Quote:
Originally Posted by randolph
Tracy
Well, We lobbed $500,000,000 dollars worth of missals into Libya. We wiped out Quaddafi's airforce (which probably wasn't worth shit) which was supposed to force him to capitulate, but he fights on. Now NATO is bombing the rebels tanks, what a fuck up!  |
Actually the current cost, to the US is 500,000,000. That would include the cost of the missiles as well as the all other operational costs such as fuel for the aircraft, parts replacements, all munitions, and the cost of operating the ships involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TracyCoxx
I do agree with BO on one thing. Militarily, we are spread thin. So yes, we should have had command at the beginning like we did. NATO should have the capability of carrying on from there. What I don't like is that it hardly seemed planned. No one could agree on what exactly the goal was. Also, BO was barely committed to seeing it through. And they took their time getting it going. You don't commit our troops to battle if you don't really give a shit one way or another what happens.
|
The US is a signatory to NATO so why do the two of you try to make it look like NATO and the US are separate entities when it comes to military alliances and actions.
I disagree that the US should have retained command. Other countries are more than capable of taking command of military operations.
I do agree that no politician thought about what goal is to be achieved. It seems that the only thought was to destroy Libya's military capability and maybe hope that Qadhafi would leave of his own accord or maybe be overthrown. Beyond that the politicians don't have a clue as to what to do because no plan was ever made.