What could trigger U.S. military action in Libya?
Wed Mar 2, 2011 9:08pm GMT
Adapted from an article by
Ross Colvin of Reuters
WASHINGTON, March 2 - The United States government says it is reluctant to get sucked into Libya's increasingly messy conflict. At the same time, it seems that the oil-producing North African country is becoming very chaotic.
WHAT COULD TRIGGER U.S. MILITARY ACTION?
It is possible that many more deaths could cause the US government to use military force. Experts say massacres of civilians, bombing of civilian targets or a concerted military offensive by Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi to retake rebel-held territory could be possible triggers.
While the Obama administration is sensitive to criticism that it has been slow to respond more forcefully to Gaddafi's bloody crackdown on opponents, it has made clear it will not be rushed into making any hasty decisions.
Reports of bombing of civilians have helped drive calls for international military intervention. However, US officials say they are not even sure the bombings are happening.
Two U.S. assault ships are now sailing toward Libya but U.S. officials have stressed they are being sent to help with possible humanitarian efforts. Marines on board could be used to help protect any charity organization seeking to help those in need.
For now, the United States appears to be content with moving ships and troops close to Libya and seizing a record $30 billion Libyan government money.
COULD THE U.S. TAKE MILITARY ACTION ON ITS OWN?
U.S. officials have all but ruled that out. The Obama administration has repeatedly stressed it is working with its allies and the United Nations Security Council.
With 47,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq and some 100,000 in Afghanistan, the Obama administration says it has no desire to enter yet another costly war. There is also concern that Arabs might be angry if the US uses force. Arab states have already warned against foreign intervention in Libya.
Moving troops to Libya could negatively affect US efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, warned US generals.
WHAT FORM COULD INTERVENTION TAKE?
No one is talking about putting U.S. troops on the ground but there have been widespread calls for a "no-fly" zone to be imposed to prevent Gaddafi from using warplanes or attack helicopters to strafe rebels on the ground.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said the United States and its allies are actively considering such a step but military officials point out the many challenges of enforcing a no-fly zone.
Air strikes would be needed first to destroy Libya's anti-aircraft defenses, pointed out one official, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.
"Let's just call a spade a spade," he bluntly told lawmakers. "A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses ... and then you can fly planes around the country and not worry about our guys being shot down."
Analysts question the effectiveness of a no-fly zone since Gaddafi appears to be relying mainly on ground forces. Enforcing the ban would also require hundreds of aircraft.
A rebel group in east Libya calling itself the National Libyan Council wants U.N.-backed air strikes on foreign soldiers reportedly being used by Gaddafi.
But the United States will be wary of such calls as it is still trying to identify who's who in the mishmash of groups taking part in the revolt against Gaddafi.
It says there are no immediate plans to arm the rebel groups, who already appear to be relatively well equipped with weapons seized from military arms depots or defecting soldiers, including tanks and anti-aircraft weapons.
WHAT ARE THE OBSTACLES TO INTERVENTION?
While setting up a no-fly zone may sound like an attractive option because of the limited potential for casualties, what happens if it fails to halt Gaddafi's attacks?
"If that doesn't work, are you then going to send in the Marines?" said Bruce Riedel, a military expert.
The popular protests against Gaddafi's rule appear to have evolved into a near civil war that has already cost the Libyan leader great swaths of his country. Helping unarmed protesters is one thing, taking sides in a civil war quite another.
The U.N. Security Council also appears unlikely to authorize the use of force.
WHAT IS THE US DOING TO HELP LIBYANS IN NEED?
Teams of US charity workers have gone to the Egyptian and Tunisian borders with Libya to help figure out what is needed for the tens of thousands of refugees reported to be fleeing.
They are also conducting emergency reviews of regional food and medicine supplies.
The US assault ships USS Kearsarge and USS Ponce, which are laden with food, water-making equipment and shelters, are due to arrive off the Libyan coast in a "couple of days," U.S. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead said.
(Additional reporting by Missy Ryan, Andrea Shalal-Esa, Mark Hosenball and Andrew Quinn; Editing by John O'Callaghan and Cynthia Osterman)
62 comments:
Should the US take military action in Libya? I do not think they should. I don't think so because we are already fighting other countries and it would just be to much. The article said, "With 47,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq and some 100,000 in Afghanistan, the Obama administration says it has no desire to enter yet another costly war." I think it would be better for the U.S. if we just let this issue go by with out fighting. Another reason is because we are already helping them. The US charity workers have gone to the Egyptian and Tunisian borders with Libya to help figure out what is needed for them. Not only that but, they are also conducting emergency reviews of regional food and medicine supplies. Ships were just sent off to deliver food, equipment, and shelters.
A connection I have to this is when my sister was debating whether or not she should join the Ct softball team. This is related to the question, Should the US take military action in Libya? because in both situations they haven't decided if they were going to join something. Both of these decisions were/are big deals because they would each have a lot of time and commitment put in to them.
No, I do not think that the U.S. should not take military action in Libya. In the text it says,” With 47,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq and some 100,000 in Afghanistan, the Obama administration says it has no desire to enter yet another costly war. There is also concern that Arabs might be angry if the US uses force. Arab states have already warned against foreign intervention in Libya. Moving troops to Libya could negatively affect US efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, warned US generals.” Our country can’t afford to lose more soldiers in war or borrow any more money. The total cost of war since 2001 in the United States is $1,162,672,998,897 and counting! Our national debt is more than $14 trillion. That is how much the United States has borrowed, and how much we have to pay interest on. To put $14 trillion in perspective, our national debt is larger than the total economies of China, the United Kingdom, and Australia combined. Now, there are some who think that the US has a "moral" duty to support his overthrow. They advocate intervention and military action to give aid to the Libyan rebels. However, the people yearn for freedom, but have never fought for it themselves. And if the US inserts itself into their struggle, then the battle for representative government and civil society, authored by the Arabs, will instead become the responsibility (again) of the USA. The United States can spend countless dollars on a foreign intervention which would tie us down for years to come in expenses that may or may not provide foreign policy benefits. This reminds me of how gas prices have been rising the past couple years. The OPEC controls a large portion of the supply of oil. Who belongs? Here’s the list: Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela. If a large portion of the world supply of oil doesn’t increase as demand move up, you can expect rising prices. An article stated, “Well; the real reason is oil ,oil , oil, here is a chance to secure the #5 oil producer in the World, if it slips away he should be impeached. i don't think we should be sucking on the fossil fuels teat but we are so when a chance arises it is worth all of the risk because the Prez will be gone when oil reaches $5 per gallon in the US. Taking over Libya can easily get Libyans on our side since the spending of even a small amount of oil revues on Libyans will represent a tremendous increase.” Personally, I’d rather have high gas price with peace, love and justice than low gas price with wars, hate and corrupt regimes that oppress their own people. This is why I do not think that the U.S. should take military action in Libya.
