$600 Million in 6 Days - The Cost (so far) of obama's War in Libya (weapon, support)

[carterstamp]

Originally Posted by sanrene

Or is that "kinetic military exercise"?

Cost of Libya Intervention $600 Million for First Week, Pentagon Says - George Stephanopoulos' Bottom Line



Good grief. For what? To see AQ/radical muslims come to power?

Sanrene, how about doing a side-by-side of the cost of Iraq and Libya.

And, how vocal were you back in 2003 when we put boots on the ground for a fraud?

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by Who?Me?!

WHY DO YOU APPROVE OF THE TRILLIONS SPENT ON IRAQ BUT NOT the money spent on the SUCCESSFUL airstrikes?

Thats an easy one.. The money on Iraq was authorized by Congress.. Can you say the same for Libya?

[emcee squared]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Thats an easy one.. The money on Iraq was authorized by Congress.. Can you say the same for Libya?

So you justify spending $1 trillion on a pointless war because the government said we can?

Also, how do you know the intervention in Libya wouldn't have been approved by Congress if Obama had followed that route?

[simetime]

Originally Posted by sanrene

Ahhh...so you are for all invasions to stop evil dictators....or ones just run by a democrat?

Nope, just the ones that are actually doing what it was intended for with no fake pretenses for oil

Oh by the way this is NOT a war nor is it an invasion, it is a intervention to keep thousands from dying under a lopsided fight

[simetime]

Originally Posted by Phil306

You are truly joking, are you not? I mean, really? The issue here isn't Bush and Iraq; that issue has been debated ad nauseum.

People in this country voted for "change." They voted for Obummer (not me), so something like this wouldn't happen again.

Obummber only threw his hat in the ring, to gain support from France/England, which get along of crude oil from Libya, and too help appease the other Middle East nations, in order to help secure future oil supplies.

If you truly think this "war" isn't about oil, you are truly ignorant and/or nieve. Libya has absolutely NO strategic value about it. And as for "humanitarian reasons," and "brutal dictators?" That is cute and nice.

However, we look the other way at China and North Korea. Darfhur, Rwanda, et al. If we were truly trying to stop a brutal dictator, we would have bombed China and North Korea by now; we haven't, because we can't win a war with them. We can beat the $hit out of Libya and everyone can make themselves feel better.

Huh, reality check, the present president was not in office during those times....bad comparision

[georgia dem]

I have no problem with what this is costing, I think we should have steped in sooner, and I believe it would have been over by now, Obama was wrong on that and I think the only reason he went is because he feels pressured in doing it, he sure as hell does not know what he is doing
and that is where my problem is~~
I do also think we should bring our troops home from Iraq, they have been there long enough, is that the right decision? I do not know, or do I profess to know.
Obama is a bumbling idot when it comes to leadership, I have no respect for him as president and from what I have seen, I have no respect for him as a man or a person in general
I used to think, well at least he is a good dad, but I do not even think that any more with all the loopy messages he puts out there.

[pollyrobin]

Originally Posted by emcee squared

how do you know the intervention in Libya wouldn't have been approved by Congress if Obama had followed that route?

We'll never know because Obama didn't take
that route

But, there would have been a dialogue, a public
debate before the action, not after.

Obama, like past presidents, have used this sneaky way to get us into war, before the
American people have had their voice.
e.g. Vietnam comes to mind.

[sanrene]

Originally Posted by simetime

Nope, just the ones that are actually doing what it was intended for with no fake pretenses for oil

Oh by the way this is NOT a war nor is it an invasion, it is a intervention to keep thousands from dying under a lopsided fight

Really? Not a war, huh? Well, without the US leading the way, the rebels are being routed. At first it was to protect civilians with a no fly zone, then when it became clear the rebels couldn't advance without US/NATO air power, we pounded Ghadaffi forces from the air. Now, the rebels are once again in retreat without US/NATO leadership as the spear.

Now obama is considering arming them, now we find obama weeks ago authorized covert CIA action;

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/3...o-join-rebels/

We are knee deep in REGIME change and it appears we are helping and fighting for AQ.

[oz in SC]

Originally Posted by Old Gringo

The $trillion Bush frittered away in Iraq doesn't concern conservos, though...

Well it appears that it wasn't trillions...do you have any figures to prove this is true?

[oz in SC]

Originally Posted by carterstamp

Sanrene, how about doing a side-by-side of the cost of Iraq and Libya.

And, how vocal were you back in 2003 when we put boots on the ground for a fraud?

You mean how much had been spent in the first six days of the air offensive there?