UN Resolution Fine Print
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: UN Resolution Fine Print

  1. #1
    Senior Member roswell1329's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002

    UN Resolution Fine Print

    So, I stumbled upon the headline today:

    IRAQ Flirts With War

    After reading the article, I realized that the meat of the whole thing centered around Iraq trying to shoot down something flying in it's airspace over the No-Fly Zones. Apparently, the new UN Resolution adopted November 8th outlines "any acts of hostility toward UN personnel" are to be considered as breaches of the resolution -- as to be expected. Shooting at Allied aircraft patrolling the No-Fly Zone would definitely qualify as an act of aggression, but there have been so many attempts on those Allied aircraft by Iraqi forces that I didn't even think about them when this new resolution moved into place. Of course, all those attempts were part of the driving force that got the resolution passed as part of the 16 separate violations Bush kept harping on. The Bush administration has not released it's intentions on dealing with this latest violation. I just wonder if Saddam Hussein read the fine print on this one himself. Up until now, it seemed that Saddam considered our claims of war enough of a threat to at least offer the appearence of compliance. And now to risk everything just to take a pot shot at some Tornado or F-16. It could be that he wants to continue to show his defiance for this renewed interest in their activities, but I wonder if he actually considered these paltry political statements (more than anything else) as "acts of aggression" under the UN resolution. Perhaps he just didn't read them. Hey...I'm guilty of skimming as much as the next guy, it just seems like this document might have been important enough to take the time to read fully. Even if it meant moving his lips for every single word.

    /* You are not expected to understand this. */

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    US and British fighter pilots risk their lives daily patrolling there on behalf of the UN, but it seems the group of happy capons that calls themselves the General Assembly would rather back down in the face of adversity than protect or even stand up for its own.
    Bukhari:V3B48N826 “The Prophet said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.’”

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Yet another reason why the US should get out of the UN and the UN out of the US... I think part of the reason is that none of the pilots have been shot down yet... The way the UN figures it IMO is as long as no one gets hurt its not a breach... To bad it is going to take a pilot getting killed before the UN says it is ok to go after them... IMO since it is our (and the UK's) pilots in harms way not the UN's it should be the US and UK who decide when, where, and how to deal with the iraqis shooting at our pilots....
    \"Nuts!\"- Commanding General 101st Airborne Division Dec 1944 in answer to German request that he surrender Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge
    Life has a certian flavor for those who have fought and risked it all that the sheltered and protected can never experience.- John Stewart Mill
    White, Hetrosexual, Christian male. I own guns, hunt, eat meat, burn wood, and my wife wears fur... Any questions?

  4. #4
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    It seems to me that there is a large margin where the United States could accuse Iraq of violating the UN resolution without Iraq ever intending to do so. If, for example, someone out in the deserts of Iraq decides to pull out his gun and start taking pot shots at a passing fighter jet, that man could, theoretically, start a war all by himself. Even if he is not connected to Saddam, or even if he doesn't know what he is really doing, the United States could call that an act of war, and the UN would be dragged into a conflict in Iraq because that one man's actions violate the resolution they submitted. There would be no way for anyone to prove that the shots were not meant as an act of aggression.

    It looks as if the United States is slowly stumbling towards what is quickly becoming an inevitable conflict on Iraqi soil. Hopefully someone will back down before it is all too late.
    My $0.02

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts