I must've missed something in the original article. I don't recall a passage about American companies being the only ones allowed to make a bid going forward, but if that's the case, Hassan is right -- it's screwed up. Other countries should have a stake and other countries should be involved in every aspect of the rebuilding of Iraq - political, business, and philanthropic ventures too.
The more unilateral things appear to be going forward, the more trouble it's going to cause on a variety of fronts. I'm not inclined to take Sammi Jo's word for it necessarily, but WorldCom should not even be in business, let alone receiving Iraqi contracts.
I guess loathing of those corporations which have proved themselves worthy of the "scumbag" moniker, is one thing we have in common.
I like how you manage to lambast those who you perceive to espouse one-sided, black/white viewpoints on the subject and then proceed to do exactly that yourself.
Fantastic work.
--
bunge:
Quote:
What if these contracts are paid for by Iraqi oil?
Good question. Not what I'm talking about.
--
tonton:
Quote:
What about freeing the Iraqi people from oppression. Yeah. Right.
Your counter-argument is "Yeah. Right."? Don't be shocked when I fail to take you seriously.
I like how you manage to lambast those who you perceive to espouse one-sided, black/white viewpoints on the subject and then proceed to do exactly that yourself.
Fantastic work.
/me taking a bow.
I never said I was unbiased. I just said I was tired of going back and forth. My comment was not meant to spur any discussion, just to explain my silence on the issue.
Besides, I don't think my last sentence makes my comment any less valid. But whatever. Arguing with people about this issue is like talking to a wall and asking it to change color.
More proof, yes proof, of the horrible reporting the BBC passes off as journalism these days. Is this an opinion piece or hard news? It's billed as news but it quotes more opinions, selectively, than it reports news. Anti-US bias passing as news.
What does my bias have to do with what is being discussed?
I'd like to see a thread go 20 posts before it's derailed... but why expect that when it never happens because people want to start off-topic pissing contests?
--
tonton:
Quote:
Iraqi freedom was never an argument for the war. Never. Not until all the other arguments fell apart, then all of a sudden we're the saviours of the Iraqi people. Well, obviously, they don't see us as such.
Iraqi freedom was never an argument for Operation Iraqi Freedom?
I guess Bush and Blair really didn't make a humanitarian case (granted, it wasn't the feature of their argument since apparently *neither side* actually gave a shit about the actual people in Iraq)?
More history revision.
Quote:
George Bush goes to congress and says, "I want to spend a hundred billion of taxpayers' money to free the Iraqi people." Who in hell wouldn't have laughed in his face?
Me.
Quote:
WAS IT WORTH 150 BILLION DOLLARS OF OUR CHILDREN'S AND GRANDCHILDREN'S FUTURE TO FREE THE IRAQI PEOPLE WHEN THEY DIDN'T EVEN APPRECIATE THEIR FREEDOM (OR SEE ANY EFFECT OF IT)? HELL. NO.
Well when you type it in all caps I guess your once weak argument gets strong.
There is turmoil after a decades-long dictatorship has been ousted in a country devastated mainly by economic strangulation. Boy, there's a shock.
Quote:
If you're so glad we freed the Iraqi people, Groverat, then I expect you to send my daughter to college. Cause people like you stole her college money for the benefit of those Iraqi people who didn't even want it.
There is turmoil after a decades-long dictatorship has been ousted in a country devastated mainly by economic strangulation. Boy, there's a shock.
"A country devastated mainly by economic strangulation." Hmm. A questionable reason for the instability in the country, to say the least. Iraq is unstable now because they DON'T have a dictator. It was never a real country anyway. It was a creation of the Britain in around 1920 and since that time there have been warring factions and clans trying to get their freedom. The most recent incarnation of this instability is the just under boiling we're seeing now between the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. The dictatorship was the only thing that kept it from blowing up (at least on the front page of the news) for years.
The turmoil caused mainly by economic strangulation. And we're going to give them a breath of capitalism.
Or you could look at the truth of the matter and conclude that it was Britain's meddling in the first place that caused it.