I agree with Molly that there are just too many soldiers out in two completely different parts of the other side of the world. If the president sends more troops to go to Egypt. The only way that I would say "send in the troops" is if there are mass murders in Egypt. If we go and do crowd control than the situation will just get worse, because then the angry citizens will fight back and no one needs that. Overall do not send troops unless it’s required.
I agree with Molly that there are just too many soldiers out in two completely different parts of the other side of the world. If the president sends more troops to go to Egypt. The only way that I would say "send in the troops" is if there are mass murders in Egypt. If we go and do crowd control than the situation will just get worse, because then the angry citizens will fight back and no one needs that. Overall do not send troops unless it’s required.
There definantly way too many Soldiers. But i do not think that the US army should fight in Libya becuase i think that Libya would probably get annoy with us since we already take some of their oil, not we want to help them? that'd just be a waste of soldiers.
The U.S. should not take military action against Libya. It says in the article that there are over 47,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and 100,000 in Afghanistan. If we entered this with military action we would have to take troops from the other fronts and the home land of the U.s. With already almost 150,000 troops at risk there is no reason to risk the lives of any more young Americans. As Rachel said our national debt is in the trillions. If we entered the conflict in Libya it would only add to the gigantic sum of money we owe other countries. Another costly war is the opposite of what we need. We need to get our troops out of foreign countries and bring them home.
I agree with Molly that there are just too many soldiers out in two completely different parts of the other side of the world. If the president sends more troops to go to Libya. The only way that I would say "send in the troops" is if there are mass murders in Libya. If we go and do crowd control than the situation will just get worse, because then the angry citizens will fight back and no one needs that. Overall do not send troops unless it’s required.
There are several reasons why I think the US army should not take military action in Libya. One reason is the US has 100,000 troops in Afghanistan and 47,000 in Iraq. The US can’t send thousands of troops in every country that has a problem. The US should work with other countries in the United Nations to find a peaceful solution. Sending troops into Libya maybe viewed by other Arab nations as hostile. They may be invaded by the US. Why should the US risk its military personnel’s’ lives for another country. I agree with molly in that the US could help with humanitarian aid, and we should try to find diplomatic solutions rather than military force.
Since the Libyans have a good source of oil, I think that the U.S. should help them out in whichever way it could be. The U.S. does not yet know if helping the Libyan refugees escape from Gaddafi will improve the country or turning them in to Gaddafi because they don't support him will. In the video, the Libyans who did not feel safe under their government were protesting against Gaddafi because he was killing people. The stores were closing because the owners did not feel safe. People are dying and there is a lot of war in Libya right now. I do not think that Gaddafi should keep his control over the rest of the country because almost everyone who he controls, disagrees with the way he rules their country. The U.S. wants oil from Libya, but it would also be nice to know that Libya is peaceful and has a good leader. If I were in control of the Millitary, I would send troops to Libya to fight back against Gaddafi and his men, so that the U.S. can have oil and Libya can be happy. This reminds me of the incidents of bullying videos I saw durring the Rachels Challenge presentation. When Rachel saw her friend being bullyed, she stepped in and stopped it. However, some people wouldn't have done that. This is kind of what the U.S. is doing: trying to decide whether to get involved with Libya's situation or not.
I think the U.S. military shouldn’t use military action against Libya. Unless if Libya attacks the U.S. military than they should use military action. They should not attack unless if Libya attacks because if Libya attacks the U.S. the U.S. will not be able to defended themselves agented the attack. I think the U.S. should help the people of Libya in the civil war because. Maybe if the U.S. helped the people of Libya they may not think of attacking the U.S. I think we should not go and stop Libya from using their air defenses form other countries invading their borders because. If we stop Libya’s air defenses the Libyans will probably attack the US.
No, I do not think the U.S. should take military action against Libya. I think that because, like Molly said, we already have too many U.S. troops fighting in other countries. This is not a war we should get involved in especially since they have already warned us not to. This is their own civil war and they have to fight it themselves. If we send troops to Libya, all the other countries will want us to send troops to them when they are having their revolts. This is why I think it would do more harm than good if the U.S. took military action. But I do think the U.S. is doing the right thing by trying to help the tens of thousands of refugees with food, water, shelter and medicine. This reminds me of when the citizens of Egypt were revolting against their president but he decided to leave office because that’s what the people wanted so it didn’t have to turn into a civil war.
I think the U.S. military shouldn’t use military people against Libya. Because we have enough military people fighting in wars for the U.S. We shouldn’t really get involved with it and they warned us not to fight with them. They should fight for their selves and that’s a great thing because they do need to take responsibility by their own problems. We should be glad for our military people because they’re helping the people who doesn’t have any food and clothes and other things.
The US should not take military action in Libya. I think this because according to the article, it said there were 47,000 US troops in Iraq and 100,000 US troops in Afghanistan. The Article also mentioned that the Obama administration does not want to get involved in another costly war. Rachel said that the total cost of war since 2001 in the United States is $1,162,672,998,897 and counting. Our national debt is more than $14 trillion. The US just can’t afford another Middle Eastern war. It is just too much. If the country can’t even afford the war that is already going on, how could they send in the troops? That is why I don’t think the US should take military action.
I think that the US should not take military actions in Libya. The reason I think this is because in the text it said ,” With 47,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq and some 100,000 in Afghanistan, the Obama administration says it has no desire to enter yet another costly war. There is also concern that Arabs might be angry if the US uses force. Arab states have already warned against foreign intervention in Libya. Moving troops to Libya could negatively affect US efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, warned US generals.” Like Rachel said the US cannot spend any more money on wars than they already have. Also on top of that is it worth losing more soldiers for a war that we should not even try to begin? I agree with Molly the US should not try to be involved in three wars when we are already in serious debt. With the US trying to make Libya a no-fly zone could start things that could be very violent. A connection to this is oil pric3es going up because of the wars that we are involved in. Gas has gone up to almost 5 dollars a gallon. This reminded me of the article because the US is already low on money and it is putting the country in even more debt.
