He's a nice guy, honest!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South of the Fens again!
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He's a nice guy, honest!
This taken from the Airforces Monthly attrition page where they list ac lost - in this case an Iraqi Mig-23 Flogger
It's not often that I have seen this sort of report in open sources and so posted it here in case anyone was foolish enough to believe that after Tony Benn's incredibly tough televised grilling, Saddam Hussein was actually a genuine nice guy, loved by his people and with nothing to hide whilst the big bad Americans are having a go at him for no reason.
A report in the Arabic-language Kuwaiti daily newspaper al-Gabas on October 8 said that an unidentified Iraqi Air Force pilot had attempted to assassinate Saddam Hussein in the previous week by bombing the presidential palace he was in at the time. The report indicates the incident occurred on Monday, presumably referring to the previous Monday, rather than the day before, so September 30 is assumed to be the correct date. The aircraft had taken off from al-Bakr air base, 31 miles (50 km) from Baghdad, to take part in a bombing training mission on targets east of the Tigris river. Immediately the bombing practice commenced, the pilot veered off and sped towards the al-Tharthar palace, located on al-Tharthar lake, where Saddam Hussein was staying at the time. The pilot succeeded in reaching the target area, but the aircraft was hit by a Strela missile fired from a ground emplacement and crashed before it could strike the palace. The injured pilot, who presumably ejected, was arrested and interrogated personally by Saddam Hussein, who had fled the palace after the attempt on his life. Two hours after the incident, helicopter gunships brought in troops to the lake area and immediately fired upon local fishermen before scores of them were arrested. At the same time, al-Bakr air base was shut down and several Air Force officers arrested for interrogation. Two officers who had been with the pilot the night before the attack were imprisoned. The pilot was then burnt to death in front of his fellow officers.
We all know that he's an evil tyrant, but that doesn't constitute legal justification for an aggressive war against him. Unless approved by the UN, any such action is probably a War crime, in fact, judged by Nuremberg principles!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Jacko, UN resolutions have authorised action, and never been rescinded. They have no time limit. They are the authorisation used for the past, and continuing, attacks in the no fly-zones.
If these resolutions have no legal basis, then the American adminstration, the British cabinet and the senior military staff at the Pentagon and MOD are already war criminals and, having been accused of such by Iraq, would have been charged. They haven't been. Q.E.D.
If these resolutions have no legal basis, then the American adminstration, the British cabinet and the senior military staff at the Pentagon and MOD are already war criminals and, having been accused of such by Iraq, would have been charged. They haven't been. Q.E.D.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko - as a correspondent/journalist or whatever I would expect you to know that, whatever you choose to call any forthcoming combat by the Western alliance against Iraq, it is quite simply a resumption of hostilities, Iraq having failed, miserably, despite a twelve year window of opportunity, to abide by the terms and conditions it agreed to at the cease-fire signed in 1991.
It is not a new war and justification is already there to resume hostilities, asking the UN is just a nicety that seems to have gone straight over many, many heads.
[A private view, not a moderating one!]
It is not a new war and justification is already there to resume hostilities, asking the UN is just a nicety that seems to have gone straight over many, many heads.
[A private view, not a moderating one!]
There are conflicting views as to whether or not this would be a 'resumption of hostilities' and as to whether there is a need for a new resolution. Certainly the UN doesn't see it in the cut and dried way that you guys do. Nor do the governments of Germany and France, who presumably have access to specialists in international law.....
While the USA is not the 'Great Satan' that its enemies claim, and while it can be proud of a better record than most in following an ethical foreign policy usually based on what it sees as being morally right, it does not always act in a high-minded and altruistic way, and all this empty, posturing rhetoric about 'saving Oppressed Iraqis' and about the 'debt which Europe owes' should be recognised as being just that.
While the USA is not the 'Great Satan' that its enemies claim, and while it can be proud of a better record than most in following an ethical foreign policy usually based on what it sees as being morally right, it does not always act in a high-minded and altruistic way, and all this empty, posturing rhetoric about 'saving Oppressed Iraqis' and about the 'debt which Europe owes' should be recognised as being just that.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: City of Culture
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko, UN resolutions have authorised action, and never been rescinded. They have no time limit. They are the authorisation used for the past, and continuing, attacks in the no fly-zones
In the specific UN resolution 1441 by which it stated that Iraq was in material breach of prior dis-arnement resolutions it also stated that Iraq would be given a final chance to disarm...
On 8 November, the Council unanimously adopted resolution 1441 (2002), by which it held Iraq in "material breach" of its obligations under previous resolutions, and decided to afford it a "final opportunity to comply" with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime. The Council also decided it would convene immediately upon the receipt of any reports from inspection authorities that Iraq was interfering with their activities and recalled repeated warnings by the Council that Iraq would face "serious consequences" as a result of continued violations. The United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would have "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional and unrestricted access" to any sites in Iraq, including presidential sites
The UN inspectors have reported back to the UNSC and have stated that Iraq is assisting the UN inspectors (although not wholely) yet and this is the most important thing. They have not yet decied that Iraqi dis-arnement is impossible.
