Let's talk about REAL Government spending, not our piffling amounts...

[highly]

Chomsky is of the opinion that the 09/11 real tactic by bin laden was to bankrucpt the US - he could have being right

http://english.aljazeera.net/indept...Flow&utm_medium=MasterAccount&utm_term=tweets

 

[onq]

Interesting story, and Kissinger's direct involvement in the Allende overthrown and the murder of Rene Schneider is well document on the National Security Archive website and in Christopher Hitchens book, the Trial of Henry Kissinger.

I believe that the mujaheddin figurehead trained by the CIA did nothing without their instruction. There are contested reports that they visited him in hospital shortly before 9/11.

The reasons for disavowal are obvious, but the probability that the meeting occurred seems reasonable, given the level of the reporting at that time.

It seems quite clear that [broken link removed], who was an ally of the US at the time.

If Bin Laden was intended to bankrupt America, it was at the behest of the same people who have already bankrupted it by spending 1.4 Trillion USD per year since 9/11 waging war in the middle east and elsewhere.

 

[onq]

Giving money to a state by buying their bonds and financing genocide are two different things. It is nonsense to link them.
If you want to see direct support of genocide read up on France in Rwanda.

Oh Purple, what a morally bankrupt statement.

Even the Americans saw it as "trading with the enemy".

If you cannot raise the finance to conduct a war you cannot wage a war.

 

[Purple]

Oh Purple, what a morally bankrupt statement.

Even the Americans saw it as "trading with the enemy".

If you cannot raise the finance to conduct a war you cannot wage a war.

I won’t offer my opinion on the naivety of your opinions; suffice to say that the last person I met who shared your views was considerably younger than either of us.

Trading with a nation or buying its bonds before a war starts is not the same as doing so after the war starts.

 

[Purple]

Interesting story, and Kissinger's direct involvement in the Allende overthrown and the murder of Rene Schneider is well document on the National Security Archive website and in Christopher Hitchens book, the Trial of Henry Kissinger.

I believe that the mujaheddin figurehead trained by the CIA did nothing without their instruction. There are contested reports that they visited him in hospital shortly before 9/11.

The reasons for disavowal are obvious, but the probability that the meeting occurred seems reasonable, given the level of the reporting at that time.

It seems quite clear that [broken link removed], who was an ally of the US at the time.

If Bin Laden was intended to bankrupt America, it was at the behest of the same people who have already bankrupted it by spending 1.4 Trillion USD per year since 9/11 waging war in the middle east and elsewhere.

This is also very naive stuff.
Do you think that the USA should not have sided with the USSR during the Second World War?
Do you think that the USA should not have sided against the USSR after the Second World War?

 

[onq]

The post you ignored offered information that suggests that Osama Bin Laden was a CIA asset at all times.

I've found there's very little naivety in redacted classified documents.


.

 

[Mpsox]

It never ceases to amaze me how conspiracy theorists can be so "wise" after the event.

So Osama Bin Laden might have been a CIA asset at the time?. That doesn't mean that the "Complex" were involved in some giant conspiracy to create a war simply to gain profit. It could also mean that the CIA were simply incompetent, and, given their level of cock-ups around the world since the 60s, that's potentially a more likely scenario that any conspiracy

As for money spent/wasted on military contracts, the USA has a long history and tradition of such "pork-barrell" contracts and waste, and most have nothing to do with the military. The infamous Alaskan bridge to nowhere at Ketchikan cost $400m and had diddly to do with the military. Reality is, and has been for over 200 years in the USA, that those in power will, in effect, buy votes by giving such contracts to get a greater bill/deal through. Bit like the Tony Gregory/Jackie Healy Rae approach in this country.