Will the Mid East tumult come to an end with the 4T?

[Remy Renault]

What are people's thoughts? Will most of the chaos in the Middle East calm down as the 4T comes to an end, rendering Arab countries relatively safe to visit as a tourist the way most of Southeast Asia and Latin America is safe to visit today?

While it's patently obvious that the actions of the *West* have bred much resentment in the Arab world, it should be said that Arab culture is in many ways a violent culture, even on a micro scale, and this has nothing to do with Islam. After all, look at Indonesia or much of sub-Saharan Africa. Arabs, especially Arab men, are often quite belligerent people, in a way that Latinos and SE Asians are not. It's intrinsic Arab culture, regardless of religion, and the treatment of women goes hand-in-hand with that. Just walking in the street in Paris, where I live, I'll often get 'looks' from random North African men in the street, like "look at that white boy over there..." without my even doing anything. The so-called "Islamic treatment" of women is not a Muslim thing but an Arab one. So one could say that Arab belligerence is the byproduct of Western oppression, but then why don't Latinos, sub-Saharan Africans, and Southeast Asians act this way? May the explanation not on some level lie in Arab culture. None of the actual terrorists are Persian or Turkish. Women are FAR more oppressed in countries *we're* allied with such as Saudi Arabia than they are in Iran. That is a fact.

[tg63]

As long as the western & developing world is dependent on oil, and as long as the Middle East remains one of the primary sources of that resource (if not THE primary source), conflict will be present.

[Eric the Green]

(08-12-2016, 11:16 AM)tg63 Wrote: As long as the western & developing world is dependent on oil, and as long as the Middle East remains one of the primary sources of that resource (if not THE primary source), conflict will be present.

That might suggest that the Middle East conflicts WILL end after the 4T, because the developed and developing world MUST stop using oil by the end of this 4T. That is the chief challenge our 4T must meet.

But the people in the Middle East are largely the cause of their own conflicts, and have been for millennia. Remy's point about Arabs seems fitting to me. So I would predict conflict will continue; especially as long as the region continues to be under the thumb of dictators. It seems very hard for them to throw them out. And, religious and tribal divisions and resentments remain. Plus, as long as Israel is there, and refuses to make peace and justice with its neighbors, the Arabs will keep fighting Israel. There's no sign that will change any time soon. In fact, a lot of the current dictatorships arose because they were able to use fear of Israel to enforce greater obedience. On the other hand, those people have never known democracy before. And in our age of global communications and trade, young people want it. Switching from oil will also be an economic challenge there.

[Kinser79]

The short answer is no. The Middle-East and Arab Civilization is on a different saecular format than the West. The end of our 4T will not have much of an impact on theirs unless it results in a global war involving them. Much like how WW2 in Russia was a late 1T/2T event and not a 4T event.

[tg63]

(08-13-2016, 02:05 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-12-2016, 11:16 AM)tg63 Wrote: As long as the western & developing world is dependent on oil, and as long as the Middle East remains one of the primary sources of that resource (if not THE primary source), conflict will be present.

That might suggest that the Middle East conflicts WILL end after the 4T, because the developed and developing world MUST stop using oil by the end of this 4T. That is the chief challenge our 4T must meet.
...

While we might be able to put a real framework in place for alternatives within 15 years, there's simply no way that the world will be in any kind of position to stop using oil.  Look around - highways, home heating, shipping & trucking, air travel ... we are decades away from replacing all that infrastructure, no matter how imperative the need is.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting there won't be ongoing conflict in the ME, of course there will be.  But will it stabilize to the point where the original poster is going? ie safe enough for travel similar to central America today ... well, maybe, once western & Russian interests are sufficiently diminished.

[Ragnarök_62]

(08-14-2016, 10:06 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: The short answer is no.  The Middle-East and Arab Civilization is on a different saecular format than the West.  The end of our 4T will not have much of an impact on theirs unless it results in a global war involving them.  Much like how WW2 in Russia was a late 1T/2T event and not a 4T event.

