doesn't take into consideration that their nations are already wealthy and prosperous. These nations produce enough in oil to easily make themselves "first world", the problem is their social system is comfortable with a "royal oligarchy", if that makes any sense. They expect insane wealth in their leaders and can't seem to blame them when their kids starve. We have a knack of doing that ourselves, considering sanctions were to blame for killing children in Iraq as Hussein made billions...

Why should we feed these people when it is their social system that is starving them? Look at Hussien's "ownership" of natural resources in Iraq, look at how the Saudis distribute the wealth in their nation. "Democracy" in these places isn't about feeding people, it is about wrenching the economy from those in power so that money can flow in a natural fashion. You can't compare it to Europe post WW2. People were allowed to advance themselves economically.

A better comparison is Middle Ages Europe, where the "Land" was the KIngs, and everyone lived at his whim.

In addition, have any of these nations every respected us when we offered them aid? If anything, buying them off makes them respect us less. These are socio-psychological views that go back centuries. Such "aid" would be seen as a ransom from the weak.

That shows a serious ignorance of history, frankly. Turkey was the Ottoman Empire, and not at all on good terms with the Arab world. They have always been outside the Middle East, and outside Europe. Your rosey view of their current relationship with the EU overlooks how much disrespect they have been shown, and how much they have had to kiss ass to get EU nations to consider the idea.

Pakistan has barely turned around, and that is mostly due to the fact they rejected the ideals that are killing much of the Middle East. As I said above, nations where billions in natural resources belong to the crown, and kids are starving in the street... that doesn't look 10th century to you?

Do you really want to send billions to feed kids in nations whose leaders are among the wealthiest individuals in the world? Do you really think that kids were starving in Iraq because of sanctions when Hussein had accounts stuffed with money? No, the problem in the Middle East is their complacency in the face of thier leech leaders.

I kind of thought the second paragraph of my first post addressed both. The problem in these nations is that wealth is expected to remain in the circle of those in power. These nations would loathe the idea of a powerful, unaligned middle class.

They hold the resources, and hand them out to solidify their power. If the people weren't needy and reliant on their graces, they'd no doubt start wondering why they don't have more say.

Call it racist if you like, but it paralels middle-ages Europe nicely. As long as resources were the crown's to control, prosperity and power could be handed to those who best kept the status quo. As the Middle Class became less dependant, the "crown" faded, and eventually became needless.

The reason I don't think your plan would work is because these leaders will do their best to see that any such advances are squelched. Like Hussein and leaders in impoverished African nations, they simply won't allow the aid to get where it needs to go, and will do the same with venture investment. Even the most Democratic-seeming nations in the Middle East are thinly veiled totalitarian states.

So, how do you force them to allow the World Bank or the UN to infuse these nations with prosperity? Stop buying oil from them? Threaten them with war? Seems like you end up in the same place we are now...

I think you underestimate the leverage these people can impose. Billionaire leaders and those who are already in poverty are much better equipped than Americans a couple of paychecks away from bankruptcy and up to their ears in debt. If we played chicken with the Middle East, I think we'd fold before they did.

WHEW, jeez... for a second I thought you were agreeing with me about my point... lemme catch my breath...

No, but like North Korea, there are times to hedge your bets. The "isolate them and hope they cave" policy has been damn sketchy in terms of North Korea. Whether a government will comply, fold, or go militant is a roll of the dice. In terms of the Middle East, we are far too reliant on them at present to risk the worse two.

Iraq had a history or wanting to be out from under the thumb of Hussein. There aren't any equitible cases now in the Middle East. There's nothing else to do but respond to threats and wait for people to come to the realization that they need not be surfs to their corrupt leaders.