A SETBACK FOR LIBYA.

Must not the U.S. stay in Libya?

The U.S. House of Representatives has given a blow to the efforts of kindly nations, whose aim has been to protect innocent people, comprising of women, children and the old, and to avert a complete massacre in Libya.

The House voted overwhelmingly to limit the U.S.'s part, which formed the backbone of an overall plan to remove Gen. Moammar Gaddafi from power; that other members of NATO would help the rebels to defend the areas they have been able to retain, recaptured and freshly captured from the aggressor Libyan security forces, and that the U.S. would supply the needed logistical support to supplement those operations.

President Barack Obama has made it clear from the very onset that U.S. ground forces would not be deployed in the conflict; and therefore, there would be no need to comply with the War Powers Resolution that demanded Congress to expect a president to request permission to initiate a war.

NATO, the Arab League and other nations had concluded before hand that the situation in Libya would require prompt action on their part to restrain the Libyan forces from slaughtering hundreds, if not thousands, of people to keep the Gaddafi government from falling.

He Gaddafi himself has sworn that he would show no mercy to anyone who would oppose his regime; and that he had a reservoir of armory to deter any uprising.

Therefore, the U.S. and its allies went to Libya on humanitarian grounds to stop Gaddafi from keeping his promise to obliterate the opposition in that country.

The vote in the House of Representative to forestall the Obama administration's actions in the Libyan war therefore flies in the face of common sense, because the U.S. has not unilaterally declared war on Libya to warrant the administration to report to Congress within 90 days, as the War Powers Resolution demands.

The Republican majority in the House has undertaken to embarrass the Obama government by saying "NO, NO, NO" to almost everything it does, except for the Speaker of the House, Rep. John Boehner, (R-Ohio), to play a round of golf with the president.

They know why the U.S. government is involved in the Libyan crisis; and that is to assist in a rebellion that will get rid of a tyrant who is using brutal force to stay in power. Besides, the rebels are fighting for their freedom, and because of that, they are going to need every ounce of help to continue.

America has always been on the side of any people trying to free themselves from tyranny; therefore the U.S. government's presence in Libya is not for war per se; but to galvanize momentum for the rebels to defeat Gaddafi.

However, the vote in the House yesterday, as the case may be, is not a setback for the Obama government, but one that is designed to embolden Gaddafi. That will surely be a setback for the Libyan freedom fighters.

Comments 2 comments

HSchneider 5 years ago from Parsippany, New Jersey

Great Hub. The nay vote by the House was ridiculous. We are supporting NATO's humanitarian action in Libya. We have not declared war. The Democrats are war weary and the GOP is Obama weary. It was all political. I hope Qaddafi is defeated soon so we can render this all moot.


cliffeed 5 years ago

We're only supporting NATO here, same way the rest of the world supported us when we foolishly went into Afghanistan and Iraq. America is a very selfish country.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working