Osama bin Laden claims victory over US

[Fischer08]

The great United States of America has once again come out victorious over its enemies with the slaughter of Osama Bin Laden. Just like in the 1980's when we bankrupted the backwards communist regime in the Soviet Union and set free countless millions from the barb wired fences and walls that the USSR put up to keep people from running to freedom, once again freedom and intelligence has overcome ignorance and hillbilly politics.

[Nola_Lifer]

5 Reasons why we entered WWII
1)Germans sinking US merchant ships taking supplies to England
2)Japan's unreasonable demands on the United States (re- instating oil sales and dropping support of the Philipeenes and China)
3)German submarines beginning to shoot at US war ships
4)England and France are typically our allies so we were going to enter the war eventually anyway
5)Pearl Harbor was obviously why we entered the war. Anytime we are attacked we are going to go to war; howeve,r realize that we declared war on Japan and three days later Germany declared war on us so we were not looking for a fight by any means.
READ NUMBER 5

5 Reasons why we enter Iraq or Libya
1)Oil
2)Oil
3)Vendetta between Presidents of the U.S. and Iraq's and Libya's leaders
4)The rare Islamic extremist
5)Oil

[BigBallinStalin]

i don't really think we disagree on anything; i recognize how useful concrete rules/laws can be from the limited perspective of people. but isn't it useful to at least have flawless morality as a goal?

Flawless morality only exists "in theory" or in your mind, especially if you adhere to the Rationalist and/or Foundationalist camp. Flawless morality implies that an absolute truth exists, and from that absolute truth, all moral qualms can be solved. But they can't, because once moral plurality is taken into account, then your "absolute" truth has to at least be reduced to "objective."

You will now have to argue that absolute Truth exists. If you can succeed in doing so, then I will believe that flawless morality is an attainable goal in this actual world.

at least recognize that it exists so that we can keep an open mind about the actions of others? you're just throwing your hands up in the air like "it's not possible man, we can never know real morality" and i don't like that

It's not possible because it doesn't account for real factors from this actual world.

Sorry, john, if you don't like that, but you have to rely on logic to continue.

[BigBallinStalin]

_________________________________________

"What are the unintended consequences of declaring war on a country in the name of punishing 1 man?

declaring war on a country (Afghanistan) to punish one man (Osama)
declaring war on a country (Libya) to punish one man (Qaddafy)

Do you see how using your brain can fill in the blank spaces?

We're at war with terrorism within those countries, not at war with the countries themselves.

In that, it is very much like going into France after Germans. It's also comparable to Hitler's Germany because they're beginning how Hitler began: started with those he chose not to like near him, before expanding.

I think you need to work on filling your brain's blank spaces

In reality, when you invade a country and occupy that country, it requires actually going to war with that country.

Back to the beginning:

BBS. I'd say ole fish bait lost. Big fail.
FYI: We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with trash. Godaffy is next to be terminated.

What are the unintended consequences of declaring war on a country in the name of punishing 1 man?

If you ignore this question again, then I know you're trolling.

[thegreekdog]

I just have a few comments/questions related to this thread:

(1) To Radiojake - Explain to me the history of Imperialism and warfare, including, but not limited to, resource grabs and land grabs, of the United States relative to the countries of the Middle East. Assume I know nothing about US history and go from there. Feel free to be brief in your explanation.
(2) Someone mentioned "Islamic countries." Shouldn't the term be "Arab countries?" Are there not non-Muslims in these countries? Are the governments of most of these countries ostensibly secular?
(3) To Nola - Under your reasons for entering into WWII, read numbers (1), (2), and (4) and compare to your answers to numbers (1), (2), and (5) under reasons why we went to war with Iraq and Libya. Are these not similar answers?

[stahrgazer]

_________________________________________

"What are the unintended consequences of declaring war on a country in the name of punishing 1 man?

declaring war on a country (Afghanistan) to punish one man (Osama)
declaring war on a country (Libya) to punish one man (Qaddafy)

Do you see how using your brain can fill in the blank spaces?

We're at war with terrorism within those countries, not at war with the countries themselves.

In that, it is very much like going into France after Germans. It's also comparable to Hitler's Germany because they're beginning how Hitler began: started with those he chose not to like near him, before expanding.

