• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Sykes-Picot Agreement is Now a Century Old

Carjosse

Sit Nomine Digna
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
14,512
Reaction score
6,238
Location
Montreal, QC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Tomorrow May 16, 2016 will mark 100 years since the ratification of the Sykes-Picot Agreement between France and Britain to divide up the Middle East after the defeat of the Ottomans in WWI.
sykes1.gif

This agreement has shaped the Middle East into what is is today and can be blamed for most of the struggles it has experienced over the past 100 years. The map was drawn without regard of the ethnic and religious groups that inhabited the Middle East and decades later it is these tensions that gave rise to extremist Islam and the bloody conflict that we today associate with the Middle East.
 

Glen Contrarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
17,688
Reaction score
8,046
Location
Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, he
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Tomorrow May 16, 2016 will mark 100 years since the ratification of the Sykes-Picot Agreement between France and Britain to divide up the Middle East after the defeat of the Ottomans in WWI.
sykes1.gif

This agreement has shaped the Middle East into what is is today and can be blamed for most of the struggles it has experienced over the past 100 years. The map was drawn without regard of the ethnic and religious groups that inhabited the Middle East and decades later it is these tensions that gave rise to extremist Islam and the bloody conflict that we today associate with the Middle East.

I disagree that it can be blamed for "most" of the struggles...but certainly for a substantial share of them. I would say that that agreement is one of two events - the other being our CIA's overthrow of Iran's democratically-elected government in 1953 - that prevents people there from trusting us. After what we did to them in the past, who, really, can blame them?
 

PoS

Minister of Love
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
24,108
Reaction score
17,706
Location
Oceania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The map is partly to blame but the British empire also acceded to Zionism- that decision also led to the present conflicts that we see now.
 

Grand Mal

bas air son Eachin
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
38,595
Reaction score
20,498
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
The map is partly to blame but the British empire also acceded to Zionism- that decision also led to the present conflicts that we see now.

No, Palestine wasn't part of the British Empire. Britain administered Mandatory Palestine untill the United Nations partitioned it and created Israel.
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
24,451
Reaction score
21,411
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Tomorrow May 16, 2016 will mark 100 years since the ratification of the Sykes-Picot Agreement between France and Britain to divide up the Middle East after the defeat of the Ottomans in WWI.

This agreement has shaped the Middle East into what is is today and can be blamed for most of the struggles it has experienced over the past 100 years. The map was drawn without regard of the ethnic and religious groups that inhabited the Middle East and decades later it is these tensions that gave rise to extremist Islam and the bloody conflict that we today associate with the Middle East.

I completely disagree, conflict in the Middle East between factions of more than just one faith predates this agreement, and no matter what the Ottoman Empire accomplished prior to WWI. Islam by its very nature allows for extremism (strong ideological social conservatism and theocratic leanings for governance) that go back to almost the origin of the religion itself.

It would be a gross misrepresentation of history to suggest things were well until this agreement, or exclusively because of the agreement that all of a sudden extremism showed up.
 

PoS

Minister of Love
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
24,108
Reaction score
17,706
Location
Oceania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
No, Palestine wasn't part of the British Empire. Britain administered Mandatory Palestine untill the United Nations partitioned it and created Israel.

Palestine was under British Mandate- they controlled immigration to the territory and their support for Zionism brought in an influx of Jewish settlers. It had the Union Jack flag so yes, it was part of the empire until the 1948 partition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine
 

Grand Mal

bas air son Eachin
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
38,595
Reaction score
20,498
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Palestine was under British Mandate- they controlled immigration to the territory and their support for Zionism brought in an influx of Jewish settlers. It had the Union Jack flag so yes, it was part of the empire until the 1948 partition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine

It's a technicality, but Palestine wasn't part of the British Empire, it was administered by Britain on behalf of the League of Nations while it was being decided what to do with it.
 

