Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nawaz sharif is Ghulam-e-Khadim-e-Harmain.. not Khadim-e-Harmain.
I'll think that even uneducated / indoctrinated people will get tired of the current situation,
and eventually realize that a state needs to work for all, or at least most of its citizens.
At what cost? Human and financial. Has any of the latest experiments of the western nations worked in these countries? All indications are pointing towards a deeply prolonged sectarian conflict that will continue for generations to come, at least. Our lifetimes will not see any peace, maybe some uneasy truces. Forget that all, whats stopping the west from "removing obstacles" from the ultimate monarchy in the world? The epicenter of these troubles. Do you think its a coincidence that the country most far off from your democratic ideals is your best friend because of its constant supply of oil which is regulated according to your needs?
KSA is not the best friend of anyone I know.
Then again, it is no enemy either. It is a trading partner, with some restrictions.
Ultimately, the Saudi people needs to decide how they want to run their country.
If a democracy movement starts in KSA, and is brutally repressed,
then things may be different.
Sweden used to have a king which had "unlimited" power (after a coup).
He was shot, and while there were kings after him, we eventually ended up
in a constitutional monarchy without much friction.
This may be a way for the Saudis.
Personally, I am all for a republic, although I heard two arguments for keeping the monarchy that makes sense.
1. It is cheaper to keep the royal household, than running elections every four years.
2. People are more impressed by "the KING of Sweden", than the "PRESIDENT of Finland"
for unexplicable reasons.
From what I can gather from your post is that you have to be an enemy or unfriendly towards an up and running democracy. People have to be unhappy to make the change. What you fail to point out is what if a population is not ready or can not manage a western democracy? Do you believe that a child will learn to handle matches if he gets burned a lot? All you have to answer is if "removing obstacles" to bring democracy costs a country to disintegrate would it have been worth it?
Not that I am against democracy but I also know that I will not see in my life time things go back to normal for any country that has been touched by its "removing obstacles" doctrine. I also believe you read enough news to know the destruction all around us.
We have a saying, "Burnt child avoids fire". Yes I believe that people want a better life than that
in the middle of sectarian conflicts and eventually they are going to do something about it.
It make take years, decades or even generations.
All it takes, is that the leaders on both sides realize that sectarism is not the way forward.
Religious zealots like ISIS will have difficulty to reach this conclusion.
Northern Ireland and South Africa are good examples on life-long conflicts solved this way.
Burnt children have taken the whole house along with others with them. Try having a child and watch him play with matches. I could be a sociopath to actually watch my child burn for any amount of learning. 1400 years and counting. Lets see where it gets us. Like I said, we will not be seeing anything in our lifetimes and the ones before us haven't done anything to hope for things to change. So all in all according to you it is okay for millions to die today as long as some future generation reaps the benefit. I dont think you would say any of that if you could switch places with someone who is going through this beautiful sponsored democracy.
Not quite.
it is not the choice of US citizens i believe