Oil is not the main subject here. It's the US policies

Submitted by Hassan (United States), Mar 1, 2011 at 19:21

I am very pleased with your comment, especially that your thoughts are not based on personal background. It raises the par very high for other commenters (including me) to be more sophisticated in their criticism. However, I still disagree with some of your thoughts.

The assessments of the future or the expected action if the facts changed that you have are based on previous experience on some Arab and Islamic states had. These assessments generalize the thoughts on all those countries, no matter what background or ideology they follow.

Islam is represented in many different ways. Some countries, such as Turkey, Egypt, and Singapore, separate between religion and government. Some didn't, such as Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. Also, most countries try to equalize between women and men (read about Islamist feminism). From these and from my experience, I can conclude that everyone of those countries are almost different. They don't share the same view of Islam, neither they share laws and regulations.

My question was just to attract people to read my comment and participate. This question is not the main subject of my thought. I only mean by this question is that America has economic reasons for being in the Middle East. However, I found that the question is very disturbing.

You used the question and went so far with your thoughts to Ottoman empire. Still your expectations of what would happened is based on theories that can't be proven.

• "Ottoman Turks still being in power." Why would the Ottoman Empire be exist if the oil were not in the middle east. This empire deseased before descoverning the oil field in that region.
• "Let us fast-forward to the 1991 invasion of Kuwait by a western power….no, wait, that was Saddam Hussein. What did he leave behind but tantrums of envy as the oil fields were ignited in a parting retributive gesture towards those for whom he held nothing but contempt. Pride was his downfall." I ment interference of US to help the dictators of KSA and Kuwiet. Also the invation of Iraq by US in 2002.
• "Israel was targeted and bombed by SCUD missiles ordered by Saddam Hussein." First if you soppuse that Ottoman Emire would still exist, Israely system won't. Second, Saddam Hussein won't be in power. Third, the USA came for KSA and Kuwiet not Israel. They also took enormous money from both countries. Fourth, Saddam Hussein doesn't have a reccord of attacking Israel before the interference of US and UN.
• And why talking too much about Saddam Hussain. The discussion is about the American international policies and their motives.
• "Remembering that the United States was not alone in redressing the issues of an out-of-control Iraqi regime." In 2002, most countries, such as France, Russia, and Germany, rejected the idea of invading Iraq, whereas America insisted to do so. And they did.
• "But Egypt has no significant oil reserves. Libya does. Which then, should the United Nations consider intervention for….both; neither; or the next to fall? And if the United Nations were to vote to intervene; which nation would have the primary resources to accomplish a peaceful transition? Who would stand to benefit the most…whoever pays the highest for a barrel of oil?" This is a very important point. No one in the Arab world want an a military intervention from the west. They only want the UN (not the US) to help without going inside Libya.
• "So the question of change for the lack of oil is not only less than academic, it is painfully not rhetorical either." I couldn't agree more. This question was very distracting from the main point, which is the American policies toward the Middle East. This title is just to attract more people to read my comment. If you noticed, I never emphasized it.
• "The only transcendence to be found in all of this comes not from how much oil can become the cause of the next world conflagration, but of the peripherally involved enmity against Israel by all parties concerned. Understand that in the context of the whole Middle East crisis, even in the flagging loss of interest in trying to gain Israeli land for 'Palestinian' interests, it will eventually come down to what posture any Islamic state, whether (sic) democratic or under the auspices of shari'a dictates, intends as a political statement of common Islamic control in spite of the oil interests any may or may not have. Whose pride will stand in the gap left by the dictators?" Well, this is a very big subject. But unforetunately, I agree with you. Our media always show the turture and the killing that Israeli's do toward the Palastinians. Israelis are strong and have a strong support from the western countries, but their system is basically injustice. If Fatah or Hamas movements killed 1 or 2, they kill 50 in response.
• Most of those are civilians. They also discriminate based on religion and nationality. And lobby in Washington to keep the status que.

* Please don't make the Israeli/Palastinian conflect our main subject in this discussion. I only want to have a discussion on one subject at a time or we won't benefit from this.

"In the end, joining with Islam may be the collaborative necessity of evil in order for the world to keep the oil flowing for any country; and that for everyone who is watching, appears just over the next horizon." This statement infers the hatred that some people might have on Middle Eastern countries. People always relate the behavior of these countries to Islam, which is not true. The behavior of those dictators doesn't represent Islam. It just represent their perception of Islam and many many other factors (culture, ideologies, personalities .... etc)

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".