Shall Gulf Monarchies be abolished?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Casual reminder that the first known civilized governments were despotic absolute monarchies. The claim that tyranny is new while freedom is ancient is so historically illiterate it hurts.

[Celritannia]

Not according to freedom house ratings, or this:
https://planetrulers.com/current-dictators/

The US can't even help itself right now.
But it's short term solutions have long term consequences.

Removing Gulf monarchies will do more harm than good, as shown in Iraq and South America.

The Democracy Index is a more nuanced reflection of the good things happening outside of the Western World. More elements that constitute democracy exist to a larger extent in Africa than the Middle East.

Whether national elections are free and fair";
1) "The security of voters";
2) "The influence of foreign powers on government";
3) "The capability of the civil servants to implement policies".

Here.

And still lists a lot of African Countries as authoritarian regimes, as with the Middle East.

[Sundiata]

The Democracy Index is a more nuanced reflection of the good things happening outside of the Western World. More elements that constitute democracy exist to a larger extent in Africa than the Middle East.

Whether national elections are free and fair";
1) "The security of voters";
2) "The influence of foreign powers on government";
3) "The capability of the civil servants to implement policies".

Here.

And still lists a lot of African Countries as authoritarian regimes, as with the Middle East.

Sure, but there is more democracy in Sub-Saharan Africa than in the Middle East (and North Africa).

Do you understand now?

[Celritannia]

And still lists a lot of African Countries as authoritarian regimes, as with the Middle East.

Sure, but there is more democracy in Sub-Saharan Africa than in the Middle East (and North Africa).

Do you understand now?

You're own source has proved you wrong.

[NGRA]

while I am not a Fan of the Arab Dictatorships Masquerading as Monarchies
I do not think Abolishing them would bring stability to the People of the Middle East.
the people of the region must begin to overthrows their tyrants first before the West should get involved.

[Sundiata]

Sure, but there is more democracy in Sub-Saharan Africa than in the Middle East (and North Africa).

Do you understand now?

You're own source has proved you wrong.

No it does not. There is more democracy in Sub-Saharan Africa than the Middle East and North Africa.

That's correct.

[Picairn]

Casual reminder that the first known civilized governments were despotic absolute monarchies. The claim that tyranny is new while freedom is ancient is so historically illiterate it hurts.

You have to go further than that. Hunter-gatherer societies may actually be freer than classical or even modern ones today, since our ancestors were literally roaming and running around places to get food, all dangers aside.

The reason we settled down and formed civilizations was to birth more children and outlast the other tribes, which might invade one day and steal all of your food. Also for a steady supply of carb (grains) rich in energy. Our ancestors paid dearly for that necessary choice: Neolithic farmers were less healthy and more prone to diseases than hunter-gatherer cavemen, due to malnutrition and less diverse diet. Jared Diamond had an excellent article on this, "The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race".

[Che Triumphant]

The US needs to stop propping up dictators for markets, oil, and geopolitical positions. Saudi Arabia would not exist as it does today if it weren't for imperialism, and if imperialism loses its power in the Middle East it won't for much longer, same is true for many of the monarchies, Kuwait was broken off from Iraq to make the oil safer for foreign imperialists like the British to exploit

[Celritannia]

You're own source has proved you wrong.

No it does not. There is more democracy in Sub-Saharan Africa than the Middle East and North Africa.

That's correct.

There are 17 countries in Africa from that source classed as Authoritarian.
There are 9 countries in the Middle East from that source classed as Authoritarian.

Which is the bigger number?

[Sundiata]

No it does not. There is more democracy in Sub-Saharan Africa than the Middle East and North Africa.

That's correct.

Their are 17 countries in Africa from that source classed as Authoritarian.
There are 9 countries in the Middle East from that source classed as Authoritarian.

Which is the bigger number?

There are 44 countries in Africa listed in that report.

20 from the Middle East.

Regionally, Sub-Saharan Africa scores a 4.26, the Middle East and North Africa a 3.53.

Which is the bigger number?

If you're having trouble reading the report for whatever reason, here is the wikipedia page. Click on Democracy Index by Region. 2019 numbers.

[Celritannia]

Their are 17 countries in Africa from that source classed as Authoritarian.
There are 9 countries in the Middle East from that source classed as Authoritarian.

