Surprisingly, he wasn't. Of course the Napoleon thing is a myth as well. We have images of the damaged nose from long before him. Additionally, there are some medieval writings describing an act of vandalism on the Sphinx. So first the US does not guard the Baghdad Museum, meaning that some of the most important ancient artifacts for western culture were looted and now they are causing damage to ancient Babylon (ironic since it was the birthplace of formal social law). Yay.
Do you have the ability to substantively comment on the desecration of one of the world's most significant archaelogical sites? Probably not, as evidenced by your response.
I'll certainly need another source besides the Guardian for me to believe that this site was desecrated. Apparently you're content to believe any fool who says something as long as it is reflects poorly on our brave troops.
Look...you can argue the justifications for the war. You can say they weren't real. But let's suppose they were. Let's suppose the guy really had nukes...and let's take it further and suppose he was ready to hand them off to Al Qaeda operatives. Again...just supposing.... would you really let a site of old ruins stand in the way of doing what you had to do to neutralize that threat??? ah...forget it....
yes, reminds me of some of fox news polls. "some people think george w. bush is doing a great job while others think he is the second comming of christ. more on these findings after the break."
This has been reported in several wire service stories. The last time you tried you tried this, you ended up looking silly as it meant that you were questioning a Guardian book review for the content contained in the book; which has been reported in hundreds, if not thousands, of media outlets before or since. The onlly conceiveable challenge you could be making is that the book did not actually exist which was wrong becuase it does, in fact, exist. I saw one in the bookstore. Please cease and desist in your self-sillification.
I also heard it on NPR. In another thread you tried to claim the guardian was inaccurate and a whole list of other sources were posted. Somehow you didn't buy it then either, but just argued about the guardian more. It appears that you refuse to believe that the U.S. is doing anything wrong.
And apparently you are willing to dismiss anything that does not paint GWB and his cabal as anything less than the second coming. Your inability to debate the substance of this article is noted. In that way, you and your brother are two peas in a pod.
Max, that wasn't the case here, so your analogy doesn't apply, imo. In the report, Curtis described the decision to set up a base in the area as "regrettable." Another brilliant example of staggering British understatement.
The merry band of liberals (yes, you are included in this bunch, despite your claims to be "independent") rushes to post anything disparaging about our brave troops, yet never posts any of the many positive that things they have done. For that reason, I dismiss your garbage at will, especially when it comes from the Guardian. How many more times do we have to go through how they have absolutely zero credibility?
As long as we are throwing out the "zero credibility" tag, you and your sibling make the top of the list as a result of the never ending pile of hate-filled, liberal bashing vitriol that constantly spews from your respective keyboards. This article was not disparaging the "brave troops," it was talking about the people who decided to set up a military base on one of the most significant archaelogical sites in the entire world. I would think that the birthplace of civilization would be treated with a tad more respect, but apparently that is not the case with the current leaders. Your misguided, idiotic diatribes are the only garbage present in this thread.
All this report (oh, and the Reuters, AP, ABC, and many other versions of the same report) does is cite a report by the British Museum. Do you doubt that the British Museum report exists as alleged in the guardian, much like you doubted the Gay Lincoln Book existed? I have not seen this report but the fact that it has been cited in thousands of reprints of the wire item leads me to belive that the British Museum report does, in fact exist. Let us know if you can come up with some contradictory info, otherwise, exeunt this thread and begin mountaineering prep, please.
Are you telling me that in Iraq, they couldn't find another place to set up camp besides right on top of Babylon? Also, where did you get the "suppose he had nukes" idea? I'll bet that was never an assumption going in. We were supposedly looking for stuff like ricin and anthrax. Seriously, I mean what does setting up a camp on Babylon do to increase the chances of finding WMDs? What if the ruins in question were important christian ones, would your feelings be slightly different? Oops, we found the actual tomb where Jesus was buried, but there might have been terrorist hiding there, so we just blew the whole thing up (yes my example is far fetched. . .). Here's the story from Fox News if people still think the whole thing was made up. Fox News Link Museum: U.S.-Led Troops Damaged Babylon Saturday, January 15, 2005 LONDON — U.S.-led troops using the ancient Iraqi city of Babylon (search) as a base have damaged and contaminated artifacts dating back thousands of years in one of the world's most important archaeological sites, the British Museum said Saturday. For example, military vehicles crushed a 2,600-year-old brick pavement, and archaeological fragments, including broken bricks stamped by King Nebuchadnezzar II (search) around the same time, were scattered across the site, a museum report said. The dragons at the Ishtar Gate (search) were marred by cracks and gaps where someone tried to remove their decorative bricks, the paper said. John Curtis, keeper of the British Museum's (search) Near East department, who was invited by the Iraqis to study the site, also found that large quantities of sand mixed with archaeological fragments have been taken from the site to fill military sandbags. "This is tantamount to establishing a military camp around the Great Pyramid in Egypt or around Stonehenge in Britain," Curtis said in the report. In an interview Saturday with Associated Press Television News, Iraq's Minister of Culture Mufeed al-Jazairee said coalition troops in Babylon had used "armored vehicles and helicopters that land and take off freely. In addition to that, the forces also set up other facilities and changes." He added: "I expect that the archaeological city of Babylon has sustained damage but I don't know exactly the size of such damage." The remains of Babylon have been occupied since the early days of the invasion by U.S. Marines and, more recently, by soldiers from Poland and other countries. Babylon is 50 miles south of Baghdad. A Polish military spokesman in Iraq said troops were cooperating with Iraqi authorities in efforts to protect the site. "I have asked our archaeologists to prepare a specific answer to the accusations, but I have to give them some time," Lt. Col. Artur Domanski said. The city's main sites — the Ishtar Gate, the ruins of Babylon and the Nebuchadnezzar Palace — are in a separate area on the camp's perimeter, run by Iraqi officials as an archaeological park to paying visitors. The U.S. military says all earth moving has been halted and it is considering moving troops away to protect the ruins. Lt. Col. Steven Boylan, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, said all engineering works were discussed with the head of the Babylon museum. "An archaeologist examined every construction initiative for its impact on historical ruins," he said. In the report, Curtis acknowledged that at first the U.S. presence had helped to protect the site from looters. But subsequent work — including the decision to cover large areas of the site with gravel brought in from elsewhere to provide car parks and helipads — was damaging, he said. Lord Redesdale, an archaeologist who heads a parliamentary archaeology committee, described the report's findings as "just dreadful." "Not only is what the American forces are doing damaging the archaeology of Iraq, it's actually damaging the cultural heritage of the whole world," he said. For more than 1,000 years, Babylon was one of the world's premier cities, where King Nebuchadnezzar II built the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, one of the Seven Wonders of the World. The city declined and fell into ruin after it was conquered by the Persians under Cyrus the Great around 538 B.C.
Funny thing is, this thread was started by someone who argued here for this war, doesn't really qualify me as one of the 'merry band of liberals' does it? I've always been for the war, but against idiotic decisions. Apparently some here are for the War and for accompanying idiotic decisions. And don't try the juvenile argument that being against such decisions is somehow unsupportive of our troops; I can guarantee that through all of the wars they are none too happy about idiotic decisions made by commanding officers. Here is an example of not just an idiotic decision, but one entirely UNNECESSARY. Damage the ruins from the cradle of civilization? Anyone who doesn't see how/why this could/should have been (EASILY) avoided lacks all credibility.
