TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- explosion at UN in baghdad
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy it might be a complete mistake to even debate with you but i call this non-sense. firstly, wether the iraqis want it or not do you think a monarchy or dictatorship is better for the iraqis then a democracy? secondly, we do not know that the iraqi people dont want democracy. did you make that up or are you basing your opinion on the few extreme fanatics that are conducting the guerilla warfare (some of which arent even iraqi nationals).

First off,unlike you I dont watch CNN,from what I've seen and heard Iraqi people dont want Americns,I know this since I have many friends from Iraq,and they have families back there who are not happy at all.so ok the Americans destroyd Saddams regime,good thank you now leave!!

all Iam saying that a popet regime isnt what the Iraqis want,they dont want a leader who was choosed from themselves nto someone who was choosed and approved by Americans.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer First off,unlike you I dont watch CNN,from what I've seen and heard Iraqi people dont want Americns,I know this since I have many friends from Iraq,and they have families back there who are not happy at all.so ok the Americans destroyd Saddams regime,good thank you now leave!! all Iam saying that a popet regime isnt what the Iraqis want,they dont want a leader who was choosed from themselves nto someone who was choosed and approved by Americans.

yet they also dont want another 'saddam' to take over, therefore america cant just walk in, change regime and then leave, they have to stay there and make sure it doesnt happen agian. i guess the americans should apologize for thinking ahead

and please stop with the silly insults, how do you even know what news sources i watch, grow up

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy and please stop with the silly insults, how do you even know what news sources i watch, grow up

izzy, don't bother. he won't listen.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy yet they also dont want another 'saddam' to take over, therefore america cant just walk in, change regime and then leave, they have to stay there and make sure it doesnt happen agian. i guess the americans should apologize for thinking ahead

For once maybe Americans should stop sticking their noses on other countries businesses. They attack who the want when they want for the sake of terrorism!!and you saying they should stay for awhile till thinsg get better right?? well the sad reality is that as long as they are there will be more death and casualties among them.

quote:

Originally posted by DrummeRaver86 izzy, don't bother. he won't listen.

How did you get invlove in this??
and yes I dont have to agree with everything people say here.

quote:

Originally posted by evil_bastard I find it odd that they would refuse an offer for protection. The police don't ask me if they should patrol my area, they just do it. They police the area, they have the intelligence and they know better than me what needs doing. We've heard the US side of the story, but all I can find from the UN at the moment are quotes from Kofi Annan who says he's unaware of any such offer. He stresses that it's wrong that it should be a matter of decision, and that if indeed an offer was refused then he criticises whoever was responsible. I would have thought Kofi Annan of all people would have been aware if the UN had been offered let alone refused US protection! Something doesn't smell right, we'll have to wait for more details I guess.

Here's what Annan says:

quote:

Asked about a report that the United Nations in Baghdad declined an offer of increased security from U.S.-led coalition forces, Annan said that even if it were the case U.N. personnel should not have been allowed to do so. "First of all, I was surprised that we would turn down such an offer. And secondly, that kind of decision should not be left to the protected," he said. "It is those with the responsibility for security and law and order who have the intelligence which determines what action is taken." Annan said the United Nations is reassessing its security arrangements in Iraq. "Some mistakes may have been made; some wrong assumptions may have been made," he said, "but that does not excuse nor justify the kind of senseless violence that we are seeing in Iraq today." http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast...main/index.html

Here's what US officials are saying:

quote:

U.N. officials declined U.S. offers to provide tighter security at their Baghdad headquarters so they would have a friendlier image with the Iraqi public, American military officials said. Coalition military forces did not provide security for the U.N. compound but patrolled the area, and one such patrol was nearby when a truck bomb exploded Tuesday, Pentagon officials said. U.N. officials in Iraq deliberately decided to forgo strict security measures because the United Nations "did not want a large American presence outside," U.N. spokesman Salim Lone said. http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/st...IT&SECTION=HOME

And here's what another UN official is saying:

quote:

U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard said the world body had been building a 12-foot concrete wall around the converted Canal Hotel that served as U.N. headquarters. But U.N. officials wanted "to maintain a certain openness to the Iraqi people," he said. "Security around our location was not as secure as you might find at the U.S. compound, and that was a decision we made so that our offices could be more accessible to people. We did not think at the time we were taking an unnecessary risk," Eckhard said. Bremer said the United Nations is responsible for security at its site, as are all foreign missions. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast...main/index.html

Let's face it, the UN security team screwed up and Annan is trying to backpedal and blame the US for the incident. What is the US going to do? Say, "No we won't let you patrol your own HQ, we're going to dictate to you how you're security is going to be set up and you guys have no say in the matter?" Hmmmm right like that would ever happen . Let's also remember, Kofi isn't making the security decisions at the UN HQ, I'm sure he has much more pressing issues to worry about than simple administrative work.

