Iraqi lawmaker: Kuwait is an integral part of Iraq

[Full Moon]

Full of bulshit, iraqis like all the people when they come under some conditions they react like every one
we all the same copy.

لعلي بالغت في بعض ماقلت، ولكن من واقع التأمل والمشاهدة، واستقراء التاريخ والواقع، أرى في العراقيين طباعًا مختلفة عن كثير من الناس. وكما قلت فلدى العراقيين جانب من التميز والذكاء ومحبة الاطلاع والمقدرة العلمية والمهارات الحوارية العالية (ماضيا وحاضرًا، وإن كان هذا الجانب أكثر وضوحًا في التاريخ منه في الحاضر). ولكن لربما كانت هذه هي عين المشكلة، فكم من عاقل أورده عقله موارد التهلكة، وكم من جاهل بسيط أوصله جهله إلى سلم النجاة من دون أن يشعر.

من المؤلم ولربما – كان من الظلم - أن نجزم وأن نعمم، ولكن في الوقت ذاته من الصعب على النفس أن تنكر ماترى بعينها. لكل أمة من الأمم خصائص مشتركة موروثة جينيًا وثقافيًا. وبغض النظر عن دعايات القوميين التي لا تصمد أمام النقد، فالعراقيون ليسوا كعرب الجزيرة، وليسوا كالمصريين ولا المغاربة ولا كأهل الشام. هم باختصار ورثة سكان واد الرافدين الأوائل الذين تفاعلوا مع محيطهم، وتطبعوا معه، وأعطوه كثيرًا، كما أخذوا منه كثيرًا. كانت الجزيرة العربية وإيران أحد المؤثرات الكبرى في العراق وفي أهله، وذلك بحكم عامل الدين المشترك والهجرات المتتالية، ولكن بالرغم من ذلك، ظلت سمات الشخصية العراقية واضحة بارزة لكل من شاهد. العراقيون قوم شديدوا البأس فهم إلى الثورة والعصيان أقرب منهم للطاعة والرضى. لا يطيعون حاكما ولا يذكرونه بخير إلا بعد أن يموت أو يقتل فيبكون على أيامه. لديهم نزعة نحو العنف والمبالغة في ردة الفعل والانتقام والتشفي – وربما السادية –. ولديهم كذلك شجاعة متهورة لا تعترف بالعواقب، ومبالغة في الشعور بجرح الكرامة. انظر إلى الفرس في الجهة الأخرى – وقد قلت فيهم مالم يقله مالك في الخمر–، فلا تجد فيهم إلا عكس هذه الطباع، فهم أهل المداراة والحيلة مع العدو والخصم وكتمان ما في الصدور حتى تحين اللحظة المناسبة ذات العواقب المحدودة. وهم مع ذلك قوم لا تنقصهم طيبة وحسن تعامل، إلا في الحروب والأزمات. أما العراقي فهو ثورة كامنة، وبرميل بارود منذ مهده حتى لحده، ينتظر فقط شرارة صغيرة تشعله. وهو مع ذلك طيب القلب ذو فكاهة وهزل. ليس لديه عدو دائم ولا صديق دائم ​

 

[TheCamelGuy]

If Iraq gets officially partitioned then the Gulf Countries will be next

Which?

You mean Saudi? Cause the other gulf states are small, not sure what they want to partition in such small countries. Either way I said it before, there is no Sunni-Shia division in Iraq to the point where they start seeking their own state, there is not motivation for that as both claim Iraqi identity thus that is not going to happen either. Kurdish separatism is the only threat, they should be overrun militarily someday soon like in the good old days.

 

[Saif al-Arab]

If Iraq gets officially partitioned then the Gulf Countries will be next

I don't see a connection. When Yemen was divided into two (North and South Yemen) and before that into even more entities (much like the rest of Arabia and Arab world) this did not have an impact. When North and South Yemen united in 1990, there was no real push for other areas of Arabia to unite while in theory Arabia could and maybe should be one united entity again if people had a say. I am here talking about a federal state.

