Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (40382)	12/4/2001 2:45:29 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 82486

It is possible that the history of the region is a history of a people oppressed by the Turks, who ruled for most of the period since the 15th century, ending around WWI. The sudden disappearance of the Ottoman Empire left a power vacuum, which was temporarily filled by the British and French. However, the anti- colonialism of the post- War period guaranteed a rush to give up territory, even when there was little infrastructure or a well- educated civil service. In some instances, as with the partition of India, Britain basically washed its hands of communal tensions, and inadvertently caused millions of deaths as refugees fled both sides of the divide, and riots broke out all over, Hindu against Muslim, Muslim against Hindu. There was an inadequate transition to local rule. The best rulers, like Jordan's Hussein, were educated in England. The worst, like Ayatollah Khomeini, knew little of the Western world, and didn't want to know, being content with a Quranic education. A lot of the problem, then, is the turmoil caused in a post- colonial region ill- prepared for independence, but profligate with oil wealth to fund ridiculous ambitions.......