The happenings in Iraq

whitewave, you are right. We meddle in other countries' affairs at our peril. We try to impose a Western democracy on countries that may not necessarily benefit from it although we would like to think that they would.

Just think, this was the 'cradle of civilisation'. First history book we studied at High School was called 'From Ur to Rome'.

If these people do get a hold in Iraq, there will be terrorism to come.

I remember that book well, rosequartz! It seemed to loom large in those early days...

Adversity makes strange bedfellows; let us hope that my enemy's enemy is my friend holds true. I would not like us to get involved again despite the unfinished work that TB left behind. Perhaps he should be sent out there to negotiate? Along with Alistair.

Ana I probably hated it at the time, but would like to read it again now!

Yes, so would I, rosequartz!

I mentioned nuclear weapons, jingle. Am I not allowed to?

Does anyone know of the difference between sunni and shia? I think one is more fundamental than the other, but not clear why they dislike each other.
Also if anyone is a Muslim on GN can you tell me whether people who follow the Islamic faith in the UK are also divided along the same lines

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2656734/Ancient-hatreds-tearing-apart-Middle-East-How-1-400-year-old-feud-Shia-Sunni-Muslims-flared-life-fall-dictators-like-Gaddafi-Saddam-threatens-swallow-Iraq.html

Perhaps this article may explain something of the history, whitewave.

Thanks for replying rosequartz and I read the article with interest.

Of course, it is the DM but I think it gives the facts correctly.

Feel free jen.

Yes the map was useful I am not a keen supporter of the DM the language is always too hectic for my taste, but I get the drift as it were.
I think that it bears out the imperialist theory quite well, and I do remember reading about the argument as to who should follow the original prophet. not quite convinced that it is as simple as that though, there must be other stuff that makes them apparently so opposed to each other

I remember From Ur to Rome as well rosequartz I was fascinated at the time because, although I'd read a lot of history, I'd never come across Ur before.
The whole thing really has been a disaster; Saddam and Gaddafi may have been appalling by our standards but they were holding their countries together. People were being tortured and murdered, but is anyone better off now? If you are the man or woman in the street having your business destroyed, your home wrecked or your family killed do you really care who's behind it?

I agree, Deeda.

To be fair to Blair , his interventions in Sierra Leone and Kosovo were both successful and therefore un-controversial. It was the fact that the Blair/Bush intervention in Iraq was based on false information about weapons of mass destruction that makes it stick in one's throat. Bush's determination to invade Iraq was based on the false premise that Al Qaida had a presence there which was patently untrue as Saddam had no truck with them. Blair went along with this myth as well.

I disagree with the article and don't like its snide and contemptuous tone.

I agree with those that feel the west bears a great deal of the responsibility for the current situation by imposing artificial borders.

The US encouraged and supported Saddam Hussein's war against Iran and provided him with military intelligence and weapons, including the chemical/biological weapons that he used against the Iranians.

He was useful to them then. When he later became less co-operative and his actions threatened the US's access to very cheap oil, the US suddenly decided that he was a tyrant - which he undoubtedly was, but they had managed to overlook it when he was "their" tyrant.

The invasion of Iraq was, I feel, wrong and I and thousands of other "peaceniks" as this article sneeringly referred to us, marched against it. The warnings that many knowledgeable people gave were ignored and now we have a terrible situation in Iraq and surrounding countries. It appears that the US's opposition to the Syrian and Iranian regimes may now be "temporarily suspended" but the whole thing is such a mess now that who knows where it will all end.

During the Iraq war, David Aaronovitch was wheeled out on many occasions to give his unwavering support to the invasion.

Whitewave yes, there are different Muslim groups within the UK.

While most Muslims, like most Christians, Jews, Hindues, etc are tolerant and happy to co-exist with others of different views, there are extremists in all religions.

One such group is Hizb-ut-Tahrir who aim is to convert the world to Islam through non-violent means. A bit like the Christan missionaries of old perhaps? Several of the members of this group known as H-ut for short, were Governors or Chair of Governors in Birmingham.

H-ut

This link is interesting in that it shows their reaction to both events in Iraq and Birmingham. It was brought to my attention by a Muslim friend.

The article isn't by Aaronovitch though, Eloethan and it is a riposte to the Owen Jones article, which in my view was equally sneering about the people who believed that Saddam's reign of terror had gone on long enough and that something had to be done. Why is the fate of the Marsh Arabs being airbrushed from history? Why do people not talk about the numbers of dead under the Saddam, at least one million, by the most conservative estimates.
I agree Anno that the alleged WMD and Al Qaida presence were not valid reasons, but surely there was a humanitarian case?
I am not remotely defending the conduct of the aftermath of the war, which was ill thought through and badly managed.
I hear lots of people saying that Iraq was more stable under Saddam, but at what cost? Does stability ever justify a brutal dictatorship?

The writer is supporting David Aaronovitch's stance.

I don't feel brutality is a justification for maintaining stability but now in Iraq there is massive instability, virtually no functioning infrastructure and brutality as well.

Interesting article here. Iraq: seven mistakes to avoid according to Garvan Walshe.

Yes it is good Bags, thanks for that. He manages to be relatively concise, but give a good sense of history and the immense complexities of the situation.

this is quite good

Here's another that Blair haters should read. The message is no, it isn't all The West's fault and it is naive, as well as imperialistic, to think that it is.

I can't read it. They reckon I've read my ration for the month.

But I can't believe ISIS would be invading if Sadam Hussein was still in power, horrible as he was. (I know it's shutting the stable door after horse has bolted.) (And it's easy to be wise after the event etc)