Iraq is unstable now because they DON'T have a dictator.
Really? Wow.
It's almost like you selectively quoted me... oh wait you did.
Sez me:
There is turmoil after a decades-long dictatorship has been ousted in a country devastated mainly by economic strangulation.
Do you even try to read the things other people post or do you just plow forward with angry self-righteousness like Rush Limbaugh holding forth on an electronic message board?
There is turmoil after a decades-long dictatorship has been ousted in a country devastated mainly by economic strangulation.
...in a country devastated mainly by economic strangulation.
The country has not been devastated mainly by economic strangulation. The country has been devastated by warring factions and only held together by scotch tape (tape that we, btw, practically installed ourselves). Now that we tore the tape off it's coming apart, much to some people's surprise.
What does my bias have to do with what is being discussed?
I'd like to see a thread go 20 posts before it's derailed... but why expect that when it never happens because people want to start off-topic pissing contests?
Discussing how these contracts are paid for is not off-topic.
The country has not been devastated mainly by economic strangulation. The country has been devastated by warring factions and only held together by scotch tape (tape that we, btw, practically installed ourselves). Now that we tore the tape off it's coming apart, much to some people's surprise.
The history of Iraq started in May of 2003...
The UN's war on Iraq in 1991 did an amazing amount of damage to a very modern country. The UN's sanctions on Iraq from 1991 to 2003 annihilated what was left of the economy after the first Gulf War and the war Iraq had with Iran. Not only that, but the continuation of sanctions kept the nation in an economic stranglehold.
Which is why I say the following:
There is turmoil after a decades-long dictatorship has been ousted in a country devastated mainly by economic strangulation.
The only thing holding the devastated country together for those 12 years was an oppressive and brutal dictatorship. Get rid of that dictatorship and you see what you see now, an economically annihilated country with no clear leadership or real sense of identity.
And guess what happens to a country with a destroyed economy and no leader? Internal strife and conflict.
Did the 2003 war destroy Iraq's economy? No, 12 years of economic sanction did. You are trying very hard to ignore the state of Iraq *before* Dubya decided to go in, which is equal parts hilarious and pathetic.
---
bunge:
Quote:
Discussing how these contracts are paid for is not off-topic.
I was speaking to a generalized question and you are trying to apply it to specifics. This is your typical style and I'd rather pound nails through my fingers than participate in yet another inane semantic bitchfest with you. Thanks. If you can find a problem with anything I say, then post it, otherwise could you please drop the nagging bullshit? You don't have to validate your existence through me.
Let's see..... and now Dubbya wants 87 billion to firm up the front lines in the war on terrorism. Hmmm? Here's an idea maybe Dubbya should run for leader of Iraq instead!
The UN's war on Iraq in 1991 did an amazing amount of damage to a very modern country. The UN's sanctions on Iraq from 1991 to 2003 annihilated what was left of the economy after the first Gulf War and the war Iraq had with Iran. Not only that, but the continuation of sanctions kept the nation in an economic stranglehold.
Which is why I say the following:
There is turmoil after a decades-long dictatorship has been ousted in a country devastated mainly by economic strangulation.
The only thing holding the devastated country together for those 12 years was an oppressive and brutal dictatorship. Get rid of that dictatorship and you see what you see now, an economically annihilated country with no clear leadership or real sense of identity.
And guess what happens to a country with a destroyed economy and no leader? Internal strife and conflict.
Did the 2003 war destroy Iraq's economy? No, 12 years of economic sanction did. You are trying very hard to ignore the state of Iraq *before* Dubya decided to go in, which is equal parts hilarious and pathetic.
---
bunge:
I was speaking to a generalized question and you are trying to apply it to specifics. This is your typical style and I'd rather pound nails through my fingers than participate in yet another inane semantic bitchfest with you. Thanks. If you can find a problem with anything I say, then post it, otherwise could you please drop the nagging bullshit? You don't have to validate your existence through me.
I was speaking to a generalized question and you are trying to apply it to specifics.
I'll be quick because you can't seem to handle a simple discussion.
