# Who is behind US current foreign policy... really?



## Everness

Why is it that America’s post-9/11 foreign policy rubs people the wrong way? I’m not saying that people across the world liked the previous versions. But in the last 5 years the US stopped propping up local dictatorships and playing one country and ethnic group against another and has adopted democratization as the core of its political strategy. Of course we are using undemocratic means to install democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq and we also pay little attention to the views of potential voters in the region. The question is why is it that so much of the US goes along unquestioningly with Bush’s rhetoric? 

I think that the answer can be traced to the nature of American nationalism. The so-called American creed is the foundation of America’s collective national identity. We, Americans, strongly believe in the constitution, law and democracy. Faith in the above is instilled in us from early childhood to the extent that they become second nature for most of us. We also believe that the American creed is applicable not just to the United States but to all mankind. “This is how civilized countries should organize themselves,” we say while looking at ourselves in the mirror. So what’s the natural corollary of this type of collective thinking? The belief that it’s the United States’ national right, duty and destiny to spread democracy and freedom in the world. 

So that’s why so much of the US goes along unquestioningly with Bush’s rhetoric. If Mr. Bush lives in a kind of ideological bubble, it’s a bubble made of steel and a bubble he shares with tens or even hundreds of millions of other Americans. 

Bush has said this openly and unabashedly once and again, “I also know that there's an historic opportunity here to change the world (He’s talking about the war in Iraq). And it's very important for the loved ones of our troops to understand that the mission is an important, vital mission for the security of America and for the ability to change the world for the better.” But I think he also speaks for tens or hundreds of millions of Americans who deep down share his vision. “It’s not such a bad idea to transform the world in our own image and likeness so that gradually countries will organize themselves around the constitution, law and democracy. Maybe this is the best way to combat international terrorism.”

So what can be done? Until Americans realize that our perceptions are drawn from ingrained beliefs, not empirical study, we won’t be able to learn from evidence, experience or the views of ordinary people elsewhere in the world. If we don’t do something about it, we’ll continue to rub people the wrong way. 

Do you agree with this diagnosis and treatment?


----------



## Alxmrphi

> So what can be done? Until Americans don’t realize that our perceptions are drawn from ingrained beliefs, not empirical study, we won’t be able to learn from evidence, experience or the views of ordinary people elsewhere in the world. If we don’t do something about it, we’ll continue to rub people the wrong way.



I have to say, your post was written in very confusing English, can you clarify to me, what exactly you are refering to in this paragraph.
Also, did you mean to say "Until American's *don't* realize.. ?"


----------



## Tsoman

Everness said:


> But in the last 5 years the US stopped propping up local dictatorships and playing one country and ethnic group against another and has adopted democratization as the core of its political strategy.



That's probably because the cold war is over


----------



## cuchuflete

Everness said:


> Why is it that America’s post-9/11 foreign policy rubs people the wrong way?
> 
> 
> The question is why is it that so much of the US goes along unquestioningly with Bush’s rhetoric?



Which of these is the thread topic?

The answer to question #1 is that it is bad foreign policy.

The answer to question #2 is that *it is a very flawed question.

*An ever diminishing portion of the US goes along, unquestioningly or otherwise, with Bush's rhetoric.  There will always be some people who believe crap from a leader just because he is a leader.  Most of the US population no longer supports Bush and his false motives and false justifications.


----------



## Alxmrphi

> The U.S.A. is the potent power of the world and is acting in exactly the correct manner to ensure that it stays on top.



Excuse me? Correct manner? Have I misunderstood you?


----------



## .   1

Alex_Murphy said:


> Excuse me? Correct manner? Have I misunderstood you?


I tried to edit the post and found that I could not avoid this out of context type of interpretation so I deleted it and I had hoped that my deletion would be honoured but some just must argue.

The 'correct' manner I was referring to is the manner that is correct to make sure that the U.S.A. stays as the potent power in the world.

Correct in this sense has no moral judgement merely that it is the most efficient.

Thanks for your interest and quick response.

.,,


----------



## ireney

_Who is behind US current foreign policy... really? _
Who do you think is behind all this? If you are talking about those who stand to gain well they are behind the foreign policy of any state I know of.

_Why is it that America’s post-9/11 foreign policy rubs people the wrong way?_
 Are you sure that "rubs people the wrong way" is the right expression for what you are "asking"?


_The question is why is it that so much of the US goes along unquestioningly with Bush’s rhetoric?_ 
I am not an American but I thought that it doesn't really.

_Do you agree with this diagnosis and treatment?_ The "diagnosis" and "treatment" to what illness/question of the ones above?


----------



## Everness

cuchuflete said:


> Which of these is the thread topic?
> 
> The answer to question #1 is that it is bad foreign policy.
> 
> The answer to question #2 is that *it is a very flawed question.
> 
> *An ever diminishing portion of the US goes along, unquestioningly or otherwise, with Bush's rhetoric.  There will always be some people who believe crap from a leader just because he is a leader.  Most of the US population no longer supports Bush and his false motives and false justifications.



The questions is "Who is behind US currentl foreign policy?" I argue that it's tens or hundreds of millions of Americans informed by the American creed, not just Bush.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Ok, this has thrown me now..

"behind" in the sense of "creating" or
"behind" in the sense of "supporting" ?


----------



## Everness

ireney said:


> _Do you agree with this diagnosis and treatment?_ The "diagnosis" and "treatment" to what illness/question of the ones above?



Let me rephrase it: 

Diagnosis: Much of the US goes along unquestioningly with Bush’s rhetoric because tens or even hundreds of millions of other Americans live in the same kind of ideological bubble made of steel that Bush lives in. 

Treatment: Americans need to become aware of the role that our American creed plays in the way we understand and act upon the world. Given the depth of the nationalistic belief itself, the views of the outside world don't count for much. We fail to listen to the views of ordinary people elsewhere in the world. We are not able to learn from evidence of failed politics either. We just continue committed to the goal of changing the world in our image and likeness.


----------



## Everness

Alex_Murphy said:


> Ok, this has thrown me now..
> 
> "behind" in the sense of "creating" or
> "behind" in the sense of "supporting" ?



Who is supporting US foreign policy? Maybe the Bush-Cheney administration *created *it but tens or even hundreds of millions of Americans *support *it. 

People within and without the US accuse the Bush-Cheney administration of devising and implementing our current foreign policy. It’s true. But Bush and Cheney haven’t adopted democratization as the core of its political strategy out of nowhere. They drew upon the so-called American creed shared by tens and hundreds of millions of Americans. Otherwise, and without the implicit or explicit permission of Americans, they couldn’t have launched the democratization movement in Iraq and Afghanistan. (I saw a great bumper sticker: “Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.") Some Americans both in the left and the right have tried to distance themselves from this administration on this topic. Why? Because too many American soldiers are dying, the war in costing too much, and we feel less safe. Otherwise, I think that we would fully embrace this new US foreign policy. Alexis de Tocqueville remarked that the Americans "are unanimous upon the general principles that ought to rule human society."


----------



## ireney

As I understand it you are saying that the majority of Americans agree with the way the foreign policy of their country is conducted and only distance themselves from the current administration because " too many American soldiers are dying, the war in costing too much, and we feel less safe"? That if it didn't cost the Americans anything in terms of human lives, money and the feeling of unsafety they would agree completely with the current foreign policy decisions etc?


----------



## Everness

ireney said:


> As I understand it you are saying that the majority of Americans agree with the way the foreign policy of their country is conducted and only distance themselves from the current administration because " too many American soldiers are dying, the war in costing too much, and we feel less safe"? That if it didn't cost the Americans anything in terms of human lives, money and the feeling of unsafety they would agree completely with the current foreign policy decisions etc?



Yes. The war in Iraq was sold to us as a necessary way of spreading democracy in that conflictive part of the world. Bush and Cheney were smart enough to tap into one of the core beliefs of our American creed and the vast majority of the American people responded enthusiastically. Many of us didn't think that we were doing something wrong. We thought that we were spreading civilization and progress to the rest of the world.


----------



## cuchuflete

Tens of millions could be a very small minority of a country with 
about 295 million citizens.  Hundreds of millions is utter rot and nonsense.



> *U.S.              Population,* by age, sex, and area of residence, 2002* (vertical              bar chart): Female, MSA:** 0-17 years, 24.3%; 18-24 years, 9.0%; 25-44              years, 29.8%; 45-64 years, 23.6%; 65-90 years, 13.4%. Male, MSA: 0-17              years, 26.7%; 18-24 years, 9.9%; 25-44 years, 30.1%; 45-64 years,              22.9%; 65-90 years, 10.3%. Female, non-MSA: 0-17 years, 23.2%; 18-24              years, 9.2%; 25-44 years, 25.4%; 45-64 years, 24.8%; 65-90 years,              17.3%. Male, non-MSA: 0-17 years, 24.9%; 18-24 years, 9.5%; 25-44              years, 26.4%; 45-64 years, 25.5%; 65-90 years, 13.8%.              Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2002 Full Year              Consolidated Data File (HC-070). Released December 2004. Medical  http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/mepsnet/HC/MEPSnetHC.asp




About a fourth of the population is under 18 years of age, and really has next to no impact on the way government behaves.
That leaves about 220 million who might, potentially, agree with the policies.  Thus, if hundreds of millions support such policy, you are left with only aboiut 7% of the voting age population who disagree.  I repeat, this is a dumb assertion.

The spread of democracy was trotted out as wrapping paper after 9-11.  The primary driver for the then widespread public support was fear and a desire for revenge.

Most Americans I've ever met don't give a flying fig for the export of ideology.


----------



## maxiogee

Everness said:


> But in the last 5 years the US stopped propping up local dictatorships and playing one country and ethnic group against another



Did it? Really?

I fail to understand the purpose of this question.
How can anyone here answer the question posed?


