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

Quote :

"Bin Laden: Goal is to bankrupt U.S. Al-Jazeera releases full transcript of al Qaeda leader's tape (CNN) -- The Arabic-language network Al-Jazeera released a full transcript Monday of the most recent videotape from Osama bin Laden in which the head of al Qaeda said his group's goal is to force America into bankruptcy. Al-Jazeera aired portions of the videotape Friday but released the full transcript of the entire tape on its Web site Monday. "We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah," bin Laden said in the transcript. He said the mujahedeen fighters did the same thing to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, "using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers." "We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat," bin Laden said. He also said al Qaeda has found it "easy for us to provoke and bait this administration." "All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations," bin Laden said. Al-Jazeera executives said they decided to post the entire speech because rumors were circulating that the network omitted parts that "had direct threats toward specific states, which was totally untrue." "We chose the most newsworthy parts of the address and aired them. The rest was used in lower thirds in graphics format," said one official. U.S. intelligence officials Monday confirmed that the transcript made public Monday by Al-Jazeera was a complete one. As part of the "bleed-until-bankruptcy plan," bin Laden cited a British estimate that it cost al Qaeda about $500,000 to carry out the attacks of September 11, 2001, an amount that he said paled in comparison with the costs incurred by the United States. "Every dollar of al Qaeda defeated a million dollars, by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs," he said. "As for the economic deficit, it has reached record astronomical numbers estimated to total more than a trillion dollars. The total U.S. national debt is more than $7 trillion. The U.S. federal deficit was $413 billion in 2004, according to the Treasury Department. "It is true that this shows that al Qaeda has gained, but on the other hand it shows that the Bush administration has also gained, something that anyone who looks at the size of the contracts acquired by the shady Bush administration-linked mega-corporations, like Halliburton and its kind, will be convinced. "And it all shows that the real loser is you," he said. "It is the American people and their economy." As for President Bush's Iraq policy, Bin Laden said, "the darkness of black gold blurred his vision and insight, and he gave priority to private interests over the public interests of America. "So the war went ahead, the death toll rose, the American economy bled, and Bush became embroiled in the swamps of Iraq that threaten his future," bin Laden said. U.S. government officials said Friday that the tape appeared to be authentic and recently made. It was the first videotaped message from the al Qaeda leader in nearly three years."

1/31/2008 4:06:46 AM

Eh... this is a bit of a stretch to me. Like trying to claim credit for the completely unrelated misfortunes of someone else. If one is to believe the Bush administration's critics, al Qaeda had nothing to do with the United States entering into the monetary sink hole that is Iraq, and Afghanistan by itself is hardly breaking the American budget. And in all honesty, given the massive size of the American economy, while Iraq is setting us back, it's hardly going to bring about the sort of dramatic breakdown that destroyed the Soviet Union.

Now if you replaced al Qaeda with China, Social Security, or the American medical system then you might have a more believable argument.

1/31/2008 9:36:23 AM

Quote :

"The total U.S. national debt is more than $7 trillion. The U.S. federal deficit was $413 billion in 2004, according to the Treasury Department"

thnkx guys...GG

1/31/2008 9:45:56 AM

While 9/11 certainly contributed to a recession, the Bush tax policy combined with irresponsible spending and the Iraq war did much more to cause the largest deficit in history than Al Queda. Now whether Al Queda's attack contributed to people supporting with bad policy is another argument.

In a way you have opposite scenarios with the USSR and USA as it relates to Afghanistan. The Mujahedeen was one of the final straws that broke a fragile USSR's back, but most of the decline occurred long before Afghanistan. The US, on the other hand, responded to an Al Queda attack with a number of self-inflicted bad decisions. If anything, we hurt ourselves because we did not respond sufficiently to Afghanistan, which would have cost far less than Iraq in blood and money. I am by no means claiming the collapse of the US on any level like the USSR, because our issues are mitigated by a much stronger GDP. The situations are simply quite different because of the nature of other unrelated and indirectly related political and economic factors as well as the timing of those factors.

