Hi again everyone! I came across another (surprise, surprise) story about the compelling tale unraveling in Libya.
Charles Riley, of CNN, writes of the U.S.'s possible use of the Libyan government assets that President Obama froze back in February. Although some believe that the U.S. should use the frozen assets (worth at least $30 billion) to fund the war, Riley points out that the U.S. never seized these assets from the Libyan government. The assets currently reside in You-Know-Who's name (and if you don't know, that would be Gadhafi) and for the U.S. to even touch it, they would need the consent of Gadhafi himself, which seems highly-unlikely. According to Riley, Obama plans to leave these assets in the banks to gain interest until Gadhafi's regime meets its demise, so that whatever amount is left can be given to the new Libyan government and aid the Libyan people.
So, what do y'all think? Should we continue to reserve these assets for the future Libyan government, if there will be one? Or should the government seize the assets, despite the unpopularity of it, and fund this "war effort?"
2 comments:
I believe that Obama made the correct decision of keeping the assets in reserve, especially if Gadhafi is reluctant to hand them over. Better to let the fire die down and burn itself out rather than fight with it and get burned. The last thing America needs is more tension with Middle Eastern governments.
Though the U.S. has the ability to use these assets to fund the battle in Libya, I believe it would be immoral to use the money of another country without their consent as a way to pay for the fight against them. The money should instead be given to the Libyan government and people when a new rule takes over at the end of the battle. Obama is correct to keep the money safe until after the battle.
Post a Comment