Taliban for you, but not for me

[Yukon_Niner]

How do they treat their minorities? horribly! ask the maids how they are treated, ask religious minorities how they are treated.

Saudi Arabia is collecting more taxes now because the system isn't working, their dollar reserves are collapsing, their GDP isn't going up anymore. Search it up and you'll see that since 2015 it's not going well.

I do not agree with everything Ataturk did, pushing etho-nationalism on kurds wasn't a good idea but the result 100 years after the turkish republic was formed speaks for itself.

Believe, you are clearly better off in free democratic countries.
UAE relies on expats.
Rwanda is a poor country.
People are leaving China so that they can go to the US.
And Singapore isn't really a country, it's just a city.
Clearly Democracy is better than a dictatorship.

There's a difference between treating your workers like shit and committing borderline cultural genocide in the name of your flag. Their treatment of the kurds is beyond atrocious and should've earned them a place in the book of mass human rights abusers. Saudis Arabia and the UAE can adapt meanwhile Turkey's economy is going down the drain to a point where gulf Arabs are mass buying their property.

The bastions of democracy are former colonial nations who either got rich off of looting other people's or they're outliers like the US who got rich off of wars and industrialisation. If the western world had to pay back all the shit they've taken in morally unjust circumstances they'd be bankrupt. The UAE is where it's at because of good governance of its resources something most country's can't do, China's economy blasted past developed nations and became global power ripping citizens out of poverty. Singapore is a country and highly developed one and Rwanda may as well be heaven in an ocean of despair considering their neighbours are nations like the Congo. Hell fucking Korea was a formerly authoritarian nation, it took them out of poverty very quickly.

You're grasping at straws to explain why some of the safest and rapidly developing or developed nations in the world are actually bad.

 

[reer]

There's a difference between treating your workers like shit and committing borderline cultural genocide in the name of your flag. Their treatment of the kurds is beyond atrocious and should've earned them a place in the book of mass human rights abusers. Saudis Arabia and the UAE can adapt meanwhile Turkey's economy is going down the drain to a point where gulf Arabs are mass buying their property.

The bastions of democracy are former colonial nations who either got rich off of looting other people's or they're outliers like the US who got rich off of wars and industrialisation. If the western world had to pay back all the shit they've taken in morally unjust circumstances they'd be bankrupt. The UAE is where it's at because of good governance of its resources something most country's can't do, China's economy blasted past developed nations and became global power ripping citizens out of poverty. Singapore is a country and highly developed one and Rwanda may as well be heaven in an ocean of despair considering their neighbours are nations like the Congo. Hell fucking Korea was a formerly authoritarian nation, it took them out of poverty very quickly.

You're grasping at straws to explain why some of the safest and rapidly developing or developed nations in the world are actually bad.

somalis are naturally treacherous treasonous and prone to anarchy and can only move forward through brute force. somalis should be in a chokehold because as soon as you let go we will start to destroy almost instantly.

 

[Yukon_Niner]

somalis are naturally treacherous treasonous and prone to anarchy and can only move forward through brute force. somalis should be in a chokehold because as soon as you let go we will start to destroy almost instantly.

You're ascribing human attributes to a single population. Somali's aren't special, people are loyal to a state that they receive tangible help/benefits from. The current Somali government is a failure because its taxes are suckered into a piece of shits pockets on the basis of qabil while your average person lives in gaajo iyo rafaad.

Whereas qabil is a genuine safety net. Really and truly the whole country needs a massive crackdown and education campaign.

 

[reer]

You're ascribing human attributes to a single population. Somali's aren't special, people are loyal to a state that they receive tangible help/benefits from. The current Somali government is a failure because its taxes are suckered into a piece of shits pockets on the basis of qabil while your average person lives in gaajo iyo rafaad.

Whereas qabil is a genuine safety net. Really and truly the whole country needs a massive crackdown and education campaign.

spot on. i fully agree with you.
but somalis are a special case. in other homogeneous countries with the fall of government you dont see the blatant mass treason that we parade with zero xishood. we are by default on self destruct mode. the current government is a failure for not subduing all of somalia. and the next one will be too.

 

[Odayga_Jabuuti]

There's a difference between treating your workers like shit and committing borderline cultural genocide in the name of your flag. Their treatment of the kurds is beyond atrocious and should've earned them a place in the book of mass human rights abusers. Saudis Arabia and the UAE can adapt meanwhile Turkey's economy is going down the drain to a point where gulf Arabs are mass buying their property.

