I suggest that you read Ugo Bardi's article linked below.

http://www.resilience.org/stories-list/79716-energy

I have previously indicated my thoughts on Egypt's future difficulties
with their overpopulation. Ugo, does not think thay have as severe a
problem but they already have had two revolutions since 2000.
Europe will need to plan for the massive movement of people heading
out of the Middle East.
Egypt may have to unload 45 million people and the whole ME may have
to unload another 60 to 100 million.

The cause of all this unsupportable population has been the last 70
years income from oil sales providing cheap food most of it subsidised.
This will not happen all at once of course, but rejecting them is
certain to turn terrorism into a full scale war.
One optimistic note, if you can call it that, might be the financial
crash that would probably accompany a decline of that magnitude may
prevent mass immigration.

Australia of course would not be immune from the pressure.
I wonder how many Prime Minister Hanson-Young would accept ?

Aaaagggghhhhrrrr;

The link was incorrect, try this;

http://tinyurl.com/py9ks9t

Bazz, I do not have a direct comment regarding the future of Egypt.All I can add is that the more I look into the current Middle East scenario, the less I understand what outcome is being sought by those who fund the insurrections. Besides the oil reserves it seems that the nations in conflict and with troops from the first world operating in them have or had State owned banks. That is to say that a Rothchild controlled banking cartel is not controlling their economy.

I look at the various rebel or "terrorist" groups and find links to funding from their enemies in the first world.........it's all too murky for me to judge.......puppets contolling puppets controlled by the European banking cartel is the best I can come up with.

It is indeed murky sonofgloin. The reduction in income in Syria
probably made the various factions (Allawites and Sunnis Al Quadia
etc)ready to accept money no matter where it might originate.
They probably did not realise themselves the source of their problems.
Certainly the Banks and politicians do not understand what is
happening to their country, they just blame the "West".
Syria must be bankrupt by now as ISIS has raided all the banks to
which it got access. It has to be considered as a failed state.

They must have been aware of their drought, but probably did not think
it could have the impact on the population that it has affected.
So when ISIS came on the scene the population thought that is enough
we are off !

Re Egypt, well it is a different story, it has a Sunni administration
so the Gulf States are willing to help out. As their economy starts
putting the screws on the Gulf states that charity might well dry up.
Word is Saudi Arabia might cry enough at the OPEC meeting in December
and cut back on its production and so force prices up.
As they say, watch this space !

Bazz,
The US used the drought as a context to help stir up the protests against the Syrian government.

Possibly so Armchair, the Syrian government was probably also looking
for financial support. I doubt the US govt understood the rate of fall
in income to the government and why. Iran might have stepped up but
they were not actually too flush due to sanctions.

I do not know how large a population can be supported by its agricultural resources.
From memory it was part of the bread basket of the Middle East due to
the large rivers. Must look up and see what was the prewar population.

I read an article a few weeks back, tried really hard to find the link for it but just couldn't come up with it.

If I remember correctly... (which is sometimes dubious)

The article was about how before the war started the Syrian Agricultural Minister naively made the US aware that its drought problems were creating a situation that was ripe for uprisings; not knowing the US would use this information to its advantage in its covert war to destabilize the Assad government.

Maybe someone else read and knows the article.
I may have added the link in a different thread comment.
If I find it I'll post it.

Doubt if the Agriculture minister told the US something they did not
already know. The fall off in oil income meant they could not subsidise
food imports. If Syrian peak oil had not occurred they could have
ridden out the drought with imported grain etc.
If the price does not rise again, and there are those convinced of it,
Saudi Arabia will try to force up the price.
If they succeed watch out for a lot of financial problems world wide.

There is no just right price.
Goldilocks is dead !

AC,

As Bazz says, the US would have known about the 2006-2010 drought - probably every Australian wheat farmer would have known about it, year by year, and factored it in to their price forecasts .

Do you mean this article, or something like it:

http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2015/11/29/climate-change-link-to-syrian-crisis/

or this:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34944520

That drought ended in 2010. But that probably wouldn't have been known until the next, more productive, season. In the meantime, reserves would have been wound down, and many farmers would have left the land for the cities. Unrest could easily have followed, without any involvement of outside forces.

