Iraq, again

[DeviantScripter]

First, if it was not about oil, why did the coalirion troops primarily protected oil fields and not hospitals?

That’s a rediculous comparison F_alk, as the oil fields were drastically outside of Baghdad, well within reach of our troops. The hospitals (AFAIR), were located mainly in urban, populated areas. Besides, is there any strategic importance for Saddam if he targeted hospitals? No. However, Saddam could theoretically shut down the country if he destroyed the oil supply. Therefore, STRATEGICALLY, the oil fields are infinetely more important than protecting a hospital that isn’t neccessarily a prime target for Saddam’s band of merry men.

[cystic crypt]

@Deviant:Scripter:

First, if it was not about oil, why did the coalirion troops primarily protected oil fields and not hospitals?

That’s a rediculous comparison F_alk, as the oil fields were drastically outside of Baghdad, well within reach of our troops. The hospitals (AFAIR), were located mainly in urban, populated areas. Besides, is there any strategic importance for Saddam if he targeted hospitals? No. However, Saddam could theoretically shut down the country if he destroyed the oil supply. Therefore, STRATEGICALLY, the oil fields are infinetely more important than protecting a hospital that isn’t neccessarily a prime target for Saddam’s band of merry men.

i kind of think that D:S has a point here. Afterall, who would attack Iraqi hospitals? The only worry would be from US airstrikes, and the Americans would know not to put their own soldiers in danger of these anyway.

[Guest]

@Deviant:Scripter:

First, if it was not about oil, why did the coalirion troops primarily protected oil fields and not hospitals?

That’s a rediculous comparison F_alk, as the oil fields were drastically outside of Baghdad, well within reach of our troops. The hospitals (AFAIR), were located mainly in urban, populated areas. Besides, is there any strategic importance for Saddam if he targeted hospitals? No. However, Saddam could theoretically shut down the country if he destroyed the oil supply. Therefore, STRATEGICALLY, the oil fields are infinetely more important than protecting a hospital that isn’t neccessarily a prime target for Saddam’s band of merry men.

Then let’s not take Baghdad, but Basra, as an example. Much closer to the oil fields, but still there was some looting in the city.

For the strategic importance: yes, from an objective point of view, hospitals would much less make a target. But, on the other hand, when was Saddam Hussein ever called or viewed as objective by the coalition? He was and is considered a madman who targeted his own people.
Therefore, though this reason is logical, it loses some of its value through the way the coalition used some arguments before. In this also falls the self-definition of the coalition as coming as liberators who want the best for the people. The best for the people surely is to have both hospitals and oil fields. But when you look at the emphasis that was put on taking and protecting the fields and the total neglect of protecting other parts of vital civil infrastructure, like water and hospitals…. then i just have to doubt that the reason “best for the iraqi people” is valid.

[DeviantScripter]

But, on the other hand, when was Saddam Hussein ever called or viewed as objective by the coalition?

Huh?

Saddam was the leader of his own military, whether objective or not, he still had the ability to order military attacks on wherever he wanted. He doesn’t have to be objective to not attack a hospital. He knew his armed forces for strained too thin already, so there would have had to been strategic importance in attacking a hospital–in order to justify the diversion of his troops.

In this also falls the self-definition of the coalition as coming as liberators who want the best for the people. The best for the people surely is to have both hospitals and oil fields. But when you look at the emphasis that was put on taking and protecting the fields and the total neglect of protecting other parts of vital civil infrastructure, like water and hospitals…. then i just have to doubt that the reason “best for the iraqi people” is valid.

C’mon, this is your argument against America now? When the war-plan rolled into action, there was no way for America to forsee the sporratic looting that would occur. Hospitals are not as important as oil fields, so I guess we’ll just have to disagree. :P

[Guest]

@Deviant:Scripter:

C’mon, this is your argument against America now? When the war-plan rolled into action, there was no way for America to forsee the sporratic looting that would occur. Hospitals are not as important as oil fields, so I guess we’ll just have to disagree. :P

“sporadic” looting?
SPORADIC???
and no one in the american staff is able to think what might happen if you have an oppressive regime first and a total lack of power/order afterwards? You are kidding.

[DeviantScripter]

“sporadic” looting?
SPORADIC???

You disagree?

[Guest]

Yup.

Sporadic looting leaving how many hospitals, museum, banks etc. unlooted?

[Guest]

BRIT HUME (FOX NEWS): It looks bad on television, these chaotic scenes of looting. It looks like the U.S. has loosed chaos and anarchy upon a land that we were trying to save. And yet the military officers, the high command seems rather calm about it and seem disposed to let it play. What is that all about?

FMR. GENERAL MCINERNEY: Well Brit, they have their priorities focused and they’re doing a marvelous job. Their job is to get security in that city. It is not that they don’t want to stop the looting in that, but first thing’s first. And if they get tagged off on something like that, they’re going to get their people killed and it’s going to be a lot of damage to the coalition forces.

This is a natural venting. And people should understand even after a football game in the United States or something, you have this act. But these people have been repressed for 20-plus years. And so what you have is initially the jubilation, and the jubilation is rampant through there as many of us predicted it would be. And then it gets out of hand. But it gets out of hand, remember, against the regime.

[Guest]

@Anonymous:

This is a natural venting. …And so what you have is initially the jubilation, and the jubilation is rampant through there as many of us predicted it would be. And then it gets out of hand. But it gets out of hand, remember, against the regime.

But This is no reason to keep more forces for protecting the oil fields (which are by less reachable for the masses, as said by some here) than for protecting other parts of the infrastrucutre.

[Yanny]

I think that the looting of the Bagdad museum was a sad, sad moment in human history. I do not understand why the US army and marines did not even try to guard it.

[DeviantScripter]

LOL. :P

I guess we’re going around in circles here, but it’s worth noting that it was almost impossible to decipher what artifacts had been stolen because the inventory was documented so poorly in the museum. (Hmmm….)

And…that many of the artifacts have been returned as a result of people simply wanting to safegaurd them…

[Guest]

in circles?

[blackest sarcasm]
Well, probably, you don’t mind the sporadic terror attacks targeted against the US then either
[\blackest sarcasm]