The US, UN & Iraq III

HofT, right, he ain't perfect in that regard, either, but I enjoy reading "On Language" nonetheless. (What is the singular of "troops"?)

Frolic - most of these "non-targeted" sites are giant sculptures, temples, victory arches, aqueducts, amphitheaters, fortifications, excavated cities with the top layer from 19th century A.D, and the bottom layer from 10,000 BC. BIG things, not easy to cart off, unlike early Babylonian gold jewelry in museums.

Sozobe - you never heard me claim I'm a literary expert <G>

All the titles used for the individual soldier. Private, corporal, sargent, captain, major, etc., etc.; then bonehead, stupid, recruit, and all the nicknames used by the different services. All of them combined make up the 'troops.' c.i.

What is my difficulty is grasping the significance of pump house diagrams Hoft? Well first of all I'm an archaeologist, I have an interest in those museum resources. But more pertinently, those museums and archives were an irreplaceable human resource. There seems to be a general opinion express both on A2K and in other forums that those archives and museum were irrelevant to the serious work of the world, recorded in pump house diagrams, oil field maps, dam designs and irrigation plans. That their contents can be easily replaced or repurchased. That they were in truth merely store houses of esthetically pleasing and occasionally diverting object of artistic value or historical interest to be perused at leisure for a casual and perhaps "educational" afternoon. They can in fact be used as that, if that is your desire. But the purpose of their creation was as a storehouse of the record of human achievement. An archive of how we, as human, turned ourselves from simple bands of hunter/gathers which define our origin into the complex civil societies that define the present human condition. The record of this achievement is not to be found in some easily available encyclopedia. But rather is to be teased from the pattern of remains, discarded and scattered by those humans in their long climb from ignorance and poverty to the wealth and understanding we enjoy or potentially enjoy today. Iraq is the place where that clime began and these museums and archive contained the record of the earliest stirrings and attempts, some of them failures, to explore and realize to full extent of the human potential. Those object and documents are not self explanatory but must be carefully and tediously examined for patterns of behavior. Behavior that record the increasing ability of humans to asses and exploit their world and use it to construct ever more complex social entities that sustain an ever more aware and creative population. Those museums and archives were intentionally sacked, their catalogues and records intentionally destroyed, their collection looted and lost, a record of one hundred years of scholarship obliterated in a matter of 48 hours. A destruction that was accomplished at, if not the approval, then at least the carelessness and disinterest of the United States government. A government that had taken upon itself the responsibility for their safety and well being and now denies that responsibility.
Memory is crucial Hoft, The sack of Baghdad is as if we collectively had been flung from a car and rammed our head against a rock, as happened to a friend of mine. Physically she is the same, on occasion her original puckish and wry personality still shines through. But her memory is gone and she has no past. Friends, places, events, even cloths draw only blank and bewildering stares. Their meaning is gone and their connection to her lost beyond recovery. She, in the middle of her life, is left to reinvent herself amidst a world that knew and remembered someone else. A frustrating and heartbreaking effort. That is why I can not grasp the overriding importance of pump house diagrams. You Hoft have wished upon us the fog and frustration that has become the life of my friend. The attitude displayed in your casual disregard for the destruction of the record of who we are, we are condemned to continually speculate and dispute what we might be. Your avatar concisely defines your position.

dafdaf, re your post of Tue Apr 15, 2003 7:40 pm




To which you replied:




I never said you didn't know about the issues. Reading the first sentence of my statement one will notice that I just voiced an observation that most of us, even if deeply embroiled in an issue, probably will not always have all available info.

Respectfully,

JM

just checking in

been away a few days

shouldn't take me more than a month to read up to this point

Acquiunk, This is for you. You may use it as your avatar if you wish. Your love of archaeology makes you special to me. c.i.

BTW, It's a copy of the ticket for entry to King Tut's tomb in the Valley of the Kings in Luxor. c.i.

Acquiunk - pictures are nice, but words may convey additional meaning. You noticed my avatar but not my name - and I, personally, have visited FYI ALL shady compatriots or ex-compatriots as the case may be of the shadier still poster at start of thread who suggested we all should approach black-market dealers to recover the stolen antiquities in order to examine the purported "Priam's treasure" in their possession.

<Tapping head, Acquiunk? Saying like, duh, what does Helen of Troy have to do with Priam's Treasure, Acquiunk? Or do you doubt I want, and can pay for, my namesake's jewelry iff (that's IF and only IF Acquiunk, in case you want to learn something other than your tiresome litany) I can find it, and have it radio-dated to its proper era??? Please reconsider before posting further. Thank you in advance <G>>

The whole plan was write up in 1997. I believe the looting was known about and in the plan!

sozobe - trooper is singular!

CI thankyou. If I can figure out how to transfer it I will. A2K and I often seem to work at cross purposes when it comes to the computer.

HofT I,m sorry for misspelling you name. It is not Prim or anyone else treasure we a discussing here. Such finds are interesting but unique and rarely as revealing as many more mundane but culturally significant objects. The greater loss at Baghdad, byond the objects, is the records of the museum which were intentionally distroyed to hide the extent of the looting and the books that are irreplaceable. This was, has I stated, an assault on scholarship and memory and it is a stain on us as a nation that it was under our protectorship, allowed to happen. As Thomas Friedman said in a Times op ed piece some months ago "If you break Iraq you own it". We broke it and in the first hours of our ownership failed in the responsibilities that come with that.

Quoting from Acquiunk's post:
_____________________________________________________________
"It is not Prim or anyone else treasure we a discussing here"
_____________________________________________________________

Misreading "Priam" is not a reference, exactly, for an archeologist. My modest knowledge of ancient Greek, Latin (fluent in both) and basic inscriptions in CretanB, Sumerian / Accadian (all for calculations a.k.a numbers only, not words) was only acquired in the study of mathematics.