As for Kuwait, well Kuwait is geographically a part of the Arabian Peninsula (as is much of Southern Iraq) and population wise, most of the people are originally from Najd (including the ruling family) but the same is the case with Southern Iraq. Honestly speaking if we take a look at ancient history as well as more recent (last 1400 years of Islamic rule), culture, language, geography, weather, genetics etc. the entire Arab Near East could easily be a single country or federal entity as initially planned post Arab Revolt if not for British treachery and French involvement in the region. Many more (in fact most countries of the world) are more diverse countries than what such a hypothetical country would be IMO.

I don't want to disrespect anyone here (my theory is that entities come and go - KSA included) but I won't ever look at Bahrain, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar or even Oman and Yemen as foreign entities. To me this is all geographic Arabia. Arabian Plate countries etc. Same with Jordan, Southern and Eastern Syria and most of Iraq (albeit only Southern and Western Iraq is geographically part of the Arabian Peninsula).

National nationalism is fair enough but I really find it hard to take Qatari nationalism (for instance) seriously when they are identical to Saudi Arabians. Their entire identity is based on the Al-Thani leadership and their control of Qatar.

Sure, the territory of Qatar has an ancient history (like all of Arabia - after all this is the second longest inhabited place on earth after East/Horn of Africa) but in the future (for various reasons) Qatar will not be able to survive on its own and eventually the GCC/Arabia (at least - not sure about the remaining parts of the Arab world) will unite once again like throughout the many millennia.

Much of the nationalism based on recent nation states is fake. What matters here is history, culture, language, ethnicity. Therefore Arab and even Semitic nationalism would be preferred and more historically accurate. I know that many disagree. However those people do not realize that 1000's of various nation states and entities have come and gone in the Arab world since the first civilizations and nations states in the world appeared in our part of the world. So will the current ones if history is anything to go by. Therefore their nationalism is by large a fake construct or at least incomplete. History, language, geography, genetics and culture however is not fake although culture and languages can change.
Had a discussion about this with a Qatari who himself admitted that his great-grandfather was originally from the Eastern Province. So this guy in theory (if a war erupted) would fight his ancestral land and his own brothers and sisters, if his regime (Al-Thani) forced him to do so. Wrong as Trump would say it.

In other related topics, sectarianism must not only be fought (it is highlighted all the time which is good and it has an effect) but also tribal, clan, regional, national divisions which are nonsense as well. Look at Europe. Nationalism on the rise and now many minorities want their own tiny little land and redraw the maps.

Catalans (culturally, linguistically, geographically and genetically) more or less identical to their Spaniard neighbors (not to say that 50% of Catalonia's population is originally from Spain - migrants mainly from Andalusia and Extremadura looking for work in the industrialized Catalonia - you can figure this out easily by just looking at their surnames) and now those idiots want to destroy the unity of Spain. Nonsense. Similarly we have idiots in the Arab world who want their own little fiefdoms. Not going to happen and won't be tolerated.

Today in 2017 you can spot arrogant, dumb and ignorant Lebanese looking down on Syrians and treating them badly, yet 100 years ago there was no such division and people knew that they are more or less the same people. This is what fake nation state based nationalism does. To hell with such "nationalism", I say!

I predict Arab states to unite in the future and not the opposite here because not only would that be historically accurate, it makes economic and political sense as well. If we just look at what the average person focuses on in his life (economic stability and political stability usually takes the priority) rather than history etc.

What will happen with that policy is that Europe will lose more unity and importance when they are already losing this and will continue to lose it due to demographics (smaller populations and thus smaller economies). It should be the other way around in our region, especially considering past events and more recent ones in this regard.

 

[TheCamelGuy]

I don't see a connection. When Yemen was divided into two (North and South Yemen) and before that into even more entities (much like the rest of Arabia and Arab world) this did not have an impact. When North and South Yemen united in 1990, there was no real push for other areas of Arabia to unite while in theory Arabia could and maybe should be one united entity again if people had a say. I am here talking about a federal state.

