Museums looted, Oil protected. [Archive]

View Full Version : Museums looted, Oil protected.

canikickit

17th April 2003, 04:49

http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/

The occupying army doesn't bother to protect the heritage of the country it is attempting to destroy, but the oil remains safe.

It's disgraceful. Bush said in a speech some months ago that they would possibly have to attack an "obscure corner of the globe". He fails to realise that Iraq has one of the oldest civilisations in history. Writing was invented in Iraq.

Dirty Jersey

17th April 2003, 05:22

what does iraqi heritage history and culture mean to us as long as lil texas' oil is safe.

Boris Moskovitz

17th April 2003, 05:42

Obviously... The dead people don't count, they're Muslim Terrorists! The dead children don't count, they're childrens of Muslim Terrorists! The heritage doesn't cou we don't give a damn about it, all we want is to liberate Iraq and accidently bomb Iraqi childs. But if the oil is destroyed, then the mission is failed, after all, it is the reason why the troops came :biggrin:

Exploited Class

17th April 2003, 05:59

Quote: from canikickit on 4:49 am on April 17, 2003
http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/

The occupying army doesn't bother to protect the heritage of the country it is attempting to destroy, but the oil remains safe.

It's disgraceful. Bush said in a speech some months ago that they would possibly have to attack an "obscure corner of the globe". He fails to realise that Iraq has one of the oldest civilisations in history. Writing was invented in Iraq.

Writing and the code of laws. Mesopotamia. The cradle of civilization, some of the corner stone achievments of writing, preserved for the present and future gone forever.

It makes me so mad, just like when the Nazi's blew off the noses of the sphinx (sp?). True the American soldiers didn't go in and set the fires or loot goods but they removed the power from that country and had a moral and human civilization obligaction to try and stop it. The ramafications of these events will be felt from this time on. This isn't a lost to just the Iraqis, this was a loss for us all. No better than the Taliban deystroying the budha statues carved out of the face of a mountain.

But hey what do you expect from a country only a little over 200 years old? We have to dig up gravesites of the people we killed for any historical refferences for our part of the world. We have a bell with a crack in it made during an era when gunpowder was already invented. Some of our buildings here are almost 400 years old.

We are the New World, discovered by a man that thought he was in India and the tragic events ever since that voyage has not yet ended. Wiped out the people before us, fought to obtain what we have, fought with mexicans, canadians, french and British and Americans, tons of blood spilled for every inch we obtained.

And now we go to the Old World and mess it up too. Like little children we don't comprehend the ramifications of assisting in deystroying some of the most ancient artifacts known to civilized man.

But the oil is secured, we can continue to drive our lone 30 mile commuting ass on our 17 MPG SUVs to work and back inefficently becuase that is what matters to kids, the here and the now and not the past or the future.

Anonymous

17th April 2003, 06:49

Anonymous

17th April 2003, 07:03

But hey what do you expect from a country only a little over 200 years old? We have to dig up gravesites of the people we killed for any historical refferences for our part of the world. We have a bell with a crack in it made during an era when gunpowder was already invented. Some of our buildings here are almost 400 years old.

We've invented the television, the automobile and the microprocessor. Spread democracy throughout the globe. Created the atomic bomb, changed warfare forever, and united the world with the internet simultaneously becoming the most prosperous nation on Earth. We've carved our presidents into a mountain of solid granite. And, most importantly, immortalized our great nation on the suface of this planets moon. In short, we're making our history.

truthaddict11

17th April 2003, 11:04

We've carved our presidents into a mountain of solid granite.
Too bad it was the american indians mountain but we are giving back back blowing up more of the mountains in Dakota.

Spread democracy throughout the globe.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Yes I belive people benifit when America spreads its "democracy"

LOIC

17th April 2003, 11:30

War is destruction. And History will, unfortunately, be lost. But what is lost in Iraq is insignificant to what has been lost in the past. It is the price we pay for liberation.

But the museums have been looted after the war, when americans soldiers controlled the country. They could have stop this vandals but they did nothing.

The worst thing is that what these guys have not steal, they have destroy it.

That's a great loss. One other great loss due to the u$a.
But how can you expect from a country whose culture is mainly macdonalds and mtv to respect and protect other cultures?

(Edited by LOIC at 11:34 am on April 17, 2003)

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

17th April 2003, 12:03

Quote: from Dark Capitalist on 6:49 am on April 17, 2003
How many orthodox cathedrals and churches did the Soviet Union burn? How many ancient chinese artifacts were destroyed in the "cultural revolution"? How many ancient texts and literary works were destroyed when the muslims burned the library of Alexandria? When the allies firebombed Dresden? Hamburg? Tokyo?!

War is destruction. And History will, unfortunately, be lost. But what is lost in Iraq is insignificant to what has been lost in the past. It is the price we pay for liberation.

What a lame excuse, if the US has enough troops to "protect" Saddams paleces, they sure can mis 40 soldiers to protect the oldest artifacts proofing of an early civilisation.

One quote of Al Sahaf which is so true, you must admit it. Something like, when Bush's and Blair's grandfathers were scratching texts caves my grandfather was writing literature and lived in big buildings.

I don't remember the exact quote, but something like this.

