Should America be at war in Libya, considering we are not at war in the Ivory Coast?
Yes, America should be at war with Libya but not Ivory Coast; Libya has been our enemy before.
America is not the world's policeman. Ultimately our military engages other nations to protect our national interests. Libya has been an enemy of us for several decades, not just as a supporter of terrorism but also in aerial combat over the Mediterranean in the 80's. It would be unwise to pass up an opportunity to rid the world of Qadhafi. We have no pertinent interests in the Ivory Coast.
Posted by: FlakyHerb64
America should not be at war with Libya, because we have too many other issues here at home that need to be addressed.
We have so many issues here at home. Let's begin by solving those first. We need to do something about the economy. We need to find jobs and get people back into their homes. We also need to find a cheap alternative to fossil fuels. Let's get things solved on our home front, and then think about helping others.
Posted by: StripperMorI disagree with going to war unless our own country is attacked.
I just believe that countries should fight their own battles and that the United States has enough issues at home that need to be resolved before we go into a new situation. My cousin is in Afghanistan now and I worry about him every day; I don't like that he is there and I don't want anyone else to have to worry about family members fighting other countries' wars.
Posted by: DelicateLewis91The U.S. should not be at war in Libya, as it has not been declared by the Congress, which would be the only legal method for military action described in the Constitution.
The United States Constitution is very clear that the power to declare war rests solely in the hands of the Congress. Congress has not declared a war or authorized any sort of military action in Libya and, therefore, the U.S. should not be intervening in Libya. Barack Obama's use of force in Libya is currently technically unconstitutional and, therefore, illegal.
Posted by: EminentBennett93The U.S. needs to step back from civil war, because to not do so would be to overstep our bounds.
The United States does not belong in Libya, and should not have stepped in to a civil war. The unrest in that country should not involve America. We have a history of overstepping our boundaries, and I think this is a similar case. The people in Libya need to figure things out for themselves. We cannot impose our ideas on all other countries.
Posted by: TedieDelightAmerica should not be at war with Libya, but we should find other means to achieve our goals, without destroying people and property.
The people of Libya deserve a better leader than Qaddafi has been. No human should call himself god and demand compliance at the fear of torture, beatings, and death. The people have a right to democracy, and their leaders should listen to them and learn from them. Foreign governments can support the people in various ways, short of air strikes and ground offensives. The U.S. should have a consistent policy on how it intervenes in the affairs of other countries.
Posted by: ShiveringGerardThe US Shouldn't Be At War Anywhere Until We Let the Chagossians Resettle the Chagos Islands
President after president from the early 1970s has refused to rescind the US objection to allowing the Chagossian people to resettle their homeland that they had previously lived in for several generations before being expelled against UN human rights law and against basic concepts of human decency so the US could build a military base. We do not even have to get rid of the military base, just let the islanders come back and live there. There's plenty of room. We'd probably save a lot of money then being able to hire local help for much needed civilian jobs at the military base instead of flying in foreigners to work as civilian contractors. Yet, every president including Obama continues this barbaric policy and what's worse is the media never talks about this and most people don't know about it. This sickens me and I refuse to vote for anyone to national office in the future who refuses to put this right.
Posted by: MasturDbtorAmerica is involved in two wars, so they don't need to be at war in Libya.
There is no reason for America to be at war with another country. The military is already stretched between two countries, as well as the United States itself. Taking on another war in Libya will only complicate matters, and cause more questioning about the current administration. Specifically, why they wanted to pull out of Iraq, yet want to get involved in another war.
Posted by: M0r3InteriorI think that America's troops should be at home, helping us with the problems that are going on here.
I believe that America should start to mind their own business, before we get ourselves into more trouble. The troops signed up to protect America and their families. Libya needs to take care of themselves. There is no reason their lives should be put at risk because of a war another country is fighting. However, if that country is threatening our country as well, then I believe that it is justified.
Posted by: IncredibleDenis39America should not be at war in Libya, because the President of the United States did not consult the Congress.
America should not be at war in Libya because the President of the United States did not consult the Congress. The President of the United States does not have the Constitutional power to enter a war. Only Congress has that power. The insurrection in Libya is a civil war, and should be fought by Libyans.
Posted by: JamieMWe are helping Al Qaeda fight a bad dictator. Both sides are bad.
Al Qaeda is supporting rebellions across the Middle East. While these movements are fueled by high food prices and unemployment among young people, the reason they are occurring simultaneously across the world is because they are driven by Muslim extremist organizations. Any action to support these rebellions risks helping put Muslim extremists in charge, creating a Saudi Arabia-style monarchy or Iranian theocracy or Taliban / Afghanistan oppressive tribal state.
Thus any takeover of a mildly moderate Muslim nation by Muslim extremists is horrible for the women and religious minorities in that state. And no such group that takes over a nation, even if "democratic", is in our best interests. We probably should not help corrupt dictators. But we cannot in good faith help those who are even worse, either.Posted by: Pir4AndAmerica should not be at war in Libya, because it should not matter to us who's right or who's wrong in Libya or the crimes committed there.
We should not be in Libya, Afghanistan, or Iraq. It does not matter if we have intentions of protecting the people or stopping dictators from doing horrible things to their people. We do not have the money to be in those countries anymore. Would it be right to protect other countries, only to have the entire United states economy collapse? If we had the money, troops, and the infrastructure to start another war, and go into the Ivory Coast, then there is still no need. The former president who lost the election, but stayed in power, was captured. The newly elected president is trying to put the country back together. If we went in, we would just be hunting down a small group of rebels who are still loyal to the old president, and that is something that I think they can handle.
Posted by: FabulousGino75