Iraq Museum Plundered

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-04-15 01:20am

I don't understand how people see nothing important in physical links to an otherwise unimaginably remote past.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-04-15 01:28am

Frank Hipper wrote:I don't understand how people see nothing important in physical links to an otherwise unimaginably remote past.

Oh, I do, I do. I just don't attach a massive value to them: "And this to shall also pass into dust." You've got to put things into context.

Graeme Dice · Post by **Graeme Dice** » 2003-04-15 01:29am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: 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.

Once again people come in with this same argument that somehow protecting the museum would have meant killing people. I've already shown that to be wrong, now I'm waiting for someone to show why lethal force would have been necessary.

Sure we know what the history is, but how can you prove that it actually happened, and is not just the produtc of someone's imagination without the originals?

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-04-15 01:33am

Graeme Dice wrote: Once again people come in with this same argument that somehow protecting the museum would have meant killing people. I've already shown that to be wrong, now I'm waiting for someone to show why lethal force would have been necessary.

You couldn't stop a worked up mob (they mentioned multiple groups of dozens of people) that's rushing a building with anything less. Especially one that's partially armed.

Sure, an armoured column driving by and firing - and we don't know if they fired light arms or vehicle-mounted cannon - scared them off. Once they were already dispersed through the complex and looting. But that's a very different situation than having a fixed guard on the complex.

Graeme Dice · Post by **Graeme Dice** » 2003-04-15 02:45am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: You couldn't stop a worked up mob (they mentioned multiple groups of dozens of people) that's rushing a building with anything less. Especially one that's partially armed.

Wow. I had no idea that the Seattle/Quebec/anywhere protesters were killed en masse to stop them.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-04-15 02:45am

expect them to do that in the same way they were already accomplishing it before they left.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/ ... 78179.html
"The ransacking of the museum took two days - interrupted only for 30 minutes when pleading staff persuaded members of a marine tank unit to go to the museum and scare the looters with a few warning shots over their heads."

So the threat of a tank is your idea of stopping the looting? Firing into the air will work for a while, but what happens when the looters figure out that they are not getting shot. Hmmmm, oh yeah, we will have to shoot them to back up our threats. I said it before, any show of force with the threat of violence will have to be backed up by violence or it becomes moot. Also, deverting tanks from viable military targets is even more dumb than deverting infantry. "Sorry sir, we didn't take that bridge because Charlie company was over guarding the museum." "Sorry sir, the infantry got eaten up by snipers cuz Joe Blow and his crew were driving up and down the front of the museum discouraging looters."

http://hnn.us/articles/1386.html
The army has now decided that the museum needs protection, but apparently it takes international outrage to accomplish that.

No, it takes the fact that the primary targets and objectives were met and now secondary and tertiary objectives to include the museum can be dealt with and protected. Hmmm, murading looters NOT shooting at me, or the fanatical Fayedeen that ARE shooting at me.

quote]Further, it's another illegality in this war, in that the troops are required under the Geneva conventions to protect cultural sites.
[/quote]

They are, the museum was on the 'don't bomb this place' list and after the heavy fighting in Baghdad was over, troops moved in to secure the site. The Geneva convention does not stipulate that cultural sites must be the primary objective in every campaign to ensure its survival.

The army was apparently able to protect the Ministry of Oil

Yeah, don't know why the military would be interested in a goverment installation in the capital. That goverment building would have the CCC facilities that goverment buildings tend to have so that the goverment could govern.....

Later on in that article, the writter explains that the stolen artifacts would probably be smuggled out of the country. Earlier in this thread I mentioned that it would be easier for MP's and trained personel stationed at the border, to screen and recover these artifacts rather than combat troops trying to secure them and bringing the ire of the city on us and creating anarchy that would not benifit the artifacts either.

Further, it was not thousands of people, but several dozen.
"Gangs of several dozen came," he said. "Some had guns. They threatened to kill us if we did not open up. The looting went on for two days."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0, ... 30,00.html

So armed looters will not degrade the situation any with armed troops guarding the site? If they are armed, then escalation of force is a probability and the chances of armed conflict encreases and would the armed troops discourage the armed looters from returning? Well lets find out, later in your article it says...

The Americans returned with tanks at one point on Friday and sent the looters fleeing, but as soon as the tanks rumbled away, the gangs came back to finish the job.

