Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
The Cost of the War on Terrorism
B5C
Veteran
"Nearly 10 years after the declaration of the War on Terror, the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan have killed at least 225,000 people, including men and women in uniform, contractors, and civilians. The wars will cost Americans between $3.2 and $4 trillion, including medical care and disability for current and future war veterans, according to a new report by the Eisenhower Research Project based at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International Studies. If the wars continue, they are on track to require at least another $450 billion in Pentagon spending by 2020.
Read more: http://www.defencetalk.com/estimated-cost-of-post-911-wars-35360/#ixzz1QzlK52AK"
All this for American global power and to kill one man. So much suffering and death for revenge.
Read more: http://www.defencetalk.com/estimated-cost-of-post-911-wars-35360/#ixzz1QzlK52AK"
All this for American global power and to kill one man. So much suffering and death for revenge.
0
Comments
How much does a missile cost? heck, that is worth at least 5 jobs.
---
I am glad that a lot of the lies behind these wars are more commonly known these days.
May all wars end.
1. A "War on Terror"? A war on an emotion? Wars are designed to cause what we're trying to stop. OK, how about a "War on Terrorism"? Terrorism is a tactic. Another name for terrorism is "sneak attack against a civilian target". We've declared war on sneak attacks, not on a nation. Since most wars include a few unexpected bombs dropped on civilian targets, we've declared war on war. And we're cheering as we do this instead of saying, WTF?? I have to stand in amazed wonder at the moronic thinking of the average citizen of our great nations.
So, just exactly how does one win a war on a method of fighting that by definition cannot be anticipated or guarded against because it's...you know...sneaky? So we have a neverending war.
2. So we have the "War on Al Qaida". Yes, it seems the Al Qaida exists, as a loose club of idiots that anyone can join simply by shouting the name as you explode the bomb. Normal law enforcement is very effective to fight this. In any country with effective law inforcement that doesn't have huge stockpiles of explosives sitting around all over the place, that is. Like the countries we're "helping" with our military.
The problem is, our governments have managed to convince people that what we're dealing with is some Supervillian organization out of a James Bond film, not a bunch of bumbling idiots that only succeeded because they happened to run up against a bigger bunch of bumbling idiots in the White House. So we now spend our time killing the top Al Qaida people, along with lots of innocent people, mostly with remote drone bombs. And since that only means the number three or four guy is now number one or two, it's an endless process. Once again, neverending war.
So from a military viewpoint, it's stupid. But since neverending war funnels money into the military, who are they to call BS on the entire concept? So the Generals keep their mouths shut and take the paychecks.
I had this conversation many times when it came to NASA and the money spent on space exploration. "What do I care if someone lands a little camera on Mars. Those billions will feed a lot of people!" No, those billions would be spent the way the rich and powerful decide, and that never includes feeding the millions of hungry.
[synopsis: After being caught in a scandalous situation days before the election, the president does not seem to have much of a chance of being re-elected. One of his advisers contacts a top Hollywood producer in order to manufacture a war in Albania that the president can heroically end, all through mass media.]
Yeah, it was just a movie but really, the powers that be own CNN and other news media... Anything seen on them should be subject to at least a little skepticism.
I also recommend the book "Point of Departure"
In this book, Robin Cook, former British Foreign Secretary and former Leader of the British House of Commons, exposes many of the lies committed by the British and US Government's in reguards to the suspected "weapons of mass destruction" debacle and other operations.
Mind you it is a rather extremely boring book to read (not sure how I managed to get through it all), but very eye opening.
Also, Cook described Al-Qaida as a product of a western miscalculation, in a 2005 newspaper column ("The Guardian" http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jul/08/july7.development)
"Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians."
1. Does it really matter if such a thing as al Qaeda exists? If it does, it's nothing but a bunch (probably a small bunch) of fanatical people who want to kill other people for very obscure reasons that they themselves probably would have a hard time stating coherently.
2. Whether "al Qaeda" exists or not, the end result for the world is the same. There *are* people around the world whose aim it is to cause suffering and death ("terror") to others in furtherance of some cause or other. Some of them target people close to where they live, and some target people far away. But lots of bombs have gone off, and lots of people have died. Not sure how much more evidence you require on that.