Sabocat

17th April 2003, 12:05

Don't worry about all that history crap.

We'll go in and build some nice new McDonalds, maybe a Walmart or two, they'll have everything they need in fast food and home furnishings....Oooops...they don't have homes standing anymore....Oh well, sorry 'bout that. (sorry about the heavy handed use of sarcasm)

Americans don't care about destroying artifacts and history because we have no sense of it. People here have re-written recent history. Almost 50% of the population now believe that Iraq attacked the US at the World Trade Center and hell, what was that 2 years ago?

Liberty Lover

17th April 2003, 13:00

just like when the Nazi's blew off the noses of the sphinx

The Nazi's didn't blow off the Sphinx's nose. It was gone long before they arrived in North Africa to assist the Italians. It is thought Napoleon's troops shot the nose off the Sphinx.

But the oil is secured

I have a keen interest in ancient history...But oil will benefit the people of Iraq much more than ancient artifacts.

RedCeltic

17th April 2003, 13:46

Liberty Lover said what I was just about to.... It wasn't The Nazis but it was during the Napoleonic wars.

And as for Dark Capitalist saying, "How many churches did the Soviet Union burn?" etc... Two Wrongs Do Not make a right

The Soviet Union also sent troops into nations unprovoked like Chechlasovokia in '68 for example. What is bad about this for archaeologists is not simply the destruction of some monument or building... but the loss of arguably the most important collection in the Middle East.

Excavation hasn't been able to take place in Iraq in decades, now what had been excavated is lost forever.

Edelweiss

17th April 2003, 14:00

Quote: from Dark Capitalist on 6:49 am on April 17, 2003
How many orthodox cathedrals and churches did the Soviet Union burn? How many ancient chinese artifacts were destroyed in the "cultural revolution"? How many ancient texts and literary works were destroyed when the muslims burned the library of Alexandria? When the allies firebombed Dresden? Hamburg? Tokyo?!

War is destruction. And History will, unfortunately, be lost. But what is lost in Iraq is insignificant to what has been lost in the past. It is the price we pay for liberation.

What a pathetic excuse.
DC, the point is that the looting could have been esaily prevented with a single tank in front of the musuem, but instead of that, the US preffered to even encourage the lootings (see http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...um=25&topic=833 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=25&topic=833) )
, while protecting the oil ministry. It's just another proof of the arrogance and hypocrisy of the US government.

Bodacious

17th April 2003, 15:39

Same ole pack of hen's crackling off. This war was won in less than a month that's history making in itself. Look at all we accomplish in that short time.

The man power 'boot's on the ground' isnt there too add the extra protection needed at the moment. If Turkey had allowed the 4th ID to come in from the north it would have been there. Screw the mine's around the oilfield's and bridges we should have went right into Baghdad to secure it. Nobody would have *****ed if he torched them and caused a global environmental catastrophe. Iraq could suffer another 10 year's until we got everything rebuilt and were able to pump again so they could eat.

We should have known that there own people would loot one of there most historical site's, what were we thinking. On the same token , we protected the bank and put a cap in the ass of a looter and we're called murderer's.Screw you CanIkick your ass.

Site owner's need to rename this forum too Traumatized by the Coalition.

(Edited by Bodacious at 3:45 pm on April 17, 2003)

canikickit

17th April 2003, 19:19

How many orthodox cathedrals and churches did the Soviet Union burn? How many ancient chinese artifacts were destroyed in the "cultural revolution"? How many ancient texts and literary works were destroyed when the muslims burned the library of Alexandria? When the allies firebombed Dresden? Hamburg? Tokyo?!

Who gives a fuck? What a stupid point.

We should have known that there own people would loot one of there most historical site's, what were we thinking. On the same token , we protected the bank and put a cap in the ass of a looter and we're called murderer's.Screw you CanIkick your ass.

You're one of the stupidest people I've ever encountered. The Iraqi heritage became the responsibility of the US administration when they blew the hell out of their country and the Iraqi admin. The didn't bother protecting heritgae. I'm not surprised.

Chiak47

17th April 2003, 19:24

Lafties,

Why are we blaming the US government?
I would never loot a place of history.Come to think of it I would never loot anything.
The thieves and vandels are accountable for what they did.The guards who were there had a job to do.The Iraqi army should have stood up if they did not want us there so bad.

Put blame where blame should be put.

Thank you,
I am all

hawarameen

17th April 2003, 23:36

thank you for showing all of us how stupid you are chiak, i was just about to do it but you saved me the effort.

when the troops entered baghdad there was no iraqi army to guard the museum, i dont think anyone tried the "dont shoot me i'm guarding the museum" line. the point is the troops made their priorities very clear to the rest of the world. oil first anything else later, i have seen pictures of the artifacts before and after the looting and it sickens me, i feel just as bad seeing the artifacts brocken as seeing the dead bodies around.

the thing is it wasnt really a matter of looting, it was plain vandalism, most of the stuff has just been smashed and as it happens the most precious items have either been stolen or smashed. the head of the museum has said it must have ben a profesional job. who was behind it i dont know.

any one of those artifacts broken is worth more than all the oil in iraq and the world ten times over.

Exploited Class

17th April 2003, 23:49

RedCeltic

18th April 2003, 01:04

Well it was imperialism.. we get the idea..;)

canikickit

18th April 2003, 02:04

Why are we blaming the US government?