PoS

Minister of Love
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
24,108
Reaction score
17,706
Location
Oceania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Palestine was under British Mandate- they controlled immigration to the territory and their support for Zionism brought in an influx of Jewish settlers. It had the Union Jack flag so yes, it was part of the empire until the 1948 partition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine
Actually, the largest percentage growth of Jews came into Palestine in the late 19th Century. But even earlier there had been significant presence/presenceS over the Centuries: rising as high as 25% in the 1600s before an expulsion.
IAC...


CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Jerusalem (After 1291)

"...Present condition of the City: (1907 edition)

Jerusalem (El Quds) is the capital of a sanjak and the seat of a mutasarrif directly dependent on the Sublime Porte. In the administration of the sanjak the mutasarrif is assisted by a council called majlis ida ra; the city has a municipal government (majlis baladiye) presided over by a mayor. The total population is estimated at 66,000. The Turkish census of 1905, which counts only Ottoman subjects, gives these figures:
Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox Christians, 6000; Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites, 250; Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Catholic Syrians, 50.
During the Nineteenth century large suburbs to the north and east have grown up, chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony. These suburbs contain nearly Half the present population...""

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Growth of Jerusalem 1838-Present

....... Jews Muslims Christians Total
1838 6,000 5,000 3,000 14,000
1844 7,120 5,760 3,390 16,270 ....... The First Official Ottoman Census
1876 12,000 7,560 5,470 25,030 .... .....Second """"""""""
1905 40,000 8,000 10,900 58,900 ....... Third/last, detailed in CathEncyc above
1948 99,320 36,680 31,300 167,300
1990 353,200 124,200 14,000 491,400
1992 385,000 150,000 15,000 550,000

http://www.testimony-magazine.org/jerusalem/bring.htm/[/url



and 'Mandate Palestine' should include Transjordan, 77% of the mandate Lopped off for the Arabs and given as spoils to Faisal/Arabs/'palestinians' for help in WWI.
Jordan (Palestine 1) is 70% 'palestinian'. (whatever that is.)
Take your pick:
[url]https://www.google.com/search?q=mandate+palestine&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiUzZuo69zMAhWCmR4KHcfaAf4Q_AUICCgC&biw=1384&bih=624


ie
1920-mandate_for_palestine.jpg


Both peoples were promised states, both were offered them.
The Jews originally promised the whole of [Lesser] Palestine,
but it was Again divided to placate the Arabs: they refused and went for the whole enchilada.
They lost.
 
Last edited:

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,236
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I disagree that it can be blamed for "most" of the struggles...but certainly for a substantial share of them. I would say that that agreement is one of two events - the other being our CIA's overthrow of Iran's democratically-elected government in 1953 - that prevents people there from trusting us. After what we did to them in the past, who, really, can blame them?

The Myth of an American Coup - Council on Foreign Relations


This year marks the sixtieth anniversary of Operation Ajax—the notorious CIA plot that is supposed to have ousted Iranian prime minister Muhammad Mossadeq. In the intervening decades, the events of 1953 have been routinely depicted as a nefarious U.S. conspiracy that overthrew a nationalist politician who enjoyed enormous popular support. This narrative, assiduously cultivated by the Islamic Republic, was so readily endorsed by the American intellectual class that presidents and secretaries of state are now expected to commence any discussion of Iran by apologizing for the behavior of their malevolent predecessors. At this stage, the account has even seeped into American popular culture, featuring most recently in Ben Affleck's Oscar-winning blockbuster Argo. The only problem with this mythologized history is that the CIA's role in Mossadeq's demise was largely inconsequential. In the end, the 1953 coup was very much an Iranian affair. . . .
 