As for Kuwait, well Kuwait is geographically a part of the Arabian Peninsula (as is much of Southern Iraq) and population wise, most of the people are originally from Najd (including the ruling family) but the same is the case with Southern Iraq. Honestly speaking if we take a look at ancient history as well as more recent (last 1400 years of Islamic rule), culture, language, geography, weather, genetics etc. the entire Arab Near East could easily be a single country or federal entity as initially planned post Arab Revolt if not for British treachery and French involvement in the region. Many more (in fact most countries of the world) are more diverse countries than what such a hypothetical country would be IMO.

I don't want to disrespect anyone here (my theory is that entities come and go - KSA included) but I won't ever look at Bahrain, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar or even Oman and Yemen as foreign entities. To me this is all geographic Arabia. Arabian Plate countries etc. Same with Jordan, Southern and Eastern Syria and most of Iraq (albeit only Southern and Western Iraq is geographically part of the Arabian Peninsula).

National nationalism is fair enough but I really find it hard to take Qatari nationalism (for instance) seriously when they are identical to Saudi Arabians. Their entire identity is based on the Al-Thani leadership and their control of Qatar.

Sure, the territory of Qatar has an ancient history (like all of Arabia - after all this is the second longest inhabited place on earth after East/Horn of Africa) but in the future (for various reasons) Qatar will not be able to survive on its own and eventually the GCC/Arabia (at least - not sure about the remaining parts of the Arab world) will unite once again like throughout the many millennia.

Much of the nationalism based on recent nation states is fake. What matters here is history, culture, language, ethnicity. Therefore Arab and even Semitic nationalism would be preferred and more historically accurate. I know that many disagree. However those people do not realize that 1000's of various nation states and entities have come and gone in the Arab world since the first civilizations and nations states in the world appeared in our part of the world. So will the current ones if history is anything to go by. Therefore their nationalism is by large a fake construct or at least incomplete. History, language, geography, genetics and culture however is not fake although culture and languages can change.
Had a discussion about this with a Qatari who himself admitted that his great-grandfather was originally from the Eastern Province. So this guy in theory (if a war erupted) would fight his ancestral land and his own brothers and sisters, if his regime (Al-Thani) forced him to do so. Wrong as Trump would say it.

In other related topics, sectarianism must not only be fought (it is highlighted all the time which is good and it has an effect) but also tribal, clan, regional, national divisions which are nonsense as well. Look at Europe. Nationalism on the rise and now many minorities want their own tiny little land and redraw the maps.

Catalans (culturally, linguistically, geographically and genetically) more or less identical to their Spaniard neighbors (not to say that 50% of Catalonia's population is originally from Spain - migrants mainly from Andalusia and Extremadura looking for work in the industrialized Catalonia - you can figure this out easily by just looking at their surnames) and now those idiots want to destroy the unity of Spain. Nonsense. Similarly we have idiots in the Arab world who want their own little fiefdoms. Not going to happen and won't be tolerated.

Today in 2017 you can spot arrogant, dumb and ignorant Lebanese looking down on Syrians and treating them badly, yet 100 years ago there was no such division and people knew that they are more or less the same people. This is what fake nation state based nationalism does. To hell with such "nationalism", I say!

I predict Arab states to unite in the future and not the opposite here.

What will happen with that policy is that Europe will lose more unity and importance when they are already losing this and will continue to lose it due to demographics (smaller populations and thus smaller economies). It should be the other way around in our region, especially considering past events and more recent ones in this regard.

Greater unity is what should be worked towards, not further segmentation. Whilst there may be differences amongst people, Arabs too in this case. We can ensure that they feel part of such a larger nation, the mountain Arabs(Kurds) of Syria and Iraq can be taught like all of us can drop nationalism and think larger. Small states limit opportunities, I know this as I live in the Netherlands, we should not work towards that.

