Contemporary liberalism and its role in Islamic anti-Americanism.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by aneeshm
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.

It is common though. Last weekend at a hockey game I saw a rather heavy young lady with low riders running up an escalator. At least half of her butt was showing and it looked like a pot of jello.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


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.

You're still avoiding the issue. US involvement in the Middle East began shortly after WW2. How can you say that the purpose of the involvement is to spread democracy?

[Cort Haus]

In my country 'Red' implies Left and 'Blue' implies Right. As in 'True Blue Tory' or 'Fly the Red Flag' for socialists.

I even thought the phrase "Reds under the bed" was a US, McCarthyite term. Should it have been "Blues under the Bed"?

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Isreal is militarily strategic.

Of course it is. And our support of Israel certainly goes beyond ideology & culture. But ideology & culture have a lot to do with it.

There are multiple factors that play into pretty much any given government policy. If you feel the need to distill US middle-eastern foreign policy down to a one-liner, go ahead, but don't expect it to be terribly accurate or useful.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

WTF?!

@CH

[Arrian]

You keep going on about how US ME policy is all about oil.

You've got one factor, and it's a big one, but it's not the only one. Plus, you're talking about a time period (post-WWII) that is now 60+ years in length. US policy has not been totally unchanging in that time.

The neocon idea that one can spread democracy at the point of a sword (or nose of a smartbomb, if you prefer) hasn't been an important one since 1945. It has, however, become increasingly important since 1989 (end of Cold War).

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian


Of course it is. And our support of Israel certainly goes beyond ideology & culture. But ideology & culture have a lot to do with it.

There are multiple factors that play into pretty much any given government policy. If you feel the need to distill US middle-eastern foreign policy down to a one-liner, go ahead, but don't expect it to be terribly accurate or useful.

-Arrian

Arrian, the point is what has motivated the US and caused the events. Just because the US would like every nation on earth to be democratic (and I'll just assume that that's true for arguments sake) doesn't mean that that motivates the nation to do what it does.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
You keep going on about how US ME policy is all about oil.

You've got one factor, and it's a big one, but it's not the only one. Plus, you're talking about a time period (post-WWII) that is now 60+ years in length. US policy has not been totally unchanging in that time.

The neocon idea that one can spread democracy at the point of a sword (or nose of a smartbomb, if you prefer) hasn't been an important one since 1945. It has, however, become increasingly important since 1989 (end of Cold War).

-Arrian

It just happens to be that the military industrial complex and the oil industry has been behind the middle east policy from the beginning up unitl the present day.

[Arrian]

Why do you assume there must be ONE motive?

-Arrian

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Kidicious
You're still avoiding the issue. US involvement in the Middle East began shortly after WW2. How can you say that the purpose of the involvement is to spread democracy?

I'm not avoiding the issue, you are trying to redefine it in your own terms.

This is not about 1938. This is about contemporary intervention, which includes the Balkans as well as the ME. The Neocons don't date back to the thirties, but they were prime movers in the western interventions in 1990's eastern europe. There's no oil there, but there has been a desire to wield strategic influence and to control the region.

If the PNAC/Neocon agenda is just a smokescreen for secret oil company links as you are implying, what are they doing influencing events in a theatre with no oil at all?

Do you really think that your 'oil conspiracy' is going to make a profit out of this war? Ever?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
Why do you assume there must be ONE motive?

-Arrian

As I've stated Arrian, there may be more than one motive, but one motive creates the outcome. If you take away the oil from the Middle East the US involvement there were be much less even though some people in the US might like to see democracy flurish there.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Kidicious
WTF?!

@CH

What are you on about? I was not addressing your previous post.

[Barnabas]

Kidicius, are you like those commie historians who reduce all history to economic reasons and forget completely about culture?

Here (latin america) commies say the USA is our enemy, that we are opressed etc, and that palestinians/iranians etc are our comprades who suffer the same.
You can even see it in the closeness of Chavez to Ahmadinejad

I agree that the USA has not been very nice with latin america, from taking half of mexicos territory, helping in creating panama dividing it from colombia, the spanish american war stuff, and many other things even in the second half of the XX century.

But then, but then, we couldnt be more different from the arab world, and culturally closer to yanks than to middle easterners, here women wear few clothes, we are christian, usa evengelical pentecostals have managed to become more than 10% of the population in most latin american countries, we like american movies, watch some american tv shows, simpsons, ALF etc, so what commies preach will never work, because they forget culture which is also important.

[Arrian]

there may be more than one motive, but one motive creates the outcome

This makes absolutely no sense.

Actions create outcomes, not motives. Motives are behind actions. Multiple motives go into an action, which has an outcome and this somehow means that ONE motive resulted in the outcome?

Setting that absurdity aside, yes, the ME's importance starts with its oil, just as its importance at other times in history revolved around other resources or its geographical position (trade hub).

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


I'm not avoiding the issue, you are trying to redefine it in your own terms.

This is not about 1938. This is about contemporary intervention, which includes the Balkans as well as the ME. The Neocons don't date back to the thirties, but they were prime movers in the western interventions in 1990's eastern europe. There's no oil there, but there has been a desire to wield strategic influence and to control the region.

You don't think it's important to discuss the history of US involvement in the region? Instead you want to discuss Eastern Europe in the 1990s? I don't know how I can respond to that and continue with a reasonable debate.

If the PNAC/Neocon agenda is just a smokescreen for secret oil company links as you are implying, what are they doing influencing events in a theatre with no oil at all?

Do you really think that your 'oil conspiracy' is going to make a profit out of this war? Ever?

Oil is a strategic resource. They don't just want to make profit from it. It's the military industrial complex involved here as well as the oil industry. They want to establish control over a strategic resource and they can have substantial control over the world with it.