That's why I think it's time to take the gloves off and warm up those nukes. A little taste of this type of firepower will have these little osamas running for cover with their rags stuck between their legs. And all this jihad shit just to get a taste of those darn virgins.
You have to consider that with an organization such as Al-Qaeda there is going to be an excess of "number two".
You don't even have to waste a nuke on those sick fucks, let em tramble themselves and fight amongst each other, Mecca is a good place for a "jihad"
Itâs not about OBL and his kidneys. Itâs about a great majority of the Muslim World supporting his cause.
So this chicken can grow new heads. As long as we are efficient and timely at cutting them off, the chicken can never walk very far.
. Ricter: I see what you're getting at, but you have to remember that we've just turned a corner in this war. ******* January 20, 2006 SouthAmerica: Regarding Iraq the United States has fallen over âTHE EDGE OF THE ABYSS.â For the war mongers it is never the right time to leave a good war behind. The truth is Vietnam survived after the American troops left South Vietnam in 1974 â the world actually it did not come to an end in Vietnam as many Americans expected. Today Iraq is in the middle of a civil war if the United States believe it or not. And there is nothing the US can do about it. The United States is going for broke in Iraq â but the party will last only until some foreign countries still are willing to finance the United States annual budget deficits. The United States is no longer the master of its destiny â the US depends for its survival of the charity of the international community. Today Iraq is âquicksandâ for the United States and also for its troops. Today, Americans are getting deep cuts in Medicaid, in student loan programs, and so on... - And at the same time the US government is wasting more and more money with the Iraq war â a lost cause by any measure anyway â only fools would let this situation continue for much longer. The British Empire died not because they were beaten by some kind of army or terrorist group â The British Empire died because of the costs related to being a policeman around the world â death by taxation (someone eventually has to pay the outstanding bills). The Soviet Union also died not because they were beaten by some kind of army or terrorist group â death by overspending in defense spending. Today the United States is the last empire that still around and the US is following very closely the footsteps of the British and Soviet Empires â you donât have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that heavy defense spending over a long period of time eventually will land you in the poor house as well. When you are going through heavy defense spending plus the costs of waging a war on global terrorism (wherever that means) â at least the Bush administration is doing something about to speed up the process of the coming problems â it is like taking a poison pill to help you with your slow death â the poison pill it is called âtax cuts.â Remember a lot of the people were dancing and having a good time inside of the ship when the âTitanicâ hit the iceberg. Today the leaders of Iran should be aware that Iraq is breaking the bank in the United States and the US does not have the resources to start a new war even against countries such as Grenada or Haiti â never mind North Korea or Iran. Before 9/11/01 I had never hear the name Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Ladden â since then the United States built Osama Bin Laddenâs name into a status of a Legend. And the group called Al-Qaeda that had a few hundred members in September of 2001 â today has multiplied itself into a major international organization with thousands of members. And Al-Qaeda has a unique organization chart and it is also very dynamic - any time a member of Al-Qaeda is killed - he automatically becomes the organizationâs number 2 in command â that is why the United States have been able to kill so many Al-Qaeda members who became overnight the number 2 in command. Today, the status of being the number 2 man in the Al-Qaeda group has been devalued because there are so many number 2âs. ******** January 17, 2006 âWar's stunning price tagâ By Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz LAST WEEK, at the annual meeting of the American Economic Assn., we presented a new estimate for the likely cost of the war in Iraq. We suggested that the final bill will be much higher than previously reckoned â between $1 trillion and $2 trillion, depending primarily on how much longer our troops stay. Putting that into perspective, the highest-grossing movie of all time, "Titanic," earned $1.8 billion worldwide â about half the cost the U.S. incurs in Iraq every week. Like the iceberg that hit the Titanic, the full costs of the war are still largely hidden below the surface. Our calculations include not just the money for combat operations but also the costs the government will have to pay for years to come. These include lifetime healthcare and disability benefits for returning veterans and special round-the-clock medical attention for many of the 16,300 Americans who already have been seriously wounded. We also count the increased cost of replacing military hardware because the war is using up equipment at three to five times the peacetime rate. In addition, the military must pay large reenlistment bonuses and offer higher benefits to reenlist reluctant soldiers. On top of this, because we finance the war by borrowing more money (mostly from abroad), there is a rising interest cost on the extra debt. Our study also goes beyond the budget of the federal government to estimate the war's cost to the economy and our society. It includes, for instance, the true economic costs of injury and death. For example, if an individual is killed in an auto or work-related accident, his family will typically receive compensation for lost earnings. Standard government estimates of the lifetime economic cost of a death are about $6 million. But the military pays out far less â about $500,000. Another cost to the economy comes from the fact that 40% of our troops are taken from the National Guard and Reserve units. These troops often earn lower wages than in their civilian jobs. Finally, there are macro-economic costs such as the effect of higher oil prices â partly a result of the instability in Iraq. We conclude that the economy would have been much stronger if we had invested the money in the United States instead of in Iraq. Spending up to $2 trillion should make us ask some questions. First, these figures are far higher than what the administration predicted before the war. At that time, White House economic advisor Lawrence Lindsey was effectively fired for suggesting that the war might cost up to $200 billion, rather than the $60 billion claimed by the president's budget office. Why were the costs so vastly underestimated? Elsewhere in the government, it is standard practice to engage in an elaborate cost-benefit analysis for major projects. The war in Iraq was a war of choice, an immense "project," and yet it now appears that there was virtually no analysis of the likely costs of a prolonged occupation. Could we have fought the war in ways that would have protected our troops better and cost the country less? A Pentagon study apparently concludes that better body armor would have prevented many deaths and injuries. Penny-pinching in such matters during the rush to war has led to steep long-run costs for the nation and, tragically, for the individuals involved. Even more fundamentally, there is the question of whether we needed to spend the money at all. Thinking back to the months before the war, there were few reasons to invade quickly, and many to go slow. The Bush policy of threatened force had pressured Iraq into allowing the U.N. inspectors back into the country. The inspectors said they required a few months to complete their work. Several of our closest allies, including France and Germany, were urging the U.S. to await the outcome of the inspections. There were, as we now know, conflicting intelligence reports. Had we waited, the value of the information we would have learned from the inspectors would arguably have saved the nation at least $1 trillion â enough money to fix Social Security for the next 75 years twice over. LINDA BILMES, a former assistant secretary of Commerce, teaches public finance at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. JOSEPH STIGLITZ is a professor at Columbia University. He won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2001. Source: http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/newworks.cfm http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...0,7038018.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions .
. January 20, 2006 SouthAmerica: Osama Bin Ladden still alive and still in charge â he is the number one man in the Al-Qaeda organization. Osama Bin Ladden has become a âLegendâ around the world with the compliments of the American PR machine. ******* Time - Thursday, Jan. 19, 2006 âBin Laden Reclaims Top Billingâ - A new audiotape may be designed to tell the West it has more to fear than Zarqawi and Ahmadinejad By TONY KARON Osama bin Laden's latest message is most notable for the long silence that preceded itâthe audiotape broadcast Thursday on al-Jazeera is the Qaeda leader's first direct communication with his public in a little over a year. The voice on the tape, which the CIA has confirmed is Bin Laden's, addresses himself to the United States, warning that new attacks on U.S. soil are "in the planning stages," but offers a truce predicated on U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. "It is obvious now that Bush has been misleading the people," says the voice on the tape. Source: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1150581,00.html .