2 Trillion spent!
Terrorists spent 20 guys on some hijacked planes? Maybe a million or 2?
Round 1 Al-Queda?
2007-04-13 08:13:05 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
sucker punch??? No warning what so ever?? Hmmm I thought USS Cole and a host of other attacks have occured maybe the bell was an extra wake up call for pugalists sleeping on the job such as yourself
2007-04-13 08:19:53 · update #1
The fiction about Reagan outspending the USSR is total fiction at best.
I was in Europe at that time and Reagan had nothing to do with the fall of the wall whatsoever.
What a baloney. Thanks to American influence the inevitable collapse was prolonged by at least 5 years.
Mainly the Poles, the Hungarians and Jugoslaws hammered slowly away on USSR domination since the 70's. After the old men like Tito where gone, the hate for Russian occupation was outweighing the fear of them.
With the Pentagon money machine in dire needs of an fictional enemy to spar with after 89, the USA has made dozens of attempts to vilified countries to provoke them into war.
I think the rest of the world is getting tired of the antics of a world sheriff, nobody wants in his back yard
2007-04-13 08:26:31 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The cold war was, at least on a philosophical level, a clash of economic systems, as well as nations. To win, you had to maintain a big nuclear force for MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), a big military to project influence conventionally, /and/ you had to provide your populace with 'prosperity,' at the same time. So, yes, it could be won by economic might - 'financial dominance' as you put it.
The 'War on Terror' also has an idealogical component, but the ideaologies have nothing to do with economics. Either side can let thier economies go to pot without 'losing' as long as they remain committed to thier ideals. The Terrorist ideal is radical Islam, and it thrives in economic collapse even better than in prosperity. The competing ideal is 'Freedom' - social democracy, and, really, multiculturalism - and it thrives only in relative prosperity. Thus, one side has a lot more money than the other, and fights accordingly, while the other side has little money and orchestrates attacks on the cheap - attacks which can't be prevented without the other side compromising its ideal.
Basicly, one side in the conflict has found a way to exploit the very ideal its enemy is fighting to defend in order to attack effectively with the resources it has, while the other has yet to find and effective - and idealogically acceptable - offensive or defensive strategy.
2007-04-13 08:26:59 · answer #2 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Of course round 1...but on a sucker punch thrown before the first bell.
Since then?
Your point?
You did you put your money on?
Addition: You still haven't said who you put your money on...
Round 1...Al Qaeda.
Round 2...the US and it's allies.
Round 3...Libs like you???
2007-04-13 08:17:24 · answer #3 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Rounds 1,2&3: Haliburton!
2007-04-13 08:18:20 · answer #4 · answered by MenifeeManiac 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
we can't fight terrorism with big weapons like the Cold War, we must use intelligence operations.
2007-04-13 08:18:01 · answer #5 · answered by Diggy 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Halliburton
Blackwater
And whoever it was who got that flatbed full of cash that hasn't been accounted for.
And the hijackers did it for an estimated $100,000 dollars
2007-04-13 08:19:05 · answer #6 · answered by justa 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Right Clinton did nothing!!!!
2007-04-13 08:48:37 · answer #7 · answered by mark k 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
what "war"?
how do you wage a "war" on "terror?"
2007-04-13 08:44:07 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