Tue Apr 13, 2004 10:37 pm
One thing you have to understand about the Muslim world is that they're living in a society that hasn't progressed much since the 16th century. They deeply resent the West for our prosperity and values, and the fact America is the strongest military power in the world.
Given the chance, they would glady murder ever last Isralei man, woman and child. God help up is they ever obtain nuclear or biological weapons, they would use them in a heartbeat.
I don't know what the solution is, but I hope that the West has the willpower to track down and eliminate every last terrorist before we find ourselves asking why we didn't do more to prevent a nuclear blast in New York City that killed 1 million Americans.
Given the chance, they would glady murder ever last Isralei man, woman and child. God help up is they ever obtain nuclear or biological weapons, they would use them in a heartbeat.
I don't know what the solution is, but I hope that the West has the willpower to track down and eliminate every last terrorist before we find ourselves asking why we didn't do more to prevent a nuclear blast in New York City that killed 1 million Americans.
Tue Apr 13, 2004 10:56 pm
Originally posted by deathBOB
Its all economics... IMO, religion was created for economic purposes... The root cause of all the world problems is class and economic difference between different peoples and races... Course, theres always some sickos who do things just because....
These guys couldn't agree with you more....
Responsible for well over 100 million deaths. Apply social Darwinism and that is the result; the strong ruling the weak. What's wrong with that, really.
Wed Apr 14, 2004 12:25 am
I cant reply to this stuff cause it just boils my blood, but those idiots on the film is about typical, didnt have a clue to what is happening not to mention they've never been to a 3rd world country. To fully grasp what kind of shape other countries are in.
Maybe we should let terriost blew up abunch of our buildings and knock out our power grids for several weeks or months. Lets see how many of these bleeding hearts are still left alive. Do they think any other country in the world is in a good enough shape to help us out HELL NO.
Now I can see them these people crying and trying to move to the country and steal food because they ran out. Where we remember how to hunt, fish, and grow things. I'd probably run out of bullets in the first week or two keeping them away from the cows. Owell time to break out the bow
Maybe we should let terriost blew up abunch of our buildings and knock out our power grids for several weeks or months. Lets see how many of these bleeding hearts are still left alive. Do they think any other country in the world is in a good enough shape to help us out HELL NO.
Now I can see them these people crying and trying to move to the country and steal food because they ran out. Where we remember how to hunt, fish, and grow things. I'd probably run out of bullets in the first week or two keeping them away from the cows. Owell time to break out the bow
Wed Apr 14, 2004 1:04 am
RC I understand the point you are trying to make but I think you are missing a stronger, underlying point. Maybe not with how Bob said it but some of the reasons behind his statements.
First off, religions filled a certain societal need in times past. They provided an underlying structure for people to get along with one another and how they interacted and understood their natural surroundings. I may not like you and you may not like me but the (insert dogma here) says we should get along with one another. Also, I may not understand the weather around me, or the volcano that just blew up my village, but the (insert dogma here) says XY and Z. Many of the people at the time believed that the world lived along the lines of "what (Insert dieties name here)" will and decree. And a steady and surefast way to get people to agree with your viewpoint is to point at someone else's and say "They are wrong!" In the field of political science, this gathering of "like minded" people is called the "rally around the flag" effect.
Then there is the strong man, the ideological leader. He is either using the deities name or saying there is no diety. Do what the strong man says or else. MY (insert socialism, communism, facism, DEMOCRACY rule by the ignorant masses) here) system will lead you to happiness. No longer are religious precepts necessary. You do what we say because we say so. just like hardcore religous manifestations, it is effective. Quite often, people (i.e., the "masses") fall into like under the ideologies of these "strong man" leaders due to fear of being excluded from the "in" group (i.e., flavor of the month).
We still have troops in southeast Europe (former Yugoslavia, if you will) and it has historically been one of the most messed up, politically and religiously tulmultuous, regions on the planet. Many people not only forget we are there in Southeastern Europe but we have been since the early to mid nineties. The ONLY time this region has known relative peace was through out Soviet dominance during the later half of the 20th century. Why? Because the Soviets said We don't care who fucks off we will kill everyone if we have to. Is that right? Does anyone of us want to live in such a state.
Religion causes social strife. Statism and nationalism causes strife, competing social doctrine causes strife. As long as people are willing to divide themselves into camps to promulgate their own social view there will be strife.