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I disagree that it can be blamed for "most" of the struggles...but certainly for a substantial share of them. I would say that that agreement is one of two events - the other being our CIA's overthrow of Iran's democratically-elected government in 1953 - that prevents people there from trusting us. After what we did to them in the past, who, really, can blame them?
Ridiculous Leftist self-flagellation. The 1953 coup had little to do with conflict in the area.
Shia v Sunni, Kurd v Arab, were going to happen mainly because of Sykes. Although even then, if they all had separate states, War would happen between them instead of internally. ie, Iraq/Iran.
"Tribes with Flags"
The coup of 1953 is Tiny potatoes, and just a liberal pot shot.
Iran's borders would have basically been the same.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,236
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Tomorrow May 16, 2016 will mark 100 years since the ratification of the Sykes-Picot Agreement between France and Britain to divide up the Middle East after the defeat of the Ottomans in WWI.
sykes1.gif

This agreement has shaped the Middle East into what is is today and can be blamed for most of the struggles it has experienced over the past 100 years. The map was drawn without regard of the ethnic and religious groups that inhabited the Middle East and decades later it is these tensions that gave rise to extremist Islam and the bloody conflict that we today associate with the Middle East.

Nah. No lines on a map have had more to do with ME troubles than the people and leaders of the region themselves. Blaming Sykes-Picot is just a way to dodge their own responsibility for their failures.
 

Glen Contrarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
17,688
Reaction score
8,046
Location
Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, he
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Ridiculous Leftist self-flagellation. The 1953 coup had little to do with conflict in the area.
Shia v Sunni, Kurd v Arab, were going to happen mainly because of Sykes. Although even then, if they all had separate states, War would happen between them instead of internally. ie, Iraq/Iran.
"Tribes with Flags"
The coup of 1953 is Tiny potatoes, and just a liberal pot shot.
Iran's borders would have basically been the same.

WRONG.

Your post is a great example of the Right's refusal to grasp the importance of empathy for the people that the Right doesn't like.

Tell me, guy, how would YOU feel, how trusting would YOU be towards Muslims if, say, Iran engineered a coup in America in 1953, removed our democratically-elected government, and installed a king instead?

Maybe you're very young and that seems like a long time to you, but that would be within the living memory of many millions of Americans who would have watched as Iran forcibly replaced our government with the one they wanted there. How do you think Americans would feel towards Iran? Distrust? Yeah. Hatred? Yeah. We'd be shouting "Death to Iran" every day.

THAT, sir, is why so many in Iran hate us...and why (along with the Sykes-Picot Agreement) so many in the Middle East don't trust us.

And there's one more thing you're apparently not understanding - how long people in other cultures hold grudges. You've heard of "the Hatfields and McCoys" feud back in the 1800's, and it's now seen as a comedic joke anymore here in America. But over there, in a part of the world where it's not unusual at all to walk by buildings thousands of years old, FAR older than any human construction here in the Western Hemisphere, grudges and blood-feuds can last for many generations.

In other words, guy, if you're going to see them as your enemy, your first step is - as Sun Tzu said so long ago - KNOW your enemy...and you can't know your enemy if you don't have a real understanding of WHY they're pissed at you and your own people...and why they might have a very good reason for being pissed.
 

Glen Contrarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
17,688
Reaction score
8,046
Location
Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, he
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
The Myth of an American Coup - Council on Foreign Relations


This year marks the sixtieth anniversary of Operation Ajax—the notorious CIA plot that is supposed to have ousted Iranian prime minister Muhammad Mossadeq. In the intervening decades, the events of 1953 have been routinely depicted as a nefarious U.S. conspiracy that overthrew a nationalist politician who enjoyed enormous popular support. This narrative, assiduously cultivated by the Islamic Republic, was so readily endorsed by the American intellectual class that presidents and secretaries of state are now expected to commence any discussion of Iran by apologizing for the behavior of their malevolent predecessors. At this stage, the account has even seeped into American popular culture, featuring most recently in Ben Affleck's Oscar-winning blockbuster Argo. The only problem with this mythologized history is that the CIA's role in Mossadeq's demise was largely inconsequential. In the end, the 1953 coup was very much an Iranian affair. . . .

