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] Newsnight 19/11/02 (no fly zones)

Following on with another example:

At the beginning of the interview with William Cohen, reference was made to the no fly

I really wish that your interviewers would challenge these - they have NOT been
authorised by the UNSC. It is pure cheek for the US to pretend that they are covered by
the new Resolution. Even the UK doesn't try this one.

In future could you please 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)'?

Please also ensure that interviewers remember the arbitrary extension of the southern
no fly zone up to Baghdad (as a punishment measure). This certainly puts the lie to any
notion of 'humanitarian cover' which is a sick joke anyway as the US/UK sanctions are
killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in those zones!

Mark Parkinson

Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]