lol at the reception in this thread to SA finally embracing a moderate islam. NY Times is looking at the bigger picture here. this isnt just about SA, it's about the direction islam will take in the 21st century. SA and this new Prince are full of shit, but the steps they are taking will change the course of history if this prince succeeds.
When people look back at these events in 50-100 years, no one is going to give a shit about regional conflicts SA had with Yemen and Iran. They will mark this as the time when Islam turned a new leaf. SA has incredible influence. they spent decades spreading wahabi islam and funding millions if not billions into terrorism. with SA going moderate, things will change drastically. NY Times knows this.
lol at the reception in this thread to SA finally embracing a moderate islam. NY Times is looking at the bigger picture here. this isnt just about SA, it's about the direction islam will take in the 21st century. SA and this new Prince are full of shit, but the steps they are taking will change the course of history if this prince succeeds.
When people look back at these events in 50-100 years, no one is going to give a shit about regional conflicts SA had with Yemen and Iran. They will mark this as the time when Islam turned a new leaf. SA has incredible influence. they spent decades spreading wahabi islam and funding millions if not billions into terrorism. with SA going moderate, things will change drastically. NY Times knows this.
I mean in theory that's sound, the problem is very few people can handle that sort of power without being corrupted by it, regardless of their original intentions. You make compromises because you feel that you're still better than the alternative, and over time those compromises grow in magnitude until it's a full on crusade. This is especially true in places with a deeply entrenched elite who still hold significant power. And it's not an easy issue to solve because they need to walk a tightrope between being too harsh and tyrannical and being so lenient that they end up with a knife in the back.Twisted game needs to be reset, start over from scratch, etc.
Fasc gonna fasc. If he does what he says he's going to do and keeps it going, then maybe it won't be so bad outside the ME, but I doubt it, especially after those' totally not assassinations' over the last couple months.
The best type of government is autocratic in worthy hands, and MBS doesn't strike me as worthy. I'll make and eat a MAGA hat if I'm wrong.
Seriously. Who the fuck is falling for this? AGAIN.
Yeah, I'm pretty skeptical. This is hardly the first time we've heard of reformist princes in Saudi Arabia, and I'm sure it won't be 5he last. If he actually gets reforms through, that's great obviously. I just doubt it'll happen. At least the recent arrests have given me a bit of hope, but that may have been a power play more the than anything else.
I'm not entirely sure his gender has much to do with it, and it's silly to think that's the case. More likely, the idea of reform in SA gets views, which is why we've seem stories like this in the past, despite not happening. Similar to many totalitarian governments. Remember how Un was supposed to be a reformer in Korea? Yeah, me too.
Yeah besides you knowing, pumping billions of petrol dollars to spread that filth of wahabbi Islam to every corner of the muslim world. Salafi madrasahs from Pakistan to the Maghreb have been polluting the minds of two generations of muslim youth. You don't need to get involved militarily to meddle like the Saudis have done.Israeli support against Lebanon
100,000s of starving disease ridden Yemenis
Wanting a World War with Iran
Partnering with Trump
I'll gladly take the old Saudi Arabia which meddled a lot less outside and could be slowly changed from the inside rather than this.
You're not wrong in general, but Thomas Friedman built a career out of telling people in the west that things are actually fine and you don't need to worry too much or change the way you live. Really, things are pretty great, believe me, sure, I was wrong about everything and yeah, we hit a snag or two, but we're fine, you're fine, everyone is fine.I dont think its the optimism that gets "views". Like I said before, articles like these make SA more palatable to the US. You cant pretend to be the good guys and align yourself with the likes of SA, so you do fluff pieces like these to make your country believe that you arent allied with evil.
He's behind one of the worst humanitarian crisis in the world (yemen).He's being strategic. I dont blame them for using a fool like Trump to his country's advantage. Wouldn't you? All you have to do is give him a lavish ceremony and put him in nice hotels.
