|
19 Aug 03 - 10:30 PM (#1004989) Subject: BS: Bombing of UN Baghdad HQ From: GUEST,REALLY Depressed I just now heard the news about this. A United Nations spokeswoman said the bombing marked the deadliest attack on the organization in its history. Not only was the UN High Commissioner of Refugees, Sergio Vieira de Mello, among the dead, but also Rick Hooper, the United Nations' chief expert on Arab affairs; Nadia Younes, Vieira de Mello's chief of staff; Ranillo Buenaventura, head of the Iraq relief coordination office; Marilyn Manuel and Jean-Selim Kanaan, employees in Mr. Vieira de Mello's office; Chris Klein-Beckman, an the highest ranking Unicef official in Iraq; and Fiona Watson of Britain, who worked on the oil-for-food program, were also killed. A World Bank official in Washington said five of its employees were missing. Also missing was Arthur C. Helton, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, who was scheduled to meet with Mr. Vieira de Mello at the time of the bombing. Although Bremer is saying that there is no evidence that the suicide bomber(s) had targeted Vieira de Mello, the fact that they were able to hit the part of the building with the UN leadership in it, tells a chilling alternative story. This is a tremendous set back--the worst setback of the war so far, without a doubt. I'm just so depressed by this news. These were the people who were actually bringing help to the Iraqi people. This is just awful. Just bloody awful. |
|
20 Aug 03 - 07:46 AM (#1005121) Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of UN Baghdad HQ From: ard mhacha What a terrible pity the UN didn`t leave the US to blunder on in an unsolvable tangle. The US humiliated the UN and now that they realise they have bitten of more than they can chew, they ask for the UN`s help. The warmongers should have been left to sort out their own mess, good people have died in an unnecessary war. While the US remains in Iraq the killing and bombing will continue, they had no plan before they entered into the invasion and far less now. Ard Mhacha. |
|
20 Aug 03 - 08:14 AM (#1005134) Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of UN Baghdad HQ From: Rapparee To attack the UN...how sad, and how stupid. I grieve for those who were killed and hurt, just as I grieve for the Iraqi people and for my own countrymen and -women. I won't politicize it, just grieve for the stupid, useless, and irresponsible loss of life. |
|
20 Aug 03 - 10:29 AM (#1005192) Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of UN Baghdad HQ From: GUEST I am completely opposed to the US/UK war against Iraq, and it's occupation of the country. But I am also enough of a realist to know that it is essential, now that the US/UK are in a pacification/occupation stage, for the international community, particularly the UN, to remain in Iraq. Viera de Mello's expertise in human rights work was such an important counter balance to the excesses of the occupation forces. I pray they can get someone with the same expertise in there as quickly as possible. This attack, along with the sabotage over the weekend, and the car bomb attack on the Jordanian embassy last week, demonstrates and makes it crystal clear that the two administrations in the UK and the US couldn't have been more wrong and ill prepared for the task they took on in the Middle East. I don't understand why the media isn't talking about the "coincidence" of two deadly car bomb attacks, one in Baghdad, one in Jerusalem, and the possibility that they were orchestrated by terrorists groups working together to undermine the security of the entire region. Surely, this past week of devastation and violence will end up being a turning point in the so-called "war on terror". It is being made increasingly clear that while the Bush administration's "will" to "see this thing through" is being fervently met with an iron will on the side of Arab and Muslim terrorists, hell bent on driving the European and American presence out of the region. And of course, regardless of whether the "winner" in this stand-off is the US/UK coalition, or the Arab and Muslim terrorists, we all know the people of the region are the losers. Which is what is most sickening and disheartening about this attack, and the attack on the Jordanian embassy. The terrorists are making it quite clear that no one will be safe in Iraq--especially those who are attempting to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure for the benefit of the Iraqi people, rather than for the benefit of American and British security interests, as is the case with Jordan and the UN. |
|
20 Aug 03 - 10:34 AM (#1005194) Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of UN Baghdad HQ From: GUEST,Karen Thank you, Ard Mharcha, for saying what I would have like to have said . |
|
