jopsen]

Actually I doubt that you saved lives... Assuming that there would have been more successful terrorist attacks on the US without the wars... Then you might have exchanged American civilian lives for afghans civilian lives at a pretty horrible exchange rate (and at a fairly high price)...

You're forgetting something

[damn_registrars]

Bush's Iraq War, which had nothing to do with him

The Bush Administration explicitly said that Iraq was connected to 9/11 - both Bush and Cheney said that plainly - which made iraq tied to Bin Laden by association.

Re:You're forgetting something

[coinreturn]

Bush's Iraq War, which had nothing to do with him

The Bush Administration explicitly said that Iraq was connected to 9/11 - both Bush and Cheney said that plainly - which made iraq tied to Bin Laden by association.

Except that the Bush Administration was blatently lying. So blaming those costs on Bin Laden is just continuing the lie.

Re:You're forgetting something

[damn_registrars]

Bush's Iraq War, which had nothing to do with him

The Bush Administration explicitly said that Iraq was connected to 9/11 - both Bush and Cheney said that plainly - which made iraq tied to Bin Laden by association.

Except that the Bush Administration was blatently lying. So blaming those costs on Bin Laden is just continuing the lie.

There is no doubt it was a bald-faced lie, connecting Iraq to 9/11. However it is part of how it was sold to the American people - and a non-trivial portion of the US population still believes that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 - so even though it had nothing to do with Bin Laden in reality, the two are related in the expense report.

Re:You're forgetting something

[coinreturn]

Incorrectly attributed to him in the expense report.

Re:You're forgetting something

[damn_registrars]

Incorrectly attributed to him in the expense report.

I agree wholeheartedly. Bin Laden had nothing to do with Iraq, just as Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. However that was not the excuse that was sold to us for the invasion of Iraq.

To be blunt and non-PC

[ThatsNotPudding]

I bet you live in a far more homogenous society than the US. It's as wrong as the day is long, but ethnic differences strike a deep, tribalistic chord in the flawed human soul.

Re:To be blunt and non-PC

[radtea]

I bet you live in a far more homogenous society than the US. It's as wrong as the day is long, but ethnic differences strike a deep, tribalistic chord in the flawed human soul.

And you would be wrong. Dunno about the OP, but I'm a Canadian, which is comparably pluralistic to the US, and our rate of interpersonal violence is far lower than yours, our banks are more solvent, our and governments are close to rebalancing their budgets after the downturn (though I'm not hopeful about the current federal government, as right-of-centre parties have a well-known and completely uncontroversial record of poor fiscal discipline all over the world in the past thirty years). We also have universal basic health care and our public pension system is solvent, albeit stretched. All this with two official languages and 30% of our population born someplace else.

It's not like we don't have our problems, including problems with some immigrant communities, but given comparable diversity and vastly lower rates of violence we serve as a clear counter-example to your baseless claim that social problems in the US are due to your ethnic diversity.

Gas Prices

[stewbacca]

So if two wars are indeed driving up the cost of gasoline like TFS and TFA posit, then I guess I've been right all these years when I tell my friends and family (who are not in the military intelligence field like I am) that no, we didn't invade Iraq for the oil...either time. If we had, we'd have a direct pipeline to US tankers and gas would be $1.50 per gallon.

Re:How can the Iraq war be blamed on bin Laden?

[stewbacca]

I'm not sure what your agenda is, but I read the last sentence again and all I can say is why didn't we do that earlier? Seriously, you people need to read/watch Kite Runner and see that military intervention has been necessary in that shit hole long before they started harboring AlQaida and Bin Laden.

Re:Liberals are the source of the costs

[stewbacca]

I'm not a liberal. I'm actually a military intelligence professional. For you to claim that "there aren't any innocent civilians in those areas" just highlights your ignorance. All civilians are innocent, full stop, period.

It isn't just America

[Demena]

Many other countries have paid the cost to. Just the global increase in the cost of oil has cost other countries dearly. All of western civilisation has come and is coming closer to being destroyed. Which is exactly what Bin Laden said he set out to do. He has not exactly needed to do much in the last few years. The US government has reacted in such a way as they might just as well have been his paid agents.

True but

[Demena]

You will have to go back far more than thirty years. Take a look at how the Bush family fortunes were made (just one example). You would probably need to go back a century.

The only revelation here...