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Any contract paid for by the American taxpayer should go to an American company.
I then asked about if it's not taxpayer money paying for these contracts. We're both discussing this on the same level. If you don't wish to join in the discussion, that's fine. But if not, it shows your biased against even potentially criticizing Bush or the Bush Administration on this topic.
That pretty much makes your opinion in this thread worthless. Or at least, worth less.
I then asked about if it's not taxpayer money paying for these contracts. We're both discussing this on the same level. If you don't wish to join in the discussion, that's fine.
Is it fine?
Quote:
But if not, it shows your biased against even potentially criticizing Bush or the Bush Administration on this topic.
The fact that I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 and plan on voting independent or Democrat in 2004 should tell you all you need to know about my feelings on Dubya.
He was the governor of my state for years and I voted for Nader in 2000, think about it.
Just because I don't jump into the mindless anti-Bush circlejerks with the rest of peanut gallery doesn't mean I won't criticize Bush. I'm sad but not surprised to see that such inane conclusion-jumping is openly posted for others to read.
Did the 2003 war destroy Iraq's economy? No, 12 years of economic sanction did. You are trying very hard to ignore the state of Iraq *before* Dubya decided to go in, which is equal parts hilarious and pathetic.
grover, you're being purposely dense. Do you need a history lesson?
Quote:
The civil government of postwar Iraq was headed originally by the high commissioner, Sir Percy Cox, and his deputy, Colonel Arnold Talbot Wilson. The British were confronted with Iraq's age-old problems, compounded by some new ones. Villagers demanded that the tribes be restrained, and tribes demanded that their titles to tribal territories be extended and confirmed. Merchants demanded more effective legal procedures, courts, and laws to protect their activities and interests. Municipal authorities appealed for defined powers and grants-in-aid in addition to the establishment of public health and education facilities. Landlords pressed for grants of land, for the building of canals and roads, and for the provision of tested seeds and livestock.
The holy cities of An Najaf and Karbala and their satellite tribes were in a state of near anarchy. British reprisals after the murder of a British officer in An Najaf failed to restore order. The Anayzah, the Shammar, and the Jubur tribes of the western desert were beset by violent infighting. British adminis- tration had yet to be established in the mountains of Kurdistan. Meanwhile, from the Hakkari Mountains beyond Iraq's northern frontier and from the plains of Urmia in Iran, thousands of Assyrians began to pour into Iraqi territory seeking refuge from Turkish savagery. The most striking problem facing the British was the growing anger of the nationalists, who felt betrayed at being accorded mandate status. The nationalists soon came to view the mandate as a flimsy disguise for colonialism. The experienced Cox delegated governance of the country to Wilson while he served in Persia between April 1918 and October 1920. The younger man governed Iraq with the kind of paternalism that had characterized British rule in India. Impatient to establish an efficient administration, Wilson used experienced Indians to staff subordinate positions within his administration. The exclusion of Iraqis from administrative posts added humiliation to Iraqi discontent.
Three important anticolonial secret societies had been formed in Iraq during 1918 and 1919. At An Najaf, Jamiyat an Nahda al Islamiya (The League of the Islamic Awakening) was organized; its numerous and varied members included ulama (religious leaders), journalists, landlords, and tribal leaders. Members of the Jamiyat assassinated a British officer in the hope that the killing would act as a catalyst for a general rebellion at Iraq's other holy city, Karbala. Al Jamiya al Wataniya al Islamiya (The Muslim National League) was formed with the object of organizing and mobilizing the population for major resistance. In February 1919, in Baghdad, a coalition of Shia merchants, Sunni teachers and civil servants, Sunni and Shia ulama, and Iraqi officers formed the Haras al Istiqlal (The Guardians of Independence). The Istiqlal had member groups in Karbala, An Najaf, Al Kut, and Al Hillah.
Local outbreaks against British rule had occurred even before the news reached Iraq that the country had been given only mandate status. Upon the death of an important Shia mujtahid (religious scholar) in early May 1920, Sunni and Shia ulama temporarily put aside their differences as the memorial services metamorphosed into political rallies. Ramadan, the Islamic month of fasting, began later in that month; once again, through nationalistic poetry and oratory, religious leaders exhorted the people to throw off the bonds of imperialism. Violent demonstrations and strikes followed the British arrest of several leaders.
