The Iraq Questions

tantor: if you could please explain just how Iraq is violating as a material breach the no-fly zone. its surely not UN Resolution 688 as the White House keeps saying. the US and France,GB imposed the no-fly zone without UN sanction so Iraq is within international rights in self defense, also the US allowed non-fixed aircraft to violate the northern no-fly zone using helicopters to gas the Kurds
while we managed not to notice. just my opinion i might be wrong.

dyslexia, the authority for the No Fly Zones is subject to some dispute. The concept grew out of concern for the wellbeing of politico-ethnic minorities within Iraq, including among other the Kurds. By agreement of both parties, Iraqi fixed wing aircraft were barred from operations within the zones, while helicopters were not. At the time, Iraq had Ground Attack Planes, but little if any Offensive Rotary Wing capability, and their plea, that the helicopters they had were unsuited for offensive operations but critically important for humanitarian, agricultural, and administrative purposes, was accepted by the Implementing Partners of the No Fly Zones. The Partners began patrolling the Zones to ensure that no Iraqi Fixed Wing Aircraft operated within the Zones, thus theoretically preventing Sadaam from enjoying air assetts in any attempt to militarily inconvenience any particular group he might find undesireable.

The poor, misunderstood Iraqis, doubtless disadvantaged, from broken families and dangerous neighborhoods, with no positive peer-group role models to emulate and learn from, adapted agricultural pesticide dispensing equipment to dispense war gasses instead of bug gasses. While it was common to see Iraqi helicopters busy controlling winged and six-legged pests, it is not at all surprising a small contingent of helicopters was able to perform a job of eradicating a few two-legged pests. The Partners were quite perturbed, and more than a bit embarrassed, to learn of the matter. Strong words were said, and further restrictions were placed on Iraqi Air Activities within the Zones.



timber

timberlandko, i believe your take on this is pretty accurate, estimates of up to 15,000 kurds killed is what i have read but not really much said about it, the other issue of concern is the constant statements of anti-aircraft fire against US and GB flyovers being a material breach- thats really stretching the limits of logic from my point of view.

Setanta, would you elaborate a bit on this extract from your 6:13 post?



Thanks

I essentially agree with you. The partners point however, is that the No Fly Zones are a military necessity to ensure Sadaam's compliance with UN requirements he not engage in punative or retributive military actions against his own population. The No Fly Zones per se have no UN "mandate', though, as agreed upon military necessity there is "authority" for them. Nonetheless, I can't see Iraqi attempts to bring down Allied Patrol Aircraft as "Material Breaches" of any of the now 18 UN resolutions intended to get Sadaam to comply with the first resolution. Such attempts are efronterous, futile, and suicididally stupid,, but do not in themselves overtly defy any specific provision of any of the resolutions as I have read and understood them.


I'm no expert either, jest a country boy, after all, but I've done some travelin' and quite a bit of readin' ... I pretty much call things how I see 'em, whether or not I find 'em convenient. I don't want to see ANY war, but despite some of the jingoistic justifications for this particular episode of bellicosity, that SOB "needs knocked upside his head real bad"


timber.

Why should I explain it?

Dyslexia, we have no fly zones over Iraq because it would invade its neighbors if we did not. For Iraq to attack its neighbors and then say any repulse of that attack violates its right to self defense is ludicrous. Your example of the Iraqis attacking the Kurds demonstrates the necessity of the no fly zones to stop the Iraqis from killing their own.

Tantor

timber, I've been a city-slicker all my life, but I also do not want ANY war with Iraq, but a good knock on the head for Saddam, he has earned for himself. c.i.

Roger, we put a lot of lives on the line in 1990-91, and spent a good deal of our money to put Saddam back in his place. Now, when his activities are elucidated as a threat, neighboring states are reluctant to provide us military bases from which to operate against Iraq, let alone join us in a coalition. On that basis, my attitude would be "serves 'em right" if we did not go to war with Iraq, and that nation attacks any of its neighbors. Kuwait has continued to cooperate with us, and i would say they deserve our loyalty in return. The other gulf states, as well as Syria and Jordan, don't deserve much consideration from us, in my opinion.

Yes, why indeed should Tantor write rubbish and then be called to account for it?

LMAO

For example, the fiery young men from the madrassas in Pakistan couldn't wait to fight the American infidels in Afghanistan. Now that they were soundly thrashed, many never came home, others returned wounded, and all returned with horrifying stories of the infidels bombing their asses to hell, there is not much enthusiasm to join the next jihad. The townsfolk of the border villages of Pakistan have turned their ire on their local mullahs for talking their boys into joining some damned fool jihad against America. The Arab street did not grab their AK-47s and run off to fight America. They pretty much bit their lip, slunk back home, and shut up.

