• Sweden 'to expel up to 80,000 failed asylum-seekers'
    99 replies, posted
[QUOTE=RaxaHax;49627459]Rude I mean you're not going to find a letter from G.W. Bush to Syria that says "Hey go do a civil war." But if you wanna go [I]wayyy[/I] back to the dawn of Iraqi and Syrian turmoil due to religion you could look at the outset of World War I and the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes–Picot_Agreement"]Sykes-Picot Agreement[/URL] to see how much the West has had its fingers in the Middle East for pretty much the last hundred years.[/QUOTE] No, you would have to go back to a few generations after the prophet Muhammad for that specific region, or even the time of the first caliph and the Wars of Apostasy for general instability. The truth of the matter is that other than a few periods of stability, the middle east has generally been full of sectarian conflict and changing borders.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;49627510]This is what I mean about 'irrelevant information', and I don't mean this in a rude way. Whilst this is interesting historically, this is not useful when considering the modern Middle East. When you move too far back into the past, events effectively become irrelevant in determining the main causes of something. The current governments of both countries were not involved in making this, very few people were alive when this was agreed, and far more recent events have occurred which have had an effect on the region. If you take this view of history, you can go almost limitlessly back to somehow place the blame upon the party that you want to. I could do the exact same thing with Turkey and the Ottoman Empire if I wanted, but I won't, because its a bad way of determining policy decisions and responsibilities. Whilst this can serve as a lesson to be careful (if you do indeed view this as a major cause of the problems in Syria) when dipping your fingers into regions you know little about, this can't really be used as a direct way to put moral responsibility on the West (like you probably can in regards to the Iraq War) for the current situation in Syria.[/QUOTE] Absolutely. More current events probably had more to do with the refugee crisis than a hundred years old agreement - which I'm not trying to use as historical blackmail or anything. Funneling back history to try and point at singular events is pointless. While I personally would look to the agreement as a 'jumping off' point for most actions taken in the Middle East post (even if it's just a small portion), let's not pretend it's the be-all answer. [editline]28th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;49627541]No, you would have to go back to a few generations after the prophet Muhammad for that specific region, or even the time of the first caliph and the Wars of Apostasy for general instability. The truth of the matter is that other than a few periods of stability, the middle east has generally been full of sectarian conflict and changing borders.[/QUOTE] Oh yeah - I guess implying that the last hundred years of Iraqi/Syria history is 'way back' would be pretty ignorant to the region's history as a whole prior to formal borders. Good point!
[QUOTE=RaxaHax;49627575]Oh yeah - I guess implying that the last hundred years of Iraqi/Syria history is 'way back' would be pretty ignorant to the region's history as a whole prior to formal borders. Good point![/QUOTE] I think the big problem with trying to actually show that the west is at fault for the current issues in the Middle East is showing that it would have been better otherwise.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49627602]I think the big problem with trying to actually show that the west is at fault for the current issues in the Middle East is showing that it would have been better otherwise.[/QUOTE] Currently? Yet to be seen either way, imo.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49627602]I think the big problem with trying to actually show that the west is at fault for the current issues in the Middle East is showing that it would have been better otherwise.[/QUOTE] Well, what does "better" even imply? Better for us, for them? The world is very diverse and the way you live depends entirely on where you are in the world. You don't have to show that it would have been better otherwise because you can see the consequences of western influence bad or good, everybody wants to do things that have good consequences right? So why even argue about what we are obliged to do for a part of the world we don't happen to live in when we can all agree that we want the long-term benefits of being able to provide people safety and see the positive effects of certain actions on a much grander scale than 'my country'.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;49627510]This is what I mean about 'irrelevant information', and I don't mean this in a rude way. Whilst this is interesting historically, this is not useful when considering the modern Middle East. When you move too far back into the past, events effectively become irrelevant in determining the main causes of something. The current governments of both countries were not involved in making this, very few people were alive when this was agreed, and far more recent events have occurred which have had an effect on the region. If you take this view of history, you can go almost limitlessly back to somehow place the blame upon the party that you want to. I could do the exact same thing with Turkey and the Ottoman Empire if I wanted, but I won't, because its a bad way of determining policy decisions and responsibilities. Whilst this can serve as a lesson to be careful (if you do indeed view this as a major cause of the problems in Syria) when dipping your fingers into regions you know little about, this can't really be used as a direct way to put moral responsibility on the West (like you probably can in regards to the Iraq War) for the current situation in Syria.[/QUOTE] There is a point at which the effects of historic actions become so diluted it is hard to distinguish each cause from another, that is true. This does not apply to Sykes-Picot, which has a massive effect on the attempts to stabalise the region because of how it forced groups together in arbitrary ways. Having sensible borders and keeping agreements with Arabs wouldn't have created a perfect region, but you'd get rid of one problem.
[QUOTE=Matthew0505;49630730][img]http://3p3mq242g5jc2ki76r3wi6fq.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/refugeesandweapons.png[/img] Supplying Islamists didn't help either.[/QUOTE] Already shown to be crap earlier in the thread [editline]29th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;49630579]There is a point at which the effects of historic actions become so diluted it is hard to distinguish each cause from another, that is true. This does not apply to Sykes-Picot, which has a massive effect on the attempts to stabalise the region because of how it forced groups together in arbitrary ways. Having sensible borders and keeping agreements with Arabs wouldn't have created a perfect region, but you'd get rid of one problem.[/QUOTE] Sykes-Pilcot is easily far back enough to make alternate history (which you do whenever making a historical judgement) useless, meaning you cannot determine any long term changes as there are too many branching options to predict.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.