- 5,712
- 1,019
Don't get it twisted, the US led the way. US led the NATO bombings... yes those are US not NATO drones dropping bombs. US Special Operators were/are on the ground assisting if not leading the rebels. Weapons, armor, intel, food, medical supplies were provided by the US. $900+ million dollars has been spent by the US in this war so it's ridiculous to think the US isn't at the forefront of this war.Originally Posted by NostrandAve68
Nothing like arm chair foreign policy analysts
Osama is not dead yet you can't prove he's alive, like just shut up. Keep living your live thinking everything in life is a conspiracy, you are no more a sheep than the people who believe everything placed in front of them.
Anyways, this was great in showing the US doesn't always have to be the leader in these missions, we'd be having more success in the Middle East if more coalition efforts were put forth.
Posted at 09:42 AM ET, 08/23/2011[h1]Libya war costs for U.S.: $896 million so far[/h1]
By Jason Ukman
U.S. involvement in the war in Libya cost American taxpayers an estimated $896 million through July 31, according to the Pentagon.
Whether that makes the mission a huge drain on the budget in tough fiscal times or a relatively cheap price to pay to protect Libyan civilians depends on your point of view.
In Afghanistan, the military is seeking $107 billion for the next fiscal year. That makes the annual cost of operations there about 100 times what the United States spent in Libya over four months.
And now that the man is dead, guess which country's defense contractors are going to lead in the reconstruction efforts including sucking the country dry of it's oil? Haliburton ring the bell?