Bring the Brits Back Home

Whatever the motive of the Iranians for seizing the British Marines, it's only going to heighten tensions in the area. Coalition forces will be on the lookout for similar operations and will be much more likely to use force.

Originally posted by DukeC Whatever the motive of the Iranians for seizing the British Marines, it's only going to heighten tensions in the area. Coalition forces will be on the lookout for similar operations and will be much more likely to use force.   As a public relations stunt, this may have been successful, but it increases the chances of real hostilities breaking out between the coaliton and Iran.

you dont think the USN armada is heightening tensions in bigger way?


Edited by Leonidas - 09-Apr-2007 at 10:10

Zagros, regarding the development of the ME during the age of European imperialism up until the second world war I've mainly relied on the Anglo-Lebanese historian Albert Hourani. He's worked with researching the sociological history of the ME all his professional career, mainly focusing on the Arab areas, and has even been accused of being slightly biased in favour of the Arabs so I figured he at least doesn't downplay the negative effects of imperialism and exaggerate the positive.

I've mainly been reading about European imperialism in Egypt, Arabia, Syria, Iraq and the Maghrib though, not so much Iran. I am aware however of the oil incident you mentioned, as well as many other suppressed rebellions, but it's kind of hard to accomplish anything without being backed by military force. It also varies a bit from region to region and time to time how much the people benefitted and how much they suffered. Maybe Iran was in the less fortunate extreme, whereas certain states such as Bahrain, Quwait, the UAE and Oman are in the other extreme and owe their present wealth to their former position as British protectorates.

Oppose me on this last one and I'll call in my fellow historian friends of the UAE to back me up.

Quwait? UAE? Bahrain? Oman? They own their wealt to UK? what about their oil? I think oil helped them a little too.(Maybe less than britain)?

I'll oppose you, please bring in your friend - So what about all of these epidemics and famines you spoke of? Please provide examples of them plus examples of the good work towards infrastructure carried out by colonial powers.

Edited by Zagros - 09-Apr-2007 at 14:32

Reg, you're confusing strategic occupation with civil investment - the two are most certainly not the same and in the case of the middle east are most certainly not linked.

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 Originally posted by Reginmund Zagros, regarding the development of the ME during the age of European imperialism up until the second world war I've mainly relied on the Anglo-Lebanese historian Albert Hourani. He's worked with researching the sociological history of the ME all his professional career, mainly focusing on the Arab areas, and has even been accused of being slightly biased in favour of the Arabs so I figured he at least doesn't downplay the negative effects of imperialism and exaggerate the positive. I've mainly been reading about European imperialism in Egypt, Arabia, Syria, Iraq and the Maghrib though, not so much Iran. I am aware however of the oil incident you mentioned, as well as many other suppressed rebellions, but it's kind of hard to accomplish anything without being backed by military force. It also varies a bit from region to region and time to time how much the people benefitted and how much they suffered. Maybe Iran was in the less fortunate extreme, whereas certain states such as Bahrain, Quwait, the UAE and Oman are in the other extreme and owe their present wealth to their former position as British protectorates. Oppose me on this last one and I'll call in my fellow historian friends of the UAE to back me up.   Zagros's POV would indicate you should call them in.

Edited by Zagros - 09-Apr-2007 at 14:44

Aha, there's two things we agree on!

Originally posted by Zagros I'll oppose you, please bring in your friend - So what about all of these epidemics and famines you spoke of? Please provide examples of them plus examples of the good work towards infrastructure carried out by colonial powers.

Famine and epidemics occurred at more or less regular intervals, this was a natural part of life in the pre-industrial world, in Europe too as you no doubt know. The Europeans
eventually learned how to combat the spread of plagues and diseases as well as how to safeguard against famine as a result of poor harvests, this knowledge was transferred to the
ME colonies during the age of imperialism and the population there boomed as a result. The demographics speak for themselves here.

Important factors here were railways, electricity, vastly improved sewage and drainage systems, and not least far better healthcare.

In addition to this the education system was modernized; completely new standards of learning were introduced, Arabs remarked how the old education at the mosque schools
was nothing but mindless repetition compared to the progressive learning done at the European institutions. Education was also made available to far more people than before,
literacy in the colonized areas increased universally. Literacy increased in Saudi-Arabia as well, which wasn't subjected to European rule but heavily influenced by it, although not
as much as in the areas under direct European influence.

When it comes to women, especially in urban areas their position was almost universally improved as a result of European influence, and more women had access to and chose to pursue higher education.

Originally posted by Zagros The UAE etc would have been developed one way or another simply because they have oil. Look at areas of Africa previousl;y occupied by the British, most have no oil, and even the ones who do, are VERY poor and underdeveloped relative to any part of the world. Again, the British did not develop the UAE, British companies developed oil fields and some of the wealth went to the Arabs who themselves invested in infrastructure and various civil projects, there were no altruist intentions on the part of the colonial powers.

Altruist? Surely not, the priviledged position of these small oil states was part of a grand plan of keeping the Arab world politically divivded. Yet it can't be denied they benefitted greatly from it; they learned the value of oil fields and how to exploit them. More importantly perhaps they gained military support vs. neighbouring states, like Saudi-Arabia and Iran (which attempted to claim sovereignity over Bahrain), and avoided being sucked into these. Even today these states rely on Western protectors, and the UAE army is trained by US officers.

Originally posted by Zagros Basically, it seems like what you;re saying is that any part of the ME that was under colonialist control should be grateful, that in itself is a ridiculous proposition

They have much to resent but also much to be grateful for. Saying the ME owes Europe and the US nothing is equally preposterous.

And Zagros, don't act as if I'm making this up. I may be but a beginner in studying this subject but I have learned a bit and I plan to learn more, and not one sentence of what I said is fabricated with the intention of belittling the Middle East. In the middle ages Europe had much to learn from the Middle East, but in the age of imperialism it was the Middle East that had much to learn from Europe, and it did.

When it comes to women, especially in urban areas their position was almost universally improved as a result of European influence, and more women had access to and chose to pursue higher education.