"Keith Willshaw" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message
...


They might be well versed but how they and the French divided up the
Ottoman
Empire is the primary reason the area is still screwed up - the world
might
have been better off if they had just left the Turks in charge.....


The Arabs didnt agree, thats why there was a revolt which the
British supported after all.

The comment started with "In the 1920's a revolt instigated by Shia clerics
against the British had a significant and long lasting effect..." The Sunni
Arabs in Iraq while ruled by the Ottomans were not treated as badly as the
Shia who were considered allied to the Persians by the Ottomans..

perhaps somebody should listen to them!,

Eisenhower didn't and the way the British left Aden in the 1960's
doesn't
support the view that they learnt anything during that half century of
empire....


Leaving tends to indicate they had learned the Empires are passe

The way they LEFT was the issue.

T.E.Lawrence's
'twelve pillars' is still relevent even today.

I always thought it was seven.... and a working Arab democracy might be
a
good start....


Dont hold your breath, Iraq before the Baath party takeover
was nominally a constitutional monarchy with an elected
parliament.

"Nominally" the British ensured the Shia had little to no say in Government
before they left... I would imagine that thought has crossed the minds of
the older Shia clerics who probably understand what could happen if they
don't control some of their younger clerics...