http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/...tape/index.html

I am particularly amused by how Afghanistan bankrupted the Soviet Union - and all this time I was thinking it was the arms race with the US - silly me :lol:

Yeah, he's nuts for many reasons. Discussing debt without remarking on the scale of the scale is pointless. A person with $200,000 in debt making $1 million a year is different than a person with $200,000 in debt making $50,000 per year.

The Cold War Soviet Union spent anywhere between 25% and 70% of their GDP on military depending on what figures you believe are correct for the Soviet era GDP. The US military spending was 3.7% of the GDP last year which ranks as the 10th lowest since 1940.

There were many more reasons for the fall of the Soviets than the arms race. The war in Afghanistan was, however, the final nail in the coffin of the Soviet Union. There is a grain of truth in what he says. The scarey thing is this guy is rich. Richer than any of us and he does know how to handle finance as a weapon. I wouldn't dismiss this strategy out of hand. Whether it is successful or not is another issue. But the first shot across the bow has been fired and maybe our best defense is fiscal responsibility. Arms and military might will never defeat these motherfuckers.
Edit: BTW, don't think bin Laden is stupid. Underestimating your enemy is a tragic error.

There were many more reasons for the fall of the Soviets than the arms race. The war in Afghanistan was, however, the final nail in the coffin of the Soviet Union. There is a grain of truth in what he says. The scarey thing is this guy is rich. Richer than any of us and he does know how to handle finance as a weapon. I wouldn't dismiss this strategy out of hand. Whether it is successful or not is another issue. But the first shot across the bow has been fired and maybe our best defense is fiscal responsibility. Arms and military might will never defeat these motherfuckers. [/b][/quote]

Yeah,there's a gain of truth in it. It was the US strategy to bankrupt the Soviet Union under Reagan and earlier Kennedy. The US funded Osama's defense of Afghanistan as part of that plan. Osama trying to take credit? Ludicrous. He was nothing but a bit player at the edge of the empire. He's not rich. He's worth a few hundred million. Oprah Winfrey is rich.

Yeah,there's a gain of truth in it. It was the US strategy to bankrupt the Soviet Union under Reagan and earlier Kennedy. The US funded Osama's defense of Afghanistan as part of that plan. Osama trying to take credit? Ludicrous. He was nothing but a bit player at the edge of the empire. He's not rich. He's worth a few hundred million. Oprah Winfrey is rich. [/b][/quote]


Kennedy?? Yeah his strong action at Bay of Pigs is what did it.....

Yeah,there's a gain of truth in it. It was the US strategy to bankrupt the Soviet Union under Reagan and earlier Kennedy. The US funded Osama's defense of Afghanistan as part of that plan. Osama trying to take credit? Ludicrous. He was nothing but a bit player at the edge of the empire. He's not rich. He's worth a few hundred million. Oprah Winfrey is rich. [/b][/quote]
You have no idea how rich he is. Nor do I. Again, do not underestimate your enemy. To do so is pure folly. For a buck forty nine and a few airplane tickets, he changed the course of history. That takes brains.

Nor overestimate. If neither one of us has any idea as you stated why are you calling him rich? You're the one jumping to conclusions. Sorry, but if even if he is worth $1 billion he has nothing compared to the resources of the US government. It's relative.

Again, scale. Tell me how Osama is going to bankrupt the US when the US spends less than 5% of its GDP on its military and is at historically low numbers as a percentage of the total economy? It's a ridiculous assertion. Maybe you can share even one example from history of a nation that went bankrupt with such an insignificant increase relative to the size of its economy.

Nor overestimate. If neither one of us has any idea as you stated why are you calling him rich? You're the one jumping to conclusions. Sorry, but if even if he is worth $1 billion he has nothing compared to the resources of the US government. It's relative.

Again, scale. Tell me how Osama is going to bankrupt the US when the US spends less than 5% of its GDP on its military and is at historically low numbers as a percentage of the total economy? It's a ridiculous assertion. Maybe you can share even one example from history of a nation that went bankrupt with such an insignificant increase relative to the size of its economy. [/b][/quote]
I never said he would be successful. I said be vigilant. 911 was a good example of David and Goliath in the 21st century. Don't assume he can't do it again. I am just saying be careful and weigh all possiblilties. Remember odds mean nothing when you lose.
Also, does that 5 per cent include all the outside contractors employed by the military which are huge. Stats can say whatever you like. You may be right on the numbers, but I am sure Goliath thought he had it in the bag as well.

Godo madmen use a grain to truth to prop up their works for fiction.

Look at Buff's posts! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Alex

From Underwear goes inside your pants! video.

we are all fucking doomed

i guess its time to move into a cave and start living off the land

Odds mean nothing but you still want to discuss the numbers? OK, the US isn't even CLOSE to spending the most money on its military when scaled to the size of its economy. Hell, the US debt isn't even close to being the highest relative to GDP. Its about half of Italy's and near the average for the G7.

The numbers just sound like so much because the US economy is huge compared to any other nation.

The defeat in Afghanistan probably played a bigger role in the collapse of the Soviet system than most Americans give it credit for, particularly after 20 years of Reagan-as-god propaganda.

And yes, America won the war Afghanistan - the same way we won the two world wars in Europe. We put up dollars and let somebody else do most of the dying. Unfortunately, we walked away after we won. When we walked away from Europe after the first world war, we got the second*; we stuck around after the second, and things have settled down.

The idea that "the infidels" can be driven to give up is central to the philosophy of the bid Laden style Islamic fundamentalists; they point to Afghanistan, Vietnam, and Reagan's tucking his tail between his legs in Beruit as examples.

* - Weak arguement, I know, based both on the final peace treaty and the nature of the Republican governments that followed Wilson - still, the arguement has been made with some merits.

PD, yes. This is the best strategy there is!

PD, yes. This is the best strategy there is! [/b][/quote]
Sure, you put up the money. Your kids die in Iraq. Great strategy.

Sure, you put up the money. Your kids die in Iraq. Great strategy. [/b][/quote]
I don't think you understood PD's post. Despite your "political experience" - whatever that means - your grasp of history is weak. The US was able to influence the results of WW II for years without sending its armies. The US was able to influence the results of the Afghan/Soviet war without sending its armies.

I don't think you understood PD's post. Despite your "political experience" - whatever that means - your grasp of history is weak. The US was able to influence the results of WW II for years without sending its armies. The US was able to influence the results of the Afghan/Soviet war without sending its armies. [/b][/quote]
My grasp of history is not weak. Perhaps your grasp of irony is.

My grasp of history is not weak. Perhaps your grasp of irony is. [/b][/quote]
How does what you said have anything to do with my comment that fighting wars with money and not lives is the best strategy? Do you know how quoting works? If you quote
me, I'll assume your response addresses that quote. Does that help?

In a war such as the current conflict against terrorism, % of GNP spent on the war is largely irrelevant. All one has to do is look at 20th century history in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia to prove it.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and speculate that KeyGuy was attempting to be ironic in pointing out that we aren't fighting in Iraq the way we've been victorious in the past.

I had to reach to get there, though.

How does what you said have anything to do with my comment that fighting wars with money and not lives is the best strategy? Do you know how quoting works? If you quote
me, I'll assume your response addresses that quote. Does that help? [/b][/quote]
You assume correctly. No help needed. I meant what I said.