Mesopotamian

Iraq Will Fall To Ba'th Or/And ISIS Same Way Afghanistan Is Falling To Taliban Again

28 posts in this topic

@Milos Uzelac I think you did a great job bringing up this example for comparison. However, I still don't seem to be able to draw solid conclusions. Could you share your opinions on the situation, overall?


Foolish until proven other-wise ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gesundheit2 said:

@Milos Uzelac However, I still don't seem to be able to draw solid conclusions. Could you share your opinions on the situation, overall?

I think both countries' current situation is the result of foreign military interference and neo-colonial projects overall. There are of course some large differences in terms of the historical genesis and background of both countries up until this point. But I both see their current tensions and problems as a result of imposed colonial projects or nation-building projects by imperial foreign powers aiming to establish a foothold in the region. Just as there were tensions with Arabs and Kurds in Iraq, with Saddam Hussein carrying out genocides against the Kurds so there were as well tensions between the Serbian minority and the Kosovar Albanian majority where the Serbian government and army and police carried out ethnic cleansing campaigns against the Kosovar Albanians as a form of retaliation caused by instability and terrorist attacks carried out by Kosovar Albanian separatist and nationalist organizations such as the KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) in their bid for the independence of the territory, possible national unification with Albania and to end Serbian government discrimination against them, but in both cases, foreign powers intervened and created, in my opinion, an untenable and unattainable state of equilibrium and stability in the long run and have merely frozen the conflict in place in both regions of the world with these colonial projects both in the creation of the state of Kosovo and trying to create market and democratic society in Iraq overnight with an insulated elitist secular government. That's my two cents on the parallels between both the country's situation politically.


"Keep your eye on the ball. " - Michael Brooks 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

telling that Afghanistan or Iraq deserves that type of government is another lie and ignorance. 

look how the people of Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria looked like. of course, western governments would be envy especially USA government. 

those countries would be a pretty modern country as of now, if there wasn't any interferences or wasn't the playground of some countries. 

of course, don't misunderstand me. I love the people , but I talking about those elites. 

Edited by hamedsf

"If you kick me when I'm down, you better pray I don't get up"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, hamedsf said:

those countries would be a pretty modern country as of now, if there wasn't any interferences or wasn't the playground of some countries. 

Not at all, nothing could guarantee the transformation of those countries to modern nations. One factor I think of always is that the real possibility of contribution of any nation in modern science science can only make their progress possible. Example, Israel. There's no other nation in that region that contributes more to modern science than Israel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mesopotamian said:

Not at all, nothing could guarantee the transformation of those countries to modern nations. One factor I think of always is that the real possibility of contribution of any nation in modern science science can only make their progress possible. Example, Israel. There's no other nation in that region that contributes more to modern science than Israel.

I'm not talking about lobbyism. 


"If you kick me when I'm down, you better pray I don't get up"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, hamedsf said:

I'm not talking about lobbyism. 

You are just talking an old conspiracy theory narrative.

21 hours ago, hamedsf said:

telling that Afghanistan or Iraq deserves that type of government is another lie and ignorance.

Governments come from the people. In a sense, we could say that a government consists of the most egoic people in any given piece of land. Of course, I'm talking about the powerful positions within a government, not the ordinary 9 to 5 clerk jobs.

21 hours ago, hamedsf said:

look how the people of Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria looked like. of course, western governments would be envy especially USA government.

They always looked bad relative to USA citizens and other first world countries. That's why people tend to move outside of these nations and never come back, and not many people move from outside. There's no comparison.

As well, countries like the KSA and UAE aren't really developed, even though they have the appearance. They have better technology and all that but they're still camels on the inside lol. They hire foreign experts with their money and good relations. But they don't know how to produce stuff. They're not industrial countries, nor are their political & economical systems developed.

Iraq could have been the same if Saddam hadn't been an outdated communist tyrant who wanted to rule the world. Syria could have been the same if Al-Assad hadn't been closed off to the west and then allowed foreign projects and investment and therefore integration instead of siding with Iran and Russia who basically adopt similar policies. I don't know a lot about Afghanistan.

Quote

those countries would be a pretty modern country as of now, if there wasn't any interferences or wasn't the playground of some countries. 

You need to define "pretty modern country", "1st vs 3rd world country", "development", and other such concepts before throwing them around like this.