Tantor


Tantor - what evidence do you have that this is the reaction?

Dyslexia - I believe that the USA had already pretty much decided to remove those missiles...

Dlowan,

Like you I was going to ask Tantor for evidence to back up his statements about the word on the Pashtun village street.

I believe Iraq has always been in Bush's sights. To destroy the threat to Israel, and a friend of the Palestinians. To control the oil, and to gain revenge for Daddy's humiliation. Its also just one more phase I think, in a longer term geopolitical strategy to re order that part of the world according to American tastes. Now I don't necessarily disagree with that, I just wish Bush would be more honest about his war aims and motives.

But I do object to the pathetic attempt to justify an attack on Iraq as being in someway part of Bush's War on Terrorism. Saddam should be a naturally ally in that war, not a foe. Its only Israeli propaganda that seeks to link bin Laden to Arafat and Saddam; which constantly refers to the occupied territories as 'Arafatistan', and portrays their own domestic terrorism as a manifestation of the wider international Islamic jihad. They have nothing in common. One seeks land in this world, the other a place in the world to come.

Thanks, Setanta. My instant take was that Kuwait was invaded once it would serve them right if it happened again, based on whatever support they have been willing to give us. That didn't sound right and I'm glad I asked.


¤

The US forward positioning of nuke missles was supplanted by the advent of technology which permitted Continental US Based ICBMs with global reach. Through the 'Fifties and into the early 'Sixties, such capability did not exist in practical, deployable manner. However, once we had the means to hit any one, any where, from our own farm fields, the fiscal and diplomatic costs associated with forward positioning rendered the concept unattractive. Withdrawing missles from Turkey, and agreeing to not place missles in Europe, were cost-free giveaways to The Soviet Union and to our European freinds (who were not particularly enthusiastic about US-owned-and-controlled purely offensive weapons on their soil). It was excellent World Press at the time to tie the withdrawls and the cancellation of further emplacements to "Reciprocal Understandings" reached with The Soviet Union over the Cuban Missle Matter. It made us look good, made the Soviets feel they "Got Something", dampened European Anti-Nuke unrest, and cost us nothing. Ain't politics grand?



timber.

Setanta, I did not state that attacking our jets in the no fly zone was a material breach. You have me mixed up with some other poster. I recommend that you quiz the poster who made the statement to defend it rather than drag random assertions from other posters back to me to defend.

You see Setanta, I don't feel required to defend other posters arguments. If you think that assertion is rubbish, you should take it up with the person who posted it, not me. You certainly should not attribute it to me.

I hope this clears up your confusion.

Tantor

I'm not confused, Tantor, i haven't the least doubt that you consistently fill these threads with rubbish, and that you very selectively reply, without responding to valid criticisms which are made of what you've written, and that is why i laughed my ass off when i saw that . . . i no longer bother to read most of what spews from your keyboard . . . i was greatly amused by that, though, because it is so characteristic of your (virtually non-existant) forensic style . . .

Setana wrote:



What took you so long?

It would appear a couple adversarial participants in this thread have decided to "Bury the Hatchet" ... in one another's foreheads.



timber

Most in ExComm abhore Khrushchev's peace proposal: McNamara argues that the Jupiters in Turkey should be removed, but only as a prelude to a full invasion of Cuba; Maxwell Taylor forwards the JCS recommendation simply to initiate the airstrike and invasion plans and plan for a nuclear war; and the State Department drafts a letter flatly rejecting the Soviet proposal of a nuclear deployment trade.

Kennedy agrees to ignore Khrushchev's proposals for removing U.S. missiles in Turkey, and to respond only to the October 26 letter. Kennedy publicly declares:

"As I read your letter, the key elements of your proposals--which seem generally acceptable as I understand them--are as follows: 1) You would agree to remove these weapon systems from Cuba under appropriate United Nations observation and supervision; and undertake, with suitable safe-guards, to halt the further introduction of such weapon systems into Cuba. 2) We, on our part, would agree--upon the establishment of adequate arrangements through the United Nations, to ensure the carrying out and continuation of these commitments (a) to remove promptly the quarantine measures now in effect and (b) to give assurances against the invasion of Cuba".

Further, Kennedy has Dobrynin told that if the Soviet Union does not remove its missiles, the United States will attack Cuba. The group secretly concedes that U.S. nuclear missiles must be removed from Turkey, but that this should not be made public to save face.

Gentlemen, do I have to lock this thread, too?