Slashdot Mirror


The Destruction of Iraq's Once-Great Universities

Harperdog writes "Hugh Gusterson has written a devastating article about what has happened to Iraq's once great university system, and puts most of the blame for its total collapse on the U.S. Quoting: 'While American troops guarded the Ministries of Oil and the Interior but ignored cultural heritage sites, looters ransacked the universities. For example, the entire library collections at the University of Baghdad's College of Arts and at the University of Basra were destroyed. The Washington Post's Rajiv Chandresekara described the scene at Mustansiriya University in 2003: "By April 12, the campus of yellow-brick buildings and grassy courtyards was stripped of its books, computers, lab equipment and desks. Even electrical wiring was pulled from the walls. What was not stolen was set ablaze, sending dark smoke billowing over the capital that day."'"

444 comments

  1. News? by bazorg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Some have even suggested that it was on purpose.

    1. Re:News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mainly Naomi Klein, who is known for just making stuff up as she goes along.
      Seriously though, the primary thing to blame for the end of Iraq's universities is Islam, because it was what fuelled the anger of the looters (against the un-Islamic curricula and against the education of women), because it is what makes Iraq inhospitable to science now and because it is what is preventing the Iraqi government from funding the building of new ones even though there's plenty of oil money available.
      The only thing the US can be blamed for is naïveté. At least the military top and the administration had this attidude of "muslims are just like us, except they call God Allah". This is also why things turned out so shitty when the US didn't keep the oppressive military rule in place and why Iraq's democratic project is coming apart at the seams. Most of Iraq's problems were essentially caused by the US top refusing to do their homework before they went in.
      Then again, the only way to prevent all this would have been to institute a tight (and expensive) military rule followed by a thorough (and expensive) re-education program. I can see the headlines now. ... Maybe the current situation is as good as it can get. The US went in there to prevent Iraq from being a pain in the butt and I think it helped. It's a shame we cannot keep people from each other's throats but even the US isn't powerful enough to do that everywhere on the globe, so yeah. Reality sucks.

    2. Re:News? by rednip · · Score: 5, Informative

      Possibly the greatest military blunder off all time was coalition provisional authority order number 2 which dismissed the Iraqi army. This action sent hundreds of thousands young unemployed trained soldiers into the hands of the various mullahs. Arguably, it was the tinder that fuel the Iraqi civil war. L. Paul Bremer, the man who committed the blunder was rewarded with the Presidential medal of Freedom.

      --
      The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
    3. Re:News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes.

      The Arab-Muslim world has the highest rates of illiteracy on Earth. Like everything else, the Arabs will of course blame that on America and the Jews, rather than taking a long hard look at themselves.

    4. Re:News? by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Some have even suggested that it was on purpose.

      Nah, that would require some sort of planning.

      Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity or whatever the expression is.

      --
      No sig today...
    5. Re:News? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Have you ever tried to deal with Americans? The standard of literacy among them is just terrifying. I have had to teach American exchange students doing degree-level courses what amounts to high school English, because they were functionally illiterate.

      That's right. They could barely write a single paragraph without lapsing into "txtspk" or using language skills more appropriate for primary school age children. Writing an entire essay in formal continuous prose was utterly beyond them.

      I did notice that the lack of literacy was more pronounced among students from traditionally religious right-wing backgrounds, but I suppose that's because that group does not traditionally value learning.

    6. Re:News? by Oswald · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, I was dealing with some Americans just yesterday. They were saying something about sweeping generalizations but I couldn't hear them because they were so fat and arrogant.

    7. Re:News? by Fluffeh · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity or whatever the expression is.

      Hanlon's Razor is a nice idea, but I think that you think rather naively. The US went into Iraq with three real agenda's. 1) Make headlines in the press which was going to cause the United States public to ignore the fact that their economy was going down the gurgler and that their banking sector was in dire woes. 2) Seize some semblance of control over Iraq's oilfields with the intention of trying to rebuild the infrastructure by US corporations even though it was destroyed by US soldiers and 3) Cause instability in the Middle East which will provide further opportunities for "western interests" centered in the US and it's allies to rebuild and profit from industry that is destroyed in the following turmoil.

      While I often find the actions of many western governments inept, especially those of the recent US government, I would be very much a fool if I did not think that they did indeed have a very purposeful goal. They may indeed be acting stupidly and seemingly against their own interests in the resulting outcomes, but I would certainly not put it down to a lack of malice. These people act according to their own interests and have utterly no care in the world for the outcomes of others.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    8. Re:News? by joebagodonuts · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Presidential Medal of Freedom is our way of saying "you fucked up"

      --
      "Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
    9. Re:News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      High quality AND affordable? The USA spends more than double per capita what the next nearest of the G8 nations spends, and doesn't get much better outcomes.

      Of course, a lot of that is down to the enormous fatness.

    10. Re:News? by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      Yes, I'm sure they though of the "I can be famous/rich and divert the attention of the masses at the same time" angle...

      What I'm doubting is that they ever devoted a single neuron to the idea of protecting one of the most historically valuable places on earth from looters.

      --
      No sig today...
    11. Re:News? by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Some [wikipedia.org] have even suggested that it was on purpose.

      ...

      Seriously though, the primary thing to blame for the end of Iraq's universities is Islam.

      This is a good opportunity to put Occam's razor to use. We know that in sudden, widespread disruptive events people loot. It doesn't matter whether it is natural disaster, invasion, or just a neighborhood breakdown in public order. This even includes ordinary people who would not ordinarily steal. I once talked to an anthropologist whose work on a Caribbean island was interrupted by an unusually powerful hurricane. There was looting, but several days later many people sheepishly returned things they'd stolen, unable to explain why they'd taken them in the panic.

      Looting is probably an instinctive human response to the rapid onset of environmental or social disorder. But we don't have to accept that. We only have to accept that disasters cause looting. Introducing the hypothetical intellectual backwardness of Islam simply multiplies causes unnecessarily. The looting would have occurred whether or not Islam was as you characterize it. The looting is neither proof nor disproof of your notions about Islam. Your notions of Islam have no bearing on the looting, even if you had actual evidence (which you don't) of the motivations of the crowd.

      Now as for the looting of important cultural institutions being an intended consequence, Occam's razor applies here as well. The administration's general lack of preparation or even awareness of basic facts about Iraq that was evident in the aftermath of the invasion. That is enough to explain the lack of steps to protect universities and libraries. To suggest that was part of the invasion suggests an awareness of the importance of intellectual inquiry that was not otherwise evidenced in any of the administration's other behavior. This was a president who proudly said he made decisions by gut instead of reason, as if that were an admirable thing. It is more plausible that it never occurred to the Bush Administration that a country like Iraq *had* important cultural institutions .

      It really makes no difference whether the looting was an intended consequence or not -- either practically or ethically. Undertaking drastic, irreversible actions fatal to so many is not excused by ignorance. Doing that in unexamined ignorance is arguably worse than causing many of the things that happened after the invasion intentionally. Arguably somebody who *wanted* those things would have to be sick. Somebody who is just intellectually lazy deserves no pity. The uncaring deserve less pity than the honestly depraved.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    12. Re:News? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      "... I suppose that's because that group does not traditionally value learning."

      Do not project your local religious attributes onto our local religious groups.

    13. Re:News? by sam_nead · · Score: 3, Funny

      This is a good opportunity to put Occam's razor to use. We know that in sudden, widespread disruptive events people loot.

      They loot libraries? After a disaster I might loot a store, or an abandoned police station/military post, I guess, but a library? For books? "Hey, its the end of the world! Let's go snag some calculus textbooks!"

    14. Re:News? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1, Troll

      re-educate? their whole culture (islam) is not about learning. its about being force-fed, under pain of death, fairytales and myths.

      give it up, guys. they don't want us and frankly, I'm quite tired of funding anything that goes their way. 100% pull-out and shunning is what is needed. economically isolate them and then let them realize that no country is truly an island.

      until they want to join the world, isolate them. and I mean totally isolate the middle east. no more computer parts when their shit breaks, no more consulting, all westerners pull out, etc.

      lets see how long they live on islam and islam alone.

      education does not work when they refuse to join the modern age. they must first be learn that islam is NOT the whole world and the rest of the world is basically sick of their shit.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    15. Re:News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      looting is generally taking stuff that is "valuable" - stuff that people use or can trade for money. Library books are not very valuable in a street sense. The destroyers of the universities, therefore, using Occams razor probably had a hatred of what the Universities represented, probably western learning. The US can't be held responsible for stuff everything the population chooses to do there.

    16. Re:News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Seriously though, the primary thing to blame for the end of Iraq's universities is Islam, because it was what fuelled the anger of the looters (against the un-Islamic curricula and against the education of women), because it is what makes Iraq inhospitable to science now and because it is what is preventing the Iraqi government from funding the building of new ones even though there's plenty of oil money available.

      "Islam" might be an OK explanation in a country like Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, but note that as recently as the 1970s Iraq was a mostly secular country. The war with Iran (which we encouraged) and our wars and sanctions helped *feed* religious extremism in the country. Not saying it's our fault, but even if we didn't light the fire we were throwing gasoline on everything...

    17. Re:News? by icebraining · · Score: 2

      The only thing the US can be blamed for is naÃveté.

      Oh, please. Dick Cheney in '94: "It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq". http://youtu.be/YENbElb5-xY

      The Bush administration knew full well what would happen.

    18. Re:News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you think you are the enlightened one. . .

    19. Re:News? by Sulphur · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We know that in sudden, widespread disruptive events people loot.

      Like the Japanese at Fukushima? Not.

    20. Re:News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now that's a good ol' flamebait.

    21. Re:News? by rotorbudd · · Score: 1

      Oops!
      Here's the books that I looted from your university library.
      Don't know why I did it, I can't even read anything but Arabic.
      Oh, and sorry about burning the place down too.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it, but artillery is addressed to " Whom It May concern"
    22. Re:News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of all time? Oh god...

    23. Re:News? by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They loot libraries?

      Well, sure. It's not like people sit down and ask themselves, "what are the highest value places for me to loot today?" It's an instinctive behavior. The anthropologist I mentioned said that people were often mystified by the things they took, because they had no use or practical value.

      I think looting libraries makes more sense if you look at the behavior in terms of its statistical benefit to a displaced population (i.e. like you were in charge of natural selection). If your goal is to have as many people in a community survive, you don't want them all hunting for the same optimal loot to take. You want everyone to go straight to the nearest thing of value and carry it off. They can sort it out later, there will be more diverse loot, and you won't have a lot redundant effort with everyone looting the same few things.

      It's also possible that in a fight or flight situation, grabbing stuff is a low marginal cost addition to flight that occasionally pays off. That would be consistent with the way looting follows in the *wake* of the disaster. Imagine a village being attacked in a cattle raid. In the early stages they grab their weapons and secure their valuables. If they lose the fight, in the later stages of the raid (i.e. the looting and raping stage) it makes sense for the losers to grab anything they can and run away.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    24. Re:News? by Squiddie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've noticed that in America, only the poor people seem to get morbidly obese. It might have something to do with cheap food being no good for you.

    25. Re:News? by jklovanc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We know that in sudden, widespread disruptive events people loot. It doesn't matter whether it is natural disaster, invasion, or just a neighborhood breakdown in public order.

      I am sorry but that is a false assertion. It is not a human condition, it is a societal condition. Almost all cultures, mine included, have the idea of "get what you can any way you can get it". They hold the individual above all else. In effect most people are anarchists held in check by laws and controls. When those laws and controls weaken the anarchy comes out. If in one's mind the only thing that stops one from taking someone else's property is the law then when the law can not be enforced one will take it. One the other hand, if the reason one does not take something is the simple fact that it does not belong to you is a different issue. The presence or absence of law enforcement does not change that criteria and one would not take the item in either condition. It has nothing to do with society but with one's individual view of the world.

      There is at least one society on earth where that is not anarchist at heart. When a disaster happened there was no looting, no rioting and the people obeyed what little authority that was there. That society was Japan during the last tsunami.

      Another point is that I am a human and would never loot and hoard. I may recouver resources necessary for survival but I would use them to help as many people as possible and not hoard them as most looters do.

      In the end it is all about the lack of personal honour, personal responsibility, personal control and a reliance on the state to keep one's caveman instincts in check. Japan has evolved beyond that. In those aspect I wish that my society had as well.

    26. Re:News? by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      I would like to think, against all reason, that some of the looters were students and now some of those books are hidden away in some of their houses, saved from the mob, but I don't think this is true. If my local university was in a war zone, I might actually take some books from it to keep. It sure beats having them burned for warmth or some other thing that could befall them. It's the same reason why I keep a backup of wikipedia at home.

    27. Re:News? by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      Fukushima was not closed off from the rest of Japan. It's not the same scenario.

    28. Re:News? by darkmeridian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is utter bullshit. The US decided to disband the Iraqi police force and military, then refused to provide security against looters or criminals because the invasion force was undermanned. Remember the LA riots? Imagine that except we got rid of the police and National Guard, then left the armories open so any moron could walk off with a bazooka. There would be instant chaos even if no one was Muslim.

      The fall of Iraq was caused by the rank stupidity of the Paul Wolfowitz types.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    29. Re:News? by hey! · · Score: 5, Interesting

      We know that in sudden, widespread disruptive events people loot.

      Like the Japanese at Fukushima? Not.

      In fact there *was* looting after the earthquake ( citation). However the authorities moved quickly to quell the looting, before the looting ignited a vicious circle. Which brings us right back to the predictability of the looting response and the *effectiveness* of steps taken to restrain it.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    30. Re:News? by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The word "looting" covers a number of different things, from organized pillaging to pure mob behavior. Your description of looter behavior corresponds to pillaging, not the mob response to disaster.

      All small point about Occam's razor. It's about not introducing explanations without being forced to do so by data. So far as I can see there are no features or cluster of features here that could only be explained by assuming Muslims hate education. In fact, I've never seen *any* evidence that Muslims in general hate education in general. I haven't even seen proof that Muslim *extremists* hate western education in particular. They're often western educated themselves. Their beef with us obviously isn't entirely rational, so we can't expect them to be consistent, but it seems mostly to be related issues of disrespecting Islam, political hypocrisy, hobnobbing with hated regimes, and moral decadence.

      The US can't be held responsible for stuff everything the population chooses to do there.

      I agree. But I think the US can be held responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of its actions in Iraq, whether or not the people in charge actually foresaw them. If you don't think people are responsible for the foreseeable and controllable consequences of their actions, then you and I are using different.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    31. Re:News? by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      the problem is in the extra requirements :

      getting rid of worshipping a paedophilic rapist and slaver ... without getting killed

    32. Re:News? by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Again it is simply not true there was *no* looting in Japan after earthquake and tsunami. There was but it was eclipsed in the news by the enormity of the natural disaster and the nuclear situation. The authorities moved quickly and efficiently to stop the looting before it became a secondary disaster.

      Another point is that I am a human and would never loot and hoard.

      I hope so, but you can't really credibly make that claim until you've found yourself in the kind of situation where people loot. But in all probability you won't loot. So far as I know I can't think of any instance of looting where *most* of the people in the population were involved.

      As for myself, I am certain that I am less likely to loot than some, and reasonably confident I'm less likely than most. However, I'm far from certain I would *never* loot under *any* circumstances, no matter how desperate, fearful or angry I got. Haven't *you* ever done or said something under the influence of anger or fear that you would not have after sober consideration? If so, you're a better human being than I am, or indeed any that I have ever met.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    33. Re:News? by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Has the irony anvil hit you on the head yet? In a thread thick with ridiculous generalizations about Islam and Arab countries, with (as of this writing) no contributions from people who might actually live there or have lived there (partially, but only partial, credit for having been deployed there) we get the voice of "expertise" based on limited experience pointed back to Americans - and you balk.

    34. Re:News? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Can you cite any report of looting in Japan after the tsunami? The only instance of "looting" I have seen was this ant that falls under my "necessary supplies" exception. Some may say that beer is not necessary but when most of the potable water in the area has been contaminated bottled beer is a safe alternative.
      The other issue is that in every society there will be people who do not follow the social norms; they are called sociopaths. Are there sociopaths in Japan? There sure is. My point is that the social norm in Japan is to not loot. The social norm in most other societies is to loot.

    35. Re:News? by hey! · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's about the shape of it. The anthropologist I was talking about described people who didn't have electricity in their neighborhoods returning electric appliances they'd looted. Obviously they had no intention of *using them*. As for *selling them*, the fact they risked being arrested by returning goods voluntarily suggests an unusual degree of honesty. But if they were honest folk, why did they loot in the first place?

      They looted because *honesty* is a rational value, and they weren't acting rationally.

      I'm not suggesting all looters everywhere are just good people in bad circumstances. I'm just saying you shouldn't overestimate the rationality of people in a mob, or ascribe the mob's behavior exclusively to the values of the surrounding culture, or even the individual members.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    36. Re:News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A blunder, but not even close to the greatest of all time. The French deciding not to defend the Ardenne Forest led to hundreds of millions of deaths over two world wars whose consequences led some of the very issues we are talking about. Yours isn't even close.

    37. Re:News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not one of those things is even close to true. For one, there were barely any subprimes at that point and banks were in decent shape, as was the economy. I know history from less than a decade ago is hard to remember, but come on! Two, we didn't make even the slightest action ever to indicate we wanted to control their oil. We could have easily done so, so if that was the plan, why didn't we do it? Because it was never the plan, only conspiracists think it was. Cause instability? Perhaps. Several revolutions came out of it which may or may not make the world a better place. Instability is often preferable to tyranny.

    38. Re:News? by Oswald · · Score: 1

      Yes it has. Perhaps, considering the absurdity of my post's grandparent, I should have just considered my parent post a righteously indignant outburst and let it go.

      Then again, he did respond to an AC attacking a whole culture by himself attacking a whole culture--possibly not even the AC's culture. Hardly the model of civilized discourse.

      For the record, insults against people based on their membership in an entire nation, race, or culture are illogical, mean-spirited, and generally repugnant.

    39. Re:News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I considering it an intentional action on behalf of the US.

      Simple, the best puppet regimes are the ones where the only educated people are at the top. Keeps dissidents down and the population under control.

      I mean, why do you think education in the US is becoming a bigger joke every day? Stupid people cant reliably vote on issues that they cant understand. It's that simple.

      We basically opened the doors for an oppressive, extremist pro-islamic government to take charge, and made it easier for them to do so.

      We can claim "We brought democracy" then when it goes to hell and a hand basket, we can say "The people made the choice" even though that's far from the truth.

      Iraq, already, within months, has already started going downhill quickly. The extremists are taking over at an alarming rate, and by the end of this year, it will be under control of a regime that will likely not be friendly toward US interests, meaning A) We go back in for another few years B) we say "fuck it" and move on.

      Either way it has been a gigantic mistake, and was a war pushed by large oil interests because saddam was going to change how he sold oil.

      Granted he was a gigantic piece of shit, but thanks to our actions, we now look like the even bigger piece of shit.

      Oh, and hell, we wanna go to war with iran now, and keep antagonizing them to strike first.

    40. Re:News? by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      one could argue that in 15 years things change,(not I however in this case) I mean 640K ought to be enough for anybody right?

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    41. Re:News? by hey! · · Score: 1

      See my other post for at least one citation. I could find others, but I think we should characterize the degree of our disagreement first.

      I agree that social norms played a part in containing looting after the tsunami in Japan. I agree that social deviancy probably played a part in initiation of looting -- it's probably always a contributing factor. I agree that urgent necessity also initiated some looting. And I agree that major looting events did not nucleate around these occurrences. Where I disagree is with the idea that individual Japanese people are somehow culturally inoculated against mob behavior per se. If you look at earlier periods of Japanese history you see that Japanese people are capable of all the good and ill that the rest of humanity is.

      It is respect for and confidence in local authorities that seems to be the biggest factor in how quickly mobs form and how soon they go out of control. So one naturally expects looting to be more likely when an oppressive regime is overthrown by an alien power than when a natural disaster strikes an economically advanced democracy. Belief in authority can certainly be culturally inculcated, but there are limits.

      So I'd say that Japan is culturally resistant to the *formation* of mobs, and that relatively prosperous, stable democracies are in general poor incubators of mobs.

      Now let's circle back the argument I am trying to make here: You can't draw broad inferences about the values and attitudes of entire societies from the behavior of mobs. The one conclusion you can draw is that for a certain segment of that society, trust and respect for authority has broken down.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    42. Re:News? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Um, yes, thanks for, you know, getting rid of that guy that most of us wanted you to get rid of. And we're sorry for wrecking all our nice stuff celebrating afterwards.

      But would you mind buying us all new stuff, because it kinda is your fault you didn't also stop us from wrecking our stuff.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    43. Re:News? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      We know that in sudden, widespread disruptive events people loot.

      Like the Japanese at Fukushima? Not.

      You would loot a nuclear power plant? You must by hysterical during D&D games.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    44. Re:News? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Belief in authority can certainly be culturally inculcated, but there are limits.

      You missed my point completely. You keep talking about "belief in authority"; what I am talking about is the belief in personal responsibility for one's own actions. If a society is composed of people who are personally responsible for their own actions and have the honour to do what is right there will be very little unrest when authority breaks down. It is about honour; not authority. As I understand bushido, it is all about being responsible for one's actions and one's honour is more important than one's life.

    45. Re:News? by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Even Communism, which supported science, was far better than modern Islam (the past is dead and doesn't affect current Islam) in respect to human rights and education.

      The only thing standing between Islam and the utter contempt it deserves is that so many people want tolerance for THEIR idiotic superstition that they believe the nonsense of religion and people who are superstitionists deserve respect.

      There is no God, religion is nonsense, and while those who believe it are fools. When they try to run societies based on their insanity they are dangerous fools.

      Death to superstition. All of it.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    46. Re:News? by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      In a zombie apocalypse situation, while every idiot out there was looting grocery stores, or even more intelligently, electronics stores, I'd be hitting the library or book stores.

      Food from a grocery store might last you a little while, but long term survival is based on knowledge.

    47. Re:News? by ultranova · · Score: 2

      Like the Japanese at Fukushima? Not.

      It's amazing how effective a 10-meter tsunami is at dispersing crowds, no?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    48. Re:News? by hey! · · Score: 2

      Well, we're talking past each other. I was responding to the lack of epistemological justification in drawing broad and overarching inferences about societies from events like mob looting. I just don't think you can draw the conclusion that if looting happens in event a of Culture A, but not in event b of Culture B, that it's automatically because the people in Culture B are virtuous and those in A are not. I certainly don't think you can impute an opinion to *everyone* in a society from the actions of a few.

