Arab spring, turkey riots, unified middle east?

B

BonusWaffle

Still Mildly Glowing
I've recently been very interested in the ottoman empire, and while playing around online ive noticed a couple interesting things. It seems like europe and the us have had a particular interest in interfering with middle eastern countries that used to be a part of the ottoman empire. Whats surprising is that they always support the islamist faction vying for control. At first glance I would think that the last thing they would want is a unified islamist middle east to contend with, but maybe they want to secure an alliance in order to contend with a steadily growing russian/chinese relationship? It would certainly be a good way to get the oil that the west relies on. What do you think?
 
They've supported popular, democratic uprisings in recent years. It just so happens that most of those have heavily featured Islamist groups.

If you're referring to the Cold War days, almost all international politics those days was informed by the U.S./Communist juxtaposition.
 
The US has a reputation for interfering/supporting not all too decent revolutions/leaders, which nobody really cares about I guess.
 
BonusWaffle said:
At first glance I would think that the last thing they would want is a unified islamist middle east to contend with, but maybe they want to secure an alliance in order to contend with a steadily growing russian/chinese relationship? It would certainly be a good way to get the oil that the west relies on. What do you think?
Click to expand...
You're giving U.S. foreign policy way too much credit for competency.
 
An interesting topic, one that i would like to know more about. Though i'm not sure how in that scenario the east could sustain being unified for at least a decent amount of time. They are revolution bound by culture, economy and geographic factors, unless a dictatorship takes over the control, in which case these alliances wouldn't last very long.
 
There's certainly no unified middle east in sight. That ship sailed long ago and the West will never, ever support anything like that, to say nothing of the local populations or the fact that the infrastuctures and partnerships required ofr that to be possible more or less do not exist.

And while some say the revolutions were manipulated by islamist extremists from the beginning, I think they were democratic (or anti-dictatorial at least) at their core and that the islamist grafted themselves to them with varying degrees of success. But one cannot ignore that most, if not almost all, of the rebels or new governments are more nationalistic and islam-bent than the establishment they are trying to replace, the one possible exception being Lybia. And of course, we're not getting into the games of influence that states like Iran or Russia play, especially in Syria. It's a very, very complicated chain of events and it's not over. Turkey is also flaring up, and while it's unlikely to do into a full-on revolt the message is clear; some things need to change.

If nothing else, it has proven that the Arabs certainly aren't passive with their governments and are starting to be mighty tired of being the West's punching bags. Which I can't exactly fault them with.
 
While it cannot be ruled out that the recent turmoil in the ME may have been influenced by outside forces, it can also be the result of a long standing religious conflict between sunni and shia radicals.

I am surprised both the ME and Africa have yet to coalesce into a pan national identity in order to combat foreign pressure from other nations.
 
Pff... That whole Turkey debacle proves one thing: that Turkey has no place whatsoever in Europe.

As I've said countless times before.
 
alec said:
Pff... That whole Turkey debacle proves one thing: that Turkey has no place whatsoever in Europe.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure Turkey has multiple places in Europe.
 
alec said:
Pff... That whole Turkey debacle proves one thing: that Turkey has no place whatsoever in Europe.

As I've said countless times before.
Click to expand...

If it's about the riots, the French, English, Spanish, Portugese, Greeks and a few others I'm forgetting have been through much, much worse in recent history.

if it's about being Muslim, then that's just stupid. We have predominantly Orthodox countries in Europe, yet Muslims are a no-no because...?
 
BonusWaffle said:
It seems like europe and the us have had a particular interest in interfering with middle eastern countries that used to be a part of the ottoman empire.
Click to expand...
If you came from a family descended from countries that had been OPPRESSED by the Ottoman Empire (and thus were raised in such a manner that you actually learned about it, on a regular basis) you wouldn't be spouting that nonsense. There has never been any such focused and active intentions by western policies, not to mention the southern hemisphere has had next-to-nothing to do with the Ottoman Empire, and up until World War II (and even somewhat following it) that's where the bulk of US "foreign policy" (interference) was focused.

UniversalWolf was dead-on when he said this:
UniversalWolf said:
You're giving U.S. foreign policy way too much credit for competency.
Click to expand...
The only trend in Western foreign policy has been and for the foreseeable future will remain... money. Lately all that seems to mean is "oil", but it's more than that. All kinds of wars were stirred up by Western interests because, for the US, it would mean more military bases "for peacekeeping purposes" in a country with a noted and vastly wealthy rich gem mine. For other European countries, it would mean controlling the value of the Euro by manipulating and controlling which countries were ever included in the European Union (which usually means never). Or enough countries neighboring each other to allow the construction (and control over) a single oil line from East to West. It was never about interfering with countries that were once part of a massive empire, and always about hamfistedly stumbling through and muddling with the affairs of other countries solely with personal monetary interests in mind. Hardly ever anything else.
 
I dont think i ever claimed it was about anything other than money and oil, except maybe for military cooperation. Is there another motive for a country to do anything? Seems like it would be easier to ally with a unified middle east than a number of separated states that are likely to go to war with each other or be influenced by other powers (russia/china). So far all you have said to address my point is that the united states and europe are bad at influencing the leadership of other nations, which is an incredibly naive stance to take given whats happened in the last 50 years or so.

Edit: Not to mention im only talking about very recent events in the last 10-20 years to begin with, but the ottomans and germany had a very close relationship before the events of ww2
 
It makes sense in some ways.

The richest oil producing nations usually don't want anything to do with nations that don't have very much. Seems like the same kind of argument is going on about the EU.

Add in differeing religious sects and tribes who don't really view the idea of empire building/pan arab unification as a good thing and things won't change.
 
Crni Vuk said:
so if you are poor and without any resources, you have the best protection against the US
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, MUCH better situation they have, escaping any US invasions and all. And yet still abide by all of the US-established international laws and bans, such as the ban on DDT, thus live surrounded by curable diseases and high infant mortality rates that you don't have the resources to treat, and no incentives to convince foreign aid to help with the matter. SUCH a wonderfully favorable situation! 6_6 9_9

It's one of the most bleak Catch 22's around.
 
If the country is poor then how is it going to develope, maintain and secure a nuclear arsenal? Just not a really good idea.

Its better to be a savvy politician able to not only unite folks in your country but to be able to draw allies to your cause.

As in another discussion, Venezuela has oil but you don't see the US or other countries using military force to get what they wanbt. Sometimes diplomacy is a much cheaper and MUCH more effective weapon.
 
DarkCorp said:
As in another discussion, Venezuela has oil but you don't see the US or other countries using military force to get what they wanbt. Sometimes diplomacy is a much cheaper and MUCH more effective weapon.
Click to expand...
You're tellin LIES! Mercenaries 2: World in Flames told me that America invaded Venezuela for the oil, so clearly it's happened!

And yes, I'm totally kidding, if that somehow wasn't apparent... <_<
 
DarkCorp said:
If the country is poor then how is it going to develope, maintain and secure a nuclear arsenal? Just not a really good idea.
Click to expand...
Is that so :p

North Korea wants to have a word with you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top