Thap, the UN rejected U.S. security around it's compound.
Snappy rejoinder. My skin and head are far too thick to be injured by your biting wit.
But back to your opinion-how shall this force get its act together and provide the security you seem so convinced it ought to be able to do?
uh oh.. How dare this idiot make these remarks against the US :eek: Time for him to resign. :nook:
**UN concerns over Baghdad security**, BBC, 21 August 2003
“I don’t know if the UN did turn down an offer for protection, but if it did, it was not correct and it shouldn’t have been allowed to turn it down,” Mr Annan said. “That kind of decision should not be left to the protected. It is those with responsibility for security and law and order, who have intelligence, which determines what action is taken.”
The UN rejected the security in order to "project a more friendly image to Iraqis."
Nadia, I love you! 
soon as I saw UTD say that I was going to post that quote.. then I scroll down and you’ve already got it 
Storch, I’m not wasting my time with you…
:nook:
Great minds think alike:~D (just kidding).
UTD, one more time to clarify:
"I don't know if the UN did turn down an offer for protection, but if it did, it was not correct and it shouldn't have been allowed to turn it down"
Now that is not just your usual "blame America" mojo.. y'see, America has an interest in not seeing the UN harmed and thusly in protecting the UN. Had a diplomat declined a US offer, we should have reiterated and then verified higher up the chain, and if the answer is still negative we explain why they need security.
I'm sure now someone will bring up the Red Cross.. different dynamic, they're apolitical, etc etc..
Ya just did. But O.K. You guys just keep nailing us. More and more proof that the Iraqis were not responsible for blowing up people at the U.N.
Storch, your argument would be tolerable if only you'd realize that I never so much as implied that anyone other than Iraqis, or foreign terrorist sympathisers, committed the hit. My comments are geared at how we can prevent them from doing it again.
This is just too much like Alice in Wonderland logic to believe.
Let me get this stratight. The head of the organization that turned down protection and security of US forces says his organization had no right to turn down the protection. Therefore, when the US honored the UN wishes to keep our forces away and it gets pummeled the country offering the protection is to blame not his own organization for turning protection down. 
So clearly Annan is saying that the US should not allow the UN to make certain decisions for itself and if the UN does make a decision that the US believes is incorrect, the US should ignore the UN and proceed in accordance with what the US believes is best.
Hmmm… I thought we tried that tactic in invading Iraq to begin with and got lambasted for doing so.
Storch,
I am completely following your line of thought.
It's funny, because the posts I have done from Salam Pax have a lot more common sense. He is an Iraqi, and he is railing against the jerks who are attempting to throw the country into chaos. He at least has the sense to ask, "who pulled the trigger".
In the farsical world of Gupsistan it is far more fashionable to blame the steel company that sold the steel to the gun maker who sold the gun to a wholesaler, who sold the gun to a retailer who sold the gun to an individual who later pulled the trigger......
Now if the bomb used to destroy the hotel has been US made, then there would be great hue and cry, but the fact that it was Soviet made doesn't suit the predisposition here, ergo no mention of that little fact.
The US will end up having to flood the country with more troops, and impose some security. It will not be pretty, but it will have to do.
There is some sense to the fact that no one likes to be invaded. On the other hand, the military was used to crush the people of Iraq, and the remnants are largely out of work out of power and pi$$ed off. Add to that some foreign extremeist types, some Iranian interference and the Iraqi people continue to suffer. The vision of Iraq as a sophisticated well educated population is only partly true. It is also a brutal frikin' place, where deviants and sociopaths had decades of training on the brutal repression of people. They are the ones who give not a whit who they kill, witness the UN blast. It is entirely possible that the UN blast will rally the Iraqi people to help get rid of these thugs once and for all. Drop a dime to your local US command, and get rid of a problem...
The absolute worst thing that could happen is for the US to withdraw. The slaughter and chaos that would descend on the country would be horrific. There is no UN force that could be raised to muster 200k troops to control the country, and the UN has an abysmal record at preventing massacres and clan fighting. The summer will be winding down soon, and the brutal temps will abate, bringing relief to all involved. While the UN blast may make headlines it would be foolish to assume that Baghdad is a proxy for the whole country.
