NationStates

Zaurell wrote:

Ganos Lao wrote:
That's too small. If you really want to create the next big fuck up in American foreign policy, make Taiwan a US State.

Amusing. It obviously wouldn't be a state proper. Maybe a territory?

No, no, indulge the Taiwanese who want America to be a state. Territory is good, but not good enough. The goal is to make people rage, after all.

Ganos Lao wrote:

Zaurell wrote:Amusing. It obviously wouldn't be a state proper. Maybe a territory?

No, no, indulge the Taiwanese who want America to be a state. Territory is good, but not good enough. The goal is to make people rage, after all.

I was referring to Iraq, actually.

Zaurell wrote:

Ganos Lao wrote:
No, no, indulge the Taiwanese who want America to be a state. Territory is good, but not good enough. The goal is to make people rage, after all.

I was referring to Iraq, actually.

Then, in that case, make it the Middle Eastern Puerto Rico.

Let them fight it out. If ISIS becomes a problem, annihilate it.

America has already screwed up the region enough for this chaos to unfold. Let the Middle East try and sort out this problem (doubt it will breed a good ending anyway).

If ISIS stands, pulverise the bloodied force until there's nothing there. We know ISIS is a threat to world peace. The larger their atrocities grow, the more others will understand.

Kubra wrote:

USS Donald Trump wrote:
what part of "do it yourself" did you not understand.

all of it
Pls help us understand

Yup.

How will "the people" replace the State?

Ganos Lao wrote:

Uxupox wrote:


Looks very similar to shitposting.

If I was aiming to shitpost, I could've done a far better job, don't you think?

Nah, my friend, it is not shitposting.

It is merely my reaction to someone trying to shove blame onto another, you see. If America really wanted to help Iraq, America would never have invaded Iraq. It is times like these you wish the American government just overthrew people who wouldn't kiss their ass the old fashioned way - with a couple of well placed CIA agents.

But Iraq did not use American help? That's because America wasn't really interested in helping so much as "well, we fucked up by invading, we can't just bounce and look like jackasses."

Because you certainly do not help by supporting a Shiite oligarchy that represses Sunnis.

I agree with USS Donald Trump.

well there wasn't much options, the sunni's had an administration they were cool with and the states ousted it. Shia minority rule wasn't a terrible idea, the french set it up in Syria and at least until recently it seemed to be working.
Not one commentator I know of saw Sunni revivalism coming, it's a real dark horse for folks.

Kubra wrote:

Ganos Lao wrote:
If I was aiming to shitpost, I could've done a far better job, don't you think?

Nah, my friend, it is not shitposting.

It is merely my reaction to someone trying to shove blame onto another, you see. If America really wanted to help Iraq, America would never have invaded Iraq. It is times like these you wish the American government just overthrew people who wouldn't kiss their ass the old fashioned way - with a couple of well placed CIA agents.

But Iraq did not use American help? That's because America wasn't really interested in helping so much as "well, we fucked up by invading, we can't just bounce and look like jackasses."

Because you certainly do not help by supporting a Shiite oligarchy that represses Sunnis.

I agree with USS Donald Trump.

well there wasn't much options, the sunni's had an administration they were cool with and the states ousted it. Shia minority rule wasn't a terrible idea, the french set it up in Syria and at least until recently it seemed to be working.
Not one commentator I know of saw Sunni revivalism coming, it's a real dark horse for folks.

France set no such thing. When France left, Syria was a democracy, with Sunnis mostly holding power, as they were the majority. Al-Assad the father coup-ed that democracy and installed the current Alaouite-led regime.

Kubra wrote:Shia minority rule wasn't a terrible idea, the french set it up in Syria and at least until recently it seemed to be working.

You know what would've actually been not a terrible idea? Rule by people based on merit rather than religion. Revolutionary concept these days, though, so no wonder it's not got that many people interested in implementing it.

Ganos Lao wrote:

Kubra wrote:Shia minority rule wasn't a terrible idea, the french set it up in Syria and at least until recently it seemed to be working.

You know what would've actually been not a terrible idea? Rule by people based on merit rather than religion. Revolutionary concept these days, though, so no wonder it's not got that many people interested in implementing it.

