Homeland Security Warns Against "Right-wing Radicals"

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Harvey

We're living with the financial collapse they caused by squandering just under $1 trillion dollars and thousands of American lives on their war of lies in Iraq, and further trillions of dollars in the financial collapse due to their abandonment of all regulation and oversight of their wealthy Wall Street robber baron contributors.
fixed... now, you may proceed.

:p

Actually, you broke it, and your number is bogus.

First, if the actual costs of the Bushwhackos' war of lies in Iraq were "just under $1 trillion dollars," it would still be a financial disaster, with our without the ensuing collapse of similar magnitude in the financial, for which they are equally responsible.

Second, the costs of the war are projected to run well beyond $1 trillion. Those costs include future costs of recruiting, training and equipping new troops, replacing spent, damaged and lost weapons, ammo and other equipment and facilities, the continuing and growing cost of ongoing veterans' care and benefits. They also include lost current productivity from those who would otherwise be contributing members of our workforce, lost future productivity from those killed and wounded and costs due to lost alternative opportunities because the same money squandered on the war was not available to invest in other needed areas, including business loans, infrastructure, meaningful security improvements, education, public health or anything else.

THE RECKONING
The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More

By Linda J. Bilmes and Joseph E. Stiglitz
Sunday, March 9, 2008; Page B01

There is no such thing as a free lunch, and there is no such thing as a free war. The Iraq adventure has seriously weakened the U.S. economy, whose woes now go far beyond loose mortgage lending. You can't spend $3 trillion -- yes, $3 trillion -- on a failed war abroad and not feel the pain at home.

Some people will scoff at that number, but we've done the math. Senior Bush administration aides certainly pooh-poohed worrisome estimates in the run-up to the war. Former White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey reckoned that the conflict would cost $100 billion to $200 billion; Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld later called his estimate "baloney." Administration officials insisted that the costs would be more like $50 billion to $60 billion. In April 2003, Andrew S. Natsios, the thoughtful head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, said on "Nightline" that reconstructing Iraq would cost the American taxpayer just $1.7 billion. Ted Koppel, in disbelief, pressed Natsios on the question, but Natsios stuck to his guns. Others in the administration, such as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, hoped that U.S. partners would chip in, as they had in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, or that Iraq's oil would pay for the damages.

The end result of all this wishful thinking? As we approach the fifth anniversary of the invasion, Iraq is not only the second longest war in U.S. history (after Vietnam), it is also the second most costly -- surpassed only by World War II.

Why doesn't the public understand the staggering scale of our expenditures? In part because the administration talks only about the upfront costs, which are mostly handled by emergency appropriations. (Iraq funding is apparently still an emergency five years after the war began.) These costs, by our calculations, are now running at $12 billion a month -- $16 billion if you include Afghanistan. By the time you add in the costs hidden in the defense budget, the money we'll have to spend to help future veterans, and money to refurbish a military whose equipment and materiel have been greatly depleted, the total tab to the federal government will almost surely exceed $1.5 trillion.

But the costs to our society and economy are far greater. When a young soldier is killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, his or her family will receive a U.S. government check for just $500,000 (combining life insurance with a "death gratuity") -- far less than the typical amount paid by insurance companies for the death of a young person in a car accident. The stark "budgetary cost" of $500,000 is clearly only a fraction of the total cost society pays for the loss of life -- and no one can ever really compensate the families. Moreover, disability pay seldom provides adequate compensation for wounded troops or their families. Indeed, in one out of five cases of seriously injured soldiers, someone in their family has to give up a job to take care of them.

But beyond this is the cost to the already sputtering U.S. economy. All told, the bill for the Iraq war is likely to top $3 trillion. And that's a conservative estimate.
.
.
(continues)
 

Pepsei

Lifer
Dec 14, 2001
12,895
1
0
what else is Homeland security dept going to do? you should thank GWB for creating it.
 

retrospooty

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2002
2,031
74
86
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: retrospooty

What I mean is your attempt to paint this into a bad light. How is looking our for right wing nutjob terrorists a bad thing? Tim McVie is not the only one.

