Libya - Ms. Bost's Webpage

Read and respond to the following article.  Is removing Gadhafi from power in Libya the answer?  Which side do you agree with?  What could be the potential outcomes of this decision?
3/28/2011 23:50:04

I believe, after reading this article, that it is indeed neccessary to remove Gadhafi from office. I have a feeling Obama knows this to be true, but he simply is trying to keep up apperences. A possible cause for not releasing the cost of the skirmish? I believe their could be some negative side affects with toppling Gadhafi such as power struggles and a loss of cultural tradition. I think that these people will go crazy when they gain freedom, they could make radical political desicions (much like the US under the Articles) and lose many of their sacred traditions simply because they dont HAVE to follow them. Only time will tell.

3/31/2011 10:57:34

I agree with Giuliani because our goal, as I understand, is to protect the people of Libya. We have done it in the past, helped civilians wishing to overthrow their dictatorship or totalitarian governments, snd if that is indeed our goal in Libya then we need to remove Gadhafi from office. The people want a regime change, well how is that going to be accomplished if we let the leader they ar protesting stay in office?
Some think that removing him from office will not benefit the US, well if that is the concern then we probably do not need to get involved in the conflict at all.
Also, why is Obama not giving many answers. He appears to be trying to make this as pretty as possible. He is not mentioning the cost of this military involvement, or his plan of success. His plan of making it pretty is going to backfire if he does not provide answers, he is going to lose a great deal of public support, because Americans do not like being left in the dark. Those seeking this information have been critized by people saying that the US will suffer drastic consequences if we do not act, but I do not think they are so much saying that we should not act on the crisis, but more that the Americans have the right to know how much this conflict is going to costs taxpayers, after all it is their money.

4/2/2011 09:03:56

With Rupert and Jennifer, Of course removing Gadhafi is the way to go. The Libyan people have titled these years as the "Nightmare of 40 years"... Removing this leader will protect the people who have been denied freedom and who have been chattered wealth.The stop of murdered opponents, and caused distress around people around the world even for Americans, who have been killed by Libyan agents will come to an end. Gadhafi has attacked people that have advocated. President Obama stated that Gadhafi needs to step down from power. Removing him will save the lives of innocent people. Gadhafi was given a chance for Gadhafi to stop however he claims he will show no mercy and will punish all his "rats" and has also hung Libyan people for there protest. The US has authorized military action and has hit Gadhafi troops, air defenses, and have stopped some of the deadly events. The US did not work alone. It is a definite that Libya will remain threaten until he steps down and then the people can work on recovering the 40 years of dismay and finally the lives of the Libyan people WILL be saved.

Kathryn Auten
4/3/2011 21:48:58

Removing Gadhafi from power would be ideal, but the truth of the matter is we cannot always invade other countries on a financial aspect. The Afghanastan and Iraq wars were already hindering the limited budget we have. I think if we banded with other countries to relieve Gadhafi peacefully (if possible) to aid the Libyan people. I think we have enough problems in our government now that need to be addressed...don't get me wrong, helping the Libyan people should be a priority. I just don't know if it is the best idea to jump right into this. Why not us NATO troops sent by the UN? There are other options besides just sending American troops. What must be considered is the foreign perception of the U.S. before invading as it could hinder foreign relations that do not support our stance. Foreign policy is paramount for United States success.

I definitely agree with Jennifer. Obama needs to inform taxpayers and the public about the costs and the intimate details of his plan of action before initiating combat.

Mackenzie Church
4/4/2011 10:12:30

Removing Gadhafi from office is the best option. The Libyan people are at risk, and other countries could just as well be at risk, too. Obviously the people want Gadhafi removed, and the government should respect the views of its citizens. Like Kathryn said, I do not believe that it is in the United States' best interest to get involved in the Libyan affairs. WE have all seen how getting involved in foreign nation affairs has negatively impacted the United States as a whole, in addition to our economy. I do not reprimand President Obama for not outlining every detail in the US involvement in the affairs. I do think that we have a right to know how our money is going to be spent, but all of the details may not be settled so they are withholding information. I feel that the government should decide what is best for our country, without letting all of the citizens' ideas influence them.

Prayer Jackson
4/25/2011 08:39:42

America is a country founded on helping the less fortunate and using our assets to benefit less fortunate countries. Ideally protecting the people of Libya would be the best result after violently removing Gadhafi from office. Nevertheless, the truth of the matter is that the government and people of the United States are unable and unwilling to complete this task. Financially the toll has already cost hundred of millions with great though minute results. In a time when taxpayers are unwilling to pay pennies more to better education, it is unlikely that they will be willing to pay more to help Libya remove their leader. Politically, it is risky to enter another country on behalf of its people. As Rep. Emmanuel Cleaver stated, “We cannot afford another Iraq or Afghanistan, and I firmly believe the president fully understands that.” Though American can help the struggle for freedom for the people, fighting the battle is not possible in our current economic status.
I agree with Kathryn’s thoughts of using other options and considering the long-term effects intervention could have on the economic aspect of foreign policy. Although intervention is ideal, it must be considered the realistic effects. As soon as progress is not immediately seen, voters and taxpayers will turn against the President’s decision to involve the country. While he is not giving clear direct answers, he is providing outlines just as he did during his campaign. The people have the right to know, but there is no need to panic the people or provide figures that may easily change as time progresses. This would only bring an outcome of further doubt within the people.


Leave a Reply.