From your own reference:

In late summer, military units began to clash with Tudeh activists, while pro-shah protesters took to the streets. It is true that the CIA paid a number of toughs from the bazaar and athletic centers to agitate against the government, but the CIA-financed mobs rarely exceeded a few hundred people in a country that was now rocked by demonstrators numbering in the thousands. As Henderson cabled from Tehran, the protesters were "not of hoodlum type customarily predominant in recent demonstrations in Tehran. They seemed to come from all classes of people, including workers, clerks, shopkeepers, students." In the end, the CIA-organized demonstrations were overtaken by a spontaneous cascade of pro-shah protesters.

...

In the ensuing decades, Kermit Roosevelt and other CIA alumni would embellish their role in toppling Mossadeq, but the U.S. government's after-action assessment was much more modest. The CIA itself noted that it was the shah's departure that turned the tide against Mossadeq. "The flight of the Shah brought home to the populace in a dramatic way how far Mossadeq had gone and galvanized the people into irate pro-Shah force," a CIA cable read. Similarly, the U.S. embassy reported that "not only members of Mossadeq regime but also pro-Shah supporters were amazed at latter's comparatively speedy and easy initial victory which was achieved with high degree of spontaneity." Eisenhower, who as supreme commander of Allied forces during World War II knew something about covert operations, dismissed Roosevelt's narrative as "more like a dime store novel than historical fact."


So let's go with your apparent position that the CIA coup in Iran was a myth. The FACT - by your own reference's admission - is that we WERE involved to some extent...and the fact that we were involved, however clumsily or weakly, does result in much of the blame being placed on us. You of all people should appreciate the fact that appearances matter - and if we're involved in something, we - being the Big Kid on the Block, the Big Man on Campus - are going to take the blame...and so the people of the Middle East in general and Iran in particular are able to point at our involvement and blame us...and our subsequent actions meddling in the region have only strengthened this perception.

That's reality, and you know it.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,236
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
From your own reference:

In late summer, military units began to clash with Tudeh activists, while pro-shah protesters took to the streets. It is true that the CIA paid a number of toughs from the bazaar and athletic centers to agitate against the government, but the CIA-financed mobs rarely exceeded a few hundred people in a country that was now rocked by demonstrators numbering in the thousands. As Henderson cabled from Tehran, the protesters were "not of hoodlum type customarily predominant in recent demonstrations in Tehran. They seemed to come from all classes of people, including workers, clerks, shopkeepers, students." In the end, the CIA-organized demonstrations were overtaken by a spontaneous cascade of pro-shah protesters.

...

In the ensuing decades, Kermit Roosevelt and other CIA alumni would embellish their role in toppling Mossadeq, but the U.S. government's after-action assessment was much more modest. The CIA itself noted that it was the shah's departure that turned the tide against Mossadeq. "The flight of the Shah brought home to the populace in a dramatic way how far Mossadeq had gone and galvanized the people into irate pro-Shah force," a CIA cable read. Similarly, the U.S. embassy reported that "not only members of Mossadeq regime but also pro-Shah supporters were amazed at latter's comparatively speedy and easy initial victory which was achieved with high degree of spontaneity." Eisenhower, who as supreme commander of Allied forces during World War II knew something about covert operations, dismissed Roosevelt's narrative as "more like a dime store novel than historical fact."


So let's go with your apparent position that the CIA coup in Iran was a myth. The FACT - by your own reference's admission - is that we WERE involved to some extent...and the fact that we were involved, however clumsily or weakly, does result in much of the blame being placed on us. You of all people should appreciate the fact that appearances matter - and if we're involved in something, we - being the Big Kid on the Block, the Big Man on Campus - are going to take the blame...and so the people of the Middle East in general and Iran in particular are able to point at our involvement and blame us...and our subsequent actions meddling in the region have only strengthened this perception.

That's reality, and you know it.

