What should the "natural" national boundaries in the Middle East be? (Iran, Iraq)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I put "natural" in quotation marks because all national boundaries are arbitrary to some extent, even between the U.S. and Canada.
As a result of the Sykes-Picot treaty, the British and French drew lines on the world map between and through various Middle Eastern tribes at the end of World War Two. Since then, what we have often seen is members of one tribe or another try to become the "big chief" in the nation at the expense of others.
They need to become secularized is what they need to do. Most of their troubles have more to do with Western meddling in internal affairs and religious conflict. There's roughly 4 main groups of people in the Middle East: Jews, Arabs, Turks, and Kurds. I don't think any of those countries should participate in so-called partition studies.
I put "natural" in quotation marks because all national boundaries are arbitrary to some extent, even between the U.S. and Canada.
As a result of the Sykes-Picot treaty, the British and French drew lines on the world map between and through various Middle Eastern tribes at the end of World War Two. Since then, what we have often seen is members of one tribe or another try to become the "big chief" in the nation at the expense of others.
Those boundaries drawn up in the S-P treaty are one of the primary causes of all the Mid-East problems of today. The treaty did not respect any traditional cultural areas. I think the biggest mistake was not forming a country for the Kurds. It is very interesting how civil and western friendly the Kurds are. All anyone has to do is look up what they have done in Northern Iraq. That area of Iraq is peaceful, safe, secular, and has tons of foreign investments.
I put "natural" in quotation marks because all national boundaries are arbitrary to some extent, even between the U.S. and Canada.
As a result of the Sykes-Picot treaty, the British and French drew lines on the world map between and through various Middle Eastern tribes at the end of World War Two. Since then, what we have often seen is members of one tribe or another try to become the "big chief" in the nation at the expense of others.
Where did you bring that from? I didn't notice any such discussion recently. Perhaps you intended to post in the history forum.
They need to become secularized is what they need to do. Most of their troubles have more to do with Western meddling in internal affairs and religious conflict. There's roughly 4 main groups of people in the Middle East: Jews, Arabs, Turks, and Kurds. I don't think any of those countries should participate in so-called partition studies.
there are 50 million Persians in the middle east that would like to be included in your list, especially since they are one of the reasons there is so much conflict.
How should we know? We're not Middle Easterners are we? If anything, many pan-Islamists see the Middle East should be united under one caliphate. Then again, many other nationalists would disagree. Then you have to account for the Israel and Iran factors.
They should be the outer borders of the Islamic countries.
This would be one good solution to the Syrian problem. Define the borders of the Islamic theocracies where they are currently and confine Islam to those countries. As long as they fight among themselves, nothing is our problem. Only when they try to expand or begin to attack those outside their borders, then we should bomb the hell out of them.
The boundries of the Middle East are ever changing. Which snap shot in time should be used for establishing boundries, and which people/tribe/religian/sect should be used varies depending on who you talk to.
What should the "natural" national boundaries in the Middle East be?
No one knows and the residents in the area will never agree on them, anyway. They've been fighting since prehistoric times and have never gotten it sorted out. They're a quarrelsome bunch who thrive on divisiveness and conflict. If they weren't fighting Muslim vs non-Muslim it would be Sunni vs Shia and if that wasn't working, they'd fall back on tribal rivalries and who has rights to what oil well or water hole.
It isn't something we should get too worked up over.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What should the "natural" national boundaries in the Middle East be?
