1. say what says

    wow indeed

    while over at redstate = (crickets…………)

    Not even a blurb about Gahdafi

    total US cost = 896 mill to 1 bill and not 1 US life even bruised let alone lost

    To get Saddam (who never attacked america on 9/11) around 3 trillion and around 5,000 US lives lost and tens upon tens of thousands maimed (missing arms, legs, burned, etc)

    + Obama got osama

    Which party is the better party millitarily/ national security?

  2. Paul R says

    @SayWhat: I agree with your views, but Gaddafi wasn’t involved in 9/11 either. Though we did have a lot of previous problems with him murdering Americans and citizens of other countries.

    And the Iraq costs are the total for pre- and post-Saddam. The war there has involved a lot of things other than him (not that I support it). It’s not like we cleared out the troops once we captured him, or even after he was killed. I was always slightly surprised that they didn’t kill him on capture like they did Gaddafi. Killing a head of state is not something taken likely, but perhaps the US is trying to expedite its efforts and cut the costs (and cord) of working with or eliminating its enemies.

    Gaddafi wasn’t the hardest target after the Arab Spring. Pakistan and Afghanistan are going to continue to be the thorns in our side, for lost lives, diplomacy, global relations, and many other issues. I’d guess Gaddafi’s quick killing is meant as a warning. Too bad we’re supposedly allies with a lot of countries that hate us (add Saudi Arabia to the list, given that all but 2 of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi).

Leave A Reply