Why wasn't the Baghdad Museum protected?

Remove all ads!

I saw in the news the other day the pillaging of the Baghdad museum and i was furstrated because of the lack of respect the US army showed by not guarding the Museum. You see the oil wells where of great importance the culture of Iraq was nothing too serious.
The minister of culture in Greece was forced to ask from the minister of culture of England to have the coallition force to dispatch troops for the safeguarding of the museum.
Why did he addressed to England; Because US have not a ministry of culture. Can you tell me your thoughts about this;
A Greek tv satirical show some years before (during the attack in Kossovo) said that if your country's history fits into a stamp how can you respect the history of any other country? Guess to which country they were referring to. This is somehow harsh but i tend to believe it.
Collin Powell said after the worlds outcry that the relics lost shall be found and there is no need for cries. Ok and what about the destroyed statues and relics will US glue them back;

[ April 16, 2003, 09:37: Message edited by: Mithrantir ]

 

Who cares about a few million year old stones? All stones are old like that. There are things that are important and others that aren't. I mean, I'd bet a couple of americans have heared the word mesopotamia first with the war (this, of course is a wild guess, and born from prejudice).

So the the US forces reportedly will not undertake any efforts to count iraqi civilian deaths - as that could only give them a bad press.

 

I watched culture report on TV. They expect that some of these treasures are gone forever, manly those which can't be sold. Others are expected to turn up to horrendous prices.

The same thing happened in 1991 in Gulf-war 2. A lot of treasures "disappeared".

I mean those artefacts are worth millions.

And there is a rumour going around, that in the US, a certain pressure group has made proposals to put big wholes in the laws concerning the import of cultural artefacts.

BBC:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/

[ April 16, 2003, 11:22: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

BTA, the behaviour of the Iraqi people is easy enough to understand -- it's the mob mentality, and that happens everywhere. Look at riots in the States. Blacks will smash and loot stores owned by other blacks in the name of "responding to white prejudice." Aryan nations folks will destroy white property because they hate blacks. it makes no logical sense, but when you are going wild and having a riot in the streets, logic takes a walk.

The U.S. cannot do everything, or cater to every single agenda out there, be that agenda left or right, Christian or secular. To my mind, their goals must be a) the elimination of the Saddamite regime and b) keeping their own soldiers alive. Other goals may exist, but the U.S. is not going to risk soldiers to battle civilian stupidity. If they want to pillage their own culture, let them go for it!

I also have to back up BTA's comment -- what would the liberals have wanted the troops to do -- open fire on civilians? Or maybe use batons or bayonets to beat back the crowds? Back to my main thesis on American policy: They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

 

I've seen some TV reporters in a museum in Baghdad, they followed a crying lady trough out the building until they found some looters still inside. The looters fled, they were thieves not soldiers, nor assassins. Imo if you put an angry-looking GI at the door (with 300k troops in Iraq there's got to be someone available), looters scared by reporters won't try to enter.

US invade Iraq, bomb cities, but who's to blame for the disorder, Iraqies ... that's too much.

 

Yours, mine, and I'm sure a lot of others', BTA!

While we're on the subject of Iraqi antiquities, why don't we discuss the millenia-old gate that Saddam destroyed to build that statue of himself, y'know, the one that was pulled down recently?

Did you know that Army commanders were supplied with a list of 147 separate sites of archaeological significance prior to the war starting? Of course the archaeologists had abotu 700 more, but they had to start somewhere. I'd like to see an assessment about how the listed sites fared and what measures were taken to protect them. Also, prior to any bombs falling I saw TV news reports of people taking treasures out of the museum for safekeeping and making other preparations. So where (and in what condition) are those removed items now?

You said it, Depaara - damned if we do, damned if we don't.

 

Oxymore, you must be joking? Who is performing the looting? Iraqis. Are they doing it to get food that the U.S. is denying them? Absolutely not -- they're not looting foodstores, they're looting museums. The concept of personal resposibility applies here -- if you are doing something, then you are responsible for what you are doing, not the guy down the street. It would be like me hitting my wife and then trying to say it's the fault of the policeman who lives next door for not stopping me.

 

What the liberals wanted the americans to do ? Respect the law, maybe ?


http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,245010,00.html

I read somewhere else, that it's quite possible a case of professional theft, what happend in the museums. And those artefacts are "priceless". But Powell acknowledged negligence and responsibility of the americans.

Oh, I forgot, weaponinspector Rumsfeld has declared international law and the common law of england void. No, really, I wonder, what if i buy something from the USA ? Will the contract be valid ?
Yes, I am seriously worried about international law concerning commercial issues, like a plane ticket ? Are tickets for a plane anything worth anymore ?

 

Don't worry, Yago, that's not within the scope of his authority. Besides, American corporations- especially software firms and Hollywood - would never allow to happen something that would so grieviously jeopardize their fight against international pirating.

 

Deepara, if the policeman who lives next door sees you hitting your wife and does nothing then he has to be blamed. As Yago quoted: "The occupying force must do everything necessary to restore law and order"

PS - I never said Iraqies were innocent, but since the US invaded Iraq, it's their duty to maintain public order.