From reading the article and answering the question I do not think that the U.S. should take military action in Libya. I say this because of all the cons that come out of it. There will most likely be more deaths of US solders and we are still fighting the war in Iraq. There are 47,000 solders in Iraq and 100,000 in Afghanistan and do not think that we should put more in Libya. I do not think that the people need to have more of their family members going in to the military even when it is something that could be avoided. The Arabs warned us that the US should not come into their situation in Libya. The US generals say that putting troops into Libya could “negatively affect US efforts in and Iraq Afghanistan.” The no-fly zone over Libya means that if the US troops went into Libya they could not destroy antiaircraft defenses with air strikes. I agree with Molly in saying that we should go about this situation without fighting. This reminds me of reading about 911 when America was deciding whether or not they should go to war.
I agree with Molly to that there are too many of our solders in Iraq and other places on the other side of the world. If we just go it will make everything worse in Libya. It will just make the people in that region of the world more against us. It would also mean that a lot more of our soldiers would be killed and that is bad. The article said, "With 47,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq and some 100,000 in Afghanistan, the Obama administration says it has no desire to enter yet another costly war. The total cost of war since 2001 in the United States is $1,162,672,998,897 and counting”. So I think the we should not get our troops involved in Libya. There are already too many dead and we have spent trillions of dollars that could be spent to help people in our own country.
I don't think the US army should get involved in the Libya protests. I think that because in the article it says that 47,000 U.S. are troops still in Iraq and some 100,000 in Afghanistan." Also, the article said that the Obama administration doesn't want to get into another costly war. (like the one we are in) Like Mike N said, "This is their own civil war and they should have to fight it." In the 1800's our country was in distress and we had a civil war, and our country resolved the problem with little or no help from other countries. Even if the US military doesn't step in to help fight, it really doesn't matter, because the article said that refugees from the US are helping out Libyans. They are helping out by finding out what is needed. For example food and medicine supplies. A connection that I can make to this is World War 1 and 2. In WW 1 and 2, countries like Germany, Italy, Poland etc. were mad at each other because of invasions and murders of people like the Jews. Also, there were economic problems in most countries. As the wars went on different countries joined the war and made alliances. That led to more deaths and more unhappiness around the world. That is what could happen if the US joins in Libya, other countries might join too. Then our world would be at war again, there would be more deaths, and since Libya is a gasoline supplier gas prices would sky rocket. Also, just like in WW 1 and 2 the economy right now is hard, so that causes more problems and more war around the world. That is why I don't think the US should join Libya in their civil war.
Should the United States take military action in Libya? I do not think they should. We already have two wars going on at this time. Many people argue that one war is too many. Can you imagine having to worry about three separate wars? Since 2001, we have racked up $1,162,672,998,897 in war charges. And we’re still increasing! The citizens of America have enough financial worries as it is. Our country has over $14 trillion in debt. With more military action, we would rack up even more! Also, we would be putting way too many soldiers at risk. Combining the total troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have around 147,000 troops out there. I do not even know how many millions we have out there in soldiers. We can’t keep putting American lives at risk. This question, should we take military action, reminds me of when my friend Marisa and I were choosing if we should go to camp. We were deciding to join something, just like we are choosing if the military should join something. The difference is that, with me and Marisa, lives and money were not at stake.
I do not think the U.S army should get involved in the war in Libya. I think this because so many soldiers are already fighting in Iraq and Afganistan, and we can't afford to get invoved in another war. Hilary Clinton said they are considering it, but milatary officials don't reccomend it because they think it would be very challenging. I think that we already have too many people in a war, and we should focus on the problems in our own country. We are already helping by supplying food and medicine, and that should be all we have to do. We shouldn't feel its our battle to fight. This reminds me of when prices going up because of the war. If we get into another war, imagine how much the price will be now!
After reading the article and watching the video, I feel that the U.S. shouldn’t take military action in Libya. I say this because, as it said in the article, right now the U.S. doesn’t want to enter another war. As it said in the article, “With 47,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq and some 100,000 in Afghanistan, the Obama administration says it has no desire to enter yet another costly war.” This shows that we don’t want to enter another war, and face the difficulties and harsh outcomes of it. With another war, we would face more U.S causalities and unneeded money spending. As Rachel said, “The total cost of war since 2001 in the United States is $1,162,672,998,897 and counting! Our national debt is more than $14 trillion.” This also shows that we are far too in debt from the wars we have entered, and we defiantly can’t afford entering another war. If we do, the total cost will increase far more rapidly, and our nation will suffer even more. Also, if we were to interfere, our efforts in Arab countries like Afghanistan and Iraq will suffer as well. You can see this from the text, when it states, “There is also concern that Arabs might be angry if the US uses force. Arab states have already warned against foreign intervention in Libya. Moving troops to Libya could negatively affect US efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, warned US generals.” If we were to enter their battle, then multiple places would be upset with our decisions. Not only would Libya be, but the places we are fighting with right now as well. Afghanistan and Iraq wouldn’t take our intervention well, and it would make it even harder to end our feuds with them as well. As you can see, if we were to interfere, nothing but bad would come out of it. Even though people think that we should be backing up the rebels efforts, the U.S. has to let them do their own thing, and ensure that the best possible option, which is to let them dispute and work on our problems, and go form there. If in the future it comes to the point where we would enter, then we will, yet for now, we should stay out. A time that reminds me of this, is something that is happening currently as well. Currently, I deciding whether or not I should join the soccer team or the cross country team in high school. Like the U.S., I have a choice of either doing what would be better for me, which would be cross country for me, or doing what people are telling me to do, which is soccer. The U.S. is facing the same problem for it needs to decide between what would be better for us, or what everyone is saying we should do.
My opinion on this subject is that yes, the U.S. (and U.N.) should take a degree of action in Libya, the very least being humanitarian aid. I think that the U.S. should attempt to stop the massacring of citizens by defending citizens when the Libyan army attacks their protests. Also, I believe that any refugees and wounded citizens should be given medical aid by the U.S. The second step seems to already be in action, the ships USS Kearsarge and USS Ponce are sailing towards Libya with supplies of food, water, and shelter to assist the Libyans. I do not think that taking offensive action is a good idea, because we are already close to over-extending ourselves. Seeing as we have 47,000 troops in Iraq, and 100,000 in Afghanistan. I think that the no-fly zone should not be done, because as the article states, “Gaddafi appears to be relying mainly on ground forces.” I believe that we should have a few aircraft always ready to respond if a helicopter or plane attacks a protest though. This way we could save as many lives as possible while staying out of another war.
