Busting the Muslim myth that WoT has damaged the U.S!

[Kompromat]

2010 Figures.

The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond

 

[xyxmt]

OK, I see many people, specially Muslims, discussing , rather "mental-masturbating", that how war on terror has caused U.S trillions and how Al Qaeda/Taliban have successfully "defeated" the mighty U.S etc etc..

This thread is a reality checker..sorry to break your hearts...but we haven't lost anything even slightly near to called as "much"...


War on terror has caused the deaths of millions of Muslims...destruction of two Muslim nations...havoc in Pakistan and Yemen etc...a total disaster for Muslim world. How can, then, someone, specially Muslims, claim that U.S lost the war? We just lost ~ 5,000 soldiers in TEN YEARS of wars in two countries...We spent VERY LESS on this war ...This is the point many don't take into account...

Yes, U.S has spent 1 trillion on the war...but for past ten years, U.S is only spending just 1% (or even less) of its GDP on the war..which is actually VERY,VERY CHEAP. U.S spent 35% of its GDP at the height of WWII.

During Vietnam war, U.S spent 2.3% of its GDP at the peak of the war and also lost a whooping 60,000 of its troops. Now compare this to Al Qaeda's war...

Even Vietnam war was 10X more lethal for the U.S and our economy, but yet we only came out of that war stronger. What makes people think that U.S is "falling" now?

Actually, war on terror is probably THE CHEAPEST war U.S has ever fought..

Cost of major U.S wars throughout history- fas report

Sorry, but our enemies should not "mental-masturbate" that Al Qaeda has inflicted some heavy damage on the states..or that U.S is falling because of this war, or that U.S is losing this war etc..Some people like Michael Sheuer are there to do exactly this propaganda in U.S media. They will tell American audiences "Omg, Al Qaeda is big danger..U.S is losing the war" , which only pumps Americans more to fight! So this serves CIA a good propaganda purpose..but many people see such videos and feel "happy" that U.S is facing trouble, whereas U.S is just chillin.....Reality is that U.S is just getting many jobs from these wars and profiting while hundreds of thousands of Muslims are being killed also. (Sorry for the last line, but harsh truth).

Sorry average Muslims should work AGAINST Al Qaeda that is only hurting Islamic interests and nothing more...

no its all good babe, dont listen to muslims and keep doing the good work...please

 

[BATMAN]

OK, I see many people, specially Muslims, discussing , rather "mental-masturbating", that how war on terror has caused U.S trillions and how Al Qaeda/Taliban have successfully "defeated" the mighty U.S etc etc..

This thread is a reality checker..sorry to break your hearts...but we haven't lost anything even slightly near to called as "much"...

War on terror has caused the deaths of millions of Muslims...destruction of two Muslim nations...havoc in Pakistan and Yemen etc...a total disaster for Muslim world. How can, then, someone, specially Muslims, claim that U.S lost the war? We just lost ~ 5,000 soldiers in TEN YEARS of wars in two countries...We spent VERY LESS on this war ...This is the point many don't take into account...

Yes, U.S has spent 1 trillion on the war...but for past ten years, U.S is only spending just 1% (or even less) of its GDP on the war..which is actually VERY,VERY CHEAP. U.S spent 35% of its GDP at the height of WWII.

During Vietnam war, U.S spent 2.3% of its GDP at the peak of the war and also lost a whooping 60,000 of its troops. Now compare this to Al Qaeda's war...

Even Vietnam war was 10X more lethal for the U.S and our economy, but yet we only came out of that war stronger. What makes people think that U.S is "falling" now?

Actually, war on terror is probably THE CHEAPEST war U.S has ever fought..

Cost of major U.S wars throughout history- fas report

Sorry, but our enemies should not "mental-masturbate" that Al Qaeda has inflicted some heavy damage on the states..or that U.S is falling because of this war, or that U.S is losing this war etc..Some people like Michael Sheuer are there to do exactly this propaganda in U.S media. They will tell American audiences "Omg, Al Qaeda is big danger..U.S is losing the war" , which only pumps Americans more to fight! So this serves CIA a good propaganda purpose..but many people see such videos and feel "happy" that U.S is facing trouble, whereas U.S is just chillin.....Reality is that U.S is just getting many jobs from these wars and profiting while hundreds of thousands of Muslims are being killed also. (Sorry for the last line, but harsh truth).

Sorry average Muslims should work AGAINST Al Qaeda that is only hurting Islamic interests and nothing more...

Typical under cover hindu.. can be identified from his hinglish and hate against Muslims.

