Is the shooting war over?
It sure wasn't when the looting was at it's peak.
This wasn't the kind of war where there is a "behind our lines". Not when combatants change clothes and hide their RPG's.

Sorry buddy...you specifically said "the left" in your last quote...nice try though. :)

Griff...to answer your question, yeah, that pretty much sums it up well. Don't think I was trying to associate torture, etc. with the right--I do think the left has taken a more pointed stance towards it, but in the end, I think both sides oppose it...and support it when convenient or deemed necessary.

Sheppsie, I try to make a distinction between being of the left and being a leftist. It may sound silly, but the term "leftist" to me suggests an extreme asshead, a la some of those wacky protestors in San Francisco, some Greenpeace types, or some of those that protest G8/WTO/IMF gatherings.

Riight. And I'm "of the south", but that doesn't mean I'm a southerner. Hey, I try to make that distinction.

Isn't it more important "where you're at" than "where you're coming from"? I think the latter requires reading between the lines which might not be accurate.;)

Yes you are...a big dumb hillbilly southerner.

You're just mad because I'm using your own logic against you.

Are all big-city folk so bitter and angsty?

Thanks for proving my point--no such word as "angsty," you ass fungus.

(For the record, I'm the most angst-ridden-yet-controlled individual that there is. :) )

Watch out syc. You're going to wake up one morning and suddenly have an urge to vote republican ...

I've already voted for a Republican (our area's rep in the state legislature), and I'll probably do it again in November (for Sam Katz as mayor...gotta look at his plans though). I have no problem voting for a Republican if I feel he will adequately represent me and my general concerns.

The NYT has more on the museum non-looting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/06/in...al/06MUSE.html

"Most Iraqi Treasures Are Said to Be Kept Safe"

A top British Museum official said yesterday that his Iraqi counterparts told him they had largely emptied display cases at the National Museum in Baghdad months before the start of the Iraq war, storing many of the museum's most precious artifacts in secure "repositories."

The official, John E. Curtis, curator of the Near East Collection at the British Museum, who recently visited Iraq, said Baghdad museum officials had taken the action on the orders of Iraqi government authorities. When looting started, most of the treasures apparently remaining in display halls were those too large or bulky to have been moved for protection, Mr. Curtis said.

They further clarify: 25 items are felt to be missing. Twenty-five.

They further clarify: they did the same kind of "safekeeping" operations in 1991. The Iraqi museum curators are no dummies: knowing that they might be bombed, they had plenty of time to take all the good stuff and put it where it would not be damaged.

You're quoting the NYT...are you feeling okay?

I believe that same NYT was the one to write the original article saying that 170,000 items were gone, so this is just rubbing their face in it.

Ah...see, I was thinking that you were using one of the world's most liberal newspapers against a liberal. Why don't you run with that one...it rings of an "Oh schnap!"

You really are a silly little monkey aren't you. I specifically was talking about the LOOTING OF THE IRAQI NUCLEAR WASTE REPOSITORY and the LOOTING OF THE IRAQI HOSPITALS. I know it may be hard for you to read and follow a thread, but reiterating an after-the-fact cover story as proof that nothing in Iraq was looted is more bogus crap from a person that seems to thrive on bogus crap.

The antiquities looting was terrible, but I did not think that was too big of a deal. I thought it was stupid of us not to protect the vital public interests and our own security interests in Iraq. Which, of course, you ignored so that you could toss out a red herring.

Ah, I knew this one would come up. I know it is hard to do, but opposing war is not the same thing as supporting torture any more than sticking up fro the Dixie Chicks makes one a communist or a terrorist. I love black and white thinking. It is so easy to claim the moral high ground when you cannot see the shades of grey.

I did not like Saddam Hussein. I though he was a pipece of garbage and I am glad he is gone. If anything is positive about this, it is that the Iraqi people are free of Saddam Hussein.

But the same thing was said when the coups against Allende, Diem, and Mossadiq took place. The resulting insatability, factionalization, dictatorial control, and suppression of dissent killed millions. Moreover, many of the members of the COW are on Amnesty International's list of worst human rights offenders. Why is it okay for us to ignore their abuses while we attack Iraq for it's abuses? Why did we continue to help Iraq after Saddam gassed the Iranians or the Kurds? Do you really think the Iraqi people were a priority here?

No, you are making a veiled Ad Hominem attack and sitting up on a high horse of clueless moral certainty. Why don't you get your Rethugnican friends to crack down on all the rest of the human rights abusers of the world - since you just discovered this issue. Why didn't people like you urge the government to remove the sanctions that killed thousands of people but had absolutely no effect on the Iraqi leadership?

