Sadaam cost 200+ billion, would you be cool with spending 500 billion+ to get Osama? - GoFuckYourself.com

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?

pxxx · 08-09-2004, 07:25 AM

I think that is a little too much money.

candyflip · 08-09-2004, 07:27 AM

Bush doesn't care about Osama bin Laden. He was a means to an end. Bush got what he wanted.

loverboy · 08-09-2004, 07:36 AM

an estimated amount of $126 Billion has been spent in the Iraq war, exluding human casualties of war.
http://www.costofwar.com/

So far, we haven't heard any of Osama lately confirming that he is still alive. Even if the US get's the No.1 terrorists in the world, there is no assurance that such terroristic attacts will end. He has thousands of followers who can be his replacement and will continue the legacy he has started. just me and my

Vitasoy · 08-09-2004, 07:46 AM

Bush and Bin laden are secret alies.

Viper2K1 · 08-09-2004, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by loverboy
Even if the US get's the No.1 terrorists in the world, there is no assurance that such terroristic attacts will end. He has thousands of followers who can be his replacement and will continue the legacy he has started.

Exactly

I bet they're even scared to catch him ... I mean who knows what those dudes will do to get him free again.

Doctor Dre · 08-09-2004, 07:56 AM

Out of that 200 billion, I'm sure at least 25 % was overpaid to compagnies ...

zzgundamnzz · 08-09-2004, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor Dre
Out of that 200 billion, I'm sure at least 25 % was overpaid to compagnies ...

You mean its not really $600 for a Toilet seat and $500 for a hammer?

mardigras · 08-09-2004, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor Dre
Out of that 200 billion, I'm sure at least 25 % was overpaid to compagnies ...

Well, we do know who's friends got the best contracts

I'm sure they'd welcome much more.

08-09-2004, 07:22 AM	#1
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? __________________ .

08-09-2004, 07:27 AM	#3
candyflip Carpe Visio Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: New York Posts: 43,065	Bush doesn't care about Osama bin Laden. He was a means to an end. Bush got what he wanted. __________________ Spend you some brain. Email Me

08-09-2004, 07:46 AM	#5
Vitasoy GFY HALL OF FAME DAMMIT!!! Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 58,202	Bush and Bin laden are secret alies. __________________ [email protected]

08-09-2004, 07:25 AM	#2
pxxx First African GFY Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 12,114	I think that is a little too much money.

08-09-2004, 07:36 AM	#4
loverboy When it rains, it pours Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 20,609	an estimated amount of $126 Billion has been spent in the Iraq war, exluding human casualties of war. http://www.costofwar.com/ So far, we haven't heard any of Osama lately confirming that he is still alive. Even if the US get's the No.1 terrorists in the world, there is no assurance that such terroristic attacts will end. He has thousands of followers who can be his replacement and will continue the legacy he has started. just me and my