What archeologist has never heard of Priam? Or Minoan Crete? Or Sumer and Akkad, precursors to Troy? Look forward to hearing what precisely is your expertise in archeology - it can't be anything relating to Mesopotamia and points west <G>

HofT, I'm not going to argue over a droped "a" and I will grant you the msspelling. But it is really irrelevant to the subject at hand which is the destruction of a major archive and museum.

That is "misspelling" and "dropped"

But, BillW, a "trooper" is a cavalryman. "Troop" can be a company of people, animals or things, a group of soldiers, and the plural, can be military units - or "troops." c.i.

BillW - a trouper (member of a theatrical troupe) is of course singular. Otherwise must concur with CI - we got plenty of comedians on this site to inform us of correct theatrical usage <G>

In regards to your post of April 16, 2003 in which you state:

" Not meaning to sound half as aggressive as I probably do - just frustrated - why are we only ever talking about what Rumsfeld wants or means or what really behind what Powell wants or thinks - have they robbed us of our ability to formulate our own analyses of Middle East problems, on what would be good policy responses to what clearly are situations that could do with change? "

This is an astute observation of this particular thread. Those in this thread that feel a justification for a military solution after playing diplomatic footsy with Saddam can at least take comfort that at least they tried to do something about this situation no matter how odious the ultimate solution. They may also call to mind that it takes two to tango by mentioning that, as evil as the U.S. may have been initially by stating it would disarm Iraq unilaterally if necessary, Saddam still refused to show any responsibility to his people by backing down and beginning the disarmament of Iraq. Surely all the consequences of resultant war can be shared by Americans, the French, and solely Saddam Hussein in Iraq's case.

By contrast those in the majority in this thread might have felt "robbed" of their ability to formulate their "...own analyses of Middle East problems..." But is this feeling of analytical larceny justified?

All of us in this thread (along with the UN) have had access to not only a tremendous amount of info on this subject but also 12 years of time to form opinions and policies. To those that say given more time Saddam would have come around and done the "right thing" I might suggest they consult Saddam's historical actions.

The argument that war with Iraq will increase terrorism is an obvious no starter, as you yourself have formerly pointed out to dafdaf in your previous post of Wed Apr 16, 2003 7:27 am.

However, the position of "No War, no matter what" is probably the most pernicious abdication of morality that led to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. This position by certain members of the U.N. Security council allowed Saddam to perceive that no matter what he did (or didn't do) he would still be able to wiggle out of the situation unscathed. In dealing with the likes of Saddam one need not go to war, conversely taking the war option off the table virtually guarantees, at best, a never-ending conflict whose only resolution is war.

Also in your post you mention:

" But how does one look to Syria? It hasn’t signed the chemical weapons agreement, so it can’t be enforced by UN inspectors to stick to it either. It has sponsored terrorism in much clearer ways than Iraq has. It is a fierce dictatorship. "

THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN in his NYT April 16, 2003 column states:

"Yes, Mr. de Villepin did say, while actually visiting Lebanon, that the world should focus not on Syria, but on rebuilding Iraq and advancing the Arab-Israeli peace process. But what he neglected to mention is something I am also for, and France should be for and the world should be for: the end of Syria's occupation of Lebanon, which has been going on since 1976.
And that leads to the second-best reason for regime change in Syria: it could set Lebanon free. Lebanon is the only Arab country to have had a functioning democracy. It is also the Arab country that is most hard-wired for globalization. Trading and entrepreneurship are in Lebanon's DNA. Lebanon should be leading the Arab world into globalization, but it has not been able to play its natural Hong Kong role because Syria has choked the life out of the place. "

The full text is at http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/16/opinion/16FRIE.html

In it he also suggests a policy of " aggressive engagement — something between outright military engagement and useless constructive engagement." towards Syria. This, given the momentum the U.S. now possesses in the area, seems viable.

As regards the UN it obviously cannot handle situations with such desperados as the former Iraq, Syria, and DPRK. Perhaps some sort of reconstitution might help. We have been discussing this on another thread and my latest thoughts Posted on Mon Apr 14, 2003 7:16 pm can be found there:

AWKWARD QUESTIONS

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=179695#179695

Respectfully,

JM

Some of us, Mr. Morrison, have data accumulation going back a lot longer than the 12 years you mention - and this concept of Lebanon as a domino piece sure to fall if Syria is overrun would have the 19th-century Foreign Office ministers laughing really really hard.

Might I enquire as to your views on old Ottoman Empire relics (artifacts and persons) still located in Saudi Arabia, Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, Iran, Jordan, and present-day Turkey??

Would be most interested in your reply.

Geligesti -- That's a great piece of Bushiana (NatRev). Why is it that callous people are so thin-skinned when it comes to their own egos?!

Gautam -- The comment about non-American participation was not only grossly rude, but wrong! Don't forget we're living in la-la land over here -- the evil empire, I believe it's called. It's been tough, but we earned the title.

As for invading a country and not making provision for either protecting its history (and ours) or for civilian reaction, that maybe one of the absolutely dumbest moves we could have made. Holy mackerel! Then there is the alternative explanation -- that the destruction of the museum and library etc. were deliberately allowed and in line with the administration's support and affiliations. What has happened in Baghdad is far worse than, for example, destroying all Christian artifacts in the ME. The Baghdad losses represent seven millenia of history. Gone. Possibly deliberately. "A matter of priorities" said General Meyers. Rumsfeld shrugged it off. Can anyone defend their attitude? No.