Which is the bigger number?

There are 44 countries in Africa listed in that report.

20 from the Middle East.

Regionally, Sub-Saharan Africa scores a 4.26, the Middle East a 3.53.

Which is the bigger number?

If you're having trouble reading the report for whatever reason, here is the wikipedia page. Click on Democracy Index by Region.

This is actually quite funny.
Using the region panel on the Index, it lists 22 Sub-Saharan countries as Authoritarian, with the 15 authoritarian countries in North Africa and the Middle East.

And with that, we are done.

[Sundiata]

There are 44 countries in Africa listed in that report.

20 from the Middle East.

Regionally, Sub-Saharan Africa scores a 4.26, the Middle East a 3.53.

Which is the bigger number?

If you're having trouble reading the report for whatever reason, here is the wikipedia page. Click on Democracy Index by Region.

This is actually quite funny.
Using the region panel on the Index, it lists 22 Sub-Saharan countries as Authoritarian, with the 15 authoritarian countries in North Africa and the Middle East.

Ad with that, we are done.

The regional averages for democracy are higher in Sub-Saharan Africa than the Middle East and North Africa as there are more hybrid regimes. That's perfectly clear: 4.26 vs 3.53.

Are you just reading the report too quickly? Conflating the numbers? Take your time and look at the report. Sub-Saharan Africa gets the higher regional score.

Do you understand now? I'm sincerely doing my best to simplify this for you.

[Disgraces]

No. And the interventionists here should honestly stfu.

[Celritannia]

This is actually quite funny.
Using the region panel on the Index, it lists 22 Sub-Saharan countries as Authoritarian, with the 15 authoritarian countries in North Africa and the Middle East.

Ad with that, we are done.

The regional averages for democracy are higher in Sub-Saharan Africa than the Middle East and North Africa as there are more hybrid regimes. That's perfectly clear: 4.26 vs 3.53.

Are you just reading the report too quickly? Conflating the numbers? Take your time and look at the report. Sub-Saharan Africa gets the higher regional score.

Have you ever thought having more countries means the ratio increased? That does not mean there are more hybrid regimes in Sub-Saharan Africa. In fact there are only 15 hybrid regimes in Sub-Saharan Africa, 6 Flawed Democracies, and 1 Full Democracy. The majority in Sub-Saharan Africa is mostly Authoritarian regimes, which there are 22 of. Meaning it is a fact that there are more authoritarian regimes in Sub-Saharan Africa than there are in the Middle East, which is what I have said all along.

22 Sub-Saharan authoritarian regimes vs 15 North African and Middle Eastern Authoritarian Regimes.

And yet the US has done nothing in those African countries.

[Sundiata]

The regional averages for democracy are higher in Sub-Saharan Africa than the Middle East and North Africa as there are more hybrid regimes. That's perfectly clear: 4.26 vs 3.53.

Are you just reading the report too quickly? Conflating the numbers? Take your time and look at the report. Sub-Saharan Africa gets the higher regional score.

Have you ever thought having more countries means the ratio increased? That does not mean there are more hybrid regimes in Sub-Saharan Africa. In fact there are only 15 hybrid regimes in Sub-Saharan Africa, 6 Flawed Democracies, and 1 Full Democracy. The majority if Sub-Saharan Africa is mostly Authoritarian regimes, which there are 22 of. Meaning it is a fact that there are more authoritarian regimes in Sub-Saharan Africa than there are in the Middle East, which is what I have said all along.

22 Sub-Saharan authoritarian regimes vs 15 North African and Middle Eastern Authoritarian Regimes.

And yet the US has done nothing in those African countries.

Having more countries likely does increase the ratio to some degree, and with most countries within the region teetering away from authoritarianism towards democracy, that's something for the people of Sub-Saharan Africa to be proud of. It's a sign of hope for the region and its people.

American involvement in Sub-Saharan Africa in the past decade has largely been economic and diplomatic in scope than overtly militaristic. That sort of relationship is also possible for the Middle-East and North Africa with the continued removal of dictators. A lot has been done in Sub-Saharan Africa in relation to the United States.

