why is it that muslim countries have to have dictators and violent coups?

Pakistan has dictators, but it rarely has violent coups (I can't think of a single one). Coups in Pakistan are bloodless and well organized. Think of it as a chnage in government in gree fatigues.

As for another coup -- I doubt it. The Pakistani army is notorious for their discipline and self-interest. A violent coup would destabilize the money train.

maybe they like it that way. Sick, but think about it.

Iraqis replaced one totalitarian regime 25 yrs ago with one that was worse

Iranians replaced one totalitarian regime in 1979 with one thats much worse.

Afghanistan did it twice (i think) before they devolved into chaos, then they did it again when they bought the taliban in.

Lebanon is a mess.

So is Syria.

Turkey's not much better.

I'm not even going to talk about the Gulf States.

Yemen imports missles and probably hides terrorists.

So does Saudi Arabia.

Egypt is screwy.

Libya is screwier.

Why is it that we had to let the Republicans continue with their election 2000 coup?

"Why is it that muslim countries have to have dictators and violent coups?"

In a country where the center of power is the privilege of a small elite, the coup d'etat is often the only way to change government.

Dr. Edward Luttwak's book on the subject (brilliant, yet somewhat dated) lists 14 successful coups in Africa (as well as several unsuccessful ones), eight successful coups in Asia, 14 in Latin America, three in Europe, and only two in the Middle East, during a 22 year period.

In comparison with the post-colonial governments in Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia, those in the Middle East have been stable and quite long-lived. A few countries - such as Jordan - have positively benevolent leadership.

BTW, Terry, Lebanon is doing quite well. Now if we could only get rid of the Swiss...

Catholic South American countries never have dictators and coups, right?

"Iranians replaced one totalitarian regime in 1979 with one thats much worse."

So Jatami is a horrible dictator, instead of a _democraticly_ elected president, isn't he? Fortunately, Iran has evolved a great deal since those dark fundamentalist years.

This is another example of Bush's Attention Defecit Disordser Presidency causing all hell to break loose.

This who Iraq debcale is starting to look more and more like Mobey Dick every day.

thanks for the update on lebanon, khalil :0)

It's not hard to make a list of countries that have made peaceful transitions from dictatorships to democracies. Outside of the communist block, there are Taiwan, Korea, even Chile, no?

"Why is it that muslim countries have to have dictators and violent coups?"

Don't fret. It just seems that way when you know very little history. Keep watching cable news.

"In a country where the center of power is the privilege of a small elite, the coup d'etat is often the only way to change government."

Thanks Khalil. that was probably the only intelligent answer to my question. and it makes a lot of sense.

as for Sliddley's stupid comment, i seem to remember Anwar Sadat dying in a violent coup.. Saddam's rise to power wasn't especially bloody but he was involved in several coups. Assad in Syria rode behind several coups before taking power.. i could continue but you aren't worth it.

Coups are the staple of despots and the CIA. Exactly how did Saddam get into power Wes? Did anyone from America help him on his way?

someone in the baath party came to power in a coup and saddam rose through the ranks of his party. so he didn't take over directly in a coup.

According to Fuad Matar's "Saddam Hussein: A Biography" (the official biography of Saddam, and the only one available in Iraq), Saddam "chose to be Vice-President of the Revolution Command Council, without this being officially announced," when Ahmad Hassan Bakr became Prime Minister, President of the Republic, and also Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces after the July '68 coup.

Regrettably, his son and his son-in-law, as well as all of his other male heirs, died during the decade after his rise to power. According to the official bio, Ahmad stepped down peacefully, and a Revolutionary Command Council meeting voted unanimously for Saddam to become the next president.

(As an aside, half of the Revolutionary Council might have thought twice about voting for Saddam, if he had told them that they would be dead within the week for "plotting against him.")

Interestingly, Matar's book also describes the Iran-Iraq War as being the "first war" in which American arms (i.e. those sold to Iran) were defeated by French arms (i.e. those sold to Iraq). Matar also notes that "the Brazilian arms purchased by Iraq are also proving effective."

My point being that Saddam rose to power more or less on his own, and was maintained in power by external influences - apparently France, the Soviets, and Brazil (in addition to the US). The real bloodbath occured only AFTER Saddam was legitimately elected.

I guess I should also note that Saddam has never actually served in the military. Matar points out that the coup previous to the one that installed his party to power, which occurred in 1963, failed "because it occurred at a time when Saddam was not in Iraq." At the time, he was studying at Cairo University - to become a lawyer.

Although Anwar Sadat was assasinated, there was no coup -- he was succeeded by his vice president ,Mubarek (who is, of course, still in power and there is talk of his son succeeding him)

"It's not hard to make a list of countries that have made peaceful transitions from dictatorships to democracies. Outside of the communist block, there are Taiwan, Korea, even Chile, no?"

Don't forget Spain in 1975. After Franco's successor was killed by local terrorist group ETA, he handed power to exiled King Juan Carlos I on his deathbed. The king is the man I admire most: he could've headed a dictatorship, but instead gave it up for a parlimentary republic. Goes to show not everyone craves power.