And do not underestimate what DeathBob said. At the heart of most power struggles lies economics. Not just monetary power but economic power (there is a difference. Bill Gates may be one of the wealthiest men in the world but his true power is in the fact that he controls INFORMATION access. A much more scary power). You can point to this religion, or that political style, or "they" believe (insert whatever here) but the underlying reasons are usually bound up with economic power and influence.
Does anyone seriously question the powerful existence of Islam today without tying it into the fact that our entire world economy is so strongly tied to oil? Do you seriously think that if some alternative form of energy was available 100 years ago that anyone would care what happened in the Middle East if oil wasn't such a major ECONOMIC concern?
One of the underlying great strengths of this nation of ours was that we could "agree to disagree" agreeably (or close to it). Now I know that sounds funny but analyze it and hopefully you will see the underlying intent. People could come from different backgrounds, families, religions, colors, creeds, and so forth and whether there was struggle or not they would eventually come to some kind of accord where everyone could get along with one another in some reasonably social manner.
Modern polarism is against this here in America. If you don't want to save the trees and vote John Kerry in then you are evil. If you don't want to make stock profits and keep George Bush in then you are ignorant. BOTH SIDES are wrong. In past times our country had its radicals (damn Alexander Hamilton!:D ) but the majority came to a consensus decision and we worked thru it. Now you have the media actively promulgating agendas and forcing people to be on one side of a decision or the other.
We are slipping away from a society where we could "disagree agreeably" and into a "My way or else!" type of society. In a sense, we are moving from a government with many voices to a goverment (and citizenry) led through fear and intimidation into a uni-polar mindset. And as evidenced by the type of people protesting in these clips mentioned it seems to be getting worse.
I truly believe that we as individuals, as societies, or as members of the human race, will not be able to make everyone happy. Where is the drive to say "Lets make as many people happy, succesful, and improving as we can?"
We live in an imperfect universe. We try to strive toward perfection (even though perfection is a fallicy). We need to find a way that achieves that for the most while damaging the least. Religion, statism, and favoritism is counter productive to this kind of ideal.
First off, religions filled a certain societal need in times past. They provided an underlying structure for people to get along with one another and how they interacted and understood their natural surroundings. I may not like you and you may not like me but the (insert dogma here) says we should get along with one another. Also, I may not understand the weather around me, or the volcano that just blew up my village, but the (insert dogma here) says XY and Z. Many of the people at the time believed that the world lived along the lines of "what (Insert dieties name here)" will and decree. And a steady and surefast way to get people to agree with your viewpoint is to point at someone else's and say "They are wrong!" In the field of political science, this gathering of "like minded" people is called the "rally around the flag" effect.
Then there is the strong man, the ideological leader. He is either using the deities name or saying there is no diety. Do what the strong man says or else. MY (insert socialism, communism, facism, DEMOCRACY rule by the ignorant masses) here) system will lead you to happiness. No longer are religious precepts necessary. You do what we say because we say so. just like hardcore religous manifestations, it is effective. Quite often, people (i.e., the "masses") fall into like under the ideologies of these "strong man" leaders due to fear of being excluded from the "in" group (i.e., flavor of the month).
We still have troops in southeast Europe (former Yugoslavia, if you will) and it has historically been one of the most messed up, politically and religiously tulmultuous, regions on the planet. Many people not only forget we are there in Southeastern Europe but we have been since the early to mid nineties. The ONLY time this region has known relative peace was through out Soviet dominance during the later half of the 20th century. Why? Because the Soviets said We don't care who fucks off we will kill everyone if we have to. Is that right? Does anyone of us want to live in such a state.
Religion causes social strife. Statism and nationalism causes strife, competing social doctrine causes strife. As long as people are willing to divide themselves into camps to promulgate their own social view there will be strife.
And do not underestimate what DeathBob said. At the heart of most power struggles lies economics. Not just monetary power but economic power (there is a difference. Bill Gates may be one of the wealthiest men in the world but his true power is in the fact that he controls INFORMATION access. A much more scary power). You can point to this religion, or that political style, or "they" believe (insert whatever here) but the underlying reasons are usually bound up with economic power and influence.
Does anyone seriously question the powerful existence of Islam today without tying it into the fact that our entire world economy is so strongly tied to oil? Do you seriously think that if some alternative form of energy was available 100 years ago that anyone would care what happened in the Middle East if oil wasn't such a major ECONOMIC concern?
