The US military will free the shit out of you if you don't comply -- Costs $550M

Status
Not open for further replies.

Prinnctopher's Belt

Antiquities Friend
SF Supporter
#1
Pentagon: $550 Million Spent on Libyan Mission

The military operation in Libya has cost the U.S. government about $550 million so far, with much of the tab coming from munitions such as Tomahawk missiles, the Pentagon said Tuesday.

Costs will continue to build up, though at a smaller rate as the U.S. takes on a more supporting role. “Future costs are highly uncertain,” said Pentagon spokeswoman Cmdr. Kathleen Kesler. She said that the U.S. will likely spend another $40 million over the next several weeks, as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization takes the lead against Col. Moammar Gadhafi.

As of Monday, U.S. warships had fired nearly 200 Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles, costing roughly $1 million apiece, at Libyan targets. U.S. aircraft had dropped 455 precision-guided bombs. Those weapons vary in price, but according to an Air Force fact sheet, Joint Direct Attack Munition tail kits — which convert a “dumb” bomb into a guided weapon – cost roughly $22,000 each.

The government’s assessment doesn’t include the cost of the F-15E Strike Eagle fighter that crashed in Libya last week.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/...nt-on-libyan-mission/?mod=WSJ_article_related

Freeing the shit out of you: http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2009-06-02/1243897107525.jpg
 

johnnysays

Well-Known Member
#5
I see a lot of negative posts about libya.

I'm going to make a post about this man:
Wiki: Ali_Tarhouni

He was listed in the Sunday Oregonian. He was a Professor of Business Economics. Check out his wikilink. He got a PHD in 1983. He was kicked out of Libya in 1973 and put on a Gaddafi hit list (among others all around the world that were dissenters) because he had been a student activist in college attempting to call for more freedoms and democracy. This is just one of the reasons Gadhafi has earned what's happening, whether or not the war is fought on the right terms (just like Iraq). Reference my previous post for an explanation.

Here is an article about his recent departure from the US for Libya to help the rebel movement:
The Seattle Times: The double life of a popular UW lecturer

One small example that a history of corruption and wrongdoing will eventually destroy you, as it has Saddam and Gaddafi. They both, in my view, earned what happened. The details might be wrong. For example, we should not have entered the iraq war in 2003 on the information we had. It was wrong. On the other hand, we had to choose whether to believe the man who was lying to us (he wanted to topple Saddam) or we had to side with Saddam. We chose to side with the rebel because Saddam was a dictator and hadn't earned benefit of the doubt. Understand? Their history has come back to bite them, and bite them where it counts.

If you're a dictator out in the world right now hurting your people, be aware that the UN in 2005 passed a resolution that enables them to stop you. The details of this resolution are probably not set as Russia has brought up some complaints, but there's no doubt that in 2003 we set a new standard when we entered Iraq to oust Saddam. From here on out no dictator on this planet is safe. When times get bad and we have to choose sides, keep in mind we won't choose you.

For any prospective dictator interested, here is a link about the 2005 UN resolution I reference:
Wiki: Responsibility to protect
 

johnnysays

Well-Known Member
#6
Kristof here in his column says there were many innocents saved, but of what video's I've seen they do not look like innocents to me: they're carrying military arms and resemble, in my eyes, militants. They don't look like citizens. Perhaps this is normal in that kind of country where it's bordering on tribal. From the outset this perception I have of them has clouded my mind. Perhaps the innocents that were saved outweigh any potential problems I think I've seen.

Here is a link to Kristof's Hugs From Libyans column:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/opinion/24kristof.html

In 2005, the United Nations approved a new doctrine called the “responsibility to protect,” nicknamed R2P, declaring that world powers have the right and obligation to intervene when a dictator devours his people. The Libyan intervention is putting teeth into that fledgling concept, and here’s one definition of progress: The world took three-and-a-half years to respond forcefully to the slaughter in Bosnia, and about three-and-a-half weeks to respond in Libya.

Granted, intervention will be inconsistent. We’re more likely to intervene where there are also oil or security interests at stake. But just as it’s worthwhile to feed some starving children even if we can’t reach them all, it’s worth preventing some massacres or genocides even if we can’t intervene every time.

I opposed the 2003 Iraq invasion because my reporting convinced me that most Iraqis hated Saddam Hussein but didn’t want American forces intruding on their soil. This time my reporting persuades me that most Libyans welcome outside intervention.
And something else I found interesting is here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/21/501364/main20045636.shtml

The air campaign by U.S. and European militaries has unquestionably rearranged the map in Libya and rescued rebels from the immediate threat of annihilation they faced only days ago under a powerful advance by Qaddafi's forces.

Army Gen. Carter Ham, the lead U.S. commander, said it was possible that Qaddafi might manage to retain power.

