Re: Re: Gee this will convince everyone

From: mayhem <meurtre_at_earthlink.net_at_hypermail.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 15:28:41 -0700

> And who will buy it back and why buy back stolen artifacts?

Powell said we'd buy back as many as we could. Because, for
invading conquerers who only care about ooiiill, we're pretty
moral.

>Heck,
> unless the Baghdad Museum has extensive descriptions of every piece
> stolen it is most *unlikely* the loot will ever be recovered by us or
> Iraq.

Um. Most museums have their holdings catalogued.

>Private collectors who can afford professional thieves can
> afford to keep these things hidden as well.

OTOH, money talks.

> (I'll bet Bill Gates gets some large packages from Baghdad in the next
> few days. That bastard! Keep all rich people under surveillance!)
>
> If Iraq wants some really good treasure of theirs back they should
> call the Pergamon Museum in Berlin.
>
> BTW, the lack of looting in Europe may have been due to lack of total
> infrastructure collapse. They weren't invaded - EXCUSE ME! - liberated
> by an outside country entering guns a-blazing. Makes a difference.

To say that infrastructure collapsed in Baghdad last week, but didn't
in Europe after WWII is to have it bass-ackwards. Hell, the only reason
the power went off is because the Ba'athists turned it off. They've got
running water, electricity and everything. Contra '91.

Europe wasn't invaded, "guns a-blasing"? Then what do you call Omaha Beach?
Just a pleasure outing?

--J



--- In OliveStarlightOrchestra_at_yahoogroups.com, mayhem <meurtre_at_e...>
wrote:


> John,


>


> I'm going to be writing in more detail on the National Museum, but
for now


> 1) A lot of the treasures presumed lost/looted were actually hidden
away


> by those who ran the museum, since it was known that this might
occur.


> 2) A lot of the "looting" was actually done by Ba'ath party
officials before


> the war even began, and there's no way anyone could have stopped it.


> 3) The marines/army divisions were under fire, and aren't trained to
be


> "police." They were ordered to protect critical infrastructure, so
the oil


> facilities *were* guarded. Please recall that this is just about
Iraq's


> only healthy economy, and there is 90% unemployment in the country.
So


> if people are going to eat, the oil has to be protected.


> 4) Iraq is the only country in which this occurs. It's strange: no
one


> looted the European museums after liberation there. But this same
thing


> occurred in 1991. It appears almost self-destructive.


> 5) Since a lot of these treasures went to private collectors, they
should


> be recoverable--either by us, or by Iraq (which will be a rich
country once


> it's on its feet again).


> 6) Priceless antiquities/artifacts were not looted/sold, but
actually


> destroyed


> for all time in World War II. Thank goodness that didn't happen.


>


> I'm sad, but I'm hoping a lot of what appears to be lost was just
hidden.


> And


> that a good deal of it can be bought back once we locate it.


>


> --J


>


>


> It was also announced this morning that Bechtel won a major contract


> in Iraq. Thank goodness! I was beginning to lose sleep over the
worry


> that they might not get it...


>


> On a more serious note, why didn't anyone care enough to protect the


> National Museum? Those ancient treasures were easy pickings for the


> looters.


>


> John


>


>


>


>


> --- In OliveStarlightOrchestra_at_yahoogroups.com, "dne44" <dne_at_d...>
wrote:


> > that we weren't in this for oil or to line the pockets of American


> > corporations.


> >


> > The government awards Halliburton a $600 million dollar contract


> > for "emergency" oil services in Iraq. Unbid. And gee, the name


> > Halliburton sounds vaguely familiar... And there are a number of


> > other such deals being done.


> >


> > And where does the money come from...that's right, us! So even if


> > other companies or countries could have done it cheaper, we'll
never


> > know how much we could have saved. Thank God this administration
is


> > so serious about reducing government spending!


> >


> > And for even more reasons to find this deeply offensive:


> > http://slate.msn.com/id/2081640/


>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Received on 2003-04-18 15:28:54

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : 2020-02-04 07:16:16 UTC