Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do Iraq and Syria have any actual existence as countries anymore, or are they essentially nothing but political fictions now? It seems like as far as governance goes they are practically failed states ruled by different groups depending on where you are. They don't have any real existence as nations either since Iraq and Syria are multi-ethnic and in many cases the ethnic groups are enemies.
I would argue they could be said in the same breath as Yugoslavia, Somalia and the USSR now.
Do Iraq and Syria have any actual existence as countries anymore, or are they essentially nothing but political fictions now? It seems like as far as governance goes they are practically failed states ruled by different groups depending on where you are. They don't have any real existence as nations either since Iraq and Syria are multi-ethnic and in many cases the ethnic groups are enemies.
I would argue they could be said in the same breath as Yugoslavia, Somalia and the USSR now.
Iraq and Syria have functioning governments which exert sovereign control over territory, albeit not all of their territory and albeit it in a rather dysfunctional manner even where they have control (this doesn't differentiate them from many governments in the developing world, it should be noted). A better analogy might be that they're rump states which still might reconquer their rebellious territory - think of the United States in 1863 or Sri Lanka in 1995. So, for example, Iraqi control of Mosul would be a fiction if anyone was asserting that the Iraqi government and not ISIS controlled the city. But that it remains legally Iraqi is not a fiction.
Basically, there is a dispute with multiple powers claiming the same land. The right to the land is a legal matter under international law, similar to my legal right to a car even if it is stolen and currently possessed by someone else. I don't have it, physically, but I still own it and the law recognizes it as belonging to me. Now, it could be that ultimately ISIS or its successor becomes a recognized power, even recognized in Baghdad and Damascus. Theoretically, anyway - this seems highly unlikely.
Basically, there is a dispute with multiple powers claiming the same land. The right to the land is a legal matter under international law, similar to my legal right to a car even if it is stolen and currently possessed by someone else. I don't have it, physically, but I still own it and the law recognizes it as belonging to me. Now, it could be that ultimately ISIS or its successor becomes a recognized power, even recognized in Baghdad and Damascus. Theoretically, anyway - this seems highly unlikely.
Wasn't this the argument made for the Baltics not actually being part of the USSR during 1940-1990? That they were essentially seized by force and thus never truly become legit parts of the Soviet Union.
I would agree. There are active civil wars in both countries so indeed they are in flux. They do both still have functioning central governments however that claim the entirety of the land. How long they last though is anybodys guess.
They do as long as they are both officially recognized as political entities by the United Nations, there are civil wars in both countries and it looks like they could last for long although i think the current government of those countries will manage to regain the territories they have lost, it doesn't seem a sure thing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.