The worst part of this is that Iraq is going to become a battle ground for Islamic extremists and the US. The Iraqi people will be trapped right in the middle.
The worst part of this is that Iraq is going to become a battle ground for Islamic extremists and the US. The Iraqi people will be trapped right in the middle.
^
That's the result of this invasion mess, the US has successfully done what Saddam would never have done. I have a feeling this is the beginning, and Osama has the last laugh.
**Sanctions Harden Iraqis Attitude to U.N.**, Jamie Tarabay, Yahoo, 23 August 2003
BAGHDAD, Iraq - When a truck packed with explosives blew up outside the United Nations compound in Baghdad and killed at least 23 people, much of the world recoiled in shock, horrified anyone would attack an organization known everywhere for its good works.
Everywhere, that is, except in Iraq, where there is deep ambivalence toward the world body. For many Iraqis, the United Nations was synonymous with economic hardship — responsible for much of the everyday misery here.
The crippling international sanctions imposed by the world body after Iraq invaded Kuwait 12 years ago have been blamed for everything from high infant mortality rates to a ban on ice cream.
Geoff Keele, a spokesman for UNICEF who has worked in Iraq since June 2002, said under the previous government, the state press — the only source of information for people — would condemn the United Nations regularly, blaming it for the lack of quality health care.
“So there are people who are out there who do feel that the United Nations is to blame for a lot of the situations they find themselves in right now in this country,” Keele said.
Many Iraqis couldn’t separate U.N. humanitarian programs from the political measures meted out by its member states. For them, the same organization that tried to fund schools and bring in rice and flour under the Oil for Food Program was also the instrument that laid the groundwork for the 1991 Gulf War.
The 12 years of sanctions that followed did nothing to diminish the United Nations’ image as a lackey for the United States. “When you talk to me about the United Nations, what comes to mind is a political organization,” said Moaid Al Rawi, 27, in his electrical appliance store in downtown Baghdad. “I don’t consider their humanitarian contribution to be so great for us here. But don’t get me wrong,” he quickly added, “no one agrees with what happened.”
Tuesday’s bomb, which blew off the facade of part of the three-story Canal Hotel, killed Iraqis and U.N. staffers, including the top U.N. envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello, and wounded more than 100 others. FBI agents combing through the evidence say the blast was the work of a suicide bomber.
U.S. officials in Iraq have said that foreign terrorists are infiltrating the country to try to undermine the U.S.-led Coalition and its mission to rebuild Iraq. But they stopped short of blaming non-Iraqi militants for the bombing.
FBI agents have surmised that the enormous payload of explosives most likely came from Iraqi military caches of Saddam Hussein’s former regime, something to which an Iraqi, not a foreigner, would have access.
“While most people in Iraq right now are absolutely shocked by what has happened and they don’t like to believe that Iraqis are capable of this kind of act, there are some who are much more indifferent to what has happened,” Keele said. “A lot of that has to do with the fact that the United Nations has been associated with something like comprehensive economic sanctions.”
Iraqis had to make do without ice cream and chocolate while sanctions were in place, since the government rationed sugar and goods that required it were banned from production. Anyone switching on a television set would find either Saddam, a reading from Islam’s holy Quran or a blasting diatribe against the U.N. sanctions.
Students taking high-school examinations were expected to write an essay on Saddam, the Israeli-Palestinian issue or how sanctions had affected their lives. There were weekly school assemblies where teachers would give lectures on the evil consequences of the sanctions. Students were regularly pulled out of class to march in demonstrations against the United Nations.
Nevertheless, the U.N. officials said they believed the organization’s multinational nature and desire to help rebuild would win over Iraqis. One official said the organization did not want a big U.S. military presence at its headquarters out of fear it would compromise humanitarian work.
