The Middle East could be heading for a game-changing implosion. US bond yields are surging and Western central banks, despite growing tension within their ranks, remain in ostrich mode.
Hat tip Gates of Vienna
Pundits and prognosticators all over the world have been trying to predict the future of the Middle East ever since the riots in Tunisia spread to Egypt and beyond. Will freedom and democracy bloom? Will social justice and its principles take root? Will the religious hatred and intolerance that is endemic virtually everywhere be excised or ameliorated? Will peoples standard of living be raised? Will the riots and protests lead to lasting change? Will tyrants and dictators continue to be all powerful? The answers are simple no, no, no, no, no and yes.
#1
We have to remember that we are observing Arabs here. We have to always have uppermost in our awareness that we are seeing the national character of Islamic Values....licking stinky old boots and everybody having a big moustache.
Both sides want baksheesh and what do you really expect from a people who eat sheep's eyes and lick their fingers?
Things are NOT going to get better in any of these countries no matter which side gets what it wants. No matter who wins BOTH sides will still be corrupt and there will still be flies and the faint smell of piss in the hall. Its Islam and that is how Islam really is. Allah LIVES in Bumfookistan.
#2
There is actually a double problem. Its best example is with Bangladesh. They are Islamic, but at the same time, they were so oppressed by Pakistan that they split off to become their own, secular nation. But they got rid of that Islamic oppression only to replace it with spendthrift socialism.
And that socialist government proved that there is no potential for prosperity so great that it cannot be squandered, wasted, and depleted, impoverishing everyone.
The devastation of socialism was *worse* than even the oppression of indifferent and violent Muslims from Pakistan.
Bangladesh has a large amount of some of the richest and most fertile farmland in the entire world. But because of their socialist leaders, giving them a larger government, per capita, than even the US, that farmland was utterly wasted.
Had the people just been permitted to develop it, by now they would have a standard of living as high as the Swiss.
But instead, their government took a pittance from other countries as "foreign aid", money into the pockets of their politicians. In exchange for which was demanded only one thing, that every bit of their precious farmland grow only Jute, a worthless and unwanted fiber, used for making low quality rope. Inedible and unprofitable.
For had the people of Bangladesh been allowed to grow food, they would be the breadbasket of South Asia, and no farmer in a dozen nations could compete with them.
So their socialist leaders sold them out for a pittance, and hundreds of thousands of their own countrymen starved to death because of it. And no effort has ever been made to curtail the horrific and devastating floods that kill thousands more.
The lesson here applies to the Middle East as well. Because the alternative offered to them to theocratic dictatorship is no better if it is socialist dictatorship or spendthrift socialism. The former is Saddam Hussein. The latter are faceless and useless elite bureaucrats who will deplete their substance.
Who always spend far more money than the people could ever make.
#3
What are the odds that the protests in Arab countries and Iran will lead to freedoms and democratic reforms--an over-throwing of dictators and mullahocracies?
Move towards democracy?
No change? Same old, same old.
Become more fundamentalist?
Bangladesh is the size of Iowa with 156 million people (CIA Factbook). That means Banglas have to feed, house and provide jobs for 4.4 people per acre (including bodies of water). That's not going to happen and is the reason Bangladesh will not be self sufficient in food. Like all high density areas, they need to develop high value industry and import the basics. Socialism is not conducive for that.
The devastation of socialism was *worse* than even the oppression of indifferent and violent Muslims from Pakistan.
The up to 3 million Bangladeshis murdered in 1971 may disagree.
Posted by: Pearl Gleaper1127 ||
02/20/2011 9:55 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Howdy ya'all!, With O at the helm and an upcoming denunciation of Israel plus Arab conflict converging into a hostile approach towards Israel we will have consequences;
Bangladesh is self-sufficient in food. The socialist government founded post-independence had indeed wrecked the economy. The Zia government was just as ineffectual when he overthrow the socialists. When he himself was overthrown in 1982, the new right wing military thugocracy was about as thuggish to the people, but had the advantage of understanding basic economics. They ensured that the farmers could sell food at market prices and improved the infrastructure significantly. Widespread irrigation became common, roads to markets were improved, and food subsidies were ended.
The result is that while 20 years ago B-desh was a basket case, today it is self-sufficient in food production.
It continues to export jute.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/20/2011 12:25 Comments ||
Top||
[Asharq al-Aswat] I have never seen as clear or as frank a speech by former Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri as the speech he gave last week. In this speech, Hariri took a step closer to all the people of Leb, announcing clear positions on the international tribunal investigating the death of the martyr Rafiq Haririr, the issue of arms, and Lebanese unity. In this speech, Hariri truly returned to his political roots, the roots of his cause, and the cause of all Lebanese.
In his last speech, Hariri clearly stated, and in a manner far removed from the clever ideas of those seeking political power in Leb, or Syria's disciples [in the country], that ""I entered political life after the liquidation of my father on 14 February, and since then I began national life on 14 March 2005, marching with you, and with all the people of Leb. These are my roots, and I will not renounce them."
These truly are Saad Hariri's [political] roots, and it can be said that his political birth occurred on the day that his father was assassinated, as well as the day that he went out to fight for Leb's right to democracy and justice, rather than a sectarian Leb that is ruled from abroad. If Saad Hariri had forgotten this fact then this would have been his political end.
However, The infamous However... despite this, Hariri accepted the Saudi efforts, or what was known as the "S -- S initiative" for two reasons that he asserted over and over again, and they are; his complete confidence in King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz's love for Leb and his dedication to Arab unity. Secondly, Hariri always said "I do not want Dire Revenge™, but for justice to emerge from Leb, out of the game of liquidation and intimidation." The importance of Hariri's speech is that this was not ambiguous, but rather he very clear and explicit. Hariri was [also] completely correct to start his speech against the backdrop of the "S -- S initiative" saying "I committed myself to silence regarding the 'S -- S initiative' because those who want to succeed don't leak [to the media] or issue statements, but work [in this regard]."
This is true, for all the leaks that came out were either from Damascus or the Beirut suburbs [i.e. Hezbullies]. Media sources are well-known, and there is no secret over this, for the media would say that "the Syrian official said..." or "the Syrian official confirmed..." without any official confirmation or denial coming from Syria about such leaks. Therefore Hariri has done very well to explicitly inform all Lebanese about what was going on [during this period] as well as his opinions of this. This is no less important than the statement issued by the Saudi Foreign Minister in which he announced that his country was washing its hands of mediation in Leb. This was not because Soddy Arabia was abandoning the country, but rather in order to allow the public to clearly see which Lebanese figures wanted the best for Leb, and which wanted to transform the country into an Iranian province.
If Hariri had not returned to his true political roots -- the death of his father and 14 March [2005] which ultimately led to the Syrian army withdrawing from Leb -- then Leb as a whole would have been lost, not just its leadership. The fear today for Leb the state is greater than our concern for its leadership. This is what Hariri's speech clarified. Therefore, his most recent speech will be very important for Leb, this is because -- according to the Taif Agreement -- there can be no leniency with regards to justice, no concession on the issue of arms, and no negligence with regards to Lebanese unity.
These are the roots that it is up to everybody, not just Hariri, to return and commit to, for the sake of Leb that must not find itself under the authority of the Wali Al Faqih, or under the guardianship of any neighbor, but rather under the umbrella of its own parliament and constitution.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/20/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11124 views]
Top|| File under:
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
