Good Riddance!

[euforia51]

   I disagree with you Euforia.Our financial problems came about because of dumbarses who borrowed more money than they could afford and the banks that lent them the money.On that front we seem to be doing our ownselves in without any help from terrorists.

Fair enough. So in that light, every missile we've ever fired, every helicopter that's ever crashed, every soldier and civilian we've put on the ground, on the sea, and in the air, for 3 wars, every new homeland security program that was ever introduced in the past 10 years, every new piece of scanning equipment ever purchased by our airports, and the treasure trove of other goodie, programs, and agencies our government provided for us to protect our freedoms and deliver us from terrorism was all for FREE!

[Researcher]

Fair enough. So in that light, every missile we've ever fired, every helicopter that's ever crashed, every soldier and civilian we've put on the ground, on the sea, and in the air, for 3 wars, every new homeland security program that was ever introduced in the past 10 years, every new piece of scanning equipment ever purchased by our airports, and the treasure trove of other goodie, programs, and agencies our government provided for us to protect our freedoms and deliver us from terrorism was all for FREE!

   
         Nope, it's not free but our government is doing that.Terrorists aren't forcing us to do those  things.But I would have to say it is the nation building that is so expensive. I'm glad to see a Navy Seal operation go in and take out a terrorist leader instead of going to war with Pakistan to get him.It's alot cheaper.
          The last time I heard Social Security and Medicare is what is bankrupting us. I don't think we are funding any programs for retired terrorists.Our economy has far worse issues going on. I will agree that defense spending should be a place to start cutting back but that alone isn't going to save us.


          Researcher

[thekfc]

KFC, where do you get your info?...

From the voice of knowledge in my head which has a life of its own. 

[Ray]

  Well, I hear Pakistan is all pissed off at us for killing their boy right under their noses without notifying them in advance so they could warn Osama to make a run for it. They said that if we ever pulled that crap again, there would be dire consequences… LOL!
 
Hey Pakistan, shove this up your butt you freaking terrorist-loving A-HOLES!
　

[robert angel]

Rumour has it that the entire ultra high tech helicopter that went down (one of the two helicopters used in the mission) that was supposed to have been burned to eliminate anyone being able to replicate and use the technology, wasn't completely destroyed. Again, 'rumour' has it that high level, sensitive negotiations to get back the remnants of the ultra quiet, low radar profile chopper's remaining pieces are ongoing.
 

The Russians and even more so the Chinese, have almost all of our military equipment's blue prints and other information already, including the plans of our highest tech on our ultra quiet, top of the line submarines & ships, as well as the know how to not only build their own identical versions of our top of the line Trident intercontinental nuclear missiles/rockets--in fact to even NOT  even have to SPEND to build them, but to computer SIMULATE the building and detonation of them under various (urban, mountain, plains) conditions, saving many billions.
 
Along with all that and more, they have pretty much most of the details on our stealth fixed wing aircraft,  so you can't help but wonder why the US govt. just doesn't sell them the knowledge, instead of them  (China and Russia) investing big money in the inevitable espionage they will put forth to get the same information.

 
No--don't 'give it away' but our track record on keeping our best technology for ourselves is awfully poor. One could argue that we shouldn't, as even if they are given or steal this tech. they may not be able to afford to build it or be able to train people as good as our own.

 
ONE thing they will probably never match us on is something very vital to making all these high tech military devices REALLY work. THAT is our men and women, who are the BEST trained in the world, who can utilize these things more effectively than any other nations. They (not their highest level commanders) are our most important weapon, IMO.
 
From what I've heard, about the only people who come remotely close to us in being pretty optimal in utilizing our highest tech military equipment with their manpower, are the Israelis, who even 'tweak' some of our weaponry, making it better for theor purposes. Before we really increased our increasingly vital  close quarters, modern 'urban warfare'  techniques and operations such as the SEAL's recent OBL mission, the Israeli's had been practicing these skills for decades. Sadly, what we we don't outright give or sell the Israelis, they are known to engage in espionage to get every last bit of US military technology and know how they can, as well as USA Govt, and corporate economic intelliegence, to help their own economy.
 
