Hindsight as always is the most precious commodity on the a2k. It amazes me that the government is wasting their time planning when they have a wealth of people on this forum who know the right way to do it all. Especially those who are not even American citizens. They will teach us how to behave.
I know it's been said ad infinitum, but for the record, I am proud of our troops as well. Criticism of American policy does not mean I am against the troops.
IF it were simply a matter of allocation of resources -- if every single troop/soldier/whateveryouwanttocallthesingularof"troops" (see William Safire's recent column on the subject) was required for guarding oil fields and such, fine. I don't think that is the case, though, and I think it is one of those things where policy goes a long way towards making said troops' jobs easier. Why did they hand out candy? Was that militarily required?
If they are making water and food as readily available as candy, if they are protecting hospitals and museums as readily as oil, they will have a much easier time winning the respect of the Iraqi people.
AU - The fact is that British and Australian fighting troops were also there - even the much-maligned French dispatched their aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle which helped with communications, flight and ship routing, etc.
au1929 wrote:Especially those who are not even American citizens. They will teach us how to behave.
A pretty unwelcome comment I have to admit. What we do have to realize is that in an increasing global world, every major action taken by the US has ripple effects for everyone. Also, morality is not the sole bastion of the US, nor its citizens.
What I find silliest about the whole "You foreigners can't tell us what we should do" thing is that isn't that the very core of this whole issue? Americans telling foreigners what they can and can't do, from the UN to Iraqis?
The looting and destruction of the Iraqi National Museum and looting and burning of the National Library/Archives was a professional job, not the work of a mob. The United States knew of these places and their significance and had a dutie under several international treaties to protect them. Instead it protected the Oil Ministry. Actions reveal priorities and this lack of concern speaks louder than any statement the Bush administration could make as to our purpose and goals in Iraq.
Acquinnk, I agree with your assessment. The US have been engaged in many wars before the war with Iraq, and they/we have always protected important cultural and historic sights. Even during this war with Iraq, our allies were told not to bomb the mosques. To set a priority on the oil ministry building over the national museum was criminal against all humanity. What were they thinking? c.i.
Sozobe - some of us here have very long memories indeed; this is a reminder relating to the despicable columnist you previously mentioned, whose interests are not to be confused with those of the United States even though he is a citizen.
Acquiunk - reading preceding posts would save embarassment; oil installations, incl. diagrams, location of pumping stations, machinery specs etc WERE in that oil ministry, and all energy installations ARE of potential military importance. So are bridges, dams, airfields, ports, main highways - what's your difficulty with grasping this concept?
Cicerone - I know beyond doubt that all targeting coordinates planning was made with the most rigorous efforts to avoid any cultural and archeological sites. In the circumstances your criticism seems unfair.
I am surprised you find Safire despicable, HofT, as he is quite pro-war. I don't like his political columns, either, though. I DO like his "On Language" columns, and that is what I was referring to with the "troops" comment.
Ms HofT, I'm sure what you say is true, but it just doesn't seem overly demanding that if they knew these places were of great human value, why couldn't they expend some manpower to protect it? Human nature as it is, especially when groups get involved in looting, destruction becomes the norm. Our "intelligence" should have known when the lootings first started that some places needed to be protected. They failed in that regard. c.i.
I really don't think there's any question but that they knew of the danger; they just chose to do nothing about it.
sozobe
I really don't think there's any question but that they knew of the danger; they just chose to do nothing about it
If you had said it is my opinion I could possibly have bought the statement although I might not agree. However, you are sure, how could you be sure?
Sozobe - kindly re-read my post before commenting; lots of enemies of Saddam (of whom PETA is one, given his torture of dogs when he was a child) were glad the guy is down and (we hope) out. But PETA states its reasons, as do I, and maybe so should the columnists. Btw - haven't read the contemptible character's scribbles since his ignominious retreat (after 50+ columns, mind you) that Admiral Inman was in any way mistaken to cut off a foreign country from the internal memo (ahem!) circulation list. His prior activities (as per the late Richard Nixon, whom I had the honor to meet in his post-Presidential work as a lawyer) and subsequent activities (such as the indefatigably repeated allegations of Mohammed Atta blah, blah, and the Czech intelligence service, blah etc) have been so thoroughly discredited as to require no further mention.
Funny thing, btw, did the A2K server just crash and miss some messages?! <G>
Sorry, HofT, I'm confused. I was saying that I don't like any of William Safire's political writings. At all. I just like "On Language" -- that's, like, etymology, grammar, that kind of thing.
au, what would you like for me to get for you to show that the US knew the museums were at risk? The articles I have already cited showed that this was a major problem at the end of the 1991 war, for example -- do you think nobody remembered that? The US has made a big deal (justifiably) that they did their utmost to avoid bombing cultural treasures. I can find quotes for that. Let me know what it is that you are looking for. I'm saying something pretty simple -- the US (particularly, the people who would be in charge of making decisions as to what the troops protected) knew that the museums were in danger of being looted.
It is my opinion, based on facts. Anything I write is opinion. Anything I think is subject to change as new information comes in.
Sozobe - sorry from me also for not being clearer: on his political writings the foregoing leads to one conclusion and one conclusion only.
However his etymology and grammar are at least as questionable: just to give you one example he once declared the word "homosexual" as composed of the Latin "homo" (man, or human) and not of the Greek "homo" (as in homonym) meaning of course "the same", plus "sexual", and therefore concluded there's nothing to prevent anyone from loving his fellow humans [sic]. In his defense it is said that the only dictionary he owns is Yiddish - very useful in some circles, presumably <G>
HofT wrote:Cicerone - I know beyond doubt that all targeting coordinates planning was made with the most rigorous efforts to avoid any cultural and archeological sites. In the circumstances your criticism seems unfair.
Why first try everything in your reach to avoid destroying them and then let them unprotected to the looters? Are they really that stupid?