      I agree personal responsibility is important, but I have less faith in it than you do. As far as bushido is concerned -- beware of anyone's depiction of their personal value and virtuousness. Especially anyone who rules by force. There are always exceptional individuals who step up and embody the ideals of their society, but it's far more common for people to adopt the image and not change their behavior very much.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    49. Re:News? by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Two problems:
      1. Most of them didn't want to get rid of Saddam, they just wanted a better way of life, just like in case of Arab Spring. He may have been oppressive, but Maliki and his cohorts make Saddam look like a mother Theresa.
      2. What the country was rid of was power structure and infrastructure. Once that is gone, it doesn't matter what source country originally was. It can be Iraq, Russia, USA, France or any other. Without those two things the country will slide into chaos, anarchy and eventual civil war which will decide who gets to form the new power structure in the country and how that power structure will function.

      Again, at that point, it will not matter which country it was. This is the cold reality of the human nature, shown throughout history countless times, and one of the things that truly unites our species as one species, in spite of differences in morphology and culture.

    50. Re:News? by gutnor · · Score: 1

      And what was the world reaction at the lack of looting ? Widespread disbelief, amazement, ...

    51. Re:News? by utkonos · · Score: 1

      I don't disagree with you at all, but when I read the statement "we know that in sudden, widespread disruptive events people loot. It doesn't matter whether it is natural disaster, invasion, or just a neighborhood breakdown in public order" I immediately thought about the blackout in New York City and the rest of the upper northeast of the US and Canada back in 2003. I remember the newspaper headlines saying "Blackout in New York City, No Looting Occurred" or something like that. So, I went back and researched the blackout on wikipedia, and there was in fact looting reported in Brooklyn but nowhere else in New York, or anywhere else in the US for that matter. There were incidents of looting in Canada, however.

      This leads me to ask the question, why was there no widespread looting? If your statement is true, there should have been looting everywhere in New York. What about this incident made it different than other blackouts?

      I dug a bit further, and it seems that even the 1965 New York blackout had almost no looting. Not only that, but the night of the blackout was "said to be the lowest amount of crime on any night in the city's history since records were first kept."

      Did it have something to do with the fact that businesses began giving food that would have otherwise spoiled away for free to passers-by? I'm not sure.

    52. Re:News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are so right (about the looters). I always suspected Islam to be behind all of this.

      On a whim, I looked up "List of riots" on Wikipedia and sure enough, it is full of Muslims rioting and looting not just in Muslim countries but all over the world. The most recent example of their dastardly nature was revealed in the Vancouver riots and looting after the Stanley cup finals. It is no great secret that (though the powerful Muslim lobby has tried to suppress all such information) gangs of Muslim youth answering calls from Allah infiltrated the poor hockey mad crowds in Vancouver. They have a special expertise in instigating ordinary god-fearing, law abiding citizens to run rampant.

      Please do your civic duty and forward this information to as many people as possible.

    53. Re:News? by enemorales · · Score: 1

      Well it happened here in Chile after our last big earthquake in 2010. Then, when the army finally took over (it took them some time to reach the most devastated points), some people were rushing to return the goods. You can probably still find videos of "walking" fridges in the internet.

    54. Re:News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't even seen proof that Muslim *extremists* hate western education in particular. They're often western educated themselves.

      Boko Haram hate western education in particular;

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boko_Haram

    55. Re:News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Originally my response to this article was "How is it the USA's fault that the Iraqi citizens decided to destroy their universities" - and I'm not even American.

      But reading your comments; you make a good point - looting is a predictable response to a major societal upheaval (e.g. an invasion), and an invading force that isn't planning on destroying a society should take steps to keep it in check - at least after the worst of the fighting is over.

      I wonder if in the future, there will be an entry in some sort of US Army "Guidelines for occupying forces" documenting institutions that need to be protected, and how to go about doing it.

      Something along the lines of protecting power, gas, water, telecommunications, medical, law enforcement, judicial, cultural and educational assets - with a plan to have services up and running ASAP so the local population returns to "business as usual", to limit the anarchy and subsequent anger that comes with invasions

      And of course getting local law enforcement to take over as soon as humanly possible to stop the international PR disaster - "American forces shoot unarmed civilians on university campus" etc that would inevitably happen if you have soldiers guarding against looters.

      It's a bit creepy writing this; I'd rather countries weren't invading each other, but hell, if they're gonna do it, I'd rather they learn from their mistakes and do it right.

    56. Re:News? by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Informative

      When you invade a country, you have to take responsibility for all the consequences.

      Now if that is not enough for you how about these juicy pieces, "The new head of the Coalition Provisional Authority of Iraq, Paul Bremer removed members of the Ba'ath Party from senior management positions at all public institutions. Since one had to join the Ba'ath Party, in order to get ahead in Hussein's Iraq, this order had the effect of removing most of Iraq's senior university administrators and professors overnight" (stupid is as stupid does). ". "Control over Iraq's universities now lay in the hands of Andrew Erdmann, a 36-year-old American, well-connected in Republican Party patronage networks, who was senior adviser to Iraq's Ministry of Education. Erdmann spoke no Arabic and had no experience in university administration (ohh look political appointees getting paid and stealing millions). "Erdmann was succeeded by John Agresto, the former president of St. Johns College in New Mexico and a conservative opponent of multicultural education.He too spoke no Arabic and, when the Post's Chandresekaran asked what he had read to prepare for his assignment, Iraq's new top educator said he decided to read no books at all about Iraq -- so he would have an "open mind." (was that open or empty". "USAID did set aside $25 million to help revitalize Iraqi universities -- but the money went to American universities to do curriculum development (seriously WTF, ohh yeah, ignorant foreignors don't now how to set curriculum).

      So a country was invaded, was tossed to the wolves local and imported, corruption was rife local and imported but hey it was all the Iraqi's fault. The US had nothing to do with it, even though the triggered it and mismanaged it. Why did it fail, mainly because all the Americans sent to manage it were only concerned with cashing in and did you give a rat's arse about actually doing anything constructive.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    57. Re:News? by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Most people in America when told of looting react with the phrase "shoot the looters on sight" not knowing where this comes from. In the San Francisco earthquake in the early 1900's (forget the actual year 1908?) when the army responded they issued a decree saying looters would be shot on sight (as looting was occurring). The military then proceeded to do exactly what they said they would do and shot several people, including a man that was "looting" his own store for valuables. This is where that phrase comes from and it's expansive use in America because what happened in SanFran was not only supported by Americans at the time but it was widely seen as the effective tool to stop Looting and has remained in the collective consciousness since including calls for the same thing to be done in New Orleans.

      But as those that have already posted, Looting occurs everywhere during disasters. It is likely, as has been speculated, that it's an ingrained behavior that developed as a key part of human instinct (yes we have instincts just like every other animal) during catastrophic events. The only way to stop it form occurring is to bring in a culturally recognized authority (such as police, military) that snaps people back to their senses and halts the instinctive behavior.

    58. Re:News? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      No. It's not the same scenario because the Japanese are not animals posing as people. They are not going to do stupid shit just because there's a little lapse in authority.

      If anything the Japanese would organize their own Night Watch.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    59. Re:News? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      I think what you are trying to portray as looting would not be described as such if it happened any where else on the planet.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    60. Re:News? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      The cold-blooded theocracies that are taking hold after said 'Arab Spring' are not necessarily a better way of life. Just as the Revolution in Iran in 1979 did not turn out that good for a lot of the people who fought hard for it. I remember the broad progressive coalitions that were part of the Iranian revolution. Many of those people are dead now.

    61. Re:News? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      In an abstract sense you are correct. But Access to Tools is more important than raw book knowledge. I would have been raiding machine shops, etc.

    62. Re:News? by spacepilot · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure it's naïveté on the part of the US. After having my son go thru high school, and in the 12th grade, completing a homework assignment with the following 2 questions: "What is an astronomer" & "What is a geologist", I start to wonder if America really wants an educated populous. I really think they do NOT want an educated, overseas nation in the midst of all that oil. Keep 'em simple, and oil corps will have an easier job. Give them a basic education, sure, but make it harder to get a higher education, and any country will become dependent on foreign help. I don't believe the commanders on the ground think that way, but from what I've seen, no one in the US chain of command would think to save a university. It doesn't serve their immediate interests and no one that would want to save them would/could speak up.

    63. Re:News? by Luckyo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're missing the point by a mile and then some, mainly because you're stuck in your Western-born point of view with no other reference. To us, Arab Spring was literally marketed (as in advertised in news) as a "democratic movement" in sense that democratic = better life.

      Those of us without the lack of long term memory induced by too much TV vividly remember what happens when a country that had to be on receiving end of Western diplomacy for decades or even centuries gets a democracy. We saw it in Iran, we saw it in Gaza, we saw it in several African countries and so on. It ends up being anti-Western for one simple reason - when you're been pounded into the poverty and watched the pompous rich Westerners and their marionette rulers get all respect and wealth in your country while you get none, you know who to hate.

      And hate is a far better driver of poll numbers then any other emotion. Just look at US presidential campaign focus and you'll see it's exactly the same regardless of the nation. It's yet another aspect of human nature we really like to deny, even after it bites us in the ass. Repeatedly.

    64. Re:News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and puts most of the blame for its total collapse on the U.S.

      Funny, seems to me that the blame should lie on the looters.

    65. Re:News? by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1

      You think that was the greatest military blunder of all time? Seriously?

      Are people really this blind to history?

    66. Re:News? by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Welp I'm pretty poor and while I'm not morbidly obese, I'm definitely overweight by a pretty wide margin. (Thank goodness I'm 6'5"...) It's hard to afford fresh meat, fruit, vegetables, etc. at $2-7 a pound. =|

    67. Re:News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think just removing power / not disliking the guy being removed are the only factor at play here. I agree that looting in nature, I just don't agree as to exactly how it gets triggered.

      I don't remember the French looting their own country after the Germans moved in, or for that matter after we kicked the Germans back out. I also don't remember the Germans doing it after we destroyed their entire government. I also don't remember the Japanese looting after the Tsunami or after their defeat in WWII. In these places individuals took responsibility for their own jobs and actions. They felt a connection and obligation to their fellow citizens and continued to perform the tasks required for at least semi-civilized society. I seems to me that the problem in Iraq, was the same problem with Katrina. A large population of disenfranchised people had the power structure above them removed and they quickly fell into taking as much as the could after being denied basic human dignity most of their lives. In France Germany and Japan the people had faith in their fellow citizens and their nation, In Iraq they had at best discontent but mostly hatred for the lives they where left with.

    68. Re:News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity or whatever the expression is.

      Why do I keep hearing that expression only in contexts of someone beyond any punishment doing something outrages onto someone unable to retaliate? Because it is so obvious losers' saying, from "sour grapes" family. First rule of taking control of your life is: don't let anyone get away with wronging you, at least not without putting up the fight. Even if your opponent actually is a stupid fool, every living being is susceptible to Pavlovian conditioning.

    69. Re:News? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      You are completely misunderstanding the issue. Outside force conquering another country for the sake of conquest typically installs its own power structure. It also generally tries to preserve infrastructure as infrastructure is useful to the conqueror.

      Same was not true for Iraq. US forces couldn't care less what happened to locals beyond mandatory PR (we don't kill civilians, but who cares if they kill each other fighting for food and shelter most of which we destroyed) and oil infrastructure. You present two great cases of how conquering war is done when conqueror wants the entire country controlled, rather then just a certain resource: Germans conquering France cared for entire infrastructure, rather then small part of it and Gestapo combined with local marionette government made for an effective power structure to control the country. USSR and Allies taking Germany resulted in harsh military law which was a very brutal form of power structure holding the chaotic aftermath of war in line as entire country was essentially razed. Most of the looting back then was done by Allies and Red Army and for obvious reasons not documented all that well.

      To try to claim that "being conquered by another power that installs its own power structure at a barrel of a gun" is the same as "loss of power structure" is an example of extreme naivete as to how controlling the masses actually works.

    70. Re:News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... when the Post's Chandresekaran asked what he had read to prepare for his assignment, Iraq's new top educator said he decided to read no books at all about Iraq -- so he would have an "open mind."

      This reminds me of an assignment I once marked. The assignment was a comparison of two controversial views. The student said in the 1st paragraph: "Given that I know nothing about this subject, I feel that I am in the position to settle the debate once and for all."

    71. Re:News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a bit from the Sydney Morning Herald I remember from the time:

      Oil ministry an untouched building in ravaged Baghdad
      April 16 2003, 4:26 PM

      Since US forces rolled into central Baghdad a week ago, one of the sole public buildings untouched by looters has been Iraq's massive oil ministry, which is under round-the-clock surveillance by troops.

      The imposing building in the Al-Mustarisiya quarter is guarded by around 50 US tanks which block every entrance, while sharpshooters are positioned on the roof and in the windows. ...

      But while museums, banks, hotels and libraries have been ransacked, the oil ministry remains secure. ...

      Residents noted that the irrigation ministry, just next door, was torched.

      US forces, who say they cannot prevent looting across the capital of five million, respond that they are not trying to seize Iraq's oil resources but preserve them.

      "Anyone who says we're protecting this ministry to steal Iraqi oil doesn't know what's really going on in this country," US Captain Scott McDonald told AFP at the ministry gates.

      The United States, he said, is only safeguarding Iraq's potential which would otherwise be considered game for looters.

      "Oil belongs to the Iraqi people; it's their property. It must be protected because it'll go, indirectly, to build schools and hospitals," he said. ...,
      Coalition forces also say they control all of Iraq's oilfields.

      Amnesty International has criticised the attention on controlling oilfields, which it said must have taken "much planning and resources."

      "However, there is scarce evidence of similar levels of planning and allocation of resources for securing public and other institutions essential for the survival and well-being of the population," the London-based rights group said. ...

      AFP

    72. Re:News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the folks in the "Arab Spring" countries are really seeing a better life.

    73. Re:News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like dejavu all over again. The library in Alexandria was burned in a similar fashion long long ago.

    74. Re:News? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      "I certainly don't think you can impute an opinion to *everyone* in a society from the actions of a few."
      Agreed as I have stated about the existence of sociopaths in all societies. On the other had it would take more than a few to destroy a University and also more than a few to stand by while it happens. Where were the students, professors, neighbors, etc. when the looting was happening? How many of these people were part of the looting?

      Bushido is present in all levels of Japanese culture and not just the ruling class. For example I talked to a friend who left a camera in a restaurant in Japan for three days. When he went back it was in exactly the same place he had left it. He asked the waiter why it was there and he stated that since it didn't belong to him he left it alone and was sure the owner would return to get it. Do that in LA and the camera would be gone in 30 seconds.

  2. That's one way to look at it.. by VMaN · · Score: 5, Insightful

    .. I guess you can't blame the looters.. I mean no-one wan looking, so it's like they WANTED all their shit stolen, right?

    1. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Bullshit, if you destabilize a government, as much as dictatorial it might be, you ought to take the responsability of the outcome.

      Read the Geneva Conventions if you don't believe me.

    2. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agree completely. Everyone (including many in the US) seems to blame the US for everything.
      Looters ransacking universities - oh, that's the fault of the US. Oh, Iranians being cantankerous - well, that's the fault of the US for proviking them. Pirates in the Indian Ocean - that's the fault of the US for not going ashore and pacifying Somalia. Problems in Somalia - that's the fault of the US for going in to Mogadishu in the 90's. Terrorists running around the World blowing innocent folks up - well, that's gotta be the fault of the US for doing nothing or too much (take your pick).

      I'm a non-US citizen and see that the US gets treated as a punching bag by many (even, unfortunately, by my own countrymen). I mean, the US does enough bad stuff by itself (****ACTA!***) that there is no need to go blaming them for stuff that actually isn't their fault. I mean, how come people can't take personal responsibility for themselves and see that others also need to do the same (eg. the looters in this case). This "crying wolf" that the US is (allegedly) at fault for all the sh1t going on is getting lame (unfortunately that lameness doesn't even mean it will stop soon).

    3. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by iusty · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's not quite right.

      The problem is that US went in and replaced the security structure (policy, army, etc.) of the Iraqi state with its own troops. However, in the process of doing so, they provided this only for some parts of the country.

      Look at it this way: before US went in, Iraqi police (probably) protected the universities. After US went in, noone did. Yes, of course, the looters are the ones that actually stole the stuff, but US has its own part to blame in this, IMHO.

    4. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Looters ransacking universities - oh, that's the fault of the US.

      Take the sophomoric anarcho-libertarian dick of out of your mouth a second. The US killing the law enforcers is the fault of the US. ubi remedium ibi ius: there can be no rights without a mechanism for enforcing them.

      I mean, the US does enough bad stuff by itself (****ACTA!***)

      ACTA is oppressive and immoral but it is nowhere near as bad as causing the death of hundreds of thousands of people in an offensive war and destabilising a whole region. People on the Internet mobilise angrily when their free speech is threatened but don't take the time to consider whether anyone listens to what they say. The modern information overload has become more stupefying than any of the Roman circenses.

    5. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The counter point is that if the US want to claim to be the world police then they should be prepared to receive the complaints when things turn sour.

    6. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by fa2k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Looters ransacking universities - oh, that's the fault of the US.

      To be fair, the looters probably wouldn't have looted if the US didn't invade Iraq. It's easy to stay on moral high ground when you don't have boms dropping all around you.

    7. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by tokul · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Agree completely. Everyone (including many in the US) seems to blame the US for everything.
      Looters ransacking universities - oh, that's the fault of the US.

      They toppled Iraq's legislative, judicially and executive powers. Guess what happens when you remove basic administrative controls from the mob.

    8. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by Totenglocke · · Score: 0, Troll

      The US military are scum and soldiers are criminals.

      There was no reason for this war and yet the US won't take responsibility for the consequences. Fuck the US military and those who support it. Scumbags.

      And that's all very true - but it still has jack shit to do with Iraqi's looting their own universities,

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    9. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually there was a very good reason for that war. It was about showing the radical Muslim world that the U.S. is not a paper tiger as Bin Laden had claimed. Bin Laden cited the U.S.'s failure to enforce the terms of the cease fire and other agreements from the Gulf War (which was started by Iraq by the way) as one of the reasons that he went ahead with the 9/11 attacks.

    10. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by geoffaus · · Score: 0

      I completely agree - in this case it was Iraqi's making their own bad situation worse for their future generations - did they think this would hurt the Americans or were they just being typical mindless thieves that only care about themselves - oh well if thats the future that they choose for themselves good luck to them.

      --
      As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a reference to Godwin's Law approaches 1
    11. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by ianare · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's true that the US sometimes gets blamed unjustly, but in this case the blame is squarely on the shoulders of the US military and government.

      Iraqis had been living in poverty for over a decade due to the first Gulf war and then UN sanctions. Now, almost overnight, there is no more police, military or government. It's pretty obvious that in this type of situation people are going to loot. The same thing would happen anywhere.

      As the occupying power, it is the responsibility of the US for ensuring the security of the people and the infrastructure.

    12. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by Slashdot+Assistant · · Score: 1

      Agree completely. Everyone (including many in the US) seems to blame the US for everything.
      Looters ransacking universities - oh, that's the fault of the US. Oh, Iranians being cantankerous - well, that's the fault of the US for proviking them. Pirates in the Indian Ocean - that's the fault of the US for not going ashore and pacifying Somalia. Problems in Somalia - that's the fault of the US for going in to Mogadishu in the 90's. Terrorists running around the World blowing innocent folks up - well, that's gotta be the fault of the US for doing nothing or too much (take your pick).

      Everyone blames the US for these things? Please don't presume to speak for me.

      The US and the coalition of the willing bear responsibility for having neither a plan nor an intention to secure these important cultural sites. Hussein needed to be removed - he was a murderous and evil bastard, but the invasion was followed by a plan that paid scant attention to Iraq's cultural treasures. Neglecting the security of these institutions, having Bush appointees (in some case, Bible college graduates in their 20s, with no relevant experience) instead of a people actually qualified to manage reconstruction, and banning all Baath party members from participation in the new regime. Party membership didn't mean that someone was a Hussein loyalist. Think Mugabe's policy of indiscriminately removing white farmers that heralded the collapse of agriculture in Zimbabwe.

      Most of the examples you cite are things for which I've rarely heard the US blamed. On blaming the US, although more generally the west, for enflaming Islamist passions, the basic motivation of the Islamists is ignored. Those fuckers aren't simply happy to see the world divided in to Islamland and Freedomland - what they require from is unquestioning compliance with their ideology. Look at Denmark's experiences. Denmark, hardly a bastion of western imperialism, saw its embassies burnt, its companies boycotted, and its citizens threatened because of a series of cartoons published by a private business. Even here in Ireland, Liam Egan, thinking himself a latter-day Lawrence of Arabia, became more Wahhabi than the Wahhabis and began his mission to bring Islamism to Ireland. In Egan's case, he seemed to spend most of his time posting anti-Semitic shit to the MPAC website (an Irish branch of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, which in this case, was practically a one-man council) and arguing with people on the Internet. Some have unkindly said that this is why his wife fucked off to the UK. Egan's dream of seeing Ireland transformed in to a caliphate were cruelly dashed when MPAC was closed (allegedly by intelligence services) and he fled to Saudi Arabia. In reality I suspect that his Wahhabi paymasters simply cut their losses, on realizing that Egan was indeed completely fucking useless, and serving only to make Muslims appear violent and dumb as a sack of hammers (as if their co-religionists in Buttfuckistan weren't already doing enough here).

      Western nations should be blamed for support given of some pretty unpleasant regimes, and their support of pretty unsavory groups under the philosophy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Of course, just like with colonialism, these events can only for so long be cited as the source of contemporary woes. Sooner or later a people sound like a middle-aged man, blaming all that is wrong in his life on his childhood. Muslims in the middle-east have made it perfectly clear that they're more than capable of fucking things up without western aid.

      You're a non-US citizen, and you now have it on record that I blame you for the stream of hyperbole and nonsense that is post #38925625.

    13. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The US eliminated the police and military system that provided security for the universities and everything else in Iraq. They were obliged to take over the job and provide security. A huge job. But other than securing oil fields, their efforts genuinely sucked. Their stated reasons for going in there were bogus, and the priorities made no sense. The most clear example of this is the fact that as the military rolled into Baghdad, you'd think that securing all the sites with the supposed "weapons of mass destruction" that were the reason for invading would be the #1 priority. Instead, the oil fields were promptly secured, and the military rolled right on by nuclear facilities and didn't bother to secure those sites until much later. The local Iraqis were rolling out drums of uranium yellow cake from nuclear facilities at will, with nobody to stop them. Thankfully, people weren't interested in anything nuclear, they just wanted the drums to store water, so they emptied the yellow cake onto the ground. Nobody was there to stop them.

