Simple question: who exactly was the butt of the joke?

Were we supposed to laugh because the women were being forced to take of their clothing and take a shower, hee hee women being humiliated (it's funny because we all want to do that), or because the complete losers suddenly discovered a power that they could never have in real life, ho ho, whatta bunch of losers (because funny is what we see in ourselves, our worst impulses and deepest embarrassments)?

Most of the "humor" in the ads, some of which I found funny and some of which I did not, was mostly laughter at men. This was supposedly (and largely actually is) men's space after all. Don't want to hear the discussions in the men's locker room, the things we laugh at about ourselves and worst behaviour, don't listen in (and I for one, as an old married guy, surely do not want to listen in to the female equivalent!)

The humour wasn't particularly respectful of either sex after all, and indeed no humour should be. But cannot men be allowed to laugh at themselves and their stupid foibles without women getting all serious on their asses? Which is what I took a lot of the jokes to be doing. Not that they were all that good jokes, but still.

Here is another ad, conforming to all the tired old stereotypes, with men basically as jerks, but still, I think, funny. At least for men willing to laugh at themselves:

http://bewareofthedoghouse.com/VideoPage.aspx (link at sig too)

Aside from the odious stereotypes that all right-thinking people must deny apply to their own lives, and aside from that it is a capitalist attempt to extract money from guilty men, it is still, I think, funny, and the butt of the humour is not women.

And nor is its favored audience.

Which is the point I am trying to make, I think.

Actually, because of the short-hand the press uses to describe things, one can often get the wrong impression. In terms of civil war if the US pulls out, a civil war within the Shia is highly probable. There is already one going on within the Sunnis. And the Kurds remain highly divided between two heavily armed factions that hate each other.

I think what we would be more likely to see is a three-ring circus, a la Lebanon, a crazy-quilt of shifting alliances that cross religious, ethnic, and ideological lines. With, again like Lebanon, massive interference by neighbours: Saudi, Kuwait, Iran and Turkey are going to be deeply interested in events (indeed, so will Syria and Jordan who are already sitting on a couple of million refugees they can't afford), and will be quite willing to provide a great deal of support to favoured factions, again, like in Lebanon, except much worse, especially if they see/fear each other is doing so.

The only possible saving grace is that, as in the famous quote, "the prospect of a hanging in the morning concentrates the mind quite wonderfully" (too lazy to look up the exact quote & source). The Iraqis and their politicians may realize that if they don't get it right, the consequences really don't bear thinking about. There are actually some pretty good indications of this already. So I have some hope.

There seems to be some highly compartmentalized thinking, or at anyrate a certain amount of cognitive dissonance here. If I understand your argument, it goes something like this:

1) Arabs hate Israel because they are murderous anti-semites and wish to see Israel destroyed.

2) Arabs hate America because it props up evil dictatorships and invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.

Conclusion A:

3) Statements 1) and 2) are completely distinct and have no connection: Arabs do not hate America because it backs Israel.

Conclusion B:

4) if the US would stop propping up dictatorships and invading, all would be hunky-dory in US-Arab relations, and the US could go on happily arming and subsidizing Israel with no effect on US-Arab relations.

Corollary A: for Israel, no peace is possible with the Arabs, and regrettable but necessary violence will have to be inflicted from time to time, because they are murderous anti-semites and thus cannot be reasoned with; in such a conflict there will inevitably be unfortunate excesses; the blame for these can only be laid at the feet of the anti-semites who started the whole thing.

Corollary B: criticism of Israel from the US, which is propping up evil Arab regimes and invading Muslim countries, can only be explained by the deep undercurrents of anti-semitism in the US and Western culture generally.

Do I have it about right?

"I do however think that Democracy is worth supporting, financially, and even with blood, sometimes."

See, we aren't all in lock-step. I agree with you on that one, as long as the "sometimes" is rare, considered, fully understood, not based on lies, etc.

Israel for example, is a pretty poor example of a "democracy," because real democracies actually follow the rulings of their own supreme courts and give everybody a vote and don't categorize their citizens by race/religion and turn over certain legal authorities to religious tribunals and live up to the international agreements they have signed (I know, I know, the US has some problems here too) and so on.

Now for some, saying the above makes me "an Israel Hater" and probably an anti-semite too. I won't dignify the latter, but as for the former, I actually am not. I don't believe you can genuinely either hate or love a whole country. Countries don't have "friends," they have interests.

In any case if the US really was Israel's "friend," well, friends don't let drunk friends drive, and they certainly don't lend them their cars to drive in, which is pretty much what US policy towards Israel has been. I don't think that pointing out that Israel is on a sure path to self-destruction is the action of an Israel Hater, quite the contrary.