The bastions of democracy are former colonial nations who either got rich off of looting other people's or they're outliers like the US who got rich off of wars and industrialisation. If the western world had to pay back all the shit they've taken in morally unjust circumstances they'd be bankrupt. The UAE is where it's at because of good governance of its resources something most country's can't do, China's economy blasted past developed nations and became global power ripping citizens out of poverty. Singapore is a country and highly developed one and Rwanda may as well be heaven in an ocean of despair considering their neighbours are nations like the Congo. Hell fucking Korea was a formerly authoritarian nation, it took them out of poverty very quickly.

You're grasping at straws to explain why some of the safest and rapidly developing or developed nations in the world are actually bad.

And yet people immigrate to the US not China.
If you look at a list of autocratic states, most of them are poor countries (Djibouti autocratic and it sucks, I know because I spent many years there) other autocratic states include Congo, Ivory Coast, Cameroun, Myanmar, North Korea.
If you compare the lists of free democratic countries to the list of autocratic states, you can easily see the difference.
Democratic countries like Kenya, Ghana and Botswana are among the fastest growing countries in Africa while autocratic Congo and Cameroun are left behind.
A few exception like Singapore or even Rwanda do not change that.

 

[Yukon_Niner]

And yet people immigrate to the US not China.
If you look at a list of autocratic states, most of them are poor countries (Djibouti autocratic and it sucks, I know because I spent many years there) other autocratic states include Congo, Ivory Coast, Cameroun, Myanmar, North Korea.
If you compare the lists of free democratic countries to the list of autocratic states, you can easily see the difference.
Democratic countries like Kenya, Ghana and Botswana are among the fastest growing countries in Africa while autocratic Congo and Cameroun are left behind.
A few exception like Singapore or even Rwanda do not change that.

No shit, it's significantly harder to get citizenship in China. I don't even think I need to discuss soft power and media here. Almost Every democratic nation in Africa is surpassed by Authoritian East Asian nations. Somaliland is closest thing to a democracy in the Horn of Africa and it's even shittier than Djibouti, I should know, i've lived there.

The list of free democratic country's with high human development are mainly former colonial nations which came to power under monarchies or empires. The UK or Germany wouldn't be what they are without their former powers that were destroyed in WW2. Take away the trillions they stole they'd be dirt poor.


A few outliers don't change the fact that the fastest developing nations in the world that didn't siphon resources from poorer nations are generally autocratic States. Of the 4 Asian tigers that have come to dominate the tech sector only 1 was a full on democracy from the beginning and that's Japan, like I said they're pretty much outliers. The vast majority of democratic nations in Africa have lower qualities of life than Egypt, Rwanda or Algeria.

 

[Ahmedahmed5000]

somalis are naturally treacherous treasonous and prone to anarchy and can only move forward through brute force. somalis should be in a chokehold because as soon as you let go we will start to destroy almost instantly.

The fact is, somali isnt meant to be a unified country, and were previously divided into different sultantes.

 

[Odayga_Jabuuti]

No shit, it's significantly harder to get citizenship in China. I don't even think I need to discuss soft power and media here. Almost Every democratic nation in Africa is surpassed by Authoritian East Asian nations. Somaliland is closest thing to a democracy in the Horn of Africa and it's even shittier than Djibouti, I should know, i've lived there.

The list of free democratic country's with high human development are mainly former colonial nations which came to power under monarchies or empires. The UK or Germany wouldn't be what they are without their former powers that were destroyed in WW2. Take away the trillions they stole they'd be dirt poor.

I lived in Somaliland too. Somaliland isn't shittier than Djibouti.
Somaliland has better wifi than Djibouti and better services. Everytime I would go to Somaliland I would see a new hotel, a new restaurant etc..., hard to see that in Djibouti.
I'm not saying that Somaliland is better than Djibouti, but the standards of living were not that different honestly.
You cannot compare somaliland to Djibouti, since one of those countries is recognize and receives billions in aid while the other doesn't.

Yes western powers came to power under monarchies, but they became better with democracies. Most brits would rather live under 2021 Britain that 1920 Britain.
Western powers aren't rich because of the ressources they stole, but they were already rich and highly advanced compared to the rest of the world at the end of the 19th century (before they invaded Africa).

A few outliers don't change the fact that the fastest developing nations in the world that didn't siphon resources from poorer nations are generally autocratic States. Of the 4 Asian tigers that have come to dominate the tech sector only 1 was a full on democracy from the beginning and that's Japan, like I said they're pretty much outliers. The vast majority of democratic nations in Africa have lower qualities of life than Egypt, Rwanda or Algeria.

