 |
|
gunkulator
|
|
Good news.
I still refuse to shed one tear for old shards of pottery and the like when held in balance with human life. If even one life was saved by NOT protecting this stuff, I say twas the lesser of two evils.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
The library wasn't exactly saved, the library was burnt to the ground and supposedly 30 percent of the volumes are at this site. This is great for the Iraqis that there are people with some vision and foresight, it would have helped if coalition leadership had shown some. I might remind you that all of the volumes spoken about are now in private hands. Will they all make it back to the public domain?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by rah
If the library and the museum contents were saved regardless of what the americans did.................just maybe, the decision not to protect them was justified.
And that choosing to defend themselves and other citizens instead was the right decision.
Just a thought.
RAH |
So if a gunman goes into a school and starts shooting, and the police fail to respond in time, but no one is killed, is it then ..justified..that the police came late, cause the end result was not that bad?
I am sorry, but the "protect themselves": argument cuts no mustard in these cases. Were the looters and arsonists armed to the teeth? Why would the threat have been greater sitting outside of a library, than say, outside the Iraqi oil ministry? (which was quickly surrounded by large numbers of US troops and no one was let anywehre near)
The main problem appears to be, specially given the shakeup of leadership in the last few days, that the plans created for securing the city of baghdad were wrong, based on faulty estimates of how many forces would be ended tosecure the city, and how quickly Iraqis might join in. That then is still a failure of US planners to get a handle on the situation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
The museum and the library were simply the most spectacular results of the looting, something to get American blood hot when they couldn't care about the disruption of Iraqi lives caused by widespread looting. The fact is that there is still a general state of lawlessness in Iraq, everythings not hunkydory and maybe we shouldn't have been there in the first place, especially if we weren't willing to risk American lives to do the things necessary to have a successful outcome for the Iraqi people.
quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/15/international/worldspecial/15IRAQ.html
Today's comments reflected a view among American and British leaders that the postwar lawlessness in Iraq is far more pervasive and intractable than they had originally expected. Though the spectacular looting on display at the end of the war has melted away, if only because most public buildings were cleaned out long ago, roving gangs have kept up a frenetic pace of carjackings and muggings. Gunfire remains common at night, but many thieves have become more brazen about breaking into homes in daylight.
...
At a news conference today, General McKiernan said that the pace of shootings and looting was declining and that enough troops would soon be on the streets to deal with the problem. "You still have a law and order problem, but as I get reports back from the units, we have less frequency of those reports," he said.
But that is not the perception of most Iraqis, rich or poor, who have become bitterly angry at what they see as American unwillingness to restore order. "How is it that the Americans, who have all the technology and all the power, cannot do something about the violence in the streets?" said the owner of a small bus service that runs between Baghdad and Damascus. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
For my part all of the criticism is not directed at the US military but the leadership that put it there. I have always believed that military action in Iraq would do more harm then good and so far I've seen nothing to prove to me that it isn't the case.
quote:
I just don't understand how come people want to vilify the US military. They go into a foriegn capital with lead combat elements and everybody expects them to have a whole security infrastructure in place right away. This is simply ridiculous. It takes time for any security apparatus to be set up. Most units were responsible for certain areas from a military point of view. They did their jobs well. You simply cannot move enough people that quickly to be all things to all people. Is it a failure of planning? I don't think so. It is just a reality of an invasion. |
That was the excuse in the first week, whats the excuse now? Maybe, our president, in his desire to make a war palatable to the US and Britain, proposed a war on a shoestring, with the bare minimum amount of personel necessary to complete all of its objectives. Maybe all the possible problems that would spring up were downplayed and not accounted for. Maybe some criticism is due.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-05-2003 19:17
|