This topic is locked from further discussion.
This ain't banjo. You may or may not have recently agreed with a lengthy post of mine---"90%" of it, iirc.[QUOTE="Lord__Stark"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
Go away, Banjo.
ShadowMoses900
Lol yes it is, you just made this account and I can tell by your posting style. Your Banjo-Kongfooie. And I don't know what post your talking about.
Banjo et. sons isn't capable of formulating a post w/o comma splices, odd capitalizations, or an incoherent argument. You are really bad at this.[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"][QUOTE="Lord__Stark"]This ain't banjo. You may or may not have recently agreed with a lengthy post of mine---"90%" of it, iirc.Lord__Stark
Lol yes it is, you just made this account and I can tell by your posting style. Your Banjo-Kongfooie. And I don't know what post your talking about.
Banjo et. sons isn't capable of formulating a post w/o comma splices, odd capitalizations, or an incoherent argument. You are really bad at this.Ok if you say so.....
and yet you don't seem to know too much about this fair region.[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
I've already taken political and government classes in my college and I got high praises from the professor. One time the WHOLE class gave me a round of applause, it's true. And there were plenty of foreign exchange students and I went out with the girls and they all said they liked my ideas. Some of the girls were even from the ME.
So I think I'm pretty good. After all I passed the class with flying colors. I'm taking the advanced ones now.
ShadowMoses900
Perhaps the only way to understand that region is to live there. I think the mentality and cultures of the ME are something that are just too foreign for us Westerners to understand. And believe me we had A TON of classes about the region, guess the only way to understand it is to visit it.
I am going to visit Israel soon, I can go there for free with the birth right program.
its not that hard for westerners, Israel is by, at least some standard, a western country, and most people who know the slightest bit about politics in Israel , know more about the region than most westerners in Europe and the US, one doesnt need to live in Cairo to understand it. what you have to do though is throw some concepts you were told were sacred about society , politics, religion etc, straight out the window.Banjo et. sons isn't capable of formulating a post w/o comma splices, odd capitalizations, or an incoherent argument. You are really bad at this.[QUOTE="Lord__Stark"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
Lol yes it is, you just made this account and I can tell by your posting style. Your Banjo-Kongfooie. And I don't know what post your talking about.
ShadowMoses900
Ok if you say so.....
*sighs* Take a hint.[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"][QUOTE="Lord__Stark"]Banjo et. sons isn't capable of formulating a post w/o comma splices, odd capitalizations, or an incoherent argument. You are really bad at this.Lord__Stark
Ok if you say so.....
*sighs* Take a hint.Oh ok then, I don't want you to get in trouble.
Still no reason to act like a dick to me lol.
*sighs* Take a hint.[QUOTE="Lord__Stark"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
Ok if you say so.....
ShadowMoses900
Oh ok then, I don't want you to get in trouble.
Still no reason to act like a dick to me lol.
I do that to p. much everyone[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] and yet you don't seem to know too much about this fair region.Darkman2007
Perhaps the only way to understand that region is to live there. I think the mentality and cultures of the ME are something that are just too foreign for us Westerners to understand. And believe me we had A TON of classes about the region, guess the only way to understand it is to visit it.
I am going to visit Israel soon, I can go there for free with the birth right program.
its not that hard for westerners, Israel is by, at least some standard, a western country, and most people who know the slightest bit about politics in Israel , know more about the region than most westerners in Europe and the US, one doesnt need to live in Cairo to understand it. what you have to do though is throw some concepts you were told were sacred about society , politics, religion etc, straight out the window.I oftent here there is a conflict between the Secular non religious Jews and the Orthodox Jews. I know people who have been to Israel and they tell me that Orthodox Jews are exempt from the IDF and in there neighborhoods they make women ride in the back of the bus. Which is just wrong.
Most of my understanding of the region comes from peopel from there who I know personally, and from my college courses.
its not that hard for westerners, Israel is by, at least some standard, a western country, and most people who know the slightest bit about politics in Israel , know more about the region than most westerners in Europe and the US, one doesnt need to live in Cairo to understand it. what you have to do though is throw some concepts you were told were sacred about society , politics, religion etc, straight out the window.[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
Perhaps the only way to understand that region is to live there. I think the mentality and cultures of the ME are something that are just too foreign for us Westerners to understand. And believe me we had A TON of classes about the region, guess the only way to understand it is to visit it.