I think you need to work on filling your brain's blank spaces

In reality, when you invade a country and occupy that country, it requires actually going to war with that country.

Back to the beginning:

BBS. I'd say ole fish bait lost. Big fail.
FYI: We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with trash. Godaffy is next to be terminated.

What are the unintended consequences of declaring war on a country in the name of punishing 1 man?

If you ignore this question again, then I know you're trolling.

I repeat: we were not at war with the countries, we were at war with terrorists in those countries. Actually, technically, that's not true. We were not Constitutionally at war (by Declaration of War issued by U.S. Congress) against the terrorists. The President was, however, ordering retaliation against terrorists who DID declare war on us; in the only manner Congress authorized, by "persuing the terrorists to the ends of the earth." Also, Pakistan allowed us there; Pakistan also has had warning over the years in Obama's Presidency that IF he got the chance, Obama would order precisely what he ordered. Same with Libya, same with Afghanistan.

Yes, you can argue that the upstart terror-supporting temporary-conquerors (and murderers) of those countries didn't 'allow' us there, just as Mussolini didn't "allow" us into Italy when he banded with Hitler; and Hitler certainly didn't "allow" us into Germany. In the case of Hitler, we had declared war. In the case of Italy, we had not.

Unintended consequences of any retaliation - legally "war" or not, will always be: 1) innocents die and 2) not everyone favors the battle.

[Army of GOD]

Unintended consequences of any retaliation - legally "war" or not, will always be: 1) innocents die and 2) not everyone favors the battle.

But as long as they're not OUR innocents, you don't give a flying f*ck, right?

[BigBallinStalin]

_________________________________________

"What are the unintended consequences of declaring war on a country in the name of punishing 1 man?

declaring war on a country (Afghanistan) to punish one man (Osama)
declaring war on a country (Libya) to punish one man (Qaddafy)

Do you see how using your brain can fill in the blank spaces?

We're at war with terrorism within those countries, not at war with the countries themselves.

In that, it is very much like going into France after Germans. It's also comparable to Hitler's Germany because they're beginning how Hitler began: started with those he chose not to like near him, before expanding.

I think you need to work on filling your brain's blank spaces

In reality, when you invade a country and occupy that country, it requires actually going to war with that country.

Back to the beginning:

BBS. I'd say ole fish bait lost. Big fail.
FYI: We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with trash. Godaffy is next to be terminated.

What are the unintended consequences of declaring war on a country in the name of punishing 1 man?

If you ignore this question again, then I know you're trolling.

I repeat: we were not at war with the countries, we were at war with terrorists in those countries. Actually, technically, that's not true. We were not Constitutionally at war (by Declaration of War issued by U.S. Congress) against the terrorists. The President was, however, ordering retaliation against terrorists who DID declare war on us; in the only manner Congress authorized, by "persuing the terrorists to the ends of the earth." Also, Pakistan allowed us there; Pakistan also has had warning over the years in Obama's Presidency that IF he got the chance, Obama would order precisely what he ordered. Same with Libya, same with Afghanistan.

Yes, you can argue that the upstart terror-supporting temporary-conquerors (and murderers) of those countries didn't 'allow' us there, just as Mussolini didn't "allow" us into Italy when he banded with Hitler; and Hitler certainly didn't "allow" us into Germany. In the case of Hitler, we had declared war. In the case of Italy, we had not.

1) By invading a country(Iraq, Afghanistan) with military forces, that invading country (United States) is considered to be waging war against that country.

2) You counter with "it's a war against terrorism, not against a country" but you conveniently ignore that the US has still waged war against two countries, and is continuing to wage war against not only "terrorists" but also partisans and former national forces (i.e. a country's armed forces).

So, you must explain how the above action (1) is considered to NOT be waging war against a country.

Unintended consequences of any retaliation - legally "war" or not, will always be: 1) innocents die and 2) not everyone favors the battle.

3) Pakistan doesn't want the US so heavily involved in its affairs. For years since the ongoing drone attacks, their government has complained about infringing upon their sovereign rights. US replies with a "financial aid" package of about $8bn (if I recalled correctly) in order to shut their government up. Pakistan's national government is in a precarious situation in regards to its own people (some being aligned with the Pakistani Taliban and other anti-nationalist government forces). An unintended consequence of the US fighting a war against certain guerrilla organizations within Pakistan is that it pisses off many Pakistanis, who have increasingly become anti-American. These sentiments and the actions of the US government via drone attacks provide forces hostile towards the US with plenty of strong, anti-US propaganda and a larger market of people to recruit from for more guerrilla-related operations.