.
They said on the OBL mission, the SEALs used highly trained high tech dogs, who wore real image and infrared image cameras, along with real time communication devices between man and the armored dogs, which were armed with titanium fangs that can rip Kevlar armor to shreds and differentiate a hostage from a terrorist. The dogs can jump with the SEALs onto land or into sea. I don't know what kind of spying is going to give them the US Military man--or 'dog' power, for that matter...

[euforia51]

         Nope, it's not free but our government is doing that.Terrorists aren't forcing us to do those  things.But I would have to say it is the nation building that is so expensive. I'm glad to see a Navy Seal operation go in and take out a terrorist leader instead of going to war with Pakistan to get him.It's alot cheaper.
          The last time I heard Social Security and Medicare is what is bankrupting us. I don't think we are funding any programs for retired terrorists.Our economy has far worse issues going on. I will agree that defense spending should be a place to start cutting back but that alone isn't going to save us.

Another example from this author and I'm paraphrasing: how much did it cost to ship those ink jet printers on cargo planes a couple of months ago? About $4200. Now how much would our government have to sink into defending against this in the future? Say just for the sake of argument ... $1 billion.
Couple these things with your argument for entitlements such as social security, medicare, medicaid, the over-spending consumer, the fact that GE and other so-called American multi-nationals who raked in huge profits and didn't pay a freaking dime of federal tax to the U.S. and it's easy to see where at least a portion of our problem lies.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/ge_7000_tax_returns/
Nation building? Who's nation are we building? Certainly, not our own.
And yes, I like a good Seal raid to catch and slaughter a murderer as much as anyone. But in my mind, it's an insult to the team who pulled this off for our politicians to sit around bickering back and forth and finger-pointing over whether or not to release the photos when there is a full laundry list of  far more important things to be addressing.

[no comment]

Jimmy Carter must wonder what might have been had his mission to rescue the Iranian hostages was a success.

[Researcher]

  NC, I bet the thought of repeating the same Jimmy Carter scenario crossed Obama's mind while he was watching it!

      Researcher

[thekfc]

The cost of bin Laden: $3 trillion over 15 years.

What we are left with, after bin Laden, is a lingering bill that was exacerbated by decisions made in a decade-long campaign against him. We borrowed money to finance the war on terrorism rather than diverting other national-security funding or raising taxes. We expanded combat operations to Iraq before stabilizing Afghanistan, which in turn led to the recent reescalation of the American commitment there. We tolerated an unsupervised national-security apparatus, allowing it to grow so inefficient that, as The Washington Post reported in a major investigation last year, 1,271 different government institutions are charged with counterterrorism missions (51 alone track terrorism financing), which produce some 50,000 intelligence reports each year, many of which are simply not read.

 We have also shelled out billions of dollars in reconstruction funding and walking-around money for soldiers, with little idea of whether it has even helped foreigners, much less the United States; independent investigations suggest as much as $23 billion is unaccounted for in Iraq alone. "We can't account for where any of it goes—that's the great tragedy in all of this," Hellman says. "The Pentagon cannot now and has never passed an audit—and, to me, that's just criminal."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_exclusive/20110506/pl_yblog_exclusive/the-cost-of-bin-laden-3-trillion-over-15-years

[dennislevy]

And in this, KFC, I agree completely. My pride in being an American is mixed and I do not suscribe to the words of Stephen Decatur....MY country right or wrong.

I lve lost my faith in the two party system, I think we have involved ourselves in a series of disastrous wars that were and are unwinnable....and we refuse to learn from our mistakes or the mistakes of other countries (ie FSU in Afghanistan).

We HAD to bring Bin laden to justice and he is dead...but it is no payback for all the deaths that he was responsible for and the destruction.
On a somewhat related note, I thought it was cheesy for former president George W Bush to decline President Obama s invitation to partiicpate in the ceremony at Ground Zero. The War against Terror (or whatever you want to call it) began in President Bush s dminisration, and ideally, it should be non partisan. A remembrance of the tragedies of 911 ...and yes to celebrate in a sober way, the death of bin Laden.....should also have been non partisan.   

