IRAQ Historical Libraries - Archives DEVASTATED by War!

Searchy Search Search writes "rferl.org reports Employees of Iraq's National Library and Archives are struggling to overcome the destruction wrought during the first weeks of the U.S.-led war. Many irreplaceable documents, photographs, maps, and books -- some centuries old -- were either destroyed in the fighting or were stolen in the rampant looting that followed. A vital part of Iraq's culture seems to have disappeared forever"

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

so choose...

2 articles posted on the loss of historical records in Iraq... :)

Its certainly unfortunate yes. Probably not avoidable unless we hadn't gone in at all.

If you're an Iraqi which would you choose? 1. Saddam and records intact. 2. Saddam gone, records destroyed.

Re:so choose...

Suddenly Greg's pro-choice!

Re:so choose...

I seem to recall you complaining about Republicans doing the run around whenever you approached them about the Cheney/confidentiality issue. Funny you should choose to do the same.

Re:so choose...

Don't know that Blake did anything funny, but he did SAY something funny. Don't you get the joke?

Re:so choose...

Apparently not, no idea what he thought I meant, but that joke didn't work so well.

Re:so choose...

You said choose... I said pro-choice... get it? Not funny? jeesh, tough crowd

Re:so choose...

Believe me I got it. You had a chance to be honest and you copped out. The suddenly-pro-choice 'joke' is an old one meant as a red-herring.

I'm more pro-choice than not when it comes to what affects us individually. There are choices when it comes to abortion too. But morally there are fewer choices than there are legal ones.

Re:so choose...

The problem with conservatives is that they cannot possibly understand how their morals aren't good enough for anybody but themselves. They tend to believe that what they think is good enough for them, so it's good enough for the other six billion people on the planet as well. They couldn't even consider how morals are entirely solipsistic.

Another problem with conservatives is that their thinking is too: Either/Or. They do not admit of third possibilities. It would have been possible to oust Hussein without indiscriminately murdering 11 to 15 thousand Iraqi innocents and severely damaging their culture and history. But the Republican National Guard of Amerika wouldn't allow anyone to explore such alternatives.

Re:so choose...

Riiiight, because we know Canada has the military ability to invade a country without hurting anybody at all.

Now *that's* funny.

Re:so choose...

False dilemma.

Re:so choose...

Talk about avoidance. You accuse Blake of not answering your directive to choose, then you follow suit with your own misdirection when you dislike what fang face says.

It's true. We don't have enough equipment to attack anyone. Canada is better known for peacekeeping than war mongering and I can say I'm proud to be Canadian. I'm glad we didn't invade Iraq with the US, because god only knows, we wouldn't have known what to do with all those weapons of mass destruction...

s/

Re:so choose...

I replied to what he said. He seemed to think there was a better way, he didn't offer a better way but he seemed to think there was one. I simply pointed out that Canada was not likely to have the resources to offer any scenario, better or worse.

1. WMDs are popping up bit by bit. And your right, Canada wouldn't know what to do with them.
2. The original question makes it very clear that WMDs weren't the only thing at stake. The whole johnny one-note thing is getting a little tired. There is something bigger going on in the Middle East then just WMDs. Be nice if one of you could admit that.

Re:so choose...

False choice, Greg.The professionals in the Pentagon told the Bush administration that a much, much larger force was needed, not to defeat Iraq, but to hold it and maintain order _after_ defeating the Iraqi forces. The State Dept. (currently headed by another military professional) provided extensive plans for _how_ to maintain order after military victory. All these warnings and all this prewar planning for the post-war situation was dismissed as obviously wrong by Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush. Everything was going to be love & kisses, with no risk of post-war disorder.But that was totally contrary to what anyone moderately familiar with history would have expected, and it's not the way it worked out. With Saddam's regime destroyed, and with coalition forces in Iraq laughably too small to maintain order, the very predictable (and predicted) rioting & looting broke out.And Rumsfeld JOKED about it, saying "democracy is messy."Listening to the professionals about what was really needed, for the post-war period as well as the fighting, probably wouldn't have prevented all the post-war destruction, but it could have, at least, greatly limited it.Being prepared and thus preventing most of the post-war disorder wouldn't have just prevented the cultural loss (not just to Iraq, remember, but to the whole world; this _is_ the cradle of human civilization), but would also have helped the post-war economic and political rebuilding, things the neocons supposedly care deeply about.

Re:so choose...

No. 1 I agree with Rummy. His primary efforts have been to make the military more efficient. In the 21st century we need a military that is fast and strong, there won't always be time to move whole armies from here to there. The fact is what we did in Iraq was a milestone in military history.

No. 2 The article specifically refers to the first few weeks of the war. We started by bombing the hell out them. There were no foot soldiers involved. And unless you wanted millions of foot soldiers to all run in at the same time and put everyone in straight jackets than yes, democracy will always be messy. That was the price. It was worth it.

Re:so choose...

His primary efforts have been to make the military more efficient. In the 21st century we need a military that is fast and strong [...]

Sounds just like the Nazi regime.

democracy will always be messy.

All hail the creed of the tyrant: "You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs."

Little problem with your point of view there, GregS. There is no democracy in Iraq. Iraq is being crushed under the heel of an incompetent occupier who had an occupation government in place, and has installed yet another puppet regime, with yet another American CIA puppet in charge, while beginning to build fourteen bases for even more occupation forces.

