2 Trillion Dollars

[Killfile]

According to News24, the war in Iraq is going to cost US Tax Payers a grand total of around 2 TRILLION dollars. That’s trillion with a T. To put that in perspective, a trillion is this rather imposing number.

1,000,000,000,000

Some other numbers that might of interest to you:

US average life expectancy in seconds – 2.45 Billion Seconds
Total amount of US currency in circulation – $575 Billion
Yearly pay of an enlisted solider in Iraq - $14,822.04

Given the huge sums of money involved in this war – even the most patriotic has to ask, “is there a cheaper alternative?” Unfortunately, the answer is probably yes. We in the United States enjoy a higher standard of living than almost anyone in the world. Correspondingly, we have a higher cost of living as well. This means that a dollar in the US doesn’t go as far or buy as much as a dollar – pretty much anywhere else (except parts of Europe and Tokyo).

So ask yourself this. Would you move to another country for a one time up front payment of $75,000 for every person in your family?

For the cost of this war, we could have very simply walked up to every man, woman, and child in Iraq and politely offered them $75,000 – or about 35 years salary (on average) to find someplace else to live.

We’d have saved $44,382,050,000 in the process as well.

Of course, this is satiric. Even so, these numbers serve to illustrate a worthwhile point. This is a very expensive war being fought for very poorly defined reasons and based upon deeply flawed intelligence. In his rush to war, President Bush has failed this country to the tune of 2,000,000,000,000 dollars and 2200 American lives.

Feel free to discuss here, or post your comments to my blog.

[ucrzymofo87]

This is a very expensive war being fought for very poorly defined reasons and based upon deeply flawed intelligence. In his rush to war, President Bush has failed this country to the tune of 2,000,000,000,000 dollars and 2200 American lives.

Compared to other wars, the losses we have suffered in Iraq cannot compare with the huge losses suffered in Vietnam, or Korea, or World War II.

The Crimean War, which lasted two years in 1853-56, the British lost 22,000 men out of an army of 98,000. The French lost 96,000 out of 300,000. And the Russians lost about 400,000 men. In the Franco-Prussian war in 1870, the French lost 77,000 men out of an army of 710,000. The Germans sent an army of a million men to defeat the French (rather easily I might add), and lost 45,000 of them.

Our seven-year Civil War cost us an estimated total of 700,000 lives: 304,000 soldiers in the North and a higher number in the South. Considering what is presently at stake in Iraq, 2,200 lives is a small price to pay for creating democracy in the Middle East and defeating radical Islam.

We should not forget the 3,000 Americans who were killed in one day on Sept. 11, 2001 when radical Islam declared war on us. Those Americans were our first casualties in that war. Nevertheless, the loss of one soldier is a tragedy for that brave soldier's family and for us.

But America has been involved in many wars, and if the founding fathers had refused to wage the Revolutionary War because some soldiers would be killed, we would have never achieved our independence. And there were equivalents to today's Democrats back then. They were called Loyalists and were anti-war and anti-independence.

Since the War for Independence, we have fought in the North African Barbary Coast against Islamic tyrants, the War of 1812 against England, the Mexican War which brought Texas into the Union and expanded our territory, the Civil War to rid the country of slavery, the many small wars against Indians, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the War in Grenada, the War in Bosnia, the first Gulf War, the War in Afghanistan, and the War in Iraq. Thousands of Americans have fought bravely and died for their country, and we can expect that there will be wars in the future.

Already, there is talk of a war against Iran where a semi-crazed leader has advocated wiping Israel off the map, is working to acquire nuclear weapons, and is a strong supporter of Islamic terrorism.

That is why we must maintain bases in Iraq – so that we can strike at Iran's nuclear facilities with a minimum of American cost. With today's technology, we should be able to destroy Iran's nuclear capability by sending missiles from warships at sea. Israel was able to destroy Saddam Hussein's nuclear facility in Baghdad without invasion or loss of life. It was done by surgical strikes.

The low rate of casualties in Iraq indicates that with the use of new technology wars can be fought with a minimum of human loss. Even so, Americans were forced to fight hand to hand because of the situation in Iraq. It is expected that in 2006, the Iraqis will be able to take over the job of eradicating the insurgents. The present low-level civil war being waged by the insurgents does not have the support of the Iraqi people who showed their desire for a democratic government by coming out in large numbers to vote for it.

