22 replies to this topic

[Futurist]

Basically, I am wondering if their joint fight against the ISIS Caliphate along with the similar religious background of their leadership (both Iraq's and Syria's leadership is mostly Shiite Arab) is going to eventually cause Iraq and Syria to pursue (greater) integration (such as economic integration) with each other?

Any thoughts on this?

[Futurist]

For the record, a future Iraq-Syria union can become a federation with at least four states within this federation:

[Futurist]

Also, if it can get its own internal issues in order, an Iraq-Syria union state can probably eventually become a regional hegemon in its own right.

[Pisiu369]

The middle east is already too multicultural and you want a Syrian-Iraq union!??!?!?

[Futurist]

The middle east is already too multicultural and you want a Syrian-Iraq union!??!?!?

Eventually, possibly Yes--specifically as a federation of several relatively homogeneous states (specifically a Sunni Arab state, a Shiite Arab state, an Alawite Arab state, maybe a Druze state, and a Kurdish state if the Kurds don't already secede).

[Futurist]

Also, for the record, both Iraq and Syria appear to be a part of the historical region known as Mesopotamia:



Plus, with the construction of a canal between the Euphrates River and the Mediterranean Sea, an Iraqi-Syrian Union would have river traffic which extends from the Persian Gulf all of the way up to the Mediterranean Sea.

[UtopianAims]

Welcome back Futurist, You definitely don't know me but ive read your posts for years.

[Futurist]

Welcome back Futurist, You definitely don't know me but ive read your posts for years.

Thanks!

Anyway, does it mean that you know about my transvestic inclinations as well as about my love of femininity?

Also, since you posted in this thread, can you please respond to my question at the very beginning of this thread?

[Guyverman1990]

For the record, a future Iraq-Syria union can become a federation with at least four states within this federation:

This is exactly what I think would be the best option for the region in the long run. Anyways, what do you think would be a good name for the new hypothetical states (besides the obvious "Sunnistan or "Shiastan" etc)? I think the Arab Shia state will still be called Iraq, while the Arab Sunni state could be called either "Anbar" or "Mesopotamia". Any guesses as to what an Alawite country could be called?

[Futurist]

 

For the record, a future Iraq-Syria union can become a federation with at least four states within this federation:

This is exactly what I think would be the best option for the region in the long run. What do you think would be a good name for the new hypothetical states (besides the obvious "Sunnistan or "Shiastan" etc)? I think the Arab Shia state will still be called Iraq, while the Arab Sunni state could be called either "Anbar" or "Mesopotamia". Any guesses as to what an Alawite country could be called?

For the record, though, I was talking about an Iraq-Syria union with ethno-religious states inside of this union (similar to the 50 states that exist inside of the U.S.A.).

As for the names of the states themselves, how about this? : Shiitestan, Kurdistan, Assyria (in place of Sunnistan), Alawitestan (or, alternatively, Latakia), and Druzestan (for any Druze state that is created).

[Futurist]

For the record, outright separating Iraq and Syria into new countries appears to be a bad idea (even if one ignores the fact that the people themselves there don't want such an outcome):

http://warontherocks...ase-and-desist/

However, an Iraq-Syria union which gets transformed into an ethnoreligious federation of several states inside of one big country might indeed be a good idea.

[TheComrade]

But why federation? More likely it will be four (or more?) independent states with unfriendly attitude towards each other and mutual territorial claims.

 

Also, do not forget, the modern "world community" is very sensitive about "territorial integrity" and any territorial changes not approved by hegemon. So, even more likely outcome is that both Syria and Iraq will retain their borders, if even those borders (or countries themselves) will exist on maps only. Just like modern day Libya and Somalia.

[Futurist]

1. But why federation? More likely it will be four (or more?) independent states with unfriendly attitude towards each other and mutual territorial claims.

 

2. Also, do not forget, the modern "world community" is very sensitive about "territorial integrity" and any territorial changes not approved by hegemon. So, even more likely outcome is that both Syria and Iraq will retain their borders, if even those borders (or countries themselves) will exist on maps only. Just like modern day Libya and Somalia.

1. Because apparently neither the Iraqi nor the Syrian people actually want their countries to break up into several separate independent states.

 

2. Actually, the international community appears to have no problem with territorial changes which are approved by the mutual consent of all of the parties who are involved in this.

[TheComrade]

Actually, the international community appears to have no problem with territorial changes which are approved by the mutual consent of all of the parties who are involved in this.

 

And when this happened the last time? The only mutual consent dissolution was Czechoslovakia, but it was the rare exception. In all the other cases, the "international community" led by You Know Who, demonstrate the absolute voluntarism and hypocrisy:

 

- Independence South Sudan is legal, but Somaliland doesn't.

- Independence of Georgia from USSR is the "right to self-determination", but tndependence of Abkhazia from Georgia is "separatism".

- Secession of Kosovo is "special case", secession of Crimea is "annexation".

 

And so on and so forth... back to topic: obviously, the possible new states in modern Syria and Iraq will not be created "by mutual consent" & only the US vassals will have some shances of partial "international" recognition.

[Futurist]

 

Actually, the international community appears to have no problem with territorial changes which are approved by the mutual consent of all of the parties who are involved in this.

 

1. And when this happened the last time?

 

2. The only mutual consent dissolution was Czechoslovakia, but it was the rare exception. In all the other cases, the "international community" led by You Know Who, demonstrate the absolute voluntarism and hypocrisy:

 

- Independence South Sudan is legal, but Somaliland doesn't.

- Independence of Georgia from USSR is the "right to self-determination", but tndependence of Abkhazia from Georgia is "separatism".