3. Physical evidence? Of what, an association between like-minded people? Doesn't exist. It's not like there's an al Qaeda uniform or a military headquarters building we could capture. The lack of physical evidence doesn't in any way mean that such an association doesn't exist. It's just not something that lends itself to producing physical evidence.
4. Lots of people in lots of places are just sure the CIA is behind all kinds of nefarious things. Having spent some time working in the US intelligence establishment, I can state for a fact that the CIA is nowhere near that capable. The times they have tried things like that, it's *always* come back to bite them, usually very quickly. The coup d'etat in Iran in 1953 is a perfect example. Everybody knew right off that the CIA was behind it, and it backfired in a huge way. Read a book called "Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA" by Tim Weiner. You'll believe a lot less conspiracy theories about the CIA when you realize how incompetent they are as a general rule.
5. Even *if* the CIA had been behind the uprising in Egypt (which I can't see any possible way it was), why is getting rid of a despotic dictator a bad thing? If I were the CIA, and I had pulled off such a wondrous feat, I'd be plastering billboards all over the place proclaiming my success at getting rid of Mubarak. Did anyone in Egypt like the man? And why is it so hard to believe that the Egyptian people (and the Algerian people, and the Syrian people, etc, etc) are perfectly capable of rising up against despotic leaders and changing things? I don't get that. It's an insult to her own countrymen.
Lives (human and otherwise), resources, wounded souls/spirits, karma... etc.
Has anyone here read “The Kingdom of God is Within You?”
I'm with Tolstoy.
From our earliest and most influential years, most of us have been thoroughly conditioned - by governments - to think in the “us” vs. “them” nationalistic, team mentality.
Just look at how many times even Peaceful anti-war people here say “WE” are at war.
Please think about this:
If a few folks from a neighboring town came to the town you live in, murdered some people, broke some stuff, and ran back to the other town; would you then think it makes any sense at all to go over to that other town (and maybe even a few more: you know, as “preventative” measures) and start shooting and bombing people and whole neighborhoods - butchering men and women, the elderly, children and their pets, their farm animals, blowing up buildings and bridges, and then FORCING EVERYBODY there to use the same kind of town government you and your neighbors are used to - the one you might even think is best for you?
I AM NOT AT WAR. (Maybe you are.)
PLEASE JOIN ME in learning to stop saying “WE ARE AT WAR.”
Let's please learn to start calling it what it really is: “THE GOVERNMENTS ARE (again) AT WAR.”
“That government does not represent them anymore than this evil government represents me.”
PLEASE END THE fill in the blank WAR NOW!
War is the health of the state. You cannot have a nanny state without a police state. You cannot have a welfare state without a warfare state. Its all part of the same evil machine.
I've had enough.
I no longer vote in ANY national elections. I refuse to be part of it.
“Don't ask me to the party – I won’t be around.”
very
Don't ask me to THAT party – I won't be around.
For those who believe the official story about who Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda are, please take a look at this well-researched and well-presented alternative view:
Metta,
Guy
The only difference is that some conspiracy theories are backed by much more convincing evidence than others.
Perhaps what you really mean when you say the "middle path between conspiracy theories and nationalism" is "the middle path between questioning the official account and believing the official account". The truth is not a compromise, no matter how ugly it may actually be. Don't be afraid to question those in positions of power - we live in a free society, don't we?
Metta,
Guy
Metta,
Guy
It says that the Bin Laden family is powerful and influential and that maybe they didn't entirely abandon Osama. It also says the CIA funded Bin Laden in the resistance to the Soviets in Afghanistan. These aren't shocking facts but they're presented in a way to make them seem so.
Then it presents the words of an ex CIA station chief expressing caution about assigning guilt to the mastermind of 9/11 in the week after the attacks. Then the commentator brings out the usual list of complaints and conspiracy theories about US government black ops and the 'mainstream' media.
I don't trust that what the government says are the straight facts, anything that comes out of a high ranking politician or government agency is usually highly spun and agenda driven. Personally, I don't think that means that there's a sinister shadow conspiracy to control the masses and take away our freedoms though. I'm not sold.