It is expected that the Iraqi army and security forces will keep improving their skills to the point where they will be able to subdue the insurgents with a minimum of American assistance. Meanwhile, the anti-war, anti-military drumbeat from the Democrats is nothing less than treasonous, giving aid and comfort to our enemies. Their constant harping on Bush's endeavors to maintain security at home, their publishing of wartime secrets, their endless criticism of how we treat terrorist killers in Guantanamo, their searing hatred of the president and his staff reveal a state of mind among Democrats that is so negative that they will inevitably turn off millions of voters (Like they did in 2004).

Americans on the whole are patriotic and favor defending our country against its enemies. They are realistic enough to know that war is no picnic and that people get killed. Anyone who joins the military knows that there is always the risk of being killed. The military is totally volunteer. However, no president is above criticism, but when that criticism becomes a kind of sick hysteria like the Dean scream, it ought to be seen for what it is: negative, destructive and treasonous.


source

[Killfile]

Killfile v Dr. Samuel L. Blumenfeld - let the games begin.

The Democrats have made quite a fuss over American casualties in Iraq. So far, about 2,200 American soldiers have been killed in that war, and many thousands have been wounded. But compared to other wars, the losses we have suffered in Iraq cannot compare with the huge losses suffered in Vietnam, or Korea, or World War II.

Comparing Iraq to World War II, Korea, or even Vietnam does a disservice, not only to the thousands of brave and sacrificing souls who gave their lives for their country in those wars, but to those that seek to preserve human life by preventing wars. I can think of no war more just than the Second World War. Korea represented a largely successful attempt to contain the spread of communism – launched to contain and invading army and with the support of the United Nations. Vietnam was also a response (though a somewhat less legitimate response) to communist expansionism. Even today, Cold War scholars refuse to rule out the importance of Vietnam in the containment of communism in Asia.

In the Crimean War, which lasted two years in 1853-56, the British lost 22,000 men out of an army of 98,000. The French lost 96,000 out of 300,000. And the Russians lost about 400,000 men. In the Franco-Prussian war in 1870, the French lost 77,000 men out of an army of 710,000. The Germans sent an army of a million men to defeat the French, and lost 45,000 of them.

When you can pick and choose your wars from human history – you have the weight of numbers on your side. Wars have become less bloody in relation to their scope (though their scope has often increased) over the span of history. Even so – previous US presidents who have fought their pointless, dirty, little wars have done so with a far more restrained budget both in dollars and human life. To compare Iraq to the great wars of European history only demonstrates a willful ignorance of the international system and world history. Fortunately, Dr Blumenfeld’s area of expertise is Education, not history or political science, so we can forgive him his ineptitude.

Our seven-year Civil War cost us an estimated total of 700,000 lives: 304,000 soldiers in the North and a higher number in the South. Considering what is presently at stake in Iraq, 2,200 lives is a small price to pay for creating democracy in the Middle East and defeating radical Islam.

A total victory in Iraq will NOT be the death knell to Radical Islam. Any one who tells you otherwise is selling something. There are more than a BILLION Moslems in the world. Only a small minority of them have to hate America for the US to have a serious problem on its hands. More over, I would hardly characterize Iraq as equating in any way with the Civil War as far as historical importance. Loss of the Civil War represented the quite literal destruction of the United States as a sovereign nation. Withdrawal, victory, or defeat in Iraq will not impact US sovereignty one iota.

We should not forget the 3,000 Americans who were killed in one day on Sept. 11, 2001 when radical Islam declared war on us. Those Americans were our first casualties in that war. Nevertheless, the loss of one soldier is a tragedy for that brave soldier's family and for us.

Not one, not one hijacker involved in Sept 11 was from Iraq. Iraq did not train, did not arm, and did not finance the Sept 11 hijackers. It would be more logical to declare war on Scotland following the Oklahoma city bombings (McVeigh is a Scottish name… right?) than it does to in any way link Sept 11 and Iraq.

But America has been involved in many wars, and if the founding fathers had refused to wage the Revolutionary War because some soldiers would be killed, we would have never achieved our independence. And there were equivalents to today's Democrats back then. They were called Loyalists and were anti-war and anti-independence.