When the news of the mandate reached Iraq in late May, a group of Iraqi delegates met with Wilson and demanded independence. Wilson dismissed them as a "handful of ungrateful politicians." Nationalist political activity was stepped up, and the grand mujtahid of Karbala, Imam Shirazi, and his son, Mirza Muhammad Riza, began to organize the effort in earnest. Arab flags were made and distributed, and pamphlets were handed out urging the tribes to prepare for revolt. Muhammad Riza acted as liaison among insurgents in An Najaf and in Karbala, and the tribal confederations. Shirazi then issued a fatwa (religious ruling), pointing out that it was against Islamic law for Muslims to countenance being ruled by non-Muslims, and he called for a jihad against the British. By July 1920, Mosul was in rebellion against British rule, and the insurrection moved south down the Euphrates River valley. The southern tribes, who cherished their long-held political autonomy, needed little inducement to join in the fray. They did not cooperate in an organized effort against the British, however, which limited the effect of the revolt. The country was in a state of anarchy for three months; the British restored order only with great difficulty and with the assistance of Royal Air Force bombers. British forces were obliged to send for reinforcements from India and from Iran.
Ath Thawra al Iraqiyya al Kubra, or The Great Iraqi Revolution (as the 1920 rebellion is called), was a watershed event in contemporary Iraqi history. For the first time, Sunnis and Shias, tribes and cities, were brought together in a common effort. In the opinion of Hanna Batatu, author of a seminal work on Iraq, the building of a nation-state in Iraq depended upon two major factors: the integration of Shias and Sunnis into the new body politic and the successful resolution of the age-old conflicts between the tribes and the riverine cities and among the tribes themselves over the food-producing flatlands of the Tigris and the Euphrates. The 1920 rebellion brought these groups together, if only briefly; this constituted an important first step in the long and arduous process of forging a nation-state out of Iraq's conflict-ridden social structure.
The 1920 revolt had been very costly to the British in both manpower and money. Whitehall was under domestic pressure to devise a formula that would provide the maximum control over Iraq at the least cost to the British taxpayer. The British replaced the military regime with a provisional Arab government, assisted by British advisers and answerable to the supreme authority of the high commissioner for Iraq, Cox. The new administration provided a channel of communication between the British and the restive population, and it gave Iraqi leaders an opportunity to prepare for eventual self-government. The provisional government was aided by the large number of trained Iraqi administrators who returned home when the French ejected Faisal from Syria. Like earlier Iraqi governments, however, the provisional government was composed chiefly of Sunni Arabs; once again the Shias were underrepresented.
As a counterforce to the nationalistic inclinations of the monarchy and as a means of insuring the king's dependence, the British cultivated the tribal shaykhs, whose power had been waning since the end of the nineteenth century. While the new king sought to create a national consciousness, to strengthen the institutions of the emerging state, and especially to create a national military, the tribal shaykhs supported a fragmented community and sought to weaken the coercive power of the state. A major goal of the British policy was to keep the monarchy stronger than any one tribe but weaker than a coalition of tribes so that British power would ultimately be decisive in arbitrating disputes between the two.
Ultimately, the British-created monarchy suffered from a chronic legitimacy crisis: the concept of a monarchy was alien to Iraq. Despite his Islamic and pan-Arab credentials, Faisal was not an Iraqi, and, no matter how effectively he ruled, Iraqis saw the monarchy as a British creation. The continuing inability of the government to gain the confidence of the people fueled political instability well into the 1970s.
Iraq has been one big mess since the early part of the 20th century. And the British were the reason. This little history lesson (please pay special attention to the bold parts), leads us upto Saddam's time. A dictator who kept the country together with brutal force. It's been waiting since 1920 to explode and now we have it.
Please don't be so quick to assume that people who disagree with you don't know what they're talking about.
