You can add more than that actually...ATG wrote:
More money has been spent on the bailout than gulf war 1 and 2, world war one and two, korea, Vietnam combined.
Really?ATG wrote:
More money has been spent on the bailout than gulf war 1 and 2, world war one and two, korea, Vietnam combined.
What are the figures for that? Is that inflation adjusted?
I can't believe that's true.
WWII was more than $2 trillion. Iraq has been over $0.5 trillion (or more than that - depending on how you work it out) - how much has the US been spending on bailouts?
Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-02-21 11:55:26)
See my post above.Bertster7 wrote:
Really?ATG wrote:
More money has been spent on the bailout than gulf war 1 and 2, world war one and two, korea, Vietnam combined.
What are the figures for that? Is that inflation adjusted?
I can't believe that's true.
WWII was more than $2 trillion. Iraq has been over $1 trillion - how much has the US been spending on bailouts?
You're correct that WW2 isn't actually included, but the bailout is still more than WW2 in its own right.
The figures above concern all proposed bailouts that began with the tail end of Bush's administration and are in the process of passing Congress right now.
Around 30% of GDP on bailouts!Turquoise wrote:
See my post above.Bertster7 wrote:
Really?ATG wrote:
More money has been spent on the bailout than gulf war 1 and 2, world war one and two, korea, Vietnam combined.
What are the figures for that? Is that inflation adjusted?
I can't believe that's true.
WWII was more than $2 trillion. Iraq has been over $1 trillion - how much has the US been spending on bailouts?
You're correct that WW2 isn't actually included, but the bailout is still more than WW2 in its own right.
The figures above concern all proposed bailouts that began with the tail end of Bush's administration and are in the process of passing Congress right now.
Ouch!
Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-02-21 11:58:07)
No kidding... which is why our currency is sure to take a big hit from this. I think the Euro will soon be the world's favored currency.Bertster7 wrote:
Around 50% of GDP on bailouts!
Ouch!
Just goes to show that if you get ass raped in prison enough your morales go to hell. Siding with infidels will surely get him some ugly virgin tang in heaven, at least that is what the Profit said in between molesting camels.imortal wrote:
...wait... you mean it actually worked? That someone has figured out it is a bad idea to attack the US? You mean someone over there has fugured out that it is not worth it, and the cost of attacking America is too high? Why, that means we may have actually known what we were doing! Too bad the guy that figured it out has no power left. But, if he figured it out, then so can others. There is hope, yet.Protecus wrote:
The terrorist attacks on September 11 were both immoral and counterproductive, he writes. "Ramming America has become the shortest road to fame and leadership among the Arabs and Muslims. But what good is it if you destroy one of your enemy's buildings, and he destroys one of your countries? What good is it if you kill one of his people, and he kills a thousand of yours?" asks Dr Fadl. "That, in short, is my evaluation of 9/11."
Knowing a little about the Pakistani security & intelligence community, I very much doubt it'd be hard to buy off someone that knows where those nukes are.Bertster7 wrote:
I very much doubt they don't have some discretely stashed away where they wouldn't be found....
If Pakistani Intelligence knows about it, it may as well be on eBay.
Yes, I am afraid I may be somewhat of a 'throwback.' My personality, attitude, and leadership style would most likely fit in better in the middle ages (or a region controlled by warlords) than in modern, polite society. Yes, it has a tendancy to escalate things. But, if you know your ass is toast if your neighbor hurts someone, it would behoove you to politely suggest that your neighbor refrain from such exercises.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I suppose in a ruthless practical sense, it would probably make more sense to just wipe out Gaza at this point, because of how much they've really pissed off people over there. They've essentially radicalized the whole populace there through suffering.Stingray24 wrote:
It would work quite nicely ... but Israel hasn't gone balls out yet.
It's just that what imortal is suggesting has a tendency to escalate things. It doesn't make sense to go into conqueror mode unless you are able to just kill indiscriminately and relentlessly. I'm pretty sure if we push things much further, WW3 might result.
