Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

How many billions have we spent on bombing and helping kill 50,000 people in Libya so far?

And this is what we paid for?

"On Friday, Jibril arrived in Tripoli — nearly three weeks after the capital's fall — and in his first public comments took a swipe at groups who he said have already started "the political game" before the rules have been set." He did not elaborate or name names, but Naji Barakat, the health minister in the Cabinet and a former exile, said the comments were directed chiefly at the Muslim Brotherhood.

"They've started doing dirty politics because they want to take the lead," Barakat told The Associated Press. "I think they've been trying for a long time to be seen and heard. I think they're getting support from countries as well. They think this is fertile ground."



RULES? Dirty politics? He must mean Western rules and "clean politics"...as in, "let's do business...you grease my hand and I'll grease yours".

Well, it seems as though the conservative Muslins have a different idea of what they want. Of course, they also want democracy...and in a poor, conservative country they will certainly win more votes then the western backed upper/middle class businessmen.



"Tripoli, which was under the thumb of the regime even after the eastern half of the country was liberated of his rule, is now trying to reclaim its pre-eminent political position, pushing back against a revolutionary leadership dominated by figures from Benghazi.
"The rift between Tripoli and Benghazi is pretty big," the Western official said. "It's worrying."

Tripoli has long been the base of power in Libya, a country of only 6 million people, 2 million of whom live in the capital. The capital's powerful political players are flexing their muscles, telling the NTC that they cannot dictate Libya's future.

"The Tripoli people also know that they actually created their own revolution on Aug. 20, and they want full recognition for that," said Joffe of Cambridge University. "And they're not sure they want to see the council in its present form, coming in and telling them what to do."


Fun times ahead.

I smell another Yugoslavia coming....

It's the Europeans' fault. So saith Barack Almighty.

Obama is God and shall leadeth the Libyan people from the Valley of Darkness (Conk foreign policy).

Cluck U wrote:How many billions have we spent on bombing and helping kill 50,000 people in Libya so far?

... only reports I can find say that we haven't even spent a billion yet, even if you don't include the offsets from sales of weapons/technical assistance to NATO Allies.

JMU DJ wrote:

Cluck U wrote:How many billions have we spent on bombing and helping kill 50,000 people in Libya so far?

... only reports I can find say that we haven't even spent a billion yet, even if you don't include the offsets from sales of weapons/technical assistance to NATO Allies.

I guess cluck prefers the conk method of flushing trillions down the toilet in shit-hole countries, then spending a decade plus with troops in said countries. He continues to grasp at straws on this Libya thing.

Grizalltheway wrote:

JMU DJ wrote:

... only reports I can find say that we haven't even spent a billion yet, even if you don't include the offsets from sales of weapons/technical assistance to NATO Allies.

I guess cluck prefers the conk method of flushing trillions down the toilet in shit-hole countries, then spending a decade plus with troops in said countries. He continues to grasp at straws on this Libya thing.

Cluck has been on the record for months and months about getting OUT of those shithole countries, but your president refuses and continues to flush trillions of dollars (that we don't have) down the toilet. Libya is just the icing on this shit cake.

JMU DJ wrote:

Cluck U wrote:How many billions have we spent on bombing and helping kill 50,000 people in Libya so far?

... only reports I can find say that we haven't even spent a billion yet, even if you don't include the offsets from sales of weapons/technical assistance to NATO Allies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/che ... _blog.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Almost a billion so far in a report compiled well before Aug 23rd. And that doesn't include the black ops that you just know are being used.

And yet states are competing for a mere $100 million for the Race to the Top education funds.

Good thing we have our priorities straight.

Grizalltheway wrote:

JMU DJ wrote:

... only reports I can find say that we haven't even spent a billion yet, even if you don't include the offsets from sales of weapons/technical assistance to NATO Allies.

I guess cluck prefers the conk method of flushing trillions down the toilet in shit-hole countries, then spending a decade plus with troops in said countries. He continues to grasp at straws on this Libya thing.

Seriously, do you go to sleep thinking about false things to argue about and then wake up wanting to win your one man contest to posting the most idiotic comment on this board?

Here's a simple question...we just spent a BILLION dollars (and counting)...for what?

We've got people who are unemployed, schools that are failing, roads that have been washed away...things that are negatively impacting our citizens in a real way. And yet we just spent a billion dollars, apparently, since you didn't bother to show disdain for the operation, with your full support, to do what?

We got involved in another country's business, spent a billion dollars in an operation that has killed 50,000 people...and not a peep from some folks as to why.

And the only thing you can do is to ignore the reality and to dream up some false projection based on your own bias.

Amazing.

Cluck U wrote:

JMU DJ wrote:

... only reports I can find say that we haven't even spent a billion yet, even if you don't include the offsets from sales of weapons/technical assistance to NATO Allies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/che ... _blog.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Almost a billion so far in a report compiled well before Aug 23rd. And that doesn't include the black ops that you just know are being used.

