The Cost of Toppling: Khaddafi vs. Saddam

[edthecynic]

If we could discuss the issue in logical terms instead of liberal emotion we might consider a couple of factors. The US gave Saddam a year to comply with about a hundred UN sanctions and democrats gave permission for boots on the ground and then sat back and pretend to be bystanders or members of the jihad. Obama put pressure on Scotland to release the Lockerbie bomber to a hero's welcome in Libya and then turned around and killed the sons of a leader of a sovereign nation that was not a threat to the US. Who's next? Putin?

This is a perfect example of what worthless lying scum CON$ are!!!

It was the BRITISH who pressured Scotland to release the Lockerbie bomber and it was Obama who objected to Scotland's decision to release him.
There is no lie too low for CON$ to stoop to!!!

Barack Obama attacks decision to free Lockerbie bomber | UK news | The Guardian
• US presses Libya to keep killer under house arrest
• Minister says freedom for cancer victim 'a moral act'

• Severin Carrell, Scotland correspondent
• The Guardian, Thursday 20 August 2009

Barack Obama last night denounced Scotland's release of the convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi as a mistake, and revealed the US had opened talks with Libya urging the regime to keep the terminally-ill man under house arrest until his death.
Megrahi, who is thought to have only three months to live, was freed on compassionate grounds yesterday. But as the Afriqiyah Airways jet taking him home to Tripoli took off from Glasgow airport at 3.26pm, it left in its wake a torrent of international condemnation.
Obama led the strong US criticism of the decision. "We have been in contact with the Scottish government, indicating that we objected to this," he said. "We thought it was a mistake."

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

Comparing the two conflicts isn't an apples and oranges thing, Marc...it's more like an apples and watermelons thing. I have two major problems with you trumpeting this as a major success for Obama over Bush.

First of all there was a rebel force on the ground fighting against the leader of Libya...there was no such force in Iraq fighting against Saddam Hussein. All we had to do in Libya is provide air support so Khaddafi couldn't use his tanks and artillery against the rebels.

Secondly it was Obama's reluctance to help at the start of the conflict that led to most of the rebel deaths and Khaddafi's belief that he could maintain control of Libya. If we had enforced a no fly zone and prevented Khaddafi from using his tanks from the outset he most likely would have seen that there was no chance of winning and gone into exile. That war dragged on months longer and cost thousands of lives than it needed to because Barack Obama couldn't pull the trigger on helping.

 

[KissMy]

Obama deserves another Nobel Peace Prize!!!

 

[MarcATL]

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.

Comparing the two conflicts isn't an apples and oranges thing, Marc...it's more like an apples and watermelons thing. I have two major problems with you trumpeting this as a major success for Obama over Bush.

First of all there was a rebel force on the ground fighting against the leader of Libya...there was no such force in Iraq fighting against Saddam Hussein. All we had to do in Libya is provide air support so Khaddafi couldn't use his tanks and artillery against the rebels.

Secondly it was Obama's reluctance to help at the start of the conflict that led to most of the rebel deaths and Khaddafi's belief that he could maintain control of Libya. If we had enforced a no fly zone and prevented Khaddafi from using his tanks from the outset he most likely would have seen that there was no chance of winning and gone into exile. That war dragged on months longer and cost thousands of lives than it needed to because Barack Obama couldn't pull the trigger on helping.

So in your mind, Obama just racked up another "L" right?

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

Comparing the two conflicts isn't an apples and oranges thing, Marc...it's more like an apples and watermelons thing. I have two major problems with you trumpeting this as a major success for Obama over Bush.

First of all there was a rebel force on the ground fighting against the leader of Libya...there was no such force in Iraq fighting against Saddam Hussein. All we had to do in Libya is provide air support so Khaddafi couldn't use his tanks and artillery against the rebels.

Secondly it was Obama's reluctance to help at the start of the conflict that led to most of the rebel deaths and Khaddafi's belief that he could maintain control of Libya. If we had enforced a no fly zone and prevented Khaddafi from using his tanks from the outset he most likely would have seen that there was no chance of winning and gone into exile. That war dragged on months longer and cost thousands of lives than it needed to because Barack Obama couldn't pull the trigger on helping.

So in your mind, Obama just racked up another "L" right?

No, in my mind Obama did the right thing...only it took him months too long to do it. If you'll recall, there was a point in that conflict when the Rebels had taken large parts of the country and Khaddafi was on the ropes. Then he launched a counter-offensive with his planes, tanks and artillery and drove the Rebels back inflicting huge casualties on them and the civilian population. My point was that if Obama had been forceful right up front, letting Khaddafi know right away that the US wouldn't tolerate the use of his airforce, tanks and artillery then that conflict would have been over almost a year earlier and at much less cost and loss of life.

 

[peach174]

Under Bush, spending was 4 Trillion in 8 years.
Under Obama, spending was 4 trillion in two years.

Both are way out of control.

 

[hortysir]

If we could discuss the issue in logical terms instead of liberal emotion we might consider a couple of factors. The US gave Saddam a year to comply with about a hundred UN sanctions and democrats gave permission for boots on the ground and then sat back and pretend to be bystanders or members of the jihad. Obama put pressure on Scotland to release the Lockerbie bomber to a hero's welcome in Libya and then turned around and killed the sons of a leader of a sovereign nation that was not a threat to the US. Who's next? Putin?

This is a perfect example of what worthless lying scum CON$ are!!!

