Not only were the American and British planes in the no-fly zone, they were dropping bombs on Iraq daily, prior to the start of the invasion, to the tune of 600 tons. Not only were we dropping tons on them, they did not shoot down a single one of ours or the British. So, ya gotta ask ........ who is the agressor?

Now, I'm going to find that link again............... stand by............

#16 by Philomedy Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Why were there jets in the no-fly zone? (That's not sarcasm, that was a legitimate question)

after the first gulf war the United natrions created 2 buffer zones, the zones were patroled by allied aircraft.

Every so often anti aircraft guns opened up on these legal observers.

does not matter that they never hit anything, just the act of shooting is enough.

18 by zinkadoodle Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Not only were the American and British planes in the no-fly zone, they were dropping bombs on Iraq daily, prior to the start of the invasion, to the tune of 600 tons. Not only were we dropping tons on them, they did not shoot down a single one of ours or the British. So, ya gotta ask ........ who is the agressor?

lets see, prior to invasion by ground troops, dropping bombs, hmmmmm never in war has that been done before huh?

fer crying out loud, how many times does it have to be printed, shouted, written talked about, the majority of the intelligence services thought saddam had wmd'smost of the left wing in america agreed that saddam had wmd's kennedy, kerry, clinton both of them. How soon everyone forgets this.

Here is one link from the LA Times.

LATimesLink
..............
Put simply, U.S. aircraft patrolling the southern no-fly zone were dropping a lot more bombs in the hope of provoking a reaction that would give the allies an excuse to carry out a full-scale bombing campaign, an air war, the first stage of the conflict.

British government figures for the number of bombs dropped on southern Iraq in 2002 show that although virtually none were used in March and April, an average of 10 tons a month were dropped between May and August.

But these initial "spikes of activity" didn't have the desired effect. The Iraqis didn't retaliate. They didn't provide the excuse Bush and Blair needed. So at the end of August, the allies dramatically intensified the bombing into what was effectively the initial air war.

The number of bombs dropped on southern Iraq by allied aircraft shot up to 54.6 tons in September alone, with the increased rates continuing into 2003.

In other words, Bush and Blair began their war not in March 2003, as everyone believed, but at the end of August 2002, six weeks before Congress approved military action against Iraq.

The way in which the intelligence was "fixed" to justify war is old news.

The real news is the shady April 2002 deal to go to war, the cynical use of the U.N. to provide an excuse, and the secret, illegal air war without the backing of Congress.

again I say, the iraqis were shooting at United Nation war craft, that act in and by itself is an act of war.

lets see, prior to invasion by ground troops, dropping bombs, hmmmmm never in war has that been done before huh?

fer cryin' out loud, these bombs were dropped before the war. BEFORE THE WAR. Quietly and illegally, dubya began bombing Iraq prior to the UN resolution and prior to any approval by Congress. Fer cryin' out loud, read the freakin' article, fer cryin' out loud.

But Iraq did not attack the U.S. That's all I want to get at.

You missed my point completely. No, Hussein was not involved directly, but he did break several ceasefire agreements with us, he did spearhead an assassination attempt on a sitting U.S. president, even HE thought he had WMD. All of these are legitimate reasons to go to war with Iraq.

Now that we are there engaging the terrorist enemy, there is no reason to stop fighting along side the Iraqis. The minute the Iraqi people chose a new government, it quit being an "occupation" and is now a war to complete the job of destroying terrorists in Iraq.

Missions in war are not static situations. The goals remains the same, but the missions change to fit the situation. Plain and Simple.



Ok, far from "simple", but still pretty plain! ;~D

You missed my point completely. No, Hussein was not involved directly, but he did break several ceasefire agreements with us, he did spearhead an assassination attempt on a sitting U.S. president, even HE thought he had WMD. All of these are legitimate reasons to go to war with Iraq.Now that we are there engaging the terrorist enemy, there is no reason to stop fighting along side the Iraqis. The minute the Iraqi people chose a new government, it quit being an "occupation" and is now a war to complete the job of destroying terrorists in Iraq.

Hey, if we're talking about missing points, this article was about television!

All of them are legitimate reasons to go to war, but they were not the reasons given. We were led to believe that there was imminent threat from Iraq, a claim that revolved around the reports of WMDs. And even if, as moderateman points out, a lot of people thought there were WMDs, A) it was not proven, and how bout an apology? How bout an "I was wrong about the WMD status in Iraq, but here's why deposing Saddam still wasn't such a bad thing" from the president? That would go a long way. The ability to admit you're wrong is something far more valued than being, or thinking that you are, infallible.

So what if Saddam had WMD. North Korea, Seria, Iran,China and scores of other dictatorships have WMD. Having them and using them on a Super Power are two very different things. We would not have been in danger from Saddam even if he had the dam WMD! We have created more enemies that present a REAL DANGER by our invading Iraq then any danger from Saddam. Bush has created the terrorist activity in Iraq and how that makes us more safe is the question. We can not undo the error of Bush in Iraq, but we can make dam sure we do not make the same error again!

fer cryin' out loud, these bombs were dropped before the war. BEFORE THE WAR. Quietly and illegally, dubya began bombing Iraq prior to the UN resolution and prior to any approval by Congress. Fer cryin' out loud, read the freakin' article, fer cryin' out loud.

You do understand if fighters were shot at in any way they were authorized to retaliate?

So what if Saddam had WMD. North Korea, Seria, Iran,China and scores of other dictatorships have WMD. Having them and using them on a Super Power are two very different things. We would not have been in danger from Saddam even if he had the dam WMD!

Of course you were in danger. Saddam had an obsessive hatred for the U.S., just as you have an obsessive hatred for Bush. Saddam had terrorist connections and was doing everything he could to get sanctions lifted by France so he could have free reign.

Bush has created the terrorist activity in Iraq and how that makes us more safe is the question. We can not undo the error of Bush in Iraq, but we can make dam sure we do not make the same error again!

Bush hasn't created terrorist activity. Terrorists themselves have decided they don't want Iraq to be free and have decided to try and stop it.

Removing Saddam has started the spread of democracy in the region, but you don't see that. A democratic Middle East will ensure safety for all eventually. However, you can't look past the headlines you see from the media who is just as obsessed as you are.

Hey, if we're talking about missing points, this article was about television!

Touche!! ;~D

All of them are legitimate reasons to go to war, but they were not the reasons given. We were led to believe that there was imminent threat from Iraq,

Actually, Prs. Bush said many times that Iraq wasn't an "imminent threat", in fact I believe his exact words in the State of the Union Address were:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/sotu.transcript/

Also, Prs. Bush has already admitted that he was wrong about the build up of WMD in Iraq:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/wmd.iraq/

Apparently his admission didn't go as far as you and I would have hoped, but admissions rarely do much for any politician.

The fact is, Prs. Bush gave 4 reasons to go to war with Iraq:

WMD
Hussein's support for anti western terrorism
Hussein breaking the terms of the Ceasefire of 91 and
To Free the people of Iraq from Hussein's Tyranny.

Why were there jets in the no-fly zone? (That's not sarcasm, that was a legitimate question)

Because the UN told them to be there, based upon the 91 cease fire.

Reply By: zinkadoodlePosted: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 Here is one link from the LA Times.

Did you write that?  Or do you just parrot others OPINIONS.

Pretty stupid if you ask me.  Citing an OPINION piece as facts?