2010 Figures.

The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond

Its a business... business man do not invest without prospects of profit.

 

[Audio]

The government appoints the members of the board of governors but the Fed still remains outside government authority. It's policies and actions fall outside government jurisdiction.

True, but the same people making policies and actions are appointed by the president. It is not a runaway entity without control....

 

[KS]

It is not the cheapest war.

Look at America's economy before the war, and after the war.

Before the war, America had a big trade surplus and not much debt. After the war, America has the world's biggest trade deficit, and $15 trillion in national debt. Which is more than the rest of the world combined.

Correlation does not imply causation !

 

[RazorMC]

True, but the same people making policies and actions are appointed by the president. It is not a runaway entity without control....

I wish that was true but sadly that is not the case. Government appointed members do not play any significant role in the Fed's policy-making. The only way that the US government can legally put more money into the system is by minting coins (via Treasury).

Refer to the recent plan about minting a trillion dollar coin. While it's not a feasible thing to do (and the Democrats weren't really serious), it highlights the difference in the two entities; the US Treasury Dept. on one side and the Fed on the other. One under govt. authority and other outside it.

I'm not saying that the Fed is out of control or anything (ahem.. Alex Jones.. ahem) but it is certainly not governed by the US administration nor is it a fully public entity.

 

[NP-complete]

OK, I see many people, specially Muslims, discussing , rather "mental-masturbating", that how war on terror has caused U.S trillions and how Al Qaeda/Taliban have successfully "defeated" the mighty U.S etc etc..

This thread is a reality checker..sorry to break your hearts...but we haven't lost anything even slightly near to called as "much"...


War on terror has caused the deaths of millions of Muslims...destruction of two Muslim nations...havoc in Pakistan and Yemen etc...a total disaster for Muslim world. How can, then, someone, specially Muslims, claim that U.S lost the war? We just lost ~ 5,000 soldiers in TEN YEARS of wars in two countries...We spent VERY LESS on this war ...This is the point many don't take into account...

Yes, U.S has spent 1 trillion on the war...but for past ten years, U.S is only spending just 1% (or even less) of its GDP on the war..which is actually VERY,VERY CHEAP. U.S spent 35% of its GDP at the height of WWII.

During Vietnam war, U.S spent 2.3% of its GDP at the peak of the war and also lost a whooping 60,000 of its troops. Now compare this to Al Qaeda's war...

Even Vietnam war was 10X more lethal for the U.S and our economy, but yet we only came out of that war stronger. What makes people think that U.S is "falling" now?

Actually, war on terror is probably THE CHEAPEST war U.S has ever fought..

Sorry, but our enemies should not "mental-masturbate" that Al Qaeda has inflicted some heavy damage on the states..or that U.S is falling because of this war, or that U.S is losing this war etc..Some people like Michael Sheuer are there to do exactly this propaganda in U.S media. They will tell American audiences "Omg, Al Qaeda is big danger..U.S is losing the war" , which only pumps Americans more to fight! So this serves CIA a good propaganda purpose..but many people see such videos and feel "happy" that U.S is facing trouble, whereas U.S is just chillin.....Reality is that U.S is just getting many jobs from these wars and profiting while hundreds of thousands of Muslims are being killed also. (Sorry for the last line, but harsh truth).

Sorry average Muslims should work AGAINST Al Qaeda that is only hurting Islamic interests and nothing more...

The only problem is that all these costs were incurred during fighting an imaginary enemy i.e "terror"

 

[KingMamba]

True, but the same people making policies and actions are appointed by the president. It is not a runaway entity without control....

Not the President, Congress and it is basically privately run except its stocks cannot be sold, traded, etc. The stocks are sold to "member banks" so it is the owner of these banks which hold a lot of influence in the reserve although they do not "own" the federal reserve like some people claim. Congress can monitor their activities and change their statute if they believe the policies are falling out of line.

I wish that was true but sadly that is not the case. Government appointed members do not play any significant role in the Fed's policy-making. The only way that the US government can legally put more money into the system is by minting coins (via Treasury).

Refer to the recent plan about minting a trillion dollar coin. While it's not a feasible thing to do (and the Democrats weren't really serious), it highlights the difference in the two entities; the US Treasury Dept. on one side and the Fed on the other. One under govt. authority and other outside it.

I'm not saying that the Fed is out of control or anything (ahem.. Alex Jones.. ahem) but it is certainly not governed by the US administration nor is it a fully public entity.

