Beagle, there is nothing “civil” about looting.
Once one starts to loot, they have stopped committing “civil” disobediance. Now they’re just plain thugs.
december, to bring up France and Russia-now THAT’s a stretch. Hell, that’s a Stretch Armstrong.
:rolleyes:
Mind: Show me a credible cite that 200,000 troops are guarding the Oil Ministry and I’ll eat my computer screen.
John: What one considers “credible” is absolute bullshit to another. I cannot show you one that would make you “eat your computer screen” because the sources I have showed I already labeled here. I’m not sure how many sources I need to show you before it can be labeled “credible” in your eyes. As you may already know, all sources are biased, but if you get the same news from more many, the bias is easier to point out and the facts easier to spot.
Look it up yourself. I don’t see why I need to do all the research. 
I’m already doing that anyway. 
C’mon people, 200,000 is so obviously a typo (or whacko propaganda). 200,000 troops is overkill to protect one building, or even 50 buildings, if the Oil Ministry is indeed that big. Do we really have to argue about that?!
Uh, mindmirror, around here, ESPECIALLY here in Great Debates, when you make a claim like that, you better be prepared to back it up with a cite. It’s non-negotiable. It’s like, carved in stone, right next to, “Thou shalt send Lynn Godivas”.
P.S. Not trying to be snarky, “cranial hemisphere,” I feel like crap. Days like this I’m glad the video phone hasn’t caught on. I can’t make words work good.
4/5 of the US troops in the region were not guarding one building, I’m guessing.
Beagle: “The looting after the Rodney King verdict was defended by many on the left as an act of civil disobedience.”
Ah. Well, then, I agree those people (however many they were) are vulnerable to charges of inconsistency if they decry the looting in Bagdhad. -Thanks for the comment that we seem not to have any of those people in this particular argument. If any of 'em post, then I’ll join you in pointing out their hypocrisy.
(Don’t worry about the “cranial hemisphere” thing… sometimes I post without any feeling in my medulla oblongata, so I knew exactly what you meant!)
Several regional museums containing artifacts originally stored at the Baghdad Museum, but moved in an effort to protect them during the first Gulf War, were looted following that war. The U.S. was not invading then. People loot when they think they can get away with it, invasion or no invasion.
Well, I expect soon to here the “umm, er never mind” of those who have castigated the USA for “allowing this”, but I probably won’t. It wasn’t random looting- and they got away with only a few “priceless treasures” (altho they scored a lot of valuable office equiptment)- and it was an expert burglary, not some random looting. US Marines are not police, and don’t have the training to track down & stop expert thieves- and not only that- it looks like an inside job.
3 other points- the HQ for the Repulican Guard was across the street for Gods sakes- and there was still fighting going on- it would be foolish to risk a platoon of Marines at that point in time. Next- where were the Bagdad Police? It IS their job to police and protect such buildings. And as Darwins Finch pointed out- Bagdad got looted during the Gulf war, too- even tho US forces never got close.
No, I am sorry- this was in no way the fault of the USA.
News reports now seem to be pretty clear that this was not looting, but a planned theft by knowledgeable people. Not sure if that makes a difference in this debate, but it looks like any “looting” was targetted towards furniture and machines rather than artifacts.
I don’t understand the point you’re making here. Are you arguing that the looting of the Baghdad Museum would have occurred even if America had not invaded? That the invasion was not responsible for the chaos that made the looting possible? I’d certainly agree that looting occurs when people think they can get away with it; in this case, they thought they could get away with it because there was an American invasion going on.
I was responding to your claim that “the fact remains that if America hadn’t invaded, there would have been no looting”. My point is that there is a precedence for Iraqi museums being looted, and in that instance, invasion by the U.S. was not responsible. History would therefore indicate that invasion was not a necessary precedent for looting to occur. The lack of civil authority in the area is what prompted the looting, not the invasion itself.
Exactly. And in this case, it was the US invasion that removed Iraqi civil authority, and therefore made the looting possible.
yoyodyne: I linked to this article from Robert Fisk in Rusalka’s thread. I also found this article on the Guardian website.
Funny how some people will just not admit the US has any responsibility whatsoever when the US military themselves have acknowledged their responsibility. If that is not being fanatical I don’t know what is.
This seems like a strange argument to me. Yeah, I guess you could say that the lack of civil authority is ultimately to blame, but that’s sort of like saying that it ain’t the fall that kills you, it’s the sudden stop at the bottom. The Iraqi civil authority was in disarray because of the invasion; it seems silly to deny that. You could also argue, I suppose, that there is historical precedent for Iraq not being ruled by Saddam Hussein, and, therefore, the U.S. invasion had nothing to do with the end of his regime. Obviously, invasion is not a necessary precedent for a Saddam-free Iraq.
I want to revive this thread with a bit of a hijack.
There is growing evidence that the looting of antiquities was not the work of over-exuberant iraqis exercising their new found freedoms. This was posted before but now more evidence is coming up. Knock offs and lesser valued items were passed over or destroyed to make it look like looting. Locks were not forced open but opened by keys. Hidden valuable and priceless items were found and stolen less valuable items out in the open were not taken.
Considering that this might be an inside job, how does this mitigate the US forces’ responsibility of guarding the museum?
Wrongo. The US Marines did not stop the line police from continuing their daily duties. The Bagdad Police were sworn to protect the Museum- where were THEY?
If that’s the case, why did the US armed forces station heavy guards around the ministries of oil and the interior? It makes no sense, if they expected the line police to keep order in the city.