How America Determines Friends & Foes (Chomsky)
Dan Clore
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
The Toronto Star
Mar. 14, 2004. 01:00 AM
How America determines friends and foes
NOAM CHOMSKY
SPECIAL TO THE STAR
Every self-respecting president has a doctrine attached to
his name. The core principle of the Bush II doctrine is that
the United States must "rid the world of evil," as the
president said right after 9/11.
A special responsibility is to wage war against terrorism,
with the corollary that any state that harbours terrorists
is a terrorist state and should be treated accordingly.
Let's ask a fair and simple question: What would the
consequences be if we were to take the Bush doctrine
seriously, and treat states that harbour terrorists as
terrorist states, subject to bombardment and invasion?
The United States has long been a sanctuary to a rogues'
gallery of people whose actions qualify them as terrorists,
and whose presence compromises and complicates U.S.
proclaimed principles.
Consider the Cuban Five, Cuban nationals convicted in Miami
in 2001 as part of a spy ring.
To understand the case, which has prompted international
protests, we have to look at the sordid history of U.S.-Cuba
relations (leaving aside here the issue of the crushing,
decades-long U.S. embargo).
The United States has engaged in large- and small-scale
terrorist attacks against Cuba since 1959, including the Bay
of Pigs invasion and the bizarre plots to kill Castro.
Direct U.S. participation in the attacks ended during the
late '70s -- at least officially.
In 1989, the first president Bush granted a pardon to
Orlando Bosch, one of the most notorious anti-Castro
terrorists, accused of masterminding the bombing of a Cuban
airliner in 1976. Bush overruled the Justice Department,
which had refused an asylum request from Bosch, concluding:
"The security of this nation is affected by its ability to
urge credible other nations to refuse aid and shelter to
terrorists, whose target we too often become."
Recognizing that the United States was going to harbour
anti-Castro terrorists, Cuban agents infiltrated those
networks. In 1998, high-level FBI officials were sent to
Havana, where they were given thousands of pages of
documentation and hundreds of hours of videotape about
terrorist actions organized by cells in Florida.
The FBI reacted by arresting the people who provided the
information, including a group now known as the Cuban Five.
The arrests were followed by what amounted to a show trial
in Miami. The Five were sentenced, three to life sentences
(for espionage; and the leader, Gerardo Hernandez, also for
conspiracy to murder), after convictions that are now being
appealed.
Meanwhile, people regarded by the FBI and Justice Department
as dangerous terrorists live happily in the United States
and continue to plot and implement crimes.
The list of terrorists-in-residence in the United States
also includes Emmanuel Constant from Haiti, known as Toto, a
former paramilitary leader from the Duvalier era. Constant
is the founder of the FRAPH (Front for Advancement of
Progress in Haiti), the paramilitary group that carried out
most of the state terror in the early 1990s under the
military junta that overthrew president Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
At last report, Constant was living in Queens, N.Y.
The United States has refused Haiti's request for
extradition. The reason, it is generally assumed, is that
Constant might reveal ties between Washington and the
military junta that killed 4,000 to 5,000 Haitians, with
Constant's paramilitary forces playing the leading role.
The gangsters leading the current coup in Haiti include
FRAPH leaders.
For the United States, Cuba has long been the primary
concern in the hemisphere. A declassified 1964 State
Department document declares Fidel Castro to be an
intolerable threat because he "represents a successful
defiance of the United States, a negation of our whole
hemispheric policy of almost a century and a half," since
the Monroe Doctrine declared that no challenge to U.S.
dominance would be tolerated in the hemisphere.
Venezuela now presents a similar problem. A recent lead
article in the Wall Street Journal says, "Fidel Castro has
found a key benefactor and heir apparent to the cause of
derailing the U.S.'s agenda in Latin America: Venezuelan
President Hugo Chavez."
As it happens, last month, Venezuela asked the United States
to extradite two former military officers who are seeking
asylum in the United States. The two had taken part in a
military coup supported by the Bush administration, which
backed down in the face of outrage throughout the hemisphere.
The Venezuelan government, remarkably, observed a ruling of
the Venezuelan supreme court barring prosecution of the coup
leaders. The two officers were later implicated in a
terrorist bombing, and fled to Miami.
Outrage over defiance is deeply ingrained in U.S. history.
Thomas Jefferson bitterly condemned France for its "attitude
of defiance" in holding New Orleans, which he coveted.
Jefferson warned that France's "character (is) placed in a
point of eternal friction with our character, which though
loving peace and the pursuit of wealth, is high-minded."
France's "defiance (requires us to) marry ourselves to the
British fleet and nation," Jefferson advised, reversing his
earlier attitudes, which reflected France's crucial
contribution to the liberation of the colonies from British
rule.
