IMO (for whatever it is worth, but obviously inspired by a somewhat different culture, media) you bring up some
good points.
some say, as early in the 1700s, that "democarcy" must be based on "knowledge" (one vulgar reason to
deny both education and voting rights in many parts of the world, "leadership" also has a responsibility
which the "masses" do not have).
Anyway, "democarcy" is no killer application in itself, often a direct road to civil war.
Neither is "free markets" (free from what, free to cheat and steal??)
Many examples in history of "dictators" bringing a culture, nation into "democarcy", one
important aspect at the final point is to not be executed, family and all. (Ghana is
one recent example, luckily they seem to haven gotten through the $30 oil crises)
My point that I do not think "the saudi monarchy" is in the business of collecting personal
pensions, much more at stake, Saudi Arabia is "the heart of islam", more so than NY, Washington,Jerusalem, etc.
Saddam is a complicated thing, obviously tried to modernize a lot, but at least he made a big
real politics mistake with Kuwait, not understanding, maybe, or maybe not, the reaction.
But it is interesting how little the Iranian seem to pay attention to all those years
of Iran-Irak wars...???
Having lived as the neighbor to Russia, and having been totally dependent on understanding
that part of the global equation, I do not agree on what you wrote.
But disagreeing takes understanding,describing a lot, more than can be written in even many books.
Ilmarinen |