      It's pretty sad that even for the stated goal of stopping a WMD program, the US didn't properly secure relevant sites. They were too busy securing the oil. And if securing WMD sites wasn't a priority, obviously universities weren't either, but that's the point: when the US set priorities for securing the country in the aftermath of the invasion they were negligent on a grand scale.

    14. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Once the looting starts, what is the point of standing by and doing nothing? I would like to think at least some of the looting was by people who intended to safeguard national treasures.

    15. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is what passes for "insightful" on slashdot these days?

      How far this site has fallen.

    16. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      America is still by far the most democratic, successful and enviable nation on the planet. Love it, work toward making it better, or leave. Get up from your computer and stop hiding behind your screen and make a difference. I'm all for free speech, but using words such as this are only inflammatory and do a disservice to the men and women who lay down their lives for something the believe in . Shame on you.

    17. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by phayes · · Score: 1

      Bush & co, being rich first world citizens assumed that once the repressive Iraqi regime was gone that the population would work on protecting what needed to be protected. That's pretty much what happened in Cairo a year ago. When the police were broken the population moved into the streets & people organized themselves to protect their neighborhoods. In Iraq they looted everything they could.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    18. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by qwak23 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This crap gets modded insightful? Seriously?

      I would agree that there was no reason for the Iraq war, and while there are a few individuals within the US military who are scum, to call the entire US military and its members scum and criminal is an insult to the ones who have put themselves at risk and/or sacrificed their own lives for the sake of others. The military is involved in other activities besides blowing people up, you do know that right?

    19. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> the looters probably wouldn't have looted

      Hey, looters gonna loot.

    20. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some blame should be placed on the looters. It would have been nice if we had done some protection of university property, but if I were a soldier getting fired at, that'd be low on my list of concerns.

    21. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by __aaqvdr516 · · Score: 2

      If we look at it the way you describe, for this particular argument it makes sense. If we looked no further it would seem like a good argument.

      What of the some 200,000 Kurds that were killed? I guess they weren't a good enough reason to get rid of Saddam? If you could put a good number on exactly when enough is enough that would be wonderful. How many of the police were involved in those killing and how would you sort out the innocent from the guilty? Does it not seem better to remove all those from power and start from scratch?

      I'm not saying everything was done perfectly. It wasn't. It seems to me that the loss of some books and buildings is insignificant versus stopping a genocidal murderer with control of police and an army.

    22. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by Ihmhi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As someone who knows a lot of soldiers, I can tell you that I'm fairly confident most soldiers aren't criminals. What they are is usually poor and desperate, and for the most part they take a sense of pride and honor in working for their country.

      Then, politicians take that sense of pride and honor and use it to send them to other countries and blow them to shit.

      So really, please, aim your misguided anger at a more appropriate target, such as the people who actually put them in these places.

    23. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      But other than securing oil fields, their efforts genuinely sucked. Their stated reasons for going in there were bogus, and the priorities made no sense.

      Almost as if the stated reason was not the real reason... It almost makes one think that politicians might not have told the truth.

      Of course the next war with Iran will be all about their Weapons of Mass Destruction.

      --
      Deleted
    24. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting.

      So it sounds like you don't believe in personal responsibility? Perhaps you believe that it is the culture that is at fault?

    25. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by fnj · · Score: 0

      If the only thing holding back looting was the repressive horror of the Saddam regime, that doesn't say much about how the cradle of civilization has fallen.

    26. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And claiming that the trillions-in-debt, S&P-downgraded nation that now can legally detain its own citizens indefinitely without charge as long as they get a hall pass from teacher is the most "democratic, successful, and enviable nation on the planet" isn't somehow inflammatory?

      I won't doubt that there is a certain population of soldiers that very much believe in what they do, but I do doubt that it represents even a majority of said soldiers. Quite frankly, the military represents a reliable job in a time where few are to be found for the non-qualified. Join the right part of said military and it is likely you'll never even see battle. Meanwhile, you are afforded numerous benefits and even a retirement plan, and even a modicum of advancement opportunity, which is more than any other job in the private sector can offer for people so bereft of qualification.

      Yes, there are soldiers laying down their lives. But they represent a small percentage of a greater whole who push papers, run prisons, maintain equipment, and coming soon to a nation near you: detain civilians without due process.

    27. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by tibman · · Score: 1

      mmm, the Iraqi Army wasn't there for law enforcement.. that is the job of the police.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    28. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Kurds were already dead with little chance of further killings on that scale in the future (and there is a fair amount of dispute on the 200K number as well).

      Does it not seem better to remove all those from power and start from scratch?

      Naively it sure does. Practically it isn't. Society relies on the structure of institutions - wiping out the entire structure with the idea of "starting fresh" is just simply impractical. Its like blowing up a decript building with the goal of rebuilding it, but not bothering to evacuate everybody who is living in the building first.

    29. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by Nimey · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm /sure/ you've got a cite for the Iraqis having yellowcake, let alone civilians getting hold of it after the invasion.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    30. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by iusty · · Score: 1

      My argument was not that the US intervention was wrong (or right). That's a very complex issue.

      I was simply responding to the GP which seemed to put the blame fully on the looters - that, I believe, is wrong.

    31. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      at the US Army Rape Loot and Pillage training centers

      you talkin' about walmart?

      wait, I'm confused.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    32. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by icebraining · · Score: 2

      Strawman. The responsibility of the looters doesn't absolve the people who enabled the looting.

    33. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by icebraining · · Score: 1

      No, they didn't! They knew full well the quagmire (cite) that Iraq would turn into.

      Dick Cheney in '94: http://youtu.be/6BEsZMvrq-I

    34. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Theres a difference between complaints and slander.

      Seriously, you want to blame the U.S. for being a bad "world police" because of LOOTING? FFS, what next? Are we going to blame the U.S. for famine in the world?

    35. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When your hand is in so many cookie jars you're going to get blamed if any cookies come up missing.

    36. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What of the some 200,000 Kurds that were killed? I guess they weren't a good enough reason to get rid of Saddam? If you could put a good number on exactly when enough is enough that would be wonderful. How many of the police were involved in those killing and how would you sort out the innocent from the guilty? Does it not seem better to remove all those from power and start from scratch?

      Yes, the command structure should of course be put to the boot asap, BUT, that doesn't mean that it's a smart move to disband the police and army. After all the allies kept several German Army units under allied command active as police for several months after Germany surrendered after WWII to ensure an orderly change over. (And it's not as anybody thought they were angels in any way shape or form.)

      The same should of course obviously have happened in Iraq as well. It's occupation 101. But the US "leadership" (and I use the term loosely) managed to forget what they knew back in 1945.

      Of course, the Kurds in particular do not really enter into the equation, that situation was by no means an emergency. And of course, it was the invaders who had supported Sadam when he committed the worst atrocities in the eighties. In fact, Dick Chaney was the then envoy to Sadam and told him after the gassings of the Kurds to stop doing that because it made it more difficult to support him in the US. Indeed the senate on the news were so appalled that they passed legislation to ban any further support to Sadam. Legislation that Reagan promptly vetoed... So not keeping control of the armed forces both to use them to keep the order and to control their future behaviour and whereabouts because of some sudden concern for past crimes against the Kurdish people would make no sense what so ever given the previous policy. In fact quite the opposite. If you want to be able to properly deal with army and police you keep them in their barracks until you can get around to dealing with them. You don't just cut them lose

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
    37. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by dcollins · · Score: 1

      "Looters ransacking universities - oh, that's the fault of the US. Oh, Iranians being cantankerous - well, that's the fault of the US for proviking them."

      Those first two are pretty easy cases to make, considering that the U.S. demonstrably overthrew both of their governments at least once apiece in the past 60 years or so (and at least some domestic calls to re-invade both of them again soon).

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    38. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by darkmeridian · · Score: 4, Informative

      I Googled "Iraqis having yellowcake"

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/secret-us-mission-hauls-uranium-iraq/#.Ty1roFyPkb0

      "U.S. and Iraqi forces have guarded the 23,000-acre site â" surrounded by huge sand berms â" following a wave of looting after Saddam's fall that included villagers toting away yellowcake storage barrels for use as drinking water cisterns."

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    39. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      you are kidding right? In any population there's going to be a percentage that are dicks. These are the ones who would take advantage of an opportunity or go out and spray paint cars or whatever.

      When the cops are taken off the streets, they don't give a shit and go out and loot.

      And you then come in being all dickish saying that all Iraqis are to blame?

      Oh, wait... Nevermind mind, no wonder you don't see it.

    40. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by jmottram08 · · Score: 1

      Most people that volunteer arent poor.

      U.S. military service disproportionately attracts enlisted personnel and officerswho do not come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Previous Heritage Foundation research demonstrated that the quality of enlisted troops has increased since the start of the Iraq war. This report demonstrates that the same is true of the officer corps.

      Members of the all-volunteer military are significantly more likely to come from high-income neighborhoods than from low-income neighborhoods. Only 11 percent of enlisted recruits in 2007 came from the poorest one-fifth (quintile) of neighborhoods, while 25 percent came from the wealthiest quintile. These trends are even more pronounced in the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program, in which 40 percent of enrollees come from the wealthiest neighborhoods-a number that has increased substantially over the past four years.

      American soldiers are more educated than their peers. A little more than 1 percent of enlisted personnel lack a high school degree, compared to 21 percent of men 18-24 years old, and 95 percent of officer accessions have at least a bachelor's degree.

      Contrary to conventional wisdom, minorities are not overrepresented in military service. Enlisted troops are somewhat more likely to be white or black than their non-military peers. Whites are proportionately represented in the officer corps, and blacks are overrepresented, but their rate of overrepresentation has declined each year from 2004 to 2007. New recruits are also disproportionately likely to come from the South, which is in line with the history of Southern military tradition.

      http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/08/who-serves-in-the-us-military-the-demographics-of-enlisted-troops-and-officers

    41. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hogwash.

      That is blaming the victim.

      She was dressing so hot she was just asking for it. So therefor since the police were not around when it happened we will blame them.

      Blame *EVERYONE* except the people who commit the crime... Sure there is enough blame to go around and what happened the US gov can take some blame for it. But guess what... the looters still stole shit... No one made them do it.

      For example after hurricane Katrina. Did the lack of gov cause all those people to go out and steal shit? How about after the Rodney King verdict? No these people saw an opportunity and took it. Then think about this. You are defending people who's only reason they do not steal from you is the fact that the gov would put them in jail. Not because it is oh i dont know the right thing to do and NOT STEAL SHIT,,,

    42. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is not blaming individual soldiers. He is blaming the millitary leadership. The soldiers were probably doing their best, but that doesn't change the fact that NATO did not manage to secure the universities.

      If all political discussions end up as discussions of whether or not we shold support the troops, then we get nowhere.

    43. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US did give Iraq WMD's during the Iran/Iraq war after all, so can you really blame them for assuming they still had some? Nukes no, but a rather nasty chemical weapons stockpile yes. Rolling onto Baghdad makes sense when looking for a proper surrender to end the war like we had with WWI and WWII. WMD sites would have been surrendered rather than needing to be taken by force that way. Your proposal to seize these by force reminds me one of Sean Connery's lines in "Hunt for the Red October" as Jack Ryan heads after a spy that flees into the missile area of the Red October - "Be careful what you shoot at, most things in there don't react well to bullets."

      If Iraq was mostly about oil, they could have just conquered Venezuela which is much closer to home. Iraq was a destabilizing force in a delicate region that failed to comply with its obligations after the first Gulf War.

    44. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just following orders works well when you are burning Jews as well. It may explain their behavior but it does not excuse it.

    45. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well if no one is there to see it get looted, was it really looted??? Schrodinger cat comes to mind

    46. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      and the US wouldnt have invaded iraq if saddam let the inspectors do their job (if you believe the official story) so we can bring this back and blame saddam???

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    47. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      of course we cant hold people responsible for their own actions anymore, Its always someone elses fault.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    48. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agree completely. Everyone (including many in the US) seems to blame the US for everything.

      Looters ransacking universities - oh, that's the fault of the US.

      They toppled Iraq's legislative, judicially and executive powers. Guess what happens when you remove basic administrative controls from the mob.

      Agreed. The GPs argument reminds me of the argument I'm constantly hearing that the mortgage crisis was solely the fault of those who took out mortgages they couldn't afford. If you knowingly do something that will end in disaster due to simple human nature that's been basically the same since the dawn of mankind, the old "everything would be ok if they just didn't do that" argument just plain doesn't cut it.

    49. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by c6gunner · · Score: 2

      Heh. I find it rather fascinating that the argument basically boils down to "the US is bad because it wasn't as ruthless at terrorizing the populace as Sadam's regime".

    50. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by digitalaudiorock · · Score: 1

      I didn't intend to post anonymously...the parent post was mine. No idea when slashdot logged me out or why...

    51. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      Don't you get it. That was *60* years ago. A *lot* has happened since then, but if you are stuck on something done in the past you will never move forward. In contrast the English and Germans are civil to each other - apart from a few cultural jibes - despite the massive destruction inflicted on each other. The Russians may not have forgotten what the Germans did 70 years ago but they still work with them (the Germans being one of Russia's closer links in Western Europe). In short, if you can't get over events then you are destined to have always trouble, effectively fscking yourself up (the same is true of personal relationships too). It is always so much easier and more convenient to blame someone else than to look at your own reaction and behaviour (as a society or as an individual). The West is still like this too, but has wisened up a lot and disputes are settled in a structured and civil manner.

      From my tours of the Middle East I can say that some of the problems there (from a Western point of view) is not because the people are ignorant and apathetic (a common misconception), it is because of the exact opposite - the people there care way too much about politics, perceived insults, one-upmanship of neighbours, and getting ahead by taking everything you can (since you know your neighbour would do the same). Unfortunately it is not part of their culture to have a barbeque with some beers and chill out, even with folks they're not too keen on (which you often learn are decent enough). If their culture valued forgiveness then it would go so way to helping (instead, such things are seen as weakness in the Middle East; when Israel offers a concession for peace it is not taken as a start of quid-pro-quo, as would be done in compromising societies, it is instead taken as a sign of weakness and therefore an opportunity to demand more - which is why negotiations will never work until there is a fundamental change of mindset).

    52. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      That's true. I don't think leaving the Iraqi police, army or republican guard units active would have been a good idea (as suggested by some), but bringing a lot more Military Police units and trying to get allies to contribute police forces should have been thought about ahead of time.

    53. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      > The US and the coalition of the willing bear responsibility for having neither a plan nor an intention to secure these important cultural sites. Hussein needed to be removed - he was a murderous and evil bastard, but the invasion was followed by a plan that paid scant attention to Iraq's cultural treasures. Neglecting the security of these institutions, having Bush appointees (in some case, Bible college graduates in their 20s, with no relevant experience) instead of a people actually qualified to manage reconstruction, and banning all Baath party members from participation in the new regime. Party membership didn't mean that someone was a Hussein loyalist. Think Mugabe's policy of indiscriminately removing white farmers that heralded the collapse of agriculture in Zimbabwe.

      You have some excellent points. With regard to the above, the US was negligent for thinking about post-invasion civil security. They should have brought more Military Police units and got coalition allies to donate police. I'm not convinced leaving the Baathist institutions in place would have been a good idea. The murders in those units would have accelerated their activities and the US would then have been complicit in this. Regardless of all this, the people ultimately responsible for looting are the Iraqi looters themselves. It is fashionable to claim extenuating circumstances for crimes but essentially the looters committed the crime, not the unwise neocons who didn't see it coming.

      You're a non-US citizen, and you now have it on record that I blame you for the stream of hyperbole and nonsense that is post #38925625.

      Lol. The hyperbole was intentional and intended to show how all sorts of crazy stuff gets pinned on the West, both by Western factions themselves (eg. the political left love doing this, and folks like you Liam Egan) and non-Western entities with an axe to grind. The nonsense in the post was intended to highlight the nonsense we often hear. I hope the intent is slightly more clear to you know.

      Thanks for your post, I can't give you mod points now since I've posted. The case of Liam Egan was very interesting - I haven't heard of him before.

    54. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Are we going to blame the U.S. for famine in the world?

      Between Monsanto using IP law to control crops, international treaties that basically limit how we can move food around the globe, and the current fetish of burning crops in our motor vehicles I think yes we could also blame the U.S.A for famine in the world.

    55. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      the US want to claim to be the world police

      The US doesn't *want* to be the world police. The rest of the world just is too apathetic and ineffective do anything about it.

      There are 4 large capable militaries in the world: US, Russia, China and India. India doesn't give a shit about anything except Pakistan, China just wants to sell their goods and Russia wants to sell their military. If you're going to do anything the US is almost inevitably the only organization which has a large enough military to act.

    56. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, byte-order marks dropping all around you can cause desperation and result in erratic behavior like looting.

    57. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for backing up GP's statement with that quote.

    58. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      There were plenty of reasons, just none that were to the advantage of the USA as a country. A lot of people made a profit and we're not sure who because of the missing billions, and the war made the idle playboy prince Bush look like a "strong leader" for long enough to win an election. That "mission accomplished" banner and the TV appearance in a costume (a real flight suit didn't look impressive enough apparently) was a highly calculated bit of PR exploiting the efforts of those that actually risked or lost their lives.

    59. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Why are you blaming NATO when it was a US operation? That's a bit dishonest isn't it? What is your motive here?

    60. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      U.S. has disbanded the police after it took over, and it took a while to reform. It also booted out all Ba'ath party members from their posts. Given that membership for that was a requirement for most notable administrative positions in the country, it means that Americans have effectively booted out all capable administrators who knew how to keep things running smoothly, literally overnight.

    61. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Ironically, that's actually very much true. The problem with these kinds of countries is that, when you come and get rid of their dictator, they don't "revert to democracy" as if it's some natural, God-ordained order of things. No, instead you get a civil war which decides who's going to be the next dictator. Sometimes they're called fancy names, like "Great Leader of the Islamic Republic", but make no mistake.

      So, when U.S. went in and took Saddam out, it should have been understood that a replacement was needed to run things and keep the country together. Instead, the "democracy" farce was played out, because that's what American public was expected.

      Ditto for Afghanistan, by the way.

    62. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Kurdistan was already de facto independent and self-administered for years before U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003. So unless you're saying that the invasion was some kind of revenge, the argument doesn't really make much sense.

    63. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agree completely. Everyone (including many in the US) seems to blame the US for everything.

      Looters ransacking universities - oh, that's the fault of the US.

      They toppled Iraq's legislative, judicially and executive powers. Guess what happens when you remove basic administrative controls from the mob.

      No, that's what happens when you have three different Cultures all crammed into one "country", the smallest of the three rules with an Iron Fist, and then you remove that one group from power. Centuries of hatred and repression come to the surface, and you get a backlash.

      I'll be blunt- only a Brutal Dictator could have prevented such looting. If we had ensured the Universities had remained secure you'd be on here screaming bloody fucking murder that we prioritized books over food, water, and medical facilities.
      Fuck. You. Those people destroyed their own shit instead of working to build something new, partly out of hatred for Hussein's sect and partly out of hatred of anything and everything "Western".

      Look, we don't see Egypt fucking themselves over. We don't see Libya shitting all over their own country. So what's different about Iraq? It's three countries lumped into one by force, none of them give a shit about "Iraq" or any "Iraqi Culture" because it does not and never had actually existed. The "Iraqi Culture" was an illusion enforced by Saddam Hussein and his Clan's brutal rule, and once that illusion was gone nobody over there gave a shit any more.

      I don't care about this at all. Seriously, you people piss and moan about the US forcing shit on everybody else, and here you are bitching about those same people's choice of how they want to live. They don't want women educated, they don't want any "Western" influence, they don't want your books or your universities so STFU and practice what you preach- let them decide how to run their own country and quit blaming us for their choices.

    64. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by Xarvh · · Score: 1

      Scum, I don't know, but they definitely took part in an unlawful invasion, and this is kinda criminal.
      Hey, they were duped into thinking that it would have resulted into something good for the US and the Iraq.
      It didn't.
      Those people put themselves at risk and/or sacrificed their lives to protect the interest of a few rich.
      They are criminals, and gullible ones at that.
      National fanaticism is no nicer than religious fanaticism.

    65. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by qwak23 · · Score: 1

      So when the earthquake and tsunami struck Japan last year, it was nothing but criminals out there risking their lives to bring aid to those who lost their homes, their families, and pretty much every comfort most people take for granted?

      I happen to live in Japan. The area I live in was fortunate enough to be far enough away that we avoided the worst of the tsunami (only some minor damage limited mostly to the waterfront itself), though that was probably the 15 scariest minutes of my life (yes, it shook that long). I know quite a few people who were directly affected by these events, and I also know quite a few people who were out there, in their military uniforms, flying through radiation clouds, looking for survivors and bringing food and water to people left stranded.

      Not everyone in the military participated in Iraq, not everyone is a nationalist fanatic, and they are not all gullible. There are some people in the military who've never held a weapon aside from bootcamp. There are doctors and musicians, lawyers and scientists. They provide a service to the government and the people. Unfortunately, sometimes those in the government abuse that service. We as the people should be holding our government accountable for those actions, and if an action is deemed illegal, then the officers at the top who didn't stand up to the government should be held accountable.

    66. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by Xarvh · · Score: 1

      Your first block is a ridiculous and unjustified generalization.

      Your second block basically states that if we have a sadistic serial killer that once rescued a kitty then it's not REALLY a sadistic serial killer.

      The third block says that over-generalizations are stupid.
      Ironic, given how you started your post, but agreeable.

    67. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by jbolden · · Score: 1

      First off de-Baathfication was explicit US policy. The Ba'ath party has been hostile to the west since 1940 when Michel Aflaq founded it. Further at the time of the invasion the opposition to the US was Sunni, with Shia and Kurd supporting, the Ba'ath was primarily Sunni. I can understand the desire for continuity, but George HW Bush had asked the Ba'ath to make minor changes, as had Clinton. That policy had failed. It was not unreasonable to the United States to conclude that the Ba'ath had no intention of ever assisting.

