Punishing the French

[Undertoad]

The "shifting rationales" are a media creation, just like the "quagmire" that happened after one week of war.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The U.S. let looters run through the country and take anything they could get their hands on

Your right. We should have machine gunned those damn civilians.
That would have made Ms Garafolo correct.

[elSicomoro]

It seems to me that the COW was unprepared for the widespread looting...at least on the scale that it occurred.

[Undertoad]

They allowed the looting of the palaces. The looting at the museum was vastly overstated at the start; it turns out that a lot of the material was stashed away in private homes in anticipation of the war.

[smoothmoniker]

UT, I've heard that also, but haven't found any follow-ups. Got any links?

-sm

[ScottSolomon]

I am talking more specifically about the LOOTING OF THE RADIOACTIVE WASTE REPOSITORY - AS IN THE ARTICLE I LINKED (damn cellar needs to color their links)

Here

The term "dirty bomb" springs to mind.

I was also talking about the looting of the hospitals

Here

Now both sets of looting tend to indicate a bit of a lax attitude about maintaining security in Iraq shortly after the shooting war ended. But what is really telling about our aims in Iraq - is that we had the forethought to protect the ministry of oil.

We should not shoot the looters - or the protestors as we did here.

But we should have tried to prohibit SOME looting. Troops were just looking the other way as the country got trashed.

that led Ms Garafolo to wring her hands over 500,000 possible civilian casualties

I love that you through out a straw progressive as a spokesperson for all progressives everywhere. I can then assume that all republicans hold Kelsey Grammer and Jason Priestly's point of view on all issues. Lame.

Jeanine is very passionate, but she really does not have the best grasp of history or a great proclivity for rhetorical mudslinging - but of course that is why the Rethugnican media toss her on the air. They stack her up against generals, professional pundits, and right-wing "scholars" so that the folks at home can marvel at how well the other guests tear apart Garafolo's arguments. Though I love her dearly and I agree with her take on most of this, I feel that she was not adequately prepared to fight off the onslaught of the right-wing media.

If they would have put someone like Chalmers Johnson, Ralph Nader, or Noam Chomsky on to argue the opposing point of view, the audience would have seen a more complex arrangement of the possible pitfalls of the war with Iraq.

Massive civilian casualties was simply one of many possible negative scenarios.


Here are some more


The whole point was, the risk was pretty high that the outcome may put us at more risk than the action. We all knew that 9-11 was really payback for Iraq/Saudi Arabia/Palestine. It is only a matter of time before another such attack occurs (unless of course BushCo actually knew much more than they say they did - and they allowed 9-11 to happen [I hope not]). We did not want Iraq to end up being a cause for rallying the terrorist sentiment throughout the Muslim worlds. We were also leery about spending enormous GOBS of money providing contracts for Bechtel and Halliburton - while our economy is running at a deficit. We were leery about taking on 2 nation building tasks in rabidly Muslim - anti-American countries like Afghanistan and Iraq.

We were upset that Bush needed to lie to have his war. We were upset that Bush dismissed the rest of the world to pursue his war. We were upset that Iraq's NBC weapons - if he had any - would have been sold to the highest bidder BECAUSE we were going to attack. We were upset that Bush never seemed to be aware of any other concern - than his specious argument for war.

In the first gulf war, at leapt 100,000 civilians eventually died. Most of the dead came from disease exacerbated by Iraq's destroyed infrastructure. If Iraq used the NBC weapons Bush said he had, the death toll could easily have topped 500,000. Baghdad is a city of 5 million.

And now that the actual number is actually even lower than Saddam's regime would have effectively killed during the same time period as the war, some people should be wondering where the hell they dropped their moral compass.

You don't know that yet. The Iraq occupation has just begun and more people are still dying. If the Shias decide to rise up in protest of our lack of enthusiasm for their desires for autonomy, we will see more deaths. If the Kurds get squirrelly, you might see Turkey want to fight.

You are crowing about the one thing in this war that everybody on every side agreed would happen. We all knew the U. S. would trounce Saddam's troops like Oscar De La Hoya beating down a local grade school bully.

the anti-war folks believed that Saddam DID have NBC

You see, unlike the right-wing peanut gallery, many of us actually researched the issue and we did not all agree upon the same reason for not going to war. Many different people presented many different reasons why war with Iraq might be a bad idea.

I personally do not feel that the few hyper-industrialized states should be the only states to be able to maintain stockpiles of NBC weapons. I think that states like Iraq should not be allowed to possess nuclear arms - but that is only because it is an actual weapon of mass destruction ( unlike bio and chem weapons). I do not think it is a reasonable to wage a war for chemical or bio weapons - since the weapons can be manufactured anywhere and they are militarily ineffective. The chemical weapons - would have killed a lot of innocent people if they were deployed, and I did not think this was worth the risk.

I thought the inspections should have been allowed to continue - and that as the inspectors found materials, they would continue to destroy them. If Iraq challenged the issue, then I think the UNSC would have authorized force and we would be splitting the bill for Iraq - while maintaining international credibility.

Admittedly this is an imperfect solution to a problem we started in the first place, but it would have allowed us to maintain some semblance of credibility, justification, and legitimacy. It would also have kept the burden of Iraq out of the debts of our children and grandchildren.