Joe

Joe, I put those articles down to the all too prevalent;
"Oh global warming has caused that also" mantra.

The main reason the population took off was I believe the war that has
been showing no sign of a solution anytime in the next few years.

As the economies screw down it will get worse.

Hey Loudmouth,
Here are the articles I was referring to, posted in the 'Assad needs to stay in Syria' thread.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7071&page=0#216744

AC,

Why do you keep thinking hat people in the Middle East are all puppets, to be manipulated by the evil US at will ?

For a long, long time, the options in the Middle East have been: brutal secular dictatorship, or Islamist theocracy. Democracy - and the Yanks are learning this slowly - doesn't get a look-in. So politics in Middle Eastern countries swings between secular dictatorship and theocracy. Currently, there is no Third Way.

So, yes of course, Assad must be supported against ISIS. His time will come, afterwards, if and when there is an 'afterwards'.

I wish you apologists would have the courage to do one thing: draw up three lists:

* what you think you stand for;

* what you think the west, the US, capitalism stand for;

* what ISIS stands for.

Factor in what might happen to feminists, any vaguely leftists, and gays after your besties take over. They're gone.

No, you won't do that. Opportunists don't stand for anything. I keep forgetting that. How naïve :)

Joe

Joe, I see two possibilities;

1. The economy will really recover and Islam will have the wherewithall
to attack the west by immigration and insurrection armies.
I do not think formal armies could operate these days in a nuclear weapons era.
The war will continue intermittantly for another 1000 years.

2. A world economic crunch will be accompanied by very low oil prices
and Middle East governments will suffer economic collapse.
The populations in the ME will not have the ability to walk to Europe.
The ME population levels will collapse to meet the available food.
The west will erect efficient barriers as the collapsing economies
will be unable to cope with additional population.

I believe some variation of those scenarios will come to being.
We will see the beginning of one or the other.
Call me Nostradamus !

Loudmouth,
"Why do you keep thinking hat people in the Middle East are all puppets, to be manipulated by the evil US at will ?"

I've never said that.
But since you mentioned it...

The US has a policy of destabilizing most of the M/E nations.
The PNAC plan started after 9/11 under Bush, and continued on under Obama whilst Hilliary Clinton was Secretary of State and even now they are still trying to push the same dumb regime change policies which have lead to all the BS currently going in in the world.

Millions dead, millions more terrorists created and multi-millions displaced and their homelands turned to rubble.

Do you see democracy anywhere?
Are you so dumb as to think that is what they set out to achieve?
Tell me what good have they achieved exactly?
What the hell are you even defending?
Where are the 'moderates'?
It was only ever going to be some US quisling.

What do I stand for?
Freedom and Liberty for all people

What you think the West, the US, capitalism stand for?

Western governments support the US and its foreign policy wars, even if their people do not, so they then manipulate their people.
The US stands for unlawful covert wars against other nations (that create terrorists) to support its global hegemony.
ISIS is a US creation, which they use to destabilize foreign regimes and justify wars of an imperialistic nature.

"Factor in what might happen to feminists, any vaguely leftists, and gays after your besties take over. They're gone."

I support freedom and liberty for all people but I won't go along with the West's insane geopolitical policies just because I fear what might happen to the feminists, progressives and gays.
That's really framing the argument in the dumbest way.

Honestly the path the feminists, progressives and gays take sometimes I have to say I oppose the way they go about it.
I actually think the stereotypical feminist belongs more in the 'I have mental problems' category.
Buy hey, I'll support their freedom and liberty but not at the expense of mine.

AC,

If you re-read my post, or get someone to read it to you, slowly, you would learn that much of what you complain about is already covered. Democracy in the Middle East is most certainly not a likelihood any time soon - regimes swing from dictatorships to theocracies rather than anything like democracies. And back again.

So of course a dictator like Assad will stay in place for a while yet: eventually even the US will go along with that, since part of its agenda is to - ultimately - keep Shi'ite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia apart as long as possible, and for that, they will need to contain and perhaps degrade ISISD rather than eliminate it. My bet is that they will eliminate IS in Libya (and in Afghanistan) before they do so in Syria or Iraq. Then they'll face the same problem in Libya, of being forced to install a dictator like Assad. It's going to be a long war.