[Edited on January 31, 2008 at 10:26 AM. Reason : .]

1/31/2008 10:24:14 AM

Bin Laden probably wouldn't like to see us return to a Gold Standard either, would he?

1/31/2008 10:25:27 AM

Not to mention, the USSR incurred heavy equipment losses as well as personnel losses in that war as well.

If we started losing 100 gunships, 100 planes, and 100 tanks a month every month for the duration of both conflicts then the outcome might not be too dissimilar. At the least, you could be guaranteed that we'd pull out.

1/31/2008 10:27:19 AM

Quote :

"Eh... this is a bit of a stretch to me. Like trying to claim credit for the completely unrelated misfortunes of someone else. If one is to believe the Bush administration's critics, al Qaeda had nothing to do with the United States entering into the monetary sink hole that is Iraq, and Afghanistan by itself is hardly breaking the American budget. And in all honesty, given the massive size of the American economy, while Iraq is setting us back, it's hardly going to bring about the sort of dramatic breakdown that destroyed the Soviet Union. Now if you replaced al Qaeda with China, Social Security, or the American medical system then you might have a more believable argument."

I'm sure the Soviet Union was thinking that too at the height of their power.

1/31/2008 10:27:44 AM

We are doing a fine job of bankrupting our country by ourselves with our entitlements. Cost us far more than anything else.

We need a war on entitlements.

1/31/2008 10:29:41 AM

A war on credit cards.

1/31/2008 10:35:51 AM

Quote :

"We need a war on entitlements."

1/31/2008 10:46:01 AM

so long as we all realize that Bush is much worse than Al Queda

1/31/2008 10:51:23 AM

or Hitler

1/31/2008 10:53:50 AM

godwin.

1/31/2008 10:54:39 AM

Hitler was clearly misunderstood.

In all seriousness, whats this talk about bankruptcy. Everyone knows we can keep selling America till our grandchildren die.

1/31/2008 10:54:59 AM

Quote :

"A war on credit cards."

1/31/2008 10:55:14 AM

or Stalin

or Ivan the Terrible

or the Spanish Inquisition

1/31/2008 10:55:56 AM

well CNN tells me Bush is dumb...CNN doesnt really mention Stalin or Hitler

1/31/2008 10:59:29 AM

Its sister network History does.

1/31/2008 11:36:05 AM

touche

1/31/2008 11:36:46 AM

I would claim credit for black monday too if i didn't like us

1/31/2008 11:40:15 AM

This is no more of a stretch than the original use of the phrase on that banner.

1/31/2008 12:32:37 PM

Bin Laden takes too much credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union and ignores the massive military spending by Reagan as well as political liberalization in Soviet government that lead to their collapse.

1/31/2008 12:57:46 PM

As if the situations are that different.

Bin Laden mischaracterizes his role through exaggeration, granted, but his role is nevertheless identical in our own decline. He's the same straw breaking a different camel's back with almost the same strategy and motives. America has most certainly become "embroiled in the swamps of Iraq" that now threatens our future.

1/31/2008 1:22:31 PM

gamecat, im curious do you know how much we spent in iraq last year vs entitlement programs?

Iraq isnt the reason we are in crisis, but it certainly doesnt help. You have tackle the main issue.

[Edited on January 31, 2008 at 1:35 PM. Reason : .]

1/31/2008 1:26:33 PM

can the US just file for Chapter 11 or 17 and just start all over

1/31/2008 1:37:23 PM

Once you include the Iraq and Afghanistan appropriations, defense spending exceeds every other expenditure. The only thing even in the ballpark is social security.

1/31/2008 1:52:40 PM

I remember hearing that 9/11 erased early a trillion dollars in privately held wealth in the form of the drop of the value of market securities.