Basically, yeah. Churchill's claim that "democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" rings truest. Or another quote, from Douglas Adams, "It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it..."I mean in theory that's sound, the problem is very few people can handle that sort of power without being corrupted by it, regardless of their original intentions. You make compromises because you feel that you're still better than the alternative, and over time those compromises grow in magnitude until it's a full on crusade. This is especially true in places with a deeply entrenched elite who still hold significant power. And it's not an easy issue to solve because they need to walk a tightrope between being too harsh and tyrannical and being so lenient that they end up with a knife in the back.
To compound this problem, the people who end up in autocratic positions are rarely "worthy" because getting into that type of position usually entails a kind of drive for power and ambition that is easily corruptible
There's also the issue that while it's easy to talk about benevolent dictators enacting unpopular policies because they don't need to cave to public opinion, this is more in theory than in practice, because if the public is unwilling to follow a policy (regardless of whether that policy would ultimately benefit the public), you're left with very few options for getting it to happen properly because no matter the form of government everything ultimately depends on the public at large complying. Tyrannical dictators can get around this by forcing people to comply at gun point, but getting people to accept unpopular policies without violence or the threat thereof can be very, very difficult. No matter who you are one person can not make and enforce the law aloneBasically, yeah. Churchill's claim that "democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" rings truest. Or another quote, from Douglas Adams, "It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it..."
Basically, where I believe a benevolent dictatorship is the best way of doing things, there would then be no controls, no insurances, against a malevolent dictator as a successor somewhere down the line. This poses the largest problem with the idea outside of theory. But even then, I believe democracy is irrevocably flawed due to the lack of care for information pertaining to it, the inherent green and tribalism that is the human condition perpetuates suffering, and the political will to change things enough to alleviate that suffering must be borne from the knowledgeable.
Or, put another way, I don't believe in liberal democracy, but it's kind of all we have that kinda sorta works. Like when a belt breaks on your car and you use your pantyhose as a stopgap, but instead of fixing it with a new belt, we just keep putting different pairs of pantyhose in its place when they're stretched, torn, and unusable. And on and on it goes.
Typically, the people most suited to rule in the manner I'm describing are also those least trustful of themselves to be able to rise to that challenge in the first place, so they actively avoid such conditions.
In essence, it feels as if we've given up. That we were so happy that our pantyhose "fixed" the broken belt that we never thought that, perhaps we could just replace the belt.
We can still fix the belt by bolstering our liberal democracy but I doubt that as much as I doubt MBS is going to be a force for "good," or whatever passes for it these days.
We have that same problem here in the US, too, though. Unpopular policies, even when pushed by unpopular politicians, and even when universally derided and scorned, will tend to stick around because those very same unpopular policies are popular to monied interests, OR they work better than alternatives. And, if you don't abide by those policies, you'll be fined, threatened, and, if need be, attacked by the very violent police force, federal or otherwise. So that's kind of a wash -- it's not perfect, but basing your rule off of what is popular is not in actuality a precursor to democratic election OR benevolent dictatorship.There's also the issue that while it's easy to talk about benevolent dictators enacting unpopular policies because they don't need to cave to public opinion, this is more in theory than in practice, because if the public is unwilling to follow a policy (regardless of whether that policy would ultimately benefit the public), you're left with very few options for getting it to happen properly because no matter the form of government everything ultimately depends on the public at large complying. Tyrannical dictators can get around this by forcing people to comply at gun point, but getting people to accept unpopular policies without violence or the threat thereof can be very, very difficult. No matter who you are one person can not make and enforce the law alone
You can get unpopular policies through and implemented, but it usually depends on the level of awareness and unpopularity, as well as how they balance with other policies. Stuff like net neutrality gets through despite being wildly unpopular because most of the public isn't very aware and/or does not place it high on a priority list while voting. Not to mention the US does still heavily lean on other methods of placating the populace such as misinformation campaigns among other tactics. But if an issue is hot button enough and ingrained enough in public consciousness, getting it through will always come with conflict, regardless of government system. A perfect example of this in democracy is slavery in America and the civil warWe have that same problem here in the US, too, though. Unpopular policies, even when pushed by unpopular politicians, and even when universally derided and scorned, will tend to stick around because those very same unpopular policies are popular to monied interests, OR they work better than alternatives. And, if you don't abide by those policies, you'll be fined, threatened, and, if need be, attacked by the very violent police force, federal or otherwise. So that's kind of a wash -- it's not perfect, but basing your rule off of what is popular is not in actuality a precursor to democratic election OR benevolent dictatorship.
