Eight Thousand Years of Civilization ...gone - Page 3

notyoueither · April 13, 2003, 03:06

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.

You don't get it do you?

By and large, I am pro-American. Just as I am pro-British, pro-Europe, and pro-West.

What I am not in favour of is a complete abrogation of responsibility for the situations that 'we', or in this case 'you', create. If you want to run around conquering countries in the name of the 'war on terror' or some other reason, fine. Just pay a little attention to the people and the places that you 'liberate'. OK?

btw, the excuse that the US doesn't have the forces to police a city it just conquered plays a little hollow. No matter how you cut it. If you can't control the situation, what the hell are you doing?

The Mad Monk · April 13, 2003, 03:18

I'm not going to defend the looting of the museum because I can't. However, I will dispute that it is possible to a force of that size to restore order in the alloted time without imposing draconian measures -- and maybe not even then.

Does anyone know what the size of a police force usually is in a city of 5 million? I mean dedicated police, trained for police work, in peacetime.

notyoueither · April 13, 2003, 03:20

How hard is it to defend a few hospitals and an odd museum?

The Mad Monk · April 13, 2003, 03:27

Depends on where they're located, if we're aware of the problem in a timely manner, and if noones shooting at us.

The United States has a history of not using the military for police. One of the results of this is that the military, by and large, are not trained for police work. Little or no crowd control or non-lethal methods to speak of, and that goes especially for marines. They're trained to kill when threatened. Riot scenes could go pretty damn bad pretty damn quick.

I suspect we're waiting to get trained military police units in there.

The Mad Monk · April 13, 2003, 03:30

Hmmm...isn't Sprayber military police?

Q Classic · April 13, 2003, 03:30

ah, fvck it. it's just a museum.

after all, it's just worthless trinkets from ages gone past, right?

you know who to blame. it's saddam, for making us come in there to chase him out.
it's the us, for failing to defend what it's taken.
it's the iraqis, for wanting to loot now that authority is gone.
it's the ancients, who didn't try to make their garbage biodegradable.

boo-fvcking-hoo, a museum's been looted. nobody's going to be responsible and step up for it, so naturally the fingerpointing is coming around again.

humans are a nasty, brutish sort of creature, don't you think?

i don't think human history is worth saving, not with all of this sh1t.

notyoueither · April 13, 2003, 03:42

I find it difficult to believe that commanders on the ground were unaware of the scale of the destruction occurring.

We are not talking about rioters who needed shooting. We are talking about looters, some of whom were chased off by museum employees, and others who are now being discouraged by hospital employees bearing weapons.

However you cut it, the last few hours have blackened the record in ways that should not have happened.

I actually understand why there may have been misgivings about doing anything about it. However, I think the US armed forces might want to pay a little more attention to aid to civil powers if the US administration wants to charge off liberating various places around the globe.

The Mad Monk · April 13, 2003, 03:57

I can agree with that.

I'm curious -- did this happen in Afghanistan at the time? I don't remember anything like this happening. I'm also wondering about previous occupations (if they can be regarded as such -- Panama, for example). Has anything previous gotten this bad this quickly? Had we any reson to expect it?

Keygen · April 13, 2003, 08:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Uncle Sparky

According to CBC reports, the curators of the museum had asked for American assistance in protecting the treasures even before American troops entered the city. None was forthcoming.

Sparky, I find it kind unlikely that any army in the world would dispatch any troop in a war zone to protect ancient artifacts from looters. It would take great courage and sensitivity to do that

Quote:

Originally posted by Uncle Sparky

The damage is irreplaceable, of course.

Indeed

Quote:

Originally posted by Uncle Sparky

Long after George W Bush becomes a footnote, this incident will be remembered and mourned.

I greatly doubt...

Quote:

Originally posted by Uncle Sparky

Should America pay for this tragedy ?

I think those raw looters should pay the prise who think that their prosperity is more important than humanity's memory...

Keygen · April 13, 2003, 08:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Static Universe

Yeah, and if they had shot a bunch of looters, I'm sure everyone would be complaining about that.

Why do I get the feeling that even the presence of a small team of US troops would be enough to keep any looter in distance?

Keygen · April 13, 2003, 08:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

The US could have done something, but didn't.

What exactly? I mean, they had been fighting in Baghdad University over the last few days. But, the war doesn't matter, they should have put armed guards at the museum instead, right?

I thought that American and British troops captured Baghdad without fight except for a few snippers, some irregulars and a suicidal attack...

Keygen · April 13, 2003, 08:34

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon

to some extent I think the idea of the american military entering baghdad and immediately arresting/shooting ppl for doing civil crimes would be seen poorly by the iraqi's.

Not more than your missiles and bombs

Keygen · April 13, 2003, 08:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior

Oh no! Millenium old plates are going to actually have people eating from them! US troops should be tried for war crimes!

Oh, no! Archeologists could actually understand history better by studing those millenium old plates! They should be put in trial for preventing people from eating in them!