No – those in London who didn’t think that the American Colonies, which were neither profitable nor strategically located, were worth loosing their children over are the closest you’ll get to Democrats. It is both salicious and slanderous to accuse Democrats of cheering for defeat in this conflict. That my countrymen would say or imply that about me saddens me and demonstrates exactly how much this war is really just about politics. And again, I must protest equating the Revolutionary war, without which there would be no United States of America, with the Iraq war – which is of comparatively little historic significance.

Since the War for Independence, we have fought in the North African Barbary Coast against Islamic tyrants, the War of 1812 against England, the Mexican War which brought Texas into the Union and expanded our territory, the Civil War to rid the country of slavery, the many small wars against Indians, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the War in Grenada, the War in Bosnia, the first Gulf War, the War in Afghanistan, and the War in Iraq. Thousands of Americans have fought bravely and died for their country, and we can expect that there will be wars in the future.

The last sentence I can agree with. The rest is bullshit. The Barbary Cost war had nothing to do with religion – it was about piracy. The Mexican War was a war of territorial expansion – unjust and illegal under any interpretation. Several wars on that list were undeclared – so they weren’t really wars at all. Also, let’ not forget that just listing Iraq in with a lot of other wars doesn’t legitimate it at all – save to point out that Americans have suffered enough war already.

Already, there is talk of a war against Iran where a semi-crazed leader has advocated wiping Israel off the map, is working to acquire nuclear weapons, and is a strong supporter of Islamic terrorism.

Where have we heard this argument before? Pitty it’s TRUE of Iran. The US has already sacrificed so much international credibility on Iraq that we may not be able to deal with a real and serious threat in Iran. What a waste.

That is why we must maintain bases in Iraq – so that we can strike at Iran's nuclear facilities with a minimum of American cost. With today's technology, we should be able to destroy Iran's nuclear capability by sending missiles from warships at sea. Israel was able to destroy Saddam Hussein's nuclear facility in Baghdad without invasion or loss of life. It was done by surgical strikes.

What? We need to maintain bases in Iraq so we can attack Iran… from ships in international waters? That doesn’t make any sense! Hell ,we can even fly B2s literally half way around the world to bomb things. Of course, that requires good intel – which this President has an awesome track record on.

Meanwhile, the anti-war, anti-military drumbeat from the Democrats is nothing less than treasonous, giving aid and comfort to our enemies. Their constant harping on Bush's endeavors to maintain security at home, their publishing of wartime secrets, their endless criticism of how we treat terrorist killers in Guantanamo, their searing hatred of the president and his staff reveal a state of mind among Democrats that is so negative that they will inevitably turn off millions of voters.

Exercising first Amendment freedoms is treasonous? Questioning in poor handling of poor intelligence resulting in an unnecessary, expensive, and demoralizing war is treasonous? If that’s treason, I wonder what outing a CIA operative is. I wonder what violating US law to utilize torture in interrogation sessions is. I wonder what imprisonment of US citizens without charge, trial, or legal representation is. Treason? How fucking dare he? My party isn’t the one riding rip-shod over American civil liberties. My party isn’t the one that’s teetering on the verge of a police state.

Americans on the whole are patriotic and favor defending our country against its enemies. They are realistic enough to know that war is no picnic and that people get killed. Anyone who joins the military knows that there is always the risk of being killed. However, no president is above criticism, but when that criticism becomes a kind of sick hysteria like the Dean scream, it ought to be seen for what it is: negative, destructive and treasonous.

The Dean Scream, as its called, was a campaign moment blown way out of proportion. Ever cheered at a sporting event? It’s the same thing. They guy was excited – and good for him, though it doomed him politically. Treason is a dangerous word and a crime – accusing people of it without proper evidence is a the paragon of everything that is wrong with the neo-con movement and the twisted leadership of the Republican party.

[panasonic]

so.... if the currency in circulation if about 0.5 trillion, then 2 trillion is quite the number for a debt. good luck american tax payers.....

[LordMune]

George W. Bush can go to war against my wallet anytim- wait, that's not how it works...

[ucrzymofo87]

What we are spending on Iraq is less than what we have spent on public education. And public education is yielding worse results than the Iraq war.

[psi29a]

What we are spending on Iraq is less than what we have spent on public education. And public education is yielding worse results than the Iraq war.