It looks bad because the criteria for being considered a right winged radical is so ludicrious and broad. Returning vets?!?!? Really?

I also find these studies interesting because they can be used for political suppression. Does anybody know if Bush had similar studies and recommendations for political left organizations?

I don't believe the report concluded that returning vets were right-wing radicals, only that RWR's would try and recruit them and/or radicalize them.

Exactly... Its funny how some people totally skew what they read into some evil aweful plot.
 

FlashG

Platinum Member
Dec 23, 1999
2,709
2
0
Left wing vs right wing. Conservative vs liberal. Lable vs lable. I?m getting so confused.
 

Sacrilege

Senior member
Sep 6, 2007
647
0
0
The right wing reveals itself once again to be hypocrites of the first order. For years under Bush they labeled anyone left of "center" (what they defined to be center) to be a terrorist sympathizer; Muslims were terrorist sympathizers and should be profiled. Liberal groups were all hell bent on the destruction of capitalism and should be eavesdropped on and infiltrated. All Americans should be warrantless-ly wiretapped and watched by an omnipresent, authoritarian government.

Civil libertarians asked who watches the watchmen, how would you like it if you were being watched by a politically different government, etc, etc.

Now that the tables are turned the right wing sees a tiny hint of the authoritarian shit they have been giving the rest of the world for years; and their panties are irrevocably bunched up. Now they talk and teabag about big, encroaching government. But it's always in the social and economic spheres that government is bad. Somehow I doubt they will ever turn away from their submission to government authority when it comes to security. Just bring up some boogey man, and they are back under their beds cowering, begging for warrantless wiretaps, profiling of brown people, etc.
 

retrospooty

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2002
2,031
74
86
Originally posted by: Sacrilege
The right wing reveals itself once again to be hypocrites of the first order. For years under Bush they labeled anyone left of "center" (what they defined to be center) to be a terrorist sympathizer; Muslims were terrorist sympathizers and should be profiled. Liberal groups were all hell bent on the destruction of capitalism and should be eavesdropped on and infiltrated. All Americans should be warrantless-ly wiretapped and watched by an omnipresent, authoritarian government.

Civil libertarians asked who watches the watchmen, how would you like it if you were being watched by a politically different government, etc, etc.

Now that the tables are turned the right wing sees a tiny hint of the authoritarian shit they have been giving the rest of the world for years; and their panties are irrevocably bunched up. Now they talk and teabag about big, encroaching government. But it's always in the social and economic spheres that government is bad. Somehow I doubt they will ever turn away from their submission to government authority when it comes to security. Just bring up some boogey man, and they are back under their beds cowering, begging for warrantless wiretaps, profiling of brown people, etc.

Very well put... :thumbsup:
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
39,811
33,428
136
Hey OCguy Bush put out reports on left-wing groups so FU

Bush report

Oh and BTW click on some of the links in that same article and you will see the Obama administration came out with a report on left-wing groups in Jan so double FU.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
I love seeing the radical right getting their panties in a bunch about this. Michigan militia type bs was not that long ago. I think this sort of domestic terrorism would have kept increasing if the muslim nuts hadn't stolen the limelight.

 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,599
998
126
Originally posted by: OCguy
If this isnt a boogyman, I dont know what is. Lock your doors, there are war vets returning home!

So, what do the people who complained about the Bush administration spreading fear have to say?


http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94803

http://www.washingtontimes.com...-of-radicals-on-right/


WASHINGTON ? A newly unclassified Department of Homeland Security report warns against the possibility of violence by unnamed "right-wing extremists" concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty and singles out returning war veterans as particular threats"

I'd say it's just something they are concerned about. Honestly, why all the fear mongering B.S. from the right wing?
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,599
998
126
Originally posted by: Infohawk
I love seeing the radical right getting their panties in a bunch about this. Michigan militia type bs was not that long ago. I think this sort of domestic terrorism would have kept increasing if the muslim nuts hadn't stolen the limelight.