Of course we were (very) modestly involved. But the Shah would have won with or without us. The rest of the myth is just cynical regime propaganda BS -- sort of a Jedi mind trick to fool the weak minded. We were less involved in Iran than in many other countries where we have had continuous good relations. Finally, you should know that the Iranian mullahs supported the Shah until they stopped getting paid.
 

Glen Contrarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
17,688
Reaction score
8,046
Location
Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, he
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Of course we were (very) modestly involved. But the Shah would have won with or without us. The rest of the myth is just cynical regime propaganda BS -- sort of a Jedi mind trick to fool the weak minded. We were less involved in Iran than in many other countries where we have had continuous good relations. Finally, you should know that the Iranian mullahs supported the Shah until they stopped getting paid.

I do not disagree with your bolded statement...but you missed the point. By getting involved at all, we gave them a lifetime's worth of propaganda ammo they could use against us. Just because something is happening overseas doesn't mean that it's a good idea to get involved.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,236
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I do not disagree with your bolded statement...but you missed the point. By getting involved at all, we gave them a lifetime's worth of propaganda ammo they could use against us. Just because something is happening overseas doesn't mean that it's a good idea to get involved.

As I said, we were no more involved there than in dozens of places where there's been no issue. The problem isn't us, it's them.
 

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
WRONG.


Glen Contrarian said:
Your post is a great example of the Right's refusal to grasp the importance of empathy for the people that the Right doesn't like.
WRONG, I'm not 'The Right.'
It shows your MISperception here, and certainly elsewhere.
Two of my most recent posts:

In Favor of more Progressive Taxes
http://www.debatepolitics.com/the-l...y-progressive-flat-tax-10.html#post1065867072
in addition to an understanding of economics you could only dream of.

On AGW:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...ttest-april-ever-recorded.html#post1065869450

I am one of the few in the non-Partisan Math, Science, and History, center.
You, OTOH, are hard Left across the board


Glen Contrarian said:
Tell me, guy, how would YOU feel, how trusting would YOU be towards Muslims if, say, Iran engineered a coup in America in 1953, removed our democratically-elected government, and installed a king instead? Maybe you're very young and that seems like a long time to you, but that would be within the living memory of many millions of Americans who would have watched as Iran forcibly replaced our government with the one they wanted there. How do you think Americans would feel towards Iran? Distrust? Yeah. Hatred? Yeah. We'd be shouting "Death to Iran" every day.
THAT, sir, is why so many in Iran hate us...and why (along with the Sykes-Picot Agreement) so many in the Middle East don't trust us.
Um.. whether or not Iran trusts us means very little to the theme of the string.
That theme. How turmoil was fomented by Sykes and it's borders. Iran pretty unscathed.
In addition, ALL the states have issues.
Oh, and Iran doesn't "hate us". It's people like us, it's Islamist leaders, one of the earlier 'Arab/Islamic Springs'/revolutions.
The Islamist Muslim Brotherhood started in 1928.
Turmoil has followed the toppling of all the Middle East Strongmen, whether they had our support or not.

GlenContrarian said:
And there's one more thing you're apparently not understanding - how long people in other cultures hold grudges. You've heard of "the Hatfields and McCoys" feud back in the 1800's, and it's now seen as a comedic joke anymore here in America. But over there, in a part of the world where it's not unusual at all to walk by buildings thousands of years old, FAR older than any human construction here in the Western Hemisphere, grudges and blood-feuds can last for many generations.
:^)
'Hatfield/McCoy' is rather new compared to the Sunni/Shia fight that caused MOST of the M-E deaths before Syria erupted, but the latter too is in part also to do with it, and part of that Sunni-Shia/Saudi-Iran Proxy war
That old feud, not even a result of Sykes!
The Arab (and Iran) M-E was bound to explode because of Sykes borders, but also because of inevitable conflict once the strongmen were removed (by any means).
And of course, the revival of Mohammedan/7th c Islamism by Wahhabism of the 18th c, and the aforementioned M-B in 1928.


