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

[Tree of Liberty]

It is a factual material breach. The U.S. govn't has not yet acknowledged that fact, at this point. It's early, though.

[AmericanInTokyo]

They are drawing them out for two-fold reasons: One, create reasons to go in and pulverize as many Iraqi radar sites as possible before the December Campaign to soften up things; and two, create as much a history as possible of Iraq non-cooperation to help assist the US when it eventually launches the massive operation. It may even be a provocation soliciting a well needed Tonkin Gulf response to get this show on the road and save us all time and millions of dollars with arms inspectors in country being given the bait and switch treatment, or perhaps becoming 'human shields' themselves like the Brit expats were 11 years ago.

[nevergore]

MadIvan,

Feeling a little bellicose today???

LOL!

I'm with you...don't need nukes though....conventional munitions will work just fine....no need to swat a fly with a sledge hammer.....

NeverGore:^)

[My2Cents]

I say we take out one Iraqi Presidential palace for each such infraction.

[hchutch]

To paraphrase a famous line:
I'm all broke up about Saddam Hussein's rights. We should have dealt with him in `91.

[AmericanInTokyo]

"You all know that the "no-fly zones" are not endorsed nor mandated by the UN in any resolution. They were set up arbitrarily by the US and UK following DSI and actually are an illegal occupation of a soverign nations' airspace."

AZ NV, Welcome to FR. I see you just signed up TODAY!

You know, you guys could really mask it a lot better than you doing!

[jpl]

Go away, troll.

[Tree of Liberty]

Ok, troll, I'll feed you. Iraq agreed to the no-fly zones as a condition for the cease-fire in '91. If they didn't want to agree to the condition, they shouldn't have signed the papers.

[BCrago66]

"illegal occupation of a soverign nations' airspace"

Illegal accoring to what? International law? There is no international law; between nations, there is only a state of nature.

[nevergore]

"You all know that the "no-fly zones" are not endorsed nor mandated by the UN in any resolution. They were set up arbitrarily by the US and UK following DSI and actually are an illegal occupation of a soverign nations' airspace. "

Negative.....they are not illegal...they are part of the cease fire agreement entered into by Saddam with the US....
There was an unconditional surrender by Saddam....we left this framework in place (which Saddam agreed to) then immediately contested once we withdrew the bulk of our forces from the region.

The No-fly zones were never was part of the UN resolutions....

NeverGore

[AmericanInTokyo]

He probably won't post again.

That was quick. Good work Freepers.

We busted a "TROLL" on it's very first post on it's very first day on FR! :-)

[AmericanInTokyo]

Well, I'll be darned.

[MadIvan]

If there are bio-agents there, you want to irradiate them. As they say in "Aliens" - "it's the only way to be sure". ;)

Regards, Ivan

[RightWhale]

actually are an illegal occupation of a soverign nations' airspace.

There is currently a ceasefire, and the no-fly spaces are part of that ceasefire. Firing on coalition aircraft is a material breach of the ceasefire.

Bush could elect to continue DSI to its conclusion rather than have DSII, and that would be entirely legal. Of course, DSII has been authorized already by Congress, so it is also legal whether other sovereign states recognize that ot not.

DSII would be a departure for America, no doubt about that unless it is linked to WTC911.

[jimbo123]

UN? Never heard of them? What do they do?

[jpl]

There is no UN resolution regarding no-fly zones.

As has been already pointed out, Iraq voluntarily agreed to them as part of the cease-fire.

Oh, one other thing, falsely claiming to be a Navy vet is disgraceful. If you do it outside of cyberspace, you're risking serious bodily harm.

[cake_crumb]

"It is absurb to contract out America'a national security to a diplomat named Blix, and I trust that President Bush will not do that."

Yeah, me too...and I believe that he has no intention of it.

"Aggressive is an American quality. You are aggressive in business. That’s fine. Aggression is prohibited under U.N. charter. And as a European, I would rather use the word dynamic and effective"

--Hans Blix, conceding to Steve Kroft that the UN inspectors might fail miserably (AGAIN).

[concerned about politics]

illegal occupation of a soverign nations' airspace.

It seems a vet would have some idea about whats going on in Iraq.
I'm a stay home/ homeschool mom, and even I know that no fly zones were a condition of Saddams surrender.
Geeeeezzzz!