Why the Middle East needs More Kings.

[Mindful]

Constitutional monarchy is a cornerstone of many stable democracies – so why are we so keen to avoid it in places like Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan?

Why the Middle East needs more kings

 

[Mindful]

Watch the videos of 1950s Iraq on YouTube and you glimpse something close to an idyll. It’s true that Pathé News was not big on gritty realism, but history relates that here it was not using a heavily rose-tinted lens; Hugh Trevor-Roper even went so far as to describe Iraq at the time as a Levantine Switzerland. Or you can go to Google Images, tap in ‘1960s Afghan women’ and be offered photographs of a mixed university biology class, and others of young women with short skirts, long hair and smiling faces.

This was life under the kings, and knowing what followed is enough to make a grown man weep. But let’s be hard-headed and forward-looking: the creation of new constitutional monarchies is a sensible solution to such clear and present dangers as Isis. Life without them has been a disaster in the Middle East. Why can’t we bring back the monarchs?

In Iraq the blood started flowing in 1958 when a group of army officers gunned down the royal family.

 

[Two Thumbs]

not a big fan of monarchs.

However ruthless tyrants kept a lid on things and eventually tyrants die, there's war, misery and a new tyrant.

 

[Mindful]

not a big fan of monarchs.

However ruthless tyrants kept a lid on things and eventually tyrants die, there's war, misery and a new tyrant.

Interesting topic though?

And I did say, the lesser of the evils. It all amounts to that, in the end.

 

[Penelope]

Should of never messed with them, but we couldn't let Russia take Afghanistan I guess. Maybe Afghanistan would of been better off though. Beirut use to be the Paris of the Middle East.

 

[Two Thumbs]

not a big fan of monarchs.

However ruthless tyrants kept a lid on things and eventually tyrants die, there's war, misery and a new tyrant.

Interesting topic though?

And I did say, the lesser of the evils. It all amounts to that, in the end.

well it's been made painfully clear that ruthless tyrants kept the islamists in check. to busy killing each other for crumbs to really bother with the rest of the world

 

[Mindful]

Should of never messed with them, but we couldn't let Russia take Afghanistan I guess. Maybe Afghanistan would of been better off though. Beirut use to be the Paris of the Middle East.

Maybe Russia should have kept the Czar.

 

[yiostheoy]

Constitutional monarchy is a cornerstone of many stable democracies – so why are we so keen to avoid it in places like Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan?

Why the Middle East needs more kings

Kings are ignorant azzholes and just as inept as anybody else.

Natural government normally evolves into simple democracy with everybody having one vote. Then the majority rules.

The ancient Greeks and Romans limited the terms of office of their elected leaders to 1 year. That is/was a pretty good rule.

Arabs and Afghani's should have democracy as well. Even if they are too stupid and brainwashed by Islam to do it right.

 

[Mindful]

not a big fan of monarchs.

However ruthless tyrants kept a lid on things and eventually tyrants die, there's war, misery and a new tyrant.

Interesting topic though?

And I did say, the lesser of the evils. It all amounts to that, in the end.

well it's been made painfully clear that ruthless tyrants kept the islamists in check. to busy killing each other for crumbs to really bother with the rest of the world

Interesting conjecture.

But what would have happened when the tyrant died?

 

[yiostheoy]

Should of never messed with them, but we couldn't let Russia take Afghanistan I guess. Maybe Afghanistan would of been better off though. Beirut use to be the Paris of the Middle East.

Maybe Russia should have kept the Czar.

The Czar was a corrupt and inept azzhole who did nothing about starvation among his/her peasants. No different than an inept king/queen.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Should of never messed with them, but we couldn't let Russia take Afghanistan I guess. Maybe Afghanistan would of been better off though. Beirut use to be the Paris of the Middle East.

Maybe Russia should have kept the Czar.

uhmm

interesting thought.

If they had the world would be a much different place.

maybe russia would have become a republic
there certainly would not have been a Cold War
If WW2 happened, it would have gone much differently

 

[Two Thumbs]

not a big fan of monarchs.

However ruthless tyrants kept a lid on things and eventually tyrants die, there's war, misery and a new tyrant.

Interesting topic though?

And I did say, the lesser of the evils. It all amounts to that, in the end.

well it's been made painfully clear that ruthless tyrants kept the islamists in check. to busy killing each other for crumbs to really bother with the rest of the world

Interesting conjecture.

But what would have happened when the tyrant died?

sons usually take over
they kill some generals, so other leaders
like in N Korea

 

[yiostheoy]

not a big fan of monarchs.

However ruthless tyrants kept a lid on things and eventually tyrants die, there's war, misery and a new tyrant.

Interesting topic though?

