Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
I think most people have a fundamental misunderstanding of the why these governments are the way they are.
|
I just fell off my chair.....somebody actually has a freaking clue and can engage in intelligent discourse on the matter.
Shocking, indeed.
90% of Americans are either totally ignorant or totally bigoted regarded the Middle East.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
The problem with the Middle-East is a few things.
First, you have all these artificial countries with borders that make absolutely no sense. I have to scratch my head wondering why in the hell a country like Iraq is split into basically Kurdistan in the north. Sunniville in the West, and Shiiastan in the south.
|
There's a home-run.
The British Empire had been seeking the destruction of the Ottoman Empire for quite some time. Using threat of force, coercion, intimidation and other tactics, the British started to make in-roads, which led to the Tanzimat Reforms (an attempt to spur innovation and get back up to speed).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
They throw these three ethnic groups together in the same country, turn it into a democracy. Pretending as if Democracy somehow makes any sense whatsoever in such an ethnically divided country. Then the largest ethnic group ends up in power, and effectively dominates everyone else. And then no one seems to understand why the minority groups are trying to overthrow the government?
|
Long before the start of WW I, the Ottoman Empire had contracted with the British government to build warships.
At the out-break of WW I, Churchill (not as PM but as another low-level bureaucrat) cancelled the order, and refused to refund monies paid, knowing that this political and diplomatic
faux pas would drive the Ottomans to side with the Axis Powers, giving Britain a legitimate reason to attack and destroy the Ottoman Empire.
The Brits promised the various ethnic and tribal groups the Moon and the Stars if they only they would help Britain trash the Turks.
Those people did their part.....and the British reneged on every single promise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
The problem could easily be solved, but no one wants to do the right thing because it doesn't make much sense geopolitically. Basically, we can't support the Kurds breaking off, because then the Kurds in Iran and Turkey will want to break off. And Turkey is our ally. And there is no possibility of an amicable split for the Shiites and Sunni's, especially with all that oil under their feet.
What really needs to happen is all of the countries in the Middle-East need to be broken up into a bunch of smaller countries which more accurately reflect their ethnic makeup. If Iraq was nothing but Sunni's, we wouldn't be having this problem.
|
Mistake here.
You
can support the Kurds. You can especially do so, if you do something for the Turkmen and a few other minority Turko-Mongol peoples in Iraq.
I make no moral or ethical judgment, I simply ask which is more Machiavellian, pressuring Turks or pressuring Iranians?
The oil is not an issue.
The best case scenario is to take everything West of the Euphrates....Sunni-land...and give it to Syria.
Allow the Kurds to form their State.
Assure autonomy for the Turkmen and other Turko-Mongols.
Allow the Shi'a to keep the remainder of Iraq.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
The other solution would be to severally weaken the central government to the point of basically being a 1791 libertarian-style American federalized Republic. Then at least people won't feel that they are being subjugated by the central government. But that will be impossible considering the oil in the Middle-East is nationalized.
|
Can't do it.
Federalism assumes an high order society that has advanced beyond nation-State ideology.
It was only 400 years ago that European tribes and clans evolved into supra-tribes, and then nation-States.
The factors in existence then, are not the same as factors in the Middle East.
The geography, geology and topography (including population density) of the entire Middle East, including Central Asia is conducive to clans and tribes.
One of the things that so many ignorant Americans fail to understand, is that the entire Middle East and Central Asia is almost exactly like the Americas when Europeans first came.....lots and lots of indigenous clans and tribal groups.
It was the Feudal System, the quest for land/property/wealth and population density that led to thousands of years of violent savage warring and conflict in Europe between the various clans and tribes.
Over time, as clans and tribes grew and merged -- by marriage often -- with other clans and tribes, society coalesced into supra-tribes, and then borne out of the Treaty of Westphalia is the idea of nations and nation-States.
The Americas, Africa, many areas in Southwest/Southeast Asia and Central Asia had no forces driving them to form nations or nation-States.
For a tribal group in northwest Afghanistan, their loyalty is first to their family (I'm talking extended family) then to the clan, then to the tribe.
"Afghanistan" doesn't mean anything to them.
Why do you think Saddam hand-picked so many bureaucrats from Tikrit?
That is where his tribe is.
My [extended] family and my clan and my tribe are loyal to me, but people from families and clans in other tribes?
Well, they ain't necessarily loyal.
If the US and Europeans do not interfere in the Middle East and other areas, then those clans and tribes grow to supra-clans and supra-tribes, eventually evolving into nations, and then nation-States.
But, interference by the US and European powers stunted, stymied, blocked and hindered the political, social and economic growth of those peoples.
That's why they are still stuck in the clan/tribal phase.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
These illogical borders necessarily create illegitimate governments. And the minorities become increasingly hostile because they feel like they are effectively conquered people.
|
That's because they are clans/tribes and not nations.
What happens to minority clans and tribes as they merge and grow and evolve into nations?
