It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


No Fly Zone? What No Fly Zone?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 31 2003 @ 10:52 AM
On Public Radio International (PRI) a Christian Science Monitor reporter told the PRI interviewer that he's confirmed through interviews with UN officials that, while the UN is aware of the no-fly zone in Iraq that U.S. and British pilots have been enforcing for years and have recently expanded, the no-fly zone has never been a part of any agreement authorized by the UN. In other words, according to the reporter, the no-fly zone has been created de facto by the U.S. This turns out to be the case, as a Guardian graphic narrative indicates. The Guardian says, "the lack of UN authorization has meant that the legitimacy of the no-fly zones has always been in question."

(Need Flash)

posted on Jan, 31 2003 @ 11:10 AM
For more information, look up at resolution 688 here :

posted on Jan, 31 2003 @ 11:49 AM
I'm kind of surprised we've been getting away with it for so long...oh well

posted on Feb, 1 2003 @ 03:27 AM
had no idea this was n`t under a UN resolution or law but it does n`t really surprise me.

Bet if you listed all the things that people like US/UK do outside of the UN laws they would be in breach of more things than Mr Saddam

posted on Feb, 13 2003 @ 05:02 PM
The sorties are getting heavier & closer to Cap city......and still illegal.

- 280,000 Sorties flown over Iraq since the Gulf War by the US
- Since December 1998, the Ministry of Defence has admitted dropping 780 tonnes of bombs on a country with which Britain is not at war.

We're so far from the moral highground on this that we're drowning.

[Edited on 13-2-2003 by Bout Time]

posted on Feb, 14 2003 @ 08:56 AM
Do as we say, not as we do...hehe...
If the no-fly zones were so immoral, the international community would have been in an uproar ages ago... The simple fact is, they realize it's needed, and are simply content that THEY don't have to commit anything to the effort, while the US and Britain take care of it... If there was serious international contention, we'd have heard about by now...but only a rumble every now and then...

posted on Feb, 14 2003 @ 09:23 AM
I think it was 688 that vaguely states the Kurds are to be given protection. The UN leaves it at that. The coalition setup the no-fly zones that are indeed providing protection, are they not? The lack of enforcement on it's own resolutions in regards to Iraq, BT, therefore means international law itself should be in question and therefore there is no body to claim the no-fly zones are illegal.

(And how many times are you going to bring this topic up, Bout Time?

posted on Feb, 14 2003 @ 11:59 AM
Let's see, in your world, it's perfectly acceptable to:

1) Invade a country's sovereign air space WITHOUT authorization from an international bady you subscribe to and support

2) Fly over a quarter of a million sorties, usally dropping bombs while there, to the tune of over a million pounds of ordnance

3) all this over a third rate third world country that's utterly defenseless against the air power being brought against it

And you talk about 'moral' or 'international law'? Interesting.

posted on Feb, 14 2003 @ 01:48 PM
No, not necassarily acceptable. My point is this: If the UN can't enforce it's own will and the multiple resolutions that Saddam has broken who are they to tell us we can't enforce the no-fly zones and protect ourselves while doing it?

posted on Feb, 14 2003 @ 02:15 PM
If we reverse engineer it, I guess that's where we part company in opinion: you feel that there is a level of threat that requires this severity of action on our part, while I don't see it as an immediate danger. To make an economic analogy, our ROI ( return on investment) of escalating the war we've been bringing to Iraq, that investment of life & capital, will pale to what we'll pay out in the future of setting up and policing a middle east military command and world wide terrorism from the Jihadists.

posted on Feb, 14 2003 @ 02:38 PM
No it appears you're talking about war in Iraq as opposed to the no-fly zones. Still, what's an immediate danger these days anyway? Was Al Quaeda an immediate threat on 9/10?

posted on Feb, 14 2003 @ 04:05 PM
Well, the no fly's are war on Iraq! You call a quarter million sorties and millions of bomb poundage peace time?!

The other big question: Is the guranteed loss of American life necessary now?

posted on Feb, 14 2003 @ 04:23 PM
was it necassary on 9/11? And should we let Iraq become another NK? Anyway BT, our guy - the conductor of the straight talk express
realizes the Iraq threat.

posted on Feb, 14 2003 @ 04:29 PM
If I disagreed with my man Clinton, I can disagree with Johnny Mac too!

Too many elephants drinking the Kool Aid, you know?

new topics

top topics


log in