Libya Discussion

[Mr. J.]

1. Describe in detail what has been happening in Libya over the last
couple of weeks and why. Provide some historical context as well.
2. Do you see any similarities or differences between the current
situation in Libya and the uprisings that happened in Egypt and
Tunisia? Please be specific and use examples.
3. Finally, it was announced over the weekend that NATO (North
Atlantic Treaty Organization) had decided to implement a no-fly zone
in the region because Colonel Moammar Gadhafi violated a UN backed
cease-fire by firing on protesters after the announcement. The NATO
coalition has 10 announced partners: Belgium, Britain, Canada,
Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Qatar, Spain and the United States.
Part 1: Do you think NATO was justified in carrying out the attacks
against Libya?
Part 2: Is the United States of America justified in participating in
the attacks or do you think President Obama’s decision will make us
more likely to have to take sides in future North African and Middle
Eastern countries who carry out protests/uprisings against their
oppressive regimes? Please be specific and use examples.

This should be a normal post and not just sent to the author or me.
Thanks.

[Christine]

1.
Libya has been under the control of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi for forty
years, who has manipulated the country under his autocracy. When he
originally gained control of Libya, he had five main goals of removing
foreign military bases, gaining international neutrality, creating
national unity, creating Arab unity and, suppressing other political
parties. Much failed and Qaddafi became ruthless and a tyrant. Under
Qaddafi’s authority, like many of the other countries that have seen
protests, people have limited rights and freedom. It is said that
Libya is one of the most censored countries in the Middle East and
North Africa. Seeing the success of countries such as Egypt and
Tunisia has given Libya a desire for their own revolution. Although
Libya has seemed stable, by February people began to grow unhappy with
the existing government. As protests spread, Qaddafi also tried to
resist and over the past few weeks, he has taken military action and
other violence approaches. He has also imposed a “blackout” of
information by keeping foreign journalists and media out of the
country.

2.
Of course, it is easy to see the similarities between the uprisings in
Egypt and Tunisia and Libya. All of these countries had been extremely
frustrated and upset about their governments and leaders. They staged
protests to overthrow their government. Similarly, Libya’s leader,
Qaddafi, is having a hard time accepting that he must step down just
as Mubarak had in Egypt. Qaddafi is determined to fight to the end.
Also, like the uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, there has been a lot of
military action taken to stop the uprisings- air forces and sea
barrage have been taken to stop Qaddafi’s violence. On the contrary,
Qaddafi has been using a lot of his own military power to try and
overcome the protests and other countries such as the U.S., Britain,
and France have stepped in to aid Libya. The U.S. has composed a five
point plan to isolate Qaddafi and remove him from power. This
intervention is a bit different from what was seen in Egypt and
Tunisia. U.S. did not involve in the situation in Egypt as it is now
with Libya. Many countries had allowed Egypt to develop their
revolution on their own. The revolution in Libya is more corrupt than
that of Egypt and news has been spread of many battles and scars. The
effects of the beginning of Libya’s revolt seems more brutal. In
Egypt, protests in Tahrir Square occurred and Mubarak blocked websites
and media, but the situation never came to how it is in Libya. The
country is split between the forces that support Qaddafi and the rebel
forces. The supportive forces of the government have used tanks,
helicopters and fighter planes in order to push the revolts back,
attacking Libyan cities such as Misurata, and the oil town of Ras
Lanuf. The rebel forces have been fighting back, but Qaddafi's forces
remain strong, supported by his hidden hoard of money. It seems that
the tension between the government and the rebel forces are much
greater in Libya than in Egypt and Tunisia. Over the last several
weeks, Qaddafi has proven that he is not ready to give in. Overall,
the Libya's uprisings are much more violent and have not been as
peaceful as the others.

3.
PART A:
NATO is justified in carrying out the attacks against Libya, because
for one, the situation in Libya has become quite dangerous. The NATO
responds to many of the problems in the world and have been seen in
countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq. It seems that the corruptioin
in Libya is great and Qaddafi has taken military action to attack the
rebel forces. People are suffering and have been pushed to the edge,
fleeing to places such as Tunisia and Nigeria. The NATO is supporting
the rebel forces and attempting to take Qaddafi from power and resolve
the current conflicts.

PART B:
In partcipating in the attacks in Libya, I believe that the United
States has a justified reason but should expect that countries will
ask for help to carry out protests. The situation in Libya has come to
a point where, if no countries intervened, the hopes of any form of
democracy would disappear and the violence would only grow. The rebel
forces in Libya are in dire need of help and the U.S. is quite capable
of giving the help. Because the United States is such a powerful
country with great military forces and weapons and strength, many
countries in the midst of a revolution would want their aid. The
United States has recently followed France's lead in implementing a
"no-fly" zone over Libya. This action has shown that the United States
has the authority in other countries and their ability to bring about
change. But, although it would seem that many countries would want the
United States to help, the United States itself, I believe, will not
necessarily help every country. President Obama's decision to
participate in the attacks, does not imply that the U.S. will take
sides in the future. The situation in Libya is so horrible so it seems
that the U.S. would have to take a side. Qaddafi and the U.S. are in
an alliance and so it was easy for the U.S. to take sides in this
situation. An example of problems between the two countries include
the time when President Ronald Reagan accused Libya of ordering a
bombing in Germany, resulting in bombings in Libya. Although it seems
that in the past decade, Qaddafi has helped the U.S. out, for example
during the time after the attacks of September 11 he shared Al Qaeda
documents with the U.S., overall he has been ruthless. It is very
possible that the U.S. will give verbal consent for other uprisings,
but will not take military action. It all depends upon the severity of
the situation; Libya is also receiving aid from many other countries,
so it's just an uprising supported by the United States. In
conclusion, the participation of the U.S. in Libya is justified, but
does not imply that Presiden Obama will pick sides in the future and
give military support.

[Joelle Khouri]

1. Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi has been ruling Libya since September of
1969. He gained power in a bloodless coup and since then, he has ruled
harshly. The rebellions that occurred this February in other Arab
nations sparked tensions in Libya. The protests began on February
15th, after a human rights lawyer was arrested but soon spun out of
control, even after the lawyer was released. The protests were
relatively organized at first, stemming from the city of Benghazi. The
movement spread like wildfire and the rebels made huge gains in the
east and began rapidly advancing towards the west. However, forces
loyal to Qaddafi organized themselves and soon started beating back
the rebels. Qaddafi’s forces have far superior weapons and technology,
giving them a huge advantage over the rebels. Furthermore, Qaddafi has
employed his hoard of funds to pay his troops and employ mercenaries.
Qaddafi has been quick to crack down on dissidents and has not
hesitated to use violence, even against peaceful protesters.
Throughout the protests, many countries have condemned Qaddafi’s
methods and imposed sanctions on him; military force has only occurred
recently with the imposition of a no-fly zone and air-strikes. On
March 17th, the UN passed a resolution calling for a no-fly zone and
"all necessary measures" to protect Libyan civilians. Although the air-
strikes have put pressure on Qaddafi, he continues to refuse to give
up his power.


2. While the uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya have all followed
the same basic pattern, the conflict in Libya has some distinct
differences. These rebellions were all waged by the public,
dissatisfied with their oppressive rulers’ long reigns. However, the
Libyan conflict is more violent than the other two. In both Egypt and
Tunisia, the revolts were relatively nonviolent. Qaddafi is determined
to hold on to his power at whatever cost, and he does not care how
many of his people he hurts in the process. Already, hundreds of
people have died, many of them innocent. For example, on February
19th, security forces open fired on mourners at a funeral for other
demonstrators. Some have called this a massacre, and it is estimated
that over a hundred people died in this incident. Another difference
is that the world seems more inclined to intervene. Even before the no-
fly zone and air-strikes, many countries imposed sanctions on Libya,
Qaddafi, and his family members. This particular situation is violent
to a point that many countries feel the need to step in.


3-1. Yes, I do believe that NATO was justified in carrying out these
attacks against Libya. Qaddafi and his forces attacked, injured, and
killed hundreds of his own people. Furthermore, the rebels have asked
for help and the Arab League has already endorsed action. British,
French, and American officials have all agreed that the Arab League
should be involved in the military strikes so that the West is not
seen as meddlesome. The nations involved are all rich and advanced.
They should be able to relatively easily wrest Qaddafi from power.
Then, the people will be allowed to do move on with their lives.

3-2. There are obviously pros and cons to US involvement in Libya.
Obama is facing criticism at home because intervention in Libya
lessens the focus on domestic problems - of which the US has more than
enough. Furthermore, some Republicans have accused Obama of waiting
too long to take action, of being too reluctant, and of offering only
vague objectives. Many are worried that Libya will become another Iraq
or Afghanistan. However, the case in Libya is somewhat different. The
objective in Libya is not to install democracy; it is to remove a
ruthless dictator from power. There is hope that this will be a quick
in and out operation.
I do believe the US is justified in participating in these attacks.
Qaddafi’s violence against his own people is getting out of hand. The
rebels themselves have asked the world for help; we are simply
responding to a plea. Furthermore, unlike in some of our other foreign
ventures, we are not acting alone. France has taken the lead in this
effort, and we, along with many others, are following along. However,
there is a distinction between a justified actions and a wise one.
Yes, we can intervene in Libya and we have some valid reasons to do
so, but we also have some valid reasons not to. So although we were
justified in interfering, I don’t think we are being smart. I also do
believe that we will now be more likely to have to choose sides in
future conflicts. This does not mean that the US should use military
force in other conflicts - far from it. It simply means that it will
be much harder to stand back during other conflicts.

On Mar 21, 12:24 pm, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Christine]

*Qaddafi and Obama are NOT in an alliance (part b)

> > Thanks.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Christine]

sorry, I just found some mistakes:

Libya is also receiving aid from many other countries,

so it's just an uprising supported just by the United States.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Allie Ziegler]

1. Libya has been under the autocratic rule of Colonel Muammar el-
Qaddafi since he seized power in 1969. In February 2011 the unrest
that was sweeping through the Arab world erupted in several Libyan
cities. The demonstrations were originally very organized by
antigovernment opponents in Benghazi, however the desire for change
quickly spread to Tripoli and many other cities. The rebels, as they
came to be called, fielded a make-shift army and their message was
projected throughout much of the country. The opposition gained
strength, and presented itself to the rest of the world as an
alternative to Qaddafi's forty years of erratic control. However,
Qaddafi responded to the rebels with violence and severe military
action. He bombed his own cities to eliminate the power of the rebels
and used devastating military techniques as a last resort to keep
Libya under his control. It took a few weeks before the Western powers
stepped into help the rebels, but on March 19th they announced that
they will go to "all necessary measures" to help the rebels. NATO then
implemented a no-fly zone in order to avoid further devastation.
2. The series of uprisings that struck the Arab world at the beginning
of 2011 all share some similarities. The uprisings in Egypt and
Tunisia were both sparked by the desire for change, freedoms, and
removal of long-standing dictatorial leader, as was Libya. They were
also all precipitated by factors such as high-unemployment, lack of
free speech and political freedoms, and poor living conditions. The
demonstrations in Egypt and Tunisia were organized via social
networking sites such as facebook and twitter. The uprisings in these
countries served as the inspiration for the uprising in Libya. If the
uprisings had not occurred in Tunisia or Egypt, then it would most
likely not have taken hold in Libya. However, there are also several
major differences between the uprisings in the Arab world. In Libya,
unlike Tunisia and Egypt, the rebel forces did not just organize
demonstrations, but they formed a rebel army. In the case of Libya it
was necessary to form an army because Qaddafi was using military
techniques and violence to break down the power of the rebels. This is
also another huge difference between the uprisings. The Libyan
uprising has been exponentially more violent and corrupt than that of
Tunisia and Egypt. Although tear gas was used to calm protestors in
Tunisia and Egypt, their leader did not use air strikes to bomb his
own cities where the rebels were entrenched. Therefore, even though
there are similarities between the Arab uprisings, the Libyan sector
has been far more violent and in need of foreign aid than its
counterparts.
3-1. I believe that NATO was more than justified in carrying out the
attacks against Libya. Colonel Qaddafi was using air strikes and army
tanks in order to push back the rebels in hopes of their receding
further back into the country. Qaddafi's attacks against his own
country have become extremely dangerous, unpredictable, and terrifying
for the people. I believe that Qaddafi's military action against his
people alone justifies NATO's attacks on Libya. Additionally,
Qaddafi's unwillingness to step down from power exacerbates the need
for international action. I believe that as long as NATO does the job
of ousting Qaddafi, restoring order within Libya and setting the
people onto a path for democracy it will be successful. I just hope
this action does not lead to further wars in the Middle East.
3-2. The United States is certainly justified in participating in the
attacks because major human rights violations are being committed by
Qaddafi in Libya as I am typing. It is the responsibility of the world
to step in during situations such as these to assist the struggling
Libyan rebels in their quest for freedom before the problem grows any
larger. However, I still do believe that President Obama's decision
regarding participation in these attacks will affect our participation
in future uprisings. I do not believe that the United States will be
"forced" to take military actions in any future Middle Eastern
protests or uprisings; however, I do believe that any countries who
are uprising against their oppressive regimes will look to the United
States and other world powers for assistance. I believe that US
involvement in Libya is certainly justified and it has the potential
to be successful as long as US troops do not set foot in Libya. I
think that if US troops are deployed into Libya it will be a great
deal of time before they are out, similar to our involvement in Iraq.

On Mar 21, 12:24 pm, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Sarah]

1. Over the last couple of weeks, Libyan citizens have been fighting
in an attempt to throw of the yoke of their dictator Muammar Qaddafi,
who has been in power for over 40 years after entering in a coup in
1969, and has been criticized by the West multiple times before for
suppressing dissidents and encouraging terrorism. Fighting over the
last few weeks has been concentrated around cities like Zawiyah (which
the military retook from the rebels the week of March 7th) and the oil
town of Ras Lanuf (which the rebels were slowly losing at the same
time), Benghazi (a stronghold of the rebels which was about to be
taken before the no-fly zone was put in place), and the capital
Tripoli. The rebels' main issue is that they are not equipped with
strong enough weapons to counter the tanks and combat aircraft Qaddafi
is using against them, and for this reason they requested a no-fly
zone from the UN. However, they made it clear they do not want a
foreign invasion from Western countries. The Arab League also agreed
to support a no-fly zone, and the UN approved NATO (specifically the
US, France, and Britain) imposing a no-fly zone over Libya. Now the US
is trying to achieve a role that involves less leadership as the
Tomahawk missiles have already been very effective at destroying
Qaddafi's command sites and the US does not want to get involved in
another long-term war.
2. I see extensive similarities between the situation in Libya and the
situations in Egypt and Tunisia, mainly because all three are
countries where the population has risen up against a dictator who has
not allowed them any freedoms for the many decades he has been in
power. It seemed like all three would play out the same way, but
Qaddafi changed the situation in Libya dramatically when he sent in
helicopter gunships and other combat aircraft. Now the fighting in
Libya has escalated, causing many more deaths than in either of the
other two countries and necessitating military intervention from
Western nations.
3. Part I: I believe NATO was absolutely justified in carrying out the
attacks because it is not the job of a leader to attack his people,
and because the rebels had no defense systems, aircraft with which to
reciprocate, or chance at succeeding while Qaddafi was attacking as he
was. Besides, many people have spoken of Western silence during crises
such as the Rwandan genocide when suggesting that NATO step in. If we
had interfered, it wouldn't have been the crisis it was, and the same
is true here: the results of interfering might be painful for the
West, but we'll never know how much worse it would have been for the
world if we didn't.
3. Part II: I believe that Obama was entirely correct in participating
in the attacks. The US has a difficult position in many issues because
it is often seen as a world power that could help - or screw up - just
about anything. Many people will say that the US now needs to
interfere in other uprisings in the Arab world, such as those in
Bahrain or Yemen, but I disagree. When there is a big human rights
issue, every country that can needs to step in or risk being
criticized as careless. The US knew better than to take that risk, and
so in Libya we stepped in. Now critics are saying that the US should
break their alliance with the leaders of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia and
aid the rebels in Bahrain. America's Fifth Fleet is kept in Bahrain,
and an alliance in the Middle East is very useful and not something to
be discarded lightly. The US can urge other countries to take more
forceful steps in Bahrain if it believes that is necessary, but it's
not our place to do that. As for Yemen, according to the March 26th-
April 1st issue of the Economist, it is "an ungovernable snakepit,
home to rival tribes, secessionists and a local branch of al-Qaeda".
These same critics would complain heavily if the US were to step into
Yemen now, calling it even worse than Iraq. They would say that the US
was never obligated to interfere in countries other than Libya. For
these reasons it is clear that Obama did the right thing in
participating in the NATO attacks. He will be criticized no matter
what he does, but better to help out some places and just give
diplomatic nudges to others than to not do anything anywhere.