----------



## Everness

cuchuflete said:


> Tens of millions could be a very small minority of a country with
> about 295 million citizens.  Hundreds of millions is utter rot and nonsense.
> 
> About a fourth of the population is under 18 years of age, and really has next to no impact on the way government behaves.
> That leaves about 220 million who might, potentially, agree with the policies.  Thus, if hundreds of millions support such policy, you are left with only aboiut 7% of the voting age population who disagree.  I repeat, this is a dumb assertion.
> 
> The spread of democracy was trotted out as wrapping paper after 9-11.  The primary driver for the then widespread public support was fear and a desire for revenge.
> 
> Most Americans I've ever met don't give a flying fig for the export of ideology.



First, can you back up your statement that “the primary driver for the then widespread public support was fear and a desire for revenge” or are you just projecting your own stuff onto the whole country? Second, I’m not impressed with your fuzzy math. The only reality is that 62,040,606 of Americans voted for Bush in November 2004, almost 4 years after 9/11. That’s 51% of the US population. By then Americans had been able to put things into perspective and bring their fears under control. I don't think that 62,040,606 of Americans voted for Bush out of fear. I believe that they voted for positive reasons. And installing democracy in Iraq is something that relates to the American creed. I disagree with the use of undemocratic means to pursue democratic goals but it's something acceptable if you believe in the tenets of the American creed. And that's part of the problem.


----------



## Tsoman

Bush voters are diverse, and often it's a compromise to decide who to vote for. Everyone may have special interests

Family values people
gun owners
business owners
people with money
anti-abortion people
military men
people who think that kerry or gore was ________ and didn't like him
people who were afraid that democrats would mess up the wars
etc etc etc

I didn't vote for Bush, but I definitely recognize that the republican party is diverse with a lot of different interests and the Iraq war isn't the only point of sale


----------



## Gianna_7

A source to consider regarding American foreign policy:  The White Man's Burden: Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and so Little Good, by William Easterly.    

Easterly is an economist at NYU and provides extensive insight into the last 50 years of "intervention" in primarily poverty stricken countries.  While it doesn't address the current situation in the Middle East,  it does offer insight as to why implementing one "big new idea" after another has done seemingly nothing for the rest of the world.  

However, NGO's and other groups have created many solutions.  They may not be grand, sweeping changes, but we know that piecemeal changes are at least effective.   

As far as Iraq and Bush's strategy is concerned, I am dumbfounded and enraged that Bush justifies his actions by supposing that we can build democracy abroad.  Greed and power seem to be the main ingredients in our foreign policy.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

When I saw the title of the thread, I'd hoped that there'd be an interesting discussion about whose hands are manipulating Bush's strings.  There are plenty of powerful people invisible in the shadows who are making him dance .... and I don't like not knowing more about who pulls what strings.

Instead, we're presented with suspect numbers, generalizations, and muddy waters.

What exactly is the question here?  It still isn't clear.


----------



## cuchuflete

I really don't enjoy picking on the disabled, but  such absurd statements deserve to be held up to the light of reason, so that they can be a source of amusement, as they have dismally failed to provide edification.



Everness said:


> First, can you back up your statement that “the primary driver for the then widespread public support was fear and a desire for revenge” or are you just projecting your own stuff onto the whole country?
> 
> Yes, I can back it up.  I read those antiquated things called newspapers, I listen to friends and colleagues.  My own stuff included concern, not fear, and I
> have never had a desire for revenge, so your final question (which is really not a question, it seems, but a suggestion disguised as a question) is hardly worth a reply beyond "No.".
> 
> You have made some broad assertions about the desire to export ideology.  There has been no backup to those assertions.   They are either your personal theories, or someone else's.  They are, so far, unsupported by anything that might pass for fact.  Can you back them up?  If you can, please do so, or lable them as personal opinion.  There's nothing wrong with saying, "It seems to me that.....".  However, if you present such ideas as if they were factual, you really ought to tell us why.
> 
> Second, I’m not impressed with your fuzzy math. What, precisely, is fuzzy?
> Can you do simple arithmetic?   You repeated that tens or hundreds of millions of people support something.  Where the hell are the hundreds of millions?  The numbers I presented show, very simply, that if hundreds of millions support bush, then, of voting age US citizens, fewer than 10% are left who do not support him.
> 
> Let's walk through it slowly, so the fuzzyness you have brought to the discussion might dissipate:
> 
> All data in millions of US citizens:
> Universe ~295
> Subtract the 25% who are not of voting age:
> 
> 295-74= 221 US citizens of voting age
> Subtract the "hundreds---if it's plural, it must be at least 200
> 
> 221-200= 21
> 
> That leaves, at most, 21 million US citizens who do not support your dearly beloved W.
> 
> Therefore, your assertion that tens *or hundreds of millions* of Americans support the bushian policies is, on the face of it, utterly unbelieveable and complete nonsense.  It's a gross exaggeration, made to dramatize a fuzzy theory.  It's just silly.
> 
> Now let's look at your own fuzzy numbers, with so much hair growing out of them that they invite a serious trim and maybe
> a shave with a rusty razor.
> The only reality is that 62,040,606 of Americans voted for Bush in November 2004, almost 4 years after 9/11. *That’s 51% of the US population.* No Madam, that is NOT 51% of the US population.  You don't have fuzzy numbers here.  You have WRONG numbers.  Your ability to call 62 million 51% of nearly 300 million will win you a Nobel prize for comedy.  It's not even 51% of the US population eligible to vote.
> Finally, 62 is less than one hundred, so I thank you for pointing out that your "hundreds of millions" statement is silly.
> 
> 
> 
> By then Americans had been able to put things into perspective and bring their fears under control. I don't think that 62,040,606 of Americans voted for Bush out of fear. I believe that they voted for positive reasons. Quite possible that some voted for him for positive reasons, and that some did not.  In any event, 62 is still not "hundreds of millions",  and you have overlooked all the polls and surveys so dear to some hearts that indicated that the majority of those who voted for Bush thought he was "stronger on national security" than Kerry.  That fact doesn't conclusively prove a thing, but it suggests that at least one concern of Bush supporters was security.  Shall we connect the dots to bring fear into the discussion?  Bush's campaign speeches harped on the risks  presented by nameless enemies.



You still haven't answered the earlier questions about the lack of popular support for your President.  If tens or hundreds of millions () support a theoretical attempt to "export democracy", and that is what you believe is at the base of W's foreign policy, then why has public support for that president and policy declined so much?  

Kindly de-fuzz your numbers and answer that question.


----------



## Everness

Chaska Ñawi said:


> What exactly is the question here?  It still isn't clear.



This is the issue. 

There’s a disconnect between Bush’s rhetoric and reality. The US has adopted democratization as the core of its political strategy. But in practice, the US relies entirely on the ability of pro-American authoritarian regimes in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia to control the anger of their populations at US and Israeli policies. On top of that, the US preaches democracy to the rest of the world while showing utter contempt for the views of potential voters in the region. 

See the disconnect? Well, apparently the US political class and even most of the US media don’t. The criticism of this clash between rhetoric and reality has amounted to a collective whisper at best. Why the Democratic party and the US media have not exposed this contradictions and the dangers it embodies? How come we are not taking to the streets to denounce the hypocrisy of preaching democracy but p*ssing on it at the same time? 

Well, I presented an explanation. Much of the US goes along unquestioningly with Bush’s rhetoric because of the nature of American nationalism (see my first post.) We approach this from the outcomes perspective. The war in Iraq is losing popularity and public support because American soldiers are dying, it's costing us a sh*tload of money, and we are feeling growingly unsafe. But the American creed remains intact and alive. "We attempted to share with you the values of the constitution, law and democracy. And what did you do you ingrate bastards? You spat on our faces. You know what? We are getting the h*ll out of your sh*tty countries, you uncivilized bastards. Next time don't bother to call us." Sounds familiar? 

The American creed doesn’t allow us to learn from evidence, experience, and, most importantly, from the views of ordinary people elsewhere in the world. Most Americans, according to this theory, live in the same bubble made of steel that Bush inhabits. We are getting lots of feedback --and not very positive-- from evidence, experience and people but it doesn’t pass through the walls of steel. 

Until Americans (tens and even hundred of millions, you pick) do something about our American creed, we’ll continue creating more animosity against us across the world. How do you poke holes in this bubble made of steel? I have no idea. Do you?


----------



## cuchuflete

Everness said:


> Much of the US goes along unquestioningly with Bush’s rhetoric because of the nature of American nationalism ...



I give credit for the tenacity with which Everness repeats and repeats and repeats....the same untrue statement.

Have a look here

"Much" was once more than half the electorate.  Now it is between thirty and forty percent.   I think that "*much* *more*"
of the nation is opposed to Bush and his incessant lies.

Tens (or, if you prefer hyperbole, hundreds) of millions more US citizens oppose Bush's policies, and the wrapping paper about democratization, than support them.   I wonder how we might explain such a large silent majority?

I guess people are not out in the streets protesting because they are trying to figure out what the heck the 'political class' is, or have their noses buried in slightly left of center weblogs.
I've read plenty of mainstream press editorials that held W and company up to scathing scrutiny for preaching democracy while castigating European nations for behaving democratically by refusing to join the coalition of the coerced.

So what is the real question about this thread?

Can one posit a flimsy theory and state it as if it were fact, and then invite discussion and debate?  Can one invent falsehoods supported by nothing but bad arithmetic (not even as good as fuzzy numbers) to support the bad theory?  Can the whole thing be stated in such vague and confusing terms that it takes a few days and a number of restatements to make clear, or less fuzzy, what the intended question is or was, or was supposed to be?  

Is that clear as mud?

