For $1 billion, one dictator

1. 82

   Stacie Lposted 13 years ago

   For $1 billion, one dictator
   By National Journal | Exclusive – 1 hr 39 mins ago
   By Kevin Baron
   National Journal
   
   Call him the billion-dollar man. One billion for one dictator.
   
   According to the Pentagon, that was the cost to U.S. taxpayers for Muammar el-Qaddafi's head: $1.1 billion through September, the latest figure just out of the Defense Department.
   
   And that's just for the Americans.
   
   The final totals will take some time to add up, and still do not include the State Department, CIA, and other agencies involved or other NATO and participating countries. Vice President Joe Biden said that the U.S. "spent $2 billion total and didn't lose a single life." NATO does not track the operational costs to each member country, but the funds directly taken from a common NATO account for Libya operations have totaled about $7.4 million per month for electronic warfare capabilities and $1.1 million per month for headquarters and command staff, a NATO spokesman said.
   
   http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/exclusive/1 … 11231.html
   was it worth it...did we get our moneys worth? now who's going to help the rebels become a united govt?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, this is an important post.
      
      If you agree that the murdering of one man shouldn't cost that much, then Ron Paul is your man.
      
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhmF7sNlraU

      replyreport
      1. 82

         Stacie Lposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         so Ron wants to stay at home and protect US from other invaders...that sounds like Isolationism and it may not be practical to wait for them to make the first move..

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            How is "not murdering people all over the world" in ANY way similar to "isolationism"?
            
            I seriously want a response to this statement. I honestly can't see how "Not murdering random dictators around the world" could EVER be considered "isolationist".
            
            Is America so far removed from reality that someone proposing peace is insulted as an isolationist?
            
            "Hey guys, let's stop murdering people who didn't at all attack us!"
            
            "Are you crazy!? You're an isolationist! We need to attack lots of people because some guy we call 'the president' declares them a terrorist!"
            
            I can't let this one slide. At all. "Not killing dictators" is NOT "isolationist", and it's disgusting that people could think it is.

            replyreport
            1. 71

               Quilligrapherposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               How soon some of us forget Gadaddi's deeds:
               
               1986 bombing of a Berlin Discotheque frequented by US military personnel.
               Sergeant Kenneth Ford, 21, and 29-year-old Nermin Hannay died at the scene. Sergeant James Goins, 25, died later in a hospital.
               Another 229 people were wounded, including 79 Americans. Some were badly maimed by shrapnel, many suffered burst eardrums and lost limbs.
               
               1988 distruction of Pan Am Flight 103 from Heathrow to New York over the Scottish village of Lockerbie.
               All 243 passengers and 16 crewmembers were killed. Eleven residents of Lockerbie also died. Of the total of 270 fatalities, 189 were American citizens and 43 British citizens.
               
               It is so sad that some claim to know so much about politics and social issues and admit that they know so little about history.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Then declare war.
                  
                  Don't back down - DECLARE WAR.
                  
                  ... sigh, I guess it's too much to expect my elected officials to have spines.

                  replyreport
                  1. 71

                     Quilligrapherposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     …sigh, Hello Evan,
                     Is your …sigh… one of impatience or sarcasm?  My …sigh… is one of sympathy.
                     
                     I may be wrong, but it is my perception that your posts about undeclared wars are as numerous as your posts urging us to vote for your favorite candidate.  While I would never expect you to abandon your dream for Election Day 2012, I hope you don’t mind that I make a suggestion regarding your obsessive mantra about undeclared wars.
                     
                     Take some time to learn about the Constitution and how it applies to war. While a formal “declaration of war” might be a nice way to serve official notice that hostilities exist, as a document, it not required, and it serves no practical, functional purpose. You might begin with Article One, Section Eight of the US Constitution that says “Congress shall have the power to declare war” and no more, thus leaving it up to the Congress to determine how it goes about exercising that power. Read about the 11 official Congressional declarations of war, 12 other military engagements authorized by Congress, 7 military engagements authorized by UN Security Council Resolutions that were funded by Congress, and at least 125 other conflicts in which the President acted without any prior expressed military authorization from Congress.
                     
                     However, pay particular attention to congressional action taken after the US withdrawal from Viet Nam. A war-weary Congress debated the limits of presidential power to deploy troops without pre-approval from the Legislative branch.  The ultimate compromise became the War Powers Resolution in 1973.  Under this law, the size, duration, and time limits of troop commitments and the requirement for status reporting were established.  This is currently how Congress exercises its power to declare war.
                     
                     Except for President’s Clinton’s co-operation in the short-lived NATO operations during the Kosovo War, Presidents have claimed constitutional authority to commit troops without Congressional approval but they always received Congressional authorization that satisfied the provisions of the War Powers Act.  The Gulf War (Desert Storm), Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom), and the Iraq War (Operation New Dawn) are all authorized by Congressional resolutions. 
                     