GlenContrarian said:
In other words, guy, if you're going to see them as your enemy, your first step is - as Sun Tzu said so long ago - KNOW your enemy...and you can't know your enemy if you don't have a real understanding of WHY they're pissed at you and your own people...and why they might have a very good reason for being pissed.
I've been posting on M-E issues for 15 years.
"IOW guy," it's clear from THIS post, as well as my other posts in this string alone, (see bottom of pg 1), that I can post fluently and elaborately on the issue. You, just your usual extraneous 'Blame the USA' Yawner in a Sykes-Picot string.
The relative fluency in our posts on M-E issues is apparent to anyone... and I have made about 2600 others on the topic.
 
Last edited:

calm

Banned
Joined
Jul 2, 2013
Messages
631
Reaction score
123
Location
Toronto, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
8-10 million Iranians died over Great Famine caused by the British in late 1910s, documents reveal
The document in the American Archives, reporting the widespread famine and spread of epidemic disease in Iran, estimates the number of the deceased due to the famine to be about 8-10 million.
By Sadegh Abbasi
November 04, 2015
8-10 million Iranians died over Great Famine caused by the British in late 1910s, documents reveal - Khamenei.ir

It should be noted that Iran had been one of the main suppliers of food grains to the British forces stationed in the empire’s South Asian colonies. Although bad harvest during these two years made the situation worse, it was by no means the main reason why the Great Famine occurred. Prof. Gholi Majd of Princeton University writes in his book, The Great Famine and Genocide in Persia, that American documents show that the British prevented imports of wheat and other food grains into Iran from Mesopotamia, Asia, and also the USA, and that ships loaded with wheat were not allowed to unload at the port of Bushehr in the Persian Gulf. Professor Majd argues that Great Britain intentionally created genocide conditions to destroy Iran, and to effectively control the country for its own purposes. Major Donohoe describes Iran of that time as a “land of desolation and death”. But this event soon became the subject of a British cover up.
 

Glen Contrarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
17,688
Reaction score
8,046
Location
Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, he
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
WRONG.


WRONG, I'm not 'The Right.'
It shows your MISperception here, and certainly elsewhere.
Two of my most recent posts:

In Favor of more Progressive Taxes
http://www.debatepolitics.com/the-l...y-progressive-flat-tax-10.html#post1065867072
in addition to an understanding of economics you could only dream of.

I am sometimes wrong about a person's political leanings...but I make no assumptions as to their level of understanding...or lack thereof. I learned a long time ago that it's a great mistake to assume that I know more than the other guy (which, btw, is what you just did). I would recommend that you try to keep from making that a habit.

On AGW:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...ttest-april-ever-recorded.html#post1065869450

I am one of the few in the non-Partisan Math, Science, and History, center.
YOU, OTOH, are hard Left across the board.
Let's be candid/clear.

And again, you've made another assumption, this time concerning my own political lean. If you'd read my own writings, you'd know that many times I've said that Reagan was one of our five best presidents (but only because of winning the Cold War - the guy in charge at the time gets the credit), that Bush 41 is a very underrated president and deserves more credit than Clinton for the mid-90's economic boom. If I were "hard left across the board" as you claim, would I really be saying such things? Even better, read this, and then tell me how "hard left across the board" I really am. Gotta watch those assumptions, y'know?

Um.. whether or not Iran trusts us means very little to the theme of the string.
That theme. How turmoil was fomented by Sykes and it's borders. Iran pretty unscathed.
In addition, ALL the states have issues.
Oh, and Iran doesn't "hate us". It's people like us, it's Islamist leaders, one of the earlier 'Arab/Islamic Springs'/revolutions.
The Islamist Muslim Brotherhood started in 1928.
Turmoil has followed the toppling of all the Middle East Strongmen, whether they had our support or not.

No, I don't think that most Iranians 'hate' us - to me, 'hate' is a strong word. But the government - and the Ayatollah that has so much influence in the government - do despise and distrust us (if only 'officially'). I will admit that while I have more of a knowledge of Sykes-Picot than most Americans, I think you'll agree that's not saying much at all. I have no problem with the notion that you know it better than I do. But that does not by any means indicate that I don't have a decent grasp on the attitude of the people of the ME, and the whys and wherefores thereof.
 

