Fisk has a chapter on the British occupation of Mesopotamia at the end of World War One. The parallels between that occupation and ours are chilling - right down to an insurrections in 1920 and the British PM, Lloyd George, facing calls for a military withdrawal. "But George would not abandon Iraq to 'anarchy and confusion.' British officals were blaming the violence on 'local political agitation, originated outside Iraq' and suggested Syria might be involved. Arnold Wilson, The senior British Offical in Iraq, took a predictable line. 'We cannot maintain our position...by a policy of conciliation of extremists,' he wrote. 'Having set our hand to the tassk of regenerating Mesopotamia, we must be prepared to furnish men and money...We must be prepared... to go very slowly with constitutional and democratic institutions.'"

The phrase 'Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it,' looms large right now.

>Fisk looks interesting. The most interesting part was seeing a column about Shakespear. I'm reading a chapter in a book right now comparing present day US to the days of the Roman and British empires. Shakespear was mentioned as a source of good historical information on the Roman empire at the time.
>
>It is shocking and not surprising at the same time to read quotes from the British empire at the time describing their justification for colonizing India and see how similar bush's comments are when he gives his justifications for attacking Iraq.
>