Your convenient outrage is troubling.

Look at yourself. Thumping your chest with American pride as you discover what the left has been bitching about for years. The pain of the dead, injured, and the destroyed is invisible to you, as is the weekly bombing of Iraq for the past 12 years and the protests of the Iraqi people against American occupation.

You see the positive images of happy Americans toppling a statue of Saddam while the Iraqis cheer on T.V.. You don't see the down side on American T.V.. You read passive voice descriptions of the events in Iraq in American print. You are seeing a scrubbed and polished version of realilty - which is why you are so blindly exuberant with your unfettered support for this war.

Everybody knew that Saddam Hussein's regime was torturous and cruel. I really and truly hope the Iraqi people do not end up devolving into another type of authoritarian governance. I hope that Iraq will be rebuilt and they will not harbor any long-term ill against America for our alternating support then acrimony against Saddam Hussein. I hope they don't think that we are reallly in Iraq for profit and oil. I hope that there is not a revolt by the Shias against the American occupation troops. I hope that this whole thing ends well.

But the best case scenario is not always the most likely. The numerous downsides were what caused most on the left to oppose the invasion of Iraq.

For the record, I think the military did a good job avoiding massive civilian casualties. I am glad that the Iraqis are free of Saddam Hussein.

I still think we should have helped the Iraqis overthrow Saddam themselves - and choose their own destiny - but what do I know?

You are believing every positive media report you hear in a desperate struggle to paint the US as the good guys.

What media?!?!?! The American media has bee overwhelmingly positive about anything Bush wants. If Bush took a crap in a box the media would call it gold. I think you are one of the delusional Fox viewers that consider anything less than absolutely glowing treatement of the war as tantamount to treason.

DId you see any of the pictures of dead Iraqi children - killed by American bomb blasts on Fox? Did you see the burned babies on MSNBC? Did you see half the bad shit that happened in Iraq? NO! If you only watched the American media, you saw a scrubbed down version of events full of rationalization, uncritical stenography of the military perspective, and senseless jingoism.

You are a real tool. I don't relish the notion of American failure. I don't want to see blowback from this 10 years from now. I don't like the idea that we SECURED THE MINISTRY OF OIL BUT LEFT EVERYTHING ELSE FOR THE LOOTERS!!! I don't want to see Americans or Iraqis killed. You are a sick, sick moron for making such a suggestion. I am not surprised, though. This is a typical Rush. rethugnican attack strategy.

We are in act 2 of a 20 act play. Everybody said that the war would be the easy part. I don't even know why I am trying to explain this to you for the 50th time. NOBODY SAID WE WOULD NOT WIN!!! The only thing that did not happen was the 500,000 dead that Jeanine Garafolo cited. I guess you cannot see beyond her estimate ( which came from the U.N. and considered the primary causes of death to be disease and malnutrition after the bombs stopped falling ). I know it is hard to think about the long-term, but we are just now embarking on the hard part of this war.

But I guess since Bush said that evrything is now hunky-dory, I guess it must be.

You have a one news cycle memory. I am glad your rose colored glasses keep any negative effects off your radar and out of mind alltogether. I wish I could have such blind faith and trust in our Fuhrer.

No, I think you are ignorant. Not bloodthirsty.

Saddam is estimated to have killed at least 1.5M of his own people since coming to power in 1979. An average of 62,500 dead Iraqi civilians per year, 1,202 per week.

The Three Weeks War appears to have cost the lives of a whopping 2,356 Iraqi civilians by the highest of estimates, as contrasted with the expected 3,606 who would have perished if we had left Saddam's regime alone.

And you're suddenly unhappy because you didn't see any of those 2,356 on TV over the last couple weeks. Well, tell you what... I don't recall seeing ANY of those 1,500,000 on TV. They were inconvenient -- inconvenient to Saddam, so they were inconvenient to French oil companies, so they were inconvenient to world politics.

They were convenient to US war plans, so they were inconvient to a generally left-oriented press. CNN admitted that they failed to report some really incredibly terrible things about the regime in order to maintain their status in Baghdad.

Well, I take it back -- we did see some of those 1,500,000 on TV last week. When they started finding the mass graves.

In light of all this, your concern for the "vital public interests" of Iraq is absolutely mind-boggling. 1,500,000 dead: not vital, I guess. Just a darn shame, apparently.

And as for the nuke materials, I find it hilarious -- REALLY! -- that you think such things were permissible and entirely safe from "looting" or winding up in the hands of terrorists while the country was under Saddam. If they weren't safe, the UN would have found them, right? The old story is that they don't exist and aren't cause for going to war; why don't you just stick with that story?