From Churchill to Kennedy to George W. Bush

[jacquelinetm]

I find history a bit interesting because if this wouldn't have happened, then who's to say that the USA would even be in Iraq now. If the Captain can bring up Vietnam in another thread, then it seems only right to bring up what Churchill and the British Government did after WWI.


From an interview with Barry Lando, of "The History of Western Complicity, From Churchill, to Kennedy, to George W. Bush":

AMY GOODMAN: I want to go back in time, Barry Lando, because you start the history of Western complicity in Iraq from Churchill to Kennedy to George W. Bush. Talk about how Iraq was formed, the current modern state of Iraq, and the central role of oil.

BARRY LANDO: Well, it was formed out of the collapsing Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I. The British and the French went in to kind of divide up much of the Ottoman Empire. And the British took essentially what is Iraq today. It was three provinces of the Ottoman Empire, and they put them together around 1920, ’21, into one country, which became known as Iraq.

These were peoples who had lived under the Ottoman Empire, but they had never been put together into one state, sort of living side-by-side politically and administratively. And it was a recipe for disaster. The British were warned about it at the time, but the reason they wanted to put these people -- the Shiites, the Sunnis, and particularly the Kurds -- in one place is the British wanted the petroleum, particularly the petroleum that the Kurds had. Kurdistan is a major petroleum area. They suspected -- they weren't pumping petroleum at the time, but they knew that it was there, and the British wanted that.

And they also wanted bases, too, in that part of the world, to protect their Persia, which was an important part of the British Empire, and India. So bases there became very important for them, too. So you had two things: petroleum and military bases, which are basically exactly the same motives, I think, that are keeping the United States in that part of the world today. "

--End of Excerpt--

The rest of the interview can be read at:
http://www.democracynow.org/article..../01/30/1515254

Flame me, bite me, claw me, spank me... I don't care... I'll enjoy it.

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

Western Society seems to have done (and is still doing) a pretty good job of fucking up the rest of the world. Oh well, any other culture could have done the same, in the same position.

Goddamn human nature... Makes me ashamed.

[ArtificialOne]

I don't think it's western culture doing the "fucking up". There are many numerous countries out there who don't help their people. The US and the west is just the popular whiping boy for now. Yes we've made mistakes. I'm a bit of a centrist myself. But to constantly beat the west over so many issues is just absurd.

The media likes to interview people who blame america and anyone else but themselves for their problems. It sells airtime and magazines and is popular for colleges to preach.

Where's the outrage over indonesia's bungling of all the aid money given to it and how there's no new homes or schools being built? Or Putin in russia taking away liberties? Don't hear any stories on those topics much do you? Why? Because they don't sell.

I refuse to take a position the the west is the "Great Satan", which is what the media and many of our enemies preach. Yes, we are not perfect and have some bad policies. But they aren't ruining the world and some of them are in place for the better good, whether they work out that way or not.

It's a shame the US has become the badguy this decade. Allot of people from other coutries who live here love it with few exeptions (ie. cptstern). If we are so bad why do people from all the world flock to live here?

Answer: Although not perfect, we afford people much more freedoms and rights than almost any other nation in the world; And when people want freedoms and rights, America is usally the first name on their lips.

[Drake Dun]

Here is the bigger question behind the three states of Iraq - why is it unthinkable now to divide the country back up?

Drake

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

Here is the bigger question behind the three states of Iraq - why is it unthinkable now to divide the country back up?

Drake

See, there is the crux of the issue. Allowing them to return to their pre-brit control states (ie. 3-4 seperate nations) would solve THEIR problems, but would then put four groups in control of the oil reserves.

The bush administration didn't spend billions trying to steal those natural resources to have the country divided into a few smaller countries. They then have to setup multiple puppet governments and try and manipulate each on separately.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Forget the whole Iraq thing. There's much more to think about in America itself.

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!" http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2005...iece-of-paper/
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artma...cle_7779.shtml

I feel special.

[Crying_Crimson_Tears]

Ever notice that the Presidents who try to do something good for our country end up getting killed; like JFK and Lincoln but frickin Bush is still alive and kicking and he's a frickin MORON.

Bothers me.

[Panther]

If I were the kind of person who could have a president killed, I'd be happy to have an idiot in office. The more the public pays attention to the big picture, the harder it is to notice details, like city-wide organized crime, and things like that. People start blaming the lack of police for crime, instead of the criminals themselves.