On Mar 21, 12:24 pm, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Emily Lu]

1. In 1969, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi came to power, and since then, he
has ruled with an iron fist. According to Western sources, Qadaffi was
responsible for extreme terrorism and the deaths of many people, such
as the 1988 bombing of Pan AM Flight 103 in Scotland that killed 270
people. However, the successes of the recent rebellions in Egypt and
Tunisia have spread hope to the people of Libya, and in February of
2011, the bloodiest rebellion of all the uprisings in the Middle East
occurred. Originally, there was an organized group of opponents to
Qadaffi located in Benghazi, the second largest city of LIbya.
However, the rebellion has since spread rapidly to the capital
Tripoli. Qadaffi used brutal violence in an attempt to suppress the
people, but the rebels managed to gain a large portion of Libya's
military as well as the eastern part of Libya. In March, though,
Qadaffi's forces cracked down, and the Arab League asked the UN to
impose a No-Fly Zone to assure that Qadaffi would not attack his own
people from the air. The No-Fly Zone was implemented on March 19, and
will be enforced by NATO.

2. The similarities are such that the rebellions in all three
countries occurred because of the majority's dissatisfaction with the
leader of the time. The leaders of Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya all held
power for at least 20 years, ruling with an iron fist, attacking their
own people at certain points, and the people wanted to be liberated
from the poor conditions that their leaders had imposed on them. There
were many differences, though, in the form of rebellion. The uprisings
in Egypt and Tunisia were almost bloodless and were more organized.
The rebellion in Egypt, for example, was spread through the social
networks of Facebook and Twitter. This resulted in more peaceful
demonstrations that were planned in advance. In addition, the people
of Egypt had the military on their side, while Libya's military works
with Qadaffi to try to suppress the people. Therefore, the uprisings
that are occurring in Libya are far more violent than in either Egypt
or Tunisia.

3.Part 1:
I believe that NATO is justified to implement the no-fly zone and
to carry out attacks on Libya. Qadaffi's tactic of attacking his own
people needs to be stopped, and NATO's attacks are a way of
communicating that to him. In addition, NATO's attacks may rouse his
supporters to stop fighting and to stop following Qadaffi, or else
they will continue to be bombarded. The US and its allies have
repeatedly requested Qadaffi to cease the threats on his own people,
and Qadaffi's refusal to comply with these demands, as well as his
refusal to step down from power, suggest that foreign interference is
necessary to protect the people and the country.
Part 2:
Yes, I do believe that the US is justified in participating in
the attacks. No matter if the US did or did not participate with
NATO, President Obama will have announced to the world what side the
US takes when there is an uprising, and as a world superpower and as a
nation that prides itself on providing its citizens their human
rights, President Obama has made the decision to join forces with
NATO. The phrase "do everything that is in our power" does not apply
in the case of helping Libya, though, because I believe that if
President Obama goes too far, he will risk making errors and the
United States will be criticized as the unnecessary international
police force, similar to the situation in Iraq.
I do think that President Obama's decision to help the rebels
will mark the US as a country willing to take sides in an uprising.
The US's involvement in Egypt only strengthens this point of view of
the US. Before the US's involvement in Libya, President Obama had
provided aid for the rebels in Egypt mainly by requesting Mubarak's
resignation, although it meant the loss of the US's most important
ally in the Middle East. President Obama's decisions in Egypt and
Libya show that the US has already become the country that rebels may
think they can look to for aid in an uprising against an oppressive
regime.

On Mar 21, 12:24 pm, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Hannah]

1)Over the last couple of weeks, the people of LIbya have fought for
the freedom of their country from Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi, Libya's
tryannical, autocratic leader since 1969. His corrupt rule is largely
due to Libya's oil industry, where he is taking all the money for
himself, letting civilians become more impoverished as he grows
richer. He moniters every aspect of life in Libya, from the
government, factories, and the education system, making Libya the most
censored country in the world. In January, Libyan people became
angered over the delays of construction of housing units and of the
corruption in the government. Inspired by the successful revolutions
of Egypt and Tunisia, Libyans started their own protests in February.
However, instead of dealing with the protests peacefully or
diplomatically, Qaddafi tried to violently squash the rebellions,
turning the protests into a violent civil war. Qaddafi has also
imposed a 'blackout' on the media, cellphones, and landlines within
the country. The UN tried to impost a cease fire, which Qaddafi
ignored, causing the UN to impose a no-fly zone, and for NATO troops
to intervene in order to protect civilians.

2) In Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya, the protests were sparked by poor
living standards, food inflation, lack of freedom, high unemployment
rates, and corrupt, autocratic leaders. However, in Egypt and Tunisia,
the government tried to fight the protests as peasefully as possible,
whereas in Libya, Qaddafi is going on an all-out killing spree of the
dissidents, showing no mercy. Because the revolts in Tunisia and Egypt
weren't that violent, no other countries really got involved with the
protests, and in less than a month both leaders of both countries
resigned. The protests in Libya have been going on for a little over a
month, and it seems as if Qaddafi is going to hold on to his power for
as long as possible, making the only option to get him out of power
would be to assassinate him. However, there still may be hope for
Liba: in Egypt, it seemed as if Mubarak was going to hold onto his
power as long as possible, but in the end he resigned. Maybe Qaddafi
will see the errors of his ways and leave office (...or not).

3a) I think that since it has gotten to the point where innocent
civilians are getting killed, it is justified that NATO stepped in to
help. Also, it would be for the betterment of the world if Qaddafi is
taken out of power and dealt with because he's responsible for the
deaths of many people who didn't deserve to die. Hopefully NATO will
be able to overthrow his government and help the Libyan people to
resolve their conflicts and create a stable, peaceful country.

3b) I think that it is justified that the United States is
participating in the attacks, but it is hard to say what the outcome
will be. It is possible that the US may be stuck in Libya for years,
as with Iraq and Afghanistan, and the last thing the US needs is to be
involved in another multi-year project trying to get rid of a cruel
dictator and set up a democratic government. I don't think that the
US's involvement in Libya will impact its involvement in other Middle
East and North African uprisings because it has picked its battles so
far, like choosing to be involved in the Libyan uprisings but not in
the Yemeni or Algerian uprisings, and will continue to pick its
battles in the future.

On Mar 21, 12:24 pm, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[ds]

1. In 1969, the King Idris I and the Libyan monarchy was overthrown
and Muammar Gaddafi became the new Libyan leader. His skillful
political maneuvering placed him in a position of great power, because
he placed his supporters in higher positions. However, under Gaddafi,
citizens have cited many human rights abuses. They criticize the high
amount of censorship, censorship which has caused the imprisonment and
execution of many of those who have spoken out against the regime. In
January, small protests due to government corruption and the delay in
housing units being built appeared in multiple cities. Libya blocked
access to youtube after videos of demonstrations started to appear. On
February 15, a riot broke out in Benghazi due to the arrest of a human
rights activist. Riots continued, and U.N. diplomats sided with
revolutionaries, calling on the Libyan army to overthrow Gaddafi. Some
eastern regions broke free of Gaddafi's rule, but Gaddafi vowed to
crush the revolution. In his attempts to end the uprising, Gaddafi has
used excessive force, and this has been criticized throughout the
world. The government shut down all internet communication and the
army has attacked civilians, having dissidents arrested and executed.
The U.N. and E.U. have imposed sanctions on Gaddafi and his family and
frozen his assets and those of the government. Gaddafi has claimed
that the rebellion is due to Al Qaeda influence and has sent airplanes
to bomb territories held by rebels. France is the first nation to have
recognized the rebels as the legitimate representative of Libya’s
people, Libya has suspended diplomatic relations with France. On March
12, the Arab league called for a No Fly Zone over Libya. The U.N. soon
authorized this No Fly Zone and other military measures to be taken
against Gaddafi. On the 19th, air strikes authorized by the U.N.
halted Gaddafi’s troops and targeted Libya’s air defenses. Although
many air strikes follow, Gaddafi has refused to comply with the
demands that he stop attacking civilians. On the 25th, NATO took over
the military campaign against Qaddafi and the United Arab Emirates
also said it would send war-planes to join patrols with western
allies.
2. There are many similarities between the uprising in Libya to those
of Tunisia and Egypt, the most blatant being the overthrow of a leader
who has been in power for multiple decades. We saw it in Tunisia with
the overthrow of President Ben Ali, who had been in power since 1987,
in Egypt with President Hosni Mubarak who had ruled since 1981, and
now with Colonel Muammar Qaddafi. The protesters in each country cited
government corruption and censorship and each sought to reinstate
democratic elections. All three used online social networks such as
Facebook and Twitter to help their revolutions gain momentum, and
social networks were blocked in both Egypt and Libya after the
protests start. However, the Libyan revolution has been called more
violent and more akin to a civil war than its predecessors, and
international organizations have accused Gaddafi and pro-Gaddafi
forces of committing crimes against humanity, specifically the bombing
of civilians. Because the rioting is not yet finished in Libya, it is
unknown if the outcome of the protests will be similar to those of
Egypt and Tunisia.
3. Part 1: I do think that NATO was justified in carrying out attacks
against Libya because the killings of protesting civilians were taking
place. However, I think it is perhaps hypocritical that Libya is the
only country that has been given this treatment. In other rioting
countries such as Bahrain, the U.N. condemned the government’s
violence as shocking and illegal but the violent oppression of
protesters has gone unchecked by foreign governments. Many atrocities
have been committed by the government in the Yemen protests as well,
such as Yemeni security forces opening fire into protesting anti-
government crowds. Although the anti-government supporters in Libya
deserve foreign support, I think the reason Libya’s protests have
gained so much attention and foreign response is the fact that Libya
is not a gulf state like Bahrain or Yemen, and the governments of gulf
states generally are supported by the U.S.
Part 2: My opinion is basically the same for the United States’
participation in the Libya Protests as it is to NATO’s participation.
The Libyan protesters deserve foreign support in overthrowing their
dictator. However, as we’ve seen from the lack of response to the
Yemen and Bahrain protests, participation in one country’s revolution
does not necessarily entail participation in every revolution in that
region. It’s political hypocrisy, but Yemen and Bahrain have received
much less media coverage than Libya, and so it is unlikely that the
U.S. government will be criticized much.

On Mar 21, 12:24 pm, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[kevin]

1. Over the past couple of weeks, since February 15th, the citizens of
Libya have been undergoing a bloody revolution against their dictator,
Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi. Historically, Gaddafi has ruled Libya
since he overthrew the former ruler, King Idris of Libya, in a
military coup on September 1, 1969. Gaddafi's has been an
authoritarian government, with heavy censorship and political
repression. Talking about politics to foreigners was a crime, and
political dissidents could face jail or execution. Upset over these
restrictions, and emboldened by the successful uprisings in Egypt and
Tunisia, Libyans have been in open revolt against their government.
The revolutionaries are currently based mostly in the city of Bengazi,
in the east, while Gaddafi holds Tripoli in the west. Since March
19th, coalition forces under the UN have been assisting the rebels
with air strikes and enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya.

2. There are many similarities between the current situation in Libya
and the uprising that happened in Egypt and Tunisia. Libya's is a
revolution by the people of a Middle Eastern nation who are angered by
the political repression and censorship of their authoritarian
government, same as in both Egypt and Tunisia. Additionally, all three
uprisings began with peaceful protests, aided by social networking
sites such as facebook. However, while the governments of both Egypt
and Tunisia offered resistance in the form of police and military
enforcement, the Libyan revolution is the only one of the three that
has escalated to all out armed onflict. Additionally, the Libyan
revolution is the first one in which the UN gave aid to the
revolutionaries.

3. Part 1. NATO was justified in carrying out these attacks against
the forces loyal to Gaddafi, because the Libyan revolution has quickly
become much more bloody than anyone could have imagined. If only to
end the bloodshed, NATO was justified in joining the rebels to shorten
the conflict. Additionally, Gaddafi violated a UN-mandated ceasefire,
and showed that he was not afraid of slaughtering his own people even
after being called on to stop by most of the rest of the world.
Finally, the Libyan rebels deserve the help of NATO and the rest of
the world because they are fighting for their human rights against a
cruel dictator.

3. Part 2. The USA is justified in participating in these attacks for
the reasons outlined above: Gaddafi will not stop until all of the
rebels are dead, and he will only continue to repress his people after
that. President Obama's decision will not force the USA to take sides
in other issues, because lending aid to Libya in its extreme situation
does not necessarily promise America's aid to any other conflict. If
other conflicts reach the point where it is necessary for the US to
take sides in order to defend human rights, then Obama can make that
decision regardless of how he did or did not decide to act in the
Libyan uprising.

On Mar 21, 12:24 pm, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Becky Maz]

1. Over the past few weeks, the people of Libya have started a
rebellion/revolution against the dictator Moammar Gadhafi, who has
held his power as the leader of Libya since 1969. He overthrew the
government himself in March of 1969 as the leader of a military coup.
He was then known as Colonel Gadhafi, and has since renamed himself
the 'Guide of the Socialist Revolution'. Unfortunately for him, it
seems that history is repeating itself, and, 42 years later, beginning
on February 17th of this year, Gadhafi is now finding himself on the
opposite side of the battle. Spurring from the successful rebellion of
the people in Egypt just a few months ago, the people of Libya are
ready to follow in their footsteps, by fighting for their freedom.
This fight for freedom, however, has not been easy, and has
essentially started a civil war between Gadhafi and his followers,
against the youth of the nation, who are feeling oppressed by
Gadhafi's dictatorial regime and his crimes against humanity. This
issue has gained the attention of many other countries, including the
U.S, Germany, France, and Britain. For example, after one speech
presented by Gadhafi in late February, Angela Merkel- Chancellor of
Germany- was quoted saying, "he [Gadhafi] is declaring war on his own
people." This so called civil war has caused the United Nations to
take measures such as implementing a no-fly zone over Libya, in order
to protect its civilians. Gadhafi has since killed thousands of his
own people, even after an agreement with the UN for a cease-fire
within Libya during the uprising, and has supposedly paid mercenaries
from other countries to protect him by killing thousands of Libyan
protesters.

