0
   

The US, UN & Iraq III

 
 
jespah
 
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 06:53 am
This is a successor thread to The US, the UN & Iraq II. I have had to close the previous thread (which may be found at: http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5034) because it is so long that it is loading very slowly.

The previous thread will, of course, remain where it is and naturally you can copy and paste from it as you wish. Sorry for the interruption.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 136,281 • Replies: 4,622
No top replies

 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 07:15 am
Nimh,my point was in the question 'how many piplines were/are there' What does Rumfeld know and how many others know..
The pipline in the article is from Iraq to Jordan ..... the one recently shut down was Iraq to Syria. How many others were supported by Saddam in exchange for ????
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 07:17 am
To me, it seems the answer to the "Why were oil sources and the like protected, while the museums were not" question is simple.

Saddam publicly threatened to ruin the oil supply in the event of war. The US had a heads up, and planned accordingly. How many of you pre-thought looting of museums? I didn't. If Bush et al were so mercenary, it seems they would have pre-arranged protection for the banks.

The looting was not expected.

And, just how omniscient and omnipotent do critics think our servicemen are? As effective as they were in war, they were still fighting and securing their locations when the looting began. I think they responded in a timely manner to events as they occurred.

The left has valid criticisms of the diplomatic policies that led to this war, though I disagree with their conclusions, but their argument about matters like "War for oil at all costs" and expectation of perfect behavior and pre-knowledge of certain events dilutes their credibilty, IMO.

War with Syria due to a pipeline is a silly, reaching assertion. Syria has sent groups to fight for Saddam, has recieved and cloaks fugitives from justice, and took sides in this war against the US by arming Saddam's regime during wartime. Their continued support of the corrupt, murderous regime in Iraq must be addressed. I hope diplomatic efforts can solve the problem with Syria. Syria is not an innocent bystander.
0 Replies
 
dafdaf
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 07:20 am
Perc:
"I must strongly disagree. His acts of cruelty, oppression and deceit are our moral justification for removing him----and your assertion that diplomacy would have worked is not backed by any fact. Twelve years of diplomacy accomplished nothing---let me remind you that it was our deployment of overwhelming force that led to reinstatement of "inspectors". I use that word very lightly because Blix in my opinion was Saddams puppet."
I was merely saying that our level of hatred for the guy shouldn't influence our method to remove him. Otherwise it would be a war of emotion over objectives.

The trouble is that the diplomacy used was at either extreme - we were either asking him to pretty please let people come and make sure everything was lawful, or we were illegally blowing it all up. There Must have been some middle ground where we could have at least only threatened war if he refused to answer some questions. And no, threatening war if he doesn't leave cannot count. Can any of us imagine what'd happen if the countries of the world ordered Bush out or we'd attack? Smile

perc:
"You and the world have based your judgement on his verbal inadequacies on the world stage"
Not at all. We just use those moments to humiliate him. I also don't think it's unreasonable to expect the most powerful man on earth to be able to express himself, since PR is part of the job. I did however mean his actions were ludicrus.
He fixes the election, he removes all reprisentatives from the Israel peace talks, he walks out of the Kyoto treaty, he breaks the Ballistics Treaty with the Star Wars program, he wages war on Iraq against the will of the UN and majority of the world, and he doesn't instigate a police force in Iraq, causing the destruction of billions of pounds worth of Muslim, archaeological and historical treasures.

An example of where what he says can cause problems though would be when he was prompted about whether the anti-terrorist actoins were anti-muslim. He replied:
"It is a crusade against terrorism"
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 07:24 am
Well, I think, the artifacts stolen from the museums can be rebought from the looters right now. It is possible to do it for cheap before the rich antiques collectors have entered the game and inflated the prices. Of course, this sounds like supporting the illegal conduct of the Iraqi citizens, but right now U.S. is not supposed to become a criminal law enforcer there. Rebuying the stolen artifacts may be the least evil possible: it will help to restore the unique museums collections, and keep these accessible to plain people and scientists (and not buried in the private homes of a bunch of rich art collectors).
0 Replies
 
dafdaf
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 07:26 am
Sofia, I think a lot of what you've said is right. However these guys are the most powerful people on earth (something I'm compelled to keep stressing) and that given that power, they are obligated to plan better ahead than any one of us. Had any of us done any research on what happens after governments fall, we'd have seen in advance that pillaging and looting is common and could have done something about it. Even without the heads up, tgroops could have been moved in to save what was left of the treasures. Now that most of the archaeological treasures have been destroyed, the books are following and yet still no protection.

Whatsmore, it's a terrible PR move to have troops heavily securing the oil while the historical and artistic objects are lost.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 07:27 am
dafdaf, fixed elections ..... I see you have heard about 2000 in Florida ;o))
0 Replies
 
dafdaf
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 07:28 am
Perc:
"In this country most of the anti-Bush crowd hate him because he "Stole the election" and is not the elected President. The premise being that he is crook and therefore they are justified in making any insult or accusation. Why then do 70 plus percent of our citizens agree with his actions thus far? I believe that high rating is justified mainly because he has yet to be PROVEN wrong."
Well I think that's good reason to dislike the guy yeah. I don't think anyone solely bases there opinion on that single event though. There's no need thanks to the bounty of dubious moves the guy's made.
0 Replies
 
dafdaf
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 07:34 am
Certainly have Geli! Never realised his family was that big.....
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 07:39 am
dafdaf, Here is one of the many reasons I detest George.


http://www.nationalreview.com/daily/nr080999.html
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 07:43 am
Gelisgesti wrote:
Nimh,my point was in the question 'how many piplines were/are there' What does Rumfeld know and how many others know..
The pipline in the article is from Iraq to Jordan ..... the one recently shut down was Iraq to Syria. How many others were supported by Saddam in exchange for ????