I am going to visit Israel soon, I can go there for free with the birth right program.
ShadowMoses900
I oftent here there is a conflict between the Secular non religious Jews and the Orthodox Jews. I know people who have been to Israel and they tell me that Orthodox Jews are exempt from the IDF and in there neighborhoods they make women ride in the back of the bus. Which is just wrong.
Most of my understanding of the region comes from peopel from there who I know personally, and from my college courses.
they have gotten slightly wrong in regards to that, shows you how much they know. basically the first thing you have to remember that Orthofox means something different than it does in the US, in Israel there is no such thing as Reform or Conservative (well there are , but no more than a few thousand at best), on paper, 99% of Jews are born into the Orthodox strand, and any wedding, funeral , Bar Mitzva etc , is done in the Orthofox tradition , even if that person is otherwise not a great believe in anything. then you have to remember that even amongst the more observent people , there are divisions , youve got Masortiim (tradtionalists), as well as the national religious (who , by any other standard are Orthodox) and Haredim. generally speaking , the only ones who avoid work and such are the Haredim , and even there I would guess 40-50% do work , so what you call Orthodox isnt quite the same. in fact , if you were to take every person who is a tradtionalist, religious nationalist or Haredi , you would get around 50% of the population , so its not as simple as that.So when is NATO or the UN going to do anything about Syria? RavensmashThey are already fueling a civil war by giving weapons and aid to the opposition on the down low. Assad is a cool guy, shame the media makes him out to be a monster when it's the opposition groups that instigate the gunfights.
ShadowMoses900
So then what's the solution? If it's even possible.
The solution is to not fight fire with more fire. And people have to throw away this idea that the middle east is some hellhole that has violence embedded into every aspect of it. Historically the middle east is just as violent as any other major hotspot such as Germany, the Balkans, China. There's a myth that the middle east is some rubics cube of world diplomacy that can never be solved. Its just not true, the problems in the middle east are about 80-100 years old in origin (notwithstanding the religious tensions)[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]BossPerson
So then what's the solution? If it's even possible.
The solution is to not fight fire with more fire. And people have to throw away this idea that the middle east is some hellhole that has violence embedded into every aspect of it. Historically the middle east is just as violent as any other major hotspot such as Germany, the Balkans, China. There's a myth that the middle east is some rubics cube of world diplomacy that can never be solved. Its just not true, the problems in the middle east are about 80-100 years old in origin.I don't think you can solve the problems of this region with signed pieces of paper, I think there will always be conflict in it to some extent, maybe less than now, but it will never get to postwar Europe.
there were always conflcits in the region , just not on a state level (because lets be honest, the state wasn't always the first priority for the average person)
[QUOTE="Ravensmash"]So when is NATO or the UN going to do anything about Syria? shakmaster13They are already fueling a civil war by giving weapons and aid to the opposition on the down low. Assad is a cool guy, shame the media makes him out to be a monster when it's the opposition groups that instigate the gunfights.A cool guy that has murdered 12 000 of his own citizens?
[QUOTE="shakmaster13"][QUOTE="Ravensmash"]So when is NATO or the UN going to do anything about Syria? BossPersonThey are already fueling a civil war by giving weapons and aid to the opposition on the down low. Assad is a cool guy, shame the media makes him out to be a monster when it's the opposition groups that instigate the gunfights.A cool guy that has murdered 12 000 of his own citizens? maybe hes talking about the air conditioning in Assad's office, he would be pretty cool after using it. yeah , that was pretty lame
[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]The solution is to not fight fire with more fire. And people have to throw away this idea that the middle east is some hellhole that has violence embedded into every aspect of it. Historically the middle east is just as violent as any other major hotspot such as Germany, the Balkans, China. There's a myth that the middle east is some rubics cube of world diplomacy that can never be solved. Its just not true, the problems in the middle east are about 80-100 years old in origin. I don't think you can solve the problems of this region with signed pieces of paper, I think there will always be conflict in it to some extent, maybe less than now, but it will never get to postwar Europe.I see no reason why it cant get to that stage (post-war Europe). Europeans has been at war with each other for thousands of years and only about 65 years ago did they finally stop (which is pretty remarkable when you think about it)So then what's the solution? If it's even possible.
