Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Clinton: No-fly zone means bombing
Politico ^

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 ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-46 last
To: Sub-Driver

From 40,000 feet again?


41 posted on 03/18/2011 6:11:19 AM PDT by bmwcyle (It is Satan's fault)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
In all seroiusnes...

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.

42 posted on 03/18/2011 7:00:41 AM PDT by Lysandru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009

My impression was that in all instances you mentioned we intervened only after other foreign powers did so. Am I wrong?


43 posted on 03/18/2011 9:33:15 AM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark

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.


44 posted on 03/18/2011 9:56:32 AM PDT by Morpheus2009 (I pity the fool - Mr. T)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark

That’s my question also who are these rebels.


45 posted on 03/18/2011 10:02:58 AM PDT by fatima (Free Hugs Today :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009
we were the lead to getting involved in Vietnam.

Are you suggesting that we did so before the USSR?

46 posted on 03/18/2011 10:26:34 AM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-46 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson