US Gov't claims to have proof if Iranian atacks against US

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

It's much more complicated than what you're saying.

1) Iraq failed to uphold the cease-fire agreement from 1991.. the original Gulf War had not ended and people never understood that

2) Iraq fired upon coalition planes patrolling the NFZ for years with no retaliation

3) Iraq was required to submit reports and allow UN inspectors in and instead kicked them out over and over claiming they were US spies.

This was all Clinton era stuff though. And they got bombed for it. During Bush's admin they were very compliant.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

yes, they did, which is why there was a cease-fire

The cease fire was a UN resolution if I recall correctly.

The no-fly zones were declared so why would Iraq have agreed to them? They were claimed to be supported by a UN resolution but the resolution they claim supported them has no mention of military intervention only that Iraq cease oppressing.


From Wiki:

The Iraqi no-fly zones (NFZs) were proclaimed by the United States, United Kingdom and France after the Gulf War of 1991 to protect humanitarian operations in northern Iraq and Shiite Muslims in the south. Iraqi aircraft were forbidden from flying inside the zones. The policy was enforced by US, UK and French aircraft patrols until France withdrew in 1998. While the enforcing powers had cited United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 as authorising the operations, the resolution contains no such authorisation.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Kytro

The cease fire was a UN resolution if I recall correctly.

The no-fly zones were declared so why would Iraq have agreed to them? They were claimed to be supported by a UN resolution but the resolution they claim supported them has no mention of military intervention only that Iraq cease oppressing.


From Wiki:

did you miss the part where I said they were not a UN resolution?

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

did you miss the part where I said they were not a UN resolution?

No, but since the ceasefire was certified via a resolution that Iraq agreed to, and the legitimacy for the operation was claimed to be backed up in a resolution that is th point I'm addressing.

Why on earth would the US proclaim no-fly zones and say they were backed via a UN resolution if they already had agreement from Iraq? There would be no point if it was already part of a ceasefire agreement.

Unless there is some evidence to contrary it appears the UN resolution was the legal basis for the no fly zones.

Edit:

The UN Security Council passes the Cease Fire Agreement, Resolution 687. The resolution also called for the destruction, or removal of all chemical and biological weapons, all stocks of agents and components, all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities for ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150km and related repair and production facilities, recognize Kuwait, account for missing Kuwaitis, return Kuwaiti property and end its support for international terrorism. This resolution created a special commission, UNSCOM, to inspect Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear facilities. Iraq was required to turn over all biological and chemical weapons to Unscom for destruction, and ordered to respect the 1968 Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty.

Edit:
Ceasefire = UN Resolution. It was sponsored by the UN but was between the parties in combat.

I cannot find any text, that Iraq signed or agreed to that authorizes the no-fly zones.

[DosEquis]

Seeing the president give some speech yesterday about how he is confident Iranians are helping, after the fact that some generals have said we have no real evidence...

I can't help but ask myself what the fuck. Seriously. Do these people not have email. This is WMD intelligence version 2. This only further solidifys my opinion that the president is the biggest retard in presidential history.