bigpoppanils Posted August 25 Report Share Posted August 25 Last Updated: Monday, 25 August, 2003, 08:40 GMT 09:40 UK BBC NewsRed Cross cuts Iraq operationsA number of aid agencies are reducing their operations in Iraq The International Committee of the Red Cross is cutting back its operations in Iraq after warnings that it could be targeted for attack. The number of foreign staff in Baghdad is being reduced to about 50 as the level of violence throughout the country has failed to abate and the organisation fears that US-led forces cannot ensure security. "It's a very difficult decision. It's a heartbreaking decision for us to reduce our staff," Nada Doumani of the ICRC told the BBC. "We believe these warnings are to be taken seriously... It's very depressing for the Iraqis to realise that after four months... they don't feel safe in their own country." The Red Cross tends to stay put when everyone else goes, so its decision to reduce staff is likely to be followed by other agencies, the BBC's Susannah Price in Baghdad says. Different organisations are reviewing their operations, following Tuesday's bombing of the United Nations compound in Baghdad, in which more than 20 people died. Attacks against Iraqi civilians have also continued, with three killed and nine injured in an assassination attempt on leading Shia Muslim cleric Grand Ayatollah Seyed Mohammed Said al-Hakim in the Iraqi holy city of Najaf. The cleric received only scratches in the blast at his office on Sunday afternoon but two of his bodyguards and a driver were killed. Essential services The organisation said it would be forced to cut services further if the threat to its staff remained. The ICRC in Baghdad is involved in a number of key operations which include: Supplying hospitals with medical equipment and drugs Visiting those detained by the American forces Helping families trace missing relatives Supplying the only hospital in Baghdad for the mentally ill The UN, which lost its top envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello in the Baghdad compound blast, has sent non-essential administrative staff out of the country. In another development on Sunday, medical personnel working for Spain's Movement for Peace, Disarmament and Liberty returned from Iraq. "Baghdad is a lawless city," said Doctor Gabriel Espana on arrival in Madrid. Loyalist suspects The assassination attempt on Ayatollah al-Hakim took place when a device connected to a gas canister went off near his office after he had just returned from midday prayers. A spokesman for the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Sciri) - a leading Shia Muslim organisation - said a strange man had been seen before the blast. Aid agencies affected ICRC - reducing Baghdad staff UN - non-essential admin staff leaving Movement for Peace, Disarmament and Liberty - medics returned to Spain One Shia official, Mohsen al-Hakim, said the prime suspects for the attack were Saddam loyalists wishing to stir up trouble between Shia and Sunni Muslims. However, Ayatollah al-Hakim was one of a group of three top Shia leaders issued death threats by a rival Shia cleric shortly after Saddam Hussein was toppled on 9 April. Our correspondent says it seems likely the attack was linked to a power struggle within the Shia community. Ayatollah al-Hakim is a leading member of the Hawza, the leading Shia seminary in Iraq. The Hawza is led by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, whom the US-led coalition praises for his moderate views. But more hardline Shia groups have made their opposition to the coalition forces clear, our correspondent says. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted August 25 Report Share Posted August 25 Sad, because it means terror is winning.Why wouldn't the UN send troops/peacekeepers/blue hats to protect UN agencies and NGO's?........unconditionally....Isn't it a little ridiculous that the UN will not get involved unless basically the U.S. says " we need you" in writing, and certain people need a "cut of the pie".....Shouldn't the UN be more concerned with the Iraqi people....I know they never gave a shit about them in the past, but why not now?How can Kofi demand US troops in Liberia, but then say the UN is unwilling to help in Iraq without conditions?....It is becoming more and more clear that the UN and certain "allies" would have preferred to have Saddam filling mass graves than make the effort to make Iraq a better place......I look forward to the pro-UN hypocrites and Bush haters to claim "this is why we needed to go through the UN" in the first place----I think it is obvious the UN is useless.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seximofo2k Posted August 25 Report Share Posted August 25 Its only usefull when you quote the resolution 1441 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted August 25 Report Share Posted August 25 Originally posted by seximofo2k Its only usefull when you quote the resolution 1441 Nice try clueless one....but the point of quoting 1441 is to show consensus on an issue, yet a lack of will to execute or enforce... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigpoppanils Posted August 25 Author Report Share Posted August 25 Originally posted by igloo I look forward to the pro-UN hypocrites and Bush haters to claim "this is why we needed to go through the UN" in the first place----I think it is obvious the UN is useless.... in case you didnt notice, the US went in without UN approval. why should the UN have to help clean up the mess? I thought the US and its "coalition" were able to do this by themselves? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted August 25 Report Share Posted August 25 Originally posted by bigpoppanils in case you didnt notice, the US went in without UN approval. why should the UN have to help clean up the mess? That is exactly my point.......the UN feels free to have the U.S. continually clean up their messes........and we doBut now, the U.N. will only get involved in something that they should have been so from the start, only if there is "conditions"???Doesn't that tell you something about the UN, and some Security Council members???France and Russia only will get involved now if they get oil contracts.....bottom line......you find nothing wrong or hypocritical about this??...So, prior to the war, if the US told France and Russia you get some oil contracts, and they voted for the war---this makes UN approval and the war "justified" now in your mind?Why can't you get it through your leftist skull the real reasons why the UN did not support this?......They are useless as a governing body.....useless......but they can have a significant role and purpose in some things.....like certain aspects of nation building.....and they shouldAnd be careful how you define "mess"....Bosnia/Kosovo was a mess, Rwanda was a mess, Liberias was a mess......need I go on?Perhaps the UN would learn a lesson, and be pro-active for a change...Iraq is not a mess, no matter how much the anti-war promotes their wish......it was a serious war, and still is, and is a massive, bold undertaking that requires a monumental effort and strong will....Not a bunch of spineless, clueless naysayers who unequivically demand complete paradise after 5 months...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigpoppanils Posted August 25 Author Report Share Posted August 25 Originally posted by igloo .the UN feels free to have the U.S. continually clean up their messes........and we do the US didnt lift a finger to help the UN in Rwanda. The US hasnt done much of anything in Liberia either. Bosnia isnt the same as Iraq. We did not express greivance towards them when they got involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted August 25 Report Share Posted August 25 Originally posted by bigpoppanils the US didnt lift a finger to help the UN in Rwanda. The US hasnt done much of anything in Liberia either. Bosnia isnt the same as Iraq. We did not express greivance towards them when they got involved. You are missing the point....big time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigpoppanils Posted August 25 Author Report Share Posted August 25 Originally posted by igloo You are missing the point....big time ah yes. the old igloo combo: when name calling fails, scream "good job missing the point!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted August 25 Report Share Posted August 25 Originally posted by bigpoppanils ah yes. the old igloo combo: when name calling fails, scream "good job missing the point!" Nice try but wrong....I have spelled it out twice on this thread.....if you can't understand that is your issue.....And as usual, you do nothing but go round and round without addressing an issue head on---just short, general statements that just ineffectively bounce around without any significant meaning, or weakly address an issue by bringing up another issue....Any way you add it up, you miss the point and have bored me.....per usual Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sassa Posted August 25 Report Share Posted August 25 Originally posted by bigpoppanils ah yes. the old igloo combo: when name calling fails, scream "good job missing the point!" :laugh: how true.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted August 25 Report Share Posted August 25 Originally posted by sassa :laugh: how true.... The blind leading the blind..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sassa Posted August 25 Report Share Posted August 25 Originally posted by igloo The blind leading the blind..... if anyone is blind about what's going on in the world, it's you. I think that was pretty obvious from the first time you started posting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted August 25 Report Share Posted August 25 Originally posted by sassa if anyone is blind about what's going on in the world, it's you. I think that was pretty obvious from the first time you started posting. sssssshhhhhh.....It really is necessary after the ass kicking you have been getting here lately, and how easily it is to expose you as a clownsssshhhhhhh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sassa Posted August 25 Report Share Posted August 25 Originally posted by igloo sssssshhhhhh.....It really is necessary after the ass kicking you have been getting here lately, and how easily it is to expose you as a clownsssshhhhhhh :laugh: :blah: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr mahs Posted August 25 Report Share Posted August 25 Originally posted by igloo That is exactly my point.......the UN feels free to have the U.S. continually clean up their messes........and we doBut now, the U.N. will only get involved in something that they should have been so from the start, only if there is "conditions"???Doesn't that tell you something about the UN, and some Security Council members???France and Russia only will get involved now if they get oil contracts.....bottom line......you find nothing wrong or hypocritical about this??...So, prior to the war, if the US told France and Russia you get some oil contracts, and they voted for the war---this makes UN approval and the war "justified" now in your mind?Why can't you get it through your leftist skull the real reasons why the UN did not support this?......They are useless as a governing body.....useless......but they can have a significant role and purpose in some things.....like certain aspects of nation building.....and they shouldAnd be careful how you define "mess"....Bosnia/Kosovo was a mess, Rwanda was a mess, Liberias was a mess......need I go on?Perhaps the UN would learn a lesson, and be pro-active for a change...Iraq is not a mess, no matter how much the anti-war promotes their wish......it was a serious war, and still is, and is a massive, bold undertaking that requires a monumental effort and strong will....Not a bunch of spineless, clueless naysayers who unequivically demand complete paradise after 5 months...... I only disagree with 1 part... If Russia and certain other countries want whats owed to them as long as the U.S. is at the controls then hey at least it's not tax payers money right? I mean c'mon let's face it, once this puppy is going full blast theres enough for every Iraqi AND payment of former debts that can be used as bait for involvemnet... If promised to be repayed would'nt it make the time suffered for EVERYONE alot less?? so yeah it's hypocritical but the U.S has to give a little too... Incentives R whats going to get this bitch off and running... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.