Whatever.
My point is I see a difference. Saying we have the no fly zones to support the UN resolutions is not a lie. Ok, nowhere do the resolutions say "Establish no fly zones."That's right. No where does it state that. No where.
Just like the resolutions aimed at getting Iraq out of Kwait(sp, late, lazy) did not say it's OK to bomb Bagdad.Ummmm, an invasionary force went into another country and we went to war against said invasionary force. We were NOT acting upon a UN resolution at that time.
The UN resolutions gave us an inch, we took a mile. It's kind of the way those things work.Only when it is us.
By your same "logic", it would be "okay" for us to start bombing Israel whenever the UN sanctions them.
Now, something for you to realize is that the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD has no problem seeing Bush's rationalizations for what they are.
The UN passes a resolution requesting humanitarian aid for the Kurds and we interpret that to mean we can kill Iraqis.
Request: "Please help the homeless in this season of giving."
Translation: "I can shoot landlords."
Again, the entire rest of the world sees Bush's rationalizations for what they are. There isn't one other country that supports our unilateral invasion.
What was that you said about UN resolutions? When they say "humanitarian aid", we think "shoot pilots". Yet when the UN will NOT support our invasion plans, we will go ahead unilaterally.
So, when the UN supports our plans, we do what we want.
When the UN doesn't support our plans, we do what we want.
When the UN passes a resolution, we interpret it to mean that we can do what we want.
I'm seeing a pattern here. I'm not sure if everyone else is.