 

[Saif al-Arab]

Greater unity is what should be worked towards, not further segmentation. Whilst there may be differences amongst people, Arabs too in this case. We can ensure that they feel part of such a larger nation, the mountain Arabs(Kurds) of Syria and Iraq can be taught like all of us can drop nationalism and think larger. Small states limit opportunities, I know this as I live in the Netherlands, we should not work towards that.

What I tried to get across in post 33 was merely that while nation state nationalism and national integrity is alright, we cannot forget the larger picture here (history, geography, ancestry/genetics, language, culture etc.) or the fact that there have been 1000's of different nation states and entities in our region since the first civilizations and nation states in history emerged in our part of the world. The current nation state nationalism seen in many Arab states (if not all of them) should not be used to spread hatred or division towards other Arab states as seen in the past (done by dictators and regimes - not the people).

What makes the Arab world a beautiful region (besides its extremely rich history and culture, cuisine, landscapes etc.) is also its diversity. I do not want to destroy that nor is anyone going to do it. In every Arab country you have numerous historical regions with their own particular traditions and cultures which is a beautiful thing. However what should not be forgotten here is that those historical regions, traditions and cultures all belong to a wider culture (Arab and Semitic or call it Western Asian) which is what should be emphasized here.

When I talk about unity I also focus on economic, political, military etc. unity as the culture, language, history etc. is already there and nobody can remove that whether locals or foreigners.

When I talk about states in connection to unity I talk about a some kind of EU (just an Arab version - the Arab League should develop into such a thing in the future once more democratic rules are in place and the population grows up - all this will happen eventually not too far from now) or at most 3-4 regions of the Arab world uniting into larger federal states in order to gain more economic, military etc. power. I think this is the future.

Look at Europe where there are 100 times more ethnic groups, different languages etc. Yet most nation states (take Spain as an example) are now united and have been for a long time as they have much more in common with each other than vice versa. I look at Spain and I see the Arab Near East for instance. With the odd group (Basque = Kurds) being more "strange" or acting as a bigger foreigner here due to different ethnic group and linguistic family (Basque language is not related to any other language in the world).

Anyway what is Kuwaiti nationalism really based on other than obedience to the ruling family (originally from Najd) and so far a peaceful coexistence of mainly people from Najd and Southern Iraq (not only of course) originally? Would Kuwait survive on its own if it was not rich in resources? Same question with Qatar. Is anyone going to believe that say in 100 years, the locals would not want to join some larger regional state for the sake of having a better economy, political stability and feeling stronger (militarily more protected). Qatar has basically turned into a US base. Now Erdogan has joined the party too. Iran would too if it could. What's the point? I don't think that people agree with this (locals) or want to fight KSA or other GCC countries. Makes no sense.

Do locals want a different passport or what? If they became part of a larger state, they would not lose their history, language, culture, traditions, land or anything. Simply the territory of what makes up Kuwait or Qatar would simply join a larger neighboring state that is almost identical. Just like those territories have been part of 1000's of various entities in the region in the past. Life did not stop. If what is now today KSA changes to the "Republic of Arabia" in say 100 years or merges with other neighboring countries, nothing will change expect for a different passport, maybe a different flag and new borders drawn of land that already is tied on all fronts to the people that inhabit this region (Near East). Big deal.

@TheCamelGuy

Speaking about Kurds.

"The ethnic label "Kurd" is first encountered in Arabic sources from the first centuries of the Islamic era; it seemed to refer to a specific variety of pastoral nomadism, and possibly to a set of political units, rather than to a linguistic group: once or twice, Arabic Kurds are mentioned. By the 10th century, the term appears to denote nomadic and/or transhumant groups speaking an Iranian language and mainly inhabiting the mountainous areas to the South of Lake Van and Lake Urmia, with some offshoots in the Caucasus.... If there was a Kurdish-speaking subjected peasantry at that time, the term was not yet used to include them."[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Kurds#Notes

Basically there are Kurds of Arab descent. Not only that the Kurdish ethnicity was invented by Arabs. You can always annoy them with that if they are provoking. Nothing not known before though but Kurds are basically a mixture of Semites, Anatolians and Iranic people. So much for their "racial purity" nonsense. Anyway those tiny parts of Syria and Iraq that they inhabit or claim, historically this is Semitic (Assyrian etc.) land. I can guarantee you that many Kurds of today are Kurdified Arabs and Assyrians in Iraq and Syria. As genetics confirm. Anyway let them leave if they do not want to identity as Iraqis or Syrians. Just ensure that temporary lost Iraqi and Syrian land will be retaken and given to the right owner.