"I don't think anyone would say that is ideal," the general said, foreseeing a possible outcome that stands in contrast to President Barack Obama's declaration that Qaddafi must go.

The Libyan leader has ruled the North African nation for 42 years and was a target of American air attacks in 1986.
Catch that? We performed air strikes in libya in 1986. This is deja vu?

Here is Muammar Gaddafi's wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi

Gaddafi's Revolutionary committees resembled similar systems in communist countries. Reportedly 10 to 20 percent of Libyans worked in surveillance for these committees, a proportion of informants on par with Saddam Hussein's Iraq or Kim Jong-il's North Korea. The surveillance took place in government, in factories, and in the education sector.[18] Dissent is illegal under Law 75 of 1973. Gaddafi has said that "execution is the fate of anyone who forms a political party".[18]

Engaging in political conversations with foreigners was a crime punishable by three years in prison. Gaddafi removed foreign languages from school curricula. One protester in 2011 described the situation as: "None of us can speak English or French. He kept us ignorant and blindfolded".[19]

The regime often executed dissidents publicly and the executions are rebroadcast on state television channels.[18][20]

Libya under Gaddafi was the most censored country in the Middle East and North Africa, according to the Freedom of the Press Index.
After reading that I got the impression Gaddafi was turning around for the better by 2010 or so. He had dismantled his weapons of mass destruction program and had been working with western powers for years to reduce tensions. But even knowing this it does not erase his corrupt and criminal history. NOnetheless, when rebels picked up arms and fought against him in respose to the protests elsewhere (liike in egypt) we obviously sided with them in the matter. Probably because of Gaddafi's criminal past, not so much what he's done in the past 6 years to redeem. But redeem in what way? He may have stopped the WMD program, but he's still a dictator.

I think ti's telling that russia wnated to establish a base in libya. Makes you question their neutrality on the issue of the intervention. They're saying we were wrong to get involved. But who're they to speak? They obviously have their own strategic interests in the region. Not to mention that Gadaffi, by and large, has presided over a socialist/communist government.

Bottom line, I'm not sure that by helping the rebels we'll help the situation, so long as russia is around to meddle. Furthermore, that region is tribal and is liable to prop up another corrupt leader. The oil increases the friction because people over there want it for the wealth it produces.
 

am I alive

Well-Known Member
#7
The whole that story of WMS is a pure bullshit. There are corrupted dictators in more than half a world but some of them are "good" some are "bad". When they work for interest of greedy companies and interest of their own ass than no one is concerned about civil rights.
My country (Serbia) has "democratic" goverment by they are more corrupted than any have ever been before. There are powerful people who put them on and taking them down whenever they want and they do it in the whole world.


@johnnysays

Well, I'd rather to have Russian base in my country than an american.

@ "They're saying we were wrong to get involved. But who're they to speak? They obviously have their own strategic interests in the region. "

So what? How many basis USA has around the world? Whatever they did around the world was for their national interest, and yes my friend I don't have the trust in good intentions of your government from ever I saw you've been doing since WW2.
Btw. Russians have offered to be included in Anti missile shield project, but USA refused, why if they are together fighting against terrorism? Now you're talking about russian interest, off course they have interest, they are not stupid, its not only USA who has the rights on the national interests.

All governments are corrupted and people are just brainwashed sheep. There are powerful people who rule the world and we can't do anything about it. This world has gone to shit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
#8
The whole that story of WMS is a pure bullshit. There are corrupted dictators in more than half a world but some of them are "good" some are "bad". When they work for interest of greedy companies and interest of their own ass than no one is concerned about civil rights.
My country (Serbia) has "democratic" goverment by they are more corrupted than any have ever been before. There are powerful people who put them on and taking them down whenever they want and they do it in the whole world.


@johnnysays

Well, I'd rather to have Russian base in my country than an american.

@ "They're saying we were wrong to get involved. But who're they to speak? They obviously have their own strategic interests in the region. "

So what? How many basis USA has around the world? Whatever they did around the world was for their national interest, and yes my friend I don't have the trust in good intentions of your government from ever I saw you've been doing since WW2.
Btw. Russians have offered to be included in Anti missile shield project, but USA refused, why if they are together fighting against terrorism? Now you're talking about russian interest, off course they have interest, they are not stupid, its not only USA who has the rights on the national interests.

All governments are corrupted and people are just brainwashed sheep. There are powerful people who rule the world and we can't do anything about it. This world has gone to shit.
Sorry but we've had dealings with Russians, the recent spies, stealing of government secrets including the workings of the atomic bomb.
 

am I alive

Well-Known Member
#11
Of course, the most important thing is that lives are being saved. In that sense, money is nothing compared to lives.
Actually, money is everything compared to lives, sad but true...if it isn't so there would be no wars, diseases, hungry people, homeless etc., war is a business itself...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Please Donate to Help Keep SF Running

Total amount
$455.00
Goal
$255.00
Top