2. There are many similarities between this uprising in Libya and
other recent uprisings in other middle-eastern countries, such as
Tunisia, and Egypt. They are all similar due to the common cause of
the people- to take a dictator out of power, and for the freedom and
rights of the people. However, in this instance, I feel that this
uprising is most similar to that which occurred in Egypt. In this
case, Mubarak- Egypt's leader- did not want to step down from his
position of power, and refused to do so for many weeks into the
uprising. Eventually he did step down, when he saw that his life was
in danger, and that there was no hope of him regaining control of the
country. This is more similar to the situation in Libya, because
Gadhafi is refusing to step down. Unfortunately, Gadhafi's will to
stay in power is much more extreme than that of Hosni Mubarak. It is
different from the events which occured in Tunisia, because the
dictator in power at the time of the uprising stepped down almost
immediately.

3. I do feel that NATO was justified in carrying out its attacks
against Gadhafi and his supporters. In reality, he and his paid
mercenaries from nearby countries, were killing inoccent people who
should have basic rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of
assembly. Unfortunately, there is no way to be sure that no innocent
civilians were killed in these attacks as well. These 'attacks' have
been air strikes, and there is no way to be sure that people who were
part of the revolution, or those who have tried to stay out of the way
were not killed. Had it been possible for NATO and its supporters to
carry out their attacks against these mercenaries, the Libyan military
(loyal to Gadhafi), and Gadhafi himself, in a different, safer manner
for the innocent victims that have no doubt been injured, killed, and/
or in some way affected by these air strikes,there would have been
better results, less questions, and less victims. It is unfortunate,
but in the end, I do think that some form of attack on Gadhafi and his
supporters is justified, by the millions that have already suffered
under his dictatorship for the past four decades.

As Americans, we can only hope that President Barack Obama made
the correct decision amongst all this chaos, in helping the Libyan
people. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to tell whether or not the
Libyan people, assuming they win this revolution, will want the help
of the American people. It was undoubtedly the good intention of
Barack Obama to eventually gain an ally in the middle-eastern region
of the world. Although, it is not always that easy. As we know, in
Egypt, the protesters really did not want the U.S's help because they
had been supportive of Mubarak for so long. In Libya, this is
obviously not the same situation, but I would not be surprised if the
Libyan people want to establish their country by themselves, rather
than with the help of the U.S., or any other foreign nations-
especially with the attacks on Libya in the past few weeks. The good
intentions of these countries, may not help them in the end.

On Mar 21, 12:24 pm, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Alex Kim]

In Libya over the last couple of weeks, the people of the nation have
started to revolt against their powerful dictator, Muammar el-Qaddafi.
He has been in control since a bloodless coup took place in 1969.
Since coming into power, he has restricted many freedoms. He has
suppressed dissidents and has been criticized for encouraging
terrorism. Talking to foreigners about politics is a crime in Libya.
In the middle of February, sparked by other protests in surrounding
countries, citizens started to protest Qaddafi's government. The
protests were fairly organized and happened mainly around the city of
Benghazi, where the dissidents' base is. Qaddafi responded with
military force, crushing peaceful and violent protests alike.
Qaddafi's forces are centered in Tripoli, the capital of Libya.
Recently, NATO forces have responded by invading Libya to help the
protestors and enforcing a UN no-fly zone in Libya.
2. The main similarities between the uprisings in Libya, Tunisia, and
Egypt are that the revolutionaries are protesting the same things. The
protests are taking place in the same area of the world, and some of
the main things protestors are upset about have to do with human
rights violations. Also, social networking websites have proven useful
to protestors in each nation for organization of protest. The main
difference between the uprisings has to do with the level of violence.
Unlike in the other two nations, in Libya the government has attacked
its citizens. Because of the violent reaction of Qaddafi's government,
the international response has also been much more involved. The UN
has imposed a no-fly zone and NATO (including the US) has invaded
Libya.
3a. I think that NATO's attacks on Libya are justified. By firing on
protestors, Qaddafi was defying warnings the rest of the world had
given them. He violated a UN cease-fire and he has also violated the
no-fly zone since its implementation. NATO and the rest of the world
has a responsibility to stop the human rights violations of Qaddafi,
as well as to ensure that anyone has the opportunity to assemble and
hold peaceful protests. For these reasons, I think that NATO had the
right to invade Libya and to support the rebels.
3b. The US, as a member of the international community, had a
responsibility to join the UN and NATO in their efforts. Also, I think
that is part of US values to support peaceful revolution, especially
when the protests aim to remove an oppressive dictator from power. I
don't think that participation in these attacks obliges the US to
participate in any attacks in the future. However, I do feel as though
it was a good decision to support protests in Libya. President Obama
has made it clear that our goal in Libya is only to prevent Qaddafi
from attacking protestors, and has promised that it will not become
"another Iraq". Also, I think that the attacks were justified because
the rest of the world is on our side. Because the US had such strong
international backing, I think it was a good decision to invade Libya.

On Mar 21, 12:24 pm, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Yuichiro Iwamoto]

1) Over the last few weeks, Libya has been in a state of turmoil
because of a revolution. After being oppressed by Qaddafi for 42
years, strikes occurred in many of the major Libyan cities such as
Tripoli. This protest in February marked the starting point of the
grand rebellion still persisting today. The uprising took place due to
several factors such as censorship, government corruption, and the
Egyptian uprising. Libya is one of the worst country when it comes to
censorship. It is estimated that up to 22% of the people in Libya work
under the surveillance of the government, and journalists or anyone
that opposes the regime is condemned, and sometimes executed publicly.
The Libyan government is also very corrupt. Like many countries around
its area, more than half of its GDP stems from oil. Qaddafi has
stockpiled huge sums of this oil money as his personal assets, and has
spent a major portion on weapons and other military equipment. These
two factors combined likely contributed greatly to the rage of the
people taking part in the uprising. The trigger was finally pulled
because of the influences from other uprisings all over the continent.
Even Egypt, under a dictatorship much like Libya has started to
protest against the government. On February 16th Libya joined the
other countries in the struggle for freedom. After the rebellion
started, it quickly became an arms conflict due to the violent
response of the Qaddafi Loyalists. Unlike other African Country
leaders, Qaddafi permitted open-firing, and even vowed to execute the
opposition members. This conflict still persists today in key towns
such as Ra's Lanuf, an important oil refinery harbor. Recently, there
has been intervention from the UN and NATO, and no fly zones and air
strikes have been permitted.
2) There are obvious similarities in the three rebellions because they
are all in countries that have been under autocratic rule by a
dictator. There was censorship and surveillance in all countries, and
there was major corruption in the government, by which the leader
gained massive amounts of money. Compared to the other revolutions
taking place now, these three rebellions have received more media
attention as well. This is likely because the seemingly unbreakable
iron grip of the dictators, Qaddafi, Mubarak, and Ben Ali, fell or are
falling apart at a very rapid rate. A difference in the three
uprisings is the response of the government. Only the Libyan
revolution has become a direct armed conflict between the people and
the government. Mubarak used tanks to stifle the protests, but even he
did not use air strikes or openly kill the people of the opposition.
Another related difference is foreign involvement. Only in Libya is
the UN and NATO directly involved, by taking part in the actual
conflict or setting sanctions and no fly zones. During the Egypt
revolution, the foreign powers, including the US mostly sat and
watched how it played out.
3) I. NATO's attacks on Qaddafi's forces were justified for the most
part because Qaddafi's forces had already killed hundreds of innocent
Libyans during the conflict. Helping innocent people, or oppressed
people obtain their freedom is a motive that should not be criticized.
However, I feel that foreign involvement in this rebellion was far too
late, because a month or more of conflict had passed before foreign
involvement was decided. If UN and NATO involvement had occurred
sooner, fewer lives may have been lost and Qaddafi may not have been
in power at this moment.
II. Unlike the Egyptian uprising, the US has actually taken action in
assisting the people of Libya. This action was justified because of
major human rights violations, government corruption, and democracy.
However, although the motive was justified, I don't think that the US
should be involved in this uprising, because it will only lead to
complications in foreign relations. The US strongly supports Libya
now, but only supported Egypt and Tunisia from the side lines. As with
the problem US had with Tunisia revolution, the US risks damaging
relationships with middle eastern or similar dictatorship countries of
the world when getting involved in these conflicts. Also, the US will
be forced to take sides in future rebellions, because people will
think, "Why did the US help X and not Y", which will upset relations
even further. In the Tunisian uprising, the risked relations were with
autocratic Arab countries of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Libya. During
Egypt's revolt, Egypt itself was an essential North African/Middle
Eastern Allie that received a significant portion of US's foreign aid.
If the US gets too involved, it will get tangled in a web of damaged
relations, and suffer from dilemmas like assisting or not assisting
Libya much more.

[Lindsay Korzekwa]

1. Libya has been ruled for the last forty years by Muammar Al-
Qaddafi, who has been ruling as a dictator, suppressing his people. He
had been succeeding in keeping control of Libya's citizens when
revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia gave the people courage to fight
back. In the beginning, the protests seemed to be following the paths
that Egypt and Tunisia went on, but Qaddafi began to fight back,
killing his own people. To make matters worse, a group of Qaddafi
supporters have been firing at civilians and protesters as well,
killing many innocent bystanders as well as the rebels. Those loyal to
Qaddafi are much better armed and better organized, giving the rebels
little chance at overthrowing the regime on their own. They requested
help from the rest of the world, and on March 17, the UN voted for a
no-fly zone to protect the country's citizens. This was supported by
NATO and the Arab League. Currently, France, Great Britain and the US
have been using military force to stop Qaddafi from using combat
aircraft against his citizens.

2. I think that there are many similarities between the protests in
Egypt and Tunisia and the uprising in Libya, but there are also key
differences. They were all part of the same chain reaction that has
been terrifying dictators around the world, and all started out
peacefully. The citizens have been getting progressively more annoyed
at their dictators, who had been in power for a very long time before
the protests began. The dictators proved to be rather naive as the
protests got progressively worse, but both Mubarak and Ben Ali
eventually came to their senses and stepped down. Qaddafi, however, is
still clinging to power, determined to do whatever it takes to retain
his position. Another difference between Libya and the rebellions in
Egypt and Tunisia is the amount of violence used. Egypt and Tunisia
achieved freedom relatively peacefully, with minimal civilian
casualties. Unfortunately, that has not been the case in Libya.
Hundreds of civilians have died in the last few weeks, and Qaddafi
shows not sign of giving in. Because of the harm he has done to his
people, the international community has decided that military force in
necessary, a measure that was not taken with Egypt or Tunisia.

3a. I believe that NATO was absolutely justified in taking action
against Qaddafi. He has no right to kill his own people, and I believe
that the world should support a country trying achieve freedom.
Besides, Libya and the Arab world asked for help, making the
intervention even more justified. Hopefully, NATO will be able to
quickly overthrow Qaddafi and let the Libyans take control of their
own country.

3b. I think that the United States was justified in intervening in the
crisis in Libya for multiple reasons. We have resources and technology
that could make the situation better and lessen the time and money
required from other countries. It would also be hypocritical for us to
say we want to promote democracy when there is a country working
towards just that, asking for our help which we ignore. I also believe
that this will make it more difficult for the US to stay out of
conflicts in the future, but that is inevitable, and the possibility
of having another Arab democracy is worth it. I do not think that this
situation will turn into another Afghanistan or Iraq for a few
reasons, the most important of which being the multilateralism of the
situation. We are not just going into a country on our own, trying to
impose a democracy in a country which has never functioned that way.
Were are joining a group of other world powers to try and overthrow a
violent dictator so that the country's people can have a chance at
making what they want of their country.

On Mar 21, 12:24 pm, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Leah Coppage-Gross]

1. Since the protests began on the 15th of February, Libya has been
in a constant state of distress as Gaddafi struggles to keep hold on
his power and put down those who oppose them. The protests began with
the people calling for new leadership and democratic elections. The
uprising spread rapidly across the country, and since then, Gadaffi
has used many tactics in order to control the people. He has responded
with extreme military force which included his armies firing upon his
own people. He has also blocked communications and censorship became
very high in the country. He agreed to hold talks with opposition
leaders, but they refused and continued demanding for his
resignation. The situation escalated into such an extreme armed
conflict that he was accused of committing crimes against humanity.
He then announced a cease-fire which he failed to uphold. At this
point, other countries began to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya,
which began by disabling his air defenses. Gadaffi has run a very
corrupt governmental system in his 42 year reign and would constantly
place relatives and close allies in high military or governmental
positions. He has gained a huge fortune over the years, and much of
the country's income comes from its oil which greatly improved in the
1970's. Thhe money was then spent on arms purchases and supporting
militancy, and under Gadaffi, the eastern parts of the country became
impoverished. It was only a matter of time before the people,
inspired by the uprisings around them, would rise up against their
extremely corrupt leader and demand for some change.
2. There are various similitaries and differences between Libya's
current situation and what happened in Tunisia and Egypt. The
protestors of Libya were mostlikely inspired by what happened in Egypt
and Tunisia and were obviously hoping for similar results, and change
so that they could have a voice in the government. At this point,
there are still many differences. Neither of those uprisings were as
violent as Libya's, violence was involved but not to the extremity
that Gadaffi is implementing it. Another difference is the fact that
Gadaffi still struggles to hold onto his power. The leaders of Egypt
and Tunisia tried to hold their power as well, but eventually realized
that they wouldn't be able to keep it. Gadaffi seems to have a
different mindset, and struggles even more to maintain control, when
at this point, that seems impossible. Also, foreign involvement was
not nearly as strong as it is in this case. When the no-fly zone was
implemented, the US and other countries inserted themselves into the
situation militarily, whereas that was not done before with Egypt in
Tunisia. However, overall, the same force and need for change was
present in all three countries. The people, seeing the corruption in
their government, rose up, stood up for what they believed in, and
worked to gain the rights they deserve.
3-1. I believe that the no-fly zone implemented by NATO was
justified. I see it as being an answer to the call that the civilians
of Libya made, in their desperate need for help. I believe that
countries with the power to do so, have an obligation to help the
innocent civilians who are being brutally killed by their leader. The
people have the right to protest for what they believe in, and
having Gadaffi open-fire on his people, after explicitly saying he
wouldn't, is just wrong.
3-2 I believe that the U.S's participation in the attacks against
Libya are justified. No military aid was given for Egypt and Tunisia,
but in this case, it is a matter of the civilians crying out for
help. In the interview we watched about the google rep. from Egypt,
he basically said that Egypt did not really want the U.S's help with
their uprising. This is in contrast to Libya, where the people asked
for help. This might indicate that in future uprisings, the countries
will indeed ask for U.S.'s help, but I believe the administration will
be able to make decisions based on need. The need for military aid
was high in Libya, and as such, I believe the U.S. acted accordingly.
Another factor in this, is the fact that Gadaffi actually announced a
UN-backed cease-fire, and completely acted against it. This itself is
call enough for action, but the number of his own people that Gadaffi
has killed is another incentive. Overall, i think the US made the
right decision in participating in this, and it's hard to tell if they
will be needed again in the future. It is quite possibl that other
countries will demand for military aid, but again, I think the
president will be able to make the right decision over whether help is
necessary.

