The Problems With The Middle East

Jumping back to my points raised about the Kurds seeking independance: Kurdish separatists have claimed responsibilty for the gigantic fire at the Attaturk Airport in Turkey this week. It's an issue that is sure to only gain momentum as the Iran nuclear non-issue gets artificially hyped to the "red-line" stage.

[edit on 25/5/06 by subz]

I find some notions in this thread that struck a cord with myself; I do believe that the Middle East is reactionary towards western political concepts after being molested decades afore. Democracy, a simple yet highly lauded political concept, is not the bearer of freedoms and liberties, but conscious revolutions are. Democracy has, not only in the case of Hamas, brought upon the world a plethora of leaders with suspect nature - Hitler to Bush alike ( though I do not presuppose commonality of behaviour, logic and intent therein ) - but has proven itself to be a far more complex machine which has become disinfranchised from the common man.

Luxifero

[edit on 27-5-2006 by Luxifero]

Democracy is just a fancy name for mob-rule. Mob-rule has no automatic or guaranteed compulsion to strive for the greater good. If 51% of people wanted to elect a replica of Adolf Hitler our political system would have to accept that. People nowadays are by and large irresponsible, stupid, ill-informed, selfish and distracted. Any cashed up person with a half competent PR firm can get elected into government. No one pays attention to policies any more. They either vote along party lines or who ever "looks good".

The best form of government I believe is one with a codified set of rights and expectations of government. Then custodian representatives are elected to execute the intention of that codified set of rights and expectations. These custodians would be elected as normal but for life long terms. However they could be voted out of office if they are found to be breaching said codes.

Currently our government exists in a "work in progress" and forever changing mode where the vast majority of our politicians times are spent arguing over, or proposing changing things that usually arent broken. Have you never stopped to think that in the 100 odd years of universal sufferage that no country has a working and unchanged tax system? How about health care policies? Why are these basic questions not answered once and for all? Why the constant flux? Is it jobsworthies making busy work to justify their existance? I believe it is.

We should, as a nation, authour a complete list of what we expect our government to do: maintain roads, provide essential services, defend the nation etc. We should outline liberties that shall not be impinged upon. We should do this once, from the outset. It then cannot be changed, modified, twisted or nullified without another national debate.

With all the guidlines set the only job politicians would have to do is to execute the blueprint of a nation. How good would it be when every one knows what to do, when to do it, and no constant bickering? No political parties as you cannot modify the way the country is run without asking the entire nation to endorse it. Gotta be better than our democracies are now where the richest get the say in what goes.

[edit on 27/5/06 by subz]

Originally posted by subz
Democracy is just a fancy name for mob-rule. Mob-rule has no automatic or guaranteed compulsion to strive for the greater good. If 51% of people wanted to elect a replica of Adolf Hitler our political system would have to accept that. People nowadays are by and large irresponsible, stupid, ill-informed, selfish and distracted. Any cashed up person with a half competent PR firm can get elected into government. No one pays attention to policies any more. They either vote along party lines or who ever "looks good".

The best form of government I believe is one with a codified set of rights and expectations of government. Then custodian representatives are elected to execute the intention of that codified set of rights and expectations. These custodians would be elected as normal but for life long terms. However they could be voted out of office if they are found to be breaching said codes.

Currently our government exists in a "work in progress" and forever changing mode where the vast majority of our politicians times are spent arguing over, or proposing changing things that usually arent broken. Have you never stopped to think that in the 100 odd years of universal sufferage that no country has a working and unchanged tax system? How about health care policies? Why are these basic questions not answered once and for all? Why the constant flux? Is it jobsworthies making busy work to justify their existance? I believe it is.

We should, as a nation, authour a complete list of what we expect our government to do: maintain roads, provide essential services, defend the nation etc. We should outline liberties that shall not be impinged upon. We should do this once, from the outset. It then cannot be changed, modified, twisted or nullified without another national debate.

With all the guidlines set the only job politicians would have to do is to execute the blueprint of a nation. How good would it be when every one knows what to do, when to do it, and no constant bickering? No political parties as you cannot modify the way the country is run without asking the entire nation to endorse it. Gotta be better than our democracies are now where the richest get the say in what goes.