No, I do not think we should take military action in Libya. The reason I say this is because, like Molly said, we are already fighting other countries. Why do we need to fight in another country? If we do take action a lot more soldiers could end up wounded or dead. In the article it said 100,000 U.S troops are in Afghanistan and another 47,000 U.S troops are in Iraq. It also said "The Obama administration says it has no desire to enter yet another costly war." US generals warned moving troops to Libya could negatively affect US efforts in Iraq and in Afghanistan. This is why I don't think we should take action in Libya.
I don’t think that the US should get involved in military action in Libya. There are many cons and few pros. For one with the 47,000 troops in Iraq and 100,000 in Afghanistan mentioned in the article no one wants to enter a drawn out costly war like that. It could negatively affect fragile relationships with many Arab nations and I don’t think it would accomplish much more than troop losses. Gas prices could get higher, but many other countries produce oil, including to a limited extent, us. Negotiations have already begun with other nations to step up oil production. The rebels also don’t seem to need to be armed and in fact look well supplied. Taking over Libya would only bring in bit oil with the potential of thousands of live lost. I think we should just play it safe and send relief ships, like president Lincoln tried to do in the Civil War. Then the union had to decide whether to go to war or not. Of course they did, but I hope we don’t with regard to Libya.
I don't think the U.S. military should take action in Libya, even though Libya has helped America with oil and other things. One reason is because there are already 147,000 troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, as Sarah said. If there are already so many of our soldiers fighting already, we don't need to put even more in danger. Also the Arab people will probably be mad if the U.S. uses forces, according to the article. If we are already in a war with Iraq and Afghanistan, why anger them more? Besides, many American people are already helping the Libyans in need, such as charity workers, and ships with helping supplies in it. In the video I watched, there was a lot of violence and emotional distress, and I think this is something Libya should handle for themselves, the U.S. shouldn't get involved in the mess. The U.S. had previously had a civil war, and they know how seperated it made our country, so they should not get involved with another civil war and help divide Libya more. Hillary Clinton and military officials point out how hard it would be to accomplsish this attack enforcing the no-fly zone. This reminds me of when my friend was having issues with her sibling and wanted me to help work it out. Although I wanted to and she has been kind to me, I didn't think I should get involved and let them handle it themselves. This is like how the U.S. wants to help Libya, but should really stay out of it and let them handle it themselves.
I do not think the U.S. should take military action in Libya for numerous reasons. With 47,000 soldiers in Iraq, and 100,000 soldiers in Afghanistan, it would be extremely costly both financially, and in the sense that we already have enough deaths of our countries soldiers as it is. Like Rachel said, the total cost of war since 2001 is $1,162,672,998,897, and increasing at a fast pace day by day; we really cannot afford to enter another war. Along with that, there is a concern that Arabs will be very angry if we enter the war, and there are warnings against foreign intervention in Libya. One time I had to make the decision as to whether or not I was going to play for the Shepaug soccer team, or New Milford Soccer team. I had to decide whether I wanted to stick with playing with everyone I’ve known since I was very young, or to go to the New Milford team with a better program, only knowing Sarah S. In both cases an important decision had to be made, but in my case, it was not a highly costly decision.
No, I dont think the US should take military action in Libya. In the article it says,” With 47,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq and some 100,000 in Afghanistan, the Obama administration says it has no desire to enter yet another costly war. Would it be worth it having Arab states angry at us. Wars are very costly like Rachel said "Our country can’t afford to lose more soldiers in war or borrow any more money. The total cost of war since 2001 in the United States is $1,162,672,998,897 and counting! Our national debt is more than $14 trillion." Taking military action in Libya could mean lots of soldiers could be at risk of death. If we were to take military action the cost would go up and taxes would be raised, and possibly even more debt to be paid. I think the US should just let them get on with it until we have solved the problems in our country. If are country didn't really have any problems then yes i'd say lets help them but we should fix the problems are country has first. That is what i think about this matter.
Should he US take military action in Libya? I do not think that we as the US should take any action in this crisis. I say this because there’s al ready too much happening with our country. There is still 47,000 US troops in Iraq. Also this doesn’t have any concern with us. We are not part of the country so why should we help? Even though it would be a smart move to balance safety with them incase of a war, but this is not with any other place just inside the country so why can’t they figure it out for them selves. There is no need to get into a costly war , as it is the economy is already messed up with all the investments we made. That is why we should not take military action in Libya. This situation reminds me of how Al quida was taking over Egypt. The two leaders are very similar. I say this because they both are and were becoming dictators and being very powerful and uncaring leaders. This is how the two leaders are similar.
I think that we should definitely not send more soldiers out to go and fight more people. Also what I had read in the article was that there were 47,000 us troops in Iraq and that there were some 100,000 in Afghanistan. Also it said the Obama administration says it has no desire to enter yet another costly war think that it would not be right to start war with them because they’re the ones who have the oil. Also I think it would have to depend if they should attack them or not because if they were to send troops out there it could coast lives and there’re already men at different places. I also read in the article was that people don’t want to put troops on the ground but in the article it was talking about how people were talking under their breath about this no “fly zone so that they can prevent Gaddafi from using warplanes or attack helicopter to strafe rebels on the ground”. This is why I don’t think that the US shouldn’t take any action with Libya
I don't think we should send more troops into another foreign country in Libya. I think this because we already have an estimated 47,000 troops in Iraq and 100,000 in Afghanistan, so I think it would be bad for everyone in the USA to send more troops in and risk more lives for another country. Us entering Libya would also be very costly. We have already spent a lot of money in Iraq and Afghanistan so we might have to use our money, taxes, to support Libya. It also says in the article that if our forces move into Libya, Arabic people might get angry. The Arab states already warned an intervention in Libya about the U.S. entering. Finally, the safety of the troops is once again at risk. Bombings have occured from some reports, and a video from a cell phone recorder captured heavy gunfire. Also, U.S. ships have been sent to Libya but are being sent help which shows that this could be dangerous. This reminds me of stepping in on an arguement whether it be my siblings going at it or my friends. This is because I could end up getting into it and getting injured. This may happen in Libya if we go in and many may get killed. And, although I would like to be the mediator in the issue, I don't want to risk myself anymore than I should.
