Thanks, bb. I appreciate these tips. As a Brit you have a clear vision of these onging events that I, as an outsider, am trying to "feel my way" towards more or less in the dark.

Rest assured that I will have a full supply of popcorn ready.

If you find such planet, ns, ‘tell us and we will come.’ Funny, but I fell asleep last night wondering “the same thing.” Perhaps we can be comforted by the premise that “all life is generated at the very edge of chaos” (Chaos Theory).

Anyhow, while I realize that this topic is in part “tongue-and-cheek,” as I stated earlier I’m not much in the way of a “conspiratorialist.” My own belief is that men invent conspiracy theories not really to prove to themselves that there is some bad force out there (not us) secretly affecting our lives, as is commonly believed. Au contraire, I maintain that we invent conspiracy theories as a way of deluding ourselves into believing that there is some intelligence/design, no matter how sinister, that is actually responsible for all the insanity. It is far more disturbing for us to admit to ourselves the obvious truth: The government is really that stupid and out-of control than it is that there really is “no one in charge.”

Moving on, the world community assumes that because the US government talks about “spreading democracy,” that this is what it actually believes: Not really. In reality democracy is a form of government which is more suitable for specific stages of socioeconomic evolution than is others. Communism, for example, is a much better economic launching pad for highly rural and agriculturally based economies/regions such as SE Asia; simply because the members of the society respond better and require greater controls from a powerful centralized government which is able to strategically direct specific economic growth while maximizing grass roots support and enforcing compliance. Conversely, Democracy is better suited for a more industrialized and educated society with an intact transportation and communications infrastructure. Given the human psyche, governments will naturally evolve into democratic styled governments because it is best suited for an economically and socially evolved society.

What the US government is pushing, with good reason, is economic growth and vitality in the form of democracy. The democratic "component" is simply the necessary “cultural/practical factor” to make certain that governments allow their citizens to retain the economic profits that they have earned so that this capital can then be reinvested back into the economy, instead of into the pockets of a wealthy and corrupt oligarchy which exists simply to suck the life out of a society. The actual key to stimulating the evolution of a society is to get their economies jump-started in their own necessary style that naturally culminates in that “gold standard” of contemporary economics: a globalized free market economy that will inevitably be democratic in some form or another.

Now I would like to turn my attention to what I believe is an important philosophic/strategic premise that is invariably overlooked when discussing America’s “ambitions” in the region. (NOTE: This is only one component of the overall strategy that needs to be factored in.)

The world community assumes that the US is pursuing its interests with the idea that US “healthy national self-interest” = “selfish exploitation and indifference towards other nations/peoples.” While there is always some inherent truth in any such assertion (you have to care more about you than you do him), still this belief is inherently vacuous. Educated governments and businesses alike have finally realized that at in a globalized market this philosophy is a complete bust. Colonialism is really dead. Think about the logic involved in what I am going to say carefully: A globalized economy is only achievable through the realization of universal equality and access to wealth and opportunity by all the peoples of the world. To achieve maximum market efficiencies (surplus wealth) you simply have to work towards this goal – because this goal is also your goal. It is obvious.

In the excellent play on this subject, "Major Barbara," the central character Andrew Undershaft (a munitions maker in Victorian England) decisively sums up this whole basic argument in the following monologue:

"CUSINS. Do you call poverty a crime?

"UNDERSHAFT. The worst of crimes. All the other crimes are virtues
beside it: all the other dishonors are chivalry itself by
comparison. Poverty blights whole cities; spreads horrible
pestilences; strikes dead the very souls of all who come within
sight, sound or smell of it. What you call crime is nothing: a
murder here and a theft there, a blow now and a curse then: what
do they matter? they are only the accidents and illnesses of
life: there are not fifty genuine professional criminals in
London. But there are millions of poor people, abject people,
dirty people, ill fed, ill clothed people. They poison us morally
and physically: they kill the happiness of society: they force us
to do away with our own liberties and to organize unnatural
cruelties for fear they should rise against us and drag us down
into their abyss. Only fools fear crime: we all fear poverty.
Pah! [turning on Barbara] you talk of your half-saved ruffian in
West Ham: you accuse me of dragging his soul back to perdition.
Well, bring him to me here; and I will drag his soul back again
to salvation for you. Not by words and dreams; but by
thirty-eight shillings a week, a sound house in a handsome
street, and a permanent job. In three weeks he will have a fancy
waistcoat; in three months a tall hat and a chapel sitting;
before the end of the year he will shake hands with a duchess at
a Primrose League meeting, and join the Conservative Party."