[Celritannia]

Have you ever thought having more countries means the ratio increased? That does not mean there are more hybrid regimes in Sub-Saharan Africa. In fact there are only 15 hybrid regimes in Sub-Saharan Africa, 6 Flawed Democracies, and 1 Full Democracy. The majority if Sub-Saharan Africa is mostly Authoritarian regimes, which there are 22 of. Meaning it is a fact that there are more authoritarian regimes in Sub-Saharan Africa than there are in the Middle East, which is what I have said all along.

22 Sub-Saharan authoritarian regimes vs 15 North African and Middle Eastern Authoritarian Regimes.

And yet the US has done nothing in those African countries.

Having more countries likely does increase the ratio to some degree, and with most countries within the region teetering away from authoritarianism towards democracy, that's something for the people of Sub-Saharan Africa to be proud of. It's a sign of hope for the region and its people.

American involvement in Sub-Saharan Africa in the past decade has largely been economic and diplomatic in scope than overtly militaristic. That sort of relationship is also possible for the m
Middle-East and North Africa with the continued removal of dictators.

Yet half of all the countries in Sub-Saharan Africa are dictatorships, not something to be proud of, and not hopeful when there is no help.
And only 1 is a Full Democracy.

Because sub-Saharan Africa has no resources to exploit, unlike the Middle East which has oil.
It's not about removing dictatorships, it never has been. US foreign policy is about exploiting a nation to benefit them.

[Sundiata]

Having more countries likely does increase the ratio to some degree, and with most countries within the region teetering away from authoritarianism towards democracy, that's something for the people of Sub-Saharan Africa to be proud of. It's a sign of hope for the region and its people.

American involvement in Sub-Saharan Africa in the past decade has largely been economic and diplomatic in scope than overtly militaristic. That sort of relationship is also possible for the m
Middle-East and North Africa with the continued removal of dictators.

Yet half of all the countries in Sub-Saharan Africa are dictatorships, not something to be proud of, and not hopeful when there is no help.
And only 1 is a Full Democracy.

Because sub-Saharan Africa has no resources to exploit, unlike the Middle East which has oil.
It's not about removing dictatorships, it never has been. US foreign policy is about exploiting a nation to benefit them.

Yet more than half of countries in the Middle East and North Africa are dictatorships, that's a sign of more work to be done by the United States. This is not the case in Sub-Saharan Africa. That's something to be grateful for.

Resources play a strategic role, sure. But the ends which the United States internationally pursues are democracy and freedom.

[Celritannia]

Yet half of all the countries in Sub-Saharan Africa are dictatorships, not something to be proud of, and not hopeful when there is no help.
And only 1 is a Full Democracy.

Because sub-Saharan Africa has no resources to exploit, unlike the Middle East which has oil.
It's not about removing dictatorships, it never has been. US foreign policy is about exploiting a nation to benefit them.

Yet more than half of countries in the Middle East and North Africa are dictatorships, that's a sign of more work to be done by the United States. This is not the case in Sub-Saharan Africa. That's something to be grateful for.

Resources play a strategic role, sure. But the end to which the United States internationally pursues is democracy and freedom.

Jesus fucking Christ.
How is it more work for the US in the Middle East?
They can easily remove Dictators from Africa in a heart beat. But why don't they? Because they have no fucking resources.
It's neo-imperialism at its finest.

The US is not pursuing an international enlightened concept of freedom and democracy for all. If it was, it would have removed dictators in Africa first, they are a fucking easy target.
The Middle East has OIL. The US like OIL. The US has uses "democracy" in the Middle East to get oils rights.

[Sundiata]

Yet more than half of countries in the Middle East and North Africa are dictatorships, that's a sign of more work to be done by the United States. This is not the case in Sub-Saharan Africa. That's something to be grateful for.

Resources play a strategic role, sure. But the end to which the United States internationally pursues is democracy and freedom.

Jesus fucking Christ.
How is it more work for the US in the Middle East?
They can easily remove Dictators from Africa in a heart beat. But why don't they? Because they have no fucking resources.
It's neo-imperialism at its finest.

The US is not pursuing an international enlightened concept of freedom and democracy for all. If it was, it would have removed dictators in Africa first, they are a fucking easy target.
The Middle East has OIL. The US like OIL. The US has uses "democracy" in the Middle East to get oils rights.