When they took over the country it became their responsibility. If they "decapitate the regime, who do they expect to control things.
It seems they are not up to the job. I'm not surprised. I'm not surprised either that the twisted individuals here supported the lack of support.

Anonymous

18th April 2003, 02:24

hazard

18th April 2003, 02:36

calvin klein:

correct me if I'm wrong, but the basis of your argument seems to be soldiers cannot defend museums because they are not as defensible as an oil field. you know, if half of what you say is true, that that is a load of bullshit.

museums are designed and intentionally easily to secure. they have checkpoints and security perimters installed AT ALL TIMES. the mercenaries would simply have to deploy a dozen or two soldiers to secure a museum using the defence procedures already built into them.

but that would mean protecting the history and value of a foreign nation. in other words, let the rag heads priceless valuables get pillaged while the sixty dollar a barrell oil is completely protected. it is simple racism. and to defend it as simply as Mr. Klein simply won't do.

Anonymous

18th April 2003, 02:45

The mueseum is where people live. It is a bad idea to make soldiers "police" an area where people live. By thier very nature, a soldiers first action with be to use the maxium amount of violence on a target. Cops try to arrest criminals. Would it make sense for cops to start shooting with automatic weapons at a first provacation? Well that is what a soldier will do. The oil fields are in more remote parts of the country.

When you put soldiers close to civilians, you put them in a target rich environment.

hazard

18th April 2003, 02:48

if thats the case calvin, the whole war should have been avoided. but it wasn't. if thats the case, the americans shouldn't have been launching hundreds of missiles a day into baghdad for the last month. but they did. if thats the case, klein, the americans shouldn't have rolled into every population centre in Iraq. again, they did.

btw: civilians don't live in museums. you probably are referring to the wax figurines and mummies and skeletons. they don't count.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

18th April 2003, 14:09

Quote: from Liberty Lover on 1:00 pm on April 17, 2003
just like when the Nazi's blew off the noses of the sphinx

The Nazi's didn't blow off the Sphinx's nose. It was gone long before they arrived in North Africa to assist the Italians. It is thought Napoleon's troops shot the nose off the Sphinx.

But the oil is secured

I have a keen interest in ancient history...But oil will benefit the people of Iraq much more than ancient artifacts.

Neither the Nazi's neither the Italians shot the nose of.

I am not sure if it was the french, they were really interrested in the Egyptoligy, they had even archeologics with them and they were the first since the time of the Faroa's who could read the ancient Egypt language.

Chiak47

18th April 2003, 14:14

http://www.napoleonseries.org/faq/sphinx.cfm
FAQs: Did Napoleon's troops shoot the nose off the Sphinx?
By Tom Holmberg

Although popular legend blames Napoleon and his troops during the French campaign in Egypt (1798-1801) for having shot the nose off the Great Sphinx, in fact this story just isn't true. I have yet to locate an original source for this myth. The idea that Napoleon was to blame for the Sphinx's missing nose dates at least to the beginning of the twentieth century.

One traveler to Egypt around the time of World War One wrote the following: "To take our photos sitting in front of the Sphinx on a camel was the aim of another....And so, repulsing the hordes of robbers on all sides, we came to the wonderful, inscrutable, worth-millions-of-pounds-to-authors Sphinx. The great riddle of the mysterious East. How many reams of rubbish have been written about this misshapen block of stone. Napoleon, a practical man, fired a few cannon balls at its face. High explosive shells were not invented in those days." [From: Sommers, Cecil. Temporary Crusaders. (London: John Lane, 1919) Chapter VI. "19th April."]

Another book from about the same time, In the Footsteps of Napoleon (1915) by James Morgan (p 85), states "There is a tradition among the Arabs of the Pyramids that all the scars of time and the wounds of a hundred wars, which the Sphinx carries, were inflicted by Napoleon's soldiers, who used its mystifying and majestic countenance as a target. That, however, is only a legend for the tourist. Long before the discovery of gunpowder, the Arabs had laid iconoclastic hands on the beard of this god of the desert..." Though the Arab guides may have originally spread this tale, this myth appears to have been perpetuated over the years by countless teachers the world over who have passed this bit of "history" on to their students.

A poll conducted on the Internet found that fully 21% of respondents believed Napoleon was responsible for the Sphinx's missing nose. One of the most recent examples of the persistence of this falsehood was Louis Farrakhan's "Million Man March" speech where he said: "White supremacy caused Napoleon to blow the nose off the Sphinx because it reminded you [sic] too much of the Black man's majesty." And the perpetuation of this myth in "Afrocentric" circles was even the subject of a segment of the U.S. television investigative journalism program "60 Minutes."

This error has persisted in spite of the fact that the truth can be readily found in such common reference sources as the Encyclopedia Americana (Danbury, CT: Grolier, 1995). vol.25, p.492-3 under "Sphinx", which states: "Over the centuries the Great Sphinx has suffered severely from weathering...Man has been responsible for additional mutilation. In 1380 A.D. the Sphinx fell victim to the iconoclastic ardor of a fanatical Muslim ruler, who caused deplorable injuries to the head. Then the figure was used as a target for the guns of the Mamluks." In the book The Egyptian Pyramids: A Comprehensive Illustrated Reference (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 1990), p.301, the author, J.P. Lepre, adds the fact that, in addition to the 14th century damage, "The face was further disfigured by the eighteenth century A.D. ruler of Egypt, the Marmalukes [Mamluks]."