Aside from which, I notice that you aren't over there. Why is that, GregS? Funny thing how the drones always proclaim loudest the benefits of killing any number of innocent civilians as long as they don't have to do the dirty work, isn't it?

Those NBC Weapons you mentioned that were coming to light bit by bit; are those part of the non-existent stockpiles Bush lied to the world about, or are they just scraps bought on the black market by the resistance fighters?

Sieg Heil.

Oh, . . . and you know that Canada you're always sneering at? No revolution, no civil war, and we fought in the First and Second World Wars from the very start to protect democracy while your governments had their collective heads jammed up their collective asses in total confusion.

Re:so choose...

I'd never argue about the lack of Cdn military supremacy. My father is ex-armed forces so I'm quite aware of our country's shortcomings in that area. So be as sarcastic as you want, cus I agree with you.

So, it wasn't just WMD? It was the whole oppresive regime/human rights thing? Yeah. Right. Forgive my cynicism in this regard. It was Hussein and the oil Bush was after. The WMD was just a smoke screen for an invasion of Iraq. This is how it looks to this Cdn...and many others here feel the same way. I also know there are some Cdns so brainwashed by American gov't propaganda that they support the invasion of Iraq.

So, if this wasn't just for the WMD/Oil/Hussein, then when is the US gonna get to those other oppressive regimes that exist in other countries. Like, oh, Cuba? (C'mon you've been trying for years with Cuba, why not invade now that they don't have the backing of Russia? Should be easier) Or Libya? Insert country/oppressive regime of choice. Ah...wait. Most of those other oppresive regime places don't have anything that Bush wants.

Still very glad to be Canadian.

s/

Re:so choose...

Hey, you forgot. We won the war of 1812, too. ;)
s/

BS

The majority of petroleum imports to the United States of America come from Canada.


To say that Iraq was invaded because of oil is an uninformed argument. Iraq ranks behind Canada and Saudi Arabia in terms of proven oil reserves. Iraq ranks much further down when it comes to availability of supply and ease of export.


Security is more the issue than oil. The Security of the Middle East, the security of the Iraqi people, the security of the US were significantly more important than oil.


If it were about oil, perhaps we should invade Canada.

Re:BS

"Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."-Paul Wolfowitz

Re:not so much BS

Well according to that article on Iraq you linked to, there is a potential in unexplored areas of the country for more oil.

So, if it's for security in the middle east, and the middle east area is one of the, if not THE largest oil producing area in the world, then, oil was ONE of the reasons Bush invaded. And I did NOT say it was the ONLY reason, just one of several unjustifiable reasons. As I said, unless the US is going to start toppling other regimes of the ilk of Iraq, don't tell me it wasn't for Hussein and the oil. I don't buy it.

"If it were about oil, perhaps we should invade Canada."

Ha! You'd only have to invade Alberta. You could leave the rest of us alone. Although if you're taking Alberta, take Quebec too. You'd soon be begging us to take them both back. *G* Besides, the US tried that almost 200 years ago and couldn't do it...

I just have to quote Rick Mercer here (brilliant Cdn. political humourist): "Ninety percent of them [Americans] can't pick out their home town on an unmarked map. ... And if they get mad with us, we'll just have to take our name off the map and feel safe in knowing they will never find us."

I love Rick Mercer.

s/

Re:so choose...

I didn't forget! I was saving it up. :-)

The war of 1812 was probably the first example of American Arrogance of Power. The first dude over the border rode into a town and loudly proclaimed, "I am but the vanguard of much greater force, resistance is futile, you will be assimiliated."

Well, that's a paraphrase, but it was an actual event. He basically told the people that conquest was inevitable, so they should lie back and enjoy it. All he did was to tick them off with his attitude.

Just like the war in Viet Nam and the invasion on Iraq, the War of 1812 was based on a spurious excuse. The U.S. invaded supposedly because the Brutish Navy was stopping American ships at sea and pressganging sailors into service, but that practice had been stopped by diplomatic means before the invaders crossed into Ontario.

The American attitude about how their military adventurism hasn't changed since then either. In 1812, Viet Nam, the Bay of Pigs, Afghanistan, and Iraq, the prevalent misassumption was that the downtrodden would rise up in joyful adoration of liberty and freedom and sweep the invading forces into the capitol and drag the tyrants out of their offices and hang them all from the nearest tree or lamp post.

Boy, some people just never learn the lessons of history.

Re:so choose...

Sad to hear some Canadians actually support the U.S. actions in Iraq.

I only hope all of you in Canada realize that there are a good number of us in the U.S. who not only disagree with what our country's doing, but are downright ashamed of it. I even live in a very conservative area, and still I know a lot of people who are horrified by our own country's actions.

Too bad Canada's too cold for me... otherwise I'd move there myself!

Re:so choose...

I know that there are Americans who disagree with the war in Iraq, and I think many of those Cdns who do support the war realise the same.

Hey, c'mon, we're only cold 8 to 10 months of the year. Usually. You could go to vancouver or victoria. It almost never snows there in the winter. *G*

s/

Re:so choose...

Yes, south west BC is the place for those of us who fear the winter. We haven't had a real snow fall in years. It never lasts more than a day or two.

Add to that, the fact that we aren't going to blindly follow every military adventure some egomaniac of a president wants to engage in and you've got a pretty cool place. We have enough problems of our own making but fortunately don't feel the need to export them. Of course, we don't think we are the centre of the universe. There are some real advantages to that.

Syndicate content