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 : Israel to U.S. : Now Deal with Syria and Iran -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (13975)	1/13/2007 11:10:01 AM
From: sea_urchin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22250

Gus > I guess the Brits view the (impending) war on Iran as an Arab Revolt redux Except there aren't too many Arabs to do their dirty work, as in WW1.

To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (13975)	1/21/2007 7:31:48 PM
From: sea_urchin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 22250

Gus > Tony Blair's problem is that he fancies himself as a modern-day TE Lawrence --a Tony of Arabia... bent on screwing the Arabs a second time. It seems Lawrence did more than that -- he advised Britain not to interfere in Arab affairs -- but British imperialists knew better. blog4brains.com >>Many of you are probably familiar with T.E. Lawrence’s daring and reckless adventures in the Middle East which are portrayed in a movie entitled Lawrence of Arabia. I recommend that you see it because it is a spectacular cinematic event that portrays the struggles of a man entangled in a country’s violent aggression against occupiers. Lawrence, after having lived, worked and lead various successful military campaigns in the desert alongside the Arabs, was against Britain’s imperialism toward Iraq. From an article in the winter, 2007, Wilson Quarterly, he was known to document and plead with Great Britain regarding their fate. He wrote, “The Arabs…were blessedly ungovernable: The Arabs ideas of national union is episodic, combined resistance to an intruder. Constructive politics, an organized state…are not only beyond their capacity but anathema to their instincts.” Great Britain, however, was not in the mood to give kingdoms to the Arabs. Their imperialistic maneuvers were at their height and no end was in sight. Therefore, in 1916, the Sykes-Picot Agreement was adopted. It basically divided Iraq and its neighboring areas to the west between the British and French. By this time, America learned of the existence of the Sykes-Picot Agreement and objected to what it called colonization. The thinking on the part of modern notions of nationality at the time embraced by the Covenant of the League of Nations, was “to encourage spontaneous democratic statehood in the area”. The ideas being put forth by Britain and France were that… “These documents proclaim that if we supply an aggregate of human beings, more or less homogeneous in language and religion, with a little assistance and a good deal of advice, if we protect them from external aggression and discourage internal violence, they will speedily and spontaneously organize themselves into a democratic state on modern lines.” Does this sound familiar? Britain had their most experienced, and knowledgable ‘expert’ who lived, worked and fought alongside the Arabs, telling them that what they were trying to do was impossible. But they ignored him and chose to pursue their fool hardy policy. --- What was interesting was that Britain, not only ignored the advice and counsel of Lawrence, but it conceded that the area was deeply divided by racial and religious cleavages. The Sunnis were landlords who helped govern the region and served as bureaucrats and high ranking army officers of the Ottoman Empire. Therefore, the Shia majority under hundreds of years of Sunni rule, were so little accustomed to holding high office and governing, that leaving the governing to them seemed futile. So, it was again feared that power would end up in the hands of a few. So Britain continued to pursue its imperialist march through the region thinking that they knew what was best knowing full well all these obvious realities. It is amazing all the parallels to past history, especially in regards to this highly volatile and coveted area of the world. With so much rich history to learn from, why do we continue to make the same mistakes? Why do we continue to ignore history? When will we learn that looking back at events that occurred in the past, may lead us to new and more enlightened avenues for the future? I don’t think we will ever learn because we are not taught to think critically in this country. So, we are condemned to repeat the mistakes of the past. I believe the President serves as an excellent of this. And the lessons we will have to learn again, will be steep and costly, just as it was to others in history. <<