I agree. That’s why I’m mad.
Let’s take this point-by-point, okay, Rusalka?
What you just posted is commonly referred to as a loaded statement. It’s biased. A fair appraisal of the situation would be: The curator of the museum ran down the street to ask some American Marines to help; however, there was no loss of life or personal injury and thus the Marines, as required by United States Law (UCMJ, to be exact), continued to obey their orders and continue with the mission their commanding officer had assigned them.
And how would you accomplish this within the law? Surely, you wouldn’t take on the personal responsibility of threatening physical harm or death on someone in violation of the UCMJ? And how would you manage to perform this self-appointed mission and the one your commanding officer had assigned you? How would you do them at the same time, especially with no other intelligence (military term for “information”) than the statement which outraged you?
There’s this nifty thing in the UCMJ called disciplinary action, to include both Non-Judicial Punishment and trial by courts-martial. Perhaps they’d rather not piss away their own careers and/or freedom on an impossible task.
You wouldn’t happen to have any proof for this absurd suggestion that our military folks don’t have any sensitivity towards history and learning, would you? If you don’t, then I recommend you post that comment in IMHO or the Pit.
Or they could’ve gotten killed without their chain of command having any idea at all where they were or what they were doing.
The Americans are not to blame at all on this. The looters are the ones looting. THEY are the ones to blame.
AND as if on Cue:
So does the role of peacekeeping now begins. Tikrit is taken, all major military actions are done, Now we start the business of establishing order and peace. These things take time. Prioritys have shifted. Time for the politicos to take the stage.
p.s. to Rusalka: How about some proof of your other assertion that the Marines were “just standing around.” Everything I’ve seen shows them out there doing what they’re supposed to be. (Well, except for the looting some of them had done by taking military “trophies,” which, btw, they were ordered to surrender.)
That’s true, of course.
However I still wish we had protected the place. It would have been a smart move. For example: We were smart enough to make a strong effort to avoid damaging mosques during the fighting. The same smart thinking could have prevented this disaster. That wasn’t just a national treasure, it was a window on one of the great early civilizations of the entire world.
When I said I would take action, I didn’t say what level soldier I would be. I imagine at some point there is a commander who decides what the troops do, and it isn’t some general micromanaging every single soldier. There is some initiative not too far up the line, is there not? There were probably many people who could have decided to post some soldiers at this museum - which would have been enough deterrent.
As for lounging around, did someone order the troops to lounge around Saddam’s palaces? Why couldn’t they have hung out at the entrance to the Museum? Who cares about Saddam’s abandoned palaces. The army scouts who fed the starving animals in the zoo, took that time ON THEIR OWN - it would have been just as easy to guard a museum as feed a few lions. Everyone seems to ignore this point.
Does anyone think that Saddam, or the regime, bears just a bit of responsibility for not surrendering when it was obvious he could not win? Most people blame Hitler for what the Soviets did to Berlin in 1945, for example.
Of course, a negotiated surrender would have allowed the troops to switch to peacekeeping immediately. Speaking of which, shouldn’t someone in the Iraqi regime officially surrender some time soon? This is getting worse than the 2000 election.
Which brings me to Syria…
On preview, perhaps I should explain. If the whole regime packed up and moved to Syria, and they don’t plan on surrendering, it poses serious problems for the rebuilding and occupation. It won’t be a question of invading Syria so much as defending Iraq from attacks from Syria. Remember, we defend Iraq now. We don’t have any choice, international law is a bitch that way. 
Only if all the looters were conveniently secured in cages. :rolleyes:
I’m hurt that you didn’t look at my earlier post about the famous palace photo.
Didja know that the US government hoped that the photo would serve the added propaganda purpose of convincing Iraqis to lay down their arms? In other words, it was somewhat calculated to overcome the Minister of Information. [sub]God, I miss that guy. Sure, he got people killed. But, dammit, he was funny.[/sub]
The famous palace photo is many things. The image documents a historical event, a pivotal moment in the ending of Saddam’s grip on power. It may have been the ‘tipping point,’ if you will. As a student of military history, to me the photo exemplified classic wartime propaganda.