[edit on 27/5/06 by subz]

Democracy is not mob rule. If you lived in the us you would come to realize that it is the minority that gets it's way more times than not. From no pray in class to things to do with the flag and the constitution. There are many things that the majority in the US do not get. It is not mob rule, at least not in the US.

If Isreal never exsited in the Middle East, how do you think it would be different. I have my ideas on the subject, but would like to hear yours.

Originally posted by steve99
Democracy is not mob rule. If you lived in the us you would come to realize that it is the minority that gets it's way more times than not. From no pray in class to things to do with the flag and the constitution. There are many things that the majority in the US do not get. It is not mob rule, at least not in the US.

That is confusing two different issues. In a democracy, the power to write laws is granted to politicians via popular vote. However, those politicians are lobbied by lobby groups to get what they want. But, these politicians are voted back into power so that cements the mob rule comparison.

Yet even if they were voted out of power, that is the mob overuling a law. What if a lobby group successfully lobbied for a just, reasonable but unpopular law? Then the politicians that supported that law are voted out of office? That is still mob rule, and it is lacking safeguards for maintaining a just and moral society.

Originally posted by steve99
If Isreal never exsited in the Middle East, how do you think it would be different. I have my ideas on the subject, but would like to hear yours.

If Israel never existed I think the major problem the Middle East would have with the West is our actions done to secure access to their oil wealth.

With, or without Israel as a pretext, the Western nations would of supported dictators over democratically elected leaders if it meant secured access to oil. Even without Israel the West would of still fought wars in the Middle East, under pretexts, to prevent the Middle East from controlling its oil wealth.

The West has always exploited the rest of the World. There is nothing in my mind that would say the existance of Israel has any bearing on that, other than to serve as a convenient excuse.

[edit on 13/6/06 by subz]

Nothing personal subz, but when you mentioned Somalia, you cited that they "brought the U.S. military to its' knees". Why would you state that? That never happened. The U.S. pulled out because of political pressure, not because the U.S. MILITARY was on its' knees.

I know this seems very picky but it annoys me when people claim the U.S. military has been decimated/defeated/slaughtered/or any other form of being excessively defeated. The U.S. military has never been "defeated". Our politicians have always backed down. Even Vietnam was a political reason for us leaving, not because the U.S. military was on its' knees.

Those warlords would be crushed in an hour if the U.S. military really wanted to do so.

Originally posted by WeBDeviL
Nothing personal subz, but when you mentioned Somalia, you cited that they "brought the U.S. military to its' knees". Why would you state that? That never happened. The U.S. pulled out because of political pressure, not because the U.S. MILITARY was on its' knees.

I know this seems very picky but it annoys me when people claim the U.S. military has been decimated/defeated/slaughtered/or any other form of being excessively defeated. The U.S. military has never been "defeated". Our politicians have always backed down. Even Vietnam was a political reason for us leaving, not because the U.S. military was on its' knees.

Those warlords would be crushed in an hour if the U.S. military really wanted to do so.

That is a fair point, if I had the power to edit that post I would do so for you.

However, a military can be brought to its knees in more ways than decimation/rout/annihilation. A military is behold to more than just its military strength. Finance, logistics, politics and morale all have an impact on a military force, a severe deficit in any of those things can bring an army to its knees. In the case of Somalia and Vietnam it was a severe lack of political will that halted the US military.

But you have to ask yourself why the political will evapourated in the case of Somalia. If the United States military had not lost soldiers in basic circumstances the political will would of been there to the end of mission. They screwed up and it ended the whole Somali mission.

Point 1
Follow the arms dealers.

Who makes the weapons? Who sells them? Is arms dealing even more profitable than oil? WorldWatch.org

Then how did the Middle East get so many weapons? did we sell them in massive quantities? Is the civil war in Iraq being fueled by the weapons cache that we can't even control, protect, or destroy?

Who do oil countries in Africa get their weapons from? We all hear about Algeria, etc. militants right? Even Central and south American militants must buy weapons from somewhere?

They say follow the money to get your answers , I say follow the weapon sales.

Point 2
If Pakistan already has nuclear weapons, why haven't they blowed up Israel yet? Don't they already have many Islamic extremists for the US to worry about?

what's so civil about civil war?

