White House: Time to back airstrikes in Libya
Read Time:48 Second
With a siege in Benghazi looking like a distinct possibility, the White House is looking to use some muscle in Libya. After weeks of discussion, and careful deliberation, the administration has concluded that a no-fly zone would likely be “too little, too late” to save the rebels, the New York Times reports, so it’s instead pushing for a broader UN Security Council resolution, which would also allow airstrikes to slow Gadhafi’s march.
“The turning point was really the Arab League statement on Saturday,” Hillary Clinton said yesterday. “That was an extraordinary statement in which the Arab League asked for Security Council action against one of its own members.” The resolution is being sponsored by Arab League member Lebanon, and has the backing of France and Britain. Still, the US remains reluctant to make a major military commitment. “The United States is pretty busy with two wars,” one senior official says, “and we don’t want a third.”
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0
Well I guess this a bit personal on my part because I never liked the jerkwad in Libya. Maybe its because Libya is in the Marine Corps Hymn and he just ticks me off, but it wouldn’t bother me a lot if we sent a dozen Tomahawk missiles into his living room while he was watching Dancing with the Stars. I really don’t want our people put into harms way anymore than necessary, but someone needs to take him out one way or another. I really feel like if he isn’t taken out he will be funding terrorists again in 6 months to get back at us.
I agree with and support the president of the United States. He has the right, even a duty, not only to remove the current Libyan authority, but to remove its replacement and the one that replaces it, and to continue the process until he gets the one we want.
However, if he is going to stop at removing the government du jour, then I would not support it, as that is a losing proposition for an imperialist.
I think the sooner we get to a world run by a single body, such as the United Nations, the better. It is earth’s destiny, if it is to survive. As the leader of this united earth to be, I think our opinion should trump that of all of the little people.
I am a little confused as to why oppression is completely OK, so long as the oppressed are fully oppressed, but wrong once they risk their lives to protest. Only when protest is completely impossible, is it unjust for Lord United States to intervene. Could someone explain that to me?
Why is removing the Libyan oppressor the right thing to do, suddenly?
There are many here who want to shoot even more and the chances are always better than average they will get their way. Amerikans love war and what it brings. The longer the better.
You are right Tom. There are more hawks than doves in the United States, or so it appears.
Again I just wish we could let these people deal with their own problems. Aren’t we in a financial crisis among other things?
You make a good point Jenny, but I suspect there are those times when we have to step up. I don’t have a problem with it as long as we’re not overrepresented.