US refuses aid plane to enter Iraq

Yea, this is "Operation: Iraqi Freedom" . President Bush, what happened to helping the children of Iraq?

story.news.yahoo.com.../nm/20030417/wl_nm/iraq_britain_aid_dc_1

"A U.S. official told the charity no aid flights would be allowed until the area was safe but the U.N. has already declared Arbil a "safe and secure" area, the charity said."

Well, I'd think that the US military in Iraq is probably better able to determine if a site is "safe" or not, far better than the UN in NYC....don't you think?

I'm sure they'd love to have it land...but at the same time, losing that plane to enemy fire, or friendly fire, would certainly be an even worse public relations nightmare, as well as more deaths, loss of supplies, etc. So, can you blame them for wanting to be sure on this?

the issue of safety may be different for UN humanitarian missions and for US invaders, dont forget that.

What would be a good reason for them to turn them away. Even if we are goin there to take control of oil or whatever we still need the citizens to be behind us. Once again another fued between the UN and the USA. Hey if they would have helped they could probly say if it was safe or not. Once we say its secure thats when the planes will hit the runways

Illmatic67 have read what you have posted in this particular forum to date, like the post I am at present responding to it lacks any real substantive value.


It seems very clear that the plane in question was not allowed to land because it was not on the A list of aircraft which had prior approval to land with respect to the territory in question. That it carried the cure to aids, cancer and old age would have not made a difference to those authorized to allow planes to land in Iraq.

Orders are orders Illmatic67 and to be specific perhaps you find such issues trivial, this of course in no way changes reality. That reality being that the US is responsible for what enters Iraq and unless it has already been approved by the proper authority. Those who made the attempt to do so otherwise are as full as BS as anyone who would consider their effort is actually a valid one.

Think about it .....




[Edited on 17-4-2003 by Toltec]

This is an unheard-of departure from all standards of humanitarian aid-conveying in crisis regions. The Geneva Convention clearly states that occupying forces must ensure that humanitarian organizations, like the red cross or red crescent for example can access the needing or wounded.

Maxwell Smart that does not mean that the agency is question is responsible specifically to seek proper approval before entering the area in question.

Without adherence to proper procedure there is no way of knowing what they were carrying and so therefore no reason to allow them to land. It sounds very much like a cheap media event meant to draw attention to the gullible.