Thanks to Haiti's liberation struggle of 1804, unaided and
almost universally opposed, France's defiance soon ended.
But, then as now, the guiding principles of American outrage
over defiance remain in place, determining friend and foe.
Author and political activist Noam Chomsky is a professor of
linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
--
Dan Clore
Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
*anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
-- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
_Detective Comics_ #608
Dan Clore
Sean Burke
Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> writes:
> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> The Toronto Star
> Mar. 14, 2004. 01:00 AM
> How America determines friends and foes
> NOAM CHOMSKY
> SPECIAL TO THE STAR
>
..snip..
> Outrage over defiance is deeply ingrained in U.S. history.
> Thomas Jefferson bitterly condemned France for its "attitude
> of defiance" in holding New Orleans, which he coveted.
> Jefferson warned that France's "character (is) placed in a
> point of eternal friction with our character, which though
> loving peace and the pursuit of wealth, is high-minded."
>
> France's "defiance (requires us to) marry ourselves to the
> British fleet and nation," Jefferson advised, reversing his
> earlier attitudes, which reflected France's crucial
> contribution to the liberation of the colonies from British
> rule.
>
> Thanks to Haiti's liberation struggle of 1804, unaided and
> almost universally opposed, France's defiance soon ended.
> But, then as now, the guiding principles of American outrage
> over defiance remain in place, determining friend and foe.
Wow. He mentions Jefferson, he mentions France, he mentions
Britain, and Haiti. But no mention of Napoleon Bonaparte?
Chomsky is highly selective about his facts, isn't he?
-SEan
balanced
he were to name Napoleon he'd have to name hundreds of other examples.
I've read & listened to enough Chomsky to know that he is not taking sides
when it comes to nations: he is taking sides when it comes to fascism and
despotism.
There's plenty of examples to go around but the main thrust of the articles
was how *AMERICA* determines friends & foes.... Your Napoleon example might
be quite suitable for a discussion of how *FRANCE* determines friends & foes
but doesn't really fit into this particular discussion of AMERICAN foreign
policy.
Sean Burke
"balanced" <askm...@nospam.com> writes:
I'm only pointing out that when Chomsky needs France to
bethe "good guys", then suddenly Napoleon isn't worthy
of mention.
Listening to Chomsky is a dangerous pastime - while he
patters on, you fail to notice all the things he _isn't_
discussing. When you read his written works, the holes
are much more apparent, because you have the time to
pause and examine his statements critically.
-SEan
Sean Burke
Sean Burke <foo...@mystery.org> writes:
Sorry to followup my own followup, but after reading your
post, it occurs to me that you don't seem to be aware of
how intimately the foreign policies of Britain, America
and revolutionary France were connected in Jefferson's
time. My remarks probably won't make much sense without
that background.
-SEan
balanced
guys", then suddenly Napoleon isn't worthy of mention.
BA: Interesting. Okay, if you were writing on the same topic how would
Napolean fit into the discussion within the context that has been presented
(How *American* policies work to determine *it's* allies & enemies)? I
myself find it would neither support nor detract from the point of the
article but perhaps you see some angle? Please share
SE: Listening to Chomsky is a dangerous pastime - while he patters on, you
fail to notice all the things he _isn't_ discussing.
BA: Thats' fine with me since I have yet to find a mouthpiece that manages
to give all the information about what's going on.... Where was the North
American media when thousands were being slaughtered in East Timor, for
example? "Manufacturing Consent" exposed what *should* have been mainstream
news (for such an 'enlightened' western culture that is claims to be so
concerned with human rights) yet left out all kinds of information that may
have been tangentially related... So what? That's when I take personal
resposibility to inform myself about that information. People who listen to
Noam Chomsky do not rely solely on him for information, I can assure you
that. So I see no real 'danger' here..... However if you care to elaborate
I would encourage you to further explore this 'danger' with us in your next
reply.
BA: (PS: "patters on" seems to be a judgement that assumes your reader
agrees with your perception of the speaker - I must speak up here and say
that, in my opinion, this highly regarded professor of linguistics has never
'pattered' in any of the orations I've listened to - his speeches have
always struck me as quite meaninful and much more high-minded than common
'chatter')
SE: When you read his written works, the holes are much more apparent,
because you have the time to pause and examine his statements critically.
BA: Aside from articles here & there on the internet the only written work I
read of Chomsky's was titled "Necessary Illusions". I'm not sure about his
other books but I found Necessary Illusions to be rock-solid, air-tight....
I mean, only 1/3 of the book was Chomsky's "opinion" (if that's how you
feel) -- 2/3 of the book was references & supporting material - the vast
majority of which are 'credible' sources of information: Official U.S.
government documentation & mainstream media (New York Times, Washington
Post, etc) reports and all quite easily checked for accuracy.
