Teribus:

The point you were trying to make was that the *no-fly* zones applied to helicopters - they didn't (No red-herring Arne just another example of your absolutely deplorable comprehension).

IIRC, the reason we asked for the "no-fly" zones was that Saddam was using helicoters to go after the Kurds and Shia. Seems to me that if he went after the Kurds and Shia with helicopters, we might be able to claim we were acting within that (imposed) mandate in shooting such down. Whether there was some exception made for helicopters being used for non-military purpose is something that I can't claim knowledge on. But I'll hardly take your word for it. Nonetheless, the poitn remains: That we claimed a right to shoot down any Saddam (military) flights in the "no-fly" zones (that was what the words meant, after all), but that in fact there weren't any such flights, and instead we were sending HARMs up the a$$ of any AA radar sites with the temerity to light up, and also bombing "communications" facilities, etc., hardly the offensive capabilities which we claimed were the raison d'etre for imposing the "no-fly" zones. Of course, you'll try to side track the conversation again, and ignore that point....

This next Arne excerpt I found hilarious:

Glad I can provide some amusement.

[Arne]: "Care to explain why you think that tech[ni]cal violations (if even that) are sufficient reason for a war of choice? Care to explain why the U.S. (or rather more precisely, Dubya and his PNAC cronies) get to decide against the wishes of a majority of the U.N. Security Council that their will is best ex[p]ressed by a war of aggression? Ho[pe] you aren't married, Teribus, because they'd have to send out the CSI team if your toast was ever burnt...."

I can almost see the poor little sod stamping his feet - Complete and utter drivel, Arne my little American Viking, complete and utter drivel.

Strange. Becaue what I see is Teribus spinning, spinning, spinning .... and refusing to address the question. Proud of yourself?

More balderdash from Arne - war ought to be the "last resort"

Yeah. Even Dubya (as well as many seators, etc.) said that. Dubya didn't mean it though. He lied to you.

Unfortunately in life what ought to be ain't. Particularly if you want to get something done - High time the UN realised that, too late for Rwanda and Darfur of course. What have you read about Darfur in Aljazeera Arne?

Ummm, just what has Dubya done in Darfur? Oh, yeah, sorry, silly me, the Sudan doesn't have oil, billions in "reconstruction" money for Cheney's company, and a land-based 'aircraft carrier' in the middle of the Middle East. What was I thinking.....

With regard to aircraft patrolling the 'no-fly'zones, turning on radars and lighting up aircraft is considered a hostile act...

Kind of like saying "I'll punch your lights out" when you've had too much in the bar and are feeling surly, right, Teribus? Yep, threatening is a crime ("assault", to be precise, it is in fact "battery" that is the act of actually striking someone). But hardly the same "crime". I don't deny that turning on a radar and illuminating the target is a precursor to actually firing a missile in an attempt to bring down a plane, but that hardly makes it the same category of "act of aggression". Now I'll admit that the Iraqis did (at least from U.S. reports) fire on some U.S. planes, but as I've pointed out repeatedly, none were ever brought down, nor any pilots hurt. It was more the "Im gonna get you, copper" from a cornered crook.

[WRT the illumination indicator]: You respond immediately, or you die - FACT.

Ummm, as I said above, not one plane was ever brought down by the Iraqis while flying the "no-fly" patrols.

As I said, you really have a pretty perverted sense of what constitutes "aggression" which would justify $300B and 2000 U.S. servicemen losing their lives. I repeat: Go tell Cindy Sheehan that her son died because the Iraqis turned on their radars. Se what response you get, you brave, brave boy, you....

Arne, I see would have it that, irrespective of evaluated threat, we should:

- take into account not only the seriousness of violation.
- take into account the price we pay, morally, politically, economically, and in human lives of our response.

Ummm, yup. And you would seemingly think that we should not think about anything like that. Imagine my surprise.

Just as well you were not around making decisions in 1939, some rather nasty pieces of work would have got away with it Scot free, and the world as a whole would have been a far nastier place than it is today. Well done Arne.

Trotting out the flogged and dead "see, see, WWII!" horse again, eh? First of all, Germany declared war on us (and Japan attacked us). Secondly, it was RWers (and their buddies in the American Bund) that thought that Hitler was maybe not so bad, or even that we should have thrown our lot in with him). Bad example, Teribus. You assume that I would think that WWII shouldn't have been fought. This is a totally unwarranted assumption. FWIW, my parents didn't even get to make any choice in the matter; they were living under Nazi occupation. So maybe you'd concede if you actually took the time to think ... oh, sorry, assuming facts not in evidence ... that I might have at least some opinions on WWII that might not fit your preconceived notions of who I am here....

By the way Arne what is going on at present in Iraq has got SFA to do with Saddam Hussein, WMD, or UN Resolutions so don't try linking them.

A fact that sadly seems to have escaped Dubya, Cheney, the PNAC, and you....

Or ... perhaps ... was the maladministration lying to us about their actual game plan? Imagine that ... no, no one could be so cavalier with the lives of U.S. soldiers....

No Arne, with regard to the Al Samoud missiles UNMOVIC provided their specification to two independent review bodies, both of whom found them to be in breach of UNSC Resolutions and reported so to both UNMOVIC and the Iraqi Government - That is why they were scrapped.

As I said, the difference betweem 149 Km and 155 Km is insignificant, functionally. Iraq had a plausible argument on the range sans payload, but as I noted, they agreed to destroy them. What's the problem? How many U.S. soldiers should lose their lives because you got your knickers in a twist about this? C'mon, give me a numebr, Teribus....

Well, I'll be busy preparing/packing for a trip to the Indian subcontinent for the next couple weeks, Teribus, so I'll have to check your responses when I return, I suspect. See if you can put a price on the life of a U.S. soldier in the meanwhile, OK? And while you're at it, how about a rating of their lives versus yours: How many U.S> Marines is one blustering Teribus of the Fighting 101st Keyboarders worth? Which has more potential to do some good in the world, and which is of more interest to you? Do tell....

Cheers,