The war of Asia Minor(the current score)

[macchia]

I find the term 'middle east' misleading, but anyhow with a few new developments this is the current score, I'd like to discuss the possible outcomes:

--Iraq is composed of Shia, Sunee, and Kurds. Iraq former president Saddam Hussien was Sunee, a minority, but kept the country united under acts of random terror akin to Stalin.

--The new government is lead by the Shia majority who understandably want blood. The US as mediator is supporting the majority led government.

--Muqtada Al Sader is a shia militia terrorist killing and tortorting hundreds of Sunee Iraqees. He also has a seat in the government and the president is turning a blind eye largely because most of the Iraq army supports Al-Sader.

--Al Sader is supported by Iran. Iran's reputation was bolstered by their support of Hezbala, considered the 'good guys' by most in the area in the short feud between their Lebanese stronghold and Israel. They're using this momentum to attempt to overtake Iraq and increase their stranglehold on oil while expanding the hypothetical united Shia state. Many also think they have nuclear arms ambitions.

--This is the NEW development. Saudi Arabia(our key economic ally, even though all of the 9-11 terrorists were saudis) which is Sunee led recently declared they would move into Iraq to defend the Sunee minority if need be. This could possibly lead to contentions between Saudi Arabia and the US and most likely a regional war which nations such as Lebanon, Turkey, Syria, Jordan and maybe even Egypt and Pakistan feel obligated to enter for their own nation's safety. The main feud would be between Iran and Saudi Arabia, with Turkey and Egypt and Pakistan and Jordan bolstering themselves for a surge of refugees and the inevitable terrorists disguised as refugees(leading to a possible humanitarian crisis from nations so worried over terrorism they treat all refugees as such).

--A private arms dealer(or dealers) has been purchasing US military surplus and selling it to nations such as Iran and other enemies of the US. We have a surplus?

Im sure I left a few things out. What do you think will happen?
I think when all the dust settles, Iraq will be 1/4 its current size composed largely of Kurds, with the remaining portions of Iraq swallowed up by Saudi Arabia and Iran. I think the new border they share will be under constant contention and warfare for decades. I have no idea what role we'll play. Hopefully we'll leave but I fear we'll be in an oil crisis if we dont take sides and that will lead us to support Saudi Arabia, and suddenly we look like instigators because we 'switched sides', further bolstering support for anti-american organizations. I have no idea what role the European nations will play, but they have too large a population of Muslims to continue sitting on the sidelines telling everyone what they're doing wrong.

 

[FzGhouL]

Western Nations won't let Iraq divide or assimilate as it would undermine their efforts to destabilize any regional powers from developing. Civil war will occur in Iraq, no other control will overtly take action as they would be immediately retaliated against. The blood shed will last probably at least another twenty years.

You forgot Israel.

 

[lunarhiro2002]

I think americans would wuss out and pull out and let the arabs rip each other to pieces...then once they finish they'd go after Israel. Then Israel would nuke oil fields and military instilations. Russians woudl get pissed europeans would get pissed and Chinese would get pissed. We'd have no more oil and everyone would blame Israel.

In the mean time terrorists have forced most of the industrialized countries to become police states.

the world enters a global depression because of the lack of nominal amounts of oil. Many die, the survivors of the aftermath unite around a global government and elect a world leader.

OR

Everything stays in the middle east and there is a large exodus of people out of that area into Europe, South East Asia and the Caucusses.

 

[FzGhouL]

Oh yeah that makes sense. The situation would devolve into a beyond reality fantasy-setting where world war three would be caused, years after the rest of the world gained some insight into how things work.

 

[lunarhiro2002]

Okay what insight would we learn and apply to the situation? What do you think would happen? You didn't include Israel into your thought, what do you think would happen? Why wouldn't a united arab world be more then happy to blow up Israel?

World War 1 Ended an everyone vowed not to have another war...and how many years was it when the same country started another world war? What was it that we learned again? Churchill and another guy he was an economist forgot his name they're the famous ones who said "uh-oh, world war 2 is right around the block" Yet those people were all shoved off as being looney...dont do that to me anything can happen I was just putting my thoughts in.

 

[FzGhouL]

You had OKAY ideas, but they were stated in such an oversimplified way that it was semi-insulting. Sorry.