About the only invasion I see as even feasible now is against Pakistan, but that would require some very clever planning and leadership.
...unless you and your neighbor are powerful enough to destroy the source of the conflict.imortal wrote:
Yes, I am afraid I may be somewhat of a 'throwback.' My personality, attitude, and leadership style would most likely fit in better in the middle ages (or a region controlled by warlords) than in modern, polite society. Yes, it has a tendancy to escalate things. But, if you know your ass is toast if your neighbor hurts someone, it would behoove you to politely suggest that your neighbor refrain from such exercises.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I suppose in a ruthless practical sense, it would probably make more sense to just wipe out Gaza at this point, because of how much they've really pissed off people over there. They've essentially radicalized the whole populace there through suffering.Stingray24 wrote:
It would work quite nicely ... but Israel hasn't gone balls out yet.
It's just that what imortal is suggesting has a tendency to escalate things. It doesn't make sense to go into conqueror mode unless you are able to just kill indiscriminately and relentlessly. I'm pretty sure if we push things much further, WW3 might result.
About the only invasion I see as even feasible now is against Pakistan, but that would require some very clever planning and leadership.
Obviously, with Israel, this isn't the case, but... Israel wouldn't be nearly as powerful without our aid.
Well, it all started by me wanting it to the the foreign policy of the US. I think we can pull it off. Of course, this is why the 'small fry' nations tend to resent us so much. Remember my Shaw quote before.Turquoise wrote:
...unless you and your neighbor are powerful enough to destroy the source of the conflict.imortal wrote:
Yes, I am afraid I may be somewhat of a 'throwback.' My personality, attitude, and leadership style would most likely fit in better in the middle ages (or a region controlled by warlords) than in modern, polite society. Yes, it has a tendancy to escalate things. But, if you know your ass is toast if your neighbor hurts someone, it would behoove you to politely suggest that your neighbor refrain from such exercises.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I suppose in a ruthless practical sense, it would probably make more sense to just wipe out Gaza at this point, because of how much they've really pissed off people over there. They've essentially radicalized the whole populace there through suffering.
It's just that what imortal is suggesting has a tendency to escalate things. It doesn't make sense to go into conqueror mode unless you are able to just kill indiscriminately and relentlessly. I'm pretty sure if we push things much further, WW3 might result.
About the only invasion I see as even feasible now is against Pakistan, but that would require some very clever planning and leadership.
Obviously, with Israel, this isn't the case, but... Israel wouldn't be nearly as powerful without our aid.
When it comes to our dominance, it's kind of a "too much to lose" situation. If we engaged in unlimited warfare everytime some extremist group attacked us, we'd run out of money and friends before "winning", so to speak.imortal wrote:
Well, it all started by me wanting it to the the foreign policy of the US. I think we can pull it off. Of course, this is why the 'small fry' nations tend to resent us so much. Remember my Shaw quote before.Turquoise wrote:
...unless you and your neighbor are powerful enough to destroy the source of the conflict.imortal wrote:
Yes, I am afraid I may be somewhat of a 'throwback.' My personality, attitude, and leadership style would most likely fit in better in the middle ages (or a region controlled by warlords) than in modern, polite society. Yes, it has a tendancy to escalate things. But, if you know your ass is toast if your neighbor hurts someone, it would behoove you to politely suggest that your neighbor refrain from such exercises.
Obviously, with Israel, this isn't the case, but... Israel wouldn't be nearly as powerful without our aid.
It's not so much a "because we can" situation as much as it is a "is it worth the cost" situation.
