It was called the 'no-fly' zone because Saddam wasn't allowed to fly in it and bomb the ethnic regions to the north and south.

 

...kind of like how you say, if someone from the US contacts al qaeda, we should know about it.

If someone poses as a threat in times of danger...or "war", we need to act upon it.

I someone flies an iraqi painted plane over a no fly zone in the US, we are going to shoot the shit out of it...in fact, it wouldn't even make it far enough to reach our fly zone skies, and it would be shot down over the ocean and no one would even hear about it.

It was a plan to provoke an individual that was already intimidated by an individual/individuals that disagree with him.

Tony Blair and George Bush knew what would happen, and they basically poked the stick at the slow kid, knowing that he's gonna rebutle. They took advantage of something that should never have even been an issue...was it just convenient? We were just...well...in the area? "Hey, I was in the neighborhood so I thought I'd just drop a visit!"....

This was never the intent of finding osama...and please explain how this became justifiable...and please don't use Fox news jargon...or whatever propaganda they are puking out

 

Act of war != to war. Putting IRBMs in Cuba is an act of war, but no shot was ever fired from it. Shooting down helicopters in Somalia is an act of war, but you don't see us pounding down Mogadishu. Bombing another country's embassy is an act of war, but China's not trying to invade us. Act of war is not war. Also, the operations conducted in Iraq after Desert Storm were a UN operation, not an American one. We hadn't been at war with Iraq in 12 year prior to this war. Whether or not you believe the Iraq War is justified, you can't deny that we started it, not them.

Edit: Also, I want an answer to the other question I posed. Why such hatred for ideas other than your own? Why the name calling and trash talking?

 

:eh: US Planes were regularly shot at during the Clinton administration too, and we bombed the piss out of Iraq quite a few times from 96-04. Now rephrase your argument without the Bush/Blair bashing please, I don't understand your point at all unless you're just trying to be funny.

 

Putting ICBMs in Cuba is not an act of war...it was no different than the US having missles in Turkey at the time. Shooting down helicopters in Mogadishu is an act of war and I was pissed when Clinton pulled us out the first time we got a bloody nose. Bombing the Chinese embassy could be taken as an act of war however it was an accident and the US admited such and paid restitution. And irregardless of whether or not it was a US or UN operation we were still being shot at. The provocation and just cause was there.

As for your last question I do not have hatred for opposite opinions. When they are grounded in facts we can debate them. What I do not like is using false or made up information to construct arguments. And I have not been name calling people or talking trash nor have I really thought Chris has either. We have not told you guys to suck a dick.

 

You cannot be serious in believing this.

US & coalition planes flew in the no-fly zones as part of an agreement with Iraq to end hostilities at the end of Gulf War 1. They had the right to be there. And the reason they were set up was so that Saddam could not bomb his own people in the north and south of Iraq. Further this plan was put into place long before Gulf War 2 and was not a plan to provoke Saddam. It was a humanitarian plan to protect defenseless individuals in Iraq.

If we are going to debate the facts lets stick to historically factual evidence. Not something contrived to benefit your own POV and argument. Using these false facts to prop up your argument only makes it weak and easy to deconstruct.

 

:eh:

And for the record, Nightshade told him to suck a dick after that last statement by 98CoupeB6.

 

Those quotes to me seem more sarcastic than downright nasty. There is a big difference between sarcasm and telling someone to suck a dick.

So lets just agree to keep it civil and keep it to debating the facts. Not things that are made up or a conspiracy.

 

:wtc: Are we debating issues or fighting other people's battles for them? Or have you realized an acute lack of facts and evidence is going to hurt you in arguing issues?

 

I haven't shown a lack of facts. Everything I have said is accurate. The way I look at the Iraq war just isn't the same as the way you look at it.

Like I said, it doesn't really matter to me that we disagree, or that you disagree with the original letter. I just got really pissed off that you had to go and describe the letter writer as someone who "jerks off and reads left wing newspapers and watches NBC."