The Middle East Problem (Wall of text/Political Incorrectness)

[Guest]

Iraq was a pretty decent country before it was invaded. Despite his dictatorial tendencies, Saddam controlled the country, and effectively stabilized it. The same goes with Bashar al Assad in Syria. Iraq and Syria were fairly stable until their leaders were removed.

In fact, most of the Middle East was without major problems prior to the Iraq War and the ridiculous Arab Spring. You may not be aware of this, but guys like Saddam, al Assad, Ben Ali (Tunisia) and Mubarrak were secularists. They hardly cared about religion barring some exceptions. I do concede that Saddam was ruthless (w/ the Kurds), and al Assad has mishandled the revolution, but my point still stands, overall.

When it comes to Islam, there needs to be a strong--almost dictatorial--leader. When Muslim countries become "democratic" they have the tendency of bringing in extremist, zealot leaders; look at Iraq, Egypt, Tunisia, and even Libya.

Mubarak imprisoned extremist Muslims...like the recently ousted Pres. Morsi and his Muslim Bro. gang. Same goes to Ben Ali, et al. Terrorism, car bombs, etc... we're exceedingly rare under these guys, but things have changed.


Iraq and Syria are hellholes, and Christians & other minorities are being exterminated in droves thanks to extremists.

Egypt naively brought in the Muslim Brotherhood to foster their new freedom at first, then kicked them out in favor of secularism...but now they face increasing inner turmoil from Muslim Brotherhood terrorists who refuse to back down. These are the same terrorists who were jailed under Mubarak.

Syria will soon be under extremist rule if the civil war ever ends, becoming a haven and breeding ground for terrorists.

Jordan is the last stronghold in the Middle East. It's a secular monarchy, but there have been attempts to overthrow the King. That would probably destroy the country.

Having said all that:
Bush got rid of Saddam, and we all know invading Iraq was a grave error, but why did Obama support the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt---and why does he and other US leaders support the Syrian rebels? Why are we giving these guys weapons, and why did we get involved in Libya? Why are we supporting the same people who will turn the gun on us? We continue to support the same people who annihilate Christians and other minorities...all for what, our love of freedom? Democracy? Ironically, the Arab Spring hasn't produced any freedom.

Edited January 11, 2014 by failos

[mtangelsfan]

Those countries suck now for sure and we have not made them any better.  In fact we easily could have made it much worse.

 

However, it is borderline delusional to think that those countries were nice places to live with those guys in control.  Murderous dictators with sons who raped any women they wanted with no reprecussions.  Why don't you talk to the Kurds or the Shiites in the south about how life in Iraq was.

 

Good grief.

[Adam]

Everything can be argued as relative I suppose

Edited January 10, 2014 by Adam

[mtangelsfan]

I don't believe in relativism. 

[Adam]

Neither do I.

 

Edited...

[acro2008]

We've been lied to so many times about what is really going down.  So basing our perspectives on what the governent and media tell us has historically proven to bite us in the @ss and ruined our clarity, IMO.  Forget about foreign policy, wait until Science tells us that we are really in a binary star system.

[Guest]

Those countries suck now for sure and we have not made them any better.  In fact we easily could have made it much worse.

 

However, it is borderline delusional to think that those countries were nice places to live with those guys in control.  Murderous dictators with sons who raped any women they wanted with no reprecussions.  Why don't you talk to the Kurds or the Shiites in the south about how life in Iraq was.

 

Good grief.

My thread was posted before I could finish the thread. I mentioned the Kurds; Saddam was pretty evil, no doubt. I never said he was a saint. Aside from that, minorities were tolerated in Iraq, and they lived decent lives...whereas they will certainly die today.

Egypt NEVER faced any of the problems you listed. Egypt has always been a secular country with Muslims and Christians peacefully coexisting (there is some discrimination, and very few isolated events), and Mubarak treated Christians very well. I know, from personal experience. Syria, was the same way.

[arch stanton]

The same thing happened when the Soviet Union broke up. Places like Yugoslavia and Chechnya that had been ruled by iron fist started fighting ethnic battles that had been under wraps during the dictatorships.

 

The problem is the idea that you can rely on democracy in mixed areas. Our own democracy was created by a group of white male land owners with similar backgrounds. Not much chance that happens today.

 

It can only work with a strong constitution that gives the people security and protection from larger groups and right now about the only solidarity that can be had in this region is Muslims rallying against the west. we should pat ourselves on the back for that.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

Apart from the bogus weapons of mass destruction argument used to justify the Iraq invasion, perhaps the biggest miscalculation made by US leaders was the uninformed assumption that an Islamic country would openly embrace American-style democracy.

