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."'"
Some have even suggested that it was on purpose.
.. 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?
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.
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.
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.
"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.
Just goes to prove that knowledge wants to be free.
Those ARE the looters... Hence they where protecting some oilfields instead of the citizens they came to 'free'.
has done wonders in the past....
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
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.
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"
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.
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.
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...
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.
Read radical news here
"You require more vespene gas"
and, sadly, "my life for Aiur!"
"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.
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"
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.
"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."
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?
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,
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,
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.
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,
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.
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.
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'?
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?
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.
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.
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.
"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?
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.
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...
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.
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. :/
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.
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
before they make conclusions.
you, obviously, did not even bother to read the article.
in the university system. they should be thanked, and perhaps given high paying 'security consultant' jobs.
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.
now reconstruct all the priceless, 5000+ years old world heritage that was looted and destroyed in those museums.
Read radical news here
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
Read radical news here
I see you read the bit in TFA that described how gender equality in Iraqi universities was better than in Princeton.
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.
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 !
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.
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.
This is generally a result of not nerve gassing those that disagree with you. Democracy is messy.
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.
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.
Psh, details.
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.
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
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 !
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!"
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 !
"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.
You break it you bought it. If you want to go around fucking up other peoples countries accept the blame like an adult.
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.
"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.
I'm sorry, but did anyone from the USA do any of the looting, burning, pillaging? Or was that their own people?
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.
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.
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.
No no no... It's, How many Libraries of Alexandria is that?
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
...in pursuit of riches.
Yeah, you all know what I'm talking about. Alexandria: destroyed by the Romans in the name of Democracy. /current/ Catholic extremism against Pagans...).
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
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.
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 ?
Read radical news here
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 !
i dont speak english. so ? what are you gonna do about it ?
Read radical news here
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.
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. 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 !
"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
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
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.
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 ...
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Mod this +6 interesting! Thanks for posting your eyewitness view of things.
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.
Table-ized A.I.
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.
... 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 !
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,
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 !
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.
This isn't the first time that Iraq's once-great universities have been destroyed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Baghdad_(1258)
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 !
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.
Still, the end result is that being of one religion or the other was, generally speaking, not sufficient reason to get killed.
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.
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
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.
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
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.