Updated Title: World Revolution 2011

[CRedskinsRule]

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.

[CRedskinsRule]

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)

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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)

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?

[12thMan]

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.

TOMAHAWK CRUISE MISSILE

[Lotus]

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.

[12thMan]

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.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

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.

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

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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

Dude what in the Sam Hill are you talking about?

[firstdown]

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


Hey don't bring Sam Hill into this.

[firstdown]

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.

[Alvin Walton]

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

[firstdown]

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.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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.

Haha yupp.

[12thMan]

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.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

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.

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.