 

[gangsta_rap]

Well said and I am very glad to know that the Iraqis still hold these aspirations. Very admirable actually!!
Iraq has its legacy to consider-some tiny pseudo state like Kuwait should never have been created back in the day. Its only natural that Iraq will regain what is rightfully theres.

 

[El Sidd]

Wow

1991 again.

Bring back Fresh Prince of Bell Air

 

[Saif al-Arab]

Wow

1991 again.

Bring back Fresh Prince of Bell Air

Many of us here (I suspect) were not born in 1991. Anyway there will be no such war between Iraq and Kuwait again. It was a stupid decision by Saddam/those in power and a waste of time, life and resources on both sides. Let alone the environmental damage. Such a thing must never be allowed to occur again.

 

[El Sidd]

Many of us here (I suspect) were not born in 1991. Anyway there will be no such war between Iraq and Kuwait again. It was a stupid decision by Saddam/those in power and a waste of time, life and resources on both sides. Let alone the environmental damage. Such a thing must never be allowed to occur again.

Let them atleast try

 

[jamal18]

I though Kuwait was a protectorate of GB until Kuwait got it's independence from GB.

My understanding is that Kuwait was the 19th province of a Turkish ruled Iraq. Iraqi independence was an unhappy affair, and Britain needed a base in the northern Gulf to maintain a military presence in the area. Hence Kuwait.

Kuwait was created to fulfill the strategic needs of Britain.

 

[Saif al-Arab]

My understanding is that Kuwait was the 19th province of a Turkish ruled Iraq. Iraqi independence was an unhappy affair, and Britain needed a base in the northern Gulf to maintain a military presence in the area. Hence Kuwait.

Kuwait was created to fulfill the strategic needs of Britain.

No such thing as "Turkish" rule. It was Ottoman rule and most Ottoman citizens were Arabs. The local rulers were Arabs as well.

Kuwait was actually never a part of any formal Iraqi state in history other than for a few months in 1990 and early 1991.

The Basra Wilayah (existed between 1875-1880 and 1884-1918), if implemented today would compose areas in 4 countries. Iraq, Kuwait, KSA and Qatar.

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

Kuwait (the land that makes up Kuwait) is part of the Arabian Peninsula (as is much of Southern Iraq) and more specifically the historical region of Eastern Arabia that stretches from Southern Iraq to Oman. This region since the ancient Sumerians had very close ties.

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

As for modern-day Kuwait, it came to existence post-Bani Khaled lose of control of Kuwait (after having defeated the Portuguese who controlled the ports for a time before that) and was cemented post Al-Sabah rule. The first Al-Sabah emir of Kuwait ruled between 1752-1762.

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

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

Anyway my points about this topic are clear for all and you can read about them in post 33 and 35 if you are interested.

Let them atleast try

Bad idea. Barzanistani will and should be the priority post-Daesh.

 

[mahatir]

Which?

You mean Saudi? Cause the other gulf states are small, not sure what they want to partition in such small countries. Either way I said it before, there is no Sunni-Shia division in Iraq to the point where they start seeking their own state, there is not motivation for that as both claim Iraqi identity thus that is not going to happen either. Kurdish separatism is the only threat, they should be overrun militarily someday soon like in the good old days.

Problem foreign powers are igniting ethnic and sectarian divisions all over the Arab world to weaken and divide our countries .

The problem with Kurds they are protected by USA , if it was not for that iraq , iran and turkey would easily get rid of them .

I think economic siege should be enough to bring kurds down on their knees , the only thing I fear Erdogan flip flopping on this matter.