How much does one nuke really cost? Yes, it costs us money, and is horrific. But it makes the game too expensive for the other side to even ante up.Turquoise wrote:
When it comes to our dominance, it's kind of a "too much to lose" situation. If we engaged in unlimited warfare everytime some extremist group attacked us, we'd run out of money and friends before "winning", so to speak.imortal wrote:
Well, it all started by me wanting it to the the foreign policy of the US. I think we can pull it off. Of course, this is why the 'small fry' nations tend to resent us so much. Remember my Shaw quote before.Turquoise wrote:
...unless you and your neighbor are powerful enough to destroy the source of the conflict.
Obviously, with Israel, this isn't the case, but... Israel wouldn't be nearly as powerful without our aid.
It's not so much a "because we can" situation as much as it is a "is it worth the cost" situation.
Terrorism is as much about the publicity as anything else, because if no one knows to be afraid of you, then what have you accomplised? So, any time a person claims responsibility for a terrorist attack, a nuke will destroy the the home town or village of the person (or appropriate other city- the headquarters for the training group). Did I mention I am a bit of an exteremist, prone to over-reaction? You may have to prove it two or three times, but... hey, it works. If no one has the power to stand up to directly, then they wil ltoe the line. If you do not use your power to try to control the entire world, and only use this critical over-reaction to defend your own soil, that reduces the liklihood of other nations joining up into a coalition to try to take you down.
How Bin Laden Got Away
THAT is why you do not trust Pakistani Intelligence with anything more important than "how do you take your tea?"
Short version: We paid the Pakistanis and local tribal leaders very well for help capturing Osama. Unfortunately, Osama paid them even more.
Edit: not to mention their history of "misplacing" 90% of the US aid to the anti-Soviet forces during the Soviet-Afghan war...
THAT is why you do not trust Pakistani Intelligence with anything more important than "how do you take your tea?"
Short version: We paid the Pakistanis and local tribal leaders very well for help capturing Osama. Unfortunately, Osama paid them even more.
Edit: not to mention their history of "misplacing" 90% of the US aid to the anti-Soviet forces during the Soviet-Afghan war...
Last edited by rdx-fx (2009-02-21 13:38:45)
Here is an article somewhat explaining the Muslim concept of Hospitality;He is equally unsparing about Muslims who move to the West and then take up terrorism. "If they gave you permission to enter their homes and live with them, and if they gave you security for yourself and your money, and if they gave you the opportunity to work or study, or they granted you political asylum," writes Dr Fadl, then it is "not honourable" to "betray them, through killing and destruction".
The Extra Mile : The ancient virtue of hospitality imposes duties on host and guest.
With an understanding of Muslim hospitality, and the duties and formalities of such - Dr. Fadl's statement is just pure brilliance.
The only Machiavellian machination I can see in his current tactic is a chance he is trying to either;
1) Wrest control of AQ back from Osama bin Laden,
2) Make his case as a replacement for Osama bin Laden before it's known to the general public that Osama bin Laden is already dead or incapacitated, or
3) Split AQ into a new 'legitimate' political front along side the old islamist terrorist organization. Historical precedent would be Hamas and the IRA.
Personally, I think #3 makes the most sense.
Considering the brutally short life expectancy of most of AQ's recent leadership - it would be beneficial if some of them could hide behind a veneer of political legitimacy. Think Yassir Arafat.
So, a legitimate political front for AQ, giving plenty of policy statements on Al Jazeera, and staying out from under American bombs with a veneer of diplomatic status. Talk about having your cake and eating it too.. f'ing Al Quaeda stealing from the playbook of the PLO, Hamas, and IRA. Sickening thought, but brilliant.
Now, if only the Islamists can take over Pakistan and their nukes...
I'd sway towards point 3, though that won't make AQ any more..manageable?
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
No, it'd make them even less manageable. Every time we bombed one of their terrorist leaders, they'd claim it was one of their 'legitimate' guys...FatherTed wrote:
I'd sway towards point 3, though that won't make AQ any more..manageable?
etc.. etc.. ad nauseum.
