I am not too sure what to make of the carnage of ancient artifacts and manuscripts at the various museums in Baghdad. One's first natural instinct is of cours to criticise the people that set fire to these libraries. This isa perfectly reasonable course of thought. However, one has to put in context that these people have been slowly separated from their history for nearly four generations since the influence of the British in Iraq. So for a lot of people, there is not much importance attached to these artifacts and manuscripts. As well, to many, all buildings that belonged to the government, regardless of what they were, were a sign of oppression. Regardless, it is the people who set fire that are directly responsible for its destruction and should be held to account by the Iraqis.
On a more philosophical note, it is unimaginable that artifacts of any civilization, regardless of how old they are, are being destroyed by the people, for no benefit to anyone. It was not done to save lives, to improve lives, to better health or for the unacceptable but not unimaginable reason of collective economic benefit.
Library Books, Letters and Priceless Documents are Set Ablaze in Final Chapter of the Sacking of Baghdad - by Robert Fisk, Tuesday, April 15, 2003, The lndependent/UK on CommonDreams.org discusses in detail the lost artifacts in this tragedy and highlights the US administrations complete lack of interest in providing any help to preserve these priceless articfacts. It is a reflection on the true motives of the US administration that while priceless artifacts are lost forever and absolutely no efforts are made to protect them, oil fields which can be restored and repaired are protected with the strongest security measures.
From Affairs Of State -- And Pentagon - by John Prados, Apr 14 2003, TOMPAINE.com , the second paragraph from the bottom reads as follows: This evolution is disturbing. Rumsfeld and Rice, while ambitious planners, exhibit a peculiar myopia. With Iraq collapsing into chaos and looters trashing Baghdad and other cities, Rumsfeld complained at his press conferences not of these brutal facts, but of the media's reporting of them. In fact, the administration talked as if the chaos would disappear on its own after a day or two, as if it carried no responsibility for order in a post-Saddam Iraq it had itself created.
Here is an excerpt from an article, Modern-Day Version of 'The Tao of War'? - by Sean Gonsalves, Tuesday, April 15, 2003, Cape Cod Times that appeared on CommonDreams.org, sums up what the responisibility of the US is in this context.
However, all ethical systems are based on this fundamental principle: moral agents are always responsible for the predictable consequences of their actions, regardless of the behavior of others. So it is there that we must begin. The insistence of the US that there must be a military government in Iraq for some period after the war would make some sense in order to restore a level of normalcy and prevent a descent to utter chaos. Since, they understand this to be the case and still refuse to protect this invaluable artifacts, it exposes their complete lack of appreciation for the age of this land, its inhabitants and the various cultures that have fluorished there since the beginning of civilisation.
Why are no american news outlets complaining about the letdown of not finding weapons of mass destruction, thousands of tons of anthrax and Vx nerve agent and other deadly chemicals. Give them a bit of time and they will start recycling old items as weapons found. No secret nuclear plants or other facilities discovered either. Makes one wonder ... What was all this about again ??
Another important issue to consider is the effect of the new democracy on Iraq and its people. Here we have a culture that has not had a democracy in the past three decades but supposedly will have one overnight. The US seems quite thrilled to install Ahmad Chalabi whose shady business dealings seem to be universally known to international journalists. If a true democracy is installed, and an Islamic government gets voted into power, it seems very unlikely that the US would led that elected government survive. The issue of course will not be an honest one of secular democracy versus democracy, but rather one of their interests being threatened by people who are too unlike them.
Cheering Crowds Don't Make an Unjust War Right - By Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, Monday, April 14, 2003, The lndependent/UK gives some insight as to why selective coverage of some celebrations in Iraq does not validate the presence of US invaders in Iraq. It lends some historical context to illustrate that point and asks some thought provoking questions.
Last night, I was theorizing that it is only a matter of time till the Americans find their next not-so-willing victim. Of course, Syria happens to be a very conveniently located victim for them. Placed between Iraq, now a US protectorate and Israel, it has been the subject of some unflattering attention in the past week.
Colin Powell insists that this is a dangerous country and has chemical weapons and may be protecting some of the former Iraqi regime. It has always been on a terror watchlist of sorts for supporting the Hizbollah and Islamic Jihad. Now it finds itself in the unenviable position of being in Washington's crosshairs.
Watch for these signs coming to you soon from Washington, for a clear indication of their desire to invade Syria.
- Syria possesses chemical weapons.
- Syria is harbouring Iraqi war criminals and other terrorists.
- Syria is not a democracy.
Here is an interesting article,
US Warns Syria Not to Provide Haven for Wanted Iraqis - By Ben Russel, Monday, April 14, 2003, The lndependent/UK on CommonDreams.org, that highlights other belligerent comments from various figures in the US administration. Note the last paragraph in the article, discussing just how serious an offence the invasion of Syria should be considered in the eyes of some US lawmakers. And these comments are from someone not exactly known for his embrace of peace.
An email from May about an infamous quote from Gehring really got me thinking this morning.
Hermann Goering (1893-1946) Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, President of the Reichstag, Prime Minister of Prussia and, as Hitler's designated successor, the second man in the Third Reich, said on April 18, 1946,
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