20 Aug 03 - 12:30 PM (#1005316) Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of UN Baghdad HQ From: GUEST,Boab Tony Blair was quick to try making a point to the dum-dums of this world by claiming that this tragedy "proved" the legitimacy of the war on Iraq. Perhaps if he found the nearest mirror he'd be confronted by one indirect reason for the horror that has been inflicted on the U.N. |
|
20 Aug 03 - 01:48 PM (#1005351) Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of UN Baghdad HQ From: McGrath of Harlow It seems pretty likely from what I've read that the people behind this were Islamic terrorists, rather than supporters of Saddam. The kind of people who detested Saddam, and vice-versa, and who are now flocking into Iraq to get into the action. Here's an extracxt from what a commentator in today's Guardian (Easy targets are magnet for Islamic militants) wrote about this: "Though nobody had claimed responsibility for the suicide truck bombing last night, the method of attack suggested that the culprits were more likely to be Islamist militants than disgruntled supporters of Saddam Hussein. "Truck bombs brought al-Qaida to prominence in 1998 with its attacks on the US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. "There is also evidence that Iraq has become a magnet for militants from all over the Middle East, either to escape surveillance in their own countries or to engage in jihad against easy targets." |
|
20 Aug 03 - 04:54 PM (#1005450) Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of UN Baghdad HQ From: ard mhacha There is no doubt it is not only the people of Iraq who detest the presence of the US Army. I heard an Iraqi on BBC Radio say that he hated the sight of the US Army patrols and the only hope for Iraq is the complete withdrawal of the US. This has all the similarites of the Irish conflict, only the Iraq struggle will be more fierce. Ard Mhacha. |
|
20 Aug 03 - 05:02 PM (#1005457) Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of UN Baghdad HQ From: akenaton Basically I agree with Ard Mhacha. Its true that the US tried to humiliate the UN before the war...But should not the UN have condemned the British and American stance instead of looking the other way. Maybe that attitude helped to make the UN a target.. US money controls the UN just as it controls everything else.. |
|
20 Aug 03 - 05:45 PM (#1005481) Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of UN Baghdad HQ From: GUEST akenaton - don't be an idjet! US money controls the UN just as it controls everything else
The United States, the world's richest nation, is currently the biggest single defaulter owing more than $800 million to the United Nations.
http://www.dawn.com/2003/01/05/int14.htm
Sincerely, |
|
20 Aug 03 - 06:52 PM (#1005525) Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of UN Baghdad HQ From: akenaton Thanks for putting me right on that point Gargoyle...What I really meant, was that many of the countries which comprise the UN are unwilling to oppose US policy for economic reasons. Ill try to be more accurate in future...Ake Where did you learn to say eejit?...Amos says its an anachronistic oxymoron!!! |
|
21 Aug 03 - 06:21 AM (#1005746) Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of UN Baghdad HQ From: McGrath of Harlow When you owe people enough money, and there's a prospect you might pay up someday, that in itself is a lever of control. |
|
21 Aug 03 - 06:27 AM (#1005750) Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of UN Baghdad HQ From: ard mhacha McGrath I didn`t know you were talking to my friends.Ard Mhacha. |
|
21 Aug 03 - 10:39 AM (#1005867) Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of UN Baghdad HQ From: GUEST Right now, the UN remains the world's best and only hope that the people of this planet can move out of the Dark Ages, and transcend the parochial and patriarch tyrannical rule that has dominated the planet since the late Middle Ages. These are holy wars, to be sure. But both the US/UK empire and the Islamic empire, are doing all they can to drag us back, kicking and screaming, into the darkness. The UN is far from a perfect organization. And it has certainly had it's failures. But given the alternative, which is ALL we are being given right now in the Middle East--where the people are being plunged back into a bizarre, quasi-modern perpetual state of Crusade-like war, corruption, and despotism, I'll stand by the UN thank you very much. |
|
21 Aug 03 - 11:36 AM (#1005891) Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of UN Baghdad HQ From: akenaton Back to reality guest....The people with the power always get their way..Until we are forced to find another way to run the world. Ake |
|
