Iraq Accuses U.S. of Damaging Ancient City

[gerryhatrick]

Iraq Accuses U.S. of Damaging Ancient City

Friday March 31, 2006 4:46 AM

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - American forces are damaging the ancient city of Kish and must withdraw from the 5,000-year-old archaeological site, an Iraqi ministry said Thursday.

The Ministry of State for Tourism and Antiquities Affairs said U.S. forces had set up a camp in Kish, near Hillah, about 60 miles south of Baghdad.

In a statement, the ministry said the U.S. military was preventing anyone from entering this important archaeological site to assess the damage, which was not specified.

The U.S. military had no immediate comment.

Last year, the British Museum said that U.S.-led troops using the ancient Iraqi city of Babylon as a base had damaged and contaminated artifacts dating back thousands of years in one of the world's most important ancient sites.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/stor...5723475,00.html

Will they leave as requested by a sovereign state?

[KrustyKidd]

Will they leave as requested by a sovereign state?

They say they will, but, have not been asked.

The official added: "We have no intention of remaining, or indeed retaining bases in Iraq long-term. We will leave Iraq as soon as the democratically elected Iraqi government is confident that its security forces have the capability and capacity to counter terrorism and to preserve the security of democracy there."

Some analysts believe the desire to establish a long-term US military presence in Iraq was always one of the reasons behind the 2003 invasion. Joseph Gerson, a historian of American military bases, said: "The Bush administration's intention is to have a long-term military presence in the region ... For a number of years the US has sought to use a number of means to make sure it dominates in the Middle East ... The Bush administration sees Iraq as an unsinkable aircraft carrier for its troops and bases for years to come."

Oh, here is something of interest. Proof that I have been right all along.

Krusty Kid May 5 2005

The US knows all this and needs to force the Saudi hand. How do they do this? They have asked since the Towers bombing and the Saudis don't give them up. With 911 the gloves came off. The US needs the Suadis to control the masses, if not for them Wahabism would go native and the whole country would be Al Queda like, they also need them to take action. In turn, the Saudis needed to show the masses that they were not, as Al Queda says, in bed with the Infidels and allowing them to base troops on holy land. Hence, the Suadis publicly told the US to leave.

The US needing to put pressure on the Saudis could not invade to eliminate the Al Queda threat there as it would inflame Muslims the world over in such a severe way that OBL would have gooten his wish I am sure but they needed to apply pressure indirectly. Virtually surrounding SA with American bases with the ability to surgicly strike into the heart of their country along with the proof they had the ability and will to do so was part of the reason for the Iraq invasion.

See Gerry, I don't think two dimensionally.

[gerryhatrick]

They say they will, but, have not been asked.

Oh, I know all about that. That's why I asked the question. Considering 80+% of the nation wants them to leave, how long before that government gets it's sh@t together enough to pass that resolution?

There are already MANY calls for the US to leave. We're headed for a showdown pretty soon I'd wager.

[geoffrey]

They say they will, but, have not been asked.

Oh, I know all about that. That's why I asked the question. Considering 80+% of the nation wants them to leave, how long before that government gets it's sh@t together enough to pass that resolution?

There are already MANY calls for the US to leave. We're headed for a showdown pretty soon I'd wager.

And therefore civilian casualties in the millions. Another Rwanda is on its way, thanks UN for not stepping in... again. What is the point anymore of having them?

I'm kind of not too happy about damage to ancient cities though.

[margrace]

Ever watch Antique Roadshow and see all the antiques that were liberated by the American Soldiers after the 2nd world war. They think they have a right.

[gerryhatrick]

And therefore civilian casualties in the millions. Another Rwanda is on its way, thanks UN for not stepping in... again. What is the point anymore of having them?

US withdrawal from Iraq = civilian casualties in the millions?

Another Rwanda?

Who told you that, Don Rumsfeld?

[geoffrey]

And therefore civilian casualties in the millions. Another Rwanda is on its way, thanks UN for not stepping in... again. What is the point anymore of having them?

US withdrawal from Iraq = civilian casualties in the millions?

Another Rwanda?

Who told you that, Don Rumsfeld?

Common sense.

The Iraqis are mostly attacking other Iraqis now. It will be Sunni vs. Shi'a until one group of them is dead, much like Rwanda.

Do you actually think the Iraqi's will just drop their weapons and become peace loving the day after the US leaves?

[KrustyKidd]

US withdrawal from Iraq = civilian casualties in the millions?

No but definitely with the only authority being chaos the six hundred civillians killed per month will certainly go up. And, reprisal killings will also skyrocket. Unless you perscribe to the notion above which by historical postings you seem to that you

actually think the Iraqi's will just drop their weapons and become peace loving the day after the US leaves?