It didn’t help that the Canal Hotel, which housed many of the humanitarian agencies, had been the office of the U.N. weapons inspectors before the war. Anas Madah, 26, blamed the inspectors and their aborted mission to search Iraq for banned weapons of mass destruction for the onset of the U.S.-led invasion and Iraqis’ economic woes.
“This is all because of the United Nations — the lack of security, no jobs. The United Nations could have prevented the war; wasn’t the whole world against it?” he asked.
Still, other Iraqis sought to affirm that the world body was not only welcome here, but necessary to the country’s resuscitation.
“We don’t blame the U.N. for anything,” said Bassam Nasser, 29, who runs a shoe shop. “We hope they will stay and fix our problems.”
Since everyone here seems to love the Kurds - here’s an article from one Kurdish individual, Latif Rashid, a senior representative of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan:
West must allow us the chance to manage our own country, The Observer, 24 August 2003
Latif Rashid, a leading Kurdish politician, explains why he believes Iraq can still have a peaceful future despite last week’s violence.
“…in Baghdad, Muslim groups marched to show their support for the United Nations after the bombing”
[thumb=D]demo345.JPG[/thumb]
“Baghdadis joined in condemnation of the blast”
[thumb=D]demo348.JPG[/thumb]
Nice sentiment but ultimately useless…
UN staff protection vote passed](http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1059479348102)
The Security Council has voted unanimously for ways to improve protection for U.N. staff and other aid workers after the United States insisted members drop a reference to the International Criminal Court it opposes.
The Mexican-drafted resolution, co-sponsored by France, Germany, Russia, Bulgaria and Syria, was first circulated in April and then taken out of mothballs after the bombing of the U.N. headquarters on August 19 that killed 23 people and wounded many others.
It urges nations to prosecute perpetrators of crimes against U.N. workers and those from other relief or nongovernmental organizations engaged in humanitarian efforts. It says states should adopt laws ensuring that violence against humanitarian workers is treated as a war crime.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan told the council that the “vicious attack” on U.N. headquarters shows what to expect “if we allow the impression to continue gaining ground that international workers are a soft and cost-free target.”
“Impunity for those who commit such unpardonable crimes cannot stand.” Annan said. “There must be action,” through prosecution by states of those responsible for such crimes.
While there was little disagreement on the purpose of the resolution, a mention in the document of the new International Criminal Court drew objections from the Bush administration, which vehemently opposes the Netherlands-based tribunal.
Mexico and its allies dropped specific mention of the court, whose statutes spell out what a war crime is. But they then faced U.S. objections about defining war crimes, particularly if an aid worker is injured unintentionally.
At one point, Mexico and France rejected an amendment by Germany, a co-sponsor, that the United States had accepted. Mexico then rewrote a longer version.
UNDERLYING BITTERNESS
Diplomats said underlying debates on the resolution was bitterness among some council members over U.S. positions on Iraq as well as on the International Criminal Court, with France and Mexico especially challenging the United States.
“The basic bottom line is that the resolution has to state in clear and unequivocal terms that an attack against humanitarian workers is a war crime,” said Mexico’s U.N. ambassador, Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, adding that he regretted the court had to be deleted from the document for the sake of unity.
Complimenting Aguilar Zinser on his effort, U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said the resolution “does not in itself create any new international legal obligations but rather urges concerned parties to implement their existing international legal obligations.”
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell discussed the resolution by telephone with Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez in an effort to get changes.
With the Mexican initiative being portrayed as a direct challenge to the United States, Derbez told reporters: “I want to tell you that this has not generated any problem with the United States. That’s a perception. You don’t really know the conversations we are having.”
The Bush administration opposes the new court, set up to try perpetrators of the world’s most heinous crimes, as an infringement of U.S. sovereignty and a potential venue for frivolous lawsuits against U.S. officials abroad.
The 91 nations that have ratified the treaty argue the court has enough safeguards to protect nations against politically motivated prosecutions.
Iraqis Impatient for Promised Democracy
Yahoo News, 27 August 2003
**