I don't see a connection. When Yemen was divided into two (North and South Yemen) and before that into even more entities (much like the rest of Arabia and Arab world) this did not have an impact. When North and South Yemen united in 1990, there was no real push for other areas of Arabia to unite while in theory Arabia could and maybe should be one united entity again if people had a say. I am here talking about a federal state.

As for Kuwait, well Kuwait is geographically a part of the Arabian Peninsula (as is much of Southern Iraq) and population wise, most of the people are originally from Najd (including the ruling family) but the same is the case with Southern Iraq. Honestly speaking if we take a look at ancient history as well as more recent (last 1400 years of Islamic rule), culture, language, geography, weather, genetics etc. the entire Arab Near East could easily be a single country or federal entity as initially planned post Arab Revolt if not for British treachery and French involvement in the region. Many more (in fact most countries of the world) are more diverse countries than what such a hypothetical country would be IMO.

I don't want to disrespect anyone here (my theory is that entities come and go - KSA included) but I won't ever look at Bahrain, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar or even Oman and Yemen as foreign entities. To me this is all geographic Arabia. Arabian Plate countries etc. Same with Jordan, Southern and Eastern Syria and most of Iraq (albeit only Southern and Western Iraq is geographically part of the Arabian Peninsula).

National nationalism is fair enough but I really find it hard to take Qatari nationalism (for instance) seriously when they are identical to Saudi Arabians. Their entire identity is based on the Al-Thani leadership and their control of Qatar.

Sure, the territory of Qatar has an ancient history (like all of Arabia - after all this is the second longest inhabited place on earth after East/Horn of Africa) but in the future (for various reasons) Qatar will not be able to survive on its own and eventually the GCC/Arabia (at least - not sure about the remaining parts of the Arab world) will unite once again like throughout the many millennia.

Much of the nationalism based on recent nation states is fake. What matters here is history, culture, language, ethnicity. Therefore Arab and even Semitic nationalism would be preferred and more historically accurate. I know that many disagree. However those people do not realize that 1000's of various nation states and entities have come and gone in the Arab world since the first civilizations and nations states in the world appeared in our part of the world. So will the current ones if history is anything to go by. Therefore their nationalism is by large a fake construct or at least incomplete. History, language, geography, genetics and culture however is not fake although culture and languages can change.
Had a discussion about this with a Qatari who himself admitted that his great-grandfather was originally from the Eastern Province. So this guy in theory (if a war erupted) would fight his ancestral land and his own brothers and sisters, if his regime (Al-Thani) forced him to do so. Wrong as Trump would say it.

In other related topics, sectarianism must not only be fought (it is highlighted all the time which is good and it has an effect) but also tribal, clan, regional, national divisions which are nonsense as well. Look at Europe. Nationalism on the rise and now many minorities want their own tiny little land and redraw the maps.

Catalans (culturally, linguistically, geographically and genetically) more or less identical to their Spaniard neighbors (not to say that 50% of Catalonia's population is originally from Spain - migrants mainly from Andalusia and Extremadura looking for work in the industrialized Catalonia - you can figure this out easily by just looking at their surnames) and now those idiots want to destroy the unity of Spain. Nonsense. Similarly we have idiots in the Arab world who want their own little fiefdoms. Not going to happen and won't be tolerated.

Today in 2017 you can spot arrogant, dumb and ignorant Lebanese looking down on Syrians and treating them badly, yet 100 years ago there was no such division and people knew that they are more or less the same people. This is what fake nation state based nationalism does. To hell with such "nationalism", I say!

I predict Arab states to unite in the future and not the opposite here because not only would that be historically accurate, it makes economic and political sense as well. If we just look at what the average person focuses on in his life (economic stability and political stability usually takes the priority) rather than history etc.

What will happen with that policy is that Europe will lose more unity and importance when they are already losing this and will continue to lose it due to demographics (smaller populations and thus smaller economies). It should be the other way around in our region, especially considering past events and more recent ones in this regard.

