Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

First and foremost, this is my opinion. Just my opinion, to which, like it or not, I'm entitled.

I don't think that the cultures in the Middle East are capable of peace. The religious extremism (I know it's only a few sects) keeps interfering with any rational compromise between the various countries over there. Every day in the news we hear about suicide bombings, riots, and other atrocities that just keep fueling each other. If such a large number of people can be turned into a violent mob by something so simple as a cartoon, how can they be expected to maintain peaceful relations with anyone?

Not only this, but the entire Middle Eastern economy is based on their oil, which, although vast, is a finite resource. This means that unless they find some other economic activity, that entire region will completely collapse.

I do think that the Middle east will, at some point be at peace, but certainly not during My lifetime.

Well...um.. They can always go back to trading textiles, spices and herbs j/k.

As Einstein said "As long as man lives there will always be wars." While I believe that Iraq becoming a democratic nation is a big step towards stability in the region, things are pretty messed up there. Palestinians, Israelis, Shi'ites, Sunnis, al Qaida, Hamas, everybody arguing.

_________________

i agree, there will never be peace. until the Messiah comes or something. but not before then, whenever the hell that is.

The Messiah already came, you missed the boat.

I don't think there will every be peace in the Middle East. The area is a powder keg, it has never been truly stable. The last time there was stability in the Middle East is when the Persians were in charge.

_________________

But we are still waiting for him to come back. And until then...

_________________

then why does the world still suck, smartguy? pretty lame messiah, if you ask me!

I was joking. The smiley, means I am joking.

_________________

i know, i know. i was being slightly jokey as well. not well translated! heh. sorry.

Maybe they will. It's just that Asian and Middle-Eastern religions and cultures are entirely different from the rest of the world.

_________________
No, I lied. I'm never going to have a good sig. So just forget about it.

Well I mean...technically...in a couple million years the middle east won't be....the middle east...It'll be like somewhere completely different (geographically-wise). After elapsed time that great, theres a huge percentage of peace. Governments will be changed, religions will be altered and forgotton, languages and races, wiped out; while new ones spring up. It is really impossible to tell.

In the near future?
Probably not.

One thing my Civ 102 professor brought up in class today was that pretty much every single Middle-Eastern nation was created by a foreign power, either the French or the British. Originally, the whole place was the Ottoman Empire.

_________________

True. The Palestine conflict started when Britain carved up the old Ottoman territory it got after WWI (the Ottoman Empire backed the Germans in that one, and got pwn'd for it) and created Israel, Jordon and Palestine. And Iraq (Number 1) and Kuwait was created in the 1920s by the Brits again.



But back on track...... Zeno, if you're right about Middle Eastern cultures not being capable of peace, then probably no culture in the world is capable of peace. There's so little difference between what motivates one culture into war and what motivates another. Here's why I think that.......

From what I can see, the main reasons for unrest in the Middle East that some groups feel under attack from outside influences - whether it's the fact that there's a Jewish state smack in the middle of their terrority, or American invasions, or general Westernisation.

In other words, the key feeling is that they feel like their territory is being invaded, and that their integrity is being stepped on. For every culture, territory and cultural integrity are two of the most important things they have. I'd go so far as to say that it's something we're born with - we're a social animal at the most basic level, and all social animals have this need to get their own territory and keep it safe. It's the cause for almost every major war in history, and many families throughout history have been more than willing to sent their sons to die for it.

An ironic twist: While Europeans were tearing each other apart in the 14th to 18th centuries - again, over territory - the Middle East had thriving, cultured civilisations. (I bet anything that some Baghdad scholor in the 14th century looked at what was happening during the Hundred Years War, and said to himself, "Yeeesh..... aren't these bloody Europeans ever going to be capable of peace?")

The only difference is that the West has now worked through its territorial aggression, and it's all just beginning in the Middle East.

Wow, all my history knowledge is finally becoming useful! I had to write an essay on how the Islamic empires grew so successful and yet eventually fell behind the Europeans. Turns out the Islamic empires had a system for generating agricultural surpluses (which are ESSENTIAL for any empire to remain prosperous) wherein they granted cavalry veterans recently conquered villages. They could keep a portion of the tax revenues and send the rest to the sultanate. However, later sultans were mere figureheads, giving all their power to their viziers so the sultan could indulge in the pleasures of the flesh. The local officials had no loyalty to the vizier who ran things, so they started sending in less tax revenue. With less money, the government couldn't fund the military to acquire more land for agriculture, and the empires ceased to grow, and ceased to prosper. Similar thing happened to the Chinese, in fact, which had a vast empire about the size of the entirety of Europe. Due to a highly conservative society, there weren't any new technological innovations for centuries, and China was pretty much trapped in an earlier time.

_________________

There would need to be some SERIOUS delegation and interference from outside countries for peace to succeed in the Middle East. Quite frankly, I really don't see it happening either. (At least, not in my lifetime).

_________________

A peace imposed by external forces never lasts. I think I remember hearing somewhere about a sci-fi novel or something in which aliens took over the earth to prevent humans from fighting amongst themselves and killing each other in destructive wars, but the humans rebelled and drove the aliens away, and went right back to war. Or maybe I just made that up.

_________________

Well, here's an interesting development.

Of course, the next question is: Is al-Zarqawi's death good news for peace in Iraq, or just indifferent news?

My verdict: it could either weaken al-Qaeda's base in Iraq considerably, or it'll just be a minor setback for the insurgency while they find themselves a new leader. I'm leaning towards the latter theory.

His death (if he really is dead) is only going to spark more violence against the innocent population of the Middle East and the American soldiers in Iraq.

During the Cold War America used parts of the Middle East as a buffer to keep Communism out of some of the more Democratic nations further west. We supported Osama Bin-Laden when Soviet Russia was in the process of invading Afghanistan because he commanded a group of gurilla fighters that could be used to our advantage because we would then not have to send any of our own soldiers in to keep the Communists back and possibly send the spark that turns the Cold War into WWIII. We were fighting by proxy and it turns out that all of the weapons and information we gave to Bin-Laden back in the '80s turned on us in the '93 bombing of the World Trade Center and the 9/11 attacks 5 years ago.

In short: America supported Islamic extremism during the cold war because it worked as a buffer to keep Communism from making its way west. This combined with the fact that Great Britain helped by tipping off the fight over Israel makes the Middle East a screwed up part of the world and I think we're partly to blame.

_________________
RIP Nathan "Buz" Buzdor

Yep, that's a very good point. The problems between East and West began before Zarqawi and the insurgency was ever on the scene, and his death won't solve that. Though he did his utmost to boil it over.

But the note of the sectarian violence within Iraq itself..... well, arguably that's a different story. Unlike the East/West conflict, Zarqawi and the insurgency is a big part of that sectarian violence. So with him gone...... maybe there's a window of hope there...... maybe.

Of course, I'm not holding my breath.