Iraq Museum Plundered

[HemlockGrey]

Exactly. Which means that you are willing to throw away the only thing of lasting value in the country for the sake of short term gains

You must be purposely being obtuse. If 'the survival of the nation' = 'short term gain' in your mind, you have some fucked-up priorities.

Bullshit. The U.S. is the biggest economy in the world. If it can't afford to rebuild the economy without selling Iraqi Oil then the war is really about nothing more than oil.

...!

What the hell are you talking about? The USA has insofar not attained the capability to turn lead into gold, which would be what is needed to do what you propose. If you have made any discoveries of your own, please let us know.

You are proposing we take on the collected debts of an ENTIRE NATION. You are proposing that we alone attempt to bring an entire nation halfway around the world up to 1st world standards. This would involve MASSIVE tax increases and MASSIVE accumulation of debts.

Actually, before the first war, and the sanctions, Iraq had a huge agrarian industry.

Which no longer exists. It might be rebuilt, but this would require money, which would require something to sell for money, which would require something of value, i.e. oil

[Graeme Dice]

You must be purposely being obtuse. If 'the survival of the nation' = 'short term gain' in your mind, you have some fucked-up priorities.

Yes, the survival of any nation in the next decade or so is a short term goal.

You are proposing we take on the collected debts of an ENTIRE NATION. You are proposing that we alone attempt to bring an entire nation halfway around the world up to 1st world standards. This would involve MASSIVE tax increases and MASSIVE accumulation of debts.

If you can't do that, then you should have stayed the hell out of Iraq in the first place.

[Darth Wong]

You obviously have no comprehension of Occam's Razor. I suggest you do some research.

I suggest that you instead learn how to reason logically. Without cultural artifacts we have no evidence whatsoever for what happened in the past.

Correct, which means that we do not invent unnecessary terms in order to explain it. Martians are an unnecessary term which have not been observed to exist, therefore it is illogical to argue that a Martian-based theory is just as plausible as any other theory in the absence of clear evidence. Learn to think.

Any book or history that tells us what happened in the past is nothing more than conjecture without those artifacts to provide support. Martians are defeated by Occam's razor, but without any evidence you cannot say that one side of an argument is supported by an argument and the other is not.

If you admit that Martians are dismissed by Occam's Razor, why the smart-ass bullshit remarks, and why the attempt to refute a post which said precisely that?

[Darth Wong]

Are you saying we know nothing whatsoever about these artifacts? Take the Rosetta stone for example; if it was destroyed, what difference would it make now? It's already been studied.

For one, if it was destroyed, then 500 years from now people will be having arguments as to whether the copies are accurate instead of simply using them.

So? What difference will it make? Egads, historians arguing about evidence; good thing we've managed to avoid that so far.

As for the other artifacts, if the museum records are destroyed, then we have no way to tell what the artifacts were, or any other information about them.

No one in the rest of the world had any idea of what these artifacts meant in terms of world history?

The archaeologists who dug them up initially might still have the records, but in all likelihood they simply turned them over to the museum. After all, that's why museums exist.

Stuff that's on display in museums has already been studied.

Take for instance the relatively recent research that used skeletons collected on the steppes of Asia decades ago to show that there were indeed female warriors in the very far distant past. Without those skeletons, there would have been no way to test the truth of the matter.

Good thing nothing important in our society hinges upon the discovery that there were indeed ancient female warriors in the very far distant past.

[Darth Wong]

Well, humans are replenishable. Cultural and historical artifacts are not.

That is an utterly reprehensible thing to say.

[Graeme Dice]

Correct, which means that we do not invent unnecessary terms in order to explain it. Martians are an unnecessary term which have not been observed to exist, therefore it is illogical to argue that a Martian-based theory is just as plausible as any other theory in the absence of clear evidence. Learn to think.

It's called hyperbole Mike. Maybe you should learn to recognize it.

If you admit that Martians are dismissed by Occam's Razor, why the smart-ass bullshit remarks, and why the attempt to refute a post which said precisely that?

I am making an argument that history only exists and that history is only accurate as long as the original sources remain. You are nitpicking about Martians. If you want to say that history exists without supporting sources, be my guest, but you'll have to provide an awfully good argument for why we should accept conjecture.

[Graeme Dice]

So? What difference will it make? Egads, historians arguing about evidence; good thing we've managed to avoid that so far.

Right. So the majority opinion on what happened during some events is always the correct one then?

No one in the rest of the world had any idea of what these artifacts meant in terms of world history?

Sure they have an idea, but they can no longer go back to the originals to test their hypotheses.

Stuff that's on display in museums has already been studied.

Which is why you'll notice that the vaults themselves were opened. Not everything in a museum is on display.

Good thing nothing important in our society hinges upon the discovery that there were indeed ancient female warriors in the very far distant past.

If you wish to remain ignorant about human society, well, that's your own choice. Just don't try and force your own ignorance on others as though it were a good thing.

[HemlockGrey]

Yes, the survival of any nation in the next decade or so is a short term goal.