[ April 16, 2003, 18:51: Message edited by: Oxymore ]

 

Interesting stuff, Yago -- I've been educated. Of course the Americans should try to put law and order back together, I just want it realized that while they do so they need to take into account the risk factor. Aside from that, though, the real criminals are the ones actually doing the looting! Under some of the arguments presented here, these Iraqi looters are simple children, morons in fact, who simply don't know any better than to loot like crazy. I don't buy that for a second. They know what they are doing is wrong, and the blamce for their illegal and immoral activites should rest squarely on their shoulders. What I said about what level of force should be used stands as well. If even ONE looter was shot, for whatever reason, the liberals would be up in arms, saying things like "what is more important? Antiquities or HUMAN LIFE? Those evil Americans have no respect for Iraqi lives." I can hear Susan Sarandon now, talking about how artifacts are all the Americans care about, not the here and now well-being of the Iraqi people.

As for hospitals, that's another story altogether, but again, the blame needs to go on the people actually doing the damn looting! Given limited resources, what should the Americans and British guard? Hospitals or museums? Now, if they're doing a poor job of both, that's one thing, but I think that hospitals deserve more attention than museums.

 

Wow, another thread bashing America here at SP. I'm shocked. Did you know that an Iraqi child caught a nasty cold yesterday? French and German media are blaming the US Military for carrying "illegal viruses" into Iraq. International law clearly states that an occupying army should make sure to cover their noses when they sneeze, and some Marines were seen using napkins instead of UN sanctioned Kleenexes.



This is getting crazy.

I could walk into the Art Institute of Chicago right now and destroy a few priceless pieces of art. Security is minimal and many works are right in the open.

I choose not to. Not because I love America. Personally, I hate the politics in Chicago, and the liberals have so screwed the economy that I'm paying over 30% of my income in useless taxes.

I think abortion is murder, but I choose to respect the law and not burn down Planned Parenthood centers.

Its called ethics, a moral compass, a personal relationship with God.

Over 70% of Iraqi's are Muslim. The Koran does not tolerate this sort of behavior. Where are the clerics protesting this? Instead, they're all busy trying to get control of the new government.

Did you notice the Anti-American protest yesterday? Signs that said "Bush=Sadam" (yeah, they misspelled his name) and more.

How did America Respond? We said, "Go ahead, exercise your freedom to assemble and your freedom of speech. That is what American, British and Australian men and woman have died for!"

Artifacts or Freedom. I think we delivered the more important of the two.

 

Can't do anything against it. It's the way god made me.

But as the saying goes, you never get a second chance to make a first impression.

And having hospitals looted and water supply damaged, isn't the best impression. It's not my fault that chief-weaponinspector Rumsfeld seems to be swamped with the "untidiness" of Iraq.

And the worst part of the Impression is that the buildings of the OIL-ministry were all very well secured.

Now, if an Iraqi mother learns, that her baby died because the hospitals were looted, whereas the documents concering Oil were save and sound. What would she think of Americans ?

And the successes now determine the time that US-Forces are able to stay in Iraq. Maybe, in six months the Iraqis get fed up with their altruistic invader, start a resistance movement and send Marines back in boxes. Who knows.

 

If that mother has a brain, she'll blame the looters for looting. As for the Americans looking after the oil wells, you could argue that this is simple narrow minded selfishness, or that it is them protecting the economic lifeblood of Iraq. Even if the American's are being selfish, they are not doing anything differently than any other conqueror would do, except for the fact that in the midst of their "selfishness" they are striving, not always successfully, but striving, to bring food, water, medical supplies and other necessities to the people they just conquered. And despite all the cynicism displayed, they will soon turn the governance of the Iraq over to the Iraqi people. Will they still have a great deal of control? Of course. Will whatever regime comes into place in Iraq be better than Saddam's for the people there? You bet it will. In the next few months, the number of people that will not be killed or tortured by the saddamite regime will far outnumber those who were killed during the invasion. I know doing math with lives seems heartless, and doesn't help the people who lost loved ones during the invasion, but facts are facts.

 

Say what?

1) Support please.

2)It seems like your conclusions are completely unrelated to the topic, could you please lay out how you get from point A (Baghdad museum was looted) to point 65413546746421316549665 (the death of contract law)?

 

BTA wrote:

Ah, me ?

From Reuters:

Interesting. From 2 different articels at Reuters. Now, they don't contradict themselves. Both state:

A. There was a plan from the Military to protect the OIL-related infrastructure.

B. This plan obviously worked. The Oil-infrastructure is mostly intact. And the documents concerning OIL ARE safe and sound. K, I minor drawback, furniture and computers were looted.

My conclusion. Bottom line is still the same. The Weaponinspector-in-chief Rumsfeld has failed to deliver a working plan to protect the civil infrastructure. He was swamped with the untidiness of "freedom".

However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results. And I think the secure in TV-stations embedded generals were quite right with their stern judgement of Rumsfeld's achievements.

At Depaara: If that woman has a brain (I actually fancy myself from time to time to have a brain too ), she's free to think (Bush promised that) and draw her own conclusions. And I think her anger will turn to the invaders. Who failed misarebly to secure law and order. Acutally because they miscalculated the whole thing.

Which was my humble opinion from the beginning. Huge miscalculation. The wolfowitz plan to "reshape" the middle east is worth nothing and will get the americans in a terrible mess.

At Laches:

International Law demands that the US pays for the financial damage inflicted to the museum. But:

The USA has stated (not only concerning the war) that it feels not longer bound to international treates when they're not convient (like Tokyo). International law also covers trade relations between countries (for example WTO, Treaties concering air-travel). Or, like Rallymama stated, international treaties concerning intellectual property. So, who can say, which treaty they chose next to break ?

[ April 16, 2003, 22:53: Message edited by: Yago ]