no fly zone question

[brad]

im not sure but i think the US no fly zones are US mandated and not part of any UN resolution or anything.

anyone know?

does that change anyones opinion on no fly zones? (ie, does UN resolution provide 'legitimacy' to no fly zones, or does lack of UN involvement call such legitimacy into question?)

[Jimbo]

Another fine unsubstantiated post by Mr. brad.

im not sure but i think the US no fly zones are US mandated and not part of any UN resolution or anything. I believe you are incorrect.

anyone know? Yes

does that change anyones opinion on no fly zones? Why would an incorrect statement change anyones mind? (ie, does UN resolution provide 'legitimacy' to no fly zones, or does lack of UN involvement call such legitimacy into question?) The UN hardly provides legitimacy to anything nor would their lack of involvement denote anything out of the ordinary.

My own personal no-fly zone surrounds my black diamond watermelon in the summertime.

[Dynasty]

The no fly zones were established after the Gulf War initially to prevent the remaining Iraqi air force from further slaughtering the pathetic revolutionary attempts to remove Saddam from power in early '91. The zones were not part of the cease fire agreement (major bungle by the State Department).

I don't consider that a U.N. mandate legitimizes anything.

[brad]

wheres your sources? btw i usually post with hyperlinked sources unless im asking cause i dont know.

[brad]

so are the no fly zone(s) a unilateral proclamation by the US or are the zone(s) covered under UN resolutions?

just wondering cause it came up in a thread here where i think someone presupposed that iraq was in violation of UN resolutions by shooting in the no fly zone or something like that.

just curious because you cant argue hes in violation of UN if no fly zones arent part of UN resolutions.

[Jimbo]

brad you were nearly correct and at any rate closer to being accurate than I:

"The two no-fly zones, one in the north and another in the south of Iraq, were unilaterally created by the US, Britain and France soon after the 1991 Gulf War. Iraq was banned from using all aircraft, including helicopters, in the air exclusion zones." Quoted from an article linked below:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/crisis_in_the_gulf/forces_and_firepower/244364.stm

[MMMMMM]

Since the US AND Great Britain created them, how is that unilateral? Isn't is bilateral at least? And if we had just asked a third party to agree it could have been "multilateral";-)

[Jimbo]

MMMMMM,

You must have missed France in the quote I provided so multilateral should apply. I also thought it was poorly worded but I just copied the quote I did not create it! /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[MMMMMM]

The no-fly zones are not UN-mandated and they're not recognized by Iraq. However since Iraq lost the war and Bush spared Saddam and Baghdad (for which Saddam tried to have Bush assassinated), you'd think Iraq would see the light and not fire on coalition aircraft with such regularity. Personally, I think the coalition erred by so limiting our responses to being fired upon...perhaps we should have made it clear that each and every incident would cost them not just a battery or two, but far more--say a military headquarters for every attempt. On the other hand, since they've had (to the best of my recollection) about a zero percent success rate in something close to 1,000 attempts on our manned aircraft, maybe it doesn't matter much anyway.

[MMMMMM]

You are right, I did miss it. Well at least once the French did something right.

[Chris Alger]

Good question. This is another example that exposes the absurdity of US invocations of the sanctity of interntional law while trashing it as it suits its interests.

The no-fly zones are not authorized by any UN resolution and the violence caused by US/GB actions are, in essence, war crimes that have killed nearly 300 Iraqis since 1998. U.S. and G.B. have argued that the no-fly zones are implied by prior UN resolutions, but nobody else on the Security Council seems to agree. France and Russia have denounced them as violations of international law. Bush reportedly tried to get authorization for them in 1441, but was denied. The typical way this is reported is to admit that "Iraq" claims they aren't legal, or that their legality is "disputed."

The "no-fly" zones are a pretext for low-intensity ariel combat against Iraq, to soften it up for eventual conquest. They no longer have anything to do with protecting Shiites and the Kurds from Saddam. US and British planes use this device to routinely bomb oil facilities, anti-aircraft installations, communications and other targets of strategic and tactical value and drop leaflets to incite rebellion among Iraq's armed forces.

[Jimbo]

Chris although you exaggerate you claims somewhat your substance has basis. However I do not believe we as the lone superpower require a UN solution to do as we please regarding a nation conquered under a UN authorized war in order to either keep world peace or to increase our oil supply. The part about the oil was added to offer you more fodder. This is the old go to war to keep the peace trick which is often misunderstood though highly effective.

[IrishHand]

The "no-fly" zones are a pretext for low-intensity ariel combat against Iraq, to soften it up for eventual conquest.

FYI MMMMM: This is why the US can't use the engagements in the no-fly zone as a reason for war.

[MMMMMM]

YOU are the one who raised that suggestion/query--I didn't. I just wondered why we let them get away with it so long--Saddam's had how many chances? Does he EVER do anything genuinely cooperative or constructive?

[IrishHand]

He's been very cooperative with the no-fly zones. It's rare that our air power gets such a great live-action practice. It's basically the same as dummy bombing runs, only they're actually shooting at you so the blood get's a-flowing. Trust me...he's provided us with more valuable practice than we could ever have gotten on our own. Sadly, it appears the practice isn't helping his lads much - they still haven't managed to bring one down yet. (It doesn't help that the planes they shoot at are too high, and the planes we shoot at them with tend to release their ordinance before they're even aware that we're in the air.)