How about an alternative theory, presented with the same measure of factual support--

Bush and buddies have no real foreign policy at all.  They flail at enemies, real and imagined, to hold or tighten their hold on political power.  They sugar coat their actions in thin rhetoric about democracy, while not believing it themselves.
Initially, after an attack that kills thousands in downtown NY City, people trust their national leaders, while feeling fear and anger--and NOT worrying even a little tiny bit about whether or not faraway countries have democratic elections.  As facts of the deception become known, the momentary trust and backing for government policies, and their specious justifications, dissipate steadily until the supporters of the regime are well under half the voting age population.


----------



## Daddyo

This is like watching a rerun of when Pat Buchanan said why he didn't want to engage in a war of words with Dan Quayle: "I don't want to be charged with child abuse..."


----------



## Everness

cuchuflete said:


> I really don't enjoy picking on the disabled, but  such absurd statements deserve to be held up to the light of reason, so that they can be a source of amusement, as they have dismally failed to provide edification.
> 
> You still haven't answered the earlier questions about the lack of popular support for your President.  If tens or hundreds of millions () support a theoretical attempt to "export democracy", and that is what you believe is at the base of W's foreign policy, then why has public support for that president and policy declined so much?
> 
> Kindly de-fuzz your numbers and answer that question.



First, now I understand that you were just stating your opinion and not talking ex-cathedra when you said, “The primary driver for the then widespread public support was fear and a desire for revenge.” Why don’t you practice what you preach and rather say, “*It seems to me* that the primary driver for the then widespread public support was fear and a desire for revenge.” On occasions you make statements that resemble the ones Moses made upon returning from Mount Sinai following a conversation with the Almighty.   

Second, how did you do in reading and comprehension? The numeric reference that so disturbs you (“tens and even hundreds of millions”) applies to Americans who subscribe to the American creed, not for those who voted for Bush. You were the one who decided to use those figures to discuss another topic. In 2004 the majority of Americans voted for Bush because he presented to them an ideal for which it was worth dying: democracy. They didn't just support Bush; they supported a vision for the world that reflected the core beliefs of the American creed. My point is that no one cared to ask people in Afghanistan and Iraq what they wanted. We just imposed our values on them. And the whole point of this thread is that Bush isn't the only occupant of this bubble made of steel. He is in good company.  



Everness said:


> So that’s why so much of the US goes along unquestioningly with Bush’s rhetoric. If Mr. Bush lives in a kind of ideological bubble, it’s a bubble made of steel and a bubble he shares with tens or even hundreds of millions of other Americans.
> 
> But I think he also speaks for tens or hundreds of millions of Americans who deep down share his vision. “It’s not such a bad idea to transform the world in our own image and likeness so that gradually countries will organize themselves around the constitution, law and democracy. Maybe this is the best way to combat international terrorism.”





Everness said:


> The questions is "Who is behind US currentl foreign policy?" I argue that it's tens or hundreds of millions of Americans informed by the American creed, not just Bush.





Everness said:


> Let me rephrase it:
> 
> Diagnosis: Much of the US goes along unquestioningly with Bush’s rhetoric because tens or even hundreds of millions of other Americans live in the same kind of ideological bubble made of steel that Bush lives in.





Everness said:


> Who is supporting US foreign policy? Maybe the Bush-Cheney administration *created *it but tens or even hundreds of millions of Americans *support *it.
> 
> People within and without the US accuse the Bush-Cheney administration of devising and implementing our current foreign policy. It’s true. But Bush and Cheney haven’t adopted democratization as the core of its political strategy out of nowhere. They drew upon the so-called American creed shared by tens and hundreds of millions of Americans.




Third, I made reference to the results of the November 2004 election because I find them more reliable and accurate than your fuzzy math.  Polls mean nothing; elections, everything. The other point I was trying to make was that almost 4 years had passed since 9/11 and that Americans had already put most of their fears to rest. Or do you believe that people voted for Bush in 2004 out of fear? If you do so, I'm glad that I have a much more positive opinion of my fellow citizens. I argue that they didn't vote out of fear but for positive reasons. They believed that by bringing American core values to that region they were combating barbarism and doing a great favor to Iraq. (By no means I'm implying that we weren't interested in protecting our asses too. We were promised that by democratizing these nations we would be safer. Apparently the plan backfired) I see elections as the ultimate and most accurate poll. I stand by my statement: 51% of Americans voted for Bush. If you don’t vote, you don’t count. If you're an American who can vote but decides not to vote, I couldn't care less about your opinion. Again, my point was that "tens and even hundreds of millions" of Americans are socialized into the American creed from early childhood. Bush and Cheney were smart enough to appeal to these core beliefs --and one of them is faith in democracy-- to get the support they needed to launch this insane military adventure. Even people who voted against Bush in 2004 might subscribe wholeheartedly to the American creed.


----------



## .   1

It is difficult to read some of your posts but I must take issue with you in your assertion that U.S. Americans voted for Dubya because they supported his policies.

I am of the opinion that many people voted for Dubya because they were caught up in the spin placed on events.

I wonder how many would have voted the same way now after so many claims have been revealed to be false.

People did not vote for a 'Regime Change'.  They thought that they were voting for a removal of Weapons Of Mass Destruction but there were never any such weapons.  People voted for a bloke who had an accomplished propaganda machine that churned out lie after lie after lie.

.,,


----------



## cuchuflete

Everness the mathmatician said:
			
		

> I stand by my statement: 51% of Americans voted for Bush.



You can quote yourself til the cows come home, but up here in the woods of Maine, 62 million votes for Bush, in a nation of 295 million people, is NOT 51%.

Your new math is as elusive as the weapons of mass confusion, and, while your share a technique with your nemesis, you have not successfully applied it to prove that
the population of your country subscribes to the notion that
a political system that works somewhat well at home--when the Supreme Court doesn't derail it--should be exported to Afghanistan, China, Iraq, Iran, or elsewhere.  It's likely that
some people hold such beliefs, but you have yet to give us a single reason to believe that they are in the majority of

--all US citizens
--US citizens of voting age
--US citizens of voting age who cast ballots in 2004
--US citizens who voted for Bush in 2004

It's a little theory in search of support, and so far it has yours, and that of whoever persuaded you that it is plausible.  By your hairy math, I suppose that those two opinions coincide to constitute a majority of the country.   

Sweet dreams!


----------



## ireney

I think it's 51% of  122,267,553 Americans if the number of total votes cast in 2004 I found (in several sites) is accurate.

The 51%  of 295,000,000 is I think 150,450,000 (anyone want to check my calculations go ahead but I think I clicked the right buttons in my calculator)


----------



## cuchuflete

Of course Ireney is correct.  A majority of Americans did not vote in the last presidential election.  Therefore that election cannot be proof of what a majority of Americans do or do not support or believe in.  
Tens or even Hundreds of millions of Americans--

Either did not vote at all,
or
voted against Bush.

That appears to show that a majority don't buy into Everness's theory with enough enthusiasm to find their way to a polling place, or they so disagree with it (if you accept his contorted logic) that they did find their way to the polls only to vote against the so-called creed and its supposed champion.


Since Everness opened the thread, and has set a style of repetition, I'll repeat that I think his theory is utter rot, and that he has presented no facts of any kind to support it.

I invite every participant in this thread to ask the next five or ten US citizens with whom they have any contact if (1)they support Bush and his foreign policies; (2) If they voted for or against the last presidential candidate based on a belief for or against "exporting democracy".

That should give us a sample of at least a few dozen, which is a larger number than Everness, who represents a sample of one.    Please note that samples of a few dozen and samples of one are statistically unreliable indicators of anything, when the universe is hundreds of millions.  Still, they can be intriguing and at times almost amusing......


----------



## .   1

cuchuflete said:


> I invite every participant in this thread to ask the next five or ten US citizens with whom they have any contact if (1)they support Bush and his foreign policies; (2) If they voted for or against the last presidential candidate based on a belief for or against "exporting democracy".


While this seems technically to be a valid idea I think that I will pass as I doubt that I would understand anyone who claims to understand Dubya and his foreign policies.

.,,


----------



## Everness

. said:


> It is difficult to read some of your posts but I must take issue with you in your assertion that U.S. Americans voted for Dubya because they supported his policies.
> 
> I am of the opinion that many people voted for Dubya because they were caught up in the spin placed on events.
> 
> I wonder how many would have voted the same way now after so many claims have been revealed to be false.
> 
> People did not vote for a 'Regime Change'.  They thought that they were voting for a removal of Weapons Of Mass Destruction but there were never any such weapons.  People voted for a bloke who had an accomplished propaganda machine that churned out lie after lie after lie.
> 
> .,,



Sorry you're having a hard time understanding my English and/or my ideas. Hopefully you can understand this post. 

First of all, I think you need to get your facts straight. W was first elected in November 2000 and reelected in November 2004. The invasion of Iraq began on March 20, 2003. When Americans voted in November, 2004, Iraq's regime had already been changed. So we didn't vote for a regime change in 2004. (Well, many of us tried to change the US regime but we failed.) By the time Americans went to the polls in November 2004, the entire world knew that there were no WMD in Iraq. (Well, many of us knew that before the invasion but we were called unpatriotic, America's terrorist friends, etc. because we called those claims horseh*t.) 

You ask a great question, "I wonder how many would have voted the same way now after so many claims have been revealed to be false." Well, by November 2004 all Americans knew that many claims made by this administration regarding the invasion of Iraq had already been revealed to be false. However, they voted for W. I wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans win the congressional elections next November and the presidency in November of 2008. We are an unpredictable electorate... I'm sure that many Republicans are praying for another 9/11 so they can remain in power.


----------



## ElaineG

> In 2004 the _majority_ of Americans voted for Bush _because_ he presented to them an ideal for which it was worth dying: democracy. They didn't just support Bush; they supported a vision for the world that reflected the core beliefs of the American creed.


 
What do you base that statement on?

I came home from Italy to spend the 8 weeks prior to the 2004 election working on get out the vote efforts. Much of that time was spent going door-to-door, leafleting in shopping centers, etc., first in New Hampshire, and then in Florida.

During that time I spoke to literally hundreds (sorry, not hundreds of millions  ) Bush (as well as Kerry and undecided) voters.

Not one mentioned the export of democracy, the American creed, or anything remotely similar.

What I heard over and over again from the Bush-leaners were:

-- mistrust of Kerry
-- feelings of economic insecurity and that the Democrats would leave _that_ voter poorer
-- hunting rights (NH)
-- family member in the military, therefore always "support the troops" (mostly FL)
-- fear of terrorism 
-- fear of immigrants/other races (mostly FL)
-- Bush is a Christian (mostly FL)

This is not a scientific study, but what I heard. Both hearteningly, and dishearteningly, I did not find that most people made decisions on an abstract theoretical basis.

Rather, on both sides of the aisle, people wanted to know:
-- will the rent on my trailer lot go up?
-- how will I live in retirement?
-- can I afford my mother's medical bills?
-- will there be more terrorist attacks?
-- can I survive economically if a hurricane destroys my home?
-- what will stop crime in my neighborhood?


Very personal, concrete things -- hardly a creed about it (unless you count the Christian/right-to-life creeds, which were very influential, but have little truck with foreign policy on a day-to-day basis).


----------



## .   1

Everness said:


> Sorry you're having a hard time understanding my English and/or my ideas. Hopefully you can understand this post.


You jump to far too many conclusions.
"It is difficult to read some of your posts..."
This does not mean that I do not understand your English which is quite excellent.
Your ideas are transparent and this is the reason for my difficulty in reading them.
You bang on and on about the same tired old subjects and seem only interested in controversy for the sake of controversy.
You do not answer enough questions put to you by other members and your arguments are circular and incestuous.
Were I in your position I would choose to have a go at the person who represents me in the electorate not act like a boor in a room of thinkers.

.,,


----------



## samantar

cuchuflete said:


> I invite every participant in this thread to ask the next five or ten US citizens with whom they have any contact if (1)they support Bush and his foreign policies; (2) If they voted for or against the last presidential candidate based on a belief for or against "exporting democracy".



Well, in my case, I wasn't old enough to vote during the '04 elections (I'm looking forward ever so much to the coming elections) but I was still strongly against the Bush administration and policies. I remember how angry I was that he got voted back into office; especially after all those "VOTE OR DIE" campagins, and the hype about how Bush was going to lose because the younger demographic was going to go out and register and vote against him! The campagin only got them to register - very few young people actually voted, if I'm remembering correctly. Basically, I think that what really kept Bush in office was the apathy that most people (especially the young ones) felt about politics - it's not something that many young people discuss in day to day life. It's not something that I think a lot of people pay attention to, sadly.


----------



## maxiogee

ElaineG said:


> -- mistrust of Kerry (aroused by the Bush camp!)
> -- feelings of economic insecurity and that the Democrats would leave _that_ voter poorer (and has not every politician aroused that fear in someone?)
> -- hunting rights (NH) (This is a reason to vote against someone? Surely he alone could not change that?)
> -- family member in the military, therefore always "support the troops" (mostly FL) (Didn't they prefer to vote for someone who served than for someone who didn't?)
> -- fear of terrorism (Did they actually think that Kerry would expose the US to more terrorism?)
> -- fear of immigrants/other races (mostly FL) (How many of them had an immigrant grandfather?)
> -- Bush is a Christian (mostly FL) (in a country with a purported separatgion of Church and State, that's a laugh!)


----------



## Everness

ElaineG said:


> What do you base that statement on?
> 
> I came home from Italy to spend the 8 weeks prior to the 2004 election working on get out the vote efforts. Much of that time was spent going door-to-door, leafleting in shopping centers, etc., first in New Hampshire, and then in Florida.
> 
> During that time I spoke to literally hundreds (sorry, not hundreds of millions  ) Bush (as well as Kerry and undecided) voters.
> 
> Not one mentioned the export of democracy, the American creed, or anything remotely similar.



I never talked about exporting democracy. I talked about the American creed, a particular set of lenses through which Americans perceive the world and themselves. When you see the world as a place that belongs to you and that you can manipulate at your will, the words export and import lose their meaning. When we invaded Iraq, we did it to protect ourselves. However, many Americans also thought that W’s rhetoric on spreading democracy made sense. As a result, Bush got reelected.

What’s this American creed I’m talking about? It’s made up by a series of nationalist myths. First, a widespread belief that America is exceptional in its allegiance to democracy and freedom. There’s no country that is as committed to the causes of democracy and freedom as the US. Second, that America is exceptionally good. There’s no evil in us. We are the good guys of the movies. Third, that because America is exceptionally good, it both deserves to be exceptionally powerful and by nature cannot use its power for evil ends. Gods can be entrusted with power because they are unable to misuse it or abuse it. Same thing applies to America. Fourth, a belief in America’s innocence, as if our country lived in a pre-fall condition. 

Does America differ qualitatively from other developed nations (forget the underdeveloped world)? Do Americans have an America-centered view of the world that is inherently chauvinistic and jingoistic in nature? Do Americans perceive themselves as innately unique and superior than the rest of the world? 

These are the questions that you need to ask us, not if we are going or not going to vote for Bush.


----------



## cuchuflete

Everness said:


> I never talked about exporting democracy.


 And I bet you didn't inhale, either!

From your thread starter post #1:



			
				Mr. Hundreds of Millions says 62 is 51% of 295 said:
			
		

> But in the last 5 years the US stopped propping up local dictatorships and playing one country and ethnic group against another and *has adopted democratization as the core of its political strategy*.   Yes, and democratization is the pure antithesis of exporting democracy.  It's kind of like, well, you know, something intravenous, like a creed.   Yes, when Mr. Bush says democracy is good, then other countries like Afghanistan and China and North Korea and Iraq will just adopt it because it's like, in the air.  Sometimes a hundred thousand or more US troops will help condition the air, on site, so that those countries' peoples can just sort of breath and get democratized.   No exporting in that, is there?
> 
> Of course we are using undemocratic means to *install democracy* in Afghanistan and Iraq and And?  Well, I've watched a dog chase its tail on more than one occasion, and it ain't such a pretty site.



What have we got going on here?

US president preaches international democratization.
US foreign policy has this--according to Everness and his unidentified sources--as its centerpiece.
US sends troops to places that are supposed to get all lovey and democratized.

Therefore, obviously, there is no attempt whatsoever to export democracy?  Its all about the creed.  Read my lips, "It's all about the *creed*."   

Next thing you know, someone will try to tell us that 62 is 51% of 295.  



Everness, who says, in Post #13, "The war in Iraq was sold to us as a necessary way of *spreading democracy* in that conflictive part of the world." does not associate spreading with exporting. Exporting is just for money, weapons, and creeds. Political systems are not exported, they are spread.  Note this very important distinction.

Everness, in Post #21, says (tongue in cheek? Or........?) "We attempted to share with you the values of the constitution, law and democracy." The sharing must have been conducted by anti-exporting aliens.  Maybe W just sent democracy in a birthday card.  That's not really exporting.


----------



## Everness

cuchuflete said:


> And I bet you didn't inhale, either!
> 
> From your thread starter post #1:
> 
> 
> 
> What have we got going on here?
> 
> US president preaches international democratization.
> US foreign policy has this--according to Everness and his unidentified sources--as its centerpiece.
> US sends troops to places that are supposed to get all lovey and democratized.
> 
> Therefore, obviously, there is no attempt whatsoever to export democracy?  Its all about the creed.  Read my lips, "It's all about the *creed*."
> 
> Next thing you know, someone will try to tell us that 62 is 51% of 295.
> 
> 
> 
> Everness, who says, in Post #13, "The war in Iraq was sold to us as a necessary way of *spreading democracy* in that conflictive part of the world." does not associate spreading with exporting. Exporting is just for money, weapons, and creeds. Political systems are not exported, they are spread.  Note this very important distinction.
> 
> Everness, in Post #21, says (tongue in cheek? Or........?) "We attempted to share with you the values of the constitution, law and democracy." The sharing must have been conducted by anti-exporting aliens.  Maybe W just sent democracy in a birthday card.  That's not really exporting.



You, my dear chum, introduced the notion of "exporting democracy." The idea of "exporting" is logically alien to the American creed and to ethical imperialism, its operative offspring. Allow me to quote the Bible and the Almighty to convey the idea of how Americans see the rest of the world: "The land shall not be sold in perpetuity; for the land is mine, and you are but aliens who have become my tenants." Leviticus 25.23. But apparently some of our tenants don't get it or don't read the Bible...


----------



## cuchuflete

Aha!  So, a country has peanut butter as the centerpiece of its foreign policy, the country's president talks babbles and fulminates about the benefits and relative superiority of peanut butter to other victuals, and justifies military expeditions by explaining that "we" are bringing peanut butter to those who don't have it, and need it...

This is not an attempt to "export" peanut butter?

Gosh, I guess you and I are at least 51% in disagreement.  

The Creed of the Leguminous Prophet... _"...and he told them, friends and foes alike, that if it had the look, odor, taste, aspect, essence and feel of peanut butter, it was because it was peanut butter."_


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:


> Aha!  So, a country has peanut butter as the centerpiece of its foreign policy, the country's president talks babbles and fulminates about the benefits and relative superiority of peanut butter to other victuals, and justifies military expeditions by explaining that "we" are bringing peanut butter to those who don't have it, and need it...



So, I was _right_! There IS a world conspiracy to bring back Jimmy Carter!

Did you know that 'peanut butter sandwiches' is an anagram of "Want a cute President, Bush?" 
(no, of course you didn't, who's daft enough to go plqaying around with feckin' anagram generators? Eh?)


----------



## ElaineG

> I never talked about exporting democracy. I talked about the American creed, a particular set of lenses through which Americans perceive the world and themselves. When you see the world as a place that belongs to you and that you can manipulate at your will, the words export and import lose their meaning. When we invaded Iraq, we did it to protect ourselves. However, many Americans also thought that W’s rhetoric on spreading democracy made sense. As a result, Bush got reelected.


