It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bleed America!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 08:30 PM
link   
I read recently that 'the war on terror' was bleeding america dry, i cannot remember the article but it said that for every 100 dollars al qaeda spent...America spent 1million dollars, and that the war cannot support its financailly, it makes sense to me, America is using the most advanced equipment in the world.. against iraqi's with ak47's and home made bombs, America is already deeply in debt without any sign of it stoping anytime soon, i hear news that america is concerned with north korea and its nuclear weapons... i dont think america could afford another venture for a long time, i think america have put them self in a 'checkmate' with ''terrorists''
this 'war on terror' is going to be one of the biggest mistakes America has ever made.

EDIT: Bled all caps out of title.

[edit on 16-12-2004 by RANT]




posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Depends on who is collecting the money. This war has been a boon for the defense industry. They needed another enemy since the collapse of the soviet union.

What a better enemy than one with no borders. Pick an enemy, any enemy.



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 08:38 PM
link   
In my eyes i can only see corperations benifiting from this, business will boom.... people will suffer



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 08:38 PM
link   
you might be right about bleeding america dry, but i very much doubt that this would not be occuring even if we 'weren't fighting terrorism.

there have been a plethora of reports that even before 911, bush wanted to invade iraq. if we hadn't spent so much money tracking osama, we would be spending more in iraq - or we would be attacking another country like iran or north korea.

the problem isn't the war on terror, the problem is our crazy president and his war-mongering. Hey george, calling yourself a "war president" does not necessarily come off as a good thing.



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Lukas
I read recently that 'the war on terror' was bleeding america dry, i cannot remember the article but it said that for every 100 dollars al qaeda spent...America spent 1million dollars,


That was from the Bin Laden tape that was released on Octover 2004


www.memri.org...
Al-Qa'ida spent $500,000 on the event [9/11] while America lost in the event and its subsequent effects more than 500 billion dollars; that is to say that each of Al-Qa'ida's dollars defeated one million American dollars, thanks to Allah's grace. This is in addition to the fact that America lost a large number of jobs, and as for the [federal] deficit, it lost a record number estimated at a trillion dollars.
"Even more serious for America is the fact that the Jihad fighters have recently forced Bush to resort to an emergency budget in order to continue the fighting in Afghanistan and in Iraq, which proves the success of the plan of bleeding [America] to the point of bankruptcy, Allah willing.


If the US goes into Iran like some people seem to want, I think that will put the US into serious debt because I think Iran will retaliate on US soil.



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 08:56 PM
link   
how would they do that? dirty bomb detination? biological warfare?

they certainly could do it- but their options seem significatly limited in comparisions to the US



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by maegman
how would they do that? dirty bomb detination? biological warfare?

they certainly could do it- but their options seem significatly limited in comparisions to the US


Asymetric warfare or terrorism.
It doesn't have to be a single big event.

Bombs could be placed in luggage, car bombs could be set off near government officials or government buildings, etc..

It wouldn't be difficult but I don't think they would risk it unless they were attacked themselves.


[edit on 15-12-2004 by AceOfBase]



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Lukas
this 'war on terror' is going to be one of the biggest mistakes America has ever made.


The biggest mistake America has ever made was giving Bush another four years in office.



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pisky

Originally posted by Mr Lukas
this 'war on terror' is going to be one of the biggest mistakes America has ever made.


The biggest mistake America has ever made was giving Bush another four years in office.
Pisky, how complicated is it to become an English citizen? Pleaz start the paperwork for me...



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 07:41 AM
link   


how would they do that? dirty bomb detination? biological warfare?


Well what I find funny is that if America did attack Iran, and Iran struck back on US soil with normal weapons it would probably be considered an act of terrorism rather than an act inside the bounds of warfare, even if it was on a military target.


[edit on 16-12-2004 by Johnny Redburn]



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 07:48 AM
link   

The biggest mistake America has ever made was giving Bush another four years in office.


Thats assuming of course, that we DID elect him.... Personally, I'm of the very scary opinion that we no longer control our voting process, nor have since 2000.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 07:52 AM
link   
I suspect if all (or even a portion) of the money that has been spent - and is still being spent - on this ill-judged war in Iraq had been instead spent on going after the real terrorists, we'd probably be much further along.

