Just an idea that as been floating away in my thoughts....

That by keeping the middle east unstable stops them forming a trading block [oil] thus keeping the price of oil down......

Obviously not a new idea, but I wondered if you feel there is any validity to it.
And whether it is a deliberate conspiracy or one that is happening by default....and allowed to happen as a by product of that instability....

Care to discuss?

The M.E. has been kept unstable for decades by the West.....The reason why legitimate, popular leaders are not at the helms of countries in the Middle East is because the West will topple any leader who doesn't cater to their desires before the needs of their own people. If Middle East leaders are selected and deemed popular by their own people, the West will demonize them as radicals/extremists, terrorist leaders or enemies of peace,and thus de-legitimize them in the world media How can true co-existence take hold if the leaders of both sides are more interested in pleasing their foreign masters than their own peoples? .....(and more so to your point)also If there were no oil, there would be no petrodollars to recycle. If OPEC oil were not sold only in US dollars, the US government would not keep the Gulf states dictatorships in power. Simply put, if there was no oil in the Middle East- the West would have no reason to dominate the region :m:

When was the middle east stable? Agreed, the presence of oil doesn't help, but it wasn't a haven of peace and prosperity before oil was found.

Just an idea that as been floating away in my thoughts....

That by keeping the middle east unstable stops them forming a trading block [oil] thus keeping the price of oil down......

Obviously not a new idea, but I wondered if you feel there is any validity to it.
And whether it is a deliberate conspiracy or one that is happening by default....and allowed to happen as a by product of that instability....

Care to discuss?


frontline did a story not long ago about the history of the house of saud (last 100 years anyways) You might enjoy reading it. The internal struggle between the Saudi royals and the Wahhabis and what is islamic is informative.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saud/etc/script.html
<BR>&nbsp;

During the Cold War the Middle East was a virtual battleground between the two sides. Neither side could let the region fall into the hands of the other side, both for the petroleum and for its strategic position on Russia's front lawn, with all of those ports, and its borders with large, important countries like India. All of the governments were puppets. We supported Israel, they built dams in Egypt. We propped up Iran, they propped up Syria. They backed the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, we practically created the Taliban.

Ironic that it backfired on both of us. Now that the U.S. and Russia are not squaring off at each other, both are the targets of Islamic terrorists.

but the russians are only targetted because of disputes over chechen government etc, the yanks are targetted because they are causing unrest and war in the middle east right now

So FR, you feel that the instability was more about cold war politics than any conspiracy to keep all the Arabs fighting themselves?

If the Arab nations involved ever formed a true alliance would we see an increase in the price of oil?
Certainly their power over the Western ecconomies would increase I would think...

I agree with those who have recognized that the ME has always been an unstable region. Whether or not the US/UK/China controls that, well.. is obvious. The US has helped Israel build their military, invaded Iraq.. and they as well as the others often advise others on what is best to do with their countries. These are just the obvious of observations, but ultimately I don't think the ME is kept unstable intentionally, it is the only way they know.. the US/UK/China just help ..... manipulate it to that which best benefits them.

Well I dont think that anyone here would argue that oppresive leaders is a major cause for the unstability in the M.E..Now if given the oppurtunity to vote I would say that every country in the M.E. would vote for a anti-American Leader....do you deny this? So the question then becomes who benefits the most for these oppressive leaders being in power?

When was the middle east stable? Agreed, the presence of oil doesn't help, but it wasn't a haven of peace and prosperity before oil was found.

before oil was found it had many other resources that were needed by the west, during the crusades it was spices etc, access to the silk road.

When was the middle east stable? Agreed, the presence of oil doesn't help, but it wasn't a haven of peace and prosperity before oil was found.

No less stable than most countries were.

No less stable than most countries were.
Really? It was persistently fought over by Babylon, Assyria, Persia, Egypt, Greeks, Macedonians, Rome and any other fly-by-night empires that were around. That's leaving aside the activities of the natives who weren't exactly peaceful themselves.

before oil was found it had many other resources that were needed by the west, during the crusades it was spices etc, access to the silk road.
There were several hundred years between the end of the crusades and the beginning of oil-based economies- was itany more peaceful then?

Really? It was persistently fought over by Babylon, Assyria, Persia, Egypt, Greeks, Macedonians, Rome and any other fly-by-night empires that were around. That's leaving aside the activities of the natives who weren't exactly peaceful themselves.