It's a bit complicated in the Muslim world, AC. Sorry about that.

Joe

Just because I support freedom and liberty for all people most certainly does not mean I support forcing any nation to take on democracy.

What is today's democracy apart from allowing foreign corporations the ability to steal all a nations assets?

I most certainly DO NOT support inflaming civil unrest in foreign nations and starting protests and demonstrations in order to topple elected governments to support US global hegemony.

I really love it how people refer to Assad as a dictator and Israel a democracy.
Tell me do they not have elections in Syria?
Was Assad not elected with overwhelming support of his people?
Is Syria not a secular country with the best women's rights of all Arab nations?
When did they attack any other nation?
What exactly did they do except support the Palestinians and oppose Saudi oil pipelines?

And if they win??
Yay - The PILE OF RUBBLE called Syria has democracy.
O that's right they already had elections, so I guess they already had democracy and the West just didn't like Assad so they destroyed the whole country.
YEAH GO AMERICA.

The West is the aggressor, I will not support their insane foreign policies.
Please don't try to frame the argument any other way.

Anything the New World Order is for, I AM AGAINST.

Hi AC,

Ra ra. What a pity the world is so complicated. So irritating.

So would you care to suggest that ISIS is supporting the New World Order ? No ? So is it drawing too long a bow to suggest that, therefore, since "Anything the New World Order is for, I AM AGAINST", you would support ISIS ? As well as Assad ?

It does get complicated, don't it ?

Joe

A C said;
The US has a policy of destabilizing most of the M/E nations.

Now that is not a bad idea. If the oil price stays low they will collapse.
Saudi needs US$90 to US$110 a barrel to stay viable and to keep their population nice and calm.
As they are put under the financial screws they will start fighting
each other and will not have the resources to annoy us.
They will of course blame the west as that has been the central
mantra since AD640. Remember Mohammad blamed Rome.

So would you care to suggest that ISIS is supporting the New World Order ?

Of course they are.
In case you haven't noticed, in the war to remove Assad from power US and ISIS are on the same side.

You need to ask yourself the question that if IS was running convoys of oil trucks out of Syria WHY DID THE US NOT BOMB THEM over the last 14months?

So, no I most certainly do not support ISIS, and no its not that complicated at all.
Yes I do support Assad, he is the democratically elected leader of that country, and he has the right to defend it against foreign enemies that wish to destroy it.

Hi AC,

I suppose I should go slow. Children can be so temperamental.

You suggest that " in the war to remove Assad from power US and ISIS are on the same side."

No, sweet boy, they both - in their different ways - are deadly enemies of Assad. But no, they are also deadly enemies to each other.

I know that's hard to get you head around: you think that the world is, and should be only, binary - that means 'can be divided into two', like them and us; but gosh, out there, sometimes, there are three sides, or even more, each side bitterly opposing ALL of the other sides.

Let's look at just a few of these 'sides':

* ISIS is bitterly opposed by Assad, the Russians (wait and see: eventually), the Western coalition, al Nusra and al Qa'ida, the various Kurdish forces, the Yazidis, Iran, many 'rebel' forces, and so on;

* amongst that lot, almost none are fully co-operating with each other, and most are at war with every other group: can you see that ?

Why is that ? Well, that part of the Middle East is near the cross-roads of Sunni and Shi'ite (not to mention sects within each one); Arab, Kurd, Turk, Azeri, Armenian, and Iranian; Christian, Yazidi, Zoroastrian, Druse, etc; secular: even left-wing (who must be the bravest people in the entire ME), as well as conservative; very rural, desert-tribal, towns and cities. The divisions within the reactionary Islamists, al Nusra versus ISIS, complicates the picture.

Mathematically, there would be enough scope there for hundreds of possible temporary alliances between different groups.

But keep playing with your blocks, AC: either-or, only this side and that side, therefore US and ISIS must be working together because both are anti-Assad. All so simple :)

Joe

For all your criticisms I haven't seen you provide an explanation as to why, if the US has been bombing IS in Syria for the last 14mths, could they not find the 3000 oil tankers taking stolen Syrian oil into Turkey which is funding their war.

Until you answer that question its fairly obvious to me that the US was only PRETENDING to fight IS while destroying Syrian infrastructure.