I think that the US should send troops into Libya. According to channel three, Connecticut's local news the president of Libya is ordering his troops to kill any protesters. As the news said, "things have gotten out hand." I agree with them because there is absolutely no pointing in killing your own people. Also, imagine all of the families losing their relatives. Not long ago the Montana's lost family member and it was devastating. Also, as Jim H said, "Libya is in need of humanitarian aid. Even though two ships are already heading towards the country, I believe there is going to be a lot more help in Libya because of the constant injuries being inflicted by the president.
Should the US take part in Libya? I think the US should not take part in this war. Reason being is that the American nation to me is slowly dying off. I say this because we have troops in Iraq and troops in Afghanistan why do we need more in Libya. Already, hundreds of men die daily in the wars that are going on in Asia. Even if Libya is a great source for our oil, that shouldn't be the reason for us to send troops there. America is already one of the most hated countries in the world so why make more countries hate us for fighting against another Asian country. Though, for larger countries, it builds a good bond to stick up for smaller countries in need, it is not a good time for us to send more troops in to lose even more lives or add even more financial pressure to our already hurting economy. This act is not a good way to gain favor from Asia, some times we need to talk more and fight less.
I honestly feel that the U.S should and shouldn’t enter the “civil war” in the Libya because there is really two sides to the story. I would say they should because like Jim said we could stop the killings of citizens. But at the same time, I think we shouldn’t enter our troops into another war because we already have 47,000 troops in Iraq, and 100,000 in Afghanistan. Also the article states, "The Obama administration says it has no desire to enter yet another costly war." US generals warned moving troops to Libya could negatively affect US efforts in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Also we have to remember that we are supplying Libya with water, food, and shelter. But going back on the other side of the story we should enter our troops because it will give us an advantage to Libya's oil. This seems to relate to the time the U.S had to decide to go to war in World War 2.
I don’t think that we should send troops into Libya. This is because when we had our civil war, we didn’t have any other country help us! We fought be ourselves and did not need any help from anyone, so why should Libya? Besides we already have more then enough troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for the same reasons why we might send troops to Libya. Also Gaddafi is killing any, any of his people, and if we send troops there, then there is a good chance that most of them would get killed or injured. And the Libyans may not even want our help! They may want to seek their independence on their own. This reminds me of the time when I was stuck on a math problem and my teacher keep asking me if I wanted help. But I was decremented to do it myself. This is similar to the problem in Libya because they are kind of stuck, but they might not want help from other counties like I didn’t want help from my teacher.
Should the U.S. send more troops to Libya? In my opinion, no, I don't think we should. This is because we are already fighting in Afgahnistan and Iraq. I think it's not smart to send even more troops into another war. Our economy is already not good, another war would be very expensive and just make matters worse! This is why I don't think we should get involved in the war of Libya. This reminds me of when the U.S. was hesitant to get involved in the world war. Even now, the U.S. is hesitant to get involved in Libya.
I don’t think that we United States should send troops into Libya. I think this because there is already too much chaos in Libya. With all the bombing of the civilians being more troops would only cause more fighting. In the article it says that something that would cause the US to take more action would be many more deaths, but bringing the troops would only cause more deaths. Also the article said that since no one is talking about putting U.S. troops on the ground in Libya, then where would the troops because it said there have been widespread calls for a "no-fly" zone which would prevent the our troops for flying aircrafts there. Another reason is that too many families have already lost loved ones due to the war in Iraq. Why should we send more troops to fight and die in a foreign country? Then the more deaths our country has, the more unhappy and saddened families. Also more families experience a death of a love one who was serving in a war, wouldn’t that stop young adults from enlisting? We need a strong military and if people don’t enlist this cannot be. Is this what we want to happen? Finally in the article it said teams of US charity workers have gone to the Egyptian and Tunisian borders with Libya to help thousands of people fleeing. They are also conducting emergency reviews of regional food and medicine supplies. I think that doing this is enough to help Libya and military action doesn’t need to be taken.
My connection to this is when my family was trying to decide what living option would be best for my 85 year old great grandmother. She had broken her femur when she fell of a chair reaching for something. She was in the hospital for a long time and when she was there, we tried to figure out the best option to live in when she got out. My great grandmother is somewhat like the Libyan government. She was not violent, but insisted that she was fine living at home by herself. We thought that assisted living or going to a nursing home was the best choice. We however did not fight to change her mind like the Libyan people, but we tried to convince her that our option was best.
I do not think that the United States should enter Libya with intentions of using violence. (i.e. send troops) With 47,000 troops in Iraq and about 100,000 in Afghanistan, we probably shouldn’t involve ourselves. This could give the wrong idea, one that we like/want to fight. Also, sending even just 30,000 troops to Libya could cost 30 billion dollars*, and right now, we have a national debt of 14 trillion. This would certainly be a bad idea, since the numbers are already so high. Plus, even though it looks as if we are “helping” Libya, countries that support Gaddafi could become offended. This could cause a domino effect, which could cause more countries to take sides, like in the World Wars. For example, when Germany declared war on Poland, Britain and France declared war on Germany, which caused more countries to join on both sides. This could very well happen to Libya, and cause a bigger conflict than needed. Also, the article said that the United States is sending emergency medical supplies and food, which a small, unobtrusive way to help. I think it is actions like these that are better in situations like these; food is most likely more appreciated than more weapons and death.
*this information came from indianexpress.com- cost of sending 30,000 troops (to Afghanistan)
My opinion on this is the U.S. government should at least go and help Libya. We can just sit back and watch and yes we all ready have 47,000 troops in Iraq and 100,000 Afghanistan. I agree with Jim and how he said, "the U.S. should attempt to stop the massacring of citizens by defending citizens when the Libyan army attacks their protests," because as humans we should do this to each other. Another thing is we should get too far into their problem or we could start another war we can't afford. This event reminds me of how two of your friends can get onto a fight and you try to help, but then your plan just backfires.
After reading the article, I don’t think that the United States should take military actions against Libya. I think this because in the article it said that 47,000 troops are still in Iraq and 100,000 are in Afghanistan and the Obama administration doesn’t want to enter another war. The article also said that Arabs might get angry if the United States uses force. Arab states have already warned against foreign intervention in Libya. The U.S generals also said that moving troops to Libya could affect efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. I agree that troops should not be sent to Libya. I say this because if more troops are sent to Libya, then more parents are taken from their children and more families would be split up. Since the U.S already had a Civil War, they know how much it can split up a country so they shouldn’t get involved because it would split up Libya even more. This reminds me of when parents fight. I say this because kids usually get involved in the situation because they want to try and stop the arguing. But this usually makes the situation worse. This is kind of like the issue with the U.S and Libya because if U.S gets involved in this, it will make Arabs angry and make the problem even worse for the U.S and Libya.
