I was addressing an argument, or rather a claim, that all ex-Marines are arrogant idiots.
By you. You twit.
Then you post something as idiotic as that the US should not consider being fired on as a hostile act.
I suppose I should be grateful. I don’t need to provide cites on how you ignore it when you get disproved (as you did in your asinine attempt to rationalize Chamberlain’s moral cowardice), or how you make idiotic arguments to try to justify Iraqi violations. You take care of that yourself.
Here is the entire text of Security Council Resolution 688, which calls on Iraq to end its repression of the population, but it says absolutely nothing about closing down two-thirds of Iraqi airspace to domestic air traffic. You still haven’t proven your assertion that the “no-fly” zones were in any way initiated by the UN. A specific response to a broadly-worded UN resolution by certain member countries is not the same thing as the UN issuing a specific resolution on the matter. The “no-fly” zones are strictly a US initiative and the UN was in no way involved with either their creation or their enforcement.
Which means, I should add, that ‘violation’ of the no-fly zones is simply a US setup to try to make it appear that Saddam Hussein truly is the world-threatening dictator they claim him to be.
On the idea that “he tried to kill my Dad” is a conspiracy theory, well I hope not. More that this is one of the reasons Bush has allowed himself to be talked into this war. Along with his tendency to see things as black/white good/evil.
Which is why Bush is in a difficult spot IMO. Saddam the terrible has to be stopped. The only way to do that is to kill him. But Bush has let himself get talked into this UN business. If inspections go well for Saddam, war = Bush the warmonger, or no war = Bush the incompetent for not taking out Saddam. Bush had better hope the inspectors find something and quick.