    68. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by jbolden · · Score: 1

      In Iran. The US was tangential involved moving from an anti-British position to a pro coup position. Lets keep things in perspective. Since 1979 the Iranian government has been incredibly hostile and aggressive towards the United States. For example in the latest "Green Revolution" uprising blaming the Americans and accusing them of fermenting a coup. Barack Obama came into office, having taken a lot of heat in the primary for a willingness to meet with Iran and improve relations.

      His peace initiative was firmly rebuked by the Iranians. If there is a war in the end I think Ali Khamenei, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are the two people most responsible.

    69. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by jbolden · · Score: 1

      If the police had indicated they supported the new US governing authority and planned to fully cooperate with the US general who controlled their provence, you think that would have happened?

    70. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why people blame US for everything because they claim themselves Super Power and jump in to everyone's shit. Who told them to invade Iraq or any other part of the world? Who told them to maintain their army bases around the world? Who told them to jump in to Russia-Afghan war? Who suggested them to fight in Veitnam? Who suggested to create such policies that develop hatred among not only Muslim world but most of the countries now? If they claim themselves God Father of this earth, they should be ready for every blame as well. What's the difference between invasion of Genghis Khan and US upon Baghdad? Results are the same. (By the way, just a bit off the topic, US never fought or invaded any country which is properly armed and has proper Airforce, Navy and Army... Everyone is talking about war with Iran or Pakistan... I reckon, it will never happen because history doesn't support this rumour)..

      Once US start looking after their own country and poeple, no one blame them for anything.

    71. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by tibman · · Score: 1

      The disbanding was done by a Civilian administrator named Paul Bremer against the advice of the US Army. It also didn't help that Saddam emptied all his jails of violent prisoners into the streets. The de-ba'athing is still debatable. A lot of people say it was a blunder. I'm on the fence about it. Some of those guys were Saddam cronies, some were not. How do you tell the difference?

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    72. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The disbanding was done by a Civilian administrator named Paul Bremer against the advice of the US Army.

      Bremer was appointed by presidential decree. Whatever he did in his role, U.S. government bears full responsibility for those actions.

      How do you tell the difference?

      You don't. You keep all in place, and gradually replace them one by one (which lets you do background checks and filters on personal level, if need be) - because the alternative is far worse.

    73. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by tibman · · Score: 1

      I agree with you that anything Bremer did was in the name of the US Gov. Even if the majority of the talking heads said not to do it, he did do it and makes the US responsible as a whole.

      I disagree that your de-ba'athing solution would go so well. Bribery is too rampant. The background checkers would have to be above bribes (and death-threats). During the whole process, the guys who know their days are numbered are setting themselves up for retirement. Their retirement setups could be as simple as theft or as indirect as hiring non-ba'ath people he trusts into positions of power.

      However, i think a hybrid would have worked better. The old gov is suspended and can only return to work AFTER a background check. You'd still have the problem of manipulating the checker/judge but atleast the old gov couldn't cause any more harm.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    74. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by qwak23 · · Score: 1

      Eh?

      ok, so my first paragraph was an unjustified generalization? Really? You're the one who made the claim that implied everyone in the military was part of an unlawful invasion and therefore criminal, which is a generalization. Perhaps I should have stated more clearly that not everyone in the military was involved in that particular debacle, and that many of them have done good, as evidenced by current events.

      Again, second comment is making broad generalizations assuming that everyone in the military is a sociopath. I'm sure there were some complete assholes out there helping to feed those families. Pretty much every population has it's narcissists, sociopaths and general criminals, that doesn't mean everyone is. The military recruits people every day, and those individuals join for various reasons, some believe that they are doing right even in light of past transgressions by the government and others are simply doing it as a means to survive and get by in rough economic times. You're equating all of them with serial killers? Sure there are assholes who pissed on some corpses. They should be doing time for war crimes. We have assholes who have tortured, humiliated, and murdered civilians, they should also be doing time. We have members of our government who used deceit to push us into what is essentially an unlawful war, they should also be doing time. Ideally, it would be great if we could just do away with war permanently. I doubt if we were to move into an era of total world peace that we could stand down the military, however the focus of the military could shift drastically. As I stated, the military is involved in operations other than blowing people up. By their very nature, the military is fairly well equipped to respond to natural disasters and other similar events and provide aid fairly quickly. In the event of complete world peace the military would still have a place, they would just need to put away the guns.

      I'm glad you agreed with my final paragraph. I don't think I made any broad generalizations. My original post was addressing a broad generalization made by an AC. My response to you was an attempt to show specific evidence against that broad generalization. For many, the military is a job, just like working at Microsoft, McDonalds, or the LHC. It's a means to an end and it's not always pretty. It'd be nice if every member of the military stood up to an order we deem unlawful, but not everyone agrees on that, and even among those who do, they also may have other obligations, such as obligations to family that necessitate they choose their job over their moral hang ups in order to support that family. It may be admirable to go to jail for your beliefs, or even be executed for them, but some people may place the well being of their family over those beliefs. Many of the career decisions I've made in my life have been with my families best interests in mind and I'm sure it's the same for many members of the military.

    75. Re:That's one way to look at it.. by Xarvh · · Score: 1

      Many people steal for many different reasons.
      Some I may be more sympathetic than others.
      But they are still thieves and criminals.

      I don't think all soldiers are sociopaths.
      I think they should take the responsibility of their choice of working for the army.

  3. US Troops stole all the books . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    . . . . and set the buildings on fire?

    1. Re:US Troops stole all the books . . . by aix+tom · · Score: 2

      Funny enough, such books would have been unlikely to be in Iraq universities at that time.

      Iraq was a dictatorship, it was somewhat communist, but the government and the people in charge where not Islamists.

    2. Re:US Troops stole all the books . . . by Muros · · Score: 2

      I see you read the bit in TFA that described how gender equality in Iraqi universities was better than in Princeton.

    3. Re:US Troops stole all the books . . . by Elbart · · Score: 1

      Psh, details.

  4. And The Museums by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I remember seeing footage of a curator of a Baghdad museum weeping at the destruction that had been wrought upon the building and its collections.

  5. Blame the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    How about we blame the looters first?

    1. Re:Blame the US? by santax · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Those ARE the looters... Hence they where protecting some oilfields instead of the citizens they came to 'free'.

    2. Re:Blame the US? by tbird81 · · Score: 0

      Have you tried to put out an oilfield fire? It's pretty hard.

      Why weren't you there protecting the university?

    3. Re:Blame the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iraq was not muslim before the Kuweit war. It had a good school system and freedom for women. It was a far more advanced country than Kuweit.

    4. Re:Blame the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm assuming that you mean Iraq was not Islamic. Iraq has been Muslim since its conquest by Arabs in the 7th century. Anyway, even that would depend on how one defines 'Islamic'.

      In Islamic countries, the term 'Islamic' implies the definition of whichever is the majority sect in that country. So in Iran, Bahrein, Iraq & Azerbaijan, it would mean Shia. In all other Islamic countries, it would mean Sunni. The Baath Party existed in order to give Muslim minorities in any Muslim country e.g. Sunnis in Iraq or Alawites in Syria an ideology to back up their forceful seizure of power, and that's what existed in both Iraq & Syria. Since they were dominated by minority sects, obviously they didn't declare their countries as 'Islamic' countries, or the consequences would have been disastrous for them. Had Saddam done that, Iraq would have become a Shia country, negating any of his gains, and similarly, had Assad (Hafez or Bashar) done that, Syria would have become Sunni. (In the case of the Alawites, most Sunnis don't consider them to be Muslims, but one Shia seminary in Iran recognized them as a Shia sect.)

      However, none of that meant full religious plurality & tolerance, as your misleading phrase 'Iraq was not Muslim' would seem to imply. In both Iraq & Syria, since the Baathists were so outnumbered and they saw that there was no way the Christians were going to take over their country, they co-opted them, giving them lower rung posts within their set up (like Tariq Aziz in Iraq) and giving them a few limited freedoms (Syria still is the only Muslim country that has holidays on Christmas and Easter - something unheard of in the Muslim world). Also, since both Syria & Iraq were both heavily backed by the Soviets during the Cold War, their regimes tended to be more socialist, if not communist, so that encouraged some Atheism amongst them.

      Comparing it to Kuwait, I agree that Kuwait was pretty much a backwater country, whose own people pretty much lived on the beaches while guest workers slaved away - much like the other GCC countries. Freedom for women was probably the only thing that Saddam had, but the same was true of Libya and Tunisia. As countries become more Islamic, the freedom of women gets eroded.

    5. Re:Blame the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You break it you bought it. If you want to go around fucking up other peoples countries accept the blame like an adult.

    6. Re:Blame the US? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Still, the end result is that being of one religion or the other was, generally speaking, not sufficient reason to get killed.

    7. Re:Blame the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to the Shia, whose relatives were discovered in mass graves in Iraq. Or tell that to the Sunnis, who were massacred in the thousands in Homs, in Syria, under the Assad regime.

  6. Can we be surprised? by slashdyke · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Can we be surprised? After all, if Iraq did not have, nor was a threat to our (Western) cheap oil, we would not have cared about what happened there.

    1. Re:Can we be surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iraq under that dead dictator guy was a threat to Israel. No oil there.

    2. Re:Can we be surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that Saddam guy was a real threat to israel and the world. Just imagine if he started hurling rocks at them, or something.

      Stop buying into the bullshit. Saddam was a threat to no one. There were no weapons of mass destruction. In fact, if anything, Saddam was the fulcrum that kept the whole shebang going. He kept Iran in check, he kept Al Qaeda at bay, he kept the whole region under a modicum of stability. Now Iraq is nothing more than a fucking cesspool.

    3. Re:Can we be surprised? by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      That's right Saddam was a saint. What a crock. Sure, Saddam was not guilty of some of the things that circulate about him - but has was a bad azz. Removing him was a good thing - especially for his own citizens (the numbers killed in the Iraqi Civil War are still less than the numbers killed by Saddam during the Shia Uprising).

    4. Re:Can we be surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If none of these Muslim countries had oil, they'd still be as poor as Cameroon, and not be a threat to any country, such as Israel, since the US and the Soviets wouldn't have bothered supporting different groups against each other. Nor would there be millions of Muslims in the West today, creating problems for Western societies.

    5. Re:Can we be surprised? by Muros · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nobody ever said Saddam was a saint. We all know he was a murderous arsehole. But he was the murderous arsehole in charge of what was probably the most enlightened middle eastern muslim country. If you wanted to invade a country over there because you wanted to free the people and end human rights abuses, start with Saudi Arabia.

    6. Re:Can we be surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody ever said Saddam was a saint. We all know he was a murderous arsehole. But he was the murderous arsehole in charge of what was probably the most enlightened middle eastern muslim country. If you wanted to invade a country over there because you wanted to free the people and end human rights abuses, start with Saudi Arabia.

      We all know he was a murderous arsehole. But he was the murderous arsehole in charge of what was probably the most enlightened middle eastern multi-cultural powder keg kept from exploding only by his murderous rule.

      there, fixed it for you. the real problem is that iraq wasn't a single country before hussein and it's not a country after hussein.

    7. Re:Can we be surprised? by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Invading Saudi would never happen, even if we had a major falling-out. That's where a bunch of Muslim holy sites are and an invasion would piss off pretty much the entire Middle East, northern Africa, and a good part of southeast Asia.

      SA would require a revolt to topple.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    8. Re:Can we be surprised? by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      When you don't have the strength (or will) to do some things you do what you can, right? That is what happened.

  7. Education is a pillar of any modern society by msobkow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even in videogames, you can not develop technology to attack or defend your virtual community without taking care of the essentials for your population first: making sure they are fed, clothed, housed, and educated.

    The Iraqi universities are not the only victims of a failure to recognize the importance of these social pillars.

    The First Nations of Canada have many communities where even those basic needs are not properly managed and delivered to the people.

    Heck, the whole COUNTRY of Canada suffers from a government which places an emphasis on imprisoning people for growing plants that the majority of the population wants to see legalized, taxed, and regulated in poll after poll.

    Without an educated and comfortable population, a nation has no hope of competing on the global market and being a "real player." Education creates jobs, it creates technology, and it improves the processes of business and society. Even people like Marx recognized that society would evolve into a "communist" or "socialist" state as the people became educated and concerned about more than their own personal needs. (Marx never espoused a revolution such as Russia or China had; he was merely discussing where he saw society evolving to.)

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:Education is a pillar of any modern society by msobkow · · Score: 1

      I click too quick.

      The problem with the Harper Government's emphasis on their omnibus crime legislation is that it's taking away funding from education, retirement plans, and even medicine. It's a seriously screwed up set of priorities that man and our government has about where and how to spend our national and provincial budgets.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    2. Re:Education is a pillar of any modern society by DigitalJanitor · · Score: 1

      Even in videogames, you can not develop technology to attack or defend your virtual community without taking care of the essentials for your population first: making sure they are fed, clothed, housed, and educated.

      So videogames are now the measure of morality?

    3. Re:Education is a pillar of any modern society by msobkow · · Score: 1

      A good videogame is as good a model of society as any social studies or economics textbook. They wouldn't be any fun to play if they didn't try to follow the rules of reality, would they?

      Maybe we SHOULD make such videogames part of the mandatory education of anyone who wants to be a leader in government at any level.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    4. Re:Education is a pillar of any modern society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heck, the whole COUNTRY of Canada suffers from a government which places an emphasis on imprisoning people for growing plants that the majority of the population wants to see legalized, taxed, and regulated in poll after poll.

      I think you're missing the whole point of legislation in the modern world. It's not to be a "global player" it's about strategic division of labor. If China manufactures, the US writes software, Japan designs machines, Europe controls finances, etc - only the people with access to all of the areas involved have a say over what the Human race does and does not do as a whole. People don't need to be happy, they need to be kept in check such that none can rise to rival the elitists that control the world economy - just look at the UN and the whole outlandish notion that there should be a single world government when even in countries like the US with an incredibly branches hierarchical structure the top level, the federal government, is the cause of virtually all issues the population faces in their daily lives - in spite of having absolutely no benefit outside of providing military security from foreign powers.

    5. Re:Education is a pillar of any modern society by msobkow · · Score: 1

      I don't think things are anywhere near that organized. Nor do I believe any nation is interested in being pigeon-holed in such a fashion. Sure China built it's finances on manufacturing, but they've invested heavily in education, housing, etc. with those monies and are trying to become an innovator, even going so far as to launch their own (effective!) space program.

      I don't buy into the theories and paranoia about "The Bilderberg Group", "The Illuminati", or any other "secret society" running the world with any logic or sense. It's all just one big ant hill with a few queens trying to steer the masses in what they see as the "right direction" and meeting in private from time to time to discuss issues that the general population doesn't know about or even want to think about.

      Just like your little video game icons, really.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    6. Re:Education is a pillar of any modern society by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      That was one of the most disjointed, ignorant, off topic comments I've ever read on here. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.

    7. Re:Education is a pillar of any modern society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think its fairly simple really. Harper (and therefore the rest of his government, its very much a one man show I suspect), has seen how much private industry is making off of prison labor down in the US and decided that Canadian companies can use the same "slave labor" to enrich themselves as well.

      http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8289 (written in 2008 mind you):

      "There are approximately 2 million inmates in state, federal and private prisons throughout the country. According to California Prison Focus, "no other society in human history has imprisoned so many of its own citizens." The figures show that the United States has locked up more people than any other country: a half million more than China, which has a population five times greater than the U.S. Statistics reveal that the United States holds 25% of the world's prison population, but only 5% of the world's people. From less than 300,000 inmates in 1972, the jail population grew to 2 million by the year 2000. In 1990 it was one million. Ten years ago there were only five private prisons in the country, with a population of 2,000 inmates; now, there are 100, with 62,000 inmates. It is expected that by the coming decade, the number will hit 360,000, according to reports."

      "Ninety-seven percent of 125,000 federal inmates have been convicted of non-violent crimes. It is believed that more than half of the 623,000 inmates in municipal or county jails are innocent of the crimes they are accused of. Of these, the majority are awaiting trial. Two-thirds of the one million state prisoners have committed non-violent offenses. Sixteen percent of the country's 2 million prisoners suffer from mental illness. "

      "According to the Left Business Observer, the federal prison industry produces 100% of all military helmets, ammunition belts, bullet-proof vests, ID tags, shirts, pants, tents, bags, and canteens. Along with war supplies, prison workers supply 98% of the entire market for equipment assembly services; 93% of paints and paintbrushes; 92% of stove assembly; 46% of body armor; 36% of home appliances; 30% of headphones/microphones/speakers; and 21% of office furniture. Airplane parts, medical supplies, and much more: prisoners are even raising seeing-eye dogs for blind people."

  8. Cowboys - the epitome of culture? by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 4, Informative

    "While American troops guarded the Ministries of Oil"

    That is what happens when you think cowboys are the epitome of culture. Still:

    "In the months preceding the 2003 Iraq war, starting in December and January, various antiquities experts, including representatives from the American Council for Cultural Policy asked the Pentagon and the UK government to ensure the museum's safety from both combat and looting. Although promises were not made, U.S. forces did avoid bombing the site. On April 8, 2003 the last of the museum staff left the museum. Iraqi forces engaged U.S. forces from within the museum, as well as the nearby Special Republican Guard compound. Lt. Col. Eric Schwartz of the U.S. third Infantry Division stated that he was unable to enter the compound and secure it since they attempted to avoid returning fire at the building."

    "According to museum officials the looters concentrated on the heart of the exhibition: "the Warka Vase, a Sumerian alabaster piece more than 5,000 years old; a bronze Uruk statue from the Acadian period, also 5,000 years old, which weighs 660 pounds; and the headless statue of Entemena. The Harp of Ur was torn apart by looters who removed its gold inlay."[3] Among the stolen artifacts is the Bassetki statue made out of bronze, a life-size statue of a young man, originally found in the village Basitke in the northern part of Iraq, an Acadian piece that goes back to 2300 B.C. and the stone statue of King Schalmanezer, from the eighth century B.C. In addition, the museum's aboveground storage rooms were looted; the exterior steel doors showed no signs of forced entry. Approximately 3,100 excavation site pieces (jars, vessels, pottery shards, etc.) were stolen, of which over 3,000 have been recovered. The thefts did not appear to be discriminating; for example, an entire shelf of fakes was stolen, while an adjacent shelf of much greater value was undisturbed."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Museum_of_Iraq#Damage_and_losses_during_2003_war

    I guess these cowboys did what they could to protect the museum, but "forgot" about other parts of culture, like the university library. Protecting that oil must have appeared as more important.

    1. Re:Cowboys - the epitome of culture? by ToasterMonkey · · Score: 1

      I guess these cowboys did what they could to protect the museum, but "forgot" about other parts of culture, like the university library. Protecting that oil must have appeared as more important.

      So they didn't protect a university library... you're using too much sarcasm, I can't tell which parts you are serious about. They attempted to preserve a museum. That is more than I would expect from any invading force, from any time period, in any place. You could say the military was too soft, and be just as right. I mean you just don't find that stuff in say, The Art of War.

      On the bit about the Ministries of Oil, again, my sarcasm detector must be broken because this is a country entirely dependent on oil exports for income. _Obviously_ it was more important.

      "Iraq's largely state-run economy is dominated by the oil sector, which provides more than 90% of government revenue and 80% of foreign exchange earnings."
        - https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/iz.html

    2. Re:Cowboys - the epitome of culture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surmise some US interests in Iraq too.

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22794451/
      "A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks."

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/7438372.stm
      "When the US goes to war, corporate America goes too. There are contracts for caterers, tanker drivers, security guards and even interrogators, many of them through companies with links to the White House. Now more than 70 whistleblower cases threaten to reveal the scandals behind billions of dollars worth of waste, theft and corruption during the Iraq war. A total of $23bn (£11.75bn) is under scrutiny. The US justice department has imposed gagging orders which prevent the real scale of the problem emerging."

  9. Just goes to prove by DigitalJanitor · · Score: 1

    Just goes to prove that knowledge wants to be free.

  10. Blaming America for Iraqi's failures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    FTFA "Armed militias threatened women who did not cover themselves and intimidated professors who said things they did not like"

    Americans did not loot / destroy the Universities, the religious Iraqi's who did not like women/minorities being educated that destroyed them. Iraq today makes enough money from oil to re-build any college / university that is wishes, but it chooses not to.

    Iran and the Iraqi's that follow them are much more to blame for the aftermath mess.

    1. Re:Blaming America for Iraqi's failures by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The problem is all the US officer class gets very very well educated - you don't get to occupy a part of the world to play out "Grozny" in front of the press.
      i.e. much international law exists that the USA held up during the cold war with glowing terms about "ensure their security", "educational" and "education of children".
      So I guess they got around it via "education of children" and "institutions devoted" is not a university :)

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Blaming America for Iraqi's failures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      America invaded Iraq and destroyed the security apparatus completely. America is the occupying power immediately after the invasion. Therefore, America is totally responsible for the planning and provisioning of a new security system for the state for the duration of the occupation. It's quite simple really. We all know the looters are a bunch of thieves, but, the looters would never have been able to loot had the US done its job of providing security to these sites. It's not like they tried and failed, they didn't even bother trying. The ultimate responsibility falls on occupying power's shoulders.

    3. Re:Blaming America for Iraqi's failures by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      the religious Iraqi's who did not like women/minorities being educated that destroyed them.

      The point is that those guys were held in check by Saddam's regime. When you took that out, you simply replaced organized secular dictatorship with a chaotic religious civil war. That didn't do much to advance freedom, democracy and human rights, but it sure did get a lot more innocent people killed or looted.

  11. Keep them stupid by spectrokid · · Score: 2

    has done wonders in the past....

    --

    10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then

    1. Re:Keep them stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not difficult - their imams, whether Shia or Sunni, do a fine job of it without any external interference.

  12. Donald Rumsfield by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 0

    "The images you are seeing on television you are seeing over, and over, and over, and it's the same picture of some person walking out of some building with a vase, and you see it 20 times, and you think, "My goodness, were there that many vases?"

  13. Re:U.S. is not to blame. by santax · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Would this have happened if the USA didn't started this illegal war over some oil? If the anwser is NO (and it is) then we should blame those money-hungry, trigger happy, backward idiots. Those responsible and those who supported it should be brought to justice in The Hague, just like any other warcriminal. But unfortunally our EU goverment are all bought up by those criminals and would rather eat their own kids than do what is right.

  14. A fragmented Iraq was desired by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Dumb, in debt and split.
    "Special Report Scientists become targets in Iraq" Nature (29 June 2006)
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7097/full/4411036a.html
    Then you have the luck that is "Iraqi arms scientists killed before they talk" http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/aug/23/20040823-124014-3141r/?page=all
    Someone has been clearing out many Iraqi scientists and intellectuals. Whats left seem to be getting "money went to American universities to do curriculum development".

