The simple answer to that is either oil or a strategic military position or alliance. The US has no real interest in what goes on inside most places in the world as long as they don't upset the political or economic status quo and cause problems for what it sees as its long term plans to Americanise the world. It might be a bit of a cynical view, but I think it's accurate enough.

Originally Posted by Midas

The simple answer to that is either oil or a strategic military position or alliance. The US has no real interest in what goes on inside most places in the world as long as they don't upset the political or economic status quo and cause problems for what it sees as its long term plans to Americanise the world. It might be a bit of a cynical view, but I think it's accurate enough.

I agree but we ( people in the ME) should do something other than complaining, but people are either too scared to fight the system or too busy searching for jobs to survive and support their families! And the one who actually fight the system is sent to jail! the currrent situation sucks

Originally Posted by proudArab

I agree but we ( people in the ME) should do something other than complaining, but people are either too scared to fight the system or too busy searching for jobs to survive and support their families! And the one who actually fight the system is sent to jail! the currrent situation sucks

The problem with people trying to fight the system is that they're often just lonely voices in the wilderness, and as often as not seen by their respective governments as trouble-makers. As far as the Middle East is concerned, what it really needs is for the several countries who've been sitting on their backsides to get up off them to seriously discuss one or other of the proposals which have been put forward for much stronger pan-Arab alliances to improve the whole region's economic and social status.

One of the biggest negative factors I can see though is the huge lack of democracy in the Middle East, virtually all because of the inextricable link between government and Islam not allowing either freedom of choice or the modernisation of many countries in respect of their legal and social conditions. There's also a huge disparity in wealth across the region between the oil-rich countries and those which don't have oil reserves; those former countries aren't going to want to share it out for nothing in return.

In many ways I'm afraid it's a matter of welcome to the world

The supposed to be Arab leaders are either Allies with the US or Iran, both ( Iran and US ) couldn't care less about the people, all they care about is the oil and strategic military position as you mentioned before, so those Arab leaders are split to satisfiy their allies, Islam doesn't tell those "leaders" to suppress people as they are doing or to split the Arabs as the situation is today, actually in Lebanon the system, the corrupted system, is Christian. and Islam advocates learning and development not ignorance or making people go through poverty! But learning and development doesn't technically mean adopting the west life style as it is! We have our own culture and although many forgot about it, it's a beautiful culture that I want my children to learn about, and in different threads many westerners are angry because they think that some parts of their culture is not being preserved, but yet they ask us to change ours!

once you think about it, you will find that your system is not a "democratic" one either, since politicians who you elected go against the people will, the problem is with the minorities who are trying to dominate and to control countries regardless of the corruption that is taking place all over the world.

as for oil rich countries, they are not the only countries with resources, every Arab country has it's own resources, including Sudan and Somalia in which their lands are great for agriculture that can feed people in the oil rich countries whose lands are not as rich for agriculture, even my tiny country which is rich with water, Arabs of different countries go to the Gulf for job opportunities, so they are contributing to the development of these oil rich countries, every Arab country has so much to offer for the other, but the development of the Arab countries is not what the people dominating want, because if Arabs are controlling their countries no oil will be left for the companies in the west to use! and If Arabs moved on and developed their countries including their military some intruder in the region wouldn't be able to move on with the massacres against the Arab because we would be able to fight back! And remember that the first thing done after the world war was splitting the Arab region, because splitting lead to weakness.

I think Maslow's hierarchy somehow applies here, although there are exceptions of course, but if the majority of people are not getting the level one in this hierarchy which is the physical needs or level two which is safety, so do you think that all of them are thinking about self actualization? some would but not all. But development and improvment need people working together to accomplish that, but when they are thinking about providing themselves food and a shelter so they will no longer think about development.

we are not lazy, we are not stupid the opposite is true, we are hard workers who want to take our countries to new levels, but i don't think that we can do this with everyone fighting us, including our own systems

Originally Posted by proudArab

The supposed to be Arab leaders are either Allies with the US or Iran, both ( Iran and US ) couldn't care less about the people, all they care about is the oil and strategic military position as you mentioned before, so those Arab leaders are split to satisfiy their allies, Islam doesn't tell those "leaders" to suppress people as they are doing or to split the Arabs as the situation is today, actually in Lebanon the system, the corrupted system, is Christian.

Lebanon isn't a good example of an Arabic country to compare with of course; as you point out there's a significant Christian minority (the latest figures I can find show it's only 60% Muslim), there are several political parties and the legal system is based around a combination of several civil law systems. However on the corruption stakes, something that doesn't seem to bother other countries trying to become politically or militarily involved, it's some way down the list, although nowhere near as bad as many. No matter what political ideology they have, nor what religion they support, most politicians tend to be living proof that power corrupts.

once you think about it, you will find that your system is not a "democratic" one either, since politicians who you elected go against the people will, the problem is with the minorities who are trying to dominate and to control countries regardless of the corruption that is taking place all over the world.

This I quite agree with, however the comparison I was trying to make was with the far more Islamic controlled countries than with places like Lebanon. In the majority of those there is one party, no democracy, little freedom of choice and a rigid Islamic legal code - take it or leave it. At least we have a freedom of choice, even though we never seem to learn from it!

as for oil rich countries, they are not the only countries with resources, every Arab country has it's own resources, including Sudan and Somalia in which their lands are great for agriculture that can feed people in the oil rich countries whose lands are not as rich for agriculture, even my tiny country it's rich with water, Arabs of different countries go to the Gulf for job opportunities, so they are contributing to the development of these oil rich countries, every Arab country has so much to offer for the other, but the development of the Arab countries is not what the people dominating want, because if Arabs are controlling their countries no oil will be left for the companies in the west to use! and If Arabs moved on and developed their countries including their military some intruder in the region wouldn't be able to move on with the massacres against the Arab because we would be able to fight back! And remember that the first thing done after the world war was splitting the Arab region, because splitting lead to weakness

You're quite right, even countries like Sierra Leone (OK, West African I know, but it's to make a point) which comes way down the bottom of the list of both poverty and corruption, has enormous mineral wealth. The problem doesn't necessarily seem to be the resources themselves, or rather the potential resources, it's far more a mixture of logistics and the way that both the people in the country and its government go about capitalising on what they have. In much of the Middle East it's well known that Islam and the lack of democracy have been what's held back development; they've stayed with an almost feudal system of government and control with those at the very top taking 90% of what's available. As long as they've been OK, the need for development and external co-operation hasn't really been considered.

Your point about splitting is true enough, but given the will of those people concerned there's no fundamental reason why there shouldn't be a far greater degree of co-operation than at present. But as I've said several times, until the total dominance of Islam in many of the countries relaxes and the people are allowed their say, I doubt there'll be much of a change. Even then it'll be a long and slow job, but it can be done. Dubai has opted to let western democracy and capitalism live side by side with their traditional systems, to everyone's benefit, whilst places like Oman are slowly allowing more democracy and freedom from traditional Islamic constraints to come into their government, even though it still remains a one party state. That's also having significant benefits on bringing the country into the 21st century. Once things like that happen, neither the rulers nor the people will want to go back to 'the bad old days'.