The United States already does remove dictators and terrorist threats in Africa. That happened throughout the latter portion of the last century. We have plenty of military bases across the continent, preserving that sort of stability is yet to be attained in the Middle East.

Sub-Saharan Africa is well on its way to achieving proper freedom, especially economic.

[Resilient Acceleration]

Yet more than half of countries in the Middle East and North Africa are dictatorships, that's a sign of more work to be done by the United States. This is not the case in Sub-Saharan Africa. That's something to be grateful for.

Resources play a strategic role, sure. But the end to which the United States internationally pursues is democracy and freedom.

Jesus fucking Christ.
How is it more work for the US in the Middle East?
They can easily remove Dictators from Africa in a heart beat. But why don't they? Because they have no fucking resources.
It's neo-imperialism at its finest.

The US is not pursuing an international enlightened concept of freedom and democracy for all. If it was, it would have removed dictators in Africa first, they are a fucking easy target.
The Middle East has OIL. The US like OIL. The US has uses "democracy" in the Middle East to get oils rights.

Even funnier is that the US does not need all those oils anymore, due to the growth of her own domestic oil and natural gas production throughout the 2010s. There is simply no more need to keep such a large presence in the Middle East. And at least according to my sources, US interest has now shifted into keeping the stability of the oil market (of which the rest of the world still rely upon), as any sudden shock to the global economy will be detrimental to her own, and militarily invading the Gulf states is definitely not the way to do that.

[Celritannia]

Jesus fucking Christ.
How is it more work for the US in the Middle East?
They can easily remove Dictators from Africa in a heart beat. But why don't they? Because they have no fucking resources.
It's neo-imperialism at its finest.

The US is not pursuing an international enlightened concept of freedom and democracy for all. If it was, it would have removed dictators in Africa first, they are a fucking easy target.
The Middle East has OIL. The US like OIL. The US has uses "democracy" in the Middle East to get oils rights.

The United States already does remove dictators and terrorist threats in Africa. That happened throughout the latter portion of the last century.

And some how, they make up the majority of the political systems in Sub-Saharan Africa still. Curious.

We have plenty of military bases across the continent, preserving that stability that is yet to be attained in the Middle East.

FUCKING LOL

Sub-Saharan Africa is well on its way to achieving proper freedom, especially economic.

At it with those fantasies again.

[Sundiata]

The United States already does remove dictators and terrorist threats in Africa. That happened throughout the latter portion of the last century.

And some how, they make up the majority of the political systems in Sub-Saharan Africa still. Curious.

We have plenty of military bases across the continent, preserving that stability that is yet to be attained in the Middle East.

FUCKING LOL

Sub-Saharan Africa is well on its way to achieving proper freedom, especially economic.

At it with those fantasies again.

You don't seem very familiar with the history of Sub-Saharan Africa. There is less dictatorship and despotism in that region now than there ever has been thanks to the the involvement of America and coalition partners. Political and economic freedom are rising in that region of the world as well as living standards.

[Celritannia]

And some how, they make up the majority of the political systems in Sub-Saharan Africa still. Curious.



FUCKING LOL


At it with those fantasies again.

You don't seem very familiar with the history of Sub-Saharan Africa. There is less dictatorship and despotism in that region now than there ever has been thanks to the the involvement of America and coalition partners. Political and economic freedom are rising in that region of the world as well as living standards.

22 countries in that region have dictators.
15 Hybrid.
6 Flawed Democracies
1 full.

Tell me how that is "removing despots"

[Sundiata]

You don't seem very familiar with the history of Sub-Saharan Africa. There is less dictatorship and despotism in that region now than there ever has been thanks to the the involvement of America and coalition partners. Political and economic freedom are rising in that region of the world as well as living standards.

22 countries in that region have dictators.
15 Hybrid.
6 Flawed Democracies
1 full.

Tell me how that is "removing despots"

Compare the present with the past and tell me how that is not removing despots.

[Celritannia]

22 countries in that region have dictators.
15 Hybrid.
6 Flawed Democracies
1 full.

Tell me how that is "removing despots"

Compare the present with the past and tell me how that is not removing despots.

How far back do you want me to go? Because Colonialism lead to the problems Africa has today.

You mean like how in the past, and currently, the US props up dictators in Africa, and all over the world when it wants something?