Comments
Originally posted by groverat
Any contract paid for by the American taxpayer should go to an American company.
What if these contracts are paid for by Iraqi oil?
The more unilateral things appear to be going forward, the more trouble it's going to cause on a variety of fronts. I'm not inclined to take Sammi Jo's word for it necessarily, but WorldCom should not even be in business, let alone receiving Iraqi contracts.
I guess loathing of those corporations which have proved themselves worthy of the "scumbag" moniker, is one thing we have in common.
I like how you manage to lambast those who you perceive to espouse one-sided, black/white viewpoints on the subject and then proceed to do exactly that yourself.
Fantastic work.
--
bunge:
What if these contracts are paid for by Iraqi oil?
Good question. Not what I'm talking about.
--
tonton:
What about freeing the Iraqi people from oppression. Yeah. Right.
Your counter-argument is "Yeah. Right."? Don't be shocked when I fail to take you seriously.
Originally posted by groverat
torifile:
I like how you manage to lambast those who you perceive to espouse one-sided, black/white viewpoints on the subject and then proceed to do exactly that yourself.
Fantastic work.
/me taking a bow.
I never said I was unbiased. I just said I was tired of going back and forth. My comment was not meant to spur any discussion, just to explain my silence on the issue.
Besides, I don't think my last sentence makes my comment any less valid. But whatever. Arguing with people about this issue is like talking to a wall and asking it to change color.
Originally posted by groverat
Good question. Not what I'm talking about.
Your bias is some of the worst here.
What does my bias have to do with what is being discussed?
I'd like to see a thread go 20 posts before it's derailed... but why expect that when it never happens because people want to start off-topic pissing contests?
--
tonton:
Iraqi freedom was never an argument for the war. Never. Not until all the other arguments fell apart, then all of a sudden we're the saviours of the Iraqi people. Well, obviously, they don't see us as such.
Iraqi freedom was never an argument for Operation Iraqi Freedom?
I guess Bush and Blair really didn't make a humanitarian case (granted, it wasn't the feature of their argument since apparently *neither side* actually gave a shit about the actual people in Iraq)?
More history revision.
George Bush goes to congress and says, "I want to spend a hundred billion of taxpayers' money to free the Iraqi people." Who in hell wouldn't have laughed in his face?
Me.
WAS IT WORTH 150 BILLION DOLLARS OF OUR CHILDREN'S AND GRANDCHILDREN'S FUTURE TO FREE THE IRAQI PEOPLE WHEN THEY DIDN'T EVEN APPRECIATE THEIR FREEDOM (OR SEE ANY EFFECT OF IT)? HELL. NO.
Well when you type it in all caps I guess your once weak argument gets strong.
There is turmoil after a decades-long dictatorship has been ousted in a country devastated mainly by economic strangulation. Boy, there's a shock.
If you're so glad we freed the Iraqi people, Groverat, then I expect you to send my daughter to college. Cause people like you stole her college money for the benefit of those Iraqi people who didn't even want it.
Emotional arguments rule!
WHAT ABOUT THE KIDS!?!? THE KIDS!!!!
Nice bit of logic, Rush.
Originally posted by groverat
There is turmoil after a decades-long dictatorship has been ousted in a country devastated mainly by economic strangulation. Boy, there's a shock.
"A country devastated mainly by economic strangulation." Hmm. A questionable reason for the instability in the country, to say the least. Iraq is unstable now because they DON'T have a dictator. It was never a real country anyway. It was a creation of the Britain in around 1920 and since that time there have been warring factions and clans trying to get their freedom. The most recent incarnation of this instability is the just under boiling we're seeing now between the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. The dictatorship was the only thing that kept it from blowing up (at least on the front page of the news) for years.
The turmoil caused mainly by economic strangulation.
Or you could look at the truth of the matter and conclude that it was Britain's meddling in the first place that caused it.
Cheers ,
Scott
Iraq is unstable now because they DON'T have a dictator.
Really? Wow.
It's almost like you selectively quoted me... oh wait you did.
Sez me:
There is turmoil after a decades-long dictatorship has been ousted in a country devastated mainly by economic strangulation.
