Keeping the blogosphere posted on the goings on of the world of submarines since late 2004... and mocking and belittling general foolishness wherever it may be found. Idaho's first and foremost submarine blog. (If you don't like something on this blog, please E-mail me; don't call me at home.)

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Libya No-Fly Zone Approved

The UN Security Council approved a "No-Fly" Zone over Libya, 10-0 with five fairly significant abstentions (China, Russia, Brazil, India, and Germany, who apparently had problems the last time they fought in Libya). Secretary Clinton had said earlier that enforcing such a restriction would require bombing Libyan air defenses, which is correct from a military perspective. I note that the Arab League was the group really pushing for the No-Fly Zone; do you think that they will provide more than token participation, and not even that until after all the hard work is done?

Update 1416 19 March: It looks like the attack has started. Based on open-source info, it looks like at least USS Providence (SSN 719), USS Scranton (SSN 756) and especially USS Florida (SSGN 728) might be in position to support the attacks. (A Pentagon briefing I'm listening to now confirms that submarines were part of the initial attack by U.S. and British naval forces, in which ~112 Tomahawks were fired at about 20 targets.)

It's amazing -- we're able to launch an attack even while President Obama is on a foreign trip. It's almost as if the President can do more than one thing at a time, and that he doesn't feel the need to micro-manage the On-Scene Commanders. I assume those who think he should have cancelled his trip believe the President should personally approve each missile fired by the military.

Update 1735 19 March: Here's confirmation from the Navy that those boats mentioned above were the three American submarines involved in the initial salvo of Operation Odyssey Dawn.

86 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

What a waist of time and our resources. It woud be better if they would just kill each other off so we could go in a take the oil.

3/17/2011 5:45 PM

 
Anonymous A Student said...

Ever since Iraq, I try to leave open the possibility that countries choosing to abstain--or that, in other measures,vote in opposition to our stated position--might be right.

3/17/2011 7:03 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Speaking of a "waist" of time, please don't WASTE any more of mine with your petty, and just a touch racist comments. I refer you to the title of this blog ask ask that you be punished.

3/17/2011 7:22 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The entire middle east and north africa could wipe themselves out and would anyone really care? Would we really remember anything about after Charlie Sheen's next rant?

As the first poster said, it is about oil, nothing more, nothing less. The sooner we develope our strategies to meet this goal, one way or the other, we will be better off.

And yes, this no-fly zone is a waste of our time and resources because we will have to do all the work. Who else is there?

3/17/2011 7:58 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Quote: Anonymous said...
What a waist of time and our resources. It woud be better if they would just kill each other off so we could go in a take the oil.


Wow...judging by this comment this world is in big pile of trouble. Has humanity really become that inhumane. So sad. Shame on this person for being so shallow and empty.

3/17/2011 8:31 PM

 
Anonymous SparkyWT said...

What is our vital interest to justify placing our military into harm's way?
Is it oil? No, because if oil is a vital interest we can restart drilling in the Gulf, drill in Alaska, and create some new refineries.
Is it to protect the Libyan democratic movement? No, because we would have intervened when the momentum was in their favor and not Quadaffi's
So why? To show we did "something"?
What we have is more half-assed statesmanship from the Beltway for little gain or benefit. Another mistake in a long series since 1990.

3/17/2011 8:59 PM

 
Blogger hughmon said...

The only effective way to implement a "no fly" zone is to start by destroying the enemy's ground facilities and aircraft. Please, God, let us do it right or not at all.

3/17/2011 9:57 PM

 
Blogger Paul K. Evans said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3/18/2011 2:08 AM

 
Blogger Paul K. Evans said...

I personally wish we would stay out of the situation... In order for their country to develop a sense of national pride and identity, they need to fight it out themselves. If we step in in any form, we are automatically looked to help develop their country. They need to fight their civil war and figure out what it is they want instead of letting other countries tell them what will work for them.

With the possible exception of Genocide, we have no business getting involved in another country's affairs. I will happily pay the extra buck or two for gas to not get involved in issues we do not belong.

-Sub guy on staff duty in Naples

3/18/2011 4:15 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How do we know the "rebels" are any better than Col. Klinklafi? I tend to agree with the first poster, let 'em kill each other.