                     All those who claim that the War on Terror has not been declared by Congress are invited to read Senate resolution 23 dated September 14, 2001 which authorizes the use of US Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. This bill gave the President authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. 
                     
                     Aside from all of the window dressing above, the ultimate congressional control over the President’s power to wage war is call the congressional appropriations process. (1) Conversely, the President’s ultimate resource to fund a war on foreign soil while avoiding the congressional appropriations process is called Lt. Col. Oliver North.
                     
                     I hope you don’t mind my suggestions, Evan. I respect your passion and your political involvement. I know you mean well.  So do I.
                     
                     (1) http://www.senate.gov/reference/resourc … 97-684.pdf

                     replyreport
   2. 70

      Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Beats the trillion in Iraq and probably more in Afghanistan. Looks like a bargain to me unless some fundamentalist, jihadist Muslims take over.

      replyreport
2. 82

   Stacie Lposted 13 years ago

   anyone ?

   replyreport
   1. 59

      recommend1posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The stunning silence everywhere seems to be a response to the heavily censored news that is clearly total bu!!s@it.  The clear status of the so-called rebels as a bunch of paid thugs.  And a general feeling that most people had no gripe with Gadaffi, it only seemed to be government officials who had dealings with him over the years who wanted him dead.  Allied to this are the few facts that come out of Libya, such as it is/was the Muslim/Arab country with the most educated females, best treatment of its poorest peoples, etc., etc.
      
      Maybe the silence is abject shame at the blatant profiteering and re-colonisation that has been done in our names.

      replyreport
3. 69

   MikeNVposted 13 years ago

   And what did we "win"?
   
   We will now have an unknown Dictator doing the exact same thing!
   
   Can we ever learn from History?
   
   You can not legislate a belief system.
   
   Why do we have 30,000 Troops on the Korean Border and next to no troops on the American Borders?
   
   What exactly is the United States protecting?
   
   The whole "Fighting Terrorism" BS is a load of Crap.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Using silver as money is a terrorist act.

      replyreport
4. 87

   melporposted 13 years ago

   It was worth it. That billion dollars have saved a lot of innocent lives. The less dictators there are the safer the world. It is getting harder for one person to become a dictator now because the world is rapidly shrinking politically and I believe eventually dictator rulership will be a thing of the past one day. There are only a few left now.

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Stacie Lposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      technology and the cellphones,smartphones and camcorders have made news instantaneous..no dictator can get away with murder,literally, in today's world without the rest of the world knowing about it.
      Dictators are bullies; they can get away with whatever they want if no one stops them

      replyreport
5. 76

   Marsden4posted 13 years ago

   Of course, looking at it from the perspective of one billion to kill one man may not be the correct way to do it.
   
   If we take the converse: The USA spent about a billion dollars so far to liberate six and a half million people. Mathematically it works out at around $934.58 per person, which isn't too taxing. (Of course, maths was never my strong subject, so if there are mistakes with that figure please hold me to account here)
   
   I think the overthrow of Gadaffi was a successful campaign. I am worried about how violently the rebels have murdered his supporters and indeed, Gadaffi himself, but that is for a different thread.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I have to be honest.
      
      I'd rather have that $940 to spend on the next 30 trips to the gas station.
      
      Maybe that's a good way to look at it!
      
      AMERICANS!! IT COST YOU 30 TRIPS TO THE GAS STATION - EACH - TO OVERTHROW THAT GUY.
      
      300 gallons of gasoline, or some guy dead that I never met, nor had I ever heard about before a year ago.
      
      "But he killed a lot of people", yeah, so did Communism. But Americans are still defending that!

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Paul Wingertposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Who care?

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I sure as sh!t do.
            
            So should you.

            replyreport
6. 66

   Greek Oneposted 13 years ago

   worth every single penny

   replyreport
7. 59

   Paul Wingertposted 13 years ago

   Actully compaired to the cost of killing Bin Laden and these other clowns, $1 billion is about going rate!

   replyreport
8. 76

   Marsden4posted 13 years ago

   Not to mention the Lockerbie Bomber.
   
   Good post Quilligrapher!

   replyreport
9. 62

   knolyourselfposted 13 years ago

   A billion is only the start. Tax payers are now going to have to rebuild the country bombed back to the stone age in name of protecting the country from being bombed by Gaddafi. Don't think
   the thieves who are going to go in there to make a fortune are going to do it.

   replyreport
   1. 66

      Greek Oneposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      BACK into the stone age?

      replyreport
10. 62

    knolyourselfposted 13 years ago

    Not new with me; lots of people say it:
    "Now, of course, since NATO's humanitarian intervention the infrastructure of their country has been bombed back to the Stone Age."

    replyreport