Islam and the West

[vxr8mate]

NISMOgtr said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28212724

So now the UK has been found to supply key ingredients for chemical weapons to Syria. How surprising. Not.

I can't quite work out where you stand in all this.

You criticise 'The West' for getting rid of Sadam (who was committing genocide against his own people) and then you criticise 'The West' (or UK) for helping another despot to make sarin in order to commit genocide.

I will be the first to admit I'm not an expert on the region, but I wonder why the Middle East and Africa can't just get together and argue in parliament like us Europeans.

[KareemK]

vxr8mate said:

I will be the first to admit I'm not an expert on the region, but I wonder why the Middle East and Africa can't just get together and argue in parliament like us Europeans.

How do you "argue in parliament" with a despotic ruler? Do they attend parliament? Abide by decisions taken that they don't like?

[vxr8mate]

KareemK said:

vxr8mate said:

I will be the first to admit I'm not an expert on the region, but I wonder why the Middle East and Africa can't just get together and argue in parliament like us Europeans.

How do you "argue in parliament" with a despotic ruler? Do they attend parliament? Abide by decisions taken that they don't like?

My point exactly, welcome our help when it's offered.

[Countdown]

vxr8mate said:

I can't quite work out where you stand in all this.

You criticise 'The West' for getting rid of Sadam (who was committing genocide against his own people) and then you criticise 'The West' (or UK) for helping another despot to make sarin in order to commit genocide.

Whenever you "help" one side or the other you are taking sides and effectively p155ing off the "other side". The "other side" will remember this. If you then change sides half way through you are in the special position of having p155ed off both sides. The big downside here is that (depending on how much aid/weapons you supplied) they will remember and they will be looking constantly for a way at getting their revenge. That's why we really really should try and stay out of other people's conflicts.

Sometimes you can't avoid it, sometimes you HAVE to get involved, but it would help if there was a clear moral justifiable reason for doing so rather than political self-interest or some mythical "special relationship".

vxr8mate said:

I will be the first to admit I'm not an expert on the region, but I wonder why the Middle East and Africa can't just get together and argue in parliament like us Europeans.

To do so takes a long time and requires education. Most countries get there in the long term but external interference doesn't help matters.

[vxr8mate]

How long do you think the Middle East needs then?

Edited by vxr8mate on Wednesday 9th July 13:13

[StevieBee]

vxr8mate said:

I will be the first to admit I'm not an expert on the region, but I wonder why the Middle East and Africa can't just get together and argue in parliament like us Europeans.

In very simple terms (and I'd be happy to corrected on this), the issues go back thousands of years, pre-dating the rise if Islam and are rooted in the dispersion of power and land across two basic classifications of tribes (Sunnis and Shi'ites). What has been suppressed during this time is the banishing of the rise of what we would call the middle classes.

In the west, the existence of a middle class enables even those born in to abject poverty, the opportunity to rise through social ranks to the upper echelons of society, even to the point of reaching the tiers of the ruling elite and aristocracy (via marriage).

In the middle east, if you are born into a subservient 'tribe' (let's call this the working class), you can work as hard as you like, achieve every Degree known to man, yet you will never ever ascend upwards through society.

So you have two tribes, one; the ruling elite, wishing to preserve their positions and the lower tribes, know fully aware of the opportunities that exist but more than a little miffed that these can't be reached.

Throw into the mix the money that comes from oil and the uneven distribution of this wealth across the region and you have a catalyst of the heavily aggrieved and the heavily protective. The ruling elite have the power to change things but have no desire and no need to do so. The west could exert more influence to bring about reforms but we don't want to risk upsetting relations with the countries from which we get our oil.

Hence, there is no opportunity to argue the matter in any official capacity as such platforms simply do not exist and if they did, the argument would be one way.

As I say, this is a very simplistic view and would happily concede correction to my understanding.

[Countdown]

vxr8mate said:

How long do you think the Middle East needs then?

Without external interference? About 100 years.

[vxr8mate]

StevieBee said:

vxr8mate said:

I will be the first to admit I'm not an expert on the region, but I wonder why the Middle East and Africa can't just get together and argue in parliament like us Europeans.

In very simple terms (and I'd be happy to corrected on this), the issues go back thousands of years, pre-dating the rise if Islam and are rooted in the dispersion of power and land across two basic classifications of tribes (Sunnis and Shi'ites). What has been suppressed during this time is the banishing of the rise of what we would call the middle classes.