If Congress felt it was necessary to bring the federal reserve under government than they could by changing its statute. What stops them is up for debate, personally I believe it all starts and ends with who has the cash. A lot of the member bank owners who hold stock in the reserve are the ones who give campaign donations to the senators when they are up for election. Just follow the money.

 

[RazorMC]

@KingMamba93, I can agree that the Congress/Senate has the authority to change the status of the Fed from private to public. Like you, I also see no inclination to do so. There's also a risk that any upheaval in the current economic system of the US would lead to other countries losing confidence in the USDollar.

---------

OT: The conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan has cost the US a lot of money. For one thing, there were no WMDs in Saddam's pockets and the US is busy negotiating with the Taliban in Afghanistan. That's basically hundreds of billions thrust into wars that ended badly and the US had to constantly redefine its objectives so it wouldn't look bad.

 

[Jungibaaz]

At least there are no terrorist incidents in the US mainland after 9/11, success of 9/11 would have prompted the terrorists to be more brazen with high confidence if the US hadn't done what it did. What they have done is blow the terrorists up and broke them into multiple factions and made them run. I agree no power in the world can completely eliminate the terrorists and America learned it the hard way but hopefully they have done enough to preserve themselves.

9/11 style attacks haven't happened.
But that's got to do with basic airport security more than anything.

Al Qaeda has spread and it's operations expanded. Not to mention, attacks have occurred in Europe and many other places since. The aim of this war was to annihilate Al Qaeda.

The US, by doing what they did... gave Al Qaeda the international stage, allowing it to spread to entirely different regions.

I still call this WoT a failure.

2010 Figures.

The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond

The total cost is probably higher.
After WoT, the industries and their representatives can influence politicians to raise the issue of national security to get funding for more arms.

The military industrial complex, pocketed trillions from this war.
All they had to do was 'sponsor' some politicians and state representatives.

 

[haviZsultan]

It is not the cheapest war.

Look at America's economy before the war, and after the war.

Before the war, America had a big trade surplus and not much debt. After the war, America has the world's biggest trade deficit, and $15 trillion in national debt. Which is more than the rest of the world combined.

There are losses in monetary terms but a superpower can take them. Even in the area of losses it is those regions which are suffering. In comparison to losses of Iraqi, Afghan and Pakistani civilians they have suffered nothing compared to the local people. I believe local people should take the initiative in the war because:

1) We do not want them there (especially in Pakistan's case)
2) We have differing interests (US wants Haqqani, Hekmatyar and Gul Bahadar. We want Hakimullah and Asmatullah Shaheen and other groups specifically attacking us.)
3) It will destroy the militant narrative reducing sympathy for terrorists. This I believe may be the greatest victory. It will greatly ease our war on terror. US presence in Afghanistan is what they claim to fight. If they do not exist there then they are fighting for nothing. We can destroy them then.

Americans fear terrorism a lot but do look at this article. So basically its fear leading them into a lot of decisions.

Earlier this week we covered a U.S. government study reporting on the threat of killer furniture. According to government statistics, roughly as many Americans are killed annually by unstable furniture and falling televisions as are killed in terrorist attacks. In honor of the annual National Counter Terrorism Center report, here are 10 more things you can be terrified of…

1. 16 oz sodas – At least 26,000 deaths per year are attributed directly to obesity. Way more purple hearts issued in the obesity wars than in the anti-terror ones.

2. The Transportation Security Administration - The increased inconvenience of going through airport security increases automobile deaths due to people deciding to drive instead of fly by 500 per year. On the bright side, a TSA security check is the most action many soda-guzzling Americans are ever going to get.

3. Your Bathroom – Nearly 9,000 bathroom-related fatalities were reported in 1999.

4. Texting – Responsible for 6,000 deaths annually. Not to mention the danger of being in Anthony Weiner's address book.

5. Weird Sex Stuff – "Estimates of the mortality rate of autoerotic asphyxia range from 250 to 1,000 deaths per year in the United States."

6. Alcohol and Tobacco – At least weed is still safe.

7. The weather - According to the Nation Weather Service 5,009 people were killed in the US by severe weather between 2001 and 2009. The forecast is cloudy with a chance of pure terror.

8. Yourself - 36,909 suicides in 2008, according to the CDC. Don't do it!

9. Your doctor – 200,000-plus deaths are attributed to hospital infections and preventable medical errors. Thanks Obamacare!

10. Worrying about #'s 1-9…or terrorism…or terrorist furniture, instead of going about your life – Elevated stress increases the risk of early death five-fold.