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  15. As usual, US to blame, no accountability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is the result of a corrupt society, or more likely a complete lack of Iraqi identity.
    As much as the US bungled Iraq,
    In the end of the day it is up to Iraqi citizens to have some sense of social responsibility.
    Unless... They don't see themselves as Iraqis. Rather, as self serving sects, based on either family ties or religious beliefs.
    We've seen the exact same behavior in the so called Arab spring in Egypt.
    Although the destruction of historical artifacts in the case of Egypt is deliberate -
    the memory of Egypts non Islamic history must be eradicated,
    some extremists have openly called for the destruction of the pyramids.
    The Arab world is now undergoing an orgy of violence and vendetta, per the Iraqi model.
    the US only sped up the process by throwing it's allies under the bus. Nothing more.

    1. Re:As usual, US to blame, no accountability by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      So your in Iraq and take some "social responsibility" on the phone or as a local ...
      The phones are all signals intelligence to the USA, meetings of locals would be infiltrated or seen as real defiance.
      So expect a day or night raid and then a nice trip to meet new people from around the world in smaller and small rooms.
      "Social responsibility" really fits with the role of the Occupying Power.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  16. 10 years of war by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    10 years of war, and that's what you are worrying about?

    People kill each other in dozens and hundreds at one moment, in tens of thousands over time.

    Good work, /.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    1. Re:10 years of war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ten years of war? What are you talking about? The United States hasn't been at war for almost seventy years - since the end of World War II.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

  17. Re:U.S. is not to blame. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As far as international laws are concerned, any (decent / respectable) occupying country is responsible and accountable for the security of the occupied territories / countries. That is the reason Ariel Sharon was indicted in court even though the Sabra and Shatila massacre in Lebanon in 1982 were ordered by Amine Gemayel and conducted by his fundamentalist Christian Militia.

    The US is legally responsible for all the security mishaps during the occupation...

  18. why werent YOU there ? by unity100 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    u.s. invaded, removed iraqi military and police. u.s. army took over in their place.

    it was their responsibility to protect those cultural heritages. instead, they protected fucking oil fields.

    a few pieces from those museums could buy years' worth of output from any given oil well. they were that important.

    1. Re:why werent YOU there ? by Slashdot+Assistant · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The oil fields had to be protected - you'll no doubt recall what Hussein did when he was forced out of Kuwait? Oil revenues were to provide much of the funding for reconstruction. The allies should have made plans to secure the oil fields and cultural facilities. Iraq has an amazing cultural heritage, that if encouraged, could help provide a basis for a proud nation - not to mention tourism when they stop shooting one another.

    2. Re:why werent YOU there ? by tibman · · Score: 1

      They never removed the police force. They did however spend a lot of time and money renovating the police stations, training and recruiting new IPs, and of course.. protecting the police force from organized citizen attacks (think organized criminals).

      As far as the Museum goes, i read it was looted before looters could even get inside.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    3. Re:why werent YOU there ? by unity100 · · Score: 1

      They never removed the police force.

      the issue is what happened at the time of the invasion. not 2 weeks or so after.

    4. Re:why werent YOU there ? by tibman · · Score: 1

      Could you please explain to me what you think happened so that i can have a discussion/argument with you? :p

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    5. Re:why werent YOU there ? by unity100 · · Score: 1

      skim the thread you are in. you will see that it has been described by more than one person numerous times.

    6. Re:why werent YOU there ? by ToasterMonkey · · Score: 1

      u.s. invaded, removed iraqi military and police. u.s. army took over in their place.

      it was their responsibility to protect those cultural heritages. instead, they protected fucking oil fields.

      a few pieces from those museums could buy years' worth of output from any given oil well. they were that important.

      Exactly, we should have instead let 90% of their economy burn and left them to feed themselves by selling off their cultural heritage.

      Dude, sober up a little before posting.

    7. Re:why werent YOU there ? by tibman · · Score: 1

      Thank you but i was specifically interested in what you thought happened to the police during the invasion, not two weeks or so after.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    8. Re:why werent YOU there ? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should have left their country be, then the economy would not be in such a sorry shape to begin with, and you wouldn't have Sunni, Shia and Kurds vying to cut each others' throats.

    9. Re:why werent YOU there ? by jbolden · · Score: 1

      a few pieces from those museums could buy years' worth of output from any given oil well. they were that important.

      Iraq with functioning oil fields could have been producing several million barrels of oil and another 1/2 million cubic meters of natural gas per day. The most expensive art pieces ever are worth about $30m and Iraq didn't have anything close to that valuable.

      A year's production of the Iraqi oil fields could likely buy all the art in every museum on the planet multiple times over.

    10. Re:why werent YOU there ? by jbolden · · Score: 1

      We would have been happy to have left them alone. The Iraqis were in non compliance with their terms of surrender. If they didn't want to get invaded they needed to comply with their surrender agreements.

    11. Re:why werent YOU there ? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I remember it like it was yesterday. Bush was all, like, "I really hate to do this guys, but... "

    12. Re:why werent YOU there ? by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Not Bush, Clinton. By 1998 US policy was regime change.

  19. Re:U.S. is not to blame. by martin-boundary · · Score: 0

    Nope, it's more like saying that the police attacked indiscriminately and extremely violently a peaceful Superbowl crowd while chasing a single killer hiding at the stadium. When the crowd went apeshit crazy and rioted, it's the police's fault.

  20. "Not enough minerals" by tbird81 · · Score: 1

    "You require more vespene gas"

    and, sadly, "my life for Aiur!"

    1. Re:"Not enough minerals" by Muros · · Score: 3, Funny

      and, sadly, "my life for Aiur!"

      My mind always seemed to translate that to "My wife for hire!" for some reason.

  21. Vat '69 by BeerCur · · Score: 1

    "I have every confidence in my scrounging abilities, and I have a case of Vat '69 hidden in your footlocker. " Smarft and/or connected people will find a way. in the Internet era.

    --
    It's not what your Sig can do for you, but what you can do for your for your Sig.
  22. Re:U.S. is not to blame. by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 0, Troll

    Stuff got looted in Iraq with or without a US invasion. I understand you disagree with the reasons for going to war in Iraq but ffs you can't pretend Iraq was a paradise - not by a long way. The US may have bungled the war and left a mess behind, but it is still far far better than if Saddam had of stayed in power. Don't let your antipathy to the US blind you to the reality of what Iraq was actually like and would have remaind if not given an unwelcome (by the ruling Tikriti's; the majority of Iraqis didn't like the US, but actually tolerated them as an end to a means - most of the real trouble came from Sunni-Shia sectarian violence) course-correction this decade.

  23. Re:U.S. is not to blame. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The entire reason the US went to the region is to steal oil and make it easier to control the area. Destroying their means of education is a huge step towards that. It makes me sad there are people still blind to reality, but the worst part is you probably vote.

  24. Re:U.S. is not to blame. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would this have happened if the USA didn't started this illegal war over some oil?
    If the anwser is NO (and it is) then we should blame those money-hungry, trigger happy, backward idiots. Those responsible and those who supported it should be brought to justice in The Hague, just like any other warcriminal. But unfortunally our EU goverment are all bought up by those criminals and would rather eat their own kids than do what is right.

    Illegal or no, attempted genocide and mass graves are a justification for war - and Iraq had a lot of them under Saddam.

  25. Re:U.S. is not to blame. by ticktickboom · · Score: 1

    well, the US is to blame. for it not going to war with unwarranted reasoning, it would not have happened. but it wasn't a weapons of mass destruction, it was the whole mid easy. 1 at a time. we had to totally destroy their infrastructure, medical and educational framework, because it was better than ours. like Norton AV from the earlier 80's, a true American company. put your name on things that are not yours, sell things that you did not right, violate every copyright there is, buy the competition out because they are better than you, then throw everything away. a true american company mr norton died when he was about 35 from severe alcoholism, prolly brought on by the stress caused by stealing and underhandedness. tis the american way tho. we couldn't let a 'terrorist' nation have anything better than we do. then again, this stuff happens in war.

  26. George W. Bush on the Iraq war by chrb · · Score: 1

    "Free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction."

    "You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror."

    "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."

    1. Re:George W. Bush on the Iraq war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That theme that Bush bought from Natan Sharansky - that free nations are peaceful nations - does not apply to Muslim countries. After all, Pakistan, for instance, too has had elections, but a huge portion of their population support the Taliban. In all the 'Arab Spring' countries, dictators of varying ideologies - from pro Western Ben Ali & Mubarak to anti Western Gadaffi - have been overthrown, but in all these countries, people have been voting in Islam. Islamic parties have swept the elections in Tunisia, Egypt & now Kuwait, while in Libya, they are doing what they can to make Shariah their constitution. Once they're done, women would have to go veiled, be subjected to FGMs, marry as young as 9, and men can get back to having 4 wives. Oh, and as far as religious minorities go, the less said, the better - just look @ the plight of Copts in Egypt or Assyrians in iraq.

      Connecting Iraq to the war on terror would have been easy, had they not bought into the bs that Islam is a good & peaceful religion, particularly when that was the main motivation behind the 9/11 attacks. Iraq was not tied to 9/11, but they did host terrorists - in the follow-up to the war, the Iraqis gunned down Abu Nidal, who had been sheltered in Iraq all those years. But the prioritization was wrong - it should have started w/ attacks on Afghanistan and Pakistan, and this too, just a major arial campaign, w/ no boots on the ground, but using ICBMs if needed. No need to nuke them, but definitely destroy the entire military infrastruction of both Pakistan and the Taliban. Next should have been Iran, Iraq, Syria & Lebanon - essentially eliminate all nuke sites in any of these countries, and pulverize them until Hizbullah & Islamic Jihad got flattened, and regimes in all 4 countries got overthrown.

      However, the place to stop was there - just overthow the regimes, and tell the people there that while they could have whatever government they wanted, if they hosted Jihadis or persecuted minorities - be it Assyrians in Iraq, Zoroastrians in Iran, Alawites or Druze or Maronites in Syria and Lebanon, they'd be attaced again. No US or NATO troops in any of these countries for peacekeeping or worse, nation-building (which is not the job of the US Army. Just a warning that they'd be pulverized again if any of the above behavior happened.

      The next should have been the Gulf fanatics - Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and Emirates - hold them responsible for 9/11, and oust their regimes, and give them the same warning as above - host jihadis, or ill-treat minorities, and be prepared for a ton of bricks. Oh, and in all the above examples, make it clear to them that if jihadi teachings come out of their mosques, those mosques are toast. No need to repress the populations - let them be free, but if they try starting wars on Israel or anyone else, they'll be flattened again. Oh, and make them take in all the Palis (since there is anyway a labor shortage in the Gulf) and leave the Israelis alone.

      Had it all been done this way, the US would actually have fought off the 'War on Terror' (really a 'War on Jihad') w/o much casualities. But that would have necessiated not buying the 'Islam is Great' bullshite!

  27. Re:U.S. is not to blame. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Illegal or no, attempted genocide and mass graves are a justification for war - and Iraq had a lot of them under Saddam.

    I agree. That's why I think U.S.A. should invade North Korea, Ethiopia, Syria and China next.

  28. So it's the US's Fault Again?? Really?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The U.S. had to get the infrastructure going first, the water, power plants, hospitals. The resources for protecting the universities, libraries and museums were just not there. Ask any Iraq vet and quit trying to pin everything on the U.S.

  29. GW Bush by Required+Snark · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Has everyone forgotten that the goal of the Iraq war was to get access to their oil? (And get revenge for the first Gulf War.) It was never about "weapons of mass destruction". The warmongers who came in with Bush (i.e. Cheney and his crew) were calling to overthrow Hussein the entire time Bill Clinton was in office. This is all well documented, even if it was never reported in the main stream press.

    So Iraq was supposed to be a push over, and the US was going to install a puppet government that would do what the US oil cartel wanted. This would be a counterbalance to Saudi oil power. Remember Bush and Cheney are both originally oil men, and they wanted to go back to the "good old days" of western dominance of Middle Eastern oil production.

    There was no planning about anything except securing the oil resources. They made no plans about securing any civil society, not just the schools. They didn't even have a real plan to secure any weapons, or even the known stockpiles of uranium ore (yellow cake) that Iraq had obtained. Access to weapons was one of the things that made the following civil war so bloody, and made it hard for the occupation forces to restore order.

    All the top military US military leaders left right after the collapse of the Hussein regime because they knew that it was going to be a disaster, and they didn't want their legacy to be associated with the resulting fuckup. Something like half the administrators who went over in the first wave to try and restore some kind of government did not have passports! They had never been outside the US. A sizable chunk were people who had worked for the Bush/Cheney election campaign and had no relevant experience. In short, completely clueless.

    The winner on all of this has been Iran. Their regional power and influence in the Arab world has increased dramatically. A lot of the weapons that were looted during the lawless fall of Iraq ended up in Iran, by the way. Meanwhile, the US has been mauled by asymmetrical warfare in both Iran and Afghanistan. They win, we loose. The unexpected result that thwarted Iran has been the Arab Spring, specifically the near civil war in Syria. Otherwise they are well on their way to being the dominant Gulf power. They may still come out on top.

    So here is the bonus question: Why has GW Bush been the invisible man during the current presidential campaign? The US withdrew combat troops from Iran and Bush's name never came up. That's like talking about the US Civil War without talking about Lincoln, or WWII without FDR or Churchill or Stalin. You would expect that he would be asked about the end of the conflict he started. We get nothing.

    Now the press is all over the perceived weakness of the Republican contenders. It would be reasonable for someone in the press to ask the last elected Republican candidate, even if all they got was a "no comment". Again, nothing. When the Republicans scream about how Obama hasn't fixed the economy, no one, Democrat or Republican talks about how the Bush administration screwed it all up. Remember TARP and it's bailout were authorized when Bush was still in office. If you look at the press accounts, it's like our economic mess fell from the sky without human intervention.

    I'm wondering what will happen during the Republican convention. Will Bush show up? Whoever the nominee is, do you think they want to be seen with Bush on stage? It would be like being endorsed by Charlie Manson. If Bush is a no show, will the press ignore the non-event? I assume that McCain will be there, and Palin will get some air time, so how could they not talk about Bush?

    The disappearance of GW Bush is emblematic of the memory hole that now dominates US political discourse. We don't need the complexities of New Speak or the Ministry of Truth. Collective amnesia in the media is so much more effective.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
    1. Re:GW Bush by phayes · · Score: 1

      Dubya right now is much akin to to the Jimmy Carter of the early 80's who pretty much disappeared of the face of the earth for a decade after being blamed for all the ills of the Democratic Party.. Give it time, Dubya will be back...

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    2. Re:GW Bush by bmo · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Has everyone forgotten that the goal of the Iraq war was to get access to their oil? (And get revenge for the first Gulf War.) It was never about "weapons of mass destruction". The warmongers who came in with Bush (i.e. Cheney and his crew) were calling to overthrow Hussein the entire time Bill Clinton was in office. This is all well documented, even if it was never reported in the main stream press.

      So much this.

      They are even proud of it, to this day, because the PNAC website is still up.

      http://www.newamericancentury.org/

      And guess where Romney got his foreign policy advisors?

      The Foreign Policy Initiative. http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/

      The entire board, with the exception of William Kristol himself (because it would be too obvious to the press), are Romney's foreign policy advisors.

      What is the FPI? The direct descendant of PNAC. It is essentially PNAC 2.

      And nobody reports on this. These are the assholes that are banging the drum for Obama to invade Iran.

      And it should scare the crap out of everyone.

      --
      BMO

    3. Re:GW Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Has everyone forgotten that the goal of the Iraq war was to get access to their oil?

      How does that make sense? Before the war, we could buy their oil. After the war, we could buy their oil. How did the war change anything about that? How was it supposed to?

      Sometimes it seem like people keep repeating these brain-dead slogans, and never stop to think if they make any sense.

    4. Re:GW Bush by Nimey · · Score: 0

      That does not surprise me, with Romney wanting to grow the US military again without raising taxes to pay for it - sounds awfully neocon.

      What does surprise me (but perhaps shouldn't) is that the media doesn't seem to have made the connection. I'd hope the Obama campaign would bring it up if/when Romney's the nominee, but there's only so much competence I can expect out of Obama.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    5. Re:GW Bush by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      Except the US aren't buying the oil anymore. The oil is now pumped by American companies, loaded on American tankers, and refined by American refiners at American refineries and burned in American SUVs on American roads.

      The Iraqi collective sees not penny 1 of oil revenue, fuck the inconvenient fact that it's their oil!

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    6. Re:GW Bush by bmo · · Score: 1

      Somehow I doubt Bush will emerge as an elder statesman or doing good deeds swinging a hammer.

      --
      BMO

    7. Re:GW Bush by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Except the US aren't buying the oil anymore. The oil is now pumped by American companies, loaded on American tankers, and refined by American refiners at American refineries and burned in American SUVs on American roads.

      Ok, now are you intentionally lying and hoping that only retarded people will read your comment ... or are you, yourself, retarded?

    8. Re:GW Bush by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      No, I did my own research.

      As to the retarded question of whether or not I'm retarded: you've never met me, so you have no idea and don't for one fucking minute try and convince anybody that you do - it makes you look stupid and brands you the liar that you are. My last WAIS-III composite, assessed four years ago, was 223. Make what you will of that.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    9. Re:GW Bush by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      The articles you linked not only fail to support your absurd claim, but in some cases directly contradict it. However, that still doesn't tell me whether you're intentionally lying, or whether you're retarded. Could you please address the question?

    10. Re:GW Bush by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      The New American Century's site has changed quite a lot since Bush was ranting for the invasion of Iraq. Last time I looked, it was barely recognizable as the same site. Alright - I'll look again, right now. Still about the same.

      I wish that I had actually saved the site, way back in 2001, or 2002. Landing on the home page, their statement was pretty blatant about turning the entire world into slaves to Wall Street. Oh - the language wasn't quite as blatant as my paraphrasing, but that's what it was all about. The same fools who have been exporting jobs to China for the last decade actually expect that all those jobs will create profits for Wall Street, indefinitely.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    11. Re:GW Bush by jbolden · · Score: 1

      The warmongers who came in with Bush (i.e. Cheney and his crew) were calling to overthrow Hussein the entire time Bill Clinton was in office. This is all well documented, even if it was never reported in the main stream press.

      Not reported in the mainstream press? This wasn't some secret plan it was US policy passed by both parties:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

    12. Re:GW Bush by bmo · · Score: 1

      >their statement was pretty blatant about turning the entire world into slaves to Wall Street

      That was the statement of principles.

      It's still there.

      All the papers are still there.

      They likely know about archive.org and they didn't bother to scrub that, either.

      --
      BMO

    13. Re:GW Bush by phayes · · Score: 1

      That just shows that you are ignorant of how low opinion was of Carter when he left office. Carter too over a decade to let people forget before remaking his image in those who had forgotten or were too young to remember & it looks like GWB is doing the same.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
  30. Mission accomplished by overshoot · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's all a matter of priorities. And like water and power systems, there really wasn't much profit to be made from universities.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    1. Re:Mission accomplished by jmottram08 · · Score: 1
      The UN has been in control of all Iraqi oil since the invasion. The US didnt make any money from the invasion, infact we will end up spending about 3 trillion on it.

      To put that in perspective, that would be all of Iraq's oil production for the next 34 years.

  31. why would they do that? by issicus · · Score: 0

    It seems kind of odd stealing public property, but I guess it wasnt really public it was Saddams. Maybe they were trying to help tear down the regime.

  32. What do they have to do with the USA? by overshoot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Read the Geneva Conventions if you don't believe me.

    Like the Convention Against Torture, those are very handy for us to use for convicting the petty thugs running penny-ante countries when we catch them.

    However, they don't apply to the USA. Or won't, anyway, until some other country has the power to apply them to us.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    1. Re:What do they have to do with the USA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I can still punish individual americans. And I do.

    2. Re:What do they have to do with the USA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ah! You mean you're snippy when you deliver their drinks?

    3. Re:What do they have to do with the USA? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      On week days he also short sheets their beds.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  33. World Police by overshoot · · Score: 1

    Pay attention: part of being the police is never having to say you're sorry. Especially if you're a prosecutor, you can do anything with the power you have and the worst that can happen is it doesn't work. None of it ever comes back to you.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    1. Re:World Police by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is perhaps the most insightful comment I ever read concerning the US fucking up countries since the days of the Vietnam War, including the direct and indirect killing and hurting of tens of thousands of civilians (i.e. people like you and me), with their politicians and the public celebrating the military and cheering on how "great America is", and all while the rest of the world bends over and says "please push harder".

      And despite this shit, most of the world is probably better off with the current "world police" than any other country assuming that role. If only USAmericans would cheer a little less about their "achievements", it would be so much more ignorable for those not on the receiving end of their guns.

  34. America is a WMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How quickly people forget. The US should never have invaded in the first place. It had nothing to do with 9/11 and all to do with being seen to be doing something. I predicted before Bush was elected that he would be off to war with any excuse. In this case it was those non existent WMDs. The country is now a basket case and yes it's America's fault. Yes they inflicted massive destruction. With all the wrong reasons, immoral actions (torture etc.), death and destruction they have just made more enemies. Why do people feel they have to vote for one of two parties (or none) that are funded by corporations (military included)? Why doesn't the US have a green party of any significance? If so many are religious in America, what happened to the commandment thou salt not kill? What about love your enemy? Forgiveness? The US has spent so much money on war and locking people up instead of positive things its no wonder they are going broke.

  35. That's a little unfair. by mosb1000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I hate the military as much as anybody, but I don't think it's fair to take it out on the soldiers. I think most people don't really understand what they're getting into when they sign up. They sign up thinking they'll be fighting bad-guys, not blowing up innocent children to further some political agenda (or shuffling around paper-work and doing dishes, which is often the case too).

    Then once they're in they try to make the best of a bad situation. There are sociopaths in the military (the same as you would find anywhere) but I don't think it's the standard. And it's very telling that the military heavily supports Ron Paul. Obviously they don't like being overseas blowing up innocent women and children, or they would support one of the chichen-hawk warmongers instead.

