1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Turkey invades Iraq

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Perry White, Jun 6, 2007.

  1. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    Bill --

    I might be wrong, but the line of thinking Birdscribe alludes to generally goes like this:

    The British left in a big fucking hurry, drawing the lines on the map in a willy-nilly manner. Thus, the brand-new country of Iraq was left with an untenable ethnic situation, which would only be resolved by dictatorship.

    We go in, take out the dictator, and you're back where you were, only now it's been 90 years and those lines in the sand are even harder to draw.

    Bird, if that wasn't what you were saying, I apologize in advance....
     
  2. Bubbler

    Bubbler Well-Known Member

    The short version is that Iraq was created a) as another buffer state to keep India protected from the west. Everything the UK did in Asia during the period was done in the context of protecting India; b) Iraq was created as a token favor to King Faisal (the same one from the Lawrence Of Arabia movie) who helped the Brits in WWI, but was pushed out by his rivals in the Arabian peninsula, Palestine and Syria. This was embarassing for the Brits, so they threw Faisal a bone and carved Iraq out of the dead Ottoman Empire; c) it was created as a puppet-state to give the UK a foothold on the then-developing oil industry.

    There's more than that, but that's the summary. All of the decisions were in the short-term interests of the UK in 1920, most of which had no relevance by 1945.

    There is no "Iraqi" people in the sense that they are an ethnic group. The country's borders were drawn up by Gertrude Bell, a British historian of note, but whose knowledge of the region was massively scant by today's standards. This is why you have this nightmarish hodge-podge of Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites all mixed together.

    Churchill's role was head of War Department who was responsible for the creation of the country. But David Lloyd George (the PM at the time) is as much to blame as he is for going forward with it.
     
  3. Oggiedoggie

    Oggiedoggie Well-Known Member

    Someone needs to show the Kurds the way.
     
  4. Bubbler

    Bubbler Well-Known Member

    Iraq was only nominally independent through the 50s. Even though it had a Hashemite king, Faisal was a puppet of the UK and Iraq was essentially a British colony until the early 50s. Even after that, the UK had a huge base as Basra.
     
  5. alleyallen

    alleyallen Guest

    Don't worry Hed. Your'e not alone. Several of us on here have been hit with rather puzzling posts by TP.
     
  6. Birdscribe

    Birdscribe Active Member

    Thank you, Bubbler. This is what I alluded to in my post, Bill, but didn't have time to delve into yesterday.

    Zeke, you weren't far off. The borders were drawn with the care of a drunk wielding an Etch-a-Sketch.
     
  7. IU90

    IU90 Member

    That's why I'm not sure why there's such intense opposition to the idea of partition into three new states--one Sunni controlled, one Shiite controlled, one Kurdish controlled.

    It's not like Iraq's people ever gave consent to the state's formation, instead it was three primary groups that viewed themselves as 3 distinctly different nationalites being forced kicking and screaming to live together as one nation-state. And intense hatred between the 3 groups is never gonna allow them to peacefully function together as one democracy (at least not during our lifetimes), its only gonna result in endless civil war. The state only held together during the Saddam years precisely because he was a ruthlessly controlling dictator who offered no other options.
     
  8. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    Sadly, Iraq can't even lay claim to the title of "Worst Quasi-Nation created by Britain in the Midst of a Hasty Retreat."

    That either goes to Palestine (the leader in the clubhouse) or Lebanon, where the kindly Brits left a 70-percent Muslim nation with a constitutional mandate for Christian leadership.
     
  9. Bubbler

    Bubbler Well-Known Member

    Back then, the borders seemed fair in the context of British interests. In the 1920s, there was virtually no on-the-ground knowledge of the former Ottoman Empire, there wasn't even rudimentary maps. Even if the intent to create a coherent state had been there (it wasn't), it would have been hard to pull off given the limitations of the times.
     
  10. Bill Horton

    Bill Horton Active Member

    Zeke, Bubbler, Birdscribe - thanks for taking the time to educate me.
    I don't know enough to have a valid opinion on the history of Iraq but your posts make me want to read and understand more.
    Bunch of journalists ... that's what you guys are!!! (I mean that as praise. I promise)
     
  11. Bubbler

    Bubbler Well-Known Member

    A great book on the topic is A Peace To End All Peace by David Fromkin.
     
  12. heyabbott

    heyabbott Well-Known Member

    Thank you, Thank You Very Much

    heyabbott: Hating Humans since Nov. 2 2002
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page