In National Geographic, April 1991, page 36, Mark Lehner, an archaeologist from Chicago's Oriental Institute who created a computer reconstruction of the Sphinx, writes: "I sought clues from history and archaeology for the computer reconstruction of the Sphinx. An early 15th-century Arab historian reported that the face had been disfigured in his time. Yet to this day the damage is wrongly attributed to Napoleon's troops." Again, the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (Oxford: Oxford Univ., 2001. Vol. 1, p. 30) also states of the perpetrator of the missing nose, "This accusation is most often leveled at Napoleon Bonaparte, who is said to have shot the nose off the Sphinx -a claim that is manifestly incorrect, not only because earlier western representations of the Sphinx depict it with its nose missing (for example, the drawing published in 1755 by Frederick Norden) but also because medieval Arabic texts attribute the damage to a Muslim fanatic in the fourteenth century CE."

European visitors to Egypt prior to Napoleon's expedition had already discovered the vandalism to the Sphinx. In 1546, for example, when Dr. Pierre Belon explored Egypt, he visited "the great colossus." "The Sphinx," writes Leslie Greener in The Discovery Of Egypt (London : Cassell, 1966), p.38, by this time "no longer [had] the stamp of grace and beauty so admired by Abdel Latif in 1200." Greener goes on to say: "this exonerates the artillerymen of Napoleon Bonaparte, who have the popular reputation of having used the nose of the Sphinx as a target." Frederick Norden, an artist and marine architect who visited Egypt in 1737, accurately depicted the Sphinx without its nose in his 1755 Travels. (Richard Pococke, who visited Egypt in the same year as Norden, depicts the Sphinx with its nose, but the engraving is generally considered a copy of that of Cornelius de Bruyn's earlier drawing.) The charge against Napoleon is particularly unjust because the French general brought with him a large group of "savants" to conduct the first scientific study of Egypt and its antiquities.

Finally, an article by Ulrich Haarmann, "Regional Sentiment in Medieval Islamic Egypt," published in the University of London's Bulletin Of The School Of Oriental And African Studies (BSOAS), vol.43 (1980) p.55-66, states that according to Makrizi, Rashidi and other medieval Arab scholars, the face of the Sphinx was vandalized in 1378 A.D. by Mohammed Sa'im al-Dahr, a "fanatical sufi of the oldest and most highly respected sufi convent of Cairo." The nose and ears are mentioned specifically as having been damaged at this time. According to one account, Haarmann states, the residents in the neighborhood of the Sphinx were so upset by the destruction that they lynched him and buried him near the great monument he ruined. (Thanks to Ann Macy Roth's article in the online Ancient Near East Digest (University of Chicago, Oriental Institute) for the information on Haarmann's article). This confirms information published in Selim Hassan's book The Sphinx: Its History in Light of Recent Excavations (Cairo: Government Press, 1949. P. 81-83) which states that Sa'im al-Dahr pried off the Sphinx's nose with crowbars.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

18th April 2003, 14:15

Quote: from Chiak47 on 7:24 pm on April 17, 2003
Lafties,

Why are we blaming the US government?
I would never loot a place of history.Come to think of it I would never loot anything.
The thieves and vandels are accountable for what they did.The guards who were there had a job to do.The Iraqi army should have stood up if they did not want us there so bad.

Put blame where blame should be put.

Thank you,
I am all

According to the Geneva convention which Cheney loves so much, it's the responsibility of the occupying force to protect this sort of sites and (re)store order.

If u lay down gold in front of a poor person and he knows that he can steal it unpunished and sell it to feed his family, it's hardly blamable on him.

Bodacious

18th April 2003, 17:22

You girl's are grabbing at straw's now , If another country we're at war with doesn't respect the rule's of the Geneva convention why should we? To set the example? ok I get it while there executing our's and parading them on Television we should keep up the faith and send them a copy of make love not war to read.

Hazard your a bitter person, your daddy must have beat you as a kid or something or maybe he needed to.Fuck abunch of artifact's moron the welfare of that country rest's in oil ,which we protected for there benefit.

Why dont you write the U.N. a boohoo letter and tell them bleeding heart's your sad story cause you want get any sympathy from me. You make me want to puke.

Tkinter1

18th April 2003, 19:08

http://www.militarycity.com/iraq/1772292.html

“We’re beginning to see a downward trend in looting”

Anonymous

19th April 2003, 02:02

Quote: from hazard on 2:48 am on April 18, 2003
if thats the case calvin, the whole war should have been avoided. but it wasn't. if thats the case, the americans shouldn't have been launching hundreds of missiles a day into baghdad for the last month. but they did. if thats the case, klein, the americans shouldn't have rolled into every population centre in Iraq. again, they did.

btw: civilians don't live in museums. you probably are referring to the wax figurines and mummies and skeletons. they don't count.

You are using a civilians attitude towards law and order. Soldiers are not held to the same standards.