And since you wish you call me a child and put me down, whilst never stating your own position then its only fair for me to return in kind and say that you are just another 'useful idiot' that watches too much corporate news and probably cant think for yourself.

Sorry but that's the way I see it.

Until you can come up with a reasonable explanation for the above question then your whole argument basically goes down the toilet.

AC,

No, I don't have a conclusive answer to your question: the US has been pretty desultory in its bombing, I'll agree, and the two main reasons for that could be: (1) that they are more obsessed with getting rid of Assad than tackling ISIS, partly because of (2) they don't want to put the Turks off-side too much.

Everybody, everybody, everybody, in the anti-fascist forces (i.e. anti-ISIS) has to play all sorts of double-games, multiple-games, in order to either support their favoured side' OR in order to attack their most-hated enemies. In such a multiple-sided arena, it's a bit like a wrestling tag-team match with fifty tag-teams at once, all against each other ultimately. So who do you work with for now, who do you try to crush now, or leave until later ?

Syria-Iraq being on so many political, ethnic, historical, religious and geographical fault-lines (a bit like Serbia-Bosnia-Croatia in Europe, but much more so), there are bound to be all sorts of wheeling and dealing going on - quite apart from the US goal of keeping Iran and the Saudis apart, with their likely access to nuclear weapons.

So the Yanks have to keep the Turks happy, to wink at all the top-level corruption, and even overlook their dealings with ISIS. In a sense, the Yanks don't have a designated dog in this fight, and yet of course, ultimately, of course they're in it up to their eyeballs, as we all are.

I wonder if there has ever been a more complicated political and military situation in world history, Any suggestions ?

Cheers,

Joe

The puzzle about the ISIS oil may be tied up with who owns the oil.
It may be that the funds from the sale of the oil was being diverted
or traced to see who it ultimately was receiving it.
I notice that the road oil tankers are now being attacked.
They would be an easy target I imagine.
Previously the oil was being pumped across the Turkish border in plastic irrigation pipes.
However as ISIS lost territory they had to revert to road tankers.
It will not be as simple as A C would think.

I notice that Saudi Arabia will not be reducing its production so the
low prices will probably continue for a while yet.
This will put another turn on the financial screw that is affecting
the oil producing countries.
Maybe the Saudis will not be financing so many mosques around the world.

I wont argue with you there are a whole lot of different factions on the ground all with different alliances to different groups.
The whole thing really is a complete mess.

I guess they thought they could get rid of Assad as quickly as they got rid of Ghadaffi, but it didn't work out that way.

The situation is made worse by the fact that US allies are Turkey and Saudi Arabia, who both also oppose Assad, and I'll agree with you there that it does become complicated, especially with the US trying to get a leg in and support the Kurds.

IMO Saudi Arabia and Turkey NEED to be knocked down a peg.

Don't forget that the US first used Sunni fighters (Wahhabism) under the Brezinski plan with the Afghan Mujahideen against the Soviet Union in 1979.

Ultimately I think it should be pretty evident that these covert regime changes don't help the countries in question at all, but the military contractors do pretty well.

It would of been better if they never went in there stirring up trouble in the first place.

Have you actually seen what they have done to Syria, just to get rid of one guy?

Hi AC,

Maybe one problem with any plan in connection with Syria which might upset the Saudis and Turkey is that a large majority of Syrians are Sunni, like ISIS, like the Saudis, like the Turks. Perhaps this is why the US can't be seen to be supporting Assad, whose Shi'ite/Alawite/Christian/Kurdish constituency represents, after all, barely 25% of the population. US: rock and hard place.

But the US somehow has to defeat ISIS without pissing off the Saudis and Turks too much. US: rock and hard place.

In the bigger picture, the US may be trying to keep the Saudis and Iranians from each other throats, but also effectively give the Iranians a free hand in Iraq. US: rock and hard place.

And of course, the US wants to keep backing the Kurds, who are on fairly friendly terms with Assad, but bitterly at odds with Turkey, another US ally. US: rock and hard place.

