Eight Thousand Years of Civilization ...gone - Page 2

Asher · April 13, 2003, 01:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Who could possibly expect the American government to actually think through what their actions will cause?

They've certainly done a far better job than the people who rallied against the American government, who have shown to be so incredibly off the mark with their predictions that it's actually pretty funny.

GePap · April 13, 2003, 01:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
GePap: There are 50,000 men in Baghdad right now? What's the source for that?

Also, did the Baghdad police have to worry about:
1) Public perception -- how bad would it look for US forces to be launching tear gas and shooting at Iraqi civilians intentionally in the Arab world and in Iraq itself?
2) Militants who attack them in suicide busses and the like
3) Searching for chemical weapons and boobytraps

There is the 3rd ID, then the marines, and who knows were V corp is. We have well over 150,000 troops in Baghdad, and given the fact that it is the capitol and the center of power, I do not think it is too much to imagine that a significant portion of our forces will be within city limits.

As I said, if Iraqis themselves are arming themselves to end looting, they will understand using force to portect Iraq's national treasures.

Asher · April 13, 2003, 01:42

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
There is the 3rd ID, then the marines, and who knows were V corp is. We have well over 150,000 troops in Baghdad, and given the fact that it is the capitol and the center of power, I do not think it is too much to imagine that a significant portion of our forces will be within city limits.

As I said, if Iraqis themselves are arming themselves to end looting, they will understand using force to portect Iraq's national treasures.

I'm really confused by your logic -- you think all those troops hung around in Baghdad?

So who's in Tikrit (Saddam's true stronghold) right now?

I'd like to see some real numbers from a real source before we continue, your numbers seem fishy and it seems to me that they're coming from nowhere but your head.

Felch · April 13, 2003, 01:43

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap

Quote:

However, kicking Saddam out of power DEFINETLY justifies the destruction of some ancient artifacts.

that sir, is a dumb statement.

The US should have known, from previous experience, that once you removed the power of the Iraqi regime, a vacuum would open up in which looting and other mayhem could occur. They should have been prepared, since it IS the US's RESPONIBILITY, once it removed the previous power, to enforce law and protect the people of Iraq and its natural and national treasures. The Museum was NOT LOOTED simply cause the US removed Saddam: it was looted becuase the Us removed local poower without having any preparations for what would happen. The US was olbigated to secure places such as this, and it failed in that obligation.

The excuses put forward here are rather pitifull. The US is now the occupying power in Iraq: it has responsibilities under the law to fulfill. It is that simple. Figthing somewhere accross the city, given that the US has well over 50,000 men in that city, certainly more than the Baghdad police ever had, is no excuse. Even as the article points out, had US forcws simply moved a single piece of armor to a new and not radically different spot, some of the damage would have been mitigated.

Relax. It takes a little while to restore order anywhere. And remember, these are soldiers, not police. We want the Iraqis to police themselves, to learn to respect legitimate Iraqi authorities, not to kowtow to American conquerers.

It's a no-win situation. The American troops are trying their best. You just can't expect miracles from ordinary people.

notyoueither · April 13, 2003, 01:44

Sad, very sad.

BTW, I believe it is widely recognised that a responsibility of a conqueror is the maintenance of minimal order. The looting of hospitals and the museum are unforgivable, for both the Iraqis themselves, as well as the occupiers.

I really doubt that the destruction of irreplaceable artifacts is going to be forgotten, or forgiven. The victors don't write history, historians do. There are bound to be more than a few historians with harsh verdicts as US forces stood by while such vandalism went on.

Asher · April 13, 2003, 01:46

Does anyone understand why, if these relics are so important to the Iraqi people, why the museum didn't hire any security guards or volunteers to protect it?

It sounds to me like they abandoned the place and then cried when it was trashed...

yavoon · April 13, 2003, 01:47

less vandalism more theft. tho certainly stuff got trashed

Jaguar · April 13, 2003, 01:47

Suppose you had to choose between Iraq losing a Babylonian artifact or Sprayber losing an arm.

Asher · April 13, 2003, 01:49

I've always been confused by man's obsession with artifacts, relics, and other pieces of the past.

Museums bore the hell out of me, I think it's pretty irrational to be so attached to some objects just because they're famous and/or old.

Imran Siddiqui · April 13, 2003, 01:49

Quote:

once you removed the power of the Iraqi regime, a vacuum would open up in which looting and other mayhem could occur. They should have been prepared, since it IS the US's RESPONIBILITY, once it removed the previous power, to enforce law and protect the people of Iraq and its natural and national treasures. The Museum was NOT LOOTED simply cause the US removed Saddam: it was looted becuase the Us removed local poower without having any preparations for what would happen. The US was olbigated to secure places such as this, and it failed in that obligation.

Oh lord.

I didn't know that the US military was THAT good that it could capture a city, and move on shortly afterwards, AND be able to totally bring order to a city. Three days after a capture of a city and we subdue all rioting? Wow... we must have those supersoldiers I heard about on X-Files

.

Yes, we should have added 50,000 US troops to the Baghdad assault, and waited 3 weeks while troops were poised outside the city so that we could PREVENT LOOTING?!

Or rather, after taking Baghdad, we should stick around until the looting is finished, and THEN continue the war.

And you were talking about dumb statements?

All this debate shows me is that people are willing to blame the US for everything and anything under the sun. I'm waiting for us to be blamed for the destruction of the library of Alexandria.

Drake Tungsten · April 13, 2003, 01:49

Quote:

We have well over 150,000 troops in Baghdad

I'm going to have to call shenanigans on that one. I don't think America has much more than 150,000 troops in all of Iraq, so I seriously doubt that we have that many in Baghdad.

notyoueither · April 13, 2003, 01:52

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon
less vandalism more theft. tho certainly stuff got trashed

What couldn't be carried was trashed. Vandalism.