[Jawnn]

...and perhaps the saddest, is the fact that this accounting is considered "news". If more people had actually thought about this, instead of allowing themselves to be scared into giving up precious liberties and huge chunks of our national treasury, we would have been far, far better off. Holy shit. More people die in car wrecks in a 6 week period than were killed by terrorists on 9-11-2001, and we've spent three trillion dollars on "fighting" this bogeyman?

That is just wrong I am afraid.

[Demena]

Some sharia law already exists in the UK but is only applicable to muslims. And the civil police are required to support the decisions of their sharia courts. The same think is being debated in Australia right now. Thing is even the majority of Muslims don't want sharia law but it is still encroaching on secular societies.

It Wasn't bin Laden

[Hasai]

OBL was responsible for only the smallest fraction of that three trillion.
The balance of it was frittered away to appease the hordes of bleating sheep demanding 'perfect' security from the politicians.

Re:Bush was a Tool

[GargamelSpaceman]

3 trillion.... Yeah, Bin Laden won big time by that measure, but even if you only blame 1 trillion on him, or even half a trillion, and blame the rest on Bush's being Bin Laden's tool, ( which is giving Bush too much credit, I mean you need a certain level of competence to be culpable... ) then Bin Laden won BIG TIME.

The thing is, Bin Laden isn't special. There are thousands of them out there. If one Bin Laden can cost America even 1 billion dollars, and each of them do, then America is doomed to play a losing game of Whack-a-Mole.

Sounds like...

[DarthVain]

Someone hates America and Freedom...

Those are only direct costs.

[CondeZer0]

There are many more hundreds of billions in indirect costs, how much is worth all the harassment of innocent citizens by the TSA? Much more than you might think when millions of people start to avoid flying because it is not worth the hassle. Or the cost to tourism from all the people that just don't want to be humiliated to visit the US.

And that barely scratches the surface of all the hidden costs of the so called "War on Terror" and the resulting security circus.

War has always been about cost benefit anaylsis

[geekzealot1982]

If you can blow up an aircraft carrier with a cheap aircraft or missile, or destroy a geared and trained army with a volley of arrows from afar, you win not only the battle but the war. This was true 1,000 years ago and will remain true until the fire of the universe dims. War is often about bang for the buck, and I see the US as being on the losing end of this kind of dynamic for a long time. It has gone from hiding behind trees and shooting at the British Army to hiding behind body scanners... Sooner or later the US will have to settle for less security because this kind of spending is unsustainable, never mind the cost to freedom.

Re:If We Hadn't Had Terrorists, We'd Have Invented

[Politburo]

So the military was using 4 year-old imagery of a country they had occupied for 2 years? Sure...

Re:If We Hadn't Had Terrorists, We'd Have Invented

[Politburo]

Yes, they opposed nation building. But nation-building was not considered "tough-guy" military action.. it was spun as something that is weak. They did run on increasing the size of the military. And Cheney, of course, was a well-known hawk prior to being elected Vice-President and was a founding member of PNAC which called for increased military spending.

Re:If We Hadn't Had Terrorists, We'd Have Invented

[kilfarsnar]

Probably that Democrats and Republicans serve the same power structure.

Re:Social Security et. al.

[kilfarsnar]

Eliminating social services would not reduce the tax burden enough to offset the cost of those services being purchased through the private sector. In other words, No.

All this conversation about motives is silly.

[nixed3]

My God, three trillion dollars. Can you imagine what we could have accomplished had, ten years ago, we took even five hundred billion and decided to develop some massive government project for a Space elevator or a massive electrical grid overhaul or ubiquitous fiber internet? Or a cure for cancer? Or genetic therapy techniques? Or (dare I say it) true, strong, benevolent artificial intelligence? Oh wait I guess that all got washed under the table because we're more worried that someone might have a nail clipper taped to their scrotum while getting on a plane. Security theater.

We (the United States) spent all this money because there were enough people in enough power positions to get really, really, really rich off of it. We pretend it's in the name of "security" or "liberty" or "an Islamic Caliphate" or whatever other crap there is. The reality must be that some people, in the United States, in the Middle East, and in the richest corporations across the world, got way richer. I can't fathom that this was an accident. I can't accept that it's just a coincidence that Dick Cheney used to be CEO of Halliburton, and just HAPPENED to be Vice President of the United States from 2001-2004 when Halliburton got billions in government dollars. http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/chronology.html

Since the beginning of civilizations, it always has been, and always will be, about the money. Even when it's about the religion, it's still about the money. All the theater we put on about how "evil" the "extremists" in Islam are and how "they hate us for our freedom" and blah blah, it's all crap. It's all about money. Some people with political ties made billions off the trillions spent. It happens all the time, in every culture, across the world, and 9/11 just allowed politicians an excuse to squeeze more money out of the near-bankrupt US system for their own pecuniary/familial/political gain.