Here's a clue: If the nation doesn't survive, the odds of it's 'cultural artifacts' surviving are slim, too. Further, the survival of it's people is in doubt, as well.

If you can't do that, then you should have stayed the hell out of Iraq in the first place.

You ARE being obtuse. We can rebuild the country, but we must use the oil to do it. What is so wrong about this?

[Darth Wong]

It's called hyperbole Mike. Maybe you should learn to recognize it.

It's called being a smart-ass. Maybe you should stop doing it.

I am making an argument that history only exists and that history is only accurate as long as the original sources remain. You are nitpicking about Martians.

I'm also making the point that ancient history is not as important as you seem to think, and pointing out that you're being a smart-ass. Situation's not changing, I see.

If you want to say that history exists without supporting sources, be my guest, but you'll have to provide an awfully good argument for why we should accept conjecture.

Maybe I don't give a flying fuck about ancient history. Did that occur to you, or did numerous posts in this thread about my lack of concern for ancient history somehow fly right over your head?

[Graeme Dice]

Here's a clue: If the nation doesn't survive, the odds of it's 'cultural artifacts' surviving are slim, too. Further, the survival of it's people is in doubt, as well.

You've yet to show that the oil or the infrastructure to extract it were in any significant danger.

You ARE being obtuse. We can rebuild the country, but we must use the oil to do it. What is so wrong about this?

Did the U.S. sell European and Japanese commodities to rebuild their economies? Or did they give them $120 billion dollars in 1940's currency without expecting it to be paid back?

[Darth Wong]

So? What difference will it make? Egads, historians arguing about evidence; good thing we've managed to avoid that so far.

Right. So the majority opinion on what happened during some events is always the correct one then?

Nice strawman, but no. The correct answer is that history is nebulous and when it's very old, simply not that damned important.

No one in the rest of the world had any idea of what these artifacts meant in terms of world history?

Sure they have an idea, but they can no longer go back to the originals to test their hypotheses.

So what? How important is this to anyone except for the people who study ancient history?

Which is why you'll notice that the vaults themselves were opened. Not everything in a museum is on display.

Point taken. What did they have in there?

If you wish to remain ignorant about human society, well, that's your own choice. Just don't try and force your own ignorance on others as though it were a good thing.

More strawmen, eh? No one said it was important to force people to be ignorant. But elevating ancient historical trinkets over human lives is ridiculous. That city has not been secured, and Marines are still risking their lives. Burdening them with the caretaking of historical trinkets is unnecessary and unreasonable.

[Graeme Dice]

Nice strawman, but no. The correct answer is that history is nebulous and when it's very old, simply not that damned important.

<snip>

So what? How important is this to anyone except for the people who study ancient history?

If all you're going to say is that ancient history isn't important to the modern day, and you are convinced in your mind that this is the case, then I guess there's no point in trying to change that.

Which is why you'll notice that the vaults themselves were opened. Not everything in a museum is on display.

Point taken. What did they have in there?

Apparently just about everything was moved to the vaults. I haven't been able to find any kind of a good inventory yet.

More strawmen, eh? No one said it was important to force people to be ignorant. But elevating ancient historical trinkets over human lives is ridiculous. That city has not been secured, and Marines are still risking their lives. Burdening them with the caretaking of historical trinkets is unnecessary and unreasonable.

I would agree with you that it is unreasonable except for the fact that they apparently decided to guard the ministry of oil. There's no real humanitarian reason to do so.

[HemlockGrey]

You've yet to show that the oil or the infrastructure to extract it were in any significant danger.

They weren't because we secured them quickly and early. You don't play around and you don't take chances.

Did the U.S. sell European and Japanese commodities to rebuild their economies? Or did they give them $120 billion dollars in 1940's currency without expecting it to be paid back?

$120,000,000,000 which the USA cannot spare at this time.

[Graeme Dice]

$120,000,000,000 which the USA cannot spare at this time.

Then once again they shouldn't have undertaken the war if they can't fix the country up afterwards.

[HemlockGrey]

But we CAN fix up the country, IF WE USE THE OIL! Why has this failed to get through to you? Your suggestion that the US must rebuild the country entirely out of it's own pocket is both unreasonable and mind-bogglingly stupid.

[Montcalm]

But we CAN fix up the country, IF WE USE THE OIL! Why has this failed to get through to you? Your suggestion that the US must rebuild the country entirely out of it's own pocket is both unreasonable and mind-bogglingly stupid.

The anti-war groups will say they were right all along,and this was just for oil and screw the rest.

[Steve]

It's called hyperbole Mike. Maybe you should learn to recognize it.

It's called being a smart-ass. Maybe you should stop doing it.

But Mike, what about people like me, born of two smart-ass parents and thus blessed with very good smart-ass genes?

[HemlockGrey]

Graeme, this is the point where you step in and say, "Thank you, Cy oh great Cy, for your gift of enlightenment."

[Graeme Dice]

Graeme, this is the point where you step in and say, "Thank you, Cy oh great Cy, for your gift of enlightenment."