And yet states are competing for a mere $100 million for the Race to the Top education funds.

Good thing we have our priorities straight.

Still not "billions." What we've spent in Libya is a drop in the pail in comparison to the two actual ground conflicts that we are/were involved in. Not trying to split hairs, but at the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions we were spending almost as much per day as we have over this entire Libya conflict. Currently, it takes three days to spend as much in Afghanistan as we have spent total in Libya. I'm with the new Uncle Ronnie, bring our troops home.

I don't disagree with you on the getting our priorities straight, there are much better things to spend money on at home IMO during economic times like this.

Cluck U wrote: Here's a simple question...we just spent a BILLION dollars (and counting)...for what?

Haven't spent a billion dollars, yet. Not even $900 million, according to your source and all other sources.

For what? I don't know. Isn't this what America does historically though? Get rid of dictators that are against the US and then assist in the formation of a government/attempt to put in a leader that works in our favor?

I mean, the invasion Libya now would be like invading Cuba if their people stormed the streets... both are our "enemies," with anemic leaders, who no longer bother us on the global stage. I'm sure the US/NATO would have been just as happy to watch ol' Qaddafi/Gaddafi/Daffy sail off into the sunset and die... guess they decided to seize the opportunity when they had the chance and pushed him out to sea on an ice floe. I'm just glad we aren't playing world police in Yemen, Bahrain or Jordan... must be because they're our "allies" and in this case, we'll just "urge" their leaders to step down.



... Fuck, can't believe I wasted my 6,000th on this. Eh... Green Man anyone?

Cluck U wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
I guess cluck prefers the conk method of flushing trillions down the toilet in shit-hole countries, then spending a decade plus with troops in said countries. He continues to grasp at straws on this Libya thing.

Seriously, do you go to sleep thinking about false things to argue about and then wake up wanting to win your one man contest to posting the most idiotic comment on this board?

Here's a simple question...we just spent a BILLION dollars (and counting)...for what?

We've got people who are unemployed, schools that are failing, roads that have been washed away...things that are negatively impacting our citizens in a real way. And yet we just spent a billion dollars, apparently, since you didn't bother to show disdain for the operation, with your full support, to do what?

We got involved in another country's business, spent a billion dollars in an operation that has killed 50,000 people...and not a peep from some folks as to why.

And the only thing you can do is to ignore the reality and to dream up some false projection based on your own bias.

Amazing.

I love how you act like spending a billion (singular, not plural) dollars in Libya (whether you agree we should be spending it or not) somehow means we won't be able to spend more on education, infrastructure, etc, at home. Like DJ said, what we've spent Libya is a drop in the ocean compared to what we've spent in Iraqistan.

Seriously, if you object to the US playing a role in ousting a dictator that poses no immediate threat to our interests, fine. But enough with this red herring that it's the reason we aren't spending more on the worthwhile things you mentioned.

P.S. Can you name an internal conflict in another country since WWII that the US hasn't at least taken a side in? I'll wait.

Grizalltheway wrote:P.S. Can you name an internal conflict in another country since WWII that the US hasn't at least taken a side in? I'll wait.

Let me know when we start bombing the Darfur region.

Let me know when we start bombing Thailand.

Let me know when we start bombing Mexico. Wait, we did send arms...to the wrong people.

Do you really want me to continue?

Cluck U wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:P.S. Can you name an internal conflict in another country since WWII that the US hasn't at least taken a side in? I'll wait.

Let me know when we start bombing the Darfur region.

Let me know when we start bombing Thailand.

Let me know when we start bombing Mexico. Wait, we did send arms...to the wrong people.

Do you really want me to continue?

Not to mention Rwanda

Grizalltheway wrote:I love how you act like spending a billion (singular, not plural) dollars in Libya (whether you agree we should be spending it or not) somehow means we won't be able to spend more on education, infrastructure, etc, at home. Like DJ said, what we've spent Libya is a drop in the ocean compared to what we've spent in Iraqistan.

Seriously, if you object to the US playing a role in ousting a dictator that poses no immediate threat to our interests, fine. But enough with this red herring that it's the reason we aren't spending more on the worthwhile things you mentioned.

P.S. Can you name an internal conflict in another country since WWII that the US hasn't at least taken a side in? I'll wait.

Typical party hack. When face with a real question of morals and expenditures, you reflexively fall back on, "well, the other side does it" or, "our billion isn't as much as the other billions being spent by ____ on ____."

Apparently, you dont bother to read other people's posts (but you are quick to toss people into your little "easy to identify" groups)...or you are stuck on party hack stupid. Probably both.

I've said many times that we should not be ousting other country's dictators unless they are a direct threat to us. Get us out of Iraq, out of Affy, and Libya didn't do squat to us.

Now that things are, as you said, "fine", perhaps you can justify why we are still actively involved all three conflicts, STILL spending billions upon billions, instead of focusing on our needs at home?

