Iraq: Brief History and alternate look to current western narrative

Status
Not open for further replies.

Attic

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,282
2
76
How much do we appreciate the history of Iraq as tax money continues to be spent for various reasons which ultimately are destabilizing the region?

Iraq Is Not Really A State

To start this story, we have to go back to the period just after WW I when Britain and France were divvying up the spoils of the region between themselves.

Iraq did not exist prior to these two western powers taking out a map of the Middle east, a ruler and a pen, and summarily drawing straight lines that happened to rather inconsiderately cut across cultural, language and racial boundaries. The architects of this secret agreement were a Brit by the name of Sykes and a Frenchman by the name of Picot.

Prior to this Franco-British interference, the area was called Mesopotamia and had long been ruled by a contentious but roughly-balanced mixture of tribes and kings.

Here's the old Mesopotamia in green as compared to the borders drawn by Sykes & Picot:
[picture removed]

To understand the current conflict, you have to understand the history of the borders, how they were drawn, and the extent of western plundering and meddling -- which began long before the Bush Iraq wars (I & II) began.

The old partition of the Middle East is dead. I dread to think what will follow

[June 13, 2014

The entire Middle East has been haunted by the Sykes-Picot agreement, which also allowed Britain to implement Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour’s 1917 promise to give British support to the creation of a Jewish “homeland” in Palestine.

The collapsing Ottoman Empire of 1918 was to be split into two on a north-east, south-west axis which would run roughly from near Kirkuk – today under Kurdish control – across from Mosul in northern Iraq and the Syrian desert and through what is now the West Bank to Gaza.

Mosul was initially given to the French – its oil surrendered by the British in return for what would become a French buffer zone between Britain and the Russian Caucasus, Baghdad and Basra being safe in British hands below the French lines.

But growing British commercial desires for oil took over from imperial agreements. Mosul was configured into the British zone inside the new state of Iraq (previously Mesopotamia), its oil supplies safely in the hands of London.]

(Source)


It bears mentioning that the area the French and British allotted to themselves was already fully-populated by the people who lived there. However the area was already determined to be rich in oil and other commodities, and both colonial powers were well-practiced at the art of dividing and conquering local people in order to take their resources.

For the people of Mesopotamia, western resource plundering has only accelerated since the arbitrary lines that comprise the 'state' of Iraq were drawn.

Of course, it's quite likely that Iraq's border were specifically drawn to cut across ethnic boundaries and thereby assure a failed state, because Britain had learned through history that failed states were the easiest to control. This was their preferred MO in India and numerous other colonies, and by 1916 it was a more or less perfected tool of statecraft.

But whether it was ineptitude or malign intent, the fact remains that Iraq was never a logical geographical entity; and its natural state would be to split into three autonomous regions: Kurds to the north, Sunnis to the west and Shiites to the south.

As a quick reminder, the differences between Sunni and Shiite Muslims stems from a split made shortly after the prophet Muhammad died in 632:


The author also includes this piece, which no doubt is controversial, but hard to dismiss.

So whenever I hear terms like 'radical militants' or 'Jihadists' or even 'terrorists', what I hear instead is 'people with poor resources who believe they have no other options.' The unpleasant truth that threatens the dominant western narrative is that all humans, if they have access to sufficient resources and opportunities, are generally peaceful. By the time an entire population has been 'radicalized', the causal problems have been simmering for a long time and, as a result, will not be easily remedied.

If reasonable, it begs the question why we haven't tried more nation rebuilding and questions the integrity of claimed nation rebuilding we undertake in regios across the globe.

Full Article
 
Last edited:

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
The author also includes this piece, which no doubt is controversial, but hard to dismiss.

No, it's very easy to dismiss as stupid drivel. It's basically saying terrorism is justified for anyone who is poor, which is stupid. Further, there are LOTS of poor people all over the world who don't resort to terrorism, whether in their own countries or in other places around the world, to further their "cause". It also doesn't explain why places like Saudi Arabia and other relatively wealthy places are such hotbeds for terrorism / terrorist teachings.

