Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Bush Intentionally Refrains From Striking Zarqawi

bling · 10-27-2004, 01:02 AM

And I guess I really DO own the apartment I'm renting. Whatever that means.

Northeastern Iraq was controlled by the Kurds and protected by the U.S., U.K. and French no-fly zone. The camp was located in that area. The no-fly zones (both northern and southern) were ostensibly based on U.N. resolution 688. The legality of the no-fly zone is questionable, as that resolution does not explicity call for a no-fly zone.

Put another way - if Saddam had attempted to either place a camp there, or remove a camp from there, it would have been viewed as a breech of the no-fly zone. Which, in the eyes of the U.S., would have been a violation of a U.N. Security Council resolution.

The camp was located inside Iraq, in an area partially controlled by the United States and not controlled at all by Saddam or his government.

10-27-2004, 01:02 AM	#5 (permalink)
bling Banned	And I guess I really DO own the apartment I'm renting. Whatever that means. Northeastern Iraq was controlled by the Kurds and protected by the U.S., U.K. and French no-fly zone. The camp was located in that area. The no-fly zones (both northern and southern) were ostensibly based on U.N. resolution 688. The legality of the no-fly zone is questionable, as that resolution does not explicity call for a no-fly zone. Put another way - if Saddam had attempted to either place a camp there, or remove a camp from there, it would have been viewed as a breech of the no-fly zone. Which, in the eyes of the U.S., would have been a violation of a U.N. Security Council resolution. The camp was located inside Iraq, in an area partially controlled by the United States and not controlled at all by Saddam or his government.