I'd rather risk dying in an unexpected terrorist attack if we could have spent a trillion bucks on eliminating most use of fossil fuels in ten years. I'd take the one in a million (or whatever it is) risk getting killed by an "extremist" car bomber if it means we could have had an education system that isn't totally fucked. I'd take that personal trade off without hesitation. But you don't hear about people like me in the news. You hear about the families of the victims of 9/11....

It's always about the money. It always will be about the money. The plutocracy and cronyism is more rampant now than ever before. I mean you don't have to be a crazy conspiracy theorist to accept that it's all about the money. Just recently, Meredith Attwell Baker, an FCC commissioner who just voted to approve the Comcast-NBC merger, just agreed to take a job at the new Comcast-NBC corporation. Can it get any more transparent?

Re:Social Security et. al.

[Anthony Mouse]

If we eliminated the services but not the taxes we would.

Re:Not counting civilian casualties in Afghanistan

[gknoy]

Most people care more about the lives of their countrymen (real losses and potential ones) than they do about people in other countries. It's not very loving, but it seems to be how most people think. Similarly, we're more concerned with our immediate family and friends than we are about people Far Far Away, despite the fact that (to the world) they are rarely any less special.

So yes, it doesn't surprise me that we'd pay $30M/each to "prevent" terrorist attacks, even if we might have been better off (collectively) spending it on programs to prevent child drownings or improve driving safety.

It's true Clinton started deregulation

[rsilvergun]

but there were still plenty of regulations in place that could have (should have) stopped the bubble. The Bush administration wasn't enforcing them, cut funding to the agencies, and staffed the gov't with Goldman Sachs employees. So yes, Bill Clinton screwed up, but not so severely that we couldn't recover. The real problem was the Republicans were given unfettered control of our countries policies for 8 years while we ran scared from terrorist threats.

Re:It's true Clinton started deregulation

[Risen888]

I agree with that. But (and much like "national security") the policies that Clinton enacted paved the road for the Bush administration. Bush couldn't have gotten away with what he did without Bill Clinton to point to and say "See, the Democrats did it too!"

Re:Social Security et. al.

[AK Marc]

If you abolished Social Security, but continued to collect the Social Security taxes, I think we'd have a second tea party (and I'm not talking about the teabaggers).

If you abolished the SS tax and all SS and welfare (a good bit paid for out of the general fund) you still wouldn't balance the budget.

The military is too large a portion of our expenses, and the welfare programs are mostly self-funding. If you eliminated all welfare programs and pork, the IRS doesn't take in enough in income tax to cover just the debt interest and military. That indicates to me that welfare isn't the problem. What does that suggest to you?

Re:Social Security et. al.

[Anthony Mouse]

If you abolished Social Security, but continued to collect the Social Security taxes, I think we'd have a second tea party (and I'm not talking about the teabaggers).

Obviously you wouldn't call it social security tax anymore, that would be silly. But you could clearly cover the deficit by not funding social security, without raising anyone's overall effective tax rate.

The military is too large a portion of our expenses, and the welfare programs are mostly self-funding. If you eliminated all welfare programs and pork, the IRS doesn't take in enough in income tax to cover just the debt interest and military. That indicates to me that welfare isn't the problem. What does that suggest to you?

The idea that welfare programs are self-funding is accounting hocus pocus. You could just as easily pass a law (which would make no actual change in what the government does in any way) which renamed social security tax to "defense tax" and allocated the money to the military, then fund social security out of general revenues and argue that social security is what should be cut because the military is self-funding.

The government spends more money than it collects by almost a trillion dollars a year. That means some of the spending needs to go. You can argue about what it should be, but the fact is, if you have to make significant cuts, you start with the things that cost the most money. That means welfare programs and military spending.

Re:If We Hadn't Had Terrorists, We'd Have Invented

[Risen888]

I agree with that wholeheartedly, but I don't read that in the OP's post. It seems to be more buck-passing.