No, I think that the US should not take military action in Libya. The US military already owes money for recent wars and battles. US citizens won’t be happy if they have to pay more money for fights that they may not even support or know about. Citizens already have to pay taxes for the military to have weapons and other battle necessities. This could also lead to more deaths because Libya’s government and the people that are protesting are fighting. When there are larger amounts of weapons there are usually larger amounts of people that can and will get hurt. This reminds me of the times when people in school get mad at each other. Usually two friends have an argument and then one of their other friends hears about why they are upset. The person that heard about the problem could get themselves involved in the conflict and might eventually lose both friends. This relates to the US army possibly taking action in Libya because in both situations the person, that wasn’t involved at first, can end up getting hurt.
I believe that th U.S. military shouldn't partake in anything with Libya. I say this because if we send more troops out there(like Kelsey said) it would just add to the fighting, and neither of us needs that. Also I don't think its smart because Libya hasn't done anything for us, and like Olivia said we're already fight in Afgahnistan and Iraq. So I think it would be pointless to have our troops go; because personally i don't think we're going to solve any problems. My connection is that when my sister was going to go off to college,we were jut about to go get her books when the reality of being five hours away and not be able to see her everyday kicked in. She decided to come back home but not before we all talked about it and suggested that she tries it and sees how it goes. She didn't want to try it and we didn't argue with her because her mind was made up, but we made sure that we had tried so she wouldn't regret her decision. This is like Libya because the government had its mind made up on what they wanted to do, they might listen to their other options but in the end they stick to what they believe is right for them.
No, I do not think that the U.S. should not take military action in Libya. In the article, it says that we currently have 47,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq and some 100,000 in Afghanistan. That’s a lot! Besides, the Libyans in need are already getting some help from charity workers from America. And as Alisa G. said, the U.S. has already had a civil war. We realize how it will tear a nation apart. Therefore, we should stay out of it and mind our own business, and let the Libyan people figure it out themselves. There is also the concern of Arab states getting angry at America for foreign intervention. They have already warned us against it. Don’t we have enough trouble with Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment? Another concern is the cost. As Rachel said, we have already spent over a billion dollars since 2001in war. Our national debt is $14 billion. We should work on paying off this debt, and save any money we have currently for urgent situations. If we sent our troops to Libya, spent more money, and were attacked, we would need those troops and the money immediately. This situation reminds me of a time when a girl was in need of lunch money. She wanted me to pay for it, but I already had to buy my own lunch. Plus, I knew her friends would give her some of their food. So, I kept my money and bought myself lunch. She didn’t dislike me after that, and neither would Libya if we didn’t interfere. So as you can see, the U.S. should mind their own business and let Libya figure out the situation for themselves.
In my opinion I think that they should absolutely NOT take any military action in Libya. The reason that I thought this is because we are already fighting enough in Iraq. The United States of America tries to unite other countries and decrease fighting, but that just makes it worse for us. I think that the United States should focus on stopping the fighting in Iraq before interfering with other situations in other countries. My connection to this is siblings. If you are in a fight with your brother, and your other brother comes into the fight, it doesn’t make things better. If you think about it, if anything it makes it worse. This is just like my connection because, we are in a fight with Iraq and then we would be fighting Libya which would cause things to be worse. So in conclusion I think that we (the U.S.A.) should try to concentrate our efforts, and then we can think about taking action.
I do not think the U.S army should get involved in the war in Libya. I think this because so many soldiers are already fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we can't afford to get involved in another war. As Rachel said, “The total cost of war since 2001 in the United States is $1,162,672,998,897 and counting!” Military generals think it will be a hard challenge for the U.S to go into war with Libya. Obama and many other past presidents think we should get our troops back to the U.S, but now they are talking about putting more in another country. This situation reminds me of the Egypt controversy and how we left it alone. See how they settled their problems without our troops rushing into Egypt. I think they should settle their own problems by themselves and everything will be ok. This is why I think the U.S troops should not go into Libya.
No, I do not think that the United States should take military action in Libya. Even though Gaddafi is killing many of his fellow Libyans, The U.S. shouldn't get involved because we as a nation are already far into debt. This would just produce more. To help this country that produces much of our oil, I strongly recommend that the head honchos of the United States government send a group of humanitarians or politicians to sort things out.
I do not think that the United States should take military action in Libya. In the text it says, "With 47,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq and some 100,000 in Afghanistan, the Obama administration says it has no desire to enter yet another costly war." I think this means since the Obama administration has no desire to fight, the it that it is not worth risking brave men's lives. A reason why the United States might send troops into Libya would be if there were more causalities. In this article, it says there have been reports of bombing civilians, but in the same paragraph they state that that fact may not be true. This leads me to believe that other reports that have been made, may have not been true as well. I think that since Arab states have already warned against foreign intervention in Libya, then it would not be right to send troops in there. There is a chance that Arabs might be angry, and we don't have the money to go in to another war. As Rachel C. said, "Our national debt is more than $14 trillion. That is how much the United States has borrowed and how much we have to pay interest on." Our country can't afford to lose any more innocent young men's lives or borrow any more money. Another reason why I don't think the US should take military action in Libya is because the US is still trying to identify who's who in the "mishmash of groups" taking part in the rebellion against Gaddafi. If they happen to bomb the wrong group, or take down the wrong airplane, what would happen then? This reminds of the Vietnam War. Like Libya, the US was pondering whether or not to join the war. Unlike Libya, we decided to intervene with the Vietnam war. This was not our war to fight, it was the people of north and south Vietnam's war to fight. Many heroic soldiers died during this war and the United States lost about 700 billion dollars. This shows what could happen if we did go into the Libyan war. That is why I think the US should not take military action in Libya.
My post took up a lot of room. Sorry. The song I chose for my collection is a little long.
