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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (63108)	6/14/2005 6:13:11 PM
From: sea_biscuit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

That is a different issue. My question is about the 1700+ soldiers killed and the $300B+ wasted in an invasion that was launched on the basis of lies. Both numbers are going to climb higher and higher in the coming months. Those who sent our troops there (and those who supported sending them) have to answer.

To: Sully- who wrote (63108)	6/14/2005 7:19:14 PM
From: sea_biscuit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Amazing how history repeats itself. From a Robert Fisk article in March 2003 : "On 8 March 1917, Lieutenant-general Stanley Maude issued a "Proclamation to the People of the Wilayat of Baghdad". Maude's Anglo-Indian Army of the Tigres had just invaded and occupied Iraq – after storming up the country from Basra – to "free" its people from their dictators. "Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators," the British announced. "People of Baghdad, remember for 26 generations you have suffered under strange tyrants who have ever endeavoured to set one Arab house against another in order that they might profit by your dissensions. This policy is abhorrent to Great Britain and her Allies for there can be neither peace nor prosperity where there is enmity or misgovernment." General Maude, of course, was the General Tommy Franks of his day, and his proclamation – so rich in irony now that President George Bush is uttering equally mendacious sentiments – was intended to persuade Iraqis that they should accept foreign occupation while Britain secured the country's oil. General Maude's chief political officer, Sir Percy Cox, called on Iraq's Arab leaders, who were not identified, to participate in the government in collaboration with the British authorities and spoke of liberation, freedom, past glories, future greatness and – here the ironies come in spades – it expressed the hope that the people of Iraq would find unity. The British commander cabled to London that "local conditions do not permit of employing in responsible positions any but British officers competent... to deal with people of the country. Before any truly Arab façade [sic] can be applied to edifice, it seems essential that foundation of law and order should be well and truly laid." As David Fromkin noted in his magisterial A Peace to End all Peace – essential reading for America's future army of occupation – the antipathy of the Sunni minority and the Shia majority of Iraq, the rivalries of tribes and clans "made it difficult to achieve a single unified government that was at the same time representative, effective and widely supported". Whitehall failed, as Fromkin caustically notes, "to think through in practical detail how to fulfil the promises gratuitously made to a section of the local inhabitants". There was even a problem with the Kurds, since the British could not make up their mind as to whether they should be absorbed into the new state of Iraq or allowed to form an independent Kurdistan. " [...] What happened after that? By 1922, i.e. in 5 years, the British forces were mentally and physically exhausted, back home the country was financially emasculated, and the people demanded that all overseas troops be brought home. The British hastily divided the region into artificial "countries" and retreated.