The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[casi] No-fly zones: The legal position



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2490361.stm

It is good to see that the BBC has now taken a more balanced approach to these zones
(a few years ago BBC TV News called them 'UN no fly zones'.

It is a shame that your article did not refer to the arbitrary extension of the southern no
fly zone up to Baghdad (as a punishment measure).

In future could you qualify references to these zones? Simply stating 'no fly zones'
assigns unwarranted status to them. Perhaps 'so called no fly zones' or 'self styled no fly
zones' or 'no fly zones (lacking UN approval)'?

A quote:     "They point out that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has hurt his people
before - when he used chemical weapons to kill 5,000 Kurdish villagers in the
1980s. "

It is a shame that you allow our government to get away with this sort of
statement: they knowingly supported Saddam Hussein at the time and afterwards!
The US/UK through sanctions are killing more than 5000 Iraqi civilians EVERY
month.

Mark Parkinson
Bodmin
Cornwall



_______________________________________________
Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss
To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk
All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk


[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]