Glen Contrarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
17,688
Reaction score
8,046
Location
Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, he
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
:^) 'Hatfield/McCoy' is rather new compared to the Sunni/Shia fight that caused MOST of the M-E deaths before Syria erupted, but the latter too is in part also to do with it, and part of that Sunni-Shia/Saudi-Iran Proxy war
That old feud, not even a result of Sykes!

I did not know your extent of knowledge of the region, and so I was tailored my reply for someone whose understanding of the ME is not much more than that of the normal American by using terms to which he would be more likely to be able to relate. If I had been discussing it with someone I knew was more educated about the ME, then I would of course used a completely different set of examples and explanations.

The Arab (and Iran) M-E was bound to explode because of Sykes borders, but also because of inevitable conflict once the strongmen were removed (by any means).
And of course, the revival of Mohammedan/7th c Islamism by Wahhabism of the 18th c, and the aforementioned M-B in 1928.

Yes, I knew all that.

I've been posting on M-E issues for 15 years.
"IOW guy," it's clear from THIS post, as well as my other posts in this string alone, (see bottom of pg 1), that I can post fluently and elaborately on the issue. You, just your usual extraneous 'Blame the USA' Yawner in a Sykes-Picot string.
The relative fluency in our posts on M-E issues is apparent to anyone... and I have made about 2600 others on the topic.

I've studied the ME since I began writing a particular book since about 1999 (I published it a few years back). I had to do far more research than I assumed, including studying the Qu'ran (including the Hadith and Sunna), the schisms of Islam and the many different sects thereof, the local cultures and geography (particularly in Syria where much of the book is set), and so on. One of the more interesting things I found were the similarities between the Shi'a and the Catholics, and between the Sunni and the protestants...and of course the hatred that the Shi'a and Sunni share mirrors the hatred that the Catholics and protestants had for each other for many centuries.

One major influence on my writing was "The Shi'a Revival" by Vali Nasr, who at one point taught at the Naval Postgraduate School, and whose work was recommended reading for all Navy officers (I was only an enlisted). I've been to Dubai probably 20 times, Bahrain once. I've got family in Riyadh and Dubai now.

One last thing. My youngest son was attending school in the Philippines, and he had a Muslim friend. They were sitting together eating lunch in Quezon City (on Tandang Sora, if you're familiar with the area). My son was having a beer (which we in the Church of which I'm a member aren't supposed to have), and he noticed his friend was eating a stick of BBQ pork. My son said, "Hey - I thought you weren't supposed to eat pork!" His friend replied, "Yeah, but you're not supposed to be drinking beer, right?" The point being, of course, that people are people are people, all over the world (local mores notwithstanding, of course).
 
Last edited:

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,928
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I disagree that it can be blamed for "most" of the struggles...but certainly for a substantial share of them. I would say that that agreement is one of two events - the other being our CIA's overthrow of Iran's democratically-elected government in 1953 - that prevents people there from trusting us. After what we did to them in the past, who, really, can blame them?

Mosaddegh wasn't democratically elected. He was appointed by the Iranian parliament. After his appointment he dissolved the parliament. The CIA didn't overthrow him, the Iranians did and the democratically elected parliament has already been dissolved at that point. Actually, Mosaddegh ther dictator was overthrown.
 

JANFU

Not quite there yet, but getting close
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
35,562
Reaction score
12,799
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Mosaddegh wasn't democratically elected. He was appointed by the Iranian parliament. After his appointment he dissolved the parliament. The CIA didn't overthrow him, the Iranians did and the democratically elected parliament has already been dissolved at that point. Actually, Mosaddegh ther dictator was overthrown.

CIA Confirms Role in 1953 Iran Coup
 
Top Bottom