    1. Re:That's a little unfair. by bjourne · · Score: 2

      Stupidity is not a valid excuse. Each person is responsible for his or her own actions and "they told me to do it" does not take away your own responsibility. In 2003, there were 14 million people demonstrating globally against Bush's war plans, millions of those were Americans. No one was forced to be ignorant, no one was forced not to read up on the real motives behind the war and no one was forced to go around the world killing people that had never done them any harm. They did it on their own violition and should, if the world was just, be punished for it just like Bush himself.

    2. Re:That's a little unfair. by mosb1000 · · Score: 2

      They signed up voluntarily, everything else they were required to do. You can't just quit being in the army.

    3. Re:That's a little unfair. by Ihmhi · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Well you used to be able to quit pretty easily, but then some moron repealed DADT.

    4. Re:That's a little unfair. by tibman · · Score: 1

      An Army composed of soldiers that could decide whether or not to follow orders based on how they felt about a situation would fail. A soldier can refuse an order if it is illegal though.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    5. Re:That's a little unfair. by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      The majority reenlist. I guess you still can't say they are completely free because they've got to work at something

    6. Re:That's a little unfair. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Shit, good point, admitting homosexuality was the cheat code to quit the military. Now what is there?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    7. Re:That's a little unfair. by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      Maybe not, but there is the obligation to disobey an unlawful order like firing on civilian noncombatants.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    8. Re:That's a little unfair. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think most people don't really understand what they're getting into when they sign up.

      Since when is that an excuse? That argument can be applied to just about anything - like joining a gang.

      Killing is part of the whole military thing. When someone joins and doesn't think of the consequences, he can't use it as an excuse later. It's not just a job one is signing up for.

      From Vietnam onwards, the nasty things the US military has done is well documented. When someone signs up without pondering over them, he/she has only him/herself to blame. No one is being coerced to join.

      Standard disclaimer: I have good friends in the military, and they remain good friends. But I'm not sympathetic to their situation.

    9. Re:That's a little unfair. by jmottram08 · · Score: 1
      I really wonder what political agenda you think blowing up children furthers.

      No really, -enlighten- me.

    10. Re:That's a little unfair. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stupidity is not a valid excuse... They did it on their own violition and should, if the world was just, be punished for it just like Bush himself.

      LMAO

    11. Re:That's a little unfair. by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      That becomes harder to do when you don't know who the civilian non-comtatants are. Ultimately, you just have to take your commander's word for it.

    12. Re:That's a little unfair. by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      As with animal control: if you cannot identify what you see through your scope, your finger goes nowhere near the fucking trigger! (disclaimer: I am currently enjoying my retirement, and spend much time shooting small furry animals that cause damage to infrastructure and crops. Shoot the wrong thing doing that, there's a hefty fine and jail time. Not to mention that if you go waving a rifle around on a built up area in the UK you're likely to get shot yourself if the police don't already know you're there and you don't have valid reason to be waving a rifle around in a built up area (like, for instance, taking out rats near where food is stored or prepared)).

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    13. Re:That's a little unfair. by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      A fox is a fox. A person walking around may be on ether way to the market, or they may be on their way to detonate a roadside bomb. It's hard to tell.

    14. Re:That's a little unfair. by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      um... ask?

      "Are you a fox?" Sorry, "Are you planting a bomb today?"

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    15. Re:That's a little unfair. by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      They may not answer you truthfully.

    16. Re:That's a little unfair. by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      you're for arming cops, aren't you? I can tell...

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    17. Re:That's a little unfair. by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      I am not really opposed to providing them with bullets. I'll leave the details to you. And if I get arrested for saying that, I blame you.

    18. Re:That's a little unfair. by Ihmhi · · Score: 2

      Let me clarify here - I was going for funny, but it might have come out a bit homophobic instead.

      I meant "then some moron repealed DADT" as "some moron inadvertently closed the easy loophole to getting out of the military", not "some moron gave those homosexuals equal rights". I usually don't like to correct or explain myself after the fact, but after reading through this a day later I sort of come across as a bit homophobic and that's not really who I am.

  36. Unreasonable by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

    I don't think I'd call posturing a "very good reason." I'd use the words "unreasonable reason," that way I'd be taking it back before I even said it.

  37. Blame it on those who started the war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In case you forgot, before the war was started those looter were kept in check by the local law. Guess who invaded and let the looter lose despite having control of the country, despite knowing looter would come out ? Yep. You got it.

  38. The USA is responsible for looting in Iraq. by s-whs · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The US military are scum and soldiers are criminals. There was no reason for this war and yet the US won't take responsibility for the consequences. Fuck the US military and those who support it. Scumbags.

    And that's all very true - but it still has jack shit to do with Iraqi's looting their own universities,

    Of course it does. Take away the system that keeps the a-holes doing what they would really want to do, i.e. they don't give a damn about others, take want to take what they want but normally can't because they'd get caught quickly by the police.

    Looting is what will happen, everywhere, in the USA. or Europe, or wherever. Just look at what happens with floods for example.

    So the USA destroyed the infrastructure of power, thereby they enabled the looting. The USA is responsible.

    Btw. this reminded me of something I wanted to say about a story, not long ago on slashdot, about being able to recognize serial killers. I didn't get round to writing it down then, so I will do it now: When I read that, I thought how pathetic this research was, because there are so much bigger problems that these people don't analyse at all. Esp. that a sociopath like George Wanker Bush, who was unbelievably actually elected to power by people in the USA (really? Why did anyone vote for this a-hole? I knew he was scum the first time I saw him talk on TV), and did thousands of times more damage and caused thousands of times more deaths (together with his sociapath cronies, but as the president has so much power in the US, he is responsible).

    Why don't psychologists go analysing people in politics and say 'he is a sociopath and should be barred from being in any position in power'?

    1. Re:The USA is responsible for looting in Iraq. by Apothem · · Score: 2

      Why don't psychologists go analysing people in politics and say 'he is a sociopath and should be barred from being in any position in power'?

      Because if that were to happen, so many of them would get thrown out that the US government would collapse on that alone.

    2. Re:The USA is responsible for looting in Iraq. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because he wasn't a "sociopath" and unless you can back up your ramblings with a doctorate in a psychology or a field related to psychology I'd thank you to shut your fucking unscientific pie hole and go away. Don't talk about the science if you can't properly embrace the science.

    3. Re:The USA is responsible for looting in Iraq. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So the USA destroyed the infrastructure of power, thereby they enabled the looting. The USA is responsible.

      once upon a time, there was this quaint idea of personal responsibility.
      i suppose we're too intellectually lazy to do that these days, it's too easy
      to pick the biggest guy in the room and blame him.

    4. Re:The USA is responsible for looting in Iraq. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Applies to most major companies and corporations as well.

    5. Re:The USA is responsible for looting in Iraq. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound a fair bit sociopathic yourself. I can practically see the spittle spewing from your mouth as rant and rave like a lunatic.

      Of course it does. Take away the system that keeps the a-holes doing what they would really want to do, i.e. they don't give a damn about others, take want to take what they want but normally can't because they'd get caught quickly by the police.

      Looting is what will happen, everywhere, in the USA. or Europe, or wherever. Just look at what happens with floods for example.

      So, on the Internet where there is little enforcement, and no real systems to keep the a-holes from doing what they really want to do, why isn't everyone pulling Anonymous-style website takedowns, participating in LOIC attacks on websites, or sending out worms and viruses to whoever they can?

      Do you really believe that it is the police's fault, or the FBI's, or Homeland Security's, or the CIA's (for non-US citizens) fault for the actions of anyone and everyone who participates in those?

      Of course it isn't their fault. It's the fault of Anonymous and the people that sign up for the LOIC attacks, and it's the fault of the hackers that write the worm/virus codes. Just like it's the fault of the looters for breaking and stealing stuff.

      Looters are going to loot when there's no law around sure, but the first looters were most likely already regularly involved in criminal activity to begin with. The majority of normal citizens who otherwise wouldn't perform criminal activity become looters of opportunity when they see the original looters getting free stuff and getting away with it. Then they stop when they get reminded by arresting forces that it's illegal and they can go to jail/get shot depending on the territory. Oh hey, look at that internet analogy. Free mp3's for everybody! But then people started getting sued and most of those people stopped and instead have now gone to purchasing music legally again.

      Also, when you're looking at infrastructure, education facilities tend to be low priority. In the short term, roads and transportation, banks, resource industries, and government keep a country running so that it can eventually get back on its feet and return to some semblance of normalcy. Education is a long-term goal to improve the nation in the future.

      In Iraq's case, it lost the government, so the US's responsibility was to establish some form of government to replace what was lost: first Military control, then working with local leaders to establish municipal control, working up to regional control, establishing that transitional government that would return sovereignty to the country, and finally full sovereign control returned to the country. The roads and transportation, the banks, and the resource industries weren't harmed as badly as the government and have/will eventually recover when the country manages its own control.

    6. Re:The USA is responsible for looting in Iraq. by icebraining · · Score: 0

      You're the same guy as above, right?

      One doesn't absolve the other. Your argument is invalid.

      If you don't believe me, leave your car with the keys in the ignition on a zone with a high crime rate and then tell your insurance company it's not your fault because it's the thieves' "personal responsibility".

    7. Re:The USA is responsible for looting in Iraq. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looting is what will happen, everywhere, in the USA. or Europe, or wherever. Just look at what happens with floods for example.

      I don't recall significant looting during the earthquake and meltdown scare in Japan.

      For that matter, I don't think the New Orleans looters torched libraries and universities.

      The way a populace responds to a disaster shows the ailments present in its society.

  39. What also went missing by hellop2 · · Score: 1

    Were the western friendly college kids who could safely walk down the streets before we invaded.... for what reason again?

    --
    How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
  40. The decay has more to do with the emigration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The decay has more to do with the emigration of thousands of scientists who don't want live in a country where bombs explode all the time and many people don't know how to earn their living, besides from stealing and robbing. horstfx

  41. Re:U.S. is not to blame. by ianare · · Score: 1

    The police in your example WOULD be held responsible. If a big sporting event is taking place in a city, you would expect the police to increase their presence. Which, in fact, they do.

  42. Re:U.S. is not to blame. by ianare · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, Iraq is worse off now than it was under Saddam. At least under Saddam there was security, basic services, good access to health care, and one of the best education systems in the middle east.

    I'm not glorifying the bastard mind you, there were political kidnappings, executions and torture under Saddam. But this hasn't stopped, far from it, there has been an increase in political and ethnic violence, as well as corruption.

    In other words, it's better to live under the rule of a ruthless dictator than it is to be "liberated" by the US.

  43. Re:Books and computers and desks are easy to repla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "I'm a research scientist I haven't physically been in a library in 8 years. No need. At first I did miss all the old articles but those are now online too. Even reference books have been replaced. I never did use the library for text books and now those are on ipads and OLPC and Kindle."

    What f*#$ing relevance does this have to Iraq's looted university libraries?! Do you really think the Iraqis had digitized all their library articles and books back in 2003, many of which would likely have been unique one of a kind items? Or, did you just come in here and feel like talking about yourself and you gadgets?

  44. Not Popular by craigminah · · Score: 0

    I know this won't be popular opinion, but I believe war should be horrific enough for people to want to avoid it at all costs. Fighting wars where every civilian death or collateral damage report is posted in the news makes people object to the "senseless violence" but I believe that prolongs the war itself. Fighting wars in a civilized manner only prolongs them...anyone remember Star Trek's "A Taste of Armageddon"? Same idea but they took it a little further... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon)

  45. Re:U.S. is not to blame. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    At least under Saddam there was security, basic services, good access to health care, and one of the best education systems in the middle east.

    ...if you were Sunni.

  46. For those who don't know it... by Nrrqshrr · · Score: 1

    Baghdad and Basra were once the central pillar of the Arab and Muslim world. Pulling numbers out of my butt here, but probably 90% of the folk stories I was told when I was a child (like the 1001 nights) all "happened" in Baghdad or Basra. This shows just how important those places were...

  47. Re:Books and computers and desks are easy to repla by zill · · Score: 1

    What you're saying only applies to the STEM and other technical fields, unfortunately. Most of the fine arts and humanity subjects still rely heavily on dead trees.

    Regardless of how useful these assets are to the researchers, they should definitely not fall into the hands of thefts and plunders. Even if supposing all the books, equipments, and furnitures are worthless they should still be recycled or donated away, instead of funding criminal activities.

  48. Going to donate some money to buy it all back? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Somebody has to pay for it, and I'm sure they're pissed that we let people loot and trash the place when it would have cost next to nothing to protect it. This is just another example of how selfish and irresponsible the US has been in this war. I'm still not over the looting of the National Museum of Iraq... thousands of priceless artifacts from humanity's first known civilizations stolen. :/

  49. Just curious by kenh · · Score: 1

    Without the oil fields, Iraq has no economy and can never rebuild - period. While it would have been better if the Iraqi universities were better protected by occupying US troops, there is an element of this story that arrears forgotten - it was likely mainly Iraqi citizens who choose to re-distribute the wealth trapped in their universities.

    At some point the looters and vandals have to bear some responsibility for their actions.

    --
    Ken
    1. Re:Just curious by unity100 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      why were those u.s. troops there in the first place, you fucking idiot ?

      http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2653923&cid=38925893

      so, you can just invade a country, take over its army and police, and then just leave it schools, museums, hospitals, universities unguarded ?

      and you have a 4 digit userid too ! one would think that you would actually be a person who would have some amount of brain power - and hence, as it should be - some amount of accompanying culture.

      yet you dont.

      lets say at the time you got your uid, you didnt have the proper broad vision and humane understanding that every member of modern society should have. alright. happens. we all were young at one point.

      and yet, close to a decade passed since you possibly got that uid. you were on the internet all the time, taking into account that you are geek, to have taken that uid from this site that long ago.

      and yet, you have stayed still in the place you were in terms of culture, uttering the above bullshit to us at this point in 2012. ...........

      either die out, and get the fuck out of this planet, or, move forward. alternatively you can just shut the fuck up.

    2. Re:Just curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You smug illiterate trashy cunt, buy some IQ and grow up. Learn to capitalize the first word in a sentence, and don't make every sentence a standalone paragraph. And get a goddam clue.

    3. Re:Just curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dang dude! did you reply to the wrong post?

      corn cobicus up the assicus today?

  50. scientists are supposed to collect data by decora · · Score: 1

    before they make conclusions.

    you, obviously, did not even bother to read the article.

  51. Re:U.S. is not to blame. by kenh · · Score: 0

    Not the looters and vandals? Riiiight...

    --
    Ken
  52. the looters were pointing out security flaws by decora · · Score: 2

    in the university system. they should be thanked, and perhaps given high paying 'security consultant' jobs.

  53. Justifying the war aftwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice justification.

    Using the above logic, we should have eliminated Kim Long Il years ago and we should be knocking that fat little shit of son off right now.

    But we won't.

    Why?

    1. No oil

    2. It'll piss off China

    3. N. Korea has 2+ million fanatical troups at the ready and in a conventional war, I fully believe that they'd kick our ass.

    Then there are most of the governments in sub-Saharan Africa - some even have oil! Iran, Syria, etc .... that also need to go.

    But, we chose Iraq instead of much more worthwhile targets.

  54. the museum was a special case, theres a book by decora · · Score: 4, Informative

    written about it, Thieves of Baghdad (9781582346458): by Matthew Bogdanos + William Patrick.

    some iraqi troops used the museum as a base from which to fire at the invaders. so the US couldn't attack it, because it would have been completely wiped out by crossfire. but while those troops were based there, there was a massive theft. bogdanos was on a special unit that was sent purposely to try to secure the museum, and his team were able to recover a huge amount of material through somewhat ordinary police procedure (he had been a cop in new york), but his opinion is that there was probably an 'inside job' with someone in the iraqi bureaucracy looting the museum. i.e. in the case of the museum, the US did not have a good chance to secure it from the mobs... someone else had beaten the mobs to the punch.

  55. very well. by unity100 · · Score: 2

    now reconstruct all the priceless, 5000+ years old world heritage that was looted and destroyed in those museums.

  56. actually by unity100 · · Score: 1

    its no-thank-goodness that you have the right to participate in a civil society - having an opinion before having any knowledge.

    why, even in this very discussion you have posted the above bullshit, all the invalid proposition you have tried to make was answered a prior. you could use modicum amounts of brain power and 1.5 minutes to read it, and save us from posting the bullshit you have posted.

    but you havent.

    lets give you a second chance.

    http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2653923&cid=38925893

    1. Re:actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      English motherfucker! Do you speak it?

  57. Re:U.S. is not to blame. by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

    It wasn't so much the problem of just removing the dictator that left the void. Removing the army and the police was the real cause of the looting.

    Just think what would happen in the US if the police stopped working for a few years. Iraq would seem like quiet village by comparison.

  58. Look who were targetted by the West ? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Look who were targetted by the West ?

    Saddam Hussein

    Muammar Gaddafi

    What kind of countries these guys were controlling?

    Iraq and Libya - both countries were considered as "Modernized Islamic Countries" because they allow the women to do drive, to work, to do most things men were allowed to do

    Why the West targeted Iraq and Libya?

    You may not believe in conspiracy theories but there is suspicion that the West doesn't really want the Islamic countries to become modernized

    True, both Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi were despicable despots. Both of them killed their own people.

    But then, please tell me which Middle East leader never treat their own people like shit and/or being tyrannical ?

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Look who were targetted by the West ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Good thing you said the "West". I can see how some might believe this, but it doesn't jive with the facts.

      1) Iraq is "complicated". It is one part spin-off of Afghanistan, one part George W. Bush wanting to restore some honor for what happened to Daddy, with a dash of making vast profit for a few close friends/groups. This was the U.S. dragging others in.

      2) Libya was a spin-off of the Arab Spring. The West, at least at face value, wanted the people to take power in Democracy. Libya was the safest place to help.

      Of course, you might have some point. I just need to turn on the news to see the panic in the US that China might become a developed country and/or we might slide to number two. I can see a "We may be sliding, but we'll still be number 1 if everyone else slides faster" mentality behind the scenes.

    2. Re:Look who were targetted by the West ? by FishTankX · · Score: 4, Informative

      King Abdullah II of Jordan, and his father King Hussein. They crafted one of the freest arab nations in the middle east. While they're track record probably isn't completely spotless, they are by NO definition political despots.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Abdullah_II

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Hussein

    3. Re:Look who were targetted by the West ? by Hentes · · Score: 1

      This is a very convenient selection of two data points that more or less has some similarities. How would Afghanistan fit in your theory? Also, keep in mind that Lybia was never attacked by the West. Gaddafi's regime was destroyed by Lybian rebels, the only thing the UN forces did was ensuring that there are no airstrikes or artillery barrage targeting civilians.

    4. Re:Look who were targetted by the West ? by funwithBSD · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Tell that to those who died in Lockerbie.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    5. Re:Look who were targetted by the West ? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      As far as I know, Israel's leaders are doing pretty good by their people. Israel is in the Middle East, right?

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    6. Re:Look who were targetted by the West ? by zill · · Score: 3, Informative

      There was this one guy, but the CIA managed to replace him with a monarchy.

    7. Re:Look who were targetted by the West ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And which country is next? Which is the "axis of evil"? Iran. Iran doesn't have the radicals you see in Pakistan. Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, unlike Pakistan. Iran doesn't harbor Al Queda, unlike Pakistan. But yes, Iran is becoming modernized.

      Its days are numbered.

      Heck, they even want to use nukes against Iran.

    8. Re:Look who were targetted by the West ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then, please tell me which Middle East leader never treat their own people like shit and/or being tyrannical ?

      The Israeli ones and King Abdullah?

    9. Re:Look who were targetted by the West ? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      "From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli"

      The entire US military exists because the Libyans are pirates.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    10. Re:Look who were targetted by the West ? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      The US was specifically invited into Libya.

      If you are whining about the US having been there, and are claiming it is some form of imperalism then clearly you haven't been paying attention. The Lybians clamoured for our presence and the Arab League specifically asked for it.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    11. Re:Look who were targetted by the West ? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The West, at least at face value, wanted the people to take power in Democracy.

      And they did. It just turned out that they - very much democratically! - wanted sharia courts, and nasty executions for their opponents. See sig...

    12. Re:Look who were targetted by the West ? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Gaddafi's regime was destroyed by Lybian rebels, the only thing the UN forces did was ensuring that there are no airstrikes or artillery barrage targeting civilians.

      That's pure bullshit. Until western intervention, Gaddafi's forces were steadily pushing the rebels back. It was only when air strikes decimated his artillery and air - and no, it was not just to "ensure no targeting of civilians", it was against all military targets in Gaddafi's possession. Only then did rebels get the upper hand. Furthermore, there is plenty evidence of air strikes being directly coordinated with rebel ground advances.

      For that matter, you are aware that UN coalition had actually had some of its troops taken prisoner, yes?

    13. Re:Look who were targetted by the West ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      George W Bush was the governor of Texas. Therefore he killed his own people too.

    14. Re:Look who were targetted by the West ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't expect American's to actually stop and think about what these words mean. Sadly.

  59. Blame US (YAWN) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The US invaded with only enough forces to take out Saddam's army, not put down looters and the insurgency that followed. Those of us who actually remember 2003 recalls how the press was whining about how those "cultural heritage sites" were going to be destroyed by looters. They did that because they didn't have the dirt on the actual fighting going on, it being a war and all. The reason why the US was there in the first place is because Iraq is and has been a hellhole full of nutty people and remains one.

    1. Re:Blame US (YAWN) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Iraq is and has been a hellhole full of nutty people and remains one."

      That must be why all the alien abductions happen in the USA then?

  60. Re:U.S. is not to blame. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No, Iraq is worse off now than it was under Saddam. At least under Saddam there was security, basic services, good access to health care, and one of the best education systems in the middle east.

    And a military dictatorship that would use nerve gas on you if you believed the wrong things about the descendant of a man who claimed to talk to god.

    I'm not glorifying the bastard mind you, there were political kidnappings, executions and torture under Saddam. But this hasn't stopped, far from it, there has been an increase in political and ethnic violence, as well as corruption.

    This is generally a result of not nerve gassing those that disagree with you. Democracy is messy.

    In other words, it's better to live under the rule of a ruthless dictator than it is to be "liberated" by the US.

    Spoken by somebody who has never lived in a police state.

    Do I think the US should have gone in to Iraq? No. But to say that the lives of the people won't be better is wrong.

  61. Re:So you'd leave critical infrastructure unguarde by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you think guarding a museum or library is more important than ministries, power plants, and Republican Guard armories

    If you thought that, then why the fuck weren't you getting Bush to do it, since his top priority was to keep oil flowing while insurgents we had to fight for the next decade looted the armories.