Where are all of the Code Pinkers and Obamatons screeching to ensure we don't enter another country? BTW, Obozo sure has looked "presidential" the past two weeks. ROTFLMAO This guy is so over his head, he can't even pretend to be above teh fray any longer.

3/18/2011 5:54 AM

 
Anonymous Industrial debris said...

Still, without Rochambeau, Lafeyette and Comte de Grasse, we would be paying for the William and Kate's wedding cake.

3/18/2011 6:02 AM

 
Anonymous NHSparky said...

What we have is more half-assed statesmanship from the Beltway for little gain or benefit. Another mistake in a long series since 1990.

Been going on a long time before 1990, sparkywt.

At least NOW we know what'll happen when the 3 am phone call comes in. Call up Andrews AFB and get AF1 gassed up for a trip to Rio this weekend!

3/18/2011 7:35 AM

 
Anonymous MK said...

WAIT! HOLD YOUR FIRE, BOYS! I quit. No more bombing from the air. Sheesh.

3/18/2011 8:27 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What you guys deride as the President not leading the pack, sure looks to me like a relatively straightforward strategy to get the Brits, French and others to put their military assets where their mouth is, and take the lead in operations that serve their interests more than ours.

3/18/2011 9:33 AM

 
Anonymous NHSparky said...

Anon--WHAT ASSETS???

3/18/2011 9:35 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think we should deploy some Vatican Assassin Warlocks. So long as they have Adonis DNA and Tiger Blood, they'll have the situation squared away, ASAP.

3/18/2011 9:50 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europeans-say-intervention-in-libya-possible-within-hours-of-un-vote/2011/03/17/ABSb9pl_story.html

"Cameron earlier told Parliament that Britain was moving warplanes and aerial refueling and surveillance aircraft to bases from which 'they can start to take the necessary action.'"

"France said it was prepared to launch attacks within hours, and Britain also indicated that it was prepared to act quickly."

Nearly any search for the news gives a similar story line.

To be fair, the role of US assets are unclear, but the initial indications are that the French and British are providing the bulk of the force.

Even if the US does play a significant role in initial patrol of the NFZ, not putting our credibility on the line lets us walk away without losing too much face if things don't end quickly (though it looks like they might), much like some of our partners have in Afganistan.

3/18/2011 9:55 AM

 
Blogger Vigilis said...

Two leading theories connected with the U.N.'s No-Fly Zone approval are political, rather than military:

1) The Libyan rebellion was brought about with the knowledge, if not outright instigation of the U.S., which began with the unrest and ensuing overthrow of Mubarak's Egypt.

2) The non-existent/non-U.S. lead Libyan No-Fly was championed by the U.S. as a diplomatic reality check (bluff) for the UK and France.

Either way, we can relax and enjoy either lingering suspense, or updated tales of Foreign Legion exploits. Why must Qadaffi now be removed from the U.S. perspective?

That seems unexplained.

3/18/2011 12:09 PM

 
Anonymous Casey said...

I can't even really claim to understand the situation--I haven't followed it in the media, and I don't know that the media could have/would have cleared anything up for me. So I don't know what we SHOULD do. For myself, I wish we'd just stay out of it and let them figure themselves out. I liked Paul Evans' comment that the Libyans will have a better sense of identity if they can slog it out on their own. But I also can't handle the thought of innocents being killed and that the toughest dog in the pack will get to be the leader--that definitely doesn't get you a statesman.

3/18/2011 12:58 PM

 
Anonymous vigilus said...

I oppose the no fly zone. I have inside knowledge that non-Academy-graduates will be disproportionately put in harm's way in order to thin out their numbers and make room for lesbians who graduated from the Naval Academy, who as we all know are the biggest threat to the Navy ever.

3/18/2011 1:50 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

AGREE 100% WITH THE FIRST POST.

3/18/2011 2:20 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What you guys deride as the President not leading the pack, sure looks to me like a relatively straightforward strategy to get the Brits, French and others to put their military assets where their mouth is, and take the lead in operations that serve their interests more than ours.

Huh? Prez Blame It On Rio has been two weeks late on EVERYTHING. The fit has already hit the shan and been scattered, and now he wants to hop up on the dais and presume to act like a leader. Buck Farack is, wait, here it comes, a DUMBASS!