Darkman2007
[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]The solution is to not fight fire with more fire. And people have to throw away this idea that the middle east is some hellhole that has violence embedded into every aspect of it. Historically the middle east is just as violent as any other major hotspot such as Germany, the Balkans, China. There's a myth that the middle east is some rubics cube of world diplomacy that can never be solved. Its just not true, the problems in the middle east are about 80-100 years old in origin. BossPersonI don't think you can solve the problems of this region with signed pieces of paper, I think there will always be conflict in it to some extent, maybe less than now, but it will never get to postwar Europe.I see no reason why it cant get to that stage (post-war Europe). Europeans has been at war with each other for thousands of years and only about 65 years ago did they finally stop. thats also true, but then it took 2 world wars to do that.
So when is NATO or the UN going to do anything about Syria? RavensmashThey've been turning a blind eye toward Syria since this turmoil started... why should NATO start caring now? Because a few dozen children were killed? Children have been getting killed in this conflict since it started... nobody cares... we only cared when Gadaffi was alleged to be killing Libyan civilians and when Mubarak was 'maybe' gonna attack Egyptian civilians... these are Syrian civilians we're talking about here, who, according to NATO and the Western Press are somehow different and don't deserve protection...
[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] its not that hard for westerners, Israel is by, at least some standard, a western country, and most people who know the slightest bit about politics in Israel , know more about the region than most westerners in Europe and the US, one doesnt need to live in Cairo to understand it. what you have to do though is throw some concepts you were told were sacred about society , politics, religion etc, straight out the window.Darkman2007
I oftent here there is a conflict between the Secular non religious Jews and the Orthodox Jews. I know people who have been to Israel and they tell me that Orthodox Jews are exempt from the IDF and in there neighborhoods they make women ride in the back of the bus. Which is just wrong.
Most of my understanding of the region comes from peopel from there who I know personally, and from my college courses.
they have gotten slightly wrong in regards to that, shows you how much they know. basically the first thing you have to remember that Orthofox means something different than it does in the US, in Israel there is no such thing as Reform or Conservative (well there are , but no more than a few thousand at best), on paper, 99% of Jews are born into the Orthodox strand, and any wedding, funeral , Bar Mitzva etc , is done in the Orthofox tradition , even if that person is otherwise not a great believe in anything. then you have to remember that even amongst the more observent people , there are divisions , youve got Masortiim (tradtionalists), as well as the national religious (who , by any other standard are Orthodox) and Haredim. generally speaking , the only ones who avoid work and such are the Haredim , and even there I would guess 40-50% do work , so what you call Orthodox isnt quite the same. in fact , if you were to take every person who is a tradtionalist, religious nationalist or Haredi , you would get around 50% of the population , so its not as simple as that.Hmm....so Orthodox in Israel kind of run things? I know it's not fully but there is no doubt they have an influence it seems. I wonder how Jews that marry non Jews get along there?
Since Orthodox do the weddings as you said, they only allow Jews to marry other Jews and not Gentiles. Same goes for the other traditions as well. This sounds like it could lead to tense issues.
I also hear that are some cases where Orthodox Jews in Israel blew up restraunts that sold pork and burnt down a cremation area. I'm not sure how the Orthodox find out about things, they don't use TV's or anything. Most of their news comes from posters they hang up in their neighborhoods.
In my area there are 2 synagouges, neither of which are very big, there is an Orthodox one and a Reconstructionist one. They are completely polar opposites of each other.
[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] I don't think you can solve the problems of this region with signed pieces of paper, I think there will always be conflict in it to some extent, maybe less than now, but it will never get to postwar Europe.Darkman2007I see no reason why it cant get to that stage (post-war Europe). Europeans has been at war with each other for thousands of years and only about 65 years ago did they finally stop. thats also true, but then it took 2 world wars to do that.Not really, WW2 as I see it wasnt about exhausting European colonial ambitions as it was as making sure Germany itself would never get the chance to be great as France or Spain were. Both world wars were essentially two chapter of the same book as well, it was all about shutting Germany down (with good reason of course). Although colonialism pretty much died after WW2 which was perhaps one of the few benefits of the war. My point is, it wont require a war in the middle east to exhaust the pools of hatred there.