If you never read another book, I urge you to read this incredibly contemporarily relevant play. You can read a complete on-line version at:
http://www.online-literature.com/george_bernard_shaw/major_barbara/3/

GBS illustrates the fundamental error committed by all politicians, especially those who govern in the West today. Caught up in the intricate machinations of political rhetoric and intellectual dialectics, they have lost touch with the ability to simply distinguish white from black.

It is not that the problems we face are so difficult to solve; but that the actual solutions to the problems are so difficult to admit.

What say we pick this one up a little later?

Picking up the previous thread for a a brief summary/conclusion.

It appears to me that the US is in the business of doing business. Economic vitality/growth is the key strategic goal of any society. The new global economy is the result of economic/technnological evolution. This evolution demands new thinking and new policies which is forcing our fundamental strategies regarding international affairs to evolve from ethnocentrism to globalization.

Economic growth is maximized when the markets are stable and orderly. In a global economy, severe unanticipated disruptive forces anywhere in a vital component of the global marketplace can precipitate major negative consequences in the tightly knit financial markets. While the financial markets appear better able to factor in reverals and remain stable, we are still sailing in the somewhat unchartered waters of a globalized economy.

The US, China, Europe, Russia are all aware of the shared international economic/political consequences of misguided behaviors/policies. This influences their own policies as well as acting as checks and balances for other nations. Unfortunately, the ME has not as yet succeeded in integrating itself into the international economic community. In fact, Muslims have and are still actively resisting and disrupting this process.

The rest of the world is facing 21st century pressures because they live in 21st century economies with 21st century values and principles. The ME is not. Since the ME countries are not major stakeholders in the new global economy (they lack the basic infrastructure) they are responding to the same evolutionary pressures according to their own archaic internal and religiously focused priorities. Moreover, they are actively protesting and resisting (often through the use of terrorist tactics) an evolutionary process in which most of the world economies are already solidly embedded.

(This picture I am painting seems reasonable and rational, correct? Now let's break to another perspective; just for a moment.)

Virtually every other culture in the world today has managed to somehow peacefully co-exist for the mutual benefit of all nations - except Islam. Muslims are currently demanding that the world community not only accept them, but submit to their religion, their beliefs, their customs and their values. What is truly amazing is that Muslims honestly do not see absolutely anything wrong with these demands. In fact, they believe that the world's resistance to their militant demands for universal assimilation are proof that the West is evil and satanic. In the meantime, they slaughter innocents with impunity in the name of their God. By contemporary standards this is really quite bizarre.

(Do you sense my point? As soon as we pause to consider the sentiments of the Muslim community, it feels as if we literally jumped to an entirely different and irrational world.)

The primary goal of the West, including the US, can no longer be simply nationalistic, or politic, or religious, and so on. The world's primary concern at this point it time is to pursue nationalist interests while maintaining stable global markets (which naturally includes the supply of crude) for the good of the world economic community. Both the crisis and the hope of all nations is that the ME will be able to recognize that their own healthy vested interests, no matter how different they may be, will only be served by their equal acceptance and participation in the world's economic evolution. If not they will inevitably be marginalized by the forces of history; perhaps even swept away by them. Islam has but to study history to prove that their efforts are doomed. The world may equivocate from time to time, but the Wesst has no choice but to push forward in harmony with the flow of history.