And no, I don't support the no fly zone. We have no real interest in a bunch of rags who have posed no danger to us slaughtering each other. Actually, that's probably a good thing - rid the earth of a few more of those islamic cockroaches.

3/18/2011 2:47 PM

 
Anonymous PortTackStart said...

2) The non-existent/non-U.S. lead Libyan No-Fly was championed by the U.S. as a diplomatic reality check (bluff) for the UK and France.

What do you mean by "championed by the U.S."? The only time I can remember our government officially being for a NFZ was about 6-8 hours prior to the UN vote. Some people had made some rumblings, but our official stance until that point was merely 'wait and see...but Ghadafi must go'.

3/18/2011 4:59 PM

 
Blogger Vigilis said...

PortTackStart,

re: "The only time I can remember our government officially being for a NFZ was about 6-8 hours prior to the UN vote."

U.S. back-channel diplomacy had made U.S. 'position' clear from the get go:

1)- She [Sec'y State Clinton] said that “we and others "have made it clear" that there must be Arab leadership and Arab participation. How that will be defined will depend in large measure on what the Security Council decides to call for."

Then, (2 days ago) on March 16, 2011 (Bloomberg):

2)- Clinton Says Arab League Vote for No-Fly Zone Changed Minds.

Now, what were you saying, Capt?

3/18/2011 6:29 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Arab League won't do much of anything. And, as usual, the United States will be forced to lead the way and collect the crappy end of the stick thanks to the indeciseiveness of the other countries who won't do much of anything at all.

That, and we have an ineffective leader in the white house.

3/18/2011 6:46 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I disagree w/ Evans.

Where would WE be if the French had said "Oh, let those Colonists figure it out for themselves against the Brits".... back in 1776 or so? Having the French help us at-sea didn't diminish our sense of patriotism (tho I think it took awhile to REALLY develop into what it has been the last few decades). You can ridicule the French all you want, but they were the first to recognize us as an independent country and the first to help us overthrow the British (I think the Dutch were the other main allies)

Now, the US can't pick every fight, and history is replete with times where we went into places we shouldn't have, so its imperative we have a clear mission. At the end of the day, if we're going to think of ourselves as a beacon of freedom and democracy for others to follow, I say we help the rebels in Libya. We couldn't have done it ourselves against the British and I don't think they can do it themselves against Qaddafi. Besides, the world would be a better place w/o Qaddafi (sp??? I give up) and if a majority of the Arab world is watching & supporting greater freedoms, we can make a lot of friends by helping out.

3/18/2011 6:56 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is good. So far, the majority of you are in favor of keeping ourselves OUT of Libya. We have absolutely no interests there except maybe to go visit the Gaddafi drive-thru and ask for his head on a platter.

This conflict seriously has nothing to do with us at all. We shouldn't waste our money. Let them fight it out to the death and steer clear of having to do anything with this ill-decision the UN has made.

3/18/2011 7:00 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Vigilis - read Politico. There is evidently a BUNCH of daylight between Obama and Clinton on this issue.

3/18/2011 7:06 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Still, without Rochambeau, Lafeyette and Comte de Grasse, we would be paying for the William and Kate's wedding cake."

But the French were pursuing a policy that was in their own self-interest. Depriving Britain of her North American colonies was clearly a benefit to France. What is our interest here? Some have said that failing to support the rebels will lead to resentment. But if we don't support the rebels, they get wiped out, so who cares?

3/18/2011 7:25 PM

 
Blogger Vigilis said...

Anon @ 3/18/2011 7:06 PM,

"There is evidently a BUNCH of daylight between Obama and Clinton on this issue."

No, there is reportedly a BUNCH of daylight between Obama and Clinton on this issue.

Why would an ALLEGED PUBLIC rift exist between a Secretary of State and her President? HINT: For political cover. Can we think of anyone who might need political cover?

We may be the public, but we do not believe everything we read.

3/18/2011 7:38 PM

 
Blogger Rob said...

So, the Arab League was pushing for this no-fly zone? Haven't we sold some members of the Arab League some pretty fancy military hardware? Let them enforce it! The Saudis have F-15's and some AWACS platforms. Stage them out of Tunisia, Egypt and Algeria. I can just hear it now :"Oh we couldn't do that" I say "Figure it out, we'd have to!"

3/18/2011 9:29 PM

 
Anonymous T said...