However, where basing your rule off of what is BEST isn't a precursor to democratic election, it would be for a benevolent dictatorship, lest you succumb to the standard problems of any kleptocratic autocracy, like Russia. Or like the United States has the very real risk of descending into.
Right. And the liberal democracy as it is known today throughout the US is one where there is material benefit from misinformation, disinformation, and the lack of information. Democracy, like capitalism, functions best when every actor is well informed. However, that has been shown to be an impossible task. The fight for net neutrality is how democracy is SUPPOSED to work, given the longshot that is the defeat of 'destruction of net neutrality' actually works.You can get unpopular policies through and implemented, but it usually depends on the level of awareness and unpopularity, as well as how they balance with other policies. Stuff like net neutrality gets through despite being wildly unpopular because most of the public isn't very aware and/or does not place it high on a priority list while voting. Not to mention the US does still heavily lean on other methods of placating the populace such as misinformation campaigns among other tactics. But if an issue is hot button enough and ingrained enough in public consciousness, getting it through will always come with conflict, regardless of government system. A perfect example of this in democracy is slavery in America and the civil war
I'll gladly take the old Saudi Arabia which meddled a lot less outside and could be slowly changed from the inside rather than this.
If anything it's likely to backfire if the average Saudi doesn't buy into it. A too-secular autocratic king was how the Iranian Revolution happened in 1979. Something like the Iranian Revolution in Saudia would be an absolute disaster.
The bottom-up revolutions failed, but the benefit to such revolutions is that you know you've got popular consent, as opposed to heavy-handed top-down reforms from an unelected government (different than heavy-handed top-down reforms from an elected government because again, you know there's at least some popular consent there).
If I got a dollar for every time I've heard about someone being a Zionist puppet, or Israel being behind something, I'd be a millionaire before I hit puberty.He's a Zionist puppet and he will fail.
But he will rip his nation apary doing so.
Good news is it is always darkest before dawn.
He's a Zionist puppet and he will fail.
But he will rip his nation apary doing so.
Good news is it is always darkest before dawn.
How is he a Zionist puppet? Saud Arabia have always supported Palestine politically. They are literally the largest doners to the Palestinian government. They do not even recognize Israel as a country.
There is a lot about Saudi Arabia that I dislike. And now they've started to change that.
This is a fluff piece, sure. But there is a lot of truth to it. Women driving, having concerts, these are all things that are happening.
I disagree greatly with Saudi's foreign policy and how they handled Bahrain, Yemen and Qatar. But it's not like they did it all for shits and giggles. Iran has major influence all around them. To the south they have Iranian backed Houthi terrorists trying to topple the democratically elected government, and shooting Iranian rockets at them. To the north they have Hezbollah, and Iranian troops in Syria and Iraq.
The Saudi education minister chimed in that among a broad set of education reforms, he's redoing and digitizing all textbooks, sending 1,700 Saudi teachers each year to world-class schools in places like Finland to upgrade their skills.
Obviously not going to endorse any post calling anyone a Zionist puppet, but it is worth noting that amidst all that money for Palestine, the Saudis really have pursued a quiet alliance with Israel over Iran. The Palestinian cause matters to them, but the anti-Iranian cause matters more.
This paper examines all cases of political liberalization in a dictatorship since 1972 to test competing claims about the proximate and underlying causes of those reforms. Contrary to democratization theories that emphasize elite splits as the point of origin for political liberalization in authoritarian regimes, the evidence shows that popular rebellion occurred far more often than public defection of elites. This study also confirms that economic crisis is most often the catalyst for this type of political reform, and that dictators sometimes initiate political liberalization in the absence of rebellion and elite defection as a gambit to improve economic performance.