True.  The "nations" in the Mideast aren't really valid.  They're nothing but random polygons drawn after WWI by the French and English over what was that part of the Ottoman Empire.  Some of the N. African "nations" were some figment of 1930's Italy's mind.
Next, add climate change and population over breeding and that ensures the place will be a clusterfuck for a long time to come.

[Eric the Green]

(08-15-2016, 11:34 AM)tg63 Wrote:

(08-13-2016, 02:05 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-12-2016, 11:16 AM)tg63 Wrote: As long as the western & developing world is dependent on oil, and as long as the Middle East remains one of the primary sources of that resource (if not THE primary source), conflict will be present.

That might suggest that the Middle East conflicts WILL end after the 4T, because the developed and developing world MUST stop using oil by the end of this 4T. That is the chief challenge our 4T must meet.
...

While we might be able to put a real framework in place for alternatives within 15 years, there's simply no way that the world will be in any kind of position to stop using oil.  Look around - highways, home heating, shipping & trucking, air travel ... we are decades away from replacing all that infrastructure, no matter how imperative the need is.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting there won't be ongoing conflict in the ME, of course there will be.  But will it stabilize to the point where the original poster is going? ie safe enough for travel similar to central America today ... well, maybe, once western & Russian interests are sufficiently diminished.

Yes, and that will only come when we stop using oil. Make no mistake about it, we must make the transition in this turning, or we will be turning away from civilization.

The transformation may not be complete by 2028. But we must be so well on our way that we won't need Middle East oil. But no, ME conflict will not be over. But perhaps somewhat less chance that we are drawn into it.

[Kinser79]

(08-15-2016, 06:12 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(08-14-2016, 10:06 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: The short answer is no.  The Middle-East and Arab Civilization is on a different saecular format than the West.  The end of our 4T will not have much of an impact on theirs unless it results in a global war involving them.  Much like how WW2 in Russia was a late 1T/2T event and not a 4T event.

True.  The "nations" in the Mideast aren't really valid.  They're nothing but random polygons drawn after WWI by the French and English over what was that part of the Ottoman Empire.  Some of the N. African "nations" were some figment of 1930's Italy's mind.
Next, add climate change and population over breeding and that ensures the place will be a clusterfuck for a long time to come.

By and large, you are correct on the state of those countries. I've often stressed in my posts over the years that Stalin's thesis that Nations are historically constituted groups of people, while at the same time recognizing that states are politically constituted inties. For example In Iraq if the goal is to have nation states the South West would be part of Iran (as they are Shia and Persians rather than Sunni and Arab), the Middle would be either part of Syria or Jordan as they are Sunni Arabs (and have close cultural ties with both countries) and of course in the north where the oil is, would belong to the Kurds in their own Kurdistan (which primarily doesn't exist because the Turks don't want it to, half of the Kurds live on Turkey's real estate).

I would further go on to say that states constituted without regard to the ethnic constitution of the population (except perhaps in polyglot cultures such as the US--America being founded on ideals rather than an ethnic make up) would be destined to result in a clusterfuck without the imposition of order through some manner of imperialism. Climate change only makes an existing problem worse. As for over-breeding, I have a solution for that, literacy. Educated women have fewer children generally, and education would lead to industrialization which turns children from additional farm labor into luxuries.

[Marypoza]

Looks like bam-bam beat the hildabitch to the punch:

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/20...ussia.html

[Eric the Green]

Assad has no standing to invite or object to anyone's forces in Syria.

[Warren Dew]

Your examples of subsaharan Africa and Indonesia suggest to me that the issue really has as much to do with Islamic culture, if not religion, as it has to do with Arabs specifically.  I mean seriously, Boko Haram?  The only reason Iran isn't yet as oppressive toward women is because of the lingering cultural effects of the secular Shah's regime supported by the U.S., by the way.

I do think the greater Middle East is high on the candidate list for one of the epicenters of the coming crisis war, what with growing populations and growing nuclear weapons capabilities.  South Asia, with the same characteristics, may also be involved.

