2012-10-12, 23:03 | Link #22 | |
✘˵╹◡╹˶✘
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australia
|
Quote:
I think you lost sight of my original points. Arab oil nations does not simply build their economy by selling up oil , but by being a petroleum-based economy. Not in the physical sense like US (where petroleum drive all of the industries and services) but in both physical sense and international-economical sense (petroleum driven FDI as you mentioned). There are only 4 scenarios that oil nations will be screwed up economically a)being sanctioned where oil lose its market value status, b)oil being replace by other better, more available energy c) oil just suddenly stop coming out one day, result in b d) ends of globalisation. The first is what they have been doing and doing really well considering how much assess-kissing they got. The second is impossible unless major scientific/politic breakthrough happen. The third is not likely as peak oil will only means oil becomes more scarcity and valuable. The fourth is... simply scary to think about, and Middle East is the least we have to worry about
__________________
Last edited by risingstar3110; 2012-10-12 at 23:26. |
|
2012-11-19, 13:55 | Link #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
|
"Bill Clinton remarked “[I]t’s only a question of time until [these rockets] are de
facto outfitted with GPS positioning systems. And when that happens and the casualty rates start to really mount, will that make it more difficult for the Palestinians to make peace instead of less?”" See: http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/...adelphi-story/ So, when weapons with JDAM-level accuracy start proliferating throughout the Middle East, what does that bode for the region? I don't just mean for Israel/Gaza, I mean for the region as a whole, since many, if not most, nations in the region have problems with terrorists/rebels/insurgents /whatever. |
2012-11-19, 21:04 | Link #25 |
Good OP Hunter
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Argentina
|
I believe that the 2012 Mayan prediction was mis-read.
It'll be the process of the end of the world as we know it. And it's being evidenced in what's going on around the whole world. Mayhem everywhere. I for one hope that the new world is better and more equal, but it won't be without blood sadly (as we're seeing in the Gaza region right now) Arty PS: If the world does end, then enjoy life to the fullest these last few days.
__________________
|
2012-11-19, 22:12 | Link #27 |
formerly ogon bat
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Mexico
Age: 53
|
Fat chance, if a neutron bomb detonated over the area killing all humans it would be repopulated by both sides ASAP and they would start just where they left off (killing each other). It would require an atomic bomb that transforms the place into a nuclear wasteland to bring peace to that zone.
|
2012-11-19, 22:41 | Link #31 |
formerly ogon bat
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Mexico
Age: 53
|
Common, be realistic, it is no secret that the jew community on the USA has some leverage on the news industry, that is why you get extensive coverage of the area when there are zero USA troops on the area. Other conflicts without direct usa intervention will never have the same amount of time on USA news channels.
|
2012-11-20, 15:30 | Link #32 | |
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
As such, the idea that Jews are somehow manipulating the media in Israel's favor seems a bit off to me.
__________________
|
|
2012-11-20, 17:27 | Link #33 | |
Dictadere~!
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: On the front lines, fighting for inderpendence.
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2012-11-21, 22:50 | Link #34 |
Banned
|
Not that it was fair in any way, but the only periods that Middle East was peaceful, were dutring:
1) Greco-Roman occupation 2) Turco-Mongol occupation 3) Franco-British occupation Evidently, Israelis (like the Nazis in Europe) totally failed as occupiers to stop the locals from killing each other |
2012-11-22, 10:26 | Link #35 | |
Le fou, c'est moi
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Age: 34
|
^Um, no.
1) If you count being the stage for the Hellenistic kingdoms' internecine warfare and massive Roman-Persian wars as peace. The Arabs only found it so easy to ride in and take everything because Rome (well, Constantinople) and Persia just finished another one of those sack-every-damned-village all out wars they liked to fight every once in a while. 2) One conqueror a generation, often more than one a generation battling each other for supremacy. Even the Mongols destroying everything between Bukhara and Baghdad didn't bring peace, it just means localized Turko-Mongol warlords fighting for scraps within the decade. 3) A very short timeline in comparison, collapsed spectacularly anyway, didn't account for insurgencies and "internal" chaos (like in, say, Iran or Egypt), and left the seeds of current woes. Oh, and the Anglo-Afghan wars. Being the crossroads of cultures, empires, and migrating peoples, and now the world's oil well, the Middle East has never really known peace. Perhaps the longest stretches of peaceful periods would be during the Ottoman hegemony, and that's only when they and Safavid Persia left each other alone. Though perhaps you may also call Achaemenid Persia a relatively peaceful time in the heartlands (which is quite the opposite of what the Macedonians did to the place). I also find it very strange that you'd consider Israel an occupying power. Even if it's young in comparison, it's locally based and its citizen don't exactly have anywhere else to go. It's here to stay. Quote:
|
|
2012-11-22, 16:10 | Link #36 | |||||
Banned
|
Huh!? yes...