How can you even remotely qualify that statement? Apples to Motor Oil?

<type something longer, but would have been wyrm post without being insane babbling, but too long none-the-less>

[Killfile]

What we are spending on Iraq is less than what we have spent on public education. And public education is yielding worse results than the Iraq war.

Really? Damn... 2200 kids have been killed and more than 16,000 wounded in our schools in the last few years?

Obviously Iraq is less effective than the public schools as an educational program. It's had a 33% success rate as far as teaching countries not to screw with us.

Screwing with the US since Iraq: Iran, N. Korea
Stopped screwing with US: Libia

Damn -- LA high schools have better grad rates than that.

[ucrzymofo87]

Don't forget France in that list of countries that stopped messing with the United States. jk.

EDIT: Also, they're not kids in the armed forces, they're men and women.

[evilester_me]

what results has the war resulted in besides control of Iraq natural resources? I thought the whole war was stupid, and 2 trillion dollars is a lot of money to spend for it.

Also, the United States gained a lot from WWI and WWII because we sold army supplies and weapons to the Europeans, so even though the government spent a lot the economy was helped overall. But thats besides the point, because in those cases we didnt start the war. And this is barely a war compared to those anyways.

[Ayanami]

Your not alone if you think the war is stupid. The majority of the people think that it is stupid.

[Quest]

please watch this:
http://isohunt.com/download.php?mode=bt&id=4408982

and this:
http://isohunt.com/download.php?mode=bt&id=4667265

and then figure out who screwed who over.

[evilester_me]

For any of you who live near the bay area...

Mercury News headline today: Iraq war estimated to cost over 1 trillion dollars, and to reap only half as much in benefits.

[Laik]

I'm late but I'd post regardless.

A lot of people always seem to have the misconception that people who are against the war don't care for the people over there but that idea is pretty far from the actual truth. In reality, it's the old men who sit in extra comfortable chairs that start this garbage.

To be honest, I don't hate Bush as a man because I don't and, hopefully, will never know him. Despite that, I hate the fact that people are dying and getting hurt for reasons that, to this day, are still foggy at best. Not only that but it is also taxing on the American people in more ways than one.

This is a good time for me to mention that terrorist aren't merely people who blow stuff up. There are people out there who think they are freedom fighters and I know perfectly well that they aren't just going to surrender. Attacking terrorism is like slapping a beehive but, if you're careful, you can just leave it alone and it will eventually wither away.

People dying and the guy gives a few calls to different branches. He's going to keep enjoying his life while more and more people gets entangled in his hasty mistake. It's depressing.

[TheDarkness]

just another side note here.... your all talking about how america is fighting in iraq and how american's are getting killed. True as that may be in most cases please do not forget that the americans are not the only ones that are fighting in iraq. most other countries are there because the americans have gone there. We dutch have lost people. And for some reason our government is willing to sent in more soldiers then the americans (proportionaly i mean cause we are a small speck of a country after all).

So for god sake stop about how this is taking down america and that the americans suffer in all this cause the ENTIRE UN has soldiers there and ALL of them stand a daily risk of getting killed. The numbers that should have been stated will probably be double if all this is taken into consideration

P.S.: there were no spelling suggestions for proportionaly so if someone could tell me the correct way of spelling this word i would be very gratefull

[ucrzymofo87]

Attacking terrorism is like slapping a beehive but, if you're careful, you can just leave it alone and it will eventually wither away.

Chamberlain believed the same thing about Hitler. If we just let them have what they want, then they will leave us alone. I think we know how that ended up. It's the "just keep feeding the alligator, hoping he eats you last" idea that is proven flawed and dangerous.

[Killfile]

I'll just state categorically that you're completely wrong about Chamberlain and leave it there. The man was SPECIFICLY asked by the British military to buy more time as the Brits weren't ready to deal with Germany yet. He sacrificed his political career and took one for the country so that the young men of the United Kingdom would not be needlessly thrown against the guns of Nazi Germany.

Arm-chair historians crack of Chamberlain a lot, but anyone who's done their research knows the story behind the famous "peace in our time" declaration. War was inevitable at that point and Chamberlain knew it; but without preparation Germany would win - so Chamberlain sold Czechoslovakia to buy time for the rest of Europe.

I for one would hate to have been in his shoes. It is a decision I'm not sure I could have made.