[Researcher]

 
 
    In an article I read the cost of the 9/11 attacks is near 2 trillion dollars....thats for what happened in one day.
 
            http://www.iags.org/costof911.html
 
     Since there have been no more terror attacks since 9/11 one could argue the money that has been spent to fight terrorism was worth it.I agree that our government is wasteful and that's putting it mildly.This is a problem not only with the war on terror but nearly every aspect that has to do with finances and our government.Wasteful spending has been a problem for a long time, well before 9/11.So to hear about how much it cost for our government to finally kill Bin Laden is no shock to me.It is just another example of a much bigger problem that has existed for a long time. Everyone turned a blind eye to it until our recent financial meltdown.Now the reality has set in and everyone is more conscience of these things.
 
 
   Researcher

[thekfc]

For Iraq & Afghanistan alone:

http://costofwar.com/en/

You can also check to see the cost to your state.

[jm21-2]

 
    In an article I read the cost of the 9/11 attacks is near 2 trillion dollars....thats for what happened in one day.
 
            http://www.iags.org/costof911.html
 
     Since there have been no more terror attacks since 9/11 one could argue the money that has been spent to fight terrorism was worth it.I agree that our government is wasteful and that's putting it mildly.This is a problem not only with the war on terror but nearly every aspect that has to do with finances and our government.Wasteful spending has been a problem for a long time, well before 9/11.So to hear about how much it cost for our government to finally kill Bin Laden is no shock to me.It is just another example of a much bigger problem that has existed for a long time. Everyone turned a blind eye to it until our recent financial meltdown.Now the reality has set in and everyone is more conscience of these things.
 
 
   Researcher

There may be a correlation between military spending and the lack of terror attacks, but making the argument that there's a causal connection would be very difficult. The #1 by far preventer of plane hijackings has been the passengers on the planes.

How about offering a billion bucks to anyone who prevents a plane jacking, or split between a group?

[michaelb]

A Billion dollars? For that kind of money people would stage them just to collect the reward.

[euforia51]

The #1 by far preventer of plane hijackings has been the passengers on the planes.

How about offering a billion bucks to anyone who prevents a plane jacking, or split between a group?

Well sure, they did it once, they certainly won't try it again now that everyone is armed with the knowledge. And any real American who is in fact a real American would gladly prevent another hijacking attempt for FREE! Although, that person or group would probably get sued for racial profiling after foiling the crime ... and lose!

So today,  it is reported that they were trying to get a plot together with the railroad ... tampering with railroad tracks over high bridges to derail a passenger train and have it crash into a valley. How much is it going to cost us to try to defend against something like this?

At 3 trillion, this is slightly under a 1/3 of our debt and we're not even close to being finished. And with an election year coming next year, the powers that be are going to continue to drag their feet to do anything significant to making a cut into the debt because they'll be too busy trash talking to the public, buying votes, and forming commitees to find out just where the hell Biggie and TuPac really disappeared to. 

[Researcher]

There may be a correlation between military spending and the lack of terror attacks, but making the argument that there's a causal connection would be very difficult. The #1 by far preventer of plane hijackings has been the passengers on the planes.

How about offering a billion bucks to anyone who prevents a plane jacking, or split between a group?

      A connection is easy to prove. In 2000 the USS Cole was attacked by Al Qaeda. The US did nothing.No military action even though Al Qaeda took credit for it. What followed? 9/11 attacks.

      There is no way to prove that passengers prevent plane hijackings. Air marshals and tighter airport security probably have more to do with that than anything.

      What happened after 9/11? Invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.There were no more attacks by Al Qaeda because they were too busy running and hiding. Fast forward to present. Bin Laden found and killed in Pakistan. What has been found recently were plans for more terrorist attacks which now won't be executed. I wonder how much those attacks would cost the US? 2 trillion per day and many innocent lives?

        I'll agree our government spends way too much money on everything.But slipping into Pakistan at night and killing terrorists leaders may be a step in the right direction. Diplomacy and nation building is too expensive and doesn't work.We are still hated and probably always will be.It's time to stop playing nice.

          Researcher

[euforia51]

      A connection is easy to prove. In 2000 the USS Cole was attacked by Al Qaeda. The US did nothing.No military action even though Al Qaeda took credit for it. What followed? 9/11 attacks.

      There is no way to prove that passengers prevent plane hijackings. Air marshals and tighter airport security probably have more to do with that than anything.

