General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: For all the cheerleaders who thought overthrowing Qaddafi was such a great idea [View all]karynnj
(60,735 posts)I agree that it was very much in response to the actions and goals of the rebels.
The question is whether a government can threaten to bomb one of its own cities. This is where the comparisons to Rwanda come in. It is a very tricky area. Had the US coalition just taken away air power from Qaddafi - preventing him from taking that action - and done nothing else, would you have had a problem?
Then (as others mention), there were other heavy weapons - like tanks. What if the US coalition both used its no fly control -- AND demanded there be no tank movements. As they would then be the sole air power, they could make movement of tanks very costly in terms of lives and material by saying that they would bomb any moving tank. Would you then have a problem?
This is what I meant by the slow/subtle shift between preventing a massacre and changing the balance of power. Yet looking at the two questions - where I would have had no problem being for both - it does show the very slippery issues of entering a civil war. ( I strongly suspect that this has influenced Obama's position on Syria - where like Quaddafi, Assad has done awful things.)