That's a good point you have there.

Bihr wrote:

Ganos Lao wrote:

You know what would've actually been not a terrible idea? Rule by people based on merit rather than religion. Revolutionary concept these days, though, so no wonder it's not got that many people interested in implementing it.

That's a good point you have there.

Best suppress it then :^)

Bihr wrote:

Ganos Lao wrote:

You know what would've actually been not a terrible idea? Rule by people based on merit rather than religion. Revolutionary concept these days, though, so no wonder it's not got that many people interested in implementing it.

That's a good point you have there.

You'd think it'd be common sense, but apparently not. Even Genghis Khan used this system. Yet these people can't? Makes no sense.

Ganos Lao wrote:

Bihr wrote:That's a good point you have there.

You'd think it'd be common sense, but apparently not. Even Genghis Khan used this system. Yet these people can't? Makes no sense.

Yup.

Ganos Lao wrote:

Kubra wrote:Shia minority rule wasn't a terrible idea, the french set it up in Syria and at least until recently it seemed to be working.

You know what would've actually been not a terrible idea? Rule by people based on merit rather than religion. Revolutionary concept these days, though, so no wonder it's not got that many people interested in implementing it.

Well, it is a revolutionary concept, one so revolutionary that it took an actual revolution culminating in an empire that spread the idea to the rest of europe by force. Otherwise, a lot of folks in the developing world are more used to shit like sect identity, familial relations, patron-client relationships, and so on.

Olerand wrote:

Kubra wrote: well there wasn't much options, the sunni's had an administration they were cool with and the states ousted it. Shia minority rule wasn't a terrible idea, the french set it up in Syria and at least until recently it seemed to be working.
Not one commentator I know of saw Sunni revivalism coming, it's a real dark horse for folks.

France set no such thing. When France left, Syria was a democracy, with Sunnis mostly holding power, as they were the majority. Al-Assad the father coup-ed that democracy and installed the current Alaouite-led regime.

For their local security forces, France recruited heavily from the syrian minority groups, that of course includes the alawites to a considerable degree. This all makes sense, they'd sort of kind of betrayed the sunni arabs after sykes picot, so obviously including them too greatly in security and administration would have been a mistake for them. The higher echelons of syrian army were sunni post-independence, but among non-commission officers alawites were a whopping 65%, just them, that don't happen without folks deliberately making it so. Politically, having states in the mandate separated by ethnicity rather than numbers, though protecting those minority groups and giving them political autonomy for the first time, also lead to their overrepresentation of minorities in comparison to the majority of sunni arabs. The stage was pretty much set for a minority like the alawites to cease the lions share of political power.

Now really, there's no shame in having once been a colonial power doing colonial things, an imperial power doing imperial things, most countries in Europe worth their salt were at some point.

Souseiseki wrote:to be honest they're total edgelords that try to think up of extreme new methods of execution to get attention and we'd be better off not giving graphics descriptions of them and sharing the videos

This. I was born in Iraq, and lived in Saudi most of my life. The west has blown ISIS out of proportion. They aren't that big, and they aren't that strong. They just have an excellent propaganda machine that is effective in shocking westerners. There is footage of them running away like cowards on the actual battleground. Their interpretation of Islam is bizarre, even for extremists. If you want ISIS to go away, tell the U.S.A. to stop displacing governments that the stability of the region depends upon *cough* Saddam *cough*. Oh, and before someone says "They are strong, they have taken over a region of Syria", please remember that other groups have taken over other regions of Syria too. It isn't exactly a difficult thing to do right now, as long as you have a fair amount of men and some working Kalashnikovs.

Edit: Don't give the Kurds their own country. That's basically asking for more war by destabilizing the region even further. Likely one even worse than what's going on right now. Everyone should support Assad, even if he is a Shiite (no pun intended).