Do you even try to read the things other people post or do you just plow forward with angry self-righteousness like Rush Limbaugh holding forth on an electronic message board?
Originally posted by groverat
There is turmoil after a decades-long dictatorship has been ousted in a country devastated mainly by economic strangulation.
...in a country devastated mainly by economic strangulation.
The country has not been devastated mainly by economic strangulation. The country has been devastated by warring factions and only held together by scotch tape (tape that we, btw, practically installed ourselves). Now that we tore the tape off it's coming apart, much to some people's surprise.
And anger? Hardly. Don't flatter yourself.
Originally posted by groverat
bunge:
What does my bias have to do with what is being discussed?
I'd like to see a thread go 20 posts before it's derailed... but why expect that when it never happens because people want to start off-topic pissing contests?
Discussing how these contracts are paid for is not off-topic.
The country has not been devastated mainly by economic strangulation. The country has been devastated by warring factions and only held together by scotch tape (tape that we, btw, practically installed ourselves). Now that we tore the tape off it's coming apart, much to some people's surprise.
The history of Iraq started in May of 2003...
The UN's war on Iraq in 1991 did an amazing amount of damage to a very modern country. The UN's sanctions on Iraq from 1991 to 2003 annihilated what was left of the economy after the first Gulf War and the war Iraq had with Iran. Not only that, but the continuation of sanctions kept the nation in an economic stranglehold.
Which is why I say the following:
There is turmoil after a decades-long dictatorship has been ousted in a country devastated mainly by economic strangulation.
The only thing holding the devastated country together for those 12 years was an oppressive and brutal dictatorship. Get rid of that dictatorship and you see what you see now, an economically annihilated country with no clear leadership or real sense of identity.
And guess what happens to a country with a destroyed economy and no leader? Internal strife and conflict.
Did the 2003 war destroy Iraq's economy? No, 12 years of economic sanction did. You are trying very hard to ignore the state of Iraq *before* Dubya decided to go in, which is equal parts hilarious and pathetic.
---
bunge:
Discussing how these contracts are paid for is not off-topic.
I was speaking to a generalized question and you are trying to apply it to specifics. This is your typical style and I'd rather pound nails through my fingers than participate in yet another inane semantic bitchfest with you. Thanks. If you can find a problem with anything I say, then post it, otherwise could you please drop the nagging bullshit? You don't have to validate your existence through me.
Originally posted by groverat
torifile:
The history of Iraq started in May of 2003...
The UN's war on Iraq in 1991 did an amazing amount of damage to a very modern country. The UN's sanctions on Iraq from 1991 to 2003 annihilated what was left of the economy after the first Gulf War and the war Iraq had with Iran. Not only that, but the continuation of sanctions kept the nation in an economic stranglehold.
Which is why I say the following:
There is turmoil after a decades-long dictatorship has been ousted in a country devastated mainly by economic strangulation.
The only thing holding the devastated country together for those 12 years was an oppressive and brutal dictatorship. Get rid of that dictatorship and you see what you see now, an economically annihilated country with no clear leadership or real sense of identity.
And guess what happens to a country with a destroyed economy and no leader? Internal strife and conflict.
Did the 2003 war destroy Iraq's economy? No, 12 years of economic sanction did. You are trying very hard to ignore the state of Iraq *before* Dubya decided to go in, which is equal parts hilarious and pathetic.
---
bunge:
I was speaking to a generalized question and you are trying to apply it to specifics. This is your typical style and I'd rather pound nails through my fingers than participate in yet another inane semantic bitchfest with you. Thanks. If you can find a problem with anything I say, then post it, otherwise could you please drop the nagging bullshit? You don't have to validate your existence through me.
You're getting testy again.
Originally posted by groverat
I was speaking to a generalized question and you are trying to apply it to specifics.
I'll be quick because you can't seem to handle a simple discussion.
Originally posted by groverat
Any contract paid for by the American taxpayer should go to an American company.