I still dont see the point. You mean to suggest there may well have been other dealings going on with Saddam, back when Reagan and Bush Sr were president and Rumsfeld a special envoy. Possible, though I wouldnt see why the source you've uncovered there, too, would only come out with half the 'dirt' if he decided to come out with the dirt anyway. What I'm stretching for is - whats your point re: Syria, now? You posted the links originally in response to quoted news about Syria as possible next target. Is there a link?

I'm still looking for original views on what alternatives to Rumsfeld's course a leftist or liberal would suggest in tackling regimes like Assad's.

Just my luck the old thread gets closed down immediately after I spent the odd hour writing 4 lengthy replies there, to timber, dafdaf, you ... hope they wont go totally uncommented on ... Crying or Very sad ... :wink:
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 07:47 am
sofia, the looting WAS expected. Two results from a quick Google search:

Quote:
Gibson and many other prominent archaeologists are most concerned about looting. It's been an ongoing problem in Iraq since the first Gulf War, when Iraq's formerly robust Department of Antiquities began to decline. In the event of combat and/or unrest, looting could become much worse.


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0319_030319_iraqiantiquities.html

Quote:
Bombing, rockets, artillery and gunfire pose dangers to Iraq's monuments, the scholars say, but the U.S. armed forces have a strong track record in avoiding cultural heritage sites when the actual fighting takes place.

The gravest danger comes afterward, when authority disappears and desperate people cope with chaos by stealing the marketable treasures that reside in museums or in the ground. It happened after the Persian Gulf War in 1991, and Iraq never recovered from the experience.

"We're afraid the whole cycle will repeat itself," said University of Buffalo classicist Samuel M. Paley. "If we do go to war, something has to be done to put the heritage infrastructure back together."


http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0303ancient.htm
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 07:49 am
Dafdaf

I will not indulge in hurling rhetorical accusations back and forth. If you would like to discuss an issue of substance please let me know.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 08:45 am
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 08:49 am
The main military criticism at the start of the hostilities was that the number of troops available in theater was too low. Of that low number, several units had to be assigned to guard targets of potential military importance like the Defense Ministry, airfields, ports, and energy installations

Until the complete cessation of hostilities troops must be assigned to military priorities, not to civilian roles as nannies, nurses, and museum curators.

It's incredible to me that anyone would question that.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 08:57 am
It is amazing the Iraqi people run wild and loot everything in sight and the it becomes the fault of the American military. I have yet to hear word one blaming those who did the deed.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 08:58 am
Another quote:

Quote:
"This must not happen again," said Gerstenblith. "We feel that if the United States is in control at the end of the war, then what happens after the war is controllable. If there is a failure, it will be because people don't want to do it, or didn't think of it. We're trying to take care of the second part."


Of course there are priorities. But I don't believe it was impossible to guard a few of the museums. For example, one specific museum was mentioned in the National Geographic article, the Iraq Museum. That one was indeed looted.

Quote:

HE LOOTING of the Iraq Museum in Baghdad was a devastating blow to the world's cultural heritage for which one has to look back to the fall of Constantinople, the ravages of the conquistadors, the Mongol invasions, and the burning of the library of Alexandria to find a parallel. Nothing in recent history, including both world wars, so completely vandalized a great historic tradition or destroyed comparable amounts of knowledge of our past. The Iraq Museum, or National Museum of Antiquities, was not simply a place where precious objects were stored and displayed -- it was the central repository of knowledge about the world's first civilization, a stream of tradition that did much to shape the world of the Bible and the West. While the treasures depicted in introductory chapters of textbooks on the history of art will be the loss most immediately felt, the real devastation will be in things that we do not know so well.


cite for above quote

They couldn't have protected that one? I don't believe it for a moment. I understand that there are lines to be drawn -- they can protect one, but can they protect 100? 500? 1000? I just think the lines were drawn in a cynical and dangerous way -- dangerous because of the easily-drawn implication as to where our interests lie in Iraq.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 09:10 am
It really wouldn't have been up to the soldiers to choose what to protect. If an officer had said 'guard the head' you can beleive they would have found a head to guard.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 09:14 am
Just bookmarking to keep track of this forum. On with the show. Wink c.i.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 09:34 am
In agreement with HofT and au.

I had my own criticisms about our forces not allowing for protection of hospitals. I guess I'm in the group that considers critisism of not spending manpower on museums way outside the boundaries of practicality or necessity.

And, even my own criticism of lack of protection of hospitals dissolved when I reminded myself we were still in pitched battle and fighting pockets of resistance while these lootings took place. We had not yet declared a cease in heavy fighting.

I think many have forgotten or lost respect for the fact that even though we were prosecuting a war, we limited ourselves with many humanitarian concerns. I think pushing further to criticise for not protecting museums and such is proof of expecting the impossible of the US.

I wonder what other force at war would hold themselves to such standards.

I'm proud of our men and women, and of our their behavior in Iraq. I don't take offense to dissenting views.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The US, UN & Iraq III
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/09/2020 at 05:13:21