This is a waste of money and time. You can't build a proper, non-corrupt democracy off a bunch of people that shit in the grass. If there's anything that Afghanistan and Iraq have proven, it's THAT.

The last thing this country needs is to get bogged down in YET ANOTHER M.E. shit hole. Wait for it in two weeks when we accidentally bomb a rebel encampment thinking they're GH/Q/Kaddafi troops, and take a shit storm of flack. Two years later, we'll still be fucking around with that shit, and they'll still be trying to fix the deficit by cutting the EPA. Maybe if we stopped dicking around spending 100's of billions of dollars a year in shit holes that nobody gives a crap about, our money situation wouldn't be so tight!

3/19/2011 12:05 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sarah Palin called for a No Fly Zone three weeks ago. She's more savvy than the Obamadorks.

3/19/2011 10:34 AM

 
Anonymous BoomerChop said...

Disheartening to see so many people here more worried about America's "cash position" than the lives of oppressed people.

What these rebels are doing in Libya is not very far removed from what our forefathers did in the 18th century. Let's see. Corrupt government that doesn't represent its people and profits off their labors? Check. People who are fed up with it? Check. Rebels who *probably* would do it all themselves if they weren't at a logistical, military, and quantitative disadvantage? Check.

And there is "self interest" in this for America, if you are willing to entertain the assumption that freedom of choice and safety of as many people around the world as possible is in the interests of the United Sates. Obviously I do, and obviously some people here do not. Which is okay. Thanks to the same sort of actions by the colonial rebels (oh, wait, sorry, *revolutionaries*...much prettier word!) and the same sort of help from coalition allies in the late 1700s, everyone in *this* country is entitled to their own opinion.

Hopefully, soon these people will be, too.

3/19/2011 1:31 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just want to comment on a couple of anonymous posts attacking the first comment on this thread. " your petty, and just a touch racist comments", "Wow...judging by this comment this world is in big pile of trouble. Has humanity really become that inhumane. So sad. Shame on this person for being so shallow and empty." I hope your manhood and selfworth can stand being told to STFU. Get back under your rock. Get over it.

panamared

3/19/2011 1:41 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As an old Army Guy I must say.

Now that the subs have fired Cruise Missles on Libya, you guys will do a 180.

"Not only would I nuke them, I'd do it twice." From a movie I saw.
Wahoo, medals and awards for everyone, well, O3 and above.

3/19/2011 2:23 PM

 
Anonymous ew-3 said...

Briefing indicated about 120 Tomahawks fired by the US and Brits.

If you recall the way Gadafi reacted after his tent almost be hit by F-111s, hope we put a few Tomahawks into his wigwam.

3/19/2011 2:33 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's amazing -- we're able to launch an attack even while President Obama is on a foreign trip. It's almost as if the President can do more than one thing at a time, and that he doesn't feel the need to micro-manage the On-Scene Commanders. I assume those who think he should have cancelled his trip believe the President should personally approve each missile fired by the military.

I figured Joel had gone to the dark side with his near personal defense of rescinding DADT, supporting supect local candidates, etc., but this proves it. Nice try, but what exactly is our interest in Libya? Don't say oil, because now Libya can cease selling to us, they will also have to cease production without power.

Take this for what it is, a play out of the Klinton handbook in an attempt to distract everyone's attention from record high unemployment, record low new home starts, record high foreclosures, record high deficits, failure to enact a budget last year, record high inflation that isn't called inflation, devaluation of the dollar, ad nauseum. This is amateur hour of the worst sort. 2012 cannot arrive fast enough for us to be rid of DUMBASS OBOZO, who, by the way, can't even pronounce an "s" without whistling.

3/19/2011 2:46 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks to the same sort of actions by the colonial rebels (oh, wait, sorry, *revolutionaries* ... much prettier word!) and the same sort of help from coalition allies in the late 1700s, everyone in *this* country is entitled to their own opinion.

The coalition allies had national self interests, we have none other than suppporting freedom for a bunch who, for the most part aren't willing to fight for it, and will institute some form of Sharia once they get it. Not exactly a win for the ol' USA

3/19/2011 2:50 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To panamared:

Rags are always killing each other, except when they are attempting blow up innocent infidels in pursuit of 72 virgins and 401Ks. Better that they kill each other than turning their attention to us.