Pete

19th April 2003, 03:14

Bod, go back to your daddies house and enjoy the world through your rose-coloured glasses. Seriously I think you should get an education before letting your mouth open. The only thing you ever say is garbage. You are better than us because your daddy says so. Go cry on his shoulder now that we are making fun of you.

The Soldiers are being used to police certain areas in Mosul and the Ministries of the Interior and the Ministy of Oil, to say that could not have been done for the UN mission, various embassies, and the museums is bullshit. I remember one of the first things destroyed in to bombing was the National Library.

America also has a history of writing her history. I doubt the Yanks are taught that the wild west wasn't wild, the Alamo was a result of a failed American invasion into Texas, they where defeated at Montreal (or was it Quebec. One of them) atleast twice, and that the 'spread of democracy' was actually the colonization/occupation that they rebelled against in 1776.

Zombie

19th April 2003, 03:20

Well said Pete.

"Fuck abunch of artifact's moron the welfare of that country rest's in oil ,which we protected for there benefit." - Bod

LOL. That made me laugh.

Z.

canikickit

19th April 2003, 21:15

US experts resign over Iraq looting (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2958009.stm)
Three White House cultural advisers have resigned in protest at the failure of US forces to prevent the looting of Iraq's national museum - home to artefacts dating back 10,000 years.

It is a bad idea to make soldiers "police" an area where people live.

Yeah. We know that (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=22&topic=2187). The US administration should have thought of that beforehand. It's their fault, their responsibility. Those twisted idiots didn't even have the foresight to protect history, they don't respect it.

Fuck abunch of artifact's moron the welfare of that country rest's in oil ,which we protected for there benefit.

Yeah right.

Socialsmo o Muerte

19th April 2003, 21:42

What is more important for the immediate future and survival of the Iraqi people?

Museums...or Oil.

Weigh them up.....

Museums : Are very important in educating people and maintaining the heritage etc.

Oil : THE shining light of Iraq's survival. Most valuable asset in the country by far and the only thing which will ensure that the immediate future for Iraqi's exists.

The only people who are "putting oil before human lives etc." are you lot. Has any official actually said "Oil is the most important thing in this war"? No. Who has then? You! All you anti-war fools blinded by counter-propaganda and anti-government ideals.

canikickit

20th April 2003, 02:40

It's not a question of "either....or". It's both.

The US blew the fuck out of the infrascructure of the country. It's their fault that there is no police, no security. Not mine. It became their responsibility when they decapitated the country, and shocked and awed the people. They should have made provisions for this prior to the war. It's just another example of the US failure to respect the sovereignty of Iraq, and her people.

It's not as if people are going to go onto an oilfield and trash the place.

Socialsmo o Muerte

20th April 2003, 02:51

I'm not saying it should be "either or."

Just that the oil is a priority because it is the future of Iraq and without it, the people will not survive. They will without museums.

Soul Rebel

20th April 2003, 02:58

Ok, so i talked to my Anth. teacher- come to find out, as she was informed by a Swedish newspaper, there were Iraqi police officers guarding the museum. The American soldiers killed them on their arrival and then told the Iraqi's to loot the place. Had it been an Am. museum that would have never happened. They would have said that the history needed to be saved. I guess another nation's history just isnt as important, right? this is how we 'liberate' people? by erasing their history? give me a break.

Zombie

20th April 2003, 03:01

How can one population survive if part of it's heritage or history is left to be destroyed mindlessly.
I don't really approve your approach Socialismo ; if the oil is a priority, that doesn't justify for one second the senseless actions taken on the Iraqi cultural history.
Canikickit was spot on the money when he said it became the invader's responsability to protect it.

.Z.

(Edited by Zombie at 10:02 pm on April 19, 2003)

Anonymous

20th April 2003, 03:03

Maybe the Iraqi's should have more respect for their history.

Zombie

20th April 2003, 03:06

What's that supposed to mean.
Please elaborate on whatever you have to say.

.Z.

Soul Rebel

20th April 2003, 03:08

Trust- I am sure they have respect for their heritage. However, when you are living in fear and have opposition (the Am. soldiers) telling you to do something I am sure most obey. How do they know they're not going to be killed next?

Soul Rebel

20th April 2003, 03:10

I forgot to mention- if Americans have so much pride in their damn history then why the hell do they deny more than half of it? Why do they only want to discuss and teach certain aspects of it?

canikickit

20th April 2003, 03:12

Maybe the Iraqi's should have more respect for their history.

They should. So should the US administration.

Just that the oil is a priority because it is the future of Iraq and without it, the people will not survive. They will without museums.

The US should have been prepared for this. That's all.

Anonymous

20th April 2003, 03:13

Soul Rebel

20th April 2003, 03:16

they are only "third world filth" (as you put it) because of western policies and standards.

canikickit

20th April 2003, 03:19

Stupid fucks shouldn't have looted their own goddamned fucking museums. Low class third world filth. Maybe we should have made the effort to protect their history, as they obviously failed to do so when we trusted them.

You're a racist idiot. I see your brain has been scrubbed nice and clean by the liberal media. Those liberal fuckers introducing institutionalised racism!