[QUOTE="Ravensmash"]So when is NATO or the UN going to do anything about Syria? 67gt500They've been turning a blind eye toward Syria since this turmoil started... why should NATO start caring now? Because a few dozen children were killed? Children have been getting killed in this conflict since it started... nobody cares... we only cared when Gadaffi was alleged to be killing Libyan civilians and when Mubarak was 'maybe' gonna attack Egyptian civilians... these are Syrian civilians we're talking about here, who, according to NATO and the Western Press are somehow different and don't deserve protection...
I hope that you are not a person who constantly claims the US should stay out of other people's business.
I think that's been the worst thing that has come out of the whole Egypt, Lybia, and now Syria business. All of those people complaining about the US and other western powers mingling are all crying out for action to be taken when crap hits the fan.
Make up your minds please.
Who's saying the US and NATO (the US makes up the majority of the UN/NATOs armed forces) won't make the situation worse and end up like Iraq if we displace Assad? There is no end-game strategy. We've learned that you can't just kill a dictator. In Lybia the rebels were the ones calling the shot. Sure the US bombed the crap out of Lybia's army and then France and the UK continued to support, but that's still not the same as NATO throwing boots on the ground and taking out a dictator.
Considering how small and compact Syria is, the civilian casualties of all out war would be huge and the impact of the fighting would probably end up creating far more enemies of the West than it will help.
they have gotten slightly wrong in regards to that, shows you how much they know. basically the first thing you have to remember that Orthofox means something different than it does in the US, in Israel there is no such thing as Reform or Conservative (well there are , but no more than a few thousand at best), on paper, 99% of Jews are born into the Orthodox strand, and any wedding, funeral , Bar Mitzva etc , is done in the Orthofox tradition , even if that person is otherwise not a great believe in anything. then you have to remember that even amongst the more observent people , there are divisions , youve got Masortiim (tradtionalists), as well as the national religious (who , by any other standard are Orthodox) and Haredim. generally speaking , the only ones who avoid work and such are the Haredim , and even there I would guess 40-50% do work , so what you call Orthodox isnt quite the same. in fact , if you were to take every person who is a tradtionalist, religious nationalist or Haredi , you would get around 50% of the population , so its not as simple as that.[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
I oftent here there is a conflict between the Secular non religious Jews and the Orthodox Jews. I know people who have been to Israel and they tell me that Orthodox Jews are exempt from the IDF and in there neighborhoods they make women ride in the back of the bus. Which is just wrong.
Most of my understanding of the region comes from peopel from there who I know personally, and from my college courses.
ShadowMoses900
Hmm....so Orthodox in Israel kind of run things? I know it's not fully but there is no doubt they have an influence it seems. I wonder how Jews that marry non Jews get along there?
Since Orthodox do the weddings as you said, they only allow Jews to marry other Jews and not Gentiles. Same goes for the other traditions as well. This sounds like it could lead to tense issues.
I also hear that are some cases where Orthodox Jews in Israel blew up restraunts that sold pork and burnt down a cremation area. I'm not sure how the Orthodox find out about things, they don't use TV's or anything. Most of their news comes from posters they hang up in their neighborhoods.
In my area there are 2 synagouges, neither of which are very big, there is an Orthodox one and a Reconstructionist one. They are completely polar opposites of each other.
Ive never heard of anyone blowing up restraunts (not every restraunt has a Kosher certificate), but they did set fire to a crematorium (ironic) which was almost operating in secret. and no , they don't run things as such , but there is a status quo between religion and the state, and no , nobody is really concerend about the lack of civil marriage, I mean , who else is there to marry. the system itself is simply a copy of the Ottoman system , where each community has its own religious laws (Muslims have their Sharia courts, they don't deal with the Rabbinate)thats also true, but then it took 2 world wars to do that.Not really, WW2 as I see it wasnt about exhausting European colonial ambitions as it was as making sure Germany itself would never get the chance to be great as France or Spain were. Both world wars were essentially two chapter of the same book as well, it was all about shutting Germany down (with good reason of course). Although colonialism pretty much died after WW2 which was perhaps one of the few benefits of the war. My point is, it wont require a war in the middle east to exhaust the pools of hatred there. well the first war happened because of the alliance system (remember the war started in the Balkans , not in Germany). though I think the fundamental difference between Europe and the Mideast is that in Europe, its about the individual , and his loyalty to the state, and in fact, how hes supposed to oppose it. in the Middle East, I reckon Arabs are as loyal to a particular family/tribe, as they are to a state, it makes things more difficult (or maybe the Arabs are not like that anymore, Im not sure)[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]I see no reason why it cant get to that stage (post-war Europe). Europeans has been at war with each other for thousands of years and only about 65 years ago did they finally stop.BossPerson
Kid, you are fvcking batsh!t insane. Nothing less than certifiable. It's almost like you want the ME, including Israel, to be war zone.I'm not a kid. Yeah right, nobody over the age of 12 is as stupid as you...[QUOTE="Lord__Stark"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
I'm 22, and yes Israel being at the helm of a ME union would be a great thing. They wouldn't rule over the other countries, they would just have the most influence. It would be like the EU.
