Comments by "Rita Gameiro" (@puraLusa) on "Why there is no Arab superstate" video.

Yes u r right but here lies the problem: they don't want to loose power and economics is power.
66
LOL, it could be a business thou: insted of a parliament it would be a boxing ring and insted of civil war it would be a show. It would make a lot of money.
38
He was wrong: vast majority of peace thru history were made by a centralized power that lasted long enough for new generation forget the injustices. No difference between one reagion or the other.
13
@silasbishop3055 and from iran too, and france too: that's exactly the problem of lebanon with everyone interfering and no solution in sight. They didn't have a civil war to solve their diferences and agree to a better sistem, they had a civil war that ended up being an international war, not national at all. Lebanon story is heart breaking.
9
@silasbishop3055 christian jurisprudence would thrive: islamic jurisprudence guives comunity autonomy and even right to civil court to solve isues to christian comunities. But for trade and to protect religion itself to not be tainted with dirty politics (polotics corrupt everything even religion) best is secularism. Also, middle east also has druze ba'hai etc etc. Better to make a separation.
8
Oil money can actually be a curse. Saudi is very dependant on oil price and the refining corporation. Other country it's just necessary to find oil to start having "insurgent problems", a great example is mozbique cause oil exporters end up messing with these to control and monopolize the biz. Way better to have a geography based on industry and ideas and trade. That's what made the past empires in the region - they were big traders and industrial: they wanted peace to sell their items in a competing market.
8
For that u would need a certain level of common legislation for comerce and civil rights which u don't agree between urself with very different levels of islamic jurisprudence. It can't work if no one is willing to compromise.
6
It's same old, that's the reason eu worked out because at least on the surface it appears to have common leadership. Besides, leadership in mena region has a tendency to censor everyone which makes interchanged of solutions impossible.
5
Not really, it can have a comission that votes for example with representatives of each state. It can allow huge autonomy but with agreements on comercial regulation for example.
4
Other european countries are multi cultural, some are even intracultural. That idea is from a racist prespective that all europeans are the same and that the "diferent" is a minority. It isn't look at spain: multicultural and intracultural. Look at portugal: seen as homogeneous when its not at all with a huge african cultural influence, a huge brazilian influence etc. The tribalism was diluted with economic growth and oppeness (democratic ideas). So, ur vision is based on wrong preconceived ideas.
2
@the-quintessenz not really. It's more politics and status within the autonomous regions than real separatism. They only seem that way but the hard core separatist are actually opressors. U just need to pay atention to a basque political rally to see them change from castillan to basque when filmed by news agencies 😂. Nowadays is quite comical actually. It's about taxes and not cultural their autonomy in language, self govern to a certain point within EU already makes them pretty confortable. Besides no one wants to became poorer and they would.
2
@the-quintessenz that's not reality, far from it. That's an xix/ xx century definition of culture, way abandoned as it was extremely political racist and inacurate. Older concepts of culture from cicero or modern version such as susan bassnet are way more precise. Source: it's my are of study, a library wouldn't fit in coment yt section.
2
@the-quintessenz it's not the crown but madrid government, and yes they do to the detriment of other autonomous regions. You just need to read an oficial spanish budget. It's always about the money with exception when a government is genocidal, than its about survival. A country is a polítical construction, man invention not an outcome of a tribe.
2
@princehamza890 "but but its only right and moral when groups aproved by me do it, when murica does than its wrong and imoral"!!!! Preach to another gulible ignorant.
2
@silasbishop3055 and that started with very much syria and egipt arming them and instigating them. Its more about foreign interference in a delicate balance than anything else. Palestinians don't exist politically in a vacuum and as such they can't alone be blamed for a more than tragic terrible situation (no words describe how awful) they keep getring the short end of the stick (always blamed).
1
As I read somewhere (I don't remember the article) ibn wahab never asked to have a sect after him. Besides, it isn't about the british but about justifying religiously a separation from the ottoman caliph. He comes about at the same time ideas like nationhood spread in the world and a lot of that ended up being horrible werever it took hold in power. Salafism also has its own sect problems doesn't it: al bagdadi was a salafist imam.
1
One of the reasons the roman empire started falling and transformed itself into bizantium is because no more expansion meant no more slavery which meant less money into central government. Daesh wouldn't last because the economic model was completely outdated based on slavery. Even without west it would resistence locally. People who deal in trade don't like being under totaliarian outdated governance.
1
@specialnewb9821 the idea that there is no alternative is propaganda spewed by non savory imams of islamists. Wrong, not only said power exists today- morrocan monarchy and its influence as an example, the hashemites (there are a lot of them with royal bload - kill one there is another), and other famillies with big numbers and inflience thru diplomatic ties. Also, u are considering mena region without its nuanced groups: its power vs the other where u kill power and vacuum which is incorrect and only serves islamists and usa hegemony (the divide and conquer). Finally, yes I am correct about the roman empire: no expansionism, no sale of slaves by the power who expanded, no golden coins spent from the rich, inflation, less money in piblic coffers, no money to raise armies and keep existant territory, here comes the germanic tribes cashing in on the event. That simple: no money no control. It's not rocket science!
1
@4K 40FPS we don't know as economics thruout the world is oil dependant. But probably more criative as one needs to find a source of income.
1
@Mlmylji the 2030 plan is not working as intended. Having a diplomatic scandals and being a totalitarian regime are incompatible with the vision presented.
1
@the-quintessenz Switzerland is a horrible example, their financial business has looked away a lot and the governmentS (big plural) so far haven't tried to change that.
1
@the-quintessenz there are no inocent parties, exception is countries like Botswana, but as we say in my country "exception exist to confirm the rule".
1
There probably was some but also probably minor. Authoritarian and totalitarian regimes have way bigger impediments of letting go said power for a greater future. It's tjat simple it was a project with too many contenders to the "throne".
1