Er.....
The League of Nations gave Britain a mandate in 1920. Then there was a revolt and the mandate was scrapped with a British administered semi-independent nation put in place. The Anglo-Iraqi Treaty was signed by Britain and Iraq which gave this semi-independence except in foreign affairs and military affairs. Then another treaty in 1930 was signed. Then Iraq gained independence in 1932.
The League of Nations basically acted on behalf of the French and British who carved up the old Ottoman Empire. To suggest the League of Nations did something is like saying the UN invaded Iraq in 2003.
Iraq was ruled by the Hashemites, who controlled Mecca, which happens to be in Saudi Arabia.
In 1932 King Faisal I of Iraq was in charge and had been since 1921. (well, in charge in as much as it was the british). He was born in Mecca. Died in Switzerland. Grew up in Istanbul. Hardly Iraqi, was he?
Sadam wasn't put in power by the British, he grabbed power by military takeover decades later. Are you complaining why the British gave 99% of the land to be ruled by Muslim rulers?
Yes, I know this, but then I didn't say Saddam was put in place by the British. Saddam was a product of what the British did. They put in place a Saudi king who waskicked out and replaced by the Ba-ath Party which Saddam then took over and ended up being what he became?
It's proof that the decision made at one point in time can have a massive impact on the country 70 years later. The impact of Bush's decision to invade Iraq will last for a long, LONG time.
The British made Iraq, a country that should never have been a country in the first place. Also, you assume that if a Russian took over the UK then i'd be okay. Monarchs have to be accepted, clearly Faisal wasn't in Iraq, they got rid of him.
So you would prefer a ba'ath dictator to have been installed in 1920 then. Iraq was a country in name before Britain came on the scene and it was part of the ottoman empire, so stop twisting history to meet with your half truth POV and try looking at the facts from before WW1.
Try this for historical fact
Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Throughout most of the period of Ottoman rule (1533–1918) the territory of present-day Iraq was a battle zone between the rival regional empires and tribal alliances. The Safavid dynasty of Iran briefly asserted their hegemony over Iraq in the periods of 1508–1533 and 1622–1638.
By the 17th century, the frequent conflicts with the Safavids had sapped the strength of the Ottoman Empire and had weakened its control over its provinces. The nomadic population swelled with the influx of
bedouins from
Najd, in the Arabian Peninsula. Bedouin raids on settled areas became impossible to curb.
[39]
Iraq was under the Ottoman Empire. The Hapsburg Empire consisted of different peoples and cultures. Doesn't mean they should still be one country. How many countries were under the Hapsburgs? Austria, Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Bosnia, Slovenia and many more.
Don't try and present this as a simple "Iraq existed before therefore it should have done afterwards. Why do you think it has such straight borders? Only in Africa and the Middle East with such meddling, and in North America which was taken from natives there, do you find straight borders. Its a sign that culture and peoples mean nothing to those who made the borders.
As for your facts, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
Map of the area from 1803. Recognise Iraq there? No. Me neither.