The bulk of the money should have been spent on real, live, on-the-ground intelligence assets. Multi-million dollar high-tech gadgets are all well and good, but I imagine a guy in a turban minding his own business and a guy in a turban on his way to detonate a bomb look pretty much the same from a couple of miles up.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Azeari of the Radiant Eye
The bulk of the money should have been spent on real, live, on-the-ground intelligence assets. Multi-million dollar high-tech gadgets are all well and good, but I imagine a guy in a turban minding his own business and a guy in a turban on his way to detonate a bomb look pretty much the same from a couple of miles up.


Then I would guess that your 'beef' would be with the prior/previous adminstration (Clinton) for having literally crippled the intelligence services?




seekerof

[edit on 16-12-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Lukas
In my eyes i can only see corperations benifiting from this,
business will boom.... people will suffer


When business booms, people definately don't 'suffer'.

Economics 101 - When business booms, JOBS are created and
saved. Salaries rise. New homes are then built with those
new and higher salaries. Goods are bought. All this causes
MORE jobs to be made and kept.

Business booms = great economy = GOOD for the people.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Then I would guess that your 'beef' would be with the prior/previous adminstration (Clinton) for having literally crippled the intelligence services?


Yes. And with the Bush gang for not fixing it, and for attacking Iraq instead of trying to find the real culprits.

And I'm not sure it's all Clinton...I've known intel-types for many years, and have seen more & more dependency on technical solutions...



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Lukas
i dont think america could afford another venture for a long time, i think america have put them self in a 'checkmate' with ''terrorists''
this 'war on terror' is going to be one of the biggest mistakes America has ever made.


Do you honestly beleive that? Do you really think money is a factor when it comes down to the sheer scale of global terrorism. America is made of money. Always has, always will be...and Bush has been putting money into military from the beginning of his first term. Dont get me wrong...money is a factor but what I mean is that it isnt a factor for the US.

Hes also been pushing that anti-missle defense system from the beginning too and I assure you that they have more-than enough money to fund any war they want to start...

Wars make money...
In Baghdad when a power station or telecommunications building or any large important building that is part of the larger infrastructure get destoyed, who gets the contracts to rebuild?....Partners, Groups and large industry pump billions into rebuilding in any war. And im sure you'll find its the same groups with the large multimillion$$$ contracts.

I dont think it will be a question of if there will be another war like this and in-fact it should be a question of where.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azeari of the Radiant Eye

Originally posted by Seekerof
your 'beef' would be with (Clinton)

Yes. And with the Bush gang for not fixing it

www.newsmax.com...
It took Clinton 8 years to run down our military.
It will take at least a decade to fix the mess Clinton left.
The terrorists won't wait a decade for us to fix the Clinton mess.
So we have to work with what we have while at the same
time fixing the Clinton legacy (military mess).


[edit on 12/16/2004 by FlyersFan]



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 08:12 AM
link   
It's really not the War On Terror bleeding America, but the nation building.

I can't recall the unit of time, but there was a published figure being quoted in the campaign about how much per minute/hour/day (can't recall which?) the US was spending on Iraqi "freedom."

It was a $million$. I want to say per minute, but gosh that sounds high.

Anyway, a hundred billion of that could have been paid back with Iraqi oil (like Kerry and the Democrats wanted) but Bush promised to veto any such troop funding measures that didn't place the entire cost on US Taxpayers.

I seriously don't understand "conservatives" these days.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
Anyway, a hundred billion of that could have been paid back with Iraqi oil (like Kerry and the Democrats wanted) but Bush promised to veto any such troop funding measures that didn't place the entire cost on US Taxpayers.


Hey ya' Rant. I heard just the opposite. That Bush wanted to use
Iraqi oil to pay back, but that Kerry and the Dems wanted to use all
tax payer $$$.

Does anyone have a link to show what each side wanted???

(a reasonable link ... not CNN or Newsmax alone)



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
It's really not the War On Terror bleeding America, but the nation building.

I can't recall the unit of time, but there was a published figure being quoted in the campaign about how much per minute/hour/day (can't recall which?) the US was spending on Iraqi "freedom."

It was a $million$. I want to say per minute, but gosh that sounds high.

Anyway, a hundred billion of that could have been paid back with Iraqi oil (like Kerry and the Democrats wanted) but Bush promised to veto any such troop funding measures that didn't place the entire cost on US Taxpayers.

I seriously don't understand "conservatives" these days.


I think it's a billion $ per week. (~$150 million per day or $6 million per hour)
That money is going to support the military.
I think only $18 billion was set aside for reconstruction and some of that reconstruction money was diverted to pay security firms and a few billion was used to cancel off some of Iraq's debt to the US.

I think the majority of the money being spent on reconstruction, is money siezed from Oil for Food and oil sales since the war began.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join