 
You keep repeating that without evidence.  You entirely missed my point.  I see that your native language is not English, so perhaps I should try to use simpler words.

If you spend any amount of time talking to real Americans, you find most make political decisions based on things they think will affect _them_ and _their_ _families_.  They don't really give a crap about America in the world. 

I have not seen any evidence from you to the contrary.

Tony, maybe you have to be American to believe that guns and Christianity can determine people's votes, but believe me, they are far more important (on both sides of the aisle) than things like economic policy, foreign policy, environmental policy.... any thing you think might matter in the big picture!


----------



## Everness

ElaineG said:


> You keep repeating that without evidence.  You entirely missed my point.  I see that your native language is not English, so perhaps I should try to use simpler words.
> 
> If you spend any amount of time talking to real Americans, you find most make political decisions based on things they think will affect _them_ and _their_ _families_.  *They don't really give a crap about America in the world. *
> 
> I have not seen any evidence from you to the contrary.



Thank you for making an effort to meet me where my English currently is. But I think I understood you the first time. 

I also spend time talking to real Americans on a daily basis. (And I'm talking about real Americans: white, middle-class, college-educated folks. I'm not talking about minorities, e.g. blacks, Asian, Latinos, etc.) who aren't "American" enough for some people). Ah, let me add that they all appear to be legit (no fake social security or green cards or birth certificates). They are as American as apple pie! 

Well, unlike the Americans you talk to, these other Americans do give a crap about America in the world. Actually, they are obsessed with Iraq (and like smiling, it's contagious!). I even have a colleague who has a website dedicated to Iraq. Then you have the zillion polls on Iraq. To the best of my knowledge, Americans are polled (but we know that they are unreliable so we won't make reference to them.) What about the letters to the editor in major US newspapers? If you don't find any letters on the topic "America in the world," I'm more than willing to send you some links. But I think, following your suggestion, that I need to expand my social circle. I might be talking to unrepresentative Americans. Could it be that when some Americans complete their post-doctoral degrees and join the Ivies they lose their grip on reality? 

In a nutshell, if (a) Iraq hasn't yet become the 51st US state and (b) anything related to Iraq is part of our foreign and not our domestic policy, I would conclude that you're flat wrong: Americans do give a crap about America in the world.


----------



## GenJen54

> I would conclude that you're flat wrong: Americans do give a crap about America in the world.


You really do need to expand your social circle. I grew up and still live in the "Heartland," the "Bible Belt," where guns and ammo and fish bait are stocked right next to the Diet Pepsi at the local In 'N Out. Nothing like a side order of worms to go with your Icee drink.

Our current Lt. Gov. is running for U.S. Congress. Her platform is "Faith - Family - Freedom." The Rebublican challenger for governor, a current member of U.S. Congress, is trying to rally us locally to keep immigrants out of our state.   This is the kind of rhetoric that people are looking to - and believing in - an "aw shuks, ain't America" great mentality that drives them time and time to the voting booth so they can get one of them pretty little flag stickers.

My state, where politics are preached from the pulpit (thank you Mr. Rove), where "W" stickers are as ubiquitous as fans at a Friday night football game, where people vote on "values" and care more about the rights of the unborn than they do Iraq, Iran, terrorism and certainly the U.S. standing in the World, represents more what has become the "norm." 

Most people I know don't give a rat's patootey about how W and his administration are making us look like the a**wipes of the world. They buy his rhetoric - and his smarmy smirk - hook, line and sinker. My parents, several relatives and neighbors are among these fair folk, who are the first to line up at the Fourth of July Parade.

In many many ways I am a political paraiah, but it's hard to teach people about the "world" when they've never stepped foot outside of the state, much less the country. The majority of them just don't care.


----------



## cuchuflete

He who avoids answering direct questions said:
			
		

> ,
> 
> Could it be that when some Americans complete their post-doctoral degrees and join the Ivies they lose their grip on reality?



Are people with post-doctoral degrees who have joined the Ivies representative of anything other than the tiny minority of Americans who have post-doctoral degrees and have joined the Ivies?

Navel-gazing?


----------



## .   1

Everness said:


> I also spend time talking to real Americans on a daily basis. (And I'm talking about real Americans: white, middle-class, college-educated folks. I'm not talking about minorities, e.g. blacks, Asian, Latinos, etc.) who aren't "American" enough for some people). Ah, let me add that they all appear to be legit (no fake social security or green cards or birth certificates). They are as American as apple pie!


Does this mean that your views are based only on what you call real Americans and that you have to be white to be a real American?
Is Condoleeza Rice a real American?
What about Colin Powell et al?
It is fascinating being able to speak with a person who holds such views and not be required to actually breath the same air as that person.
Ich.

.,,


----------



## cuchuflete

The Artful Dodger said:
			
		

> Could it be that when some Americans complete their post-doctoral degrees and join the Ivies they lose their grip on reality?



You asked the question.  You may offer an answer.  

But first, just for fun, please define "post-doctoral degrees".


----------



## LV4-26

. said:


> Does this mean that your views are based only on what you call real Americans and that you have to be white to be a real American?


--->


Everness said:


> (And I'm talking about real Americans: white, middle-class, college-educated folks. I'm not talking about minorities, e.g. blacks, Asian, Latinos, etc.) who aren't "American" enough *for some people)*.


----------



## .   1

cuchuflete said:


> You asked the question. You may offer an answer.
> 
> But first, just for fun, please define "post-doctoral degrees".


It may be a Masters Degree.

.,,


----------



## ireney

Post doctoral can't be a masters degree can it? Isn't Masters below PhD? And I repeat that I am unwilling to move in a country where average people have such a high educational level since I will feel definitely inferior  Around here they are a minority. A very small minority if they continue their studies after PhD (not that you see all that many  people with PhDs or even Masters degrees). 

(hope that doesn't get deleted too)


----------



## cuchuflete

. said:


> It may be a Masters Degree.
> 
> .,,


  Regressing down the slope from Olympus?


----------



## .   1

cuchuflete said:


> Regressing down the slope from Olympus?


I just got another bald patch.  Damn.  I know that this must be funny but it missed me .
I suspect that I am wrong about the Masters Degree thingee.

.,,


----------



## ElaineG

> I also spend time talking to real Americans on a daily basis. (And I'm talking about real Americans: white, middle-class, college-educated folks. I'm not talking about minorities, e.g. blacks, Asian, Latinos, etc.) who aren't "American" enough for some people). Ah, let me add that they all appear to be legit (no fake social security or green cards or birth certificates). They are as American as apple pie!


 
Yawn.  I talk to those people all the time too.  Hell, I am those people, right down to the two Ivy degrees (neither however post-doctoral, unfortunately).  Those people who are obsessed with Iraq, as all of my social circle and family are, are in no way representative of the majority of Americans, including those I had sustained contact with during the last two presidential campaigns.  By the way, every single one of the Americans I met in New Hampshire, and quoted their views above, was white -- so I think race has little do with this.  We are talking about class, and to a large extent geography.

I suspect it's hard for you, as a non-native, to grasp the difference between certain elites and most of the country.  It's hard enough for many Americans who have never lived outside of certain privileged enclaves. 

I don't know how long you are here for, but I suggest that if these issues interest you, you explore a bit more.  At this point, you seem very out of touch with American culture and thought -- though it's always interesting to get an outsider's perspective.


----------



## Everness

ElaineG said:


> Yawn.  I talk to those people all the time too.  Hell, I am those people, right down to the two Ivy degrees (neither however post-doctoral, unfortunately).  *Those people who are obsessed with Iraq, as all of my social circle and family are, are in no way representative of the majority of Americans,* including those I had sustained contact with during the last two presidential campaigns.  By the way, every single one of the Americans I met in New Hampshire, and quoted their views above, was white -- so I think race has little do with this.  We are talking about class, and to a large extent geography.
> 
> *I suspect it's hard for you, as a non-native, to grasp the difference between certain elites and most of the country. * It's hard enough for many Americans who have never lived outside of certain privileged enclaves.
> 
> *I don't know how long you are here for, but I suggest that if these issues interest you, you explore a bit more.  At this point, you seem very out of touch with American culture and thought -- though it's always interesting to get an outsider's perspective.*



An update on the eve of US congressional election. It's amazing how things changed in a month and a half, when the above message was posted. 

_Poll believers, meanwhile, say Iraq appears to be the single most important issue that could tip the balance of power in Congress in favor of Democrats._http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/03/election.issues/index.html

_Despite claims by Republican leaders that local issues will guide voters in Tuesday's congressional balloting, the war in Iraq has turned the election into a national referendum on President George W. Bush's policy in Iraq... Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia political science professor, said off-year elections become nationalized when war, the economy or widespread scandals energize voters. In 2006, "Iraq dominates everything else," Sabato said. "There are states where stem cells or gay marriage matter, but this is the Iraq midterm."
_http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061105/NEWS07/611050664/1001/NEWS

_Republicans have tried to fight the election on local issues whereas Democrats have wasted no opportunity to turn the poll into a referendum on the president, George Bush, and the war inIraq . According to the polls the war will be a "very important" factor for more than half the electorate when they decide which party to support._http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1646022006

Here's the title of a story published by The New York Times: *With Election Driven by Iraq, Voters Want New Approach*
_The poll underlined the extent to which the war has framed the midterm elections. Americans cited Iraq as the most important issue affecting their vote, and majorities of Republicans and Democrats said they wanted a change in approach. _http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/02/u...gin&adxnnlx=1162871913-zQu43ntk33awuS+D6gtC/Q

Even my dear friends at Fox News summarized the role that the war in Iraq will play in tomorrow's elections: *Iraq, but Maybe Not Saddam, the Key to Winning the Midterm Election*
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227623,00.html?sPage=fnc.politics/youdecide2006


----------



## Hockey13

Guys, I haven't the time to read every post on here, but I made a valiant effort. It appears that Everness has tried to make generalizations about the average American John Q. Public, which is a very dangerous thing to do, especially as a non-native. Despite your best efforts, it's not nearly as simple as you would like it to be. 51% of the population that voted did not vote for Bush simply because they liked what was going on in Iraq. As has been stated many times in other posts, that election was about way more than just Iraq, not excluding dislike for _the other guy_ (John Kerry).