Anonymous

20th April 2003, 03:19

Oops. Let my anger get the better of me. I just think they should be more respectful of their history by not looting their own museums. After all, there are plenty of other places to pillage. :smile:

Anonymous

20th April 2003, 03:20

That's not racism, it's classism.

canikickit

20th April 2003, 03:23

I just think they should be more respectful of their history by not looting their own museums

The same thing would happen in the US if they had been under a brutal dictator for all their lives and new nothing but oppression, only to be bombed to hell and back for no good reason.
People need to realise that the looting is an expression of a people who have been under this regime for so long.

canikickit

20th April 2003, 03:27

That's not racism, it's classism.

It is racism. "Third world filth". Thanks to Bush's ridiculous speeches and Fox News and the like, people are under the impression that Arabs and Muslims and the rest of the third world filth needs to be cleaned up and civilised by their wonderful benefactors.
Everone must eat apple pie and watch Jepoardy and etc., etc., etc.

Whether you were joking or not, this is the attitude that is propagated by the US's administration and a lot of the US's popular culture.

RedCeltic

20th April 2003, 03:29

Quote: from SenoraChe on 9:10 pm on April 19, 2003
I forgot to mention- if Americans have so much pride in their damn history then why the hell do they deny more than half of it? Why do they only want to discuss and teach certain aspects of it?

"History is a lie agreed upon"-- -Napoleon

History, (and this is not exclusive to the United States) is often used in schools to instill love or country, rather than as accurately portraying the past. Archaeology comes under the same manipulation, often being used to prove ownership of land, like in Africa, or in Israel.

The way American history is portrayed in the Public School systems in the United States has always been biased. As early as Christopher Columbus we are faced with lies and half truths.

Most Americans, when they think of the first settlement in the United States think of Plymouth and the Puritans. History classes may make a brief mention of Jamestown Virginia, but focus on Plymouth for one specific reason. They want to instill the notion that the colonialists came for religious freedoms.

This can not be said about the Jamestown however. In Jamestown, settlers first came, thinking they would enslave the Indians and make them dig up tons of gold they envisioned in the new world. Among the group that came was 15 "cavaliers" or men of noble birth... yet, not one farmer.

Um.. forgive me, I didn’t mean to go on and on.. ;)

Anonymous

20th April 2003, 03:33

Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
Date: 1936
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
- rac·ist /-sist also -shist/ noun or adjective

If Britain were a third world country I would be saying the same thing about them. "Third world filth" is also a reference to their low class.

Main Entry: class·ism
Pronunciation: 'kla-"si-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1842
: prejudice or discrimination based on class
- class·ist /'kla-sist/ adjective

I'm not totally classist mind you. I just believe that classes must, and always will, exist in society.

(Edited by Dark Capitalist at 8:35 am on April 20, 2003)

canikickit

20th April 2003, 03:38

Classism is so much better than racism....right? Prejudice is okay as long as it is against the right people? Fair enough.

Nevertheless (half assed semantic excuses aside), "third world filth" has obvious connotations. It implies that the first world is better than the third world. this is racism.

Anonymous

20th April 2003, 03:42

The Japanese are first world are they not?

canikickit

20th April 2003, 03:50

I've a great idea! Let's get into a semantic debate about total bullshit! Sounds fucking fantastic!

RedCeltic

20th April 2003, 03:55

DARK CAPITALIST

What you are saying, is that racism is ok as long as it is directed at the third world. That my friend is colonalism, and, where racist attitudes begin. The Irish for example, are WHITE Yet, in the 19th centery were not even considered to be part of the same race as the English.

Anonymous

20th April 2003, 03:56

Main Entry: se·man·tic
Pronunciation: si-'man-tik
Variant(s): also se·man·ti·cal /-ti-k&l/
Function: adjective
Etymology: Greek sEmantikos significant, from sEmainein to signify, mean, from sEma sign, token
Date: 1894
1 : of or relating to meaning in language
2 : of or relating to semantics
- se·man·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

I wasn't being semantical. :wink: I just don't see how favoring the first world over the third world is rcist when both are comprised of many races.

Zombie

20th April 2003, 04:06

To me, one who is racist, is one who acknowledges the existence of races. I believe it is unjustified to classify different cultures or countries as 'races'...
There's no equal races, but only one race, and it is the human race.

Anyway i think we're drifting off a bit from the main topic, no?

.Z.

Soul Rebel

20th April 2003, 04:55

Quote: from RedCeltic on 3:29 am on April 20, 2003

Quote: from SenoraChe on 9:10 pm on April 19, 2003
I forgot to mention- if Americans have so much pride in their damn history then why the hell do they deny more than half of it? Why do they only want to discuss and teach certain aspects of it?

"History is a lie agreed upon"-- -Napoleon

History, (and this is not exclusive to the United States) is often used in schools to instill love or country, rather than as accurately portraying the past. Archaeology comes under the same manipulation, often being used to prove ownership of land, like in Africa, or in Israel.

The way American history is portrayed in the Public School systems in the United States has always been biased. As early as Christopher Columbus we are faced with lies and half truths.

Most Americans, when they think of the first settlement in the United States think of Plymouth and the Puritans. History classes may make a brief mention of Jamestown Virginia, but focus on Plymouth for one specific reason. They want to instill the notion that the colonialists came for religious freedoms.