A tank did not disuade them, if only troops were there, what would the troops do that a tank didn't. The escalation of violence would have comenced until shots were fired and then we would be explaining to the world why we killed civilians over a bunch of old trinkets. More over, the population of Baghdad would have turned against us and then thing would be much worse for us, them, and the museum.

Again, later on in your article...

"There were hundreds of looters, including women, children and old people. They were uneducated. We know who they are," Mr Reda said, in a way that left little doubt they were from the poor slums of the Shia quarter.

And now in your article, we have hundreds of looters instead of the before mentioned dozen. Which was it?

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-04-15 02:52am

Graeme Dice wrote:
The Duchess of Zeon wrote: You couldn't stop a worked up mob (they mentioned multiple groups of dozens of people) that's rushing a building with anything less. Especially one that's partially armed.
Wow. I had no idea that the Seattle/Quebec/anywhere protesters were killed en masse to stop them.

No, they were CS'ed, beaten, cuffed and arested by the police force that was there to regulate the protests/event. The military is there to take military objectives. Later when the heavy fighting is done, they can take the time to start police duties but not when heavy fighting is occuring. Plus, a bunch of long hairs marching for the 'cause of the moment' in an area that was expecting a protest is a little different than a mob of both armed and unarmed civialians looting in a war zone.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-15 02:57am

Graeme Dice wrote:
Darth Wong wrote: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.

We don't need to know the entire history of society in order to know whether our rules are good. I suppose you think we need to know about the first ancient female warriors in order to know whether our laws make sense today

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-04-15 03:40am

Graeme Dice wrote: Wow. I had no idea that the Seattle/Quebec/anywhere protesters were killed en masse to stop them.

Those police have specialist training and specialist equipment in how to disperse people peacefully. Line infantry has specialist training and specialist equipment that is used to kill large numbers of people. When confronted with a crowd, city riot police in a first world country and the line infantry of that country's army are going to react in very different ways. That's not only a function of their training but also of their equipment.

P.S. Were you one of the people who complained about our preparing CS gas for possible use in Iraq? If so I'm calling you a hypocrite now.

Post by **Edi** » 2003-04-15 03:43am

I was just about to point out that if the US troops in Iraq were to use riot control agents like CS to control mobs, that would place the US in breach of the Chemical Weapons Convention since the war has not been declared over and combat operations are still being conducted. RCAs are not an option, and as jegs will beat into your head when he notices this, authorisation to use them rests at the four star level and will not be given. That is all.

Edi

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-04-15 03:47am

Edi wrote:I was just about to point out that if the US troops in Iraq were to use riot control agents like CS to control mobs, that would place the US in breach of the Chemical Weapons Convention since the war has not been declared over and combat operations are still being conducted. RCAs are not an option, and as jegs will beat into your head when he notices this, authorisation to use them rests at the four star level and will not be given. That is all.

Edi

There's probably a fair amount of pressure from certain elements in the administration to declare the war over so we can issue riot control agents to MPs we're deploying now (or even to the Iraqi police we're reactivating).

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-15 03:54am

This debate reminds me of the situation with the Buddhas in Afghanistan (when the Taliban blew them up). Worldwide outrage. Irreplaceable cultural treasures. Yadda yadda yadda. Meanwhile, women were being brutalized and killed on a daily basis and nobody cared.

I'm sick of the belief that cultural objects of purely subjective value are soooooo damned important. At the end of the day, you should be more thankful for the roof over your head than the availability of Shakespeare. Put your feet back on the ground, people.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-04-15 11:56am

Darth Wong wrote:This debate reminds me of the situation with the Buddhas in Afghanistan (when the Taliban blew them up). Worldwide outrage. Irreplaceable cultural treasures. Yadda yadda yadda. Meanwhile, women were being brutalized and killed on a daily basis and nobody cared.

I'm sick of the belief that cultural objects of purely subjective value are soooooo damned important. At the end of the day, you should be more thankful for the roof over your head than the availability of Shakespeare. Put your feet back on the ground, people.

To be brutal, humans can reproduce. So what if they kill off a lot of people, they will be replaced. Artefacts cannot be replaced. It's the simple, brutal, truth.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-04-15 11:58am

To be brutal, humans can reproduce. So what if they kill off a lot of people, they will be replaced. Artefacts cannot be replaced. It's the simple, brutal, truth.

