Andylusion
Platinum Member
The problem is, no-fly zones do nothing but prolong the conflict.
In any conflict, you either defeat the opponent, or be defeated.
In World War 1, and World War 2, we understood this concept. There was no 'let's just put a no-fly zone over western Europe. We had to defeat them.
Moreover, we have bought into a belief system that somehow you can win a war, without harming the people supporting the war.
We never thought in these terms in the past. Carpet bombing, fire bombing were standard practice, because we understood that if you didn't stop the people supplying the men, the guns, and the food, the fight would continue.
We bombed many factories in Japan, and they would rebuild. We run fire bomb missions, to not only wipe out the factories, but the people who rebuilt those factories.
When you look at places where you find a no victory or defeat, but an end to hostilities, they are often the most dangerous places on Earth.
North and South Korea for example.
In places where victory was achieved or defeat, they are generally safe. We defeated Japan. We are now friendly with Japan. We defeated Germany. Now we are allies.
People who have read history grasp that there is no good outcome unless you win or lose. The only way to end a conflict, is to fight it out and achieve an outcome.
This idea that we are going to just put up a no-fly zone, is basically just kicking a dangerous can down the road. Then you'll complain when some other president is forced to do something about it.
