Re: Updated Title: World Revolution 2011
 

What happened?

We were pretty much left with no choice. But I do support Obama's method of getting a broad coalition to carry out this intervention. Pretty interesting watching the Obama doctrine unfold before our eyes.

What's more interesting is that Libya supplies about 3% of the world's oil supply and only a fraction coming to the U.S. So our vital interests are nill.

Re: Updated Title: World Revolution 2011
 

[quote=SmootSmack;789760]No one here is talking about Libya?[/quote]

Of course not, you know that every political thread has to be about the left vs. the right.

Plus nothing is going on in Libya, right? Oh wait, there's this little thing about international forces attacking Gaddhafi. LOL.

On a serious note, I was fearing that the international forces would act a little too late, but that may not be the case. I hope the opposition is able to organize themselves and be able to take advantage of this help from the UN.

Re: Updated Title: World Revolution 2011
 

Qaddafy should have been out a couple of weeks ago. Now that the international community is involved, I strongly recommend that he get his bags packed and sign a lease on a villa in Argentina.

Maybe T.O. will cry, "he's my dictator" (sniff sniff).

Re: Updated Title: World Revolution 2011
 

Next question, who will take over from the French once the Gadaffi forces start shooting back?

Re: Updated Title: World Revolution 2011
 

In all honesty, I think Obama is doing the right thing here, on a few levels.

First off, we're already heavily involved in two ongoing, drawn out wars in the muslim world with Afghanistan and Iraq. We need to bring closure to both very soon.

Secondly, the American public is very weary of any further involvement in war of any kind given the past 8+ years. It would be bad for national morale, Obama's re-election plans, and the US military to take the lead in yet another muslim-related skirmish. Action needed to be taken in Libya, but it's smart to only be a player in a supportive role on this one given the current circumstances.

All that said, it will be interesting to see how much say we have in Ghaddafi's fate. Do we take the lead on his disposal/replacement despite not having the lead in his takedown?

Re: Updated Title: World Revolution 2011
 

You mean the unprovoked illegal war that Obama has started.

Re: Updated Title: World Revolution 2011
 

[quote=firstdown;789796]You mean the unprovoked illegal war that Obama has started.[/quote]

Not unprovoked: Qaddafy struck first

Not illegal: the action was approved by the UN and is not in violation of principles of international law

This action is nothing like the unprovoked illegal action in Iraq of March 2003.

Re: Updated Title: World Revolution 2011
 

Whatever the case may be, I think we have remove him at all costs and not drag this out.

Re: Updated Title: World Revolution 2011
 

[quote=12thMan;789801]Whatever the case may be, I think we have remove him at all costs and not drag this out.[/quote]

This.

Re: Updated Title: World Revolution 2011
 

[quote=Lotus;789800]Not unprovoked: Qaddafy struck first

Not illegal: the action was approved by the UN and is not in violation of principles of international law

This action is nothing like the unprovoked illegal action in Iraq of March 2003.[/quote]

Did he strike us first? Or did he just strike first? Or are we talking about 1985 here?

I don't know that this had to be done now. On the other hand, most people here are old enough to remember when Gaddafi was enemy #1 back in the '80s, the Saddam and Bin Laden combined of his day. In other words, maybe this should have been done a long time ago.

Now...what will he do about Yemen?

By the way, so much for Obama doing nothing while on vacation in Rio, eh firstdown?

Re: Updated Title: World Revolution 2011
 

At least we are not sending ground troops. They are strung out enough.

The hypocrisy of our political process is amazing. Or better said the hoops people will jump through to justify the actions of their party leaders is amazing. Here we are firing over 100 cruise missiles (at a cost probably around 65 million dollars) at another arab country. And now even the Arab league which supported a no fly zone is saying that the airstrikes are overly aggressive.

Re: Updated Title: World Revolution 2011
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;789813]The hypocrisy of our political process is amazing. Or better said the hoops people will jump through to justify the actions of their party leaders is amazing. Here we are firing over 100 cruise missiles (at a cost probably in the hundreds of millions of dollars) at another arab country. And now even the Arab league which supported a no fly zone is saying that the airstrikes are overly aggressive.[/quote]

CRed, personally I worry about those costs. As you indicated, those Tomahawks are not cheap.