Let's not compare subsaharian africa to north Africa as both are very different.
In North Africa, you have 2 democracies (Morocco and Tunisia) and 3 autocracies (Egypt, Libya and Algeria), standards of living are definitely better in Morocco and Tunisia than the rest of the countries. Libya is in a civil war, Egypt is poorer than Morocco/Tunisia and Algeria is in an economic crisis.
And most africans live better than people who live in Rwanda, Paul Kagame has been accused of showing the world a Rwanda that is different than the real Rwanda.
Even though, Rwanda made significant growth, it still have a gdp per capita that is below 1000.
If you don't believe me take a look at this, the development index (you can clearly see that Rwanda isn't doing good compared to other african countries) :

List of African countries by Human Development Index - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Nilotic]

That guy exemplifies the anti-democracy posters in this thread.

 

[Yukon_Niner]

I lived in Somaliland too. Somaliland isn't shittier than Djibouti.
Somaliland has better wifi than Djibouti and better services. Everytime I would go to Somaliland I would see a new hotel, a new restaurant etc..., hard to see that in Djibouti.
I'm not saying that Somaliland is better than Djibouti, but the standards of living were not that different honestly.
You cannot compare somaliland to Djibouti, since one of those countries is recognize and receives billions in aid while the other doesn't.

Yes western powers came to power under monarchies, but they became better with democracies. Most brits would rather live under 2021 Britain that 1920 Britain.
Western powers aren't rich because of the ressources they stole, but they were already rich and highly advanced compared to the rest of the world at the end of the 19th century (before they invaded Africa).



Let's not compare subsaharian africa to north Africa as both are very different.
In North Africa, you have 2 democracies (Morocco and Tunisia) and 3 autocracies (Egypt, Libya and Algeria), standards of living are definitely better in Morocco and Tunisia than the rest of the countries. Libya is in a civil war, Egypt is poorer than Morocco/Tunisia and Algeria is in an economic crisis.
And most africans live better than people who live in Rwanda, Paul Kagame has been accused of showing the world a Rwanda that is different than the real Rwanda.
Even though, Rwanda made significant growth, it still have a gdp per capita that is below 1000.
If you don't believe me take a look at this, the development index (you can clearly see that Rwanda isn't doing good compared to other african countries) :

List of African countries by Human Development Index - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

They've both had peace for decades now and according to the UN Somaliland is one of the highest recipients of aid in Somalia (goes through the federal gov). Djibouti has had internal conflict and has recovered significantly faster. The Rwandan genocide occurred in the same time period of Somalia's collapse and even then it's recovered faster than everysingle Somali region. Governance in Somalia is just abysmal in general.

I can assure you I'd rather live in 2021 Somalia than 1920's Somalia. Country's develop, what sets them apart is how fast they develop. Colonialism provided the resources for mass innovation, development and industrialisation. It began around the 17th century and would launch the former backwaters turned new powers in to world powers. Without their empires and monarchies western europe would've remained the shithole it was for millenia's.

Algeria is higher on the human develop index than Tunisia and Morocco. Lebanon which was once a more democratic version of its neighbours is going down the drain. Rwanda was hellhole that just got out of a brutal genocidal war in the 1990's and its already surpassed nations that in theory should've been mroe developed than it in the blink of an eye. It's still one of the fastest developing nations in Africa add to that it's one of the safest and cleanest too.

 

[Odayga_Jabuuti]

They've both had peace for decades now and according to the UN Somaliland is one of the highest recipients of aid in Somalia (goes through the federal gov). Djibouti has had internal conflict and has recovered significantly faster. The Rwandan genocide occurred in the same time period of Somalia's collapse and even then it's recovered faster than everysingle Somali region. Governance in Somalia is just abysmal in general.

I can assure you I'd rather live in 2021 Somalia than 1920's Somalia. Country's develop, what sets them apart is how fast they develop. Colonialism provided the resources for mass innovation, development and industrialisation. It began around the 17th century and would launch the former backwaters turned new powers in to world powers. Without their empires and monarchies western europe would've remained the shithole it was for millenia's.

Algeria is higher on the human develop index than Tunisia and Morocco. Lebanon which was once a more democratic version of its neighbours is going down the drain. Rwanda was hellhole that just got out of a brutal genocidal war in the 1990's and its already surpassed nations that in theory should've been mroe developed than it in the blink of an eye. It's still one of the fastest developing nations in Africa add to that it's one of the safest and cleanest too.

