retired_mrsjb

I don't think a true liberal is anything like what the US media calls a liberal. But they do it anyway.

retired_pmetzger1

What has you level of liberal-ness got to do with left or right-ness?

retired_lapepe

Think you are correct there. This is what I tried to say earlier. The US political landscape is dragged to the right. If only discussions like this could appear in newsoutlets in both the US and Europe, perhaps the world wouldn't be such a sh!tty place, as people would know what's really going on to much greater degree than today.

Kallinan,
the 1% number isn't pulled out of thin air, it has been used by none other than Chomsky when talking about the Iraq war. I'll see if I can dig it up somewhere. The point wasn't if the numbers that wanted them there was 1% or even 30%, but that the great majority doesn't want them there. So why are they there? Democracy means that the people decide. When the majority of the people don't want them there, and the US are staying, they don't care about democracy. The US has taken credit for the current government in Iraq, but in reality they did everything in its power to prevent the election, as they knew it would mean less US control. Not a single interview I've seen with the various Iraqis politicians has convinced me that they say what they want to say. The last Iraqi PM had to ask Blair to answer questions on several occations during a press conference last year. It was actually embarrassing to watch how much control the US/UK has over the country, and yet the media act like lapdogs with "Dear Leader" mentality. If our Dear Leader says it is so, it must be so.

The list of US occupations and interventions in the world since its inception should convince anybody that they have done a lot more "bad" than "good". The good things the US does is usually not on behalf of the US government anyway, but non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The US government always has a hidden agenda, usually to expand business interests in the area, or by giving aid the receiving country has to buy weapons or other things from the US, or US companies have to win the contracts. This is standard practice, and is heavily used in Iraq for instance. Won't surprise me one bit if this was the case after the tsunami either. It's basically subsidies to American corporations. The US government gives money to some 3rd world country that its public has paid through taxes. Then the 3rd world country have to give contracts to US companies. Ergo the money goes indirectly from the US public to US companies. To a large degree this is the case with R&D as well. Research is done in the public sector through universities etc. When the technology is good enough to get on the market, it's handed over to private companies who reap the benefits. Without huge subsidies to corporations, capitalism would never work - which of course means that it doesn't really work. The world is the best example of that.

retired_mow63

Anyone wanting to read even MORE into what's been said so far on this topic should look here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baudrillard

I don't agree with everything that he stimpulates but generally his idea of hyperreality is a solid tool to critise America with.

Jeez - I'd never thought I'd be all psuedo intelligent and noncy on the LLM board - I'm off to polish my mortarboard and the old degree certificate...

retired_mow63

HAAA - perfect - spelling mistake in the last post - ohhhhhh the irony

retired_huseyinek

I see what you guys are saying. I was just saying what I thought they were, but you are correct in that everything here does get dragged to the right. My Bad.

KingsbayYHPE

Ouch...everything was going just fine 'til "my bad"

retired_raistlin1979

Please understand I'm not arguing the assertation that "most of Iraq *probably* wants the US to go the hell home." I believe that to be the case already. But I find it *highly* unlikely, almost unbelievable, that a neutral poll would come up with a number of 1%.

I agree that, since the 2004 elections had already passed and Bush had won, that the US gov't probably had interests to discourage or sway the elections to a favorable outcome for them.

And yes, the US has often used democracy as an excuse to further private interests. This has been a common excuse for foreign interference since at least the end of WWII.

Oh, please. Look at that list in Wikipedia yourself. How many positive governments giving their people freedom & prosperous living did the US interfere with or topple? In most of these cases of foreign interference, the US is doing highly illegal stuff in 3rd world countries run by selfish dictators. The US is obviously in the wrong... but it's hard to say they're making situations "worse."

But while you're rightfully bashing America's covert ops, you should also acknowledge contributions to WWII & the Cold War. You can yell & scream at America for joining in late '41, but if they don't join at all, it's a very different world today. And if America doesn't covertly fight the USSR for the last half of the 20th century, what might the world look like then? Or have you forgotten that half of Europe and large parts of Asia was basically occupied by Moscow?

Either your statement is far too general, or you need to better define what "works" means. Does capitalism lead to successful private companies and jobs? Yes. Does it lead to a thriving middle class & fair competition? No, you need controlled capitalism for that. Subsidies are not necessary for capitalism to "work." It's simply smart companies using every advantage they can, including gov't subsidies or funds, to either correct their own mistakes or increase their profits. You can be bitter about capitalism, but it still functions as advertised.

retired_jmeshew

I don't think a true liberal is anything like what the US media calls a liberal. But they do it anyway.[/QUOTE]

You are right (and Bigsamtheman too), it's not classical liberalism. Rather, because of its position on the spectrum, liberal has become interchangeable for left, even if many of the tenets of classical liberalism are actually identified with modern U.S. conservatism. What the media here often identifies as conservative is not necessarily so, either. However, they are the terms/definitions that most Americans can identify with, and for better or worse, that is just how it is these days. I can appreciate that to Europeans that U.S. politics must look a debate on how far right things ought to be, but that is our national experience, so again, right and left become relative terms.

What I am curious to know, however, is whether the working definitions of Europeans of left and right are primarily economic. If that is case, then I can see where no U.S. politician can be seen as left. I'd also like to know what sort of policies and beliefs constitute the far right in Europe.

retired_jmeshew

As Kallinan said, capitalism works as advertised. Subsidies for corporations is not true capitalism, and actually hinders its smooth operation. More subsidies = higher taxes which = higher cost for businesses which = higher prices for the consumer. Now the market is setting prices, but is artificially influenced by subsidies and tax rates to pay for those subsidies.

But thanks for that post, because I now think I see where you are coming from. You are a Marxist. If not, you are a doing a great job of playing one. That is probably where our views are breaking down. I just cannot see the world solely in terms of economics, which to me is the biggest fallacy of the Marxist paradigm. People, governments, cultures etc. are influence by more than money.