The Arab World Takes a Hard Look at Itself

[Chris 62]

Broke out the X-files again, eh?

[Q Classic]

very welcome. we can see how well it worked in saudi arabia, and how the people accepted it so well.

of course, we didn't really do it to them, just to our people. "sensitivity" training or what not.

[Kropotkin]

Just 'cause you don't like some information doesn't necissarly mean it's not true...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Broke out the X-files again, eh?

What X-Files? This is all part of the public record.

[Arrian]

The "West" has definitely had an effect. Britain and France ruled areas of the ME and then divided it up into countries (or was that the UN who decided the borders). The US was clearly involved in Iran and Iraq at various stages (though I think Che exaggerates for effect the extent of our control).

Still, it's up to the Arabs themselves to solve their own problems, most of which have nothing to do with the West, or any other part of the world. Just like it's up to us to deal with our ****.

-Arrian

[Shi Huangdi]

Great Britain definitley had a role in putting up these autocrats. Still blaming the west doesn't really work- Latin America had the USA supporting several dictatorships there, and they ended up turning democratic. Eastern Europe had the Soviets propping up brutal regimes, and they won their freedom. The Arabs have failed to put up serious democratic resistance to their rulers so far, and what is scary is that much of the youth instead of wanting more democracy want hard-line Islamic governments instead.


"The US overthrew the democraitc Iranian government in 1953"

Psssst....... Che, this thread is about the Arab world. Iran isn't an arabs state.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Arrian
(though I think Che exaggerates for effect the extent of our control).

Not so much control as simply a force. The fact that Hussein was given those names (most of whom ended up dead) didn't guarantee that a rightest dictatorship would take control of Iraq, but it certainly pushed things in the direction.

Iran was most definately a case of US control, though, as US forces (under the command of Stormin' Norman's father) landed in Iran and reinstalled the Shah.


edit: Re BD's comment: Uhm, well, Iran has Arabs in it, yeah, that's the ticket.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Chris: che is for the most part correct. I'm sorry if that contrasts with your US = always good, Arabs = always bad rhetoric.

[Roland]

If you look at outside meddling, then latin america and SE asia had a lot of that too, but most countries still managed to get to various stages of development higher than most arab countries.

It also varies a lot for countries - how many foreign interventions have there been in Tunisia post 1956 ? All I know is an Israeli air attack.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Chris: che is for the most part correct. I'm sorry if that contrasts with your US = always good, Arabs = always bad rhetoric.

Uh Imran, I have no such "rhetoric'.
You seem to have a ME one though.

As soon as you say "the CIA..."
Your talking through your backside, because it's all specualtion.
And don't bother trying to tell me how many people try to confirm it, all CIA records are sealed and you know it.

[Arrian]

Roland's got a point there. Just about every area of the world has experienced some form of outside intervention at some point in time. There's a lot more here than evil, greedy Westerners keeping the Arabs down.

-Arrian

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The imperial powers do have some part to play. For example, in 1963, the CIA handed Saddam Hussein a list of 5,000 suspected leftists and democrats. The US overthrew the democratic Iranian government in 1953. Little things like that have helped keep the ME in the hands of corrupt tyrants who cared for little more than getting rich off of rents from the imperialists' oil companies.

The danger of democracy in the region is that oil companies could be nationalized (as happened briefly in Iran, before the US put the Shah back in power). Even countries without oil could not be allowed to become democratic, because of the "bad example" they would set for others.

But the Arabs have more or less been content to let things remain in that state. The Algerians fought for years to overthrow the French, but rolled over when the military overthrew their socialist republic.

edit: fixing typos and layout

Do you not hold them responsible for anything che? Are they that small and powerless that they cannot take credit for their own **** ups? In that case che, it's not America's fault at all. It's the Brits. It was their imperialistic meddling that caused all the evil things the US has done in it's history.

I wonder who the Brits can blame? Maybe the Normans. Or maybe the Danes who meddled in their affairs. That's it, the human rights abuses in the Mid East is a direct result of Viking interference in native Celtic affairs long long ago.

[Kropotkin]

To be frank he said that they played some part. That's harldy the same as blaiming everything on western influence. In fact, saying that something happened is not the same to as saying that this played a important role later on. That's something the reader puts in the others mouth.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
To be frank he said that they played some part. That's harldy the same as blaiming everything on western influence. In fact, saying that something happened is not the same to as saying that this played a important role later on. That's something the reader puts in the others mouth.

I never pictured you as a Frank. More like a Karl or Gustav.


Anyway, I still like my Viking theory.

[CyberGnu]

well, eastern Vikings traded with Byzantium, and the revenue from that trade mighe prolongued the fall of constantiople with up to 30 minutes. This in turn could have ramifications for the rest of arab history. Makes sense to me. Blame Kroppie! (Oh, and I'm from the part of Sweden whose vikings went west. I'm innocent).