In my opinion, Somaliland has everything it needs to surpass Djibouti in the next 10 years because of the free market.
In Djibouti, the markets are closed and there are too many restrictions so many of the djiboutian youth are moving to Hargeisa for business opportunities.
What is stopping Somaliland from moving is the lack of recognition, so many countries avoid to make deals with their government.

You have to know, that democracy is a new concept.
We knew that the greeks used it at one point, but for centuries nobody dared to use it.
Because people didn't know if it could work. The USA was the first modern western country to experiment with democracy in 1779 and it worked.
America didn't remain a shithole, it became a superpower with democracy.
It's only when europeans saw that democracy could work in the US that they decided to copy, especially after ww1.
So I honestly believe that if Europe tried democracy during the 18th century, they would've turned into a superpower anyways.

Democracy doesn't make your country rich, you can get rich by using any system.
However, most countries today that do not struggle with human rights and respect freedom of religion, freedom of speech etc... are democracies.
It's just a matter of responsibility, a dictatorship gives responsibility to the elite that controls the country while democracy gives responsibility to the people.
In my opinion, democracy allows the government to question itself, unlike dictatorships so it'ss a system that will last longer. The US have been using the same constitutions for almost 250 years and it's institutions are extremely powerful.

 

[Yukon_Niner]

In my opinion, Somaliland has everything it needs to surpass Djibouti in the next 10 years because of the free market.
In Djibouti, the markets are closed and there are too many restrictions so many of the djiboutian youth are moving to Hargeisa for business opportunities.
What is stopping Somaliland from moving is the lack of recognition, so many countries avoid to make deals with their government.

You have to know, that democracy is a new concept.
We knew that the greeks used it at one point, but for centuries nobody dared to use it.
Because people didn't know if it could work. The USA was the first modern western country to experiment with democracy in 1779 and it worked.
America didn't remain a shithole, it became a superpower with democracy.
It's only when europeans saw that democracy could work in the US that they decided to copy, especially after ww1.
So I honestly believe that if Europe tried democracy during the 18th century, they would've turned into a superpower anyways.

Democracy doesn't make your country rich, you can get rich by using any system.
However, most countries today that do not struggle with human rights and respect freedom of religion, freedom of speech etc... are democracies.
It's just a matter of responsibility, a dictatorship gives responsibility to the elite that controls the country while democracy gives responsibility to the people.
In my opinion, democracy allows the government to question itself, unlike dictatorships so it'ss a system that will last longer. The US have been using the same constitutions for almost 250 years and it's institutions are extremely powerful.

I genuinely doubt Somaliland is ever going to surpass Djibouti. The sheer amount of blatant corruption and qabilism was astonishing. I hate that corrupt fat f*ck IOG as much as the next guy but he beats the human shitstains in Somalia proper by a mile. SL has had 3 decades to improve and its somehow worse than PL (partly due to a higher population), something I for the life of me can't figure out. I don't really bother comparing it to Mogadishu.

The US became a world power riding on the backs of the world wars. Its industrial power was second to none at that point add to that they didn't allow blacks and women to vote so whether it was democracy that represented its nation from the start is in dispute anyway. On the other hand the USSR pulled the country kicking and screaming from a backwater hellhole to an industrial superpower in the span of less than a century.

Democracies are at minimum only viable when a nations citizens have a decent income and are educated. All those former monarchies had an educated upper class they could use to bounce back and even then that's still not a guarantee. Some of the worst violators of Human rights are democracies such as the US, France and the UK. Whether its their cold War antics or their incursions in the Middle East, no other country except China has reached them. To this day America still doesn't allow their soldiers in the Hague.

I guess this debate is winding away from the main point. I guess my point is a stable/benevolent dictatorship is better than a poor democracy. Whether its internal strife or its vulnerabilities to external forces a proper democracy can rarely be achieved and even then its susceptible to the uneducated masses. On the other hand a bad democracy is better than bad dictatorship. All have their pros and cons e.g. Lebanon vs Algeria. An educated well fed populace should be achieved before even thinking about transitioning into a democracy.

 

[reer]

I genuinely doubt Somaliland is ever going to surpass Djibouti. The sheer amount of blatant corruption and qabilism was astonishing. I hate that corrupt fat f*ck IOG as much as the next guy but he beats the human shitstains in Somalia proper by a mile. SL has had 3 decades to improve and its somehow worse than PL (partly due to a higher population), something I for the life of me can't figure out. I don't really bother comparing it to Mogadishu.

