 |
| |
|
|
SlowwHand
|
 |
of The Cooler
Sep 1999
time: 23:31
|
|
And who does it hurt? Iraqi people.
Red Cross May Cut Back After Iraqi Blasts
By ALEXANDER G. HIGGINS
Oct 27, 2003 11:40 AM EST
The international Red Cross said Monday it is considering cutting back its operations in Iraq after a bomb attack on its Baghdad headquarters that shook the neutral Swiss-run organization.
The attack killed two Iraqi employees of the International Committee of the Red Cross and as many as 10 other people outside the agency's compound, said agency spokesman Florian Westphal.
"Such an attack is a major blow for us," Westphal told The Associated Press. "It's a big shock. It is obviously impossible to move onto a normal day's business, so we really have to step back and take stock."
United Nations aid agencies also reacted with shock, but said it was unlikely their operations would be affected: They already had cut back to skeleton staffs because of the Aug. 19 truck bombing of U.N. headquarters in Baghdad.
Several ICRC employees were slightly injured inside the compound, Westphal said.
He said ICRC officials in Baghdad and at the Geneva headquarters were reviewing operations.
"It's too early for us at the moment to say how this attack will impact on our activities," Westphal said. "We will have a fairly clear idea within the next few days how we want to proceed."
He said much of the ICRC operation focuses on the agency's visits to prisoners held by coalition forces and the Iraqi police - a main part of the agency's mandate under the Geneva Conventions on warfare and occupation.
It also offers emergency medical aid in conjunction with the Iraqi Red Crescent, provides water and sanitation and educates Iraqis on how to avoid land mines and other explosives left over from warfare.
Westphal said that weeks ago the agency had received "unspecified warnings that we may at one stage or another be the targets of an attack," but added that the ICRC didn't know who would want to target the organization.
The warnings had been "relayed" to the ICRC, Westphal said.
"They were not in any way specific and it was really impossible to read too much into that except obviously that the situation is extremely difficult and dangerous," he added.
Last August the ICRC disclosed that it had received warnings of a threat and said it had been cutting back on its staff since a Sri Lankan staffer was killed July 22 south of Baghdad.
U.N. agencies, which scaled back their operations following the August attack, saw Monday's bombing as another assault on the very people trying to help Iraqis.
"Everybody is quite shaken about another attack on a humanitarian agency and a close partner," said Ron Redmond, spokesman for the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees in Geneva.
Most of the foreign staff have remained outside Iraq since the August attack, whose 23 victims included the top U.N. envoy to Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello.
But spokeswoman Fadela Chaib of the World Health Organization said, "We are seriously concerned about the consequences, not only in terms of loss of life but also in terms of reducing further the international presence in the country."
Christiane Berthiaume of the World Food Program said her agency would be able to continue its distribution of food in Iraq because it is mostly handled by a network of 44,000 Iraqi agents.
The ICRC was the main international relief organization to maintain operations in Baghdad and Basra during the U.S.-led invasion earlier this year, keeping six international staffers and several dozen Iraqis to provide help to hospitals.
"We have been in Iraq since 1980," said Westphal.
The ICRC, which provided relief during the Iran-Iraq war and the Gulf War, currently has 30-40 international staff and several hundred Iraqis working for it throughout the country, Westphal said.
"This attack yet again primarily hurts Iraqis, which is the particular tragedy, be it our staff or others who happened to be in this area," Westphal said.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jac de Molay
|
 |
Detroit
Sep 2001
time: 05:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
According to a dark haired, bespeckled, makeupless "peace activist" who just appeared on CNN to comment on yesterday's march on Washington, the solution to Iraq would be for the Unites States to pull out now and turn Iraq over to the UN. According to her, the attacks on the UN and other international agencies are solely motivated by their "perceived" support of the American occupation. She said that once the UN was in charge, Saddam would surrender, or at least stop fighting, and support a democratic regime in Baghdad.
Really? |
This person is a prime example of why so many of us opposed to the war avoid the so-called "movement" like a plague. It's basically a confused shambles of people who harbor conspiracy theories or spout off crap like this.
Obviously, we can't pull out no matter what. And the UN, while useful in many respects, are lousy military peacekeepers. Bush sucked us into this money pit, and we're gonna be stuck for a least 6-7 years.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Fez, I am not sure that the liberals want a bloodbath in Iraq. They simply want the US out and will do and say anything to achieve that objective including the statement that all will be peaceful in Iraq if the US, the cause of all evil in the world in the liberal view, would simply leave. |
Well, it's fun to charicature your political opponents -- I do it too -- but this is wrong, or at least only applies to some liberals. Liberals right now are furious that, having proceeded with Iraq to begin with, the Bush administration has done such a half-assed job of it. Liberals are furious that they were ignored when they said "it's going to be a bloodbath," and are still being ignored when they say, "see? We told you so. This should have been handled differently." Liberals are furious that Bush & Co. keep changing their story about why we're in Iraq and what we expected the occupation to be like, and getting away with it.
But we are, most of us, sensible enough to know that a US pullout at this point will just turn Iraq into that other shining star of Bush foreign policy, Afghanistan. Nobody wants that.
Still, even though we too ar committed to seeing this thing through, it doesn't chang the fact that the Bushies were wrong, wrong, wrong: wrong about the WMD, wrong about the way our "liberating" troops in Baghdad would be treated, wrong about how many troops we would need, wrong about how much it was going to cost, wrong about how long it was all going to take. We are like passengers in a plane being piloted by a drunk; of course we can't just get out, but don't expect us to be happy about the situation.
edited for typos
Last edited by Rufus T. Firefly on 28-10-2003 at 12:22
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-10-2003 22:59
|
|