Afer wrote:

Souseiseki wrote:to be honest they're total edgelords that try to think up of extreme new methods of execution to get attention and we'd be better off not giving graphics descriptions of them and sharing the videos

This. I was born in Iraq, and lived in Saudi most of my life. The west has blown ISIS out of proportion. They aren't that big, and they aren't that strong. They just have an excellent propaganda machine that is effective in shocking westerners. There is footage of them running away like cowards on the actual battleground. Their interpretation of Islam is bizarre, even for extremists. If you want ISIS to go away, tell the U.S.A. to stop displacing governments that the stability of the region depends upon *cough* Saddam *cough*. Oh, and before someone says "They are strong, they have taken over a region of Syria", please remember that other groups have taken over other regions of Syria too. It isn't exactly a difficult thing to do right now, as long as you have a fair amount of men and some working Kalashnikovs.

Edit: Don't give the Kurds their own country. That's basically asking for more war by destabilizing the region even further. Likely one even worse than what's going on right now. Everyone should support Assad, even if he is a Shiite (no pun intended).

The Kurds have been fighting for a homeland for centuries. They deserve a state. Better to have a Kurdish state for Kurds than go under an Arab government again.

Afer wrote:

Souseiseki wrote:to be honest they're total edgelords that try to think up of extreme new methods of execution to get attention and we'd be better off not giving graphics descriptions of them and sharing the videos

This. I was born in Iraq, and lived in Saudi most of my life. The west has blown ISIS out of proportion. They aren't that big, and they aren't that strong. They just have an excellent propaganda machine that is effective in shocking westerners. There is footage of them running away like cowards on the actual battleground. Their interpretation of Islam is bizarre, even for extremists. If you want ISIS to go away, tell the U.S.A. to stop displacing governments that the stability of the region depends upon *cough* Saddam *cough*. Oh, and before someone says "They are strong, they have taken over a region of Syria", please remember that other groups have taken over other regions of Syria too. It isn't exactly a difficult thing to do right now, as long as you have a fair amount of men and some working Kalashnikovs.

Edit: Don't give the Kurds their own country. That's basically asking for more war by destabilizing the region even further. Likely one even worse than what's going on right now. Everyone should support Assad, even if he is a Shiite (no pun intended).

I'm sensing noticeable bias rather than objective analysis. IS is not the direst of threats, but nor should one dismiss it - after all, it was the Iraqi army who disintegrated in face of their assaults.

And I'm not sure how one can further destabilise northern Iraq by legitimising what is already de facto independence by the most effective fighters of IS. This is somehow worse than IS, or the Syrian civil war?

Kubra wrote:

Olerand wrote:France set no such thing. When France left, Syria was a democracy, with Sunnis mostly holding power, as they were the majority. Al-Assad the father coup-ed that democracy and installed the current Alaouite-led regime.

For their local security forces, France recruited heavily from the syrian minority groups, that of course includes the alawites to a considerable degree. This all makes sense, they'd sort of kind of betrayed the sunni arabs after sykes picot, so obviously including them too greatly in security and administration would have been a mistake for them. The higher echelons of syrian army were sunni post-independence, but among non-commission officers alawites were a whopping 65%, just them, that don't happen without folks deliberately making it so. Politically, having states in the mandate separated by ethnicity rather than numbers, though protecting those minority groups and giving them political autonomy for the first time, also lead to their overrepresentation of minorities in comparison to the majority of sunni arabs. The stage was pretty much set for a minority like the alawites to cease the lions share of political power.

Now really, there's no shame in having once been a colonial power doing colonial things, an imperial power doing imperial things, most countries in Europe worth their salt were at some point.

When France came to Syria, "Syria" was broken up into several smaller ethnic conclaves (which will happen again if the Syrian civil war is to ever end), so the Alawites were dominant in their state, the Druze in theirs, and the Sunnis in what's left of Syria (Lebanon became an independent country). When France left, they all regrouped into one Syrian State. That State had a strong Alawite elite coming from the Alawite state, and yes, they did hold disproportionate power. But the Sunnis were the dominant denomination politically and economically, they were the leaders of the new State, Syria was parliamentary republic and all of its prime ministers were Sunni. France is not responsible for the Soviet-backed Baathist regime that brought the Assads and the Alawites to power.

Frankly, what France created under the mandate is exactly what should happen again if the Syrian Civil War is to be resolved.

