[o x y g e n]

All of Baghdad's Museums and Libraries have been totally stripped of all their contents and fires set to burn what could not be taken.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2948021.stm

Locals say that people from 'outside' the city were arriving in their masses solely to cause the carnage that we have witnessed.

In yesterdays Independant, Rober Fisk (who knows Baghdad better than you or I) asks-

1. Why is the 'cultural identity of Iraq being erased'?
2. Who 'so expertly set the fires'?
3. Why did the 'Americans do nothing' to stop the attacks? (Fisk was in the US Marines Civil Affairs Bureau at the time, yet they did not respond)

The Iraqi's may have be 'cheering in the streets yesterday'.

What will they be shouting in the coming weeks/months/years?

Isn't it telling of US priorities that the only building in Baghdad that was secured and protected from looting was the ministry for oil?

On R5 last night, a professor of archaeology at Chicago told how he had raised the issue with the Pentagon months ago about the need for the Baghdad national museum and library etc to be secured and their treasures protected in the event of conflict. He said he had received assurances that they would be; those assurances have proved false.

As the occupying power, the US is required by various international treaties (ie. the UNESCO, Geneva, and Hague Conventions) to safeguard historical and cultural treasures and sites in the event of war. The deliberate failure to do so is a clear violation of said international treaties, which makes it a Crime against Humanity and Human Heritage.

Saddam may be evil etc, but at least he observed the rules in this regard. Following his invasion of Kuwait in 1991, the treasures of the Kuwait museum were taken to Baghdad, ostensibly for safekeeping. Afterwards, he returned to Kuwait the entire inventory of items intact.

[whiteteeth]

Saddam may be evil etc, but at least he observed the rules...

Bloody hell, "may of been evil but" -

He may of gassed hundreds of thousands of his own people, invaded another country, tortured and executed an unknown amount of Iraqis but at least he kept the treasures safe!

I think it's absolutely dreadful that looting took/takes place - but I do think it's absolutely human nature to do so. However, steps are being taken to prevent it and looting has subsided in most parts of the country now. Many items are being returned after one Muslim cleric calling for wives to refuse their husbands sex if they have been involved in looting.

But people need to take responsibility for their own looting - the Iraqi people are intelligent, it was their decision to ransack their own museums.

The ministry of oil was protected because that's part of the infrastructure for the future wealth of the country and it's people.

[iain]

Originally posted by whiteteeth
He may of gassed hundreds of thousands of his own people, invaded another country, tortured and executed an unknown amount of Iraqis

I thought we cleared up this whole thing about *gassing*?

He was indeed evil, did indeed torture and execute an unknown amount of Iraqis, and yet, had he complied with resolution 1441, and western freedom was freed from the almost certain threat of an attack with those WMD, he would most likely still be torturing and executing Iraqis.

So quit with this whole *we did it for the Iraqis* thing.

I think it's absolutely dreadful that looting took/takes place - but I do think it's absolutely human nature to do so. However, steps are being taken to prevent it and looting has subsided in most parts of the country now. Many items are being returned after one Muslim cleric calling for wives to refuse their husbands sex if they have been involved in looting.

But people need to take responsibility for their own looting - the Iraqi people are intelligent, it was their decision to ransack their own museums.

The ministry of oil was protected because that's part of the infrastructure for the future wealth of the country and it's people.

the problem isn't the looting itself, its the question of why so much is being done to secure oil related sites, and not enough to secure non-oil related sites.

Iain

[whiteteeth]

We did it for the Iraqis, Iain. It's the truth.

[iain]

Originally posted by whiteteeth
We did it for the Iraqis, Iain. It's the truth.

see - thats where I'd gotten it all wrong.

i was convinced we were doing it to eliminate the threat of an an attack on western targets by Saddam Hussein's WMD, either directly, or indirectly via his undoubted connections with al-Qaeda.

it was an easy mistake to make, what with all that talk about WMD and al-Qaeda, you must admit?

Iain

[whiteteeth]

[ToshTelly]

Originally posted by iain
see - thats where I'd gotten it all wrong.

i was convinced we were doing it to eliminate the threat of an an attack on western targets by Saddam Hussein's WMD, either directly, or indirectly via his undoubted connections with al-Qaeda.

it was an easy mistake to make, what with all that talk about WMD and al-Qaeda, you must admit?

Iain

There are a number of reasons for doing this and as I said elsewhere(that US forum), the main beneficiaries of this are ultimately are the Iraqis themselves.

There was in interview of an Iraqi doctor the other day and he was saying that Saddam was responsibe for all the disorder and looting. He was alleging that just before the regime dissapated, they opened the prisons and let out all the thieves, murderers etc etc and it was these people who were behind most of the trouble. I'm inclined to believe him.

[iain]

Originally posted by ToshTelly
There are a number of reasons for doing this and as I said elsewhere(that US forum), the main beneficiaries of this are ultimately are the Iraqis themselves.

The Iraqi people may well be the main beneficiaries, but I don't think the war was carried out with the main intention of benefiting the Iraqis.

There was in interview of an Iraqi doctor the other day and he was saying that Saddam was responsibe for all the disorder and looting. He was alleging that just before the regime dissapated, they opened the prisons and let out all the thieves, murderers etc etc and it was these people who were behind most of the trouble. I'm inclined to believe him.

the problem isn't about who caused the looting, but that not enough seems to have been done to control it. there seems to be an abundance of resource in securing the oil fields, but precious little elsewhere.

Iain

[Schoolboy]

And this: http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/...274#post793274 is the US response to the looting. More companies making money and doing a cackhanded job of answering the problem.

The recruits don't even need to know Arabic.