See Israel get's the most support, and the other ME countries get pressured into joining the Middle Eastern Union by the UN, the countries that do must become democracies and follow Israels example (freedom of religion, equal rights for women, no child massacres ect...you know basic human rights).
The countries that reject it become black listed and get cut off from all support, no trading, no aid, not anything. They get kicked out of the UN and they get absolutely zero support for anything. They get put under constant surveilance by the UN and if they try to harm anyone they get their ass kicked.
This would solve a lot of problems in the ME. I think it's a great idea! Especially Israel at the head of this union, it would have the most influence and call most of the shots.
ShadowMoses900
[QUOTE="BossPerson"]Not really, WW2 as I see it wasnt about exhausting European colonial ambitions as it was as making sure Germany itself would never get the chance to be great as France or Spain were. Both world wars were essentially two chapter of the same book as well, it was all about shutting Germany down (with good reason of course). Although colonialism pretty much died after WW2 which was perhaps one of the few benefits of the war. My point is, it wont require a war in the middle east to exhaust the pools of hatred there. well the first war happened because of the alliance system (remember the war started in the Balkans , not in Germany). though I think the fundamental difference between Europe and the Mideast is that in Europe, its about the individual , and his loyalty to the state, and in fact, how hes supposed to oppose it. in the Middle East, I reckon Arabs are as loyal to a particular family/tribe, as they are to a state, it makes things more difficult (or maybe the Arabs are not like that anymore, Im not sure)Tribalism among Arabs has gone down hill since Nasser came to be. Of course it is reignited once in a while during times of war (such as in Iraq or Libya during the civil wars there). But generally among muslim arabs they are loyal to either Sunni or Shia or they have a pan-Arab ideology. The christian arabs generally side with the secular dictators because they guarantee them their safety, although that is always the case as was seen in egypt or in syria to a small extent (Christians protesting the regime).[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] thats also true, but then it took 2 world wars to do that.Darkman2007
[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]Not really, WW2 as I see it wasnt about exhausting European colonial ambitions as it was as making sure Germany itself would never get the chance to be great as France or Spain were. Both world wars were essentially two chapter of the same book as well, it was all about shutting Germany down (with good reason of course). Although colonialism pretty much died after WW2 which was perhaps one of the few benefits of the war. My point is, it wont require a war in the middle east to exhaust the pools of hatred there.BossPersonTribalism among Arabs has gone down hill since Nasser came to be. Of course it is reignited once in a while during times of war (such as in Iraq or Libya during the civil wars there). But generally among muslim arabs they are loyal to either Sunni or Shia or they have a pan-Arab ideology. The christian arabs generally side with the secular dictators because they guarantee them their safety, although that is always the case as was seen in egypt or in syria to a small extent (Christians protesting the regime). well the first war happened because of the alliance system (remember the war started in the Balkans , not in Germany). though I think the fundamental difference between Europe and the Mideast is that in Europe, its about the individual , and his loyalty to the state, and in fact, how hes supposed to oppose it. in the Middle East, I reckon Arabs are as loyal to a particular family/tribe, as they are to a state, it makes things more difficult (or maybe the Arabs are not like that anymore, Im not sure) my question is then , how much of an influence did Nasser really have? I figured most Arabs considerd Nasserism as a failure (it didn't achieve its goals per se) hence why Islamism is more popular (and on a certain level , Islamism can blur country borders)
[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"]Tribalism among Arabs has gone down hill since Nasser came to be. Of course it is reignited once in a while during times of war (such as in Iraq or Libya during the civil wars there). But generally among muslim arabs they are loyal to either Sunni or Shia or they have a pan-Arab ideology. The christian arabs generally side with the secular dictators because they guarantee them their safety, although that is always the case as was seen in egypt or in syria to a small extent (Christians protesting the regime). well the first war happened because of the alliance system (remember the war started in the Balkans , not in Germany). though I think the fundamental difference between Europe and the Mideast is that in Europe, its about the individual , and his loyalty to the state, and in fact, how hes supposed to oppose it. in the Middle East, I reckon Arabs are as loyal to a particular family/tribe, as they are to a state, it makes things more difficult (or maybe the Arabs are not like that anymore, Im not sure)Darkman2007my question is then , how much of an influence did Nasser really have? I figured most Arabs considerd Nasserism as a failure (it didn't achieve its goals per se) hence why Islamism is more popular (and on a certain level , Islamism can blur country borders)Well with Nasserism, you're right in saying that it didnt achieve its main goals, but what it did do was foster an unimaginable level of enthusaism across Egypt and the Levant along with Iraq. Nasser gave Arabs a dream of unity and prosperity with Arabs controlling their own destiny for the first times in hundreds of years (instead of being subject to Ottomans or European powers. After the failure of Nasserism, Saddam and Hafez Al assad, the Baathists (the pan-Arab party of the middle east [or at least it used to be]) used Nasser and Pan arabism to justify their dictatorship. So Nasserism failed in achieving its material goals, but it did have a great affect on pan-arab sentiment.