As for the US and Afghan rebels in 1979: the US supported anybody who opposed the Russians and their puppet government [puppet? well, yes, they had knocked off one regime, murdered the president, Tarak, and installed their own boy, Babrak, and later another puppet, Hafizullah Amin, soon to be castrated and hung from a lamp-post.] I don't have as much respect for the intelligence of the Yanks as you may have, since I don't believe that they could foresee twenty or thirty years down the track, that some of the rebels would turn into al Qa'ida. Who did, back then ? Nobody.

And I fully agree that, in relation to the Russians in particular,

"It would of been better if they never went in there stirring up trouble in the first place."

Hindsight is a wonderful teacher, isn't it ? Pity about foresight.

Cheers,

Joe

Joe & AC, the whole thing is a total mess.
I am coming to the conclusion that as all the young men in moslem
countries would prefer to go to Europe instead of doing something
about the mess in their homelands, perhaps we should isolate the
Middle East. Send all the young men back from Europe telling them to
fix their own problems and stop relying on the west to do it for them.

It will be tough on the women & children but if their own menfolk
won't do it why should we ?

I watched a good documentary a few weeks back about the soldiers fighting for Assad, typical though, I couldn't find it.

There was one soldier who's father and brother had been shot, wounded and run over by tanks by terrorists (Al-Nursa I think it was).
After wounding and capturing the pair, they forced the father to watch as they ran over his wounded son with a tank, and then they ran over him as well.
The remaining son, fighting for Assad was given info of where the bodies were to be found.
This guy has a wife and kids at home and goes out fighting for Assad and his country knowing full well if he's captured alive they will behead him.

No matter which side of the argument you're on, you have to respect people who stay and fight in defense of their country.
Surely it would be just as easy to run away to Europe than to stay.

Tough on the women?
http://youtu.be/DzI-2X7IFec

Islamic State attacks Yemen, when will you see they are a Western tool?

A skeleton key tool to start a conflict anywhere anytime and justify foreign invasions for regime change?

http://www.9news.com.au/world/2015/12/06/18/08/yemen-s-aden-governor-killed-in-attack

ARjay is not alone !

Hi AC,

How on earth do you join those dots ? Of all current trouble spots, I think Yemen would be one that the Yanks would steer well clear of. It's always been one of those places where many forces are at each others' throats at once. I recall after the monarchy was overthrown in 1962, a long civil war ensued between the republicans and the Mutawakalites. Then the two pseudo-leftist governments of North and South Yemen fought a civil war, probably with the Mutawakalites on the sidelines.

Now something similar is going on, with both ISIS and al Qa'ida involved as well, and the Houthi (Shi'ite) rebels from the north heavily involved.

Two-sided fight: pick a side and think about getting involved. Five-sided fight: stay the hell out.

So it's yet another surrogate war between the Saudis and Iran, another war that the Yanks wouldn't want to touch with a barge-pole.

If you need a conspiracy theory, why not try to find some link back to the Swedes ? Clever b@stards, the Swedes: who would think that they started this whole Yemen thing, way back in the late fifties ?

Evidence ? A secret meeting between the Saab and Bofors people and leftist groups, to employ Swedish 'advisers' in the overthrow of the king, a close ally of the Saudi king.

Which I just made up. I could invent a URL too, a link to grainy photos, if you want.

Cheers,

Joe

I didn't mean the US so much in this instance as Saudi Arabia.
I don't think we will see the US in Yemen.

I think the jihadists doing the bidding for Saudi Arabia is hardly much different than the IRA doing things in support of Ireland.
Only difference was the Irish wanted their country back and the Brits out, where the Saudi's are just being imperialistic.

//Islamic State attacks Yemen, when will you see they are a Western tool?//

You're a Western tool.

Hi AC,

Maybe ISIS is not strictly a Saudi tool, it's going its own way: yes, way back, their ideologies spring from the same reactionary sources, but that's no guarantee that they are all now on the same page.

The nature of schismatic ideologies, ideologies which break away from some more mainstream one, are that they themselves risk schisms: even the Methodists split within a generation or two of the Wesleys into rival 'Methodists'. Trotskyites have been especially fruitful of spawning schismatic groups - I recall one group, allied to the Fourth, or maybe the Four and a Halfth International, called something like the Revolutionary People's Party of the Uninterrupted Revolution (RPPUR), which spawned a break-away group called something like the RPPUR-Spasmodic. No doubt other smaller groups have split away from that as well by now. He lives in Bowral.

