Contemporary liberalism and its role in Islamic anti-Americanism.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


This competely contradicts the PNAC dream which drove the Iraq campaign in the first place.

And the fact that most of them have ties to the oil industry means nothing to you?

[Elok]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
So the unpopularity and eventual overthrow of the Shah had nothing to do with the fact that he was a tyrant and a stooge for a foreign power who overthrew a democratically elected president.

It was because Dallas was on TV.

From what I've heard, that show was enough to turn anyone violent. It was like an ancient Melrose Place. Blecch. Death to American infidels and their shoddy programming!

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Kidicious
And the fact that most of them have ties to the oil industry means nothing to you?

Are you saying that the 'democratisation' ideology is just a front for good old fashioned Cecil Rhodes imperialism? Does Tony Blair enjoy these oil ties of which you speak? Can you provide sources which document these ties?

Personally I find the "War for Oil" argument a bit of a one-size-fits-all analysis for recent conflicts.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


Are you saying that the 'democratisation' ideology is just a front for good old fashioned Cecil Rhodes imperialism? Does Tony Blair enjoy these oil ties of which you speak? Can you provide sources which document these ties?

Personally I find the "War for Oil" argument a bit of a one-size-fits-all analysis for recent conflicts.

The US discovered oil in the ME in 1938, after that policymakers became and stayed very interested in the region. What do you see as the roots of the desire to spread democracy particularly in the region?

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The US discovered oil in the ME in 1938, after that policymakers became and stayed very interested in the region. What do you see as the roots of the desire to spread democracy particularly in the region?

The PNAC-Neocon interventionist agenda is well-documented. I'm surprised you haven't heard of it.

[Kidlicious]

Yeah, I would have punted too.

[Kidlicious]

Neoconservatism is a political movement, mainly in the United States and Canada, which is generally held to have emerged in the 1960s, coalesced in the 1970s, and has had a significant presence in the administration of George W. Bush

Is this wrong?

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The point is that the US uses it's military for economic reasons, and I think that's the biggest reason why we keep troops in the ME, not because of our culture. Americans could really care less about culture these days.

Perhaps among your peers that is true. That is the trend of every generation when they hit their 20s.

And the fact that most of them have ties to the oil industry means nothing to you?

Correct. Ties to big oil have nothing to do with overthrowing Saddam.

The US as a country won't profit from the overthrow of Saddam. We spent more in the first year than we could gain in ten years by any stretch of the imagination. The US oil industry isn't going to profit directly from instigating the overthrow of Saddam.

If there is eeevil influence here it is the other way around: a few companies will make profits fixing Iraqi infrastructure, and somebody gets to choose who those companies are.

Do not conflate the issues. Chanting war-for-oil is a reflection of ignorance that disqualifies your opinion in the eyes of anyone who understands correctly.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Straybow

Originally posted by Kidicious
The point is that the US uses it's military for economic reasons, and I think that's the biggest reason why we keep troops in the ME, not because of our culture. Americans could really care less about culture these days.

Perhaps among your peers that is true. That is the trend of every generation when they hit their 20s.

And the fact that most of them have ties to the oil industry means nothing to you?

Correct. Ties to big oil have nothing to do with overthrowing Saddam.

The US as a country won't profit from the overthrow of Saddam. We spent more in the first year than we could gain in ten years by any stretch of the imagination. The US oil industry isn't going to profit directly from instigating the overthrow of Saddam.

If there is eeevil influence here it is the other way around: a few companies will make profits fixing Iraqi infrastructure, and somebody gets to choose who those companies are.

Do not conflate the issues. Chanting war-for-oil is a reflection of ignorance that disqualifies your opinion in the eyes of anyone who understands correctly.

The Iraqi War is only part of the overall plan. Yes that's right there has been a developing plan by the military industrial complex and the oil industry to control the middle east. Support for Isreal is also part of the plan. Yes, the War has costed us greatly but for those in power it has been a step towards preventing Arab Nationalism and insuring US access to the oil there. Any kind of BS about spreading democracy is only to contribute to the plan.

[Arrian]

Preventing Arab nationalism? By providing them with a tailor-made external foe? The Great Satan, no less?

Preach on, brother Kid!

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

I noticed that one very insightful observation has been made in this "dialogue" - the idea that it is not "American Culture", but the culture of the "American Left", which is spread around the world. Most people, when they speak of "America", mean the America of Hollywood and popular culture, of the East and West Coasts, of unlimited freedom. The other, more conservative, more subdued and traditional America is not seen at all.

When the goons of the Shiv Sena try to violently protest against "American Culture", they are essentially responding to "Blue America". When conservative Indian people talk of "Western Culture" leading to the erosion of "Indian values", they refer to the way "Blue America's culture" has permeated and saturated every international medium. The conservative, sober side of America is not seen at all.

There are a few very interesting side-effects. America is associated with "modernity" and "liberalism", with "the new cool", with "hip" or that which is fashionable. Due to the heavy "Blue" bias of the soft cultural power America has, all these things get associated with some things which are slightly over the top even by American standards.

For instance, a few days ago, when having lunch in the college mess, a girl sat down a few tables away from me, with her back to the table me and a few friends were sitting on. Now it appeared as if this girl had worn no panties, and wore low-hung jeans. The problem was, all of us were getting a view of the top of her unshaven butt-crack, and it was rather repulsive. That's not something I want to see when eating my food.

Now this sort of dressing is, AFAIK, not very common even in the USA, but because this is what gets associated with progress, even respectable middle-class people adopt culture which is considered non-mainstream or slightly off in the USA itself.

Basically, the message being sent out is:

"Extreme Blue=Progress"

or

"Breaking all social norms=Progress"

whereas this is not the case even in America itself. The sober part of America is almost never projected outside America.

[Arrian]

unshaven butt-crack

She had a hairy ass? WTF aneeshm? I did NOT need that mental image.

Goddamned terrorist.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

whereas this is not the case even in America itself. The sober part of America is almost never projected outside America.

Some of it does - missionaries spring to mind. But by and large, yes, pop culture is "Blue America" largely untempered by "Red America."

I just love the irony... consies talking about how, in response to the terrorists, we should go more conservative and reject those bad "blue" tendencies. After all, "blues" are unAmerican anyway... I mean, it wouldn't mean the terrorists had won, right...

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
Preventing Arab nationalism? By providing them with a tailor-made external foe? The Great Satan, no less?

Preach on, brother Kid!

-Arrian

Isreal is militarily strategic.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Neoconservatism is a political movement, mainly in the United States and Canada, which is generally held to have emerged in the 1960s, coalesced in the 1970s, and has had a significant presence in the administration of George W. Bush

Is this wrong?

It is certainly incomplete, as it tells us very little. The movement influenced the Clinton administration too, which suggests to me that whoever wins the election in the US, the same foreign policy establishment can prevail - albeit with differing priorities per administration. What it also doesn't tell us is of the aspiration to grow/build/implant pro-western regimes of liberal democratic character in key strategic regions. This idea is 1st-grade Paul Wolfowitz, but not exclusive even to the USA, as it is essentially Blairite Interventionism too.