One quick correction on Iraq

It was the Iraqi people that looted their museums, and not the Bush administration.

That point seems to be getting lost in the on-going attempts by political opponents to pin anything on the Bush administration for having the gall to execute a successful military campaign…


 
 
 

6 Responses to “One quick correction on Iraq”

  1. noel
    28. April 2003 at 11:00

    Um … what about this story:

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-04-23-stealing-usat_x.htm

  2. Augie De Blieck Jr.
    28. April 2003 at 11:44

    There’s a big difference between looting the presidential palaces and stealing centuries-old irreplaceable (sp?) artifacts from the museum.

    Not that I necessarily condone that, either, mind you…

    And it’s incredibly stupid to think you can smuggle multiple paintings through customs. Idiots. What, was he planning on sliding them down his pant legs? Jeez…

    -Augie

  3. Andy
    29. April 2003 at 00:38

    This is an incredibly specious and misleading argument to make. And it has nothing to do with executing “a successful military campaign” no matter how one would define such a thing. Imagine you entrust a bank with your life savings and the bank is robbed. The bank didn’t necessarily rob itself, but it does hold more than a small measure of responsibility for what happened to your money under its watch. The question — and blame — is not about who committed the crime but who allowed it to happen. The US military, for all its might, was too busy guarding the oil ministry to lift a finger as a country’s entire cultural history was wiped out.

    There are also a number of compelling arguments to be made that this negligence violated international law. But since the Bush administration has nothing but contempt for international law, I’ll let that one slide for now.

  4. Augie De Blieck Jr.
    29. April 2003 at 09:07

    It has everything to do with it. For weeks and months leading up to the war, we were told what a bad idea it was because of the enormous potential for military losses. When the first casualties came, the reports were hysterical about how horrible a thing the war was. But when it was over and successful, there was nothing left to go on.

    And this is the best they can do?

    Trying to lay the blame at the Bush administration for this is like saying that convicted murderers shouldn’t be found guilty because they’re victims of society or, even better yet, “the gun culture.”

    The oil ministry is what’s going to save the country in the end and lead to its rebuilding. The oil fields were the first victims in the war at Saddam’s hands. That’s why they were the first things to be saved.

    As for international law — the coalition didn’t parade captured soldiers on television and brutally execute them.

    And the United States attempted to work through the United Nations for months before it became obvious that the U.N. had no interest whatsoever in following through on its own threats issued years ago. By the way, care to decry France and Russia for being against the war because of its own financial interests, the same way you want to attack America?

    -Augie

  5. Fred
    29. April 2003 at 13:37

    http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/US/globalshow_030425.html

  6. Max
    30. April 2003 at 03:45

    Bush would have had to be a complete idiot to lose that war… that wasn’t the point.

    The dangers of this war are not over… that is the point. It has made us no safer. And now Bush has to rebuild Iraq, and if he doesn’t do it right, it will make us less safe.

    But hey, mis-state the arguments of the other side as badly as you want. It’s always easier to attack that than the real issues.