And as I said, I understand if there is a compelling millitary necessity for the destruction. I will be saddened to see the building ruined, but I’m not unreasonable. I wouldn’t sacrifice lives to save a building. War destroys many treasures. (Right now, archaeologists are worried. Iraq has some incredibly rich sites, some of which aren’t excavated yet, and they’re concerned the war may destroy them.) It’s the nature of the beast, unavoidable in many cases, yet always sad.
My point was that if there’s no concrete reason to destroy them, then razing them just to make a “statement” is wrong. Who knows what value they may hold for future generations?
Let’s keep in mind it is US and indeed International custom to provide financially for the country we liberate. I agree it is a tragedy for the art and such to be destroyed, but if it was built on the backs of iraqis the US will help fund the rebuilding of their city under the new regime and they will not only be rid of a merciless tyrant but will also have a clean and happy and shiny and beautiful city to live in. Built on the backs of the American greenback.
How about Bushbaby stating that the oil revenue generated by Iraqi oilfields will be held in trust and used to rebuild the Iraqi economy ?
All the US greenback has done is pay for the means of destruction, it certainly will have nothing to do with buiding a shiny and beautiful city, which will be done with Iraq’s own wealth.
We can all be generous in claiming someone elses resources are being used in our good name.
According to NPR, the palace was built in the oldest section of the city and everything in the area was flattened before the palace was erected. So Saddam wiped out some rather historic places himself in order to create his palace. Additionally, I wouldn’t be surprised if the liberated residents of Iraq didn’t raze the palace themselves, and do their best to absolutely ensure that no signs of it ever remain. The NPR reporter stated that the times he’d been in the compound his Iraqi handlers were jittery and on edge in the place because only bad things happen to folks when they go in there.
Lissa, Those palaces are not just beautiful buildings. They have military centers, food & supply storage, and bunkers underneath. Much like the rodent nest, it has to be taken out so the rat can’t go back there. It is a shame that Saddam saw fit to build himself 20 beautiful palaces while his people went hungry.
I do agree that it is a shame to see beauty destroyed. That is one of the casualties of war.
I’ve heard that these palaces are actually gaudy tributes in execrable taste to the disgusting grandiosity of one very evil man. They’re not great works of art, and I think that calling for their protection is like dealing in Waffen SS memorabilia. Those who collect and admire it will hide their sick respect for a bloody tyrant behind some kind of aesthetic sense. These buildings have long been used to evade inspection regimes and to pander to a horrible man’s lust for the trappings of power. He has hundreds of them, and he’s bled the Iraqi people white with no compunction whatsoever to build them and other monuments to himself.
War ennobles no one, eh? Yes, it’s a horrible thing and so is celebrating it. But you live and say these things because you are in a nation born of war, whether you are an American, a Canadian, or any European nationality. Millions have suffered and died throughout human history so that you have the luxury to sit here and denounce war, and that’s the darkest irony I know. Somehow, all the sacrifices they made, all that they strove and fought for is now worthless because you don’t approve of the means. Moral outrage is worse than useless, it’s ridiculous.
IIRC, when asked why the uniforms in the movie “Starship Troopers” looked so nazi-esque, the director reluctantly admitted that the nazis had style.
On a more serious note: as I mentioned before, I do tend to agree with Lissa on this sort of thing. E.g., the destruction of that ancient monastary in WWII was certainly a tragedy. And while age does make a difference, IMO, that’s still no reason to excuse destroying beautiful under the aegis of “it’s new so it’s okay”. However, I tend to consider this to be a case where there is an exception to the rule. Symbols have real power and I would consder the symbolic destruction of his regime to be a valuable step to removing the terrorized populace from under his yoke. But we can disagree on that. (Plus there’s the bunker and all that.)
Uh… that’s not a valid argument considering that djf750 is not any part of the subject, only the one who brought it up. He was talking about their people killing him and it being ironic that they would be brutal.