But back to the main argument, the attackers of the UN aren't your normal Iraqi people frustrated with the american 'occupation'. Think of the target choice. They are the same people targeting the oil pipelines and the water mains. Why would any sane person try to destroy their access to electricity, water, etc.? You think domestic terrorists get pissed off at the government and then destroy the power plant supplying them with power because they are unhappy? These attackers are simply trying to do one thing, create further unrest and disasatisfaction among regular Iraqis so that they can gain support and return the regime or a similar regime to power. By attacking the UN they are trying to destroy any chance of the country returning to normal or improving whereby people can live their daily lives in peace and allow a US pullout. And they are somewhat succeeding:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast...lout/index.html

And I think that any person vaguely familiar with any political history would agree that a complete US pullout at this time would be VERY bad for the Iraqi people. Simply look towards Africa if you want any history lessons of what can happen in a power vacumn.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider And I think that any person vaguely familiar with any political history would agree that a complete US pullout at this time would be VERY bad for the Iraqi people. Simply look towards Africa if you want any history lessons of what can happen in a power vacumn.

I may not support the idea of the whole war but I agree that a power vacuum in Iraq, or anywhere for that matter is a bad thing.

An even better case in point than Africa is Afghanistan. We help fight the Soviets....Soviets pull out their troops.....we cut off help since there are no commies left to fight.....more than a decade of different parties playing a violent game of "musical chairs" over control.....The Taliban, aided by money from radical Wahabis (most notably Bin Laden), take over control.....etc.

What is worse in my mind than the war with Iraq itself is the vehemence of the Bush administration that they have enough troops on the groudn in Iraq to do the job, and that they are not stretched too thin. I'm sorry but coming from a military family and seeing reports that the Pentagon is calling up National guard units to replace troops in Iraq I know that they are stretched too thin. You only call up Guard units if you don't have enough active duty units to cover all of your bases.

MrS

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus oh no.. evil_bastard is back too.. its like one big horrible reunion Look you are repeating what the clueless Kofi said the line where "the UN shouldn't be able to refuse protection". But they did. Iraq is not "RUN" by the US, it is run by the Iraqis and there are police and they are Iraqis and the Iraqi police are responsible (although highly incapable) of protecting all areas in Iraq. And therefore using his Kofi-logic Iraq is to blame for not protecting the UN which came to help protect the Iraqis... AHH brain is hurting. The reality is Iraq is occupied. There is no police to protect the UN. There is a military. The military is a US military. The US military offered protection to UN, a person in the UN said no. Kofi cries to the mother "how could you let me do that.. you have to take care of me, I'm young and stupid". To me, that message coming from the Government Body of the WORLD doesn't smell right. And perhaps Kofi would do wise to shut up, get the facts straight and stop trying to blame everyone but his own government for its faults.

Doesn't it surprise you that Kofi Annan is "clueless"? Surely this is a massive priority of his, he should know such basic information.

The fact that he denies any knowledge of an offer probably means either he's lying or the US is lying, or both are trying to cover their arses and little was actually agreed officially. Both are capable, so why you've jumped to one side I don't know - perhaps you know something I don't? Personally I'll wait for more details as the brief statements given so far as fairly inconclusive, one side is saying "you refused our offer!" and the other is saying "what offer? Noone told me". Obviously if the UN refused protection then they were wrong to do so, but who made the decision, what was their position? And why didn't such an important decision reach Annan in any form? Assuming all is as told, it sounds like quite a low-key offer and a low-key refusal. If so, why was it done this way? Obviously I doubt most of these questions will be answered, the US and UN will engage in finger-pointing and trying to score political 'points', assuming this isn't swept under the carpet for the benefit of all concerned.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy with this logic i would belive that you thought the US didnt need to go to the UN to police the old iraqi government. So the US should have protected the UN without even asking after the invasion but should have asked the UN wether to protect the world prior to the invasion

I don't see how you've arrived at that conclusion. To continue with my earlier example, the police are already operating in my area, so they carry on as normal, they needn't ask me if they should police my area because it's their job. They can and do do it without asking. That doesn't mean they can go to France, Germany, or anywhere for that matter and start policing the local area.