Or maybe assassins just have a better sense of humor. After all, when you forget that he controls the federal government, he is really funny.

I guess it's not right to laugh at idiots, though. Or to blame them for all our troubles, at home or abroad. After all, who gave him the power?

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by Crying_Crimson_Tears

Ever notice that the Presidents who try to do something good for our country end up getting killed; like JFK and Lincoln but frickin Bush is still alive and kicking and he's a frickin MORON.

Lincoln I get, with some reservations, but I have never understood why people liked Kennedy so much. Bay of Pigs? Vietnam War?

Drake

[ArtificialOne]

Actually Briton were the ones after the oil from the begining (after the fall of the ottomon empire after ww2).
I would also like to point out that gas hasn't dropped at all. So much for oil being the real reason for the war.
Churchil wasn't very popular at all during wwII neither is Bush now. Neither was whats it's name at the begining of wwII. I hate to qoute sitting pres's but he's right that history will tell.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

Actually Briton were the ones after the oil from the begining (after the fall of the ottomon empire after ww2).

Your right there. They have been fighting for that oil for many decades now. People make the joke that britian is americas lapdog, poodle even. Funny thing is, america is bearing the brunt of the war, and if successful, britan stands to make an equal profit plundering the said resources. Whos leading who? You think blair would have been gung-ho about going in their if he didnt have the american military behind him? Of course, you think bush could have made a case to go in without the help/backing of blair?

Either way its all about PROFITS.

I would also like to point out that gas hasn't dropped at all. So much for oil being the real reason for the war.

It's not about lowering gas prices, its about control of the resources. Because of the war gas prices have artificially risen and stayed there. The oil companies don't need the oil to make a profit - rising prices and keeping them there with a semi-valid reason, well a reason most americans will see on telly and assume is valid, is much more profitable than ALL the oil in Iraq. Halliburton alongside many other smaller oil companies have poset record profits in the past 2 years - exxon making more than any company ever in the history of the world. It wasn't because of their product - it was because of the mark up on their product.

Churchil wasn't very popular at all during wwII neither is Bush now. Neither was whats it's name at the begining of wwII. I hate to qoute sitting pres's but he's right that history will tell.

Really? Now I must admit I wasn't around then but everything you read from that era says just the opposite. He was viewed as a hero of sorts then, even by the americans. I myself think he was a bastard, and always will, but thats another story...

http://www.sternn.com/stuff/Misc_Pix/sicsemper.jpg

[nuksaa]

Lincoln I get, with some reservations

Lincoln won with 39.9% of the popular vote yet won 89% of the electoral vote during his first term in office. He was not a popular President during his time in office. Constantly hounded by the media for his stoic demeanor. The Congress at the time of the end of the US Civil war was strongly against what they viewed as too lenient policies of Lincoln towards the South. The results of which would have led to threats of impeachment towards Lincoln.

One thing JFK did do was go toe to toe with the USSR during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Many cite this as being the first chink in the fall of the USSR. And there is the rumour of extra-marital affair with Marilyn Monroe, who was a better choice than others in recent history.

Because of the war gas prices have artificially risen and stayed there.

Yet the price of gas in the US has been a commodity that has significantly lagged behind inflation for the last several decades. Funny, we bitch at paying $2-3 at the pump for gas and blame Haliburton; yet we are willing to shell out $60 a gallon for coffee and many still praise Starbucks.

[ArtificialOne]

HAHA I'm not a coffee fan and I cringe to hear people pay six bucks a day for a 20oz coffee.. day in and day out..thats what 180 bucks a month!!! thats a car payment!!!!

lol

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by nuksaa

Yet the price of gas in the US has been a commodity that has significantly lagged behind inflation for the last several decades. Funny, we bitch at paying $2-3 at the pump for gas and blame Haliburton; yet we are willing to shell out $60 a gallon for coffee and many still praise Starbucks.

Gas is a needed commodity, like milk or bread, that families cannot live without. Starbucks like caviar is something that the price fluctuations have no effect on persons who choose not to purchase them.

If people are dumb enough, or enjoy enough, coffee for the price, let them to it.

But gas prices effect everyone, and also impact other prices due to the cost of transportation of other goods.

Lowering the price of starbucks won't remove the $45 fuel charge thats current tacked on to all airline tickets.