What the photo does not do is show soldiers who were sitting around while the museums were being looted. I’m beginning to think your are upset about the troops putting their boots on the furniture.
By definition, we cannot have acted improperly. Could more troops have helped to spread order faster? No. Because it was the right decision to use a smaller force. Look at all the other good things that happened because of the plan. That means: if a bad thing happens, it’s not important. It’s not a mistake, it was just inevitable. No, not the kind of inevitable where we could have predicted it and done something about it. The other kind. Besides, it’s not our responsibility to police territory we control until we say we’re ready. But we’re not ready yet. How will you know when we are ready? We can’t make promises like that. It’s not our responsibility: you’ll know when we were ready after everything is over. Because first, inevitably, things will happen. Bad things. But we couldn’t have forseen them. Right, the other kind of inevitable. Because bad people did them. But not the inevitable or predictable kind of bad people. The other kind. And if we could predict or forsee, it was just out of our hands. Because we had to use the exact right amount of troops remember. By definition.
At least we were able to secure and protect the oil ministry from looters, and the priceless documents dating back tens of years. It’s not all chaos and disorder, you silly pinkos.
I have seen video of two marines guarding the entrance to a hotel and just standing around while it was being looted. While the camera crew is inside showing the looting going on, there is a rumor that the marines are stopping it and people panic and leave but when they go outside and see the marines still chatting they go back to the looting. Then you see them walk by the marines hauling their stuff.
>> The looters are the ones looting. THEY are the ones to blame.
Sorry but under American law if you create the conditions which allow and promote the damage, then you are responsible and liable. That is the way it is under American law. You create the conditions for a looting which would not have happened had you not created those conditions and sure as hell you are responsible. Are you telling me you believe it should not be so? Because then you are at odds with pretty much every legal system I know as well as what is considered common sense.
Now how about that?!?! One word. Despicable.
Look, gouda there will be thousands dying from accidents in the coming year. Are you gonna blame the govt for not stopping it? of course not, shit happens no matter how much you say it can be prevented. I dont even know where the cultural museum in Iraq is. It might be in an unsafe area, placing a contingent of soldiers couldve drawn fire from snipers or rpgs. Would you rather have the things blown up than stolen? There will be a house to house search, they will recover most of this stuff. In war, they make plans for war. containing looters is not part of the plan while there are militants and loyalists still around. Theyre doing it now, dont get your turban in a knot.
With all due respect, the blame game has been dealt with in this thread long enough, and I see another one has been started, so it’s pointless going into who I think is to blame. But c’mon, even after being warned that the museum will be a target for looters, especially going by the experiences of the first Gulf War, nothing was done to prevent precisely that from happening. I’ll tell you something, if the pentagon had made some effort to protect the museum, even minimal, we wouldn’t be arguing about who’s to blame - rather what a shame it is that a museum storing artifacts upto 5,000 years old was looted. 5000 years ago, your and most of my ancestors were still swinging from trees when these people had a civilised society already going!! And those records are lost. The fact that this could have been prevented, and yet no effort was made to prevent it, is what I find despicable.
Even the US military have (sort of) sheepishly admitted they made a mistake. But, of course, even that is not going to chage the minds of those who will defend the actions of the US military no matter what. Even if they admit they made a mistake, the tru defenders will never admit it. That’s like being more of a Popist than the Pope himself.
Allow me to quote from an article by Robert Fisk, currently reporting from Baghdad, in the Guardian of 14 April:
This, of course, in addition to the museum looting. But were all government and public buildings left unguarded?
Obviously, with the number of troops in Baghdad, if the US armed forces could spare hundreds of troops and some heavy artillery for those two buildings, they should have been able to spare troops and artillery for the other government and public buildings that were looted. This is, IMO, even more despicable than not protecting any buildings at all.