Question....does anyone think that the "terrorist threat" actually has us right where they want us at this point? They attacked us. We responded (appropriately, IMO) with action in Afghanistan. Then, somehow (irrationally, IMO), we decide to take over Iraq. Now, we're mired in a money-sucking situation, and we're suffering economically, weakening us (IMO) more than if we'd have stayed out of Iraq and concentrated our efforts in Afghanistan.

 

Anyone who thinks terrorists are only about bombings and attacks on targets is thinking short-sightedly, IMO. They're smarter than we give them credit for, and IMO, we've played right into their hands.

 

I've believed this for a long time. Oh, I'm sure that the 9/11 terrorists wanted to cause loss of life on a grand scale, but their targets indicate to me that they were after SYMBOLS of America more than loss of life. After all, they could have perhaps caused more human damage by targeting a college football game.

 

I think that they're extraordinarily pleased that we have expended so many resources on the war on terror; that our gasoline costs us nearly triple what it did 8 years ago; that our armed forces are stretched practically to the breaking point, that we've amassed an extraordinary amount of debt, etc., etc.

I agree, RM. I don't think anyone would have predicted we would have invaded Iraq as a response to 9/11. It was a completely irrational response. And, like you, I think the outcome has worked out better than al Qaeda could have ever imagined. They have been able to leverage their tiny organization into a position where the mightiest military in the world has been held down in Iraq for going on six years to the eventual tune of trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives. It would have been impossible to conceive that the actions of a handful could bleed the United States so effectively.

 

Agreed. From the petty inconveniences of us having to stand in line at airports to our spending hundreds of billions of dollars destroying a nation and rebuilding it, the actions of a relative few have hamstrung us more than anyone could have predicted.

I've believed this for a long time. Oh, I'm sure that the 9/11 terrorists wanted to cause loss of life on a grand scale, but their targets indicate to me that they were after SYMBOLS of America more than loss of life. After all, they could have perhaps caused more human damage by targeting a college football game.

 

I think that they're extraordinarily pleased that we have expended so many resources on the war on terror; that our gasoline costs us nearly triple what it did 8 years ago; that our armed forces are stretched practically to the breaking point, that we've amassed an extraordinary amount of debt, etc., etc.

 

:thumb:

My lease is up on my Durango. I love it and I have considered buying it, but I don't think that will be a wise choice with the current fuel crisis... :irked:

My lease is up on my Durango. I love it and I have considered buying it, but I don't think that will be a wise choice with the current fuel crisis... :irked:

 

I'd drop that thing like a bad habit. :lol:

I'd drop that thing like a bad habit. :lol:

 

:laugh: It feels like a bad habit right now...

For everyone hear who is screaming economic crisis, the end of the country, unbearable gas prices, and for the heads of the oil speculators, I have a question. Would you all rather this country wither away to nothing (as many of you see coming, backed up by so much empirical evidence), or drill for oil in a portion of Alaska that is 1/6th the size of an large airport?

For everyone hear who is screaming economic crisis, the end of the country, unbearable gas prices, and for the heads of the oil speculators, I have a question. Would you all rather this country wither away to nothing (as many of you see coming, backed up by so much empirical evidence), or drill for oil in a portion of Alaska that is 1/6th the size of an large airport?

 

If we drilled in Alaska, it would solve the problem, but the wackos of the EPA won't let that happen, so we're forced to get it elsewhere.

^ That is a false choice. Of course, given the way you've worded the question, anybody would choose to drill in Alaska. The reality is that ANWR drilling does not come close to being a remedy for what ails us.

^ That is a false choice. Of course, given the way you've worded the question, anybody would choose to drill in Alaska. The reality is that ANWR drilling does not come close to being a remedy for what ails us.

 

How so? Wouldn't it only help our economy and lower our price at the pump if it were coming from within our own country?

^ That is a false choice. Of course, given the way you've worded the question, anybody would choose to drill in Alaska. The reality is that ANWR drilling does not come close to being a remedy for what ails us.

 

The reality is also that if we had done it in the 90's this problem would not be nearly as serious.

 

H, you are obviously very, very informed on this situation. What is your proposal? No more proof that it won't matter, but your solution. If you posted it in another thread, please lead me to it.

Drilling will not solve the problem but it will put a gaint band-aid on a giant gash. Long term we gotta figure out something, but as to why we are not drilling...? My guess is Washington will lose money. We need relief now... drilling will scare the socks off the speculators. We gotta get rid of many current senators who are preventing this... Bush (who I am not a fan of) wants to drill.

How does the article you linked in anyway address my theory?

 

Sorry, it seemed pretty obvious to me. Maybe I am missing your point. Maybe you're missing mine. Do you think the situation they're in leads them to thinking they have us right where they want us? I don't. Not now. Maybe a couple years ago but not now.

Sorry, it seemed pretty obvious to me. Maybe I am missing your point. Maybe you're missing mine. Do you think the situation they're in leads them to thinking they have us right where they want us? I don't. Not now. Maybe a couple years ago but not now.

 

 

My (and thankfully others or I'd feel really alone. :lol:) theory is that they struck the WTC for a reason-symbolism for one (they can get us financially), loss of life another (obviously), and to strike fear in us (which they did). I'm pretty certain they were expecting retaliation. No one attacks the US without retaliation. We did retaliate, sending troops into Afghanistan and beginning an offesive there. Now, I think all of that is sort of "routine". However, we then strike Iraq. That, IMO, was irrational. But, when we did, we got ourselves into a mess, one from which we cannot hope to realistically extricate ourselves for many years. We have tied up enormous resources militarily and monetarily there, and we're not even really close to the day when we will no longer be militarily or monetarily obligated to Iraq. At this point, though, the average American is being directly affected by our actions in Iraq....economically. Maybe you haven't really started to feel the squeeze. Those with decent jobs are usually the last to feel the effects, unless there are huge losses in the stock market, IMO. But for those working and barely making it, the strain is really becoming a problem.

 

Economically, we are in a steady decline. No one wants to call it a recession, so I'll say "decline". People are losing their jobs. Automakers are scaling back production. Gas prices are at a high that I don't think anyone could have dreamed of pre-911. The cost of goods and food are rising. Companies continue to cut back, and that includes raises and revisions in benefits that put more on the employee financially. Even some people who could afford health insurance before are faced with the decision to keep it or to consider it a luxury.

 

When I say they have us where they want us, I think we've played into their hands to an outcome that was far better than they could have hoped, and far longer lasting....and they haven't had to attack us even one more time.

 

Despite any progress we make in Iraq, we will still be trillions of dollars in debt, and continuing to spend because of our obligations to the Iraqi people.

I've believed this for a long time. Oh, I'm sure that the 9/11 terrorists wanted to cause loss of life on a grand scale, but their targets indicate to me that they were after SYMBOLS of America more than loss of life. After all, they could have perhaps caused more human damage by targeting a college football game.

 

I think that they're extraordinarily pleased that we have expended so many resources on the war on terror; that our gasoline costs us nearly triple what it did 8 years ago; that our armed forces are stretched practically to the breaking point, that we've amassed an extraordinary amount of debt, etc., etc.

 

The armed forces have been over extended for quite some time. (Blame it on early out's offered by the armed forces in the mid-90's). You can't send troop's to every crisis in the world and expect otherwise.