Infinite Menus, Copyright 2006, OpenCube Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Hey, at least they’re not trading food for children to be sex slaves…

Apparently having nothing better to do, “UN peacekeepers in the disputed African territory of Western Sahara have vandalised ancient rock paintings“. Well at least they’re keeping busy doing something destructive. Let’s hear it for the UN! Hip, hip…

This was my favorite quote from the article: “I was appalled. You’d think some of them would know better. These are officers, not squaddies,” Mr Harston said.

Some of them? You’d think some of them would know better? I’m appalled too!

Share and Enjoy:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • digg
  • Fark
  • Reddit
  • YahooMyWeb

10 Responses to “Hey, at least they’re not trading food for children to be sex slaves…”

  1. Craig,
    Given how much of ancient Baghdad the US military bulldozed and demolished for your facilities, are you really sure you want to be getting into this argument? Let him whose military is know for its respect for other cultures cast the first stone. ;-)

    It’s still appalling, but let’s not pretend the UN peacekeepers are the only people who ever vandalise ancient monuments.

  2. Hey, bad is bad. Also, well, we bulldozed in pursuit of a very bad guy (Saddam) and then of terrorists blowing up civilians. Exactly what good did these people think they were doing (or evil, undoing) by defacing rock paintings? This was just wanton destruction for no good purpose. Does that make what we did good? No but, in my opinion, that makes this worse…but then, as I say, they could be engaging in child-sex-sl ave trade…

  3. Besides, I didn’t expect much of an argument. I mean, who’s going to defend this around here?

  4. I mean, if we’re going to play tu quoque, I could mention Dresden, you could mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki…

    Instead, let’s just agree that, during war-time, nations do bad things to end far worse things.

    That still leaves my argument: if Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Baghdad were in pursuit of ending an evil — bringing down the Nazi-Japanes e empire-insti gated war/Saddam-A l Qaeda instigated insurgency, at what worthwhile end was the defacing of ancient rock-paintin gs with graffiti aimed?

  5. Craig,
    I was not referring to the bombing which did damage for precisely the reason you cite: Shit happens in war. I was referring to the decision to create a base on one of Baghdad’s premier archaeologic al sites and bulldoze it to make things more convenient. There wasn’t that good a reason to do that either, unless I missed the reason that this was the only place here the base could be built, thus the comparison. In both cases, it’s unnecessary destruction of historic artifacts.

    Dresden, under current rules, might well have been a war crime given it was deliberately targeting civilians, same with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They also were quite likely to be considered necessary for the prosecution of the war. Neither the vandalism or destruction fall into that category.

  6. Okay, I’ll give you that, Paul. Since I don’t have a clue as to why that site was chosen, I won’t defend it. But if America gets criticized for what she does, and she does in spades, then so does the UN and if I don’t do the honors, who will? Is there someone else here posting on the crap the UN does that I’m not aware of? It’s a rotten job but someone’s got to do it. :^)

  7. Ok, I’ll accept that, Craig. Do you have to enjoy your work quite so much? ;-)

  8. Paul,

    How DO you get those yellow smilies?

  9. ; - ) without the spaces for a wink. : - ) for a smiley. : - ( for sad and : - D for big smile.

  10. Thanks, Paul! :-)

Leave a Reply