Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I did say that, i just spelled it out more in the above sentence.

Yeah, that's what I said.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Really because 911 is a retaliation for troops being in the gulf during the first gulf war. I would consider that blame.

No, that's completely wrong. From the perspective of Bin Laden 9/11 was a matter of US bases in Saudi Arabia, closer to the Red Sea (Mecca and Median) than the Gulf.

In any case that relates to Gulf 2 (or 3, depending on you nomenclature) not gulf 1 (or 2).

Andrew1975 wrote:
Can you really call it support when the US has done 80% of the operation?

Yes.

Regardless of that, do you have any fiscal data to support that number, or are you again just acting on your feeling?

Andrew1975 wrote:
If you look at the amount of sorties flown, the amount of missiles launched and the amount of money spent, there is no way it can be considered a support role to the french intervention. Maybe you meant support of the Libyan people, but I meant the lead role in the UN operation.

Quote those numbers to me, please. Not that I disagree with you per-see, I simply doubt your ability to form an opinion based on fact, as opposed to feeling.

Wouldn't this be about the history of Afghanistan?

Nope

In the 1998 fatwa, Al-Qaeda wrote " for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples."

No, that's completely wrong. From the perspective of Bin Laden 9/11 was a matter of US bases in Saudi Arabia, closer to the Red Sea (Mecca and Median) than the Gulf.

In any case that relates to Gulf 2 (or 3, depending on you nomenclature) not gulf 1 (or 2).

I think I answered that above

Quote those numbers to me, please. Not that I disagree with you per-see, I simply doubt your ability to form an opinion based on fact, as opposed to feeling.

As bombs started to drop in Libya last month , the cost to U.S. taxpayers began to soar.

Almost 200 Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from U.S. ships and submarines, costing $1.5 million each. Operating the F-15 and F-16 fighter jets rang up at $10,000 an hour. Almost 500 one ton warheads were dropped, each one: $40,000. A downed F-15, cost an estimated $31 million.

Over the past 24 hours, coalition aircraft have flown 175 sorties over Libya, with U.S. pilots flying 113 of those missions.