Replies

You make a very common mistake by breaking history into small, discrete intervals of time when in fact there is a much bigger underlying trend here.

What you are witnessing here is nothing more than the latest phase of an undertaking that began in the 1940s when the U.S. embarked on an effort to relieve Europe's colonial powers of their possessions and establish modern, secular forms of government in these places. It didn't work in Vietnam, and I have no confidence that it is going to work in the Middle East, either.

No. You make the mistake of trying to link history by very large intervals of time when there is in fact no link. You can't skip over everything from the 1940s and arrive at today and expect me to take you seriously.

What would you have recommended in place of such policies? Please, don't make another lengthy response about how stupid I am because it's starting to piss me off. I'm open to your ideas but if they are only designed to show me how stupid you think I am you can make them in private.

You can't skip over everything from the 1940s and arrive at today and expect me to take you seriously.

Do you really think the period from 1945 to 1990 was completely uneventful in terms of U.S. involvement in the Middle East? Or that the events that unfolded in the Middle East from 1945 to today have no relation to each other?

Alberta's Child is right of course. It's not like the neo cons in power have made any secret of their intentions.

The Statement of Principles put out by by The Project for the New American Century clearly outlines their plans. I personally think Hanson and his buddies in the White House are wrong. Iraq is proving the opposite of their projections. Democracy may not, after all, be compatable with all cultures.