I am afraid that the only "conspiracy" theory that I can see is Islamic extremism.

There is one issue, ns, that I appear to be in some disagreement with you. At issue is the role of the Wahaabi in SA goverance.

As far as I can tell, the SA government is not Wahaabi. Wahaabi is the de facto ally that initially secured power for the Saudi royal family by ensuring a stable social base through a religious alliance (Wahaabi) that was capable of keeping religious (ergo social) order. If I am correct, this alliance formally demands that the children of the Wahaabi religious rulers marry the children of the SRF (Saudi royal family) to cement this relationship using traditional effective tribal customs. Furthermore, each Wahaabi must pledge an oath to a secular Arab ruler during his lifetime. This is simply the price the SRF has to maintain its secure hold on power in a fundamentalist Islamic society.

Especially since the recent ascension of the Crown Prince, the SRF is highly educated and realizes the benefits of modernization, globalization. Having achieved a stable position of power, those who rule quickly learn that wealth is the only real power. SA has used its economic petro$ leverage to ensure regional/international strategic security through a military alliance with the US. This, in turn, has allowed the US to have a "silent ally" and strategic base of operations in the heart of the core Islamic bloc. This is exactly what caused(es) OBL to have anti-American fits! The hypocrisy is obvious, but the people in power (Wahaabi and SRF) are not about to "rock the apple cart" at this point in the game. In short, the SRF has to walk a thin line between maintaining internal rule through alliance with a radical fundamentalist sect while pursuing a program of economic modernization and globalization.

It appears to me that the Wahaabi is using its own leverage with the SRF to act with impunity, regardless of, or perhaps even in spite of the actual desires of the SRF.

Of course, I lack the education and experience to determine just how credible my assertion actually is.

Btw, ns, you never did answer the question (in my own mind) as to why the Sunni always control the government even in Shiia majority ME countries.

Whilst on the most part I agree with your picture, we must take care with our generalisations particularly when we come to defining the ME. Israel appears in the majority of definitions of the ME, yet this is a country that fully integrated into the economic community with large agricultural and IT sectors. One might suggest that this is due to it not being an Isalmic state, however we have the curiosity of the UAE and in particular Dubai, a country grounded in international free trade and looking diversify out of oil and into tourism, and technology and bio-technology in particular. However what I must say is that incommon with other oil states all this is being done on the backs of expatriates and not by the Arabs themselves. Transiting through Dubai Airport, one could almost be in the Philippines (if the airport weren't so clean and modern) as the majority of female staff are Filipinas.

One must also not forget that there are burgening economies in Isalmic states in the Far East: Malaysia, Indonesia, who are forging ahead on the technology stakes.


Again you risk over generalising, if ns' posts and the BBC's coverage of the Cartoon incident in Denmark have shown us anything it is that a particualry nasty form of Islam coming, and funded out SA that fits your picture and this does not as yet encompass the whole of Islam. The major problem is that this militant form of Islam is being exported not just to the west but other Islamic who so far have engaged with the world community.

The crunch will come for states like SA who have failed to engage and diversify as oil supplies start to deminish. So far their oil has given power on the world stage and thier oil wealth has allowed them employ expatriates to run their nations' infrastructures.

When one considers this, Iran's foray into nuclear power makes sense. US admisitration spokes people are forever telling us that Iran is only trying to develop a weapon, one proof being of this being that Iran has oil reserves and no need of nuclear power. However Iranian oil is a deminishing resource, why not then ensure the security of your energy supplies by starting now to develop you own nuclear power technology, whilst you still have oil, and to make the most of the revenue from that oil whilst you can.

This why I made my facetious conspiracy theory comment, having Iran become a nuclear state (not necessarily in the weapons sense) potenitally changes the whole future balance of power in the ME when viewed in light of dwindling oil reserves; something that SA must be acutely aware of. Thus it would be in SA's interests for the USA to act in the way it is towards Iran, and not to enter into dialogue as the EU and Russia have been doing.