I should add that while I assert that the Iraqi material breach in firing on coalition aircraft is a legal casus belli, I do not necessarily believe that it is a moral one. Just wanted to clarify that lest any confusion be sparked.
Well, we can pretty much put to rest the canard that “there’s no proof that Saddam actually has WMD’s.”
Here’s a late AP story:
Money graf:
<<Among other things, Perricos reported that on a five-hour inspection of a desert installation his experts secured a dozen Iraqi artillery shells — previously known to be there — that were loaded with a powerful chemical weapon, the agent for mustard gas. It was the first report of such armaments traced and controlled in the week-old round of new inspections. >>
So we have, indeed, established, that Saddam Hussein has retained WMDs, as well as the means to deliver them at the tactical level.
We also know that Saddam Hussein has retained SCUD missiles, which, when used in conjunction with the chemical compounds he has now been conclusively demonstrated to have maintained, provide him the means to deliver WMDs to downtown Riyadh, Tel Aviv, Kuwait City, and Ankharra, possibly to the UAE and to Qatar.
He therefore has the means to target forward-deployed U.S. forces and their logistical bases in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, possibly Turkey as well.
So can we drop this delusion that there’s no evidence that Hussein actually has WMDs? That really hasn’t even been in question by serious thinkers for some time, now. Yet it’s come up several times in this thread.
It’s pretty clear the Bush has a conflict of interest on any decision relating to Saddam. He really ought to recuse himself. 
Um, aparently you don’t know that the no-fly zones are not authorized by the UN. Thus Iraqi defense of their airspace is a grey area. Certainly not a violation of UN resolutions.
Care to try again?
Obviously it was not. Saddam is still there, still violating the terms of the cease-fire, still a threat to the Middle East.
Saddam has acted against the Kurds, he has acted against his own people, he has acted against the Kuwaitis, he has acted against the US planes enforcing the ceasefire, Israel, Iran, American citizens - how much more does he have to do before it is clear that he is a threat?
Which shows only that you are a liar as well as a bigot.
Your ignorant insult was directed at all ex-Marines, who you contrasted to other ex-military in that you stated that they could have a normal life, but ex-Marines could not.
The quote is as follows.
Facts which you will blandly, persistently, and deliberately ignore.
Indeed. As you seem to ignore the numerous times you have had your nose rubbed in the facts, and it seems not to impair your tendency to post nonsense.
On the other hand, when people post “All those niggers/faggots/Chinks/ex-Jarheads are alike”, some may choose to implement the mission of the SDMB - fighting ignorance.
Even when the ignorance fights back as hard as you do.
Regards,
Shodan
Incidentally, elucidator, I would have you know that the image of a man being savaged by a chocolate eclair is now an indelible splotch in my brain, something that will require some rigiorous mental scrubbing to get out. I hope you’re happy.
Jeff
- We go now to the Bush home in Kennebunkport Maine where dad and son are having a friendly conversation over lunch.
-Bush 41 Well son, how’s weather down in Texas?
-Bush 43 Fine dad, accept that the people there have ‘misunderestimated’ me on education reform and I’m going to prove them wrong!
-Bush 41 Uh, well okay son. 
Hey, did you see in the papers the other day where Saddam is trying to have me killed?
-Bush 43 Yeah Dad, and that’s totally wrong. I mean, “it’s not the way America is all about” doesn’t Saddam know that?
-Bush 41 Uh son, you really should work on that West Texas version of ebonics you know. It’s not going to work well for you should you run for president someday. The American people would certainly ‘misunderestimate’ you then!
-Bush 43 Thanks dad, I can always count on you to be honest with me. Boy, if I were president, I’d go kill that Saddam for trying to kill you!
-Bush 41 Really? Hey! That gives me an idea! What if we could get you elected and then, after you’ve been in office for a short while, we go over and beat up Saddam? What do you think son? Wouldn’t that be fun?
-Bush 43 Yeah dad, that sounds great! I could tell the American people that “I will have a foreign-handed, foreign policy.”
-Bush 41 Oh, uh okay son, that sounds great. Then it’s settled. We’ll get the old team together and start raising the funds, making sure we stay away from the Buddhist monks (chuckle), and we’ll get you elected so that you can go back and kill Saddam for me, okay?
-Bush 43 Sure dad, you can count on me. Because you know, “…if you say that you’re going to do something and then don’t do it, that’s trustworthiness.”
-Bush 41 :smack: Son - I thought you were married to a school teacher? Hasn’t she taught you anything about the importance of speaking correctly?
-Bush 43 Sure has dad. In fact, that’ll be one of my first policy initiatives – make’n sure kids are learning good!
-Bush 41 Barbara!
So you see, Dad and son really did plot to get W elected so that he could go kill Saddam. What other possible reason is there?
RobertTB, the cite you provided doesn’t have anything to do with the “no-fly” zones. Firstly it’s dated 2002, which is a good ten or eleven years after the first “no-fly” zones were established.
Secondly, the only paragraph I could find relating to airspace:
deals with the airspace immediately surrounding an inspection site, and not one-third of the whole country, which is what the “no-fly” zones are. Show me a UN resolution from 1990 or 1991 that says two-thirds (or thereabouts) or Iraqi airspace is closed to any and all Iraqi air traffic, military or otherwise" and then you’ll have proved your point.
I was mistaken on the UN lack of involvement in the no fly zones. Regardless, I stand by the assertion that firing upon American aircraft is a legal casus belli for the US.