Jaguar · April 13, 2003, 01:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Uncle Sparky Over the years, I have frequently condemned the senseless destruction of irreplaceable artifacts.

Point out one thread in which you have done this without a political agenda behind it.

Imran Siddiqui · April 13, 2003, 01:54

Quote:

I don't think America has much more than 150,000 troops in all of Iraq

Yeah, wasn't MtG complaining about the few troops we had in Iraq compared to Gulf War I?

Imran Siddiqui · April 13, 2003, 01:56

According to the New York Times website there are only 20,000 American troops (marines) in Baghdad and they are working as hard as they can to restore order (which means they have stopped fighting against Saddam's troops in other areas).

Jaguar · April 13, 2003, 02:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
I've always been confused by man's obsession with artifacts, relics, and other pieces of the past.

Museums bore the hell out of me, I think it's pretty irrational to be so attached to some objects just because they're famous and/or old.

I skipped over that post before. Good stuff. IMO any serious injury to anyone is not worth saving an old reed basket.

Uncle Sparky · April 13, 2003, 02:03

Do you think that will be enough, Imran?

Jon Miller · April 13, 2003, 02:05

these sort of things happen durring times of upheval

if there was a revolution it would be worse

Jon Miller

Uncle Sparky · April 13, 2003, 02:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior

I skipped over that post before. Good stuff. IMO any serious injury to anyone is not worth saving an old reed basket.

I'm guessing then if some old synagogue was looted and vandalized, or some old temple wall was defaced, you'd have no problem with that.

... and to answer your other question, I have no idea how to do a "search" of our Apolyton archives for previous non political condemnations I've made in the past. You'll just have to trust your Uncle Sparky.

Gatekeeper · April 13, 2003, 02:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Who could possibly expect the American government to actually think through what their actions will cause?

Cute. Applies to every other freakin' nation throughout human history, too. It's a human trait, after all, not always planning ahead.

Gatekeeper

Jaguar · April 13, 2003, 02:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Uncle Sparky I'm guessing then if some old synagogue was looted and vandalized, or some old temple wall was defaced, you'd have no problem with that.

I would have a problem with the perpetrators, as I do here. I would not have a problem with the unstable authority not going out of the way to stop it.

yavoon · April 13, 2003, 02:22

notyou I'm not sure I understand your point. at all.

that stuff got trashed? that the stuff left behind was indeed broken(cuz if it wasn't broken it wouldn't have been left behind!).

GePap · April 13, 2003, 02:31

I said 50k in baghdad to asher and meant to say 150k in all of Iraq.

Quote:

Yes, we should have added 50,000 US troops to the Baghdad assault, and waited 3 weeks while troops were poised outside the city so that we could PREVENT LOOTING?! Or rather, after taking Baghdad, we should stick around until the looting is finished, and THEN continue the war.

Please...

As NYE stated, as the occupying power, it is the US's duty to maintain order. Rushing to Baghdad was a good move, as far as toppling the Saddam regime, but now we see what the inherent problems with it were: that the US would face troubles meeting all the obligations it has to meet. But the choice was made, and now the US has to do with what it has. Since the looting started small and expanded, it seems clear to me that had the US put pressure earlier and made it clear looting was not somehting to be allowed, then looting would not have expanded. By failing to secure a few locations eary, we basically stated that the US military was not going to keep order and the looters got the message loud and clear.

I will take the numebr the NYT gives as true, but all that does it reiterate my point above:the US has obligatioons to Iraq, and our current plan obviously does not take that into account. If this is the half-assed way American administration of Baghdad begins, then it is an ill omen.

And for all the people who keep minimizing what actually happened: I have little to say to people so obviously deluded. the heritage of MAN is more important than any individual, just as freedom is more important than any individual. They are not just plates and cups, anymore than the constitution is just a piece of paper with scribbles on it.

notyoueither · April 13, 2003, 02:31

yavoon.

Looted and sacked. What could not be carried was destroyed. Vandalism, in a very real sense of the word.

The world is used to such things happening when a major city is conquered, by barbarians.

Uncle Sparky · April 13, 2003, 02:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior

I would have a problem with the perpetrators, as I do here. I would not have a problem with the unstable authority not going out of the way to stop it.

Funny how all the oil fields were the first things secured...

yavoon · April 13, 2003, 02:34

yah cuz thats wut happened us american barbarians went in there and looted the goods raped the women and drank the beer.

notyoueither · April 13, 2003, 02:36

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon
yah cuz thats wut happened us american barbarians went in there and looted the goods raped the women and drank the beer.

No, but the leaders of your forces showed no glimmering of an idea of the responsibilities that their success had thrust on them.

yavoon · April 13, 2003, 02:49

u sound really bitter, maybe u need a hug?

*hug*

obviously u weren't able to flame the americans for the failure of urban warfare or for the long drawn out war that cost us thousands of american lives.

Skanky Burns · April 13, 2003, 02:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Cute. Applies to every other freakin' nation throughout human history, too. It's a human trait, after all, not always planning ahead.

Gatekeeper

For a government playing with the lives of millions, that is unforgivable.

Uncle Sparky · April 13, 2003, 03:05

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon
u sound really bitter, maybe u need a hug?

*hug*

obviously u weren't able to flame the americans for the failure of urban warfare or for the long drawn out war that cost us thousands of american lives.

... remind me again next year how many lives, American, British, Canadian, Polish, Iraqi etc. were lost.

*hug*

Only 2 Canadians killed so far that I know of. One serving with the USMC; other a Red Cross/Crescent volunteer, believed killed by friendly fire.

btw- The new American viceroy is apparently the same fellow who came up with the Guantanamo Bay Illegal Combatant incarceration idea. Good luck, Iraq.