US launches first attack against Qaddafi

[namvet]

why in the holy hell do we need to get involed here ??? the tomahawks fly. Osama is biting off more than we can chew. be interesting to see how the libtards react

The U.S. Navy fires the first U.S. Tomahawk cruise missiles against Libyan leader's Muammar al-Qaddafi's air defenses Saturday.

The Pentagon says 112 missiles have been launched from U.S. and British ships in the Mediterranean, hitting 20 Libyan targets.

fox
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/19/france-fires-libyan-military-vehicle/#

[Evil_Conservative]

Are we at war with Libya now?  Sorry for sounding so ignorant on the subject, but this isn't a story I've been following closely. 

[T-Monay820]

Are we at war with Libya now?  Sorry for sounding so ignorant on the subject, but this isn't a story I've been following closely. 

By definition no. As far as I know, Congress hasn't declared war, and there's no way this president is gonna ask for a declaration. But in reality and semantics aside, yes. What we have here is Kosovo II. This time its in Africa.

[namvet]

Are we at war with Libya now?  Sorry for sounding so ignorant on the subject, but this isn't a story I've been following closely. 

not yet. but we are now a part of the no fly committee. if they shoot down our planes and kill our flyers Osama will be way in over his head

[Evil_Conservative]

not yet. but we are now a part of the no fly committee. if they shoot down our planes and kill our flyers Osama will be way in over his head

I'm not comfortable with any of this.

[Adisa]

We didn't declare war with Afghanistan or Iraq, either, but our military has been given authorization for Use of Force.

"From the Washington Administration to the present, Congress and the President have
enacted 11 separate formal declarations of war against foreign nations in five different wars.
Each declaration has been preceded by a presidential request either in writing or in person
before a joint session of Congress. The reasons cited in justification for the requests have
included armed attacks on United States territory or its citizens and threats to United States
rights or interests as a sovereign nation.

Congress and the President have also on a number of occasions enacted authorizations
for the use of force instead of declarations of war. Most commonly, such measures have
authorized the use of force against either a named country or unnamed hostile nations in a
given region. In most cases, the President has requested the authority, but Congress has
sometimes given the President less than what he asked for. In contrast to the declarations of
war, not all authorizations for the use of force have resulted in actual combat. Both
declarations and authorizations require the signature of the President in order to become law."

Source

[namvet]

I'm not comfortable with any of this.

nor am I. we don't even have a CNC !!!!

[formerlurker]

Osama is biting off more than we can chew.

By bombing Libya?    How so.

[namvet]

By bombing Libya?    How so.

by putting our people needlessly in harms way and risking a war. a war our economy cannot and will not support. AND an alleged prez with no foreign policy experience...........etc

[LC EFA]

So ... where are all the thousands of filthy hippies gathering to scream "NO WAR" and "BUSH = SATAN" .

Oh. That's right. It's no longer one of their ideological enemies in power so they support anything he does blindly.




 

[formerlurker]

Good afternoon, everybody.  Today I authorized the Armed Forces of the United States to begin a limited military action in Libya in support of an international effort to protect Libyan civilians.  That action has now begun.

     In this effort, the United States is acting with a broad coalition that is committed to enforcing United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which calls for the protection of the Libyan people.  That coalition met in Paris today to send a unified message, and it brings together many of our European and Arab partners.

Enforcing UN resolutions under the messiah = all good

Enforcing UN resolutions under GWB = war crimes


 

[formerlurker]

by putting our people needlessly in harms way and risking a war. a war our economy cannot and will not support. AND an alleged prez with no foreign policy experience...........etc

Our people are not in harms way, and we are talking Tomahawk cruise missiles, no one is getting deployment orders.

[formerlurker]

France is enforcing the no-fly zone, and the messiah has stated international forces are leading this endeavor.   

Now if you want to argue U.S. military taking direction from foreign military leaders, then that would be a valid argument.   Obama isn't leading anything outside his foursome at his next golf outing.

[formerlurker]

Actually Obama did what GWB should have done, and that is not getting the mother-may-I from Congress to enforce a UN resolution.   

[namvet]

Our people are not in harms way, and we are talking Tomahawk cruise missiles, no one is getting deployment orders.

and the carrier TF ??? just there for the sun tan right???

[LC EFA]

Quotable notables from the Obama crowd :

"We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy," President Obama said in a statement from Brazil.

"We have every reason to fear that left unchecked, Qaddafi will commit unspeakable atrocities," Clinton said.

