Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
are you suggesting that the US should just count on absorbing a series of attacks on the theory that we'll always bounce back somehow? Or that maybe now nobody wants to attack us anymore so we'll be OK?
This seems to presume a bunch of things, including that Iraq had something to do with terrorist attacks in the US.
saganista - just saying it's only an estimate from a political organization, "consider the source" is good analytical methodology
When you consider the source, you're supposed to consider the actual source. CBO is not a political organization. Neither is GAO. Neither is BLS or BEA or Census or any of the other fiercely non-partisan agencies that compile our national statistics.
As for 'only an estimate', all forecasts are only an estimate. They say so right up front. They are as good as their methodologies and their baselines. If you have some complaint over either of these as defined in the CBO war-cost forecast, be sure to post it. Otherwise, you are merely hot-airing the matter. No actual data for ten years from now are currently available. The best estimate of the case in 2017 will still be an estimate. Should we ignore obvious implications for the future on this account???
Contrary to what some believe - obviously we didn't go to war to take Iraq's oil. We 'get' $2 trillion out of Iraq by eliminating the terrorists who want to destroy our country - cost avoidance - it's cheaper to kill them than to suffer attacks. We 'get' $2 trillion out of Iraq by making the region safer for trade (i.e., oil - big difference from blood for oil).
The point is that spending money to prevent attacks is good cost-risk decision-making. Considering the -actual- losses that occured as a result of 9/11 gives an idea of the threat this country faces - it could have been (and was meant to be) much worse.
You mention the difference between "estimates and realities" and then you add this portion? Do you also do stand up on Sat. nights?
How do you account for the findings of the 9-11 commission or our own CIA conclusions that intervention into the internal affairs of other nations generally results in blow back or unintended consequences that are not visibly noted on the face.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,343 posts, read 54,462,599 times
Reputation: 40756
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Without arguing the merits or downfalls of the "war".. how do you think that we're not safer today then we were in 2001? Are you missing all of the stories about the killing and arrests of terrorists around the world?
I don't believe the issues can be separated. There have been attacks in two coalition countries so it's hardly as if invading Iraq put an end to terrorists. And how much safer might we be today had we not tied up so many assets attacking an enemy of al Qaeda?
There hasn't been another attack in the US since 9/11, and that is great. I think once everyone witnessed the magnitude of terrorim's capability to be highly organized and damaging, it was feared that they had somehow grown into an organization that could do this with efficiency, like a military operation.
But the truth is terrorism has to work in the shadows, otherwise they would be crushed by the nations they attack. Sure there are some governments who assist or at the very least allow terrorist to operate, but in the big picture, its still a very primitive and shadowy operation that the terrorist operate in.
This keeps them from being able to string together large operations in a short amount of time. Remember it was 8 years between the attacks on the towers in New York, and from 1993 to 2001 they were not being opposed as heavily as now. So it takes a long time. While I think it will be a long time before another attack happens on American soil, I think its inevitable, and the only questions are when, where, how, and at what cost.
I'm all for fighting terrorism, and I never once minded us going after them right after the war. But we are no longer really going after the deep pockets of terrorism, we are fighting a front lawn war where they send their newest recruits in as pawns to keep us busy and kill as many of us as possible. I'm very glad to know that we have taken out a few of their top guys in the process, but the planners in terrorist organizations always have successors lined up to take over should they die.
I don't think we should withdraw from the war on terrorist, but I do think the best war fought on terrorist is undercover and secretive, with occasional burst of military might when necessary.
Um,, the terrorists have been killing people around the world for hundreds of years.. Are you now proposing that we should attack EVERY country where terrorists live?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,343 posts, read 54,462,599 times
Reputation: 40756
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnbound2day
There hasn't been another attack in the US since 9/11, and that is great. I think once everyone witnessed the magnitude of terrorim's capability to be highly organized and damaging, it was feared that they had somehow grown into an organization that could do this with efficiency, like a military operation.
In my view, when you're fighting as a member of a coalition, an attack on one is an attack on all.
saganista - you're right, it's an estimate, but I don't 'trust' the "fiercely non-partisan" CBO or GAO (Congressional) as much as BLS and other agencies (Administrative) - YMMV - in my experience, many times those agencies start with a conclusion then support it... And you're right re: methodologies and interpretation of policy: and I'll concede that for the purpose of discussion it's a good number - war is costly.
TnHilltopper - "why did we go to Iraq" - Public Law 107-40 - violation of the terms of the Gulf I ceasefire, Iraq uncooperative with weapons inspections and disposal of weapons discovered after Gulf I, implementation of 1998 US policy for regime change, Iraq's continuing threat to US security, Iraq sheltering Al Qaida and other terrorists, etc.
Tnhilltopper - I can't believe that you didn't know all that. You've been protesting the war all this time and didn't know why we're there?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