The author basically wants to blame it all on the evil westerners of course, there should never be accountability for anything, it's always someone elses fault.

If reasonable, it begs the question
Its not reasonable, it's pretty much the same old tired blame game.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
No, it's very easy to dismiss as stupid drivel. It's basically saying terrorism is justified for anyone who is poor, which is stupid. Further, there are LOTS of poor people all over the world who

Tell me, how is America dropping bombs on a country for more than decade.... killing untold thousands of innocent civillians..... how is that not terrorism? You don't think it would scare the shit out of people? Does it magically become not terrorism if you drop the bombs from a plane? I would venture to say that America killed more innocent civillians in the last decade than all of the terrorists in the world combined.

Since America designated itself as freedom fighters, it automatically is not terroristic. All other freedom fighters are of course terrorists unless and until America says different. Given that America changes it's mind just about every other year,,,, todays terrorist often becomes tomorrow's freedom fighter.
 

Orignal Earl

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2005
8,059
55
86
So whenever I hear terms like 'radical militants' or 'Jihadists' or even 'terrorists', what I hear instead is 'people with poor resources who believe they have no other options.' The unpleasant truth that threatens the dominant western narrative is that all humans, if they have access to sufficient resources and opportunities, are generally peaceful. By the time an entire population has been 'radicalized', the causal problems have been simmering for a long time and, as a result, will not be easily remedied.

I've been saying this for years here.

People get along fine, when they are doing fine

Just a recent example
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2387192&highlight=when+people+fine&page=3


You would think that the fanatics here in P&N have it decent though, and they still will follow their beliefs no matter what
 
Last edited:
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
No, it's very easy to dismiss as stupid drivel. It's basically saying terrorism is justified for anyone who is poor, which is stupid. Further, there are LOTS of poor people all over the world who don't resort to terrorism, whether in their own countries or in other places around the world, to further their "cause". It also doesn't explain why places like Saudi Arabia and other relatively wealthy places are such hotbeds for terrorism / terrorist teachings.

The author basically wants to blame it all on the evil westerners of course, there should never be accountability for anything, it's always someone elses fault.

Its not reasonable, it's pretty much the same old tired blame game.


Didn't actually read the article did you?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Didn't actually read the article did you?

Yeah he missed it.

I understand the authors point and I mostly agree. That doesn't mean that we have to agree. It would be good to remember that our Boston Tea party was an act of terrorism.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
I stopped reading here
Further, I happen to hold the view that when an entire population resorts to violence, it's a sign that they feel they have no other options or opportunities. Whether it's a financially-strapped fired US employee lashing out at their former bosses and co-workers, or an Arab youth raised in utter poverty deciding that military extremism makes sense, I see the same dynamic at play.

People, like animals, when cornered will take whatever path remains for them to escape. If left with no other paths besides violence, then violence is what you get. It's not really all that hard to understand, and yet the US media goes out of its way to try and frame violent unrest as some form of inexplicable evil that magically appears for no good reason.s

Osama was rich beyond belief ~ 80m inherited. Many terrorists have masters, PhDs and are MDs they all take vows of poverty and kill. Whats a few earthly dollars compared to being in good graces of god for eternity Fundamentalist Islam teaches? Furthermore the wahabi saudi funded madrassa's and provincial indoctrination that goes on makes violence not just terrorists but an ethos in the region.

Nevermind why is most wealthy country in history of man, USA always resorting to violence. Or Germany who was richest in the world in 1938 so violent? Face it there are conflicting views which don't get along and no compromise is seen as possible and warfare is way to resolve this. Victors an vanquished. Then you can have prosperity within your homogenous sector.

This violence not a broke guy robbing a liquor store for his fix or rent. It's political violence to determine what kind of society one wishes to live in. What mores, tenants and atmospherics are followed.

Pay attention to what they say. "you tried secularism, Baathism now it's time for Islam" I hear nothing about "opportunity" It's a western invention to deny reality of differing ethos and fears of what confronting it really means.

Nice try though.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.