|
| 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.
___________________
Retro ...
|
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.