Edited by Gesundheit2

Foolish until proven other-wise ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Gesundheit2 said:

They always looked bad relative to USA citizens and other first world countries. That's why people tend to move outside of these nations and never come back, and not many people move from outside. There's no comparison.

What in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s idk but those countries had a pretty all around nationalised heavy industry and produced not only for export but for their own domestic market and industries to an extent as well, enriching the countries more directly. 

I don't know if partioned Germany and Japan for example (which I looked it up had a lower GDP than the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the 1970s) were considered first world countries in that period or any of the East Asian Tigers for that matter. They were in fact almost on the same level as non industrialised not yet East Asian Tiger countries of that time in terms of economic development.         I think that distinction at all was popularised after the Cold War to refer to countries apart from late former colonies that got their  independence only in the 1960s and I am not sure Iraq and Syria and even Afghanistan could be classified as fully Third World in that period given the strength of their domestic industries at that time and the fact that their own and foreign companies cooperated under contracts to do large infrastructure projects in those country (for example the Yugoslav construction company Energoprojekt had contracts with domestic Iraqi firms to do large infrastructure projects in Iraq from 1960s up until  the 1990s even). 

Yes, well educated people wanting to further specialise themselves at the most famous western Universities did move and stayed in those countries for a while but then returned to their home counties to use their acquired knowledge and expertise to further improve and run their home countries. There were also migrant workers from those countries coming to the Western ones for permanent residence but that wasn't to a to large extent in comparison to the post Cold War era when those countries suffered more severee brain drains into Western countries of their experts and younger educated populations and also more economic migrations and refugee waves from war due to losing their former industries and economies by being out competed and marginilised and targeted for their natural resources in the new global economic order. 

11 hours ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Iraq could have been the same if Saddam hadn't been an outdated communist tyrant who wanted to rule the world.

Saddam did economic nationalism in the Iraqi oil industry at some period which actually raked a lot of wealth generation for the Iraqi state and citizenry overall given the fact of the vast oil potential and reserves of Iraq. So he did a Gulf State kind of model of economic growth and development but with an unfortunate crucial mistake from him of not having American and other European Big Oil companies in on that deal apart from discriminating and genociding other religious and ethnic groups within Iraq itself that didn't hold power in his regime. 

 

11 hours ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Syria could have been the same if Al-Assad hadn't been closed off to the west and then allowed foreign projects and investment and therefore integration instead of siding with Iran and Russia who basically adopt similar policies.

I don't know about Syria but I think a lot of their foreign investment projects came from Eastern bloc industrial countries, especially the USSR, now Russia which inherited the special partnership and alliance the USSR had with Syria. 

11 hours ago, Gesundheit2 said:

But they don't know how to produce stuff. They're not industrial countries,

They mostly imported and bought some products from Eastern bloc industrial countries but they also had an raw resource export industry of their own and some industry of their own in close cooperation with the those aforementioned countries. Also a military industry in that period also in cooperation with those countries. 

I know for example Kuwait imported Yugoslav M series tanks for example by the hundreds. 

What about the deindustrialisation that happened within in the US and the fact that industrial production is done now in China for parts and even finished products for US and European consumer markets on behalf of US and other multinational companies? Does that no longer make them a

11 hours ago, Gesundheit2 said:

modern country

Sure the global economy has radically changed 1st world countries roles in it since the time of industrialisation but what does that now make them when they ship their former industries overseas. "Pretty modern"? 

 

11 hours ago, Gesundheit2 said:

You need to define "pretty modern country", "1st vs 3rd world country", "development", and other such concepts before throwing them around like this.

Yes I agree it's important to find the definitions of those concepts from some authoritative sources and to read some book on them to actually grasp how they connect to real world economic realities. 


"Keep your eye on the ball. " - Michael Brooks 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Gesundheit2 said:

outdated communist tyrant

Saddam was not a communist he was actually tasked and suported by the CIA to overthrow a pro-Soviet communist government under a general in a coup in the 1960s. The Baathist Parties which Saddam was part of were Pan Arab nationalist and socialist in their ideology at first (Arab self-determination, independence and economic autarchy as much as possible) and then he turned into a Islamist nationalist after the Gulf War. 

Edited by Milos Uzelac

"Keep your eye on the ball. " - Michael Brooks 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now