In the west, the existence of a middle class enables even those born in to abject poverty, the opportunity to rise through social ranks to the upper echelons of society, even to the point of reaching the tiers of the ruling elite and aristocracy (via marriage).

In the middle east, if you are born into a subservient 'tribe' (let's call this the working class), you can work as hard as you like, achieve every Degree known to man, yet you will never ever ascend upwards through society.

So you have two tribes, one; the ruling elite, wishing to preserve their positions and the lower tribes, know fully aware of the opportunities that exist but more than a little miffed that these can't be reached.

Throw into the mix the money that comes from oil and the uneven distribution of this wealth across the region and you have a catalyst of the heavily aggrieved and the heavily protective. The ruling elite have the power to change things but have no desire and no need to do so. The west could exert more influence to bring about reforms but we don't want to risk upsetting relations with the countries from which we get our oil.

Hence, there is no opportunity to argue the matter in any official capacity as such platforms simply do not exist and if they did, the argument would be one way.

As I say, this is a very simplistic view and would happily concede correction to my understanding.

Then add: Terrorism and nukes and it all becomes global.

[Digga]

Countdown said:

vxr8mate said:

How long do you think the Middle East needs then?

Without external interference? About 100 years.

It's a depressing point to ponder.

None of us can know for sure, but it's not 10 months and not 10 years... and when you look at how much is fked and how badly, it's very hard to see how and when it might resolve, if ever. Of course we can only look at it from our own side of things and it would be daft to not realise that some of what needs fixing there is also in need of attention here - democracy, corruption, inhumanity etc. etc. - but the scale and depth of the problems in the Middle East and Africa makes the troubles in Northern Ireland look like a scuffle in a pub car park.

[NISMOgtr]

vxr8mate said:

I can't quite work out where you stand in all this.

You criticise 'The West' for getting rid of Sadam (who was committing genocide against his own people) and then you criticise 'The West' (or UK) for helping another despot to make sarin in order to commit genocide.

I will be the first to admit I'm not an expert on the region, but I wonder why the Middle East and Africa can't just get together and argue in parliament like us Europeans.

The point I was continuing to make was that the West is always interfering and is one of the causes of the troubles in the region.
Saddam going was a good thing, but the West put him there in the first place. To get rid of him, they invaded the country and thousands of innocent people were killed. Now the country is in turmoil due to the constant interference in the region.

I only defend what I feel is right and criticise what I feel is wrong. Just because the West did a good thing in removing Saddam, it does not make them good - especially when they replace him with another system of their choice etc etc etc.

The West (governments) need to stay out of the region, but they never will because they have vested interests and clearly have no morals whatsoever when it comes to supporting a certain side etc.

[Countdown]

NISMOgtr said:

<snip> Just because the West did a good thing in removing Saddam, it does not make them good - especially when they replace him with another system of their choice etc etc etc.<snip>

Exactly - especially when you're only (or mainly) doing good for reasons of self interest. It's transparent to the people you are p155ing off AND to the people you are supporting that you don't really give a monkeys about them, or democracy, as long as you get what you want.

Strangely enough some people harbour grudges and will try to get revenge.

[Lost soul]

NISMOgtr said:

vxr8mate said:

I can't quite work out where you stand in all this.

You criticise 'The West' for getting rid of Sadam (who was committing genocide against his own people) and then you criticise 'The West' (or UK) for helping another despot to make sarin in order to commit genocide.

I will be the first to admit I'm not an expert on the region, but I wonder why the Middle East and Africa can't just get together and argue in parliament like us Europeans.

Saddam going was a good thing, but the West put him there in the first place. To get rid of him, they invaded the country and thousands of innocent people were killed. Now the country is in turmoil due to the constant interference in the region.

So who is it that's interfering in Iraq ?

[KareemK]

Lost soul said:

NISMOgtr said:

vxr8mate said:

I can't quite work out where you stand in all this.

You criticise 'The West' for getting rid of Sadam (who was committing genocide against his own people) and then you criticise 'The West' (or UK) for helping another despot to make sarin in order to commit genocide.

I will be the first to admit I'm not an expert on the region, but I wonder why the Middle East and Africa can't just get together and argue in parliament like us Europeans.

Saddam going was a good thing, but the West put him there in the first place. To get rid of him, they invaded the country and thousands of innocent people were killed. Now the country is in turmoil due to the constant interference in the region.

So who is it that's interfering in Iraq ?

The US currently has 300 military 'advisors' in Iraq which is 'interfering' in anybodys language.

However they're not alone as the vacuum created by the removal of Sadaam has sucked many different groups into Iraq.

