If the US was invaded tomorrow and the government destroyed, there would be plenty of Americans who would be willing to loot the Smithsonian museum hoping to get rich. Would that mean that the “American people” didn’t care about their historical heritage?
The US is responsible for protecting the long term interests of the majority of Iraqis from the criminal excesses of a minority.
Anti-war != anti-US.
Sick, truly sick. I’ve heard on the radio that the only building the Americans protected during the looting was the mistry of oil production. Archeologist warned that this would happen and urged the administration to protect those sites.
I am too angry to have a discussion over this but before leaving I would like to say something to John Mace: considering that in the mesopotamia civilazation (not ours, not theirs but all civilazations) was born, the cultural heritage doesn’t only belong to the Irakies. It also belongs to you, to me and to Dubya. Priceless pieces have been lost.
Hey, Diogenes, I am anti-war. NOWHERE in the post you quoted did I claim anti-war=anti-US. I’m sure there are plenty of posts around here that you can jump on, but leave mine alone, please.
Again, i NEVER said that anti-war sentiments were anti-US sentiments. Never, not once. Please stay on topic, dio.
DTC: Yes, I would say that some Americans do not value their historical heritage, just I said some Iraqis did not value theirs.
Sailor: I’m really not just trying to argue semantics, but I don’t see how BOTH the US and the Iraqi looters can be directly responsible for the looting. Perhaps you and I have a differnet interpretation of the word “direct”.
Esti: The loss of ancient treasures is a true tragedy. I really regret that so many Iraqis chose to commit this crime. It is completely unclear to me, though, that it was realistic to think the US troops could’ve prevented it. We’ll have time as the war winds down to see whether or not this was so.
John not many Irakies. The capital city of that country is a metropolis of hundred of thousands of people, a few chose to destroy our heritage just as, like Diogenes said, if ever there is a looting at the Smithsonian only a few will participate.
I think that the soldiers could have prevented it by the simply measure of posting some guards, they didn’t so they share the guilt. But don’t worry it is just another war this things happen in war, war is no videogame.
I think Baghdad had 5M residents, at least before the invasion. I’m not sure how many fled beforehand, but yes no matter how you look at it, it was a small minority.
I think some on this thread are shortchanging the intelligence and integrety of the generals in charge. I would give them the benefit of the doubt, at least for now, that they knew full well this sort of thing might happen, weighed their options and chose to devote the limitted resources elsewhere. If we find out they were truly negligent, I’ll join the chorus in declaring their guilt.
John, you can argue semantics all you want but in the USA if you cause others to loot the Smithsonian you will be found guilty even if you did not do the looting. That’s just the way it is.
If there is a mob outside the Smithsonian and you take a bulldozer and knock down the front door so that the mob enters and loots do you really think you are only responsible for the front door? The looters are responsible for the looting but you are also responsible for enabling what was a clear consequence. I can assure you the courts would see it that way.
I am not blaming the generals who, I will assume, are doing what they have been told to do. I am blaming the USA. It is the responsibility of the USA, not of generals in particular. The responsible party is the USA who should indemnify the victims. The Geneva Convention imposes obligations on the countries which are signatories, not on generals who follow orders unless they deliberately comitted crimes. The USA is morally and economically responsible but I would not call this a war crime. I guess whoever planned the war with insufficient means to guarantee order (Rumsfeld?) would be politically responsible.
Which raises an interesting question, how many Iraqis would the US have had to gun down to stop the looting without a real police force around to effectuate arrests and use non-lethal means of crowd control?
I saw one guy on an APC guarding an unruly crowd with an automatic grenade launcher. Better that things like that remain a bluff, and are not used as an actual means of calming the crowd down.
Sailor: Not quite the same thing. A better analogy is this. Someone is dying in the Smithsonian. The door is locked. You buldoze the door in order to save the dying person. Then looters come in and steal treasures.
Anyway, I am not disagreeing with you that the US shares some responsibility for the actions of the mob in Iraq. What I am disagree with is this statement:
“The USA has directly created the conditions and therefore bears DIRECT responsibility” with the emphasis added by me.
Perhaps we should get a lawyer to mediate that.
And you would be perfectly correct, Beagle Us and British soldiers were not trained to be policemen. They have weaponry amd tactics specifically designed to kill in a massive scale as evidence with trying to kill a specific target ina building, they end up shooting the whole building. They cannot stop looters without shooting them and any shooting of civilians will end up in Al Jazeera as a wartime atrocity. The coalition soldiers there are still in a war mode. They cannot be diverted into civil duties just yet. It took more than a week to calm down Basra, Baghdad, Mosul and Kirkuk will be the same.
As far as the items stolen from the museums and hospitals and other such important places, dont ecpect to see them freely available on E-bay or Yahoo auction sites anytime soon or even later. Once the colation switches to civil occupation, then house searches will be done the same way as looking for insurgents or Fedayeen, then equipment, art treasures, vital information, documents and medical supplies will be found, collected and put back in their rightful place. Maybe not all of them but a good many of them. But that only happens after the military are absolutely sure they have rounded up all of Saddam’s Loyalist who can mount an organized attack against coalition forces.
I am totally frustrated at the attempt by the media and anti-us groups to find one glaring flaw after another and magnify it beyond beyond its actual significance. Lawlessness and upheaval is the natural order of war. It will be reestablished but not at the cost or manpower and resources to prosecute this war to its conclusion. Take note people, this war isnt over yet and to divert coalition attention to civil matters before the military objectives are met merely prolongs this war and raises the chances of more deaths and quite possibly missing an objective.