The original no-fly zones were enacted in response to UNR 668 (688?). Something to do with preveneting Iraq from terrorizing/slaughtering its own population. Since Iraq used aircraft to bomb ‘dissident’ villages in the past, it makes sense (to me, at least).
A bit indirect, I admit, but it is easy to see why we are enforcing a no-fly zone.
The new resolution (the part that I am concerned with) simply states that Iraq will take no actions that interfere with any member state enforcing resolutions. Shooting at our aircraft is a no-no.
Shodan, I don’t think you quite understand how this “debate” thing is done. As I am a kindly and avuncular person, I will take a moment on your behalf. Your gratitude will be assumed, you need not thank me.
Addressing the man, rather than the argument, is about as clear an indication of weakness as exists. Address the argument, lad! You cannot compensate with spite for what you lack in substance. Vitriol may be used, sparingly, but there must be substance. Chili must have meat, as well as bitter and acidic spices. Otherwise you will continue worrying and shredding at my trouser cuffs like a chihuahua with delusions of rottwieller.
** etc, etc.
Case in point. You seem as though you were going to engage the issues, but fall victim to the temptation to vent your spleen rather than speak your mind. Such as it were. Simply stamping your dainty little foot and insisting that you have destroyed another’s arguments does not make it so. A shrill declaration of victory is not a rhetorical device. It is an admission of inadequacy.
I am neither a bigot nor a liar. You can take that as is, or not, or go pound burdocks. I shall take a generous view of your outburst as an urgent cry for attention.
Now, to the issues. This last wrinkle about the “no-fly” zones and the Bushista’s apparent need to elevate this nonsense to an “incident”. I asked this question some time ago, about how it was that so many missles could be fired off and none hit. It was pointed out to me in response that the Iraqi’s cannot “lock on” with targeting radar. If they do, radar destroying missiles will be on thier butt toot sweet. Without such targeting radar, they have as little chance of scoring a hit as you have of shooting down a duck at 500 ft. with a .22 pistol. Blindfolded.
Hmm. Perhaps I’m misinterpreting you, but are you seriously stating that we should disregard Iraqi missiles fired at our planes on the grounds that they have bad aim? Please tell me I’m wrong, because such a blatant breach of common sense makes my mind hurt. Perhaps this is what it feels like to be assulted by that fabled eclair of pugnacious demeanor. Most unpleasant.
At any rate, if I’m correct in deciphering your meaning up yonder, would you similarly claim that criminals are free to fire at innocent civilians, provided they do so at a distance of 500 ft, while blindfolded?
If I was mistaken, then why do you bother bringing up the Iraqi’s amusingly poor targeting capabilities? A desire to see your own eloquent prose grace the internet?
Jeff
I think that Koffi Annan made it clear that firing on US planes was not a violation of UNSC resolution and the administration has seemingly backed away from such claims.
It’s also important to repeat that a violation of UNSC resolutions is not a causus belli for any one country to start a war on its own inititiave against the violating country, change the regime etc. That is another decision for the UNSC to make. There is nothing automatic about UNSC violations leading to war let alone regime change.
For instance Iran can’t use violations of UNSC resolutions as a basis to attack Iraq and install a regime of its choice. The same rules apply to the US.
Not quite. Annan made it clear that in his opinion it was not a violation. Annan’s opinion is not the controlling feature. Ultimately the Security Council must decide whether it’s a violation.
Oh, c’mon, Jeff, nobody’s that damn dense! I’m saying that without turning on the targeting radar, these missiles represent no more threat that shouting camel-buggering insults at the overflying jets. Such missiles are useless without targeting radar. What else can explain several hundred firings without one, one hit.
But you pretty much knew that, didn’t you?
December,
OK but since the administration has more or less backed away from its claims about shootings being a material breach I think the issue is dead for all practical purposes.
If the case for war is so unshakeable, so certain, why are the Bushistas continuing to try to pull rabbits out of thier hats?
Fleisher comes on, and insists they have convincing, solid evidence of Iraq’s possession of WMD’s. And yet, in the next breath, he refuses to reveal it! Much has been made here of the Cuba Missile analogy. I was alive, I saw it on TV, I saw Adlai Stevenson show the photos to the entire world. That’s making the case.
Time and again, the Bushistas have tried to foist off innuendo, half-truths, and some outright lies in order to make a case for war. This is repulsive, both morally and politicly. If we opt for war, there are children waking up in Baghdad who are doomed. We can’t just have a “pretty good” reason for an act like that. We have to have utterly irrefutable proof, beyond the hint of the shadow of a doubt.
What if we’re wrong? To speak the unspeakable, to think the unthinkable. What if we’re wrong?
Why wouldn’t an evil and clever man divest himself entirely of his WMD’s. Given that the knows where they are, and has access to dynamite. Why shouldn’t he? He shows everything, knowing full well that as soon as everybody goes away, he can rebuild everything in a matter of weeks or, at most, months? He is a hero to the Moslem world, American is exposed as a world class war-monger and Great Satan Extraordinaire. Why not?
Is Saddam bin Laden an evil and cunning man? I have no doubt. And if such treachery can occur to a kindly naif like myself…
Here’s the scenario I expect. Inspector Clouseau, that is, Blix and his Merry Men will not find a smoking gun, but there will be a certain amount of non-cooperation and “minor” infractions. The US will bundle all these together along with the shootings at their planes and ask the Security Council to authorize war based on the whole package.
Just so.
I agree entirely with december. I will try to post this quickly, as I must lie down.
Jeeves, fetch the salts…a stiff tot of brandy, as well, there’s a good fellow…