Source

[formerlurker]

and the carrier TF ??? just there for the sun tan right???

Lol, as luck would have it they just happen to be in the neighborhood, and are in no danger.    

[namvet]

Lol, as luck would have it they just happen to be in the neighborhood, and are in no danger.    

famous last words

[formerlurker]

famous last words

What do you think is going to happen to them?

Note:   The US and UK have about 25 vessels in that area, with France enforcing a no-fly zone.   

[namvet]

What do you think is going to happen to them?

Note:   The US and UK have about 25 vessels in that area, with France enforcing a no-fly zone.   

as luck would have it they just happen to be in the neighborhood, and are in no danger.   

[namvet]

The Cost of a No-Fly Zone

"Full No-Fly Zone" covering all of Libya

- $100 million to $300 million per week

- Initial strike to secure airspace: $500 million and $1 billion

- Six month total: $3.1 billion - $8.8 billion

- Similar to no-fly zone imposed over Iraq (Operation Northern and Southern Watch)

 

Limited No-Fly Zone focusing on the northern third of Libya

- $30 million to $100 million per week

- Initial strike to secure airspace: $400 million to $800 million

- Six month total $1.18 billion - $3.4 billion

 

Stand-off No-Fly Zone focusing on costal Libya with only air and naval assets beyond Libyan territory

- $15 million to $25 million per week

- Because this is strictly a stand-off operation with no assets in Libya, CSBA suggests no "initial cost."

- Six month total $0.39 billion - $0.65 billion

- This No-Fly zone would be enforced by three aegis-equipped destroyers.

 - These ships, supported by radar monitoring planes (AWACS), and land-based fighter aircraft would intercept violating aircraft from a distance with "over-the-horizon" missiles.

- There is no historical precedent for this sort of no-fly zone.

 

The group also estimates a 6 month No-Fly Zone could cost as much as $9 Billion. Here's a look at the costs of previous No-Fly Zones:

 

3 months of air superiority over Serbia cost $2.4 billion

No Fly Zone over Iraq cost $1.3 billion per year

Libya is 6.5 times larger than the No Fly Zone over Iraq.

CSBA (Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments) estimates a 6 month No Fly Zone could cost as much as $9 billion.

well taxpayers can we foot the bill????

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/03/18/libya-cost-no-fly-zone#

[formerlurker]

as luck would have it they just happen to be in the neighborhood, and are in no danger.   

Exactly.  Are you anti-war? 

[formerlurker]

The Cost of a No-Fly Zone

"Full No-Fly Zone" covering all of Libya

- $100 million to $300 million per week

- Initial strike to secure airspace: $500 million and $1 billion

- Six month total: $3.1 billion - $8.8 billion

- Similar to no-fly zone imposed over Iraq (Operation Northern and Southern Watch)

 

Limited No-Fly Zone focusing on the northern third of Libya

- $30 million to $100 million per week

- Initial strike to secure airspace: $400 million to $800 million

- Six month total $1.18 billion - $3.4 billion

 

Stand-off No-Fly Zone focusing on costal Libya with only air and naval assets beyond Libyan territory

- $15 million to $25 million per week

- Because this is strictly a stand-off operation with no assets in Libya, CSBA suggests no "initial cost."

- Six month total $0.39 billion - $0.65 billion

- This No-Fly zone would be enforced by three aegis-equipped destroyers.

 - These ships, supported by radar monitoring planes (AWACS), and land-based fighter aircraft would intercept violating aircraft from a distance with "over-the-horizon" missiles.

- There is no historical precedent for this sort of no-fly zone.

 

The group also estimates a 6 month No-Fly Zone could cost as much as $9 Billion. Here's a look at the costs of previous No-Fly Zones:

 

3 months of air superiority over Serbia cost $2.4 billion

No Fly Zone over Iraq cost $1.3 billion per year

Libya is 6.5 times larger than the No Fly Zone over Iraq.

CSBA (Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments) estimates a 6 month No Fly Zone could cost as much as $9 billion.

well taxpayers can we foot the bill????

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/03/18/libya-cost-no-fly-zone#

Sucks to be France right about now.

[formerlurker]

Quotable notables from the Obama crowd :

"We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy," President Obama said in a statement from Brazil.

"We have every reason to fear that left unchecked, Qaddafi will commit unspeakable atrocities," Clinton said.

Source

They will never admit to the hypocrisy. 

[namvet]

Exactly.  Are you anti-war? 

my war's over