You can't claim to be an expert on American politics without realizing how big of a role *Christianity* plays in the campaigns. The same Bible that you (apparently) are championing is used by fundamentalist preachers to sing the praises of US foreign actions, yes, but that's not all. They tell their constituents that Republicans will uphold Christ, protect the Bible, save unborn babies, etc. etc. etc. I know you will bring up a debate about how the Bible doesn't say any of those things and in order to save you a heap of time: I know, but that is what is happening in Fundamentalia, USA. On top of that, you have a bunch of old-time Republicans who have been caught off-guard by neo-cons, you have people who were simply misinformed, and it goes on and on and on. In my experience, you haven't got a snowball's chance in hell of trying to convince the average Mississippi Baptist that Bush isn't the right one for the job, so we focus elsewhere.

I think the last two years have been monumental in American politics in that Bush has lost a very significant portion of the people who used to support him for other reasons because the War in Iraq has become so dark of a cloud.

If your point is that a lot of Americans are uninformed about the importance of US foreign policy, I agree with you. But I'm doing my best to help educate people through the use of reasoned inquiry and discussion, not through fuzzy stats and bloated claims. If my experience is worth anything, I think it might be important to note that this war is on the cusp of turning into my generation's mini-Vietnam...a cause that is causing a lot of uproar in the younger generations. Whether they'll go out and vote or not, I don't know, but based on what I see on college campuses, it seems the interest of young people is rising.


----------



## cuchuflete

Bravo Hockey13!

At your age, there was a maxi-Vietnam for me, and forced military conscription.  That seemed to concentrate the attention of my generation, and our elders.  The parallels are frightening.  Justification for massive military action was "The domino theory" which proved to be as hollow as claims of WMD.  Decades after the fact, Robert McNamara, who ran the 
war with all the effectiveness of Rumsfeld, recanted.  That didn't bring back the tens of thousands of dead and wounded. 
Back then, we also heard from politicians and some clergy that "God is on our side".  Back then we also had the raucous
bellowing of "America, love it or leave it".  Better to follow your path, and try to use "reasoned inquiry and discussion" to try to improve it.  

To the thread topic--Who is behind US foreign policy?  So far, it has not been the will of the people.  Let's hope more than the predicted 40% of eligible voters go to the polls, so that the citizens can take a much stronger role in determining policy.


----------



## djchak

Everness said:


> Thank you for making an effort to meet me where my English currently is. But I think I understood you the first time.
> 
> I also spend time talking to real Americans on a daily basis. (And I'm talking about real Americans: white, middle-class, college-educated folks. I'm not talking about minorities, e.g. blacks, Asian, Latinos, etc.) who aren't "American" enough for some people). Ah, let me add that they all appear to be legit (no fake social security or green cards or birth certificates). They are as American as apple pie!



Well I was going to respond, but I see there's no point, as I don't qualify on your list as a "real american".


----------



## Hockey13

cuchuflete said:


> Bravo Hockey13!
> 
> At your age, there was a maxi-Vietnam for me, *and forced military conscription*. That seemed to concentrate the attention of my generation, and our elders. The parallels are frightening. Justification for massive military action was "The domino theory" which proved to be as hollow as claims of WMD. Decades after the fact, Robert McNamara, who ran the
> war with all the effectiveness of Rumsfeld, recanted. That didn't bring back the tens of thousands of dead and wounded.
> Back then, we also heard from politicians and some clergy that "God is on our side". Back then we also had the raucous
> bellowing of "America, love it or leave it". Better to follow your path, and try to use "reasoned inquiry and discussion" to try to improve it.
> 
> To the thread topic--Who is behind US foreign policy? So far, it has not been the will of the people. Let's hope more than the predicted 40% of eligible voters go to the polls, so that the citizens can take a much stronger role in determining policy.


 
The part in bold is why I did not dare equating the two just yet. I wouldn't demean, by equation, the importance of the changes your generation made to the United States while many of them were dying in Vietnam.

I've always been fascinated by this phrase:

"If you don't like this country then you kin GIIIIIIT out!"

Would that person be willing to say the same thing to Martin Luther King in 1960?


----------



## maxiogee

Hockey13 said:


> I've always been fascinated by this phrase:
> 
> "If you don't like this country then you kin GIIIIIIT out!"
> 
> Would that person be willing to say the same thing to Martin Luther King in 1960?



I would that they'd have been willing to contribute towards the boat fare. 

If you're not one of "us" then you're one of "Them" — "Them" are always 'welcome to leave' as soon as they can.
These feelings are always universally experienced (and regularly expressed) when a nation sees itself as threatened both from without and within at the same time.


----------



## Everness

My final assignment. As you might recall, I was asked to explore this issue. Apparently those people who were obsessed with Iraq were, after all, representative of the majority of Americans. They went to the polls on Tuesday here in the US and the Democrats are now in control of the House and the Senate. 



> *Voters' view on Iraq and terrorism*
> 
> Based on questionnaires of 11,798 voters as they exited polling places nationwide.
> 
> In your vote for US House, how important was the war in Iraq?
> 
> Extremely important: 36%
> Very important: 32%
> Somewhat important: 20%
> Not at all important: 10%
> 
> Source: Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International for the National Election Pool.
> 
> NEW YORK TIMES NEWS AGENCY



*Bottom line: Iraq was important for two-thirds of voters, and they also leaned toward supporting Democrats.*

But unfortunately nothing is going to change in Iraq. If Bush doesn't do nuances, democrats just do that. Spinelessness is the noun that best describes the soul of the Democratic party when it comes to the war in Iraq. Let's not forget that the US Senate approved the Iraq war 72-23 and the House 296-133. However, the war issue didn't split neatly along party lines. Remember, *29* Democrats in the Senate and *81* in the House voted for the original Iraq war resolution. All Republicans except Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island (my hero who has cojones) voted for passage. A great example of what I'm saying is the Democrat's last presidential candidate. John Kerry won the World Championship of flip flopping on Iraq and on everything else! 
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1119904/posts

While the myth of American exceptionalism remains alive—that the United States alone has the right, whether by divine sanction or moral obligation, to bring civilization, or democracy, or liberty to the rest of the world, by violence if necessary— our foreign policy will only change superficially regardless of which of the two parties is in power. The only reason why voters want the troops out of Iraq is because our men and women in uniform are dying and the occupation is costing us billions of dollars. If we had succeeded, the Republicans would still be in power. Trust me... 

The two cents of a perfect outsider!


----------



## Hockey13

> Spinelessness is the noun that best describes the soul of the Democratic party when it comes to the war in Iraq.


 
Making statements like this proves that, as a _perfect_ outsider, you seem to know a lot less than you think you do. You use ridiculous political phrases like "flip-flop" and you completely ignore historical context. You're right about a lot of things, but get off your high horse, buddy. If you want to go around beating up historical decisions, exactly how far do we have to go back to find one for your native country? All anyone can do in this situation is find out what we've got right now and try to make the best decisions we can. Also, in a Democracy, no matter how educated one person gets, the majority might still make all of their decisions based on what their pastor said. I can't do anything about that, and the majority of those people vote Republican. If you've got any bright ideas about how to convince them to take God out of their vote, please, enlighten us, oh high horse rider.


----------



## cuchuflete

Everness said:


> The question is why is it that *(1.) **so much of the US goes along unquestioningly with Bush’s rhetoric? *
> 
> So what can be done? Until Americans realize that our perceptions are drawn from ingrained beliefs, not empirical study, *(2.)we won’t be able to learn from evidence, experience* or the views of ordinary people elsewhere in the world.





Everness said:


> The questions is "Who is behind US currentl foreign policy?" *(3)*I argue that it's tens or hundreds of millions of Americans informed by the American creed, not just Bush.





Everness said:


> Let me rephrase it:
> 
> Diagnosis: Much of the US goes along unquestioningly with Bush’s rhetoric because tens or even hundreds of millions of other Americans live in the same kind of ideological bubble made of steel that Bush lives in.
> * (4)**We are not able to learn from evidence of failed politics* either. We just continue committed to the goal of changing the world in our image and likeness.





Everness said:


> My final assignment. As you might recall, I was asked to explore this issue. *(5)*Apparently those people who were obsessed with Iraq were, after all, representative of the majority of Americans. They went to the polls on Tuesday
> 
> *
> (6)**Trust me... *



1. Wrong
2. Wrong
3. Wrong
4. Wrong
5. In the face of undeniable evidence of his own error, he recants, sort of, almost, maybe, perhaps.....
6. Is this the new version of the American Creed?  Thanks, but no thanks.   

What do Karl Rove and Everness have in common?
They hold onto flawed perceptions until those perceptions prove to be nonsense, and then they call in the spin doctors to show that they were right all along.  

Is the American Creed an endangered species, or is it just on vacation in the Bahamas?


----------



## Fleurs263

I think historically, powerful countries have always tried to influence or "conquer" other nations. America is now the most influential country in the world and I think it's accurate to say that it wields enormous cultural influence.  It would seem the youth (and other age groups?) want to be more American, like American images etc ... I personally think that the American Constitution is a fantastic idea and the concept that anyone can be successful, irrelevant of background etc is superbe; however, there is always a price to pay it would seem.  The problem with foreign policy is that unless democracy's working in your own country, it will likely fail.  It's a known political move to detract from internal problems, by creating a problematic foreign policy.  Whether this is true for the current situation ... possibly, but there's always been the idea that Saddam Hussein was unfinished business for the Bush family.  As for the American people, my impression is that they believe they have a good system, in essence and would see no reason not to 'export' it.  However, the last few years have seen some absurd moves by the USA (and the UK) and people ultimately don't like the idea of unnecessary carnage.  Perhaps if problems had been resolved quickly, people might have thought the losses worthwhile, but now we have aproblem which seems unsolvable.