BA: So in reading that book I only checked about 3 or 4 of those resources
and they checked out perfectly and maybe you studied his references more
than I so if you have a concrete example of these "holes" you're referring
to please submit them for consideration in your reply because I don't
swallow anyones' point of view completely (even Chomsky's) without
considering someone elses' and hell, for all I know, you could be right.....
so do you have any specific examples I could check?
BA: Thanks!!
balanced
that time why would a critique of American Foreign policy benefit from
pointing that out??
Initially you said that "Chomsky is highly selective of his facts, isn't
he".
My answer is yes: And I am highly selective of facts when I have a limited
amount of space to present an argument. Aren't you?
I think you have an emotional involvement that is understandable. but I
don't share it. You might have better luck with more patriotic sorts. As
it is I have no interest in the patriotism of any nation. to me it is an
antiquated and obsolete notion that no longers serves the majority.
Ivan Gowch
wrote:
[snip]
==>BA: So in reading that book I only checked about 3 or 4 of those resources
==>and they checked out perfectly and maybe you studied his references more
==>than I so if you have a concrete example of these "holes" you're referring
==>to please submit them for consideration in your reply because I don't
==>swallow anyones' point of view completely (even Chomsky's) without
==>considering someone elses' and hell, for all I know, you could be right.....
==>so do you have any specific examples I could check?
Don't bother. The type of retrograde morons who
make it their business to attack Chomsky, like SB,
habitually hurl accusations that he's "not credible"
or opining, like U.S. apologist Burke does here,
that Chomsky's writings are full of "holes," and then
run away. with nary an effort to support their
nonsense with facts.
That's understandable, since few of them have ever
actually read Chomsky, and the rest did not understand
what he was saying.
--
The virtue most often rewarded is patience.
-Ivan Gowch
Marcus Welch
> > Mar. 14, 2004. 01:00 AM
> > How America determines friends and foes
> > NOAM CHOMSKY
> > SPECIAL TO THE STAR
> >
Every self-respecting "dissident" has a doctrine attached to
his name. The core principle of the Chomsky's doctrine is
human rights.
Let's ask a fair and simple question: What would the
consequences be if we were to take the Chomsky's doctrine
seriously?
Notice how Chomsky, in a telling act of selective amnesia,
mentions Cuba without mentioning Castro's brutal and homicidal
suppression of political opposition in Cuba. Notice how
Chomsky, in a telling act of selective amnesia, mentions
Venezuela without mentioning Chavez's brutal and homicidal
suppression of political opposition in Venezuela. Notice how
Chomsky, in a telling act of selective amnesia, mentions
Haiti without mentioning Aristide's brutal and homicidal
suppression of political opposition in that country.
Marcus Welch
> Initially you said that "Chomsky is highly selective of his facts,
> isn't he".
>
> My answer is yes: And I am highly selective of facts when I have
> a limited amount of space to present an argument. Aren't you?
The point being that when others do it, then it is derisively
referred to as "amnesia" or "inconvenient facts flushed down the
nearest memory hole" and when Chomsky does it, then it is hastily
rationalized away.
So much for Chomsky's vaunted "single standard".
balanced
his name. The core principle of the Chomsky's doctrine is
human rights.
MW: Let's ask a fair and simple question: What would the
consequences be if we were to take the Chomsky's doctrine
seriously?
BA: The consequences? You would do your own research on the topics he
discusses, as he always & actively encourages: "Don't take my word for it,
look it up. This stuff is out there"
BA: You might use the propagandists' tool of repeating lies until they
"become" truth by repeating 'brutal & homical' & 'selective amnesia' but
the interesting thing about your selections are that each one of them is a
perfect example of human rights violations being perpetrated by the United
States - so Chomsky's mentioning them would not have only been detracting
from his main argument & creating an unneccessarily long article, it would
have proved his point even further.
In both Haiti & Venezuela the leaders you mentioned were overwhelmingly
elected by the poor and began instituting policies that would create an
economic environment suitable to human rights. And while Castro's
government might not be a shining example demoracy Cuba has a higher
literacy rate and lower infant mortality rate than the United States in
spite of the fact that it has had crippling U.S. sanctions against it for so
long - which are even LESS democratic and quite anti-humanitarian when you
consider it isn't *Castro* who suffers because of it. In fact he enjoys
even MORE power because the people of Cuba know most of their pain is
american-induced.
And Chomsky has "Selective amnesia" of Aristide? Or just simply "mentioned
elsewhere" because it was irrelavent and merited it's own works?
I dunno, after reading a small selection you tell me:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/ChomskyOdonian_Haiti.html
http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=5115§ionID=11
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/030304I.shtml
In YOUR selective amnesia you forgot to mention Panama, Nicaragua, Chile,
and others I am 'selectively' omitting as well.