It was the BRITISH who pressured Scotland to release the Lockerbie bomber and it was Obama who objected to Scotland's decision to release him.
There is no lie too low for CON$ to stoop to!!!

Barack Obama attacks decision to free Lockerbie bomber | UK news | The Guardian
• US presses Libya to keep killer under house arrest
• Minister says freedom for cancer victim 'a moral act'

• Severin Carrell, Scotland correspondent
• The Guardian, Thursday 20 August 2009

Barack Obama last night denounced Scotland's release of the convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi as a mistake, and revealed the US had opened talks with Libya urging the regime to keep the terminally-ill man under house arrest until his death.
Megrahi, who is thought to have only three months to live, was freed on compassionate grounds yesterday. But as the Afriqiyah Airways jet taking him home to Tripoli took off from Glasgow airport at 3.26pm, it left in its wake a torrent of international condemnation.
Obama led the strong US criticism of the decision. "We have been in contact with the Scottish government, indicating that we objected to this," he said. "We thought it was a mistake."

Ed,
Please don't lump this dude(?) with the rest of us.
Those of us with our heads on straight know the truth.

BTW, it wasn't anywhere near "hundreds of resolutions", either

 

[Rozman]

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.

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

So what you are saying is that the Democrats were probably equally to blame when they gave the OK for bush to go to war in Iraq....

That is what you must be saying because you libs are always pointing out how you guys are all about the truth...

 

[rdean]

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.

It will be years before we know the true cost of Bush/Republican Folly.

Tens of thousands of Americans were wounded in Iraq. This could cost the country trillions. The cost of a single paraplegic is in the millions over 40 or 50 years. Unless Republicans decide to "let them die".

So you're ok with pumping millions into welfare queens and irresponsible 40 year olds who made dumb choices...............but not with paying for wounded vets. Got it.

Unlike you, I wouldn't care to see either group die. Both groups are where they are through no fault of their own. But those wounded soldiers are definitely the fault of Republicans, that much is clear.
Both groups need help. But your kind only wants to help one group. Worse, Republicans like Senator Tom Coburn want's to cut Veterans Health Care benefits. This has only been linked to about ten times.

Don't Republicans understand how fucking stupid they appear when they make the comments they do? Doesn't it bother them? Guess not.

 

[rdean]

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.

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

So what you are saying is that the Democrats were probably equally to blame when they gave the OK for bush to go to war in Iraq....

That is what you must be saying because you libs are always pointing out how you guys are all about the truth...

You are with us or with the terrorists (from George Bush)

Saddam was seeking nuclear weapons (from George Bush)

Iraqi agents were meeting with al Qaeda (from Dick Cheney)

Becomes a mushroom cloud (C. Rice)

I don't even need to go look them up anymore. Who knew a president could be such a lying shitstain. I believed him. How was I to know? He was president. Our country's leader. The leader of the free world. A lying shitstain who caused the unnecessary deaths of thousands of Americans. And right wingers like you say, "Ha ha ha, you believed him". Fucker.

 

[Rozman]

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.

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

So what you are saying is that the Democrats were probably equally to blame when they gave the OK for bush to go to war in Iraq....

That is what you must be saying because you libs are always pointing out how you guys are all about the truth...

You are with us or with the terrorists (from George Bush)

Saddam was seeking nuclear weapons (from George Bush)

Iraqi agents were meeting with al Qaeda (from Dick Cheney)

Becomes a mushroom cloud (C. Rice)

I don't even need to go look them up anymore. Who knew a president could be such a lying shitstain. I believed him. How was I to know? He was president. Our country's leader. The leader of the free world. A lying shitstain who caused the unnecessary deaths of thousands of Americans. And right wingers like you say, "Ha ha ha, you believed him". Fucker.

Hmmmm...Sen.Hilary Clinton believed ...Sen John Kerry believed....

 

[Meister]

So what you are saying is that the Democrats were probably equally to blame when they gave the OK for bush to go to war in Iraq....

That is what you must be saying because you libs are always pointing out how you guys are all about the truth...

You are with us or with the terrorists (from George Bush)

Saddam was seeking nuclear weapons (from George Bush)

Iraqi agents were meeting with al Qaeda (from Dick Cheney)

Becomes a mushroom cloud (C. Rice)

I don't even need to go look them up anymore. Who knew a president could be such a lying shitstain. I believed him. How was I to know? He was president. Our country's leader. The leader of the free world. A lying shitstain who caused the unnecessary deaths of thousands of Americans. And right wingers like you say, "Ha ha ha, you believed him". Fucker.

Hmmmm...Sen.Hilary Clinton believed ...Sen John Kerry believed....

Dean'o' has only selective memory. It must really suck.

 

[Harry Dresden]

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.

so Marc....if Obama gets us into a costly conflict that turns out to be as bad is Iraq....will you say something Negative about Obama?.....or will you just be like your Buddy Dean and find a way to blame the Republicans?....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Does the fact that it was inexpensive somehow justify the fact that it was illegal and unconstitutional, actually exceeded the UN resolution he used to justify it, or the fact that we actually killed civilians that we were supposed to be protecting? If it does the next time we want to topple someone we should just nuke them, it would save even more money.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2L1-TgfKb4]Classic Charlie Wilsons War/Zen Master - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

That covers it.

 

[Harry Dresden]

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.

so Marc....if Obama gets us into a costly conflict that turns out to be as bad is Iraq....will you say something Negative about Obama?.....or will you just be like your Buddy Dean and find a way to blame the Republicans?....

Marc?......hello Marc?......is this thing on?.....