[Lost soul]

KareemK said:

Lost soul said:

NISMOgtr said:

vxr8mate said:

I can't quite work out where you stand in all this.

You criticise 'The West' for getting rid of Sadam (who was committing genocide against his own people) and then you criticise 'The West' (or UK) for helping another despot to make sarin in order to commit genocide.

I will be the first to admit I'm not an expert on the region, but I wonder why the Middle East and Africa can't just get together and argue in parliament like us Europeans.

Saddam going was a good thing, but the West put him there in the first place. To get rid of him, they invaded the country and thousands of innocent people were killed. Now the country is in turmoil due to the constant interference in the region.

So who is it that's interfering in Iraq ?

The US currently has 300 military 'advisors' in Iraq which is 'interfering' in anybodys language.

However they're not alone as the vacuum created by the removal of Sadaam has sucked many different groups into Iraq.

Well you can not have it both ways if we stay out what happens then

[technogogo]

Countdown said:

vxr8mate said:

How long do you think the Middle East needs then?

Without external interference? About 100 years.

I'd suggest generations not years be the measure because it takes new generations to make change, plus old generations to wither. So perhaps three generations?

Of course technology plays into this. The spread of Internet increases human to human communication which may boost moderate consensus? Jump-starting economic prosperity and genuine social improvements, education etc... Though technology is clearly a double edged sword if you can repurpose a 767, for example.

Also... Speaking personally, my ability to analyse, think and rationalise has improved hugely in my forties. I don't know if this is through wisdom or actually just the internet. Looking back over the last seven years now I threw myself into science, skeptical and critical thinking podcasts and information sources. I truly wish in my twenties and thirties I could see things as I do now. Though it makes listening to the news often a very frustrating experience. Like today, radio 4 news says: electrical equipment sold that was used to make sarin. Me to myself in my car: "what electrical equipment? I bet it was just something with a motor in it? Catering food mixers or something. Grrrr" (other drivers thinking who is he waving his arms around like that?)
Just seen on BBC website... They were talking about fans. Just fans. (And I used to think there were UFOs dammit)
Of course as a critical thinker I always think, ah but there is much I don't know.... don't assume anything. Maybe address on the order was Syrian Army unit 5, Weapon production facility.... not to make light of a terrible awful incident. In which case books must be thrown.

[KareemK]

Lost soul said:

KareemK said:

Lost soul said:

NISMOgtr said:

vxr8mate said:

I can't quite work out where you stand in all this.

You criticise 'The West' for getting rid of Sadam (who was committing genocide against his own people) and then you criticise 'The West' (or UK) for helping another despot to make sarin in order to commit genocide.

I will be the first to admit I'm not an expert on the region, but I wonder why the Middle East and Africa can't just get together and argue in parliament like us Europeans.

Saddam going was a good thing, but the West put him there in the first place. To get rid of him, they invaded the country and thousands of innocent people were killed. Now the country is in turmoil due to the constant interference in the region.

So who is it that's interfering in Iraq ?

The US currently has 300 military 'advisors' in Iraq which is 'interfering' in anybodys language.

However they're not alone as the vacuum created by the removal of Sadaam has sucked many different groups into Iraq.

Well you can not have it both ways if we stay out what happens then

I dont know I merely answered your question.

If I had a remedy for the middle east troubles I'd be a rich man I suppose.

[irocfan]

KareemK said:

If I had a remedy for the middle east troubles I'd be a rich man I suppose.

more like a dead man - someone somewhere would be pissed off with you for something involving that blighted region

[dudleybloke]

irocfan said:

KareemK said:

If I had a remedy for the middle east troubles I'd be a rich man I suppose.

more like a dead man - someone somewhere would be pissed off with you for something involving that blighted region

Send in Bruce Willis.
At least then we could change this thread to islam and the vest.

[voyds9]

StevieBee said:

Throw into the mix the money that comes from oil and the uneven distribution of this wealth across the region and you have a catalyst of the heavily aggrieved and the heavily protective. The ruling elite have the power to change things but have no desire and no need to do so. The west could exert more influence to bring about reforms but we don't want to risk upsetting relations with the countries from which we get our oil.

NISMOgtr said:

<snip> Just because the West did a good thing in removing Saddam, it does not make them good - especially when they replace him with another system of their choice etc etc etc.<snip>

So basically damned if we do, damned if we don't.

[Countdown]

voyds9 said:

So basically damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Not really. Lots of countries (in fact the vast majority of countries) manage quite easily to avoid getting involved in the ME. Perhaps it would we a good idea if we did the same?