[Alison Mosier-Mills]

1. In 1969, Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi first stepped onto the world
stage when he overthrew King Idris of Libya. His 42-year reign has
since been fraught with conflict; he has been criticized throughout
the west for oppressing his people and sponsoring terrorism. In 1977,
he published his socialist views in “Green Book”. However, Libyan
relations with the West improved somewhat after the 1986 bombings in
Libya, when he cooperated with UN-backed sanctions, and ended his
nuclear program. In February 2011, political uprisings began in Libya
against Qaddafi’s oppressive regime. The situation quickly became
violent as under-supplied, disorganized and unprepared rebels clashed
with Qaddafi’s trained and well-equipped army. At first, the rebels
gained control of many strategic eastern oil cities, but after the
Qaddafi’s army began airstrikes, the army was able to reclaim them,
pushing the rebels further west. Although many countries denounced
Qaddafi’s actions and called for an end to the killings, there was no
military intervention, despite rebel requests for a no-fly zone.
France became the first nation to recognize the rebels as the “true”
government of Libya. The UN ordered a ceasefire, but after the
military continued to kill civilians and rebels, NATO agreed to impose
the no-fly zone on March 19. Currently, Qaddafi continues to hold onto
power.

2. I see many similarities between Libya, Egypt and Tunisia, but I
also see differences. In all three cases, people were rebelling
against an autocratic ruler who had led the country for a long time
with an oppressive regime. The press also played an important role,
with many leaders claiming that news providers like Al-Jazeera were
biased against the governments. In Libya, Qaddafi attempted to cut off
all foreign news, and only ran government-sponsored television
programs. However, it is clear that the situations in Egypt and
Tunisia, which ended relatively quickly and without as much violence,
are far different from the near-Civil War in Libya. In both Egypt and
Tunisia, security forces were released into the crowds of protesters,
but there was not nearly as much violence as there is in Libya, where
rebels and military are using airstrikes in an attempt to quell the
other side.

3.
i) Yes, I do think that NATO was justified in carrying out the attacks
in Libya; clearly, the rebels were ill equipped to fight against
Qaddafi and the situation was worsening. Although I don’t think that
military interventions should be used unless absolutely necessary, I
can see the danger that might occur if Qaddafi stayed in power and
crushed the resistance. Because this might have required military
action in the future, I think that it was good for NATO to act now,
before it’s too late.

ii) I do believe that the United States was justified in
participating in the attacks. As many of my classmates noted, Obama
was truly put between a rock and hard place in this situation; if he
didn’t act, he would be accused of putting US interests before the
people of Libya’s, yet if he did act, there was the potential that
military intervention in Libya could just lead to instability and war
like in Afghanistan and Iraq. By acting now, Obama has put the US in
the position of taking action in the future, because if we have
intervened in Libya, we need to show our commitment to freedom and
democracy by intervening in other areas that might have rebellions. If
we were to help Libya but not another Middle Eastern/North African
country, it would now seem unfair. In the delicate situations in Yemen
and Bahrain, we may now feel more of a need to develop a stronger
presence, but I don’t think that intervening in Libya, which was
clearly an extreme situation that required our military action, will
necessarily mean that we will have to use military action in all
future conflicts in the Middle East.

On Mar 21, 12:24 pm, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Claire]

1. Libya has undergone tremendous unrest over the last couple of weeks
as its citizens continue to rebel against the autocratic rule of
Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi. In 1969, Qaddafi led a coup to overthrow
the reign of King Idris I and assumed power in the country. As a
ruler, Qaddafi quashed dissidents who attempted to challenge his
government. He also began to ignore the Libyan people as he turned to
focus on international affairs in efforts to gain more power. Often,
these efforts would result in loss of civilian life, as demonstrated
by a series of military campaigns he attempted from 1978 to 1987 that
resulted in the Chadian-Libyan conflict, leading to the deaths of more
than 7500 Libyans. As Qaddafi continued to rule, he became a tyrant
and utterly disregarded the well-being of his country and even
accumulated wealth for his own benefit. Today, more than forty years
after the coup, Qaddafi still holds his dictatorial status over the
people. However, citizen dissatisfaction finally reached breaking
point in February, and inspired by recent revolts in Tunisia and
Egypt, Libyans began protesting against Qaddafi's reign. The uprising
began on the "Day of Rage" on February 15th in the Libyan city of
Benghazi, but within a few days it spread to the capital Tripoli and
the situation quickly worsened. As Qaddafi holds superior weapons
technology, he and his forces responded with violent attacks against
the protesters, however, the protesters were able to fight back and
overtake much of Libya's eastern half. Qaddafi, though, quickly
retaliated, and was able to take back some major cities. With the
level of violence escalating, the United Nations approved of a "no-fly
zone" over Libya in order to protect the citizens from Qaddafi's air
strikes. At present, Muammar el-Qaddafi obstinately refuses to give up
his power, even as the civilian death toll continues to rise.

2. There are some similarities between the Libyan situation and the
uprisings that happened in Egypt and Tunisia, most notably that all
three countries were under dictatorial rule for several decades. All
three rulers hoarded wealth and gave little thought to the well-being
of the people, and all uprisings against them started out as planned
movements organized by everyday citizens who were dissatisfied with
the government. Additionally, Mubarak of Egypt and Qaddafi both shut
down media and communication outlets as rebellion rose. However, while
the Egypt and Tunisian uprisings mostly played out within each
respective state, the uprising in Libya has urgently demanded
international involvement, with the passing of U.N. Resolution 1973
calling for the aforementioned "no-fly zone" in order to help protect
the people (and, indirectly, aiding the rebellion by keeping citizens
alive). With that being said, the revolts in Libya have proved much
more violent than those that happened in Egypt and Tunisia, as Qaddafi
directly resorted to violence in order to put down rebels leading to
an immediate death toll. In contrast, in the Egypt and Tunisian
rebellions, both government and rebels tried to restrain from using
widespread violence in the first place. Furthermore, the response of
the three dictators were varied, as the Tunisian dictator fled and
Egypt's dictator stepped down, whereas Qaddafi continues to stubbornly
hold onto his position.

3. Part 1: I believe that NATO was completely justified in carrying
out the attacks against Libya. The people are no match for the
government, as they don't posses any weapons that could remotely
defend from attacks coming from Qaddafi air forces. Qaddafi is a
menace to human life in Libya, and what he is doing in simply
inhumane; he is essentially attacking and killing helpless people.
NATO has successfully intervened in past situations, from missions in
the Balkans to operations in Afghanistan. By monitoring the no-fly
zone, they will protect citizens from harm. Additionally, by enforcing
an arms embargo to limit the ammunition of Qaddafi's men, they will
weaken Qaddafi's forces and thus make it easier to finally overthrow
him. The situation in Libya is dire and the protesters need all the
help they can receive. Without NATO's help, it would be all too easy
for Qaddafi to quash the rebellion and claim thousands of more lives
who only wanted freedom from his tyrannical rule.

3. Part 2: Yes, I do believe the United States is justified in
participating in the attacks against Qaddafi. As with my views on
NATO's involvement, the Libyan rebels need all the help they can get
in defending against Qaddafi's violent retaliations, as it would be
immoral of the world to just stand and watch as he continues to commit
shocking violations of human rights. In addition to that, the United
States is one of the richest and most powerful nations in the world,
and has been involved in many other recent, controversial, and violent
situations within the international community, such as the Iraq war.
Furthermore, the U.S. has projected itself as a major military power,
as it has pledged help to South Korea in event of North Korean
invasion, and so it would only be justified for them to help out Libya
as well. Qaddafi attacked people who had no means whatsoever of
defending themselves, and did not even attempt at a non-violent
approach to put down rebellion. There should have been no question as
to whether the people should be helped or not, and for the U.S. to
ignore such a blatant act of crime would prove unfavorable for the
nation's image. Other countries such as France have also pledged help
to Libyan rebels in the fight against Qaddafi , and so it would also
negatively affect the U.S.'s image if they refrained from
involvement-- further justification for U.S. actions. However,
President Obama's decision to help Libya may not necessarily mean that
the U.S. will have to take sides in the future. Only when the
rebelling people are in extremely dire need of assistance should the
U.S. choose to help them. However, if cruel, prolonged bloodshed and
violence can be mostly avoided and the dictator accepts defeat, as the
situation in Egypt played out, then there may be little need for
extensive U.S. involvement. If worst comes to worst and Qaddafi's
forces hold out, the situation in Libya may escalate to war-like
status and the United States and other countries may be stuck in Libya
for years. However, it is imperative to continue to watch how the
situation plays out over the next couple of weeks in order to
determine whether U.S. involvement was a good choice or not.

On Mar 21, 12:24 pm, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[dalton morris]

1. In September 1969, Qaddafi came into power in Libya. He had
somewhat good intentions at first but, like many rulers, soon became a
dictator and a tyrant. Since then, Libyan's have been tightly
controlled, treated cruelly, and overall are very unhappy. Seeing the
recent successful uprisings in countries very similar to their own,
Libyan's decided that it was time to join Egypt, Tunisia, and all the
countries in revolting against their unjust governments. On February
15th, protests began in the city of Benghazi. Protests were successful
and the revolution started to move across the country relatively
quickly. Qaddafi and his forces responded with mercy; beating down any
revolt they can. A no fly-zone has recently been granted over Libya
because many countries and the UN fear that Qaddafi could attack his
citizens from above.

2. There are some basic similarities between the uprisings in Egypt,
Tunisia and Libya. First, all the uprisings were staged by the general
public because of general discontent with the government. Also, the
uprisings started with a small amount of people in all situations and
rapidly grew bigger and bigger. Also with Libya and Egypt, the leaders
of these countries both had trouble stepping down. The difference is,
Qaddafi is proving to be more violent than Mubarak was. Mubarak
stepped down from power relatively easily. He did not use much force
and violence against his own people. Unfortunately, Qaddafi is not the
same way. Already, he has killed hundreds, maybe thousands, of people
just because he wants to stay in power. He is so determined, he will
send tanks and helicopters against his own people. One more reason
that this uprising is different from the ones in Egypt and Tunisia is
the intervention from the rest of the world. NATO, the UN, and many
other countries including the United States have gotten involved in
supporting Libya. They have even started taking military action,
making blockades, placing sanctions, and implementing no-fly zones.

3a. NATO was justified in their attacks against Libya. Qaddafi has
already and still is, murdering his own people ruthlessly. Thousands
of people are suffering and crying for help. NATO is supporting these
people and was when they attacked. They were completely justified in
their actions because thousands of people are in a terrible position
and they desperately need help.

3b. Yes, I believe that president Obama was justified in participating
in the attacks. As I mentioned before, thousands of people in Libya
are in a terrible and dangerous situation right now and they are
crying out for help. The U.S is more than capable to help the people
of Libya in their quest for a better life. With all the power and
money that the U.S has, it is not too much to ask to help out a
little. With so many terrible things happening in Libya, it is the
world's responsibility to help, and we are the most powerful country
in the world. I don't necessarily think that president Obama's
decision will make other countries turn to the U.S for aid. Yes, the
U.S is helping Libya in their bad situation; but so are many other
powerful countries including France, Britain, and Spain. I think that
it may make other countries think of the U.S as a possible aid for
help; but not more than they already would have. Plus, since many
other countries are helping, it doesn't make the U.S look so eager to
lend a helping hand and take sides. Overall, I think president Obama
was completely justified in his decisions regarding Libya but I don't
think that these decisions will force the U.S to take sides in the
future.

On Mar 21, 12:24 pm, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Andrew Lin]

1. perhaps the biggest news item at present, the Libyan insurrection
has snowballed from a spate of protests to an internecine war
requiring international involvement. In the most recent military move,
destined to change the geopolitical face of North Africa, the United
States launched 122 Tomahawk missiles at installations all over Libya.
This move, however massively destructive it might be, is but the
latest in Libya, a country which has been fighting for its freedom
from the tyrannical rule of Muammar Gaddafi. The people of Libya have
good reason to detest Gaddafi, as he has ran Libya into the ground,
turning it into an international pariah with little in the way of
economic prospects. The international community also has cause for
anger against Gaddafi: ever since he came to power in 1969, Gaddafi
has sponsored numerous acts of terrorism against the Western world,
including the Lockerbie bombing and the Berlin disco bombing in the
1980s. With these good reasons, all that the rebels needed was a
catalyst example, which came in the form of the Tunisian and Egyptian
revolutions. Unlike in Tunisia and Egypt, however, the process will
not be so easy, as Qaddafi has no qualms about using his devoted
military to kill Libyans. The rebels, who have seized control of the
east (establishing Benghazi as a center of affairs) at first rode a
tide of victories, taking important cities such as Ras Lanuf and
marching triumphantly towards Tripoli. Once Gaddafi’s forces managed
to centralize, however, what remained of Libyan military might struck
back, forcing the rebels to retreat back to the east. With the news
that Gaddafi had used his forces to kill civilians, though, the United
Nations imposed a no-fly zone, and soon France and NATO powers began
to pounce, supporting the rebel cause. To this end, the United States
has mounted missile-based surgical strikes, eliminating Gaddafi’s
power to project his once-considerable air power against the rebels.
Now, with the brunt of Western military force upon them, Gaddafi and
his forces have been on the retreat, and the rebels have advanced
further and further west.
2. The revolution in Libya is quite different from the uprisings in
Tunisia and Egypt, primarily because Libya as a country has a unique
international status as a general pariah state. Though Libya does
share some basic similarities with the former regimes in Tunisia and
Egypt, such as arid, geographical terrain and a long-running dictator,
Libya’s main differences from these two countries stem from a single
man: Muammar Gaddafi. Gaddafi’s unusually eccentric actions and
methods in running Libya have distanced him from conventional
dictators like Hosni Mubarak. Indeed, Gaddafi’s intractability has
plunged Libya into all-out civil war, as opposed to Mubarak and others
who abdicated after the threat of violence broke out. This is in no
small part due to Gaddafi’s army, which, again unlike the armies of
Egypt and Tunisia, is devoutly loyal to its almighty leader.
Furthermore, the rest of the Western world, for the most part, is not
particularly friendly with Libya, even though Gaddafi had managed a
bit of diplomatic turnaround in the early 2000s. The current Western
intervention in Libya is far greater than the virtual non-intervention
that most Western nations took up in Egypt and Tunisia. Overall, the
Libyan revolution is far different from the Egyptian and Tunisian
uprisings – and considering how much more blood has been shed in
Libya, this is not at all a good thing.
3. a. As of Sunday, March 27, 2011, 124 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles, 20
Dassault Mirage and Rafale fighter jets, and multiple naval vessels
have all been dispatched or used against pro-Gaddafi forces in Libya –
and every last cent spent on all these arms was justified. Gaddafi is
a tyrant, a killer, a murderer, and fully deserves what he is finally
getting after years of evading full international punishment for his
reprehensible actions. NATO is fully justified in imposing a no-fly
zone over Libya to support the noble rebel cause. Whether or not it is
geopolitically wise to do so for any individual country, Gaddafi has
been oppressing the people of Libya for too long, and it will take a
concentrated Libyan and international effort to get him out.
b. Obama has made a smart choice by using Tomahawk cruise missiles as
opposed to land forces to batter Gaddafi’s defenses. By using long-
range surface-to-surface missiles, Obama is showing his very justified
commitment to Libya while keeping United States troops and assets from
being tied up in the Mediterranean. A heavy series of Tomahawk salvoes
requires but two surface vessels and three submarines out of the
Navy’s 400 or so operational ships – a comparatively small price to
pay for ensuring that the United States does not face international
ridicule for possible hypocrisy. Obama’s use of precision surgical
strikes also reflects well on United States military policy, and shows
that even when tied down in two redundant wars, the United States can
still attack on the side of freedom and liberation. What is concerning
about the Libyan revolution, and what may prove to be most
inauspicious for United States global policy, is the possibility that
the United States may be drawn into rebellions in other Middle Eastern
states. Though this threat does exist, it is fairly unlikely that the
United States will be forced to mount a full-on offensive against
enemy forces in the Middle East in the name of rebellion, as Libya is
a special case in terms of revolutions. This is because Libya’s
Gaddafi has nowhere to go, and must cling on to power at all costs or
else face a precipitous reduction in both his living standards and his
life. Other governments facing rebellions will at least have places to
flee, therefore making overt internecine warfare not necessary.
Nevertheless, in preparation for such a threat, the United States
should greatly scale back its operations in Iraq and Afghanistan,
perhaps establishing only one or two strategic bases if needed to
evacuate American civilians and assets while providing token
assistance to avoid world criticism. The Libya revolution will prove
geopolitically complicated for the United States; only if Obama uses
Machiavellian strategy (and executes it perfectly) will the United
States emerge unscathed from this and other conflagrations in the
Middle East. So far, Obama seems to be going on the right path.

