US role in Libya costs hundreds of millions so far

[ekrem]

So, basically, defecit spending is OK with the GOP and Tea Party as long as it is spent blowing other people up?

what makes you think members of the tea party are not against it?
I have seen members of all walks of life against it...of all parties...of all ideologies.
I am sure there are some tea partyers that are for it as well....so are some democrats and so are some republicans.

Why are the tea partyers held to a standard of "all is either black or white"?

Me?

I was all for the no fly zone.....But I am not interested in our broke country spending all kinds of money tossing in tomohawks at 500K apiece.

But realistically, Libya is a military midget. Much much weaker then Iraq was in 2003. And Iraq had a decade of sanctions behind them.
Libya has a big land-mass, but most of it is desert and Libya is actually just a small strip along the Med-Sea which is inhabited. It's 6 million people are located in some population centers along that coast.
From a military standpoint, you can't really compare the Libyan situation with Iraq.

NATO has limited the operations to 90 days and there is no chance, that NATO will alter the situation on the ground when it comes to Libyan rebels against Libyan Army.
The Libyan Army's anti-aircraft installations have already been destroyed and I don't think, that there will be more bombings like we've witnessed when the operation started.

"Shock&Awe" was meant to invade the country and destroy the Iraqi Army. Infrastructure was bombed, so that the Iraqi Army can't move around the country.
NATO won't bomb the Libyan Army, and as long as this approach continues, the costs will be small.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Per usual, VaYank is spot on, this is a time for people who claim to be fiscal conservatives (myself included) to prove it by speaking out against this.

And I have seen many do it.

I dont understand the reason for this thread. There has been plenty of conservative opposition to this military action....

But, of course, such conservatives are being labelled as being against the military action ONLY becuase they are against everything Obama does....

But I wont go there right now.

Because most of those same people who claim to be conservative on this board still talk about how awesome the War in Iraq was.

No one who takes fiscal conservatism seriously would approve of either.

No conservatives ever talked about how "awesome" the Iraq war was... so fuck off.

 

[VaYank5150]

what makes you think members of the tea party are not against it?
I have seen members of all walks of life against it...of all parties...of all ideologies.
I am sure there are some tea partyers that are for it as well....so are some democrats and so are some republicans.

Why are the tea partyers held to a standard of "all is either black or white"?

Me?

I was all for the no fly zone.....But I am not interested in our broke country spending all kinds of money tossing in tomohawks at 500K apiece.

Sorry for the confusion, JH. I guess it is a matter of perspective for me about the "conservatives" on this board. While the Governor in WI was battling the unions, there were 3 - 5 posts on these boards a day in support of Walker, because "we are broke". Now, Obama has spent nearly a BILLION dollars that we do not have, and I see NO "conservatives" lashing out that "we are broke"?

And other than yours, I saw no progressives bashing Obama for interfering where he shouldnt interfere...and using military action as he did it.

You are ALMOST correct. I have seen a couple Obama supporters bash him for this action. However, it was sickening to watch some of the Obama supporters on this board defend him for the very things they bashed Bush for. THAT is hypocrisy at it's finest.

 

[High_Gravity]

So, basically, defecit spending is OK with the GOP and Tea Party as long as it is spent blowing other people up?

what makes you think members of the tea party are not against it?
I have seen members of all walks of life against it...of all parties...of all ideologies.
I am sure there are some tea partyers that are for it as well....so are some democrats and so are some republicans.

Why are the tea partyers held to a standard of "all is either black or white"?

Me?

I was all for the no fly zone.....But I am not interested in our broke country spending all kinds of money tossing in tomohawks at 500K apiece.

But realistically, Libya is a military midget. Much much weaker then Iraq was in 2003. And Iraq had a decade of sanctions behind them.
Libya has a big land-mass, but most of it is desert and Libya is actually just a small strip along the Med-Sea which is inhabited. It's 6 million people are located in some population centers along that coast.
From a military standpoint, you can't really compare the Libyan situation with Iraq.