----------



## .   1

Everness said:


> Trust me...


Whenever I hear someone say this I mentally check the position of my wallet to make sure that they have no chance of picking my pocket because I know that I have been lied to.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

When people say "trust me" they normally have the decency to offer their listeners a reason for demanding this trust. "Trust me, I'm a doctor…", "Trust me, I spoke to the …" or "Trust me, I was there…" 

What grounds have you for requesting my trust?
I could list loads of reasons why I shouldn't, so I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this.


----------



## ElaineG

> *Who is behind US current foreign policy... really?*


 
Me. 

On alternate Thursdays, I get my hair done, and my dachsund (the older one) takes over.

I promise you that most of the bad decisions of the last few years can be traced back to alternate Thursdays. My dog is a convinced neo-con, with Messianic tendencies to boot.

Trust me....


----------



## Hockey13

ElaineG said:


> Me.
> 
> On alternate Thursdays, I get my hair done, and my dachsund (the older one) takes over.
> 
> I promise you that most of the bad decisions of the last few years can be traced back to alternate Thursdays. My dog is a convinced neo-con, with Messianic tendencies to boot.
> 
> Trust me....


 
 Why is there no LOL smiley???


----------



## Everness

Hockey13 said:


> If you want to go around beating up historical decisions, exactly how far do we have to go back to find one for your native country?



You are the first one to hurt my feelings. What does my country of origin have to do with anything I said? Please explain yourself. I am now in US of A. Hicky, I like you, do you like me?


----------



## cuchuflete

*Who is behind US current foreign policy... really?
*

Once upon a time it was John Ashcroft, Dick Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld, acting on behalf of the folks who paid prayed for Katherine Harris to accept certain chads and reject others, and they further financed a few tons of makeup....  Then it was
just Dick and Don, and then ....


Six years passed, and the other tens and even hundreds of millions of mairkins stayed home, out of resignation and boredom.  A scant forty-odd percent went to the polls, and of those, slightly more than half, or about 21% of eligible voters, gave the regime in power a good thumpin.  That means that roughly one in five mairkins is now behind the beginnings of a change in policy.   Luckily, the thread starter has declared that he wouldn't even dream of voting for a major party, so he's not among the ~21%.  If he were, 21% would be hundreds of millions, and a majority of something.

Trust me?


----------



## cuchuflete

PS- As the time stamps of the previous two posts attest, the rumors that Everness and I have formed a comedy team may have some merit.  I swear on a stack of evangelical screeds that we do not collude for your amusement or edification.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

maxiogee said:


> family member in the military, therefore always "support the troops" (mostly FL) (Didn't they prefer to vote for someone who served than for someone who didn't?)



Maybe you've been too kind, Tony: it's not simply someone who served vs someone who didn't, it's someone who worked his ass off and  bravely risked his life for years In Vietnam, just to serve his country vs someone who shat hismself, didn't give a shit about his country and begged daddy to use his political power and his money to keep his wuss of a son home, safe and sound.


----------



## Hockey13

Everness said:


> You are the first one to hurt my feelings. What does my country of origin have to do with anything I said? Please explain yourself. I am now in US of A. Hicky, I like you, do you like me?


 
Your country of origin has everything to do with what you've been saying because you speak from such a high horse as if the United States is an exception in the long history of nations. My explanation has come in the form of four pages of refutations to your bizarre claims that bristle with undertones of the accusation that the average American plays a rather inferior role in the intelligence game. If you have a problem with a certain issue, please discuss it, but do not make sweeping comments about my countrymen because I am one of them.

P.s. My username isn't hickey.


----------



## .   1

Paulfromitaly said:


> Maybe you've been too kind, Tony: it's not simply someone who served vs someone who didn't, it's someone who worked his ass off and bravely risked his life for years In Vietnam, just to serve his country vs someone who shat hismself, didn't give a shit about his country and begged daddy to use his political power and his money to keep his wuss of a son home, safe and sound.


Not wishing to be too far off topic amy I comment that I would use whatever clout I had to stop my child from being conscripted into a war and forced to risk her life for specious military gains and if I was not successful in legal methods I would ensure that she disappeared and never had to stand in front of a bullet.
Conscription is only ever valid in a defensive situation but never as an offensive option.

.,,


----------



## Paulfromitaly

. said:


> Not wishing to be too far off topic amy I comment that I would use whatever clout I had to stop my child from being conscripted into a war and forced to risk her life for specious military gains and if I was not successful in legal methods I would ensure that she disappeared and never had to stand in front of a bullet.
> Conscription is only ever valid in a defensive situation but never as an offensive option.
> 
> .,,



Conscription is not the matter here: Bush was an officer of the Air National guard and he applied to be enrolled, he was not forced, but while his fellow soldiers got sent to Vietnam, Georgie the brave vanished for few years...
Sure, he is not the only one who did that, and we all can understand every human being's fear to die, but still this is not the point either.
The point is that you can't have shirked your military duties If you want to be the president of the USA and send your guys to die all around the world.
I don't mean that only a person who served in the Army is worthy and eligible: also a pacifist of course could become president and I personally would have no problems with that.
He wimped out: an ordinary man can do it, a president of the USA can not.


----------



## Lucretia

A long thread. It took me at least 30 minutes to read. I must confess I just scanned through some large posts. 
My outsider's view is that there's a tiny cabal behind the US policy and it's hardly possible to struggle against sophisticated Machiavellian methods used not only in the US - worldwide, in Kazakhstan, too.
 Nations are rather easily manipulated because the majority are lazy to think of anything besides their daily bread.
 
My thanks to – oh, was it GenJen or Cuchu? - for the *smarmy smirk* – I’ve been looking for a word to describe that smile for a long time.


----------



## cuchuflete

Lucretia said:


> Nations are rather easily manipulated because t*he majority are too lazy to think of anything besides their daily bread.*



Earlier this week the voters of the US had the opportunity to vote for or against the regime in power and its policies. 

 Three of every five eligible voters didn't take a few minutes to vote.

You are right.


----------



## Everness

ElaineG said:


> Me.
> 
> On alternate Thursdays, I get my hair done, and my dachsund (the older one) takes over.
> 
> I promise you that most of the bad decisions of the last few years can be traced back to alternate Thursdays. My dog is a convinced neo-con, with Messianic tendencies to boot.
> 
> Trust me....



I trust you and your dog (in that order)  My only dog, a cookapoo, happens to be liberal as his owner and hates my Republican neighbor across the street. 

Here comes some unsolicited piece of advice. Ready? In the future you should consult and trust the opinion of members of your social circle and your family when it comes to foreign policy. They were, after all, representative of the majority of Americans. 



ElaineG said:


> Those people who are obsessed with Iraq, as all of my social circle and family are, are in no way representative of the majority of Americans


----------



## GenJen54

*Moderator Note:*  The subject of this thread, as indicated in its title, is "Who is behind current US policy...really?"

While inclusive in that is discussion of the decision-makers of such policy from historical, cultural and political perspectives, specific discussion of the policies itself do not belong in this thread, nor, according to our policy regarding Middle East threads, in this forum.

Among other things, the CD policy on Middle-East / Political threads, says: 


> The conduct of governments and organizations in these political contexts is bound to evoke strong opposition from people in nearly all cultures, which experience has shown us leads only to heated arguments and the throwing of personal insults.


Thank you for your compliance, even if we do not have your understanding.


----------



## tweety79

GenJen54 said:


> *Moderator Note:* The subject of this thread, as indicated in its title, is "Who is behind current US policy...really?"
> 
> While inclusive in that is discussion of the decision-makers of such policy from historical, cultural and political perspectives, specific discussion of the policies themselves do not belong in this thread, nor, according to our policy regarding Middle East threads, in this forum.
> 
> Among other things, the CD policy on Middle-East / Political threads, says: Thank you for your compliance, even if we do not have your understanding.


Quick question, isnt that the discussion of the forum...excuse me im new in this...so i should just comment on the original discussion topic?
Thanks for ur help


----------



## cuchuflete

tweety79 said:


> Quick question, isn*'*t that the discussion of the forum...e*E*xcuse me im *I'm *new in this...so *I* should just comment on the original discussion topic?
> Thanks for *yo*ur help*.*



Welcome to the Forums, Tweety.

This is the topic:  *Who is behind US current foreign policy... really?

*The topic is not US current foreign policy.
The topic is not whether you like US current foreign policy.
The topic is not anything other than the words in bold letters.

Please read the forum rules.  They ask that you make your best attempt to use standard language forms, and omit chatspeak and texting abbreviations.


----------



## tweety79

cuchuflete said:


> Welcome to the Forums, Tweety.
> 
> This is the topic: *Who is behind US current foreign policy... really?*
> 
> The topic is not US current foreign policy.
> The topic is not whether you like US current foreign policy.
> The topic is not anything other than the words in bold letters.
> 
> Please read the forum rules. They ask that you make your best attempt to use standard language forms, and omit chatspeak and texting abbreviations.


Thanks althought i noticed some individuals who had comments away from the original discussion forum so i thought it was fine....Thank you for your help


----------



## Hockey13

Everness said:


> Here comes some unsolicited piece of advice. Ready? In the future you should consult and trust the opinion of members of your social circle and your family when it comes to foreign policy. They were, after all, representative of the majority of Americans.


 
This makes precisely zero sense to me. In the most recent election, Iraq was a huge issue. In the election before that, it was not the biggest issue. You can't simply take polling numbers from this election and apply them to other points in time.


