Cindy Sheehan Has No Moral Authority

[GePap]

Originally posted by Verto


Attacking American military aircraft and personnel is an attack on the US. You saying otherwise is like saying the attacks on warships stationed at Pearl Harbor wasn't an attack on the US.

Except that every state is free to shoot at airplanes breaking their airspace.

The No-fly zones were simply NOT approved by the UN security Council and the Iraqis had every legal right to try to shoot down aircraft intruding upon thier airspace.

[Berzerker]

You should have

[Verto]

Originally posted by GePap


Except that every state is free to shoot at airplanes breaking their airspace.

The No-fly zones were simply NOT approved by the UN security Council and the Iraqis had every legal right to try to shoot down aircraft intruding upon thier airspace.

The creation of said No-Fly Zones was part of the cease fire agreement signed between the US/Coalition and Iraq.

[Boris Godunov]

No they weren't. The No-Fly Zones were unilaterally imposed by the U.S, U.K and France. Iraq never agreed to them. Kofi Annan even stated that Iraq was in the right to shoot at invading aircraft, since the no-fly zones were technically not legal.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,391985,00.html

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Well, you'd have to take off SOME of the armor. Wouldn't you?

No way.

It would be more interesting with the armor on.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Verto


Attacking American military aircraft and personnel is an attack on the US. You saying otherwise is like saying the attacks on warships stationed at Pearl Harbor wasn't an attack on the US.

We used to do this with the Russians all the time, they did the same thing to us.

Should we have pressed the button? They did attack the US then...

Or maybe we should have attacked China when they brought down our spyplane.


Your theory holds the litmus test though, wait...

[Verto]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
No they weren't. The No-Fly Zones were unilaterally imposed by the U.S, U.K and France. Iraq never agreed to them. Kofi Annan even stated that Iraq was in the right to shoot at invading aircraft, since the no-fly zones were technically not legal.

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...391985,00.html

I stand corrected on that; my source was globalsecurity, which had the Downing Report up IIRC, which made a statement to the effect that the cease fire had included said no-fly zones. Misread on my part or what not.

However, it still stands that Iraq had attacked the US by firing on American aircraft.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


We used to do this with the Russians all the time, they did the same thing to us.

Should we have pressed the button? They did attack the US then...

Or maybe we should have attacked China when they brought down our spyplane.


Your theory holds the litmus test though, wait...

Is this supposed to be an answer? Regardless of whether or not our responses should or did differ to evolve with these individual events, they were all attacks against the US.

[Berzerker]

The creation of said No-Fly Zones was part of the cease fire agreement signed between the US/Coalition and Iraq.

I think they were created after the cease fire when we saw Saddam use helicopters to put down the revolt.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Verto
I stand corrected on that; my source was globalsecurity, which had the Downing Report up IIRC, which made a statement to the effect that the cease fire had included said no-fly zones. Misread on my part or what not.

However, it still stands that Iraq had attacked the US by firing on American aircraft.

Actually in such a case, it'd be self-defense.

[Boris Godunov]

And, as the head of the U.N. pointed out, a sovereign nation like Iraq has every right to fire on invading aircraft, which is precisely what was happening. If the No-fly zones weren't legal, then we were violating Iraqi air space being there.

We also happened to be killing Iraqis while doing so.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Lonestar


No kidding! Wait, wait, are you saying that the USAF, dating back to the Clinton adminstration got tired of Waiting to get shot at first and started targeting SAM and AA batteries whose Fire-control radars lit off?

Imagine!




Incidently, when four of the 5 Permenent members of the UNSC agree to enforce UNSCR 688 by way of Operation Southern Watch, then Id describe it as "legal enough".

I'm sure if they looked back and realized that the US was using it as a preparation for an imminent invasion, they would change their votes. But that's only speculation.

However, Southern Watch was different, and it just "happened" to occur before the invasion. Imagine!

According to the London Times, US and British planes drop twice as many bombs on Iraq during the second half of 2002 as they did during the entire year of 2001. [London Times, 5/29/2005]

As Timur Eads, a former US special operations officer, notes in January 2003: “We're bombing practically every day as we patrol the no-fly zones, taking out air defense batteries, and there are all kinds of CIA and Special Forces operations going on. I would call it the beginning of a war.” [Boston Globe, 1/6/2003]

Clearing the way:

The repeater stations are bombed in order to disrupt the network of fiber-optic cables that transmit military communications between Baghdad and Basra and Baghdad and Nasiriya. "They wanted to neutralize the ability of the Iraqi government to command its forces; to establish control of the airspace over Iraq; to provide air support for Special Operations forces, as well as for the Army and Marine forces that would advance toward Baghdad; and to neutralize Iraq's force of surface-to-surface missiles and suspected caches of biological and chemical weapons,” the New York Times reports in July 2003. [New York Times, 7/20/2003]

Can't be Confirmed, but he's saying what we all know:

Some time after the invasion, a US general reportedly says (see July 17, 2003) at a conference at Nevada's Nellis Air Force Base “that he began taking out assets that could help in resisting an invasion at least six months before war was declared.” [San Francisco Chronicle, 6/19/2005 Sources: Charlie Clements]

This war was preconceived, and had absolutley nothing to do with Weapons of Mass Destruction. Bush wanted to attack Iraq when he got into office.

"He tried to kill my father." -- President George Bush

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Verto


Is this supposed to be an answer? Regardless of whether or not our responses should or did differ to evolve with these individual events, they were all attacks against the US.

Okay, then why attack Iraq and not Russia or China?


Surely the response has been justified a justified one in response to planes being locked on and shot at? (In which none were ever shot down by the way).

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
As - as I commented before, looking at how you, versus Berz and I are approaching this - you state that since the government has the law on it's side, that it has the right to determine a moral issue. It's an Oath for God's sake - literally. Berz and I see the individual's responsibility to this - I was simply obeying the law, or following orders is never an excuse. Think about it, I'm surprised you don't agree on that one!

According to historians, every soldier in Napoleoan's army carried a marshall's baton in his backback.

According to you, every soldier in America's army carries a Supreme Court Justice's robes in his.

[Berzerker]

However, it still stands that Iraq had attacked the US by firing on American aircraft.

You mean the US aircraft attacking them? They were there to enforce a no fly zone, i.e., shootdown Iraqi planes. I agreed with the no-fly zones but it does appear we had no legal standing. The terms of the cease fire allowed the Iraqis the use of certain kinds of aircraft and he used them to put down the revolt. Schwarzkopf said "we were snookered" in the negotiations, I suspect we wanted Saddam to put down the revolt for the sake of stability. Public outcry resulted in the no fly zones...