Indeed, according to the UN website -
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=25084&Cr=afghan&Cr1=
At the end of 2007, humanitarian actors in Afghanistan are operating under much tighter security restrictions – the inevitable consequence of insecurity on the ground – Charlie Higgins of the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) said at a press briefing in Kabul today.
“These restrictions curtail our access to communities for humanitarian purposes, whether this is the delivery of relief, or efforts to protect civilians from direct harm during conflict,” stated Mr. Higgins, who heads UNAMA’s humanitarian unit.
Mr. Higgins stressed “an unacceptably high risk” to agencies that carry humanitarian deliveries along the main routes in southern and western Afghanistan, as evidenced by a recent attack on a UN World Food Programme (WFP) truck carrying 15 tons of biscuits. The vehicle was looted and then burned, and the driver killed" UNQUOTE
I won't dwell on recent news.
2007-12-26
07:14:04
·
4 answers
·
asked by
Hello
3
in
Politics & Government
➔ Military
The above account does not take into consideration the extra security provided by Service Personnel and their lives being endangered.. Lives we cannot afford to lose.
I have stated before many times, ONCE POLITICIANS HAVE MADE THE DECISION TO SEND TROOPS INTO BATTLE, THEY HAND OVER COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE THEATRE TO THE MILITARY… NOT United Nations Politicians… civilian construction workers… politicians… etc.
Outside agencies HAVE NO BUSINESS WITHIN THE THEATRE UNTIL THE MILITARY HAVE ACCEPTED A WHITE FLAG, AND THEY, AND ONLY THEY HAVE DEEMED IT SAFE FOR OUTSIDE AGENCIES TO GO IN AND BEGIN Reconstruction and reparation etc.
2007-12-26
07:15:10 ·
update #1
Re jbarelli
I don't consider AFGHANISTAN or Iraq as "War" in that both sides are NOT wearing a military uniform - unlike say The Falklands War 1982.. or indeed as you say, WW2..
I consider AFGHANISTAN and Iraq to be Military conflicts.
2007-12-26
09:41:08 ·
update #2