Huh?

[weemadando]

For one, if it was destroyed, then 500 years from now people will be having arguments as to whether the copies are accurate instead of simply using them.

So? What difference will it make? Egads, historians arguing about evidence; good thing we've managed to avoid that so far.

As for the other artifacts, if the museum records are destroyed, then we have no way to tell what the artifacts were, or any other information about them.

No one in the rest of the world had any idea of what these artifacts meant in terms of world history?

The archaeologists who dug them up initially might still have the records, but in all likelihood they simply turned them over to the museum. After all, that's why museums exist.

Stuff that's on display in museums has already been studied.

Take for instance the relatively recent research that used skeletons collected on the steppes of Asia decades ago to show that there were indeed female warriors in the very far distant past. Without those skeletons, there would have been no way to test the truth of the matter.

Good thing nothing important in our society hinges upon the discovery that there were indeed ancient female warriors in the very far distant past.

And what happens when the evidence is gone? Perhaps I can change this so you understand. Its like trying to argue STvsSW, but without EVER being able to see the movies or TV shows again. You can look at what someone has written about it, but you can't ever look for yourself to gain your own interpretation or confirm their conclusions.

You try and belittle history and the "non-science" learning all the time. Nothing important hinging on ancient female warriors? Bullshit. This can confirm other researchers conclusions, open up new areas of research. And it promotes CULTURE.

One of the best thing for Iraq after this war would be showing them their culture and how much they have lost and encouraging them to return to the great heights of the Babylonians etc. Its all about culture and psychology in that case.

It just pisses me off that people can't understand just how valuable these items were...

[Darth Wong]

And what happens when the evidence is gone? Perhaps I can change this so you understand. Its like trying to argue STvsSW, but without EVER being able to see the movies or TV shows again. You can look at what someone has written about it, but you can't ever look for yourself to gain your own interpretation or confirm their conclusions.

False analogy; if it were extensively, photographically documented, you would still be able to look at the evidence in an objective manner. Besides, I would never ask a US marine or anyone else to sacrifice or risk his life for the sake of Star Wars vs Star Trek, nor would I ask him to sacrifice or risk his life for the sake of knowing whether there were once ancient female warriors. The usefulness of that information in modern society is limited to recreational interest.

You try and belittle history and the "non-science" learning all the time. Nothing important hinging on ancient female warriors? Bullshit. This can confirm other researchers conclusions, open up new areas of research. And it promotes CULTURE.

Which is important enough to ask men and women to risk their lives ... why?

One of the best thing for Iraq after this war would be showing them their culture and how much they have lost and encouraging them to return to the great heights of the Babylonians etc. Its all about culture and psychology in that case.

No, one of the best things for Iraq after this war would be a stable electrical power generation and distribution infrastructure, clean running water, a properly maintained sewer system, properly equipped and maintained hospitals, improved roads, telecommunications, effective school systems, secular government, and a charter of rights and freedoms. Learning about ancient history doesn't do jack squat except to make people obsess over ancient history. Muslims spend far too much time thinking about ancient history and not enough time looking toward the future. If anything, their obsession with their own history is holding them back.

It just pisses me off that people can't understand just how valuable these items were...

Yet you cannot explain what makes them so valuable except to raise your voice and shout that these cultural artifacts ARE CULTURE!!! We get it. But you still haven't explained what makes them so important, or why men should turn their attention away from more important matters of self-preservation and eliminating remaining pockets of resistance in order to protect them.

[Graeme Dice]

Yet you cannot explain what makes them so valuable except to raise your voice and shout that these cultural artifacts ARE CULTURE!!! We get it. But you still haven't explained what makes them so important, or why men should turn their attention away from more important matters of self-preservation and eliminating remaining pockets of resistance in order to protect them.

The only that keeps humans from being nothing more than intelligent chimpanzees is our culture. Without it, we are just animals scrabbling for food in a struggle where only the strongest survive.

[Darth Wong]

Yet you cannot explain what makes them so valuable except to raise your voice and shout that these cultural artifacts ARE CULTURE!!! We get it. But you still haven't explained what makes them so important, or why men should turn their attention away from more important matters of self-preservation and eliminating remaining pockets of resistance in order to protect them.

The only that keeps humans from being nothing more than intelligent chimpanzees is our culture. Without it, we are just animals scrabbling for food in a struggle where only the strongest survive.

Our culture is defined by its values and its rules, not by ancient history.

[Graeme Dice]

Our culture is defined by its values and its rules, not by ancient history.

And you can't find out where those values and rules came from and why they are good without looking at ancient history.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Our culture is defined by its values and its rules, not by ancient history.

And you can't find out where those values and rules came from and why they are good without looking at ancient history.

Very good, but we already know how that history happened. Any damage to the artifacts in Iraq isn't going to make us lose our knowledge of the Empire of Sargon the Great or of the promulgation of Hammurabi's code or of the technology and social conditions of the times, or even early of the rise of the city-states of Sumer. I'm not denying that what has been lost is a loss, but is it one worth killing over? No.