Don't expect any gratitude toward the west. Every time the US or the west bails out the people in ratholes like this, there's little thanks, and they'll be in the UN soon voting against the US. Pretty much the same with iraq and afghanistan. The muslim brotherhood has a good chance at taking over since they are the most organized, and the transitional government council has already agreed to islam as the basis for law in the new government.
Don't expect any gratitude toward the west. Every time the US or the west bails out the people in ratholes like this, there's little thanks, and they'll be in the UN soon voting against the US. Pretty much the same with iraq and afghanistan. The muslim brotherhood has a good chance at taking over since they are the most organized, and the transitional government council has already agreed to islam as the basis for law in the new government.
Not really true. Case in point, Vietnam. They're 1 of our strongest allies in SE Asia and that's after fighting a brutal war with them. SK is another good example of a hell hole (at the time it was NK with all the tech and money) that stayed friendly. It's really hit and miss.
What utter nonsense!!
1. Vietnam isn't "strong" - it's a sad pathetic backward impoverished agricultural country, one of the last bastions of socialism, and consequently one of the world's poorest nations.
2. Vietnam is certainly not "our ally".
3. South korea is one of the "asian tigers" a spectacular success story which emerged from the ruins of the communist invasion in the 1950s as a modern capitalist powerhouse.
You're right. Because of that it's going to be a rat hole for a long time..It's almost worthless to invest in Democracy in that area.
I wish I could say you are wrong. But we have already seen how people in that area promise to help pay us back when they "sell the oil". Then when they sell the oil they are offended if we ask for even partial repayment.
Who says we have a democracy? Or that it is the best form of government? I'd much rather have a republic like that defined in our original Constitution than a democracy.
We have a liberal-democracy, not a direct democracy. I'm a proponent of what I call caste-democracy, people get to vote but only if they're members of the right caste (and I don't mean that in the classical sense). Economic issues decided by economists, diplomatic issues by diplomats, etc. with every day people allowed to elect politicians only if they have a diploma and can pass a political literacy test.
This curtailing of power would only be political, as I said I do support liberty so the Bill of Rights, the CRA, etc. wouldn't be touched in my hypothetical world.
The danger of revolutions is that if the moderate winners prove incapable of dealing with the mess left by the revolution, a window of opportunity opens for the extremists. The French and Russian revolutions are a couple of the most famous examples of this, but even in the American revolution Congress ruled so badly the first few years that some Continental Army officers asked George Washingon to take control and rule the Colonies using the military. Luckily it was George Washington they asked and he turned them down vigorously and made sure no coup was ever launched.
Libya does not appear to have any George Washingtons but it does have the example of Qadaffi for how to take and keep power. The best prediction of Libya's future is how competent the transitional government shows itself to be and who ends up controlling the bulk of the armed forces. Remember that the only halfway competent commander is an Islamist, unless the government rehabilitates one or more of Qadaffi's commanders (which they had better not do until Qadaffi is cornered and killed).
Libya does not appear to have any George Washingtons but it does have the example of Qadaffi for how to take and keep power. The best prediction of Libya's future is how competent the transitional government shows itself to be and who ends up controlling the bulk of the armed forces. Remember that the only halfway competent commander is an Islamist, unless the government rehabilitates one or more of Qadaffi's commanders (which they had better not do until Qadaffi is cornered and killed).
Exactly what I said above - history is loaded with examples of widely popular revolutions which when they succeed, are taken over by the most organized or most violent faction in the aftermath: the russian revolution, the french revolution, the nicaraguan revolution in the 1980s. There's a real question whether the islamofascists will succeed in moving into the middle east power vaccums, and obviously they must see it as a golden opportunity.
Similar threads
