Middle East, what future lies ahead?

[mimil]

The motive of this post is some comments about the growing population in the Arab world and the fact that is non-relevant.

I will to support my point use some statements made by Samuel P. Huntington in a book named “The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order”.

History teaches a great deal about human relations and its complexity. Nevertheless, it never fully applies to any new situation, a man cannot swim twice in the same river, as it is not the same man and it is not the same water. What is new in world order today? We are not more civilized, nor are we any smarter than our ancestors were. But we have something new: technology. It might sound like irrelevant but it changes international relationships a great deal. The US plan to make a missile shield is a joke, if Russia was to blow is entire nuclear arsenal on Moscow, the dust cloud and nuclear downfall will erase all life from continents in a matter of years. It is inevitable that more countries will have access to such technology in the future years. We can always slow it down, but will never stop the trend.

What solution do we have then? Either we learn to live together, with all the complexity of such a task, or we go back to stone age. The maneuverability in between these two solutions is shrinking as time passes. If we go back to stone age, no need for a debate, anyway it is unlikely that any of us will be there to still talk about it. Therefore we can only talk about the other alternative.

In his book Samuel P. Huntington Says: “Larger populations needs more resources, and hence people from societies dense and/or rapidly growing populations tend to push outward, occupy territory, and exert pressure on other less demographically dynamic peoples. Islamic population growth is thus a major contributing factor to the conflicts along the borders of the Islamic world between Muslim and other peoples. “
[…]
“Meanwhile Muslim population growth will be a destabilizing force for both Muslim societies and their neighbors. The large numbers of young people with secondary education will continue to power the Islamic resurgence and promote Muslim militancy, militarism, and migration. “
The instability of the Middle East is a not a new issue, nevertheless, we emphasize the problem by the way we treat it. In the following countries, the amount of people age 15 –24 will represent 20 % or more of the total population somewhere between 2000 – 2020: Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Sudan, Kyrgyztan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, Jordan, Iraq, Oman, Libya, Afghanistan. (Source UN). Most of these countries are in the middle east, as was mentioned on other posts, these countries will be quite liberal, and with the way USA is getting involved in the region, the resentment against them will grow stronger.
The cost of the war is said to be 70 Billion dollars. It is an idealistic approach, I agree, but this money could have been better used to cool down the region rather than heat it up.

A last quote from Samuel P. Huntington: “ In the coming era, in short, the avoidance of major intercivilizational wars requires core states to refrain from intervening in conflicts in other civilizations. This is a truth which some states, particularly the United States, will undoubtedly find difficult to accept.”

[Communication]

It's interesting, there was a surge of customers for Huntington's book after 9-11. Until then, people had for the most part dismissed his work because they saw globalization as the answer to these sorts of population/demographic problems.

A lot of countires are now claiming to reject the "Americanization" of their cultures and value system, so we will see how globalization plays out. One thing I'll mention in light of the American boycotts going on around the world is that these boycotts hurt local economies often more than they do the US economy. Those businesses are usually franchises owned by locals who employ local people. Often the products themselves are made in foreign countries.

[mimil]

Originally posted by Communication

A lot of countries are now claiming to reject the "Americanization" of their cultures and value system, so we will see how globalization plays out. One thing I'll mention in light of the American boycotts going on around the world is that these boycotts hurt local economies often more than they do the US economy. Those businesses are usually franchises owned by locals who employee local people. Often the products themselves are made in foreign countries.

The issue I see in your saying is does globalization means Americanization? To focus more on recent events, does liberating Iraq means the installation of a US like political system and an attempt to westernize (Term similar to Americanize) various aspects of the social structures? It has proven that attempts to strip a country of its cultural roots have failed, one might say that Hong Kong and Singapore have been successfully westernize, it is not that clear when you are there, and the acceptance is not really the one of western civilization, more of the power of dollars.

I believe America has a great elite. I also believe that the average person education and knowledge is less to be praised. The reason is that they have been taught all the way that America is great, America is better, and in a sense American shouldn't bother to know more about the rest of the world. Friends here, told me yesterday night, that on the net people did not believe internet connection was available in Singapore, statement that suppose they know where it is, which is not always the case. I am ready for any insult to come, I know I am an idiot and I am not worth much better than what I denounce.

Anyway, the above point leads to the general believe that anything that is not American has no relevance. The path to denial of cultural identity and a less multicultural world is then open. My objection is that you can't deny the differences. That we must find alternative and compromise when dealing with other cultures. Walking in with western "big feet" will not serve us nor the US alone.

[elke]

Mimil, you are not an "idiot" or anything of the sort. That's a silly way to talk. You present some arguments that are valid, in other people's opinions; and others that aren't - again, in other people's opinions.

