Posted on 03/17/2011 12:10:04 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
Clinton: No-fly zone means bombing
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned Thursday that establishing a United Nations-sanctioned no-fly zone over Libya would require bombing targets of Muammar Qadhafi’s regime there.
“A no-fly zone requires certain actions taken to protect the planes and the pilots, including bombing targets like the Libyan defense systems,” Clinton said in Tunis, her last stop on a trip that also took her to Cairo and Paris.
In all her stops, Clinton’s done a mix of stressing the need for democracy in post-revolution Tunisia and Egypt, and pushing for international cooperation in responding to the crisis in Libya. On Thursday, her only full day in Tunisia, Clinton promised that the United States “will stand with you as you make the transition to democracy, prosperity and a better future.”
Clinton’s remarks came as the United Nations Security Council prepared to vote later Thursday on a resolution to create the no-fly zone.
(Excerpt) Read more at dyn.politico.com ...
Wow - we went from “no fly zone” to “bomb what we want zone” pretty fast...
Wag the dog.
Since when does international law allow for interference in a civil war that has not overflowed the national borders?
A month ago no one had any intention of going in and taking out Qadhafi. Why should we be more inclined to take him out today then we were a month ago? Same guy today as a month ago. Doesn’t look any crazier today than a month ago.
If our goal was to take out Qadhafi we had a window last week. We blew it.
I wonder if this is the admin’s way of telling Qaddafi to hurry up...
So Hillary listened to Gates.
... and this is why we should let the Europeans and the Arab League do it.
No one is going to love us if we do it. Not Daffy’s loyalists, not the Arab League, not the new Jihadis we’d be installing in his place, not Al Qaeda. So why do it?
Wow... mission creep before mission start.
Whaddayaknow... Hillary is SecDef, too!
Baraqaddafi needs to appear decisive. All about The One, you know...
Baraqaddafi needs to appear decisive. All about The One, you know...
Baraqaddafi needs to appear decisive. All about The One, you know...
That was weird. Only hit “post” once, but it posted up three times.
Well, if we entertain the idea of a no-fly zone, before that can begin, we gotta ace the Colonel’s air defense network.
As for myself, I think we should sit this one out. It’s another tar baby.
"Oh, we forgot to define our terms. 'No fly zone' means that if we detect so much as a single housefly taking wing, anywhere in your country, we're going to bomb you into oblivion."
By saying “bombing would be required” they’re really simply trying to give themselves an out for doing NOTHING —what Obama does best.
Besides eat ice-cream, sound reaaaaly unruffled, or hit the beaches in Rio.
They’re trying to minimize the political cost with their whacko left BASE of doing nothing.
Those rebels are toast —hugely telling that they were appealing to GEORGE BUSH for help.
Why can’t he be appear decisive...Like Ronald Reagan and lob a cruise missile on his tent...?!?
Who CARES ? Both sides hate us!!!!!
Actually the Confederacy tried hard to get both France and Britain involved on the South’s side. They were making some headway on the British due to cotton exports but never really got that close to getting them to commit.
}:-)4
But team Clinton has been on the march for the last six months, IMO. They will not allow this farce to continue into 2012, because of the implications for the Senate.
I think it's been Barry's intention all along to allow Qaddafi to stay right where he is.
Kosovo II: Electric Boogaloo.
}:-)4
Maybe Clinton could send Obama to lead the bombing.
Then the headlines could read: Clinton sends dope to bomb Libya
What someone tries is not the point: would anybody, including the Confederates consider that within the international law? Of course not.
Laws are laws and principles are principles only if applied uniformly. The same Confederates would scream "bloody murder" if the Northerners did the same thing.
More ‘see Spot run’ diplomacy from the smartest woman in America.
I dunno, looks more like “prep the battlespace before mission start” to me. It’s logical - doesn’t mean I agree with the policy position. We’re stretched way too thin as it is.
Colonel, USAFR
War means fighting and fighting means killing.
NO
Bush's fault.
Obama let his mouth write a check some poor GI’s ass is gonna hafta cash. He already said that Ghaddaffy Duck is gotta go, and that he was unacceptable. He’s more or less recognized the rebels, whomever they may be, as the legitimate government of Libya. Once Obama called on Gaddaffy to leave, his continuing survival is a defeat for the U.S. That’s the problem with being president, people take your words seriously.
Opportunist in Chief Clinton strikes again! Go back to what he said about Bush’s military actions. There is no logic to Clinton’s positions. You can’t even gauge them by whether a Democrat or Republican is taking the action. As always with him, its pure opportunism and positioning himself.
Since when does international law allow for interference in a civil war that has not overflowed the national borders?
That was also true for the early stages of Vietnam. But the big part is that yes, these wars have their own differences.
As a matter of fact, Korea and Vietnam were both instances of Civil Wars in which we intervened. Granada and Somalia are also of a similar nature.
As far as international law goes, it doesn’t have all that great of a record for being followed.
No fly-zone means bombing
Blow jobs don’t mean sex
Planet Bill is a crazy place.
Field Marshall Clinton? Will we bomb tanks, troop convoys pro government supply lines?
We really should not be getting involved in a country’s civil war. At least Vietnam was two countries fighting with North Vietnam wanting to take over the South. And even then liberals considered it a “civil war”. Well, this IS a civil war.
They were close enough to force Lincoln’s hand & issue the Emancipation Proclamation after Antietam, which was directly intended to make any foreign government an apologist for slavery.
There were strong movements in Europe to send a mixed army to separate the sides and force arbitration.
Lincoln’s strategy worked very well in that regard.
Thank you for your post.
Thunder Thighs Warns?? She is always good for a laugh,should be on stage somewhere!
From 40,000 feet again?
Why is the Secretary of State leading this charge? Shouldn't the Secretary of Defense be more prominent here? And frankly...
The President himself should be out front explaining the goals and reasons behind his policy.
Once again, Obama is AWOL.
My impression was that in all instances you mentioned we intervened only after other foreign powers did so. Am I wrong?
There’s a lot of specifics if you want to consider us after the other powers. However, in the Civil War portion of Vietnam (Vietnamese vs. Vietnamese) we were the lead to getting involved in Vietnam. There were revolts against the French in the late 1940s and up to 1954 when the French withdrew, but this was not a civil war because it was not Vietnamese killing each other, for the most part.
That’s my question also who are these rebels.
Are you suggesting that we did so before the USSR?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.