Iraq air defenses fire on coalition aircraft (MATERIAL BREACH)

Fox News Channel | 11/15/2002 | FNC

[Libertarian4Bush]

FNC reports that Iraq air defenses fire on coalition aircraft at 2:50 EST

[recalcitrant]

actually no, you are wrong... and it has been classified as a material breach in fact.

nice try.

[cake_crumb]

"Dubya needs to establish the precedent of what "zero tolerance" means, right now."

He already has. He never kept his broad plan for Iraq a secret. It's just that not enough people were listening to him. The media's tinfoil hat theories kinda overrode the voice of the president.

[Stefan Stackhouse]

You are right. We will eventually break with the Europeans and we won't be counting on Blix to make our case for us. But we will probably wait for something we can present to the American people and the world - with a few pics from orbit and other show and tell items to make our case. [Something like the way the Kennedy administration showed the missiles in Cuba after they and the USSR swore that they were not there.]

Yes, I imagine something like the Security Counsel in session, and our guy:

1. Shows them a blank sheet of paper, which is what Saddam says he has;

2. Then he circulates a list and does the map and photos on the easel thing to fully document Saddam's lies;

3. And then to conclude he passes out another sheet of paper, and announces that while he has been talking, our military have been at work, and this is what is left of Saddam's material breach.

I do hope that we get some good close-up views on TV of the French ambassador as his jaw drops all the way down to his shoes!

[recalcitrant]

"Dubya needs to establish the precedent of what "zero tolerance" means, right now."

Important point you make.

Bush did say "ZERO TOLERANCE" ... now didn't he?

I wonder if this is like "no new taxes," or removing the taliban from power in afghanistan... bunker buster style?

Hope it's the latter... the arab street needs to be gang banged by the big dogs a few times, till they get it right...

allah is for naught, and he has neither virgins or kevlar... I think it's way past time for a little roast and toast.

I imagine the personnell manning those radar emplacements are like most combatants after eating a hellfire missile or ten... burned toast and ashes. Fries go with our shakes.

[ChadGore]

Under 1441 (brought under chapter7 of tha charter) says, "firing on any UN member" is a material breach.

[A Navy Vet]

Thanks.

[WOSG]

Even the Liberal NPR report this morning notes that the no-fly zones were set up pursuant to a UN resolution. He needs to go back to DU and get his story straight. LOL.

[Mr Rogers]

It's a bit more vague than that. There is a UN resolution (691, I think) concerning protection of the Kurds. The US decided it would take a no-fly zone to enforce it. Iraq has never agreed to it. It was NOT a part of the cease fire.

So we say we're supporting UN resolutions, and Iraq says we are not. Personally, I don't give a tinker's damn about UN resolutions - we have a cease fire with Iraq, and should be able to do anything we please...

[WOSG]

Truth may be vague (yet I think "pursuant to UN resolution" is close enough fit to real situation here). But I find it interesting that *NPR* today was saying what this guy was accusing Freepers of saying.

As usual, the Freepers are more on target than the press.

[Chemnitz]

I'm not a military expert, but I think that we can get some advanced knowledge of their defenses by taking a few pokes at them. Light up their radars, check their reaction time, listen to their signals, etc.

[Man of the Right]

So much for that provision of the U.N. resolution.

[TennTuxedo]

According to one of the "talking head" shows, tonight's Iraqi attack on U.S. and British jets was more serious than past incidents becaue the Iraqis were firing advanced SAMs at our jets, which is something more serious than they have used before.

[cake_crumb]

The president has said several times...and Rummy, and I believe Cheney...that China hopped up Saddam's scuds so they could fly 2000 miles.

[rockhead]

Here is the CBSNews report on it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/04/world/main527977.shtml

"When we were working on the resolution we said that Iraq should not take any action that would be hostile act against any member state," says Secretary of State Colin Powell."

Guess that answers this question.................

[P8riot]

Thank you Loral and X42

[Grampa Dave]

1. Air bases
2. Communication Headquarters
3. SAM sites
4. Radar stations

We want the Republican Guard to kill Saddam, his closest followers and sons.

[Grampa Dave]

In the spirit of the American National Pasttime, we will give them three strikes before they are out!

This will probably be counted as the first strike.

[Grampa Dave]

We welcome the latest DUer, AZ Navy Vet, to visit Free Republic!

AZ Navy Vet signed up 2002-11-15.

They are so obvious the 2-4 weeks before we kill off another batch of their Islamofascist and Islamokazi goat humping buddies. Spouting the same verbage that Saddam is spouting.

[El Gato]

They were set up arbitrarily by the US and UK following DSI and actually are an illegal occupation of a soverign nations' airspace.

Not quite arbitrarily. They were mandated by Da Bear, AKA Storming Norman, and AGREED TO by the Iraqi delegation to the cease fire talks. Norm screwed up and let them fly choppers, supposedly for humanitarian missions due to all the downed bridges and such, but of course what the Iraqis did is bring in Hind Gunships to massacure the Shiites in Basra and to some extent the Kurds in the north.