One of the underlying great strengths of this nation of ours was that we could "agree to disagree" agreeably (or close to it). Now I know that sounds funny but analyze it and hopefully you will see the underlying intent. People could come from different backgrounds, families, religions, colors, creeds, and so forth and whether there was struggle or not they would eventually come to some kind of accord where everyone could get along with one another in some reasonably social manner.
Modern polarism is against this here in America. If you don't want to save the trees and vote John Kerry in then you are evil. If you don't want to make stock profits and keep George Bush in then you are ignorant. BOTH SIDES are wrong. In past times our country had its radicals (damn Alexander Hamilton!:D ) but the majority came to a consensus decision and we worked thru it. Now you have the media actively promulgating agendas and forcing people to be on one side of a decision or the other.
We are slipping away from a society where we could "disagree agreeably" and into a "My way or else!" type of society. In a sense, we are moving from a government with many voices to a goverment (and citizenry) led through fear and intimidation into a uni-polar mindset. And as evidenced by the type of people protesting in these clips mentioned it seems to be getting worse.
I truly believe that we as individuals, as societies, or as members of the human race, will not be able to make everyone happy. Where is the drive to say "Lets make as many people happy, succesful, and improving as we can?"
We live in an imperfect universe. We try to strive toward perfection (even though perfection is a fallicy). We need to find a way that achieves that for the most while damaging the least. Religion, statism, and favoritism is counter productive to this kind of ideal.
Wed Apr 14, 2004 8:04 am
Originally posted by Colonel Ingus
RC I understand the point you are trying to make but I think you are missing a stronger, underlying point. Maybe not with how Bob said it but some of the reasons behind his statements.
First off, religions filled a certain societal need in times past. They provided an underlying structure for people to get along with one another and how they interacted and understood their natural surroundings. I may not like you and you may not like me but the (insert dogma here) says we should get along with one another. Also, I may not understand the weather around me, or the volcano that just blew up my village, but the (insert dogma here) says XY and Z. Many of the people at the time believed that the world lived along the lines of "what (Insert dieties name here)" will and decree. And a steady and surefast way to get people to agree with your viewpoint is to point at someone else's and say "They are wrong!" In the field of political science, this gathering of "like minded" people is called the "rally around the flag" effect.
Then there is the strong man, the ideological leader. He is either using the deities name or saying there is no diety. Do what the strong man says or else. MY (insert socialism, communism, facism, DEMOCRACY rule by the ignorant masses) here) system will lead you to happiness. No longer are religious precepts necessary. You do what we say because we say so. just like hardcore religous manifestations, it is effective. Quite often, people (i.e., the "masses") fall into like under the ideologies of these "strong man" leaders due to fear of being excluded from the "in" group (i.e., flavor of the month).
We still have troops in southeast Europe (former Yugoslavia, if you will) and it has historically been one of the most messed up, politically and religiously tulmultuous, regions on the planet. Many people not only forget we are there in Southeastern Europe but we have been since the early to mid nineties. The ONLY time this region has known relative peace was through out Soviet dominance during the later half of the 20th century. Why? Because the Soviets said We don't care who fucks off we will kill everyone if we have to. Is that right? Does anyone of us want to live in such a state.
Religion causes social strife. Statism and nationalism causes strife, competing social doctrine causes strife. As long as people are willing to divide themselves into camps to promulgate their own social view there will be strife.
And do not underestimate what DeathBob said. At the heart of most power struggles lies economics. Not just monetary power but economic power (there is a difference. Bill Gates may be one of the wealthiest men in the world but his true power is in the fact that he controls INFORMATION access. A much more scary power). You can point to this religion, or that political style, or "they" believe (insert whatever here) but the underlying reasons are usually bound up with economic power and influence.
Does anyone seriously question the powerful existence of Islam today without tying it into the fact that our entire world economy is so strongly tied to oil? Do you seriously think that if some alternative form of energy was available 100 years ago that anyone would care what happened in the Middle East if oil wasn't such a major ECONOMIC concern?
One of the underlying great strengths of this nation of ours was that we could "agree to disagree" agreeably (or close to it). Now I know that sounds funny but analyze it and hopefully you will see the underlying intent. People could come from different backgrounds, families, religions, colors, creeds, and so forth and whether there was struggle or not they would eventually come to some kind of accord where everyone could get along with one another in some reasonably social manner.
Modern polarism is against this here in America. If you don't want to save the trees and vote John Kerry in then you are evil. If you don't want to make stock profits and keep George Bush in then you are ignorant. BOTH SIDES are wrong. In past times our country had its radicals (damn Alexander Hamilton!:D ) but the majority came to a consensus decision and we worked thru it. Now you have the media actively promulgating agendas and forcing people to be on one side of a decision or the other.
