Sexy Friends Toronto
Toronto Escorts

Gaddafi Cost the US ONLY 1 Billion Dollars

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,042
6,038
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
Pres Obama through his superb leadership, has delivered quite a bargain to US Taxspayers here!!!
Compare this paltry $1 Billion to what Dubya and his DICK have cost US Taxpayers with their Wars of Empire for the the greater glory of KBR & the MIC!

Too bad Obama wasn't around back in 2000 to handle things since his MO would have saved hard earned Tax monies BIGTIME compared to Dubya......and his DICK!....:eyebrows:


Gaddafi Cost the US 1 Billion Dollars

National Journal: Pat Dollard October 21st, 2011

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.

From the beginning of Operation Unified Protector in March, critics have questioned whether the U.S. could afford to open a third front. The Congressional Research Services estimate the Afghanistan war has cost nearly $500 billion so far. With Iraq, the figure easily tops $1 trillion.

In the first week of Libya operations, bombs were dropped from B-2 stealth planes flown from Missouri and roughly 200 missiles launched from submarines in the Mediterranean, causing alarm that any extended campaign would quickly cost billions more.

But after the U.S. military ramped up the operation, other NATO countries shouldered most of the air burden. Americans took a supporting role: aerial refueling tankers, electronic jamming, and surveillance.

The behind-the-scenes role was something President Obama celebrated in remarks in the Rose Garden on Thursday.

“Without putting a single U.S. service member on the ground, we achieved our objectives and our NATO mission will soon come to an end,” Obama said.

As to when that mission would end, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said in a statement NATO issued from Brussels, “We will terminate our mission in coordination with the United Nations and the National Transitional Council.”

U.S. and NATO officials steadily maintained their mission was never to hunt, capture or kill the Libyan leader. The mission, they said, was to enforce the arms embargo, establish and hold a no-fly zone, and take actions to protect civilians from attack or the threat of attack.

That last directive seemed to give plenty of reason to target Libya’s top commander. But Pentagon officials said for months that if Qaddafi should happen to be at one of those locations when NATO missiles strike, so be it.

Since the operation began on March 31, getting to Qaddafi’s final stand required 7,725 air sorties and 1,845 strike sorties, 397 of which dropped ordnance, and 145 Predator drone strikes.

NATO aircraft, including those supplied by the U.S., totaled 26,089 sorties and 9,618 strike sorties through Wednesday.

More than 70 U.S. aircraft have supported the operation, including Predator drones.

NATO flew 67 sorties and 16 strikes sorties over Libya one day before Qaddafi was killed.

The NATO mission also employed submarines, aircraft carriers, amphibious assault ships, destroyers, frigates, and supply ships—as many as 21 vessels at one time.

Additionally, as of one week ago, the U.S. had sold participating countries in the operation roughly $250 million in ammunition, parts, fuel, technical assistance, and other support, according to the Pentagon.

Several members of Congress put out statements celebrating Qaddafi’s downfall but did not comment on the cost. Several offices contacted did not provide additional reaction to the monetary figures.

But presidential candidate Ambassador Jon Huntsman did question the cost of the Libya operation. His statement on Thursday said, “I remain firm in my belief that America can best serve our interests and that transition through non-military assistance and rebuilding our own economic core here at home.”
 
Last edited:

Sal1979

Banned
Oct 29, 2010
380
1
0
Gaddafi wanted to change the currency to gold for his country, making it impossible for the USA to buy anything from him unless also paid in gold, the banks wouldn't allow this, which as we all know run the USA, which is more than likely the real reason why the had to hunt down the "dictator". The USA has Billions of dollars for wars and has empty pockets when it comes to taking care of their own.
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,087
1
0
Of course according to americanson, the US has the most powerful military in the world, but apparently can't afford to run it.
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
48,899
8,825
113
Toronto
The title should have read "........cost only one billion".
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,531
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
The title should have read "........cost only one billion".
Na should have read

another woody attempt to politicize what happens
 

Scarey

Well-known member
Anwar Sadat, Osama Bin Laden, Momar Kadafi, various Al-Qaeda members,pirates, putting Yemen's Ali Abdullah Saleh and Syria's Bashar Al-assad Dictatorships on notice.......I don't think a democrat has ever had so much foreign policy goodwill to run on on for re-election.He's making a strong case for his international successes and making his predecessor look like a irrational,irresponsible,ignoramus.

I think this will be the first election in 50 years that Republicans will not be able to use the"strong on defense" tactic with democrats.
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,531
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
I think this will be the first election in 50 years that Republicans will not be able to use the"strong on defense" tactic with democrats.
So you are saying this is the first time in 50 years a dem has done the right thing?
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,531
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
Because, you know, nobody ever politicized any other government initiatives.
I actually did not know that.

Thank you for the info.
 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
26,848
7,316
113
Room 112
The cost will be a lot more than $1 billion. What about all the rocket launchers that have disappeared (some turning up in Gaza). Who will take over Libya..Muslim Brotherhood?

That being said the cost in Iraq is and will be far greater, especially when the troops are brought home. Iraq is on the brink of civil war and we all know Iran will get its hands dirty there.

The good - both Saddam and Gaddafi are gone.
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,042
6,038
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
Anwar Sadat, Osama Bin Laden, Momar Kadafi, various Al-Qaeda members,pirates, putting Yemen's Ali Abdullah Saleh and Syria's Bashar Al-assad Dictatorships on notice.......I don't think a democrat has ever had so much foreign policy goodwill to run on on for re-election.He's making a strong case for his international successes and making his predecessor look like a irrational,irresponsible,ignoramus.
Bubba did pretty darn well here also as Commander-in-Chief during his Bosnian/Serbian War. Bubba got his bogeyman, his Serbian war lasted only 11 weeks and best of all not 1 US soldier died!

Seems when it comes to war DEMS handle them a lot better and cheaper than GOPers like Dubya and his DICK!....:thumb:
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,042
6,038
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
Toronto Escorts