The upshot of this is that the deal two hundred years ago that one Arabian tribal clan made with the Wahhabi sect, to set it up as a royal family [caesarism] in return for enforcing Wahhabism throughout the kingdom [papism], was just a power-sharing deal within what became a Saudi kingdom: we get power, you'll support us, and in turn you can dictate the behaviour of everybody in the kingdom. A sort of grotesque 'separation' of church and state.

Now, perhaps the Wahhabi leaders have wider ambitions, to spread their 'message' across the world, as it is ordered in the Koran, but from the Saudi royals' point of view, that would destabilise their situation: they have no power-base outside of Saudi Arabia after all. So perhaps we should be looking for the dead hand of Wahhabism as an instigator of ISIS, a sort of Dr. Frankenstein whose monster has got slightly out of control.

The Saudi king is officially called the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques: tourism AND oil, he's happy. But perhaps the Wahhabis want to re-take Jerusalem (since, after all, Muhammad flew there on a horse, therefore it's Moslem), and then the world. So perhaps there is tension between the Saudi royals and the Shoura ?

Joe

Loudmoth & Others;
Are we over philosophising all this too much ?
All the talk we hear, here & there, is bound up in making sure no one
is offended and it seems to becoming a new academic field of study by
those who want to make their mark as being very humanitarian and the
desire to be more proper than the general run of the mill people.
We are struggling to separate those that plan & take action from those
that are their families and their community. We just cannot do that.

Surely it just comes down to someone wants to cut your head off or
force you to adopt their religious/political system.

That is the bottom line, everything must encompass that !

Hi Bazz,

Yes, I agree that we, the West, Australia, whatever, is facing forces which would use any brutality to prevail. And I think that struggle will go on for a very, very long time, long after I'm gone and the worms have got me.

But no, I don't think we are putting enough thought into the problem at all: I'm beginning to think the differences between the two paradigms, the Western Enlightenment and Islam, are so fundamental, on so many levels, that we could be witnessing the beginning of a very bitter clash of civilizations as Huntington outlined twenty years ago. The two have dramatically different value systems, different notions of what constitutes discussion or 'proof', different aims and notions of progress.

How the populations supporting those two paradigms can be reconciled - if it's even possible to reconcile them, ultimately - is something we don't think enough about. Side issues like global warming or gay marriage are going to be like those annoying little summer flies in comparison.

Cheers,

Joe

Yes Joe basically in agreement except you said;
that we could be witnessing the beginning of a very bitter clash of
civilizations as Huntington outlined twenty years ago.

Actually the clash started a long time ago as the citizens of Tours in
France, Vienna and Spain can attest when they defeated the Islamic
Army invasions.

Until recently I had not realised that the Islamic army invaded France
some 800 years ago. Must look it up and find the dates.

It is a continuing clash of civilisations. Every so often the west has
to turn around and smack the moslems down.
Because moslems occupied
France, or part thereof, they believe that France is moslem land.

Hi Bazz,

Well, yes, I suppose it's not new, but there has been a resurgence of that opposition to theW4st over the last couple of hundred years, and it has started to take violent forms over the last forty years or so.

The Moors got into France, as far as Tours/Poitiers in 732. Actually, they menaced the entire southern coast of Europe for many hundreds of years - I think they invaded and burnt Rome at one point, and set up forts even in southern Switzerland, in the ninth or tenth centuries. Along with the other barbarians, the Vikings and Huns/Magyars/Avars etc., they menaced Europe for many centuries, provoking the development of military feudalism. Then came the Mongols. And the Turks. Hard times.

The Moorish invaders were in Spain for nearly 800 years, only until 500 years ago. They menaced the gates of Vienna barely 300 years ago, and their pirates used to raid the entire coastline of the western Mediterranean and the Atlantic, as far as Iceland, until barely 200 years ago: they took slaves from Iceland, the Baltic, the Adriatic coast, and Ireland back to their markets in Africa. The religion of peace has a fairly bloody history.

So maybe this is just another irruption of Muslim aggression. The West outlasted previous irruptions, so I suppose it can prevail over this one. But murderers and terrorists can create a lot of havoc in the meantime, for our children and grandchildren.

Joe