Also to back my claims about point 3 I will point to this:

In 2000 before the WOT there were 6 major terrorist attacks in Pakistan.

In 2012 I can't even count but this is the list:

Major incidents of terrorist violence in Pakistan,2012

When people from the region suggest a solution, no one listens to us, but we know the situation. The rising trend of violence in Afghanistan is proof, bombings still going on in Baghdad are proof too. I have no real loyalty to any pan-Islamic cause and I understand that the fight on terror will be easier if left to us and US withdraws. Bin Laden is dead-no point of continuing. Also of course this is an issue. When 6 attacks are occurring without any reason (in 2000) you know there is a problem but then the fire has been provoked and the situation got only worse. The only way to deal with these guys is intellectuals countering their narrative in these lands.

Btw you should be in the think tank.

 

[Audio]

Not the President, Congress and it is basically privately run except its stocks cannot be sold, traded, etc. The stocks are sold to "member banks" so it is the owner of these banks which hold a lot of influence in the reserve although they do not "own" the federal reserve like some people claim. Congress can monitor their activities and change their statute if they believe the policies are falling out of line.

The Federal Reserve Board of Governors is the main governing body of the Federal Reserve System. It is charged with overseeing the 12 District Reserve Banks and with helping implement national monetary policy. Governors are appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate for staggered, 14-year terms.

Federal Reserve Board of Governors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wish that was true but sadly that is not the case. Government appointed members do not play any significant role in the Fed's policy-making. The only way that the US government can legally put more money into the system is by minting coins (via Treasury).

Refer to the recent plan about minting a trillion dollar coin. While it's not a feasible thing to do (and the Democrats weren't really serious), it highlights the difference in the two entities; the US Treasury Dept. on one side and the Fed on the other. One under govt. authority and other outside it.

I'm not saying that the Fed is out of control or anything (ahem.. Alex Jones.. ahem) but it is certainly not governed by the US administration nor is it a fully public entity.

You are basically saying Ben Bernanke is acting not on Obama's behalf, but his own, when in reality Obama says, print, print print, Bernanke says, we will print for as long as the unemployment is high.

Show me how this is not a significant role in policy making.

When people from the region suggest a solution, no one listens to us, but we know the situation.

Sorry, but i dare say elements within Pakistan are part of the problem, not the solution.....

 

[KingMamba]

There are losses in monetary terms but a superpower can take them. Even in the area of losses it is those regions which are suffering. In comparison to losses of Iraqi, Afghan and Pakistani civilians they have suffered nothing compared to the local people. I believe local people should take the initiative in the war because:

1) We do not want them there (especially in Pakistan's case)
2) We have differing interests (US wants Haqqani, Hekmatyar and Gul Bahadar. We want Hakimullah and Asmatullah Shaheen and other groups specifically attacking us.)
3) It will destroy the militant narrative reducing sympathy for terrorists. This I believe may be the greatest victory. It will greatly ease our war on terror. US presence in Afghanistan is what they claim to fight. If they do not exist there then they are fighting for nothing. We can destroy them then.

Americans fear terrorism a lot but do look at this article. So basically its fear leading them into a lot of decisions.



Also to back my claims about point 3 I will point to this:

In 2000 before the WOT there were 6 major terrorist attacks in Pakistan.

In 2012 I can't even count but this is the list:

Major incidents of terrorist violence in Pakistan,2012

When people from the region suggest a solution, no one listens to us, but we know the situation. The rising trend of violence in Afghanistan is proof, bombings still going on in Baghdad are proof too. I have no real loyalty to any pan-Islamic cause and I understand that the fight on terror will be easier if left to us and US withdraws. Bin Laden is dead-no point of continuing. Also of course this is an issue. When 6 attacks are occurring without any reason (in 2000) you know there is a problem but then the fire has been provoked and the situation got only worse. The only way to deal with these guys is intellectuals countering their narrative in these lands.

Btw you should be in the think tank.

After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan the US left the region. Years later they were being yelled at for doing so and for leaving Pakistan to clean up the mess. Now you are saying US should leave and Pakistan will clean up the mess. What makes you think Pakistan can do a better job this time around?? Or will the US have to return again this time around 2025?

Federal Reserve Board of Governors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm

 

[Audio]

FRB: Who owns the Federal Reserve?

Yes and? Where does it say people aren't appointed by president?

it only says

its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else

 

[KingMamba]

Yes and? Where does it say people aren't appointed by president?

it only says

It doesn't say they are either and regardless you made it seem the president has control over them because he appoints them. Which is not the case whether he appoints anyone or not.