1/31/2008 1:52:58 PM

not even close mark. Entitlement spending is SS, medicare, and medicaid (the big three), then the other BS. And they approach almost 60% of spending and growing. Most people see the war as a short term debt. Now entitlements are going to cost 70% in the next 7 yrs.

1/31/2008 2:14:07 PM

I completely understand eyedrb's argument.

Because our spending on unrelated policies is retarded, the fact that we ALSO charged over a $1 trillion in defense supplementals for a wreckless misadventure in Iraq--largely on the basis of that nation's alleged involvement in 9/11--doesn't somehow imply accomplishment for Bin Laden.

In any way.

Makes perfect sense.

1/31/2008 3:02:44 PM

Sure, when you total all entitlements together it is more than Defense spending.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget%2C_2008

Of course, the fastest growing mandatory expenditure is debt service ($261 billion interest in FY 2008).

1/31/2008 3:06:50 PM

Global war on terror budget 145 Billion (up 45% from 2007 spending)

Entitlement budget( without interest) 1527 billion.

Yeah, Im not sure where we can save more money. If people really believe that the war on terror is bankrupting our country they have thier heads in the sand or buried somewhere else.

That make more sense Gamecat?

1/31/2008 3:19:04 PM

haha we'll become pirates and take over other small rich countries....
yeah you heard me Quatar/UAE

1/31/2008 3:24:41 PM

Not clearer.

You're not going to be able to escape the point.

I'll even open it up to the whole forum to see if anyone can help you:

How does our decision to finance over $1 trillion in defense spending supplementals (i.e. off budget, not like the GWOT budget which is paid for through tax revenues) for activities in Iraq NOT constitute accomplishment for Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda?

[Edited on January 31, 2008 at 3:26 PM. Reason : ...]

1/31/2008 3:25:47 PM

+ $481.4 billion for Department of Defense
+ $190 billion supplemental appropriation for Iraq-Afghanistan in 08

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War

1/31/2008 3:31:19 PM

Quote :

"Bin Laden mischaracterizes his role through exaggeration, granted, but his role is nevertheless identical in our own decline. He's the same straw breaking a different camel's back with almost the same strategy and motives."

Bin Laden didn't have a personal role in the decline of the Soviet Union, he was part of a much larger movement that numbered in the hundreds of thousands. He was just a rich kid who got talked into using his connections to get fighters into the war.

There was no straw that broke the Soviet Union's collapse, rather it was a result of decades of unsustainable policies and the proactive outspending of the Reagan administration. Were it not for US support, the thousands of mujahideen would have been crushed by the Soviets. The soviet defeat in Afghanistan did more to the perceptions of government that Soviet citizens held than anything else.

Bin Laden is basically your aging hippy who is trying to relive his heyday by growing pot in his backyard, blogging about how he went to Woodstock when in reality he wasn't even there, and talking highly about how him and his friends changed the world. The analogy makes perfect sense to me and I don't feel like explaining it, so don't ask me to.

1/31/2008 3:44:41 PM

Quote :

"[user]Mr. Joshua:[/user]Bin Laden didn't have a personal role in the decline of the Soviet Union, he was part of a much larger movement that numbered in the hundreds of thousands. He was just a rich kid who got talked into using his connections to get fighters into the war."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/155236.stm

"While in Afghanistan, he founded the Maktab al-Khidimat (MAK), which recruited fighters from around the world and imported equipment to aid the Afghan resistance against the Soviet army."

I'd call personally founding institutions to recruit and import equipment sufficient cause to describe the man as "personally involved."

WTF

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: Were it not for US support, the thousands of mujahideen would have been crushed by the Soviets."

They also wouldn't have been so prepared to attack us. In a way, we financed their operational training, furthering their accomplishment.

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: The soviet defeat in Afghanistan did more to the perceptions of government that Soviet citizens held than anything else."

And our inability to wrap up the Iraq War in less time than World War II is doing what to our own citizenry (not to mention the invaluable confidence of the investing public)?

