GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - Sadaam cost 200+ billion, would you be cool with spending 500 billion+ to get Osama?

mardigras · 08-09-2004, 07:22 AM

We've seen the strains the Iraq war has put on our country, this question is for those who say that even though our reasons for going to war were based on incorrect information at the end of the day it was worth it to get Sadaam.

Osama Bin Laden is "Americas Most Wanted". Suppose we get new intellligence that proves he is alive and in say Pakistan. Pakistan who has been relatively cooperative lately in the war on terrorism suddenly becomes uncooperative because they don't want a long campaign on their soil involving bunker busters to knock out his hillside "safespots" and the insurgence of "freedom fighters" who would turn their attention away from Iraq and start concentrating on Americans in Pakistan. Of course since the Pakistani government is harboring a terrorist they would have to be replaced in the process. The information proving Bin Laden alive is so good we pick up a few allies, but we still basically fund the operation.

Human casualties are relatively low as they have been in Iraq but they again underestimated the resilience of the enemy and it costs over half a trillion dollars the first year of the operation, but we get Osama 9 months into it. As with the Iraq war the expenditures cause cuts domestically. Since we are already strained the US government has little option but cut all federal money going to the states not dealing directly with homeland security. States will be on their own to replace federal funding. The president can keep any promises to not raise taxes on the middle class while the states are trying to keep schools, hospitals, jails and formerly federally funded programs from closing and roads repaired, etc. and would be free to choose how they wanted to do it (state/city/property/gas tax increases, whatever). There is talk of cutting SSI/disability/Medicare, etc. or perhaps making eligibility much more stringent or raising the age requirement again just to keep those services minimally floating.

When it comes down to literally putting your money where your mouth is, if you support "the ends justified the means" attitude many take toward the Iraq war, how cool are you with the scenario above? A year later there are daily car bombs in Pakistan, regular beheadings, and a near civil war against the government embracing the Americans, but remember, we get Osama, that's a good thing. Would you be cool with strangling our economy to get him?

08-09-2004, 07:22 AM
mardigras Bon temps! Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: down yonder Posts: 14,194	Sadaam cost 200+ billion, would you be cool with spending 500 billion+ to get Osama? We've seen the strains the Iraq war has put on our country, this question is for those who say that even though our reasons for going to war were based on incorrect information at the end of the day it was worth it to get Sadaam. Osama Bin Laden is "Americas Most Wanted". Suppose we get new intellligence that proves he is alive and in say Pakistan. Pakistan who has been relatively cooperative lately in the war on terrorism suddenly becomes uncooperative because they don't want a long campaign on their soil involving bunker busters to knock out his hillside "safespots" and the insurgence of "freedom fighters" who would turn their attention away from Iraq and start concentrating on Americans in Pakistan. Of course since the Pakistani government is harboring a terrorist they would have to be replaced in the process. The information proving Bin Laden alive is so good we pick up a few allies, but we still basically fund the operation. Human casualties are relatively low as they have been in Iraq but they again underestimated the resilience of the enemy and it costs over half a trillion dollars the first year of the operation, but we get Osama 9 months into it. As with the Iraq war the expenditures cause cuts domestically. Since we are already strained the US government has little option but cut all federal money going to the states not dealing directly with homeland security. States will be on their own to replace federal funding. The president can keep any promises to not raise taxes on the middle class while the states are trying to keep schools, hospitals, jails and formerly federally funded programs from closing and roads repaired, etc. and would be free to choose how they wanted to do it (state/city/property/gas tax increases, whatever). There is talk of cutting SSI/disability/Medicare, etc. or perhaps making eligibility much more stringent or raising the age requirement again just to keep those services minimally floating. When it comes down to literally putting your money where your mouth is, if you support "the ends justified the means" attitude many take toward the Iraq war, how cool are you with the scenario above? A year later there are daily car bombs in Pakistan, regular beheadings, and a near civil war against the government embracing the Americans, but remember, we get Osama, that's a good thing. Would you be cool with strangling our economy to get him? __________________ .