I do not think that the US military should not become involved in Libya. In the article it says that 47,000 troops are in Iraq and that some 10,000 in Afghanistan. I know that some may argue that we should help our neighbors overseas, but how many children have to find that they are motherless or fatherless. Also, the war in Iraq has cost the US tons of money. In our current economy money is tight. Also, since we are unable to join we have to trust that our allies will take care of us as we have done for them. This situation reminds me of the song "Waiting On The World To Change" by John Mayer. Below are the lyrics:
"Waiting On The World To Change"
Me and all my friends
We're all misunderstood
They say we stand for nothing and
There's no way we ever could
Now we see everything that's going wrong
With the world and those who lead it
We just feel like we don't have the means
To rise above and beat it
So we keep waiting
Waiting on the world to change
We keep on waiting
Waiting on the world to change
It's hard to beat the system
When we're standing at a distance
So we keep waiting
Waiting on the world to change
Now if we had the power
To bring our neighbors home from war
They would have never missed a Christmas
No more ribbons on their door
And when you trust your television
What you get is what you got
Cause when they own the information, oh
They can bend it all they want
That's why we're waiting
Waiting on the world to change
We keep on waiting
Waiting on the world to change
It's not that we don't care,
We just know that the fight ain't fair
So we keep on waiting
Waiting on the world to change
And we're still waiting
Waiting on the world to change
We keep on waiting waiting on the world to change
One day our generation
Is gonna rule the population
So we keep on waiting
Waiting on the world to change
We keep on waiting
Waiting on the world to change
The verse: Now if we had the power
To bring our neighbors home from war
They would have never missed a Christmas
No more ribbons on their door
And when you trust your television
What you get is what you got
Cause when they own the information, oh
They can bend it all they want
This is what I mean when I say that US troops should stay put. To keep ribbons off of the front doors. This is why I think that Us troops should leave Libya alone.
I do not think that the U.S should send troops into Libya. This is becasue of many reasons. The U.S already has about 150,00 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our country is largely concerned about these troops and their safety. Sending more trrops anywhere would be dangerous and to much for the country to handle.I also do not think that the U.S should mess with Libya because it is none of our business. They are their own country and they can solve their own countries. When the U.S was in their civil war they just wanted to be left alone to solve the conflict themselves. A connection to Libya's problem would be the U.S civil war. This is because when the U.S had their civil war the 2 sides were a side for the government(against slavery) and against the government(for slavery). This is a connection and reasons why the U.S should leave Libya alone.
I think that the U.S should not get involved with the civil war in Libya because it could cause the Libyan government to hold American hostages. An example of this is the hostages in Iran. There were three students visiting Iran and they were captured and held hostage. If the U.S is trying to fight against the leader of Libya, Gaddafi, he might try to hold American hostages. Another reason that the U.S should not get into the civil war with Libya is because we already have 47,000 troops in Iran and 100,000 troops in Afghanistan we cannot afford to send more troops to Libya. Also the Obama administration said that getting into this war would be very costly and would not be good for the economy of our country. The article also said that the Arabs might be angry if the U.S uses force. This would not help because of the conflict that we are in with the other war in Iran and Afghanistan.
I agree with Kristine K. when she says, “In the 1800's our country was in distress and we had a civil war, and our country resolved the problem with little or no help from other countries. Even if the US military doesn't step in to help fight, it really doesn't matter, because the article said that refugees from the US are helping out Libyans. They are helping out by finding out what is needed, for example food and medicine supplies.” I agree with her because this is true that we did had a civil war and we didn’t have help from other countries we did it on our own and look were we are today. Even though it still may be rocky we are a better country because of it. Libya needs to take care of their problem to show the world that they have potential too, and that they can be a better country because of it.
A connection to this article is our civil war. This connects to the article because when the U.S split into two sections we had a civil war. Other countries probably went through the process that we are going through because they didn’t know whether to help America or leave it alone and let us deal with our problem. In Libya they are taking the same course that we did during our civil war, and for a similar reason, some people want a new government and others don’t. This is why I think that the U.S should not join the Libyan civil war.
I do not think that the U.S. should start military actions in Libya. The U.S. has been helping with supplying food, water, and shelter. This is a smart move because the article stated, "Obama administration says it has no desire to enter yet another costly war." Also, with so many soldiers already in danger and dying should we really put more lives at stake?Arab states have also said they do not want troops in Libya.The rebels want our help with a no-fly zone but, if the U.S. agreed to that we would be in Libya and we will probably anger many Arabs. In a way Muammar Gaddafi is simlar to Adolf Hitler. Gaddafi is very charismatic with his people but with people who disagree with him, like the rebels, he is violent. Adolf Hitler was very similar in the way he was charming to his people but was very two faced. So the situations within both countries are very similar also. In my opinion we should stick to doing charity work for Libya.
I think that the U.S should not send military troops out to Libya. I say this because I feel that the U.S should not interfere with other countries issues. I would understand helping them with supplies or tips but not actually sending our men and women out there to fight. As said in the article, “47,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq and some 100,000 in Afghanistan, the Obama administration says it has no desire to enter yet another costly war. There is also concern that Arabs might be angry if the US uses force. Arab states have already warned against foreign intervention in Libya. Moving troops to Libya could negatively affect US efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, warned U.S generals.” I believe that the U.S should not spend any more money on foreign affairs because it takes away money from our own country and the Arabs will be mad with us anyway which will eventually affect the price of oil once again. Also, why should we be sending more troops out? All that is doing is killing more of our people! This reminds me of people making decisions in their everyday lives. This relates to the U.S decision because they both are about making decisions which is what us as Americans do every day.
I do not think that the U.S. Government should take action in Libya. This is for multiple reasons. First of all, in the article it says "With 47,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq and some 100,000 in Afghanistan, the Obama administration says it has no desire to enter yet another costly war." I think that the Obama administration should stick with this decision because of not only the costly effect this will have on our country, but also because many U.S. citizens do not have the desire to get involved in ANOTHER war; specifically one that isn't about them.
Although I think the U.S. has a right to be concerned with the situation and how it will effect the oil production and other factors, I do not see an immediate threat where the U.S. should intervene. Since they plan on joining the rebels, and the Government still has some control; couldn't that also impact the oil production and trade with the U.S.?
I think the fighting between the rebels and government of Libya is similar to the fighting in the U.S. civil war; there were two sides (North and South/Government and Rebels) and they are both fighting to either keep their government or overthrow it.
With the question being, Should the US take military action in Libya? I say no. I say this because in the article it talks about how there is some talking about there being bombings there too. If we send our troops there we could risk many soldiers’ lives. Then when we most need them they might not be there to help our country. I agree with Molly M. when she said that we already have troops in other countries helping and fighting and it’d be too much. In the article it says that we have 47,000 U.S. troops in Iraq still and some 100,000 in Afghanistan, the Obama administration says it has no desire to enter yet another costly war.” With this being said it would be better for the U.S. because then we won’t need to worry about another’s country problem and also not need to worry about more of our soldiers. Another reason I have is yes, we should help others but it has nothing to do with the U.S. Also in the article it says that there are U.S. charity workers who have gone to Egyptian and Tunisian borders with Libya to try to find a way to fix the problem. A connection I have to this is when I was deciding if I should play for the Brewster Bulldogs or not and trying to find out if it would be good for me. This connection works because it connects to the problem with the U.S. charity workers going to Egyptian and Tunisian borders with Libya to trying to find a way to fix the problem. Also these relate because they are both big decisions deciding on what’s good/right.