      What happened after 9/11? Invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.There were no more attacks by Al Qaeda because they were too busy running and hiding. Fast forward to present. Bin Laden found and killed in Pakistan. What has been found recently were plans for more terrorist attacks which now won't be executed. I wonder how much those attacks would cost the US? 2 trillion per day and many innocent lives?

        I'll agree our government spends way too much money on everything.But slipping into Pakistan at night and killing terrorists leaders may be a step in the right direction. Diplomacy and nation building is too expensive and doesn't work.We are still hated and probably always will be.It's time to stop playing nice.

Holy crap ... 2 trillion PER DAY? At that rate we'll be bankrupt and 3rd world by next week! Looks like you're coming around to realizing that the so-called war on terror is chewing up a good chunk of our wealth. So what changed your mind?
We all need to remember we are not just fighting al-qaeda. We are defending against every anti-American militant both domestic and abroad who has the means and desire to wreak havoc ... Oklahoma City, the wacko in Fort Hood in 2009, the first trade center bombing in '93, and on and on.
Sending in CIA ops to get bin Laden may have been cheaper than two wars but it still cost a pretty penny to do that; years of surveillence, personnel, equipment, development of new gadgets and technologies ... and someone had to train the dogs! That was the coolest thing I read today about all of this ... the dogs of war!
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/04/war_dog

[Researcher]

     Euforia, just to clarify 2 trillion is what has been estimated the 9/11 attacks cost us...since it happened in one day....2 trillion in one day.

         http://www.iags.org/costof911.html

      Researcher

         

[robert angel]

Yes, the USA govt. does have a tendancy to overpay for just about everything. From most estimates, we're sending (spending) between two and three BILLION dollars a year to Pakistan for humanitarian and especially mlitary assistance.  And for all that, they indignantly refuse to let us have the pieces of the SEALs helicopter that remain there or to interview or have any contact with the surviving members of Bin Laden's family, nor other surviving people who were in the compound allied with bin laden, all who were supposed to be flown out on the helicopter that didn't make it out.

This is the 'gratitude' we get from the Pakistani govt., all the while our US govt. says that they are our allies against al quaida and terrorism in general. Hogwash!!!!!

[euforia51]

Heré's a good link regarding Pakistan's involvement. In short, they are paying a U.S. lobbyist firm (with our aid money) to the tune of about $1 million a year to keep their $2-3 billion per year U.S. aid flowing like wine. We are talking about a country who was unknowingly harboring the most wanted individual in the world for 6 years and also tolerates protest rallies that include the burning of American flags by radical jihadist idiots who live there. I was apalled to see pics of these bastards all over the news today holding protest rallies because we finally got bin Laden.
Read about the criminal lobbyist here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110505/ts_nm/us_binladen_pakistan_lobbying
And here's a video discussing further:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/42924764
 
 

[jm21-2]

      A connection is easy to prove. In 2000 the USS Cole was attacked by Al Qaeda. The US did nothing.No military action even though Al Qaeda took credit for it. What followed? 9/11 attacks.

That isn't a causal connection. That's a correlation.

      There is no way to prove that passengers prevent plane hijackings. Air marshals and tighter airport security probably have more to do with that than anything.

No, actually airport security or air marshals have almost nothing to do with it. Nor the CIA or FBI or any other government agency. You could argue that since we increased spending on those things that terrorists would be deterred from hijacking plans, but again, proving a causal connection is basically impossible. If, however, you look at hijackings all over the world, you will find that the vast majority are stopped by passengers. One of the best ways to prevent terrorist hijacks may well be letting passengers carry weapons (maybe not guns, but knives, etc). If you're a group of say 3 terrorists on a flight where there may be 100+ armed passengers...adios. Allowing pilots and co-pilots weapons would no doubt help too.

      What happened after 9/11? Invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.There were no more attacks by Al Qaeda because they were too busy running and hiding. Fast forward to present. Bin Laden found and killed in Pakistan. What has been found recently were plans for more terrorist attacks which now won't be executed. I wonder how much those attacks would cost the US? 2 trillion per day and many innocent lives?

They were already running and hiding. We just made it easier by creating sympathizers. Most of the insurgents in Iraq were from outside Iraq.


OMG, a terrorist leader who was planning a terrorist attack. I'm shocked and dumbfounded. The question is not whether terrorists are planning attacks but whether they can pull them off and how effective they would be.