On Mar 21, 12:24 pm, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Dan Maxwell]

1. Colonel Qaddafi has held Libya under his autocratic control since
his coup in 1969 and has been suppressing his people ever since. He
has monitored almost every aspect of Libyan life and has been said to
have committed many human rights abuses. His censorship has caused
many problems, and recently, he has put in place a "blackout"; where
he has kicked out all foreign journalists and reporters. Libya runs on
oil, and recent fighting has been concentrated in towns that have oil.
Spurred on by protests in Egypt and Tunisia, the people of Libya have
recently ben fighting to get rid of Qaddafi. However, the government
has more firepower (weapons) than the rebels, so the rebels have
requested a no-fly zone to be put in place over Libya to help protect
the citizens. This has been supported by the Arab League and NATO, but
Qaddafi has refused to implement it. Because of the refusal, NATO sent
in troops in support of the rebels.

2. The protests in Libya have some similarities but also some
difference than the protests in Egypt and Tunisia. Similar to the
Egyptian and Tunisian protests Libyan rebels have been frusterated by
their leaders dictatorship and have rebeled against it. In Libya a ban
has been put over foreign media, similar to the media block in Egypts
revolt. However, the protests in Libya have been more violent. Qaddafi
has used tanks, planes, and artillery against the rebels,and there
have been many deaths. A massacre was completed by Qaddafi' forces at
a funeral. Also, foreign countries have been more involved in the
civil war being fought in Libya. NATO has sent in troops, and the UN
has put in place a no-fly zone. The foreign influence is much greater
than what occured in Egypt and Tunisia. Also, Qaddafi seems more
resistant to stepping down than Mubarak. Mubarak mainly used non-
violent attempts to save himself, but when that didn't work, he
stepped down. Qaddafi has waged a full-out war against the Libyans'.

3a. I believe that NATO was completely justified for stepping in and
attacking Qaddafi. A leader should not attack his own people with
forces that the people cannot handle Qaddafi used tanks, artillery,
and fighter jet planes on civilians that had no way of matching that
firepower. Qaddafi's refusal to agree with US and other countries
demands to step down from power has shown that he will not listen to
outside influence. This has the possibility of getting WAY out of hand
if the violence escalates any further. Qaddafi has to be shown that he
can not kill his own people without regard, especially when foreign
countries and organizations have specfically told him not to. NATO's
institution ofa no-fly zone was justied because Qaddafi needs to be
contained and cannot go on killing his own people.

3b. I think the US was justified in participating in the attacks in
Libya because of the same reasons as I described why NATO's decision
was justified. This decision has marked us as a country that is
willing to take sides in an uprising; and the US generally takes the
rebels side. There have been at least 10 countries that have shown
support to the rebels, so the US's involvement was not huge news. All
that we need to be worried about is to not get involved in a multiple
year war/rebuilding effort like Iraq or Afghanistan. As shown in the
Yemenise and Tunisian rebellion, coutries that get involvd with one
protest do not need to be involved with every protest, so I think that
the US should not be worried about that.

On Mar 21, 12:24 pm, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Emerson Congleton]

1. Libya, or the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, is
an oil-rich country in Northern Africa. It has been under the
autocratic rule of Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi since 1969. Similar to
other middle eastern countries the Libyan people have been oppressed
and have become dissatisfied with their current form of government.
In February 2011 the turmoil that has been rocking the middle east
finally hit Libya, the protests began in Benghazi where the anti-
government supporters were strongest. However the protests soon
reached Tripoli. On March 18 the United Nations Security Council voted
to authorize military action and imposed a no-fly zone, and hours
after this decision was reached Libya said it would order a cease-fire
and stop all military advances. However, the united military forces of
Britain, France, and the US pushed forwards against Qaddafi's forces.
As airstrikes continued to rock Libya, NATO took over control from the
US of the entire military forces against Col. Qaddafi.
2.In all three countries the leaders were in control for twenty to
forty years. In Tunisia the people ousted their repressive leader of
23 years, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, in the first revolution to hit the
Middle East. Shortly afterwards Hosni Mubarak, the president of Egypt
for 30 years, left Egypt. And now the tide of revolution has reached
Libya. However there are significant differences among these revolts.
In Tunisia and Egypt there were no other countries intervening, and
the protestors hadn't formed their own army. In Libya there is a rebel
army, and other countries intervened. Social networking devices also
had a larger part in Egypt and Tunisia than in Libya.
3-1. I think NATO was justified in carrying out the attacks against
Libya because innocent civilians were being killed, and Qaddafi had
gone against his cease-fire when he fired on protestors. Forces loyal
to Qaddafi had fired upon peaceful protestors and had bombed cities
that the rebels had control over, and killing innocent bystanders.
3-2.I do not think that the United States should intervene in the
revolutions happening in the Middle East. If we help one country how
can we deny aid to another? Playing favorites is not a good form of
diplomacy and we are still in the last nation we tried to help. The US
should not try and perpetuate its image of helping everyone, supplying
aid, and becoming involved everywhere. If that image continues to
exist then the rest of the world will come to look towards us for aid
and support. How can we say yes to everyone?

[Saad Imran]

1. What is happening in Libya is all centered on Colonel Muammar el-
Qaddafi, the dictator in libya whom has ruled Libya since a military
coup on 1 September 1969 where he overthrew King Idris of Libya and
established the Libyan Arab Republic. What has occured in the recent
weeks is a uprising within the country to get rid of Qaddafi, and
these protests against Qaddafi are centered in Libya's second largest
city Benghazi. There are two groups fighting each other,Qaddafi, and
the Libyan rebels. What Qaddafi is doing is considered to be crimes
against humanity, and is basically initiating a war against his own
people. Although these protests which started mid-February are
centered in Benghazi, they have been spreading rapidly all throughout
Libya. These protests and violence has caused various workers which
are not of the Libyan nationality to flee to other countries like
Tunisia, Egypt, Malta, Italy, and Greece. Qaddafi has additionally
stated that he is willing to become a martyr for the cause of the
revolution. There have been several acts of military action committed
against the Libyan people. Lately the NATO has imposed a no-fly zone
in Libya.

2. I do dee similarities between the current situation in Libya and
the situation in the past relating Egypt and Tunisia. The first
similarity is that in all three cases there was a call for democracy,
and they had to take, or have to take, the dictator which is ruling
the country. Additionally there has been large amounts of protest of
the citizens, and there has been violence in all countries of protest
but no one country has as much violence as Colonel Qaddafi's Libya.
Qaddafi is doing this by using his military forces against his rival
rebel groups. This leads to a similarity which is all the dictators
have had some resistance in giving up their power. A difference is
that they did not use the military to kill their people as they had
atleast some sense in not killing their own citizens. Instead of
killing their citizens, in Egypt they did less intense things like
banning social networking sites and trying to suppress the protest
without violence unlike Libya. In Libya they are using tanks, guns,
jets, and basically waging a full civil war in Libya with some
international help for the rebel groups. Additionally, there has been
no international help in the protests in Egypt and Tunisia, and their
has been no international input.

3 part 1. I do agree NATO was justified in carrying out the attacks
against Libya. I believe this because the violence occurring in Libya
is not justified by Qaddafi, and the NATO has to do this to stop the
acts against humanity. NATO has to get rid of Qaddafi's campaign of
terror, such as the killing of Muhammed Nabbous today, whom talked to
CNN weeks earlier. They also need to do this to promote democracy and
world peace for everyone, be it American of Libyan.

3 part 2. I do believe that the United States is justified in
participating the attacks, as they need to promote peace and democracy
in Libya and throughout the Middle East. I believe they needed to do
this for the safety of the world and it is a completely unbiased
decision made by the American government. It is the responsibility of
America to do what they believe is right, as they are a world
superpower, and being a world superpower comes with responsibilities
such as protecting the world. I do not believe that this will
influence the decisions in North Africa/ Middle East. I believe that
the American government will make whatever decision they believe is
right, and will make a stance on the topic only if they think they
need to and only if it will benefit the subject or protest at hand. I
believe Obama was completely right in not making a decision in Egypt,
and having involvement in Libya. One thing I believe the American
government should never do is once they have helped in whatever they
have done, is impose their ideals or impose their ideas of how to run
a government. Once they have gotten rid of the tensions they should
just leave and leave whatever government is in place to make the
proper decisions. There should not be a repeat of Afghanistan or Iraq.

On Mar 21, 12:24 pm, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Adam]

1. In September 1969, a group of military officers led by Muammar
Qaddafi staged a coup against King Idris. Qaddafi's government has
imposed a great deal of censorship and political repression. Qaddafi
created a surveillance system in order to find dissidents and the
dissidents that he found would be publicly executed. Out of anger for
Qaddafi and being inspired by the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings,
Libyans began to protest on February 15th, 2011. The protestors are
calling for an end to Qaddafi's regime. Qaddafi responded by shutting
down all internet communications in the country. In Tripoli, it has
been said that Qaddafi hired thugs and armed them with weapons and
automobiles in order to patrol the city and suppress protests. On
March 17th, the UN Security Council decided to impose a no fly zone in
Libyan airspace. Although there are many powerful forces teamed up
against the Libyan government, Qaddafi continues to fight for power.
2. One of the similarities between the Tunisian, Egyptian, and Libyan
uprisings is that the citizens of these countries are tired and
frustrated with their autocratic leaders. Also, all of the leaders at
one time shut off a part of the internet or cell phone services.
Another similarity between the Egyptian and the Libyan uprisings is
that the leader of the country tried or is trying to maintain his
position for the longest amount of times. One difference between the

situation in Libya and the uprisings that happened in Egypt and

Tunisia is the amount of violence that occurred. The Libyan government
was more violent in suppressing the protest than the other governments
were.
3-1. I believe that NATO was justified in carrying out the attacks on
Libya because of the severity of the situation. Qaddafi has been
extremely violent towards his people by directly sending out his
forces to attack them. Also, not only did Qaddafi violate a UN backed
cease-fire, he also has been violating his people's human rights by
restricting, if not eliminating, their freedom of speech. Qaddafi has
refused to listen to the US and its allies' requests for him to step
down or to stop violently attacking his people, but he just ignores
the requests. I believe that force should be used when force is
necessary.
3-2. I do think that the United States of America is justified in
participating in the attacks. Although involvement will probably make
the US more inclined to have to take sides in the future, I believe
that it's worth it. The US is allowed to pick the battles that it
wants to influence when it wants to. The US doesn't have to be
involved in every battle, but they can when they feel that it's
important that they do. It is likely that the US feels that the
situation in Libya is an important matter, as do I, so they decided to
influence it. This is an important matter because of the atrocities
that Qaddafi has been committing. I believe that it is necessary to
assist the rebels in taking Qaddafi out of power. That is why it is
justified that the USA is participating in the attacks against the
Libyan government.

On Mar 21, 12:24 pm, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[preeya...@live.com]

1. At the beginning of Qaddafi’s rule over Libya, the money made
from Libya’s many oil reserves was put towards the people’s benefit.
Therefore their standard of living was higher than that of Tunisia and
Egypt. Then, around the late 1970s, the money started being used to
sponsor militancy and terror around the globe. Because of this the
poverty rate of the eastern portion of Libya started to increase. In
addition to this, Libya is one of the most censored countries in the
world. Much like the past and present regimes of Iraq and North Korea,
Libya had informants to ensure that the people of Libya were in
support of the government. They even went so far as to imprison, for
three years, those who spoke of politics with foreigners and they
stopped schools from teaching foreign languages for ten years. Also,
the government’s “revolutionary sector” had critics murdered and
publically broadcasted the executions. In mid-January of 2010,
protests started in cities like Darnah and Benghazi against the
government’s corruption and the delays in the construction of housing.
In an effort to stop the rest of the country from hearing about these
revolts, Libya blocked all access to YouTube. This was disapproved of
by the Human Rights Watch and by late January the government provided
housing for its people. When Jamal al-Haffi, inspired by the
revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, tried to start a revolution over the
internet he was arrested. Later that month Qaddafi spoke with
political activists, media figures, and journalists to ensure that
they would not “disturb the peace” or “create chaos” in Libya. By mid-
February riots and protests started occurring in Benghazi, Darnah, and
Al Bayda. Police broke them up violently, and citizens were killed.
When Libyans started to revolt and asked for the return to the 952
constitution and a multi-party democracy, Qaddafi responded by saying
that they were under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs and that
Western countries such as France, England, and the US were trying to
influence the people to gain control of Libya’s oil. Currently Qaddafi
is using machine guns and other such large weapons to oppose
protestors. Over 200 protestors have been killed so far. Recently, the
Libyan soldiers have forced migrants to join them to become human
shields against international and national attacks. Also, major
members of Qaddafi’s government have resigned, and some oil companies
are saying that they will use their money to support anti-Qaddafi
forces.
2. A similarity between the revolts in Tunisia, Egypt, and now in
Libya is that they are all ousting a long-term presidency in order to
provide a better lifestyle for the people of the country. Before the
revolutions all three countries had a ruler who had been in power for
at least 23 years. A difference in style is that in the Tunisian and
Egyptian revolts there was little or no violence used. In the Libyan
revolts much violence is being used by both the government and the
revolutionaries. As I mentioned earlier, over 200 people have died in
Libya so far. In addition to this, all three revolutions were fueled
by internet connections between the rebels. In all three countries the
government has made efforts to stop internet communications by doing
things like blocking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. One
thing that differentiates the Libyan revolts from the others is that
there is direct foreign intervention, which is in the process of
implementing a no-fly zone over the country.
3. Part A: I believe that NATO’s actions are justified. This
is because after the international community asked that the attacks
against the citizens of Libya end, Qaddafi continued to attack his own
people. Therefore, in an attempt to protect the citizens of Libya from
the unfair advantage that Qaddafi has, it was necessary that NATO
implement a no-fly zone. By supporting the rebel forces, NATO’s
actions against Qaddafi are completely justified.
Part B: Personally I feel that the United State’s decision to
participate in the attacks in Libya was justified. This is because the
attacks in Libya have created a humanitarian crisis in which the ruler
of a country has started to massacre his own people. This stance,
however, may create problems in the future is President Obama decides
not to intervene in potential upcoming conflicts such as those in
Syria, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia. In such situations Obama may be
reluctant to support the rebel forces because of many different
reasons. In Saudi Arabia there are many oil reserves on which the
United States depends on. In Bahrain we have the headquarters of the
fifth fleet so opposing the government may not be considered a
strategic advantage. If we oppose the Syrian government, we may see
repercussions in the form of attacks in Israel. By hesitating or
intervening with the government during these conflicts the world may
view the United States as a hypocrite for not supporting the rebel
groups like we are doing in Libya now.