And don't tell me it has taken Obama and the rest of the clowns 3 years to do a proper withdrawal. Hogwash.

You are part of the problem in this country. You got suckered into believing you voted for change. You got talked into the belief that you had higher morals than the war hawks, money changers, and God lovers. In fact, you believe it still today and you will stand by and support the people who pulled the wool over your eyes because you see anyone not aligned with your boys as the enemy.

Good thinking.

dbackjon wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
Let me know when we start bombing the Darfur region.

Let me know when we start bombing Thailand.

Let me know when we start bombing Mexico. Wait, we did send arms...to the wrong people.

Do you really want me to continue?

Not to mention Rwanda

Lots more.

Grizalltheway is waiting for a radio message from party headquarters on how to respond.

Cluck U wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:I love how you act like spending a billion (singular, not plural) dollars in Libya (whether you agree we should be spending it or not) somehow means we won't be able to spend more on education, infrastructure, etc, at home. Like DJ said, what we've spent Libya is a drop in the ocean compared to what we've spent in Iraqistan.

Seriously, if you object to the US playing a role in ousting a dictator that poses no immediate threat to our interests, fine. But enough with this red herring that it's the reason we aren't spending more on the worthwhile things you mentioned.

P.S. Can you name an internal conflict in another country since WWII that the US hasn't at least taken a side in? I'll wait.

Typical party hack. When face with a real question of morals and expenditures, you reflexively fall back on, "well, the other side does it" or, "our billion isn't as much as the other billions being spent by ____ on ____."

Apparently, you dont bother to read other people's posts (but you are quick to toss people into your little "easy to identify" groups)...or you are stuck on party hack stupid. Probably both.

I've said many times that we should not be ousting other country's dictators unless they are a direct threat to us. Get us out of Iraq, out of Affy, and Libya didn't do squat to us.

Now that things are, as you said, "fine", perhaps you can justify why we are still actively involved all three conflicts, STILL spending billions upon billions, instead of focusing on our needs at home?

And don't tell me it has taken Obama and the rest of the clowns 3 years to do a proper withdrawal. Hogwash.

You are part of the problem in this country. You got suckered into believing you voted for change. You got talked into the belief that you had higher morals than the war hawks, money changers, and God lovers. In fact, you believe it still today and you will stand by and support the people who pulled the wool over your eyes because you see anyone not aligned with your boys as the enemy.

Good thinking.

My stance is that if we can find a way to get rid of someone like Qaddafi without committing thousands of troops, and to do it multilaterally with our allies, then we should make every effort to do so. Committing ourselves as extensively as we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, with no real plan for how we would get out, was dumb. Helping the rest of NATO enforce a no-fly zone to aid an already-under-way rebellion is another mater entirely.

Uh, that is information that is coming to my office from former FBI agents....

AZGrizFan wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
I guess cluck prefers the conk method of flushing trillions down the toilet in shit-hole countries, then spending a decade plus with troops in said countries. He continues to grasp at straws on this Libya thing.

Cluck has been on the record for months and months about getting OUT of those shithole countries, but your president refuses and continues to flush trillions of dollars (that we don't have) down the toilet. Libya is just the icing on this shit cake.

Did we have it ten years ago?

Grizalltheway wrote:My stance is that if we can find a way to get rid of someone like Qaddafi without committing thousands of troops, and to do it multilaterally with our allies, then we should make every effort to do so. Committing ourselves as extensively as we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, with no real plan for how we would get out, was dumb. Helping the rest of NATO enforce a no-fly zone to aid an already-under-way rebellion is another mater entirely.

REALLY?

Your stance is to get rid of people like Kadaffy because...WHY? And when you say, "someone like Kadaffy"...you mean like our friends in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain, Israel, and most of the Middle East, half of South America, most of Africa and Central America, parts of Asia and probably a few planets (you're welcome, expandos)? Way to go GrizIlLoveCheney! Let me know when Obama starts bombing those countries...or are you OK with hypocrisy?

No-fly zone...to protect civilians. Too funny. Bush couldn't have said that with a straight face.

Seriously, you should just go up to Congress and the POTUS and let them know you've got a plan for knocking off bad guys in order to help usher in...uh...well, we really don't know. Brilliant! All while spending a couple billion here and a couple billion there. No one will ever miss that money. I mean, what can you do with a BILLION dollars?

Great plan. Who's next, Rambo?

We need a consistent foreign policy, and we can't afford to be the world police anymore.

They don't like us in the middle east, we can invade and overthrow every governement over there, the replacement government will like us even less. I'm sure that there is some return on our investment, but I don't see it.

polsongrizz wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Cluck has been on the record for months and months about getting OUT of those shithole countries, but your president refuses and continues to flush trillions of dollars (that we don't have) down the toilet. Libya is just the icing on this shit cake.

Did we have it ten years ago?

Nope...but that's irrelevant now...nice red herring argument, grizalltheway.