Naturally, there are none of us around when Turkey, or more correctly, the Ottoman Empire, was referrd to as the "Old Man of Europe".
Now we are in a position to say:
a. that, notwithstanding its mineral wealth, most of the Arab World is stagnant.
b. a stagnant and unhealthy geopolitical area is produced by, or fosters, oppresive regime.
In this case, it is difficult to determine whether the chicked produced the Egg, or vice versa.
The statistics state it rather succintly: The Arab World, comprising at leat 350 million people, when Oil is subtracteed, exports less to the rest of the world than Finland.
I have nothing against the doughty Finns either.
The situation is dangerous.
How does that affect our view of the" War on Terror".
To seek an historical example we know that 2 metods work:
The " Containment" strategy of Post World War Two, which dictated that theCold War would not get too hot . However, basically, "we" needed nothing from the Warsaw Pact Powers.
We need oil.
The next example is that of the treatment of Axis Powers after WWII: complete enforced restructuring under western eyes and under Western type constitutions.
How to Judge this in context of the second Gulf War?
If we don't get it right, there will be a 3rd Gulf War, invoving the Saudis and Iran.
John
A Stagnant World
-
JOHN THURSTON
- Posts: 2445
- Joined: Sat Nov 28, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: MARSHFIELD, MA. USA
- Contact:
A Stagnant World
"All Enlightenment Gratefully Accepted"
-
RACastanet
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA
-
Gene DeMambro
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA US of A
Unless there's a revolution in Iran (bloodless or otherwise), that has the support of a significant portion of the military, Iran will stay as-is. While much of the population is for reform, the hard-line mullahs still have the loyalty of the military.
I don't know as if there's a concerted effort in the Arab world to undermine US interests. But as Al Queda shows, there is significant "private" opposition to Western Civilization. Financed of course by US oil purchases...
China doesn't have as much sway as everyone thinks they do with North Korea. And I think Pres. Bush is making a mistake by not engaging in some type of dialogue with North Korea.
China might be the merging superpower to watch. But maybe they like free trade with the US too much?
Gene
I don't know as if there's a concerted effort in the Arab world to undermine US interests. But as Al Queda shows, there is significant "private" opposition to Western Civilization. Financed of course by US oil purchases...
China doesn't have as much sway as everyone thinks they do with North Korea. And I think Pres. Bush is making a mistake by not engaging in some type of dialogue with North Korea.
China might be the merging superpower to watch. But maybe they like free trade with the US too much?
Gene
-
mikemurphy
- Posts: 989
- Joined: Mon Oct 05, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Randolph, MA USA 781-963-8891
- Contact:
next?
John,
Except for cultural aspects and oil, the Middle East has nothing to offer, that's true. The various "empires" of that region were of no consequence to the rest of the world because they had nothing to offer. The Ottoman Empire was way past its last leg when they decided to join the Central Powers, which is why the Allies never really bothered much with them (Galipolli notwithstanding).
Combating terrorism lies in the response we choose and so far the Israeli and American answers don't seem to be working. Obviosly, negotiation is not the answer, but military response as we see both in Israel and Iraq right now doesn't seem to be working either. Perhaps the best answer is the old fashion method of paying them off. It's worked for us in the past (your post WWII example)(i.e. Marshall Plan & Truman Doctrine), and it seems to be working for the more wealthy nations of the Middle East who pay off the terrorists to stay out of their countries.
North Korea is the more dangerous of the adversaries out there no IMHO because we have let them dictate policy to us and S. Korea for so long. Would they use Nukes? Who knows, but they are dangerous because they have nothing to lose, because they are a country that has nothing. China IS the only real influence in that region who can stabalize them, and yet they choose not to at this point. Perhaps they know a little more than most.
China in and of itself is of little worry considering the structure of their remaining 2nd World economy; however, like N. Korea, nothing is stopping them from selling to the terrorist of the world, but then again, we can say that about France too. Can't we?
mike
Except for cultural aspects and oil, the Middle East has nothing to offer, that's true. The various "empires" of that region were of no consequence to the rest of the world because they had nothing to offer. The Ottoman Empire was way past its last leg when they decided to join the Central Powers, which is why the Allies never really bothered much with them (Galipolli notwithstanding).
Combating terrorism lies in the response we choose and so far the Israeli and American answers don't seem to be working. Obviosly, negotiation is not the answer, but military response as we see both in Israel and Iraq right now doesn't seem to be working either. Perhaps the best answer is the old fashion method of paying them off. It's worked for us in the past (your post WWII example)(i.e. Marshall Plan & Truman Doctrine), and it seems to be working for the more wealthy nations of the Middle East who pay off the terrorists to stay out of their countries.
North Korea is the more dangerous of the adversaries out there no IMHO because we have let them dictate policy to us and S. Korea for so long. Would they use Nukes? Who knows, but they are dangerous because they have nothing to lose, because they are a country that has nothing. China IS the only real influence in that region who can stabalize them, and yet they choose not to at this point. Perhaps they know a little more than most.
China in and of itself is of little worry considering the structure of their remaining 2nd World economy; however, like N. Korea, nothing is stopping them from selling to the terrorist of the world, but then again, we can say that about France too. Can't we?
mike
-
JOHN THURSTON
- Posts: 2445
- Joined: Sat Nov 28, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: MARSHFIELD, MA. USA
- Contact:
'Paying them off'
Hi guys:
Yes I am reminded of the quip made by a 'Nam Grunt when informed by an alert information officer to the effect that it cost apporoximately $360,000.00 for every NVA and VC Killed.
The Grunt responded: "Hell, we probably could bought em of for less"
Another quip from the time as recounted in James Webbs' "Fields of Fire"
A 'salty' but new to 'Nam Sergeant approached a detail digging entrenchments (In 100 deg heat) and remonstrated with them for their shoddy apprearence. The response was predictable "you get down and dig this here ditch"
The Sergeant shot back crisply "that kind of talk can land you in the Danang Jail".
The digging Marine stopped: "Danang, you mean yoou can get me outa here and to DANANG!!!!!.
I do not recall what webb put down as transpiring next. J
Yes I am reminded of the quip made by a 'Nam Grunt when informed by an alert information officer to the effect that it cost apporoximately $360,000.00 for every NVA and VC Killed.
The Grunt responded: "Hell, we probably could bought em of for less"
Another quip from the time as recounted in James Webbs' "Fields of Fire"
A 'salty' but new to 'Nam Sergeant approached a detail digging entrenchments (In 100 deg heat) and remonstrated with them for their shoddy apprearence. The response was predictable "you get down and dig this here ditch"
The Sergeant shot back crisply "that kind of talk can land you in the Danang Jail".
The digging Marine stopped: "Danang, you mean yoou can get me outa here and to DANANG!!!!!.
I do not recall what webb put down as transpiring next. J
"All Enlightenment Gratefully Accepted"
