Middle East kept unstable for a reason?

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?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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;

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

There were several hundred years between the end of the crusades and the beginning of oil-based economies- was itany more peaceful then?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.