So I see your STFU and raise you a STFUYSB.

3/19/2011 2:54 PM

 
Anonymous 4-Stop said...

Salvo complete. Secure battle stations missile. Commence field day in the engine room. Guys now that this we have shot all our missiles we need to focus on the real mission at hand CPS for our ORSE.

3/19/2011 3:20 PM

 
Blogger MT1(SS)WidgetHead said...

Well it finally happened. If I were on a boat involved here, I'd be happy that I now have a few less missile tubes to maintain on the way home. Not many of us would be bitching about that...Lol.

But seriously what do we do next? Are we going to now occupy Libya? Wouldn't that make a nice IA tour for a couple of extra promotion points?

Yeah, I know I'm a smartass but can someone explain to me once more why we're involved here? Reagan could easily have finished this shit back in the early 80s. That way, we wouldn't have a ridiculous mess to deal with at present day.

3/19/2011 3:35 PM

 
Anonymous boomerchop said...

You just kind of answered your own question...

Reagan COULD have finished it, and didn't...just like he COULD have finished a lot of other things that we are having to deal with now.

3/19/2011 3:46 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Reagan COULD have finished it, and didn't...just like he COULD have finished a lot of other things that we are having to deal with now.

You are exactly correct. Reagan should have eliminate the Dept. of Education, HUD, etc.

3/19/2011 4:02 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama didn't let this get in the way of his vacation...he let his man Hilary do all the work.

Why the libs picked (based on the assumption that a dem was going to get picked last cycle no matter what) this guy as president instead of Mrs. Clinton I will never understand?

3/19/2011 4:50 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To anonymous @2:45

I think we agree. I was trying to slam the kumbayah crowd. Let them slug it out over there. It's not something that will be straightened out in our lifetime.
(STFUYSB ??) I guess that one went right over my head.

panamared

3/19/2011 5:27 PM

 
Blogger SJV said...

YSB = either you stupid bitch or bastard, I'm guessing.

3/19/2011 6:06 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you think that the Navy would at least get the hull number right on the LEWIS AND CLARK (T-AKE 1), especially being first in the class.

3/19/2011 6:07 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The New navy ,

YSB= You Silly Boy:)
YSB=You Sonar Buoy

3/19/2011 6:13 PM

 
Blogger John said...

Thank you all for your insightful comments and, more importantly, your service to our country. Sincerely.

Please read the essay in this link (below), and i think you will agree, this article puts things in a much better perspective. Hilaire Belloc was very prescient,.... The essay title is, "Islam Will Not Be the Loser." Please look it up.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/civilization/cc0112.html

Thanks again for this great Blog site ....

3/19/2011 7:34 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

justification of the money spent to convert the first four boats to ssgn, having been completed, moves on.

I wonder how many times the "trigger" was pulled.

Always better to offload via the muzzle

3/20/2011 7:24 AM

 
Anonymous MentalJim said...

Our country is morally and fiscally bankrupt. We have no business fighting yet another undeclared war. Congress is abysmal. No budget for this year and we are half way through it. They routinely abdicate their responsibility to declare war and let the Pres and the UN do that for them. We cannot bomb people into peace and freedom in Libya any more than we have been able to do so in 10 years in Afghanistan and Iraq. All we are doing is getting deeper into debt by spending money we don't have. Utterly stupid.

3/20/2011 8:03 AM

 
Blogger Kenneth said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3/20/2011 8:16 AM

 
Blogger Kenneth said...

I assume those who think he should have cancelled his trip believe the President should personally approve each missile fired by the military.

You know what would have been nice though? For the United States Congress to register their assent for the use of force before the TLAM's started flying. It wouldn't have been all that hard to do, either - and it would have a least paid the bare minimal lip service to Art 1 Sect 8.

3/20/2011 8:20 AM

 
Blogger Curt said...

John, OUTSTANDING piece - Thanks.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/civilization/cc0112.html

3/20/2011 8:42 AM

 
Blogger Harold said...

"Still, without Rochambeau, Lafeyette and Comte de Grasse, we would be paying for the William and Kate's wedding cake."

But the French were pursuing a policy that was in their own self-interest.

