Is Dave right when he said GB is the cause of the worlds problem

[KittyVonCatsworth]

mic.com/articles/91071/how-the-british-screwed-up-the-middle-east-in-10-classic-cartoons#.yzGSC109t

An interesting and thought provoking article, which I believe was raised here on MN. Do you think there validity to his statement that GB have inadvertently created the problems over centuries, from the British empire, the division of the Ottoman Empire to WW1 etc?

no

and I am not British

Well, he has a point. I mean, the British Empire might have screwed up lots of countries.

On the other hand, Britain is not the only country to blame. Spain is also to blame for invading the Americas, and that also caused a lot of problems.

In the end, you never know, and also it doesn't really matter, does it? The only thing to do is to aim to do better now.

As someone whose own government happily sells weapons to Saudi Arabia, I don't get to feel superior to the British.

You could cherry pick action of most world powers in the past - Spain, Portugal, Ottoman Empire, Rome and blame them for current socio-political issues. What you cannot do though is blame anyone alive today for the decisions of long dead white men who lived in the same country, and use this as justification for terror.

So he did learn some history! yes, most of the problems in the world today are the result of 19th and 20th Century imperialism of some kind, not just British though.

i think it's transnational. It's all about the arms deals - so yes, Western countries are heavily involved in all that. so scary - for our targets and those of us who are trying to avoid these people.

I think societies need to be very careful when looking back on who is is to blame and that is in no way denying you could apportion blame to many European countries. It just doesn't help in building a peace process.

No - total over-simplification over what is actually a very complex situation, with a wide variety of causes.

No, he isn't. A thorough review of the long recorded history of the Middle East (not called the cradle of civilization for nothing), particularly a review of the Umayyad Empire and the Ottoman Empire, will show that the interaction between the Middle East and Europe has not been one-sided, so to speak -- as many seem to want to believe. Facts are facts; misinterpreting history, whether done innocently or with evil intent, isn't going to improve this terrible political and cultural situation in the least.

The sum total of British rule in the Middle East:

League of Nations / UN Mandates:
Iraq: 1919- 1932
Kuwait: 1919 - 1961
Palestine: 1919 - 1948

Protectorates:
UAE: 1820 - 1971
Egypt: 1882-1952
Oman: 1820 - 1970.

Colonies
Aden: 1839 - 1967

Note the absence of Syria.

One tiny bit (Aden) was an actual colony. British political presence in the ME other than Aden was brief or slight and ended nearly 50 years ago.

Compare the Ottomans who enjoyed absolute and direct rule of the entire region for half a millenium (and who also ruled the former Yugoslavia for centuries, and look what happened there).

I think the current problems started in the 90s when Bill Clinton ignored the rise of Al Quaida and co. And Tony Blair subsequently did a marvellous job as the Middle East Peace Envoy.

Can someone go back in time like The Terminator and eradicate him at birth?