I then asked about if it's not taxpayer money paying for these contracts. We're both discussing this on the same level. If you don't wish to join in the discussion, that's fine. But if not, it shows your biased against even potentially criticizing Bush or the Bush Administration on this topic.
That pretty much makes your opinion in this thread worthless. Or at least, worth less.
I then asked about if it's not taxpayer money paying for these contracts. We're both discussing this on the same level. If you don't wish to join in the discussion, that's fine.
Is it fine?
But if not, it shows your biased against even potentially criticizing Bush or the Bush Administration on this topic.
The fact that I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 and plan on voting independent or Democrat in 2004 should tell you all you need to know about my feelings on Dubya.
He was the governor of my state for years and I voted for Nader in 2000, think about it.
Just because I don't jump into the mindless anti-Bush circlejerks with the rest of peanut gallery doesn't mean I won't criticize Bush. I'm sad but not surprised to see that such inane conclusion-jumping is openly posted for others to read.
Originally posted by groverat
The history of Iraq started in May of 2003...
Did the 2003 war destroy Iraq's economy? No, 12 years of economic sanction did. You are trying very hard to ignore the state of Iraq *before* Dubya decided to go in, which is equal parts hilarious and pathetic.
grover, you're being purposely dense. Do you need a history lesson?
The civil government of postwar Iraq was headed originally by the high commissioner, Sir Percy Cox, and his deputy, Colonel Arnold Talbot Wilson. The British were confronted with Iraq's age-old problems, compounded by some new ones. Villagers demanded that the tribes be restrained, and tribes demanded that their titles to tribal territories be extended and confirmed. Merchants demanded more effective legal procedures, courts, and laws to protect their activities and interests. Municipal authorities appealed for defined powers and grants-in-aid in addition to the establishment of public health and education facilities. Landlords pressed for grants of land, for the building of canals and roads, and for the provision of tested seeds and livestock.
The holy cities of An Najaf and Karbala and their satellite tribes were in a state of near anarchy. British reprisals after the murder of a British officer in An Najaf failed to restore order. The Anayzah, the Shammar, and the Jubur tribes of the western desert were beset by violent infighting. British adminis- tration had yet to be established in the mountains of Kurdistan. Meanwhile, from the Hakkari Mountains beyond Iraq's northern frontier and from the plains of Urmia in Iran, thousands of Assyrians began to pour into Iraqi territory seeking refuge from Turkish savagery. The most striking problem facing the British was the growing anger of the nationalists, who felt betrayed at being accorded mandate status. The nationalists soon came to view the mandate as a flimsy disguise for colonialism. The experienced Cox delegated governance of the country to Wilson while he served in Persia between April 1918 and October 1920. The younger man governed Iraq with the kind of paternalism that had characterized British rule in India. Impatient to establish an efficient administration, Wilson used experienced Indians to staff subordinate positions within his administration. The exclusion of Iraqis from administrative posts added humiliation to Iraqi discontent.
Three important anticolonial secret societies had been formed in Iraq during 1918 and 1919. At An Najaf, Jamiyat an Nahda al Islamiya (The League of the Islamic Awakening) was organized; its numerous and varied members included ulama (religious leaders), journalists, landlords, and tribal leaders. Members of the Jamiyat assassinated a British officer in the hope that the killing would act as a catalyst for a general rebellion at Iraq's other holy city, Karbala. Al Jamiya al Wataniya al Islamiya (The Muslim National League) was formed with the object of organizing and mobilizing the population for major resistance. In February 1919, in Baghdad, a coalition of Shia merchants, Sunni teachers and civil servants, Sunni and Shia ulama, and Iraqi officers formed the Haras al Istiqlal (The Guardians of Independence). The Istiqlal had member groups in Karbala, An Najaf, Al Kut, and Al Hillah.
Local outbreaks against British rule had occurred even before the news reached Iraq that the country had been given only mandate status. Upon the death of an important Shia mujtahid (religious scholar) in early May 1920, Sunni and Shia ulama temporarily put aside their differences as the memorial services metamorphosed into political rallies. Ramadan, the Islamic month of fasting, began later in that month; once again, through nationalistic poetry and oratory, religious leaders exhorted the people to throw off the bonds of imperialism. Violent demonstrations and strikes followed the British arrest of several leaders.
