How did "no-fly-zone to protect civilians" become "encourage rebels to advance" I wonder?

howard112211

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Mar-29-11 05:30 PM
Original message

How did "no-fly-zone to protect civilians" become "encourage rebels to advance" I wonder?

If this was about protecting civilians, the logical step would have been to implement the no-fly-zone and then negotiate a cease fire, and enforce it against both sides of the conflict. What NATO is doing however is pre-bombing cities so that the rebels can go in and conquer them, correct? I fail to see how this is a measure to avoid civilian deaths.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ixion

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Mar-29-11 05:32 PM
Response to Original message

1. it was never about a 'humanitarian mission'

and always about Pax Americana.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Taverner

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Mar-29-11 05:34 PM
Response to Original message

2. Waiting for the War-lovin' DUers to chime in in 3...2....1....

OOooh don't they just love a good war now that the President has a "D" next to his name!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

hardcover

(109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Mar-29-11 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #2

4. Yeah, it makes all the difference. :(

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Taverner

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Mar-29-11 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #4

5. I suppose you wanna get your war on too...

See some blood and guts?

You know, just like in the movies

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

hardcover

(109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Mar-29-11 05:41 PM
Response to Original message

3. The rebels were clear that they wanted a no-fly zone so that they could fight on.

Nato either wasn't paying attention or doesn't care that the rebels never had any desire for a cease fire. Nato probably didn't listen when the rebels said "give us a no-fly zone then back off and let us win this war on our own. Don't steal our victory."
We should never have gotten involved.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

snappyturtle

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Mar-29-11 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #3

7. I have a lot of questions about the rebels. I didn't know they had

Edited on Tue Mar-29-11 05:52 PM by snappyturtle

said they wanted a NFZ and then for us to back off. I'm taking your word and it sounds reasonable to me. I agree we should have stayed out.

I have to wonder, should we have a revolution here with revolutionaries in fear of their lives if another country would come to help the revolutionaries?

Welcome to DU! :hi:

Edit: Would we ask for help or want help? Just thinkin'.............

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

The_Casual_Observer

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Mar-29-11 05:48 PM
Response to Original message

6. A proxy war was the plan all along, they have simply overestimated

the ability & numbers of their proxy.

All that humanitarian bullshit from the French & the UK - the two countries most heavily reliant on Libyan Crude.

They couldn't give a god damn about the population of that place. Who was Obama trying to fool last night with that absurd Bush era speech?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ixion

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Mar-29-11 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #6

9. exactly.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Catherina

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Mar-29-11 05:52 PM
Response to Original message

8. Paving their way to the largest oil fields in Africa, 9th largest ones in the world, with bombs. n/t

I think the plan was to encourage the uprising after being assured by Chalabi types that people would spontaneously rush out from all over Libya and topple Gaddafi in a few decisive days of regime change.

What a fine pickle the coalition of the willing is in now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Life Long Dem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Mar-29-11 06:06 PM
Response to Original message

10. Seems Qaddafi must go.

I think a cease fire went out the door when we implemented the "no-fly-zone". That's when we first took sides. So it was only natural to continue on those lines and help the rebels through this.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Marr

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Mar-29-11 06:10 PM
Response to Original message

11. Yeah, it's more like we're taking on the air support role for the "rebels"

in this conflict.

Was anyone here really stupid enough to think this was about "humanitarian intervention"? I assumed all that shit was tongue-in-cheek.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Wed May 01st 2024, 01:44 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.