Kitt, learn to actually find an objective source of info and stop relying on loony-left web sites for your info.

-- Hornet Driver

Try not to be such and ass by telling me what to learn.

I posted wikipedia earlier. Is that a loony left website?. Is the BBC a loony left website?

Self righteous blowhards such as yourself giving out ignorant know-it-all advice while obviously not knowing a shittin' thing about what you're talking about gets awfully old.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1175950.stm

The two no-fly zones over Iraq were imposed by the US, Britain and France after the Gulf War, in what was described as a humanitarian effort to protect Shi'a Muslims in the south and Kurds in the north.

The justification was that an acute humanitarian crisis made it necessary to infringe the sovereignty of Iraq in this way.

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

BBC diplomatic correspondent Barnaby Mason says the Western powers - led by President George Bush senior - argued that their action was consistent with Security Council Resolution 688 adopted on 5 April 1991.

Justification

The resolution condemned the repression of the Iraqi civilian population and demanded that Iraq end it immediately.

It said the repression amounted to a threat to international peace and security - a phrase our correspondent says is often used to justify intervention.

But critics of the no-fly zones point out that the resolution did not say the Security Council was acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which provides for enforcement action.

Nor did it say that all necessary means could be used.

Critics add that whatever was justified in 1991 is not necessarily justified more than 10 years later, when the reasons for continuing the air patrols may have changed.

France no longer takes part in policing the no-fly zones, and the US and the UK are now alone in the Security Council in insisting that their frequent bombing of Iraqi targets is covered by international law.

Here's one from another "loony left website". Reuters.

Published on Tuesday, November 19, 2002 by Reuters

Annan Says Iraqi No-Fly Zone Firing No Violation

PRISTINA, Yugoslavia - Iraq's firing on U.S. and British aircraft enforcing "no-fly" zones in Iraq is not a violation of the latest Security Council resolution, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said on Tuesday.

Contradicting the United States' interpretation of Resolution 1441 on Iraq adopted two weeks ago, Annan indicated that the Security Council would not see such action by Iraq as a trigger for war.

"Let me say that I don't think that the Council will say this is in contravention of the resolution of the Security Council," Annan said when asked if Iraq was violating 1441 by firing at alliance planes, as Washington contends.

Key Security Council member, Russia, also on Tuesday dismissed the U.S. claims.

"Recent claims that Iraq's actions in the "no-fly" zones can be seen as a violation of the U.N. Security Council resolution 1441, have no legal grounds," the Russian foreign ministry said.

The United States is alone among the 15-member Security Council member states in insisting that the no-fly zones are included in the resolution and that firing on the aircraft policing the two zones is therefore a breach of 1441.

kitt

Well, someone else beat me to it, but the U.N. did endorse the no-fly zones when they told Saddam Hussein to comply with them.

-- Hornet Driver

Is that right? Do you have the link or have you not learned how to use your computer?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Southern_Watch

General information

Operation Southern Watch began on August 27, 1992 with the stated purpose of ensuring Iraqi compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 of April 5, 1991, which demanded that Iraq "immediately end this repression and express the hope in the same context that an open dialogue will take place to ensure that the human and political rights of all Iraqi citizens are respected." Nothing in the resolution spelled out the Iraqi no-fly zones or Operation Southern Watch.

Just more evidence that US and brits were insisting on an illegal fly zone that the UN didn't sanction.

And tell me: why are you such a Saddam sympathizer? Do you think we should have left him free to slaughter the residents of southern Iraq?

Do tell.

-- Hornet Driver

Shits like you always pull that one out of your plug. There couldn't be a more transparently assinine line than that one. Grow the f'up.

Is it okay when the Brit gov and US gov are responsible for the deaths of the Iraqis that you proclaim to want to protect from Saddam?

As the Iraqi challenges have grown more frequent, the allies have claimed broader license to strike back, putting civilians on the ground at greater risk. U.N. reports tell of stray missiles plowing into residential neighborhoods and nomadic camps.

Iraqi officials say more than 300 people have been killed and 900 wounded in allied attacks since December 1998, when Saddam ordered ground forces to fire at the patrols. Most of the casualties, the officials say, are civilians.

U.S. officials discount the Iraqi figures, but U.N. reports and investigations by foreign journalists indicate that at least some of the claims have been accurate. Mounting casualties led France to drop out of the no-fly patrols last year, and have drawn sharp rebukes from China and Russia.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/102400-02.htm