• You are losing out on amazing benefits because you are not a member. Join for free. Register now.
  • Big Two-Day Giveaway - Win an Amazon Kindle, a Mystery Gadget and Branded Gear. Enter Here.
  • Test your broadband speed and win prizes worth R5,000. Enter here.

A New War in the Middle East?

LazyLion

King of de Jungle
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
100,069
#1
While America churns in a frenzy of Trump-related news, the Middle East may be quietly devolving into further chaos. In the days since Lebanese prime minister Saad Hariri announced his surprise resignation this past weekend, one question has moved quickly to the fore: Is another war brewing in the region?

The question comes, in large part, because of the strange circumstances surrounding Hariri’s resignation on Saturday. In a televised address from Saudi Arabia, Hariri said that he was stepping down because he feared that he would suffer the same fate as his father, Rafic, twelve years ago. In 2005, during his own term as prime minister, the elder Hariri was killed by a massive car bomb in Beirut by operatives alleged to have been working with Hezbollah and the Assad regime in Syria, both of which have strong connections to Iran. For obvious reasons, Saad Hariri has long had a contentious relationship with Hezbollah, which now holds 17 seats in the Lebanese Parliament, and he is known to have significant business ties with Saudi Arabia, Iran’s chief regional rival. (He also holds Saudi citizenship.)

But analysts were also quick to note that Hariri’s political party, the Future Movement, agreed last month to form a governing coalition with Hezbollah, their erstwhile political opponents. That rapprochement was preceded by a tactical alliance between Hezbollah and the Lebanese Army to fight ISIS on Lebanon’s northern border, but it was understood to have displeased Saudi Arabia. This unhappiness, along with the fact that Hariri’s speech was delivered in Saudi Arabia, made some wonder whether Hariri had been forced by the Saudis to step down, and on what terms. For their part, Lebanese officials are maintaining that Hariri is being held against his will.
Read More...
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a13515630/hezbollah-south-lebanon/
 

LazyLion

King of de Jungle
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
100,069
#2
Who Wants a War in the Middle East? Seven Key Players and Their Interests

Practically everyone wants to fight - as long as someone else does the fighting

A tunnel explodes underneath the Gaza-Israel border, a surprise resignation throws Lebanon into turmoil, a series of upheavals in the Saudi kingdom and the battle against Islamic State in Syria and Iraq winds down – all this is winding up with a new round of saber-rattling between Israel and Iran and its proxies. Talk of war between elements of the Iran-led coalition and the unlikely anti-Iran alliance of Israel and the Saudis is rife, but a plausible scenario for one breaking out much less. Both sides would like to see someone taking on the other, but none of the parties are at present in a situation where it is their interest to do so themselves.

Here’s where the parties who want war, just as long as someone else is fighting it, are right now....
read more: https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/1.821488
 

Sl8er

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
6,706
#3
With the same old key players playing, with oil to be had and with weapons to be sold, there will never be peace in the ME.
Never.
:(
 

Techne

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
9,373
#5
Let them blow each other to pieces. All non-middle eastern countries should just leave ASAP. They shouldn't send their sons and daughters there to die for other idiot's fights.
 

Arthur

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
22,489
#7
Could be war. Could be peace. Could be ceasefire. Could be elections.



Remember, most of the state borders in the Middle East are less than a century old. They're the creation of western powers, mostly after WWI, once the Sick Man known as the Ottoman Empire collapsed.

To reflect social reality, here's what the borders should look like:
 

LazyLion

King of de Jungle
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
100,069
#9
Borders are an unfortunate necessity in the modern world for defence and for the care of citizens. But some tribal or religious groups believe they don't need borders since they don't want to be told what to do. But their rights do not trump the collective rights of the rest of the planet. They might have lived without borders in the past (there was never really any period of stability anyway), but this is the age of science and reason and they will have to come to the party.
 

saturnz

Honorary Master
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
11,492
#11
They might have lived without borders in the past (there was never really any period of stability anyway), but this is the age of science and reason and they will have to come to the party.
I don't think the existing borders have anything to do with science and reason, more to do with power and greed
 

Arthur

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
22,489
#12
Of course you can't abolish borders. And neither am I vaguely suggesting that. Borders are necessary and good.

However, they do need to reflect the social reality on the ground.

Much of Europe's struggle in the 18th and 19th C was to get the state borders to more-or-less correspond with the social realities, so France is mostly Frenchmen, Italy mostly Italians, Germany mostly Germans, etc. Of course there are exceptions, and niggly spots remain.

Neither the Middle East nor Africa have gone through this process - their state borders are imperial impositions. Until they do, wars will be endemic.
 
Last edited:

etienne_marais

Executive Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
6,426
#13
Of course you can't abolish borders. And neither am I vaguely suggesting that. Borders are necessary and good.

However, they do need to reflect the social reality on the ground.

Much of Europe's struggle in the 18th and 19th C was to get the state borders to more-or-less correspond with the social realities, so France is mostly Frenchmen, Italy mostly Italians, Germany mostly Germans, etc. Of course there are exceptions, and niggly spots remain.

Neither the Middle East nor Africa have gone through this process - their state borders are imperial impositions. Until they do, wars will be endemic.
Though the Boer Republics were anti-Imperialist and anti-colonial.

Established after the arduous Great Trek over many hundreds of kilometers over territory where no roads existed, no settlements in between for refreshments and repairs, harsh conditions and weather, not supported financially or otherwise by any colonial entity.

A people who flocked together en mass to worship God in gatherings that lasted many hours to days.
 
Last edited:

Arthur

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
22,489
#14
The Boer republics were erased by an imperial power - Stellaland and Goosen by a bit of Boeretwis. The unitary state we today call "South Africa" is an imperialist creation.
 
Last edited:

etienne_marais

Executive Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
6,426
#17
The Boer republics were erased by an imperial power. The unitary state we today call "South Africa" is an imperialist creation.
Partially. The British Union of South Africa was established after the Anglo Boer War, unifying South Africa initially under a vision of Rhodes', Milners' and other racial, imperial supremacists with a desire to subordinate Africa from Cape To Cairo, yet relatively shortly after that the atmosphere changed and partial self governance was instated. Afrikaner Nationalism then usurped Boer ideals and ESSA ideals, initially with good intentions and a natural state of affairs after historical entailment. I do not consider the 1961 Republic of South Africa as imperial either, despite catering for elements with imperial ambitions but rather a result of sequence of events that include Imperialism.
 

etienne_marais

Executive Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
6,426
#19
The railway to transport ore and other riches for those who tied in with Imperial Britain, those gold-bugs and troublemakers called Uitlanders by the citizenry of the Transvaal, the people who pushed the Transvaal to War to take control of the mines ? And the title of that document, 'Financing The Foe', the deeply religious Boers being the foe of course.
 

LazyLion

King of de Jungle
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
100,069
#20
Of course you can't abolish borders. And neither am I vaguely suggesting that. Borders are necessary and good.

However, they do need to reflect the social reality on the ground.

Much of Europe's struggle in the 18th and 19th C was to get the state borders to more-or-less correspond with the social realities, so France is mostly Frenchmen, Italy mostly Italians, Germany mostly Germans, etc. Of course there are exceptions, and niggly spots remain.

Neither the Middle East nor Africa have gone through this process - their state borders are imperial impositions. Until they do, wars will be endemic.
If you put everyone there in their own little enclaves they would all be at war with each other within a few years.

And what about the Kurds for example? You have Christians, Muslims and pagan Kurds. Are they also going to each need their own country?

The problem is not people being in the wrong borders. The problem is people being a-holes to people who are not like them.
 
Top