Hopefully, you can see that it's not as simple as you think it is.

[radiojake]

I just have a few comments/questions related to this thread:

(1) To Radiojake - Explain to me the history of Imperialism and warfare, including, but not limited to, resource grabs and land grabs, of the United States relative to the countries of the Middle East. Assume I know nothing about US history and go from there. Feel free to be brief in your explanation.

I don't have time to write an entire essay about this, but I have already on a number of occasions supplied this link that quickly summarises nearly a century of U.S intervention in the Middle East
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le6308.htm

I am not trying to imply that the U.S is the only country that has benefited from imperialist actions in the Middle East, but they certainly are the major player.

Then you have the whole history of intervention in Latin America, especially from the 1950's when the 'Red scare' was in full force. In Chile, the first Democratically elected Marxist, Allende, was eventually assasinated in a military coup propped up by the CIA, which paved the way for Pinochet to rule for 20 years. Wasn't that just a great era for the Chilean people? - But it's ok, because U.S copper interests were looked after.

[thegreekdog]

I just have a few comments/questions related to this thread:

(1) To Radiojake - Explain to me the history of Imperialism and warfare, including, but not limited to, resource grabs and land grabs, of the United States relative to the countries of the Middle East. Assume I know nothing about US history and go from there. Feel free to be brief in your explanation.

I don't have time to write an entire essay about this, but I have already on a number of occasions supplied this link that quickly summarises nearly a century of U.S intervention in the Middle East
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le6308.htm

I am not trying to imply that the U.S is the only country that has benefited from imperialist actions in the Middle East, but they certainly are the major player.

Then you have the whole history of intervention in Latin America, especially from the 1950's when the 'Red scare' was in full force. In Chile, the first Democratically elected Marxist, Allende, was eventually assasinated in a military coup propped up by the CIA, which paved the way for Pinochet to rule for 20 years. Wasn't that just a great era for the Chilean people? - But it's ok, because U.S copper interests were looked after.

What I'm asking, really, is this - what is the justification provided by Muslim terrorists for attacking people from the United States? And I'm not asking what the justification is right now, because arguably someone whose parents were killed by an errant bomb has justification for hating the United States. I'm not asking about Latin America, I'm asking about the Middle East. When did Muslim terrorists begin to attack the United States and why did they start?

And once you have that time period and reason, ask yourself if Muslim terrorists are in any way justified.

[radiojake]

I just have a few comments/questions related to this thread:

(1) To Radiojake - Explain to me the history of Imperialism and warfare, including, but not limited to, resource grabs and land grabs, of the United States relative to the countries of the Middle East. Assume I know nothing about US history and go from there. Feel free to be brief in your explanation.

I don't have time to write an entire essay about this, but I have already on a number of occasions supplied this link that quickly summarises nearly a century of U.S intervention in the Middle East
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le6308.htm

I am not trying to imply that the U.S is the only country that has benefited from imperialist actions in the Middle East, but they certainly are the major player.

Then you have the whole history of intervention in Latin America, especially from the 1950's when the 'Red scare' was in full force. In Chile, the first Democratically elected Marxist, Allende, was eventually assasinated in a military coup propped up by the CIA, which paved the way for Pinochet to rule for 20 years. Wasn't that just a great era for the Chilean people? - But it's ok, because U.S copper interests were looked after.

What I'm asking, really, is this - what is the justification provided by Muslim terrorists for attacking people from the United States? And I'm not asking what the justification is right now, because arguably someone whose parents were killed by an errant bomb has justification for hating the United States. I'm not asking about Latin America, I'm asking about the Middle East. When did Muslim terrorists begin to attack the United States and why did they start?

And once you have that time period and reason, ask yourself if Muslim terrorists are in any way justified.

Did you read the link?
Also, I don't think there is any justification for terrorist attacks - either those perpetrated by Islamic Extremists or those commited by the United States - I just hate the fact the US likes to claim the righteous angle, even though they are not innocent victims -

[thegreekdog]

Did you read the link?