Bush has chosen the other route - sacrificing US military power against an enemy that posed no immediate threat with no concern for the long term consequences. With US power now spread too thin, Iran feels emboldened and is renewing its nuclear program.

Stability in the region. Way to go Georgie.

[ucrzymofo87]

Maybe Bush is buying time with Iran like Chamerlain did with Germany. By all accounts, the world seems to be showing a united front against Iran. Russia and China recently agreed that Iran has to stop its nuclear program. Military action should not be ruled out with Iran. source

Also, Saddam was training terrorist that did pose a threat the the United States and the world. source

Lastly, Churchill was the hero, not Chamerlain. If Chamerlain had had his way, Great Britain would have gone into the war with biplanes. Churchill pushed the spitfire and thank God he won.

[Killfile]

Facinating -- though a quick google search and a wikipedia read doesn't turn up a single scrap of evidence that Chamberlain opposed the spitfire (indeed, he is often credited with expiditing the plane's development).

Also facinating that a set of evidence apparently so compelling would be burried by the Bush administration given the current political woes of the GOP. Think of crushing defeat Bush could deal the anti-war activists in the Democratic party if only he could incorporate that evidence into a press conferance or something.

I wonder why he hasn't done that.

[ucrzymofo87]

The anti-war Democrats would not believe it even if he said it, so he is probably saving us time.

EDIT: Actually, the anti-war crowd will figure out a way to say that the United States sold the shovels and building materials the terrorists used to practice their drills, ergo it is the United States' fault.

[psi29a]

The anti-war Democrats would not believe it even if he said it, so he is probably saving us time.

EDIT: Actually, the anti-war crowd will figure out a way to say that the United States sold the shovels and building materials the terrorists used to practice their drills, ergo it is the United States' fault.

Prove that we didn't.

[ucrzymofo87]

The anti-war Democrats would not believe it even if he said it, so he is probably saving us time.

EDIT: Actually, the anti-war crowd will figure out a way to say that the United States sold the shovels and building materials the terrorists used to practice their drills, ergo it is the United States' fault.

Prove that we didn't.

Prove that we did.

[psi29a]

The anti-war Democrats would not believe it even if he said it, so he is probably saving us time.

EDIT: Actually, the anti-war crowd will figure out a way to say that the United States sold the shovels and building materials the terrorists used to practice their drills, ergo it is the United States' fault.

Prove that we didn't.

Prove that we did.

One of many...

Source

Yet the Bush administration did more than praise the Taliban's proclaimed ban of opium cultivation. In mid-May, 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced a $43 million grant to Afghanistan in addition to the humanitarian aid the United States had long been providing to agencies assisting Afghan refugees. Given Callahan's comment, there was little doubt that the new stipend was a reward for Kabul's anti-drug efforts. That $43 million grant needs to be placed in context. Afghanistan's estimated gross domestic product was a mere $2 billion. The equivalent financial impact on the U.S. economy would have required an infusion of $215 billion. In other words, $43 million was very serious money to Afghanistan's theocratic masters.

oh, it gets better...

Even if the Bush administration had not been dissuaded by moral considerations, it should have been by purely pragmatic concerns. There was already ample evidence in the spring of 2001 that the Taliban was giving sanctuary to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network that had bombed two U.S. embassies in East Africa. For the State Department to ignore that connection and agree to subsidize the Taliban was inexcusably obtuse. Scheer was on the mark when he concluded, "The war on drugs has become our own fanatics' obsession and easily trumps all other concerns."

summation...

Washington's approach came to an especially calamitous end in September 2001 when the Taliban regime was linked to bin Laden's terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that killed some 3,000 people. Moreover, evidence quickly emerged that the Taliban all along had been collecting millions of dollars in profits from the illicit drug trade, with much of that money going into the coffers of the terrorists. Rarely is there such graphic evidence of the bankruptcy of U.S. drug policy.

If you want, I can list more.

edit: oh you didn't respond fast enough, here is another piece straight from a .gov site.

