Les Jones

Meagan writes:

>>>Iraq and Afghanistan together have cost us less than $300 billion, including the money Bush is going to ask for next year. In the same period, the US economy will have grossed about 36 trillion dollars, meaning that the war will have cost us less than 1% of our income.

Right now, our National Debt is: over $7.4 TRILLION DOLLARS.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

We are currently running a BUDGET DEFICIT of historical proportions.
>>>Economists estimate that by 2007, the U.S. will pay $150 billion in interest to foreign interests, up from the current $4 billion. This will have a major impact on our economic growth, affecting us on all levels … even the personal level."

Steve Marr is a business/ministry consultant and author of the book Business Proverbs.
http://www.thegoodsteward.com/article.php3?articleID=1768

The problem is, Megan, there is NO END IN SIGHT of this Iraqi quagmire, and if we keep spending an average of $100+ billion a year--in a war that is supposed to be "generational", you do the math.

--COBRA

So what was the cost of 9/11? What will be the cost of continuing to have rogue states and terrorist organizations, or having a suitcase nuke going off in Manhattan?

Les writes:

>>>So what was the cost of 9/11? What will be the cost of continuing to have rogue states and terrorist organizations, or having a suitcase nuke going off in Manhattan?

Well, we know from Osama's own mouth that HIS 9/11 operation cost about $500,000. We attacked the Rogue state of Iraq, which had NOTHING to do with 9/11, and the countries that have suitcase nukes are the old Soviet republics, which we've done absolutely NOTHING about.
Les, what exactly is preventing somebody from hijacking a plane today and crashing it into a building? Why do you think we're any safer now, than on 9/10/2001?

--Cobra

Why do you think we're any safer now, than on 9/10/2001?

Because we've shown the world that we will attack and punish rogue states. They can't harbor terrorists or sponsor terrorism or illegal weapons trades and get away with it.

As far as nukes, post-Iraq invasion Qaddafi gave up his nuclear weapons programs because he didn't want to be next. His equipment was crated up and flown to Tennessee. It's now sitting in a warehouse in Oak Ridge about 20 miles from where I live.

Les writes:

>>>Because we've shown the world that we will attack and punish rogue states. They can't harbor terrorists or sponsor terrorism or illegal weapons trades and get away with it

If Osama Bin Laden is looking clean, healthy and no worse for wear three years after he directed a terrorist attack against us, you would consider that "punished?" In fact, Osama's video had more viewers than "The O'Reilly Factor", "Hannity and Colmes" and "Fox and Friends" combined.
You still didn't address my question to you. Exactly what is preventing somebody from hijacking a plane today, and crashing it into a building? What's stopping ANY type of terrorist attack within the United States? The borders are pourous, our ports are virtually unwatched, and nobody has a clue how many illegal aliens now walk among us.
Second, the United States actually DOESN'T punish rogue states that lends support to terrorists.
>>>The disclosure of the Saudi money trail has further strained ties between Washington and Riyadh. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens, and Republicans and Democrats have criticized the royal family for underwriting a radical form of Islam that has been used by some adherents to countenance violence against the West. In an interview with the New York Times last week, Prince Bandar and Princess Haifa described themselves as committed to President Bush's war against terrorism and said they were "outraged" at suspicions that they would have knowingly supported anyone involved in terrorist activities.

Cash. Even before investigators began tracing the cashier's checks from Princess Haifa, government officials told U.S. News, FBI and treasury investigators had begun formal inquiries into the flow of funds through the Saudi Embassy in Washington. Bank accounts of the embassy and embassy personnel enjoy diplomatic immunity. But the government officials say investigators have taken a number of steps–not including electronic surveillance–to attempt to monitor money flows through the embassy. Of particular concern, several officials said, is cash that may have been transported under diplomatic seal from Riyadh to Washington.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/features/saudi_021129.htm

You mean, all Saddam Hussein had to do to stay on Dubya's good side was to claim "diplomatic immunity?"
If you REALLY believe what you're saying in your own statement, American troops should be gathering outside of Riyadh, and not Fallujah.

--Cobra

OBL is just one player. The Taliban government that harbored him is out of power, and his people are dead and on the run.

As far as what we've done to stop future attacks, we've installed cockpit doors and beefed up screening. We've started the process of arming pilots, though that's gone way too slow for my taste.

Here's the thing, though: can't win on defense. We can' inspect 100% of cargo containers. We can't stripsearch every passenger getting on a plane. I don't want to live in a bunker. That's why we have to go out into the world and go on the offensive.

Les writes:
>>>Here's the thing, though: can't win on defense. We can' inspect 100% of cargo containers. We can't stripsearch every passenger getting on a plane. I don't want to live in a bunker. That's why we have to go out into the world and go on the offensive.

So NOTHING is preventing another plane hijacking right now, and slaughtering Iraqis will keep us safe here in what way?

--Cobra