| Submit your comments on this article |
| Olde Tyme Religion |
| Not Jews, not Israel, not America, Islam |
| 2011-02-20 |
| Hat tip Gates of Vienna Pundits and prognosticators all over the world have been trying to predict the future of the Middle East ever since the riots in Tunisia spread to Egypt and beyond. Will freedom and democracy bloom? Will social justice and its principles take root? Will the religious hatred and intolerance that is endemic virtually everywhere be excised or ameliorated? Will peopleÂ’s standard of living be raised? Will the riots and protests lead to lasting change? Will tyrants and dictators continue to be all powerful? The answers are simpleÂ…no, no, no, no, no and yes. |
| Posted by:g(r)omgoru |
| #6 Pearl, Moose and Dribble: Bangladesh is self-sufficient in food. The socialist government founded post-independence had indeed wrecked the economy. The Zia government was just as ineffectual when he overthrow the socialists. When he himself was overthrown in 1982, the new right wing military thugocracy was about as thuggish to the people, but had the advantage of understanding basic economics. They ensured that the farmers could sell food at market prices and improved the infrastructure significantly. Widespread irrigation became common, roads to markets were improved, and food subsidies were ended. The result is that while 20 years ago B-desh was a basket case, today it is self-sufficient in food production. It continues to export jute. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2011-02-20 12:25 |
| #5 Howdy ya'all!, With O at the helm and an upcoming denunciation of Israel plus Arab conflict converging into a hostile approach towards Israel we will have consequences; |
| Posted by: Dale 2011-02-20 10:11 |
| #4 Anonymoose, Bangladesh is the size of Iowa with 156 million people (CIA Factbook). That means Banglas have to feed, house and provide jobs for 4.4 people per acre (including bodies of water). That's not going to happen and is the reason Bangladesh will not be self sufficient in food. Like all high density areas, they need to develop high value industry and import the basics. Socialism is not conducive for that. The devastation of socialism was *worse* than even the oppression of indifferent and violent Muslims from Pakistan. The up to 3 million Bangladeshis murdered in 1971 may disagree. |
| Posted by: Pearl Gleaper1127 2011-02-20 09:55 |
| #3 What are the odds that the protests in Arab countries and Iran will lead to freedoms and democratic reforms--an over-throwing of dictators and mullahocracies? Move towards democracy? No change? Same old, same old. Become more fundamentalist? |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2011-02-20 09:39 |
| #2 There is actually a double problem. Its best example is with Bangladesh. They are Islamic, but at the same time, they were so oppressed by Pakistan that they split off to become their own, secular nation. But they got rid of that Islamic oppression only to replace it with spendthrift socialism. And that socialist government proved that there is no potential for prosperity so great that it cannot be squandered, wasted, and depleted, impoverishing everyone. The devastation of socialism was *worse* than even the oppression of indifferent and violent Muslims from Pakistan. Bangladesh has a large amount of some of the richest and most fertile farmland in the entire world. But because of their socialist leaders, giving them a larger government, per capita, than even the US, that farmland was utterly wasted. Had the people just been permitted to develop it, by now they would have a standard of living as high as the Swiss. But instead, their government took a pittance from other countries as "foreign aid", money into the pockets of their politicians. In exchange for which was demanded only one thing, that every bit of their precious farmland grow only Jute, a worthless and unwanted fiber, used for making low quality rope. Inedible and unprofitable. For had the people of Bangladesh been allowed to grow food, they would be the breadbasket of South Asia, and no farmer in a dozen nations could compete with them. So their socialist leaders sold them out for a pittance, and hundreds of thousands of their own countrymen starved to death because of it. And no effort has ever been made to curtail the horrific and devastating floods that kill thousands more. The lesson here applies to the Middle East as well. Because the alternative offered to them to theocratic dictatorship is no better if it is socialist dictatorship or spendthrift socialism. The former is Saddam Hussein. The latter are faceless and useless elite bureaucrats who will deplete their substance. Who always spend far more money than the people could ever make. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2011-02-20 09:23 |
| #1 We have to remember that we are observing Arabs here. We have to always have uppermost in our awareness that we are seeing the national character of Islamic Values....licking stinky old boots and everybody having a big moustache. Both sides want baksheesh and what do you really expect from a people who eat sheep's eyes and lick their fingers? Things are NOT going to get better in any of these countries no matter which side gets what it wants. No matter who wins BOTH sides will still be corrupt and there will still be flies and the faint smell of piss in the hall. Its Islam and that is how Islam really is. Allah LIVES in Bumfookistan. |
| Posted by: Dribble2716 2011-02-20 09:10 |