IMMIGRATION thread

[Husar]

ERII is the most powerful and respected monarch on the planet - I don't think there's really any real argument you can put up against that. The fact that she, by convention, will rarely exercise that power is another matter.

That whole argument seems schizophrenic to me. She has the most power but she can't and won't use it because then she'd be overthrown by a revolt. So basically she doesn't have a lot of power because she'd be overthrown if she made use of most of her theoretical powers.
And if she could make use of all of her powers, you might not live in a democracy anymore. So your queen is effectively quite powerless and can only intervene in a few occasions IF the true holders of power, the people, have her back.

[Papewaio]

That whole argument seems schizophrenic to me. She has the most power but she can't and won't use it because then she'd be overthrown by a revolt. So basically she doesn't have a lot of power because she'd be overthrown if she made use of most of her theoretical powers.
And if she could make use of all of her powers, you might not live in a democracy anymore. So your queen is effectively quite powerless and can only intervene in a few occasions IF the true holders of power, the people, have her back.

That is what a mandate of the governed is.

Same applies to a republican president or any legitimate head of state.

Key word is legitimate. No mandate, no legitimacy.

[AE Bravo]

Papewaio - you're right about the queen long live the sweet old lady :) . All I'm saying is Al Saud currently enjoy more power, both actual power and soft power. This monarchy greenlit the establishment of US bases that enabled the war in Iraq, that is power. To create wars and fund Islamists without other heads of states uttering so much as a word in disapproval. Net worth and the current demand for oil make these guys more important than the queen. Queen does not have actual political power why overcomplicate things... Nobody cares about her potential power.

ERII is the most powerful and respected monarch on the planet

This is pointless so agree to disagree. Queen is lovely though and much appreciated for paying respects for the best Arab leader ever the benevolent founder of the UAE in the grand mosque. Very classy and no Arabophobia or Islamophobia or mosquephobia see ;)

Cultured lady who travels, you should try it.

My point, though, and it may not be as apparent in the UAE where there are so many wealthy cities, is that there's a substrate in the Gulf, the Levant, and even in Turkey which when asked to vote will vote for the Muslim Brotherhood or someone reading from the same book. I think it's entirely wrong to write this off as a Saudi problem, if it was IS would have no traction.

I have to agree with ole Bashar that isis would not have existed without Abdul Wahhab. The Muslim Brotherhood has a very inconsistent ideology and body of work that can appeal to anyone, that's why they're ridiculous. Their earlier texts differ from now but Wahhabism and MB are both revivalist movements. These are regressive Islamic disciplines adopted by the ignorant.

I knoe steps are being taken to address the issue but the issue should be fixed by now, or it should never have got that way to begin with.

Agreed.

As far as I'm aware the legal code in Dubai proscribes death for homosexual acts, whether people are often prosecuted or not is another matter. Until around 50 years ago homosexuality was illegal in this country but rarely prosecuted, when the government started to crack down in the 50's and 60's there was a public backlash and the law was changed.

Yeah I just don't see it. Not that it matters at all (or made a difference) these anti-homosexual laws were put in place initially by colonial British. Other than that it's normal to see gays out of the closet. Some holding hands in the mall not giving a shit, some related to me, and I know for a fact that every tribe has got to have at least more than one gay person in the family. I'd say this is true for Kuwait more prominently and even Bahrain lesser extent. But you are right about the official law, we are expected to maintain some Sharia as this clearly conflicts with Islam. If it was once okay in Lebanon maybe it will be here.

Maybe you should shift your attention towards homosexuality in Russia, seems more serious even though it's not really a religious grudge. That makes it worse.

Yet they united against Gaddafi.

Like someone mentioned above they didn't.

Initial point was that you cannot call something a victory for liberal interventionism and then proceed to blame the mess on Libyans. You cant invade a country and expect to be absolved of the effects of your interference. By violating the sovereignty of the state nato had dealt a huge blow to regional security. Those tuareg fighters went straight back to mali with the weapons they looted, same with boko haram. Gaddafi had better arms but britain, france, and the us couldn’t help but get involved in the sahel for some reason. Militia leaders in Libya were charged with filling the security vacuum and they had much to loot from nato leftovers.

The fact is either nato were willingly supporting islamists or these militias fooled them by publicly praising the interventionists. Even if an islamist thanks you, his ideology wants its boot up yours. Islamists were previously neglected but they were legitimized by foreign countries.

I wish eu countries would just stop listening to the usa in ME affairs. The usa has a history of overstretched imperialism, imprudent and short-sighted policies mixed with humanitarian militarism bs that lacks any commitment to nation-building. Iran is just so much more pragmatic and prudent than all these countries combined it’s funny. if you can’t handle the costs of restoration DONT INTERVENE.

Of course now that the coalition airstrikes are aimed at iraq and syria these jihadists of various stripes are settled in libya with their own lovely political environment. Lets check up on them a few years from now isis might pale in comparison.

[Husar]

That is what a mandate of the governed is.

Same applies to a republican president or any legitimate head of state.

Key word is legitimate. No mandate, no legitimacy.

So Kim Jong Un has a mandate now or does he have no power? Does legitimacy equal power now?
The king of SA does not have to be legitimate to have more actual power than the Queen.
He probably has an easier time sending his army somewhere because he wants to than the queen does even though the queen technically has more armies somewhere that she can't just send to Yemen tomorrow just because she feels like it.

[Montmorency]

So Kim Jong Un has a mandate now or does he have no power? Does legitimacy equal power now?
The king of SA does not have to be legitimate to have more actual power than the Queen.
He probably has an easier time sending his army somewhere because he wants to than the queen does even though the queen technically has more armies somewhere that she can't just send to Yemen tomorrow just because she feels like it.

Can Saudi Arabia send regular forces under any circumstances outside the peninsula?

[AE Bravo]

Can Saudi Arabia send regular forces under any circumstances outside the peninsula?

Can the queen send regular forces anywhere?

[Montmorency]

Well, she already is.

[Husar]

Well, she already is.

The queen or the parliament?

[Papewaio]

So Kim Jong Un has a mandate now or does he have no power? Does legitimacy equal power now?
The king of SA does not have to be legitimate to have more actual power than the Queen.
He probably has an easier time sending his army somewhere because he wants to than the queen does even though the queen technically has more armies somewhere that she can't just send to Yemen tomorrow just because she feels like it.

The last war declared by a British monarch was WWII. How did that go again?

UK government has a limited amount of power to send troops to conflicts but requires the Monarch to sign off on a full scaled war.

[Fragony]

Another major fight in a German asylum centre, the thermaphysisists didn't agree with the other physitions apparently, eye-surgions and mathematitions joined in this highly sensative scientific debate.

[Husar]

The power of war lies in the hands of the queen, Parliament is incapable of issuing a declaration without royal concent.

Though keep in mind that Britain hasn't actually declared war since the 40's.

The last war declared by a British monarch was WWII. How did that go again?

UK government has a limited amount of power to send troops to conflicts but requires the Monarch to sign off on a full scaled war.

But then how is Britain a democracy as PVC said, if an unelected monarch gets the last say on all the important things?
It sounds like eating your cake and having a fine wine with it.

[Montmorency]

But then how is Germany a democracy, when it's actually a republic?

[Husar]

But then how is Germany a democracy, when it's actually a republic?

We don't have an unelected Monarch who has all these powers to turn the country into a monarchy again or can reign in almost any decision of the elected politicians as PVC described and Greyblades and Pape apparently verified.
Or maybe the queen can't actually do all that in reality and then she is rather powerless in reality, how can both be true?

I would never claim that the German president is more powerful than the King of SA. Yes, he has to sign all the laws, but his actual power is more that of someone who can make a moral point in speeches, to assume that he holds actual power due to a few of his functions is a bit much. He can surely refuse to sign a law now and then if he can explain it well, but I'm pretty sure the actual powers of the king of SA go a bit beyond that.

If Saudi Arabia is not a democracy because the king has too much power, how can your country be a democracy if your king/queen has even more power?

[AE Bravo]

But then how is Germany a democracy, when it's actually a republic?

Same can be said about the US.

All your democracies are belong to us.