Islamism did fill in the void after Pan Arabism was off the table, just as you said because it can blur the borders to some extent. Although many Islamists have an even more far fetched dream than most Pan Arabists; they want to ultimately restore the caliphate. Whether or not they are just saing that to gather support or if they really mean it is something im not sure of, but it does work in attracting young, unemployed and bored men to help their cause.
[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]I'm not a kid. Yeah right, nobody over the age of 12 is as stupid as you...[QUOTE="Lord__Stark"] Kid, you are fvcking batsh!t insane. Nothing less than certifiable. It's almost like you want the ME, including Israel, to be war zone.Jebus213
Wow yes that was a very mature comment you made. You surely are an upstanding adult, I can tell.
I'm 22 and go to university. Mabey I'm a little immature, but your supposed to be at 22.
my question is then , how much of an influence did Nasser really have? I figured most Arabs considerd Nasserism as a failure (it didn't achieve its goals per se) hence why Islamism is more popular (and on a certain level , Islamism can blur country borders)Well with Nasserism, you're right in saying that it didnt achieve its main goals, but what it did do was foster an unimaginable level of enthusaism across Egypt and the Levant along with Iraq. Nasser gave Arabs a dream of unity and prosperity with Arabs controlling their own destiny for the first times in hundreds of years (instead of being subject to Ottomans or European powers. After the failure of Nasserism, the Saddam and Hafez Al assad, the Baathists (the pan-Arab party of the middle east [or at least it used to be]) used Nasser and Pan arabism to justify their dictatorship. So Nasserism failed in achieving its material goals, but it did have a great affect on pan-arab sentiment.[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]BossPerson
Islamism did fill in the void after Pan Arabism was off the table, just as you said because it can blur the borders to some extent. Although many Islamists have an even more far fetched dream than most Pan Arabists; they want to ultimately restore the caliphate. Whether or not they are just saing that to gather support or if they really mean it, it does work in attracting young, unemployed and bored men to help their cause.
well , the problem with recreating a caliphate, is that there is a state full of Jews in the middle of it, obviously Islamists generally wont accept Israel , but Im not sure they would be willing to take ther countries to war. of course the other thing is wheter the caliphate includes Iran (I didnt see a map of the Umayyad caliphate in a while but I believe it had Iran, which kills the plan as well). and its understandable why Islamists get alot of support, they are the only real alternative , and when youre desperate, you will vote for anybody who offers an alternative. what should worry the Arabs though , is if they give too much power to one faction, they will end up with another dictatorship , just an Islamic one as opposed to a secular one.[QUOTE="BossPerson"]Well with Nasserism, you're right in saying that it didnt achieve its main goals, but what it did do was foster an unimaginable level of enthusaism across Egypt and the Levant along with Iraq. Nasser gave Arabs a dream of unity and prosperity with Arabs controlling their own destiny for the first times in hundreds of years (instead of being subject to Ottomans or European powers. After the failure of Nasserism, the Saddam and Hafez Al assad, the Baathists (the pan-Arab party of the middle east [or at least it used to be]) used Nasser and Pan arabism to justify their dictatorship. So Nasserism failed in achieving its material goals, but it did have a great affect on pan-arab sentiment.[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] my question is then , how much of an influence did Nasser really have? I figured most Arabs considerd Nasserism as a failure (it didn't achieve its goals per se) hence why Islamism is more popular (and on a certain level , Islamism can blur country borders)Darkman2007
Islamism did fill in the void after Pan Arabism was off the table, just as you said because it can blur the borders to some extent. Although many Islamists have an even more far fetched dream than most Pan Arabists; they want to ultimately restore the caliphate. Whether or not they are just saing that to gather support or if they really mean it, it does work in attracting young, unemployed and bored men to help their cause.