The countries you cite, apart from Greece and Rome, were the Middle East, so, which country in particular was being fought over by the Middle East countries you just mentioned, and who were its 'natives'?:bugeye:

FR is right about the conflicts withing the last 50 years. We installed the SHAH because the we feared the Soviets were going to invade (and that back fired and now the Iranians hate us).

But as far as the Mid-East being peacefull...with or without the West (and lets not forget the EAST ie Soviets who stirred the pot for decades) the Middle East has been at war for thousands of years. Different Religions and Cultures who hate each other, some old song and dance.

The countries you cite, apart from Greece and Rome, were the Middle East, so, which country in particular was being fought over by the Middle East countries you just mentioned, and who were its 'natives'?:bugeye:
Macedonians weren't natives either. Apologies, i meant natives who never got to be empires- Philistines, Canaanites, Israel etc- should have said "smaller native countries". Also forgot other outsiders: huns and mongols. Probably quite a few other nomads too.

during the crusades it was spices etc, access to the silk road.

The spices and the silk road had nothing to do with the reason the crusades were first undertaken.

The countries you cite, apart from Greece and Rome, were the Middle East, so, which country in particular was being fought over by the Middle East countries you just mentioned, and who were its 'natives'?:bugeye:

If you are seriously asking this question then you need to do some historical reading to fill in this gaping hole.

thersites , in that gap the middle east: ottoman empire .. started its expansion into europe.

thersites , in that gap the middle east: ottoman empire .. started its expansion into europe.
but it wasn't exactly peaceful, was it? The ottoman expansion ended in the seventeenth century: after that they began to get- violently- driven out. The ottoman empire had regular rebellions and civil wars in the middle east as well as eastern Europe too.

what were we arguing about again I forgot?

but it wasn't exactly peaceful, was it? The ottoman expansion ended in the seventeenth century: after that they began to get- violently- driven out. The ottoman empire had regular rebellions and civil wars in the middle east as well as eastern Europe too.

Not to mention wars with the fatimids and safavids etc.

It is quite hilarious how the democracy set up for iraq by the west asked voters to choose between rival tribes which are eternal enemies.
It's either incredibly ignorant or purposefully keeping the middle east unstable.

That said, they're going to be unstable anyway.
All the west can do is make it possible for people to accuse them of being responsible for the problems in the middle east. And they do that quite well.

People don't seem to understand, it's hard enough for people who evolved with democracy and ideals of peace to live it, they generally fail because in the end they're human beings who simply aren't the animal you want them to be.
What chance do sand savages have?
They don't even know how to strive to defy their instincts.

It's funny how the spokesmen for these animals are the eloquent liberals, who constantly need to neglect their dignity and make outrageously ridiculous claims in order to defend the behaviour of their eccentric "client".

I honestly do believe we should leave them alone, I don't mind seeing them die, but really the liberals have a point in that it simply isn't the west's place to be fucking with them. If you want to claim the deserts and take their oil, fine. An honest hostile invasion would be perfectly acceptable in my view.
But this democracy crap is bullshit.
It's none of our business how they treat eachother.

Let them go. Ofcourse, the liberals seem to be under the impression that the arabs just need a chance to become liberal like themselves, which is hilarious.
It's like they think the middle east is where the liberal dream of peace and harmony and fairness and political correctness will finally become a reality for the first time in history, and then they'll move there to be with their arab friends.
Letting these animals be free will be like raising the cages off a pair of pitbulls. There's no doubt about it.
The liberal dream isn't even on their horizon.
But fuck it, let them be arabs, thats why they're here.

The only thing coherent (in the sense of continuity) about US mideast policy has been support/bias for zionism. Zionism and the Arab response to its Apartheid-like evolution have been extremely destabilizing. The USA certainly does not benefit from a destabilized mideast, and every major mideast blowup has immediately and negatively impacted the US economy. With the approach of peak oil, and with the increasing volatility of markets the next upheavals are certain to hurt us even more. American public opinion, and leadership are dangerously crippled by misconceptions about mideast history, and by racist concepts that Arabs are more primitive, more belligerent than (for example) collective American and Jewish partners in zionism.

Unless and until the USA can confront zionism with the same standards held up against other examples of ethnic oppression, all US initiatives (whatever their true intentions), are simply not viable over the long term, because the stigma of zionism is too great to overcome in relating to majority mideastern public opinion. American destabilization of the mideast is not directly intentional, but is instead the direct and predictable result of wielding so much power with so little understanding.

American destabilization of the mideast is not directly intentional, but is instead the direct and predictable result of wielding so much power with so little understanding.

Now that is well said.....IMO