New York Times Editorial: "Stopping Qaddafi"

"Stopping Qaddafi"

This New York Times editorial, "Stopping Qaddafi," explains the newspaper's stance that the United States and other countries need to quickly get involved in the issue in Libya. The article offers a short introductory paragraph on what is going on--Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi is soon going to kill hundreds or thousands of Libyans because it is the only way he knows to keep power.

The New York Time's opinion is that we need to get involved soon and should have already done something. The newspaper lists ways of how we can stop Qaddafi, such as creating no fly zones and stopping military communication. They close the editorial with what I think is a strong way to summarize and show just what they intend to communicate: "The longer the world temporizes, the more people die." I think that The New York Times wants to inform the public and persuade those with power to get involved.

At one point, they seem to be contradictory when they say that we have waited too long to take action but then say that it was right of Obama to wait since Americans were still in Libya and it was dangerous to get involved. I agree that we should react soon to the situation, but there wasn't really anything to be done several days before when Americans were there and already at risk.

The New York Times offers their mainly clear view that we are behind on "Stopping Qaddafi," and offers many ways this can be done. Overall, I think that they nicely present the issue, their stance, and ways that we need to solve this before it is too late.