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: Bin Laden is basically your aging hippy who is trying to relive his heyday by growing pot in his backyard, blogging about how he went to Woodstock when in reality he wasn't even there, and talking highly about how him and his friends changed the world."

Again, he was in Afghanistan during the Soviet conflict. He actively fought against them. He established organizations to recruit and import arms for the mujahideen. He received training from our CIA on how to do so.

If this isn't the most intellectually disingenuous post I've seen you make in SB, I don't know what is.

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: The analogy makes perfect sense to me and I don't feel like explaining it, so don't ask me to."

Intellectual scrutiny can be a bitch.

[Edited on January 31, 2008 at 4:16 PM. Reason : fail]

1/31/2008 4:15:53 PM

gamecat. My point was addressing the thought that the iraq war was causing us to go bankrupt. Im simply stating it isnt, its the massive entitlements that need to be cut/reformed quickly.

Mark, you can add in the whole DOD budget and call it a cost of the iraq war if you want, you still dont equal half of entitlement spending. Would you not agree that the war is a temporary problem, as far as costs? As opposed to entitlements.

1/31/2008 4:29:20 PM

Quote :

"I'd call personally founding institutions to recruit and import equipment sufficient cause to describe the man as "personally involved.""

Your quote supports what I just said. The point is that being involved in the mujahideen doesn't make him personally responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union. There are a mountain of other factors that you and bin Laden are ignoring. That's my point.

I'll also point out that MAK recruited ~100 people. There were 150,000+ rebels involved in the war.

Quote :

"They also wouldn't have been so prepared to attack us. In a way, we financed their operational training, furthering their accomplishment."

Pakistani ISI trained the mujahideen to crash planes into buildings? Do you actually think before typing?

Quote :

"And our inability to wrap up the Iraq War in less time than World War II is doing what to our own citizenry (not to mention the invaluable confidence of the investing public)?"

Neat tangent. We're talking about bankrupting superpowers.

Quote :

"Again, he was in Afghanistan during the Soviet conflict. He actively fought against them."

No, he was safe in Peshawar sending them money. He was basically a small scale bureaucrat.

Quote :

"He established organizations to recruit and import arms for the mujahideen."

He did so without any western support using his inherited wealth. Compare that to what US aid did and he really didn't do squat.

Quote :

"He received training from our CIA on how to do so."

No, he didn't.

Quote :

"Intellectual scrutiny can be a bitch."

Please don't ever imply that you are an intellectual after a post like that.

[Edited on January 31, 2008 at 4:40 PM. Reason : .]

1/31/2008 4:38:47 PM

You are correct that the sum of social security, medicare, and medicaid totals to substantially more than the defense budget. I'm not sure why are measuring the total of several programs against one program. Entitlement spending, debt service, and defense spending (especially on irresponsible and poorly executed wars) all create significant long-term budget pressures...especially when exceeding our budget continues to create more debt (and thus require more debt service). You can thank the baby boomers for passing the buck to our generation.

1/31/2008 4:46:11 PM

^ and eyedrb's argument:

the thing with social entitlement spending is at least it is spent inside the country. a war on entitlements would do what? stop the flow of needed social programs that may be keeping some number of Americans from becoming a larger burden ( through jails, poverty, degrading neighborhoods, cities, etc.) on our economy/debt. it is not like we are funding massive social entitlements to South America or the Sudan (which some people would argue foreign aid is doing and we should stop).

what does defense spending accomplish besides wars, base funding around the world? R&D and a lot of defense contracts that do create jobs. however if we to spend less on that and re-invest it inside the country the stop-loss effect would be less than social programs.

1/31/2008 4:56:04 PM

Im lumping it all in together bc it is all entitlement spending.

If you want to break up the DOD budget between the different branches of service we can too.

The whole DOD spending doesnt go to iraq, agreed? The whole entitlement spending goes to entitlements. And to me and most, that is a bigger issue.

1/31/2008 4:58:46 PM