Funguay, like I hope that I also have on behalf of my studies, you also appear to have the required knowledge of Middle East history so much needed these days. Especially so since the end of WW1, when Lawrence of Arabia was double-crossed by his own senior countrymen, the British illegally taking over the valuable Iraqi southern ports, whjich originally belonged to Iraq since the beginning of ancient history.

With the Brits after WW1 it was a betrayal of trust, and a recent title that turned up in Google recently would have had an unhappy TE Lawrence agreeable to a T.

Looting the Iraqi economy in the name of freedom.

Your mention of the betrayal of Mossadeq, also brings the US into the putrid series of betrayals that the British began with Lawrence. Talking about democracy, there was an article in the Guardian written by an Iranian judge, who also wrote about promised Christian Western freedoms. After relating disgustedly about her younger life during Mossadeq’s reign being ruined by the Anglo-US takeover, she stated how she always believed that Iran was capable of forming its own style of democracy.

More to follow -

From a historian’s viewpoint, many more questions could be asked about Anglo-American intentions still regarding a promised freedom for Iraq.

Reckon you could well add to them.

1. Has the US always had double-intentions about Iraq, one to get rid of the dictator, and the other to capture the oil potential, proven by the fact that American and British corporates took over the oilfields quickly as first priority back in 2003 Also from non-media reports, as many troops are now guarding the oilfields and pipelines from sabotage as the amount now being brought from the US to try and win the nearly four year long ground war.

2. If the US finally wins the ground war bringing the promised freedom to Iraq, will freedom mean that the US and British oil corp’s will have to leave letting possibly Russian and French companies come in as was the case previously with Saddam. If this is so, it should also mean that Iraq will also have the right to turn back to the Euro, as was the case with Iraq before the illegal invasion?

Reckon it could be a safe bet that if the Americans do finally take over, it will be a colonial Dyarky Democracy, called by the 19th century Indians double-rule, with British commissars matching every home-rule government position. These days the commissioners or commissars could easily rule from the White-House.

The truth is, Funguay, that the Anglo-US record is so disgustingly unjust in the Middle East, honest historians could hardly think otherwise.

bushbred
An honest historian wouldn't take events out of context to suit purposes.

Lt.Col. Lawrence was heavily involved with the Arab revolt and battling the Turks (Ottomans). Britain was embroiled in WWI and maintaining her colonies. At that time to Britain, Middle East meant Suez canal. And Suez canal meant the fastest connection to goods and markets between colonies and other world trade.

One can not have a war with out money. While dying for the cause is held in high esteem. Cutting off or controlling trade routes cripples a waring nations impetus and strangles their ability to maintain the battle.

Money makes the world go round. It's a horrible, nasty reality but, reality non the less. It isn't just the root of all evil. It's the way to all the good things too.

Have we no further interest in intent. Or has that become irrelevant in todays 20/20 hindsight critics of our world today?

America is spending ~400 billion a year in Iraq. To date the oil revenues are around a couple million per day. If Iraq is just about oil Americans have a greater problem than GWB. They have a severe deficit of understanding on economic realities.

Yes, aqirivs, the US IS spending huge sums in Iraq.
This introduces the other element behind US policy planing.
The US (or actually the military-capital-industrial complex that runs it and the rest of the world) needs wars to sustain its position as global arbiter not only with politics, economics and confidence in the current global currency regime, but to maintain itself through ordinance development into the future. It constantly updates its military technologies, ensuring that other countries must have access to its expensive hi tech ordinances or fall hopelessly behind.
The price paid by the rest of the world is an end to any immediate hope of sorting the world's manifest social and environmental problems. The world "melts down", for the sake of a few thousand Dick Cheney types and their immediate lackeys at home and across the globe, who no more ultimately benefit from this state of affairs that just about anyone else .

Yo fungi

Love the tired old "The US (or actually the military-capital-industrial complex that runs it and the rest of the world)" conspiracy.

Man was warring against his neighbour long before The U.S. even existed. Then again perhaps it all goes back to the inventor of the spear. He must have been of pre-American ancestry? Whoo dude. The time machine does exist.

No one. Especially those whom you say rule the world from behind their smart bomb technology is going to invest billions hoping for a return of millions. It isn't simply illogical. It's asinine. Ones economic lifetime would be very brief and of little note. However if your conspiracy truly exists and has existed down the ages. Profit idealization would be at the forefront of their corporate policy. Like right next to world domination.

Both of which I'm unafraid to state would currently exist as a fact. America would dominate as a single world government. And China wouldn't have a strangle hold on the monetary future of the American dollar, their GNP and their GDP.

If you really want to see how ridiculous such a theory is. It may be interesting to note that there are more millionaires and billionaires in this world than ever before in mans history. The WHOLE world. Not just America.

Doesn't take much to get shot at around here, does it, which is of course part of the fun.

Bushbred: "Come on, Pericles, certainly something should be done, without making airy philosophies."

Nothing airy about my philosophies Bb. I was making my observations on the quality and purpose of Mr Tanner's piece rather than trying to solve the entire Middle East conflict myself. The point I was trying to get across is that if politicians think it is a neat idea to use the highly complex and dangerous situation in Iraq to obtain political capital against their opponents, they are setting a very bad example to the rest of us. It is almost smug, in that Tanner knows full well that he can get away with criticism without any comeback, since he is responsible for precisely nothing.

Rossco: "If you think you can write a more constructive article than Mr Tanner please do so. Don't just carp."

Pot. Kettle. Black.

PK: "So, Pericles, got any simple solutions yourself?"

Well actually PK, I haven't.

However, were I the minister concerned, with the resources of an army of public servants to research, formulate and recommend different courses of action, together with a reasoned analysis of the likely consequences of each, I might well be able to take a stab at a solution.

Though I doubt it would be described as "simple".

We can all voice our opinions, though. And in my opinion this is an almighty complex mess, and one that does not lend itself to a one-line response, such as "get out".

In this regard it has many similarities with Northern Ireland. A section of the population saw the British troops as peace-keepers, another section saw them as invading forces. Precipitate withdrawal would have endangered the lives of many innocent civilians.

While it is easy to say "the British shouldn't have been there anyway" - similar to Mr Tanner's argument - it is a far more challenging task to unravel the problem and arrive at a compromise.

Unfortunately, we seem to be stuck "let's all throw bricks at each other" stage.