We are slipping away from a society where we could "disagree agreeably" and into a "My way or else!" type of society. In a sense, we are moving from a government with many voices to a goverment (and citizenry) led through fear and intimidation into a uni-polar mindset. And as evidenced by the type of people protesting in these clips mentioned it seems to be getting worse.
I truly believe that we as individuals, as societies, or as members of the human race, will not be able to make everyone happy. Where is the drive to say "Lets make as many people happy, succesful, and improving as we can?"
We live in an imperfect universe. We try to strive toward perfection (even though perfection is a fallicy). We need to find a way that achieves that for the most while damaging the least. Religion, statism, and favoritism is counter productive to this kind of ideal.
I see, so we've "evolved" into a kinder gentler race......if only those religionists were out of the way. In what generation did this enlightenment take place? It must have been very recent. Maybe it was John Lennon.
The world is waxing worse and worse, not getting better.
I don't care to get into a protracted discussion on the virtues of moral relativism, but would be interested in how one is supposed to determine what is right and wrong. Who's to say Hitler was evil.
So where is the universal code for right and wrong? Maybe it's in a Star Trek episode we somehow overlooked.
BTW, Jesus Christ was not a good man.
Wed Apr 14, 2004 9:04 am
Originally posted by RCglider
I see, so we've "evolved" into a kinder gentler race......if only those religionists were out of the way. In what generation did this enlightenment take place? It must have been very recent. Maybe it was John Lennon.
So where is the universal code for right and wrong? Maybe it's in a Star Trek episode we somehow overlooked.
The Enlightenment was a period in the 18th century in which reason and practicality was used to re-examine dogmas and orthodoxies, and was the period in which the American revolution occurred, and several of our basic laws were based on the philosophies of that era. So if you want to allocate responsibility for this philosophy, blame Franklin, Jefferson, Madison and Washington.
As far as a universal code for right and wrong, I don't believe that there is one, which is what I assume was your point. My interpretation of "right" is an act or a belief that has universal benefit for society in general, things such as truth, compassion, diligence, ingenuity, and industry. "Wrong" would be the opposite: things inherently destructive or damaging to society, such as crime, murder, injustice, inequality, and lies.
To qualify something such as a dogma as "right" or "wrong" requires an analysis of it's fabric. If you were to say to me "X is right and Y is wrong", I would examine, practically and objectively, the benefits and negative implications of X and Y, based on their various impacts and possible applications upon society as a whole.
Therein lies the problem - take nazi Germany for example. The people were taught that by annihiliating the Jews that they were performing good for society! Some of them were convinced that by committing murder, they were doing good!
That is the case here, as well. There are a people who are convinced that they are humans above all other humans, and that none but themselves has the right to exist on this world, and this is dictated by "divine providence" (the same words that Hitler used).
I feel safe saying that we are in the "right" attempting to defend ourselves from these people. Their philosophy is injust, inequitable, and frankly, racist. I am of course speaking specifically about those who have beliefs I outlined above, not the muslim people as a whole.
I hear some say "Well, it's just a small percentage of the population there that feels this way, we should let their own governments deal with it.". Well, what percentage of Germans in the 30's and 40's do you think were actual, rabid nazis? What percentage of a population does it take for something like the holocaust, or more recently, the Rwandan genocide to occur? I can tell you, it's smaller than you think.
Wed Apr 14, 2004 9:55 am
Originally posted by Ice9
They deeply resent the West for our prosperity
Yep everybody is jealous of you that's why they don't like you. I wish I could live in such a perfect world as yours.
Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:11 am
Originally posted by SavageParrot
Yep everybody is jealous of you that's why they don't like you. I wish I could live in such a perfect world as yours.
You know, when people say "West", it generally includes England as well.
But you are correct, alot of them are jealous of us, jealous of our stability and prosperity. They resent us for it, and feel as if we're somehow responsible for their instability and poverty. It's a proven fact. Go over to Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Jordan, Palestine - tell them you're from England and see what they say. Bet they won't invite you in for supper. So then what? Are you going to then blame your country's association with the US for that? Are you going to say that the only reason that these people don't like you is because the UK is allied with the US? Really, I'd like to know your opinion.
Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:17 am
No one mentioned perfect. I know that no one here in this discussion feels there is a place on this planet that is operating in perfection. So i ask you, as a citizen of a European nation, why then are we so deeply disliked?
Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:18 am
By the way I love the responses. You guys have a lot to say and it's great to read.
Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:22 am
All I wasa saying is you can't blame everything on jealousy, it never occurs to people in the west that other people might choose not to live in a western style democracy and that in persuing this as the be all and and all of american foreign policy (moreso than British foreign policy, though we are international super shits as well) you are being grossly offensive to the indigenous culture and way of life/religion. Oh and the uk doesn't pay Israel 3 billion a year to buy arms to shoot civilians a small factor in the animosity between middle eastern states and 'the west'.
Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:31 am
Originally posted by SavageParrot
All I wasa saying is you can't blame everything on jealousy, it never occurs to people in the west that other people might choose not to live in a western style democracy and that in persuing this as the be all and and all of american foreign policy (moreso than British foreign policy, though we are international super shits as well) you are being grossly offensive to the indigenous culture and way of life/religion. Oh and the uk doesn't pay Israel 3 billion a year to buy arms to shoot civilians a small factor in the animosity between middle eastern states and 'the west'.
I'm not opposed to people living in other forms of government, so far as it isn't an aggressive, facist regime. What would you consider the government of Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, and the current government of Iran?
I do not think that there has been a culture more empathetic with others than that of the United States. What aspect of our existance is so "grossly offensive"? Wouldn't me saying that god doesn't exist be grossly offensive to their culture? In that respect, speaking my mind is grossly offensive to their culture. That said, if within a society speaking your mind is grossly offensive, is that not a facist society, that unless you live by their specific rules, you are being grossly offensive?
I knew you would bring up Israel.
So you're saying that the US is solely responsible for the situation in Israel?
Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:37 am
Well let's leave the Palestinian Israeli conflict out of this. That ones another separate and gigantic discussion.
So you are saying that they may not like or choose our way of life. OK, that I can understand and live with. What I think is one of the issues here is the fact that the world is getting smaller and smaller thanks to technology. We are all living more and more together and in relation to one another.
When someone like Saddam invades a Sovereign nation with the intent to "TAKE IT OVER", in this day and age it draws other nations in. Say what you will about the intentions of the United Nations and the country's that compromise it, but it did step in and stop the invasion of Kuwait.
The world has been drawn into the Middle East. It's just a fact of life. So now that we are living closer and closer to one another we will all need to be a bit more understanding of one another.
These old cultures need to evolve a bit and understand that the murder of innocent people will do nothing but make the world completely look past the issues they would like us to see and understand.
No matter what the policies are of any nation or group, The ways of terrorism will not solve their problems or allow their voice to be heard. They need to come to that realization.
So you are saying that they may not like or choose our way of life. OK, that I can understand and live with. What I think is one of the issues here is the fact that the world is getting smaller and smaller thanks to technology. We are all living more and more together and in relation to one another.
When someone like Saddam invades a Sovereign nation with the intent to "TAKE IT OVER", in this day and age it draws other nations in. Say what you will about the intentions of the United Nations and the country's that compromise it, but it did step in and stop the invasion of Kuwait.
The world has been drawn into the Middle East. It's just a fact of life. So now that we are living closer and closer to one another we will all need to be a bit more understanding of one another.
These old cultures need to evolve a bit and understand that the murder of innocent people will do nothing but make the world completely look past the issues they would like us to see and understand.
No matter what the policies are of any nation or group, The ways of terrorism will not solve their problems or allow their voice to be heard. They need to come to that realization.
Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:52 am
But back to the question I posed to you. You stated that it is more than jealousy. That other nations simply want to live in a different fashion.
OK, but why again does it create such hatred for us? We are the strongest supporter of Israel, and Israel is deeply hated.
So we have an answer. Not so much jealousy but a hatred of us for the support of Israel. This I think we can agree is a major factor contributing to the feelings towards the US.
But what about all the things we do to support the muslims and their respective nations. I'm not extremely versed in international politics but I know about Kosovo. I know about the billions spent by us and Saudi Arabia to oust The Soviet Union from Afghanistan.
I know about the billions of dollars in foreign aid and debt relief to foreign nations such as Palestine. Not to mention our never ending efforts to bring peace to the region.
I just find it so hard to understand how all the good is overlooked and how the extreme hatred has developed.
"US national security adviser Condoleezza Rice has proposed a $ 1 billion aid package for Palestinians. Rice said Washington was ready to deliver “nearly $1 billion” to ease conditions in the Palestinian territories, economically devastated after nearly three years of low-level war with Israel."
