>>
>>As for the Republican Guard, I've seen the story of how the national museum was looted (and this was a place where the world's heritage from pre-Greek cultures was kept) went pretty much undisturbed. US troops actually refused to protect the place. If you don't trust my memory, search the BBC archives.
>>
>
>The difference is the museum in Baghdad was looted by Iraqis, not American troops. Kuwait was also looted by Iraqis, when they were the invaders. I think the museums should have been protected. But I also think the Iraqis behaved rather badly. Iraqis should have protected the museum and a lot of the rest of the infrastructure. It was quickly obvious the big danger was not from us.

And still the media here published the looting story widely, blaming the Iraqis - and probably didn't mention the "actually refused to protect the place" part, which BBC did. I wonder how many rich art collectors have added to their treasure, and how much money changed hands. I may bet that more than half of the museum loot ended up in the West.

>>I've heard some comments that these beheadings actually cost fewer lives than other attempts of whoever was behind these tapes to get their word heard.
>
>It is still barbarism.

And good knowledge of how media here work. They may blow an embassy, a ship, whatever, kill dozens of peple and still get less coverage than with a single beheading. Cruel, yes, and quite within their tradition - beheading is probably their equivalent of a firing squad, an execution calculated for effect.

>>
>>History may show that Saddam wasn't so bad, specially in the beginning when he was a marionette of the West. If I recall well, he was a renegade CIA trainee, set in position by CIA, and played nice for a while. But then he decided the oil belongs to Iraq... and felt he's got all the dictator's prerogatives as well.
>
>This is completely wrong. Saddam was hitman for the Baathists in the 50s.

And the Baath party was not Islamic, it was completely secular, and was founded... when, by whom, with whose help?

> Fortunatly the Israelis thought through the implications and did not share your view that 'saddam wasn't so bad'.

I think they did - they didn't have to go through months of media hype; they had first-hand intelligence, and they knew exactly how nasty the bad guy from the 'hood is. No exaggerations either way.

> I think it is safe to say a Saddam with a bomb around the time he invaded Kuwait would not have been a good thing.

I feel much better when I know Iraq doesn't have the bomb. I'd feel soooo much better if nobody had it.

>It would have unquestionably meant nuclear war in the mid-east.

You mean he'd use it for real? Or would he use it as a means of blackmail, or a means to avoid being blackmailed, just like other nations do? Or would he use it as means of keeping Israel at bay?

Who knows? I have a nagging suspicion that your "what would it have been if it would have been" is not exactly identical to "unquestionably".

>>The court-martialed guys got one year... I don't know much about American legal system, but I do watch "Law & Order" regularly, and I hear "15 to life", "20 to life", "25 to life" at least twice a week. Are these guys on TV totally off the mark?
>
>The guy who actually killed a prisoner got 20 to life. The people who took pictures of them naked and humiliated them got much less.

Ok so I missed the first news and heard the leftovers. It's really impossible to watch the news on commercial channels... the commercials are too loud and moronic (or is so the presumed level of the consumer), so sometimes I'm not fast enough with the mute button.

>I wonder what they did to prisoners at Abu Ghareb when Saddam's people ran it? I would imagine the prisoners with the best stories are dead.

Such stories usually take about 20 years to emerge. I've read a lot about Gulag... in the seventies, and not by only Solzhenitsin, but first-hand accounts of survivors.

But then, the task of winning the hearts of the natives can't be hurt by taking the high road. And using the behavior of the previous regime as a comparison is just shooting too low. It reminds me of the situation when you sell a new app to the customer, and the staff there keep comparing yours with the old one. Yes, there's the "if the old one was so good, how come you bought a new one", but there's always a chance that the new one isn't really overwhelmingly better.

>>I think such texts deserve to exist. What if it is a real whistle-blower? It's a call for attention to what is going on.
>>
>You do know, though, that many of the 'anit-zionist' websites have re-published The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

I'm amazed that that piece of crap is still circulating, after so many decades.

>I rather liked the Kurds, but since most of my friends were Turks, it was my first lesson in one man's terrorist being another mans freedom fighter - and also realizing that sometimes a bandit and a killer is just that. I find lots of things romantic - it is my nature - but being very cynical allowed me to survive my youth. <s>

What makes it hard is that whatever is done for/to the Kurds in Iraq, will be also taken as an idea of what can/should be done for/to the Kurds in Turkey. And Turkey and Iraq are two countries with a very different standing in today's world, aren't they? That's what will make it very, very interesting.