NATO has limited the operations to 90 days and there is no chance, that NATO will alter the situation on the ground when it comes to Libyan rebels against Libyan Army.
The Libyan Army's anti-aircraft installations have already been destroyed and I don't think, that there will be more bombings like we've witnessed when the operation started.

"Shock&Awe" was meant to invade the country and destroy the Iraqi Army. Infrastructure was bombed, so that the Iraqi Army can't move around the country.
NATO won't bomb the Libyan Army, and as long as this approach continues, the costs will be small.

Everyone here knows the US Military will crush the Libyan Military there is no doubt about that but nobody here wants to commit to rebuilding another Muslim country.

 

[Dr.Drock]

And I have seen many do it.

I dont understand the reason for this thread. There has been plenty of conservative opposition to this military action....

But, of course, such conservatives are being labelled as being against the military action ONLY becuase they are against everything Obama does....

But I wont go there right now.

Because most of those same people who claim to be conservative on this board still talk about how awesome the War in Iraq was.

No one who takes fiscal conservatism seriously would approve of either.

No conservatives ever talked about how "awesome" the Iraq war was... so fuck off.

Lol some ppl get offended so easily.

You know exactly what I mean, you're just picking at the terms.

Ok, a lot of the people on this board who claim to be conservatives still talk positively about the War in Iraq. A foreign adventure who anyone with a pair of eyes and a basic understanding of how broke we are would never approve of.

Is that better?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Because most of those same people who claim to be conservative on this board still talk about how awesome the War in Iraq was.

No one who takes fiscal conservatism seriously would approve of either.

No conservatives ever talked about how "awesome" the Iraq war was... so fuck off.

Lol some ppl get offended so easily.

You know exactly what I mean, you're just picking at the terms.

Ok, a lot of the people on this board who claim to be conservatives still talk positively about the War in Iraq. A foreign adventure who anyone with a pair of eyes and a basic understanding of how broke we are would never approve of.

Is that better?

I'm offended by outright mis-characterizations and lies.

And yes, while wrong, at least you are more to the point. Thanks.

BTW, we went more in tho whole during WWII, I'd say it was worth it though.

 

[JWBooth]

WASHINGTON — Stretched thin by two wars, the U.S. military is spending upward of $1 billion in an international assault to destroy Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's air defenses and save rebels from likely defeat, according to analysts and a rough calculation of the military operation so far.

US role in Libya costs hundreds of millions so far - Politics - More politics - msnbc.com

I can only assume Obama is borrowing money from Communist China to fund this operation. I will ask the same question as I have asked about Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq. What are we getting for our $$?

1) New Tomahawk cruise missiles to replace those stale ones that have been used to date.
2) An opportunity to renew proving we are the baddest boys on the block.

 

[ekrem]

Everyone here knows the US Military will crush the Libyan Military there is no doubt about that but nobody here wants to commit to rebuilding another Muslim country.

But now NATO is in command and NATO will review what will be bombed within Libya and NATO will decide with which orders Aircrafts enter Libyan Airspace.
Countries like Germany and others who oppose the intervention, will now influence the whole operation.

Countries who have a regime-change agenda or other interests in Libya will have to depart from NATO's command in Libya.
They won't leave NATO's command in Libyan operation, as their agenda has no legitimacy.

In the beginning I already had doubts, but not anymore.

 

[Jarhead]

Because most of those same people who claim to be conservative on this board still talk about how awesome the War in Iraq was.

No one who takes fiscal conservatism seriously would approve of either.

No conservatives ever talked about how "awesome" the Iraq war was... so fuck off.

Lol some ppl get offended so easily.

You know exactly what I mean, you're just picking at the terms.

Ok, a lot of the people on this board who claim to be conservatives still talk positively about the War in Iraq. A foreign adventure who anyone with a pair of eyes and a basic understanding of how broke we are would never approve of.

Is that better?

We defended the action. At the time, the discussion of the deficit...and more importantly...the debt....was not a discussion.

Now it is number one in most news reports.

