[annalex]

The Western civilization embraces libertarian values of individual freedom in a mix with communitarian values, such as government by consensus, and I enumerated both kinds. So, the western values are not exclusively libertarian; in particular, the 20 Century saw an erosion of property rights by the indirect means of taxation and regulation. In our domestic policy disputes with statists we often accuse them of socialism, but that is rhetorics applied loosely. From a wider perspective, the Western values remain antithetical to government ownership of means of production and in that precise sense are not socialist. Compared to the Muslim world, our system of property rights is still freer by far; we also believe and for most part practice freedoms of speech, assembly and conscience unparallelled in the Muslim world.

The contrast holds if you look at our concrete deeds in the Middle East. An Arab Israeli can hold property, vote and make speeches on the street or in the Knesset (in Arabic, too) against his own government. Not coincidentally, we support Israel. During the Shah's regime in Iran Iranians could wear whatever they wanted, go to beaches in bikinis and watched and listened to whatever entertainment they liked. That was the regime we supported, to be replaced by the ayatollahs that banned all that and shot everyone with money or from the wrong party. In Saudi Arabia we have a military base because we have a treaty with the Saudi government, -- we didn't go to war with the Saudis to get that base. When Iraq invaded a weak neighboring country, we sided with the weak, and traditionally Arab, Kuwait. Our record in the Middle East, although reflecting for most part our self-interest, also reflects our values.

I agree that the Arabs in general adopt the western values whenever they have a chance. The warrior Arab civilization is small, in decline, and spread thinly. I talk more about the nature of our friends and enemies in the next article: Defense of Liberty: The Contours of Victory

[Demidog]

During the Shah's regime in Iran Iranians could wear whatever they wanted, go to beaches in bikinis and watched and listened to whatever entertainment they liked.

And our CIA helped the Shah dispatch his political enemies. And you left out an important part of the puzzle. The Shah was the leader we decided was proper for Iran. That is absolutely not an American value. An American value would be self-determination and sovereignty. So our involvement was difinitively anti-American in nature.

That was the regime we supported, to be replaced by the ayatollahs that banned all that and shot everyone with money or from the wrong party.

And I haven't said that the Islamic hardliners who came to power weren't creeps. But their rise to power was helped along because of our interventions.

In Saudi Arabia we have a military base because we have a treaty with the Saudi government, -- we didn't go to war with the Saudis to get that base. When Iraq invaded a weak neighboring country, we sided with the weak, and traditionally Arab, Kuwait.

Please, when Iraq was invading Iran we sided with Iraq. Explain how that represents American values. Fact is, it doesn't. It was a cynical show of support which eventually backfired when Iraq used weapons and training we provided during their war with Iran to invade Kuwait.

Our record in the Middle East, although reflecting for most part our self-interest, also reflects our values.

If you really believe that, then what you have to believe that the initiation of aggression and the support of totalitarianism is an American "value." You can't seperate the one or two things that we did that reflected American values from the things we did that did not reflect those values.