Quote:
Now during the phoenician and greek colonization of mediterranean there was hardly any conflict, rather peaceful and cooperative trade, between the two races and the celts of continental Europe. The hellenistic period had no conficts, insurgencies and the like in the middle east, the war was between Persians and Greeks, and this persisted during the successor states. After (not during) the Roman conquest, the only rebellions in the region were from jewish and these are mainly supported by biblical archeologists, which occasionally have claimed really wild theories. During the Byzantine era, and post Islam, there were two Arab-Persian invasions, but the two regions enjoyed enjoyed better relationships after the crusades and turkish and mongol invasions. Quote:
West of the Red Sea the situation wasn't that peaceful, particularly in modern Morocco... nonetheless, we can not even begin to compare to the amount of bloodshed that was occurring at the same period in Europe and the Far East. Plus the situation got a lot better after Ottomans conquered them too. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Anyway, after the second world war, the main problem is that the region was ruled by either Nationalist-Socialist parties (Israel, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Yemen), religious fanatics or bloodthirsty tribal lords. So with or without oil, it's natural that they will kill each other. Plus having two nuclear powers in the region with extremely aggressive foreign policies and pursuing racial, religious and ideological purity, that rather kill a few hundred or thousand people in order to win an election is not particularly good news for the future of the region. |
|||||
2012-11-22, 18:10 | Link #37 | |||||||||
Le fou, c'est moi
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Age: 34
|
Um, really, no.
Quote:
They even had Arab clients they used to fight proxy wars with. Yes, the Arabs were always there. They were just stuck in the desert and not yet Muslim and world-conquering. Quote:
Movements of people did not stop either. Achaemenid Persia managed to stop nomadic invasions from the east (the "Great Persian Wall" and, more importantly, just good Achaemenid horsemanship), but you might or might not have heard of an enterprising Celtic people called the Galatians. Quote:
And moreover, the re-awakening of the Jewish people as a political force happened as a massive and bloody uprising against the Seleucid Empire. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
For the Middle East Pax Mongolica is never peace. It's never even there (in fact Il-Khanate presence meant continuous war on the Syrian frontier against Egypt and in the Caucasus against "fellow" Mongols. You really have no idea what the Mongols and their successors did to the region. It was bad, bad, bad. Remember Baghdad? They made a desert, then they fought over it repeatedly for the next few centuries. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And it's not Cushitic, it's humans. I seriously don't know what sort of racialist propaganda you've been reading, but introduction of foreign elements into the Middle East (which often became native with time) meant another round of conflicts and struggles, not otherwise. |
|||||||||
2012-11-22, 19:44 | Link #38 | ||||||||||||
Banned
|
Eh? really, yes
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Nonetheless, you are right about Carthage, but their aggressive wars against Italic and Greek states spanned the last two centuries of a three thousand long history. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Not really, the issue is population density and economic structure between the two regions. In medieval times, wars were decided in half a dozen large scale battles in the Middle East, while in Europe needed 3 or 4 dozens, and went through phases, ending up dragging half the continent... that is until the nation-state theory was invented that introduced the modern total war that destroys everything Quote:
As for muslim brotherhoods as a group of nutcases finding a solution to their miserable lives through the promise of an afterlife, I guess the other two Abrahamic religions have a lot older ones Don't twitch, I am talking about a very young state, serving the interests of its guilty sponsors (or should I say mentors), not the people, but when a state is characterized by:
... you know what, that's exactly what Germany was in the '30s, which is no surprise when one remembers that the politicians that set the foundation of that state have grown ideologically there. Nonetheless, at least they can offer this as an excuse, the Ba'ath regimes didn't even have that to kill each other. Quote:
It's one thing to sarcastically point where every human culture fails (and succeeds), but completely another to justify based on that the primacy of one over the other. I think that diversity is necessary both in individuals and in groups (however small or large), but that does not mean that we can not criticize or even joke about those differences. |
||||||||||||
2012-11-22, 22:38 | Link #40 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
Persia and Turkey (with Eygpt usually as well) counts towards the Middle East, and Arabs or no Arabs, the fighting has be native in that region since the times of the Pharaohs who would match armies through Canaan to war against the larger cities, Kingdoms, and Empires to the north or east of the Dead Sea.
Or is all that is being argued is that the pre-Islam Arabs to the south (in the Arabian Desert and down to modern day Yeman) were peaceful? Because in the matter of the Middle East and peace, that is rather irrelevant.
__________________
|
Tags |
middle east |
|
|