Skip to main content

Reply to "Should we stay or go"

We should go!!!

Go!!!

Go!!!

Western countries created the mess that is Iraq, beginning around 1914.

The former Ottoman states (Wilayat) of Mosul, Baghdad, and Al Basrah (now called Iraq) are three disparate areas that were placed under the rule of Hashimite King Faisal (imported for his Western friendliness), from the Hijaz region of Arabia after being induced to fight on the side of the British against the Turks for the reward of sovereignty.

Besides the geographical differences, the newly named Iraq (actually an old name reborn) was a complicated ethnic and religious mix. Particularly incensed about the boundries established by Western powers were the Kurds, who had no desire to be ruled from Baghdad. In the south the tribesmen and Shi's had a similar resistance to central control. Everyone in the region resented the false lines of demarcation that cut off Kuwait, a "mini-state" they believed to be a part of their country. The faux borders also limited access to the Gulf's waters.

In establishing their rule over Iraq (with the blessing of the League of Nations), the British layed the ground work for the current violent instability. Iraq wound up as a testing ground for the use of British aircraft against guerrilla fighters and their villages (a Winston Churchill production). Throughout the the 1920s, 30s, 40s and most of the 50s Iraq was bombed from the air and had their first experience with the use of poison gases (against them).

That is a clue as to what Western imperialists mean when they say they only want democracy to spread. What they really want is to run the region, and above all else, maintain access to its oil.

Too many people think that war and colonizing in the interests of economic gain are okay. I say it is not. What is the difference when it is done on a small scale? Racketeering. And, when it's done by individuals it's called stealing, aggravated robbery, homicide (for profit)... etc.
×
×
×
×