The US going to Iraq was just that, whether you agree with it or not, so there's no comparison. However now that they are in Iraq anyway, they are providing security in Baghdad and I would think it a given that they would protect 'friendly' buildings such as the UN.

What confuses me about all this is why major UN security issues were discussed and decided and the UN Secretary General never got wind of it. It is a bit premature to judge the UN as a body when we know nothing as yet of the nature of these security decisions.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Let's face it, the UN security team screwed up and Annan is trying to backpedal and blame the US for the incident. What is the US going to do? Say, "No we won't let you patrol your own HQ, we're going to dictate to you how you're security is going to be set up and you guys have no say in the matter?" Hmmmm right like that would ever happen . Let's also remember, Kofi isn't making the security decisions at the UN HQ, I'm sure he has much more pressing issues to worry about than simple administrative work.

I'd already read those, but thanks anyway. Hardly any details have been mentioned yet, but I'd say either Kofi Annan is lying and covering his own arse or he genuinely got no wind of it and has come under the spotlight because one of his inferiors messed up.

I wouldn't judge the protection of the UN HQ as "administrative work". The UN is well known for it's policy of openness, but this sounds very open when you compare it to their involvement in places like Bosnia. I do find it hard to believe Kofi Annan envisaged such a lack of security, the UN isn't that open, they've been involved in warzones before.

I do agree that he hasn't backed any of his criticisms of the US, and if the US are correct about everything they say then they certainly shouldn't be blamed for this. Until we actually see some names or positions given then I'd put my money on this being someone quite low down taking this 'open UN policy'thing way too far.

quote:

Originally posted by evil_bastard Doesn't it surprise you that Kofi Annan is "clueless"? Surely this is a massive priority of his, he should know such basic information. The fact that he denies any knowledge of an offer probably means either he's lying or the US is lying, or both are trying to cover their arses and little was actually agreed officially. Both are capable, so why you've jumped to one side I don't know - perhaps you know something I don't? Personally I'll wait for more details as the brief statements given so far as fairly inconclusive, one side is saying "you refused our offer!" and the other is saying "what offer? Noone told me". Obviously if the UN refused protection then they were wrong to do so, but who made the decision, what was their position? And why didn't such an important decision reach Annan in any form? Assuming all is as told, it sounds like quite a low-key offer and a low-key refusal. If so, why was it done this way? Obviously I doubt most of these questions will be answered, the US and UN will engage in finger-pointing and trying to score political 'points', assuming this isn't swept under the carpet for the benefit of all concerned.

Kofi Annan, in all likelihood, knew nothing of the day to day operational details regarding the UN mission in Iraq or in any other UN missions around the world. The person at the top of an organization that large would be a fool to try and micro-manage everyone underneath him. To accuse him of lying for saying that he had no knowledge of an offer from the US for help is unfair. I seriously doubt that Bush or Rumsfeld, or even Gen. Abizaid (commander of CentCom) knew anything about such an offer if it happened. Paul Bremer and Gen. Sanchez are in charge of day to day operations in Iraq and they would be the ones to make such an offer. Likewise, the late Sergio Vieira de Mello was in charge of the UN mission in Iraq and the decision whether or not to accept any offer would have been his.

These people were put in charge of a difficult situation because the people above them in the grand scheme of things trusted them to handle things on a day to day basis and not bother their superiors with anything that they could easily deal with themselves....such as daily security arrangements.

MrS

Sorry to bring this up again ... the official UN inquiry results were just released.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3204591.stm

Good job denying responsibility Kofi.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Sorry to bring this up again ... the official UN inquiry results were just released. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3204591.stm Good job denying responsibility Kofi.

I'm suprised he didn't deny the findings of this council.. time to elect a new Secretary General IMHO...

Thanks for encourging terrorism too Mr. Kofi!!

Proof that terrorism works against the hippies;

quote:

Fewer than 50 UN personnel remain in Iraq.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.