The Cost of Toppling: Khaddafi vs. Saddam

MarcATL

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
27,006
Reaction score
6,813
Points
280
Under the Obama Administration the cost of toppling Khaddafi was...
  • $1.1 Billion USD for Military Operation to Date
    [*]0 U.S. Troop Fatalities
Source: Administration Officials and NBC News

Under the Bush Administration the cost of toppling Saddam was...
  • $805.5 Billion in Military Operation to Date
    [*]4,481 U.S. Troop Fatalities
Source: Brookings/Congressional Research Service

Uhm, yeah, not only was Herr Bush n Doktor Cheney reckless, spending like DRUNKEN sailers, but they were DANGEROUS to national security.

Utter, total and complete lack of leadership under those 2 morons.

The facts continues to bear this out time and time again.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
67,934
Reaction score
21,511
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
Ummmm, I hope I'm not stating the obvious...but....Libya was a NATO operation. Sooooo
The overall cost is probably the same (for the same time period) and seeing's how we support NATO with boatloads of cash we are probably about the same amount. But that would be like, you know, honest and all that shit.
 

Charles_Main

AR15 Owner
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
16,692
Reaction score
2,248
Points
88
Location
Michigan, USA
Under the Obama Administration the cost of toppling Khaddafi was...
  • $1.1 Billion USD for Military Operation to Date
    [*]0 U.S. Troop Fatalities
Source: Administration Officials and NBC News

Under the Bush Administration the cost of toppling Saddam was...
  • $805.5 Billion in Military Operation to Date
    [*]4,481 U.S. Troop Fatalities
Source: Brookings/Congressional Research Service

Uhm, yeah, not only was Herr Bush n Doktor Cheney reckless, spending like DRUNKEN sailers, but they were DANGEROUS to national security.

Utter, total and complete lack of leadership under those 2 morons.

The facts continues to bear this out time and time again.
As if the two are Relative. See we actually were responsible enough to attempt to control the out come of our Actions in Iraq. In Libya we have just killed the leader and have no idea what so ever who will now take over, and almost no control at all over it. We could have just killed Saddam, But we didn't because we knew there was a big chance the powers that took over in his absence would be worse than he was.
 
Last edited:

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
67,934
Reaction score
21,511
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
Ahh now we know why the right wingers did not like our involvement in Libya. Did not cost enough.




You used to have good posts that actually said something relevant and made good sense.

What the hell happened to you?
 

Meister

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
42,779
Reaction score
16,021
Points
2,250
Location
Conservative part of the Northwest
Ahh now we know why the right wingers did not like our involvement in Libya. Did not cost enough.




You used to have good posts that actually said something relevant and made good sense.

What the hell happened to you?
An election is coming up next year and he's still smarting from the last one.
 

Trajan

conscientia mille testes
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
29,048
Reaction score
5,458
Points
48
Location
The Bay Area Soviet
well, this thread certainly confirms what some of us thought, so the consideration is cost? I see, ok then, yup Libya was a bargain compared to iraq, great:rolleyes:.
 
OP
MarcATL

MarcATL

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
27,006
Reaction score
6,813
Points
280
Ummmm, I hope I'm not stating the obvious...but....Libya was a NATO operation. Sooooo
The overall cost is probably the same (for the same time period) and seeing's how we support NATO with boatloads of cash we are probably about the same amount. But that would be like, you know, honest and all that shit.
Exaclty, Obama had a better POLICY. One that ensured we WOULDN'T be on the hook for 800 and something BILLION dollars.

Thanks for highlighting that point for me.

:up:
 
OP
MarcATL

MarcATL

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
27,006
Reaction score
6,813
Points
280
Under the Obama Administration the cost of toppling Khaddafi was...
  • $1.1 Billion USD for Military Operation to Date
    [*]0 U.S. Troop Fatalities
Source: Administration Officials and NBC News

Under the Bush Administration the cost of toppling Saddam was...
  • $805.5 Billion in Military Operation to Date
    [*]4,481 U.S. Troop Fatalities
Source: Brookings/Congressional Research Service

Uhm, yeah, not only was Herr Bush n Doktor Cheney reckless, spending like DRUNKEN sailers, but they were DANGEROUS to national security.

Utter, total and complete lack of leadership under those 2 morons.

The facts continues to bear this out time and time again.
As if the two are Relative. See we actually were responsible enough to attempt to control the out come of our Actions in Iraq. In Libya we have just killed the leader and have no idea what so ever who will now take over, and almost no control at all over it. We could have just killed Saddam, But we didn't because we knew there was a big chance the powers that took over in his absence would be worse than he was.
He still ended up dead. Any of those Chicken Little fears and assumptions prove to be true?
 

Charles_Main

AR15 Owner
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
16,692
Reaction score
2,248
Points
88
Location
Michigan, USA
Under the Obama Administration the cost of toppling Khaddafi was...
  • $1.1 Billion USD for Military Operation to Date
    [*]0 U.S. Troop Fatalities
Source: Administration Officials and NBC News

Under the Bush Administration the cost of toppling Saddam was...
  • $805.5 Billion in Military Operation to Date
    [*]4,481 U.S. Troop Fatalities
Source: Brookings/Congressional Research Service

Uhm, yeah, not only was Herr Bush n Doktor Cheney reckless, spending like DRUNKEN sailers, but they were DANGEROUS to national security.

Utter, total and complete lack of leadership under those 2 morons.

The facts continues to bear this out time and time again.
As if the two are Relative. See we actually were responsible enough to attempt to control the out come of our Actions in Iraq. In Libya we have just killed the leader and have no idea what so ever who will now take over, and almost no control at all over it. We could have just killed Saddam, But we didn't because we knew there was a big chance the powers that took over in his absence would be worse than he was.
He still ended up dead. Any of those Chicken Little fears and assumptions prove to be true?
What assumptions? That worse people than Kaddaffi might take over? Time will tell.
 

bucs90

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
26,545
Reaction score
6,022
Points
280
A few points:

Iraq was a war. Libya was....um...what did they call it? "Hostilities"? "Intervention"?

After all, it was NOT us, NOT Obama that bombed and toppled Libya. We kinda started it........then IMMEDIATELY BACKED AWAY AND DID NOT LEAD THE EFFORT!!!!!! SERIOUSLY!!! Remember, they made sure we understood that.

And now you want Obama to get credit for something they fought long and hard (politically) to try to separate themselves from?
 

bucs90

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
26,545
Reaction score
6,022
Points
280
oy... a bargain... take a dozen ;)
A dozen Power Vacuums in the Middle east with Almost no control over who takes over?

Yeah sounds great!
No, we have control over who takes over. We can strongly intervene and try to ease in people that would suit us better. Thats choice/control #1.

#2 is stir up the nest, back away, and just see what happens. We know who takes over eventually then. And thats a choice we have made.

We have, and had, control over who is in power in Libya, Egypt, etc. Stirring it up, then stepping aside, is the choice Obama made. Knowing the eventual reality.
 

uscitizen

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
45,940
Reaction score
4,908
Points
48
Location
My Shack

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top