This can not be said about the Jamestown however. In Jamestown, settlers first came, thinking they would enslave the Indians and make them dig up tons of gold they envisioned in the new world. Among the group that came was 15 "cavaliers" or men of noble birth... yet, not one farmer.

Um.. forgive me, I didn’t mean to go on and on.. ;)

Its cool--- i totally understand what you are saying, all of which is true :)

Socialsmo o Muerte

20th April 2003, 17:06

Forget racism and classism.

It's ignorance.

I wish people would stop jumping to label someone racist at the first chance. The meaning has been taken away from the word. Anytime an insult is directed to a non-white....it is racist. No matter what the insult actually is. That's the attitude that is developing. Makes me sick.

And you say they should've prepared to protect museums.....give me a break. What do want the American army to do? Plan to protect every last blade of grass? It's called priorities. If things need to be sacrificed for more important things, then so be it. Lives had to be sacrificed to rid of Saddam. Museums need to be sacrificed to ensure oil is safe which ensures survival of Iraqi people. So simple. Yet you wannabe-radicals always complicate it to turn it against the government.

CubanFox

21st April 2003, 14:51

Quote: from Bodacious on 5:22 pm on April 18, 2003
You girl's are grabbing at straw's now , If another country we're at war with doesn't respect the rule's of the Geneva convention why should we? To set the example? ok I get it while there executing our's and parading them on Television we should keep up the faith and send them a copy of make love not war to read.

Hazard your a bitter person, your daddy must have beat you as a kid or something or maybe he needed to.Fuck abunch of artifact's moron the welfare of that country rest's in oil ,which we protected for there benefit.

Bodacious, you are the most disgusting person I have ever had the displeasure of meeting.

How DARE you say that it is alright to break the Geneva Conventions just because the Iraqis did?

The whole notion of that sickens me.

What sickens me even more is that captured Iraqis are being paraded on western TV, and that's perfectly alright?!

And the worst part is when you say "Fuck their artifacts." These are not just garden variety artifacts. These are relics from the beginning of civilization itself; and arguably, one of the most vital artifacts from an entire faith...the oldest existing copy of the Koran.

And saying someone deserves to be abused by their father is just...well, pathetic. It really shows something about your appalling character, Bod.

Socialsmo o Muerte

21st April 2003, 15:38

But what he is basically saying is that the welfare and survival of the Iraqi people at this moment in time is more important than ancient artifacts. YES, they are very very important, but not as important as lives of the people living now.

I know Bodacious could've put the whole thing more politely, but what he is saying is true.

CubanFox

21st April 2003, 15:43

Letting them go nuts and looting everything can't be good for anyone's welfare.

Boris Moskovitz

21st April 2003, 15:47

But the oil protected for the Iraqi's benefice? Hahahahahahah! That's a good one! And if that is so, then I am Bill Gates' one and only true heir! I wish...

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

21st April 2003, 16:49

Quote: from Zombie on 4:06 am on April 20, 2003
To me, one who is racist, is one who acknowledges the existence of races. I believe it is unjustified to classify different cultures or countries as 'races'...
There's no equal races, but only one race, and it is the human race.

Anyway i think we're drifting off a bit from the main topic, no?

.Z.

I agree completly, thats why classes and nations should disapear.

Socialsmo o Muerte

22nd April 2003, 00:13

Quote: from Boris Moskovitz on 3:47 pm on April 21, 2003
But the oil protected for the Iraqi's benefice? Hahahahahahah! That's a good one! And if that is so, then I am Bill Gates' one and only true heir! I wish...

Tell me, who gave you that idea? Who told you that it wouldn't be used for the benefit of the Iraqi people? Where did the thought that America would steal the oil from the Iraqi people get conceived?....

IN YOUR FUCKING MIND!

With regards to the oil, NOT ONE official from America or Britain has said anything but "the oil will be used for the benefit and survival of the Iraqi people and their country". So it is therefore YOU, as well as those synical idiots who are also advocates of the idea you expressed, who are the evil bastards who think about business and money etc. before thinking about the lives of the Iraqi's.

hawarameen

22nd April 2003, 00:38

i personally would have prefered to see the protection of the museum rather than the oil fields.

oil if set alight would be put out in a matter of days, the things in the museums have been around for 7000 years

Socialsmo o Muerte

22nd April 2003, 00:44

Very good point. Nobody has given an educated reason like that as yet.

I'm just saying overall, the oil is more important at this point in time than museums.

I do disagree with your point, but it is the best anyone has put forward.

hawarameen

22nd April 2003, 01:07

i wouldnt believe everything that britain or US says. i do not think that the us is out to steal iraqi oil but i do think that they need the oil, supplies are rapidly deteriorating and demand far exceeds supply so they want to safeguard their supply and buy the oil from iraq (at what bargain price i dont know) thus helping their economy and the US.

however, if the iraqi economy was the concern of the US, then tourism alone would have been a huge moneyspinner for iraq if the artifacts had been guarded. but this doesnt benefit america does it? millions would have travelled to iraq just to visit that particular museum, bringing money to the economy, i dont believe that will happen now.

Socialsmo o Muerte

22nd April 2003, 01:27

Yeah, but the income for the Iraqi's from the oil would far exceed that.

