StupidNation Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 Osama bin Laden was pretty clear years ago that he knew he couldn't kill us all with terrorist acts but that his intent was to crush us via financial means. And rich though his family is, he didn't mean he was going to buy us and then break us up ... he mean he wanted to bankrupt us. So. We have a war going on two fronts (with Pakistan threatening to attack if we chase evildoers across their border, so maybe three). Then we have the war on drugs and immigration...not to mention the crumbling domestic infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc), the lousy education system, and the current financial crisis. Toss in energy ... what a mess. We're still the richest and strongest country in the world but if we continue to bleed out, bin Laden could well achieve his end at some point without ever needing to attack us again. I don't think it's going to happen but ... at this point in time I could see where the evildoers might be cautiously optimistic. While I agree with most of your prognosis, don't you think cutting back spending, shoring up the national debt and reducing it is the solution? I know you are mostly of the liberal persuasion, but the liberal persuasion is bankrupting our country at a faster rate than bin Laden could have dreamed of doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 While I agree with most of your prognosis, don't you think cutting back spending, shoring up the national debt and reducing it is the solution? I know you are mostly of the liberal persuasion, but the liberal persuasion is bankrupting our country at a faster rate than bin Laden could have dreamed of doing. AQ has based it's strategy on the premise that liberal persusion is the achilles heel of the west. And in a few cases, they were right - a well-timed bombing in Madrid, and the liberals took control and the Spanish backed down. They tried it in the UK too. AQ moved into Iraq becaue they thought delivering a bloody nose to the US would send us home humiliated. And it's not just AQ that thinks this way. Hussein believed that his best defense lay in making the American public believe that invasion would result in unacceptable casualties - hence his conscious deception over having deployed chemical weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 Please explain how terrorism caused the current financial crisis. It really hasn't. Exacerbated it, maybe, because of the inflationary pressure of spending to counter it and increased energy prices due to the fact that oil sits under the primary battle space in the GWOT. But the GWOT and the credit market implosion are almost entirely separate issues. But in a longer-term, strategic view...one of the strengths of terrorism as a tactic is it's cheap. Seriously inexpensive. Relative to the resources each side has available, terrorist can ALWAYS out-spend us. Which means, in an attrittive war (which the GWOT is), they win. We spend $800B on national security annually (roughly estimating, between Justice, Fatherland Security, and DoD), and the worst attack we've had on our country has involved twenty gomers and about - what, a quarter-million dollars? As usual, EII's using his fatally flawed "drinking the lock water" logic to make a point that's actually valid: any cost-benefit analysis of the current (and forseeable) strategic equation favors terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 But in a longer-term, strategic view...one of the strengths of terrorism as a tactic is it's cheap. Seriously inexpensive. Relative to the resources each side has available, terrorist can ALWAYS out-spend us. Which means, in an attrittive war (which the GWOT is), they win. We spend $800B on national security annually (roughly estimating, between Justice, Fatherland Security, and DoD), and the worst attack we've had on our country has involved twenty gomers and about - what, a quarter-million dollars? As usual, EII's using his fatally flawed "drinking the lock water" logic to make a point that's actually valid: any cost-benefit analysis of the current (and forseeable) strategic equation favors terrorism. O dear, I think that came straight out of the lecture notes I had in my terrorism class a couple summers ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 O dear, I think that came straight out of the lecture notes I had in my terrorism class a couple summers ago. Your professors reference EII's bizarro-world logic in their lectures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 Your professors reference EII's bizarro-world logic in their lectures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 While I agree with most of your prognosis, don't you think cutting back spending, shoring up the national debt and reducing it is the solution? I know you are mostly of the liberal persuasion, but the liberal persuasion is bankrupting our country at a faster rate than bin Laden could have dreamed of doing. I think we need to cut back spending and ending that silly war in Iraq - plus recouping what we can from the country who was supposed to pay for their own invasion, as promised - would be a good start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 I think we need to cut back spending Then why are you voting for Obama? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 18, 2008 Author Share Posted September 18, 2008 So now you're mad about not defending ourselves against terrorism after you were mad that people weren't going to stop defending against terrorism? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 18, 2008 Author Share Posted September 18, 2008 As usual, EII's using his fatally flawed "drinking the lock water" logic to make a point that's actually valid: any cost-benefit analysis of the current (and forseeable) strategic equation favors terrorism. What can I say? You nailed it. It is okay to mix a little Giardia into it. And the way we were dumping water back into the lake recently... It is bound to catch on with the rest of the city. Oh... I have well (village wells... Not lake) water at home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 18, 2008 Author Share Posted September 18, 2008 Your professors reference EII's bizarro-world logic in their lectures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 What can I say? You nailed it. It is okay to mix a little Giardia into it. And the way we were dumping water back into the lake recently... It is bound to catch on with the rest of the city. Oh... I have well (village wells... Not lake) water at home. I still don't have a clue how he got that out of your post, lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 I think we need to cut back spending and ending that silly war in Iraq - plus recouping what we can from the country who was supposed to pay for their own invasion, as promised - would be a good start. Yes, we should end nation-building conflicts, and concentrate strictly on naked imperialistic exploitation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 I still don't have a clue how he got that out of your post, lol The post? Why would I bother reading his post? The trick to understanding him is to read the subject and ignore everything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 18, 2008 Author Share Posted September 18, 2008 The post? Why would I bother reading his post? The trick to understanding him is to read the subject and ignore everything else. I like you Tom... You are a happening dude! And BlueFire... It is all about creativity! Working over 15 years in this enviro has totally screwed up my communicative skills, but NOT my creativity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts