• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

The cost of war under Bush

A

Anonymous

Guest
http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/historical_war_costs/

In two little podunk countries, Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush has spent $695.7 billion. His last budget only funds the wars until January '09. He's leaving it up to the new president to come up with money to get our troops out or increase troop numbers in Afghanistan. What a guy! :roll:

World War II cost $3.2 trillion.

Vietnam - $670 billion all the others, peanuts in comparison.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Cost of Clinton not doing his job

3,000 lives on 911

3,000 + lives due us fighting terrorist since 911


not sure what monetary value to put on a life so I will leave that to you.
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
Funny how Bin Laden waited till Bush was in the office before he took down the towers.....maybe, with his close family ties to the Bush family, he knew the most incompetent president in history would not pay attention, would react incompetently, and would actually be a benefit to Al Qaeda.

And how did Bush react? let Bin Laden go in Tora Tora, Attacked the wrong country making it seem as though we were at war with Islam providing tremendous Al Qaeda recruiting opportunities, is in the process of bankrupting the United States trying to police a civil war that he started.

It couldn't have worked out better for Bin Laden than if he had planned it. But then, he probably did plan it. It was well known in the Bin Laden family that Bush was incompetent........Bush's only success in business came after bailouts from wealthy, successful, bush family friends.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
aplusmnt said:
Cost of Clinton not doing his job

3,000 lives on 911

3,000 + lives due us fighting terrorist since 911


not sure what monetary value to put on a life so I will leave that to you.

Clinton did his job. When terrorists attacked the World Trade Center on his watch, they were tracked down, tried in a court of law for the world to see and sent to jail. Bush isn't even looking for Bin Laden any more. He's set up camps to torture innocent people. Few people have been brought to trial for aiding the 9/11 terrorists because most of them were Saudis and he doesn't want to get crossways with the Saudi king, his kissing buddy. Court after court has thrown out his evidence against "terrorists". Beating your chest and rattling your sword doesn't make this country safer. Actually catching people and bringing them to justice makes this country safer. Clinton did that.
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Oh ya? Well, if things got too hot for Clinton he used diversion tactics to get the news off his tail. That's about the only time he paid much attention to foreign affairs. Oh, and don't forget how he devasted the military...

Bush might have mangled things here at home, but he's the reason we haven't been attacked again. We owe him that.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
ff said:
aplusmnt said:
Cost of Clinton not doing his job

3,000 lives on 911

3,000 + lives due us fighting terrorist since 911


not sure what monetary value to put on a life so I will leave that to you.

Clinton did his job. When terrorists attacked the World Trade Center on his watch, they were tracked down, tried in a court of law for the world to see and sent to jail. Bush isn't even looking for Bin Laden any more. He's set up camps to torture innocent people. Few people have been brought to trial for aiding the 9/11 terrorists because most of them were Saudis and he doesn't want to get crossways with the Saudi king, his kissing buddy. Court after court has thrown out his evidence against "terrorists". Beating your chest and rattling your sword doesn't make this country safer. Actually catching people and bringing them to justice makes this country safer. Clinton did that.

If Clinton would have did his Job Bush would not have to be looking for Bin Laden, Clinton would have hunted him down and brought him to Justice for the Terrorist attacks he was responsible for During Clinton's watch.

You blame Bush for the very thing Clinton did not do. Only difference is Bin Laden was a lot more accessible for Clinton to find than now with millions of fellow Muslims hiding him.
 

fff

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
ff said:
aplusmnt said:
Cost of Clinton not doing his job

3,000 lives on 911

3,000 + lives due us fighting terrorist since 911


not sure what monetary value to put on a life so I will leave that to you.

Clinton did his job. When terrorists attacked the World Trade Center on his watch, they were tracked down, tried in a court of law for the world to see and sent to jail. Bush isn't even looking for Bin Laden any more. He's set up camps to torture innocent people. Few people have been brought to trial for aiding the 9/11 terrorists because most of them were Saudis and he doesn't want to get crossways with the Saudi king, his kissing buddy. Court after court has thrown out his evidence against "terrorists". Beating your chest and rattling your sword doesn't make this country safer. Actually catching people and bringing them to justice makes this country safer. Clinton did that.

If Clinton would have did his Job Bush would not have to be looking for Bin Laden, Clinton would have hunted him down and brought him to Justice for the Terrorist attacks he was responsible for During Clinton's watch.

You blame Bush for the very thing Clinton did not do. Only difference is Bin Laden was a lot more accessible for Clinton to find than now with millions of fellow Muslims hiding him.

You do know that Ronald Reagan funded Bin Laden and other "freedom fighters" when they were fighting the Russians in Afghanistan?

Exactly what did Bin Laden do that Clinton should have "got" him for? Reliable links, please.
 

Mike

Well-known member
fff said:
aplusmnt said:
ff said:
Clinton did his job. When terrorists attacked the World Trade Center on his watch, they were tracked down, tried in a court of law for the world to see and sent to jail. Bush isn't even looking for Bin Laden any more. He's set up camps to torture innocent people. Few people have been brought to trial for aiding the 9/11 terrorists because most of them were Saudis and he doesn't want to get crossways with the Saudi king, his kissing buddy. Court after court has thrown out his evidence against "terrorists". Beating your chest and rattling your sword doesn't make this country safer. Actually catching people and bringing them to justice makes this country safer. Clinton did that.

If Clinton would have did his Job Bush would not have to be looking for Bin Laden, Clinton would have hunted him down and brought him to Justice for the Terrorist attacks he was responsible for During Clinton's watch.

You blame Bush for the very thing Clinton did not do. Only difference is Bin Laden was a lot more accessible for Clinton to find than now with millions of fellow Muslims hiding him.

You do know that Ronald Reagan funded Bin Laden and other "freedom fighters" when they were fighting the Russians in Afghanistan?

Exactly what did Bin Laden do that Clinton should have "got" him for? Reliable links, please.

Go back to bed. :lol:

In 1998, the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa killed 224.

Both were the work of al-Qaida and bin Laden, who in 1998 declared holy war on America, making him arguably the most wanted man in the world.

In 1998, President Clinton announced, “We will use all the means at our disposal to bring those responsible to justice, no matter what or how long it takes.” INTERACTIVE





NBC News has obtained, exclusively, extraordinary secret video, shot by the U.S. government. It illustrates an enormous opportunity the Clinton administration had to kill or capture bin Laden. Critics call it a missed opportunity.

In the fall of 2000, in Afghanistan, unmanned, unarmed spy planes called Predators flew over known al-Qaida training camps. The pictures that were transmitted live to CIA headquarters show al-Qaida terrorists firing at targets, conducting military drills and then scattering on cue through the desert.

Also, that fall, the Predator captured even more extraordinary pictures — a tall figure in flowing white robes. Many intelligence analysts believed then and now it is bin Laden.

Why does U.S. intelligence believe it was bin Laden? NBC showed the video to William Arkin, a former intelligence officer and now military analyst for NBC. “You see a tall man…. You see him surrounded by or at least protected by a group of guards.”

Bin Laden is 6 foot 5. The man in the video clearly towers over those around him and seems to be treated with great deference.

‘It’s dynamite. It’s putting together all of the pieces, and that doesn’t happen every day.’


— William Arkin
NBC military analyst

Another clue: The video was shot at Tarnak Farm, the walled compound where bin Laden is known to live. The layout of the buildings in the Predator video perfectly matches secret U.S. intelligence photos and diagrams of Tarnak Farm obtained by NBC.

“It’s dynamite. It’s putting together all of the pieces, and that doesn’t happen every day.… I guess you could say we’ve done it once, and this is it,” Arkin added.

The tape proves the Clinton administration was aggressively tracking al-Qaida a year before 9/11. But that also raises one enormous question: If the U.S. government had bin Laden and the camps in its sights in real time, why was no action taken against them?

“We were not prepared to take the military action necessary,” said retired Gen. Wayne Downing, who ran counter-terror efforts for the current Bush administration and is now an NBC analyst.



Global dragnet
Key figures and developments in the hunt for al-Qaida

“We should have had strike forces prepared to go in and react to this intelligence, certainly cruise missiles — either air- or sea-launched — very, very accurate, could have gone in and hit those targets,” Downing added.

Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, says the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him.

What impact did the wording of the orders have on the CIA’s ability to get bin Laden? “It reduced the odds from, say, a 50 percent chance down to, say, 25 percent chance that we were going to be able to get him,” said Schroen.

A Democratic member of the 9/11 commission says there was a larger issue: The Clinton administration treated bin Laden as a law enforcement problem.

Bob Kerry, a former senator and current 9/11 commission member, said, “The most important thing the Clinton administration could have done would have been for the president, either himself or by going to Congress, asking for a congressional declaration to declare war on al-Qaida, a military-political organization that had declared war on us.”
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
fff said:
You do know that Ronald Reagan funded Bin Laden and other "freedom fighters" when they were fighting the Russians in Afghanistan?

Exactly what did Bin Laden do that Clinton should have "got" him for? Reliable links, please.

It is a shame that Bin Laden turned on the U.S. but at the time he was funded by Reagan he was not an enemy of the U.S. President Reagan could not see the future to know if a past allie would turn into an enemy. It is not the first or will not be the last time a friend turns foe.

As for you need to know information about why Clinton should have hunted down Bin Laden that only shows you either do not care for the truth of matters or you are ignorant on this subject and should keep your opinions to yourself until you are more educated on this subject.

You can go find your own links if you truly care to be informed on one of the biggest threats to face America. But I will give you a hint to get things started.

The 3 U.S. Embassy's bombed in 1998.

The fact Clinton issued an executive order authorizing Bin Laden's arrest or death. But he did not go get him even despite more than 3 attacks against the U.S.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
That whole area has only one way of life "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"-today anyway- as tomorrow that might change and they will have to kill you.....
Tribal ideals - where a marriage or an insult can change/cause 100's of years fueding or loyalty....
Almost impossible to have any type centralized government in such areas unless its one that rules by the gun and absolute power....
 

fff

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
You can go find your own links if you truly care to be informed on one of the biggest threats to face America.

Why am I not surprised that you can't provide links to proof of your claims? :roll:
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
fff said:
aplusmnt said:
You can go find your own links if you truly care to be informed on one of the biggest threats to face America.

Why am I not surprised that you can't provide links to proof of your claims? :roll:

I would rather teach you to fish than give you intellectual welfare. Now if you want to make it worth my while. Say I get ownership of your unsernames FF and FFF if I do provide you with the links and if I can not provide you with links you get my username.

Nice friendly wager??

Otherwise if you will not Google something yourself to know the truth then I am not going to waste my time doing your work for you. Especially on something that is so common knowledge.
 

fff

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
That whole area has only one way of life "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"-today anyway- as tomorrow that might change and they will have to kill you.....
Tribal ideals - where a marriage or an insult can change/cause 100's of years fueding or loyalty....
Almost impossible to have any type centralized government in such areas unless its one that rules by the gun and absolute power....

Right now much of the drop in violence in Iraq is being attributed to arming Iraqis. Our military is paying (bribing) tribal leaders, village elders, to fight someone besides the US. When that money runs out or when someone is willing to pay more, they may well turn on us, with the weapons and training that we've provided for them! The incompotence and ignorance of this Administration staggers the mind.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
fff said:
The incompotence and ignorance of this Administration staggers the mind.

You have already showed how intelligent you are on any of this subject. When you did not know what or Why Clinton should have been hunting down Bin Laden for.

Go find yourself a political mentor and come back and discuss things with the big boys in a few years. Because of now you have no credibility, you are not quite ready for solid food just yet.
 

fff

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
fff said:
The incompotence and ignorance of this Administration staggers the mind.


Go find yourself a political mentor and come back and discuss things with the big boys in a few years.


:lol: :lol: You wish I'd go away.

Edited in response to the next post.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
fff said:
aplusmnt said:
fff said:
The incompotence and ignorance of this Administration staggers the mind.

You have already showed how intelligent you are on any of this subject. When you did not know what or Why Clinton should have been hunting down Bin Laden for.

Go find yourself a political mentor and come back and discuss things with the big boys in a few years. Because of now you have no credibility, you are not quite ready for solid food just yet.


:lol: :lol: You wish.

I am not sure what it is I am wishing for?
 

Mike

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
fff said:
The incompotence and ignorance of this Administration staggers the mind.

You have already showed how intelligent you are on any of this subject. When you did not know what or Why Clinton should have been hunting down Bin Laden for.

Go find yourself a political mentor and come back and discuss things with the big boys in a few years. Because of now you have no credibility, you are not quite ready for solid food just yet.

Get your foot off "it's" neck. :lol:

What is it Rush says?

You can argue with a liberal with half your brain tied behind your back and still win? You've done it here................. :lol:
 
Top