  62. Re:U.S. is not to blame. by kirillart · · Score: 1

    Destruction of basic services, good access to health care, and one of the best education systems is a very bad way to make Shia and Sunni equal.

  63. Of Politicians and Sheep by Hercules+Peanut · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We are so quick to condemn the US based on the words of politicians but I sometimes wonder if we can glean the truth from the events.

    One September 11, 2001 the U.S. suffered it's most devastating and deadly attack in history. With the death of over 3,000 U.S. civilians and the destruction of property that will likely never see it's equal, Americans faced an enemy they could not easily identify knowing only their approximate (financial, political, support) origin. The question of the new era was how to fight an enemy without a country, without a standing army. How do you fight an enemy so ruthless that they will slaughter innocent men, women and children without warning and without regard to their own destruction?

    America's response was simple. They invaded the lands of their enemies. The politicians spoke of weapons and camps and funding but the words of politicians are for sheep. Their actions spoke to the enemy. They destroyed armies, killed the leaders of nations and their families and left behind the smoking ruins of two nations as a message to a people never truly swayed by the words of American politicians. "If you attack us, we will lay waste to you. We will destroy your armies, we will destroy your government and we will destroy your past and we will destroy your future. We don't care who among you truly did it. We are sending a message to you all, this is what happens when we are attacked. Consider this while you wonder who among you is next."

    And so America continues to fight a war on two fronts. Politically it insists that it is the world's policeman enforcing justice that mirrors its own enlightened legal system while militarily it responds to the threats of the new world in a way that it believes the new world can understand, ruthlessly, selfishly and decisively. At home, the only place America truly cares about, the words of the politicians sooth those want to be soothed. Others see the actions of the military for what they are, revenge and warning. The rest continue to rail against the U.S. because they have some misplaced and completely unfounded belief that their elected leaders words should somehow match their actions. Over 200 years of history has taught them nothing. The words of politicians are for sheep and the actions of the military, like all great military, are ultimately for destruction.

    1. Re:Of Politicians and Sheep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So 2 planes that were hijacked by mainly Saudi Arabian citizens, Fly into 2 buildings on US soil and the US attacks Iraq.

      Was Bush's geography that bad ??
      Or was it just an excuse to attack a country because of either promise of cheep Oil or "After all, this is the guy who tired to kill my dad." (Bush Campaign speech: September 2002)

    2. Re:Of Politicians and Sheep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like a fat armchair general. Luckily, America's real generals won't attack a country with a serious military, or even nuclear weapons, just for revenge. Because even they understand that WW3 will make EVERYONE lose. Let's hope small minded, gun wielding wanna-be-killers like you will never make important decisions.

    3. Re:Of Politicians and Sheep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > America's response was simple. They invaded the lands of their enemies.

      Wait, what? Insightful? No way... when did the US invade Saudi and how does this explain Iraq? Remember, the 9/11 boys were mostly Saudi, no Iraqis.

      A more likely explanation of the Iraq thing is Saddam's proposed switch from USD to Euro for selling Iraq's oil... the US was happy enough with him until such time as it looked like he was going to serious erode the de-facto standing of the greenback as world currency.

    4. Re:Of Politicians and Sheep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, so by that argument we should have attacked Saudi Arabia, as most of the people involved were Saudi citizens. Oh yeah they are heavily invested in American markets, can't do that. So let's say we are invaded by China because we've defaulted on our debts, should we go after say Russia to make an example? If you are going to make the hawk argument, then we need to get way back on track with not only the clarity of the message but the execution, and the wisdom to know when we can afford to pay for these foreign adventures. If we fail (mainly fail to plan) on these accounts, we may as well stay home and let the world fight it out themselves. If we leverage our strength that is our ability to invent and innovate (supposedly) , then we should be able to be more self sufficient via restructuring of the energy economy as it exists now and then all of the foreign confilcts suddenly are a whole lot less relevent.

       

  64. No conspiracy by zarlino · · Score: 2

    Rather then a conspiracy I interpret the US invasion of oil-rich countries as a kind of "blackmail" for other global competitors like China. Something like: "Hey guys, we control most of the oil. Let's sit and discuss it over."

    --
    Check out my cross-platform apps
    1. Re:No conspiracy by midtowng · · Score: 2

      True. It wasn't a konspiracy. Just indifference. We were only interested in the oil. Everything else just flat out didn't matter.

  65. If oil is the target ... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    Rather then a conspiracy I interpret the US invasion of oil-rich countries as a kind of "blackmail" for other global competitors like China. Something like: "Hey guys, we control most of the oil. Let's sit and discuss it over."

    If oil is one thing what the West is after, look, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, and Bahrain have much more oil than Iraq or Libya

    How come we don't see the West eliminate the leaders of Saudi Arabia, or UAE, or Kuwait, or Bahrain?

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:If oil is the target ... by gatkinso · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Becuase they play ball.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  66. Where was Sharia? by meburke · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It seems to me that there should have been a big pile of detached hands somewhere. Martial Law and Civil Law are still supposed to work together.

    Some people here deride religion, but real religion is good for society as a whole. (This does not mean that it should be imposed on people by Government.) Religion teaches moral values in a way that Law can't, and in the absence of Law, those without moral values will act in ways detrimental to society. Sharia would have been better than no civil law.

    --
    "The mind works quicker than you think!"
    1. Re:Where was Sharia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Morals have nothing to do with religion.
      If it was:
      Then it would be moral to stone your wife to death for sleeping with another. (etc..etc...)
      and
      It would be moral to stop a gang of men raping 2 men by letting them rape your virgin Daughter and Wife instead.

      People find that their Morals are kind of flexible when it comes to religion...

    2. Re:Where was Sharia? by kwikrick · · Score: 1

      Religion teaches moral values in a way that Law can't

      or immoral values... religion can and has been used to indoctrinate people with anything. Anyway, Sharia is not a religion, but a set of laws (inspired by religion, but so is Western law). And laws don't enforce themselves! You need a police and a justice system for that, which Iraq didn't have at the time.

           

      --
      assignment != equality != identity
    3. Re:Where was Sharia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Religion teaches no more about morals than a parent telling their kid to be good or the boogeyman will get them.

      Although this achieves the goal of getting good behavior, there's only so far that attitude can take you. Many of the religious people I've discussed this with aren't even aware of the concept of doing good BECAUSE IT'S GOOD. This is why so many religious people think atheists are all evil. Without a carrot to dangle in front of them, or a boogeyman to punish them (so being good is no longer selfish) they conclude that someone else would just do whatever pleased them with no thought of other people.

    4. Re:Where was Sharia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that teaching moral values requires religion.... exactly never. And religion comes with other behaviors that impact other religions and the non-religious in all sorts of negative ways, great and small.

      Not to mention that religious extremism holds perhaps the greatest potential for harm out of all the human behaviors. Because it is based on no concept that can be argued against. Religious extremism doesn't exist without religion. And, as I said above, you do not need religion to maintain morals in a society.

      Also the presence of law doesn't prevent those without moral values from acting to the detriment of society. They do that even when the law exists. Sometimes even because the law exists. And sometimes those that are without moral value are the ones making the law.

    5. Re:Where was Sharia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems to me that there should have been a big pile of detached hands somewhere. Martial Law and Civil Law are still supposed to work together.

      Some people here deride religion, but real religion is good for society as a whole. (This does not mean that it should be imposed on people by Government.) Religion teaches moral values in a way that Law can't, and in the absence of Law, those without moral values will act in ways detrimental to society. Sharia would have been better than no civil law.

      It was the religious fundamentalists who destroyed them. Western culture and ideas are the Devil, and the second Hussein was not there to enforce "order" they went out and destroyed everything which might be used to educate women or otherwise "corrupt" their culture.

      We couldn't have stopped it, and in fact in many cases we did try to stop it, and in some cases we DID stop it. But when you have a population entirely hostile against you, your primary concerns are food, water, and medical care not books and cultural artifacts which nobody in the culture gives a shit about in the first place.
      Hell, most of the valuable stuff was gone before we ever even got close.

    6. Re:Where was Sharia? by Xarvh · · Score: 1

      "real religion"?
      This is a No True Scotsman fallacy, sir.

      Religion teaches a society to accept Arguments by Authority as valid, and that gullibility (aks "Faith") is a virtue to be arrogantly pursued.
      Both those teachings are proving the bane of a healthy democracy.

  67. Do they ? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Becuase they play ball.

    Do they?

    Who funded Al Queda?

    Who funded the Muslim Brotherhood?

    Who funded the Islamic terrorist network all around the world?

    Give you a hint: Neither Saddam Hussein nor Muammar Gaddafi wanted to have anything to do with those who wanted to convert the whole world under ultra-conservative Islamic dictatorship

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Do they ? by hrvatska · · Score: 4, Informative

      Outside of the oil embargo of 1973, through good times and bad, the Saudis have kept the oil flowing to the west, and that's the ball game that matters. The gulf oil countries didn't care too much about Al Qaeda before 9/11. At least they really didn't seem to care very much if their private citizens funded it. Since then, and especially after 2003, they've come down pretty hard on al-Qaeda, associated organizations, and their supporters.

    2. Re:Do they ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's really weird that a contribution that has only questions and a hint, gets modded informative.

      I feel sad for you.

      You got a brain and yet you refuse to use it.

    3. Re:Do they ? by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Do they?

      Who funded Al Queda?

      Who funded the Muslim Brotherhood?

      Who funded the Islamic terrorist network all around the world?

      That's how they play ball. Their 'funds' provide plausible deniability for the west. It enables the 'our' governments to keep an iron fist on us, imposing austerity, while maintaining their little charade of 'freedom'. Turns out perpetual war is very good business.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    4. Re:Do they ? by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      People from those countries funded those organizations, not the countries themselves.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  68. Re:U.S. is not to blame. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    "Would this have happened if the USA didn't started this illegal war over some oil? ..."

    Perhaps you misunderstood me. I was vocally opposed to the war before it ever started. And since. But that wasn't my point.

    I was referring to "proximate cause", not historical events about which nothing can be done. I am not trying to excuse the U.S. for its acts related to the Iraq war.

    But they still aren't responsible for gangs who take advantage of wartime and pillage others... especially if they weren't even there.

    My personal opinion is that GWB should be in prison at the very least, and Barack Obama hung for treason... but that's just an opinion; I am not threatening anybody or making suggestions.

    However, even they are not responsible for the direct, selfish acts of others. Let's put blame where it is due, but not where it is not. Those locals who committed those acts are responsible for them.

  69. Re:U.S. is not to blame. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    But lack of police still does not excuse criminals for their criminal acts. It might have made it easier for them to be criminals, but criminals they still were.

    In the same sense, courts have held that neglecting to lock your door does not excuse the criminal who walks through it and steals from you. He is still invading your home and stealing; the unlocked door was not a literal invitation.

  70. Re:U.S. is not to blame. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm still waiting too see all that Iraqi petrol come our way...the US is truly incompetent in their attempts to wrangle and steal the black gold.

  71. Re:U.S. is not to blame. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    "The police in your example WOULD be held responsible."

    No, in fact you are quite wrong. At least in the legal sense. Some people might consider them to be responsible, but they would not really be, whether you mean morally, ethically, or legally.

    First, let's get rid of the legal part: the Supreme Court has ruled, in so many words, that the police are under NO obligation to either protect your ass or prevent crime. We rather expect them to, at times, but that is not really part of their job definition. Despite such slogans as "to protect and serve", the "protect" part is not actually a required part of their job.

    Police exist to CATCH criminals who have already committed illegal acts. They are NOT there to protect you. That is a completely unrealistic and unworkable expectation. They try to prevent, when it is convenient for them, but they are not very good at it, nor should they be expected to be. That's just not living in the real world. The logistics simply aren't there.

    As for "protection", it is your right -- and your duty -- to protect yourself. And your family. And your property. Anything else is living in fantasyland.

    If the police in your region CHOOSE to police the Superdome or whatever, by pulling police off the streets, then if you want additional coverage you had better pay a premium for that extra coverage. You don't work for free, and neither do they. The owners and operators of the teams and the stadiums should be footing the bill, because they are the ones who profit from the games. Anything else amounts to a taxpayer subsidy.

  72. Re:Not the US' fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop using logic...you need to connect with your inner anti-imperialist, conspiratorial, American-hating self. Then you will see things more clearly and accept that everything wrong must flow from the Great Satan.

  73. who did the looting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry, but did anyone from the USA do any of the looting, burning, pillaging? Or was that their own people?

  74. Re:U.S. is not to blame. by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

    I never said the criminals are somehow blameless. But if we use your analogy the situation was like this: The US came to the house, ripped out the door then went and has a few pints to drink at the local pub, declaring they had to protect the local dartboard.

    The criminals were still criminals. The US just made it much easier for them to prey on OTHER people.

  75. Re:Books and computers and desks are easy to repla by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I actually prefer the books to have been stolen for profit: that way, they may have made their way into private libraries, and may, in time be recovered.

    On the other hand, books burnt by religious idiots are lost forever.

  76. Blame everybody by Anon8---) · · Score: 1

    The war can be blamed on the U.S, but to blame the looting and destruction of a national institution (by it's own people) on the absence of a foreign military force is just ridiculous.

  77. Re:U.S. is not to blame. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's right - Hitler at least made the trains run on time, right? Don't worry about the opinions of the Jews.

    And don't ask the Kurds about Saddam, either.

    Now, would someone please invoke Godwin's Law and end this absurd discussion. There weren't enough troops to guard every vulnerable site in the country, and in spite of the undeniable value of the universities and other cultural sites, the oil infrastructure is indisputably more critical to the long-term economic health of the country than the other sites. It doesn't mean that the other sites have no, or even little, value - it's a matter of cold, harsh priorities in a situation of limited resources.

  78. Re:Obligatory question by countertrolling · · Score: 1

    No no no... It's, How many Libraries of Alexandria is that?

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  79. Re:U.S. is not to blame. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    Well, then, we have no argument. I'm not going to defend the U.S. government for their acts in the matter. They should never have been there in the first place.

  80. education looting! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'While American troops guarded the Ministries of Oil and the Interior but ignored cultural heritage sites, looters ransacked the universities"

    So its the Americans that looted the univerities? NOT! Iraqs' citizens looted the univeristies. Seems like the people didnt care about their own countrys' cultural sites.

    You cant protect everyone from themself.

  81. Re:U.S. is not to blame. by tibman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was there in Jan 2005 and they had excellent hospitals (and doctors/nurses), an improving police force (that was learning about fingerprinting), and "basic services". I also toured some schools. Want to know what the school teachers told me? That under Saddam they made less than $10 a month, now they make $400 a month. Hmm, that sounds much better. I also had tea with a man who had his Doctorate in Physics but couldn't use a computer.

    The big problems i saw centered around national identity and religions. For them, Family/Tribe was their Country and their town/village their allies. They didn't give a crap about the next town over. I visited a christian community who got along well with neighboring shia and sunni (and vice versa). The shia and sunni would kill each other on occasion for reasons i didn't understand. Most of the time it seemed related to something someone did years ago. The Iraqi people have long memories. Far better than Americans or Germans (the only other People i have lived with and know well).

    As far as infrastructure went. The biggest failure i saw was in gasoline. Citizens would be lined up two days deep waiting in line for fuel. Fuel trucks were attacked/looted in-route to gas stations. Convoys protecting fuel trucks were bombed. You'd think a country like Iraq would have ZERO fuel problems. The second biggest failure was centralized electricity. I saw very little centralized electricity production. Instead of producing at a town/city level it was usually neighborhoods. There would be rat's nests of cables coming out of a generator and going to the nearby homes.

    I'm partial to the Shia myself (who i spent the most time with). But before you say Iraq is worse off (because i doubt you've ever lived there), you should speak with an Iraqi about their views. I have. They have many interesting views on the subject.

    --
    http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
  82. The Blame Game by dlthompson81 · · Score: 0

    So, it's my fault that _you_ destryored _your_ stuff?

    We should be ashamed of ourselves...

  83. Re:U.S. is not to blame. by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

    The entire reason the US went to the region is to steal oil and make it easier to control the area.

    Where is all this Iraqi (or any other ME country's) oil the US supposedly invaded for and "stole"? The US is now out of Iraq and the US still hasn't gotten squat for oil from the place for all their trouble. Where is all this "control" the US supposedly has of the area? I certainly don't see countries in that area under any sort of US "control". Just the opposite, in fact.

    In every single discussion of the US/Middle East, I always see these idiots (yes, you're idiots...own it!) parroting the same lame-assed old "US invaded fer to stealz alla dey're OILZ!! herp-derp!!!" bullshit. Yet, nobody can point to any oil the US has actually stolen. Hell, the US is having trouble even convincing Iraq to sell them any oil at all, even at full price!

    It must be such a wonderfully-freeing experience to not have to bother being accurate, factual, or truthful in any way, shape, or form.

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  84. Re:Books and computers and desks are easy to repla by Oligonicella · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Even at little ol' Kansas University in the middle of the plains in big ol' US of A, the library had priceless antique texts and pictures. I got a feeling that's a little more the case here. Explain how anything you said applies to those.

  85. Thieves priorities by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    When you go to steal, you don't care about the library, you go right after the valuable things, like oil, and then leave to some other to care about the mess.

  86. Once again, the Painted Savages kill knowledge by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

    ...in pursuit of riches.

    Yeah, you all know what I'm talking about. Alexandria: destroyed by the Romans in the name of Democracy.
    The Medieval "Dark Age": following the fall of the Roman Empire, the ten Centuries of zero net scientific and cultural progress, presided over by the Catholic Church; leading some to refer to the Church as the Antichrist (see the Magdeburg Centuries).
    the Inquisition, the Witchfinders and the Pagan Rout: anybody who played with chemicals, built machines, or made proclamations that rubbed against Church sensibilities was mocked, ostracised, and murdered (see: Galileo, Ptolemy, the origin of April Fools' Day, the /current/ Catholic extremism against Pagans...).

    I could go on; there are literally hundreds of examples of years of scientific and cultural progress being destroyed just because someone didn't or didn't want to try, and understand it. ...and the Painted Savages call themselves civilised? I call them anything but. Backwards and doomed would be more apt. Remember the Roman Empire. Look how "civilised" that was. When the Visigoths heave over the ridge, you know your Empire is about to fall. That day is not long in coming.

    --
    Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    1. Re:Once again, the Painted Savages kill knowledge by jbolden · · Score: 1

      the ten Centuries of zero net scientific and cultural progress

      There were not 10 centuries of zero net scientific or cultural progress. There is no question the world was vastly more advanced in 1400 than in 400. You can't really blame the Catholic church for Roman decline prior to about 311. During the 4th and 5th century they helped hold the empire together. They also helped kill pagan culture and deserve condemnation for that.

      During the 6-10th centuries when western culture could easily have died being attacked from 3 sides the church fought with the west and preserved what could be saved. After that, we entered a period of rapid cultural growth and development. It was during the period of time that science was being persecuted and the inquisition was active that European culture was developing rapidly. I think it is possible the church held back the progress, but you can easily make the opposite case.

      Witch hunts were mainly Protestant not Catholic. And the church didn't do anything to Ptolemy.

  87. Looters ransacked the universities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Iraqi looters ransacked the universities. Blame Canada!

  88. oooooooooohh. by unity100 · · Score: 1

    got angry eh, paps. you think the shitty wordage you expended, is going to...... do what, really ? scare me out of my ideas ? irritate me out of posting ?

    im not the one who had lagged behind in vision and humanity. you are. you can go numb-red with rage all you want, see, here i am, posting again, accusing you of not having moved an inch as a person over the decade.

    what are you going to do now ? more rage ?

  89. The late King Hussein of Jordan ? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    Please allow me to introduce the Black September in Jordan -- available at the following url:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September_in_Jordan

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:The late King Hussein of Jordan ? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      While they're track record probably isn't completely spotless, they are by NO definition political despots.

      Which part did you not understand? Do you have something newer and frequent?

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  90. no. by unity100 · · Score: 1

    i dont speak english. so ? what are you gonna do about it ?

  91. I'm confused ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're blaming the US? The looters were American?

  92. Cultural artifacts CANNOT be replaced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    During the first Iraq war, an irreplaceable collection of Fertile Crescent artifacts were destroyed when Bagdad's museums were bombed.
    I knew someone who had worked studying them, and was literally in tears when he heard at what had happened.

  93. Play ball ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Becuase they play ball.

    Need to commend that I agree with Taco Cowboy on the point that the West targeted both Saddam Hussein & Muammar Gaddafi because the West is afraid of having Islamic country being modernized.

    If you go back and read history you would understand that Islam was not always hell-bend to keep themselves backward.

    There was a time of "golden age" for the Islamic civilization - and it's the Muslim who carried on the scientific and mathematics progress they obtained from Europe when Europe itself plunged into almost a total cultural annihilating brought on by the black death.

    That is why the West is determined to keep the Islamic world - especially those inside the Middle East - under control of ass-backward ultra-conservative pray-or-die dictatorships.

    I would also like to bring in one more example of why your argument does not hold water - Iran.

    In 1979, the Shah or Iran was disposed by an Islamic Revolution.

    Before the Shah was overthrown, Iran was one of the most modern Islamic country in the world. Women were permitted to do things that the present women in Saudi Arabia can only dream of.

    Who was the one leading the Islamic revolution against the Shah of Iran?

    Ayatollah Khomeini

    Where was Ayatollah Khomeini residing in before he came back to Iran as the victor?
    France

    And why was France sponsoring Ayatollah Khomeini, a guy whose belief system (on religion, on modernization, on human rights, on democracy, on everything and anything) is totally opposite of what France stood for?

    Perhaps because the West need someone like Ayatollah Khomeini to overthrow someone like the Shah of Iran, so to keep Iran backward?

    Regarding your point of "play ball" ---

    Has Iran under Ayatollah Khomeini or his successors, ever "play ball" with the West?

    Not to my knowledge.

    Does Iran have oil?

    Plenty, more than plenty !

    Why then the West never eliminate Ayatollah Khomeini and/or his successors?

    Because as long as the current Iranian regime keep Iran (and Iranians) under unbelievably backward stage, they are doing exactly what the West wants them to do - to keep the Islamic countries (including Iran) backward.

    Please don't diss other people's opinion just because you haven't have time to think over this matter, or you do not have the capacity to understand the intricacies of the many things that are involved.

    1. Re:Play ball ? by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 1

      I'm still confused - why don't we want Muslims to modernize? Africa and Asia I understand, because we get cheap sneakers and cell phones, but labor costs in the Middle East are completely detached from what we pay for oil.

