Middle East Unrest Megathread

[Parti Ouvrier]

Since when did a Middle East Megathread become a discussion about Europe?

This should get you back on track, (article from Spiked Online)

'Why a no-fly zone means no freedom for Libyans' by Mick Hume
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/ ... cle/10288/

'The gulf between rhetoric and reality' By Tim Black
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/ ... cle/10297/

[Kazomal]

Seems to me that the US and Isreal have decided that (al-)(G)(K)(Q)ad(d)(')(h)af(i)(y) is a pall, and won't stop him from his ever-more successful counter-attacks against the rebels. I see the situation falling into a protected guerilla war. Maybe AQ and similar groups will take advantage. We lost our chance to get rebels on our side by helping them, and now it looks like the Mad Colonel's regime is going to see 43. Looks like, after decades of sponsoring terrorism and threatening to flood the US and Europe with "millions of suicide bombers," (al-)(G)(K)(Q)ad(d)(')(h)af(i)(y)'s brief investment in making nice to the west, especially US and Isreal, by playing off fears of Islamic extremists, has payed dividends.

[Grave_n_idle]

LIbyan oil, and it's derivatives. OPEC. etc.

It's tangential, but not exactly off-topic.

I appreciate that, which is why I've let the discussion run without further comment until now; but while it is broadly germane, let's try not to get too far off-track. A discussion of how the unrest might impact oil prices and the European economy is relevant, but we don't want to see that take over the entire thread, please.

That's not directed towards anyone specific - but consider this post a gentle collective nudge back towards Tripoli and Manama rather than the price of plastics in the Balkans.

It got a little meandering when the person (sorry, I can't remember who) claiming that rising oil prices wouldn't affect them turned what I was thought was a fairly obvious statement of principles into a geographic game of hide-and-seek.

Why that matters... I seem to recall the whole thing stemmed from a question of intervention, and what possible justification there was. Obviously, oil, oil derivatives, and market forces hinging on those factors, are the 'justification'.

I think the point is well enough made, though - even if we don't thrash it out to it's conclusion. This is me, dropping it.

*nods*

[Parti Ouvrier]

Not yet at least. And whether it's a thousand, a hundred or ten, people were killed. A less bad thing is still a bad thing. Last point, Bahrain has an atrocious record on human rights, treating Shia as second-class citizens.

[Parti Ouvrier]

Remember the same exact shit being said about China today was being said about Japan 30 years ago, and Japan was in much better shape economically than China is now. The Chinese economy will falter, it's a matter of when at the moment.

Different situations. Japan is an industrialized country that has an economy dominated by hi-tech exports. China is a transition country at best that has an economy dominated by cheap mass production. The average income and target markets of the two country are quite different. Not that this means that China won't suffer an unexpected economic downturn, but if it does, the reasons will be different from those that halted Japan's economic conquest of the world.

These are all valid points of course, back to the Middle East?

[Euroslavia]

Going to be splitting this megathread apart, back into topics about each individual situation, because it's far too confusing to have it all in one thread.

[Vonners]

Going to be splitting this megathread apart, back into topics about each individual situation, because it's far too confusing to have it all in one thread.

after 72 pages? thats....pretty brave! Good luck!