UN's Annan blasts US over lack of security in Iraq

Vancouver Sun/CanWest News Service ^ | 21 Aug 2003 | Steven Edwards and Adrian Humphreys

[rrrod]

the h-ll with him and the un!

[smith288]

Annan is an a$$hole. Excuse my language...but this guy is the epitomy of Evil is good and good is evil.

[SouthernFreebird]

Whats that called again...? pass the buck.

[chiefqc]

"We will carry on our work. We shall not be deterred," he said as he sat in his secure office as far away from the danger as one could be.

What a worthless twit.

[ClearCase_guy]

Hmmmmm. Security in Iraq seems to be challenging. Maybe, if there was some "international" organization it could play a role in combatting violence in third world countries. This sort of organization would be composed of a bunch of Nations, that could, you know, Unite and actually work to end violent terrorist attacks.

But, since no such thing exists, I guess the USA will do the best it can, unilaterally. And of course, we don't while when we take casualties.

[Phantom Lord]

The US offered security and they denied it. And this morning on Fox and Friends they had some UN guy and they asked him if they would accept US security at their new location and he said NO! Said they do not want any coalition forces to help as it will intimidate those wanting to come to them. Also, he said they do not plan on having barracades and other security measures as that too would be intimidating!

If that is their attitude, then I will have no sympathy the next time they are attacked and killed. They have no interest in protecting themselves. You get what you ask for.

[Centurion2000]

Mayne that little butthead should have asked the UN delegation if they ASKED for security. Oh wait, we OFFERED, the UN pukes REFUSED the offer of security.

[WorkingClassFilth]

Too bad for anyone to have died in Iraq, but if the UN had a wild hair because it was not invited to lead the charge, then they should have at least provided their own damn security.

Those people knew the risks and now they have died for their two-faced socialist ideology. A stark contrast to the nations that have taken on the terror challenge and are commiting their wealth and soldiers to the REAL betterment of the world.

My sole regret is that Anan was not present in Baghdad.

[Maelstrom]

Send these morons the article about UN refusal of US troops prior to the bombing.

[CatoRenasci]

The UN opposed us in the war, demanded we turn reconstruction and control of the country to them, and refuses our security. And has the temerity to criticize us when the get attacked by the people they want to help?

Tell them F**k you and the horse you rode in on!

[auboy]

Koffing Anus once again has diarrhea of the mouth. Just who in the heck appointed him KING? He is the friend of dictators and terrorists.

[Bikers4Bush]

All reports I have read stated that the un in Iraq TURnED DOWN the offer to have the U.S. soldiers guard the compund.

They played with fire and they got burned.

[Guillermo]

Yes...they didn't want US Troops around, because it might scare away those who would be seeking their help.

In a side note, Osama ranted against the UN. The Islamofascists despise the UN too.

[rrrod]

as i understand it , there is to be another vote in the un(scum) concerning iraq again...what should we do if france germany and russia stab us in the back again???

[mrtysmm]

This dispute over the security arrangements is nothing but back-tracking. The UN decided they didn't want a large presence of Americans outside their complex...their decision. Not that it's literally "exploded" in their faces, they refuse to take responsibility. Typical UN behavour.

[ClearCase_guy]

what should we do if france germany and russia stab us in the back again???

Nuke them from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

--- "Aliens"

[PBRSTREETGANG]

U.N. = Useless Nitwits

[WorkingClassFilth]

Here's a juicy little article from only a week or two back. It's got everything - Anan's hypocricy, UN thuggery, 'Let them eat cake-ism,' Clinton skullduggery, illegal arms sales and possession and, of course, lies, lies and more lies. I tried the link and couldn't get it to work, but the article should be in the Washington Times archives someplace. Here it is...

U.N. building to lose submachine gun stash

By Stewart Stogel
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
August 12, 2003

NEW YORK — The United Nations, under pressure from the Bush administration, has decided to move a stash of submachine guns out of the organization's New York City headquarters. The MP5s, made by Heckler and Koch of Germany, are to be moved to U.N. peacekeeping operations overseas, State Department sources said.

The United Nations purchased the restricted weapons for the personal protection of Secretary-General Kofi Annan in his travels around the New York metropolitan area. The weapons often were visible in the support van of Mr. Annan's motorcade as it moved throughout the city.

It was not clear why Mr. Annan's bodyguards needed such weapons, said sources within the State Department's Diplomatic Security Service (DSS). Under a U.S. agreement with the United Nations, DSS bears ultimate responsibility for Mr. Annan's protection within the borders of the United States.

Models of the MP5 made since 1986 may be purchased only by law-enforcement agencies. The U.N. security force does not have "law-enforcement status," explained a source at the U.S. mission in New York. U.N. Security Chief Michael McCann made the decision to obtain the weapons in 1998, U.S. government sources said. Mr. McCann declined to comment but said through a spokeswoman: "The United Nations has been working closely with the United States" to resolve the issue.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which regulates the sale and purchase of the MP5s, originally denied the United Nations permission to purchase the guns. Key factors were the U.N. security department's lack of formal status as a law-enforcement agency and the risk of non-U.S. citizens gaining access to the weapons, State Department sources said.

The United Nations, aided by senior officials in the Clinton administration, persuaded the ATF to grant permission. In February 2002, the Bush administration ordered a review of the U.N. security officers' use of the weapons. Shortly after the 2002 ATF examination, U.N. security officials told The Washington Times, the MP5s were removed from Mr. Annan's security detail and locked up.

State Department sources said the United Nations and ATF never reached an accommodation that would have allowed the rifles back on the streets of New York. The United Nations agreed to transfer the weapons outside the United States. It was not clear when the weapons were to be moved. "We were told that the guns are headed to U.N. peacekeeping operations," said one U.S. diplomat.

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030811-112153-1373r.htm

[veronica]

What an ungrateful wretch.