'terrorists' really??

Originally posted by no1marauder
Rubbish. The US GNP has been increasing for decades. Using "post WWII" as a benchmark is spurious; Europe was still in ruins and the Third World was still either mostly colonies or had just become independent. No one anticipated that any nation would have retain that level of economic dominance. Are you seriously suggesting that the US had a "severe recession" from WWII until the last 60's?

No, I'm saying that the US's GNP underwent dramatic decline after WWII
relative to the rest of the world.

See - Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of Great Powers, 1987: 432

"Kennedy argues that the strength of a Great Power can only be properly
measured relative to other powers and he provides a straightforward and
persuasively argued thesis: Great Power ascendency (over the long-term
or in specific conflicts) correlates strongly to available resources and
economic durability; military "over-stretch" and a concomitant relative
decline is the consistent threat facing powers whose ambitions and
security requirements are greater than their resource base can provide
for."

ref - wiki

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
No, I'm saying that the US's GNP underwent dramatic decline after WWII
relative to the rest of the world.

See - Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of Great Powers, 1987: 432

"Kennedy argues that the strength of a Great Power can only be properly
measured relative to other powers and he provides a straightforward and
persuasively argued thesis: Great ...[text shortened]... urity requirements are greater than their resource base can provide
for."

ref - wiki

That is utterly meaningless for the reasons I gave.

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
No, I'm saying that the US's GNP underwent dramatic decline after WWII
relative to the rest of the world.

See - Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of Great Powers, 1987: 432

"Kennedy argues that the strength of a Great Power can only be properly
measured relative to other powers and he provides a straightforward and
persuasively argued thesis: Great ...[text shortened]... urity requirements are greater than their resource base can provide
for."

ref - wiki

But the rest of the world was very undeveloped for the most part. We (america) rebuilt Japan after WWII and they became a multi-trillion dollar economy. Don't forget, the US represents only about 5 % of the world in population, and that world population is mainly undeveloped still. So the ones that brought themselves up by their own bootstraps or by massive infusion of money such as happened in Japan, it doesn't take much for the world to overtake the US in total GINP.
(Gross International Product). Japan is close to the US right now and the rest of the world is catching up. It doesn't mean the US is in decline, it means the rest of the world is catching up. The US would have to have a 50 trillion dollar economy to keep up with Kennedy's assesment. That is completely impossible, no matter how strong you are politically or militarily.

Originally posted by sonhouse
But the rest of the world was very undeveloped for the most part. We (america) rebuilt Japan after WWII and they became a multi-trillion dollar economy. Don't forget, the US represents only about 5 % of the world in population, and that world population is mainly undeveloped still. So the ones that brought themselves up by their own bootstraps or by massive ment. That is completely impossible, no matter how strong you are politically or militarily.

Precisely.
The US gave massive amounts of support towards the rebuilding of
Europe after WWII as well. After a short time these countries were up,
running and competing against the US in the 'free market'.

The US economy was at its relative best in the 1940's where it had
little military expenditure (comparitively speaking) and was conducting
extensive international trade.

Since then the US has had to invest heavily in defence and peace-keeping
whilst having to stay competitive in the free-market economy.

Effectively having to fight with one hand behind its back.

The only way to continue its dominance was to use its military might
and change its position from that of benign hegemony to that of
aggressive empirialism.

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
Precisely.
The US gave massive amounts of support towards the rebuilding of
Europe after WWII as well. After a short time these countries were up,
running and competing against the US in the 'free market'.

The US economy was at its relative best in the 1940's where it had
little military expenditure (comparitively speaking) and was conducting
exten ...[text shortened]... ght
and change its position from that of benign hegemony to that of
aggressive empirialism.

Nonsense.

First, you are guilty of "fetishism". The US doesn't compete in the free market economy; companies and individuals do. The largest and most powerful players in the global economy are transnational corporations which have no loyalty to any nation state. The people who run these companies exert tremendous influence over the nation states. Thus, your analysis has the flow of power exactly backwards.

Second, military spending in the US flows to the benefit of the same individuals and corporations who dominate the global economy. This spending doesn't hurt their dominance; it enhances it.

Third, the same individuals do not want to invest capital of their's or of the US government's into the US where factor costs are high, they want to invest it in other countries where it is low. A big military and a pliable US government willing to use it is thus an investment to be used to keep pro-Western business leaders in power in those countries.

Originally posted by no1marauder
So far as know and I have read all his statements, OBL has never stated he personally ordered the 9/11 attacks. His statements imply that he had advance knowledge of it and it is a reasonable position to believe that he did order it. However, the question is not free from doubt. If the US would actually try in a court of law some of the persons held who ...[text shortened]... he ever has. I would rate the possibility of him ever being caught alive as near zero.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137095,00.html
Okay, so it was a little longer than I thought before he finally came clean. Better late than never, I suppose.
Yes, I do consider everyone involved in the attacks you mentioned cowards. In both instances, civilians were sacrificed in order to preserve military forces and inflict severe damage upon the Enemy. Both attacks have a strong element of terrorism, like you said, which I hadn't really considered before. Good point!
I don't think OBL has referred to himself as a "terrorist" either. He seems to consider himself some kind of military saviour. If nothing else, he certainly is a coward. Inevitably he will die a miserable pathetic old man, running as fast as he can with his back turned, and with no honour.
B.