[euforia51]

One of the best ways to prevent terrorist hijacks may well be letting passengers carry weapons (maybe not guns, but knives, etc). If you're a group of say 3 terrorists on a flight where there may be 100+ armed passengers...adios.

Bad idea, IMO. Guns, knives, or other weapons on an airplane is not good. You are assuming that anyone and everyone carrying a weapon is a good person who also knows how to use such a weapon effectively should the need even arise. It seems you are also assuming that the terrorists hijacking a plane just walk on board and take over. While they may not be as skilled and precise as our Seals, rest assured, they are more thoroughly trained and practiced than the average Joe who flys business class.

[Researcher]

That isn't a causal connection. That's a correlation.
No, actually airport security or air marshals have almost nothing to do with it. Nor the CIA or FBI or any other government agency. You could argue that since we increased spending on those things that terrorists would be deterred from hijacking plans, but again, proving a causal connection is basically impossible. If, however, you look at hijackings all over the world, you will find that the vast majority are stopped by passengers. One of the best ways to prevent terrorist hijacks may well be letting passengers carry weapons (maybe not guns, but knives, etc). If you're a group of say 3 terrorists on a flight where there may be 100+ armed passengers...adios. Allowing pilots and co-pilots weapons would no doubt help too.
They were already running and hiding. We just made it easier by creating sympathizers. Most of the insurgents in Iraq were from outside Iraq.


OMG, a terrorist leader who was planning a terrorist attack. I'm shocked and dumbfounded. The question is not whether terrorists are planning attacks but whether they can pull them off and how effective they would be.

           So we would have been better off doing nothing like after the USS Cole attack? I'm not saying that I agree with how the government is wasting massive amounts of money I'm say that something had to be done and this is the way our government does things.

        That's right and if Bin Laden had not been killed we would still be in the dark about those plans. I wonder how many people thought Al Qaeda could have pulled off 9/11 beforehand? Not many.

         Here we go with the idea of guns on planes.Sure, let's serve more alcohol while we are at it.That is just a bad idea.

           Researcher

[jm21-2]

Bad idea, IMO. Guns, knives, or other weapons on an airplane is not good. You are assuming that anyone and everyone carrying a weapon is a good person who also knows how to use such a weapon effectively should the need even arise. It seems you are also assuming that the terrorists hijacking a plane just walk on board and take over. While they may not be as skilled and precise as our Seals, rest assured, they are more thoroughly trained and practiced than the average Joe who flys business class.

And I think you are making the common American mistake of underestimating people. I believe the vast majority of people are "good" and almost all of them care about their own survival. I think you also severely underestimate the combat ability of the average person. I remember a story a while back where I believe it was a green beret training exercise...not sure if it was special forces or special forces in training. Tried to disarm a small town deputy and take his vehicle as part of the training exercise (local police weren't notified) and got shot between the eyes. Spec ops have amazing combat potential, but a lot of that comes from organization, tactics, and some pretty cool toys. Unless our proposed terrorist is Jet Li, don't see it being a big problem to take him down with 3:1 odds or greater in cramped quarters.

[jm21-2]

           So we would have been better off doing nothing like after the USS Cole attack? I'm not saying that I agree with how the government is wasting massive amounts of money I'm say that something had to be done and this is the way our government does things.

        That's right and if Bin Laden had not been killed we would still be in the dark about those plans. I wonder how many people thought Al Qaeda could have pulled off 9/11 beforehand? Not many.

         Here we go with the idea of guns on planes.Sure, let's serve more alcohol while we are at it.That is just a bad idea.

           Researcher

"something had to be done and that's the way our government does things" so it's right? Sheep.


I doubt anyone thought about OBL at all before 9/11. And? Always hard to predict a surprise attack. [snip] happens. Lightning usually doesn't strike twice. If our politicians weren't so retarded as to play god with the middle east and get wrapped up in anti-islamist hype, it might never have happened. We can always speculate as to what might have been done better in the past or what might be prevented in the future, but at the end of the day we're left with the present.


What is with the irrational fear of guns? I think knives would be fine anyways. Like people have a few beers and all of a sudden want to shoot strangers. Give me a break. That is so patently absurd it's hard to respond to.