I think you're right, and this probably is a viable threat to this country.
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
What OCguy is saying, without coming out and saying it is this: "One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist."

/as long as they call the shots...
//no pun intended...
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Originally posted by: rudder
Originally posted by: CrackRabbit
Originally posted by: OCguy
Originally posted by: CrackRabbit


Does the name Timothy McVeigh ring a bell?

Yes, because one nut in the 90s is relevant to what right now?

Because he fit the description of what DHS is on the look out for to a T.

Tmothy McVeigh was one out of how many veterans? Not sure the number but my guess it would be an extremely low percentage.

Whats your point?

The fact is that the violent terrorist that would harm another human being is just a small fraction of a percent of the billions of Muslims out there... Does that mean we should stop being on the lookout for Muslim Terrorists?

Woah woah woah! We don't use that T-word anymore!
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,139
236
106
Originally posted by: OCguy
If this isnt a boogyman, I dont know what is. Lock your doors, there are war vets returning home!

So, what do the people who complained about the Bush administration spreading fear have to say?


http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94803

http://www.washingtontimes.com...-of-radicals-on-right/


WASHINGTON ? A newly unclassified Department of Homeland Security report warns against the possibility of violence by unnamed "right-wing extremists" concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty and singles out returning war veterans as particular threats"

Sorry dude, but your gonna have to surrender your guns! Please sir, put all your ammo and guns in this bag over here.

:p
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
Here's an example of the threat of returning veterans.

Desperate veterans turn to suicide

No help for you soldier. This would represent some of the 'change' we were promised as the previous administration didn't consider them a threat. This is change every soldier can believe in.
 

poohbear

Platinum Member
Mar 11, 2003
2,284
5
81
Originally posted by: boomerang
Here's an example of the threat of returning veterans.

Desperate veterans turn to suicide

No help for you soldier. This would represent some of the 'change' we were promised as the previous administration didn't consider them a threat. This is change every soldier can believe in.

right because obama is a shittier politician than bush?

u can be a soldier for 20 years and if u retire u get a shitty pension (20 years and u're discharged on an E-7 entitles u to $1000/month). U can be a congressmen 1 time, yes 1 time, and u're entitled to a $15, 000/month pension. and yet politicians of all stripes (republican & democrat) love to speak of "our brave young and women" in the armed forces. the hypocrisy makes me sick.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
I've heard my share of soldiers comment (prior to the election) that those who've fought an insurgency for much of their adult lives could wage the most destructive, efficient insurgency the world had ever seen in the United States. The availability of supplies alone would set a domestic warfare situation far apart from that of Iraq or A-stan.

Then there's shifty characters like me. You know you've got to keep an eye on me. :D
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Sounds like a bunch of fear mongering Left-Wing Brain Washing to me.

Look out, the ultra right wing killer, Rambo, is coming to get you!

Tree huggers are more dangerous.
 

retrospooty

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2002
2,031
74
86
Originally posted by: piasabird
Sounds like a bunch of fear mongering Left-Wing Brain Washing to me.

Look out, the ultra right wing killer, Rambo, is coming to get you!

Tree huggers are more dangerous.

Did you even read the damn thing before you post your right wing crap?

I think not - if you did, you would see that the report didnt say that that returning vets were right-wing radicals, only that RWR's would try and recruit returning vets and/or radicalize them.

This whole thing is another example of the right trumping up every little thing to try and make Obama look bad. See this thread for more info.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2294908&enterthread=y

Why dont you pick a real issue to bitch about - there are plenty to choose from.
 

Sacrilege

Senior member
Sep 6, 2007
647
0
0
Originally posted by: piasabird
Sounds like a bunch of fear mongering Left-Wing Brain Washing to me.