Nowhere in this resolution does it give justification to a war.
Nowhere in this resolution does it state that the United States of America and Britian can do whatever they want.
The very idea that it does is so inconceivable that only a desperate man would even suggest it.
2002 Iraq-1441
http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf...=S/RES/1441%20(2002)&Lang=E&Area=UNDOC
1982 Israel
http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf...S=S/RES/515%20(1982)&
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Civilian
There is a fundamental difference between the Israeli situation and the Iraqi situation regarding both countries' failure to abide by them.
The resolution refering to Israel's occupation of the post 1967 lands was made under article 6 of the UN charter, which does not provide for the use of force against a nation which does not comply. The resolutions regarding Iraqi disarmament were made under article 7 of the UN charter, which does provide for the use of force against non-compliant nations.
With respect to UN resolutions, the two situations are apples and oranges.
With respect to the Iraqi situation and the case for war, as you yourself stated, resolution 1441 said:
"The United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would have "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional and unrestricted access" to any sites in Iraq, including presidential sites"
And, as you admitted, Iraq has not wholly complied. I am sure that we can agree that almost complying is not actually complying, and non-compliance is a violation of Iraq's obligations, and that 1441 states that "Iraq would face "serious consequences" as a result of continued violations."
The inerpretation of the words "serious consequences" is pretty much moot, as everyone at the time that 1441 was written was aware that war is what was being discussed. This is why those two words were what were holding up the ratification of resolution 1441.
In short, the UN told Iraq to do something or they would face war. Iraq did not do that thing. Should the UN back down?
Ta muchly
PTT
There is a fundamental difference between the Israeli situation and the Iraqi situation regarding both countries' failure to abide by them.
The resolution refering to Israel's occupation of the post 1967 lands was made under article 6 of the UN charter, which does not provide for the use of force against a nation which does not comply. The resolutions regarding Iraqi disarmament were made under article 7 of the UN charter, which does provide for the use of force against non-compliant nations.
With respect to UN resolutions, the two situations are apples and oranges.
With respect to the Iraqi situation and the case for war, as you yourself stated, resolution 1441 said:
"The United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would have "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional and unrestricted access" to any sites in Iraq, including presidential sites"
And, as you admitted, Iraq has not wholly complied. I am sure that we can agree that almost complying is not actually complying, and non-compliance is a violation of Iraq's obligations, and that 1441 states that "Iraq would face "serious consequences" as a result of continued violations."
The inerpretation of the words "serious consequences" is pretty much moot, as everyone at the time that 1441 was written was aware that war is what was being discussed. This is why those two words were what were holding up the ratification of resolution 1441.
In short, the UN told Iraq to do something or they would face war. Iraq did not do that thing. Should the UN back down?
Ta muchly
PTT
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
As far as taking action is concerned 1441 is irrelevant. As I've pointed out, action is endorsed under previous resolutions. These are the basis for on-going attacks by UK and US forces. They been challenged by Iraq and proved valid.
Other nations may have their opinions Jacko, but the legality of the actions of US and UK has been upheld in practice. And it's equally applicable on a larger scale since the resolutions do not impose limits.
Other nations may have their opinions Jacko, but the legality of the actions of US and UK has been upheld in practice. And it's equally applicable on a larger scale since the resolutions do not impose limits.
Doesn't 1441 explicitely supersede earlier resolutions ("the Council unanimously adopted resolution 1441 (2002), by which it held Iraq in 'material breach' of its obligations under previous resolutions, and decided to afford it a 'final opportunity to comply' with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime.")?
And by signing up to it, haven't the USA and UK signed up to giving Iraq this final opportunity to comply?
With regard to previous UK/US actions in the No Fly Zone...
Have any of them been overtly aggressive? I don't recall one incident which wasn't 'provoked' by Iraqi AAA or SAM activity. In other words, all have been justified as being defensive actions....
Moreover, most were undertaken when Iraq wasn't co-operating with the Arms Inspection regime, as it seems to be doing now.
That makes such actions entirely different in character to a full-blown invasion of Iraq.
And by signing up to it, haven't the USA and UK signed up to giving Iraq this final opportunity to comply?
With regard to previous UK/US actions in the No Fly Zone...
Have any of them been overtly aggressive? I don't recall one incident which wasn't 'provoked' by Iraqi AAA or SAM activity. In other words, all have been justified as being defensive actions....
Moreover, most were undertaken when Iraq wasn't co-operating with the Arms Inspection regime, as it seems to be doing now.
