Here's a different way of looking at the looting in Iraq (see it here). The main premise is that the real looting ended when the statue of Saddam was pulled down. For two decades, the real looters wore suits and uniforms, not robes or blue jeans. I don't know that I agree with everything the author has to say, but it's not a long column so take a look at the Big Picture.
Aloha!
Comments (2)
The fact is that in the (hopefully brief) chaos of liberation, there probably aren't a whole lot of useful tasks for Iraqis to do.
Isn't there enough work clearing blocked streets, shoring up and repairing damaged houses, etc ... ?? Or is that not useful enough??
Iraq, for at least two decades, has been a society where many rewards have flowed not to those who served the needs of the marketplace, but to those who served the needs of the tyrant.
If you change 'tyrant' with big companies/state/... I don't see why this wouldn't apply to most other countries. It's the same reasoning applied to pulling music off the web without the artists benefiting. Pull this reasoning a bit further and stealing anything anytime anywhere becomes an OK activity.
I suppose he only considered the looting of Sadam's palaces and government buildings. But the looting also comprised museums, hospitals and shops.
If he can convince a now broke shopkeeper that the looting was OK then I will believe him.
Posted by sjon | April 17, 2003 12:44 AM
Posted on April 17, 2003 00:44
I think his main point is that while the recent looting is illegal, it will not last over 20 years like the looting of Iraq by Hussein. As I understand it, he is trying to illustrate this by pointing out the relative impact.
Anyway, as I said, I don't necessarily agree with everything he said but I thought it was an interesting different take on what was going on.
Aloha- Dan
Posted by DaBigKahuna | April 17, 2003 7:38 AM
Posted on April 17, 2003 07:38