|
Edited on Fri Mar-18-11 08:43 AM by originalpckelly
This is what should happen to any nation gone wrong. Instead of one country acting unilaterally, like the US did with Iraq, all nations (aside from the offending party of course) should protect the people of any given nation from the military of the given nation attacking straight up civilians. The world did nothing at some very important parts of history, one being the gassing of the Kurds in Iraq.
We just let that massacre, that genocide happen.
We also just let Darfur happen. The northern parts of the country were supporting the psycho Janjaweed militias with their airforce. People who use primitive tools to kill their food v. a fucking airforce. Seems fair to me, right?
But then again, Darfur probably doesn't have the oil resources of Libya.
The biggest problem, however, with enforcing a no-fly zone is not attacking planes, they contain individuals who are known combatants and have made a choice to participate in a war and would kill civilians.
The problem is attacking SAMs, because dictators don't give a shit about their people, they want to stay in power, and they will use human shields to make the attacking force look terrible in the eyes of the people in the dictators own nation, as well as in the whole world.
It doesn't matter what country takes part, if you have to attack SAMs, you are then opening the door to a whole new world of possibilities that includes killing people who are not in the military of the dictator.
If, however, you use stealth aircraft, like the F-22 or the F-35 (should they ever get that to an aircraft carrier near you) then you remove the biggest obstacle of a no-fly zone. You can have your planes cruise around, and attack jets of the opposing force and you'll only have the risk that the jets are in the enemy's city and drop on people. But it's a lot easier to see and avoid a flaming crash than it is to avoid a bomb. Plus, you can have rules of engagement that say to take the planes down over open areas, except for when it's just completely impossible to do so.
But there are nations in the areas surrounding Libya that are allies of the US and might allow us to base F-22s for the purpose of a no-fly zone. We could refuel them in air to extend their range.
It's a damn shame the F-35 isn't around yet, because it could really make a difference here. It would allow nations other than the US to do this.
Peace should always be the first option, and the people of Libya tried that. It's not like they took up arms on the first day of this, but Gaddafi wants to squash them like little bugs.
When peace fails, and people are attacked, en masse, it changes everything. The people of Libya have made their choice, they want to be free. At least part of Libya managed to free itself, and now it's fallen back into Gaddafi's hands. Even if you only support them in those areas, then it might make a difference. It might be too late, and who knows how many people will die now, because the UN takes so long to make a damn decision.
I guess I have to ask: What if you lived in Libya, and you wanted to be free, you freed yourself, but the dictator of your fair land managed to reclaim your land? What if you were facing certain extermination for participating in a rebellion against a dictator?
And I will also note that we're not attacking Bob with a machine gun like we are with the Pakistan air strikes or the Afghan war. We're not trying to fight against some nebulous idea, we're fighting against a specific party, whose forces fall under the Geneva conventions completely, not a "war on terrorism".
It would be nice if we could have non-violence now, but it cannot happen without a shitload of people dying, far more than would die if we (not the US, but the entire world) take action.
|