Un Faulted For Poor Security In Baghdad

[Morgan]

And the Liberals and Democrats want the UN to run the world's army to protect us, when the UN shows itself to be too incompetent to protect its own foreign aid workers??? Who, but the UN, would appoint a lawyer to head security-is it because he warmed the chair the longest? I wonder if CBC will run this story to "update" their initial reporting that implied that the US was at fault?

http://news.yahoo.com/?tmpl=story&cid=535&...e_mi_ea/un_iraq

U.N. Security Chief Asked to Step Aside

-The U.N. security coordinator has been asked to step aside while an independent team of experts assesses responsibility for the lapses in the August bombing of U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, U.N. officials said.

-In a letter to over 25,000 U.N. staffers worldwide on Friday, Annan said he planned to appoint an independent team, and promised to take immediate action to implement recommendations in a highly critical report by a U.N.-appointed panel.

-The report blamed "dysfunctional" U.N. security for unnecessary casualties. Former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari, who led the panel, said the United Nations must address the issue of accountability.

-Annan told the staff he was "gravely concerned" at the findings and was reviewing "the serious weaknesses" in the management of the U.N. security system as well as threats facing U.N. missions worldwide.

-It wasn't clear what will happen to Tun Myat, whose contract expires in the middle of next year. The 61-year-old British-trained lawyer from Myanmar has worked for the United Nations since 1979 and was the U.N. humanitarian coordinator in Iraq before taking the security job.

[Craig Read]

Morgan, good post. In the post modern version of world history, all is relative, power is to be eschewed and morality shown on one's sleeve, is the only armour needed.

If the UNO cannot even look after its own people, and bureaucrats, and cannot even defend its own resolutions, it abdicates respect, power and duty.

[SirRiff]

the first paragraph of the article specfically states

The U.N. security coordinator and acting head of the U.N. mission in Iraq (news - web sites) are stepping down while independent experts assess responsibility for lapses in the bombing of U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, U.N. officials announced Tuesday.

they are assessing responsibility for their lapses. nobody has

the security of the nation is absolutely the responsibilty of the US regardless of teh UNs security.

The report blamed "dysfunctional" U.N. security for unnecessary casualties. Former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari, who led the panel, said the United Nations (news - web sites) must address the issue of accountability.

the UN isn not responsible for stopping the bombings, teh US is, they are just responsible for reducing the casualties.

the UN definately needs to do better, but this isnt anythig close to a vindication for teh US. actually it proves that the UN cannot rely on US protection as the occupying force.

actually the US SHOULD turn it over to the UN so teh world can so how hard it is to maintain order. then the US would get some respect in that regard.

SirRIff

[KrustyKidd]

I agree. The US should wait for a UN force to show up that is able to take over and allow Democratic Rule to be implemented. Until such a force is able (or even tabled LOL) then the US must stay in place. BTW Riff. Get out your Janes and tell us all what conglomerate of forces can do this, then subtract those that are communist, take away those who have their own dreams of financial colonialism and then come back. Then we will discuss who amongst those will even think about showing up, In the meantime, let's stick to realistic subjects. Like how democracy is slowely taking place in Iraq, much to the chagrin of those who's sole reason to live is to say "I told you so." You know, the same ones who mistakenly said the US would get bogged down during the ground war back in April. It really must suck to be wrong, time after pessimistic time. Ever wonder that you might be on a bad roll?

BTW, finding troops would free the US to free Syria or Iran. Keep us updated.

[Crusader]

I'm in the Modle Un in school, (I made a supernation and conquered it) but besides that, the UN is too restrained to deal with this. Only one organ of the Un can implement military force and thats the security council. That organ is even screwed up because the 5 permanet members France, UK, US, China, and Russia have veto power and can veto each other.

[SirRiff]

I agree. The US should wait for a UN force to show up that is able to take over and allow Democratic Rule to be implemented

you know that is the greatest crime of teh rest of the world, while the US is guilty of abusing its power supporting dictators for geo-political gain, the rest of the world is guilty of not supplying the muscle to do things in the democray way they preach.

in truth an organization of democratic nations each that contribute some % of their GDP to a international defense force is the only way these things can occur. of course that provokes the left out nations to make thier own pacts and become hostile, so the remedy is to include all nations like the UN so as not to create a more volatile situation.

BTW Riff. Get out your Janes and tell us all what conglomerate of forces can do this, then subtract those that are communist, take away those who have their own dreams of financial colonialism and then come back. Then we will discuss who amongst those will even think about showing up,

since when do only nice nations get to play? the US has troops in saudi arabia protecting their oil. the US has sent weapons to osamas crew, iran and iraq. sorry, but its a bit late to pretend that there is some moral requirement for military alliances. the US wrote the book on secret dealings with tyrants.

In the meantime, let's stick to realistic subjects. Like how democracy is slowely taking place in Iraq, much to the chagrin of those who's sole reason to live is to say "I told you so."

which iraq are you talking about? democracy is about representative government. there are no elections in the near future, so there is no democacy. for all we know the whole nation may fall into civil war.

when the US stabolizes the nation and completes democratic elections in a year or two, THEN you get to celebrate. anything before that is premature. hell what if americans demand the withdrawal of their troops? they dont seem to have a particularly long attention span these days.

SirRiff

[KrustyKidd]

Scince the US is running the show there I would imagine that they will give authority only to a nation they have something idealogiclly in common with and has the manpower. That usually is one of the "nice guys." It is not a moral judgement but only common sense. Do you think the US went to all this trouble only to turn it over to Iranian Peace Keepers or the French?

when the US stabolizes the nation and completes democratic elections in a year or two, THEN you get to celebrate. anything before that is premature. hell what if americans demand the withdrawal of their troops? they dont seem to have a particularly long attention span these days.

What if indeed? Cross that bridge when they come to it but for now just as you observed they are stabilizing the country so that free elections can happen. Good eye Riff!