That makes such actions entirely different in character to a full-blown invasion of Iraq.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southern england
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
opso, the article went on to say:
Meanwhile, the same newspaper quoted unidentified travellers, who were
recently in Baghdad, as saying that a state of high confusion was prevailing
in the ranks of the regime's personnel as a result of deep concern over a
prospected internal uprising to oust the regime.
Up to 30,000 special personnel have been deployed in areas where the regime
fears a prospected rebellion, it said, adding that five brigades of the
presidential and republican guards have been stationed in Baghdad, as part of
special measures to forestall possible popular action.
Al-Qabas said that the regime troops have repeatedly combed low-income
districts of Baghdad in search for hidden weapons and special units have been
stationed at statues of the Iraqi ruler after several of them were sprayed
with anti-regime slogans.
Saddam is said to have escaped several bids on his life. He has expressed
defiance in the face of the United States, which threatens to carry out a
wide-scale military operation to topple his regime if he continues to defy
will of the international community.
Here is a picture of the palace. It is alleged that the man-made lake covers a factory for developing WOMD. Earlier last year, SH is alleged to have ordered the execution of local fishermen, who were fishing with explosives on the lake, perhaps not a great idea!
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/thar.jpg
Meanwhile, the same newspaper quoted unidentified travellers, who were
recently in Baghdad, as saying that a state of high confusion was prevailing
in the ranks of the regime's personnel as a result of deep concern over a
prospected internal uprising to oust the regime.
Up to 30,000 special personnel have been deployed in areas where the regime
fears a prospected rebellion, it said, adding that five brigades of the
presidential and republican guards have been stationed in Baghdad, as part of
special measures to forestall possible popular action.
Al-Qabas said that the regime troops have repeatedly combed low-income
districts of Baghdad in search for hidden weapons and special units have been
stationed at statues of the Iraqi ruler after several of them were sprayed
with anti-regime slogans.
Saddam is said to have escaped several bids on his life. He has expressed
defiance in the face of the United States, which threatens to carry out a
wide-scale military operation to topple his regime if he continues to defy
will of the international community.
Here is a picture of the palace. It is alleged that the man-made lake covers a factory for developing WOMD. Earlier last year, SH is alleged to have ordered the execution of local fishermen, who were fishing with explosives on the lake, perhaps not a great idea!
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/thar.jpg
Last edited by newswatcher; 13th Feb 2003 at 15:12.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Jacko,
No, 1441 does not supercede or render invalid the previous resolutions. Do you really think the USA would have worded it that way? If it had, then the No-Fly zones would now be invalid.
You miss the point of the No-Fly zones. Anyone, at any time, can act in self defense. The No-Fly zones, however, authorise the engagement of any Iraqi military aircraft regardless of whether they present a threat or not. The continued air attacks against C2 sites also cannot be legally construed to be in self defence as they present no direct threat.
No, 1441 does not supercede or render invalid the previous resolutions. Do you really think the USA would have worded it that way? If it had, then the No-Fly zones would now be invalid.
You miss the point of the No-Fly zones. Anyone, at any time, can act in self defense. The No-Fly zones, however, authorise the engagement of any Iraqi military aircraft regardless of whether they present a threat or not. The continued air attacks against C2 sites also cannot be legally construed to be in self defence as they present no direct threat.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: City of Culture
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1441 does not in itself give authority for an attack on Iraq if Iraq fails to comply. Neither France nor Russia would of passed the resolution if it had of done. Simply because previous resolutions allow action to take place does not give them the right to take action. By a legal quirk of fate we've still technically at war with Germany and have been since WW1 should we go and invade Berlin?
*dont answer that as im sure someone would*
Quite frankly the only reason this war is happening is because Blair has completely backed himself into a corner over his outright support for Bush. To turn around and admit defeat now is simply not an option for him. He's a politican, these scum don't have feelings like normal people he live's in a zero-sum world were nothing is important to him other than he gains at the expense of others. In this case a few thousand dead Iraqi's.
*dont answer that as im sure someone would*
Quite frankly the only reason this war is happening is because Blair has completely backed himself into a corner over his outright support for Bush. To turn around and admit defeat now is simply not an option for him. He's a politican, these scum don't have feelings like normal people he live's in a zero-sum world were nothing is important to him other than he gains at the expense of others. In this case a few thousand dead Iraqi's.
Last edited by A Civilian; 13th Feb 2003 at 18:27.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Civilian,
Iraq only signed a ceasefire which it has breached. The original UN resolutions apply, they have never been revoked.
Germany, on the other hand, signed an unconditional surrender. Surrender documents with a formal cessation of hostilities being declared by the Allies under Proclamation 2714 on the 31st of December 1946.
So, "by a strange quirk of fate", you, as usual, don't know what you're talking about.
Iraq only signed a ceasefire which it has breached. The original UN resolutions apply, they have never been revoked.