Re:Social Security et. al.

[AK Marc]

The idea that welfare programs are self-funding is accounting hocus pocus.

If you count them as insurance, then yes, they are. They keep separate books now, counting income and expenses independently of the rest of the federal government, and the taxes collected have separate names and collection schedules than income tax.

You could just as easily pass a law (which would make no actual change in what the government does in any way) which renamed social security tax to "defense tax" and allocated the money to the military, then fund social security out of general revenues and argue that social security is what should be cut because the military is self-funding.

Yeah, and you could pass a law stating that Santa Claus is real. But that wouldn't make it true. But Social Security calls itself insurance, acts like insurance, keeps books like insurance, and collects premiums like insurance. Regardless of whether you like it or don't like it, it's mandatory insurance that's currently fully funded.

The government spends more money than it collects by almost a trillion dollars a year. That means some of the spending needs to go. You can argue about what it should be, but the fact is, if you have to make significant cuts, you start with the things that cost the most money. That means welfare programs and military spending.

I assert that you couldn't eliminate medicare and keep the medicare tax without political repercussions that could destroy the country. I assert that you couldn't eliminate SS payouts while still collecting the tax without the same issue. It would be cheaper and easier to eliminate all tax deductions and print money equal to the amount of the debt and pay it off with the printed money. So yes, you could theoretically abolish the military, SS, and medicare while keeping taxes where they are. But the government wouldn't be stable after that and the US would be a third world country within 5 years. But yeah, if you want to just talk dollars, sure, cut everything and keep taxes high. The math works, but the economics don't...

Re:If We Hadn't Had Terrorists, We'd Have Invented

[ultranova]

Um, you may have missed it, but Bush isn't President anymore. It's Obama now - the guy who you rubes thought would end all these wars and such.

Well, isn't he kinda doing just that, withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan?

Re:Social Security et. al.

[Anthony Mouse]

Security calls itself insurance, acts like insurance, keeps books like insurance, and collects premiums like insurance. Regardless of whether you like it or don't like it, it's mandatory insurance that's currently fully funded.

It is only that on paper. In practice, money is removed from Americans' paychecks in the same way that taxes are removed. That money goes to social security. If social security did not exist, the money could be used by the government for other purposes without causing the government to remove any additional money from anyone's paycheck than they do already. Whether they call it insurance or not on paper doesn't change anything about how it actually works. Moreover, if you want to see why it isn't at all like insurance, make it optional and see how quickly it collapses.

I assert that you couldn't eliminate medicare and keep the medicare tax without political repercussions that could destroy the country. I assert that you couldn't eliminate SS payouts while still collecting the tax without the same issue. It would be cheaper and easier to eliminate all tax deductions and print money equal to the amount of the debt and pay it off with the printed money. So yes, you could theoretically abolish the military, SS, and medicare while keeping taxes where they are. But the government wouldn't be stable after that and the US would be a third world country within 5 years. But yeah, if you want to just talk dollars, sure, cut everything and keep taxes high. The math works, but the economics don't...

So you say. And printing the money is a real alternative -- perhaps the only real alternative. But that has its own problems and would be extremely politically unpopular, to say nothing of the opposition from creditors. So unless you can come up with some alternative other than "we'll just print a trillion dollars every year for a couple decades," some kind of material cuts to the most expensive programs are going to be in order.

Re:Social Security et. al.

[AK Marc]

It is only that on paper.

Then State Farm and Allstate and such are also only insurance companies on paper. There is no functional difference between insurance from State Farm and Social Security, other than one is mandatory and the other isn't.

So unless you can come up with some alternative other than "we'll just print a trillion dollars every year for a couple decades," some kind of material cuts to the most expensive programs are going to be in order.

Abolishing medicare and the new health care program and implementing a public/private mandatory single-payer insurance like most other industrialized countries would result in better medical coverage at about half the cost. Cut the military by 90% (that's all we need to actually defend the country). Eliminate 50% of discretionary spending (the pork part, some of it is necessary), and the budget is balanced with a surplus.

Re:Social Security et. al.

[Anthony Mouse]

There is no functional difference between insurance from State Farm and Social Security, other than one is mandatory and the other isn't.

Being mandatory is what makes all the difference in the world. Mandatory is the difference between donating to a private school and paying taxes for public schools. It's the difference between hiring a security guard and paying taxes that fund the police department.

