NO actually, the UN did NOT approve, did NOT impose the no-fly zones.

An example why so many Americans are so ignorant of the facts on things;

"But 1998 was when the Iraqi government defied a United Nations-imposed "no-fly" zone and began firing on planes attempting to enforce it.
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/103-03272006-632480.html

WRONG.

The UN never, not ever, approved those no-fly zones; the UN did not mandate those no-fly zones, the UN did not impose those no-fly zones.

In FACT, the US & UK ILLEGALLY & unilaterally imposed those no-fly zones.

And that's a FACT.

HELLO US "media"! Your job description includes FACT CHECKING.

kicked the inspectors out, and wouldn't let em back in

he just said it again the other day, at Helen's comeback press conference

I remember... and then proceeded to do his dirty war dance without UN approval.

It sure would be nice to have an archive around here...

policy of the U.S. I thought that the U.
s. had the cooperation of the British and the French in this endeavor. I thought it was a bright spot of international cooperation to prevent Saddam from getting WPDs.

Please instruct.

cooperated on this, but the point being made is that this was not a UN mandate. Here's a link to the UN resolution used to justify the no-fly zones.

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0688.htm

However, unlike the military campaign to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the no-fly zones were not authorised by the United Nations and they are not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution.

Since UN weapons inspectors withdrew from Iraq shortly before a three-day US-UK bombardment in late 1998 known as Operation Desert Fox, the two Western powers have kept up their attacks whenever Iraqi air defences have locked onto aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2490361.stm

***How come the BBC got BOTH correct; No UN sanction on the "no-fly" bombings...and Hussein did NOT kick the UN weapons inspectors out...yet the US "media" never gets either (let alone both) correct? How come the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES can't get those 2 facts correct???***

American and British war planes have been fired on several times in recent days while patrolling "no-fly" zones over Iraq. The Bush administration calls these attacks a breach of the United Nations Security Council resolution calling for the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq.

U.N. legal department announced that it could find no existing Security Council resolutions authorizing the United States, Britain, and France to enforce the no-fly zones. They are never explicitly mentioned in Resolution 688 or elsewhere. Furthermore, Resolution 688 was not enacted under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, the section that is used to authorize and legitimize the use of force.

France later backed away from its involvement in the no-fly zones, leaving the United States and Britain to enforce them. Other U.N. Security Council nations have never accepted their legitimacy.
http://www.slate.com/?id=2074302

"No Fly Zones" were not UN sanctioned.

The mainstream media has done a poor job reporting the basic facts about US actions toward Iraq (ya think???)
http://www.representativepress.org/noflyzones.html

2. The unilateral US-UK no-fly zones were illegal under international law because the UN did NOT mandate/approve/authorize/impose those no-fly zones.

Under international law, bombing a nation is an act of WAR. Under international law, war is legal in only 2 ways; self defense from imminent/occuring attack...and/or with UN mandate.

The Embarrassment and Illegality of the No-Fly Zones
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0211h.asp

The no-fly zones have no integrity because they are, in fact, illegal
http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/nofly.htm

By shooting at the US & UK bombers, Iraq was legally defending itself against illegal attacks. Who's the bad guy? Well...I have my opinion on that and it happens to match the opinionj of most the world.

But what I don't understand is WHY IRAQ? Saddam Hussein's little invasion of Kuwait was a relatively minor adventure-- especially when compared to Anerica's invasion of Iraq, or the Iran-Iraq war, or any number of other conflicts going on all over the world at the same time. Why Iraq?

with oil to supply us with what we need to keep on?

I dunno, otherwise. Who does?

war is one of our biggest and most profitable exports.

When France, Britain and the US sliced up the ME oil. Iraq was ours, and our responsibility. We sold them WMD and egged on the Iraq/Iran war. We needed to clean up our mess. Makes sense to me, in a BFEE sort of way.

I have kicked and recommended your thread.
:toast:

Everyone forgets this was a tri-lateral deal and not UN.

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/15016.htm

The term "no-fly" does not appear in the resolution but only in the annex.

U.N. legal department announced that it could find no existing Security Council resolutions authorizing the United States, Britain, and France to enforce the no-fly zones. They are never explicitly mentioned in Resolution 688 or elsewhere.

Furthermore, Resolution 688 was not enacted under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, the section that is used to authorize and legitimize the use of force.

Both those bare-faced lying bastards have spouted their vile lies including this no-fly zone bullshit again for the past couple of weeks. And they talked about Hussein refusing them access and not complying with arms regulations. It's all bullshit! BushCo pulled Hans Blix out! Blix was saying he and his people found nothing. And guess what! They still haven't found anything!

Puffy McMoonface even went so far as to chastise members of the media and say, "Let's not re-write history." What he should have said is let's not re-write the history BushCo has already re-written!

The fact that they think they can get away with this just pisses me off!

Silly me.

your (imho) best posts ever.... 4Mor

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3780745

:hug:

Fact checking and Faux News do not go hand-in-hand. We all know that.

Thanks for the reminder, Lynn. When one is overloaded with scandals upon scandals these facts get lost in the memory shuffle.

Edited to Add: I do not watch Faux News, but did right after 9/11 and to the build-up of the Iraq war. My excuse: I was in shock like the rest of the country. Now, I know better.

happened, either. Then the bullshit they were spewing was deeply shocking to me, so that was that. Hubby (US soldier) disliked Faux News long before that. He's smarter then I. :shrug:

www.factcheck.org

For Example:


http://www.factcheck.org/article147.html
Did Kerry Oppose Tanks & Planes? Not Lately

Kerry voted often against nuclear missiles and bombers in the '90s, but GOP claims that he opposed a long list of conventional weapons are overblown.

as opposed to "UN sanctions".