The U.S. military is spending upward of $1 billion in libya

Cancel 2018. 3

<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
US role in Libya costs hundreds of millions so far

Analyst: Initial cost of operation was between $400 million and $800 million

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.

Missiles fired from submarines in the Mediterranean, bombs dropped by B-2 stealth bombers and an array of warplanes launching airstrikes over the northern portion of Libya easily total hundreds of millions of dollars. The campaign entered its fifth day on Wednesday.

Story: Obama, Libya and the authorization conflict
The Obama administration isn't talking overall cost, but the magnitude of the military campaign, the warships and aircraft deployed and the munitions used provide some information to estimate the growing price tag.

Other political news of note Big political challenges greet Obama's return home
Updated 53 minutes ago 3/24/2011 3:53:00 PM +00:00 Returning home to some messy politics, President Barack Obama must contend with a battery of challenges, from a spending standoff that threatens to shut down the government to congressional angst over the U.S.-led war against Libya.

US role in Libya costs hundreds of millions so far
Updated 85 minutes ago 3/24/2011 3:20:23 PM +00:00 New milestone: 1 in 6 US residents is Hispanic
First Thoughts: Searching for 'clarity'
Gingrich reverses stand on Libya
..As of Tuesday, the coalition had fired at least 162 sea-launched Tomahawk missiles priced at $1 million to $1.5 million apiece and dispatched B-2 stealth bombers — round-trip from Missouri — to drop 2,000-pound bombs on Libyan sites.

Total flying time: 25 hours. Operating cost for one hour: at least $10,000.

Obama agenda: Libya in focus
Yet those numbers only provide part of the costs. The B-2 bombers require expensive fuel — and rely on air tankers to refuel in flight — and probably needed parts replaced upon their return to Whiteman Air Force Base. The pilots most certainly will get combat pay.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42246682/ns/politics-more_politics/

does anyone else notice the silent "outrage" over the cost of this military action?

war monger obama could spend this money at home for schools, infrastructure etc...but no, he is all about giving money to his corporate and oil buddies!!!!!!!!

there is my outrage for the silent - well, you know :D
 
the silence of the dems

In all seriousness, how many "libs are hypocrites for not attacking Obama in the same exact way they attacked Bush because these are the exact same situations" BS threads from you, Superfreak, webbway, bravo, Dixie et al. are we supposed to respond to?

Fact is, Code Pink is protesting, there have been front-page articles on MSNBC this week saying that Obama's actions are unconstitutional & also that there is growing dissent on both sides for our involvement in Libya, most lefties on this board do not support what's going on, there is a group in Congress that is trying to defund our Libya efforts, and another group - with some of the same members - who are even mentioning the idea of impeachment.

So yeah, BIG hypocrisy there. Oh - and did I mention that these aren't even close to the same situation, and that you still have immense problems with scale?
 
Oh - and as I mentioned to SF on one of his threads like this - this is exactly the kind of thread Jarod usually starts...
 
In all seriousness, how many "libs are hypocrites for not attacking Obama in the same exact way they attacked Bush because these are the exact same situations" BS threads from you, Superfreak, webbway, bravo, Dixie et al. are we supposed to respond to?

Fact is, Code Pink is protesting, there have been front-page articles on MSNBC this week saying that Obama's actions are unconstitutional & also that there is growing dissent on both sides for our involvement in Libya, most lefties on this board do not support what's going on, there is a group in Congress that is trying to defund our Libya efforts, and another group - with some of the same members - who are even mentioning the idea of impeachment.

So yeah, BIG hypocrisy there. Oh - and did I mention that these aren't even close to the same situation, and that you still have immense problems with scale?

The main point is poking fun at the left wingnuts on this board who for years have bashed Bush for many of the same things (scale is irrelevant, it is the decision that is the same), yet they remain for the most part very silent now. I wonder why?
 
The main point is poking fun at the left wingnuts on this board who for years have bashed Bush for many of the same things (scale is irrelevant, it is the decision that is the same), yet they remain for the most part very silent now. I wonder why?

Scale is not irrelevant. Was the left as vocal about Grenada as they were about Iraq?

And that's not the main differentiator. Iraq was a PRE-EMPTIVE war, SF; you can't be so intellectually dishonest as to ignore that pretty important fact.

There are plenty of other differences, as well, but those are the top ones, imo.
 
isn't it hilarious how onceler keeps bringing up code pink....as if they're tiny little protests now count as anything....but hey, he found one group and is sticking with it, despite that he can't find them protesting the budget....along with the other millions of dems up in arms over the the money spent on iraq....

onceler claims he calls out his lefties....but at every opportunity he defends their hypocrisy, among other issues....if you had a shred of integrity onceler, you would admit the disparity is pure hypocrisy
 
Scale is not irrelevant. Was the left as vocal about Grenada as they were about Iraq?

And that's not the main differentiator. Iraq was a PRE-EMPTIVE war, SF; you can't be so intellectually dishonest as to ignore that pretty important fact.