[Odin]

(09-06-2016, 02:04 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Your examples of subsaharan Africa and Indonesia suggest to me that the issue really has as much to do with Islamic culture, if not religion, as it has to do with Arabs specifically.  I mean seriously, Boko Haram?  The only reason Iran isn't yet as oppressive toward women is because of the lingering cultural effects of the secular Shah's regime supported by the U.S., by the way.

I do think the greater Middle East is high on the candidate list for one of the epicenters of the coming crisis war, what with growing populations and growing nuclear weapons capabilities.  South Asia, with the same characteristics, may also be involved.

A lot of the current Fundamentalism in the Islamic world has it's roots in agrressive Saudi-backed Wahhabi proselytizing. Pakistan, for example, was quite secular until the dictatorship of Al-Zia, when the country was deluged with Saudi-backed Wahhabism.

Iran is isolated from those currents because they are Shia, and because Iran has a very strong, old tradition of intellectualism and literacy. Traditionally urban-settled Arabs (the descendants of Aramaic-speaking converts) of do too, but are in many areas overwhelmed by Arabs of culturally backward Bedouin extraction.

[Marypoza]

We need to get off oil. Then nobody will give a rat's ass what happens in that sandhole

[Marypoza]

(10-03-2016, 10:30 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(10-03-2016, 05:18 AM)Marypoza Wrote: We need to get off oil. Then nobody will give a rat's ass what happens in that sandhole

We = USA?

We = USA + Europe?

We = USA + Europe + Japan + S. Korea + Taiwan?

---- I meant the United States. I wouldn't presume to tell other countries what to do

Interesting that you left off Canada. Not that I would presume to tell the Canadians what to do either, but I just think it's odd that you include some far off islands with their own culture(s?) In a group "we" but not the Canadians

[Marypoza]

(10-04-2016, 10:37 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(10-04-2016, 08:10 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(10-03-2016, 10:30 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(10-03-2016, 05:18 AM)Marypoza Wrote: We need to get off oil. Then nobody will give a rat's ass what happens in that sandhole

We = USA?

We = USA + Europe?

We = USA + Europe + Japan + S. Korea + Taiwan?

---- I meant the United States. I wouldn't presume to tell other countries what to do

Interesting that you left off Canada. Not that I would presume to tell the Canadians what to do either, but I just think it's odd that you include some far off islands with their own culture(s?) In a group "we" but not the Canadians

If only the US gets off oil that will have only a minimal impact on the Middle East. Barely any oil from the Middle East comes to our hemisphere - because we've got so danged much oil in our own hemisphere.

-- so you're saying that even if we go 100% green energy & relegalize hemp & make all our plastics from it, we would still be dicking around in the Middle East & ruining those countries?

[David Horn]

(10-05-2016, 07:40 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(10-04-2016, 10:37 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(10-04-2016, 08:10 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(10-03-2016, 10:30 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(10-03-2016, 05:18 AM)Marypoza Wrote: We need to get off oil. Then nobody will give a rat's ass what happens in that sandhole

We = USA?

We = USA + Europe?

We = USA + Europe + Japan + S. Korea + Taiwan?

---- I meant the United States. I wouldn't presume to tell other countries what to do

Interesting that you left off Canada. Not that I would presume to tell the Canadians what to do either, but I just think it's odd that you include some far off islands with their own culture(s?) In a group "we" but not the Canadians

If only the US gets off oil that will have only a minimal impact on the Middle East. Barely any oil from the Middle East comes to our hemisphere - because we've got so danged much oil in our own hemisphere.

-- so you're saying that even if we go 100% green energy & relegalize hemp & make all our plastics from it, we would still be dicking around in the Middle East & ruining those countries?

A large part of the reason we care today is the flow of ME refugees, not the oil they control (or don't).  The mess in the middle east needs to be resolved, and we are in a poor position to provide much of a positive nature.  I do believe we'll take the Syrians out of the game, and the Russians will use it for political gain.  I doubt that will be a net positive, but who knows.  In the end, the people in the region need to step up.