[Guest]

Apart from the bogus weapons of mass destruction argument used to justify the Iraq invasion, perhaps the biggest miscalculation made by US leaders was the uninformed assumption that an Islamic country would openly embrace American-style democracy.

I don't think it was a miscalculation. Everything is decidedly calculated, and America places its interests above all else. The US (and its allies) use freedom and democracy as a guise to mask their true intentions.

1. President Obama directly supported the dubious Libyan rebels, who toppled Gaddafi in 2011 in a civil war. The US gave these "freedom fighters" weapons which are now in the hands of known terrorists. These are the same assholes who bombed our embassy in Benghazi AFTER we helped them get their precious democracy. US supported Libyan rebels because their MAJOR ally, Qatar, was deeply entrenched in ousting Gaddafi. Qatar is vital to the US' strategic dominance in the region, and invaluable for many other reasons. They are part of OPEC, and have huge influence in the M.E. Qatar is the main supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, and they fund other extremist Islamist organizations.

2. On the flip side, the US was very much against the peaceful revolution in Bahrain. Bahrain's Shia minority simply wanted some human rights, freedom of speech and religion--something every human deserves. The government of Bahrain responded by sending foreign soldiers from Saudi Arabia to kill, torture, and imprison non-violent protesters. The US (and its allies) strongly supported the Bahraini government and refused to even commend the protesters for peacefully pursuing human rights. Very sad stuff. The US chose to not support the Bahraini protests because their major ally Saudi Arabia has significant interests there and is actively suppressing the Shia minority there. Saudi Arabia is a major source of extremist ideology and is the hub for Wahhabists (i.e: the assholes of Islam).

So, the US doesn't care about spreading its democratic ideals. The US doesn't care about eliminating terrorism, or impeding extremism. If they did care, they wouldn't consistently support the wrong side. It's all about interests. Ideally speaking, a country would be stupid not to protect its interests and influence--but all these actions are ensuring the inevitable demise of this great country; these actions are hurting innocent people, including my own relatives. 

As an aside, I deeply regret voting for Obama twice. His choices and actions will have severe consequences down the line, but it's not just him--it's guys like John McCain and Lindsey Graham: leaders who are so eager to give weapons to rebels for ridiculous reasons. 

Edited January 11, 2014 by failos

[Guest]

Islam is a polluted religion and once we can get past the political correctness and agree and understand that, we can start discussing how to deal with it.

Excellent point. Although, you have to consider the dangers associated with publicly criticizing Islam. Many people are politically correct out of fear. See: Salman Rushdie or the Danish cartoonist. Edited January 11, 2014 by failos

[Socaliente]

These people dont know what freedom is. And us going in there and changing a leader is not going to fix 2000 plus years of culture. Religion is problem and sadly its only getting worse.

[arch stanton]

I don't think it was a miscalculation. Everything is decidedly calculated, and America places its interests above all else. The US (and its allies) use freedom and democracy as a guise to mask their true intentions.

1. President Obama directly supported the dubious Libyan rebels, who toppled Gaddafi in 2011 in a civil war. The US gave these "freedom fighters" weapons which are now in the hands of known terrorists. These are the same assholes who bombed our embassy in Benghazi AFTER we helped them get their precious democracy. US supported Libyan rebels because their MAJOR ally, Qatar, was deeply entrenched in ousting Gaddafi. Qatar is vital to the US' strategic dominance in the region, and invaluable for many other reasons. They are part of OPEC, and have huge influence in the M.E. Qatar is the main supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, and they fund other extremist Islamist organizations.

2. On the flip side, the US was very much against the peaceful revolution in Bahrain. Bahrain's Shia minority simply wanted some human rights, freedom of speech and religion--something every human deserves. The government of Bahrain responded by sending foreign soldiers from Saudi Arabia to kill, torture, and imprison non-violent protesters. The US (and its allies) strongly supported the Bahraini government and refused to even commend the protesters for peacefully pursuing human rights. Very sad stuff. The US chose to not support the Bahraini protests because their major ally Saudi Arabia has significant interests there and is actively suppressing the Shia minority there. Saudi Arabia is a major source of extremist ideology and is the hub for Wahhabists (i.e: the assholes of Islam).