Bin Laden himself received training and weapons from the CIA, and that agency's military and financial assistance helped the Afghan rebels build a set of encampments around the city of Khost. Tragically, those same camps became terrorist training facilities for Bin Laden, who uses some of the same soldiers our military once trained as lieutenants in his sickening terrorist network. Our heroic pilots are now busy bombing the same camps we paid to build, all the while threatened by the same Stinger missiles originally supplied by our CIA. Once again, the stark result of our foreign aid, however well-intentioned, was the arming and training of forces that later become our enemy.

Your source: http://www.house.gov

Mmmmmm, what tangled webs we weave.

I'm not anti-american, I'm not anti-patriotic, and I'm NOT anti-war, I'm not a democrat. I'm frustrated with how our own government has morphed into a dictatorship also being penned as the "Unitary Exective Power Theory".

For more on that:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... t_id=10516

The doctrine assumes, in its extreme form, nearly absolute deference to the Executive branch from Congress and the Judiciary.

The Union is not strong, we are devided and we have Captain Ahab trying to harpoon 'Terrorism' and in the process consolidating power and transforming the USA into "The American Empire".

[Killfile]

EDIT: Actually, the anti-war crowd will figure out a way to say that the United States sold the shovels and building materials the terrorists used to practice their drills, ergo it is the United States' fault.

Are these the same terrorists we trained in Pakistan in the 1980s to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan who then flew planes into buildings...

Or the ones we trained (and continue to train) in Georgia (not in Asia) who have rained terror upon the peoples of South America for the last 55 years? [source]

Or maybe you're referring to the terrorists we funded in Panama - you remember them. Manuel Noriega, a key member of the Medellin cartel, was ignored, encouraged, and in many cases flat out assisted by US agencies in his rise to power in Panama. Then he instituted what was referred to as the world's first Nacokleptocacy* and ended up one of the key figures behind the US narcotics trade.

Maybe the Left would stop saying the US really is reaping the whirlwind if it wasn't so god damn easy to prove.

The world has changed quite a lot since the height of the Cold War. The United States didn't pull any punches during those 50 years. We called in a lot of favors and accumulated a lot of debts. Since those times though, the world has become a different place. Some of the things we did to crush the Soviet Union weren't exactly moral or just - and we are suffering for the short-sightedness of our actions during those years. More to the point - the War Hawks in this country continue to live under the misguided notion that - just because we won the Cold War and are the only remaining super power, we should get to run the entire damn planet.

Oh - and Psi? Dead on, nice job man.

* Someone else made that word up and I really don’t care if I spell it right.

[vtwahoo]

The world has changed quite a lot since the height of the Cold War. The United States didn't pull any punches during those 50 years. We called in a lot of favors and accumulated a lot of debts. Since those times though, the world has become a different place. Some of the things we did to crush the Soviet Union weren't exactly moral or just - and we are suffering for the short-sightedness of our actions during those years. More to the point - the War Hawks in this country continue to live under the misguided notion that - just because we won the Cold War and are the only remaining super power, we should get to run the entire damn planet.

I'm pretty sure that you meant narcokleptocracy and the term derives from Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel. Diamond used the term to refer to the governments of modern nation-states which, in order to survive, must extract, in taxes and military service, from their citizens. It's somewhat ironic that the current administration has chosen to balance its tax cuts against conscription. But I digress.

Killfile alluded to structural changes in the international system following the end of the Cold War. In terms of structural realism, a theoretical perspective developed by Kenneth Waltz, no such structural change has occurred. In English, that means that the US is NOT the world's only superpower and that Russia, though politically and economically handicapped, maintains, in terms of its military capabilities, superpower status.

The point remains, however, that the US DOES act as though it is the world's sole superpower and Americans, although they bemoan the tendency of "liberals" to assume the role of the world's policeman, are all to eager to flex their military muscles on relatively defenseless societies and civilians, as long as they have oil.

Terrorism by any other name...

Such attitudes and actions are destabilizing, destructive, and demoralizing both to the American public and to the American military. The United States' actions are not those of a military superpower but instead those of a declining hegemon. The breakdown of the Washington Consensus, the devaluation of the US dollar, and the overall wanning of US economic and diplomatic power in the world system has led to US leader to more and more desperate attempts to enforce the will of the United States on an increasingly localized yet interconnected world. One can see similarities in the declines of the Dutch and British hegemonies.

Cliffs:
1. The US is not the world's only superpower
2. Terrorism by any other name is national security
3. The US is getting less powerful and is desperately trying to pretend otherwise