I did. Did you? I'm not convinced you did. I haven't gotten any information in that link that indicates that the United States is not in a righteous position with respect to whether to seek retribution/vengeance on terrorists for killing US civilians indiscriminately.

The link states "Many different sources were used in compiling this chronology of U.S. aggression." It's fascinating that the link claims to have information that you can't read on CNN (you probably can by the way) and produces a number of "facts" which do not indicate aggression against Muslims in any way that would cause me to hate the United States. Maybe starting in 1983 (after a suicide bomber makes an appearance) things escalated... but I believe that shows the United States is actually righteous.

Don't get me wrong, as far as I'm concerned we should leave the Middle East alone. I'm just wondering where many people in the world get the idea that the United States it not in the right here. It baffles me.

[Qwert]

can someone tell me who start first? what whas reason for terrorist to declare war against US?
How US jump into these situation to have war in iraq and afghanistan? Why terrorist attack twin tower?

[Timminz]

I don't think Osama bin Laden sent those planes to attack us because he hated our freedom. I think he did it because of our support for Israel, our ties with the Saudi family and our military bases in Saudi Arabia. You know why I think that? Because that's what he fucking said! Are we a nation of 6-year-olds? Answer: yes.

[BigBallinStalin]

.

Don't get me wrong, as far as I'm concerned we should leave the Middle East alone. I'm just wondering where many people in the world get the idea that the United States it not in the right here. It baffles me.

What pops up in my mind is that the reasons for retaliation on both sides is in response to whatever grievances were committed against whichever side. I'm hesitant to say that one side is "right" because from my limited knowledge I understand why the other group retaliates against the other.


Would you mind expanding on that? To what are you are specifically referring?




EDIT: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 0#p3151739 Those are good points.

[thegreekdog]

I don't think Osama bin Laden sent those planes to attack us because he hated our freedom. I think he did it because of our support for Israel, our ties with the Saudi family and our military bases in Saudi Arabia. You know why I think that? Because that's what he fucking said! Are we a nation of 6-year-olds? Answer: yes.

Right... so, again, my question is this - is the United States therefore not righteous because it supports Israel, has ties to the Saudi family, and has military bases in Saudi Arabia?

"We're tired of your support for Israel, your ties to the Saudi family and your military bases in the Middle East. Now we're going to kill your civilians."

Setting aside the idea that I'm pro-US because, well, I live here and I care about me, what am I not getting?

If we had carpet-bombed Saudi Arabia, I might get this, but we didn't so I don't.

[radiojake]

Did you read the link?

I did. Did you? I'm not convinced you did. I haven't gotten any information in that link that indicates that the United States is not in a righteous position with respect to whether to seek retribution/vengeance on terrorists for killing US civilians indiscriminately.

The link states "Many different sources were used in compiling this chronology of U.S. aggression." It's fascinating that the link claims to have information that you can't read on CNN (you probably can by the way) and produces a number of "facts" which do not indicate aggression against Muslims in any way that would cause me to hate the United States. Maybe starting in 1983 (after a suicide bomber makes an appearance) things escalated... but I believe that shows the United States is actually righteous.

Don't get me wrong, as far as I'm concerned we should leave the Middle East alone. I'm just wondering where many people in the world get the idea that the United States it not in the right here. It baffles me.

I know the referencing was pretty poor on that link, but I thought it was a good little summary. Israel has a massive part of it, Israel has killed many Arab civillians since the 1950's and I am sure you would admit that Israel is practically an extension of the U.S army, after all it was Truman who pushed the UK to set up the Zionist state.

If you agree that the US should leave the Middle East alone, why would you then say that you are still 'in the right'? - Let me say explicitly here (because maybe it was lost in my last post) that I do not think that the 'terrorists' were in the right - I just do not think in binary opposites like modern day media/politics tries to get everyone to think like. Both sides of this conflict have got blood on their hands.

Let's summarise - Who is the righteous (although I don't believe there is such a thing in this case)

3,000 deaths from 9/11

1,570 US Military deaths in Afghanistan since 2001
+(874 Military deaths of other Coalition countries)

4,452 US Military deaths in Iraq
--------------------------
9,022 US deaths in the 'war on terror'
---------------------------------------


Approx # of Iraqi deaths from U.S occupation
1,455,590

Approx # of Aghani deaths from U.S occupation
29,000 << these figures are very approximate - could be more)


1,484,900 > 9,022

But wait.. you can now put +1 Osama on that list, so from what I can tell from some of the sentiment on this board is;

1,484,901 = 9,022

Right. It all makes sense.


