Middle East Meltdown - Printable Version
+- AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums (http://ai-jane.org/bb)
+-- Forum: Discussion (/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: International Politics (/forum-13.html)
+--- Thread: Middle East Meltdown (/thread-11204.html)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124
- John L - 02-21-2011 07:34 PM
jt Wrote:No one has been able to unify the Arabs, not Nasser, not the original califates. After the initial conquest of the ME by the Muslims in 700, it did not take long for the Muslim Empire to devolve into local self interested regions.
You're correct here. Muslims, especially Arab Muslims, hate and despise others, to the point that they tend to kill each other on a continuing basis.
What this is is a bunch of tribes, who are doing what tribes do with outsiders, only they are spurred on more by the central tenants of Islam. This is a toxic brew that is guaranteed to bring strife to everyone. People living in the "Mo Belt"* are never going to get together, because Islam does not make allowances for peace, love, and charity.
You will only get that through worshiping the Baby Jesus. And even then, that is not a guarantee.
* In the South, we have the "Bible Belt", and in the Middle East there is the "Mo Belt"(Mohammad)
- mv - 02-21-2011 07:37 PM
Not so sure about the above.
Original caliphate lasted a hundred years or so, and the Ottoman Empire a few centuries. The failure of the Nasserite unified socialist state does not immediately prove that regimes based on the common Muslim Brotherhood structures cannot last for some time.
Regardless, it is highly possible that an OPEC composed of similar Islamist states will play with embargo or ultra-high oil prices.... while the Saudi and other current rulers have massive investments in the Western Economy they have to protect, new Islamist rulers will have no such limitations.
- Gunnen4u - 02-21-2011 08:30 PM
Jt, I appreciate it but I don't really need the cheering up. I won't be going back there anymore hopefully anyhow.
I just wish for things to come to a point rather than continually fester.
- Palladin - 02-21-2011 10:31 PM
Assume Muslims did develop a concensus on following a big leader.
Step 2 would be developing capitalist economies and I might be wrong,but,I tend to think Islam lends itself to socialism simply because the ummah and state are roughly = to 1 entity,the agency of Allah.
If they failed at step 2,they'd never become a serious power. Turks seem into capitalism,they also are the least religious of all Muslims.
- Gunnen4u - 02-21-2011 10:44 PM
Nah, they would stamp on any capitalistic innovations or ideals because it's not in line with the law of Allah or some religious sentiment, or most likely of all, some imam sees it as a threat to the status quo (which of course favors the religious and religious leaders) and to the system of Islamic hierarchy.
Turkey is more capitalistic I would imagine by the virtue of their geographic location and it will profit them well in the coming years as it had before.
- mv - 02-21-2011 11:16 PM
Palladin Wrote:Assume Muslims did develop a concensus on following a big leader.
A difficulty, since they are intrinsically tribal, they would need a person with international credentials... perhaps O?ama.
However, a collective leadership of clerics might work too...like in Iran.
Quote: Step 2 would be developing capitalist economies...
Unneeded, and in the best case, this will take 20-30 years.
Quote: If they failed at step 2,they'd never become a serious power.
Now, this is simply not so. With no economy, they will still control more than half of the world's energy supply. Once western economies are destroyed (can be done in a year), they will have a level playing field.
- Palladin - 02-21-2011 11:40 PM
Even with this event occurring,they would start off below their opponents and end up below them,IMO.
They'd be close to starvation if they did this,we'd have severe economic problems which might just force us to find something besides their oil anyway and go to nuke power generation faster,enhance coal usage and stimulate battery cars,etc.
We can run an economy and burn a lot less of that stuff even w/o any of that above. we just don't. I could use a small fraction of the gas I do,I just don't do it because I'm a spoiled,lazy American with money to waste. Like most of us.
- Gunnen4u - 02-21-2011 11:43 PM
I may have cash floating around, but I am a whore for it and I do many things to save it up and horde it into bank accounts and Roth-IRA's.
At your point in life, Pal, I wouldn't care though - spend, eat, sleep, screw and enjoy life.
And knowing how Americans are when it comes to energy, we'll probably collapse and have nothing before we try nuclear energy en masse.
- mv - 02-22-2011 04:33 AM
Palladin Wrote:Even with this event occurring,they would start off below their opponents and end up below them,IMO.They do not a parity in dollar-denominated economy, USSR never had that.
Quote: They'd be close to starvation if they did this,we'd have severe economic problems which might just force us to find something besides their oil anyway and go to nuke power generation faster,enhance coal usage and stimulate battery cars,etc.