Olerand wrote:

Kubra wrote: For their local security forces, France recruited heavily from the syrian minority groups, that of course includes the alawites to a considerable degree. This all makes sense, they'd sort of kind of betrayed the sunni arabs after sykes picot, so obviously including them too greatly in security and administration would have been a mistake for them. The higher echelons of syrian army were sunni post-independence, but among non-commission officers alawites were a whopping 65%, just them, that don't happen without folks deliberately making it so. Politically, having states in the mandate separated by ethnicity rather than numbers, though protecting those minority groups and giving them political autonomy for the first time, also lead to their overrepresentation of minorities in comparison to the majority of sunni arabs. The stage was pretty much set for a minority like the alawites to cease the lions share of political power.

Now really, there's no shame in having once been a colonial power doing colonial things, an imperial power doing imperial things, most countries in Europe worth their salt were at some point.

When France came to Syria, "Syria" was broken up into several smaller ethnic conclaves (which will happen again if the Syrian civil war is to ever end), so the Alawites were dominant in their state, the Druze in theirs, and the Sunnis in what's left of Syria (Lebanon became an independent country). When France left, they all regrouped into one Syrian State. That State had a strong Alawite elite coming from the Alawite state, and yes, they did hold disproportionate power. But the Sunnis were the dominant denomination politically and economically, they were the leaders of the new State, Syria was parliamentary republic and all of its prime ministers were Sunni. France is not responsible for the Soviet-backed Baathist regime that brought the Assads and the Alawites to power.

Frankly, what France created under the mandate is exactly what should happen again if the Syrian Civil War is to be resolved.

Yeah... given the rebellions that occurred during the time of the Mandate, the long-term effects of the inter-ethnic strife it fostered, and the simple fact that it was formed by screwing over the Arabs, I really doubt this would be a system worthy of emulation.

Sanctissima wrote:

Olerand wrote:When France came to Syria, "Syria" was broken up into several smaller ethnic conclaves (which will happen again if the Syrian civil war is to ever end), so the Alawites were dominant in their state, the Druze in theirs, and the Sunnis in what's left of Syria (Lebanon became an independent country). When France left, they all regrouped into one Syrian State. That State had a strong Alawite elite coming from the Alawite state, and yes, they did hold disproportionate power. But the Sunnis were the dominant denomination politically and economically, they were the leaders of the new State, Syria was parliamentary republic and all of its prime ministers were Sunni. France is not responsible for the Soviet-backed Baathist regime that brought the Assads and the Alawites to power.

Frankly, what France created under the mandate is exactly what should happen again if the Syrian Civil War is to be resolved.

Yeah... given the rebellions that occurred during the time of the Mandate, the long-term effects of the inter-ethnic strife it fostered, and the simple fact that it was formed by screwing over the Arabs, I really doubt this would be a system worthy of emulation.

Syria the unitary State is never returning. The best, absolute best, and frankly only option available, is federalism. Every ethno-religious community will have its own state in a federal system. The Alawites on the coast, the Druze in the south, the Kurds in the north, and the Sunnis in the rest. It won't solve the main problem, which is the confrontation between Shia and Sunnis going on across the Muslim world, and the radicalization of both denominations, but it is the best -and only- solution available.

Olerand wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
Yeah... given the rebellions that occurred during the time of the Mandate, the long-term effects of the inter-ethnic strife it fostered, and the simple fact that it was formed by screwing over the Arabs, I really doubt this would be a system worthy of emulation.

Syria the unitary State is never returning. The best, absolute best, and frankly only option available, is federalism. Every ethno-religious community will have its own state in a federal system. The Alawites on the coast, the Druze in the south, the Kurds in the north, and the Sunnis in the rest. It won't solve the main problem, which is the confrontation between Shia and Sunnis going on across the Muslim world, and the radicalization of both denominations, but it is the best -and only- solution available.

How very...French. Federalism wouldn't work either, as the degree of federalism that each individual minority in Syria would want (something like the amount of autonomy each of the first states in the Union had) is both undesirable and impossible for the central government, as nowadays the internet and telephones make giving orders to an administrator 1,000 miles away a twelve second ordeal instead of a month long trek. Because of that (and the vested interest of those in power to be powerful) any Damascene administration will (try) to exert its will over all other Syrian states, leading to another war almost certainly.