Look what happened to the IRA, all the splinter groups. Political nightmare, 10+ sides all on the same side, all with different approaches to their cause.rdx-fx wrote:
No, it'd make them even less manageable. Every time we bombed one of their terrorist leaders, they'd claim it was one of their 'legitimate' guys...FatherTed wrote:
I'd sway towards point 3, though that won't make AQ any more..manageable?
etc.. etc.. ad nauseum.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
...wow, almost like real life, or politics!FatherTed wrote:
Look what happened to the IRA, all the splinter groups. Political nightmare, 10+ sides all on the same side, all with different approaches to their cause.rdx-fx wrote:
No, it'd make them even less manageable. Every time we bombed one of their terrorist leaders, they'd claim it was one of their 'legitimate' guys...FatherTed wrote:
I'd sway towards point 3, though that won't make AQ any more..manageable?
etc.. etc.. ad nauseum.
I'd karma for that, but i'm outimortal wrote:
...wow, almost like real life, or politics!FatherTed wrote:
Look what happened to the IRA, all the splinter groups. Political nightmare, 10+ sides all on the same side, all with different approaches to their cause.rdx-fx wrote:
No, it'd make them even less manageable. Every time we bombed one of their terrorist leaders, they'd claim it was one of their 'legitimate' guys...
etc.. etc.. ad nauseum.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
I'd +Karma him for you, but You may not karma the same person in a 24 hour period.FatherTed wrote:
I'd karma for that, but i'm out
It's the thought that counts. Thanks.rdx-fx wrote:
I'd +Karma him for you, but You may not karma the same person in a 24 hour period.FatherTed wrote:
I'd karma for that, but i'm out
Got a karma, used it!imortal wrote:
It's the thought that counts. Thanks.rdx-fx wrote:
I'd +Karma him for you, but You may not karma the same person in a 24 hour period.FatherTed wrote:
I'd karma for that, but i'm out
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
As far as I can tell this statement is quite true (the first sentence anyway). Let's hope history repeats itself in this case.Terrorist movements across the world have a history of alienating their popular support by waging campaigns of indiscriminate murder. This process of disintegration often begins with a senior leader publicly denouncing his old colleagues. Dr Fadl's missives may show that al-Qaeda has entered this vital stage.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Most certainly happened with the IRASpark wrote:
As far as I can tell this statement is quite true (the first sentence anyway). Let's hope history repeats itself in this case.Terrorist movements across the world have a history of alienating their popular support by waging campaigns of indiscriminate murder. This process of disintegration often begins with a senior leader publicly denouncing his old colleagues. Dr Fadl's missives may show that al-Qaeda has entered this vital stage.
RE; Enniskillen, the town i grew up in. Google it, it's fucking horrific. My dad was there.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
I think you'll find the disruptions to trade would not be worth any gains you made from the war itself.imortal wrote:
How much does one nuke really cost? Yes, it costs us money, and is horrific. But it makes the game too expensive for the other side to even ante up.Turquoise wrote:
When it comes to our dominance, it's kind of a "too much to lose" situation. If we engaged in unlimited warfare everytime some extremist group attacked us, we'd run out of money and friends before "winning", so to speak.imortal wrote:
Well, it all started by me wanting it to the the foreign policy of the US. I think we can pull it off. Of course, this is why the 'small fry' nations tend to resent us so much. Remember my Shaw quote before.
It's not so much a "because we can" situation as much as it is a "is it worth the cost" situation.
Terrorism is as much about the publicity as anything else, because if no one knows to be afraid of you, then what have you accomplised? So, any time a person claims responsibility for a terrorist attack, a nuke will destroy the the home town or village of the person (or appropriate other city- the headquarters for the training group). Did I mention I am a bit of an exteremist, prone to over-reaction? You may have to prove it two or three times, but... hey, it works. If no one has the power to stand up to directly, then they wil ltoe the line. If you do not use your power to try to control the entire world, and only use this critical over-reaction to defend your own soil, that reduces the liklihood of other nations joining up into a coalition to try to take you down.