Quote:
Originally posted by splck
that's kinda what I think. Let's hope a lesson can be learned from this mistake.
|
My problem with this whole debate is that it's so one-sided: the US should have done this, and should have done that, and shouldn't have done that, etc, etc.
If you look at some historical references, the US has been fighting with extreme restraint, and has been doing a great job so far. I mean, compare this situation with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, where thousands were tortured and executed by the invading army (and lots of treasure was looted!)... or compare it to the North-Korean capture of Seoul, where potential enemies (civilians!) were executed. In fact, compare this to any other war in history, and you'll see that this stuff happens, and most of the time, it's much worse.
But when a US-led war has some problems and fuck-ups, it's all over the news, and everyone stands in line to criticize, even when it's the Iraqis that are doing the looting, and it was the Iraqis that were fighting dirty... People just assume that the US does everything on purpose: they're not protecting the museum, so they're out to destroy Iraq's heritage. They're not protecting hospitals, so they don't care about the Iraqi people. They've secured oil fields, so it was all about oil after all. It's not always that simple!
Perhaps in a few years, when the smoke clears, the data comes out, and everyone has calmed down a bit, we'll all look back and see that this wasn't all that bad, and that - given the circumstances - the US actions were as good as can be expected.