Obama: US Launches Military Action Against Libya

Status
Not open for further replies.

rockin'robin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
24,433
Reaction score
544
Pentagon Fires 110 Cruise Missiles

BRASILIA, Brazil -- President Barack Obama authorized limited military action against Libya Saturday, saying Moammar Gadhafi's continued assault on his own people left the U.S. and its international partners with no other choice. The Pentagon said it fired 110 cruise missiles at 20 targets.

Obama said military action was not his first choice.

"This is not an outcome US or any of our partners sought," Obama said from Brazil, where he is starting a five-day visit to Latin America. "We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy."

A senior military official said the U.S. launched air defenses Saturday with strikes along the Libyan coast that were launched by Navy vessels in the Mediterranean. The official said the assault would unfold in stages and target air defense installations around Tripoli, the capital, and a coastal area south of Benghazi, the rebel stronghold.

Obama declared once again that the United States would not send ground forces to Libya, though he said he is "deeply aware" of the risks of taking any military action.

Earlier in the day, Obama warned that the international community was prepared to act with urgency.

Our consensus was strong, and our resolve is clear. The people of Libya must be protected, and in the absence of an immediate end to the violence against civilians our coalition is prepared to act, and to act with urgency," Obama said.

Top officials from the U.S., Europe and the Arab world meeting in Paris, where they announced Saturday immediate military action to protect civilians caught in combat between Gadhafi's forces and rebel fighters. American ships and aircraft were poised for action but weren't participating in the initial French air missions.

As the military action was announced, French fighter jets swooped over Benghazi, the opposition stronghold that was stormed by Libyan government forces earlier Saturday, in defiance of a proclaimed ceasefire.

France, Britain and the United States had warned Gadhafi Friday that they would resort to military means if he ignored the U.N. resolution demanding a cease-fire.

The United States has a host of forces and ships in the area, including submarines, destroyers, amphibious assault and landing ships.

The U.S. intended to limit its involvement - at least in the initial stages - to helping protect French and other air missions by taking out Libyan air defenses, but depending on the response could launch additional attacks in support of allied forces, a U.S. official said. Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of military operations.
Obama: US Launches Military Action Against Libya - Jacksonville News Story - WJXT Jacksonville
 
Bye bye $60 million..... *smh*
 
But we will replace them....

Seems totally unecessary to me......I realize I am one of the few that feel that way. I'm ok with that

Oh, I'm with ya on that buddy. Total waste of our money, for sure. But the gubment doesn't care where the weapons are used, only that they ARE used. Those missiles will be replaced no matter what. If they weren't going to Libya, we would just hold some war exercises of the coast off North Korea (maybe start a war with NK--a two'fer, whoohoo!)

Beware the Military-Industrial Complex.
 
Umm, no. Exercise missiles don't have real warheads. They cost about 1/10th what live missiles do. Also, they don't fire many missiles during an exercise.
 
Umm, no. Exercise missiles don't have real warheads. They cost about 1/10th what live missiles do. Also, they don't fire many missiles during an exercise.

I know you were in the Navy, but did your experience give you access to this sort of information? If not, please provide your sources.

Those Tomahawks are propelled by jet engines and contain many highly advanced technical components that are all necessary to make it cruise and maneuver, but not necessary to make it blow things ups. Seems to me that the explosive aspect of the missile is only a fraction of the overall cost?
 
I know you were in the Navy, but did your experience give you access to this sort of information? If not, please provide your sources.

Those Tomahawks are propelled by jet engines and contain many highly advanced technical components that are all necessary to make it cruise and maneuver, but not necessary to make it blow things ups. Seems to me that the explosive aspect of the missile is only a fraction of the overall cost?

unnecessary? Don't you want us to reduce collateral damage? Don't you want us to do the job quick and accurate?
 
unnecessary? Don't you want us to reduce collateral damage? Don't you want us to do the job quick and accurate?

What are you talking about?
 
If you're going to go into another country and get something accomplished, the Machiavellian way is to just wipe 'em out.
 
What are you talking about?

training is vital to ensure that we:

1. reduce collateral damage
2. reduce casualty
3. reduce friendly fire
4. do the job quick and accurate

no?
 
Which is what we should've done in Iraq if we insisted on being there.
 
Reba said test missiles are 1/10 the cost of live missiles because they do not carry warheads. I question that and gave my reasoning, but because I trust that Reba knows what she's talking about, since she was in the Navy, I'd like to hear from her.


What you two are talking about has nothing to do with what Reba and I were talking about.
 
Reba said test missiles are 1/10 the cost of live missiles because they do not carry warheads. I question that and gave my reasoning, but because I trust that Reba knows what she's talking about, since she was in the Navy, I'd like to hear from her.


What you two are talking about has nothing to do with what Reba and I were talking about.

What I'm talking about has something to do with what you are talking about with Reba.

You seem to have a problem with it. I am challenging your mindset on this subject.
 
Huh? Alex is criticizing the military-industrial contracts the government hands out. He wasn't criticizing the military establishment.
 
What I'm talking about has something to do with what you are talking about with Reba.

You seem to have a problem with it. I am challenging your mindset on this subject.

You've clearly gone down a different branch from what Reba and I were talking about and now you're attempting to spin it back somehow on me and save face because you misunderstood what I was talking about.

I'm just going to punch you every time you do this from now on.


:slap:
 
Huh? Alex is criticizing the military-industrial contracts the government hands out. He wasn't criticizing the military establishment.

nice try

Oh, I'm with ya on that buddy. Total waste of our money, for sure. But the gubment doesn't care where the weapons are used, only that they ARE used. Those missiles will be replaced no matter what. If they weren't going to Libya, we would just hold some war exercises of the coast off North Korea (maybe start a war with NK--a two'fer, whoohoo!)

Beware the Military-Industrial Complex.

be gone, gnat :lol:
 
You've clearly gone down a different branch from what Reba and I were talking about and now you're attempting to spin it back somehow on me and save face because you misunderstood what I was talking about.

I'm just going to punch you every time you do this from now on.


:slap:

Ouch... someone is going to end up in the hospital the next time there's a reunion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top