My two cents on the issue:

Everyone has this goofy sence of territorial entitlement. Everyone is yelling "these are our ancetrial homelands! And we'll never leave!" This is particulartly true regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict but also has revelance in conflicts between Iran/Iraq, Iraq/Kuwait, Kurds/Everyone else, Egypt/Israel, Saudi Araibia/Yemen, and a couple more I'm sure.

But the problem is that everyone was conquered by everyone at one time!
Egypt
Assyrian Empire
Kingdom of David
Babylon
Persia
Greece
Rome
Great Caliphate
Ottomans
British
French
US

Everyone here conquered someone else. No one has any claim to any land in this region. It is the most conquered area of the world. Thus the whole Middle East needs to have a summit and ask the fundamental question:
"Why the hell are we still abiding by these European imposed boarders, nationalities, governments, etc.?"

They need to actually for once look internally and acknowledge that much of their problems have a domestic solution. First, they need to kick the West out and (as moron boy Bush said) 'get down to governing.'

Sudan: Scene of the World's most recent genocide. A brewing storm on the horizon as UN troops are poised to enter the country by force if necessary.

It is not in middle east.

Ethiopia: A country brought to the World's attention in the 1980's due to endemic starvation. This once starving country fought a protracted war against its miniscule neighbour - Eritrea.

Not in middle east.

Eritrea: Just over a decade old, the tiny nation state of Eritrea gained independence from Ethiopia in 1993. Sudan accuses Eritrea of supporting Sudanese rebels. This young country of 4.5 million people could be swallowed up by any number of its larger neighbours.

A large part of Ethiopia's population are christians.

Somalia: Yet another starving nation on the Horn of Africa. The warlords of this nation apparently brought the United States military to its knees. The warlords calculated correctly that the American public did not have an appetite for war in their post-Cold War bubble.

Not in middle east.

Djibouti: A one party dominated authoritarian dictatorship until as recently as 1999. The old French colonial territory is home to the only US base in sub-Saharan Africa. This nation of less than half a million people is one of the major assets in the War on Terror. Potentially a flash point in the ever widening global conflagration.

Not in middle east.

Yemen: A nation founded from two states in 1990, it was the scene of the USS Cole bombing terrorist attack. This Islamic nation produces a large number of Islamic terrorists.

Not in middle east.

And it is not the nation that produces terrorists. No nation officially produces terrorists.

Oman: Quite possibly the most peaceful nation in the Middle East. A sultanate, Oman maintains a close military and political relationship with the UK.

...where are your democratical sensibilities here???

United Arab Emirates: Most recently the UAE has come to the fore because of the hotly disputed take-over-bid of British firm P&O. The deal would place the UAE in control of 6 major American ports, including ports across the Globe. The UAE is a key American ally in the War on Terror. The major ongoing dispute concerning the UAE is with Iran's occupation of it's northern islands.

Your critical ally is the world's #1 terrorism sponsor with the Saudis.

Saudi Arabia: The birth place of Wahabi Islam, Saudi Arabia is also the birth place of Osama Bin Laden. The nation enjoys extremely close ties with the United States, and in particular the Bush family. The Saudi's are fighting an internal struggle against Islamic militants who protest the presence of Americans in the Middle East.

See comment above.

Israel: Quite arguably the focus point of Western interest in the entirety of Middle Eastern conflict. The partition of the Palestinian mandate into Jewish and Arab states was created by a UN assembly vote in 1947. A negotiated peace treaty between Israel and the rest of the Middle East, including the creation of Palestine, would be the single biggest blow to militant Islam.

Oh yeah, poor Israel!!! they have got you by the balls, they control your media and your banks, they have a large stock of nuclear weapons...

Iraq: The once US-backed nation of Iraq fought a protracted war against Iran in the late 1980's. It's long-time dictator, Saddam Hussein, was deposed in an American-led invasion force in 2003. The nation now stands on the precipice of civil war as Sunni and Shiah muslims vie for control of the fledgling Iraqi government. Second only to Israel as the biggest source of Islamic militant anger.

You (convieniently) forgot a few facts:

-Iraq was the islamic nation with the largest per head capital in the 70s. It was called 'the Switcherland of 'middle east'.

-United States fueled the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1989 in fear of the Sach. Saddam was good then, wasn't he???

Iran has come to the fore recently due to its nuclear enrichment programme. The process of nuclear fuel enrichment is expressly provided for under the NPT, which it signed, but due to the history of animosity between the US and Iran the United States protests this nuclear enrichment. The United States asserts that the Iranians are aiming for nuclear weapons and that they should not be allowed to enrich uranium.

Double standards and hypocrisy. Either all nations can have nukes or none can have nukes.

Turkey: The only muslim nation to be included in the EU if accession talks are successful. Turkey is held up by the West as the role model for how muslim nations should be run.

Holly crap! now you've done it! ignorance at best!

A prosperous nation

...with 1000% inflation

with a secular government

...with many attempts to dictatorships the last 30 years, many of them successful.

And let's not forget they are the only country which permits white prison cells.

, Turkey is the darling of Europe.

nobody wants Turkey in EU, except the British. You understand the reasons, I hope.

Turkey however is fighting against Kurdish militants who are seeking to create a Kurdish state which would span Turkish and Iraqi territory. This rebel presence was the main opposition point of Turkish involvement in the 2003 Iraq invasion.

Don't Kurds deserve their own state???

You conveniently forgot that Turkey is illegally occupying northern Cyrpus from 1974 with a military invasion.



[edit on 17-7-2006 by masterp]

Originally posted by masterp
A large part of Ethiopia's population are christians.

Wow thank your for that insightful addition. Did I say they werent?

Originally posted by masterp
...where are your democratical sensibilities here???

"Democratical"? Oops im sorry thats not a word you must be talking crap again...

Originally posted by masterp
Your critical ally is the world's #1 terrorism sponsor with the Saudis.

My critical ally? Huh?

Originally posted by masterp
Oh yeah, poor Israel!!! they have got you by the balls, they control your media and your banks, they have a large stock of nuclear weapons...

! If you had ANY IDEA of my stance on the topic of Israel before shooting your mouth off in spectacularly bad form you'd know how ironic your quoted statement is. I have to ask, did you think you were adding anything of value to this thread here?

Originally posted by masterp
You (convieniently) forgot a few facts:

-Iraq was the islamic nation with the largest per head capital in the 70s. It was called 'the Switcherland of 'middle east'.

Why "conveniently forgot"? And you spelt "conveniently" wrong guy you might not want to play semantics with such bad spelling. Also what is a "Switcherland"? Is that anything like a Switzerland by any chance?

Originally posted by masterp
-United States fueled the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1989 in fear of the Sach. Saddam was good then, wasn't he???

Hmm you got me, your finely honed and biting attack piece has outted me for the pro-Israeli, pro-neocon shill that I am....oh the humanity!

Originally posted by masterp
Double standards and hypocrisy. Either all nations can have nukes or none can have nukes.

Yoiks! I've also been outed as an Iran-hater Yeah because I have spent the last 12 months stating that Iran has a right to a nuclear program and that Iran gaining nuclear weapons would reduce the threat of nuclear war.

Originally posted by masterp
Holly crap! now you've done it! ignorance at best!

*sigh* And how is that? I didnt say I believed Turkey was a role model I said it is held up by the West as one. But dont let that get in the way of attacking me personally...

Originally posted by masterp
Don't Kurds deserve their own state???

Wow yes I did say Kurd's dont deserve their own state didnt I?....Oh wait, no I didnt. So why the attitude buddy?

If you want to get your points across try and not come off like a complete jerk.

And just for the record:

Main Entry: Middle East
Function: geographical name
the countries of SW Asia & N Africa -- usually considered to include the countries extending from Libya on the W to Afghanistan on the E
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

From North Africa to Aghanistan hey? Well I guess you'd be wrong in your little "Not in the Middle East" comments right?

Originally posted by bg_socalif

No Muslim majority nations voted for the creation of Israel.

I would hope not. Especially since Islam wants the Jews destroyed. Voting for the creation of Israel would be hypocritical.

And of course we all know that no religion is hypocritical don't we?

