Hope for the Middle East? Is there any?

a reply to: Boeing777

...and what has that brought us? In the region as a whole? More blood.

Syria is next you say? Oh, joy. More young men dying, and coming home in a flag draped coffin. Huzzah!! How about we let them settle their own issues?

This thread isn't about discussing the merits of Islam.

Nor is it about taking shots at the "good ol' USA". I freely admit to the blatant stupidity that has been the US foreign policy in the region.

It's about discussing what will need to occur to bring a lasting and stable peace to the Middle East.

Bombs won't do it. The only peace bombs bring is the peace of the grave. Not what we're looking for, I hope...?

Nor will outside influences brought about by the use of force. Democracy at the point of a gun? Really? Seems to me democracy has to grow from within. Defended as necessary, but can not be imposed from without with any real hope of long lasting success.

The only reason I bring up Islam at all is because of its overwhelming presence in daily life in many places in the Middle East. It will play a roll in any changes...for better or for worse.

The most pressing need is for economic success at the lowest levels of society in the region. Economic success allows people to have hope for the future, for their children.

Part and parcel to that is education. As simple as reading, writing, and mathematics. But for these to take root, there must be first and foremost, security. Knowing that it's safe sending your children off to school, secure in the knowledge that they'll come home safe at the end of the day. Knowing that you can go to your job safely, and arrive home safely. Knowing you can go to market without fear of some moron with a suit of Duponts finest strapped to their chest is going to kill you.

1) Security.

2a) Education.
2b) Economic success/security.

Those are, to me, the three key elements that this hypothetical leader will need to address and work towards. By whatever means bring about the most success for the most people. If using Islam gets that done, and I don't see how it won't play a significant roll.

If this is accomplished by use of democracy/republicanism, cool. I'm fine with that.

If it's brought about by a religious angle? Fine. It's their world, not ours. It's up to them to decide.

Our little paws, and bombs, and feet on the ground need to stay the Hell out, and get the Hell out. This includes dealing with ISIL, and its offshoots. It's not our land. Frankly, we've done enough damage for one millennium, or is it two?

Yes, I am indeed advocating a return to a form of Isolationism. Minding one's own business, and leaving your neighbor to his own devices.

OK so let's say we completely pull out of everything in the ME.

Will the rest of the world do likewise? If the only solution is to completely let them kill each other off, then we ought to get the whole world on board with letting them wipe each other out. Will every single other country and company completely isolate themselves?

Will we lock ourselves out of everything that comes out of Israel? They do have a burgeoning tech industry you know. Should we fully isolate their industries and economy from the rest of the globe? What about the oil that comes from the rest of the region. Do we just tell the countries who depend on it that they have to do without now? I'm sure the Dakotas and Canada would love that.

How do we handle the refugees who try to flee that region? Do we just stare at them from our wall and say, "Sorry. Y'all screwed yourselves."

originally posted by: LotToTell2
a reply to: seagull

Wrong on so many levels

I guess you mean well but still wrong

ISIL was started up as relevant organization by pumping funds and weapons into Syrian Rebels, good ol USA did that

As for Israel, first west gives it nukes

And now you want them to stand alone armed to the teeth, which they would use to depopulate Middle East

Umm look up proxy wars by US Israel etc

No no no. ISIL existed long before the Syrian rebels did and the FSA has been fighring ISIL longer than anybody else. On top of that we still have not begun suppling weapons to the rebels, still gping through the vetting process for that. The Syrian Civil war has had about 6 different sides fighting in it. I know it is easy to confuse them all with each other but, it is vital to keep track of who is who or else you get silly stories like ISIL coming from the US.

originally posted by: seagull

I freely admit to the blatant stupidity that has been the US foreign policy in the region.

There was nothing "stupid" about the Iraq war or US' foreign policy. None of it was by accident. It all happened for a good reason. Don't get me wrong though, the US isn't benefiting from any of this. It isn't rocket science to figure who's benefiting from this mayhem and bloodshed.

"By Way of Deception, Thou Shalt Do War."

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Gianfar

Thanks for that post.

I make no pretense to being a scholar of Islam. Nor am I of that faith. As you may have guessed...

I haven't a clue as to your religious faith, but you, seemingly, have more insight into Islam than I do. Not that that would be hard to accomplish, to my shame...

I can only go by what I see with my eyes, and hear with my ears, and draw judgement from that evidence.

I see and hear evidence of a change of some sort coming to Islam in general. Early days yet as to where that will go. I'm hoping that it will go in the direction you describe...for that might bring peace to a region that is deserving of it.

I think I'm correct in saying that it won't be an overnight process, though.

History and knowledge are one in the same. I am a life long student of religion and humanity. I have also taken time out to understand foreign policy (in practice, not in theory) and the international operations of the CIA and NSA.

Well, as this relates to Islam, I think that the concurrent evidence between western initiatives and Islamic ideology is plain, that first we have a violent clash of cultures between the east and west. That is mostly due to the economic interests of the western petroleum consortium, US, Britain and Israel, who persist in collective control over the destiny of the entire region through exhaustive efforts in strengthening undemocratic governments, which are easily controlled through one dictator. So, on one hand the world plainly understands the doctrinal heresy of the US and its freedom loving allies, who see democratic growth in petroleum bearing nations as the threat to its economic hegemony - its only reason for existence.

On the other hand, we find Muslims who are divided along religious schools of thought and various interpretations and fringe groups, some extremist, others misguided by false human traditions. They have been divided by religious ideology until the western invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, which left those countries decimated in terms of population and infrastructure.

The west lost 3,000 people in the towers and then proceeded to slaughter millions. In Iraq alone 47% of the child population was orphaned. Tens of thousands of young Iraqi widows fled to neighboring countries, many becoming prostitutes to support their children. In Afghanistan, in the capital of Kabul, thousands of babies have been born with hideous defects consistent with the presence of depleted uranium pollutants moving with the dust, thanks to thousands of tons of radioactive explosives used by the US military.

This unmerciful intrusion by the western axis created a new and profound ideology of 'anti-colonialism' that has grown from millions of outraged Muslims the world over. Knowing what I know about the lingering effects of the wars, things which the American media won't tell you, I probably have as yet to meet a Muslim from any part of the Earth who I can say feels the least bit of remorse for attacks on westerners and Israelis. This is in stark contrast to the public display of support across the Middle East after the 911 attacks.

The rapid and vicious ascent of ISIS is as much a phenomenon of the malfeasant western policy integrated with corporate greed (fascism), as it is the antipathetic psychosis which occurs when an entire culture is under siege. The rise of radicalism is not religious, that much is obvious, despite even the conviction of those who radicalize. It is not a religious fact, and what westerns are all in denial about is the reality that this is a global rebellion against their colonialism. It is also against westerners, Christians who allowed their tax dollars to pay for mass murder in the Middle East.

Western intelligence services are frustrated by the lack of any pattern that would enable them to predict who will become the enemy from within. That’s because they come from all walks of life. They are male and female, heads of state, billionaires, entrepreneurs, engineers, laborers and students. Historically, this in fact is the asymmetrical conflict that takes place in any mass uprising against a repressive politico-economic system that goes too far.

People who get hung up on media dogma espousing Islamic radicalism as the 'cause', is merely addressing one of the symptoms. Millions of Muslims who suffered as the result of the terrorism of western war crimes, have become so embittered as to have little recourse in using their religious beliefs as justification for avenging their dead fathers, brothers, sister, mothers and children.

What is plain to me is that the more western society dogmatizes this anti-colonial revolution as purely religious terrorism, the more Muslims among them will become disenfranchised and thus readily avail themselves to the romantic notions of revolution.

This is not a war on terrorism, but a war of terrorism.

There was nothing "stupid" about the Iraq war

It's one of the stupidest acts in American history- after slavery and Viet Nam.

I don't think there will be peace in the Middle East anytime soon. There is a little hope though in the more civillized or prosperous areas like Jordan, Dubai and Kuwait.

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: LotToTell2
a reply to: seagull

Wrong on so many levels

I guess you mean well but still wrong

ISIL was started up as relevant organization by pumping funds and weapons into Syrian Rebels, good ol USA did that

As for Israel, first west gives it nukes

And now you want them to stand alone armed to the teeth, which they would use to depopulate Middle East

Umm look up proxy wars by US Israel etc

No no no. ISIL existed long before the Syrian rebels did and the FSA has been fighring ISIL longer than anybody else. On top of that we still have not begun suppling weapons to the rebels, still gping through the vetting process for that. The Syrian Civil war has had about 6 different sides fighting in it. I know it is easy to confuse them all with each other but, it is vital to keep track of who is who or else you get silly stories like ISIL coming from the US.

U.S.-Approved Arms for Libya Rebels Fell Into Jihadis’ Hands
By JAMES RISEN, MARK MAZZETTI and MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT, NYT
Published: December 5, 2012 297 Comments


WASHINGTON — The Obama administration secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year, but American officials later grew alarmed as evidence grew that Qatar was turning some of the weapons over to Islamic militants, according to United States officials and foreign diplomats.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A New York Times article, which actually broke the news well after Reuters did in March 2011. Since then it has been established through leaks that the CIA taught the Libyan rebels to 'slash-the-throats' of Qaddafi's soldiers after their convoy raids.

The same war analysts have been telling the press that ISIL is a direct result of CIA covert arming and training. Another fine example of US policy bringing peace to the world.

originally posted by: seagull
This thread isn't about discussing the merits of Islam.

Nor is it about taking shots at the "good ol' USA". I freely admit to the blatant stupidity that has been the US foreign policy in the region.

It's about discussing what will need to occur to bring a lasting and stable peace to the Middle East.

Bombs won't do it. The only peace bombs bring is the peace of the grave. Not what we're looking for, I hope...?

Nor will outside influences brought about by the use of force. Democracy at the point of a gun? Really? Seems to me democracy has to grow from within. Defended as necessary, but can not be imposed from without with any real hope of long lasting success.

The only reason I bring up Islam at all is because of its overwhelming presence in daily life in many places in the Middle East. It will play a roll in any changes...for better or for worse.

The most pressing need is for economic success at the lowest levels of society in the region. Economic success allows people to have hope for the future, for their children.

Part and parcel to that is education. As simple as reading, writing, and mathematics. But for these to take root, there must be first and foremost, security. Knowing that it's safe sending your children off to school, secure in the knowledge that they'll come home safe at the end of the day. Knowing that you can go to your job safely, and arrive home safely. Knowing you can go to market without fear of some moron with a suit of Duponts finest strapped to their chest is going to kill you.

1) Security.

2a) Education.
2b) Economic success/security.

Those are, to me, the three key elements that this hypothetical leader will need to address and work towards. By whatever means bring about the most success for the most people. If using Islam gets that done, and I don't see how it won't play a significant roll.

If this is accomplished by use of democracy/republicanism, cool. I'm fine with that.

If it's brought about by a religious angle? Fine. It's their world, not ours. It's up to them to decide.

Our little paws, and bombs, and feet on the ground need to stay the Hell out, and get the Hell out. This includes dealing with ISIL, and its offshoots. It's not our land. Frankly, we've done enough damage for one millennium, or is it two?

Yes, I am indeed advocating a return to a form of Isolationism. Minding one's own business, and leaving your neighbor to his own devices.

If you want an open discussion about how to bring peace, then addressing the biggest threat to world peace would be in good order.

originally posted by: Boeing777

originally posted by: seagull

I freely admit to the blatant stupidity that has been the US foreign policy in the region.

There was nothing "stupid" about the Iraq war or US' foreign policy. None of it was by accident. It all happened for a good reason. Don't get me wrong though, the US isn't benefiting from any of this. It isn't rocket science to figure who's benefiting from this mayhem and bloodshed.

"By Way of Deception, Thou Shalt Do War."

If all of this cost in men and materials is working against the benefit of the average American, what's the point? Instead of making stupid policy decisions that goes against everything we stand for, just think of the good that could be done with those wasted resources.

a reply to: Gianfar

If you want an open discussion about how to bring peace, then addressing the biggest threat to world peace would be in good order.

What is that threat?

I think I know where you're going with this, but I may be wrong.

So please, feel free to elucidate.

a reply to: seagull

Here's the thing though. You have to go way back in history to find the roots of this problem. It isn't just a modern issue, and it precedes oil and its importance.

The Barbary pirates incident gives you an idea of how much of a problem this region has been.

When the British Empire flexed its muscle to try to end slavery around the world, the most stubborn places were Muslim controlled ones - you know, the ME.

And both of these incidents and periods in history were before there was Israel and before there was a need for oil.

a reply to: ketsuko

We have no control, or not much anyway, over what others do. Nor should we. Trying to control what others do is what brought us to this point, isn't it?

Yes, we have to try to protect our interests. But is waging what is, seemingly, a never ending war, or series of same, the way to do it?

We don't know the region. We certainly don't understand it. Waging a war in a region that has known nothing but war for centuries isn't, in my humble opinion, the way to go about effectively, over the long term, protecting our interests.

It's time to rethink our whole policy of involvement in the region. Make friends, rather than enemies.

Simple minded, maybe. But what we're doing now isn't working very well.

a reply to: seagull

I'm just pointing out that trying to blame this all on us or oil isn't exactly accurate. This area has been a problem for as long as it's been an area really.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Boeing777

Syria is next you say? Oh, joy. More young men dying, and coming home in a flag draped coffin. Huzzah!! How about we let them settle their own issues?

By appeasing Isis , the Assad regime and Iran the Western powers have ensured that a wider war will break out. The victor of the conflict in Syria will invade Turkey. Ultimately some hard won lessons our WW2 forefathers taught us are going to have be relearned. Fanatics have to be wiped out until they are ready to wave a white flag. It took two Atomic Bombs to get Japan to wave a white flag and end WW2. During the occupation of Japan reforms undertaken by MacArthur and the Marshall Program set the country on the road to a Democratic economic power house.

Since Islamic extremists won't lay down there arms they have to wiped out. By the time the coming World War ends religious/ethnic differences will count for little. The survivors in the new Middle East will be able to redraw the map at there choosing while the region is reconstructed in the mold of post war Japan.

a reply to: ketsuko

Of course it has.

If, somehow, I've implied or even said otherwise, that certainly was never my intent. I'm not so short-sighted as that!

a reply to: xpert11

I realize that, in the real world, that that is what will, in reality, happen. I can, however, advocate for other solutions.

The sword has never provided a permanent solution. Death, and more death, brought about by centuries of the sword begets more of the same down through time. Especially when wielded by outsiders, or those that are viewed as such, namely the nation of Israel.

No matter how just the solution someone comes up with, there will be more blood. I certainly don't see anyway to prevent it. Solutions should be sought, however, that minimize it, if it's at all possible. Which it may, in truth, not be...

I do trend toward the pessimistic when thinking/writing about this region...

a reply to: seagull



No consideration for my double-post on the first page ?



Given the recent series of official international recognitions of the Palestinian state ...
Given the upcomming Israeli elections and it's vision of the region embracing only the existence of itself through the one-state solution ...
Given the fact that the General De Gaule can hardly be considered as an Islamist or an antisemite ...

I though it deserved a reply.

a reply to: seagull

The truth is that the area in question has always enjoyed an inordinate amount of importance due first to it being the cradle of civilization and second to its importance to global trade and third to it being the cradle of three major religions who all tend to have trouble getting along and fourth to oil.

Then you have its cultural issues outside of the religious ones.

None of this adds up to anything good.

Honestly, Africa would be a similar mess except it lacks the trade and strategic importance. Otherwise, we'd all be bemoaning it. However, it has much the same cultural difficulties that the ME has and the people treat each other about as well.