why are muslim countries poor and underdeveloped?

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Rilles said:

What makes you so sure about that? 

Much of the Middle East is still extremely tribal stages Purple and Red. Such countries cannot sustain democracy.

The US did not cause that although it exploited it.

[Gesundheit]

7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

But they are only that rich because Western countries buy from them.

There would not be Middle Eastern wealth without the industrialized West.

Wait are you saying that oil is not important? That the west is funding the middle east.? The world has the east as well, China is the biggest industrial country in the world as far as I know.

 

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

Wait are you saying that oil is not important?

It's important, but the cost of Arabs selling so much oil is that Americans will interfere with their affairs. You can't have one without the other.

So it's not proper to say, "Well, if only the West didn't interfere with the Arabs they would be thriving democracies." No they wouldn't. They would be ruthless monarchs living in the middle ages. The West has accelerated Middle Eastern development despite the obvious exploitation. The West has also accelerated the East's development despite the obvious exploitation.

[Gesundheit]

@Leo Gura The way I see it is that they're both benefiting from each other. The gulf is afraid of potential Iranian expansion and so they're creating this alliance with the US just in case. The price of being underdeveloped in a world where science is key is to submit to a higher force. So if it's not the US it would be China or Russia.

[Gesundheit]

35 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

So it's not proper to say, "Well, if only the West didn't interfere with the Arabs they would be thriving democracies." No they wouldn't.

Of course. Democracy emerges from Orange's capitalism or maybe they work hand in hand or both simultaneously? The middle east is still below orange so it makes sense. The problem though is that being poor and/or at war handicaps all development, which raises questions about Israel. Why did the west decide that Israeli people belong in the middle east and not some other place? It seems like another way of exploitation both of Arabs and Jews especially at their level of development where religion is a serious problem. So it creates a ripple effect. Neither Arabs or Jews will be able to move up the spiral as long as they're busy fighting each other.

Edited July 21, 2020 by Gesundheit

[Leo Gura]

34 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

@Leo Gura The way I see it is that they're both benefiting from each other. The gulf is afraid of potential Iranian expansion and so they're creating this alliance with the US just in case.

Well, I include Iran as part of the Middle East.

It makes no difference to me which sides are taken. The entire region is underdeveloped.

[Gesundheit]

@Leo Gura Iran is mostly Shia and the gulf is mostly Sunni. That makes them polar opposites and easy for exploitation by secular countries. 

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, Gesundheit said:

@Leo Gura Iran is mostly Shia and the gulf is mostly Sunni. That makes them polar opposites and easy for exploitation by secular countries. 

If only it were that unified.

The whole region is tribal as fuck. Even folk of the same Shia sect won't get along. It's deeply tribal, which requires autocratic unification through oppression and genocide.

[Gesundheit]

@Leo Gura sadly true 

[seriousman24]

Just drop a 5 meo dmt nuke there.

[Heart of Space]

11 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

If the US didn't invade Iraq, Saddam and his psychopathic sons would still be in power.

I somehow missed this sentence, I'd like to add a point. 

Edit:  And also reading more conversation in the thread, I think there is a huge underestimation of the negative role that the US has played in the region.  I'm very surprised to see some of the perspectives of US involvement in the region.

The US played a major role in the long term destabilization of the region.  The US overthrew a democratically elected leader in Iran during the 1953 Iranian coup and installed an American friendly dictator who then signed a large fraction of Iranian oil fields over the Americans.  That planted the beginnings of the now well known hatred west, which festered for 25 years until it lead to civil war where the American installed Shah was overthrown by a theocratic regime. It's interesting because the country was generally fairly prosperous and in fact was largely being westernized in the 20 years after the 1953 Coup.  In this case, a CIA coup, worked to create a sort of Islamic conservative backlash which led to the Iranian Revolution 25 years later.  

The dominoes kept falling as the Iranian Revolution lead directly into the Iran-Iraq war with our buddy at the time Saddam.  Whom I might add, since Iran's new theocratic government hated the west so much the US was happy to push Saddam to invade Iran, which he then did.  What happened then was a long and destructive war which destroyed both countries economically.  Now begins the tensions between an economically desperate Iraq and the US.  

The result of the destructive Iran-Iraq war made Saddam desperate, which led to him invade Kuwait, which lead to the Gulf War.  Then blah blah blah escalation to the Iraq war in the early 2000's.  Obviously, I vastly simplified a long and complex history into a short post, but you get the idea well enough.  

Yes, it's true that we got rid of Saddam who was a mean and nasty guy, but the long term potentially negative effects are yet to be seen.  And now the US is draining its resources with a permanent occupation of the region in an attempt to maintain some form of stability.  All this for geopolitical power and the most important economic resource in oil.  

The problem is, I think, that forcing change upon a country through the barrel of the gun can have long term destabilizing effects.  The US played a major role in the shit show that is now the modern Middle East.  The sad part is that you STILL have war hawks in the US government pushing for more war with more countries in the region.  It will be a never ending cycle of war and death.  

Edited July 21, 2020 by Heart of Space

[remember]

9 hours ago, Epikur said:

One perspective could be that the push comes mostly from nordic nations. The climate in nordic nations are "fascist". There is no room for mistakes. 

If the nordic countries became muslims they would have changed it to their needs to make it more effective like they did it with christianity.

To some degree you could see it with the nordic muslims the turcs. They were the only real danger to Europe.