Look out, the ultra right wing killer, Rambo, is coming to get you!

Tree huggers are more dangerous.

Why do you hate America? Why do you hate our troops and want them to be recruited by terrorists? Why do you hate The Department of Homeland Security? DHS keeps you safe from terrorists who hate your freedumb!

See how the tables have turned since Bush left office???
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Nebor
I've heard my share of soldiers comment (prior to the election) that those who've fought an insurgency for much of their adult lives could wage the most destructive, efficient insurgency the world had ever seen in the United States. The availability of supplies alone would set a domestic warfare situation far apart from that of Iraq or A-stan.

Then there's shifty characters like me. You know you've got to keep an eye on me. :D
We already do, all strange men hanging around grammar schools are reported.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,139
236
106
Republican now stands for the new T word! Damn.. Whoever thought the biggest threat to the entire country was PJ and bush? ;) :p ;)

 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Nebor
I've heard my share of soldiers comment (prior to the election) that those who've fought an insurgency for much of their adult lives could wage the most destructive, efficient insurgency the world had ever seen in the United States. The availability of supplies alone would set a domestic warfare situation far apart from that of Iraq or A-stan.

Then there's shifty characters like me. You know you've got to keep an eye on me. :D
We already do, all strange men hanging around grammar schools are reported.

Ok, that one was funny. Ill give you that. :laugh:
 

arkcom

Golden Member
Mar 25, 2003
1,816
0
76
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: OCguy

If this isnt a boogyman, I dont know what is.

Source = World Net Daily. Do you not see the disconnect, here? :laugh:

We finally voted the worst "right-wing extremists" out of office after eight years of treason, murder, torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity and tyranny as they thrashed the rights guaranteed to every American citizen under our once honored, once respected Constitution.

We're living with the financial collapse they caused by squandering trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives on their war of lies in Iraq and further trillions of dollars in the financial collapse due to their abandonment of all regulation and oversight of their wealthy Wall Street robber baron contributors.

George W. Bush and his criminal gang, and those who would still pursue their objectives are the worst boogymen ever to hold power in the United States of America. :thumbsdown: :|

Do you have this like in a permanet clipboard where you can just paste it in to your posts? If so, I would love a copy of the software or where I can obtain a copy.

I said something eerily similar to this on 05/18/2008, quoted below with all my errors:

Originally posted by: arkcom
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Duwelon
The point of this thread is dishonest. 'Hay guyz, lets discuss semantics and obfuscate the issue at hand instead of dealing with the true accusations that were made.'

The point Bush was making was there is a point when diplomacy fails or is inappropriate altogether. Some people groups cannot be disuaded without the use of force. The left along with the entertainment media has so demonized the use of force based on GLOBAL Inelligencia that no left wing leader in their right mind would even consider the use of force for fear of being thrown under the bus.

The sad fact is that if we do need to act on Iran for example and a Democrat is in power, we're just not likely to do what is needed to avoid another world war scenario. I'm not going to throw around names of the third reich to illicit fear but it's clear there is a dangerous kettle brewing in the middle east that reeks of the same things that caused WW2.

BULLSHIT! Your Traitor In Chief is the one who brought up Hitler and Neville Chamberlain's sellout of Czechoslovakia to nazi Germany, and he did it in front of the Isreali Parliament on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the founding of the state of Israel.

And before you say he didn't, read the definition of appeasement in my previous post. Talking, even with your enemies, is NOT appeasement.

Maybe Bush never talked with any of our supposed enemies because he's such a lamer that he'd only embarrass himself in public yet again. He's already embarrassed the entire nation in the world community.

You should get a macro that types "Traitor In Chief" for you? It must get old to type all that out, when "Bush", "GWB", etc. would would work. A google search on "Traitor In Chief" shows you have used it hundreds of time, it gets old.

Here's an interesting google search:
http://www.google.ca/search?hl..._nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=off