SOURCES: http://antiwar.com/casualties/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_c ... present%29
http://icasualties.org/oef/

[thegreekdog]

RJ - that does make sense to me vis-a-vis the current war and occupation of Iraq.

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about why did the Muslim terrorists who attacked on September 11, 2001 and before that hate us so much such that the international community feels that the United States is not, in fact, righteous in this instance?

[InkL0sed]

Probably at least partially because of our support of dictators there (and our support of Israel).

[thegreekdog]

Probably at least partially because of our support of dictators there (and our support of Israel).

Okay, so in their minds, because we allegedly supported dictators in the Middle East and because we think that the Israelis shouldn't be pushed out into the ocean, it's understandable to want to kill a few thousand Americans.

[Timminz]

because we think that the Israelis shouldn't be pushed out into the ocean

Interesting spin.

[Woodruff]

Probably at least partially because of our support of dictators there (and our support of Israel).

Okay, so in their minds, because we allegedly supported dictators in the Middle East and because we think that the Israelis shouldn't be pushed out into the ocean, it's understandable to want to kill a few thousand Americans.

I think it has far more to do with our having infidel military personnel in their holy lands. And if you think about that for a moment, that's some pretty strong justification for a lot of things (even to my non-religious mind). And using Saudi Arabia's willingness to have us there as rationale isn't particularly useful since the Saudi royal family is pretty roundly despised even by their own people.

I should also point out that I'm certainly not excusing what they did nor what they continue to try to do and I absolutely support our continued actions against al Qaida. While I'm personally very pleased to see this happen, from a "justice served, mixed with revenge" perspective...I unfortunately don't believe it will have any actual negative impact on al Qaeda. I think the largest value from it is that it does show that we will doggedly pursue you until we get you if you bloody our nose in the manner that he did, and that is valuable to a degree. But typically, terrorists (even those at the top of the food chain) aren't particularly concerned about that.

I certainly have the highest respect for those military members carrying out the operation, though. Very impressive not to lose a casualty.

Our only real method of eliminating the majority of terrorism is, as many others have already stated, to improve their quality of life. Give them something that ISN'T so damn easy to throw away. This absolutely at the very least should be done in conjunction with our military actions. Sadly, we don't seem to be too interested in that particular fix. I had a lot of hope at the beginning that this was precisely what we would be doing PARTICULARLY in Afghanistan, but also in Iraq (we broke it, we bought it).

[Phatscotty]

RJ - that does make sense to me vis-a-vis the current war and occupation of Iraq.

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about why did the Muslim terrorists who attacked on September 11, 2001 and before that hate us so much such that the international community feels that the United States is not, in fact, righteous in this instance?

Just a loose theory, but when we went off the gold standard and on the dollar standard, it worked because our economy was based on oil and we told certain leaders in the Middle East that we would support them for life and make them rich in dollars so long as they only accepted the US currency as payment for oil. This did not sit well with the tribes who were against the deal or else did not profit from the deal. Obviously this was picking winners and losers on a large scale. One basic Middle Eastern thought is that since this is the way of the world, they are de-facto supporting Israels existence, since if their country attacked Israel, it would cost them a lot of dollars and they would probably be overthrown and a new person would be supported who would carry on the status quo. Of course it goes back further than that and there are other important factors to consider, but this one is a biggy in today's reality. That is why many countries in the middle east are up for grabs, because they no longer have to use the US dollar, which was the backbone of the way things have been run for the last 40 something years.

This is loose and general and there are holes in there but overall I think this is the environment which exists.

[stahrgazer]

Probably at least partially because of our support of dictators there (and our support of Israel).

Okay, so in their minds, because we allegedly supported dictators in the Middle East and because we think that the Israelis shouldn't be pushed out into the ocean, it's understandable to want to kill a few thousand Americans.

I think it has far more to do with our having infidel military personnel in their holy lands. And if you think about that for a moment, that's some pretty strong justification for a lot of things (even to my non-religious mind). And using Saudi Arabia's willingness to have us there as rationale isn't particularly useful since the Saudi royal family is pretty roundly despised even by their own people.