21 Aug 03 - 01:40 PM (#1005981) Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of UN Baghdad HQ From: McGrath of Harlow The people with the power always get their way But: "The great are only great because we are on our knees. Let us arise." Variously attributed to the Anarchists Proudhon and Stirner, and the Syndicalist James Larkin, in the great 1913 Dublin Strike. Though of course, there's no reason thay all might not have said it. It's a truth that bears repeating. |
|
21 Aug 03 - 02:15 PM (#1006003) Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of UN Baghdad HQ From: GUEST Actually, the reality is that the world does change, and who the people are in power also change. We are poised right now on the brink of major change on global scale. We have never in recorded history, been on the brink of changing the entire globe from the feudal state to the democratic state. That is the precipice upon which the world is precariously teetering back and forth on right now. The patricians of fundamentalist Christianity, fundamentalist Judaism, fundamental Hinduism, fundamental Buddhism, and fundamentalist Islam have one thing in common. Their fear of free, democratic, equitable societies. Their fear is well founded. In societies where progress has been made on the fundamentals they hold so dear, like transformation of the class/caste, gender, and racial/ethnic hierarchies, they have lost a considerable amount of power in the past 200 years. People everywhere need to be clear about these things. Don't let the porn peddlers and sparklie sellers hypnotize you into political somnambulism. That's where too many people are hiding away these days. In that grey, murky, nebulous world of "don't make any difference, so don't give a shit" amorality. What we do does make a difference. A huge difference. Feudal warlords can only win in the democratic societies, if we let them defeat us. We do have the power to beat them back, over and over and over, until sometime in the distant future when they are finally defeated. I personally believe this will happen long before the sun runs out of energy. |
|
21 Aug 03 - 05:17 PM (#1006096) Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of UN Baghdad HQ From: akenaton The sad fact seems to be ,that those who fight injustice often end up worse tyrants when they attain the Holy Grail of power.Setting up "free and equitable societies is relatively simple....Removing the greed and thist for power and control from the human mind is much harder. During my life most of the change i have seen ,both technalogical and political has been for the worse ,if looked at in the long term view. You say that the fundamentalist religions have lost power in the last hundred years, but that horror of horrors ,global capitalism, has gained power in thousand folds.Ake. |
|
21 Aug 03 - 05:45 PM (#1006112) Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of UN Baghdad HQ From: GUEST I don't see the United Nations as worse than any tyrant, akenaton. Nor do I see the global democratic humanitarian community, which encompasses many NGOs, businesses, and even a few democratic governments, as being despotic. It is true that the demise of religious fundamentalism has correlated with the rise of global capitalism. But it has also correlated with the rise of democratic civil societies. I'm certainly no lover of the capitalist system, but I am most certainly a great lover and admirer of democratic civil society. And your suggestion, akenaton, that social change in civil societies has been "for the worse" in your lifetime, I would guess that either you aren't paying very close attention, or are very young and cynical. The latter is really the deadlier of the two, BTW. ;-) |
|
21 Aug 03 - 06:19 PM (#1006135) Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of UN Baghdad HQ From: akenaton Guest..I always pay close attention,and afraid im no longer young,but I must hold my hands up to a fair smattering of cynicism. Of course i dont see the UN as tyrannical...Its one of our better ideas.It was our conditioned responses I was referring to .But I do see Global Capitalism,with its destruction of cultures and setting of man against man ,as being a greater threat to humanity than any fundamentalism. There are those who think that"democratic" civil liberties have been a double edged sword in the movement towards a better world . Best Wishes Ake |
|
21 Aug 03 - 09:26 PM (#1006217) Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of UN Baghdad HQ From: GUEST Thank you for your courteous response akenaton. I admit then, I am curious! What are some examples of democratic civil society being a double edged sword, that have been more negative than positive? And, if you could explain how global capitalism is the greater threat to humanity than global fundamentalism, when the two are in fact two peas in the same pod? Best wishes to you too. |
|