- Secession of Kosovo is "special case", secession of Crimea is "annexation".

 

And so on and so forth... back to topic: obviously, the possible new states in modern Syria and Iraq will not be created "by mutual consent" & only the US vassals will have some shances of partial "international" recognition.

1. Perhaps with South Sudan in 2011?

2. Actually, you forgot both the Soviet Union and South Sudan.

 

Also, in regards to Somaliland, its independence wasn't recognized by Somalia's central government; in contrast, South Sudan's independence was recognized by Sudan's central government.

 

As for Georgia and Abkhazia, the Soviet Constitution allowed SSRs to secede but not ASSRs.

 

As for Kosovo and Crimea, I do agree that the West's stance in regards to this might be a bit hypocritical.

[Pisiu369]

You always have to ignore the international community if your going to annex something or declare independence. The west just says "haha no you didn't" in cases where it wouldn't benefit them. I've recently heard Russia was kicked out of the UN Human rights council, and guess who replaced them? SAUDI ARABIA. Now try and tell me the UN isn't just an American puppet.

[TheComrade]

 

1. Perhaps with South Sudan in 2011?

2. Actually, you forgot both the Soviet Union and South Sudan.

 

1. Definitely no. Sudan was forced to release its southern provinces after long and bloody civil war and harsh foreign pressure. This is not what i call "mutual consent".

 

2. Collapse of statehood (USSR) is also have nothing to do with "mutual consent".

 

To make it clear, imagine Russian army invaded Ukraine in early 2014. The whole "war" was in fact the quick and almost bloodless march to Kiev. And now the panicking "heroes of maidan" running away to Canada while the newly installed government willingly agrees to cede South-Eastern regions to fraternal Russia. Would you call it mutual consent or not?

[Pisiu369]

 

 

1. Perhaps with South Sudan in 2011?

2. Actually, you forgot both the Soviet Union and South Sudan.

 

1. Definitely no. Sudan was forced to release its southern provinces after long and bloody civil war and harsh foreign pressure. This is not what i call "mutual consent".

 

2. Collapse of statehood (USSR) is also have nothing to do with "mutual consent".

 

To make it clear, imagine Russian army invaded Ukraine in early 2014. The whole "war" was in fact the quick and almost bloodless march to Kiev. And now the panicking "heroes of maidan" running away to Canada while the newly installed government willingly agrees to cede South-Eastern regions to fraternal Russia. Would you call it mutual consent or not?

 

If Russia invaded Ukraine then the western world would get triggered and be like "WJLKEFJDJFSL UN BIAS FOR USA HELP US THIS IS ILLEGALkdsjklgjlrj activate random human rights allegations hahahhahah hahhahah put more nukes in nato countries on border with poland

[Futurist]

 

 

1. Perhaps with South Sudan in 2011?

2. Actually, you forgot both the Soviet Union and South Sudan.

 

1. Definitely no. Sudan was forced to release its southern provinces after long and bloody civil war and harsh foreign pressure. This is not what i call "mutual consent".

 

2. Collapse of statehood (USSR) is also have nothing to do with "mutual consent".

 

To make it clear, imagine Russian army invaded Ukraine in early 2014. The whole "war" was in fact the quick and almost bloodless march to Kiev. And now the panicking "heroes of maidan" running away to Canada while the newly installed government willingly agrees to cede South-Eastern regions to fraternal Russia. Would you call it mutual consent or not?

1. Did they have the choice of saying No to this?

 

2. Well, the Ukrainians definitely consented to this with their 90% pro-independence vote in their December 1991 independence referendum. Some of the other Soviet peoples, perhaps not so much.

 

As for your scenario, No, I would NOT consider decisions by a foreign-installed government that lacks the support of the people to be decisions that are actually based on mutual consent.

[Futurist]

Interestingly enough, central Syria has actually undergone a bit of a demographic transformation as a result of the Syrian Civil War:

https://en.wikipedia..._and_Shiization

 

 

Demographic transformations and Shiization[edit]

In 2017 or later, Hussain Ibrahim Qutrib, an Associate Professor of Geomorphology at the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies, wrote an article about the demographic changes that have occurred in "Useful Syria" as a result of the Syrian Civil War.^[11] Specifically, Qutrib defined "Useful Syria" in a way similar to how Syrian President Bashar al-Assad defined this term in early 2016--as in, including the Syrian governorates of Damascus, Rif Dimashq, Homs, Hama, Latakia, and Tartus.^[11] Qutrib pointed out that these six governorates contained 46% of Syria's total population at the end of 2011--as in, 9.8 million people out of a total Syrian population of almost 21.4 million people at that point in time.^[11] Qutrib points out that, at the end of 2011, the demographics of "Useful Syria" were 69% Sunni, 21% Alawite (which is an offshot of Shi'a Islam), 1% Shi'a, 1% Druze, 2% Ismaili, and 6% Christian.^[11] In contrast, by 2016, the population of "Useful Syria" fell from 9.8 million to 7.6 million but its demographics have also significantly changed in the intervening five years; in 2016, "Useful Syria" was just 52% Sunni, 24% Alawite, 13% Shi'a, 1% Druze, 3% Ismaili, and 7% Christian--with the main change being the explosive growth of the Shi'a population in "Useful Syria" between 2011 and 2016.^[11] The demographic transformations in Rif Dimashq and Homs governorate between 2011 and 2016 were especially notable: Rif Dimashq went from 87% Sunni in 2011 to just 54% Sunni in 2016 while Homs governorate went from 64% Sunni to just 21% Sunni between 2011 and 2016.^[11] This demographic transformation has been described by Qutrib as Shiization.^[11]