I think the Pentagon has figured out how to keep reporters under control. They let them ride on tanks and stuff. All the “reports” I’ve seen have been, basically “Whee! I’m riding on a tank!”
Yeah we’re horrible for wanting to kill Sadaam and his compatriots. We would be able to sleep at night if he just keeps killing people himself and they play Dharma & Greg instead of the news.
PS - If a single puppy was killed in this war I swear I’ll go out and stop traffic so that policemen and firemen can’t respond to emergency situations. That’ll show them how committed I am to non-violence!
I’m finding it hard to keep up with the pace in this thread. I am confused. What irony?
I, for one, hate to see the destruction of the palaces. I don’t care that Saddam is one of the most evil sons of bitches to ever crawl the face of the earth: they were beautiful buildings. They could have been used as museums, or put to use as government or office buildings after the war. The art and expensive furnishings could have been sold to ease the sufferings of the Iraqi people.
I understand that in a war things sometimes need to be destroyed. I just hate to see beauty ruined.
I agree.
War enobles no one. The delight in war enobles no one.
Removing a brutal dictator from power is noble. The soldiers fighting to do so are therefore enobled, at least to some extent.
War is bad. Everyone agrees on this. But can we stop pretending that it can never be good as well?
And I don’t know of any who are delighting in this war, although I know of some who are delighting in some of the effects (and possible future effects) of this war.
All I know is, if the Pentagon let me ride around on a tank, I’d feel greatly ennobled.
Is it just me, or do some of the reporters (I think I remember this on CNN especially) seem awfully surprised that Iraq is, well, sandy?
“Wow, it’s so sandy here. You wouldn’t believe all the sand. We have to filter sand out of the tanks, there’s sand in our faces, sand in the food. There’s just so much sand. I can’t believe how much sand there is.”
Sand? In the Middle East? :eek: No way…
I actually thought about that while the bombs were falling. They’re not old palaces, they’re new–built on the backs of the Iraqi poor. They are not ancient works of art, but modern symbols of the blackest depths of a man’s soul. The only museum they would be fit to house would be a museum of torture.
So, in general I’d agree with your sentiment; however, in this case I think you may be off the mark.
I must respectfully submit that such sentiments are simply ridiculous. Any soldier would have been justified for feeling enobled by liberating concentration camps or freeing the Pacific from under the cruel fist of the Japanese. How is fighting for the freedom of oneself or others not enobling? How is taking pleasure in people throwing off the yoke of a cruel dictator not enobling? War may be hell, but that does not imply that peace is heaven.
I would submit that killing people whom God loves is never ennobling. That it may be the lesser of evils, I’ll readily admit. But that’s as good as it gets, IMHO.
Since I don’t share your religious views, we’ll just have to disagree on that one.
Wow. Reading this thread has made me really, really sad.
So, you don’t think a new building is worth preserving for the future? Unfortunately, it’s sentiments just like these that have destroyed many of our architectual treasures. They never get the chance to be 100 years old since people don’t value them because of their youth. These buildings may have been built by an evil man, but they are still gorgeous wonderful buildings.
They may have been built on the backs of the Iraqi people, but destorying them does no one any good. As a historian, I recognise their value to future generations. As I said before, if nothing else, these buildings could be utilized in ways to help restore Iraq’s economy. They could be turned into hospitals or orphanages. They could be divided into apartments for those who will lose their homes in this war. The potential uses are myriad. And yes, they could be a museum. Let the people see the lavish lifestyle their leader enjoyed while they starved.
Just because something was built by evil, does that mean the object itself must be destroyed, regardless of its value? We didn’t destory the autobahn after Hitler’s reign of terror. The Great Wall of China survived the cruel emporers. The French did not destroy Versailles after the Revolution. Instead, they recognized the value of these things. Objects and buildings are not evil in of themselves. What good can come of their destruction?
It can signal to the Iraqi people along with the soldiers tasked with defending Baghdad that the power structure which they’ve heretofore been obligated to defend has become powerless, thus shortening the war. At least that’s the logic I’m hearing from the expert commentators, and as retired generals their opinions can’t be dismissed out of hand.
And I would say that yes, the age of the thing should be a consideration. There’s a difference between destroying a beautiful building and destroying a cultural treasure.
Euty, I couldn’t agree more. Thanks for saying what needs to be said.
sic semper tyrannis
**
Ah, but they’re generals, not historians, or experts on the cultural value of architcture. I’m sorry, but I disagree. The Iraqi people are being bombed, their infrastructure destoryed. I’d gander to say that they’ll realize that Saddam’s reign is over without the need to destroy beautiful buildings.
As I said before, I understand the need to destory a military target, but to destory the buildings just to make a “statement” is just sad.
A building never has a chance to become a treasure if it’s destroyed, does it?
Too often, gorgeous buildings are destroyed because people shrug and say, “Oh, well, it’s only twenty-five years old.” Just think of all that we have lost because of this “logic.” Aesthetics have value, too.
I disagree. Destroying them very well might do quite a few people quite a bit of good.
Keeping a building standing just because some people think it is pretty is not good strategy if there is a compelling military reason to destroy the building.
Sure, in a best-case senario such art would not be destroyed. But we’re passed the point where best-case senarios can occur. If destroying the building helps end the war quicker, if it saves a few lives, then it is worth it. I like art. But I like people more.
I’d wipe my ass with a Van Gogh if it helped take out a brutal dictator.