I believe that if the debt was a topic of dicussion back in 2002, there would have been a lot more conservative neagtive talk regarding the action.

I also believe that if it were Bill Clinton that entered the iraq conflict,there would have been a lot more progressive support for the action.

 

[High_Gravity]

Everyone here knows the US Military will crush the Libyan Military there is no doubt about that but nobody here wants to commit to rebuilding another Muslim country.

But now NATO is in command and NATO will review what will be bombed within Libya and NATO will decide with which orders Aircrafts enter Libyan Airspace.
Countries like Germany and others who oppose the intervention, will now influence the whole operation.

Countries who have a regime-change agenda or other interests in Libya will have to depart from NATO's command in Libya.
They won't leave NATO's command in Libyan operation, as their agenda has no legitimacy.

In the beginning I already had doubts, but not anymore.

So basically you are telling this whole operation is going to be one big clusterfuck. How the hell can NATO be in charge when some of their own members don't even want to be in Libya?

 

[Dr.Drock]

No conservatives ever talked about how "awesome" the Iraq war was... so fuck off.

Lol some ppl get offended so easily.

You know exactly what I mean, you're just picking at the terms.

Ok, a lot of the people on this board who claim to be conservatives still talk positively about the War in Iraq. A foreign adventure who anyone with a pair of eyes and a basic understanding of how broke we are would never approve of.

Is that better?

We defended the action. At the time, the discussion of the deficit...and more importantly...the debt....was not a discussion.

Now it is number one in most news reports.

I believe that if the debt was a topic of dicussion back in 2002, there would have been a lot more conservative neagtive talk regarding the action.

I also believe that if it were Bill Clinton that entered the iraq conflict,there would have been a lot more progressive support for the action.

That's one way to justify it, but that's not the conclusion I've come to.

Democrats are for military action that buries us deeper in debt because democrats are in office doing it.

Republicans are for military action that buries us deeper in debt because republicans are in office doing it.

Has nothing to do with liberal/conservative/progressive or whatever other tag lines people like to put on themselves. Has to do solely with supporting the actions of those you voted for because those people you voted for take on a personally responsibility to the voter.

Personally I don't get it, it's just a vote, I never understand why people have such strong personal connections to political parties. That's why when parties consistently abandon the principles their voters believe they have the overwhelming majority of voters still don't abandon the party.

 

[ekrem]

So basically you are telling this whole operation is going to be one big clusterfuck. How the hell can NATO be in charge when some of their own members don't even want to be in Libya?

The operation was launched hastily without an exit-strategy by a small group of countries.
NATO can't allow to be drawn into another quagmire in another Muslim country whilst NATO is heavily involved in Afghanistan. Events in Libya have the potential to influence the situation for NATO in Afghanistan. On ground.

 

[JWBooth]

Everyone here knows the US Military will crush the Libyan Military there is no doubt about that but nobody here wants to commit to rebuilding another Muslim country.

But now NATO is in command and NATO will review what will be bombed within Libya and NATO will decide with which orders Aircrafts enter Libyan Airspace.
Countries like Germany and others who oppose the intervention, will now influence the whole operation.

Countries who have a regime-change agenda or other interests in Libya will have to depart from NATO's command in Libya.
They won't leave NATO's command in Libyan operation, as their agenda has no legitimacy.

In the beginning I already had doubts, but not anymore.

So basically you are telling this whole operation is going to be one big clusterfuck. How the hell can NATO be in charge when some of their own members don't even want to be in Libya?

Because, for all intents and purposes, NATO is simply an adjunct of US military policy. The US will carry the load, somebody from somewhere else gets to make the press conferences, a few folks throw in a mechanic or two, maybe even a plane or two, and we call it a joint effort.

 

[Jarhead]

Lol some ppl get offended so easily.

You know exactly what I mean, you're just picking at the terms.

Ok, a lot of the people on this board who claim to be conservatives still talk positively about the War in Iraq. A foreign adventure who anyone with a pair of eyes and a basic understanding of how broke we are would never approve of.

Is that better?