      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
    2. Re:Play ball ? by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      Visit the region. You will find out who doesn't want anything modernized in short order.

      I'll give you a hint : it's not some ghostly foreign influence.

    3. Re:Play ball ? by grainofsand · · Score: 2

      I agree with all you say and I commend you for arguing it as well as you have.

      But you have forgotten the centerpiece when it comes to understanding the relationship between Iran and the rest of the world.

      Israel.

      Add that complexity to your points above and you have a much fuller picture.

      --
      A dream is good. A plan is better.
  94. Couple of points by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1. Afghanistan is not at the center of the Islamic world

    The center of the Islamic world is in the Middle East.

    Afghanistan is situated at the peripheral, not only geographically but also in terms of influence

    2. What happened in Afghanistan that led to the invasion by America (and the West) is Omar, the leader of Taliban, permitted Osama bin Laden to use Afghanistan as a base for Al Queda, and Al Queda, for one reason or another, decided to launch 9/11 on America because America is nothing but a pussy.

    Before Al Queda, before 9/11, America never touch Afghanistan. In fact, America (and the West) aided the Taliban (among other Mujahideen groups) in their rebel against the former USSR.

    3. About Libya,

    Please do not delude yourself that Gaddafi was removed by the "Libyan rebels" alone.

    The world saw what happened there and we all know who was doing what.

    Those "Libyan rebels" were nothing without the help from the Western powers.

    And please do respect the intellect of other Slashdot users - please do not substitute "The Western Power" with "UN Forces"

    Thank you !

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Couple of points by Hentes · · Score: 0

      Afghanistan is not at the center of the Islamic world The center of the Islamic world is in the Middle East.

      The center of the Islamic world are Indonesia, Pakistan and India.

      What happened in Afghanistan that led to the invasion by America (and the West) is Omar, the leader of Taliban, permitted Osama bin Laden to use Afghanistan as a base for Al Queda, and Al Queda, for one reason or another, decided to launch 9/11 on America because America is nothing but a pussy.

      This is mostly true, but my point was that it doesn't fit in your conspiracy theory.

      And please do respect the intellect of other Slashdot users - please do not substitute "The Western Power" with "UN Forces"

      You seem to be uninformed: the NATO got the blessing of both the UN and the Arab League.

      Please do not delude yourself that Gaddafi was removed by the "Libyan rebels" alone...Those "Libyan rebels" were nothing without the help from the Western powers.

      The only help Western powers gave was the implementation of the no-fly zone and the naval blockade. The NATO didn't help any side, all they did was even the playfield and prevent civilian losses. The only support the rebels got was from Egypt.

    2. Re:Couple of points by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

      Afghanistan is not at the center of the Islamic world The center of the Islamic world is in the Middle East.

      The center of the Islamic world are Indonesia, Pakistan and India.

      You're right, of course.

      I forgot that the Muslim pay pilgrimage to Jakarta, not Mecca !!

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    3. Re:Couple of points by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Ah, let's flip this argument. What's the center of the Christian world? Rome?

  95. Earth Abides by dcollins · · Score: 1

    "By April 12, the campus of yellow-brick buildings and grassy courtyards was stripped of its books, computers, lab equipment and desks. Even electrical wiring was pulled from the walls. What was not stolen was set ablaze, sending dark smoke billowing over the capital that day."

    That sounds a lot like one of the scariest scenes in Earth Abides.

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  96. Calling Scientific Community by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As long as they still have their most important things: their professors and students, all is not lost:

    1. get back on the Internet
    2. set up a site with what equipment you need
    3. have the scientific community donate whatever they can spare (this is not 'begging' this is emergency care)
    4. cooperate with these universities; guest lectures back and forth, etc.
    5. PROFIT: everybody wins!

  97. University? Redundant by paiute · · Score: 1

    If the data is in the Koran, then the University backup is not necessary. If there is data not in the Koran, then that data can be deleted.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  98. Re:Books and computers and desks are easy to repla by anyanka · · Score: 2

    Assuming you can even find the stolen books and texts online (with Baghdad being a major center of learning and knowledge while Europe was in the Dark Ages, you can be pretty sure that they might have had a few irreplaceable texts) , do you have any idea how much modern publishers charge for online access to journals? It's expensive enough to be a major issue even for universities in the richest countries.

    And regarding replacing equipment and rebuilding, that's assuming Hallibu–sorry, the Iraqi people–prioritize rebuilding their universities over restoring order, getting oil production on track, and rebuilding the completely fucked up basic infrastructure.

  99. Relevance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh no, some buildings were destroyed. I guess that's more important than the estimated >100,000 dead as a result of direct violence and another >1mil dead as a result of indirect consequences of war. [iraqbodycount.org] Excuse me while I don't shed a tear for some leaky pipes.

  100. Did it produce anything? by Coward+Anonymous · · Score: 0

    Did this "great university system" produce anything except for some U.S bashing fodder for this author. Things like research, publications or anything of an academic nature?

    I'd bet nobody here on /. can point to more than a couple Iraqi university academic papers. I'd be genuinely surprised if anyone could point to one.

  101. Another way to look at it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looters are looters, and occupiers are occupiers.

    The Geneva Conventions were created as a direct response to the European world wars in which the U.S. participated, both as a combatant and mediator of justice during the Nuremburg trials. There is NO credible excuse for the failure of occupying forces NOT to have planned for and executed their responsibilities in this regard. And the military developed and carried out plans to do just that in the years following WWII. But by the time Rumsfeld, et al, were in charge, the U.S. exercised no care for civilians whatsoever. They spent more money on propaganda, some of it on the form of staged, on-site, news-like, made for TV blurbs that were distributed directly to U.S. snewz networks and broadcast without attribution or verification by GE, Disney, CNN, Turner and the like.

    The Bush administration's plan was transparent. They threw the entire country into chaos and awarded contracts to politically connected companies to 'rebuild' what they wantonly destroyed. There was no regard for anything but the profiteering; that is the Bush family legacy. It has also been the modus operandi of every colonial (or globalizing) force in history. Thomas Barnett puts this into stark but softened perspective in his book, The Pentagon's New Map, and there used to be a very interesting video presentation on the topic wherein he states that he had brief the Joint Chief as well as certain members of Congress and Cabinet.

    Of course someone had to actually engage in the theft and low-level destruction, but there's no denying the overall effects and outcomes were devastating to the Iraqi people and the magnitude of the offense went far beyond simple looting or that much out the resultant civil war could been avoided if the U.S. had cared to exercise due diligence. After all, we heard "rule of law" from the spokespersons carrying the party line all too often to be able to excuse the ignorance with which the Bushies carried out their grand plan.

  102. viewpoints, viewpoints ... by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

    I guess that while you're correct, launching a few attempted religious extermination campaigns against Jews (and gays, and orphans, and ...) every now and then is par for the course for muslims, it's still not considered acceptable behaviour everywhere ...

  103. Attribution by guttentag · · Score: 1

    The Slashdot summary and the article it links to both got the name of the original story's author wrong. It's "Rajiv Chandrasekaran." He's a somewhat noteworthy reporter because for slashdotters because he was The Washington Post's lead reporter covering the Microsoft Antitrust Trial in DC. He practically lived in that courtroom during the trial.

  104. Mayhem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The thing is, pre-war government in Irak kept the most dangerous local Islamic trends under control. They went wild since the invasion, destroying everything deemed unholy and driving hundreds of thousands of Christians and Zoroastrians out of the country.

  105. insightful?? more like troll or flamebait by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    wow, I might not agree with the brass up top, but fuck you dude, you are the true scumbag.The troops have to follow orders and like it or not, we do have the best military in the world. Whoever modded this insightful should be ashamed of themselves.

    i know i know dont feed the trolls, but when other trolls mod the trolls wrong it needs to be said

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  106. Re:Books and computers and desks are easy to repla by CRCulver · · Score: 1

    Assuming you can even find the stolen books and texts online (with Baghdad being a major center of learning and knowledge while Europe was in the Dark Ages, you can be pretty sure that they might have had a few irreplaceable texts)

    Historians no longer use the term "Dark Ages" and haven't for decades. Late antiquity and the early medieval era were more complicated than that. Furthermore, you seem to be overlooking that half of Europe was the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire, where there the tradition of popular literacy and classical learning lasted through the whole era.

    While Baghdad no doubt continued to have a few important texts, the majority of the work achieved when Baghdad was a centre of learning was already destroyed during the Mongol Siege of Baghdad in 1258.

  107. A Barrel's Worth 1000 Words by Bemopolis · · Score: 1

    Well, be fair — we invaded to get their oil, not their books.

    --
    "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
  108. might sound like a dick, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    where were they to defend their own universities?

    so afraid of your own countrymen? clearly cant be only the outsiders fault.

  109. Take it back to the very beginning: by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

    Take it back to the very beginning: that damn snake in the Garden of Eden.

    I'm kidding. It was Eve. Or God. Or the apple. Or somebody's fault for every mess ever. But not mine.

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  110. Re:U.S. is not to blame. by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

    Mod this +6 interesting! Thanks for posting your eyewitness view of things.

  111. The Baha'is Are Trying To Help! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://iran.bahai.us/denial-of-education/
    Follow the links and help!

  112. idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Hugh Gusterson ... puts most of the blame for its total collapse on the U.S. Quoting: 'While American troops guarded the Ministries of Oil and the Interior but ignored cultural heritage sites, looters ransacked the universities'"....

    Gee, the US did all this looting? It's the US's fault that a people, oppressed for years by an evil dictator and misguided religion decided to loot their own infrastructure? How about the blaming the looters? Oh, no.. it can't be there fault. the US MADE them do it.

    When did people stop using common sense?

  113. fun with freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Low Point â" a View from the Valley â" Column 11
    The Land of "Nothing for free"

    On the map, Laguna Niguel looks like a beautiful Pacific coastal area south of Los Angeles, a little like one of my favorite spots Monterey, south of San Francisco. But I forgot; this is Los Angeles, where the brown haze of the air lies like a thick blanket over the insane sprawl of "Generica". It's an endless landscape of McDonalds, strip-malls and gas stations familiar to anyone who has seen the movie "Ghost World". Nothing is free here. You pay for parking (nothing but valet available), driving on toll roads, access to much of the beach (private). If they could figure out how to charge for the air I'm sure there'd be meters every block or so. It's a fitting home for the entertainment industry.

    I was down there to give a talk on "Open Source Business Models" for a conference. Also represented were entertainment industry lawyers, "Big Telecom" management, and a smattering of software people. Microsoft was there of course. You can't hold a church fete with "Open Source" on the banner these days without Microsoft turning up and requesting representation. At least we also had Bruce Perens on our side to help make up the balance. The venue was an unbelievably expensive hotel. Even though I was on expenses I balked at asking the company to pay for a room there and found something cheaper (not by much) a few miles down the road.

    Along with the collection of apologists for the "ultimate evils" (tm) of Hollywood and Telephone companies there were some very interesting presentations. A Japanese telecoms researcher made all the software people jealous by describing the idyllic state of broadband in Japan, where providers vie to sell gigabit fiber-optic pipes to the home. Yes, you read that right, Gigabit. The obvious question was asked; "what do people use all that bandwidth for" and the less than obvious answer was that they use it for all the same things people in less bandwidth-friendly countries do, they just do more of it. I could see a collective shudder pass through the entertainment industry people. They knew what that meant.

    A keynote by Lawrence Lessig made the point even further. He showed a series of "mash-ups" of copyrighted material which were incredibly creative and funny. All completely illegal and currently being hunted off the Internet by entertainment industry lawyers. One of the most amusing asides was from a Walt Disney legal reply to a parent requesting "fair use" rights to use some clips from a Disney movie to put in his home video. He pleadingly promised them it was meant only for family viewing. "We currently deny all requests to use our material....". Even if you are impudent enough to ask, the answer is always no. At least one of the other studios replied that the current commercial rate was $700 to use a 30 second clip. I can see that being popular amongst parents making home movies. He also covered the current patent quagmire. A very interesting fact from his talk was that the total unit cost for a Chinese manufacturer to build a DVD player was around $26. However the total royalty fees they have to pay to western companies for the patent rights to build a player is $21 per unit, thus completely eliminating any profit they might make. No wonder the Chinese are currently creating their own digital video standard, completely incompatible with Western ones. It's the only thing that makes economic sense for them. This is almost certainly behind the Chinese refusal to use the new WiFi standards for wireless devices also.

    I ended up making myself unpopular by publicly attacking the Washington-based economist who'd advised the Clinton Administration on "Intellectual Property" issues. It's a very personal issue for me as it affects my everyday life and work, so when he made the statement that "strengthening the patent system leads to more innovation for everyone" I saw red. He doesn't write software of course. I tried to explain later in private that it would be like people being a

  114. Cheap books by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Used books are cheap these days because people are switching to eReaders and emptying out their bookshelves. Textbooks that are one or more edition behind are especially cheap. Perhaps they just need an organized donation program.

  115. Sorry, but the Iraqi people are to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, but the Iraqi people are to blame for damages and looting.
    Every society has an underground of nasty people. We've seen this after natural disasters around the world ... except perhaps in Japan where almost all of the people have too much honor to steal, IME.

    USA has looters and thieves, that's for certain. They come out after stupid national title games.

    It will take a few generations, if not more, for children to be taught right from wrong again in Iraq. THAT is the legacy that the people currently living in Iraq should try to leave their children - that and a non-theistic society, but only the Iraqi people can make this happen. They need their own Ben Franklin's, Thomas Henry's, James Madisons, and George Washington's to step up now. The rest of the world can't help.

    Anyone who thinks outsiders can help are mistaken. Even money from outside will be seen as a negative thing there, especially if it is directed towards specific infrastructure.

  116. Winning at life by halfkoreanamerican · · Score: 1

    I suppose it's our fault that they are middle Eastern, since everything else is our fault. I guess you can't win at everything in life.

  117. If you are trying to be cute ... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    ... trust me, you are not.

    Unlike the Muslims, who are obliged to go to Mecca for pilgrimage at least once in a lifetime, Christians are not

    Until you understand the difference between Islam and Christianity, please do not even try to be cute

    Thank you

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  118. Why the oil fields were protected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone derping about how the US only protected the oil fields because all the US cared about was oil should consider a simpler explanation:

    The first time the US et al invaded (to liberate Kuwait), Saddam SET FIRE to all of the oil wells. There was a clear and obvious history of his scorched earth policy. It absolutely makes sense to make prevention of a similar act a priority. There were black clouds of smoke and polluted fallout from the Kuwait oil fires for a long time.

    That the US didn't anticipate other acts of self-destruction by Iraqis was simply a failure of imagination. Not to be excused ... but there's no need to attribute malice and conspiracy to failure to protect museums.

  119. Re:U.S. is not to blame. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Iraqi oil is still in the ground in Iraq because decades of sanctions and war have left the extraction, transport, and refining infrastructure outdated and broken. Who gets to fix all that and who actually handles the oil and money are being fought about bitterly in both Iraqi politics and worldwide governmental and oil business circles.

  120. US profits by overshoot · · Score: 1

    The US didnt make any money from the invasion

    I didn't say that the US taxpayers made money. Please don't tell me that you don't think anyone did.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
  121. Confused ? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm still confused - why don't we want Muslims to modernize? Africa and Asia I understand, because we get cheap sneakers and cell phones, but labor costs in the Middle East are completely detached from what we pay for oil.

    The issue regarding the suppression on Middle Eastern Islamic countries (and the people) via despotic tyronnical regimes started long before the so-called "Rise of the East"

    You gotta understand, long before World War I and World War II, the European countries had already had countless experiences on regional conflicts - from the conquer of Alexander the Great and his army to the various crusades to the Moors' conquer on Spain and Ottoman Empire's hold on many eastern European countries

    From the above regional conflicts, the West got to know the people living just south east of Europe - the Middle Eastern/Persian tribes, and their very very aggressive (which often is on the verge of ruthlessness) Middle Eastern culture

    That is why the one thing that keeps the West awakes at night after night, throughout the past millennium, wasn't India, wasn't Japan, wasn't even China, but the following:

    "How to keep the Middle Eastern barbarians so busy that they do not have time to invade us"

    After the disastrous World War II, the West had a common understanding - Make it so that the Middle East is mired in their own problems that they couldn't muster any effort to fight the West

    As we can see, after the establishment of the United Nations, Middle East had plunged into one bloody conflict after another

    And the regimes who hold power in the Middle Eastern countries ?

    Either they are of the lunatic Islamic fringe - those ultra-conservative anti-modernists

    Or they are of the Western puppets variety - such as the Anwar Sadat / Mubarak regime of Egypt, and the Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali regime of Tunisia

    All these were designed so that no one would blame the West for what happens in Middle East.

    After all, the West can publicly wash their hand clean and put all the blame squarely at those lunatic Muslims and their apparatus

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  122. Amazing these propaganda fumes got modded up by Burz · · Score: 2

    I'm glad posters with views that twisted feel a need to post as AC and hide behind the anonymous mod system. That makes them jingoists and cowards.

    The only thing the US can be blamed for is naïveté.

    Acting out a pattern of violence over decades, especially for gain, is never associated with being naive. Not among the civilized or the sane.

    As for making stuff up, I would put Klein's veracity against that of commentators commonly found on Wall St media outlets between 2002 and 2008. Start with yellowcake (made up), aluminum tubes (made up), photos of massed troops near Saudi border (made up in Photoshop). Going both forward and backward in time, there are numerous fabrications and deliberate distortions, some of them created by public relations (propaganda) firms for media consumption. Almost any lie about this years new-new-enemy or old-new enemy is uncritically flogged as gospel and real evidence is shut out until its too late.

    And most people around the world now know this.

    Much as you like to insist the US gets the benefit of the doubt and retain some deranged aura of innocence, I gotta tell you that by and large people who are not directly subjected to the US culture are not buying your freeper-apologist "violent-and-innocent-oh-well" schtick. It doesn't go over very well in this country, either.

  123. Not the first time by urusan · · Score: 1

    This isn't the first time that Iraq's once-great universities have been destroyed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Baghdad_(1258)

  124. Victim of the same circumstance by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2

    There was this one guy, but the CIA managed to replace him with a monarchy.

    Mr. Mosaddegh's demise fits the pattern to a "T".

    As long as someone / or some organization determines to modernize any Middle Eastern Islamic country, it's a safe bet that that particular "someone" has written a death wish with his own blood

    26 years after CIA replaced Mr. Mosaddegh with a monarchy, the West kicked out the same monarchy because the Shah made the same fatal mistake as Mr. Mosaddegh

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  125. Re:U.S. is not to blame. by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

    Who gets to fix all that and who actually handles the oil and money are being fought about bitterly in both Iraqi politics and worldwide governmental and oil business circles.

    So you're saying that I'm correct. The US isn't "stealing" Iraq's oil. Iraq's government is shopping deals. That isn't what happens when one nation invades another to "steal" resources by force.

    So, did you have a point other than reinforcing mine? I ask because sometimes it's hard to tell when somebody is agreeing with you, or is actually trying to make a counter-argument, but just making a poor job of it.

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  126. Re:U.S. is not to blame. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > That under Saddam they made less than $10 a month, now they make $400 a month.

    How much did the cost of living go up? Do they now have to pay for things that used to be provided for free? etc. etc. more cash in the pocket does not equal better living standards

  127. Private education to the rescue! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another public education system destroyed: an ecological niche for private .edu. Yay! How convenient!

  128. Iraq was never linked to 9/11 by vleo · · Score: 1

    I don't know what is "insightful" about this comment, other then that is US Govt. propaganda.

    9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq, Libya and Iran.

    But in the "1984" world of the US propaganda you never know what past may turn out to be in the future....

    --
    Vassili Leonov ...it is the actions that affect us, not the motive...RMS
  129. I'm going to get slammed for this by jbolden · · Score: 1

    I sure I'm going to get slammed for saying this. I think it is fair to blame the west for the destruction of Iraqi universities that happened in 2003. However, a decade later we multiple attempts to try and rebuild Iraq.

    1) It wasn't Americans that were backing Al Quida in Iraq and opposing the occupation.
    2) It wasn't Americans that decided to have a religious civil war.
    3) It wasn't Americans that decided to develop closer ties with Iran that had interests in preventing stabilization under the United States.

    The people who decided they wanted George Bush to fail so much they were willing to trash their own country were the Iraqis. I understand why, lots of people don't like occupation governments and George Bush was an occupier right out of a comic book. But I think at this point the US should take credit for having done their best to try and pacify the country and whatever failures there are came from a the Iraqi people's "better to rule in hell than serve in heaven" attitude.

  130. Re:U.S. is not to blame. by tibman · · Score: 1

    I would say because of the upheaval that living was different. For some it would be higher and for some lower. Judges pay remained about the same. Police pay was reorganized. It use to be that a traffic cop (people ignore stop lights but respect a man standing in the middle of the street) was a higher position than a patrolman. The government pays for all their jobs. It's just that the new government respects the importance of education more than the old government. Honestly though, i don't have a firm enough grasp on the differences of living in Iraq under Saddam and after he was gone to answer your question well. But i can say that they were very happy to be getting good pay. Both for the money and the respect given them by the government.

    --
    http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
  131. Re:U.S. is not to blame. by jbolden · · Score: 1

    In other words, it's better to live under the rule of a ruthless dictator than it is to be "liberated" by the US.

    No ask Puerto Rico, Panama, Japan, Germany, France, Morocco. It quite often is better to be liberated by the United States. In Iraq the US failed, the people simple refused to cooperate in building a post liberation society.

  132. Protecting the Iraqis from themselves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US is responsible for Iraqis looting and pillaging their own? Did the US hold guns to their heads and make them do it?

  133. fuck yeah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AMEERRRIIIICCAAAAA, AMMMMMEEEERRRRIIIIICCCAAAA.

    "...Sportsmanship! (fuck yeah?), Books! *silence*"

    Coming again to save absolutely nothing for anyone but themselves.

  134. Bulls on Parade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I walk the corner to the rubble that used to be a library, line up to the mind cemetary now.

  135. libraries of Alexandria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the sacking of the libraries of Alexandria, where Cleopatra studied seem to be re-burned in every war. its a shame that some religions want to keep knowledge from people. sometimes i wonder if silver halide particles were present and somehow a photograph was burned in a flash and inside some rock somewhere are the antiquities foundations of the arts, sciences, human endeavors and encouragement to change. its not lost, the Akashic records are burned into our genes and chromosomes; we just need an organic quantum computer wired to our bodies to access it