Annan will not send UN staff to an insecure Iraq

NNN0LHI

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-17-03 03:01 PM
Original message

Annan will not send UN staff to an insecure Iraq

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N17141639.htm

UNITED NATIONS, Oct 17 (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan believes the security situation in Iraq is still too risky to send staff back, despite calls for the United Nations to play a political role, his spokesman said on Friday.

The 15-member U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted a key resolution on Thursday that gives the United Nations scope to play a political role in ushering Iraq towards full sovereignty. The document also appeals for more troops and cash to help support the beleaguered U.S. occupation.

"The security situation does not permit us to send any additional staff into Iraq," U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard said.

Annan, he said, would carry out his duties under the resolution, "bearing in mind his special responsibility for the security of his staff."

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MasonJar

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-17-03 05:07 PM
Response to Original message

1. Annan

That seems a wise decision when one considers that his good friend and important UN envoy, who had been in the world's most dangerous places, was killed

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

0007

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-17-03 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #1

5. Annan is being a hell of a lot smarter

than the senate who okayed 87B.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

neuvocat

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-17-03 05:11 PM
Response to Original message

2. Serves Bush right.

He went against the U.N. so that the U.S. could go in there unwarranted and now that he wants help, he's not gonna get it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DuctapeFatwa

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-17-03 05:55 PM
Response to Original message

3. Why should he? All they did was hand out food, which is about to be banned

Most of the Iraqi population has been dependent on UN food handouts, lots of course due to the 12 years of sanctions, but since the invasion and the destruction of pretty much anything with the potential to impede population reduction operations, it is now up to some huge % of the people which the regime intends to empower by liberating them from the crutch of even scant comestibles.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Gin

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-17-03 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #3

4. The new resolution gave bush a big vote....and the US gets Nada..Zilch..

no troops or funds. Annan held up his part to get the vote..BFD..unanimous..

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DuctapeFatwa

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-17-03 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #4

6. As long as the US is still there, killing Iraqis who wants to give them $?

Anything anyone would give would go to Halliburton and KBR.

If anybody or any country really wants to give them $ why not just write a check directly to them, no need to go through all this "oh it's for Iraq" bullshit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Wed May 01st 2024, 03:49 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.