OK, but why again does it create such hatred for us? We are the strongest supporter of Israel, and Israel is deeply hated.
So we have an answer. Not so much jealousy but a hatred of us for the support of Israel. This I think we can agree is a major factor contributing to the feelings towards the US.
But what about all the things we do to support the muslims and their respective nations. I'm not extremely versed in international politics but I know about Kosovo. I know about the billions spent by us and Saudi Arabia to oust The Soviet Union from Afghanistan.
I know about the billions of dollars in foreign aid and debt relief to foreign nations such as Palestine. Not to mention our never ending efforts to bring peace to the region.
I just find it so hard to understand how all the good is overlooked and how the extreme hatred has developed.
"US national security adviser Condoleezza Rice has proposed a $ 1 billion aid package for Palestinians. Rice said Washington was ready to deliver “nearly $1 billion” to ease conditions in the Palestinian territories, economically devastated after nearly three years of low-level war with Israel."
Wed Apr 14, 2004 11:57 am
Close the friggin borders now. Until every American woman and child has a full belly and a roof over their head no more money should be given anywhere but here. We have this ass backwards foreign policy when we have issues in our own back yard. We have an economy to stimulate and security to better.
My Israel thoughts. The middle east in general is a f'd up area and it will never be fixed. Just a hot bed and we as a US government need at least one middle eastern ally. That ally is Israel. The landscape in the middle east is a religious nightmare. Isreal vs. Palestine--Sunni vs. Shiite---India vs. Pakistan on and on. Its like PI. The struggles will never end. I mean never. Really, could the US coexist if every state functioned as their own country. No way. And the only way to fix the middle east is to follow a model like we have in North America. Canada and US and even Mexico. We have separate states and providences but we ultimately answer to the elected government. Middle East answer to dozens of governments. Dozens. How can ever expect to work on global issues.
Side note.
I was at the pub a few weeks ago. Met Kenneth, a national from Nigeria. We had a deep discussion on the US vs. Africa. He blamed the media for how I saw Africa. Mostly CNN. Turns out US has a CNN all to themselves where all other countries in the World tune in to a different CNN than we do. Interesting. We only get to see Africa as a country chopping themselves to bits with Warlords. He didn't deny this but he equated it to our gangs doing a drive by. Theirs just makes the news. But we had a great conversation about there being to many countries in Africa to ever get on the same page. He agreed with that assesment but told me of a few countries in Africa that are uniting to have one voice to represent all of them. I forget this group but they represent many of the countries as a single voice for issues such as environment and economy.
We don't see this in the US. Many little countries in a small area does not work. Can Kuwait, Irag, Saudia Arabia ever work together, The answer is a no. I mean NO. But what if all three were under one government would it work out better. The answer may not be yes but it will sure better than the no we have currently.
My Israel thoughts. The middle east in general is a f'd up area and it will never be fixed. Just a hot bed and we as a US government need at least one middle eastern ally. That ally is Israel. The landscape in the middle east is a religious nightmare. Isreal vs. Palestine--Sunni vs. Shiite---India vs. Pakistan on and on. Its like PI. The struggles will never end. I mean never. Really, could the US coexist if every state functioned as their own country. No way. And the only way to fix the middle east is to follow a model like we have in North America. Canada and US and even Mexico. We have separate states and providences but we ultimately answer to the elected government. Middle East answer to dozens of governments. Dozens. How can ever expect to work on global issues.
Side note.
I was at the pub a few weeks ago. Met Kenneth, a national from Nigeria. We had a deep discussion on the US vs. Africa. He blamed the media for how I saw Africa. Mostly CNN. Turns out US has a CNN all to themselves where all other countries in the World tune in to a different CNN than we do. Interesting. We only get to see Africa as a country chopping themselves to bits with Warlords. He didn't deny this but he equated it to our gangs doing a drive by. Theirs just makes the news. But we had a great conversation about there being to many countries in Africa to ever get on the same page. He agreed with that assesment but told me of a few countries in Africa that are uniting to have one voice to represent all of them. I forget this group but they represent many of the countries as a single voice for issues such as environment and economy.
We don't see this in the US. Many little countries in a small area does not work. Can Kuwait, Irag, Saudia Arabia ever work together, The answer is a no. I mean NO. But what if all three were under one government would it work out better. The answer may not be yes but it will sure better than the no we have currently.