On Mar 29, 1:37*pm, Jeff Thies wrote:
On 3/29/2011 3:48 AM, harry wrote:

On Mar 29, 7:39 am, Jeff *wrote:
On 3/28/2011 9:18 PM, mm wrote:

OT *What does a Tomohawk missile really cost?

snip
* * On a side note, the sudden ebb and flow of military fortunes in Libya
is nothing new. These are the same towns that flowed back and forth
between axis and allies in WWII. Then as now, controlling the air over
land that you can't hide in, is key.

* * Jeff

The war will be lost *without boots on the ground which seems
unlikely.

Certainty is something that those who rely on common sense thinking have.

* *I've posted in this group before the historic animosities between
Cyrenaica and Tripolitania. Something he

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrenaica

* *I've also pointed out that per capita more al Qaeda recruits have
come from Cyrenaica that anywhere else in the world. What Ghadaffi says
about his enemies ties to al Qaeada has some truth behind it.

* *The forces behind this and other conflicts is complex and the prudent
course of action needs some coyness. The George W Bush cock sure
approach is a sure way to throw away lives and futures. Putting our
boots on the ground would make us a more direct player in a game that we
are better off playing a more peripheral role. Putting forces on the
ground where we can't tell who are our allies is ludicrous. The only
surety is that we will find less allies than we expected. What we have
now is a deep respect of the air power that we can exert.

* *As far as being unable to "win", I find this a foolish statement. For
us, there is no winning, only looking towards a more favorable outcome.

* *For the Ghadaffi forces, much as it was as in WWII, controlling
supply lines and destroying armour decides the fate of those boots on
the ground. They are deeply in trouble, they are melting away rather
than be destroyed in the exposed positions they have to take. Ghadaffi's
home town will be under assault soon enough. These are ideal conditions
to exert air power.

All these millions couls have been spent on healthcare or new
infrastructure.Why not? No money in it. No competition for cruise
missiles, they can charge what they like. *The US gov.should buy
missiles from Moscow. *That would bring the price tumbling down.

* *It's chump change relative to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A few
hundred million on Tomahawks is a rounding error. Only thinking of the
small picture is the surest way to be lost in the wilderness.

* *IMHO, we aren't doing badly playing the hand we have the way we have.
Time, and not that much of it, will tell.

* *Now, I've left myself exposed to those who think in common sense and
* who will always be terminally upset. But it's only usenet. What
matters what myself or anyone else here thinks?

* *Jeff

It comes back to this:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Keynesianism
This is something you need to read up on.

Also maybe this:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSC-68
How the third world was to be enslaved by US capitalists using nazi
methods.

And:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Ch...olitical_views
Heavy going the latter but a clear thinking American.
His books are all printed an published here in the UK. Not allowed in
America.