----------



## Tao

Having read most of the posts in here I can't help but to jump in as well.

If I had to answer the question "Who's really behind U.S. foreign policy?" I'd try to dig and dig as much as possible until I find the truth, and even then I'd possibly not be sure about it when I think I've found it.

It seems to me that one would have to look at *who profits*. In general I'd think of organizations such as international bankers, powerful families, powerful politicians, corporate institutions, weapons manufacturers, and the likes.
War makes money, it's a hard fact, and these people who participate in this are just doing hard-ass cold business. I'd say, check out some documentaries regarding it. There are some nice documentaries to be found on Google Video.


----------



## .   1

Tao said:


> If I had to answer the question "Who's really behind U.S. foreign policy?" I'd try to dig and dig as much as possible until I find the truth, and even then I'd possibly not be sure about it when I think I've found it.


And when you dig deep enough to strike one of the devil's gift's to humanity, Oil, you may well have found the answer.

.,,


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Tao said:


> If I had to answer the question "Who's really behind U.S. foreign policy?" I'd try to *dig and dig* as much as possible until I find the truth, and even then I'd possibly not be sure about it when I think I've found it.



Right...Maybe you didn't do it intentionally, but you shed a light on the whole issue: what happens when you dig and dig?  you might find *oil*..


----------



## cuchuflete

I don't doubt that world oil supply was a consideration in decisions about Iraq.  I do doubt that it was the prime motivation for the invasion.   The arithmetic doesn't make sense.  The cost to US taxpayers for the war exceeds the value of the Iraqi oil pumped since the invasion, and US firms have not, as far as I know, acquired ownership of the oil business in that country.

If anyone has facts to prove my assumptions are wrong, please bring them forward.  

The indirect potential benefits to all industrialized and industrializing countries of added supply on world markets is obvious.  The cost of the invasion could have paid for a massive investments in alternative fuels research.  

If the expected value, and control, of Iraqi oil was really the primary motivation for the invasion, that would indicate that the decision makers have trouble doing simple addition.  Hmmmmmmmmm??


----------



## .   1

cuchuflete said:


> I don't doubt that world oil supply was a consideration in decisions about Iraq. I do doubt that it was the prime motivation for the invasion. The arithmetic doesn't make sense. The cost to US taxpayers for the war exceeds the value of the Iraqi oil pumped since the invasion, and US firms have not, as far as I know, acquired ownership of the oil business in that country.
> 
> If anyone has facts to prove my assumptions are wrong, please bring them forward.
> 
> The indirect potential benefits to all industrialized and industrializing countries of added supply on world markets is obvious. The cost of the invasion could have paid for a massive investments in alternative fuels research.
> 
> If the expected value, and control, of Iraqi oil was really the primary motivation for the invasion, that would indicate that the decision makers have trouble doing simple addition. Hmmmmmmmmm??


G'day cuchu,
I think that it is possible that you may be slightly oversimplifying the economics of war.  The trillions of dollars being spent on the war does not all go up in smoke.  There are vast profits to be skimmed off war economies.  Many wars are thought to have started due to internal economic pressures to stimulate the economy.  I suspect that many of the companies posting record profits from the war figure prominently in the share portfolio of senior American politicians.

.,,


----------



## cuchuflete

Hi Robert,
You may be correct about war profits in general (no pun intended), but that would tend to promote military action in oil free zones just as much as in areas with mineral wealth.

I'd like to see a list of those "companies posting record profits from the war".  I assume that they would include Halliburton and the largest weapons manufacturers.   I'll have a quick look at their financial results for the last five years, and post them here.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

cuchuflete said:


> The cost of the invasion could have paid for a massive investments in *alternative fuels research*.




What's the Bush family main business? let me guess..oil wells?
Do you expect someone who is a billionaire thanks to the oil business to encourage massive investments in *alternative fuels research?
*I do not..call me pessimist or defeatist, but I do not.


----------



## cuchuflete

Halliburton, which has had large reconstruction contracts in Iraq, gets most of its revenues and profits from other lines of business.  Here are some financials for the past few years.  People not used to reading such data will likely jump to erroneous conclusions, and should look at business segment data.
Data: Date, Opening price, High, Low, Close, share volume, close price adjusted for dividends, splits:
Dec- 2003   23.45 27.20 23.22 26.00  7,885,618  12.5928*-
* split adjusted
Nov-03 $ 0.0625  Dividend


Nov-06  32.13  32.97  30.90  31.79   16,339,300       31.79   $ 0.075  DividendAug-0633

Have a look at KBR, which has been getting a large portion of its revenues from Iraqi contracts.


----------



## emma42

Of course it's oil and profit.  Whether or not the US (and its allies and big business) have _yet_ profited from Iraq is not the question.  The point is that big business and the capitalist governments which pander/answer to it have to ensure that nations, especially oil-rich nations in unstable parts of the world, know who is boss.  It's long-termism.


----------



## Everness

A previous post inspired me to believe that Barney is behind US current foreign policy. http://www.whitehouse.gov/barney/

_We got one of many tastes of Bush’s belief in that agenda’s divine inspiration in Bob Woodward’s sycophantic book "Plan of Attack." Asked by Woodward if he had discussed Iraq with Bush pere, “born-again” Junior responded in pompous and pious terms. “You know,” he said, his Dad “is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher father I appeal to.”_

I like to following sentence: 

_That “higher father” denotes “God,” who Bush II has been beseeching to “continue to bless the United States of America” throughout his monumentally illegal occupation of Iraq. _

http://blog.zmag.org/ee_links/on_a_mission_from_god_bushs_messianic_militarism

So it's a *dog *or it's *god*. You pick.


----------



## cuchuflete

How nice to see you proposing a more plausible thesis than that in the first post-- The canine creed.  That's not so mangy and flea-bitten as the former hypothesis, and it can wag its tail and go in circles before sitting down.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Everness said:


> A previous post inspired me to believe that Barney is behind US current foreign policy. http://www.whitehouse.gov/barney/
> 
> _We got one of many tastes of Bush’s belief in that agenda’s divine inspiration in Bob Woodward’s sycophantic book "Plan of Attack." Asked by Woodward if he had discussed Iraq with Bush pere, “born-again” Junior responded in pompous and pious terms. “You know,” he said, his Dad “is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher father I appeal to.”_
> 
> I like to following sentence:
> 
> _That “higher father” denotes “God,” who Bush II has been beseeching to “continue to bless the United States of America” throughout his monumentally illegal occupation of Iraq. _
> 
> http://blog.zmag.org/ee_links/on_a_mission_from_god_bushs_messianic_militarism
> 
> So it's a *dog *or it's *god*. You pick.



There's a tiny wee doubt coming into my mind now:
is your ill-concealed rage against USA (please notice that I'm not American and therefore not one of your targets, yet) due to Borat's mockery of Kazakhstan, your country?


----------



## LouisaB

Paulfromitaly said:


> There's a tiny wee doubt coming into my mind now:
> is your ill-concealed rage against USA (please notice that I'm not American and therefore not one of your targets, yet) due to Borat's mockery of Kazakhstan, your country?


 
I would doubt it, Paul. Sacha Baron Cohen is (unfortunately) British...
But perhaps the film is mainly American? I'm glad to say I haven't seen it.

Louisa


----------



## Paulfromitaly

LouisaB said:


> I would doubt it, Paul. Sacha Baron Cohen is (unfortunately) British...
> But perhaps the film is mainly American? I'm glad to say I haven't seen it.
> 
> Louisa



I know he's Brit, but it seems that all the carry on coming after that movie is due to the fact that Borat goes to *USA* to let Americans know about his country and once there, they obviously take the piss out of him...
I haven't seen the movie though and I doubt I'm gonna watch it..


----------



## Tao

@ Paulfromitaly and .,,

The question was* who* is behind the foreign policy, not *what*. And I have answered this question (or tried to answer) as generally and simply as I thought possible. Certainly oil has to do with it, but that's just superficial, for there's a lot more to it than just oil.

I'd include the "good of democracy" which has to be spread over the world by America as it acts like some kind of mighty global oppressor under the guise of goodness, the Neo-Consersatives and the CIA (and one of CIA's branches who even trained Al-Qaida) who use a threat on their own country to influence public opinion in order to permit a war, and so on. Add to this the social decay of America, as a common enemy will certainly make a tighter better society.

It's a very neat trick they use, a classic.
1) Problem: you need something somewhere, so first have your homeland attacked or under threat
2) Reaction: you need "permission" from the people, so blame somebody (your foe, a particular group, or country) and convince the public their land is under threat as you instill fear
3) Solution: secure public opinion and do as you please, you now can go to war and get what you want.

The Nazis used the same classical method to seize power back then. They burned the Reichstag, blamed it on Communism and whoever else, seized power and had their reason to go to war(, in the meantime also stimulating economy and a nationalist society).

Look at how the rights of the American citizens have been taken away. There needs to be more security, and the reason is "Terrorism", and they will spy on everybody, because they have their reason to do so. And with this they gain more power and more control.


----------



## .   1

Tao said:


> @ Paulfromitaly and .,,
> 
> The question was* who* is behind the foreign policy, not *what*.


I think that this is specious and merely used as a leader to the rest of this strange post.
Of course a thing can not be literally behind any policy.  A thing has no conscience or compassion or morals or the ability to form rational thought but a thing like oil will bring people which will bring the attention of people of power.
Some things do nothing but uselessly irritate people.

.,,


----------



## GenJen54

*Moderator Edit:*  It seems this thread veered grossly off-course somewhere around Post 95, after which a harsh lesson in racist reality was learned. 

The threads posts involved in that side discussion have been removed. 

If you wish to continue this thread on its current course, please feel free to do so.   A return to the earlier side conversation will result in more posts being deleted. 

 ....and let the PMs come...


----------