I should also point out that I'm certainly not excusing what they did nor what they continue to try to do and I absolutely support our continued actions against al Qaida. While I'm personally very pleased to see this happen, from a "justice served, mixed with revenge" perspective...I unfortunately don't believe it will have any actual negative impact on al Qaeda. I think the largest value from it is that it does show that we will doggedly pursue you until we get you if you bloody our nose in the manner that he did, and that is valuable to a degree. But typically, terrorists (even those at the top of the food chain) aren't particularly concerned about that.

I certainly have the highest respect for those military members carrying out the operation, though. Very impressive not to lose a casualty.

Our only real method of eliminating the majority of terrorism is, as many others have already stated, to improve their quality of life. Give them something that ISN'T so damn easy to throw away. This absolutely at the very least should be done in conjunction with our military actions. Sadly, we don't seem to be too interested in that particular fix. I had a lot of hope at the beginning that this was precisely what we would be doing PARTICULARLY in Afghanistan, but also in Iraq (we broke it, we bought it).

I'd agree with these theories except, the US didn't enter the middle east until after other countries had first, and requested our support. Those other countries primarily backed away, not because they don't support the premise, but because the US, having "won the cold war" was the biggest guy on the block.

As for Iraq, remember the shouting "yay America" in the streets when we first "broke it."

Before insurgents got a chance to regroup, our presence there was very popular to the people. Personally, I think our presence shouldn't have been there at the time, but I theorize Bush Jr. remembered daddy (Bush 1) hissing about Saddam and so, "grew up" understanding Saddam was the primo #1 enemy. Now, there are those who say we created Saddam, and I don't disagree, however, that he later turned against his people and us makes him an even worse enemy, a traitor, than just a bad guy.

I also surmise that if it weren't for all those insurgents who are forcing us to the choice of withdraw or shoot back, we would just be there to help the next government improve the people's quality of life.

I also agree that killing Bin Laden doesn't end Al Qaeda. It does, however, show that the US won't let its legalities tie up our balls to the extent that we castrate ourselves in face of a bigger threat.

My preference would still be that the US Congress grow its balls big enough to make our actions against TERRORISTS, constitutional and legal... while in "regular wars" or skirmishes against sovereign nations we maintain our "no no that's bad to assassinate, torture, or detain without due process," in accordance with international treaties that deal with wars against sovereign nations.

Basically, terrorists don't have a sovereign nation, don't do treaties, and forced us to take gloves off. Taking the gloves off wasn't technically legal for the United States at this point... but Congress could change that.

There are also those left wingers who think Bin Laden deserved "due process" ie, a trial. Problem with that is, there was insufficient hard evidence to convict him. The world saw him admit "guilt" but a shrewed attorney would argue that terrorists frequently claim to have done things they didn't do, and would tell prosecutors to seek those who personally knew of the plans and specific orders from Bin Laden; then claim all that 'evidence' (even assuming prosecutors did find enough Al Qaeda willing to testify in court hahahah) was hearsay. Result would be, Bin Laden wouldn't have been convicted. Talk about a mockery of justice!

Nostradamus predicted that WWIII would come from someone in a turban in the middle east; I'd say, we're in the middle of WWIII right now.

And the Saddams of the area make us wonder, whom do we trust to establish a peaceful government that helps its population improve their quality of life rather than take advantage of additional munitions, money, and support to form new dictatorships and harbor zealots whose chief aim is, by their own admission, to cut the legs off the United States and any countries that support our principles?

[Qwert]

well i must say,as long US spend money on quality of weapons,instead to improve quality of life in Iraq and Afganistan,in long way,US will lost , because like some people notice, with increasing quality of life, will decrease support to terrorist. Only when terrorist lost hes suport in people, then they can be isolated. Politician can say,that they invested bilions and bilions, but when you look real picture, people in Afghanistan and IRaq live very poor, even when everybody know that IRaq are rich with oil, so question will be where these money go? On Secure of Goverment who are backed by US?Wasting energy and money on project who are failed, and i belive that any normal person in US, also realised, that on day,where US Army withdraw,and stop give money,these two project will be going to hell.
Now , just imagine, that you need to send troops in libya and Syria, to also secure,and maintain forced stability, these will even more put on presure US , because will need even more money to pay all these.