Sandman · April 13, 2003, 08:49

The safety of ancient artefacts was being mentioned months ago. It's unforgivable that this should have been allowed to happen, since it could have been so easily prevented. That museum was every bit a part of the infrastructure that the Americans claimed they would strive to protect, and also represents a significant part of the entire human species' history. Frankly, securing the museum should have been given a priority all it's own.

I guess the old stuff in the museum is less important than the really old stuff under the ground.

At least Iran and Syria will be able to take steps to protect their museums, when it's their turn to be 'liberated'.

Keygen · April 13, 2003, 09:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

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

It depends on the value of the artifacts.
Some might have more value than any Saddam, Bush or you and me

Keygen · April 13, 2003, 09:09

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon

would u prefer we simply shoot ppl who try to take crap?

I think he is refering to the ancient artifacts and not everything that is looted all over Baghdad. And I find it rather unlikely that people would try to get into the museum if it was guarded.

Keygen · April 13, 2003, 09:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

If some other country was liberating us from a dictator, I'd forgive them for destroying the Lincoln Memorial, not even mentioning looting done by Americans of the Smithsonian (which is less 'valuable' to the Lincoln).

But if they would loot your house you would never forgive them, right?

Spiffor · April 13, 2003, 09:14

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.

Museums bore the hell out of me too, but I sometimes happen to use my head, and I happened to understand why they are important.

Museums are places where ancient artifacts are conserved. The ancient artifacts aren't conserves in strongholds or high security basements, they are conserved in museums. Ancient artifacts are a phenomenal source of info (in fact, our only source of info) about these very ancient times, their science, their way of life, their philosophy. They are the only way available to understand the very ancient Civs.

The understanding of very ancient Civs can help us know what we have in common with our ancestors, and what is different. It gives us a better understanding of the evolution of our society, and a better understanding of human nature.

You could ask "so we can understand human nature thanks to an old plate ?". No. This plate alone is worth nearly nothing. But it is one of the many pieces of a gigantic historical puzzle. The loss of this piece will make the puzzle more messy.

And yes, museums bore the hell out of me, I avoid them on sight.

Urban Ranger · April 13, 2003, 09:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
I'm confused how people honestly expect ~15,000 US troops to adequately control 6M people in Baghdad, especially when they're incensed and looting like this, as well as fight against militia/suicide people...

Because most people don't loot.

Simple, eh?

The Mad Monk · April 13, 2003, 09:18

Simplistic, you mean.

Spiffor · April 13, 2003, 09:20

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
I'm curious -- did this happen in Afghanistan at the time?

I haven't heard of anarchy in Kabul either. But the Taliban's power structure was very different from Saddam's, so the power vacuum was much less important. I think the northern alliance's methods were also much more brutal than the US army's, so it kept troublemakers at bay (except the warlors of course).
However, the Talebans while in power have destroyed an ancient Buddha statue whose historical value was priceless

Thy turned it into scrap metal despite Greece's offer to buy the statue for a hefty sum.

Urban Ranger · April 13, 2003, 09:23

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Simplistic, you mean.

Maybe that's what you mean, but not me.

Urban Ranger · April 13, 2003, 09:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
However, the Talebans while in power have destroyed an ancient Buddha statue whose historical value was priceless

Thy turned it into scrap metal despite Greece's offer to buy the statue for a hefty sum.

IIRC, it's a large stone statue carved in the side of a hill.

Keygen · April 13, 2003, 09:59

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've always been confused by some people's foolish obsession to persistently ignoring the past...

Keygen · April 13, 2003, 10:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

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

.

You mean they are not capable of guarding a single museum?

Keygen · April 13, 2003, 10:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Q Cubed

after all, it's just worthless trinkets from ages gone past, right?

I am sure you are much more worthless for much more people than those trinkets

GePap · April 13, 2003, 12:58

To answer your question MM, in Panama there was widespread looting soon after the US invaded and occupied the city. The difference tought was that much of the looting was of commercial places and not government offices and cultural sites: I think that for the most part the US took and secured those places quickly, but was unwilling to police large sections of the city.

I guess there was nothing much worth looting from commercial places in Baghdad.

Bugs ****ing Bunny · April 13, 2003, 13:16

Personally speaking, I'd be appalled if the Coalition forces were diverted to defend a museum while hospitals were being looted of supplies.

I'd have let the musuem be ransacked entirely if it prevent a few deaths from gangrene.

GePap · April 13, 2003, 13:18

The coolition did neither, and could have done both.

Jon Miller · April 13, 2003, 13:29

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither

You don't get it do you?

By and large, I am pro-American. Just as I am pro-British, pro-Europe, and pro-West.

What I am not in favour of is a complete abrogation of responsibility for the situations that 'we', or in this case 'you', create. If you want to run around conquering countries in the name of the 'war on terror' or some other reason, fine. Just pay a little attention to the people and the places that you 'liberate'. OK?

btw, the excuse that the US doesn't have the forces to police a city it just conquered plays a little hollow. No matter how you cut it. If you can't control the situation, what the hell are you doing?

why should the US have suspected that they would go after a museum?

I mean it is a museum, what is the point of smashing it up?

but they did so

Jon Miller