well , the problem with recreating a caliphate, is that there is a state full of Jews in the middle of it, obviously Islamists generally wont accept Israel , but Im not sure they would be willing to take ther countries to war. of course the other thing is wheter the caliphate includes Iran (I didnt see a map of the Umayyad caliphate in a while but I believe it had Iran, which kills the plan as well). and its understandable why Islamists get alot of support, they are the only real alternative , and when youre desperate, you will vote for anybody who offers an alternative. what should worry the Arabs though , is if they give too much power to one faction, they will end up with another dictatorship , just an Islamic one as opposed to a secular one.Well I wouldnt look to far into their hopes for a caliphate, its essentially impossible. And regarding the chance that one faction could rise up and take over, the use of protests and civil uprising is essentially holding any leader hostage (which is a good thing). So if the brotherhood is out of control in Egypt, all they have to do is go back to Tahrir square and protest again. I cant see any one group in Syria hijacking the revolution, so if there is a democratic transition there guided by the SNC, the threat of protests will be used to hold the leaders hostage there as well.Of course its not going to be as clean as I theorize here, minorities in Syria are going to have a hard time ahead and revenge killings are very likely especially among those Alawites and Christian neighbourhoods who sided with Assad.
Yeah right, nobody over the age of 12 is as stupid as you...[QUOTE="Jebus213"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]I'm not a kid. ShadowMoses900
Wow yes that was a very mature comment you made. You surely are an upstanding adult, I can tell.
I'm 22 and go to university. Mabey I'm a little immature, but your supposed to be at 22.
You're 15 y.o.[QUOTE="Ravensmash"]So when is NATO or the UN going to do anything about Syria? shakmaster13They are already fueling a civil war by giving weapons and aid to the opposition on the down low. Assad is a cool guy, shame the media makes him out to be a monster when it's the opposition groups that instigate the gunfights.
What the hell has Assad done? His power is based off of dynastic minority rule and scaring people into thinking that only he has the right to lead or the ability to hold the country together. Syria has nothing else of note as a consequence of him besides a moderately strong army and an omnipresent state security apparatus.
... The UN will only do something if one of the security council will do something (aka Britain, France, Russia, China, and United States).. They will not involve themselves in such a place of no economic or political importance.. This was pretty much illustrated with the genocide of Darfur.. This is pretty much the main problem with UN, the top 10 donors to the organization are in fact mainly smaller and developing nations!.. The UN is basically the political right arm to the security council, meaning they will use it if it meets their purposes, ignore it if it doesn't..I guess the UN and other foreign observers aren't helping to prevent Assad from destroying his own country.
jimkabrhel
[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]... The UN will only do something if one of the security council will do something (aka Britain, France, Russia, China, and United States).. They will not involve themselves in such a place of no economic or political importance.. This was pretty much illustrated with the genocide of Darfur.. This is pretty much the main problem with UN, the top 10 donors to the organization are in fact mainly smaller and developing nations!.. The UN is basically the political right arm to the security council, meaning they will use it if it meets their purposes, ignore it if it doesn't..I guess the UN and other foreign observers aren't helping to prevent Assad from destroying his own country.
sSubZerOo
Syria may have little economic clout, but it has plenty of political importance. It is a main ally of Iran and Russia and a gateway for their influence in the Arab World. The problem is that the Security Council is split between anti-Assad (Britain, France, U.S.) and pro-Assad/anti-opposition (Russia, China). It kind of paralyzes organizational action and destroys the little effectiveness the U.N. has at its best.
I mean, just look at the vague language the U.N. Russian delegation is using to refer to these most recent events and the implicit blame it puts on the opposition for it.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment