Originally posted by Oliver North
the news?
That's a question so I'll answer it for you: that is not supporting what you're claiming nor is it as "professional" and as those others sources I listed.
I'm used to reading 200-300 page reports from government organizations so don't worry about boring me with a dry read.
I could not find documentation to support your perspective.
However, I did find a report from the IMF that paints a different picture from your perspective:
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2012/cr1292.pdf
Granted, it is only 40 pages long, contains lots of "government buffering" to pad the length of the document, and I have only read about 15 pages into it, thus far, but it seems like a fairly stable government, at the moment. At least financially. If I were to rate SA and the US, I'd give SA an 8 and the US at 7.
http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.asp
Browse as much as you need
EDIT: also, anticipating the nit-picking about methods that you are going to do: fine, you know more about Saudi Arabia than I do
Originally posted by Oliver North
http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspBrowse as much as you need
EDIT: also, anticipating the nit-picking about methods that you are going to do: fine, you know more about Saudi Arabia than I do
I asked a very sincere question that was rather innocent. No need to fly off the handle.
Also, this is definitely not about who knows more about Saudia Arabia because I honestly think you know more about SA's history and current state. This is mostly why I asked as I want to know where you're coming from and the sources you've been reading to conclude what you have.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I asked a very sincere question that was rather innocent. No need to fly off the handle.
Did you look at the site? It seems to be the exact thing you asked for and allows for a comparison directly between nations, world and regional averages, along many dimensions of stability, like internal violence, government accountability, corruption, etc.
Saudi Arabia, at best, falls around the 50-75th percentile (closer to 50th in almost all cases, except for accountability, where they are ranked among the worst in the world [3rd percentile]), hardly, as was suggested in the original post I quoted, "among the most stable countries in the world".
They compare favorably, barely, with the "North Africa/Middle East" region (and on the political stability/absence of violence dimension, with Asia in general, so I was wrong there), but not America on any measure whatsoever, or even when compared against other nations that have similar economic performance as they do (ie: an analysis of their economic performance will put them in a higher category than they should be in a broader definition of "stability"; it is very easy to survive a global recession if you are sitting on lakes of oil, see: Alberta or Texas). As I said before, it is American dollars that keep the regime in power, like was seen in some of the other Arab Spring nations.
Originally posted by dadudemon
the sources you've been reading
The news. My opinion is based on being very interested in the politics of the region and following it. AJE covers this stuff fairly often (though they seem to be soft on GCC nations at times), UK publications will cover foreign news (Guardian, BBC). The Sunni/Shia split in Eastern SA was a major part of the narrative behind the Arab Spring uprising in Bahrain, and it is generally thought Iran is engaged in some type of covert action to foment insurrection in the province (though I've seen nothing absolute; identical things were said about the Arab Spring in Bahrain, though all evidence points to it being a domestic uprising).
Originally posted by Oliver North
Did you look at the site? It seems to be the exact thing you asked for and allows for a comparison directly between nations, world and regional averages, along many dimensions of stability, like internal violence, government accountability, corruption, etc.
I did. I did lots of sorting and formatting with the excel spreadsheet. I can send you the sorted sheets I modified if you want to get a quicker and more easily digestible view. Let me know if you want to see the spreadsheet that I formatted: I think it is easier to read.
I read their methodologies .pdf, as well. Obviously, there are plenty of issues with how they are collecting this information. But...and honestly...it really does seem like the best information available for what I am looking for. I really don't think the CIA or the MoD will release any recent assessments of Saudi Arabia but I would consider those far superior to this WGI report.
Originally posted by Oliver North
Saudi Arabia, at best, falls around the 50-75th percentile (closer to 50th in almost all cases, except for accountability, where they are ranked among the worst in the world [3rd percentile]), hardly, [b]as was suggested in the original post I quoted, "among the most stable countries in the world". [/B]
I consider "stable" to be the likelihood of a current-government overthrown or rather, the likelihood of the current government to stay in place. For Saudi Arabia, the likelihood of that happening, imo, is among the lowest in the world.
However, that WGI report shows it to be around 50 (percentile)...which is odd unless you know what they are including. The IMF report shows a very secure financial system in place in Saudi Arabia, but it does allude to a potentially rocky future if SA does not stop relying so much on their oil.
Most of those other measures in the WGI report are marginally relevant. Accountability? Nah. Government participation? Nah. Rule of Law? Nah. Control of Corruption? Nah.
Let me flesh out what I mean with one example: Rule of Law basically reflects the perceptions of adherence to the law. SA is going to be very skewed because of the religious views of the people and outsiders (which is how they compile the reports). They are going to have a much stricter set of rules to follow and many of those are not followed. This leads to the belief that the laws are not adhered to as much as other countries like Australia. However, this is just the social progression of the people rather than an uprising against the government. If, say, Oklahoman's were aware of all the very strange and strict laws on the books, they'd be shocked at how many restrictions are in place. This would lead industry experts, government officials, and constituents to the conclusion that Oklahomans are "law breakers." The perception of rule of law wold change greatly. However, here's the difference: SA actually enforces many of those strange laws in their large cities. So we have an asymmetric enforcement of "women can't drive" based on where you live. This is the source of the "Rule of Law" disparity between Australia and SA and part of why I feel you can't make such a blanket label for both places.
More about Australia: there is a massive countermanding of Australian cyber laws currently taking place. If people were more aware of this movement in Australia, they would conclude a far different picture. Cyber warfare is being waged against the Australian government and authorities by the Australian people. There is a mass-defiance against their cyber regulations and laws. Australia is hemorrhaging IT professionals because of this mess. It is so bad that I work with a few Australian Cyber professionals that have "fled" the country to the US for better and more stable opportunities. Where is this in the report? Because no one is being harmed (usually) by this massive cyber uprising, it does not show up in the report. These are the types of things that would definitely show up in a Pentagon or classified CIA report but would not show up in a compilation survey like this WGI one.
Yet, Australia is a 96.5 and SA a 56.81 (in percentile rank).
Originally posted by Oliver North
They compare favorably, barely, with the "North Africa/Middle East" region (and on the political stability/absence of violence dimension, with Asia in general, so I was wrong there), but not America on any measure whatsoever, or even when compared against other nations that have similar economic performance as they do (ie: an analysis of their economic performance will put them in a higher category than they should be in a broader definition of "stability"; it is very easy to survive a global recession if you are sitting on lakes of oil, see: Alberta or Texas). As I said before, it is American dollars that keep the regime in power, like was seen in some of the other Arab Spring nations.
Yes, all of that is relevant. However, the higher levels of government are still more stable than most other nations. The idea of a massive uprising and change to The Kingdom is so far out there in plausibility land that even a trip in the SR-71 would take a while to find it. I think that's what the other poster was talking about and what I was talking about.
Originally posted by Oliver North
The Sunni/Shia split in Eastern SA was a major part of the narrative behind the Arab Spring uprising in Bahrain, and it is generally thought Iran is engaged in some type of covert action to foment insurrection in the province (though I've seen nothing absolute; identical things were said about the Arab Spring in Bahrain, though all evidence points to it being a domestic uprising).
Ah, yes, this. This would be something far more interesting and convincing concerning the stability of SA. This is potentially a game changer if anything severe came to fruition.
Sorry for the late response. Never noticed this
Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
True but given he is the President of the country (even if he is not it's ultimate power) means his words carry serious weight. Most of the US general population was against the invasion of Iraq but it happened anyway.
Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
History proves that when national leaders threaten violent actions we should take them at their word.
Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
My feelings are that if Iran had the bomb it would use it.