3 ms·

> I have to refer back to these long traditional rivals Long traditional rivals? Iran and iraq are relatively new 20th century european colonial creations. Ira

> I have to refer back to these long traditional rivals Long traditional rivals? Iran and iraq are relatively new 20th century european colonial creations. Iran was carved out by the british/russians and Iraq was arbitrarily drawn out on a map by the british and french. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement > when I read people waxing poetic about the prospect of erasing international borders and becoming a brotherhood of man and then at the same time rejecting homogenization of culture Even with homogenous cultures, no guarantee of "brotherhood of man". Look at north and south korea. The elites will always find something to fight over. > Maybe with the right governments they can work out deals like we work out with Canada and Mexico with regard to shared resources It's not the "right" governments. It's called an insurmountable power differential. Canada and mexico simple have to do what they are told. We've fought wars against canada( british empire ) and mexico and taken significant amount of territory from both to ensure that these countries "share their resources" as told. The only way this power dynamic would change if an outside force with enough power helps either canada or mexico challenge the US. I don't see that happening anytime soon. > but I’m not holding my breath on this given the Kurds are kind of the out group within the Iraqi family and probably won’t get full support from the central govt. The kurds are the outgroup everywhere - turkey, iraq, iran, etc. The kurds have been used by the US/Europe as a separatist thorn in the side of many middle east nations to keep them unstable. Similar to what we are trying to do with the uyghurs in china, rohingya in myanmar, the balochs in pakistan, india, africa, etc. One of the benefits of having drawn out nations in africa is that the nations are full of different ethnic groups that can be pit against each other making these african nations easier to control. Not sure it was the original intent, but that's where we are right now.

jcranmer 5y ago
> Long traditional rivals? Iran and iraq are relatively new 20th century european colonial creations. Iran was carved out by the british/russians and Iraq was arbitrarily drawn out on a map by the british and french. This is completely false when you're talking about Iran. An Iranian state has existed in more or less continuous form as an independent polity since the breakup of the Timurid Empire in ~1500. The three-way contest between the Ottomans, Safavid Persia, and Russia is a staple of the region's politics for virtually the entirety of the Early Modern period.
- dotcommand 5y ago
  > This is completely false when you're talking about Iran. I wouldn't say completely false. > An Iranian state has existed in more or less continuous form as an independent polity since the breakup of the Timurid Empire in ~1500. More or less? Independent polity? You are independent or you are not independent. You can't be "more or less" independent than you can be "more or less" pregnant. It certainly wasn't independent after it was invaded and conquered by the british and soviets? It certainly wasn't independent after the british and soviets installed their own puppet to rule over iran. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran Iran, china, india, etc all love to claim thousand years whatever. Perhaps culturally, historically, etc they have a point but neither iran, china, india, etc are old states.
  - jcranmer 5y ago
    The "more or less" applied to "continuous", not "independent." But if you really want to argue that independence is a simple binary decision... you're just flat out wrong. No, seriously. Let's take what should be a simple example: Canada. When did Canada become independent? Well... Wikipedia lists no fewer than three separate dates, and that's really understating the matter. The Canadian Confederation was proclaimed on July 1, 1867 (and this is the date that Canada celebrates as its main independence day, FWIW). This created the basic structure of the Canadian government, but all changes to it required approval by Westminster, and Canada was not allowed autonomy in several areas of law, most notably foreign policy. This changed after the Canadian dissatisfaction with British negotiation of the US-Canada border dispute in the Alaska panhandle, and Canada started entering into international agreements and treaties in its own right in the early 1900s. The Statute of Westminster in 1931 dropped all legislative oversight over Canada, except for constitutional changes which came about in 1982. So I ask you again, when did Canada become independent? Now, for bonus points, take the same criteria and ask if places such as Greenland, Bermuda, Taiwan, Palestine, Abu Dhabi, or Federated States of Micronesia are independent or not.
    - dotcommand 5y ago

jcranmer 5y ago

> Long traditional rivals? Iran and iraq are relatively new 20th century european colonial creations. Iran was carved out by the british/russians and Iraq was arbitrarily drawn out on a map by the british and french. This is completely false when you're talking about Iran. An Iranian state has existed in more or less continuous form as an independent polity since the breakup of the Timurid Empire in ~1500. The three-way contest between the Ottomans, Safavid Persia, and Russia is a staple of the region's politics for virtually the entirety of the Early Modern period.

dotcommand 5y ago
> This is completely false when you're talking about Iran. I wouldn't say completely false. > An Iranian state has existed in more or less continuous form as an independent polity since the breakup of the Timurid Empire in ~1500. More or less? Independent polity? You are independent or you are not independent. You can't be "more or less" independent than you can be "more or less" pregnant. It certainly wasn't independent after it was invaded and conquered by the british and soviets? It certainly wasn't independent after the british and soviets installed their own puppet to rule over iran. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran Iran, china, india, etc all love to claim thousand years whatever. Perhaps culturally, historically, etc they have a point but neither iran, china, india, etc are old states.
- jcranmer 5y ago
  The "more or less" applied to "continuous", not "independent." But if you really want to argue that independence is a simple binary decision... you're just flat out wrong. No, seriously. Let's take what should be a simple example: Canada. When did Canada become independent? Well... Wikipedia lists no fewer than three separate dates, and that's really understating the matter. The Canadian Confederation was proclaimed on July 1, 1867 (and this is the date that Canada celebrates as its main independence day, FWIW). This created the basic structure of the Canadian government, but all changes to it required approval by Westminster, and Canada was not allowed autonomy in several areas of law, most notably foreign policy. This changed after the Canadian dissatisfaction with British negotiation of the US-Canada border dispute in the Alaska panhandle, and Canada started entering into international agreements and treaties in its own right in the early 1900s. The Statute of Westminster in 1931 dropped all legislative oversight over Canada, except for constitutional changes which came about in 1982. So I ask you again, when did Canada become independent? Now, for bonus points, take the same criteria and ask if places such as Greenland, Bermuda, Taiwan, Palestine, Abu Dhabi, or Federated States of Micronesia are independent or not.
  - dotcommand 5y ago