Really, for Syria, you have two options, neither of which are great:
1) let them split into tiny ethno-religious countries. Probably what will happen and the least worst option.
2) colonize the region under a foreign (I'm thinking Iranian) power who runs the place until a "Syrian" identity forms, a la New Imperialism. That could work, maybe, but involves a lot of tyrannical control for a long time, and considering the French didn't succeed at it there's no reason why the Iranians (or anyone else) would automatically make it work

Olerand wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
Yeah... given the rebellions that occurred during the time of the Mandate, the long-term effects of the inter-ethnic strife it fostered, and the simple fact that it was formed by screwing over the Arabs, I really doubt this would be a system worthy of emulation.

Syria the unitary State is never returning. The best, absolute best, and frankly only option available, is federalism. Every ethno-religious community will have its own state in a federal system. The Alawites on the coast, the Druze in the south, the Kurds in the north, and the Sunnis in the rest. It won't solve the main problem, which is the confrontation between Shia and Sunnis going on across the Muslim world, and the radicalization of both denominations, but it is the best -and only- solution available.

Oh don't get me wrong, I know Syria is screwed.

But I have my doubts that it won't become a unitary State again, even if that State would be a powder keg waiting to explode in another decade or so. There's far too many foreign interests for even a federalized Syria to be a probable outcome. For starters, Turkey absolutely wants to see the Syrian Kurds crushed, given their close association with Turkey's own Kurdish population. There's also the whole issue of Assad and his cronies simply refusing to give up, and considering how the Baathists are top dog again thanks to Russia, I doubt they'll settle for a compromise.

At the end of the day, so long as something massive and unanticipated doesn't occur, Syria will simply return to status quo ante bellum. Assad will still be in power, Syria will still be a unitary State, and there will be another civil war within the next 20 years.

Free Equatorial Nations wrote:

Olerand wrote:Syria the unitary State is never returning. The best, absolute best, and frankly only option available, is federalism. Every ethno-religious community will have its own state in a federal system. The Alawites on the coast, the Druze in the south, the Kurds in the north, and the Sunnis in the rest. It won't solve the main problem, which is the confrontation between Shia and Sunnis going on across the Muslim world, and the radicalization of both denominations, but it is the best -and only- solution available.

How very...French. Federalism wouldn't work either, as the degree of federalism that each individual minority in Syria would want (something like the amount of autonomy each of the first states in the Union had) is both undesirable and impossible for the central government, as nowadays the internet and telephones make giving orders to an administrator 1,000 miles away a twelve second ordeal instead of a month long trek. Because of that (and the vested interest of those in power to be powerful) any Damascene administration will (try) to exert its will over all other Syrian states, leading to another war almost certainly.

Really, for Syria, you have two options, neither of which are great:
1) let them split into tiny ethno-religious countries. Probably what will happen and the least worst option.
2) colonize the region under a foreign (I'm thinking Iranian) power who runs the place until a "Syrian" identity forms, a la New Imperialism. That could work, maybe, but involves a lot of tyrannical control for a long time, and considering the French didn't succeed at it there's no reason why the Iranians (or anyone else) would automatically make it work

But the two options you present are not... Sustainable. The first because the former Syria will be engulfed in much chaos, and will become something akin to modern Iraq -an undesirable outcome.
The second because Iran can't hold Syria, Syria is a Sunni majority country. And Syrian nationalism will not develop from this, Sunni extremism will.

Sanctissima wrote:

Olerand wrote:Syria the unitary State is never returning. The best, absolute best, and frankly only option available, is federalism. Every ethno-religious community will have its own state in a federal system. The Alawites on the coast, the Druze in the south, the Kurds in the north, and the Sunnis in the rest. It won't solve the main problem, which is the confrontation between Shia and Sunnis going on across the Muslim world, and the radicalization of both denominations, but it is the best -and only- solution available.

Oh don't get me wrong, I know Syria is screwed.

