DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Nukes, Alexander, Hannibal, Genghis and Napoleon

**Vigeommighica** · 02-01-2007, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by Zkribbler

Iraq gave its permission when it signed the cease-fire agreement containing that provision.

It was all one war -- Germany lost. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones

"The Iraqi no-fly zones (NFZs) were proclaimed by the United States, United Kingdom and France after the Gulf War of 1991 to protect humanitarian operations in northern Iraq and Shiite Muslims in the south. Iraqi aircraft were forbidden from flying inside the zones. The policy was enforced by US, UK and French aircraft patrols until France withdrew in 1998. While the enforcing powers had cited United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 as authorising the operations, the resolution contains no such authorisation."

You can argue that the invasion was a piss poor idea, or that overturning govts threatens world stability, but you what you cant do is say that it was aggression pure and simple, ignoring the dispute about what the ceasefire resolutions actually implied (and whether the US was a direct party to them apart from the UNSC) unles youre willing to say the same things about the no fly zones, in which case youve got to wonder when Bush41 and Clinton will be hung for aggression.

and of course Saddam was NOT hung for aggression, but for crimes against his own people.

02-01-2007, 09:30 PM	#21
Vigeommighica Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 405 Senior Member	Originally posted by Zkribbler Iraq gave its permission when it signed the cease-fire agreement containing that provision. It was all one war -- Germany lost. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones "The Iraqi no-fly zones (NFZs) were proclaimed by the United States, United Kingdom and France after the Gulf War of 1991 to protect humanitarian operations in northern Iraq and Shiite Muslims in the south. Iraqi aircraft were forbidden from flying inside the zones. The policy was enforced by US, UK and French aircraft patrols until France withdrew in 1998. While the enforcing powers had cited United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 as authorising the operations, the resolution contains no such authorisation." You can argue that the invasion was a piss poor idea, or that overturning govts threatens world stability, but you what you cant do is say that it was aggression pure and simple, ignoring the dispute about what the ceasefire resolutions actually implied (and whether the US was a direct party to them apart from the UNSC) unles youre willing to say the same things about the no fly zones, in which case youve got to wonder when Bush41 and Clinton will be hung for aggression. and of course Saddam was NOT hung for aggression, but for crimes against his own people.
	Quote