21 Aug 03 - 09:39 PM (#1006222) Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of UN Baghdad HQ From: Bobert In marginalizing and under-cutting the UN, the Bush adminsitration sent out a clear message to the world that the UN has no role unless Bush says so. No wonder that it was bombed. Do I condone it? No! But I do understand how it can be seen as nothing more than what Bush wants it to be, therefore making it an instrument of US policy. With that siad, my prayers and thoughts are for the families of all those that were killed or maimed from the consequences of the anit-human foriegn policies of the Bush regime. Bobert |
|
21 Aug 03 - 10:10 PM (#1006236) Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of UN Baghdad HQ From: NicoleC I don't think we can safely blame anything on the evils of global capitalism, as we don't have anything approaching nor anyone in power advocating it. What they usually mean when big, rich powerful countries talk about a global free market means that those who can afford protectionism get it, but poor countries have to have "free markets" that allow subsidized goods from rich countries to be dumped on their economy. I struggle to even consider the US capitalist in reality, although it's part of our national ideal. The amount of taxpayer money that gets poured into argibusiness and oil is astonishing. It's not chump changel it's huge subsidies. One one hand, it means cheaper prices at the grocery store and the gas pump -- on the other hand, the construct being paraded as "free trade" means that, for example, US taxpayers fund agribusiness corporations like Monsanto, who use that taxpayer funding to sell cheaper goods in poor countries, undermining the business of the local farmers and contributing to world poverty. It's not that Monsanto produces food cheaper or better -- it's that average Americans pick up a big chunk of the cost. True global capitalism would mean that regions could or could not choose to participate in a global economy, fairly competing with other regions based on the actual costs and quality of the goods. It might work; it might not -- but don't hold your breath because it won't happen in our lifetime. In most cases, so-called "anti-globalization" movements and protesters want true global trade -- not the protectionist tactics of the WTO and IMF masquerading as free trade. |
|
22 Aug 03 - 04:45 AM (#1006340) Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of UN Baghdad HQ From: McGrath of Harlow The fundamentalism that is most frightening is capitalist fundamentalism, because it's the most powerful. Every time there is any movement towards democracy anywhere the capitalist fundamentalists move in and insist that their economic doctrines are enshrined as sacred texts, qualifying and limiting any kind of democratic system. During the cold war the impression was given that the disagreement with the Soviet Union was all about freedom and repression and so forth, and that with that lifted it would be possible for them to build their own model of democratic socialism. That was more or less Gorbachev's naive understanding, with his talk of glasnost and perestroika. Not a chance - the bottom line was that the spivs should be set free to take over, and that is what happened. Ot rather, in most cases, the apparatchiks turned into spivs overnight. And in China the same thing has been demonstrated in a different way - so long as the fundamentalist capitalist doctrines were accepted, it doesn't apparently matter a damn that the political repression continues. In fact it works better that way - real democracy can really get in the way of exploiting people. And the reason this isn't wholly drift is that this is the agenda for Iraq as well. The idea that there could be any alternative model for a free society that isn't fundamentalist Capitalism is anathema. And I take the point which Nicole C makes, that the capitalist variety permits massive exceptions to its doctrines for its own purposes for its inner group. That is one of the ways it resembles many other fundamentalists, |
|
22 Aug 03 - 01:00 PM (#1006548) Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of UN Baghdad HQ From: akenaton Guest...I am sorry,thatI cannot answer your question concerning democratic civil liberies, as it would bring into question the whole idea of "democracy" and cause too much drift in the thread. Perhaps we should start a new thread to dicuss different perceptions of democracy. Ake.. |
|
22 Aug 03 - 02:07 PM (#1006574) Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of UN Baghdad HQ From: McGrath of Harlow And that would be greatly facilitated if GUEST were to use some kind of name or number to allow a degree of continuity in the discussion. (Though there's probably not much in suggesting even that minimal concession to civilised discourse...) |