When I was doing my research on the current problems in Libya, everything was new to me. It seems as though everyone was obsessed with learning about what happens in Egypt. However, since the resigning of Mubarak, news on Egypt has calmed down. There is still violence there but it seems to be more or less under control. However, the violence in Libya is peaking and it doesn't seem like it will be slowing down anytime soon. It almost seems as thought the violence in Libya is worse. There seems to be a lot more guns to control the riots rather than nothing. I don't know whats better. Would I rather have my government leave an unsafe environment for me in the streets by not controlling the protests, or would I rather have them control it with violence, making it even more dangerous? In the New York times article, the author wrote about turmoil due to oil on the Libyan border. It seems as though a country can very easily take advantage of a country with a lot of internal problems. I think something like this happened in World War One. Someone had told Mexico to attack the United States so that the United States could not fight a war on two borders. It seems as though the internal conflict can be an external conflict and may even impact the business of Libya. Investors would be hesitant to invest in Libyan markets or due business with Libyan business. It seems like it's going to impact their country. If I were el- Qaddafi I would try and control the whole situations with less violence. It doesn't seem like things are going to escalate to the point where violence is going to be used. Also, keep all the other countries out of it. The New York Times talked about the United States and NATO coming in to help keep the peace. They also talked about no fly zones. This doesn't seem to make sense. How are they going to keep the peace by shooting down planes that aren't supposed to be there.
-Igor
No comments:
Post a Comment