So, the US doesn't care about spreading its democratic ideals. The US doesn't care about eliminating terrorism, or impeding extremism. If they did care, they wouldn't consistently support the wrong side. It's all about interests. Ideally speaking, a country would be stupid not to protect its interests and influence--but all these actions are ensuring the inevitable demise of this great country; these actions are hurting innocent people, including my own relatives. 

As an aside, I deeply regret voting for Obama twice. His choices and actions will have severe consequences down the line, but it's not just him--it's guys like John McCain and Lindsey Graham: leaders who are so eager to give weapons to rebels for ridiculous reasons. 

In regards to Bahrain the Shia are not a minority. They are about 60% of those holding Bahraini citizenship. Yes there were peaceful demonstrations at first but a) they refused to bargain with the government. they wanted all or nothing. b ) They were heavily infiltrated by non-Bahrainis who escalated the situation and created the violence.

 

When the government offered to open dialogue they took to the streets with the chant of "NO DIALOGUE". Whichever side you choose to back you have to concede that no government is just going to sit and roll over. The actions of the minority of the protesters set the entire Shia agenda in the Kingdom back several years. They still protest regularly as they have for 30 years. This is generally a nice place to live but Shia rule would turn them into Iranian puppets and ruin the whole place overnight.

 

As for the presence of the Saudis, this is part of the GCC agreement.

 

Here's something that will have to be addressed in the very near future. All the prominent Arab countries have more foreign workers that natives. In Bahrain it's 700,000 foreigners to 500,000 citizens. Most of the workers are from India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh. They are the Mexicans of the middle east. The problem is that there is 30% or better unemployment among the citizens because it's so much cheaper to hire the foreigners and they generally are much more effective as employees. Up to 70% of the local populations is under age 30. These idle young men have nothing better to do than stir trouble and listen to fanatic Imams. 

Edited January 11, 2014 by arch stanton

[Guest]

In regards to Bahrain the Shia are not a minority. They are about 60% of those holding Bahraini citizenship. Yes there were peaceful demonstrations at first but a) they refused to bargain with the government. they wanted all or nothing. b ) They were heavily infiltrated by non-Bahrainis who escalated the situation and created the violence.

When the government offered to open dialogue they took to the streets with the chant of "NO DIALOGUE". Whichever side you choose to back you have to concede that no government is just going to sit and roll over. The actions of the minority of the protesters set the entire Shia agenda in the Kingdom back several years. They still protest regularly as they have for 30 years. This is generally a nice place to live but Shia rule would turn them into Iranian puppets and ruin the whole place overnight.

As for the presence of the Saudis, this is part of the GCC agreement.

Here's something that will have to be addressed in the very near future. All the prominent Arab countries have more foreign workers that natives. In Bahrain it's 700,000 foreigners to 500,000 citizens. Most of the workers are from India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh. They are the Mexicans of the middle east. The problem is that there is 30% or better unemployment among the citizens because it's so much cheaper to hire the foreigners and they generally are much more effective as employees. Up to 70% of the local populations is under age 30. These idle young men have nothing better to do than stir trouble and listen to fanatic Imams.

Thank you for the correction. That's right, the Shia are about 70% while being ruled by a Sunni regime. And yes, The Bahraini regime would crumble without the GCC agreement and Saudi intervention. I have no problems with multi-confessional governments like this. While I understand your perspective, I disagree with your rationale. I particularly take offense to how you willingly overlook the atrocities committed by this regime and their offenses against human rights. The police brutality and proven cases of torture further this claim.

Furthermore, the protestors were not violent with the initial demand of equality and freedom from discrimination. This, of course, was met with brutal force by the government. Demands for the abdication of King Hamad were made once he began murdering protestors. For the record, these demands were made by a couple extremist Shia groups--the majority of protestors did not initially demand this. There is no justification for what this government is doing to its people....yet you overlook these things on the basis that the country would become a puppet state of Iran? The king is an asshole, he could have at least given them equality.

Edited January 11, 2014 by failos

[arch stanton]

I'm not so blind to think that this was all on the up and up but nothing they did was unexpected.

 

The protesters were not violent initially but they are the ones who initiated and then escalated the violence and from the beginning they wanted the monarchy thrown out. As soon as they occupied the Pearl, Hezbollah started sending "workers" from Lebanon who joined the protest as citizens and undermined the whole scene.

 

The king, and more accurately the king's uncle, could have done things much differently but I was there then and I'm there now and I have no doubt that the agenda from Day 1 was an end to the monarchy. They attempted a coup and they were not successful. As defeated rebels go they've been treated pretty mildly. Once things calm down they could very well start negotiating for expanded role in the Parliament and more business opportunities.  