In my opinion, I do not think that the US should send military force into Libya. With 47,000 troops in Iraq, and 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, we cannot afford it- politically, militarily, and psychologically. I am confident that the majority of American citezens do not want to send even more troops into war. It is a Civil War, Gaddafi can be overthrown if enough Libyans fight, and his military refuses to fight back. If a humanitarian crisis occurs, like severe water, food, and medical shortages, the UN or other agencies could step in without using military force. America began a civil war in the 1860's. No other countries stepped in to help us with thier military forces. Libya should fight and win thier own war as well.
From reading the article, I don’t think that the U.S. should take military action in Libya. I think this because in the article, it said that 47,000 U.S. troops are still in Iraq as well as 100,000 in Afghanistan. Why would the U.S want to have more national debt than they already have? Currently, the U.S owes over 14 trillion dollars! Why would the U.S want to add to that? It could possibly just create a bigger conflict just by aiding the Libyans. Besides, the Obama administration said it “has no desire to enter yet another costly war.” It also mentioned that there is also concern that Arabs might be angry if the US uses force. The Arabs already warned the U.S that they didn’t want foreign intervention in Libya. Also the U.S is currently working on ways to help aid the refugees discreetly so that it wouldn’t start any conflicts with Libya or Gaddafi. They are sending teams of U.S. charity workers to the Egyptian and Tunisian borders to help figure out what is needed for the many thousands of fleeing refugees, as well as conducting emergency reviews of regional food and medicine supplies. To conclude my reasoning, I think that it’s a bad idea for The U.S military to be involved with Libya’s problem.
I do not think that the US military should take action in Libya for many reasons. For one thing, we are already fighting a war over in Iraq and Afghanistan with about 147,000 soldiers overseas. The Obama administration has no desire to enter another costly war. With our nation’s debt already at $14 trillion since 2001, we cannot have that number rise if we can prevent it. I agree with what Elise B said on how while we may think that putting troops in will be helping Libya, it will offend the people and countries that support Gaddafi. While the US has gotten many reports on bombings and casualties, the article states that we do not know what is actually true and what is not. Also, there are certain rebel groups like the National Libyan Council that send request to our country to help, but we haven’t even figured out which groups are on which sides. Like the article said, "it’s a huge mishmash of groups taking part in the revolt against Gaddafi.” So by putting troops in now, it would be a rush that could make matters worse. This reminds me of World War II. Germany started it by declaring war on Poland, Britain, and France. Then Japan invaded us putting us the war fighting Japan and Germany with our allies. This reminds me of the situation in Libya because if we joined, then more Arab groups may join like Al-Qaeda, who we are fighting over in Afghanistan, like the video said. The teams of charity route would make a bigger difference to the people than entering the fight and possibly make something even bigger out of it. They have gone to help the thousands of refugees that are scrambling for a place to live and be safe. If we help those people, and let Gaddafi and the rebels solve their conflict in the way they want, then that will make things much better than to enter our soldiers into Libya and increase our nation’s debt as well as a possibility of making a bigger war from it. That’s why a say that the US military should not take action in Libya.
I don’t think the U.S should take action in Libya. In the article, it says there are many bombings occur there. We could sacrifice many soldiers. Also we already have troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, around 150,000 soldiers between those two countries. If we took action in Libya, more soldiers would be at risk. Another reason is what Olivia D. said, she said, “Our economy is already not good, another war would be very expensive and just make matters worse!". That is so true; our country would be even more of a mess. Marisa also made a good point in saying," America began a civil war in the 1860's. No other countries stepped in to help us with their military forces." A connection to this situation is when Serbia had fighting with Kosovo in its own country.
No, I do not think that the United States should take military action in Libya. Like Ana said, “That’d just be a waste of soldiers.” The US is already in debt, and helping them would create unneeded waste of US army and money supplies. The article put it best in saying, “Obama administration says it has no desire to enter yet another costly war." A connection I had with this article was that the United States got involved with the Vietnam war, and lost a lot of money.
I don't think the US should get involed with Lybia political war. I think this beause it will turn out to be another war that we don't need. I agree with emily and ana that we as a country don't need to use our resorses on another country. We need to end the war with Iran before we start another "project" with another country.
After watching the video and reading the article, I think that the U.S. shouldn't take military action in Libya. I think this because if there were many civilian massacres, we would be risking our soldiers' lives to fix this problem, and this wouldn't be wise. Like Molly said, we are also already fighting multiple countries, and this would just be overwhelming if we were to fight one more country. Another reason is that if Libya's military decides to bomb civilian targets, this would practically ruin the country. The population would be lowered, and the economy would collapse. This leads me to a new topic, the oil dilemma. If there is a lowered production rate of oil, the gas prices here in the U.S. would skyrocket, and nobody would want to pay a large amount of money for just a few gallons of gas. One more reason is that if Muammar Gaddafi leads a military attack to regain rebel-controlled territory, the country would fall into an even deeper crisis, because this plan would involve killing innocent people. If we had deployed soldiers in the middle of this kind of fight, it would put the soldiers’ lives at risk, and nobody would want that. I can connect to this topic because we learned about the fight in Egypt in a previous blog post. In the fight, the citizens wanted a new government, like Libya, and succeeded. If Egypt won their fight and got a new, fair government, why can’t Libya?
Should the US take military action in Libya? I do not think we should because we are already fighting with other countries and it would just take to many troops to fight in Libya also. In the text it says,” With 47,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq and some 100,000 in Afghanistan, the Obama administration says it has no desire to enter yet another costly war.” With our 14 trillion dollar debt I don’t think we can go into any other wars. Also this is not a war we should get involved in especially since they have already warned us not to. I think their opinion on us to not enter the war is a good reason for us not to get involved. This is their own civil war and they have to fight it without any help. This reminds me of another time when citizens of Egypt revolted against their president but he decided to leave office because that’s what the people wanted so it didn’t have to turn into a civil war which is kind of like what’s happening in Libya right now.
Post a Comment