The fact is, though, that just as you say that Americans are not adequately aware of other cultures, you are not adequately aware of the American one. First and foremost, the proverbial "melting pot" is more of a mosaic. What I mean by that is: instead of melding completely into a homogenous mass, each piece remains distinct here, contributing to the whole picture, which is more than a sum of its parts. Walking the streets of any major city, you will pass from Polish section to Indian section, to Russian section, etc.etc.etc. I can walk out of my office, go into the "Dining Concourse" in the Grand Central Station, and have lunch at a Kosher Deli, the Indian food kiosk, or at that fancy Mexican restaurant inside there - or have a hot dog (incidentally, there is no McDonalds inside there :))

My point is that the "globalization" does not have to completely strip individuality from various cultures, rather it teaches about them. The flow of information is in multiple ways, not just from US or Europe outwards, but also from outside inwards. As the Developing Countries progress, the incoming flow will increase as well. Just because someone has a cheeseburger at a McDonald's, doesn't mean that they have become "Americanized" or "Westernized".

IMO, globalization doesn't just make sense economically, as it ideally will create a world where the concept of specialization can achieve better standard of living for all, but also politically - and even morally. It can help civilize the human race as a whole, since we do have the common sense to know that when we depend on one another, war is not the ideal answer to our conflicts.

[Communication]

I suppose I call globalization "Americanization" but it isn't necessarily so and it's certainly not unilateral. I've helped IKEA become very profitable. ;) The US is the most capitalist country in the world, although places like Japan take the American model to a whole new level. I guess I mean importing capitalism- international business, as a mean of making the world a more interconnected and smaller place. Not all countries want to be capitalistic, and I understand that. I have my problems with capitalism. I think Americans work too much.

But you can't deny that many people come here to do just that: to work as hard as they can so that their children can have better opportunities than they did. They come here to escape political and religious oppression/persecution, starvation, and economic plight from all over the world. That's what America means to most people in the world, not McDonalds fast food and Hollywood, although it does mean that too.

I think that you are right that many Americans are somewhat isolated from what's going on in the world, or at least that was very true until 9-11. People claim that it's because of American arrogance. But I think it goes back to why so many people come here in the first place. My grandmother never talked about the holocaust when I was a kid. My other grandmother never talked about the Russian pograms. "Go play," they would say.

[christian]

see some wonderful picture below.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/gulfwar2/civilians.htm

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by christian
see some wonderful picture below.

Yes, this is the tragedy caused by the brutal Arab dictator Saddam Hussein and his refusal to give up his weapons of mass murder.

Did you join anti-Saddam protests, by any chance?

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by christian
see some wonderful picture below.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/gulfwar2/civilians.htm

I am unmoved. I remember the photo of the naked flaming Vietnamese girl running down the street somewhere in Vietnam won a Pulitizer prize.

[Communication]

Ah yes, Al Jazerra, the Arab veriosn of "shock and awe." I find it curious that you decided to post those pictures in response to a thread about Huntington versus globalization and especially in response to my post about how many Americans come to the United States to escape the oppression and brutality of regimes such as Saddam Hussein's. But here your post is, so I might as well deal with it first in terms of the thread itself and then on its own merits.

I don't see war as being part of the argument for or against globalization. War stands on its own, and it always signals a failure in diplomacy. It is antithetical to the purpose of globalization, which is to bridge cultural and national boundaries through trade. You could argue that America imports war to other nations by selling weapons to countries that in turn use them on one another, but this war with Iraq falls outside that equation, irespective of the fact that the US has sold weapons of mass destruction to Iraq in the past. Hussein made a deal when he lost the Gulf War to destroy those weapons and he flouted every attempt to force him to make good on those promises.

Now, as for those pictures, you can't escape the fact that they are bone chilling. War is horrible and I am one of those people that Johhny posted about who have been on the fence over this war the entire time. On one hand, if the US stayed out of it, you would still have Hussein murdering thousands of his own citizens in ways that are just as brutal and even more so than what is represented in those pictures. But that didn't matter to Al Jazerra or the peace protesters as much as keeping America out of Iraq's affairs. In addition, you would allow this madman to continue to build WMD to use on his neighbors again. So I think many of us can at least agree that the Iraqi people should have been freed from his power a long time ago. Whether the US should have been involved in that effort is what's up for debate. Maybe not. But I don't think that the Iraqi people could have done it on their own. He killed everybody who dared to even cross their eyes in front of one of his disgusting portraits that he plastered the entire country with. The other Arab nations wouldn't do it. They are too busy jailing and torturing thier own dissidents. I have no illusions that this could end very badly and that this may have been Osoma Bin Ladin's dream come true. My heart goes out to the Iraqi people. They are the victims, no matter how you spin the image of either the US or Saddam Hussein.

[christian]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
I am unmoved. I remember the photo of the naked flaming Vietnamese girl running down the street somewhere in Vietnam won a Pulitizer prize.

I am unmove. 6 million holocaust survival t are smoking like a pancake in austwitz. Someone wins a pultizer prize for writing a book on holocaust.

[mimil]

Originally posted by Communication
I've helped IKEA become very profitable. ;)

At 22 you have already achieved that !!! I need to get moving then, I havn't yet made myself profitable :)

Sorry I am getting busy with my work, and I don't know why but I can not post from my house (login is refused :?). I'll try to come back on the issue so (Both globalization and crime of wars).