 |
|
gsmoove23
|
|
Iraqi buildings that have been looted, burned, and destroyed: the Ministry of Planning, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Irrigation, the Ministry of Trade, the Ministry of Industry, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Culture, the Ministry of Information, the Baghdad Archaeological Museum, the museum in the northern city of Mosul, and three hospitals.
Iraqi buildings protected by US troops, tanks, armored personell carriers, and Humvees: the Ministry of Interior, and the Ministry of Oil.
Here is a list of important buildings destroyed and important buildings protected. Not sure if its complete.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
gsmoove23
|
|
Plato, you consistently avoid the main point, that there were a large number of people who believed that we sent too few people into Iraq to begin with. Once the actual fighting was done and our forces turned out to be fanasticly successful everyone thought this vindicated the decision to send so few troops and promptly forgot about it. Now you say we didn't have enough troops and all I can say is, well duh.
EDIT - oops, cross-post
|
|
|  |
 |
|
gsmoove23
|
|
Lets just go through all the shifting reasons to go in the first place shall we, nah, I'm too tired.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:28
|
|
Hmm, the germans took Yugoslavia in 3 days with 78 killed, and as far as I know, there was very little looting.
If I remmebr correctly, Garner was talking about his job being only 6 months (maybe this is why they kicked him out?)
Yes, Iraq is the size of Cali, but large section of it are dessert, and another big section was already in coolotion hands. Now, maybe one can make a valid argument why the US could not do much to secure the northern areas like Kirkut and Mosul, since we had no Turkish basing, but the main issue here is not an country the size of California with 24 million people, its a city of 5 million, Bghdad, and yes, if 44,000 Cops can keep new York safe, 50,000 soldiers should be able to at least secure the more important public sites in that city.
Sloww:
The "not enough troops" arguement predates the war.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
gsmoove23
|
|
uh, if there was looting it didn't last for a week and devastate almost the enitire infrastructure of the city. Police usually work very well in containing such things to neighborhoods that we can afford to have beaten up a bit.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
gunkulator
|
|
quote: Originally posted by GePap
Hmm, the germans took Yugoslavia in 3 days with 78 killed, and as far as I know, there was very little looting.
|
How many embedded reporters were with the Germans in Yugoslavia? In Iraq you have the situation where there are literally hundreds of reporters looking for a story to tell. Many work for questionable news agencies that are looking for a certain spin on the events. With so many reporters and so little actual news, you get what we witnesses in Iraq: exageration to demonstrate a point. A dozen or so looters is suddenly "a wave of rampant looting". A home invasion becomes "lawlessness extends to people's home". A couple dozen Iraqis yelling in the street is "hordes of protestors". A few artifacts gone is "the museum was wiped out by looters". Reports are due in, big headlines sell papers or increase ratings, facts are secondary. Classic yellow journalism.
quote: Bghdad, and yes, if 44,000 Cops can keep new York safe, 50,000 soldiers should be able to at least secure the more important public sites in that city. |
You're kidding, right? First off, New York isn't a war zone. Secondly, soldiers are not police. Third, the cops are already spread throughout New York, not approaching in masse from the south. Fourth, the cops in New York are familiar with the neighborhoods they patrol. Nope, I'd have to say there's very little in common with the two situations.
quote: The "not enough troops" arguement predates the war. |
Of course. There are always second guessers and Monday morning quarterbacks. No matter what the number of troops, there's always somehow who will claim it's not enough.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
gsmoove23
|
|
quote: Iraqi buildings that have been looted, burned, and destroyed: the Ministry of Planning, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Irrigation, the Ministry of Trade, the Ministry of Industry, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Culture, the Ministry of Information, the Baghdad Archaeological Museum, the museum in the northern city of Mosul, and three hospitals. |
Sorry, I meant entire infrastructure of the country. Hyperbole yes. Another target of looting has been electrical equipment, water treatment equipment, basically anything that can be carried away. Engineers and such trying to bring back water and electricity still can't go out unescorted for fear their equipment will be stolen. I was listening to an electrical engineer on NPR who talked about coming to work one day and catching a group of people in the process of stealing a large generator. That was recently.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:28
|
|
[QUOTE] Originally posted by rah
Yes but they're working from a base of order.
Not a base of total chaos. TWO totally different things. [/QUOTE
]Never have Museums or important government buildings being looted in NYC; so even if the poor neighboorhoods go, as gsmoove said, not the sorts of things we are talking about.
And as for the Chaos: did we not KNOW beforehand that once the security apparatus collapsed there might be chaos? This is not totally unforseen, or certainly should not have been (hell, it seems the Iraqis knew what might be coming when they decided to hide stuff), given history. We knew going into this war we would have to replace the lcal law enforcement, who, after all, were part of the state apparatus we were there to destroy. To continue the annalogy: if the power went out, you bet the NYC police would be out ready for chaos, not expecting just another day.
And on this "war zone" business: first, gsmoove's initial point about one building secured, another down the street not has never been addressed, second, if it was so utterly dangerous that troops could not even secure a FEW KEY SITES (not the whole city, just 1 dozen buildings), then what the hell were 3 tanks and some other building doing securing a square on the 9th so a nice photoop of the Saddam building going down could be held? Could not those forces have been better spent, say, securing the finace minsitry and payroll files?
quote: Let's not forget that Baghdad had, and has, regular public servants.
Troops weren't detaining them from doing their job. |
Given that the police were part of the state apparatus, paychecks would stop going out once the mail service ended, plus the paymasters and all the bosses left town, and given that simply to secure themselves the us forces would have to set up checkpoints around the city, going to work would be rahter difficult for most public owrkers, specially the police.
That is the basic probem: 2 divisions certainly are not enough to secure the entire city, but we are not talking the entire city, we are talking about 1-2 DOZEN sites, most of them probalby centrally located within the city and not spread out.
The US military is adverse to ploicing and nation building, has been for years, and yet this is the tool we want to keep using to remake the world?
|
|
|  |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|