There are extremist groups in the West seeking to divide our countries . I understand what you mean but these conflicts were designed by outside powers and some countries in our region such as Qatar helped financing and creating fertile ground for sectarian and ethnic conflicts.

We need to put our differences aside and help Iraq against KRG and once iraq succeeds in dealing with KRG it will eventually end foreign plans of partitioning our region.

I am no fan of Iraqi government , but a united iraq is better for our region .

What drives me crazy seeing Kurdish forces taking over Arab land in riqqah and dier el zor and claiming these lands are kurdish . These kurds need to be put in their place , I have never seen an arrogant group like the kurds .

 

[mike2000 is back]

This is very true.

On YouTube, you can find a lot of videos of how Iraqis were tortured and killed in the 1990s by the Baathist authorities. Very similar to ISIS.

The Baathists were brutal.

I feel sad for Iraq. The country's got so much potential, but it's ridden with violence.

Khaleeji culture will never allow for this kind of violence.

Well, it's open knowledge that ISIS top commanders were mostly former baathist military figures of Saddam's regime who were disbanded by the U.S/British invasion of Iraq. It was a big mistake the west made in not only invading Iraq and toppling Saddam, but also in dismantling the baathist regime irregardless of how brutal they were, they should have been kept intact and their leader replaced by a different figure head to keep the country stable and united.

Anyway, Iraq's brutal baathist regime is not alone. Their baathists brothers in Assad's Syria are not that far behind as well.

If Iraq gets officially partitioned then the Gulf Countries will be next

Not so sure, since Gulf states are already quite small in size, so there is no real demand for partition there. Plus, fortunately for them, they are quite wealthy with good living standards. It's no wonder they are the most stable countries in the region.

 

[Saif al-Arab]

There are extremist groups in the West seeking to divide our countries . I understand what you mean but these conflicts were designed by outside powers and some countries in our region such as Qatar helped financing and creating fertile ground for sectarian and ethnic conflicts.

We need to put our differences aside and help Iraq against KRG and once iraq succeeds in dealing with KRG it will eventually end foreign plans of partitioning our region.

I am no fan of Iraqi government , but a united iraq is better for our region .

What drives me crazy seeing Kurdish forces taking over Arab land in riqqah and dier el zor and claiming these lands are kurdish . These kurds need to be put in their place , I have never seen an arrogant group like the kurds .

Designed or not, I think that we can all agree that they must be stopped and here the people (as in the masses) must play a key role. If that happens no amount of meddling whether external or internal will succeed.

I was like you once. If I disliked a leader or a regime (both temporary in nature) I tended to be overly negative and critical sometimes forgetting the larger picture. Let me give you an example. Take Syria for instance and the Al-Assad regime. I am not a fan to put it mildly but Syria's integrity and well-being and that of our Syrian brothers and sisters should at all times take priority. If the Al-Assad regime for whatever reasons (as of now) is the best solution for such a thing to occur, I will leave my personal criticism and opinions aside. If more Arabs whether internally (in the countries at conflict) or externally (outside of those countries at conflict) would understand that (in particular leaderships and regimes), it would be much better.

I see this behavior and actions (pragmatism and always putting the interests of the people and country above rivalries) coming from Egypt (Al-Sisi) and KSA (King Salman and MbS) lately. Whether in relations with Sudan (now cordial) or Iraq (now cordial once again). This is the way forward.

As for the Kurds and Arab-majority inhabited territory in Syria and Iraq, have no worries. Things will return to normal. Also don't forget that 1/3 of the population of KRG/Barzanistan is Arab and this percentage is growing. Those people are not going anywhere. Or that the SDF is actually composed (mostly) of Syrian Arabs from Northern and Eastern Syria rather than Syrian Kurds. YPG is more or less the "pure" Kurdish group here.

BTW personally I don't see what Iraq would lose if they lost tiny landlocked KRG which is non-fertile and a territory with very few natural resources. Kirkuk should be the priority here. Once that is fully returned to Baghdad most Iraqis would not have a problem with tiny KRG becoming an "independent" (we all know that such a thing will never happen - I mean them becoming a truly independent country with everything this entails) as long as the disputed territories are returned to Baghdad which could easily happen militarily. The key player here will be the US as usual.

