ARABS

>>76221369
Arab countrys did not form in any way naturally, borders were more or less randomly made after colonisation was over. So even in single countries, different tribes or whatever you want to call them still hate each others guts, not even speaking about other arab cunts.

File: image.png (539KB, 630x435px) Image search: [Google]

539KB, 630x435px

>>76221369
Saying they all speak Arabic is like saying everyone in China speaks Chinese: technically there's some truth to it, but dialects are often mutually unintelligible. Anyway they don't have strong enough civil institutions to unify as we saw with the short lived union between Syria and Egypt. None of their military dictators ever want to share power.

>>76221369
no they have different culture but from our point of view they're all the same especially since they all speak the same language
those guys have a long history I don't think they can live in one country

>>76221369
Because there's already nations and kings with interests. Also too much corruption and oil.

>>76221369
They're run by dictators.
If Arab countries were open democracies they would probably have an EU style union but they don't because why would a dictator give up power for a greater union? That's the opposite of dictatorship.

Arabs for most of their history have been together under one empire then they have as separate polity's

>>76221680
>What is the Arab league

>>76221680
This guy's right. Arabs have been a single nation for 3000 years all the way to the Achaemenid Empire. Albeit borders changed a bit.

They've only been seperated for the last century.

>>76221735
League of dictators?

>>76221369
Another main issue is that rich countries don't want to share wealth with poorer countries.

>>76221792
Arabs have never ever been a single nation, they had many tribes and many different nations.

>>76221848
What? So the ottomans wasnt a single entity?

So it doesn't matter if there's different tribes if they're controlled by an empire.

>>76221920
Ottomans were turkish people, not arabs.

Western interventionism

>>76221792
>This guy's right. Arabs have been a single nation for 3000 years all the way to the Achaemenid Empire
But arabs only started spreading out of arabia at around the sassanids vs byzantium times

>>76221646
Very much this. Pan-arabism was stillborn because it required of the Arab leaders a degree of altruism and political idealism which cannot be possibly achieved by dictators and monarchs with enormous egoes.

Plus, huge differences ethnic and religious composition - there are hardly any Arab country without some kind of internal dichotomy between Christians and Muslims, Shi'as and Sunnis. Look at Iraq, Lebanon or Syria - they are dangerously unstable. Throwing the huge stabilty problems of individual states into the huge mix of the neo-Caliphate would be disastrous.

>>76221920
And the ottomans didn't control the whole Middle East. In the Arabian peninsula, they only took Mecca and median.