 

Discrimination is an interesting topic for this region because it's almost entirely nepotistic and rising from poverty is tough for anybody. There's definitely a long way to go here but what passed for Arab Spring in Bahrain wasn't really about Bahrainis.

Edited January 11, 2014 by arch stanton

[Guest]

I'm not so blind to think that this was all on the up and up but nothing they did was unexpected.

 

The protesters were not violent initially but they are the ones who initiated and then escalated the violence and from the beginning they wanted the monarchy thrown out. As soon as they occupied the Pearl, Hezbollah started sending "workers" from Lebanon who joined the protest as citizens and undermined the whole scene.

 

The king, and more accurately the king's uncle, could have done things much differently but I was there then and I'm there now and I have no doubt that the agenda from Day 1 was an end to the monarchy. They attempted a coup and they were not successful. As defeated rebels go they've been treated pretty mildly. Once things calm down they could very well start negotiating for expanded role in the Parliament and more business opportunities.  

 

Discrimination is an interesting topic for this region because it's almost entirely nepotistic and rising from poverty is tough for anybody. There's definitely a long way to go here but what passed for Arab Spring in Bahrain wasn't really about Bahrainis.

Very interesting. You clearly know more about the issues in Bahrain than I do--I was unaware that you live there, it must have been quite an experience witnessing the protests. I feel that expanded human rights should be given to anyone who lives there, but I am generally against democracy in the Middle East as I stated earlier. I totally agree that there's a long way to go.

[arch stanton]

I work on the Saudi side and live on the Bahrain side. I've accidentally got myself caught in the middle of some of the crap. At that time we lived in a fully Sunni neighborhood in Riffa. When the protesters were going to march on the palace it was the local Sunnis, many from our neighborhood, who blocked the roads carrying clubs and knives.

 

One of the Shia in my wife's office spent 5 months in jail for trying to prevent his brother's arrest at a protest. There are police trucks everywhere and they actually block the Shia into their neighborhoods when they hear about a rally that hasn't been authorized. The police force and military are made up mostly of Sunni expatriates from Pakistan, Jordan, Syria, etc, who were given houses and citizenship in exchange for loyalty to the crown. The number of second or third generation Bahraini born citizens is pretty low throughout the Kingdom.

 

There is a clear and undeniable class system here. The Sunnis rule but there are plenty of rich Shia who distanced themselves from the fray and continue to enjoy their place. But overall none of them have it so bad. Poverty means you drive a Lancer instead of a Lexus. Overcrowding and unemplyment among the young men on both sides are going to become big problems without clear solutions that everyone will agree on. Uncle Khalifah, the Prime Minister, has his work cut out for him.

[Tank]

Apart from the bogus weapons of mass destruction argument used to justify the Iraq invasion, perhaps the biggest miscalculation made by US leaders was the uninformed assumption that an Islamic country would openly embrace American-style democracy.

Islam doesn't want to be reasoned with; it wants to be obeyed. (I think dennis Miller said that many years ago)

[TobiasFunke]

Dennis miller knows as much about Islam as I do with Cantonese

[Hollyw00d]

Islam is a polluted religion and once we can get past the political correctness and agree and understand that, we can start discussing how to deal with it.

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/03/the_10_worst_examples_of_christian_or_far_right_terrorism_partner/

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/05/muslims-only-carried-out-2-5-percent-of-terrorist-attacks-on-u-s-soil-between-1970-and-2012.html

http://www.examiner.com/article/christian-terrorism-is-very-common

[mtangelsfan]

Comparing Islam to anything is stupid.

 

"Look over there!!!!!!"

[Hollyw00d]

I'm an atheist, but thanks for proving my point. Instead of accepting reality, your liberal angst and PC mentality made you immediately assume I'm a right wing Christian nut.

the only assuming being done here is your own, and congrats you made yourself look like an ass not just once but twice in this thread.

[Hollyw00d]

Comparing Islam to anything is stupid.

"Look over there!!!!!!"

ya, damn those pesky facts

[mtangelsfan]

Yeah, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were great humanitarians.

 

Bottom line is there are pieces of crap human beings in all walks of life.  People can justify evil for almost any reason known to man.  

[Hollyw00d]

Yeah, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were great humanitarians.

Bottom line is there are pieces of crap human beings in all walks of life. People can justify evil for almost any reason known to man.

exactly my point. Yet people continue to push the "good vs evil" crap and it pisses me off.