| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| U.S. officials: U.N. refused Iraq offer |
| 2003-08-20 |
| EFL 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. Just weeks ago, U.S. forces in Iraq began erecting labyrinthine barriers around nonmilitary, "soft" targets in Baghdad to guard against bombings like Tuesday’s at U.N. headquarters. FBI officials in Baghdad said Wednesday the explosives used in the bombing included about 1,000 pounds of old weaponry, including one single 500-pound bomb. They were left on a flatbed truck parked outside the wall around the U.N. compound. American military and civilian officials in Iraq warned repeatedly over the last two months that car bombings or similar surprise attacks were strong possibilities. etc. I just can’t find it in my heart to make a snide remark about this... |
| Posted by:snellenr |
| #10 Interesting take Don. But not probable. No the UN needs to ditch the baby blue and get a yellow smilley face. Then when they grow up they could put a red circle around it with a red slash thats says "Hell no" |
| Posted by: Lucky 2003-8-21 12:06:12 AM |
| #9 It's too bad they had to learn the hard way that these Islamist scumbags want us all dead. It would be nice if they would heed the lesson. Unfortunately, with mush minds like Kofi in charge, I doubt they will. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2003-8-20 7:53:31 PM |
| #8 Reaching over and snatching a tin foil hat...IIRC the opposition groups back in the o'days of Saddam had plans and, at one time or another, bomb(s) trying to take out the old man. Never could get the opportunity. Could it be that someone who suffered under Saddam, someone who saw his family butchered, was able to put together the idea that the UN had been responsible for keeping Saddam in power as much as Saddam himself. He couldn't get Saddam, but he could get those who made the last ten years possible. Removes tin foil hat...o'that hurt. |
| Posted by: Don 2003-8-20 7:28:42 PM |
| #7 Unbelievable. I just read Kofi Annan's response to the report that the UN rejected additional security from the US. He still manages to blame the US. "It is those with responsibility for security and law and order who have intelligence which determines what action was taken," he said. "I don't know if the United Nations did turn down an offer for protection. But if it did, it was not correct and they should not have been allowed to turn it down." Can you imagine the reaction if the US had "not allowed" the UN to reject additional security? Everyone would be screaming that the US was disrespecting the UN's ability to make its own choices and was making the UN a target by surrounding its office building with US troops. I had recently started to regain some respect for Kofi, but his remarks today are stunningly stupid. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-8-20 6:58:01 PM |
| #6 The Baghdad bombing puts me in a difficult dilemma. On the one hand I want to say, what the hell did you think we were talking about when we said we're fighting nutjob terrorists? You think you're immune because you slap some pale blue paint on your stuff? On the other hand, perfectly decent people and innocents died there and I cannot bring myself to launch into an I-told-you-so rant. But I am sick to death of the people who assign all blame for anything bad to us. For a bunch of supposedly sophisticated thinkers, their conclusions are remarkably the same from problem to problem--USA bad. Kill the SOBs. They'll keep killing until we do. |
| Posted by: BJD (The Dignified Rant) 2003-8-20 5:38:32 PM |
| #5 I heard several commentators, including one from BBC, place the blame for the UN office bombing on the U.S. because, as the occupying force, the U.S. is responsible for security in the country. What do you think the chances are that the BBC will correct the false impression it created by informing its viewers that the U.S. offered additional security, but the U.N. rejected it? Can you say "when hell freezes over?" |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-8-20 4:49:20 PM |
| #4 Everything's our fault. Absolutely everything. Even the 500-pound bomb. If we had just let Saddam roll over every country in the region, there probably wouldn't have been a 500-pound bomb anywhere near Baghdad. Yep, definitely our fault. |
| Posted by: Tom 2003-8-20 4:34:18 PM |
| #3 The BBC news report last night made it pretty clear the U.S. was to blame for... well, pretty much everything of course. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-8-20 2:41:48 PM |
| #2 You get more results with a smile and a gun than with a smile alone... |
| Posted by: mojo 2003-8-20 1:42:00 PM |
| #1 Just another example of that UN mentality that says debate and flowers will somehow make the world a better place. |
| Posted by: Flaming Sword 2003-8-20 12:52:45 PM |