[Matt Ming]

1. On February 15, 2011, Libyan protesters rose up against the 42 year
long dictatorial rule of current leader Muammar el-Qaddafi. El-
Qaddafi, a former general, came into power after overthrowing King
Indris in a coup in 1969. The protesters called for a change in
leadership and the ability to vote in elections. Since el-Qaddafi
came into power, corruption has run rampant and Libya has remained one
of the most censorious nations in the world. El-Qaddafi has also been
accused of numerous human rights violations, including assassinations
and executions. After the protests began, el-Qaddafi used military
force as well as increased censorship to stop the rebels. He ordered
the military to use force to stop the protests, resulting in the
deaths of thousands. Eventually, military personnel also began to
defect from el-Qaddafi’s forces, so el-Qaddafi decided to hire foreign
mercenaries to quell the protests. Violence escalated, and the
uprisings have now transformed into all-out war between the rebels and
the mercenaries brought in by el-Qaddafi. El-Qaddafi has shown no
restraint when dealing with the dissidents, even going so far as
bombing his own people. Struggles to control important cities have
gone back and forth between the two forces. In response to the fly-
over bombings el-Qaddafi has committed on his own people, NATO
announced the establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya and destroyed
many of Libya’s airfields and planes.

2. There are many similarities between the Libyan uprising and the
uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia. Most significantly, all of these
rebellions began with ordinary civilians calling for a change in
leadership and for democratic elections. In all three, the government
responded with military force. However, the Libyan uprising has been
the most violent of the three, with deaths in the thousands. The use
of social networks, such as Facebook, and online media sharing sites,
such as Youtube, was integral in the organization of the protesters in
the three rebellions. The significant difference in the Libyan
uprising has been el-Qaddafi’s willingness to kill his own people in
order to remain in power, which Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak and
Tunisian Zine El Abidine Ben Ali did not resort to. Further, in
contrast to its non-involvement in the Egypt and Tunisia conflicts,
the U.S. has intervened in the Libyan revolts. The United States
became readily involved in the Libyan revolts, assisting the rebels in
ousting the current leader by aiding in the implementation of a no-fly
zone, while in Egypt the United States specifically refrained from
helping. In fact, the Egyptian rebels did not want the U.S.’s help,
considering that the U.S. support and alliance was with the regime.
However, despite these differences in how the revolution in the three
countries is playing out, the original cause for revolt was the same
in all three.

3.
a. I feel that NATO was justified in its attacks on Libya. First, I
feel that the Libyan rebels deserve international recognition and
support for their cause, as el-Qaddafi has been in power for 41 years,
and his rule has been marked by corruption and censorship. Also, el-
Qaddafi has been known for his violations of human rights, before and
after the start of revolution, so I feel it was necessary for NATO to
step in and help out. In addition, el-Qaddafi reneged on upholding
the UN imposed cease-fire, which I feel he ought to have honored.
Importantly, during the revolts, el-Qaddafi began bombing his own
people in an attempt to suppress the riots. To me, this action is
incomprehensible. El-Qaddafi used fighter planes to attack the rebel
towns, and thus NATO attacked the airfields in what I feel is a
justified attack to impose a no-fly zone. I think that NATO should
try to do as much as it can to assure the civilians’ safety,
especially innocent bystanders who were unfortunately caught up in the
bombing by el-Qaddafi’s forces.

b. I feel that the United States is justified in participating in the
Libyan conflict. it is important for the United States to show
support for democracy in the Middle East, especially after abandoning
the Egyptian people in their revolt. The U.S. constantly advocates
for citizens in other countries who struggle for democracy, but I feel
that they failed to take such a stance in Egypt. Therefore, Libya
represents an opportunity for the U.S. to atone for its inaction
during the overthrow of Egypt. I also feel that a democratic Libya,
finally free of el-Qaddafi’s rule, could prove a valuable ally for the
U.S., especially with its valuable location near the Middle East, an
especially volatile region these days. Many people argue that U.S.
involvement in Libya would force us to choose sides in later
uprisings. However, I do not feel that this is a problem. I feel
that it is the duty of the U.S. as a major proponent of democracy in
the world to help out people vying for democracy, especially
considering the U.S.’s military might. Involvement could be costly,
especially considering the current economic situation, but, as I have
stated, I feel that it is necessary to show our support for fledgling
democracies or people trying to overthrow an autocratic government in
favor of democracy.

On Mar 21, 12:24 pm, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Grace]

1. On September 1, 1969, after a military coup lead by Muammar al
Quadhafi the new Libyan Arab Republic was declared. Quadhafi made the
first attempt to unite Libya’s diverse people and to create a distinct
Libyan state. He created new political structures and made strong
efforts at economic development. In the 1980’s Quadhafi’s eratic
foreign policies, Soviet Union support as an arms supplier, and his
involvement in terrorism grew to anger the West. In 1986 economic
sanctions were placed on Libya by the U.S after the country’s bombing
of West Berlin. Again, the U.S placed sanctions on Libya in 1992
after the bombing of Pan Am flight 103. Sanctions and trade embargoes
caused rising import costs and inflation, resulting in a deteriorating
standard of living for most of the country’s citizens. In 1993 an
army led coup took place, but was easily suppressed. After turning
its back on the rest of the world Libya finally complied with UN
security Council regulations in 1999 and sanctions were lifted in
2003.I
In February 2011, unrest that had been culminating throughout Libya
came to a head with several uprisings. The opposition has banded
together to form a rebel army and to appeal to the West as an
alternate to Quadhafi’s reign. Quadhafi continues to fight back
against the rebels, outgunning and outnumbering them in what is
becoming a civil war. Government troops advanced within 100 miles of
the rebel stronghold and the UN Security Council voted to authorize
military action. On March 19, US and European forces began air
strikes against Quadhafi and his government. A no-fly zone has been
placed over Libya and the US continues to hand command to its allies
in Europe. Obama is working to manage the military campaign in Libya,
but forces loyal to Quadhafi show no sign of ending their sieges on
the rebels.
2. Connections can easily be made with the uprisings now happening in
Libya to the uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia. All three of these
countries had or still have a suppressive government and a large
population of young, frustrated people willing to take action. Though
the cause for rebellion against the government is the same, this
uprising has taken a much more dramatic turn then the others. Though
in Egypt and Tunisia the leaders were reluctant to give up control, in
Libya this reluctance has grown to become a government a massacre on
the people. Quadafi has utilized his own military to quell rebellion
with brute force. Without reluctance he has begun to uproot his
country in order to stay in power. The leaders of Egypt and Tunisia
did not resign without a fight, but the fight they gave is nothing
like that of Quadafi’s. Quadafi shows no signs of giving up control.
He has not hinted at compromise and seems as if he will stop at
nothing short of victory. The last overwhelming difference that sets
this rebellion apart is the amount of international involvement with
this crisis. In numbers unlike any rebellion before troops are being
sent in and air-raids are taking place.
3a. I think that NATO was justified in carrying out the attacks
against Libya. Quadafi did violate the UN cease-fire, and therefore
action needed to be taken. The people of Libya are suffering as the
quality of life there only continues to get worse. As the situation
continued to escalate and showed neither side showed signs of giving
up I think it was important for the international community to step in
before the crisis worsens.
3b.Though I am in support of international involvement in the crisis
in Libya, I think that the US should as little involved in the aid
movement as possible. Libya is being helped by many of our European
allies and while it is important to show our support, too much
extension into Libya could spell disaster. As it is right now the US
is extremely overextended. We have troops in countless countries and
are continuing to try (and fail) to pull out of Iraq. Our economy is
not nearly where it should be and getting involved in this crisis
would only mean billions more in debt. Some say that by participating
in air-raids we are not getting to far involved, but what happens if a
plane is shot down and US troops are taken captive? Will we be
prompted to go into Libya on the ground, claiming we were provoked?
And what if the crisis continues to escalate, when would we smoothly
pull the plug and not be deemed a “quitter?” As or right now I think
it is in the US’s best interest to take a really far back seat and
observe things unfold. Hopefully the crisis will soon come to an end,
and if it does not our involvement can be reevaluated later.

[Julia Bryck]

1. Since Muammar el-Qaddafi seized power in 1969, the people of Libya
have been living under an oppressive and violent authoritarian regime.
Qaddafi, who one might say is somewhat out-of-control or delusional,
has proclaimed himself "Brother Leader and Guide of the Revolution" as
well as "King of Kings of Africa" (during his campaign for a United
States of Africa) has brought Libya much hardship through his failed
economic and foreign policies. After 40 years of rule, the winds of
revolutions that swept through the Middle East this February sparked
unrest in a few small cities in Libya. Soon, the rebels had moved to
the capital of Tripoli. Though, the rebel forces did not survive for
very long without opposition. Colonel Qaddafi lashed out with a fully
equipped army to try and crush the revolution, but despite an initial
success by the loyalist army, neither side has prevailed. The violence
continues and is receiving both international coverage and
involvement. The United States and major European powers have clearly
expressed that they believe Qaddafi should be taken out of power, and
so the fight continues between Qaddafi's army and the rest of the
world.
2. First of all, I think it is very clear that the world is drawing a
direct connection between the situation in Libya and the uprisings in
Tunisia and Egypt. Take for example the fact that if one googles the
word "Libya", Google suggests the words Egypt and Tunisia
automatically. I think for certain we can say that the uprisings
inspired the citizens of Libya, but there are certainly differences
between the situations. The government response to the uprisings in
Libya was far more violent than in Tunisia or Egypt, who attempted to
remain (or at least appear to remain) fairly peaceful during the
protests. It is this violence that has spurred international powers to
spring to the rescue, a response not seen in Tunisia or Egypt. I think
that countries like the United States were also much quicker to
declare their support for the rebels in Libya, probably due to the
successes in Egypt and Tunisia.
3-1. I do believe that NATO was justified in carrying out the attacks
against Libya. I feel it is particularly important in this situation,
which continues to change and deteriorate on a daily basis, to take a
stand against the dictator who has so boldly used violent measures
against his people under the public eye. If he is willing to fire on
his own people after distinctly agreeing to a ceasefire, there is no
way to trust any future promise he will make on the situation, making
peaceful diplomatic relations virtually impossible. Therefore, I
believe NATO had no other option but to carry out attacks on Libya if
they wanted to control the situation there.
3-2. Based on past US experience, I think President Obama is making a
risky yet necessary decision by becoming involved with the coalition.
When the US supplied weapons to the rebel forces in Afghanistan years
ago, we had no idea that one of those people would be Sadaam Houssein
and would become one of our greatest threats in the Middle East. Are
we creating a similar enemy in Libya by supporting the rebel groups?
Can we trust the people with whom we have supplied out weapons? At the
moment there is no way to tell, but there is no other option at this
point. Remaining neutral would only bring extreme criticism for Obama
and might weaken his influence world wide. Though, I do believe that
taking sides in this situation will force us to make similar decisions
if uprising continue in the region. We do not want to show favoritism
towards certain countries or it will compromise our diplomatic
integrity.

[Julia Bryck]

[Hannah North]

1)Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi has ruled Libya with an iron fist since
1969. Various countries and sources have made accusations against
Qaddafi on issues such as terrorism and crimes against human rights
Though he gained his power in a bloodless coup, his reign over Libya
has been anything but. Qaddafi is known for his blatant use of force
to silence any opposing voices, and his regime kept the people
relatively in the dark by imposing heavy censorship over the media.
His firm grip on Libya remained strong until this passing February,
when the persisting protests and uprisings that were plaguing the Arab
world infiltrated Libyan borders. The protests first began in the city
of Begnhazi, but quickly spread to Tripoli and other cities as soon as
word got out about the cause. The opposition movement has since gained
momentum, resulting in Qaddafi taking military action against all
those involved in the rebellion. Many other world powers have
allocated support for the rebels, in an attempt to aid in the downfall
of an unfalteringly autocratic regime.

2)Naturally, since it was the uprisings in places such as Egypt and
Tunisia that sparked the revolt in Libya, there are bound to be some
similarities. Like Libya, both Egypt and Tunisia had been ruled by
autocrats who greatly limited the rights of the people and imposed
censorships that hinder the rights of the people to basic information.
The three of these separate uprisings all started with an oppressed
people who were finally were tired of the falsities their government
had been spewing at them for decades. These revolts also were the
product of an unfavorable economy and incredibly high unemployment
rate. Though there are undoubtable similarities between these
instances, there are also some fundamental differences. The most
pressing one is that the bloodshed and violences that has erupted in
Libya never reached that point in the uprisings in any other nation.
No other leaders have taken military action the the extent Qaddafi
has, and open fired on protesters. And once more, Libya has received
more intervention from other nations such as the United States as well
as NATO than any other nation that has hosted a revolt in this recent
wave.