However, if the international community is going to do this, it ought to be done right. Aircraft, anti-aircraft sites, radar sites, and other heavy hardware would have to be taken out to support a no-fly zone. It is difficult for me, and the Arab League for that matter, to adjudge exactly how much strike is needed to do this and how much might be superfluous.

What really concerns me are the comments that what has happened represents only the first wave of attacks. I wonder what is yet to happen.

Re: Updated Title: World Revolution 2011
 

This was going to largely be a US led intervention regardless of what country struck Libyan targets first. This is the unfortunate price of being the most powerful nation in the world.

It was a little sad to see John McCain and Lindsey Graham criticizing the goverenment and the president for not acting sooner, as if the situation would be that much better without any international support.

CRed, I think each cruise cost about a mil per, so yeah do the math. It's crazy how we cry about the deficit incessantly, yet place a fleet of war ships off the coast of Tripoli and bomb away.

Re: Updated Title: World Revolution 2011
 

[quote=12thMan;789817]This was going to largely be a US led intervention regardless of what country struck Libyan targets first. This is the unfortunate price of being the most powerful nation in the world.

It was a little sad to see John McCain and Lindsey Graham criticizing the goverenment and the president for not acting sooner, as if the situation would be that much better without any international support.

CRed, [B]I think each cruise cost about a mil per[/B], so yeah do the math. It's crazy how we cry about the deficit incessantly, yet place a fleet of war ships off the coast of Tripoli and bomb away.[/quote]

I heard that you could get them for about 900K on e-bay. Craigslist might have a better deal though.

Seriously, I scoff at those prices after the R&D has been performed the cost of manufacturing is not that high. I sometimes feel that people arbitrarily throw those cost numbers around to support their agenda; just like the article that estimated the cost of the Super Bowl flyover. In reality it's money already spent.

Re: Updated Title: World Revolution 2011
 

The process and poor execution is what pisses of people. I am willing to spend 1 million dollar per Tomahawk to protect civilians...always have, always will.

Re: Updated Title: World Revolution 2011
 

The cruise missiles are about 560,000 each according to various websites. Interestingly the cost of this strike is about the same as would be saved by defunding NPR. I know the 2 aren't related, just interesting to me.

If launching 100 cruise guaranteed civilian safety sure, but it really doesn't, and my guess, is it will just tick Ghadaffi off, once he rolls through the resistance, which he will if no ground troops are ever involved, then he still will show no mercy and no bring terror to France and Europe.

Re: Updated Title: World Revolution 2011
 

Angry, yes we spent the money for those 100, but by using them, we guarantee having to replace them far before their shelf life expires. (unless we budget buying 100 new tomahawks each year for miscellaneous usage)

Re: Updated Title: World Revolution 2011
 

CRed, I think your figure is on the low end of the cost for a cruise. I think they cost as much as $1.4 million. I'm sure there are more sophisticated models that vary in range capability, accuracy, etc.

Here's an interesting link I unearthed. Also Wolf Blitzer Tweeted that the cost of each one is approx $1 mil. Not to suggest at all that your info is inaccurate, but perhaps we're deploying different models with different cost considerations.

[url=http://www.softwar.net/bgm109.html]TOMAHAWK CRUISE MISSILE[/url]

Re: Updated Title: World Revolution 2011
 

While I appreciate the updated cost information, I think talking about the price of the missiles is not really reaching a core issue. Whether we go with the low estimate or the high estimate, launching those missiles cost a buttload.

Reports have surfaced that civilians were killed. Of course there is no good reason to believe Qaddafy's claims on this count and the Arab League may not have good information. But obviously if a mission which is designed to protect civilians ends up killing many of them, something has gone wrong. So there is reason for concern here.

Re: Updated Title: World Revolution 2011
 

True, it's not the core issue and I'm sure no one here has lost sight of that. Still, it's relevant to the thread in terms of the "cost" of democracy. Or in this case removing a brutal autocratic regime who's time is up.

That said, casualties are and have always been a part of war. Always will be. I don't say that to be flippant, but this part of the decision making process.

