SusScorfa wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:Certainly. Imposing a modern economy on people improves the economy, but letting them manage it themselves is drastically better. But if they don't have a modern economy and refuse to adopt one by copying yours, there's a clear path to take. So it goes for government, society, administration, and culture in general.
The reason the middle east is such a problem is that it has been left out of modernization. Ottoman attempts to modernize and westernize completely flopped but were eventually incorporated into Turkish modernization.
This is why Turkey isn't as much of a problem for the human species as the rest of the middle east, which largely defines itself in opposition to westernization and western norms, and has since the Ottoman era and the arabic nationalist conspiracy theories about how white christians were controlling the ottoman government to cause homosexuality to be legal.
Arab nationalism defines itself as anti-western and always has. It's why they tell such ridiculous lies about the Balfour declaration for example. The middle east is an area where the reactionaries won against the modernizers. It won't fix itself until it has westernized.
They refuse to westernize by choice.
We have historical examples of what to do in this situation, but we refuse to learn from them.
So, despite your data telling you that you are wrong, you assume you are right on this singular occasion because arabs be savages. I think I'll not be continuing this discussion, seems to be veering off-topic and kind of nasty.
The data doesn't tell me I am wrong. I explained to you the data. Prior to the colonial era, GDP had flatlined. Colonialism imposed a modern economy on much of the world, and for the first time, GDP began to grow. When the societies had been modernized and westernized, and then achieved indepenednce, this was even better.
The tier list is simple.
1. Independent and free westernized peoples.
2. Peoples living under a westernizing government of their own choice.
3. People living under a westernizing autocracy or colony.
4. Non-westernized societies.
If 4 refuse to become 2, the best option available is 3, which leads eventually to 1.
The GDP outcome is one example of the benefits. It applies to practically every facet of society.
A big reason for the problems with the middle east, including their interminable hostility to Israel and its manifestation in constant border raids and low level warfare, is due to this lack of modernization of economic, political, cultural, and social norms. Israeli reactions to that go beyond merely being self-defence, they are a microcosm of the colonial era dynamic for a reason, it is the natural progression of mankind. It's merely that the left has picked the wrong side because they've decided the colonizing powers were the bad guys.
If we examine Afghanistan for example, take a look at the destabilization of their society which a brief occupation by western powers imposing western norms caused, and how they have been confronted with educated women being there now and the impossibility of returning to a previous state of affairs. Imagine if we had done it consciously and deliberately as an uplift program instead, and refused to leave until they demonstrated they had westernized.
Why is that outcome not one we want for the middle east as a whole? It beggars belief that people can honestly tell me they think the Palestinians should be free to... what, be governed by Hamas?
As if that would improve matters? If Palestinians honestly think they're better off with Hamas on their street corner than an IDF soldier, that is merely demonstrating they lack the capacity to make such a decision and need further instruction.
I also think being open about it would improve the moral foundation for Israels occupation of the area, rather than it being this perpetual forever war. "We're here to stop you attacking us", by what, shooting them?
It doesn't work. It doesn't attack the roots, merely the leaves.
Restructure their society. Impose the western order. We know that works.