We defended the action. At the time, the discussion of the deficit...and more importantly...the debt....was not a discussion.

Now it is number one in most news reports.

I believe that if the debt was a topic of dicussion back in 2002, there would have been a lot more conservative neagtive talk regarding the action.

I also believe that if it were Bill Clinton that entered the iraq conflict,there would have been a lot more progressive support for the action.

That's one way to justify it, but that's not the conclusion I've come to.

Democrats are for military action that buries us deeper in debt because democrats are in office doing it.

Republicans are for military action that buries us deeper in debt because republicans are in office doing it.

Has nothing to do with liberal/conservative/progressive or whatever other tag lines people like to put on themselves. Has to do solely with supporting the actions of those you voted for because those people you voted for take on a personally responsibility to the voter.

Personally I don't get it, it's just a vote, I never understand why people have such strong personal connections to political parties. That's why when parties consistently abandon the principles their voters believe they have the overwhelming majority of voters still don't abandon the party.

Yoiu are correct with much of what you say but it is not 100%.
Me? I did not vote for Bush the second time around.....I argued his amnesty idea...but I agreed with his surge idea....I disagreed with TARP...I agreed with the tax cuts...

As for Obama...I did not vote for him....I have very little to agree with seeing as he has an ideology 180 degrees from mine and he speaks and acts based on his ideology...

But I do not agree with him NOT becuase he is a democrat.

Althugh I did agree with his maintaining the tax cuts for all thing......becuase I do not believe in any legislation that is ONLY for one group of people....to me it is not what America was built on.

 

[High_Gravity]

But now NATO is in command and NATO will review what will be bombed within Libya and NATO will decide with which orders Aircrafts enter Libyan Airspace.
Countries like Germany and others who oppose the intervention, will now influence the whole operation.

Countries who have a regime-change agenda or other interests in Libya will have to depart from NATO's command in Libya.
They won't leave NATO's command in Libyan operation, as their agenda has no legitimacy.

In the beginning I already had doubts, but not anymore.

So basically you are telling this whole operation is going to be one big clusterfuck. How the hell can NATO be in charge when some of their own members don't even want to be in Libya?

Because, for all intents and purposes, NATO is simply an adjunct of US military policy. The US will carry the load, somebody from somewhere else gets to make the press conferences, a few folks throw in a mechanic or two, maybe even a plane or two, and we call it a joint effort.

Your right, all the people who think the US is simply just another member and this is a joint effort are fooling themselves, I laughed when Lil ol Lady said no fear UAE and Qatar are coming? LMAO! Yeah fucking right, Qatar is only contributing 4 fight jets and some shawarmas.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So, basically, defecit spending is OK with the GOP and Tea Party as long as it is spent blowing other people up?

what makes you think members of the tea party are not against it?
I have seen members of all walks of life against it...of all parties...of all ideologies.
I am sure there are some tea partyers that are for it as well....so are some democrats and so are some republicans.

Why are the tea partyers held to a standard of "all is either black or white"?

Me?

I was all for the no fly zone.....But I am not interested in our broke country spending all kinds of money tossing in tomohawks at 500K apiece.

The tomahawks were used to secure the no fly zone. So you really can't be for one and against the other.

 

[High_Gravity]

So basically you are telling this whole operation is going to be one big clusterfuck. How the hell can NATO be in charge when some of their own members don't even want to be in Libya?

The operation was launched hastily without an exit-strategy by a small group of countries.
NATO can't allow to be drawn into another quagmire in another Muslim country whilst NATO is heavily involved in Afghanistan. Events in Libya have the potential to influence the situation for NATO in Afghanistan. On ground.

It sounds to me like nobody knows what the hell to do in Libya. Shouldn't have went in there in the first place.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not passing those damn unemployment extensions would have paid for a few days of this.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Governments/leaders throughout history have often succumbed to the siren song of winning a good little war.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Governments/leaders throughout history have often succumbed to the siren song of winning a good little war.

I just hope you aren't using that line to excuse Obama, not saying you are, just hoping you aren't.