The United States is fighting another war - of unknown scope and length - in Libya. At a time of budget-cutting fever on Capitol Hill, the war represents a potential lifeline for the Pentagon. If you believe the Libya operation justifies current U.S. military spending levels - or even an increase - think again.

According to government estimates, we'll spend about $1 billion on the Libyan intervention over the course of a full year of operations. That's a lot of money if applied to low-income housing or job retraining. But it's chump change for the Pentagon.

(15) comments

FedUp999

We sent Senator Sylvia Allen to Washington to stop these kinds of money wastes. How about it, why isn't she doing her job?

ArizAl

BEWARE OF THE MILITARY- INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX... President Eisenhower. We (western countries) provided Saddem Hussain with arms and chemical weapons; we provied the Saudi's with billions of dollars of arms that ended up in the hands of Iraqi insurgents; as the writer states, western countries provided Gaddafi in Lybia with the arms they use against us. And the winners the war profiteering corporations.

Sam Paine

Senator Allen is our STATE Senator. She goes to the state capitol in Phoenix and has nothing to do with the Pentagon in Washington. Get your facts straight. It amazes me how UNINFORMED people are.

lakesider

Crowd: "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!!!!"

John Feffer: "We can't address these threats and keep wasting money on excess military spending!"

Crowd:"RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!!!!"

Lakesider: "It's not going to help the situation if all you people do is stand there and yell RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!"

Crowd:"RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!!!"

Camulos

"We (western countries) provided Saddem Hussain with... chemical weapons..."

No, that's a lie Bush made up.

"...western countries provided Gaddafi in Lybia with the arms they use against us."

Um... Lybia hasn't used arms against us for DECADES - until Obama lied and called Lybia a "direct threat" to the United States (though Gaddafi's been SILENT since Reagan dropped a bomb almost in his lap)...

It is factually an effort to support the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda in Lybia, and defend France and Great Britain's oil interests in Lybia, and to make Obama look like he has 'man-parts' in the eyes of the world, period.

[wink]

lakesider

"According to the latest figures from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute"
Sorry. I've never heard of them or what they've done for promoting peace in my lifetime. After reading the About section on their web page, I think they should change their name to "Research Predicating any Spurious Correlation Related to Peace"

If you just say, "I don't like war." or "Ya know what I just learned? War is expensive!" you'd make a really good point that's hard for anyone to disagree with. But then you really wouldn't be saying anything new now, would you?

I can only imagine if Libya's population had not been disarmed by its tyrannical government. Do you think they'd still be throwing rocks? I have a hard time believing that things would have gone this far out of control if the people in these countries had the means to defend themselves.
If Gaddafi were an American president, do you think the public would allow him to be alive after what he has done? Break out your slide-rules and calculate the probability of that, Stockholm.
My mom taught me that if I don't have anything good to say about someone, I should say nothing at all. As for Barney Frank... .... .... (thanks, mom)

wes alderson

Lakesider? Thank you!!!! The sense of humor you have used in your two blogs below is uproarious. Esecially the "Rabble rabble rabble," dialogue. You could write for a comedy show.

We need more such comments. I have a pretty good idea of who you are because of your excellent choice of words, but that makes the comments even more admirable.

Besides, amid the humor, good bits of truth come out.

wes alderson

Arizona Al? Just for my curiosity, will you please tell us in a brief comment, whether you think our nation did the right thing by intervening in Lybia, and why or why not? Thanks.

wes alderson

Here is a question for Arizona Al:
Do you think the United States did the RIGHT thing by intervening in Lybia? Why or why not?

ArizAl

NO!

"Every gun that is fired, every warship launched signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of it's labors, the genius of it's scientists, the hopes of it's children."....President David D. Eisenhower

Camulos

I could have sworn it was President Dwight David Eisenhower...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower

But that's beside the point (just a poke, Al [wink] )

I am also against it. Obama and his Administration have yet to define a clear reason for being there as well as a clear mission.

True or false, agreeable or disagreeable in his reasons, at least Bush had those...

[huh]

wes alderson

Howdy Al, [beam] Looks like Camulos gotcha again. Thank you for opposing President Obama's undeclared war in Libya based on Principal - and you too Camulos.

When I see Republicans and Demorcrats reaching the smae conclusions in matters of moral and ethical principle, it helps restore a bit of my faith in humanity. If there is more such thought, we may still have a chance to survive as a species

whitemountainruthie

david isnhower would haf won the electsion if hed been a member of the church. Oh yee of liddul fate.

Arizonan


"True or false, agreeable or disagreeable in his reasons, at least Bush had those..."
Bush had lies, not reasons!
Now that syria is next maybe they will find saddams wmd's there or even use that as an excuse to invade syria!

Camulos

"Now that syria is next maybe they will find saddams wmd's there or even use that as an excuse to invade syria!"


Food for thought:

Bush cannot take credit if we do. That will be on Obama's head (IF he does it during the remainder of his term) or the next President will be to 'blame'.

Perhaps now you will realize that it is, as I have stated repeatedly, the GOVERNMENT that is making the choices based on gathered intel and the quest for domination.

Call it a 'concession' if you will, but if Obama sends troops there, and has a solid JUSTIFIABLE reason for doing so (unlike Lybia), I will support his action. Bush had that, though he, as well as Congress, were given faulty intelligence.

Even if Obama is given the same and he acts on it in like manner, until it is PROVEN false, until it is PROVEN that Obama "lied" about the intel, I will support it.

Be sure that it will be scrutinized more than Bush's actions and intel were SOONER (because of the intel and actions that Bush took).

Let's hope the Left leads that charge with equal vim, vigor and vociferouceness yes?

[smile]

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.