Living humans can create more pots and bowls. Dead humans cannot. Another brutal truth.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-15 11:59am

Ted wrote:To be brutal, humans can reproduce. So what if they kill off a lot of people, they will be replaced. Artefacts cannot be replaced. It's the simple, brutal, truth.

Bullshit. Saying you can make more people is like saying you can make more pottery.

Moreover, you, like everyone else doing this, simply assume that "irreplaceable" = "more intrinsically valuable". Justify that claim.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-04-15 12:12pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Ted wrote:To be brutal, humans can reproduce. So what if they kill off a lot of people, they will be replaced. Artefacts cannot be replaced. It's the simple, brutal, truth.
Bullshit. Saying you can make more people is like saying you can make more pottery.

Moreover, you, like everyone else doing this, simply assume that "irreplaceable" = "more intrinsically valuable". Justify that claim.

People kill for some shit called oil wich for me is not worth it,historical artefact is much more important than oil.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2003-04-15 12:13pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Ted wrote:To be brutal, humans can reproduce. So what if they kill off a lot of people, they will be replaced. Artefacts cannot be replaced. It's the simple, brutal, truth.
Bullshit. Saying you can make more people is like saying you can make more pottery.

But all the people in the world won't be able to make ancient[b/] pottery or writings...

Kelly Antilles · Post by **Kelly Antilles** » 2003-04-15 12:15pm

ARTIFACT!! It's ARTIFACT damnit!

And oil IS more important than a simple piece of pottery. Oil is required for so many things, not just gasoline for cars. Oil is used to help provide power. Oil is used in all matter of machinery. Sorry, with technology, we cannot afford to be without oil.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-15 12:23pm

Dahak wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Ted wrote:To be brutal, humans can reproduce. So what if they kill off a lot of people, they will be replaced. Artefacts cannot be replaced. It's the simple, brutal, truth.
Bullshit. Saying you can make more people is like saying you can make more pottery.
But all the people in the world won't be able to make ancient[b/] pottery or writings...

And all the people in the world can't replace a human being. At best, they can only make another one which is different but serves a similar function. The fact remains that the "irreplaceable = super-valuable" argument is bullshit. Ultimately, it's a red-herring, and this argument is really about what value you place on art and culture.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-04-15 12:28pm

People kill for some shit called oil wich for me is not worth it,historical artefact is much more important than oil.

Did you not just see me smack that down, or do I need to go over it with you, too?

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-04-15 12:33pm

Darth Wong wrote:And all the people in the world can't replace a human being. At best, they can only make another one which is different but serves a similar function. The fact remains that the "irreplaceable = super-valuable" argument is bullshit. Ultimately, it's a red-herring, and this argument is really about what value you place on art and culture.

Artifacts are valuable. Of that, there can be no doubt. However, each human life is distinctly different and thus I see human life as much more valuable. There will never be another Mike Wong or Jay Simpson. Unfortunately, much of the world holds the value of human life in very low esteem, and inanimate things are considered much more precious.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-04-15 04:03pm

Tell me this then.

Why was the Ministry of Oil guarded, when the US was required by The Hague Convention of 1954 to protect the museum, yet failed to do so.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-04-15 04:10pm

The more I think about it, the more I agree with Darth Wong and others of the same opinion~

A lot of these old artifacts don't do much but get air-time on those "gee whiz this is cool shit" discovery channel shows that don't teach us anything of real value

I hope people don't get shot over stuff like this.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-04-15 04:11pm

Why was the Ministry of Oil guarded, when the US was required by The Hague Convention of 1954 to protect the museum, yet failed to do so.

Because whatever article of the Hague Convention dictates that musuems must be protected over the only possible means of reconstructing an entire nation is worth slightly less than the stuff I use to wipe my ass.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-04-15 04:28pm

http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla68/papers/091-099e.pdf

TED, read the above. Its a paper on your precious Hague Convention. During times of war the signatories agree to RESPECT centers of culture. respect meaning to try and not detrsoy them and not to purposefully target these sites.

So asshole, once again, you LIED. You spouted some sanctamonious BULLSHIT about the Hague Convention because you thought it sounded nice not thinking that someone would actually READ the FUCKING THING and see what sort of tool you are in regards to your Anti-American bashing bullshit.

RESPECT not safeguard. Safeguarding is done in times of peace after the war is over and the war IS NOT OVER or are you blind as well as retarded?