There was no war in Iraq when Britain controlled it was there? It does appear that Islam and self rule don't mix well dosn't it
2007-12-21 08:05:37 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
it appears they let them go to aquire a new bomb test site ...
2007-12-21 08:10:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Actually, there was no war in Iraq when Iraq controlled it either.
It wasn't until the Americans showed up that everything went totally bollocks.
And Palestine/Israel/whatever hasn't had a moments peace no matter who is ostensibly in charge - Romans, Persians, Turks, British or Israelis.
It would appear to me that ingrained tribal conflicts over increasingly limited resources, combined with compounding lingering 'pay back' for slights (real or imagined) whenever the last guy was in charge have made the entire region essentially an unmanageable morass.
Short of a giant amnesia-ray, I have no idea how to solve it either.
2007-12-21 08:12:11 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Countries like Iraq/Afghanistan need hard line leaders to keep the people under control ,look at the lawlessness now in these countries since the Western countries intervened.
2007-12-21 08:22:49 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes there was war in Iraq when Britain ran it. We frequently had to bomb the tribes in the 20's and there was all-out revolution in 1941.
May I also point out that England, Germany, Russia, the USA, Spain and Italy have all experienced massively destructive civil wars. Maybe Christianity and Self Rule don't mix?
Or maybe bigoted twunts should learn a bit of history before posting nonsense.
Cheers.
2007-12-21 08:10:45 · answer #4 · answered by Ian69 4 · 6⤊ 1⤋
There was no civil war in Iraq when Saddam controlled it as well.
In fact, the current problems in the Middle-East are largely a result of Western rule. The European powers arbitarily divided up the countries of the area according to their own treaties, not the ethnic and religious makeup of the region. That's why there's so much war there at present.
If Islam doesn't mix well with self-rule, how do you explain the extraordinary sucesses of the Ottoman Empire?
2007-12-21 08:09:54 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 3⤋
Islamic countries are better off without western interference. What makes westerners think they can get involved in running another countries business, all they are interested in doing is plundering their assets for their own gain.
2007-12-21 08:16:41 · answer #6 · answered by afzal 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They were not - It would have been better to have left them alone.
Growing western or European power and enlightenment made them de-evolve. Once they were the centre of liberality, learning and pluralism. I blame the Saudi Wahhabi's.
2007-12-21 08:16:05 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yo, I'm telling you, YOU have to get rid of your obsession! I guess you forgot that Saddam also ruled Iraq and during that time there weren't any wars
2007-12-21 09:01:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
What nonsense are some of these answers. IRAQ V IRAN
IRAQ V KURDISTAN .IRAQ V THE SHITE MARSH DWELLERS what kind of wars were they ? Saddam Hussein was a vicious nasty dictator who wanted the Arab world to recognise him as the strong arm of Arab nations
2007-12-21 08:10:56 · answer #9 · answered by katrinasfather 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
All humans are better off without Islam period. Yes, its true that there are many countries impoverished by Islam. The backwardness and anger inherent in Islamic movements continues to metastisize...eating more and more of civilization.
Humanity itself is threatened by this cancer. Its as clear as day, and yet many of our naive (stupid) beliefs about "respecting" religion leaves this problem free to grow, untouched by cluess religion loving westerners.
2007-12-21 08:18:36 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
They probably would have been best left entirely untouched by Western power.
2007-12-21 08:12:41 · answer #11 · answered by Pull My Finger 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