The US was a beneficiary of the equivalent of a no fly zone, by the French nonetheless.

[MadHound]

During our revolt, we were getting hammered by the mobile war platform of the day, the British ships of the line. Such ships could provide troop transport, set up a blockade and shell cities into rubble, with all the accompanying civilian deaths that implies. The colonial revolutionaries were thus at a huge disadvantage, and were teetering on the edge of defeat.

Enter the French. Not only did they lend us much needed money, sell us arms, act as a buyer for our products and provide us with extra ground troops, they also established what was the equivalent of a no fly zone. The lifted British blockades of our ports, they harried and harassed British ships in our waters, they defended the high seas of our country when we didn't have the means to do so.

If it weren't for the French establishing that equivalent of a no fly zone, we could very well have remained under British rule to this day.

Just thought I would point out that piece of history.

[Buzz Clik]

1. If Bush had been president during the Revolution, would you have supported that violent activity?

I think not.

(just in case it's necessary: :sarcasm:)

[BzaDem]

2. K&R. n/t

[dkf]

3. So what? Are you supporting going against the Saudi forces in Bahrain?

When I watched Saudi soldiers rolling over the causeway linking the two kingdoms on Monday, they were giving victory signs to local TV cameras. Bahrain TV showed archive footage of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and King Hamad of Bahrain performing a traditional Bedouin war dance together.

Despite the official stance that the Saudis and UAE troops had arrived to guard essential infrastructure and restore order on the streets, there was little doubt as to the real purpose: to put down, by whatever means necessary, a growing rebellion by the kingdom's majority, but deprived, Shia citizens.

The day before, unarmed demonstrators had effectively beaten the security forces in Manama. A move to clear a protesters' camp on the fringes of the main gathering at Pearl roundabout had led to an influx of protesters to the city, determined to defend their turf. The police withdrew when they ran out of teargas canisters.

The sight of the police – many of whom are hired guns from Pakistan, Syria and other parts of the Sunni world – running from Shia demonstrators reawoke the fears of Gulf governments that the "party of Ali" was on the rise again.


http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/20/bahrain-saudi-arabia-rebellion?cat=world&type=article

[ClarkUSA]

6. No. Opposition Shia leaders there have agreed to talks w/the Bahrain gov't.

Furthermore, other Middle East leaders have practiced restraint, whereas Gadhafi promised to treat his opposition like "rats" and exterminate them by visiting upon them another Rwanda genocide.

[Exilednight]

10. Link, please? n/t

[MedleyMisty]

4. I also think it's hypocritical of people to hate on the Libyans for taking up arms

When our revolution wasn't exactly peaceful civil disobedience. If you argue that it should have been, that maybe the whole violent revolution thing is part of why our government sucks so much now, I can dig it. But if you fetishize our founders and their fight for freedom while looking down on other revolutionaries who take up arms...yeah.

I have been told that I think in black and white terms. After the last few days - either I've learned how to see gray recently or there are people with even more black and white thinking than me.

[DireStrike]

11. People are hating on libyans for taking up arms against Gaddafi?

Armchair revolutionaries :eyes:

[Ikonoklast]

5. No France using our Revolution as a foil to the British Empire,

no United States.

It came down to the French taking de facto control away from Washington and forcing him to support the Southern Campaign instead of focusing on re-taking New York.

If Washington had got his way and tried for New York and failed, we as a nation just might not have come to be.


Of course, it helped that Cornwallis put himself in a trap, and the French defeated the British at the Battle of the Chesapeake, sealing the British fate with no hope of supply or evacuation.

But you are exactly correct, we owe the success of our Revolution to France.

[Rage for Order]

7. France didn't support us out of the goodness of their hearts

They did it for the same reason we supported the mujaheddin in Afghanistan against the Soviets in the 1980's: to weaken their most powerful enemy. They used the American Revolution as a proxy war against England.

[bvar22]

8. An interesting observation.

Can you point to a modern Military Intervention in the Middle East that has ended well?

Are you sure that the "revolutionaries" in Libya are the GOOD Guys?

In Afghanistan, the "revolutionaries" were the Taliban (Mujahideen).
In Lebanon, it was Hezbollah.

[Ikonoklast]

12. It can be argued that both Lebanon and Afghanistan became stabilized.

Not in any way acceptable to this country, however, but, then again, why should they have to answer to a foreign power as to how they run their country domestically?

I guess this is the question that many are finding is so difficult to answer.

How much oppression against a nation's own citizenry should be allowed by the U.N.?

It's not like there are no governments that don't do it; it's done in this country, albeit on a less violent, smaller scale, but there is still oppression.

On the flip side, however, is how bad would things have got if we ignored them?

Rwanda bad? Kosovo bad?

As president, there is no winning these situations, unless we revert back to some sort of isolationism, and just let them hash things out on their own.

I see no one 'good answer', just hoping for a 'least bad outcome' at best.

[Davis_X_Machina]

9. Later, US naval forces participated...

...in a no-sail zone off the west coast of Africa in the 1800's, part of an international force sent to suppress the slave trade.