I wish the President would be as swift to propose a real solution to the economic crisis, cut spending and promote the creation of real jobs for Americans as he was to intervene in matters of foreign policy. But then again he is ultimately looking out for himself, and a war is one way he may try to get re-elected.

It's funny that he's doing the same thing for which he criticized the former administration and against which he campaigned.

Like I said, at $600,000 per cruise missile, the war with Libya will be an economic booster, depending on how long it lasts.  Question is, "Can the US afford the debt that is going to go along with it?"

Update.  There have been at least 124 Tomahawk missiles fired so far:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/03/23/libya_a_us_war_by_any_other_name_obama_gaddafi_qaddafi_109306.html

At $600 K per missile, that would amount to $74,400,000.  Not bad for one weekend.

Imagine what we've spent in Iraq and Afghanistan.

At $600 K per missile, that would amount to $74,400,000.  Not bad for one weekend.

With a yearly defense budget of  roughly 650 Billion, that's about 0,01 %

It's amazing to see the incredible propaganda being spewed by the media on this story. It's really amazing.

Let's see here, according to the media, Gadhafi is a Hypocrite, he's politically intolerant, uncivil, oppressive, cruel, lunatic, violator of human rights, a supporter of terrorism, a miscreant, rude, arrogant, and eccentric. :dwarf:

Doesn't this look familiar?  :read-paper:

It's interesting how one-sided this whole story is, and is full of rumours, "explanations", etc. by lots of unnamed sources, and important details passed over because they're "sensitive military information". Obama's cause is so blameless and righteous while Gadhafi is the indisputable wicked dictator of the east :hitler:.

I find it also interesting that we're using planes that require ground-direction of fire when we "dont have any ground forces in Libya".  :wine-drinking: Let us raise a glass to the propaganda which supports one of the most unjustified military actions in... well.... six months... maybe???

Ok, so, all of the sudden, the people decide they don't like their leader, and they organize revolts. When the ruling regime attempts to maintain order, the nations of the world declare a murderous and criminal regime and enacts international "sanctions" against it. Now, apparently, other nations can't "preserve the union", so to speak.
Now, if I remember correctly, when this stuff happened here in America, good guys were the ruling regime, and the rebels were the "bad guys". In this scenario, the bad guys are the ruling regime and the good guys are the rebels... So what makes who the good guy and bad guy by popular standard???

So let's see, this "revolution is Popular, and the "people just wanted to be free".

I imagine that in Montgomery, AL, secession was popular, and that those people wanted to be free of northern interests, but they're bad guys, right? :scratchchin:

So, when the ruling regime in America wages war on its people to preserve its rule, it's okay, but when it's done in other countries, it's bad. Someone please tell me why??? :shocked:


One thing that gets me is that we started out saying that we're over there just to protect civilians. Then, Clinton is over there negotiating with rebel forces. So, are we over there to protect innocent people or foment a war, err, revolution? Is it just me or is this messed up?
 

We are in a special country, we get to impose our own political agendas even in other countries!!!  :judge: "We're from the American Government, and we are here to help" :dancing-banana:




___________________________________________
[1]Shortly after the first missile attacks, U.S. President Barack Obama informed the American people... "The use of force is not our first choice," the president said from Brasilia, Brazil. "It is not a choice I make lightly. But we cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his own people that there will be no mercy."

[2]Reason for military action "to deny the Libyan regime from using force against its own people". -US Vice Admiral William Gortney

[3]"What we are doing is necessary, it is legal and it is right... I believe we should not stand aside while this dictator murders his own people." - British Prime Minister David Cameron

[4]US involvement a "sensitive military matter", no time table in place for military action.

[5]Gadhafi failed to adhere to a UN resolution ordering him to stop attacks on civilians.

[6]France, Britain, US, Canada, and Italy among nations involved.

It will help Obama in the polls.  The Republicans are already starting their campaigns against him; war is good for reelection.