I didn't mean (nor did Mr. Corbett, I assume) for the above video to be taken as irrefutable evidence that the "War on Terror" is a hoax, but, at the very least, it should raise some questions for those who believe the official story about 9/11 and the "War on Terror". There are many holes in the official story.
Here is some more "concrete" evidence which goes against the Official 9/11 Commission Report from "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth":
Metta,
Guy
People who live in constant fear live lives that breed this sort of basic need for some shadowy figure to lord over their lives. Otherwise they'd be forced to admit that life is basically just unsatisfying, and they'd have to look for another path toward relieving the suffering that comes from that unsatisfactoriness.
Huh... I think I may be onto something there!
As they should be, most people are very afraid to question things, and now is a good time to start getting over that fear. If they don't start question now, do they think things will magically start getting better?
What are we leaving to our children?
Start questioning BEFORE it is too late.
I'd say, no we don't live in a free society, but I think I should start a separate thread for that.
Peace.
Metta,
Guy
Did you even watch it before commenting?
If so, please tell me precisely what is wrong with the evidence and/or logic provided in the video.
Metta,
Guy
It's called SCIENCE!!!
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842
http://scienceblogs.com/confessions/2011/05/from_the_archives_debunking.php
This is what truthers actually believe:
There is propaganda by the U.S. No doubt about it. But there is just as much propaganda by the various terrorist networks. I have a healthy skepticism of all propaganda. But when -- without conflicting evidence -- I have to choose between believing the propaganda of my own country or that of Osama Bin Laden, I'll believe what comes out of my government...again with that healthy skepticism.
NO WHERE DID I SAY THAT SOMEONE WHO BELIEVE WHAT THE ENEMY SAYS IS ALSO AN ENEMY.
If it didn't collapse due to a controlled demolition then why does Larry Silverstein (the lease-holder; a man who made a lot of money from the insurance pay out of 9/11) himself claim that the buildings were "pulled" (which means demolished):
I do not blindly support all views held by all people who you might put under the umbrella of "truthers". Instead, I look at the evidence and see where it leads.
Metta,
Guy
I can see that you ignored the scientific evidence I have shown to you.
"WTC 7 Collapse
Claim: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."
FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom—approximately 10 stories—about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."
There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors—along with the building's unusual construction—were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
"
I am off to see some fireworks for the holiday.
Anyway, the propaganda which Americans are exposed to through the mainstream media is not "American propaganda" - it is "FOX Propaganda" or "CNN Propaganda", etc. Since when do corporations represent (the interests of) entire countries?
Instead of believing propaganda from one side or another, why not learn to see through it?
Metta,
Guy
you are disregarding someone just because of a conspiracy theory?
they have their point; it seems more like a demolition.
I have some questions about some of the claims of the debunking article which I will address here tomorrow. Happy Independence Day!
Metta,
Guy
Perhaps I drew the wrong conclusion about your statement regarding "the enemy" - for that I apologize. I admit that I could have used more skilful speech regarding this. This topic is clearly something which evokes some emotion on both sides - that is perfectly natural - presumably none of us involved in this discussion are Enlightened. Perhaps I was speaking from emotion. Can we start over and engage in respectful dialog?
"An error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it"
- Orlando A. Battista
Having attempted to correct my error can you please forgive me and grant me the honor and privilege of engaging in respectful dialog with you?
If I was wrong, then could you please correct me by clearly defining who "the enemy" is so I can clearly understand where you are coming from.
Just because we may have differing opinions doesn't mean we have nothing to gain from communicating - on the contrary - if we agreed about 9/11 then we would have nothing to gain from communicating.
At the end of the day, we are all Buddhists, we are all kind, loving, truth-seeking people. So can't we talk about issues which matter to us?
Metta,
Guy
If, after examining the evidence it doesn't provoke any further questions in your mind, then fine. But, if 9/11 and the consequences of 9/11 are important to you, if discovering the truth (no matter where it might lead you) is important to you, then, wouldn't you want to at least give the evidence the time of day? Whatever conclusions you draw from the evidence I have provided is up to you. Everyone is entitled to their opinions.
Metta,
Guy