Schooly

[ToshTelly]

Originally posted by iain
The Iraqi people may well be the main beneficiaries, but I don't think the war was carried out with the main intention of benefiting the Iraqis.

True enough.

Originally posted by iain
the problem isn't about who caused the looting, but that not enough seems to have been done to control it. there seems to be an abundance of resource in securing the oil fields, but precious little elsewhere.

True again. At first, the US and UK armies said that they weren't 'policemen' - but Kofi pointed out a clause in the Geneva Convention - that is exactly what they have to be in the absence of the regime they have just removed.

[jimboy]

Originally posted by ToshTelly
There are a number of reasons for doing this and as I said elsewhere(that US forum), the main beneficiaries of this are ultimately are the Iraqis themselves.

There was in interview of an Iraqi doctor the other day and he was saying that Saddam was responsibe for all the disorder and looting. He was alleging that just before the regime dissapated, they opened the prisons and let out all the thieves, murderers etc etc and it was these people who were behind most of the trouble. I'm inclined to believe him.

I thought Saddam had killed all the murderers and thieves?

[whiteteeth]

Well, the ones he didn't keep in underground bunkers

[iain]

so they were found by the marines, rather than released by Saddam with looting in mind?

Iain

[Schoolboy]

This article shows how utterly wrong the US have got it:

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle...toryID=2574504

Comments?

Schooly

[Mesostim]

Originally posted by whiteteeth


He may of gassed hundreds of thousands of his own people,

I thought we'd been over gassing.......

[ToshTelly]

Originally posted by iain
so they were found by the marines, rather than released by Saddam with looting in mind?

Iain

This is from the same article:

Thousands may still be behind bars though the regime released many criminals from prisons before the war.

[SULLA]

In this country do we prosecute the Police every time there is a crime committed.

My guess is that the looting is committed by Iraqi criminals.
Let's start by blaming the People who actually did it.

[bystander]

Originally posted by Mesostim
I thought we'd been over gassing.......

I don't think the last drop of blood has been squeezed out of Resolution 1441 yet has it.

[Dutch Marlene]

Originally posted by ToshTelly
This is from the same article:

well criminals?
I can understand it. after so many years being scared for sadam hoessein and then they can finally enter his palaces and see how much he has, while they are living in poverty. ?
Its a bit of revenge and greed= creed?
On the other hand, i do think its a crime when they take stuff from ordinairy ppl who suffered under hoessein aswell. Like shopowners.
But the one to blame is not the Americans or coalition.
Better blame Hoessein

Originally posted by whiteteeth

Saddam may be evil etc, but at least he observed the rules...

Bloody hell, "may of been evil but" -

He may of gassed hundreds of thousands of his own people, invaded another country, tortured and executed an unknown amount of Iraqis but at least he kept the treasures safe!

Note that I said "....in this regard " [specifically as to the issue of the protection of human cultural heritage as required under international law] -- it does not of course make his other actions any less condemnable. But on this specific issue, he puts the US's conduct to shame.

Human nature is complex. What makes us consider someone as 'evil' or 'good' depends on an overall assessment of them, and this is even more so regarding political figures. Even evil dictators have done individually praiseworthy things, and conversely even 'good' leaders have done abominable things -- eg Churchill may have been good etc, but he also gassed the Kurds, and furthermore said he saw nothing wrong at all with doing that.....So do we class Churchill as a monster too? Most would say of course not, his 'good' deeds outweighed his 'evil' ones.
Likewise, most would say Saddam's evil' deeds outweighed his 'good' . No-one is 100% evil, much as we may wish to caricature him as such (although he may be 99%...). His keeping cultural treasures safe was a good thing, and there's nothing wrong with giving him specific credit where it's due. And which does not make him overall any less of A Bad Man.


However, steps are being taken to prevent it and looting has subsided in most parts of the country now......

This is called locking the stable door after the horse has bolted.   And of course looting has subsided -- there's nothing much left to loot...

But people need to take responsibility for their own looting - the Iraqi people are intelligent, it was their decision to ransack their own museums.

If human nature intrinsically tends to evil, as you suggested.....it is allowed to manifest itself in a lawless environment. Collapse of government, which this war was designed to cause, results in the collapse of the existent rule of law.
That's why the Geneva Convention specifically requires that in such circumstances as these, the occupying military force must maintain civilian law and order. This is a legal obligation, not an optional responsibilty. When the US specifically said they were not interested in policing duties, that is a blatant violation of the Convention, and in effect gave looters a green light to go right ahead in the knowledge that no-one would stop them.

The ministry of oil was protected because that's part of the infrastructure for the future wealth of the country and it's people.

But why should that prevent them from ALSO protecting the national museum and library, among others, too?

[whiteteeth]

Very good points mystic_nutmeg.

But I do think it's important people take responsibility for their own actions instead of blaming someone else.

I agree that more should of been done to protect the hospitals but I have no in-depth news on how possible that would of been with the continual pockets of resistance from the old regime army.

[Alrightmate]

Is this possible?

A certain amount of chaos was to be expected.

When asked to take control. the coalition refuse,.."It's not our job", they say.

"Yes it bloody is", say Amnesty International, "The Geneva Convention demands that it is".

The coalition does nothing to prevent it, and leaves the chaos to continue.

Then when the time is right, the coalition troops take control.

"Look,...they need us. If we don't stay here as a military presence this is what happens,..chaos".

"But the UN can take over now, they have experience and expertise in these situations, they could speed up the process of transition"

"No, you're alright, we'll do it"

"But that could take ages"

"Yes,.....we know"

I'm not saying that's exactly how it is, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's a simplified version of what's going on.

[Hamlet77]

One 'expert' has suggested to the press that the looting of the Baghdad Museum was very well organised and knew how to gain access to the more valuable antiquities.