And I did say, the lesser of the evils. It all amounts to that, in the end.

well it's been made painfully clear that ruthless tyrants kept the islamists in check. to busy killing each other for crumbs to really bother with the rest of the world

GHWB and GWB have indeed both proved that it was a big mistake to remove the murdering strong man Saddam from power.

Even so, it was the right thing to do, morally.

Iraq will settle down eventually, even though the population is Islamist and irrational.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Should of never messed with them, but we couldn't let Russia take Afghanistan I guess. Maybe Afghanistan would of been better off though. Beirut use to be the Paris of the Middle East.

Maybe Russia should have kept the Czar.

The Czar was a corrupt and inept azzhole who did nothing about starvation among his/her peasants. No different than an inept king/queen.

things go so much better w/o them

 

[Two Thumbs]

not a big fan of monarchs.

However ruthless tyrants kept a lid on things and eventually tyrants die, there's war, misery and a new tyrant.

Interesting topic though?

And I did say, the lesser of the evils. It all amounts to that, in the end.

well it's been made painfully clear that ruthless tyrants kept the islamists in check. to busy killing each other for crumbs to really bother with the rest of the world

GHWB and GWB have indeed both proved that it was a big mistake to remove the murdering strong man Saddam from power.

Even so, it was the right thing to do, morally.

Iraq will settle down eventually, even though the population is Islamist and irrational.

then obama removed the leader of egypt and lybia

don't be a hack, speak the whole truth

and H refused to remove him, that's a fact

 

[yiostheoy]

Should of never messed with them, but we couldn't let Russia take Afghanistan I guess. Maybe Afghanistan would of been better off though. Beirut use to be the Paris of the Middle East.

Maybe Russia should have kept the Czar.

uhmm

interesting thought.

If they had the world would be a much different place.

maybe russia would have become a republic
there certainly would not have been a Cold War
If WW2 happened, it would have gone much differently

The Czar was toppled because he joined WW1 and made his people suffer for it.

The Czar was an inept idiot.

Thus the Czar and all his vermin family were exterminated by the People.

 

[Mindful]

Should of never messed with them, but we couldn't let Russia take Afghanistan I guess. Maybe Afghanistan would of been better off though. Beirut use to be the Paris of the Middle East.

Maybe Russia should have kept the Czar.

uhmm

interesting thought.

If they had the world would be a much different place.

maybe russia would have become a republic
there certainly would not have been a Cold War
If WW2 happened, it would have gone much differently

The Czar was toppled because he joined WW1 and made his people suffer for it.

The Czar was an inept idiot.

Thus the Czar and all his vermin family were exterminated by the People.

Look what came after.

 

[Mindful]

not a big fan of monarchs.

However ruthless tyrants kept a lid on things and eventually tyrants die, there's war, misery and a new tyrant.

Interesting topic though?

And I did say, the lesser of the evils. It all amounts to that, in the end.

well it's been made painfully clear that ruthless tyrants kept the islamists in check. to busy killing each other for crumbs to really bother with the rest of the world

Interesting conjecture.

But what would have happened when the tyrant died?

sons usually take over
they kill some generals, so other leaders
like in N Korea

Nepotism, you mean?

I shudder to think of Saddam's playboy sons.

 

[yiostheoy]

not a big fan of monarchs.

However ruthless tyrants kept a lid on things and eventually tyrants die, there's war, misery and a new tyrant.

Interesting topic though?

And I did say, the lesser of the evils. It all amounts to that, in the end.

well it's been made painfully clear that ruthless tyrants kept the islamists in check. to busy killing each other for crumbs to really bother with the rest of the world

GHWB and GWB have indeed both proved that it was a big mistake to remove the murdering strong man Saddam from power.

Even so, it was the right thing to do, morally.

Iraq will settle down eventually, even though the population is Islamist and irrational.

then obama removed the leader of egypt and lybia

don't be a hack, speak the whole truth

and H refused to remove him, that's a fact

I am not aware of the CIA's involvement in the Arab Spring or in the overthrow of the Egyptian and Libyan governments.

Perhaps you can recite your summary.

It is too bad that BHO did not stick to his original pacifist position regarding North Africa. He should have stayed out of it. Now there is a huge mess in Syria because of his interference. Same is true of Ukraine.

 

[yiostheoy]

not a big fan of monarchs.

However ruthless tyrants kept a lid on things and eventually tyrants die, there's war, misery and a new tyrant.

Interesting topic though?

And I did say, the lesser of the evils. It all amounts to that, in the end.

well it's been made painfully clear that ruthless tyrants kept the islamists in check. to busy killing each other for crumbs to really bother with the rest of the world

Interesting conjecture.

But what would have happened when the tyrant died?

sons usually take over
they kill some generals, so other leaders
like in N Korea

Nepotism, you mean?

I shudder to think of Saddam's playboy sons.

Saddam's sons would have been no different than Saddam.

Same as Syria is no different under Junior.