No-fly zone plan will be presented March 15: Clinton
36 replies, posted
[quote]WASHINGTON — A plan aimed at establishing a no-fly zone over Libya will be presented March 15 to NATO, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Thursday.
"We are continuing to plan for the full range of possible options including a no-fly zone," Clinton told a press conference, declining however to indicate who would present the plan on Tuesday.
US civilian and military officials have been debating with their allied counterparts the idea of a creating zone in which NATO warplanes would ground Colonel Moamer Kadhafi's air power to prevent him from attacking his own people.
"I know how concerned people are, I share that concern," Clinton said.
"But we have a lot of experience in this kind of circumstance, from Iraq, the Balkans and elsewhere, and we know how challenging it is to do any of the things that a lot of people are calling for."
She was referring to no-fly zones imposed over Serbia and Iraq in the 1990s.
The top US diplomat has stressed that any decision to impose a no-fly zone over Libya should be taken by the United Nations and not the United States.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization appeared divided meanwhile on the usefulness of such a measure as well as the idea -- attributed to French President Nicolas Sarkozy -- to launch air strikes in Libya.
The organization decided to reinforce its naval presence in an area near Libya, and evaluate the humanitarian aid the United Nations could request.
The transatlantic alliance has already increased its airborne radar surveillance of the central sector of the Mediterranean.[/quote]
Source:
[url]http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jZOkZrMc5qjAFZRU1Rroqe7uXL_Q?docId=CNG.cf8ccfd0c8636e4a3df42d9b2e0ab4d1.c21[/url]
Awesome, she mentioned Iraq. Now people who have absolutely no grasp of the situation can start spewing out bullshit about how we're going to invade for oil.
Good.
I feel like Clinton would have been a better president than Obama. Call me crazy or ignorant for thinking of this because of something about her I missed, but she has a lot more experience than Obama ever had, since she was the First Lady for 8 years and a senator for 8 years
As much as I don't want the US dicking in another country's business like this.. I have a feeling this is for the best.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;28535313]I feel like Clinton would have been a better president than Obama. Call me crazy or ignorant for thinking of this because of something about her I missed, but she has a lot more experience than Obama ever had, since she was the First Lady for 8 years and a senator for 8 years[/QUOTE]
She had a number of problems. Chief among them, for this forum anyways, was her hatred of video games.
Among her bullshit hate speech surrounding the issue, she also tried to pass this:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Entertainment_Protection_Act[/url]
Basically it sought to destroy the ESRB (A non-profit entirely voluntary review system. Games sold in the United States have no required review or ratings) and replace it with a government run version along with a selection of laws that restrict who video games can be sold to and how they will be punished if they do not comply. Basically it would have turned control over to the government about what games are allowed to be published here as well as what games do and do not sell well by manipulating ratings.
This is basically indicative of her entire mindset towards everything. Her voting history supports a long list of similar actions.
Which ultimately sucks pretty hard, because I REALLY wanted to like her. Her and her husband were an amazing power team in the white house. I can't abide, however, such blatant attempts at encroaching on our freedoms or the mindset that comes with it. :(
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;28535313]I feel like Clinton would have been a better president than Obama. Call me crazy or ignorant for thinking of this because of something about her I missed, but she has a lot more experience than Obama ever had, since she was the First Lady for 8 years and a senator for 8 years[/QUOTE]
It's not really Obama's fault when every plan that he had was shut down by the republican party.
[editline]10th March 2011[/editline]
Tax the rich? LOL, fat chance. Health care? Nope. Doing something about big investment banking companies being in charge of economy? Nah.
Why can't the west mind its own business.
[QUOTE=PEn1s lol;28536431]Why can't the west mind its own business.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/50SDP.jpg[/IMG]
People! Are! Dying!
[QUOTE=TH89;28536603][img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/50SDP.jpg[/img_thumb]
People! Are! Dying![/QUOTE]
So
Can I fly an RC airplane in it?
[QUOTE=Ninja Duck;28537378]Can I fly an RC airplane in it?[/QUOTE]
No it will be shot down with several AMRAAM missiles and the crash area will be carpet bombed for 3 hours
[QUOTE=animephreak135;28535240]Awesome, she mentioned Iraq. Now people who have absolutely no grasp of the situation can start spewing out bullshit about how we're going to invade for oil.[/QUOTE]
Iraq is a pretty extreme example of a no fly zone, I mean in the end it turned into an excuse to soften it up for a full invasion.
I think the Bosnian NFZ is a better example of what they want to do.
[QUOTE=PEn1s lol;28536431]Why can't the west mind its own business.[/QUOTE]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFJktWU_53I&feature=player_embedded#at=76]They asked for it[/url].
[QUOTE=PEn1s lol;28536431]Why can't the west mind its own business.[/QUOTE]
There is a difference between the west sticking its nose in and thinking its the world police and responding to the requests of people trying to overthrow someone they wouldn't mind being gone.
Isn't this something best left to the EU? The US should largely stay out of it.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;28544698]Isn't this something best left to the EU? The US should largely stay out of it.[/QUOTE]
If anything it should be done by and with the backing of the UN. Although the EU (specificity, the UK and France) are the ones mostly pushing for it at the moment.
[QUOTE=Jsm;28544657]Iraq is a pretty extreme example of a no fly zone, I mean in the end it turned into an excuse to soften it up for a full invasion.
I think the Bosnian NFZ is a better example of what they want to do.[/QUOTE]
You know what's going to happen after it's all over and the western powers have helped? They're going to leave without interfering at all, and all of the people who believe we're "interfering" for oil/occupation will never mention it again. When confronted about it, they'll brush it off and act like they never had that viewpoint.
It'll still be very satisfying for me. Of course, if I'm wrong, and I won't be, I'll eat my own words and admit it. People with sensationalist, "rebellious" opinions on their government always, always ignore instances where their government does something good, and they'll never openly admit being wrong.
[QUOTE=animephreak135;28545076]You know what's going to happen after it's all over and the western powers have helped? They're going to leave without interfering at all, and all of the people who believe we're "interfering" for oil/occupation will never mention it again. When confronted about it, they'll brush it off and act like they never had that viewpoint.
It'll still be very satisfying for me. Of course, if I'm wrong, and I won't be, I'll eat my own words and admit it. People with sensationalist, "rebellious" opinions on their government always, always ignore instances where their government does something good, and they'll never openly admit being wrong.[/QUOTE]
Of course that will happen, it always happens in any situation like this. It will be like all those people who supported conspiracy theories which have since been debunked, they will tell you they never believed them.
Hopefully the Loyalists will shoot down some of the west's fighters.
[QUOTE=GunFox;28536014]She had a number of problems. Chief among them, for this forum anyways, was her hatred of video games.
Among her bullshit hate speech surrounding the issue, she also tried to pass this:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Entertainment_Protection_Act[/url]
Basically it sought to destroy the ESRB (A non-profit entirely voluntary review system. Games sold in the United States have no required review or ratings) and replace it with a government run version along with a selection of laws that restrict who video games can be sold to and how they will be punished if they do not comply. Basically it would have turned control over to the government about what games are allowed to be published here as well as what games do and do not sell well by manipulating ratings.
[/QUOTE]
What a dumb bitch
Why are they waiting four whole days to make a meeting... for all we know in that time Gadaffi's forces could take Misurata or even Benghazi.
[QUOTE=Shadowstone;28546777]Why are they waiting four whole days to make a meeting... for all we know in that time Gadaffi's forces could take Misurata or even Benghazi.[/QUOTE]
This is the real problem at the moment it seems. The time it takes anyone to do ANYTHING.
[QUOTE=PEn1s lol;28536974]So[/QUOTE]
"So"?! Did you just said "so"?!
Gadaffi is [I]killing[/I] thousands of people while spewing propaganda and bullshit such as how every protester is on drugs and he is proving again and again that he belongs in the looney bin. He is an insane undemocratic dictator that doesn't care about how many of the people of Libya have died, and orders executions of the soldiers that refuse to attack the rebels. He will try as hard as he can to kill hundreds and hundreds of people rebelling before he meets his end, be it in The Hauge or at the end of a gun barrel when the rebels get him in Libya.
There is a slight chance that the rebels lose in the civil war, and not even God knows what Gadaffi will decide to do to the thousands of those that would surrender to the government forces. That's why we need to take action against Gadaffi, if he wins the entire East Libya is up for execution. The rebels might not be able to take down the regime without the help of UN or NATO, so somebody has to help them in some way.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;28544698]Isn't this something best left to the EU? The US should largely stay out of it.[/QUOTE]
Ideally, yes, but the United States is better at it for a number of reasons:
1) We operate as a single unit. Our soldiers all speak the same language and receive training to operate as a single force. The EU has excellent individual militaries, but is going to suffer from communication and organization issues.
2) The United States has the navy to back up the threat. We can keep one carrier battle group off the coast and control the air space for as long as we want. Very few European nations sport carriers capable of launching air superior aircraft. Most, if anything, use amphibious assault craft, which launch VTOL aircraft.
3) In addition to the carrier battlegroup, we have a navy capable of launching a full scale invasion. So if our pilots go down and are captured, we can threaten full military action and actually have the navy to do so. Europe simply doesn't have enough boats to make an effective naval assault.
The European militaries are all excellent in their own right, but the US spends ungodly sums of money in order to be the strongest.
[QUOTE=PEn1s lol;28536431]Why can't the west mind its own business.[/QUOTE]
Why, so that you can come back and go "why didnt the west help in a time of need?????????" when more civilians get killed?
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;28544698]Isn't this something best left to the EU? The US should largely stay out of it.[/QUOTE]
The EU isn't a military entity...
If they are going to do this get Russia to do since they are like the last European power with aircraft carriers.
[editline]11th March 2011[/editline]
And I'm pretty sure France has some too.
[QUOTE=croguy;28547029]"So"?! Did you just said "so"?!
Gadaffi is [I]killing[/I] thousands of people while spewing propaganda and bullshit such as how every protester is on drugs and he is proving again and again that he belongs in the looney bin. He is an insane undemocratic dictator that doesn't care about how many of the people of Libya have died, and orders executions of the soldiers that refuse to attack the rebels. He will try as hard as he can to kill hundreds and hundreds of people rebelling before he meets his end, be it in The Hauge or at the end of a gun barrel when the rebels get him in Libya.
There is a slight chance that the rebels lose in the civil war, and not even God knows what Gadaffi will decide to do to the thousands of those that would surrender to the government forces. That's why we need to take action against Gadaffi, if he wins the entire East Libya is up for execution. The rebels might not be able to take down the regime without the help of UN or NATO, so somebody has to help them in some way.[/QUOTE]
It's most likely some 12 year old who likes to sit home and watch the explosions on tv, not caring about human lives wasted in the process because he probably thinks people respawn when they die.
I'm guessing its either that or he's just a troll.
as much as i want this to be a NATO decision, this is for the best for the situation in Libya is unacceptable and should be resolved as soon as possible (Look at your Oil prices)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.