Hello. I am new here, but I would like to ask that you to please back up your claims with sources. You state that "Islam wants the Jews destroyed," and yet I can show you otherwise:

Surah - 9:11 "But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor due, then they are your brethren in religion. We detail Our revelations for a people who have knowledge."

Surah - "Al Baqarah" 2:62 "Those who believe, Jews, Nazarenes and Sabaeans - whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good deeds - shall be rewarded by their Lord; they have nothing to fear nor are they saddened."

I believe you were trying to imply that Muslims do not support the actions of Israel and its government. The problem that arises is that many have come to believe that opposing anything Israeli means that they would be labeled as anti-Semitic. As an off topic subject, I would like to note that the term "anti-Semitic" also refers to Arabs as well. Both Hebrew and Arabic stemmed from the Semitic language. Although Israel does state that they are advocating and creating a "Jewish-state," many fail to note that there are also other faiths that exist in Israel. I haven't seen many news agencies report this, but during my visit to Israel in 2003, I was shocked to see the amount of segregation that Israel imposed on non-Jews. The laws there deny any non-Jewish citizen from owning land, running for government, teaching certain faiths in public, or even opening a business in some areas. Israel calls itself a "democracy," and yet I fail to see how it's a democracy when any faith other than Judaism is treated as second class.

Am I correct in assuming you meant this?

Well, the war in Lebanon is boiling over and innocent civilians are getting wasted- no thanks to Hezbollah. They started it, now, Isreal will finish it. This is what happens when you give a terrorist some lee way. They take advantage of it and then hide among innocent civilians as human shields. On the same note, Israel didn't have to "over react" either. But, on the same note, Hezbolah should not have fired "the first shot" either- nor kidnap Israeli soldiers. But, if Israel thinks they can wipe out most if not all of Hezbolah, they are sadly mistaken. Terrorists are viruses. Just when you think that you have a treatment to battle or destroy it, the virus becomes IMMUNE and even stronger. I would probably guess that with every 100 terrorists that drop on the ground in a day, 500 rise up to take their place. And with every 500 terrorists that drop in a day, 2000 more rise up to take their place. See? Israel and President Bush are niave to think that they can rectify the problem.

The only way for Israel to get rid of Hezbolah and other anti semetic regimes, would be to wipe out the entire Arab race- not saying that they should. Even though Iran's President is calling for Israel to be "wiped out". Nobody wants anybody to wipe out anybody. But I'm simply saying that if Israel thinks they can weed out Hezbolah and destroy them for good, forget it. As long as the sun sets and the sun rises, Hezbolah, Alqueda and other Muslim terrorists will be around and training their offspring to kill the Jews. Like cockroaches and rats, you can't get rid of them. You can try, but they breed like jackrabbits.

Israel should just pull out of Lebanon. They got their message across to Hezbolah which was "don't mess with Israel". Their overreaction was simply that- over reaction. Kids got killed and some UN observers got killed in Lebanon. And Condalisa Rice- saying NO to a cease fire last week with her big buck teeth and flabby 1970's hair style?. Hey Ms. Rice,- "butt out"- you ain't Jewish- "butt out". I'm not Jewish either, but, Ms. Rice should try to tell the Israelis to "stop"- not "continue". Sure, I don't like the Muslim extremists- they're abunch of- you wanna talk KKK, Spike??? There's your KKK- right there. Well, somewhat. They (the Sunni and Shiite extremists) deny the Holacaust (like the KKK), they believe that they are the supreme religious race (like the KKK), they believe that they reign supreme over any other belief system (like the KKK), they hate the Jews (definately like the KKK), and they lynch scores of people with fists, knives, guns, and bombs (like the KKK.- in the 19th and 20th century). The only thing missing with those Muslim extremist terrorists (not regular Muslims) is the Burning Crescent Moon at night time instead of the 'burning cross', followed by men and women dressed in brown hoods and robes. But Israel should and must pull out of Lebanon. This bloodshed is getting rediculous.

Wisconsin


[edit on 6-8-2006 by Wisconsin2]

If the Irgun can make the transition from terrorist to "freedom fighters" then so can the Palestinians



With regards to Israel/Lebanon, nice to see the Khazas have not lost their touch

CIA was pulling the strings again.