 

[macchia]

I tend to agree with Fz lunar. Your theory read a little bit like a highschool paper, lacking legitimate citations and substituting such with the charicatures that make their worldview work, dystopian or otherwise. M.A.D.(mutual assured destruction, for you lucky chaps who werent around for the cold war) is a surefire enough reason for your scenario not to happen, as cinematic as it may be. We shouldnt make the mistake of confusing grunts at the bottom with orchestrators at the top. The leaders dont want to die, even if they can talk their followers into doing it. Anyone smart enough to properly use a nuke will never use it because of M.A.D..
And yes, FZgoul, Israel. Everyone wants Israel destroyed. But then, bringing that up would be like reminding you the sky is blue.

 

[macchia]

A new development though its not really in the news.
Its believed by many now that the Saudi Arabians are putting the squeeze on Iran by lowering oil prices. See, Saudi Arabia is the #1 producer of oil behind Iran, however Iran's oil extraction and conversion to gas is incredibly expensive because they dont have the proper tools for it. For this reason, even though they're the number #2 producer of oil they're also the number #2 importer of gas, behind us. Lowering oil prices enough will put economic pressure on Iran and essentially sink them into a hole preventing them from being able to fund any kind of nuclear program. You'd call the US benifit to the low oil revinues 'collateral'. This of course could backfire because with a crazy guy like Iran's leader at the helm there's no telling what he'd do in a corner where his nuclear ambitions are found wanting and he's having a harder time sponsering his Hezbala provocateurs in Lebanon and elsewhere.

 

[Guybrush]

FWI, it's Sunni. Not sunee.

As far as the Middle East goes, I find it ironic that we're spending so much defending our economic interests overseas when we could simply be spending the money to develop alternative fuel sources at home and let the Middle East go to hell in a handbasket as they see fit.

 

[Lene]

We are...it's called hybrid cars and solar panels. It's a start but at least with the former, things are beginning to catch on with the general public.

 

[macchia]

FWI, it's Sunni. Not sunee.

As far as the Middle East goes, I find it ironic that we're spending so much defending our economic interests overseas when we could simply be spending the money to develop alternative fuel sources at home and let the Middle East go to hell in a handbasket as they see fit.

Hindsight doesnt really solve anything, though. And alternative energies have already been invented. Electric cars, for a single example, have been around for over 2 decades. Other alternatives like ethanol been around for a long time(Brazil, for one, runs entirely on sugar cane ethanol). Oil lobbies kept any of these things from catching on in the states or getting adequate government funding. Presidents have been paying lipservice to the idea of alternatives since the Carter administration, it wont actually happen till we have enough people willing to turn down porkbarrels from oil lobbies(never happen, not till the oil runs dry).

 

[Junk-Man]

The problem with alternative fuels is that, though they are the most practical option, the oil industry uses its political and economic power to stay on top. Ethanol, bio-fuel, and solar power (hell, we can even make fuel from bodily waste and garbage!) could ween us off the middle eastern oil teat in a matter of 10 to 20 years if we actively encouraged the use and consumption of it. Ethanol (which comes from corn, soybeans and other vegitation that I can't remember), for instance, can be regrown every season and, thanks to advances in agriculture, can be grown almost anywhere. Barring a catastrophic natural disaster like Hurricane Katrina, or the wild fires in my home of California, the price would be billions of times more steady than oil. The byproduct of producing ethanol and bio-fuels is food and lotions and such, and producing ethanol in large amounts would help the US agriculture industry--not to mention the whole damn economy. Hydrogen is being research, but from what I see, its little more than a pipe dream.

As for the destabilization of the middle-east, The US may have helped them along the way, but the ultimate deciders of their fate are the people themselves, not any government.

 

[Guybrush]

Hemp is a very viable fuel source. We already know how to make good hemp fuels that can run a vehicle as efficiently as gasoline. Sadly, the plant that the right hemp comes from (the cannabis plant) is the same plant whose buds have a popular recreational use - marijuana. Thus, the U.S. government has basically banned all production and further research on a great alternative fuel source (not to mention a good source for cotton-quality cloth, high quality paper, and hundreds of other products that could hugely impact the U.S. economy).

 

[macchia]

Its BECAUSE hemp can replace cotton and fuel that its outlawed, not because of marijuana. The MJ propaganda of the 50s was in large part done to protect the US cotton industry. I wont get into that, though. As long as people choose to remain ignorant on the realities of hemp there will be people lobbying against it instead of, say, any number of completely legal over the counter drugs which are far more dangerous.

 

[Guybrush]

I've read such articles, and found them quite interesting. I personally am against legislating morality like the government often does, so I don't like drug control laws to begin with. The War on Drugs is the single biggest waste of taxpayer dollars going on right now, besides the welfare system in general. In a free market system, drugs that were openly allowed by the government would not be as dangerous as they are now because they would be in the hands of big business rather than gangs and drug dealers.