But I have my doubts that it won't become a unitary State again, even if that State would be a powder keg waiting to explode in another decade or so. There's far too many foreign interests for even a federalized Syria to be a probable outcome. For starters, Turkey absolutely wants to see the Syrian Kurds crushed, given their close association with Turkey's own Kurdish population. There's also the whole issue of Assad and his cronies simply refusing to give up, and considering how the Baathists are top dog again thanks to Russia, I doubt they'll settle for a compromise.

At the end of the day, so long as something massive and unanticipated doesn't occur, Syria will simply return to status quo ante bellum. Assad will still be in power, Syria will still be a unitary State, and there will be another civil war within the next 20 years.

I agree. I think a federal solution is best, but I doubt it will occur. The longer this war drags on, the more uncertain I become in any outcome at all.

Olerand wrote:

Free Equatorial Nations wrote:
How very...French. Federalism wouldn't work either, as the degree of federalism that each individual minority in Syria would want (something like the amount of autonomy each of the first states in the Union had) is both undesirable and impossible for the central government, as nowadays the internet and telephones make giving orders to an administrator 1,000 miles away a twelve second ordeal instead of a month long trek. Because of that (and the vested interest of those in power to be powerful) any Damascene administration will (try) to exert its will over all other Syrian states, leading to another war almost certainly.

Really, for Syria, you have two options, neither of which are great:
1) let them split into tiny ethno-religious countries. Probably what will happen and the least worst option.
2) colonize the region under a foreign (I'm thinking Iranian) power who runs the place until a "Syrian" identity forms, a la New Imperialism. That could work, maybe, but involves a lot of tyrannical control for a long time, and considering the French didn't succeed at it there's no reason why the Iranians (or anyone else) would automatically make it work

But the two options you present are not... Sustainable. The first because the former Syria will be engulfed in much chaos, and will become something akin to modern Iraq -an undesirable outcome.
The second because Iran can't hold Syria, Syria is a Sunni majority country. And Syrian nationalism will not develop from this, Sunni extremism will.

Syria would be engulfed in huge chaos under a federal system with a weak central government, as states would try to get one up over another and harm their enemies. And with a strong central government, you'll just have all the states temporarily work together to overthrow it (cf. what's happening now) who would then fight amongst each other in the anarchy. With an independence route, you'd have some kind of stability and peace, even if economically and in terms of power a unified nation-state would actually benefit the Syrians overall. I envisage a kind of Balkan ideal for the Syrians, that is after a violent breakup a generally cordial relationship as smaller, weaker, independent states.

And sure, there may be more powerful states (like Serbia is more powerful than Macedonia), but the inter-ethnoreligious strife that plagued both late Yugoslavia and modern day Syria would end, or at least be minimized to the point it was no longer of the magnitude of a war/genocide.

Free Equatorial Nations wrote:

Olerand wrote:But the two options you present are not... Sustainable. The first because the former Syria will be engulfed in much chaos, and will become something akin to modern Iraq -an undesirable outcome.
The second because Iran can't hold Syria, Syria is a Sunni majority country. And Syrian nationalism will not develop from this, Sunni extremism will.

Syria would be engulfed in huge chaos under a federal system with a weak central government, as states would try to get one up over another and harm their enemies. And with a strong central government, you'll just have all the states temporarily work together to overthrow it (cf. what's happening now) who would then fight amongst each other in the anarchy. With an independence route, you'd have some kind of stability and peace, even if economically and in terms of power a unified nation-state would actually benefit the Syrians overall. I envisage a kind of Balkan ideal for the Syrians, that is after a violent breakup a generally cordial relationship as smaller, weaker, independent states.

And sure, there may be more powerful states (like Serbia is more powerful than Macedonia), but the inter-ethnoreligious strife that plagued both late Yugoslavia and modern day Syria would end, or at least be minimized to the point it was no longer of the magnitude of a war/genocide.

Perhaps. Perhaps Syria is to officially permanently break up. But in that case, I doubt the Kurds will be allowed their own country, Turkey will never allow it, and we will see that conflict ignite in the north of the new Sunni State.