Re: Updated Title: World Revolution 2011
 

[quote=Lotus;789800]Not unprovoked: Qaddafy struck first

Not illegal: the action was approved by the UN and is not in violation of principles of international law

This action is nothing like the unprovoked illegal action in Iraq of March 2003.[/quote]


Really so the un now has control over who we have a war with. When did we change our Constitution and how did he strike first? Last I checked we struck him first.

Re: Updated Title: World Revolution 2011
 

Your right SS. I guess Obama did not want to be in town when starting his illegal war that is killing innocent people for oil.

Re: Updated Title: World Revolution 2011
 

[quote=firstdown;789827]Really so the un now has control over who we have a war with. When did we change our Constitution and how did he strike first? Last I checked we struck him first.[/quote]

This is not the same as the Iraq war. This is much more like the '90's action in Kosovo.

Give it up, dude. Your partisan arguments do not apply here.

Re: Updated Title: World Revolution 2011
 

[quote=Lotus;789830]This is not the same as the Iraq war. This is much more like the '90's action in Kosovo.

Give it up, dude. Your partisan arguments do not apply here.[/quote]

Partisan? I'm just applying the lefts standards to them. Whats wrong with that? I guess they are not against nation building any more either.

I notice you use a Bill Clinton war. LOL

Souldn't we be going after the Somalia Pirates that have actual attacked us several times.

Re: Updated Title: World Revolution 2011
 

[quote=12thMan;789824]True, it's not the core issue and I'm sure no one here has lost sight of that. Still, it's relevant to the thread in terms of the "cost" of democracy. [B]Or in this case removing a brutal autocratic regime who's time is up.[/B]

That said, casualties are and have always been a part of war. Always will be. I don't say that to be flippant, but this part of the decision making process.[/quote]

Did you also hold those views about Sadam? After all he killed alot more people then this guy.

Re: Updated Title: World Revolution 2011
 

[quote=firstdown;789831][B]Partisan? I'm just applying the lefts standards to them. [/B]Whats wrong with that? I guess they are not against nation building any more either.

I notice you use a Bill Clinton war. LOL

Souldn't we be going after the Somalia Pirates that have actual attacked us several times.[/quote]

You introduced left vs. right. That's what makes it partisan. Others were just talking.

Since I am neither Republican nor Democrat, why would I not use an appropriate example from the Clinton days?

BTW I have no problem with holding the pirates accountable. When they attack Americans, their next residence should be in a US jail.

Re: Updated Title: World Revolution 2011
 

[quote=firstdown;789796]You mean the unprovoked illegal war that Obama has started.[/quote]

Dont you mean Bush?
Cause I heard the exact same phrase over and over years ago with his name tagged on it.

Re: Updated Title: World Revolution 2011
 

[quote=firstdown;789832]Did you also hold those views about Sadam? After all he killed alot more people then this guy.[/quote]

Dude what in the Sam Hill are you talking about?

Re: Updated Title: World Revolution 2011
 

[QUOTE=12thMan;789843]Dude what in the Sam Hill are you talking about?[/Q


Hey don't bring Sam Hill into this.

Re: Updated Title: World Revolution 2011
 

I'd rather we took that Mediterranean coast line than the oil. You could jet ski back and forth to Sicily.

Re: Updated Title: World Revolution 2011
 

I agree. If we are going to keep having illegal wars for oil like this at least lets get the price for gas down to a $1.

Re: Updated Title: World Revolution 2011
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;789821]Angry, yes we spent the money for those 100, but by using them, we guarantee having to replace them far before their shelf life expires. (unless we budget buying 100 new tomahawks each year for miscellaneous usage)[/quote]

Trust me, we have more in stock. We are not going to be firing up the old war machine anytime soon. We are still trying to let it cool off from the last decade. Besides we can just chalk it up to a "Live firing exercise". Hey they needed the training right?

[QUOTE=firstdown;789873]I agree. If we are going to keep having illegal wars for oil like this at least lets get the price for gas down to a $1.[/QUOTE]

Haha yupp.

Re: Updated Title: World Revolution 2011
 

I think it's safe to say, as far as the U.S. is concerned, this is not about oil. Again, only about 2%-3% of the world's oil supply comes from Libya. If anything Europe has more strategic concerns over Libya's outcome than America.

As far as the legality of this "war" goes, I have no idea. But for Obama to wait for Congress to get it's act together after waiting weeks for the UN to pass a resolution would have been untenable, in my opinion. My guess is Congress will give Obama a pass as far as the constitutionality of this invasion goes, as long as he can clearly state our goals and mission.

Best case scenerio is for us to 'accidently' take Quadaffy out.

Re: Updated Title: World Revolution 2011
 

[quote=12thMan;789889]I think it's safe to say, as far as the U.S. is concerned, this is not about oil. Again, only about 2%-3% of the world's oil supply comes from Libya. If anything Europe has more strategic concerns over Libya's outcome than America.

As far as the legality of this "war" goes, I have no idea. But for Obama to wait for Congress to get it's act together after waiting weeks for the UN to pass a resolution would have been untenable, in my opinion. My guess is Congress will give Obama a pass as far as the constitutionality of this invasion goes, as long as he can clearly state our goals and mission.

[B]Best case scenerio is for us to 'accidently' take Quadaffy out[/B].[/quote]


Seems like we would have a goal and mission before we start dropping bombs. If he was really set on the idea of getting congressional approval then maybe he should have not gone on vacation.


Your probably right that taking him out by accident would be the best thing but then Obama should not have stated that he is not a target. Makes him look like a weak leader when he says he is not a target but we bomb his home.

Re: Updated Title: World Revolution 2011
 

Man...seems like only yesterday

[YT]T5fOq9PYp8A[/YT]

Re: Updated Title: World Revolution 2011
 

[quote=firstdown;789900]Seems like we would have a goal and mission before we start dropping bombs. If he was really set on the idea of getting congressional approval then maybe he should have not gone on vacation.


Your probably right that taking him out by accident would be the best thing but then Obama should not have stated that he is not a target. Makes him look like a weak leader when he says he is not a target but we bomb his home.[/quote]

I won't go there on the vacation thing, because clearly you're just being silly. Or at least I hope so.

The current mission is outlined by the UN resolution to basically demobilize Quaddafi's military capibility and protect the civilians and rebel forces. This is a coalition effort led by France and Great Britian, so the U.S role, as I understand it, is pretty limited in scope right now. President Obama never said that Khadffy was or wasn't a target. His language is and should be consistent with the UN resolution. That's not weak, that's smart.

In the coming days, however, he'll have to brief congressional leaders, as he should, on how long and how much we're committed to the no fly zone and what's the end game. With the exception of a few liberal Dems, no one is questioning the 'why' or whether the president is projecting adequate leadership. Besides, how could a guy that just took out your compound where you live possibly be mistaken for weak? It's silly.

But the real reason I keep weighing in is to see how many different ways I can misspell Gadhafy's name.

Re: Updated Title: World Revolution 2011
 

To clarify, I think the government is saying he isn't a target but I don't remember those specific words coming from Obama's mouth. And even so, who cares what's being said the dude has a fat bullseye on his back and everyone knows it.

Re: Updated Title: World Revolution 2011
 

[quote=12thMan;789907]I won't go there on the vacation thing, because clearly you're just being silly. Or at least I hope so.

The current mission is outlined by the UN resolution to basically demobilize Quaddafi's military capibility and protect the civilians and rebel forces. This is a coalition effort led by France and Great Britian, so the U.S role, as I understand it, is pretty limited in scope right now. President Obama never said that Khadffy was or wasn't a target. His language is and should be consistent with the UN resolution. That's not weak, that's smart.

In the coming days, however, he'll have to brief congressional leaders, as he should, on how long and how much we're committed to the no fly zone and what's the end game. With the exception of a few liberal Dems, no one is questioning the 'why' or whether the president is projecting adequate leadership. Besides, how could a guy that just took out your compound where you live possibly be mistaken for weak? It's silly.

But the real reason I keep weighing in is to see how many different ways I can misspell Gadhafy's name.[/quote]

Yes, I'm just trying to give the left a hard time because we had to hear those things for so long. If you notice I have also avoided trying to spell his name.