Fastfood & MacDemocracy

kenski70,

Now I begin to understand why your posts contain a lot of incorrect statements, wild accusations and disparities.

When your newspaper (the Sun) asked you those two questions, they were not meant for you to answer them verbally or in writing. It was trying to challenge your humanity in you. Those questions were meant for you to think about the American atrocities. The answers to these questions, if you try to analyse them with an open mind, will tell you that the Americans are no better than the barbarians. You did not seem to understand the point. Do not be so na�ve. As I told you earlier, be discriminating in your reading.

And what�s about your accusation that �Saddam also killed hundreds of thousands of his own people � �?  Do you still believe it? If so, why don�t you put forward proof for your claim? If you can�t, may I suggest you admit your mistake.

kenski70,

Going through the �evidence� you have mentioned, and the links thereon, I could not come across anything that suggests �Saddam also killed hundreds of thousands of his own people throughout his Regine�. The closest figure mentioned in your �evidence� was �at least 50,000 rural Kurds had died� compared to your �hundreds of thousands.�

Supposing the estimate of 50 000 is correct, before we can make it a sensational issue, we should have an insight into who the Kurds are, their history , what is/was the relationship between them and Iran, why America took 15 years to make it as a campaign against Saddam etc. Maybe we will spend sometime on it in your next lessons.

You asked

�why do you think the UN had no fly zones over 60% of his country?�

Did UN have �no fly zones� over Iraq? It seems you have not done your homework. For your information, the UN had never imposed a �no fly zone� over Iraq. No doubt there was one, but it was not imposed by the UN. It was imposed by the International Gangsters, the super powers, America and the UK.

In actual fact what is this �no fly zones� that we are talking about?

In April 1991, claiming a false authority under Security Council Resolution 688, the US, UK and France began to patrol the skies over northern Iraq, excluding Iraqi aircraft from this zone. The same powers started to enforce a second �no fly� zone in southern Iraq a few months later. Announced as a means to protect Iraqi Kurds (in the north) and Iraq�s Shi�a population (in the south), the no-fly has offered dubious humanitarian protection, while engaging Iraq�s government in ceaseless military pressure.

(http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/flyindex.h tm)

Dubious indeed!

Now, do you begin to understand what the �no fly zones� are?

And who authorized US and UK to impose such restriction over Iraq? Not even a single member of the UN, other than the US, UK and France! Every member of the UN was aware of the American hypocrisy, but they were helpless. They could not do anything. They knew America was a terrorist nation and they did not want their people to suffer from the repercussion. So they had to keep quiet. We have to understand that France might have been duped into going along with the US and UK because it has realized its folly and withdrew from it.

France eventually withdrew from the no-fly process. The US-UK turned no-fly into an even more aggressive operation after 1998, when �more robust rules of engagement� have led to regular bombing of ground targets and substantial civilian casualties.

(http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/flyindex.h tm)

Here the BBC reports the withdrawal of France in this way:

France pulled out of patrolling the operation in December 1996 because, it said, changes in the mission had eliminated its humanitarian aspects. (BBC Correspondent - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/crisis_in_the_gulf/forces_ and_firepower/244364.stm)

Were these �no fly zone� legal?:

However, unlike the military campaign to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the no-fly zones were not authorised by the UN and they are not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution.

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1175950.stm)

Let�s look at what your favourite Wikipedia says about it.

� � Regardless of the legal status, the northern no-fly zone was often credited for giving the parts of the Kurdish region of Iraq de-facto independence after the First Gulf War.�

Now let�s listen direct from the horse�s mouth:

�The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said � that Iraqi firing on allied planes patrolling the no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq was not a violation of UNSCR 1441, no matter what the United States may say. �

What did the Russians feel about the �no fly zone�?

�The Russians agreed with Annan: "Recent claims that Iraq's actions in the 'no-fly' zones can be seen as a violation of the U.N. Security Council resolution 1441, have no legal grounds," the Russian foreign ministry said.�

Let�s read on further on the legality side of the no fly zones:

�I did a search on the legality of the zones and found that the United States usually cites UNSCR 688 in defending the zones. But there's nothing in the resolution authorizing their set-up. � and U.K. and U.S. vetoes keep Russia and France from introducing resolutions to end them. (Posted by Christopher at November 19, 2002 08:50 AM +0300 GMT)

And this is what the Guardian said about these �no fly zones�:

� � air patrols are now widely seen as an "undeclared war", a military operation to soften up Iraqi air defence systems and mobile surface-to-surface missiles which would threaten invading British and US forces.�

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538, 907024,00.html

And China said, :

� � that there is no resolution issued by the UN security council or others concerning the two "no fly zone" in northern and southern Iraq.�

The following are excerpts taken from an interview given in 2002 by Francis A. Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign.

Francis Boyle: Sure. After the Gulf War in 1991, the United States, United Kingdom and France unilaterally imposed so-called "no-fly zones" in Northern Iraq and Southern Iraq. They had no authorization from the Security Council to do this; and for the last 11 years now, the U.S. and the U.K. have been bombing targets illegally in Northern and Southern Iraq. Eventually, I believe around 1998 or so, France pulled out, realizing full well that these no-fly zones were illegal.

FB: That's correct - the Northern no-fly zone, and there...Again this is a pretext of fraud to say they were set up for the protection of the Kurds. The reason the Kurds were in jeopardy in the first place was that Bush Sr. called upon them to rise up against Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War, and when the Kurds did rise up, then Bush Sr. sold them out. So this has always been basically a pretext to de facto carve up Iraq into three chunks of territory and to have an excuse to continue low intensity conflict against Iraq whenever they wanted to.

FB: Right. No other member of the Security Council accepts that interpretation of resolution 1441. Indeed most other members of the Security Council say 1441 does not apply to the no-fly zones. Indeed, the reports are that the Bush Jr. administration tried to get language in there to bootstrap the no-fly zones into legality by name, and that failed. So, again, this is clear-cut aggression by the U.S. and the U.K. against Iraq. Iraq certainly has a right to defend itself. Indeed, yesterday they [US/UK forces] blew up an oil company near Basra, not even a plausible case for a military target; they just blew up an oil company and they said: well, the justification is there was an attack on us in the no-fly zone. I mean, this is completely preposterous. But look, Rumsfeld has admitted that around the beginning of the year he just ordered the air force to pick up the bombing campaign of Iraq in order to prepare the way for war, so it's no longer a pretext.

In fact there was a genuine; UN authorized �no fly zone� in Bosnia and Herzegovina that was enforced by NATO aircraft. It was a legal one, and maybe that�s why the US did not take part in it.

Now, is it  clear why America was interested in a �no fly zone�? It was not to keep him from using aircraft to attack said groups. What all that America wanted was to get the Kurds and Shiahs rise against Saddam. (Thinking along the same line, you may see light on Saddam �killing his own people�).

Now do you feel like apologising to your readers?

Brother Ansari, you are absolutely right and I do understand. And, of course, if they had even some semblance of a solid stand or, for that matter, a wee less hollow state of their morally bankrupt nation, these empty drums would not make so much of noise.

It's extremely sad, but I am a simple straight Pathaan and I won't shirk to admit that I do enjoy the poor chap's plight - today's US plight.

At least we don't preach hate in our churches.can you say the same for your mosques?You consider us morally bankrupt because we are not Muslim nothing more. the crime here is just like anywhere else but whinny punks like you hate us because you  envy us.but at the same time despise us because we would fight to the death to defend our way of life. because you cannot stop us from living life in OUR own way.