3) Part One- I absolutely agree that NATO had every right to intervene
in the current situation in Libya. The ongoing violence is putting
thousands of civilians as well as protestors with peaceful intentions
as risk.With so many innocent lives at risk, it was the duty of the
international community to take action to ensure that safety and
stability be maintained for those in harms way. Once this kind of
conflict escalates to the point where utter chaos has erupted
throughout an entire nation, then it most definitely is in order that
NATO took the necessary measures to see that there is as little blood
shed as possible
Part Two- In my opinion, it seems that the US has a rather nasty habit
of sticking it's nose where it needn't be. While I believe that the
intentions of the US are (usually) admirable ones, I cannot help but
feel like sometimes it would save us a lot of money and resources if
we took a break from our unofficial position as the said "police of
the world". With that said, I feel that it was unwise of the US to
participate in the attacks on Libya. Allocating support of the rebel
forces is one thing, participating in them is entirely another. The US
already has complex relations with many middle eastern countries, and
supporting this uprising with military support could ultimately result
in complication. Our troops area already engaged in multiple battle
fronts, particularly Afghanistan and Iraq. The last thing we need to
be doing right now is lending support to a cause that we A) do not
necessarily need to support and B) could result in tensions with other
middle eastern nations that we cannot afford to be at odds with. The
world is incredibly volatile right now, and what the international
community needs to be doing right now more than ever is working
together. While I do agree with the stance the US has taken on the
Libya issue, I feel it was unwise of Obama to take military action on
the matter because it may lead us to feel the need to take sides on
issues in the future that have no clear party deserving of support.
Supporting democracy is always a positive course of action, however in
this particular instance it was not necessary that we become a
military presence in Libya. Qaddafi's lurid actions against his people
in the past few weeks have been nothing short of unacceptable.
However, I feel that it was not the place of the US to impose itself
in the situation. Though they are promoting a worthy cause, it is in
the best interest of the US to maintain focus on domestic issues for
now.

[Irina Ahn]

1. After the overthrow of King Idris I in 1969, for the past forty
years, Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi has been leading the country of
Libya with an autocratic rule. Like most leaders, at first Qaddafi
hoped to create equality and unity for his country and suppress
foreign military. But after time had passed he eventually turned into
a corrupt leader and had Libya under his autocratic rule. Like other
countries with autocratic leaderships, like Egypt and Tunisia, there
have been protests and restricted rights for the people. With much
success, the people of Egypt and Tunisia both overthrew their corrupt
leaders, but so far Libya's leader, Qaddafi has responded to the
protests with denial of being overthrown and violence threatening the
people. Libya's protests have been called the most dangerous and
violent of the three countries because Qaddafi has sent military
forces to control the protests. These protests started back in mid-
February, but have continuously been getting more violent and have
still occurred in hopes of overthrowing Qaddafi out of his position.
2. There are obvious reasons why the situations in Egypt and Tunisia
are similar to those of Libya. In all three countries, the people were
getting tired of the corrupt government and ruthless leaders. In these
situations the people revolted and protested to overthrow the
government. And Qaddafi is having a hard time stepping down, even
responding by saying he is not like the previous leaders that stepped
down, saying he will fight for his position and denies the fact that
he will be overthrown. However, among these similarities, there are
still some differences. Libya's revolt is much more severe and violent
than it was in Tunisia and Egypt, gaining more foreign attention and
influence. Qaddafi has been using his military forces and power to
resist the protests, threatening the people and restraining the
foreign influences also trying to get him to step down. The situation
has become so violent to the point where foreign countries feel the
need to step in and aid the people.
3-1. I do believe that NATO was justified in carrying out the attacks
in Libya. Libya has been called one of the more recent violent
situations with revolts. Qaddafi has used air strikes and military
tanks to control the people at protests and has killed many of his
people. He is willing to kill as many people it takes to keep his
position and he doesn't care. NATO partnered with many wealthy
countries that have a chance of helping the people. The situation
needs to be taken care of and put under control and Qaddafi needs to
be taken out of leadership.
3-2. I do believe that the US was justified in participating in the
attacks. The US is a powerful country in the world and is quite
capable of giving aid to Libya. The situation in Libya has become so
dangerous, that the US should step in and make it a more peaceful
revolt. Although the US is justified at this point, at other
uprisings, the US's help could seem like meddling and damage the
relations it has with other middle eastern and north african
countries. Therefore, I don't this that in the future the US should
participate in future uprisings as much, but more act from the
sidelines like the previous Egypt uprising. Therefore, the relations
between the US and the middle eastern and north african countries
would be more stable and more beneficial to the US. Also the US can
then spend more time solving domestic problems as well.

[k.Borkovitz]

1. After attaining power and support in a coup in 1969, Colonel
Muammar el-Qaddafi has been the oppressive leader of Libya. Encouraged
by the similar protests in Egypt and Tunisia, protesting to end
Qaddafi’s reign in Libya began. Uprisings have emerged in certain
cities throughout the end of February and March. Cities such as the
capital Tripoli, Benghazi, and Zawiyah. At this point, a no-fly zone
has been implemented in Benghazi and the military has attained control
of Zawiyeh. This no-fly zone is truly necessary for the well-beings of
the protestors. They don’t have the proper weaponry to defend
themselves against Qaddafi’s air forces. The Arab League supported the
no-fly zone. Then, the UN agreed that a no-fly zone was necessary.
Finally, it was implemented. Despite the NATO-controlled no-fly zone,
Libyan protestors has made it apparent that they do not want their
country to be invaded by Western nations.
2. There are many similarities between the protests in Libya and the
recent protests in Egypt and Tunisia. In all three countries, the
protesting has been to remove an oppressive dictator from power.
Despite the almost exact same series of events in Tunisia and Egypt,
the story was changed when Qaddafi sent in air forces to open fire.
Many civilians have been killed. Though there were some civilians
killed in Egypt and Tunisia, there were not as many killed as in
Libya.
3. P1 – NATO is definitely justified in carrying out the attacks.
Because he was using aircraft to fire on his citizens, they truly had
means to protect themselves or to attack Qaddafi with. Had NATO not
interfered, there could have been even more deaths. The West has been
accused of being a silent bystander in Eastern conflict, and had they
remained silent, the situation could have potentially gotten much
worse.
P2 – In my opinion, the United States of America is justified in
participating in the attacks. Though the US is notorious for sticking
its nose where it doesn’t belong, the fact that these protests are a
human rights issue changes the situation completely. Had the US not
interfered, they could be considered negligent. The questions now,
however, are which other countries with protest their oppressive
regimes? And does this now mean that the US is obligated to interfere?
The US obviously does not HAVE to interfere unless the situation puts
lives at risk, but interference might not be necessary. No one can
know if and when another uprising occurs if it will be a bloodless
overthrow or the demise of hundreds. No matter what any country does,
they will always have a critic. The US’s decision making from this
point needs to stem from what’s best for the people.

[Leah Coppage-Gross]

*Qaddafi...wow i had brain fart

> > Libya much more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Andrew Lin]

I agree both with your stance regarding NATO involvement in Libya and
United States involvement in Libya. With regards to NATO policy, I
would like to inquire as to precisely whether or not NATO should
attempt a concentrated invasion or continue its current policy of
surgical strikes on key pro-Gaddafi facilities. For United States
policy, I would like to ask whether or not the United States should
take a more active role in the Libyan crisis - after all, the United
States has recently abdicated leadership in the Libya offensive,
instead choosing to have a group of NATO - and whether or not the
United States should commit more in the way of military equipment,
serving as a sort of arsenal of democracy stationed in the
Mediterranean.

[Emerson Congleton]

Hannah North!!
I agree with everything you said and I really liked the way you
phrased your opinions. NATO was totally justified in going into to
Libya, and I felt the same way about the "police of the world"
statement about US involvement.

[ds]

I didn't realize that the U.S. and NATO's goals weren't to set up a
democracy, ony to remove a ruthless dictator. I think that justifies
even more their military presence in Libya because it's not just
telling a country how to govern their people, it's trying to stop the
violation of human rights. I agree that I don't think it's going to
turn into an operation like Afghanistan or Iraq because they aren't
trying to set up a new government. Why don't you think that Obama
would have to take sides in the future after taking sides in Libya?

On Mar 22, 12:59 pm, Christine <fourleafxclov...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 1.
> Libya has been under the control of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi for forty
> years, who has manipulated the country under his autocracy. When he
> originally gained control of Libya, he had five main goals of removing
> foreign military bases, gaining international neutrality, creating
> national unity, creating Arab unity and, suppressing other political
> parties. Much failed and Qaddafi became ruthless and a tyrant.  Under
> Qaddafi’s authority, like many of the other countries that have seen
> protests, people have limited rights and freedom. It is said that
> Libya is one of the most censored countries in the Middle East and
> North Africa. Seeing the success of countries such as Egypt and
> Tunisia has given Libya a desire for their own revolution. Although
> Libya has seemed stable, by February people began to grow unhappy with
> the existing government. As protests spread, Qaddafi also tried to
> resist and over the past few weeks, he has taken military action and
> other violence approaches. He has also imposed a “blackout” of
> information by keeping foreign journalists and media out of the
> country.
>
> 2.
> Of course, it is easy to see the similarities between the uprisings in
> Egypt and Tunisia and Libya. All of these countries had been extremely
> frustrated and upset about their governments and leaders. They staged
> protests to overthrow their government. Similarly, Libya’s leader,
> Qaddafi, is having a hard time accepting that he must step down just
> as Mubarak had in Egypt. Qaddafi is determined to fight to the end.
> Also, like the uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, there has been a lot of
> military action taken to stop the uprisings- air forces and sea
> barrage have been taken to stop Qaddafi’s violence. On the contrary,
> Qaddafi has been using a lot of his own military power to try and
> overcome the protests and other countries such as the U.S., Britain,
> and France have stepped in to aid Libya. The U.S. has composed a five
> point plan to isolate Qaddafi and remove him from power. This
> intervention is a bit different from what was seen in Egypt and
> Tunisia. U.S. did not involve in the situation in Egypt as it is now
> with Libya. Many countries had allowed Egypt to develop their
> revolution on their own.  The revolution in Libya is more corrupt than
> that of Egypt and news has been spread of many battles and scars. The
> effects of the beginning of Libya’s revolt seems more brutal. In
> Egypt, protests in Tahrir Square occurred and Mubarak blocked websites
> and media, but the situation never came to how it is in Libya. The
> country is split between the forces that support Qaddafi and the rebel
> forces. The supportive forces of the government have used tanks,
> helicopters and fighter planes in order to push the revolts back,
> attacking Libyan cities such as Misurata, and the oil town of Ras
> Lanuf. The rebel forces have been fighting back, but Qaddafi's forces
> remain strong, supported by his hidden hoard of money. It seems that
> the tension between the government and the rebel forces are much
> greater in Libya than in Egypt and Tunisia. Over the last several
> weeks, Qaddafi has proven that he is not ready to give in. Overall,
> the Libya's uprisings are much more violent and have not been as
> peaceful as the others.
>
> 3.
> PART A:
> NATO is justified in carrying out the attacks against Libya, because
> for one, the situation in Libya has become quite dangerous. The NATO
> responds to many of the problems in the world and have been seen in
> countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq. It seems that the corruptioin
> in Libya is great and Qaddafi has taken military action to attack the
> rebel forces. People are suffering and have been pushed to the edge,
> fleeing to places such as Tunisia and Nigeria. The NATO is supporting
> the rebel forces and attempting to take Qaddafi from power and resolve
> the current conflicts.
>
> PART B:
> In partcipating in the attacks in Libya, I believe that the United
> States has a justified reason but should expect that countries will
> ask for help to carry out protests. The situation in Libya has come to
> a point where, if no countries intervened, the hopes of any form of
> democracy would disappear and the violence would only grow. The rebel
> forces in Libya are in dire need of help and the U.S. is quite capable
> of giving the help. Because the United States is such a powerful
> country with great military forces and weapons and strength, many
> countries in the midst of a revolution would want their aid. The
> United States has recently followed France's lead in implementing a
> "no-fly" zone over Libya. This action has shown that the United States
> has the authority in other countries and their ability to bring about
> change. But, although it would seem that many countries would want the
> United States to help, the United States itself, I believe, will not
> necessarily help every country. President Obama's decision to
> participate in the attacks, does not imply that the U.S. will take
> sides in the future. The situation in Libya is so horrible so it seems
> that the U.S. would have to take a side. Qaddafi and the U.S. are in
> an alliance and so it was easy for the U.S. to take sides in this
> situation. An example of problems between the two countries include
> the time when President Ronald Reagan accused Libya of ordering a
> bombing in Germany, resulting in bombings in Libya. Although it seems
> that in the past decade, Qaddafi has helped the U.S. out, for example
> during the time after the attacks of September 11 he shared Al Qaeda
> documents with the U.S., overall he has been ruthless. It is very
> possible that the U.S. will give verbal consent for other uprisings,
> but will not take military action. It all depends upon the severity of
> the situation; Libya is also receiving aid from many other countries,
> so it's just an uprising supported by the United States. In
> conclusion, the participation of the U.S. in Libya is justified, but
> does not imply that Presiden Obama will pick sides in the future and
> give military support.

>
> On Mar 21, 12:24 pm, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 1.  Describe in detail what has been happening in Libya over the last
> > couple of weeks and why.  Provide some historical context as well.
> > 2.  Do you see any similarities or differences between the current
> > situation in Libya and the uprisings that happened in Egypt and
> > Tunisia?  Please be specific and use examples.
> > 3.  Finally, it was announced over the weekend that NATO (North
> > Atlantic Treaty Organization) had decided to implement a no-fly zone
> > in the region because Colonel Moammar Gadhafi violated a UN backed
> > cease-fire by firing on protesters after the announcement.  The NATO
> > coalition has 10 announced partners: Belgium, Britain, Canada,
> > Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Qatar, Spain and the United States.
> > Part 1:  Do you think NATO was justified in carrying out the attacks
> > against Libya?
> > Part 2:  Is the United States of America justified in participating in
> > the attacks or do you think President Obama’s decision will make us
> > more likely to have to take sides in future North African and Middle
> > Eastern countries who carry out protests/uprisings against their
> > oppressive regimes?  Please be specific and use examples.
>
> > This should be a normal post and not just sent to the author or me.

> > Thanks.- Hide quoted text -

[ds]

REPLY TO CHRISTINE'S REPLY:
I do think that their presence is justified because Gaddafi is
violating human rights, I just think that it's hypocritical that they
are getting involved in Libya and not Gulf States that are in an
alliance with the United States, even the these states are also
violating human rights. Ideally, the west would give aid to every
country in which these crimes are being committed, but I realize that
that's unrealistic.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[sean young]

1. About 40 years ago in 1969, Muammar el-Qaddafi gained power in
a relatively bloodless coup, and has had total conrol of his people
since then. Whne he came into power, Quaddafi promised multiple
reforms such as gaining international neutrality, and creating
national unity, but really he did none of those things and just worked
to consolidate his power as ruler. He suppressed his peoples' rights
and freedoms in all forms, and after Egypt underwent its revolution it
gave Libya the power to do the same in February. The beginning
protests soon spread throughout the nation and Qaddafi, in order to
maintain his power, has been fighting back with military force against
the revolutionaries over the last month.

2. There are clear similarities between the current situation in
Libya and the situations in Egypt and Tunisia. For example, the rulers
in each country were harsh totalitarian dictators that were limiting
their people's freedoms. In response, the people of each country
wanted change, and mass protests started to spread. The main
difference between the Libya revolution and the other two counties'
revolutions is the fact that Qaddafi is putting down the protests with
extreme violence, while the other two countries didn't go to such
extremes to combat the protests.