The advantage of the nordic nations may be equalized with time though.

 

no, fascism is really sth else - no doubt there has been fascism in europe, but fascism is really sth which also exists in the south, fascism and authoritarianism are in a lot of cases combined but fascism happens usually if countries go back from blue into red/purple or even extreme orange. in authoritarianism and fascism there is no clear cut north south axis or east west axis. 

extreme heat can be the same unforgiving as extreme cold. its not automatically the temperature/temperament of people. it can happen everywhere. 

it took hundreds of years of wars to socialize christianity, both catholicism and protestantism after it was founded for the same reason, (sorry and orthodox and other christian religions) islam is also changing it will also stop blaming other religions at some point. and some stay radical.

Edited July 21, 2020 by remember

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Heart of Space said:

The US played a major role in the long term destabilization of the region.  The US overthrew a democratically elected leader in Iran during the 1953 Iranian coup and installed an American friendly dictator who then signed a large fraction of Iranian oil fields over the Americans.  That planted the beginnings of the now well known hatred west, which festered for 25 years until it lead to civil war where the American installed Shah was overthrown by a theocratic regime. It's interesting because the country was generally fairly prosperous and in fact was largely being westernized in the 20 years after the 1953 Coup.  In this case, a CIA coup, worked to create a sort of Islamic conservative backlash which led to the Iranian Revolution 25 years later.  

All that is the case.

But, I still think that Iran would have had a conservative backlash regardless. There is no way that Iran would have been able to sustain some thriving liberal socialist democracy. It's not developed enough for that. There is still way too much religious fundamentalism there, and the US is the not the cause of that.

The US is merely exploiting such things for its own gain. Like a hyena picking at a crippled animal. The hyena did not take down the animal. The animal broke its own leg. Of course this does not excuse the US's exploitative behavior.

And if the US has not taken out Saddam, he and Iran would still be at each others throats.

It's really hard to say whether taking out Saddam was a net positive or negative in the very long run. In the short run it was bad.

[Heart of Space]

28 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

All that is the case.

But, I still think the Iran would have had a conservative backlash regardless. There is no way that Iran would have been able to sustain some thriving liberal socialist democracy. It's not developed enough for that. There is still way too much religious fundamentalism there, and the US is the not the cause of that.

The US is merely exploiting such things for its own gain. Like a hyena picking at a wounded animal.

I disagree with your interpretation.  The event in 1953 began a shift on the previously mostly positive perception of the west.   It was the catalyst for many of the events that followed and lead to the current environment today.  Even if you're right in some sense, the theocratic take over in Iran had a distinctly anti-western flavor that was developed specifically because of the pro-American installed Shah in Iran.  It's also a contributor to the tensions between Iraq and Iran because Saddam was seen as an American puppet by the Iranians.  I think you greatly underestimate how big of the role the US played in the destabilization of the region. 

 

I'm not saying it was an evil mustache twirling plot by the US.  A more accurate description would be that it was a series of geopolitical blunders with far reaching long term negative consequences which were motivated by everything from fear of communism to the quest for global economic hegemony.

Edited July 21, 2020 by Heart of Space

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, Heart of Space said:

I think you greatly underestimate how big of the role the US played in the destabilization of the region.

My analysis is mostly looking at the Spiral development level of the people in that region.

There is no way in hell a stage Purple/Red, highly tribal people, would be able to sustain some peaceful democracy regardless of outside influences. The entire region is too underdeveloped right now for peaceful coexistence.

[Rilles]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

My analysis is mostly looking at the Spiral development level of the people in that region.

There is way in hell a stage Purple/Red, highly tribal people, would be able to sustain some peaceful democracy regardless of outside influences.

Theyre not all Purple/Red lol. Which part of the Middle East are we even talking about. 

[Leo Gura]

Just now, Rilles said:

Theyre not all Purple/Red lol. Which part of the Middle East are we even talking about. 

Not all, but much of it is. Much of the local culture is.

[Rilles]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Not all, but much of it is. Much of the local culture is.

Ive taught a class of Middle-Eastern kids from many diverse countries, in a University in China (dont ask me how I got that gig lol, its a long story) But theyre actually a mix of Blue/Orange and even Green. Theyre really cool people. A very diverse crowd of course, some were praying to Allah under their breath, kid you not! But others became really close friends with me!

Now dont get me wrong, theyre probably the bunch that has a bit of money in their matress but dont assume its all so bad down there, the world is very connected and its easier to be more secular and Orange-y these days.

Edited July 21, 2020 by Rilles

[Leo Gura]

21 minutes ago, Rilles said:

Ive taught a class of Middle-Eastern kids from many diverse countries, in a University in China (dont ask me how I got that gig lol, its a long story) But theyre actually a mix of Blue/Orange and even Green.

This is not the real Middle East. This is the rich kids from the Middle East. The cream of the crop. You gotta go to the rural parts of the Middle East to really see the depth of the problem. You gotta go to the Mississippi of the Middle East. It won't be Blue/Orange.

[Rilles]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

This is not the real Middle East. This is the rich kids from the Middle East. The cream of the crop. You gotta go to the rural parts of the Middle East to really see the depth of the problem. You gotta go to the Mississippi of the Middle East. It won't be Blue/Orange.

They were pretty middle-class. But I get your point. I just think its good to realize the diversity. Theyre not all AK47 toting maniacs with turbans screaming "Death to America!"