Will Iraq or Syria be able to restore their borders?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I just got to thinking about this. Would it even be realistic for either state to restore their borders following the collapse of IS? Even here in the US, border disputes between states are frequent and sometimes even quite heated, given that in the end they're part of the same country anyhow: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/08/24/opinion/sunday/how-the-carolinas-fixed-their-blurred-lines.html?referrer=&_r=0

Borders are often poorly mapped, relying on physical landmarks as markers, physical landmarks that deteriorate over time, and in the case of areas under the control of IS, have been intentionally removed. The governments of Iraq and Syria may be able to cooperate in order to fight IS, but isn't a long future of hostile border disputes in store for these two countries following the defeat of IS?

[Sasha]

Depends on the outcome of a whole host of unpredictable ingredient; will Assad retain power and if not what will be the make up of the new regime (if the MuslimBrotherhood orientated opposition would win they could form a strong block with turkey while if Assad wins Iran could use it influence on both nations to resolve any border conflicts) but also what of the Kurds, will a independent or federalist Kurdish Iraq be established and will the Kurdish regions in Syria seek to join it? How long will IS be a factor, will the suni population in Iraq be pacified, what about the Golan heights that are occupied by Israek etc etc

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

That's true, even after IS collapses I'm sure it will be followed by others. I'm just interested in what the ramifications of their actions on the borders will be though. I think it would be a little ironic if IS unleashed the kind of violence associated with post-colonial border disputes as a result of their attempt to address sykes-picot.

In regards to the Kurds, they seem to be the West's eternal sucker. I think their dreams of independence will be tolerated by NATO only to the extent that it helps against IS, once thats over it will be back to business as usual, you know or else.

Don't you think it will be in NATO's interests to have the borders restored as much as possible? If that's the case I can only assume that Iraq's claims, legitimate or otherwise, will get priority over Syria's, especially if Assad really is still in power after all of this.

[Red Terror Dr.]

Comrade, it looks like ISIS is becoming the Khmer Rouge of the Middle East. You can thank the U.S. bombing and killing. In other words, the war that U.S. imperialism have waged has created a major Frankenstein. Now ISIS is attracting crazy Jihadists from all over the Muslim world and even from the Western non-Muslim countries. Like the Khmer Rouge, Isis is going to end up killing millions of people. :mad:

[Red Terror Dr.]

Dude, what ISIS is doing is so sick and horrifying!!! :crying:

I was just surfing in "Google Images" and typed in "ISIS atrocities" in the search box and took off the filter and all I saw were severed heads and crucifixions. These people are pure HORROR.

[DOOM]

Comrade, it looks like ISIS is becoming the Khmer Rouge of the Middle East. You can thank the U.S. bombing and killing. In other words, the war that U.S. imperialism have waged has created a major Frankenstein. Now ISIS is attracting crazy Jihadists from all over the Muslim world and even from the Western non-Muslim countries. Like the Khmer Rouge, Isis is going to end up killing millions of people. :mad:

Nah, that doesn't explain european ISIS members and I'm not talking about refugees or second generation immigrants, I'm talkin about convertites, who have absolutely no connection to muslim-culture. How on earth did the USA anger those men and women, huh?
ISIS is not America's fault, those barbarians are driven by religious fundamentalism, resembling fascism in the 21. century.

[Per Levy]

ISIS is not America's fault

yeah, isis just came out of thing air, nothing happend before hand. the invasion of iraq(wich your ilk supported wholeheartedly i might add) and the distabilisation of the entire region didnt have any effect the creation of isis, also the support of proto isis groups in syria through the us and us allies like saudi arabia and turkey also had no effect on the creation on isis. i get you there.


those barbarians are driven by religious fundamentalism, resembling fascism in the 21. century.

i didnt know that fascism was ever driven by religious fundamentalism. also it of course much more civil and less barbarous to just drone bomb or bomb in general entire villages and what not.

[DOOM]

yeah, isis just came out of thing air, nothing happend before hand. the invasion of iraq(wich your ilk supported wholeheartedly i might add) and the distabilisation of the entire region didnt have any effect the creation of isis, also the support of proto isis groups in syria through the us and us allies like saudi arabia and turkey also had no effect on the creation on isis. i get you there.

Of course, the destabilisation of the middle east had an impact in the uprising of those groups. But this is not the primary reason. The disposition for islamism always existed, it just needed a little big spark to start it all.


i didnt know that fascism was ever driven by religious fundamentalism. also it of course much more civil and less barbarous to just drone bomb or bomb in general entire villages and what not.

I've explained my point of view a hundred times. Fascism is the revolt against the modern world, as Evola has said. Both, fascists and islamists, oppose the modern world and the seemingly abstract nature of capitalism, only criticizing the circulation-sphere of capitalism (hence the liability to feudal socialism).
For fascists, "Degeneracy" is the product of modernist, post-enlighenment and bourgeois thinking and doing. Hence the romanticism for empires, like the Roman one and the caliphate.
Fascism and islamism both tend to some sort of collectivism. All muslims/germans are equal. They are part of the Volksgemeinschaft, respectively the Ummah.
So we have radical anti-modernism, collectivism, authoritarianism and reactionary anticapitalism, what more do you want?
Islamism is THE most dangerous and popular interpretation of fascism in the 21. century.
And wow, what a surprise, yet another left-com comparing fascism to liberal democracy.

[Scheveningen]

Of course, the destabilisation of the middle east had an impact in the uprising of those groups. But this is not the primary reason. The disposition for islamism always existed, it just needed a little big spark to start it all.

I've explained my point of view a hundred times. Fascism is the revolt against the modern world, as Evola has said. Both, fascists and islamists, oppose the modern world and the seemingly abstract nature of capitalism, only criticizing the circulation-sphere of capitalism (hence the liability to feudal socialism). That tells us nothing about the reasons for the rise of fascism and why those ideas gained a mass following.
Mass movements aren't produced by ideas.

The burden of modern capitalism on the petite bourgeoisie (the stress on the circulation-sphere - which seeks to blame the upper classes who got rich with investments and speculation instead of 'hard work', while romanticizing the farmer or the 'honest craftsmen' - only betrays the class origins of fascism), the decline of positivism, a militarist culture and the radicalization of nationalist sentiments in the wake of World War I (especially in nations and social groups which felt wronged by its outcome) and the threat posed by a militant workers' movement are more important to understand fascism than any list of its ideals.

Once you look at that, any comparison between fascism and Islamism makes no sense.
Maybe, I don't know, both Nazis and ISIS are anti-Semitic, but saying that is a banality. Nazis and some movements in the 19th century use old anti-Semitic ideas to deliver a social critique that appeals to their base: the Jew is seen as a symbol of both the foreigner and the modern capitalist (who legitimizes the practice of usury). The reasons of radical Islamists are completely different.
So we have radical anti-modernism, collectivism, authoritarianism and reactionary anticapitalism, what more do you want? This only tells us that both are reactionary movements: anti-democratic, anti-capitalist and wishing for a return to a pre-modern organic society (and that both emerged in an epoch of mass politics). Yet, 'Islamism' has nothing to do with fascism: for one, it's an anti-national ideology.

[Mad Frankie]

Dude, what ISIS is doing is so sick and horrifying!!! :crying:

I was just surfing in "Google Images" and typed in "ISIS atrocities" in the search box and took off the filter and all I saw were severed heads and crucifixions. These people are pure HORROR.

ISIS are a ploy for the imperialists to get into Syria, since Assad has crushed their puppets.