Do understand that a jump in energy prices will create a likewise jump in transportation costs and thus nearly everything will become more expensive. Food might become not affordable for those -- 50 million or so -- who are either not employed or bouncing at the bottom. And unlike them an average westerner cannot subsist on camel dung.
If the Saudis go into the tailspin too, expect similar uprisings in much of the Western World.
Meanwhile, Oil is up on Libya alone.
- mv - 02-22-2011 04:55 AM
- mv - 02-22-2011 02:27 PM
- ag - 02-22-2011 02:40 PM
- Kamil - 02-22-2011 02:52 PM
Quote:The American Thinker is a daily conservative internet publication dealing with American politics, foreign policy, national security, economics, diplomacy, culture, military strategy, and the survival of the State of Israel.
When the agenda of a blog includes favoratism to a country in a region, I can't put any value to it's analysis of the other countries in the region.
Besides when the article states that USA lost Turkey during Obama's administration with Erdogan's coming to power inTurkey, we know that the bloger is not very familiar with the region that they are analyzing. In Turkey, Erdogan was elected in 2002 when Bush was president of the USA.
- John L - 02-22-2011 03:21 PM
Kamil Wrote:Per Wikipedia
Kamil, your statement about Israel, and favoritism, I find to be a little steeped in favoritism. For example, I happen to believe in the survival of Jordan as a nation. Also Oman. Does this mean I am expressing favoritism to those countries? Or am I just trying to be considerate? Just curious.
As for Israel, I am all in favour of the survival of Israel, but expect them to be good neighbors, to those who respect them as well. Is this a case of favoritism, and my opinion being of no value?
- mv - 02-22-2011 03:26 PM
John L Wrote:For example, I happen to believe in the survival of Jordan as a nation. Also Oman. Does this mean I am expressing favoritism to those countries? Or am I just trying to be considerate? Just curious.
This sounds like a latent Islamism to me.
- John L - 02-22-2011 03:43 PM
Don't get me wrong guys, I am not a dedicated reader of the American THinker. I read sometimes, but not go there on a regular basis. I'm pretty much a Regular on the American Spectator, and Pajamas Media, along with my dedicated Libertarian/Classic Liberal sites.
But this "We believe in the survival of Israel" thing, really means what it says. They happen to believe that the Jews deserve to have their own nation, and in the location where it first came into being.
What in heaven's name is wrong with that? Even Turkey, before this current administration, also believed the same thing. Does this mean Turkey also deserves no value for what it says? Now, granted, I do not give this current Turkish leader much value, but that is not the Turkish people. However, if Turkey wants to revert to a more malevolent Islamic turn, then they too will have no import to my way of thinking.
And remember, I am not against muslims. I am opposed to the violent teachings of Muhammad/Mohammad, who got progressively worse with age. And Kamil, you know full well that the later work of Muhammad take precedence over his earlier, more tolerant, writing.
Sorry, but I am just Sick of Islam, and the pure evil that has been done in it's name. And until it gets it's act together, I will not change my opinion either. And I also know you have stated that you are not a believer either, so I am not saying this against you.
- Kamil - 02-22-2011 05:22 PM
I myself stand for the survival of the Israel, but when a blog states in their agenda that they are for "The Survival of Israel", I can't take them as a serious analyzer of the news for the region where Israel is located.
- Gunnen4u - 02-22-2011 05:59 PM
Kamil Wrote:I myself stand for the survival of the Israel, but when a blog states in their agenda that they are for "The Survival of Israel", I can't take them as a serious analyzer of the news for the region where Israel is located.
Ditto. I have an ever-growing aversion to using anything as a main source that slants towards a base audience of some sort.
- mv - 02-22-2011 06:09 PM
Here is a little dirty secret: every source is biased.
Do you prefer the MSM pro-Boy bias ("the boy is championing the democracy in the Middle East") or the anti-Boy bias ("the boy is a Carter-reincarnate and is fiddling up badly"). I happen to think that the latter is more accurate.
Are you suggesting to discard American Thinker articles just because of their overall pro-Israel attitude? (The article I linked had little to do with Israel).
If not, what do you propose then and just what are you trying to say?
- mv - 02-22-2011 06:13 PM
Qaddafi Just Ordered The Destruction Of Oil Pipelines To The Mediterranean.
A very creative guy, Gaddafi,... albeit I recall Saddam doing something similar...