B.t.w., on a more useless note, i've been playing with some possible acronyms for the past hour, without success, my favorite for now is « I(ran) B(razil)E(thiopia)A(rgentina)R(ussia) E(gypt)C(hina)E(mirates)S(audi arabia)I(ndia)S(outh africa) ».
An ecesis being the successful establishment of a plant/animal in a habitat that was barren previously.
Here's some failed attempts :
- scareee ibis
- see, ibis care
- erase ibices
- i see bear, sic!
- icee braises
- ricee biases
- baeee! Crisis!
- raise, EECbis
- And i'll spare you even worse ones
Yeah, i'm not sure that they'll be called by their acronym anymore, but who cares right ? They've made an alliance with the Middle-East, now include the two largest countries in South America, and even set a second foot in Africa with the ultra-famous Ethiopia(, one of the first christian countries, a communist history, one of the few never colonized, etc.) ! Well worth more than a single toast.
The world doesn't have to be divided, it's the west who refuses to live with such differences as socialism, islamism, or whatever survived the colonization, if this alliance enables diversity( in unity) then that's a good thing.
One can love both.
Why would you love Saudi Arabia considering what its government has done to the people of Yemen?
I'm truly ashamed not to have read any book on this subject, and i still can't defend the point of view of the south, but even the north is wrong overall. If they want to be united, it would benefit both sides if that was done in diversity, and there's no reason for bordering countries to feel somehow threatened by an expansion of influence of an enemy if it's your ally, and if his(/her/..) expansion of influence is your expansion of influence.
My initial argument was that the cause for the civil war isn't primarily Saudi Arabia, they came afterwards and i'm glad that this war has stopped before claiming even more victims.
However, i'd also like to point out that, without needing to really grasp the history of that country(, i'm obviously biased towards the leftists), there's a war because both sides haven't found a way to be united in diversity. And also that, e.g., the expansion of Iran wouldn't be a threat among allies, they always held an important part among muslims, Egypt and the Arabic Peninsula as well(, every muslim know that sunnis and shias can obviously live together). The so-called expansion of Iran in Yemen wouldn't mean much if its expansion already reached Morocco, and Saudi Arabia's influence already reached Indonesia ^(, there wouldn't be a point in saying "i'm closer to this country than you", such proximities would come and go without consequences). Who cares if our laws and our point of view aren't imposed in the countries we're united with, we'll learn from each other and lead with our example, at least we'll keep our own differences(, if our arguments ^(propaganda) beat theirs [1]), it's not that bad if they keep their own differences as well.
I.d.k., is it rational to claim that every single conflict would have been solved if both sides agreed to be united in diversity ?
[1] : If a strong enough group decides to establish a community inside a country, their will and number could force the government to allow them more diversity(, but sill in unity, with a common army, a set of common laws, some common medias, celebrations, languages, projects, enterprises, associations, and other ways to ensure a lasting friendship). There wouldn't be any territorial/economic/demographic/.. loss, separatism would be rendered impossible by the country, and forbidden by international laws, as would be not allowing most possible demands of differences.
The problem, however, could be that allowing the spreading of "othernesses" in our territory(, from inside or outside,) may result in the disparition of our own differences/peculiarities. Since i can't imagine the ideals of capitalism spreading like that ^(, at least not by the workers themselves), but only ideologies that i support, such spreading would represent the popular progression of ideas towards something better/'more just/virtuous/desirable/..', as long as it's natural.
As long as a (part of a )country agrees to be united, it should be allowed to become almost as different as it could ever want, even if it contaminates or is contaminated by the rest, as long as this contamination stays natural.
Capitalists-owned countries would refuse to unite with socialists countries because they're afraid of being unable to convince the ignorant workers that it's against their interests, it's always suspicious when a side doesn't feel confident enough to defend its position(, and in this case causes wars to avoid ever having to).
Since i'm already off-topic, i'd also add that the election of a law or president ^(for representative republics) should be canceled if the results promised/predicted aren't obtained.
I'm not sure I see your point. How does that justify Saudi Arabia entering a civil war using Amerikan weapons and enforcing a shipping blockade to starve civilians?
In short : It's good not to forget, but if i never forgive then i'll always find a reason to hold a grudge against someone. I prefer to have Saudi Arabia with us than against us(, the same could be said of any country), not you ? It's up to north yemenis to hold a grudge against their support for south Yemen, but your criticism should be primarily directed at the south, and understand why the north acted like they did as well.
As a prelude for the longer answer below, i "know" just enough to understand that it's complicated, because they have a long history which needs to be understood in order to grasp the causes, i'll stop hereafter at their revolution of 2011 but i've absolutely no doubt that we would need to go further in time.
It's interesting to note that we(sterners) were supporting the royalists against the republicans in the long civil war that started in 1962 b.t.w. I have suspicions that, back then, Saudi Arabia acted in order to avoid being "contaminated" by republicanism(, like european countries after the french revolution, the west with socialism, or, supposedly, current oligarchic governments with an hypothetic direct democracy, as well as some states/civilizations towards other religions such as the anti-islamic propaganda during the middle-ages(, or internal schisms like protestantism//catholicism), etc.)
The Houthis are against Saudi Arabia, it's in the interest of the latter not to let open enemies proliferate at your borders. On the other side the Houthis('Ansar Allah'/"God's auxiliary/supporters") have a vision for a Middle-East independant from the west and were actively against the invasion of Iraq, if i understood correctly.
I won't continue this post, just end it with saying that if Saudi Arabia is united with Iran, if the North&South are allied with them and each other, and other countries as well, in a diversity which accepts the republicanism of some countries and the royalism of others, who even celebrate it, then these causes would cease to exist and these wars could end, everyone would gain as much power as if they militarily invaded every other country in the alliance, the only difference would be that these countries wouldn't end up as uniform/homogeneous ^(, at least not immediately, some contamination and progressive uniformisation may appear if effective counter-measures aren't taken). We're not uniting for reasons that i'm still searching for, and there's certainly solutions for them, i can't believe that conflicts&wars can only be solved through a homogeneity afraid of any possible internal schism, and progress.
of course I would prefer having Saudi Arabia on China's side rather than Amerika, I just don't see how SA is good for Muslims
Are you making an allusion to the destruction of ancient buildings around Mecca ?
Or is it that you may want to have a discussion on wahabbism and/or salafism, and how it's not muslim enough for you ? I undoubtedly have much to learn about everything, so i'd very much like to have an exchange if you're interested and know things about it.
In my point of view, we're praising the same God, the only being that could possibly be 'worthy of'/'defined under'/defining the highest possible title. And theocracies are disappearing, i won't give up on them as long as they don't give up on our God. Some things are too important to be held back by details on religion, or politicial, or socio-economic structures, they're wearing my colors and i'm wearing theirs as far as i'm concerned.
I'm not talking about buildings, I'm talking about their far-right domestic policies (particularly when compared to some other Muslim countries like Iran), and their actions in Yemen