The government can't reduce funding to State Farm and use the money to fund the Department of Education or cover the deficit.

Or just put it the other way if you like: Fine, it's an insurance program. Then we can impose an arbitrarily large income or property tax on the Social Security Administration and use that "tax revenue" for something else. Calling it an insurance program or not has nothing to do with whether you can cause it to pay out less money and instead use that money for some other purpose.

Abolishing medicare and the new health care program and implementing a public/private mandatory single-payer insurance like most other industrialized countries would result in better medical coverage at about half the cost.

That's just optimistic speculation. Other countries pay less by having the government set (low) prices for drugs and medical services. The result has been that the US subsidizes worldwide medical R&D by paying higher prices. If the US did the same thing as those countries, R&D would be reduced accordingly with the consequent undesirable results for everyone.

Cut the military by 90% (that's all we need to actually defend the country).

It would not be realistic or responsible to implement that in the short to medium term.

Eliminate 50% of discretionary spending (the pork part, some of it is necessary)

Excellent idea. All we need to do is decide which part is the pork, which should be easy.

Re:Social Security et. al.

[AK Marc]

Or just put it the other way if you like: Fine, it's an insurance program. Then we can impose an arbitrarily large income or property tax on the Social Security Administration and use that "tax revenue" for something else. Calling it an insurance program or not has nothing to do with whether you can cause it to pay out less money and instead use that money for some other purpose.

I honestly don't understand. If it's insurance, it would be like State Farm having extra branches of their business and then telling people "sorry, we can't pay your claims because we spent your premiums on other things." Yeah, it's physically possible. And it's physically possible to just invade China and take all their gold and bring it back home and use that to pay off the debt, or invade Saudi Arabia and bring the oil home. But that doesn't mean it's any more practical than having our long-term spending goal to be have Martians come down and land in DC and give the US government 100 trillion dollars worth of alien technology and use that to pay off the debt.

Excellent idea. All we need to do is decide which part is the pork, which should be easy.

It's damn easy. Just because you are too dumb to do something doesn't mean it isn't doable or even easy. Sure, it may not be practical, but then nothing you've suggested is, so I can't see how you can have one standard for yourself and then a much much higher one for me.

Re:Social Security et. al.

[Anthony Mouse]

I honestly don't understand. If it's insurance, it would be like State Farm having extra branches of their business and then telling people "sorry, we can't pay your claims because we spent your premiums on other things."

Nope, that's having it both ways. You want Social Security to be an insurance company. Well, if the government creates a tax on insurance so that State Farm has to pay X% of all premiums to the government, you can sure bet that State Farm is immediately going to announce that for a given premium, people going forward will receive a lower level of insurance coverage. No reason they can't do the same to Social Security if they need money. Heck, people are mad about GE, the Social Security Administration is a trillion dollar company that pays no taxes!

It's damn easy. Just because you are too dumb to do something doesn't mean it isn't doable or even easy.

Give me a break. No one agrees about what pork is in any way whatsoever. Everyone calls their own projects a necessary incident to the operation of the country and everybody else's projects pork. More importantly, the problem with "real" pork (i.e. deadweight inefficiencies) is that they tend to be individually small but numerous and prolific, such that the cost of identifying and removing them approaches or exceeds the cost of the inefficiency itself. There is a reason that this is not a solved problem.

I went flying recently.

[databaseadmin]

I went flying recently. I walked through the airport, remembering when I would arrive 35 minutes before my flight and made the flight easily. Now, two hours is pushing it. Oh, and of course, there is layer after layer of junk to deal with. I'm only going from one little U.S. city to another one on a mid-sized plane. The experience has convinced me, that the terrorists have won, and we have done most of the work for them. At my work I constantly preach/ask, is this cure worse than the disease? I'm lucky that the C-Level people at my job really get it. Apparently, they don't do that at the TSA.

Re:If We Hadn't Had Terrorists, We'd Have Invented

[billstewart]

Only marginally, and he'd told us before he got elected that he thought the Afghanistan war was justified, which was the closest we were going to get to a "peace candidate" among the major Democrats. I had hoped he'd have followed through on his promises to close Gitmo, but nope.

And now he's not only started his own war in direct violation of the Constitution, he's said he doesn't need to be limited by the constraints of the War Powers Act. And he's also said that he can order the military to assassinate an American citizen without due process, which even Bush didn't say in public. So he needs to be impeached.