Price is down according to Fox News. Used to be Tomahawk missiles (essentially a small jet plane with couple thousand mile range and 1 ton payload) cost $1,000,000 a shot. At the new reduced pricing, those 110 Tomahawks launched on Libya last night will only cost $66 million to replace. At the old price, it would have been $110 million.
I do hope $66 million dollars worth of missiles was able to do $66 million dollars worth of damage to Quadaffi's armed forces.
9 comments:
David;
Constitutionally, where was the authority to drop bombs on Libya? You don’t realize a problem here? Who owns the military-industrial complex, that’s going to make dollars off of somebody’s blood, agony, emotional mental anguish? How about a little love and peace? Be a great day when money, power can be the result of peace.
Constitutional authority for Obama? To do anything? Ask a democrat, don't ask me. I didn't vote for him.
I'm not Dave, but I can answer your question.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 has a pretty broad reach, but it isn't being invoked here. The ratification of the United Nations and our obligation to NATO is what makes this a legal action.
The UN Security Council approved the No-Fly zone and for willing members to prevent the massacre of civilians in Libya by any means necessary. Considering that Gaddafi promised hunt opponents of his regime, purging them "house by house" and "inch by inch". He vowed to "fight until his last drop of blood" and die as a martyr in his own speech I think that makes any Libyan forces supporting Gaddafi fair game.
Reporters from BBC and Al-Jazeera are interviewing people in cities that Gaddafi's forces were shelling and the "rebels" are overjoyed that the UN intervened and forced Gaddafi's forces back. His forces, by the way, are composed of the most ruthless mercenaries in Africa.
Gaddafi deserves to catch a missile. I liken this action to the Bosnia-Serbian intervention. If Gaddafi wins he will massacre thousands.
I too wish for a day when there will be peace. Unfortunately this is a case of choosing the lesser of two evils. Do we let Gaddafi kill Libyan civilians? Or do we annihilate his armed forces from the air to stop genocide?
I am a democrat and campaigned for Obama too. I do think that both parties can agree that Gaddafi has earned a missile.
To be a little more serious about it, the constitution makes the President the commander in chief of the armed forces, so he can order action and the services will obey those orders. If I remember the war powers act, the president can order action on his own authority and has a reasonable length of time (90 days?) to square it with Congress. The constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. That has sort of fallen out of fashion, the US has not declared war on anyone since 1942. For Viet Nam, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. For Iraq, Congress passed an "Authorization for the use of Military Force". I don't remember how Korea was handled.
The UN security council resolution adds moral authority to action in Libya, but I am reluctant to grant the UN authority to order American troops into combat. The NATO alliance requires that an attack on any NATO member be treated as an attack on all. This treaty was ratified by the Senate many years ago, so Congress has pre approved military action in support of NATO. Only trouble is, it's really stretching a point to say that Libya has attacked any NATO member.
In actual fact, Quadaffi is a murderous terrorist, is responsible for the bombing of a Pam Am 747 over Scotland with the death of all on board, is responsible for bombing a German night club full of American servicemen, and has threatened to kill everyone in Libya who opposes him. The world would be better off with Quadaffi dead, and we ought to be taking steps to make that happen. The civil war in Libya will go on as long as Quadaffi is alive.
The U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land(country). NATO, the UN does not rule this country YET. It appears the remarks by commenter’s, you are willing to roll over for/to foreign entities. The question was: Constitutionally where was the authority. There was none, this makes Obama a criminal/tyrant. He denounce Bush for the same acts.
Evan, why choose the lesser, when they are both evil. Just none of our business
Dave, I can’t find ‘The War(s) Power Act)in the Constitution. Can you guide me? I’ll help you, War; marque and reprisal. Article 1 Section 8 subsection 11
I'll agree with you that Obama did not obtain a Congressional declaration of war for Libya. But neither did Truman for Korea, Kennedy & Johnson for Viet Nam, Reagan for Granada, Bush I for Iraq I and Bush II for Iraq II. Better than half a century of precedent supports the presidential power to engage in warfare prior to, and ultimately lacking a formal declaration of war.
Quadaffi is terrorist scum who needs to be killed. I'm not going to trash Obama for doing a good deed and attacking him. Even if he didn't get a congressional declaration of war to do so.
The war powers act is an act of Congress, originally passed in the 70's to prevent presidents from getting the country into another Viet Nam war without congressional approval. It's a legitimate act of congress of long standing. As such it has as much force as the constitution itself.
Hi Will,
Should we get involved in Libya is the question. I support the intervention because we can take decisive action against Gaddafi to get rid of a murderous tyrant and prevent genocide. Simply blowing up his armor and airplanes puts the rebellion on equal footing with Gaddafi's army. I wish it happened sooner when Gaddafi was backed into Tripoli instead of on the offense though.
Obama isn't using the War Powers Resolution for the Libyan action. The US/UK/France/etc. can (but don't have to) take action against Libya to enforce a no-fly zone and prevent the massacre of civilians.
The legal basis for this war is very similar to the start of Iraq war #2 where the US took action against Saddam because he kicked out the inspectors which gave the US a free hand in the already passed UN Security resolution.
anonymous should be William.
Appears the link didn't format
Post a Comment