Either of which, alone, would be excellent grounds to go to war

Spoken like a man who has never seen a war. I am not saying that I am a box of experience either, but from what I have seen and read in my limited scope, war is a pretty shitty experience. It hardly ever turns out in the way people anticipate, and it has costs in treasure and blood that can be immense. I do not think that we should be launching war with another nation unless they prove to be an actual, imminent threat - as outlined by the founders of this country. Iraq was no imminent or actual threat.

I think you drank a little too much of uncle Karl's kool aid.

It's far more interesting just to see who thinks what and why.

I agree wholeheartedly. None of what we say really matters. I hope I don't seem overly adversarial. My wife tells me I get too upset about this shit.

Bottom line: I think Bush sold this war as one thing, executed it as another, then gloated about it as something else still. I do not think the Secretary of State should lie to the U.N. I do not think a president should used known forgeries as a reason to start a war. I do not like the way that Bush is trying to insinuate that "Since I wuz raaaaight 'bout EYE rak, Im raaaight 'bout the jobsngrowth tax cut."

I am sorry if a sometimes seem a little shrill.

[Undertoad]

Overstating the looting

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/01/in...al/01MUSE.html

BAGHDAD, Iraq, April 30 — Even though many irreplaceable antiquities were looted from the National Museum of Iraq during the chaotic fall of Baghdad last month, museum officials and American investigators now say the losses seem to be less severe than originally thought.

Col. Matthew F. Bogdanos, a Marine reservist who is investigating the looting and is stationed at the museum, said museum officials had given him a list of 29 artifacts that were definitely missing. But since then, 4 items — ivory objects from the eighth century B.C. — had been traced.

"Twenty-five pieces is not the same as 170,000," said Colonel Bogdanos, who in civilian life is an assistant Manhattan district attorney.

[Undertoad]

Scott, you really don't improve your case when you continue to post the pre-war hysterics that didn't happen, especially in your pre-war hysterical voice.

And now that the actual number is actually even lower than Saddam's regime would have effectively killed during the same time period as the war,

You don't know that yet.

The left used to be against torture, summary execution, totalitarialism, etc. Now they make excuses for it.

And it's disgusting and foul, and I'm calling you on it.

Look at yourself. The delight of the Iraqi people is invisible to you, as are the almost-daily discoveries of the mass graves and torture chambers of the Hussein era.

You are believing every negative media report you hear in a desperate struggle to paint the US as the bad guys. The media is more than happy to paint every negative thing that happens in glorious colors for you. You lap it up with delight.

You have come to believe that there is a possibility of further violence that will lead to a greater number of civilian deaths than has happened so far. All I can say is: wow. Wow. The WAR part that you feared so well is DONE now and none of the shit you thought would go down did go down, but you still want to find the disaster that you are certain is just around the corner.

And they say the pro-war people are bloodthirsty.

All I can say is: put your money down, sucker... what odds will you give me?

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Undertoad
The left used to be against torture, summary execution, totalitarialism, etc. Now they make excuses for it.

You made a comment similar to this on March 27th.

And I am going to reply with the same thing I did before: That's an awfully broad brush you're using, don't you think?

You have some folks on the left that are making this more about a vendetta against Bush than about being against an Iraqi war. Sure...some folks would like nothing more than to see Bush fail. The last thing I wanted to see is the US fuck up in this war, b/c of our standing in the world (real or perceived). Overall, I'd give him a C+/B- on the war...how the aftermath is handled could make that grade rise or fall.

I am of the left. I am against torture, summary execution, and totalitarianism. But I also agree with what Griff stated on April 10th. And even if most of the looting was done at the palaces, imagine how much money could have been raised by putting all those items on display (either at the palaces or on tours to art museums)? Oil doesn't last forever, art--if carefully preserved--can.

Sorry, but I feel the "I told you so" in the distance, and I think many of the concerns raised from pre-war to now--even if they did not come to fruition--were/are legitimate.

[juju]

Are you really a leftist? I thought you were more towards the center?

Nah, he's lefty. Dumb bastard.

[elSicomoro]

I wouldn't say that I am a leftist...more like a realistic liberal. I'm generally pro-business and pro-guns, but other than that, I'm pretty much on the left on most other things.

[Undertoad]

I know we're beating some old ground here, but Scott hasn't seen it and I'm tired of coming up with new analogies and bon mots for stuff we've already gone over. And over.

Now I'm a little confused, though, because

I am of the left.

but

I wouldn't say that I am a leftist...

I'm not sure what to draw from this. But I guess it gives me a free out: hey man, I wasn't talking about YOU, I was talking about LEFTISTS.

[Undertoad]

On the matter of "I told you so", this is part of being thick-headed and trying to walk a thin line: I'm not very perceptive and so I generally don't know when I'm being an asshole. The other part is Scott's missing our history, I think; I want to say look, dammit, I said all this last October and December and February.

[Griff]

Originally posted by sycamore

I am of the left. I am against torture, summary execution, and totalitarianism.

"of the" meaning educated by/ majority of thought naturally derived from the left?

I don't think we want to link torture etc.. with the right. We prolly agree that those are indicative of authoritarian regimes both left and right.