I don't know, we'll have to wait and see. Ultimately, everyone has heard the Allies say they will not exploit the oil, so that's why I'm convinced it will be used properly.

CubanFox

22nd April 2003, 02:24

But then again, Hitler promised not to attack Poland.

Boris Moskovitz

22nd April 2003, 02:37

CF's got a point. Those people are not to be trusted. It is obvious, why do you think the oil is protected?

Sabocat

22nd April 2003, 13:40

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 8:38 pm on April 21, 2003
But what he is basically saying is that the welfare and survival of the Iraqi people at this moment in time is more important than ancient artifacts. YES, they are very very important, but not as important as lives of the people living now.

I know Bodacious could've put the whole thing more politely, but what he is saying is true.

The looting of the museums and artifacts was a crime against humanity. As human beings, we all have an interest in what was there. It is absolutely more precious than oil.

If the U$ is so concerned about using the oil to the benefit of the Iraqi population, where the hell were they for the last 12 years while people were dying of dysentary and couldn't get enough food to eat because of the sanctions.

The U$ won't benefit from the oil? Like United Fruit didn't benefit from all the U$ occupations in South America?

The museums and the artifacts are the Iraqi people. Allowing museums and artifacts to be looted is a classic psy-op. Once people lose a sense of who they are and their history, they become much easier to occupy. "The winning of hearts and minds" so to speak.

I recently heard that the U$ is also going to oversee the production and distribution of school textbooks. Do you honestly think the U$ will provide Iraqi school children with an honest accurate description of their place in the world?

Believe me. The U$ has no altruistic intentions in Iraq.

CubanFox

22nd April 2003, 14:23

Oil could wait. History could not.

In the grand scheme of things, I'd rather have the long heritage of the human race and live my middle class life as opposed to being Bill Gates and having no history in our museums.

Socialsmo o Muerte

22nd April 2003, 17:03

"Oil could wait. History could not."

How philosophical of you. Shame it makes no sense.

This matter is really down to opinions it seems.

You can choose either;
a) Prioritize museums over oil. Thus allowing the people who do survive, which will be a minority probably, to have the luxury of museums to aid their education on top of whatever schooling etc, they would get.

B) Prioritize oil over museums. Thus saving the lives of millions of Iraqis and allowing the basic survival of those people for now. The country could then develop with use of the oil income once it has been stabilised. There may be fewer museums, but with the oil income, schools could get better and better providing, hopefully, a good education.

At the end of the day, it's you opinion.

A or B.

CubanFox

22nd April 2003, 17:18

It does make sense, if you think about it.

It's not like the mobs are going to go out and drill oil. The oil could wait until the looting had been quelled.

However, history (much of which lies in the museums) is an easy target since all you need to do is grab golden stuff from milennia ago then sell it. The looting needed to be solved before the oil things started.

Zombie

22nd April 2003, 17:39

I agree with Disgustapated on this one.
Socialismo where do you come from, by the way?

Socialsmo o Muerte

22nd April 2003, 17:55

I live in the United Kingdom. My family background is, how shall I say, diverse. My family is one of Arab origin, to put it simply.

Exploited Class

23rd April 2003, 00:54

The oil didn't need protection. The few fires that were going are already out. It was underground and going nowhere. There were contract bids months prior to the invasion, plans were laid out for the protection of oil, everything else was left up in the air.

Rumsfeld, who has double talked a lot during this, first said the looting wasn't at all serious, there was hardly any. The media was showing the same picture of the kid stealing the vase over and over again, you'd think the whole country was filled with vases if you watched enough TV.

Then he later said that, "This is expected (the looting), this is what happens in the transitional period, this is what always happens in a transitional period." Well with all that knowledge of knowing this is going to happen an ounce of precaution over priceless historical relics. They knew this was going to happen and yet did nothing.

As far a blaming this on Iraqi's and claiming this as what gutter trash does. This is what people do when they panic. Yes I would say it is a good idea to panic when the whole infrastructure of order falls apart by a military attack. When there is no food, water, electricity, soldiers everywhere, bombs exploding, currency worthless, hospitals unable to help. No idea where your next meal will come from, and that happens to a good 6 million or more people all in a couple of days period, they tend to freak in a group mind and grab things that can be sold for cold hard currency on foreign markets or what can be traded to leave an occupied state safely.

I guess that the ruling upper wealthy class in America is also 3rd world trash? Considering in the 30's they all panicked and made a run on the banks and the stock market trying to get anything they could because they feared the worse they caused. They just did what Iraqi's did, when things like central order appear to be coming apart, it is every person for themselves.

In regards to the government saying one thing and a majority of us believing other things. I can punch you in the face and tell you I am a pacifist, that doesn't mean I am. And if you have a history of me, punching people in the face, yet I still exclaim that I am a pacifists. I am not, I am a liar.

The Bush government has done nothing to make me believe them. The history of the US corporations on foreign soil, has done nothing to make me believe them. As far as who is the only people saying oil first, they put oil first, the only people saying it is us?

Thier actions speak more loudly than their words. We know that they put oil first, and they make us right by making sure oil fields out in the middle of a desert are secured prior to making sure that a city doesn't dissolve into chaos and pricelss artificats ruined, something they knew would happen before hand.