EMA?

And everybody hates the Jews...

National brotherhood week.

Saudi Writer: Ahwaz Region Deserves Self-Determination; Its Occupation By Iran Is No Less Barbaric Than Palestine's Occupation By Israel

1. Palestine has never existed as a nation. It was once a designation by the British.

2. Most so called Palestinians are Jordanian, and the are such trouble makers the were basically expelled.

3. Israel is not a Barbaric nation.

4. Israel is the only functioning democracy in the Middle East.

5. Anti-Israel perspective will not play well here.

Well said.

It would have helped if the article mentioned what Ahvaz was (a city in southwest Iran, capital of the region of Iran where much of their oil and gas deposits reside.

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIlJ8ZCs4jY

Oh, the white folks hate the black folks,
And the black folks hate the white folks.
To hate all but the right folks
Is an old established rule.

But during National Brotherhood Week, National Brotherhood Week,
Lena Horne and Sheriff Clarke are dancing cheek to cheek.
It’s fun to eulogize
The people you despise,
As long as you don’t let ‘em in your school.

Oh, the poor folks hate the rich folks,
And the rich folks hate the poor folks.
All of my folks hate all of your folks,
It’s American as apple pie.

But during National Brotherhood Week, National Brotherhood Week,
New Yorkers love the Puerto Ricans ‘cause it’s very chic.
Step up and shake the hand
Of someone you can’t stand.
You can tolerate him if you try.

Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics,
And the Catholics hate the Protestants,
And the Hindus hate the Moslems,
And everybody hates the Jews.

But during National Brotherhood Week, National Brotherhood Week,
It’s National Everyone-smile-at-one-another-hood Week.
Be nice to people who
Are inferior to you.
It’s only for a week, so have no fear.
Be grateful that it doesn’t last all year!

Thanks

You can tell when a religion has no theology at all.

Let's see if I grasp the quoted writer's argument. Arabs of some kind took this area in Mohammed's attempt to conquer the world, Part I. Then "Arab principalities in the region emerged."

Fine. He's asserting those Arabs' right to the area by conquest and occupation. That's a strong principle of territorial claim and precedent.

Then those Arab principalities got their butts kicked by someone else, and they're gone in the mists of time. You're complaining that no one acknowledges the place as Arab anymore? Why? Don't the succession of "someone elses" all have their own claims of conquest and occupation? Why would any other ethnic group or religion give a halal pancake whether it's Arabs or Persians who are getting sand fleas on that particular spot at present? You lost!

He now seems to be asserting some other kind of claim to the area--historical, perhaps? That seems a bit . . . inconsistent. We know how much Mohammedans care for other religions' histories and artifacts. Heritage for me and not for thee? Just go away.

As I understand the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire, the demarcation between it and Persia was then in the same place as the border between Iraq and Iran is now:

http://www.timemaps.com/store/timemaps/2012/4/middleeastad1914.jpg

Therefore, the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire did not move the border of Persia to the west, as this Saudi says it did.

It would be better to say that the borders created in the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire were at least somewhat arbitrary, and had more to do with preserving outside influence over the region (in particular, French and English), than with creating new nations of people having shared language and culture, each of which had a port on an international waterway.

The Turks, led by Ataturk, rose up to expel the foreign occupiers. We can admire their patriotism while condemning their excesses as in the Armenian genocide.

The Arabs, contrariwise, have seemed paralyzed by intercinine fighting, and by the rule of strong men each of whom is mostly concerned with maintaining power.

Also, the tolerance of the Ottoman Empire for minority religions and ethnic groups has largely broken down. Jews, who had been scattered throughout the Ottoman Empire, have largely fled to Israel (where they were joined by Jews fleeing Europe and Russia). Christian Arabs have largely fled to the west. Today, we see a mass exodus of Sunni Muslims from Syria.

Instead of harkening back to old borders, which might not even be historically accurate, we should rely on the principle of popular consent (with due consideration for geographic integrity and access to international waters). Then, when border are secure, we can start working on trade and travel.

Good fences do make good neighbors.

MEMRI is invaluable as a reporter and intelligence source on this kind of agitation.

I’d say, let’s support borders that give the Ahwazi Arabs of Iran control over the oil being extracted from their land, the Kurds in all four states control over the oil being extracted from their land, and divide Shiite and Sunni Muslim fanatics so they can’t cause too much damage.

I know. But what is EMA?

Regarding joining in Arab agitation for annexing southwest Iran into Iraq (and, for that matter, other part of Iran into yet other places):

The U.S., as a democratic capitalistic country, has a clear interest in promoting peace, security, freedom and prosperity in the world. We are different from the nation-states and empires of the past. We are truly revolutionary. What does the border between Virginia and Maryland mean? At one level, it means to which government a citizen pays taxes and to which citizens the government provides services. Anybody who is really upset with the mix of taxes and services can relocate. To be sure, we all share the same common language, so relocating isn’t as costly as it would be if language was different.

In the old days, borders determined what people (slaves, serfs, peasants and such) a government controlled, and what resources the government owned. With that kind of thinking, wars involved a simple calculation: What is the cost of a war, what is the probability of success, and how much would be gained upon victory. Accordingly, wars were incessant. Empires grew when they were vibrant, and then shrank when they became corrupt.

Having said all this, I can appreciate that the world has not yet entirely embraced our revolution. During WWII, we were happy to have Russia, then a communist country, as an ally (after it was betrayed by Hitler). During the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War, we stayed neutral. We were conflicted several ways. First, we liked that the Iranians partially destroyed Iraq’s nuclear plant (the Israelis completed the job). Imagine if Saddam had developed nuclear weapons? It would be like Iran having nuclear weapons. Second, we didn’t know that Iran wouldn’t overthrow the mullahs. They had not yet consolidated power. There was a lot of sympathy still for freedom and democracy within Iran. On the other hand, Iraq was a client state of Russia. Today, the mullahs have consolidated power and Iran is a client state of Russia.

Fortunately, we now have a strong leader ourselves. A guy that won’t take any sh*t from Putin. And, we have a budget proposal to restore our military to overwhelming strength. Putin, if he actually had something to do with our election of last year, will soon regret it. He’s not going to push us around anymore the way he and his stooges in Ukraine and Syria have been doing. I think he will actually be happy to see a strong and reliable America back in the game, and will come around to making deals with us that are in our mutual interest. Then, when Iran is isolated, we’ll be able to deal with them, whether or not they have nuclear weapons. Ditto North Korea.

I’d say that Iran is a pernicious state that so long as it has oil revenues or the potential for them, will be a threat no matter who is POTUS. Best way to neutralize the threat is to take away the revenues. Since the oil comes from an Arab region, and they are oppressing said Arabs, it is in the US’, Israel’s, and the Saudis’ interests to defend Akhwazi Arabs from their Iranian oppressors and help them get a state of their own, which can sink and swim on its own, so long as it is no longer occupied and exploited by Iran, and its oil revenues are benefiting Akhwazis, safe from financing Iranian bellicosity. Same thing with Greater Kurdistan, Baluchistan, and all the other eastern minorities who are either oppressed or threatened by Shiite or Sunni majority nations, such as Copts and other eastern Christians, Alawites, Yazidis, and of course, Israelis. Eastern Minorities are natural allies of one another. Only religion keeps us apart, and interfaith cooperation has in the past benefited mankind greatly.

Eastern Minorities Alliance. My pet idea.