Germany, on the other hand, signed an unconditional surrender. Surrender documents with a formal cessation of hostilities being declared by the Allies under Proclamation 2714 on the 31st of December 1946.
So, "by a strange quirk of fate", you, as usual, don't know what you're talking about.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South of the Fens again!
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
newswatcher, where did the rest of that article come from? Not being related to the loss of an ac, airforces monthly didn't run that part.
And, A Civilian, your comment
is pure sphericals! You honestly believe that if Blair was supporting Bush, that the US wouldn't be on the current course?
And, A Civilian, your comment
Quite frankly the only reason this war is happening is because Blair has completely backed himself into a corner over his outright support for Bush.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: City of Culture
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iraq only signed a ceasefire which it has breached. The original UN resolutions apply, they have never been revoked.
Germany, on the other hand, signed an unconditional surrender. Surrender documents with a formal cessation of hostilities being declared by the Allies under Proclamation 2714 on the 31st of December 1946.
So, "by a strange quirk of fate", you, as usual, don't know what you're talking about
Germany, on the other hand, signed an unconditional surrender. Surrender documents with a formal cessation of hostilities being declared by the Allies under Proclamation 2714 on the 31st of December 1946.
So, "by a strange quirk of fate", you, as usual, don't know what you're talking about
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Andover, Hampshire
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No matter what your opinion of the USA or Britain or the UN or NATO the bottom line is that Saddam+WOMD=Look out world.
If I were in the UK or Israel or any of the middle east countries I would be quaking in my boots at the thought of what this maniac with a WOMD could/will do.
Support the USA and UK in their endeavours to rid the world of this tyrant instead of this mealy mouthed ultra liberal ideology that you are all spouting.
If I were in the UK or Israel or any of the middle east countries I would be quaking in my boots at the thought of what this maniac with a WOMD could/will do.
Support the USA and UK in their endeavours to rid the world of this tyrant instead of this mealy mouthed ultra liberal ideology that you are all spouting.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: City of Culture
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FYI a BBC poll this week said...
45% would not support this war for any reason.
40% would only support it if the UNSC passed a resolution supporting it.
10% said they supported it.
If Blair goes ahead with this war and it looks like he intends to do it without a commons vote then I hope no pray that the French and Germans invade through the Chunnel and put this tyrant down once and for all. The bloke has truely gone insane.
45% would not support this war for any reason.
40% would only support it if the UNSC passed a resolution supporting it.
10% said they supported it.
If Blair goes ahead with this war and it looks like he intends to do it without a commons vote then I hope no pray that the French and Germans invade through the Chunnel and put this tyrant down once and for all. The bloke has truely gone insane.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Civilian, you said we have "technically at war with Germany and have been since WW1 at war with Germany since WWI.
As I said, no we haven't. Even if you are implying that no cessation of hostilities had been agreed at the end of WWI, you're wrong, as the Versailles peace treaty of 1919 formally ended WWI. Even if it hadn't the end of WWII closed it.
You may be refering to the myth concerning Berwick-upon-Tweed which states that it had been included in the declaration, but not the cessation, of WWI and was, therefore, still officially at war.
This, however, is incorrect.
It was only until the Reform Act of 1885 that Berwick had the status of a `Free Burgh' meaning that it had to be mentioned separately in Acts of Parliament.
It was, supposedly, the Crimean War that had to be declared in the name of Great Britain, Ireland and Berwick Upon Tweed and in which the peace treaty was Berwick's name was omitted. If Berwick was still technically at war with anyone, it was the Russians.
And even that's probably a myth.
So please, tell me exactly how we are, in any shape or form, "technically" at war with Germany?
As I said, no we haven't. Even if you are implying that no cessation of hostilities had been agreed at the end of WWI, you're wrong, as the Versailles peace treaty of 1919 formally ended WWI. Even if it hadn't the end of WWII closed it.
You may be refering to the myth concerning Berwick-upon-Tweed which states that it had been included in the declaration, but not the cessation, of WWI and was, therefore, still officially at war.
This, however, is incorrect.
It was only until the Reform Act of 1885 that Berwick had the status of a `Free Burgh' meaning that it had to be mentioned separately in Acts of Parliament.
It was, supposedly, the Crimean War that had to be declared in the name of Great Britain, Ireland and Berwick Upon Tweed and in which the peace treaty was Berwick's name was omitted. If Berwick was still technically at war with anyone, it was the Russians.
And even that's probably a myth.
So please, tell me exactly how we are, in any shape or form, "technically" at war with Germany?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southern england
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies opso, I should have attributed it. Here is the link:
http://www.kuna.net.kw/Story.asp?DSNO=457969
also better picture of palace complex:
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/02/thar.htm
http://www.kuna.net.kw/Story.asp?DSNO=457969
also better picture of palace complex:
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/02/thar.htm