MERGED: The Arab Spring

[noy.juan]

---

lets talk about Libya...


ngano maki alam man ang UN ug US?

di ba Civil war man na..

rebels versus Govt..

pakialamero jud ning US... basta country rich in oil..
dasmag daun.. tuta pod ang UN.. agree dayun..

wa pa jud sila ma kuntento sa 911 Fake tragedy?
naghimo na pod sila bag-o na conspiracy!

unta lang ipagawas na tanan sa wikileaks!!

care to post a link on where to see/read it?, hopefully not wikipedia or some mj-smokin/hippies website

[kit_cebu]

char.char rana ila........

[cebugdev]

regarding the conspiracy theory na ang America will go to war for oil, is just pathetic and not practical..
if tinoud ni, then why the hell oil is still expensive even in the west?

DO you guys have an idea on the price of oil in the US?

[Visual C#]

Middle East Crisis - is it primarily started by US to capture majority stakes of oil?

They don't need to destabilize the Middle East, since they already have (since the Iraq 2003 Invasion). Any further instability will be bad for the US. So I don't see why they'd secretly instigate or start any uprisings in the Middle East.

The situation in Bahrain, however, deserves more of our focus, and has far more consequences for the US than the Libya situation. Why?

- Bahrain is home the US Navy 5th Fleet.
- The Bahraini crisis is all about the struggle of the Shia Muslim majority v.s. the Sunni ruling political monarchy. The Shias want more say in the political process in Bahrain, the Sunni monarchy doesn't. If the Bahraini Shias were to succeed, it would inspire the Shias in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, the UAE, and other Gulf states to rebel, causing massive instability in those regions. The US obviously doesn't want that.
- With the Shia uprising in full swing, Iran will be very happy indeed. Iran is a Shia, non-Arab country, and would really like to take the title of regional hegemon away from Saudi Arabia, thereby making the US increasingly uncomfortable. There are reports indicating that Iran is influencing the Shia uprising in Bahrain, and as well as other Shia uprisings in the Middle East. With Iraq now a crippled US satellite state (the 2003 invasion pretty much removed Iran's biggest problem), Iran will become overly confident and can dominate the Persian gulf region.

So do you think the US still caused this instability?

[gareb]

Gareb, I think that's what people look for in a government, isn't it? If it is stable politically and economically, regardless of what their people think, the country can be described as 'stable'. Usually, if the people are not feeling well, if they are oppressed, if the wealth is unequally distributed, or if general economic conditions are unstable, then the country is unstable as a whole.

this just got me thinking.

it's pretty evident that, as it is, the demands for a more democratic political atmosphere within the Arab world is valid. each group has it's own interpretation of what 'democracy' is, an how to use this to advance their interests. perhaps they want more political representation (Bahrain), more civil liberties (Egypt) or more social and economic emancipation (Tunisia), but it is indeed too self-serving to assume that these uprisings' prime objective is to establish a liberal democracy like the West.

fact is, the ruling governments of these nations has been propped up for the longest time by wealth coming from oil, and some shrewd internal and international political maneuvering. in this context, 'stability' is synonymous with 'entrenchment' and 'longevity', both arguably a product of repression and wealth from oil.

assuming that the fall of despotic regimes indeed is a sign of the much awaited surge of democracy in the Arab world, the removal of a strong man (Gadhafi, Mubarak) or the challenging of the political status quo in various other regimes means an altogether different scenario in the economic aspect of things. upsetting the entrenched hierarchies that have rooted there for years is also equal to upsetting the economic stability of these nations, and on a bigger scale, the entire world economy as they are significant players because of the oil that they produce.

the big question, of course is what can the rebels, with their own set agenda, offer.

worst case scenario would be the Arab world in tatters, with nations resembling something like another Iraq divided by factions, or a no-man's land resembling Afghanistan, knowing that the international community cannot help but intervene since the interests that are at stake are not just confined within these embattled nation's borders.

as the saying goes, too many chefs spoil the broth.

[reptoid]

Latest update:

Libyan plane intercepted & shot down by French fighter .

[geetarista]

si gadhafi kay murag si carlos santana makalitan... haha

[Visual C#]

@gareb: Exactly. The chefs here are the different tribal groups and leaders, the different political opposition groups, all vying for power. It is naive to think that these "rebels" or "activists" are after genuine democracy, much less Western-style democracy. That's why I avoided the newscasts from CNN during the Egypt conflicts, and went with far better sources for analysis on the situation. They were all such cheerleaders of the ideals of 'democracy', 'freedom', and 'social media uprisings', completely unaware of the real situation.

[psyd_1]

pics sa libya recently ON THIS HOUR: Libya

[gareb]

@gareb: Exactly. The chefs here are the different tribal groups and leaders, the different political opposition groups, all vying for power. It is naive to think that these "rebels" or "activists" are after genuine democracy, much less Western-style democracy. That's why I avoided the newscasts from CNN during the Egypt conflicts, and went with far better sources for analysis on the situation. They were all such cheerleaders of the ideals of 'democracy', 'freedom', and 'social media uprisings', completely unaware of the real situation.

or it can be that Western media has become a victim of how these uprisings have been packaged to appeal to them. the West has, after all, looked for various means to spread its version of liberal democracy to this part of the world. anything that dares to challenge the entrenched autocracies should be worthy of support. it is simplistic and dangerous, but the public hates nuanced perspectives.

still, this begs the question if indeed a liberal democracy such as that of the West can be effective in the Arab world, and if these uprisings is a sign of some some political maturity among the Arabs, or is this a start of the economic downturn of the whole region.

Turkey comes as close to liberal democracy as the West can get from the Arab world. but as it appears, it is not even liberal enough. can we expect something like this from Egypt, or even Iraq in the future? will there be a point in time when the Arab world will be polarized between the likes of Turkey, versus the likes of Saudi Arabia, or are we already there yet?

i am mulling over these questions as i watch the news.