[Ragnarök_62]

(10-05-2016, 10:58 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: The other reason we care is the fact that our European/NATO allies, Japan, Taiwan, S. Korea, and others, are completely dependent on Middle East oil.

1. Lot's of countries there man.  Let them fix it.
2. The US has shot it's credibility to hell over there. It's time to pack it up, assess why we fucked up so bad, and leave.
[Rags blames idiotic NeoCON policies].
3. As a "lessons learned", reiterate the fact the US is not "the indispensable nation" and  is fixing to fuck up all over again in Iraq. I'd love to buy a call option on the event, IS will still have a presence in Iraq after this latest "surge" ends.

[Eric the Green]

Lessons learned, I hope. Iraq was a totally unnecessary war, and we fucked up a bad situation and made it worse. The Iraq invasion allowed Al Qaeda of Iraq to come in and foment trouble. That has become the Islamic State, now occupying portions of Iraq and Syria and a few other places.

Trump falsely claims he opposed the invasion originally, though he opposed it later. Now he puppets the line that the USA should have kept troops in Iraq, despite the Iraqi requirement that they leave. Iraq's leader at that time was almost as bad as the one which the USA deposed. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Maliki fomented support for the resurgent Al Qaeda and IS. Just continuing the fight under Maliki would have never ended.

Now we have troops back in Iraq in a supportive role. I suppose we have no choice. But once the IS is defeated, then the victorious factions may be fighting each other. Iraq is going to be a clusterfuck for a long time. Dumb policies have dumbfounding results.

[Ragnarök_62]

(10-05-2016, 03:21 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(10-05-2016, 12:12 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(10-05-2016, 10:58 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: The other reason we care is the fact that our European/NATO allies, Japan, Taiwan, S. Korea, and others, are completely dependent on Middle East oil.

1. Lot's of countries there man.  Let them fix it.
2. The US has shot it's credibility to hell over there. It's time to pack it up, assess why we fucked up so bad, and leave.
[Rags blames idiotic NeoCON policies].
3. As a "lessons learned", reiterate the fact the US is not "the indispensable nation" and  is fixing to fuck up all over again in Iraq. I'd  love to buy a call option on the event, IS will still have a presence in Iraq after this latest "surge" ends.

Is NATO an "idiotic Neocon policy." Do we just go back to the way it was in the 1930s, and just let the SHTF, hoping for the best?

I'd say  keeping NATO around after the Warsaw pact is an idiotic policy.   It's simple really. George Bush Sr. promised Gorbachev that NATO would "never move an inch eastward".  Well, look what happened.  NATO has indeed moved Eastward quite a way. That means the US can't keep promises worth a shit. And... since Russia and the US both have nukes,  only idiots would work towards having WWIII. "Trust, but verify should be the policy". Wrt, 1930's, yes, because the US only produces "consumption" in the world economy.  I bet the Pentagram hasn't even figured out how much of their fancy weapons shit originates in China.  If you're essentially a dead broke banana republic with nukes, yes a 1930's policy is where we need to be!

[Odin]

(10-05-2016, 05:15 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: I'd say  keeping NATO around after the Warsaw pact is an idiotic policy.   It's simple really. George Bush Sr. promised Gorbachev that NATO would "never move an inch eastward".  Well, look what happened.  NATO has indeed moved Eastward quite a way. That means the US can't keep promises worth a shit. And... since Russia and the US both have nukes,  only idiots would work towards having WWIII. "Trust, but verify should be the policy". Wrt, 1930's, yes, because the US only produces "consumption" in the world economy.  I bet the Pentagram hasn't even figured out how much of their fancy weapons shit originates in China.  If you're essentially a dead broke banana republic with nukes, yes a 1930's policy is where we need to be!

Eastern European countries were begging to get in NATO.

"Banana Republic with nukes"? "Only produces consumption"? Seriously??? Quit being ridiculous Rags. The US still has one of the largest manufacturing outputs in the world.