Babylon Damaged by the US

'Destruction' is over the top, check that, we agree

As for Poland, I've heard elsewhere they actually managed to keep damage to a minimum, and that the site was handed over to them as the Americans were leaving. So that would explain why no one is slagging off Poland. I just included them to stop people saying, "Hey, Poland have been there aswell. It wasn't all America! Why aren't you being Anti-Polish", basically.

Also I don't know if America did spend tens of thousands of pounds just to protect the site. If you mean the base they set up there cost thousands, then you're probably quite right. But I think it's safe to say the money wasn't to prevent the base interfering with Babylon...If it was then it's yet another massive failure.

And who can say what would of happened there if not for the American army? We simply don't know. But it would of been a minority who took it upon themselves to go looting about the place, and while that would of been pretty awful, the damage would of been no where near as vast as that caused by the American 'guardians'.

For one, I doubt they'd go looting with tanks and other heavy machinery. They wouldn't of poured gallons of petrol about the place just for kicks.
And they wouldn't of filled hundreds of sandbags to take to one place, while bringing in crap from elsewhere contaminating the site.

 

though this is not good to hear..................sadam already fucked up the site by rebuilding the structures with bricks with his name on each one of them.

 

It takes no effort to find more subjective reports than that printed in the Gaurdian.. I have read the Paper for years and because my thoughts have altered a little recently .. i can see the slightly skewed view they have now.. i know all papers have their own unique take on the world.. it just takes a jolt of another perspective and a bit of a re think of opinions too see it sometimes ?... I still like the paper .. but just don't take its word for it any more..

Their is Equal 'slagging off' of The Polish army

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=655037

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/01/a8147d5c-7302-45f2-b3b0-cdee9a586c1d.html

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/w-me/2005/jan/16/011606036.html

How can US - led troops be saints if they are being 'led' by America ? are they defying their 'masters' no.. damage was done by the mere presence i agree.. but i balnce how much damage would have been done if neither the americans and the polish were not protecting the place ..

The 'base' was set up to protect the site and of course was used for other reasons i suppose .. its main aim was to protect the place though..??.

The place would have been looted beyond all regonition .. you only have to read about the artifacts that were being smuggled out before the camp was put into operation

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/18F04C47-22B2-4E7C-AE0E-83853B3A5D72.htm

You can spin this one however you like.. i suppose ..

 

?

Quite what part the different national forces played in the destruction of parts of the site remains unclear... Where this suggestion of anti-Americanism comes from is beyond me, please show evidence.

On what do you base this assumption when all evidence suggests quite the contrary? The site was a "military depot". It was not an aim of the siting of the base in Babylon to protect the archaeology of the place... if that were the case the protectors would presumably have attempted to actually protect the site rather than irreparably damage it. It is a side effect of the siting of the base that the site was not looted like other sites have been, something noted by John Curtis of the BM:

"It's perfectly true that in the early days of the war, a military presence at Babylon did stop looting. But at that stage nobody could predict that the camp would grow to be so big or that it would remain there for so long. At its greatest extent, it housed 2,000 soldiers, and obviously you don't need 2,000 soldiers to look after an archaeological site."
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/01/a8147d5c-7302-45f2-b3b0-cdee9a586c1d.html

Indeed. You seem at pains to stress an ideological bias on the part of the Guardian. There is no "anti-Americanism" in that simple factual news report, in fact it is almost identical to all the others on the subject I have seen. On the other hand, the suggestion that the presence of the troops in Babylon and the consequent protection from looting makes the damage done somehow OK is rather to miss the point made by the BM report. This and the accusation of anti-Americanism levelled, essentially, against the claims made in a scholarly archaeological report, and indicate your own ideological bias.

 

All of which say pretty much the same thing since the story was carried by the AP news network... Anyway I was questioning your inaccurate use of the word "subjective".

Do you imagine it might be possible that they are being "blamed" because it was an American military base, set up and operated by the American military? The base was then handed over to the Polish, which is why their potential role in damaging the site is also being raised. Perhaps you are referring to the "US-led troops" quote, which is a factually correct statement - the Poles are under overall US command, just as the British are.

I still see no evidence that the Americans are being singled out or blamed in any unfair or biased way.

You seem to have developed the habit of typing like an Australian?? By ending every sentence with a question-mark?? Even when you are making a statement?? You must know how annoying this is??

The Guardian is a liberal left-wing paper in terms of its editorial policy but in terms of straight news reporting rather than comment, it's one of the best and least biased sources for news. The article we are discussing is a very good example of a factual reporting which is in no way anti-American or anti-war .. it's just a factual news report about a British Museum publication.

The BBC is not anti-war. This is a right-wing myth. It was even shown that during the Iraq war they were one of the news outlets with the least airtime given to dissenting voices.

As for you drivelling on about America-bashing in mainstream media, please give some examples... there is absolutely no evidence of it in what we are discussing. This is just the same old Daily Mail "liberal elite" conspiracy bollocks...

Oh, you think? Hadn't considered that. Thanks for sharing...

 

True , but the British museum is more than likely biased so the reports end up that way . Its the level of added information (or the lack of it) that bothered me. Anyway what was wrong with my use of the word subjective ?.

Yeah ??? that is quite annoying .. i had not noticed sorry about that. I even add ... more than i should as well , but you do a little as well ..... oh we should be both shot at dawn. I won't start moaning about your somewhat patronising tone or anything like that .

Count the times America or its actions is mentioned within this thread . Count the times Poland and its actions are mentioned in this thread. And then tell me America is not being singled out. imho its prety evident in a lot of reporting not just by the Gaurdian or the BBC just in general .

I understand that and agree. But it was just the lack of other added information and the lack of critism of The British museum.. Them (BM) jumping up and down about what 'destruction' that might have occured when they have quite a dodgy past themselves is quite unfair.

No i don't believe the BBC is anti-war , just 'they' don't agree with the iraq war .

I don't think i have enough space within this post ... I hate conspiracy and i mildly dislike the Daily Mail .. Your just spouting counter conspiracy bollocks.

mmm yeah that was the start of a sentence .. but i just forgot to finish or remove it but yeah 'any damage is unfortunate' at least its not been turned into a shrine too saddam hussein.. *ponders* was that the ending of my sentence, well it is now.

 

On what do you base the assumption that the British Museum report is "more than likely biased"? What is this other than a reactionary opinion voiced with little or no thought? There is no reason for you to think this other than your own ideological prejudice. This is very typical of your contributions to this forum.

The first paragraph mentions the US-led force (the Poles are part of a US-led force), the second paragraph mentions the national forces of the US and Poland in the same sentence. This was a US base which was handed over to the Poles, (mentioned again later in the article) all under the command of a US-led "coalition" force. So the mentions of obligations under the Hague Convention and the quotes from the US military are precisely what would be expected. It is simply ludicrous to suggest this article "blames" America more than Poland or is evidence of anti-American bias.

Your argument here seems to be that archaeology scholars don't have the right to criticise damage to sites of cultural importance if other archaeologists may in the past have caused damage to other sites of cultural importance. This is such a silly notion that it needs no refutation.

No the BBC is not anti the Iraq war. Read what I said in my last post.

This combination of words seems to have no discernible meaning...