The US became a world power riding on the backs of the world wars. Its industrial power was second to none at that point add to that they didn't allow blacks and women to vote so whether it was democracy that represented its nation from the start is in dispute anyway. On the other hand the USSR pulled the country kicking and screaming from a backwater hellhole to an industrial superpower in the span of less than a century.

Democracies are at minimum only viable when a nations citizens have a decent income and are educated. All those former monarchies had an educated upper class they could use to bounce back and even then that's still not a guarantee. Some of the worst violators of Human rights are democracies such as the US, France and the UK. Whether its their cold War antics or their incursions in the Middle East, no other country except China has reached them. To this day America still doesn't allow their soldiers in the Hague.

I guess this debate is winding away from the main point. I guess my point is a stable/benevolent dictatorship is better than a poor democracy. Whether its internal strife or its vulnerabilities to external forces a proper democracy can rarely be achieved and even then its susceptible to the uneducated masses. On the other hand a bad democracy is better than bad dictatorship. All have their pros and cons e.g. Lebanon vs Algeria. An educated well fed populace should be achieved before even thinking about transitioning into a democracy.

japan was industrialized and recovered after hiroshima. they had the experts and population. south korea was an american puppet dictatorship and is now an americal vassal and democratic. united kingdom france spain portugal were colonial powers. germany is a bit different due to unification after the franco prussian war. lebanon was doing well went downhill into a civil war recovered and is now run through 4.5 and is turning into a craphole. the russian revolution of 1917 turned russia from a craphole into a super power by 1945 after ww2. just under 3 decades. the ba'ath of iraq, ussr, saudi arabia etc all dragged their citizens forward through qasab and state intervention. a populace who are below zero cannot be dragged forward rapidly without state intervention. which means state control »» dictatorship. one of the reasons the post ww2 welfare system was created was to avoid communist revolutions.

 

[Nilotic]

In my opinion, Somaliland has everything it needs to surpass Djibouti in the next 10 years because of the free market.
In Djibouti, the markets are closed and there are too many restrictions so many of the djiboutian youth are moving to Hargeisa for business opportunities.
What is stopping Somaliland from moving is the lack of recognition, so many countries avoid to make deals with their government.

You have to know, that democracy is a new concept.
We knew that the greeks used it at one point, but for centuries nobody dared to use it.
Because people didn't know if it could work. The USA was the first modern western country to experiment with democracy in 1779 and it worked.
America didn't remain a shithole, it became a superpower with democracy.
It's only when europeans saw that democracy could work in the US that they decided to copy, especially after ww1.
So I honestly believe that if Europe tried democracy during the 18th century, they would've turned into a superpower anyways.

Democracy doesn't make your country rich, you can get rich by using any system.
However, most countries today that do not struggle with human rights and respect freedom of religion, freedom of speech etc... are democracies.
It's just a matter of responsibility, a dictatorship gives responsibility to the elite that controls the country while democracy gives responsibility to the people.
In my opinion, democracy allows the government to question itself, unlike dictatorships so it'ss a system that will last longer. The US have been using the same constitutions for almost 250 years and it's institutions are extremely powerful.

I agree with you on the need to have some level of democracy, however, the "free-market" was not the engine of growth for any of the major economies in the world today. Every significant economy was the beneficiary recipient of large-scale State intervention, subsidies and tariffs.

 

[Nilotic]

japan was industrialized and recovered after hiroshima. they had the experts and population. south korea was an american puppet dictatorship and is now an americal vassal and democratic. united kingdom france spain portugal were colonial powers. germany is a bit different due to unification after the franco prussian war. lebanon was doing well went downhill into a civil war recovered and is now run through 4.5 and is turning into a craphole. the russian revolution of 1917 turned russia from a craphole into a super power by 1945 after ww2. just under 3 decades. the ba'ath of iraq, ussr, saudi arabia etc all dragged their citizens forward through qasab and state intervention. a populace who are below zero cannot be dragged forward rapidly without state intervention. which means state control »» dictatorship. one of the reasons the post ww2 welfare system was created was to avoid communist revolutions.

Why does State control necessarily entail dictatorship? This is one of my earlier posts on this:

The Nordic model is prudent enough to establish State control over certain strategic industries -- such as Statoil -> the Norwegian State owned energy company.

Contrary to the prevailing view... the Nordic Nations maintain significant State ownership and control over their economies; Finland has 67 State owned companies; Norway has 74; and Sweden has 48.

Sweden even extends this to the liquor sector. The Swedish liquor sector is under the monopoly of the State owned company - Systembolaget.

Switzerland is not part of the Nordic Nations, but it has some of the same features; State-run insurers provide building insurance.