It’s not as though the most powerful empire ever to exist (amerikkka) was actively destroying any movement that arose to accomplish this during the period you’ve mentioned. The CIA for instance openly admits to having coup’d Mossadegh (democratically elected by lib standards) after he dared to attempt to nationalize Iran’s oil. There are many other examples of the USA meddling in the region, for example the Iraq War which slaughtered a million people and which Biden voted for.
You're 100% correct about what Amerikkka was doing with the CIA but Mossadegh is not the best specific example since that's Iran, and Iran is not an Arab country. it is Muslim, but not Arab. They don't speak Arabic, but Farsi. Iran is not considered part of the "Arab world" but it is considered part of the Middle East. These are often confused.
Arab World (does not Include Iran)
Show
Middle East (does include Iran)
Show
Iran
Show
Usually when people want to refer to the Arab World + Iran they say "MENA region" (Middle East North Africa)
pretty much considered both South Asian and Central Asian. It's no more Middle Eastern than Turkmenistan or Pakistan
Show
The Middle East is basically just West Asia (sometimes known as South-West Asia) minus Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia and plus two transcontinental countries; Turkey (mostly in Asia except for East Thrace in Europe) and Egypt (mostly in Africa except for the Sinai Peninsula in Asia)
I guess you’re right, the only possibility is that people like their post partition nation and national identities. There’s really no other explanation and no I won’t read any history to find out. Good thing the British came along and taught those foolish savages who they are.
My reply to you was sarcastic. Of course theres much more to decolonization than redrawing lines on a map and the British are absolutely to blame for the longstanding effects of colonialism.
Why are you simping so hard for a country that fucked up half the world?
That word is internet slang, moron. It doesn't need to be tightly defined like it's scientific nomenclature. Even if it did, the way it's being used by the person talking to you is perfectly fine and understandable.
But I'm not surprised this is what you're getting hung up on because it's clear you have no idea what context is. You have demonstrated you are completely ignorant of the importance of historical and geopolitical context in general, and completely ignorant of the specific historical and geopolitical context of the Middle East. And now with your "hurr durr that's not what 'simping' means!!1!" deflection, you're showing you also don't understand the fundamental importance of context in language. It's no wonder you can't see anything beyond lines on a map.
I don't think that's quite right. From what you said, if I understand, the enforcement, and recency are the determining factors? Nothing of justice or fairness? I suppose any atrocity or action is fine as long as the people who were alive at the time (we'll ignore their descendants whose lives are obviously affected) are dead and gone for a few decades.
Why is 80 years enough? Where did you even get that number? I figure you started off with "this is ok", then looked at how much time passed, then declared it was "enough".
I don't really agree. I'm responding to the thesis of your first comment regarding the arab countries having had enough time to get over the borders they were given. Why is that not what you wrote?
They tried. Pan-Arabism was a massive movement, especially under Nasser. It was opposed by America, western Europe, Israel, the Arab monarchies, and later on, the Islamic extremist movements these nations armed and funded in secular Arab nations.
Removed by mod
TIL people can't conceive of the idea all these Arabian countries have had 80 years to merge, if they desired.
It’s not as though the most powerful empire ever to exist (amerikkka) was actively destroying any movement that arose to accomplish this during the period you’ve mentioned. The CIA for instance openly admits to having coup’d Mossadegh (democratically elected by lib standards) after he dared to attempt to nationalize Iran’s oil. There are many other examples of the USA meddling in the region, for example the Iraq War which slaughtered a million people and which Biden voted for.
Arab World (does not Include Iran)
Middle East (does include Iran)
Iran
Usually when people want to refer to the Arab World + Iran they say "MENA region" (Middle East North Africa)
I for one appreciate this lesson. I did not know this. Maybe vaguely. This is very clear, thanks.
Afghanistan does not appear in that middle east map, what region do we put Afghanistan in?
It's more Central or South Asia
pretty much considered both South Asian and Central Asian. It's no more Middle Eastern than Turkmenistan or Pakistan
The Middle East is basically just West Asia (sometimes known as South-West Asia) minus Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia and plus two transcontinental countries; Turkey (mostly in Asia except for East Thrace in Europe) and Egypt (mostly in Africa except for the Sinai Peninsula in Asia)
deleted by creator
Hearts of iron brained mf, just merge bro just click yes on the event pop up
I guess you’re right, the only possibility is that people like their post partition nation and national identities. There’s really no other explanation and no I won’t read any history to find out. Good thing the British came along and taught those foolish savages who they are.
Oh OK. So they don't want to. So what was the point of blaming the English yet?
My reply to you was sarcastic. Of course theres much more to decolonization than redrawing lines on a map and the British are absolutely to blame for the longstanding effects of colonialism.
Why are you simping so hard for a country that fucked up half the world?
Removed by mod
Because the circumstances of the earth flow directly from their actions.
Now how come you’re simping so hard for England?
Do you even know what "simping" means?
Stay on topic. Why are you simping for England so hard?
If you live there it’s okay, what do you think I’m gonna do, make fun of your food or teeth?
You really don't know what that word means
Like I said, stay on topic.
If you don’t understand how I’m using the english language, work it out using context clues.
Why are you such a simp for England?
Nobody simping here dude. Learn what that word means.
That word is internet slang, moron. It doesn't need to be tightly defined like it's scientific nomenclature. Even if it did, the way it's being used by the person talking to you is perfectly fine and understandable.
But I'm not surprised this is what you're getting hung up on because it's clear you have no idea what context is. You have demonstrated you are completely ignorant of the importance of historical and geopolitical context in general, and completely ignorant of the specific historical and geopolitical context of the Middle East. And now with your "hurr durr that's not what 'simping' means!!1!" deflection, you're showing you also don't understand the fundamental importance of context in language. It's no wonder you can't see anything beyond lines on a map.
Hey, why is it more important to argue over the definition of words than to answer my question?
Why are you simping so hard for England?
Because the past affects the present
Why is that enough time? It's not as though North Ireland and Ireland are united. They've had plenty of time to figure out what they want to do.
Because, unlike Ireland, England isn't enforcing this anymore, and hasn't in forever
I don't think that's quite right. From what you said, if I understand, the enforcement, and recency are the determining factors? Nothing of justice or fairness? I suppose any atrocity or action is fine as long as the people who were alive at the time (we'll ignore their descendants whose lives are obviously affected) are dead and gone for a few decades.
Why is 80 years enough? Where did you even get that number? I figure you started off with "this is ok", then looked at how much time passed, then declared it was "enough".
You're not even responding to what I actually wrote anymore.
I don't really agree. I'm responding to the thesis of your first comment regarding the arab countries having had enough time to get over the borders they were given. Why is that not what you wrote?
They tried. Pan-Arabism was a massive movement, especially under Nasser. It was opposed by America, western Europe, Israel, the Arab monarchies, and later on, the Islamic extremist movements these nations armed and funded in secular Arab nations.