Talk:Iraqi no-fly zones

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

have there been any other no-fly zones in history? this article should be named simply No-fly zones. Kingturtle 17:31, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

And what is a no-fly zone??? The article is very vague. NO! The article doesn't explain this at all! —Cantus…☎ 08:13, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Heh. One might actually construe that actual flies (insects) were banned from zones in Iraq. Ross 03:49, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thank goodness. There are a lot of flies there.

Seriously though this needs work. There should be some background on the Iraqi attacks on the Kurds/Shiites -- indication that the U.S., after urging those groups to rebel, stood back and did nothing for a while before the world community pressured the Bush Administration to do something about it, which finally resulted in the no-fly zones.--csloat 23:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There should also be a notation that the UN simply requested member states to aid in the humanitarian effort to help the Kurds.. not kill more people to aid them.

The issue I have with this article is the presumption that the aim of the NZF was to protect the kurds, when two of the largest Kurdish cities where below the NFZ. Rather it seems to have been about relieving the political pressure caused by freezing refugees on the Turkish border, then becoming on occupied stronghold for the US and UK. Isiod

[edit] Unilateral??

The article asserts that the imposition of the No-Fly zone (performed by of three nations acting together) were "unilateral". Normally that sort of thing is left for theological discussions of the Trinity; I suspect the sense of unilateral used here is the sloppy "an action we don't approve of" sense, which is inherently POV. --Sommerfeld 05:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm anti-war and I don't have any problems with removing the word 'unilaterally' from the opening paragraph, so I went ahead and removed the word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.173.164.149 (talk • contribs)

Well, when it's done by one party (whether that party consists of several countries or not) it can still be considered unilateral since Iraq had no inout into the decision.

[edit] No-fly zone in cease-fire agreement?

Why, I'd have to go digging, but IIRC the autobiography of Norman Schwarzkopf mentioned that one provision of the cease-fire agreement which ended the 1991 gulf war was a restriction on flights by the Iraqi government and/or military. --Sommerfeld 05:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

As for the 1991 cease-fire agreement, I've never been able to find a copy of it and I've spent some time searching for it. If you happen to find it, I'd love to see it. We should include a link to it somewhere in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.173.164.149 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Neutrality tag

I removed the POV-check tag. It was added in May 2006 by Sommerfeld (see "Unilateral??" above), their objection has been addressed long ago and as it is there is currently no explicit motivation to keep it. If anyone believes that the article has a POV problem, feel free to re-add the tag but please also specify here on the talk page what you consider the problem to be. kissekatt (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)