Iran

[hndog609]

I get that is posted tongue in cheek.

But I cannot believe those celebrating are Islamic hard liners or zealots. I think those are the ones who do not want to live under an oppressive theocracy.

Just off the top of my head if one weren't all in on the OT you described I can't imagine any female not being down with at least the chance for something better coming out of this happening.

 

[85SugarVol]

You've still not provided a single shred of proof to support your claims while I at least have the Google AI clearly saying that protecting Israel is one of the reasons the USS Gerald Ford was positioned next to Israel rather than elsewhere.

And your argument that the US is protecting Israel to the detriment of the Gulf States by stationing the USS Ford in the Mediterranean is just flat wrong on its face.

- The USS Lincoln is in the Arabian Sea off Oman right now, with Carrier Air Wing 9 (which includes F-35C) embarked.

- There are multiple LCS and Guided Missile Destroyers in the Persian Gulf right now at Bahrain.

- There are multiple Destroyers in the Straight of Hormuz right now.

- The entire Destroyer Squadron 21 is currently in the North Arabian Sea.

 

[hog88]

It sounds like you are far more knowledgeable about the details than me.

Do you have any insight on the periods of peace and harmony over the 10,000 year history of the region? Or, you can choose an alternate starting point, if you want.

The majority of the middle east has been colonized for over 2000 years, WWII was the beginning of the end of that region being colonized.

 

[85SugarVol]

I can't believe I'm saying this but why are you guys indulging D4H?

It’s amazing. And I’m knocking down a ton of repeat posts so we can try and have an actual discussion.

Ok, point taken. And I even mentioned it myself when I started.

I’ll knock it off.

 

[KB5252]

With the exception of British-backed Arab independence movements, wasn't the region fairly stable under the Ottomans until things like the Balfour Declaration? Certainly more stable than now.

I think the fact they were a hard line military authority and rigid in rule made them a stabilizing force, similar to Roman rule. They kept the factions in line so to speak.

 

[MAD]

Please let it be true….this time

 

[Delmar]

Some of these posters would be really pissed if we (The U.S.) just let Israel do what it takes to defend itself. I could be wrong, but I'm thinking it wouldn't be pretty.

Yep. I recall when Egypt FAFO’d back in 1967 (I think) with the Seven Days War. They found out quick what Israel can do.

 

[McDad]

The majority of the middle east has been colonized for over 2000 years, WWII was the beginning of the end of that region being colonized.

Wouldn't bother me if someone wanted to assess peace and stability in the region starting 2000 years ago.

There was A LOT of fighting in the area in Old Testament which goes back much further than 2k years. But if someone wanted to exclude those millennia, I wouldn't quibble.

 

[EasternVol]

Point proven

if you say so

 

[ButchPlz]

It sounds like you are far more knowledgeable about the details than me.

Do you have any insight on the periods of peace and harmony over the 10,000 year history of the region? Or, you can choose an alternate starting point, if you want.

The Ottomans controlled Palestine for about 400 years, and by "controlled" they had the same approach as most successful empires- let the locals govern and if anyone gets real out of line handle it. Most of the issues with the Ottomans were outside of that region. I've got an old Bible commentary by Albert Barnes (I think) that describes the region of Bethlehem as a place where everyone was living in peace. The way I think of it is like this- we've got all of these people saying the south is racist, whites and blacks don't get along, but that's not really true...everyone is kind of on the same level (poor) so race and religion don't become much of an issue. That's how Ottoman Palestine was- a backwater of farmers that had been there thousands of years.

Arab independence movements didn't start up until the late 1800s and early 1900s, and by what I understand, didn't hit full steam until the opportunities presented by WWI, when the British made promises to Arabs and sent support to fight the Ottomans (think Laurence of Arabia). Things got really heated afterward because the British then turned around and promised certain wealthy families in England and Europe a piece of the pie in Palestine after making the same promise for the same land to the Arab independence movement. The British then made it worse by doing a spectacularly ****** job moderating the situation, and suddenly we end up with a powder keg that erupted at places like Nabi Musa.

The reality is for as much as we want to say this is a 10,000 year old conflict, the stuff we're seeing in Palestine isn't necessarily that old of a fight. Wars have been happening between humans for eternity and in all parts of the world (have you ever looked at the wild numbers ancient Chinese historians throw out, or the causes of those wars?), and Islam is only 1400 years old. I'm more inclined to believe a lot of this, historically, was resource-based (limited fertile areas there), but if someone wants to make some kind of racial argument about all the people there, that's on them.

 

[Carl Pickens]

Boredom?
Entertainment value?

Sympathy?

 

[Delmar]

I’m not here for likes.

Obviously. Let’s try it from another direction. When 95% disagree with your opinion, it’s a pretty good sign you’re wrong. And especially if D4H is the only one that agrees with you. Nothing else needs to be said.

 

[McDad]

The Ottomans controlled Palestine for about 400 years, and by "controlled" they had the same approach as most successful empires- let the locals govern and if anyone gets real out of line handle it. Most of the issues with the Ottomans were outside of that region. I've got an old Bible commentary by Albert Barnes (I think) that describes the region of Bethlehem as a place where everyone was living in peace. The way I think of it is like this- we've got all of these people saying the south is racist, whites and blacks don't get along, but that's not really true...everyone is kind of on the same level (poor) so race and religion don't become much of an issue. That's how Ottoman Palestine was- a backwater of farmers that had been there thousands of years.