Hey guys, check this out! (nice joke)

Waaaaassss uuuupppp!

Hi, nice to meet everyone here.

I agree, because all of the goverments in that region of the world have neglected their peoples authority and rights. Instead, pushing more towards political and terroritorial fights. Pushing their people into economic and social opression for the elite or those who work with mobs, etc. in those goverments to the top of power. But increasing the power of religious instituitons in those countries, causing among other things terrorism and wars.

Hi all, new here. Interesting thread, I'd like to give my 2¢.

The real problem with middle east is Zionism, especially considering that Israel is the all time leader on the list of Human Rights abuses.

Woah. Pretty harsh accusation there. First off, I think you'd be hard pressed to make the case that Zionism has much to do with any ME conflicts aside from the ones it is directly involved in. Zionism is just one small facet of a much greater catalyst for strife in the modern Middle East, colonialism. But even colonialism and its legacy of arbitrary state creation can be blamed for sectarian conflict in a place famous for long standing power struggles.

As far as Israel being the all time leader on the list of HR abuses, I think you might have to elaborate there a bit. I would argue that Israel has far fewer human rights abuses than any other state in the entire region, even if we are just talking about modern times. If you compare Israel to truly evil states throughout history I can't see how you would find the Zionists the worst. Has Israel ever comitted genocide? Have they kept slaves? How about forced conversions? Indentured servitude? Denied anyone the right to practice their religion? Any of these? No. This is not to say that there aren't legitimate criticisms of Israel to be made, there are and many are serious at that. But to say that they are worse than the Khmer Rouge or Stalin or Mao is absurd.

during my visit to Israel in 2003, I was shocked to see the amount of segregation that Israel imposed on non-Jews. The laws there deny any non-Jewish citizen from owning land, running for government, teaching certain faiths in public, or even opening a business in some areas

All of these statements are either flat out untrue or have been portrayed here in a distorted way. (For example, 93% of all land is owned by the government. Almost no one owns land.) There certainly is discrimination in Israel against Israeli Arabs, and it should be addressed and criticized. And in fact it is, often by Israelis themselves. Things are changing but the ongoing conflict adds a layer of complexity to the drive for equal rights. But honesty is going to be required if we are going to make any progress. Making untrue statements such as that non-Jews can't run for office is counterproductive.

Incidentally, Palestinian Israelis have more rights than the Palestinians living in any of the surrounding Arab states. It sucks being Palestinian, I'm sure. But it sucks far less if you also happen to have Israeli citizenship. Ironic, huh?

For the record and to end this, UK never backed the state due to Zionist terrorism against the British mandate (No matter what modern Israel is, it was founded on terrorism), which resulted in the bombing of King David Hotel

Why have you chosen to focus on a single instance of terrorism out of hundreds committed during that period of time? The King David was bombed in 1946 by one of the most radical factions of all the Jewish Underground movements. Most were not terrorists. You have also conspicuously not mentioned any of the initial Arab attacks on Jewish settlements which was the catalyst for the formation of a Jewish militia. The Arab Revolt left scores of Jewish civilians dead and demonstrated a need for some kind of defense. Still, the Haganah did not fully organize until the 1929 massacre in Hebron of 67 Jews.

My point is not to absolve Zionist terrorists but to point out that they were but a small influence in the midst of a long, bloody series of decades. To divorce it from all other events and history surrounding it is a dishonest way to analyze Israeli Independance. There are valid arguments to be made on both sides of this conflict and both entities have blood on their hands. It is far from a simple situation and the resolution (if one exists) does not rest in any one group's hand.

The war between the oriental vs occidental have many facets . Middle East is troubled because that is where the achilles heel for western values & justification .

Achilles heel for orientalism is not middle east .

Would anyone care to guess where is it at ?


23432

Masterp



No wonder western world is in such a trouble ;
pick a crow for a guide , your nose shall never be free of manure says an old proverb .

Normally , i would not produce a post like this one .

However , I must take exception to the degree of distortion and revisionism.

While we are at it ; why don't you enlighten us about EOKA-B , ASALA , PKK ?




23432




[edit on 14-11-2006 by 23432]