Recently, the rebels in Lybia have been losing ground, to the well-armed pro-Gadhafi troops. The Western country has done nothing but just watched, as the violent airstrikes, and fighting continues. Today France became the first country to formally recognize the rebels' Interim Governing Council, and saying that it was "planning "targeted operations" to defend civilians if the interim council demands them". I think this is finally a loophole in where Western countries can finally get into the conflict. The question is: Do you think the US will get involved?
6 comments:
No, I do not think that the United States will get involved now that European countries are beginning to recognize the rebels. I do not think that the United States SHOULD get involved either, as we are not the international police and should not act like it.
The United States ought not get involved in any more foreign matters. We can't spend additional billions of dollars or lose any more lives in combat. No.
Even though I do not think the US will get involved because of our financial situation and the (usually) unpopularity of war, I think we should intervene. Now I don't mean declare war against the government of Libya, but I think they could use some humanitarian aid. Many of the rebels are just about our age and have never held a gun before so they are just getting slaughtered by their own government. That is so disgusting to me I feel like we should at least do something. Go France!
the united states should be involved.
in 20th century history, the United States has preferred dictatorship with promises of anti-communism, but in the 21st century... we should be bringing the priority towards democracy. yes, new democracies are at threat of becoming socialistic/communistic/ trading one tyrant for another.... yes, new democracies are at risk....but these people have put more on the line and more lives at stake than in the egypt's revolution.
You can not doubt that they want it and they want it bad....
if it was about the man-power, money, or the resources, we would've pulled out of iraq a lonnnnnggggggg time ago...
THESE PEOPLE ARE HUNGRY FOR CHANGE. How can we can we say we stand for democracy when there is strong evidence that the people of libya want it?
with or without our help, they are still going to fight.
...... i feel sorry for the OFWs (overseas filipino workers) stuck in libya. i hope as many as they could got out.
With the Japanese Tsunami the priority in the news right now, i doubt the United States will feel as obligated if it ever was to support the libyan rebellion.
-Raymond Lim
In this week's Time magazine, journalist Fareed Zakaria argued that the U.S. should get involved in the Libyan conflict. He asserted that given President Obama's clearly-stated wish that Gaddafi step down, "[t]o have [Gaddafi] survive would be a humiliation for Washington at a moment and in a region where its words still have great impact. It would also send a disastrous signal to the other rulers of the region- in Syria, Algeria, Iran- that Mubarak made a mistake and that the way to stay in office is to engage in mass slaughter, scare the U.S. away and wait out the sanctions and isolation. America would lose its opportunity to align with the rising forces of the Arab world." After reading these arguments, although I am generally very skeptical about the U.S. interfering in the issues of other nations, I began to think that maybe the U.S. does need to do something to help the rebels in Libya. However, after reading the rest of the article, in which Zakaria argues that the U.S. should supply "arms, food, logistical help..." to the rebels, and that "once Gaddafi realizes that he is up against an endless supply of arms and ammunition, he will surely recalibrate his decisions," I decided that the U.S. really should just stay out of this issue. The arguments that Zakaria makes sound a lot like our arguments for the Iraq, Afghanistan, and even Vietnam Wars, which all ended up in disaster. The idea that if Gaddafi regains control, the other Middle Eastern nations' leaders might follow the example, sounds like the fear of the Domino Effect before the Vietnam War, and the claim that Gaddafi "will surely recalibrate his decisions" sounds like an underestimation of Gaddafi and his power, similar to how we underestimated the Iraq War in 2003. Although it would be unfortunate if Gaddafi was able to regain control, I agree with Daniel and Ryan in that the U.S. cannot afford to lose more lives and money in this; we have problems in our own country to tend to.
The article is quite interesting if you guys want to see it for yourself. This is the link:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2058094,00.html
I think that the United states should not be involved, but we should help the rebels by giving them supplies or help train their troops. I feel that if we do help them in small ways we can build good relations with them and could potentially lead to being benefical to the united states in the future.
Post a Comment