Couldn't have said it better myself. The following is an item a lot of other bloggers have linked to saying they couldn't have said it better themselves: http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2011/03/to-the-shores-of-tripoli-benghazi.html?cid=6a00d83451b2aa69e2014e86d40593970d#tp

I especially liked, referring to Bush:* lack of Congressional oversight - the President authorized the use of military force based on the flimsy pretext of a bill passed by Congress titled "Authorization of the Use of Military Force", rather than seeking a document that had the words "declaration of war" in it; that's every bit as bad as getting no Congressional approval at all

Where's Obama's piece of paper?

3/20/2011 9:55 AM

 
Anonymous T said...

Well there goes any effort to balance the budget.... Not that congress was serious about it anyway.

3/20/2011 11:14 AM

 
Anonymous NHSparky said...

Guys now that this we have shot all our missiles we need to focus on the real mission at hand CPS for our ORSE.

I LOL'd.

Seriously, already the Arab League is now criticizing us for doing too much. WTF? Weren't these the guys who were so hot cock for us to do this in the first place?

Damned if we do, damned if we don't. Figures.

3/20/2011 1:12 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Damned if we do, damned if we don't. Figures.

That's why it's best for us to just let the rags kill each other.

3/20/2011 2:26 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"That's why it's best for us to just let the rags kill each other."

And out of all these comments, that pretty much sums up the best foreign strategy yet.

Looks like the first commenter got it right!

3/20/2011 3:01 PM

 
Anonymous submarines once... said...

Was going to pass on this one but I have to agree with all who are in the camp of "let them sort it out themselves, peacefully or by killing off the opposition". We surely don't know at the end of the day how this will turn out and whether to our advantage or not. Just one more sink hole with no end-point in sight.

3/20/2011 3:31 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Looks like the first commenter got it right!"

The first tater did not get it right. Can't justify firing on people that protest aggressively. Consequences - do you think the protesters wouldn't take up arms and fight back after being cut down by the gov't? I'll bet we all would respond. Got to stop the madness somehow.

3/20/2011 4:55 PM

 
Anonymous MentalJim said...

Yeah, let's bomb them into peace and freedom. That's the ticket.

I'm not buying that line of thinking.

3/20/2011 6:35 PM

 
Blogger Rob said...

What the hell ? Another war?

3/20/2011 6:44 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The new government agenda:

1. Pointless Wars
2. Cut Taxes
3....
4. Balanced Budget!

3/20/2011 6:46 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The free flow of oil at market prices

PW

3/20/2011 8:05 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now your drinking - I mean thinking.

3/20/2011 10:36 PM

 
Anonymous NHSparky said...

So where are the usual useful idiots with their, "No blood for oil!" chants?

Oh yeah--it's their guy pushing the buttons. Silly me.

And at last count, there have been 125 Tomahawks launched--122 American, 3 Brit.

Some "balance".

3/21/2011 4:47 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@ 07:24 "Always better to offload via the muzzle"

We're going to have to come up with a new expression. That's the only way off for the VLS boats and SSGNs.

3/21/2011 5:24 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The free flow of oil at market prices.

Yes, and us bombing a country that was selling us oil will be incentive for them to keep selling us oil. What kind of DUMBASS pretzel logic is that?

3/21/2011 5:36 AM

 
Anonymous NHSparky said...

Not that much, anon. Libya accounted for about 1/2 of 1 percent of our foreign oil. Europe is the major consumer of their product.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

We're more dependent upon such powerhouses as Argentina, Ecuador, and the Virgin Islands.

3/21/2011 7:42 AM

 
Anonymous ew-3 said...

NHSparky said
"We're more dependent upon such powerhouses as Argentina, Ecuador, and the Virgin Islands."

Add Brazil to that list. We even helped finance them.

From today's WSJ
SAO PAULO (Dow Jones)--The U.S. government's export credit agency has authorized $3 billion in financing for Brazil, including $2 billion for the Brazilian government-run oil company, Petroleo Brasileiro SA (PBR, PETR4.BR), or Petrobras.

3/21/2011 9:43 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Petrobras? That wouldn't be the Petrobras the George Soros made millions on last year?

Soros and Obama -- the boys from Brazil?

3/21/2011 3:28 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Petrobras? That wouldn't be the Petrobras the George Soros made millions on last year?

Soros and Obama -- the boys from Brazil?