Dont worry or fret about the stuff. We can get them back eventually. They stole artifacts not destroyed them. They have no place to go and cannot be sold without being investigated and prosecuted.
Probably zero. But this is a straw man because the USA is responsible for providing police protection no matter what. Or would you say the US has no responsibiliyty for providing police protection to the museums in Washington DC because they might have to shoot someone. Whatever is reasonable police protection that is what the US was obligated to provide and what they did not provide.
In any case I can tell you that in every scene I have seen the looters would have ceased the looting at the first sign that US forces were there to prevent it. In the hotel looting there is a scene where they panic and run because someone says they soldiers are coming. Then they take a peek outside and see it is not true and the US soldiers are still just standing at the gate and they continue the looting. Then you see all these guys walking out the gate with all the loot and waving to the GIs. Just saying “no” would have done it.
Contrast this with a scene where the GIs have stopped a car and are pushing a man to the ground. The man is crouched but resisting. It seems he is not fighting back but just like he does not understand they want him to lie down flat. He keeps talking and the GIs obviously don’t understand him and keep yelling “shut up, shut up!” and roughing him up when he doesn’t shut up. We are later told in the news that they were just a father and son and this treatment was just humiliating to them, especially for a father in front of his son.
You can argue all you want but the USA has a responsibility to provide adequate police who can do their job effectively adn they ain’t doing it. This kind of treatment of the locals is not going to garner much sympathy for the US. OTOH, I guess the ones who got killed had it worse.
I’m not denying the US has a responsibility. When did I say that?
The question is what is that responsibility right now. There are still gun battles taking place every day with mostly disorganized resistance, but resistance.
It’s already getting better. Symbols of the regime getting looted is not only understandable, but hopefully cathartic. For those on the left, consider it the workers seizing the means of production.
In this case, it’s the workers seizing the plunder accumulated from their production. I’m shocked so many leftists are coming down hard on civil disobedience. 
Also, consider how mentally screwed up many Iraqis are. In the US we have pharmaceuticals and therapy to help us. These people have had relatives tortured and disappeared. They’ve been starved and used as slaves by a brutal regime. Now they go crazy and loot. Luckily Baghdad didn’t win the NBA Championship, things might really have gotten ugly.
I love archaeology. Nobody thinks antiquities being destroyed is worse than I do. OTOH, I can’t ask some 19 year old kid to let his guard down for snipers, suicide bombers, and paramilitaries to prevent theft. Once the area is secure they can move less heavily armed people in to guard the civilian population.
[aside] Weren’t some anti-war people recently arguing that US troops using tear gas was a violation of the Geneva Convention? Which might be true. It sounds plausible. OTOH, WTF?! Perhaps we could just open up with the 20 mm chain gun on the looters instead? Or, call in an air strike? [/aside]
Especially for **sailor[/] and John Mace:
Whichever Geneva Conventions and other international agreements the U.S. has ratified become the supreme law of the U.S., on a par with the Constitution. We can’t just pick and choose which ones we want to pay attention to without facing some pretty hardcore consequences. From Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, and Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary nonwithstanding."” [bolding mine, obviously].
Why the heck do you think the U.S. hasn’t ratified the Kyoto Accords, or the International Criminal Court, or the land mine banning treaty? Geez, you might think we didn’t want to be bound by those terms or something!
So yes, if we ratified the Geneva Convention that addresses the issue of occupying military forces being responsible for ensuring the welfare of occupied peoples, we are just as bound to pay attention to that as we are to enforce the right to free speech in the U.S. Whether this is actually a feasible undertaking is a separate issue, but when the U.S. invaded Iraq, it did indeed take on the obligation to ensure the welfare of its citizens.
Eva: No one is arguing that the US does NOT have responsibility for restoring order in Iraq. Some of us just don’t think it’s realistic to expect us to have this in place on the very day that Baghdad is entered. Our military leaders are well aware of their responsibilities and know how to set priorities in a military conflct better than the average poster here on SDMB. You will see a police force emerging very soon. My guess is that the crime rate in Iraq will be higher than under Saddam, though. Tyranical regimes are really good at keeping their citizens under control. Are you then going to blame the US for increasing criminal activity in Iraq?
Oh yes, our leaders are very good at setting priorities. They may have ignored the museums, but I’m sure they have the oil wells well defended.
Hey John, didn’t you read the stories about army scouts liberating some emaciated zoo animals? They managed to find time to feed the lions a sheep. How about the pictures of guards lounging around Saddam’s palaces? Why didn’t they take the time to go over to the museum? Seems they had plenty of time to goof around. They could have spared a humvee load of guards. They had plenty of warning for crying out loud.
And for those of you who ignorantly think items will be returned intact: out of 4000 antiquities looted in 1991 in the Gulf War conflict, only 4 have been recovered.
And for those of you who think that nothing will be damaged, haven’t you been reading the news accounts? Tablets were smashed for no reason… If the items can’t be sold on the market, most likely they’ll be destroyed, not returned. What a travesty this is.
Yeah, and I’ve read about all the Iraqis treated by military doctors, too. If you’re main quest is to find fault with the millitary, there is plenty of fodder out there. Did some soldiers do some stupid things? Of course. Does this mean the military has failed? No.
All they had just done was fight their way to the city center to capture a presidential palace and several government buildings in one afternoon. Damn slackers. :rolleyes: