Middle East

[Traveler]

It is apparent to even the casual student of Middle East events that the one common denominator of violence and death from Benghazi to Syria to what is happening in Israel is Iran. Is anyone even following up (in the news) at this point concerning Iranian efforts to obtain nuclear capabilities? Is there a reason for Iran to divert attention to other "places"?

Does anyone believe that diplomacy or sanctions are working - or showing any possibility of resolution? Is Iran backing down are becoming more violent? Are we ready to admit that the current US policy concerning the Middle East need to change - a little or a lot? Have the policies of the last 4 years brought us closer to peace or war. Is it possible that the results of the resent election has made Iran more confident in their policies?

What is next - what do we do if Iran obtains nuclear capabilities? Or if Israel goes to officially to war?

The Traveler

[pam]

Very good question. Iran is the country that scares me above any others. They would like nothing more than to blow Israel off the map.

[NeuroTypical]

Didn't we do this 4 years ago?

Recent news:

120 trucks of goods were ready to enter Gaza from Israel today. Hamas fired rockets at the crossing. Only 24 entered. Crossing is closed.

Hamas PM Haniyeh: “We will not recognize Israel”

Israel is dropping flyers over Gaza, warning civilians to stay away from Hamas operatives and facilities. In many cases they can't really comply, because Hamas has all the guns, and just show up at hospitals and schools and apartment buildings to fire their rockets, and won't let the women and children leave.

*sigh*. Does anyone have a solution to all this that doesn't involve the word "if"?

[pam]

Is there the possibility that your thread and the one Traveler just started could be merged?

[Guest]

We need to look closely at the Arab Spring... that's what I believe is the game changer... and since the US was instrumental in the events that led to the Arab Spring, you got a conflict of interest going on.

[Traveler]

Here is a thought. Forget about Hezbollah or AL-Qaeda and communicate to Iran that supporting hostilities against US allies is an act of war, demand Iran to stop hostilities or government building in Iran will be bombed.

This really is not a possibility because China has blocked even sanctions against Iran and we would have to borrow money (get permission) from China to bomb Iran. The other option? Abandon Israel?

Is it possible that most of the problems of the world start and end with the USA's debt?

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

Interesting thoughts about debt.

We need to look closely at the Arab Spring... that's what I believe is the game changer...

I'm not sure the game changed at all, just the names of some of the players. A bunch of countries went from one form of govt to another, but much didn't change.

I'm not sure about conflicts of interest either. The US's goal is to balance powers in the region against each other, so no clear victor emerges to challenge US interests in any meaningful way. So the folks we support and the folks we're against change fluidly over time as things change.

[Guest]

Here is a thought. Forget about Hezbollah or AL-Qaeda and communicate to Iran that supporting hostilities against US allies is an act of war, demand Iran to stop hostilities or government building in Iran will be bombed.

This really is not a possibility because China has blocked even sanctions against Iran and we would have to borrow money (get permission) from China to bomb Iran. The other option? Abandon Israel?

Is it possible that most of the problems of the world start and end with the USA's debt?

The Traveler

The US Debt is not really what is in the root of the US problem in that region. The root of your problem is that even though the US makes twice the amount of oil Iran produces, the US consumes more oil than twice the amount it produces. Therefore, its economy is dependent on a stable Middle East.

Now, think about this... (okay, I didn't look this up, so this is probably not accurate anymore)... the USA consumes about 20 million barrels of oil per day. It produces only 8 million barrels of oil per day. So, the US has to import 12 million barrels per day from countries like Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia, and yes, Iraq, Bahrain, etc. Countries like Canada and Mexico diversify their exports - they will not direct all their oil exports to the US only - to protect their assets from American decline. So, the US is dependent on other sources, including the Middle East. Now, imagine if the US would produce enough oil, or reduce oil consumption, so that it can either be a.) energy independent or b.) can live with imports from Canada and Mexico only... then, the American Economy will not have to get tied to the hip with the craziness of Ahmedinejad...

And here's another thought... if we improve trade with North and South American countries, we can potentially find enough export consumer base in that region to offset whatever export destinations get wiped out in the Middle East and its surrounding regions if war ever breaks out over there.

Now... it's starting to make sense all these things "economy things" that Romney has been yapping about in the foreign policy debate that he got ragged on as "a single-trick pony" because he "can't talk foreign policy without bringing it back to the economy".

Edited November 20, 2012 by anatess

[BrendaM]

Have the policies of the last 4 years brought us closer to peace or war. Is it possible that the results of the resent election has made Iran more confident in their policies?

The Traveler

I believe the policies of the last 4 years have brought us closer to war.

And yes.

[Guest]

Interesting thoughts about debt.

I'm not sure the game changed at all, just the names of some of the players. A bunch of countries went from one form of govt to another, but much didn't change.

I'm not sure about conflicts of interest either. The US's goal is to balance powers in the region against each other, so no clear victor emerges to challenge US interests in any meaningful way. So the folks we support and the folks we're against change fluidly over time as things change.

What balance of power are you talking about? When you have a bunch of Arabs who used to be allies become questionable in their allegiance... that's a big shift in the balance. It's not a matter of who we support or who we're against. It's whether those guys support us or not.

[annewandering]

I vehemently disagree as to the root cause. The root cause was a whole lot longer time ago. Go back to Abraham and see two women. One who wanted to continue Abrahams seed by whatever means possible and another that wanted her son to be favored as the heir of all of Abrahams blessings. Neither seemed to trust God so there was great evil done. Abraham had to, in essence, disinherit one son to the point of sending him and his mother into the desert to probably die.

Neither side is going to forget and neither side is ever going to love their cousins. Worse they are always going to desire/despise what the other has/is.

When I say never, I mean not till Jesus appears to them and tells them to knock it off.

[Guest]

I vehemently disagree as to the root cause. The root cause was a whole lot longer time ago. Go back to Abraham and see two women. One who wanted to continue Abrahams seed by whatever means possible and another that wanted her son to be favored as the heir of all of Abrahams blessings. Neither seemed to trust God so there was great evil done. Abraham had to, in essence, disinherit one son to the point of sending him and his mother into the desert to probably die.

Neither side is going to forget and neither side is ever going to love their cousins. Worse they are always going to desire/despise what the other has/is.

When I say never, I mean not till Jesus appears to them and tells them to knock it off.

I thought He did that already.

[annewandering]

I thought He did that already.

He has not appeared in the heavens ending this dispensation and cleansing the earth. When He does, all sides will hear even if they have avoided doing so in the past.

[NeuroTypical]

What balance of power are you talking about?

I didn't mention any balance of powers. I said the US's goal is to balance powers in the region against each other, so no clear victor emerges to challenge US interests in any meaningful way.

It's whether those guys support us or not.

I disagree. US geopolitics is about expanding its empire's influence through preventing any other main contender. Then it's about getting what it wants from other nations. Whether "they support us" or not, is important to the extent that one of the first two goals are forwarded.

[Guest]

I didn't mention any balance of powers. I said the US's goal is to balance powers in the region against each other, so no clear victor emerges to challenge US interests in any meaningful way.

I disagree. US geopolitics is about expanding its empire's influence through preventing any other main contender. Then it's about getting what it wants from other nations. Whether "they support us" or not, is important to the extent that one of the first two goals are forwarded.

I disagree. If you remember, the USA tried to pass on WWII.

And if you believe that the US' goal is to balance powers in the region against each other then what's the purpose of the US' involvement in Libya? Because, that, for sure, put the power out of balance.

And "getting what it wants" from other nations makes your post sound like America is this bully kid taking some poor kid's lunch money. That's just silly.

Edited November 20, 2012 by anatess

[NeuroTypical]

If you remember, the USA tried to pass on WWII.

I wasn't opining about the US geopolitical goals 60 years ago, I was opining about US's current goals.

However, you'll notice that no matter what the US tried to do in the 1930's, what the US eventually did do was get involved and end the Nazis.

And if you believe that the US' goal is to balance powers in the region against each other then what's the purpose of the US' involvement in Libya?

Yeah, that one didn't make much sense to me either. It's like Italy was calling in a favor or something.

Because, that, for sure, put the power out of balance.

Meh. No it didn't.

And "getting what it wants" from other nations makes your post sound like America is this bully kid taking some poor kid's lunch money. That's just silly.

Every nation tries to get what it wants from other nations. There is no such thing as a nation that doesn't try to work things with other nations to its advantage. Those facts, coupled with the obvious fact that the US doesn't want any poor nation's lunch money, makes your comparison sound silly indeed.

[Guest]

I wasn't opining about the US geopolitical goals 60 years ago, I was opining about US's current goals.

Your geopolitical goals have not changed since.

However, you'll notice that no matter what the US tried to do in the 1930's, what the US eventually did do was get involved and end the Nazis.

They didn't do that. They defeated the Japanese. The Russians defeated the Nazis.

Meh. No it didn't.

Sure it did! Benghazi proved that. That would never have happened under Gaddafi.

Every nation tries to get what it wants from other nations. There is no such thing as a nation that doesn't try to work things with other nations to its advantage. Those facts, coupled with the obvious fact that the US doesn't want any poor nation's lunch money, makes your comparison sound silly indeed.

LM, that's what you call TRADE. Not "get". America doesn't just "get". America trades for it. It's like somebody goes to Walmart and buys a pencil and you say, "he gets what he wants from Wal-mart". We know Wal-mart is a store so it indicates an exchange of currency to get the pencil. When you say, "America gets what he wants from other nations" it indicates forceful sequester of resources.

[NeuroTypical]

They didn't do that. They defeated the Japanese. The Russians defeated the Nazis.

I see what you're saying. Allow me to restate my response: You'll notice that no matter what the US tried to do in the 1930's, what the US eventually did do was get involved with the effort to end the Nazis. And yes, they defeated the Japanese too.

Sure it did! Benghazi proved that. That would never have happened under Gaddafi.

I'm thinking we have different notions of how geopolitics work. I'm ok with that. In fact, I'm comfortable with holding a minority opinion on such matters. From where I'm standing, geopolitical power involves being able to apply leverage to other nations in order to get those nations to behave in ways beneficial to your nation. Whether a nation is able to succesfully dress up their power in flowery less-offensive terms other than "getting" I suppose is greatly important to some, but again, from where I'm standing, no matter which terms end up being used, the goals are the same. I suppose opinions are just going to have to differ.

[annewandering]

The Russians claimed to defeat the Nazis. They also claimed to invent the wheel and fire. Doesnt mean its true.

[MarginOfError]

I actually don't think this is about religion or heritage at all. There are only a limited number of things over which people really go to war. They are summed up pretty well by power, resources, and money.

The problems in the Middle East around Israel started post WWII when we decided to place Jewish refugees in the British territories in Israel. There was a population explosion of Jews that acutely disrupted the balance of power. Sudden shifts of power like that typically lead to bad blood.

We've seen this kind of thing before. When the Mormons started congregating in Missouri in large numbers, they were a group of abolitionist yankees moving into a slave state. The sudden increase of the mormon population threatened to disturb the balance of power there, which also included the economic viability of many people already living in Missouri. The mobs didn't really care about the religion beyond the fact that it was a useful wedge for inciting others to anger.

When I look at the Middle East, I see a region that is navigating a difficult sea of progress and resistance. I have a hard time saying the place is falling apart when earlier this year, Egypt arrested someone for blasphemy--the person was a Muslim cleric who burned a New Testament. That kind of recognition of respect for more than one religion is progress. But progress is hard and upsetting to people who don't want things to change. Overall, I like the direction the Middle East is moving, but in doing so, I have to accept that there are going to be a lot of challenges to overcome.

With respect to Iran, I think there has been some promise of regime change there, but I don't expect it will catch up to the progress in Egypt for another 20 years. And, unfortunately, when the time comes that we have to take military action against Iran to prevent them from developing nuclear capabilities, we will turn the populace against us and set back that progress another 15.

With respect to Israel, both Israel and the Palestinians have to share in the blame for what's going on there. As long as each side is trying to portray the other as the aggressor at fault, they don't deserve to be treated any better than children. If it were up to me, I'd send a message to each side by striking them both and then telling them to quiet down and play nice.

[RMGuy]

*sigh*. Does anyone have a solution to all this that doesn't involve the word "if"?

b61

-rm

[NeuroTypical]

Yeah rmguy. As much as we don't want to admit such things, reducing population of one side of the conflict enough, actually does solve problems. Pretty high cost though - I'm sure plenty (but not all) would agree the cost would be too high.

[RMGuy]

It was posted a little tongue in cheek, it seems a little too old testament for today's sensibilities.

-RM

[Traveler]

I actually don't think this is about religion or heritage at all. There are only a limited number of things over which people really go to war. They are summed up pretty well by power, resources, and money.

The problems in the Middle East around Israel started post WWII when we decided to place Jewish refugees in the British territories in Israel. There was a population explosion of Jews that acutely disrupted the balance of power. Sudden shifts of power like that typically lead to bad blood.

We've seen this kind of thing before. When the Mormons started congregating in Missouri in large numbers, they were a group of abolitionist yankees moving into a slave state. The sudden increase of the mormon population threatened to disturb the balance of power there, which also included the economic viability of many people already living in Missouri. The mobs didn't really care about the religion beyond the fact that it was a useful wedge for inciting others to anger.

When I look at the Middle East, I see a region that is navigating a difficult sea of progress and resistance. I have a hard time saying the place is falling apart when earlier this year, Egypt arrested someone for blasphemy--the person was a Muslim cleric who burned a New Testament. That kind of recognition of respect for more than one religion is progress. But progress is hard and upsetting to people who don't want things to change. Overall, I like the direction the Middle East is moving, but in doing so, I have to accept that there are going to be a lot of challenges to overcome.

With respect to Iran, I think there has been some promise of regime change there, but I don't expect it will catch up to the progress in Egypt for another 20 years. And, unfortunately, when the time comes that we have to take military action against Iran to prevent them from developing nuclear capabilities, we will turn the populace against us and set back that progress another 15.

With respect to Israel, both Israel and the Palestinians have to share in the blame for what's going on there. As long as each side is trying to portray the other as the aggressor at fault, they don't deserve to be treated any better than children. If it were up to me, I'd send a message to each side by striking them both and then telling them to quiet down and play nice.

I am sorry but your post is a little troubling to me. It appears that you have defined a few "boxes" into which you put thoughts and that many thoughts are placed in what ever box because they for sure do not fit in in any other box you have allowed.

If one was to review history they would find that religion is indeed a major contributor to war. One can argue that many leaders of nations created war in quests of power, money or resources but that is such a limited, overly simplistic and narrow view of reality. Leaders of nations seeking power, money and resources seldom are at the front lines in deadly conflict. The trenches of war must be occupied by human fodder willing to sacrifice their lives for a cause. Most wars have fueled their human fodder with religion. But I would go one step farther and say the fuel in reality is false religion.

I believe you have also failed to discern very well the rhetoric of the two sides in the conflict. There is a saying that if the aggressors against Israel were to lay down their arms in the Middle East there would be peace. If Israel were to lay down their arms in the Middle East there would be no Israel. Thus the rhetoric of those that oppose Israel is the destruction of Israel and in all cases it is for religious purpose. The rhetoric of Israel is for their rights to a "place" of freedom and to live their religion.

In a conversation concerning these things with an Islamic friend he also spoke of freedom to live for himself and others in the Middle East the Islamic religion under Sharia Law. He spoke of the conflict in the Middle East as a conflict of divine law. That it is the desire of all Islam to be governed by Sharia Law. He said that all the Palestinians wanted was the right to live in a state of Sharia Law. I responded that I agreed with the Palestinian desire for Sharia Law - but I asked how does Israel prevent any Islamic state from the exercise of Sharia Law - and especially those that have power among Palestinians to determine their laws? And more especially those (such as Iran) that oppose the state of Israel? Why will they not establish a true state of Sharia Law?

His answer was most interesting and in essence places Western civilization (Christianity and especially the USA) directly in the cross hairs. At the very foundation is the Islamic belief that Satan corrupts the world by the power of banking charging interest and the Islamic belief that all that participate in business by borrowing money and paying interest must be overthrown.

Hmmmmmmmm does anyone here conduct business with a credit card that charges interest?

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

Yep. It's hard to come to grips with just how very different some Islamic thought is from ours. My friend relayed a conversation about the concept of freedom of speech once. Here is his muslim buddy's response [bolding mine]:

Moving on to the topic of speech in Islam. In Islam, it's not a matter of freedom, rather respect. You can't just go about blabbing things at will. Allah has set ground rules for us in this World that we are follow. When you submit yourself, you submit yourself entirely, i.e., you follow what is prescribed and you are to gain knowledge of what, how, when and why so your understanding is thorough - something that separates us from animals.

Whether we follow these rules or not, is our choice - a choice we must answer for in the Hereafter. However in this world, one may not go around slandering the religion publicly, it's rules and regulations, and all the Prophets & Messengers etc, just because one 'believes' in his mypic, perhaps delusion and pride stricken mind to be right, worse yet of superior views. Living under the Islamic government and calling yourself a Musalmaan (muslim), you are held liable for what you do publicly. Why? Because your behavior may plague others minds and before long it might be considered a norm thus triggering the entire society into a dowward spiral.

Simple example - as a good parent, if your child goes about calling you with bad names in your house because he/she thinks that right, what would you do? Reprimand him right? Hardly will the thought cross your mind that he has the right to freedom of speech, because you know he's lost it. And if you don't take action, others kids may join in. A double wrong.

[...]

So yes, you live by the divine rules and not by the humanly created idea of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a western concept brought about due to circumstances people faced here, not in Islamic countries.