There are plenty of other differences, as well, but those are the top ones, imo.

and libya wasn't pre-emptive...

lol....what sad little apologist....must defend my party, must
 
isn't it hilarious how onceler keeps bringing up code pink....as if they're tiny little protests now count as anything....but hey, he found one group and is sticking with it, despite that he can't find them protesting the budget....along with the other millions of dems up in arms over the the money spent on iraq....

onceler claims he calls out his lefties....but at every opportunity he defends their hypocrisy, among other issues....if you had a shred of integrity onceler, you would admit the disparity is pure hypocrisy

SF said the left has been "very silent" on Libya. If you look around, they haven't been - at all. I laid out the reasons why the protest on Iraq was louder, and they're valid reasons which you continue to ignore in your desperate search for hypocrisy.

If you want some blatant hypocrisy, take a look at some of the folks on "your side," who apparently are against military involvement now - you have even supported some of their comments on this board. Frankly, it's kind of amazing to see the blinders you have up about what is a clear double-standard from the right....
 
I'm against Libya, but no, it is not a pre-emptive action like Iraq was; only an idiot would make that claim. See: mirror.

LOL ^ talk about utter delusion and apologist babbling....good job obama lover!

libya is in fact as pre-emptive, in reality, much more pre-emptive than iraq....no long term resolutions, no 12 years, no 4th or 20th chances....nope...straight into attack when they were not a threat a threat to us...that is pre-emptive action you little obamabot
 
Scale is not irrelevant. Was the left as vocal about Grenada as they were about Iraq?

And that's not the main differentiator. Iraq was a PRE-EMPTIVE war, SF; you can't be so intellectually dishonest as to ignore that pretty important fact.

There are plenty of other differences, as well, but those are the top ones, imo.

Scale is irrelevant.

Libya was PREEMPTIVE too moron. We were not attacked. We were not threatened. This in NO WAY concerned us from a military perspective. We went in to PREEMPT the massacre we all expected.

THAT is the point. you and many on the left continue to try and say 'this isn't the same thing'.... yet it is. The scale is different, but the actions are the same.
 
SF said the left has been "very silent" on Libya. If you look around, they haven't been - at all. I laid out the reasons why the protest on Iraq was louder, and they're valid reasons which you continue to ignore in your desperate search for hypocrisy.

If you want some blatant hypocrisy, take a look at some of the folks on "your side," who apparently are against military involvement now - you have even supported some of their comments on this board. Frankly, it's kind of amazing to see the blinders you have up about what is a clear double-standard from the right....

seriously....do you actually believe what you wrote? even you can't be that be stupid.
 
LOL ^ talk about utter delusion and apologist babbling....good job obama lover!

libya is in fact as pre-emptive, in reality, much more pre-emptive than iraq....no long term resolutions, no 12 years, no 4th or 20th chances....nope...straight into attack when they were not a threat a threat to us...that is pre-emptive action you little obamabot

Oh - I get it; you don't know what "pre-emptive" means.

Libya was an immediate effort to prevent further slaughter of rebels, which is ongoing. SF understands this, btw, as do most. I don't agree with it, but that's what it is.

Iraq was based on the Bush Doctrine - you're not like Palin, are you? I assume you know what that is. We went to Iraq because of WMD's and the threat they MIGHT pose to us, not to stop any immediate threat.

That's a big, big difference, Yurtsie. Seriously, if you can't see that - just get help....
 
Tell us then genius... when did Libya attack us? or even threaten the US/France/UK/UN???

They didn't.

SF, you even said just yesterday that we went into Libya to stop the slaughter of the rebels. Libya has nothing to do w/ a threat to the U.S. or our allies.
 
Oh - I get it; you don't know what "pre-emptive" means.

Libya was an immediate effort to prevent further slaughter of rebels, which is ongoing. SF understands this, btw, as do most. I don't agree with it, but that's what it is.

Iraq was based on the Bush Doctrine - you're not like Palin, are you? I assume you know what that is. We went to Iraq because of WMD's and the threat they MIGHT pose to us, not to stop any immediate threat.

That's a big, big difference, Yurtsie. Seriously, if you can't see that - just get help....

pre·emp·tive
   [pree-emp-tiv] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
of or pertaining to preemption.
2.
taken as a measure against something possible, anticipated, or feared; preventive; deterrent: a preemptive tactic against a ruthless business rival.
3.
preempting or possessing the power to preempt; appropriative; privileged: a commander's preemptive authority.
4.
Bridge . pertaining to, involving, or noting an opening bid or an overcall in a suit that is at an unnecessarily high level and that is essentially a defensive maneuver designed to make communication between one's opponents more difficult: a preemptive bid; to give a preemptive response.
 
SF - in your opinion, is Libya a pre-emptive war like Iraq was...an exercise of what we now know as the Bush Doctrine?

Honestly, I'm praying that you say "yes" on that....
 
Back
Top