The minorities disappear.
A nation....by definition....
has no minorities.
Cherokee Nation? There are no Seminoles or Sioux or Pawnee....they're all Cherokee.
That's what "nation" means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
The most disgruntled end up joining with either Islamic fundamentalists, or ethnic nationalists in an attempt to overthrow the regime. Resorting to horrible violence, such as terrorism, because they are so desperate and see no other alternative to end their subjugation.
|
That's not why. The US and Britain support and bank-roll puppet-dictators who deny the people the very Natural Rights and Civil Rights you cherish.
What do you think happens when a people are oppressed to the point that the only place where you can express yourself and your political ideas freely without being arrested, imprisoned, tortured and murdered is in a mosque?
Let's turn the tables.....
A hand-picked puppet-dictator running the United States denies people all Natural Rights and Civil Rights.
The only place you can talk about political ideas with others and criticize the puppet-dictator ruling you is while sitting in pews at a church....because you can't close the churches.
After 4, 5, 7 or 8 decades, you don't think Radial Christianity would evolve?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
But it gets even worse. The radicals, even though they are a tiny minority, are so willing to fight and die, that the soldiers of the regime, which is normally made up by mostly moderates who largely just enlist for a paycheck, are many times unwilling to even fight. So these Middle-East regimes, unwilling to fight, and terrified of the prospect of the collapse of their own governments, which was an inevitable outcome of their unfair policies. Ask for help from other countries like the United States. So then the United States begins killing large numbers of radicals who were to some extent, rightfully trying to overthrow an illegitimate regime which couldn't defend itself from even a relatively tiny number of insurgents. And then we don't understand why the killing and occupation of these countries by the USA, infuriates and radicalizes these people even more.
|
No, that is not even remotely accurate.
Why did the US hate Nasser?
Why did the US want so badly to murder Nasser in cold blood....because, you know, that's what advanced civilized benevolent christian nations like the US do?
There are two reasons.
1] The US wanted so badly to murder Nasser in cold blood for the exact same reason the US wanted so badly murder Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru of India.
What do Nehru and Nasser have in common, other than their last names begin with the letter "N"?
They were both members of the non-Aligned Movement; they didn't give a damn about the US or the Soviets; and they damn sure would rather die than sell their people out as slaves to Americans.
Right?
2] Nasser overthrew King Farouk....in a popular uprising.
How do you think the King of Iraq felt about that?
How do you think the Shah of Iran felt about that?
How do you think the King of Jordan felt about that?
How do you think the King of Saudi Arabia felt about that?
How do you think the King of Oman felt about that?
How do you think all of the other Kings...yeah, monarchs and monarchies in the Middle East and North Africa felt about that?
Do you think they were thrilled at the prospect of being overthrown in a popular uprising?
No, they were filled with angst.
The US falsely believed the reason to protect the monarchies in the Middle East and North African was "communism," but in the 1970s, that reason changed to oil and the Petro-Dollar.
The point being that Radical Islam and radical fundamentalism did not exist prior to the 1970s.
Nasser did not overthrow King Farouk for Allah, or Islam, or Sunnis or Shi'a or anything else.
Nasser did it because Farouk the King had sold the Egyptian people into slavery to the Brits and Americans. All of the oil wealth from Egypt was lining the pockets of Brits and Americans. The Egyptians got nothing. And now most of the oil is gone. Still some natural gas there, but the Americans and Brits raped the Egyptian peoples and stole all of their wealth.
Not a bad job...you should read the Church Committee Reports, as well as the House Select Committee Reports on Assassinations to get a handle on the extent to which America was willing to murder heads-of-State in cold blood for money, resources and wealth.
Kissinger and his Young People's Socialist League/Social Democrats/Neo-Conservatives did an extraordinary amount of damage to the Middle East, so check out those documents, especially those that were recently declassified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW
What do you all suppose is going to happen when they pump out all the easily available oil? How will these radicalized societies support themselves let alone a pack of foreign stockholders after the cheap oil is gone? You think they are radical now? Just wait until mass starvation sets in.
|
Development is shifting from Southeast Asia to Southwest Asia -- and American jobs will be exported there. Later, development will shift to Central Asia -- and American jobs will be exported there. In the transitional shift from Central Asia to sub-Saharan Africa, the Russians and Chinese and Indians will lift up the people of the Middle East and help them escape from their American slave masters, and they'll have jobs, because American jobs will be exported there.
And then most of the remaining American jobs will be exported to sub-Saharan Africa.
That is what will happen over the next several decades through the end of this Century.
The mass starvation will be in the US, not the Middle East.
If Americans are too damn dumb to kick unions out of the public school system, wrest control from the pseudo-federal government and return schools to local control, then Americans will get exactly what they deserve, which is low-wage jobs as a migrant farm-workers.
That's 5 reasons for any State to secede right now in order to have a chance to move into the 5th Level Economy....
Mircea
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.