Ding, ding ding!!! We have a winner!

3/21/2011 3:53 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I assume those who think he should have cancelled his trip believe the President should personally approve each missile fired by the military."

No, but it would have been nice for Congress to have a say.

3/22/2011 5:07 AM

 
Anonymous NHSparky said...

And in latest developments:

--France won't take the ball because the Arab League won't come on board cause they're bent out of shape.

--NATO won't take the ball because the Turks are all bent out of shape.

--Britain won't take the ball because they can't.

Guess who that leaves? SSDD.

3/22/2011 7:01 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Step 1: Go to cabinet and get Koolaid
Step 2: Mix Koolaid
last and final step:
DRINK THE KOOLAID

3/22/2011 7:42 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm so Ronery / So ronery / So ronery and sadry arone / There's no one / Just me onry / Sitting on my rittle throne / I work rearry hard and make up get prans / but, nobody listens, no one understands / Seems rike no one takes me serirousry / And so, I'm ronery / A rittle ronery / Poor rittle me / There's no one I can rerate to / Feewr rike a biwd in a cage / It's kinda siwry / but, not reawry / because, it's fiwring my body with rage / I'm the smartest, most crever, most physicawry fit / but, nobody erse seems to rearrize it / When I can the worrd maybe they'rr notice me / And untiwr then, I'wr be ronery / Yeaaaaah, a rittle ronery / Poor rittle me...
AMERICA F YEAH!!!!!!

3/22/2011 7:46 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So now Obozo sez our goal is to install a democratic Libyan government.

Where are Code Pink and all the other leftist fags who were out protesting Bush, Iraq and Afghanistan?

3/22/2011 4:09 PM

 
Blogger Srvd_SSN_CO said...

Don't you just love how the spineless members of the Security Council "abstain" from voting and then criticize the actions taken after the resolution passes?

3/22/2011 7:38 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Petrobas has a market cap of about $250 billion and a total enterprise value of about $375 billion, the idea that a $2 billion loan guarantee to finance the purchase of US manufactured equipment was more than a rounding error in the value of the firm is laughable.
In January Pertrobas issued about $6 billion in new bond debt. The most expensive was the 30 year bonds, which were sold at a 2.2% spread on similar maturity treasuries. With a guarantee from the Im-Ex bank, they should be able to get the $2 billion loan at something close to the 30-year treasury rate of 4.5%. That works out to a savings of about $44 million per year. Assuming the loan is about 30 year, the present value of that annuity is about $574 million. Less than 0.25% of the companies market cap. You can use a different maturity bond or slightly different discounting assumptions to come up with another number, it doesn't much matter. The Im-Ex bank deal is likely to have a modest effect on US oil-related manufacturing companies, and no effect whatsoever on Petrobas.

In addition, while I don't agree with them, the ultra-left seems pretty consistent to me. Try googling it.

3/22/2011 11:27 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What a finance tool! (Coming from a finance grad at a finance school.)

$2 billion may be rounding error in the market cap of Petrobras, but it's significantly more than that in the resume of the up and coming manager who negotiated the loan for the company.

Your statement is kind of like saying bribes to Congressmen are insignificant because they're so small compared to US GDP.

3/23/2011 10:57 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The right-wing tin hat argument is that the loan was influenced by the Obama administration for the benefit of George Soros, not the guy who negotiated the deal.

I don't doubt that there is a Brazilian manager who earned himself a new BMW, but that's sort of irrelevant isn't it. In fact the bribe example you gave is exactly the point of the Im-Ex bank, to provide a subsidy, read bribe, for foreign companies to buy American made goods.

3/24/2011 9:52 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

{Don't you just love how the spineless members of the Security Council "abstain" from voting and then criticize the actions taken after the resolution passes?}

No, the ultimate is the Arab League, which votes for intervention, then condemns us for doing it.

On the other hand, I kind of like the Arab League - all of our enemies in one place...

3/24/2011 11:39 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Florida and the other SSGNs have more Tomahawks by themselves than the UKs whole inventory.

Too bad Momar didn't send out what ships he still controls (rebels have at least 2 of his best ships) to try to confront us, would have broken up the monotony more than launching TLAMs.

3/25/2011 9:25 AM

 
Anonymous Senator Obama said...

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

3/30/2011 6:20 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home