Arab independence movements didn't start up until the late 1800s and early 1900s, and by what I understand, didn't hit full steam until the opportunities presented by WWI, when the British made promises to Arabs and sent support to fight the Ottomans (think Laurence of Arabia). Things got really heated afterward because the British then turned around and promised certain wealthy families in England and Europe a piece of the pie in Palestine after making the same promise for the same land to the Arab independence movement. The British then made it worse by doing a spectacularly ****** job moderating the situation, and suddenly we end up with a powder keg that erupted at places like Nabi Musa.

The reality is for as much as we want to say this is a 10,000 year old conflict, the stuff we're seeing in Palestine isn't necessarily that old of a fight. Wars have been happening between humans for eternity and in all parts of the world (have you ever looked at the wild numbers ancient Chinese historians throw out, or the causes of those wars?), and Islam is only 1400 years old. I'm more inclined to believe a lot of this, historically, was resource-based (limited fertile areas there), but if someone wants to make some kind of racial argument about all the people there, that's on them.

A good write up. Thanks.

You see the current dynamics going back to Arab independence movements or the British intervention at ww1?

 

[adam.vol]

Obviously. Let’s try it from another direction. When 95% disagree with your opinion, it’s a pretty good sign you’re wrong. And especially if D4H is the only one that agrees with you. Nothing else needs to be said.

So if you place above the 95th percentile you’re wrong?

 

[ButchPlz]

A good write up. Thanks.

You see the current dynamics going back to Arab independence movements or the British intervention at ww1?

I see most of it going back to the British and in some cases the French meddling around and propping up movements that probably would have flamed out otherwise. I think parties on all sides have (mis-)used things like religion to do the same things ambitious people have always done. Like I said, I don't think this is the result of a particular long-time conflict in "the holy land".

What's going on now is no different than any other time in history, and I don't particularly like to pretend that it is. Ambitious people abusing their positions desperately (and violently) clinging to power at the expense of regular people (the huge majority) that would prefer to live left alone.

EDIT: what to me becomes interesting is the "why" the British and French were meddling around. The theories abound.

 

[EasternVol]

The fighting between the governments before WW2.

WWI?

The fighting between people before WW2.

Between WW's? Other than between old locals and recent arrivals from Europe, who was fighting?

The internal fighting of different sects of their religion and religious leaders before WW2.

The Crusades?

Already covered. A stable government where the US can have influence over the region.

How does the US influence the region through this stable government is what I'm asking.

I am not surprised you feel that way.

 

[McDad]

I see most of it going back to the British and in some cases the French meddling around and propping up movements that probably would have flamed out otherwise. I think parties on all sides have (mis-)used things like religion to do the same things ambitious people have always done.

What's going on now is no different than any other time in history, and I don't particularly like to pretend that it is. Ambitious people abusing their positions desperately (and violently) clinging to power at the expense of regular people (the huge majority) that would prefer to live left alone.

Using your timeline, we basically have 100 years of unrest in the region. The current hard line Islamic sects fighting each other and rigid theocracies which have consolidated rule are a side effect of what began in WW1?

 

[ButchPlz]

Using your timeline, we basically have 100 years of unrest in the region. The current hard line Islamic sects fighting each other and rigid theocracies which have consolidated rule are a side effect of what began in WW1?

I would assume they're a side effect of a power vacuum caused by WWI, the perception of being "colonized", and the discovery (and rampant) increase in the importance of the region's resources (oil), yes. I don't know enough about it, but I don't think Islamic people have been waging large-scale sectarian conflict with each other for forever.

 

[SquirrelOrange3]

Obviously. Let’s try it from another direction. When 95% disagree with your opinion, it’s a pretty good sign you’re wrong. And especially if D4H is the only one that agrees with you. Nothing else needs to be said.

In 2001, over 99.9% of posters on Vol political forums said the Taliban would lose the war in Afghanistan. It was impossible to even have a discussion. His contrarian views might be correct. We won't know until we're able to look at it in retrospect.

 

[McDad]

How does the US influence the region through this stable government is what I'm asking.

Fear through military strength. Specifically hardware and tech shared with Israel.

 

[EasternVol]

Let’s see if you can take your own advice

They're not there from what I find. Odds are it's another 'there are no Christians in Gaza' figment of your imagination.

 

[ButchPlz]

They're not there from what I find. Odds are it's another 'there are no Christians in Gaza' figment of your imagination.

It was actually way worse than that. He said there were no Christians in Palestine, "Palestine" being Gaza and the West Bank.

 

[McDad]

I would assume they're a side effect of a power vacuum caused by WWI, the perception of being "colonized", and the discovery (and rampant) increase in the importance of the region's resources (oil), yes. I don't know enough about it, but I don't think Islamic people have been waging large-scale sectarian conflict with each other for forever.

Heuple-thetically, if Israel was to vanish over night, as if they never existed, do you think the region would naturally return to a place of relative peace and stability?

 

[MontyPython]

If you wanna make an omelette, you gotta break some eggs.

Whole lotta eggs in the air right now.

 

[ButchPlz]

Heuple-thetically, if Israel was to vanish over night, as if they never existed, do you think the region would naturally return to a place of relative peace and stability?

No.