Count down to all out war in the Middle Eeast?

To first understand the United States involvement in the war one must first understand motives behind any war. Ultimately it comes down to profit. I am not solely referring to Iraqi oil feilds (however I am not excluding that) but to many other not so obvious things.

For instance, Mr. Dick Cheneys old company, is making a good amount of money in rebuilding Iraq. This is an American company, employing americans, which is an overall plus for the (american) economy.

On top of this many coalition countries are deploying engineers almost as freely as troops, all of this can only lead to profit in the mother land.
Also you have to consider, "civil" or "modernized" countries often conduct business with other countries of whom they hold in the same respects. This excludes most of the middle east, despite their natural reserves. Setting up democracy would be opening untold channels of business in this potentially commercial area.

War in the middle east I believe is inevitable. However likely this seems though, Palestine, the centerfold of the Middle East, is showing progress towards peace. Unfortuneately I think the instability of the region, and radicals will eventually deteriorate this.

What very much interests me, is the social changes, and political influences alive right now in the middle east. With Mr. Bush and coalition leaders, Afghanistan and Iraq have become semi-stable democracies. In two formerly terrorized corners of the Middle East, this is seen as a miracle of sorts and an example to the whole region. I can relate Lebanon's attempt to rid themselves of Syria and follow the path of revolution to seeing the positives of democracy in two formerly tyrranous states. Social mobility has made a happier middle and low class of people in Iraq and Afghanistan, with a more representative style of voting. A more fluent and social middle class permits them time to converse and think, which could only positively affect their country.

The middle east will never be entirely westernized, much like Russia they will probably modernize and grow to despise the West but not in the same radical and profoundly religious and violent ways they do now.

The best way I can answer your question is , yes, we will see in the decade or century to come, many wars and skirmishes in the middle east. I think they are facing an era much like that Revolutionary Era Europe and the Americas faced. And although it seems like americans have heavy influence now, (which they do) I believe they were only working as instigators.

As for Iran, I think the united states will eventually go after them, hopefully in a much more organized and planned fashion then Iraq, with much clearer motives.

Thank you for reading my frivolous insights!

DOM
 
you actuallyconsider Iraq to be a semi stable democracy? Do you watch the news or listen to radio? What about Iraq is semi stable? It is a no-man's land right now and it's future is very uncertain.
 
didymus said:
you actuallyconsider Iraq to be a semi stable democracy? Do you watch the news or listen to radio? What about Iraq is semi stable? It is a no-man's land right now and it's future is very uncertain.
Click to expand...
Although the press is fancy to pointing out the negatives in any situation you must be able to logically discern the progress made. I am an avid viewer of any news program, and I have seen, although in glimpses, more hope than compromise. Education is becoming a popular issue and children of both genders are becoming educated. A 19 year old , female was the first person to vote during their recent elections. With an established Prime Minister and several counsels throughout the country, the press is simply bored with the good news so it focuses upon the insurgencies. If the United States were more organized in their efforts, the insurgency would already be squandered and military occupation would be concluding. I think now, more than ever, Iraq is coming out as a democratic middle eastern power.
 
With all due respect I think you're living in a tree. There are some positive aspects like you said, education and a dialogue of democracy but they are no where close to reaching that objective. No matter how organized the US military is it wouldn't matter. It's hard to fight an enemy you can';t see. Right now you have Iraquis and non Iraquis that are joining the insurgencies. There were entire neighborhoods that didn't vote for fear of dying. Those that are brave enough to stand up for their country are being killed on a daily basis. It is a huge mess. We'll be there a while I guarantee you that.
 
Iraq now is not much different than the United States in the 1770's. They are facing revolution. They are getting aide like we got from the french, they are getting rid of a horrible tyrranous leader, and establishing themselves as an independent and democratic state. Although their are still loyalists, like we had during our american revolution who attack the common man, who has been enlightened if you will, to a new hope, it doesnt mean they are the majority. The insurgents are a very small minority, who thanks to the press are very vocal. Right now, everything they are doing is out of desperation. The regime is dead, and like the US, by making the first step towards democracy, they are already proving their stability. They are definitely fighting a winning battle, and those neighborhoods that havent voted are few and far between and will be left out when they see the new face Iraq is taking on.
 
Don't forget that in the 1770's when americans fought back it was them that decided to do it and did so on their own. They didn't have another country that came in and started it up for them. But as I say to everyone. Time will tell. I hope all works out well there.
 
didymus said:
Don't forget that in the 1770's when americans fought back it was them that decided to do it and did so on their own. They didn't have another country that came in and started it up for them. But as I say to everyone. Time will tell. I hope all works out well there.
Click to expand...
Weelll, that isn't entirely accurate, Did.



The Colonialists had a significant amount of help...from the French, both financially and militarily. Also, the French did lead some battles, very victorious ones at that.

v/r

Q
 
If I read right, French spending on the Americas helped push them towards bankruptcy - leading to a peasant dissaffection with the ruling classes that become the French Revolution. :)
 
assistance from a country and another country initiating an attack are two different things. The French didn't come over and start a fight with the british and say hey guys jump in we're going to liberate you. the americans decided and allowed outside assistance. see the difference?
 
Brian is right, French spending huge amounts of money on war in Europe put them on a huge national debt. The American Revolution sent them over the edge, and that bankruptcy was one of many contributing factors that led to the French Revolution.

But thats besdies the point. Iraq was very overly oppressed, and although influence for beginning a campaign for freedom was external, the basis for that was there all along. In the US, what is often kept out of history textbooks, was that their revolution was not an entirely internal issue, other nations, most of which hated England, helped by suggesting anarchy, or by encouraging black market trade. This trade was much more profitable then the trade Britian offered via monopoly. Britians oppressive tax burdens eventually led Americans to throw them out and it incited several riots along the way. The difference between america being able to show its distaste for its government and Iraq is that Britians monarch and army was across an ocean while in Iraq police officers were waiting on street corners to supress any such occurences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top