3. PART 1: I think that yes, NATO was completely justified to
carry out the attacks against Libya. Clearly Qaddafi is not concerned
with the well-being of his people- he is only interested in keeping
power. If Qaddafi underwent a more peaceful way to try and consolidate
power, like by having talks with the revolutionaries, then I don't
believe that NATO would have had to come into Libya. But, since
Qaddafi began firing on civilians, NATO definately made the right
choice to try and stop the violence.
PART 2: I think that the US is justified in participating in
these attacks as well, but since they are helping Libya out, other
revolting countries might get mad if NATO doesn't also step in there.
On the other hand, NATO really only jumped into Libya when Qaddafi
violated a cease-fire agreement, and was firing on civilians. So, in
conclusion I think that if other rebellions are being put down with
gunfire and innocent civilians are being caught in the crossfire, then
it is our job to step in and support the country's strife for liberty
and equality.

[jblr...@aim.com]

Kelly Colton, Global Issues Posting

1.Describe in detail what has been happening in Libya over the last

couple of weeks and why. Provide some historical context as well.

Two weeks ago, the Libyan rebels were already fighting against their
leader, Colonel
Gadhafi, and the West was arguing about the pro’s and con’s of a no-
fly zone over the country. On Saturday, March 19th, the United States
and its allies (under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973,
which calls for the protection of the Libyan people) implemented a no-
fly zone over Libya. By this time the west became involved last
weekend, Colonel Gadhafi’s forces had the upper hand and many wondered
what had taken us so long to establish a no-fly zone. If we had
gotten involved earlier, then it would have been easier for the rebels
to defeat Gadhafi. On the other hand, the United States had to wait
for the United Nations to agree on this action, as we can no longer be
seen as a renegade in Middle Eastern affairs. The rebels made some
progress over the past few days and are more optimistic about the
possibility that they may overtake Gadhafi’s forces.

Libya has had a difficult past. Gadhafi was a young soldier back in
1969 and initiated a coup to take power. He tried to put in place his
“Third Universal Theory” which stripped the wealthy and empowered
“people’s committees”. He dealt with any resistance with terror.
Dozens were killed and thousands fled Libya. Gadhafi was charged with
the mid-air bombing of French and American passenger planes where more
than 400 lives were lost in the late 1980’s. Although things calmed
down with Gadhafi in recent years, people in Libya were never given
any real power in the government and the country was surprisingly poor
(given that they have the largest oil reserves in Africa). Back in
1975 he told students in an audience that he rose to power as a leader
of revolution and would only leave by force. (Economist, March
2011) He has been carrying out this promise over the last few weeks.

2. Do you see any similarities or differences between the current
situation in Libya and the uprisings that happened in Egypt and
Tunisia? Please be specific and use examples.

In the beginning, the events in Libya were very similar to the
uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia. They all began with peaceful
protests, and then the protests were reported in the internet and more
people came and then security forces and some violence became
involved. Next the internet was shut down by the government and the
leader of the nation made televised speeches. After a lot of pressure,
Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia and Hosni Mubarak of Egypt both
stepped down. This is where Libya’s story took a different path
because Colonel Gadhafi’s speeches started with more of an edge and a
threatening tone. He has refused to step down, consistently
threatened his own people and now drives a military force (partially
made up of paid militias from other countries) to defeat the
“rebels”. Colonel Gadhafi is a strong militarist dictator who has no
intention of make concessions or stepping down. Many say the country
is now involved in a civil war, but there is also the threat of what
Gadhafi will do to his pay should he win. He will fight until he is
removed by force and if he stays in power he will make his people pay
for the rebellion.

3. Finally, it was announced over the weekend that NATO (North
Atlantic Treaty Organization) had decided to implement a no-fly zone
in the region because Colonel Moammar Gadhafi violated a UN backed
cease-fire by firing on protesters after the announcement. The NATO
coalition has 10 announced partners: Belgium, Britain, Canada,
Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Qatar, Spain and the United States.

Part 1: Do you think NATO was justified in carrying out the attacks
against Libya?
I believe that NATO is justified in carrying out attacks against Libya
simply because Colonel Gadhafi has repeatedly promised to cleanse the
country of his opposition and the world feels confident that he would
follow through with these threats. As an article in the Economist
puts it “After the genocide in Rwanda, nations took on a duty to stop
mass-killing if they could. Kosovp, Sierra Leone and Liberia all
showed that outsiders can in fact help avert catastrophes.” (March
19th). We have also learned from our studies of the Holocaust, that
the inability of the world to act can result in dire consequences for
innocent people. Some people ask why the West is getting involved in
a Middle Eastern civil war, but the main reason is that Colonel
Qaddafi has promised severe consequences for his people if he wins.
The is a lot of discussion about what the true reason behind the
attacks in Libya, but the UN is clear that it is for humanitarian
purposes to shield the people of Libya from harm. The confusion here
is that removing Gadhafi might be the only clear way to ensure the
safety of the Libyan people, but it would not be appropriate for the
UN to come out say their mission was to remove a Middle Eastern leader
from power.

Part 2: Is the United States of America justified in participating in
the attacks or do you think President Obama’s decision will make us
more likely to have to take sides in future North African and Middle
Eastern countries who carry out protests/uprisings against their
oppressive regimes? Please be specific and use examples.

I think the United States is justified in participating in the
attacks for the reasons and that we acted responsibly is waited for
the United Nations to approve this action. The fact that the Libyan
people will suffer if Gadhfi wins makes our attacks justified. He has
promised “to cleanse” his people of the opposition and we all know
what that means. We have not gotten involved in other uprisings such
as Tunisia and Egypt because large numbers of civilians were not
threatened. I think the United States has learned from their
experience in Iraq that they do not want to get involved in Middle
Eastern countries on their own or for possibly inappropriate reasons.
We are over extended in Iraq and Afghanistan and financially stressed
at home. The last thing we need to do is to get involved in civil
conflicts in Africa and the Middle East. We have also learned not to
get involved in conflicts without the approval of the United Nations.
However, the United Nations agreed that action was necessary in Libya
because of the downside of what would happen if Gadhfi was allowed to
win. Gadhfi has been very clear that he plans violence against the
people of Libya. We could not leave a country to a leader that shouts
that he would never surrender and then ordered his men to hunt these
“greasy rats” from house to house.

On Mar 27, 10:43 pm, preeyadme...@live.com wrote:

[mclax...@aol.com]

1. In September of 1969, Muammer Gaddafi took power of Libya and
established his controversial Jamahiriya government in which he
elimitinated all other parties, sponsered acts of terrorism and used
the government to gain a billion dollar fortune. Gaddafi's autocracy
crossed the line and on February 15, protests began outside of police
headquarters in Benghaziand spread throughout Libya like similar
protests in the area. Gaddafi was determined to remain in rule as he
and his military violently fought back on his own people to squash
revolts. Western powers like the U.S. and France have intervened and
are assisting Libyan rebellers who were at an unfair advantage against
Gaddafi and the Libyan military.
2. I see some similarites and differences between protests in Libya
and other protests in countries like Egypt and Tunisia. The protests
are similar in that the people are fed up with the governments' unfair
rule and want more freedoms, such as freedom of speech and a chance to
express their own views. Some similarities is the attempt by the
government to block internet sites like Youtube to stop plans for
protests. A difference with the government is that Gaddafi has taken a
very vicsious aproach in squashing protests, killing many innocent
Libyans through warplanes and airstrikes. In Egypt and Tunisia,
protests weren't nearly as violent as these ad Gaddafi is willing to
do anything to stop these rebellions. Another difference is that the
U.S. is getting involved and helping the rebels which they have not
done for a long time.
3a)I think NATO was justified in implementing a no-fly zone because of
the extreme, unpredictable danger that Gaddafi holds over his country.
He is attacking innocent people and there is no sign of him willingly
stepping down in the near future unless the international front helps
the rebels in defeating him. The Libyan people need help and therefore
asked for international support or else they will never achieve their
efforts of freedom from Gaddafi's autocrat government.

b)I think the U.S. is justified in participating in the attacks
becuase we are seen as a powerful Western power and the Libyans asked
for international help. The Libyans are in desperate need for help as
Gaddafi has very unfair advantage with his extremely violent
military.However, getting involved with Libya could shortly cause
problems as the protests do not seem to be significantly progressing.
The U.S. could be stuck in Libya for a long time like they did in Iraq
or Afghanistan. We are already trillions in debt and going into these
countries has taken a huge bulk in that debt. Funding rebels in Libya
will add to this extreme debt. There is also the possibility of other
Arab nations protesting and the U.S. would proably be asked to
intervene in these countries since we interevened in Libya. This will
be another case where U.S. money is washed away and our debt
increases. Hopefully this is not the case though and we won't have to
intervene with other countries because the situation in Libya is just
abnormally violent and dangerous for the people and that is why we got
involved.

On Mar 21, 12:24 pm, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

> 1.  Describe in detail what has been happening in Libya over the last

> couple of weeks and why.  Provide some historical context as well.

> 2.  Do you see any similarities or differences between the current
> situation in Libya and the uprisings that happened in Egypt and
> Tunisia?  Please be specific and use examples.

> 3.  Finally, it was announced over the weekend that NATO (North
> Atlantic Treaty Organization) had decided to implement a no-fly zone
> in the region because Colonel Moammar Gadhafi violated a UN backed
> cease-fire by firing on protesters after the announcement.  The NATO
> coalition has 10 announced partners: Belgium, Britain, Canada,
> Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Qatar, Spain and the United States.
> Part 1:  Do you think NATO was justified in carrying out the attacks
> against Libya?

> Part 2:  Is the United States of America justified in participating in
> the attacks or do you think President Obama’s decision will make us
> more likely to have to take sides in future North African and Middle
> Eastern countries who carry out protests/uprisings against their
> oppressive regimes?  Please be specific and use examples.
>

[Katherine Singh]

1. Libya was the only African country to be colonized by fascist
Italy, and it was an especially brutal colonization. The Sirt Basin
harbored concentration camps and over half a million Libyans were
reported to have died during colonization. In 1951 a pro-West
monarchy arose in Libya and the memory of Italian colonization wasn’t
brought up. Libya discovered the majority of its oil reserves in the
1960’s, which moved Libya from one of the poorest countries in Africa
to one of the richest. King Idris remained close with the US and UK
while the Pan-Arabism movement was flourishing, which brought
resentment from the people. King Idris’s health was failing and while
he was treated in Turkey in 1969, his monarchy was overthrown in a
military coup d’état. The bloodless coup was lead by a group of
junior army officers lead by Qaddafi, who abolished the monarchy and
renamed Libya the Libyan Arab Republic. The new military regime was
popular with Libyans and removed the American and British military
basis in Libya. The new regime brought up again the anger over
Libya’s violent colonization and for the first decade expressed the
popular will of the people. Qaddafi was a disciple of President Gamal
Abdel Nasser of Egypt, and wanted to fix the foreign domination in
Libya over the oil industry. Qaddafi successfully secured the
majority of Libya’s oil production shares. In 1975, the group of
leading officers split over disagreements about Libya’s future. The
half Qaddafi was leading wanted to further the Pan-Arab movement, and
the other half wanted to focus on improving Libya internally.
Qaddafi’s side won the fighting, and the other officers were exiled or
placed under house arrest. In the 1980’s Qaddafi began to fear
dissent in the military and disbanded it, and also began to apply his
Green Book ideas. The Green Book claimed to solve the contradictions
of capitalism and communism, but was little more than an excuse to
condemn people who opposed his rule. The Green Book proposed a true
democracy, but in actuality it just set up Qaddafi and his allies at
the top position with absolute control over Libya. Qaddafi’s regime
imprisoned people who spoke out and put death sentences on anyone who
tried to spread opposing ideas to the regime. Qaddafi started causing
international damage in the 80’s, like the bombing of a German disco
in 1986. In 1988 Qaddafi is suspected to have ordered the bombing of
the Pan Am flight over Scotland. Around then Qaddafi was first called
the ‘mad dog’ of the Middle East by President Ronald Regan. Recently,
the wave of revolutionary uprisings in the Arab world caused Libyan
citizens to speak out. He was an autocratic ruler who had been in
power for around 40 years, although he had done some good things for
the country like sponsoring the Great Man-Made River Project. His
first response to the revolutionaries in February (Day of Rage) was
that he was a partner and friend of the people. Qaddafi made several
TV appearances, none of which helped the cause. When the eastern
citizens started attacking government forces and moving westward,
Qaddafi said he would not resign and would rule till his death. Ever
since then Qaddafi and the military fought back with the bloodiest
results of the Arab country revolutions, but the rebels gained support
of the eastern tribal leaders and some of the military. At that
point, the eastern half of the country was led by the rebels who had
captured several important oil cities. In March, Qaddafi’s army tried
to take back the oil cities with their superior weapons and numbers.
They were closing in on the rebel center city Benghazi when the United
Nations Security Council authorized the protection of the Libyan
citizens and imposed sanctions on Qaddafi. On March 19, American and
European forces attacked Qaddafi’s air force, and on March 25 NATO
took over the no-fly zone.
2. There were similarities between the leaders of Libya, Egypt, and
Tunisia. All leaders had long been in power and are known for
corruption. All three uprisings were led by the people fed up with
the leaders, and all three began non-violently with street protests.
The obvious difference is that the situation in Libya escalated into
mass violence and international intervention. Libya is the only Arab
country that the UN and NATO have taken active roles in helping. The
Egyptian uprising was led on social networking sites primarily by the
younger generation. All three uprisings started with the leaders’
inefficiencies at providing basic amenities. Libya’s uprising has
turned into a full scale revolution and gained more supporters because
of Qaddafi’s extreme responses.
3-Part 1- To the best of my knowledge, it looked like NATO was
justified in attacking Libya. There was a lot of talk about whether
it would be right or effective, but the fact was the Libyan rebels
were being killed in horrible ways and numbers. If no one or
organization had stepped up, the revolution would likely have
backfired and all those involved would be in danger. NATO involvement
insured the rebels’ lives and possibility of winning the fight.
Qaddafi’s military strength was focused on the air force, and the
rebels had nothing to protect themselves with. Another thing worth
mentioning is the increased pressure on organizations (like the UN and
NATO) and the US to take more active roles in helping countries in
need. President Obama has met with extreme criticism from within the
US about his inefficiency as a President, so not taking action wasn’t
an option. NATO intervention was necessary to save the lives of the
retreating rebels and give the revolution new hope.
3-Part 2- I think President Obama’s decision to participate with NATO
in Libya was justified. The US is almost expected to step in and
solve international issues, and countries often come to the US to ask
for aid. I don’t think the decision to work with NATO in Libya will
make the US participate in helping more countries’ uprisings. Even
with Libya’s dire situation and need of air support, a lot of US
citizens claim Obama is bringing the US into a third war. Any further
support beyond some funding or pressure speeches would send half of
the US into a fit. Also, in the cases of Bahrain and Yemen, the US
was called out to for help but Bahrain and Yemen got a lot less media
coverage than Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya. There was even violence in
Bahrain by the government, but that was scarcely mentioned in western
media. The US didn’t give aid to Bahrain or Yemen, so the US doesn’t
feel obligated to help every country that asks for help. Overall, the
US was justified in intervening in Libya, and although helping along
democratic movements is in the US’s interests, the US isn’t and won’t
be obligated to help in future uprisings.