Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (699820)	2/18/2013 9:57:27 PM
From: Wayners	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1587791

UN 688 essentially provided the support necessary for a No Fly Zone in the North. UN 688 is seperate from the Cease Fire agreement. Saddam frequently fired SAMs at Coalition aircraft for years in violation of the actual Cease Fire Agreement, UN 686.

To: Bilow who wrote (699820)	2/18/2013 9:58:16 PM
From: i-node	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1587791

<IIn short, there was no secret agreement where Iraq agreed to let US planes shoot down any aircraft over most of its territory forever. The agreement was the ones negotiated by the UN which are available to anyone to read. There is no mention of a "no fly zone". This shouldn't be a surprise. If "Saddam" or "Iraq" had signed such an agreement, Iraq's violation of it would have been used as a justification for the 2003 war. Resolutions 687 & 688 clearly provided for the protection of the Kurds in the North and the Shiites in the South, without being specific as to how that was to be accomplished. It was determined by the US, France, and the Brits that the best way to do it would be through enforcement of the two no-fly zones. I'm not sure why this is so complicated for you. It isn't a difficult concept to understand. And it isn't as though we have to ask permission from the UN for every little detail. The no-fly zones were central to assuring that Saddam did not kill the people in those regions of the country. You have a problem with that? Further, Saddam's firing on our aircraft which were involved in patrolling the no fly zones represented grounds for termination of the cease fire and continuation of the war seeking Saddam's removal, which is precisely what should have been done by Clinton.

To: Bilow who wrote (699820)	2/18/2013 10:37:48 PM
From: steve harris	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1587791

This shouldn't be a surprise. If "Saddam" or "Iraq" had signed such an agreement, Iraq's violation of it would have been used as a justification for the 2003 war. It was. Just one of many justifications to support the legal invasion of Iraq in 2003. The left wing LATimes good enough of a source? articles.latimes.com U.S. Cites 1991 U.N. Cease-Fire Resolution as the Legal Basis for Its Invasion March 21, 2003\|From Reuters UNITED NATIONS — The United States gave its official reasons for invading Iraq to the U.N. Security Council late Thursday, saying Baghdad had broken a cease-fire resolution adopted after the 1991 Persian Gulf War.