take with a grain of salt

"U.S. officials know that the no-fly zones have been illegal from the get-go."

Take this with a grain of salt, since it appears on an extreme libertarian website.--Portho

It's common knowledge. I also posted the same sort of information via wikipedia. Is that an "extreme Libertarian website", also?

The fact that it was a cease-fire and not a truce or surrender is important, too. Technically, the first Gulf War never ended. Saddam did not comply with the terms that he agreed to, which makes the cease-fire null and void. He also disregarded 17 UN resolutions, rendering the cease-fire null and void.

That's called, talking out of your ass.

--Anonymous

cross out the 'anonymous' at the end of my last post before my name. That was porthos word. I meant to delete it.

I, as are others, am really displeased with Salon's inability to give us an edit option.

Bebop-o,

Congratulations on being able to attend the Cato-palooza. Thanks for your colorful narration of the goings on. I enjoyed reading what you took in, and how to described it to us.

Glenn, like Bebop-o said, you did well making your points and keeping your cool. I know (from what I've seen and read) that you most always do. But I listened to the palooza and that guy dripped of cynical, overbearing, defensive but weak sarcasm. It actually pained my brain hearing his relentless tone of dripping sarcasm.

TFB... Read the F'ing Bill... I stand my my original point. I want to know the specific language that is problematic, not one spinners opinion, prior to forming a judgement (though I am a long term "Bush Hater"...

-- SAL04C

Do you think we are your f'ing servants or secretaries or something? If you want to know the language, people have provided the links. If you're blind or something they have features for that on most computers these days. The computer will talk to you. If you're just lazy...well, you're on your own. But why you keep demanding that we serve it up to you makes we wonder who the hell you think you are.

More on spin (in general)...

If someone challenges you to "quote the specific parts of the bill that allows (the issue you are alleging)...", and you are unable, you lose the argument.

-- SAL04C

If someone challenges you to hit a home run off of you but you refuse to pick up the ball and pitch to them you don't even have an argument to lose. You're just a loser by default.

I understand that you were offended when I pointed out that your initial posting missed the point. I am a big fan of his analysis, and was looking for specific information from him, not spin. I was hoping to get analysis that was based on fact, which appeared to be missing. That type of info is why I read this part of Salon.

Note that I don't have time to review the original language of the legislation. That is what folks like Glen and other professiinal commentators and news folks are paid to do. I just hope that they do their job...

-- SAL04C

Bullshit on both bolded parts. I wasn't offended by you. I was disgusted with your demanding, whining demeanor.

We aren't being paid to be here and try to get the information. We just do our best. If you think you were speaking and demanding directly to Glenn, you have the manners of a goat. So good luck with that.

still haven't answered the question

Someone asked below, and no one has yet answered:

The no-fly zones were "illegal" according to whom? They were sanctioned by the UN.

-- Titus Pullo

No, they weren't. this is just one of probably hundreds of snips you yourself could have maybe located.

Actually, it is interesting to note that it could be considered that Iraq has a right to defend itself while US and UK bomb it. That is, according to the Article 51 of the UN Charter, to which all nations are bound, a nation may only use force if it is threatened. Therefore, one could justifiably argue that Iraq would have the right to defend itself from the illegal no-fly zone -- which is not endorsed by the UN -- and the bombings. But if and when they use this pretext, it will be seen by the US and UK as justification to bomb back.

snip

However, that doesn't make any action by the US and UK, such as bombing civilian targets, or applying flawed sanctions that are killing thousands of children each month (and affecting the ordinary people or Iraq while Saddam is largely unaffected by this -- or even strengthened), acceptable. The US and UK's violation of the UN and of international law in the name of humanitarian causes is hypocritical and doesn't hold credibility when compared to all the other instances that the US and UK have either chosen or not chosen to intervene.

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/Iraq/Bombing.asp