When the news of the mandate reached Iraq in late May, a group of Iraqi delegates met with Wilson and demanded independence. Wilson dismissed them as a "handful of ungrateful politicians." Nationalist political activity was stepped up, and the grand mujtahid of Karbala, Imam Shirazi, and his son, Mirza Muhammad Riza, began to organize the effort in earnest. Arab flags were made and distributed, and pamphlets were handed out urging the tribes to prepare for revolt. Muhammad Riza acted as liaison among insurgents in An Najaf and in Karbala, and the tribal confederations. Shirazi then issued a fatwa (religious ruling), pointing out that it was against Islamic law for Muslims to countenance being ruled by non-Muslims, and he called for a jihad against the British. By July 1920, Mosul was in rebellion against British rule, and the insurrection moved south down the Euphrates River valley. The southern tribes, who cherished their long-held political autonomy, needed little inducement to join in the fray. They did not cooperate in an organized effort against the British, however, which limited the effect of the revolt. The country was in a state of anarchy for three months; the British restored order only with great difficulty and with the assistance of Royal Air Force bombers. British forces were obliged to send for reinforcements from India and from Iran.
Ath Thawra al Iraqiyya al Kubra, or The Great Iraqi Revolution (as the 1920 rebellion is called), was a watershed event in contemporary Iraqi history. For the first time, Sunnis and Shias, tribes and cities, were brought together in a common effort. In the opinion of Hanna Batatu, author of a seminal work on Iraq, the building of a nation-state in Iraq depended upon two major factors: the integration of Shias and Sunnis into the new body politic and the successful resolution of the age-old conflicts between the tribes and the riverine cities and among the tribes themselves over the food-producing flatlands of the Tigris and the Euphrates. The 1920 rebellion brought these groups together, if only briefly; this constituted an important first step in the long and arduous process of forging a nation-state out of Iraq's conflict-ridden social structure.
The 1920 revolt had been very costly to the British in both manpower and money. Whitehall was under domestic pressure to devise a formula that would provide the maximum control over Iraq at the least cost to the British taxpayer. The British replaced the military regime with a provisional Arab government, assisted by British advisers and answerable to the supreme authority of the high commissioner for Iraq, Cox. The new administration provided a channel of communication between the British and the restive population, and it gave Iraqi leaders an opportunity to prepare for eventual self-government. The provisional government was aided by the large number of trained Iraqi administrators who returned home when the French ejected Faisal from Syria. Like earlier Iraqi governments, however, the provisional government was composed chiefly of Sunni Arabs; once again the Shias were underrepresented.
As a counterforce to the nationalistic inclinations of the monarchy and as a means of insuring the king's dependence, the British cultivated the tribal shaykhs, whose power had been waning since the end of the nineteenth century. While the new king sought to create a national consciousness, to strengthen the institutions of the emerging state, and especially to create a national military, the tribal shaykhs supported a fragmented community and sought to weaken the coercive power of the state. A major goal of the British policy was to keep the monarchy stronger than any one tribe but weaker than a coalition of tribes so that British power would ultimately be decisive in arbitrating disputes between the two.
Ultimately, the British-created monarchy suffered from a chronic legitimacy crisis: the concept of a monarchy was alien to Iraq. Despite his Islamic and pan-Arab credentials, Faisal was not an Iraqi, and, no matter how effectively he ruled, Iraqis saw the monarchy as a British creation. The continuing inability of the government to gain the confidence of the people fueled political instability well into the 1970s.
Now, before you say that it's revisionist history, look at the source: The Library of Congress Country Studies.
Iraq has been one big mess since the early part of the 20th century. And the British were the reason. This little history lesson (please pay special attention to the bold parts), leads us upto Saddam's time. A dictator who kept the country together with brutal force. It's been waiting since 1920 to explode and now we have it.
Please don't be so quick to assume that people who disagree with you don't know what they're talking about.