Kurds (KRG/Barzanistan) is an economic burden on Iraq as things stand. That has been the case ever since the current useless constitution was created. Neither are they loyal citizens (not talking about 1/3 of the population currently which is Arab or the Assyrians).

Not so sure, since Gulf states are already quite small in size, so there is no real demand for partition there. Plus, fortunately for them, they are quite wealthy with good living standards. It's no wonder they are the most stable countries in the region.

No GCC states are going to be divided. Rather the opposite. See post 33 and 35. Anyway not only GCC countries but Arab countries in general. I explained that in detail in those two posts if it has any interest. @TheCamelGuy alluded to this as well as you can see.

 

[TheCamelGuy]

لعلي بالغت في بعض ماقلت، ولكن من واقع التأمل والمشاهدة، واستقراء التاريخ والواقع، أرى في العراقيين طباعًا مختلفة عن كثير من الناس. وكما قلت فلدى العراقيين جانب من التميز والذكاء ومحبة الاطلاع والمقدرة العلمية والمهارات الحوارية العالية (ماضيا وحاضرًا، وإن كان هذا الجانب أكثر وضوحًا في التاريخ منه في الحاضر). ولكن لربما كانت هذه هي عين المشكلة، فكم من عاقل أورده عقله موارد التهلكة، وكم من جاهل بسيط أوصله جهله إلى سلم النجاة من دون أن يشعر.

من المؤلم ولربما – كان من الظلم - أن نجزم وأن نعمم، ولكن في الوقت ذاته من الصعب على النفس أن تنكر ماترى بعينها. لكل أمة من الأمم خصائص مشتركة موروثة جينيًا وثقافيًا. وبغض النظر عن دعايات القوميين التي لا تصمد أمام النقد، فالعراقيون ليسوا كعرب الجزيرة، وليسوا كالمصريين ولا المغاربة ولا كأهل الشام. هم باختصار ورثة سكان واد الرافدين الأوائل الذين تفاعلوا مع محيطهم، وتطبعوا معه، وأعطوه كثيرًا، كما أخذوا منه كثيرًا. كانت الجزيرة العربية وإيران أحد المؤثرات الكبرى في العراق وفي أهله، وذلك بحكم عامل الدين المشترك والهجرات المتتالية، ولكن بالرغم من ذلك، ظلت سمات الشخصية العراقية واضحة بارزة لكل من شاهد. العراقيون قوم شديدوا البأس فهم إلى الثورة والعصيان أقرب منهم للطاعة والرضى. لا يطيعون حاكما ولا يذكرونه بخير إلا بعد أن يموت أو يقتل فيبكون على أيامه. لديهم نزعة نحو العنف والمبالغة في ردة الفعل والانتقام والتشفي – وربما السادية –. ولديهم كذلك شجاعة متهورة لا تعترف بالعواقب، ومبالغة في الشعور بجرح الكرامة. انظر إلى الفرس في الجهة الأخرى – وقد قلت فيهم مالم يقله مالك في الخمر–، فلا تجد فيهم إلا عكس هذه الطباع، فهم أهل المداراة والحيلة مع العدو والخصم وكتمان ما في الصدور حتى تحين اللحظة المناسبة ذات العواقب المحدودة. وهم مع ذلك قوم لا تنقصهم طيبة وحسن تعامل، إلا في الحروب والأزمات. أما العراقي فهو ثورة كامنة، وبرميل بارود منذ مهده حتى لحده، ينتظر فقط شرارة صغيرة تشعله. وهو مع ذلك طيب القلب ذو فكاهة وهزل. ليس لديه عدو دائم ولا صديق دائم ​

Even if all that is true, then just work with us instead of against us. The last decade of GCC policy has been to promote the anti-Shi'a narrative in Iraq which not only angers the majority of Shias, it angers nationalists who feel you're working against their state and it results in the suffering of Sunnis.