I wonder why you seem to be indirectly supporting despots by trying to cut
down democratically elected leaders who's only crime was to 'defy' the
united states? Not only do you serve to prove Chomsky's point but it makes
me wonder: who do you work for? Because you're not helping your fellow man
with your "selective amnesia".
I am hoping and praying you're not for real and you're just trolling because
fanatics who use mind-drilling repetition to prove their point (or BATTER it
into others' heads) scare the shit out of me.
balanced
pointed out to you in my reply to your other message, the information you
accuse Chomsky of leaving out was not relevant to the context of the article
in question.
BA: In terms of 'do it' you're comparing apples & oranges, in my opinion.
MW: The point being that when others do it, then it is derisively
referred to as "amnesia" or "inconvenient facts flushed down the
nearest memory hole" and when Chomsky does it, then it is hastily
rationalized away.
MW: So much for Chomsky's vaunted "single standard".
BA: Just out of curiosity, who's label is that? Is it Chomsky's? One of
his admirer's? Or yours?
G*rd*n
> > Chomsky has repeatedly stated that no nation is exempt from despotism and if
> > he were to name Napoleon he'd have to name hundreds of other examples.
> >
> > I've read & listened to enough Chomsky to know that he is not taking sides
> > when it comes to nations: he is taking sides when it comes to fascism and
> > despotism.
> >
> > There's plenty of examples to go around but the main thrust of the articles
> > was how *AMERICA* determines friends & foes.... Your Napoleon example might
> > be quite suitable for a discussion of how *FRANCE* determines friends & foes
> > but doesn't really fit into this particular discussion of AMERICAN foreign
> > policy.
Sean Burke <foo...@mystery.org>:
> I'm only pointing out that when Chomsky needs France to
> bethe "good guys", then suddenly Napoleon isn't worthy
> of mention.
>
> Listening to Chomsky is a dangerous pastime - while he
> patters on, you fail to notice all the things he _isn't_
> discussing. ...
In that case he would be hypnotizing people in the same way
the mainstream media do. But in fact we see a lot of
controversy about his views, so either he's not trying to
hypnotize anyone, or he's not doing a very good job of it,
regardless of whether he speaks or writes.
As far as I know, he claims to be a polemicist, not a historian,
sociologist, political scientist, or authority on current
events, so I don't understand the objection to his views being
partial or partisan.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't
G*rd*n
> > > Mar. 14, 2004. 01:00 AM
> > > How America determines friends and foes
> > > NOAM CHOMSKY
> > > SPECIAL TO THE STAR
> > >
> > > <snip>
mwe...@europe.com (Marcus Welch):
> Every self-respecting "dissident" has a doctrine attached to
> his name. The core principle of the Chomsky's doctrine is
> human rights.
>
> Let's ask a fair and simple question: What would the
> consequences be if we were to take the Chomsky's doctrine
> seriously?
> ...
Who's "we" here? Surely all "we" in these newsgroups take human
rights terribly seriously, but (for instance) the American
electorate doesn't seem to, and the leaders it allects absolutely
do not, except during speeches. So, depending on your notion of
"we", the answer ranges from "none" to "revolutionary".
Sean Burke
"balanced" <askm...@nospam.com> writes:
> In both Haiti & Venezuela the leaders you mentioned were overwhelmingly
> elected by the poor and began instituting policies that would create an
> economic environment suitable to human rights.
Hah. Both Chavez and Aristide realized that they had the
overwhelming support of the poor, so they naturally
decided to set about creating even more poor people.
Both succeeded.
> And while Castro's
> government might not be a shining example demoracy Cuba has a higher
> literacy rate and lower infant mortality rate than the United States in
So you concede that Castro's regime is not a "shining example
of democracy", yet you still expect us to take their statistics
about literacy and infant mortality at face value? I suppose
you also believed the North Koreans when they denied that their
people were starving?
-SEan
Sean Burke
mwe...@europe.com (Marcus Welch) writes:
> "balanced" <askm...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<f4m5c.633>
> >
> > Initially you said that "Chomsky is highly selective of his facts,
> > isn't he".
> >
> > My answer is yes: And I am highly selective of facts when I have
> > a limited amount of space to present an argument. Aren't you?
Fair enough - I should not have singled out Chomsky
The broader point is that oratory has been the favored
method of politicians, rabble-rousers, snake-oil salesmen
and every other disreputable type you can imagine.
(Here the reader may pause to mentally review the usual
list of historical suspects, who, surprisingly enough,
are most often depicted standing behind a microphone.)
The reason is obvious enough - when you are listening to
someone give prepared remarks, you can either devote your
attention to following the speaker's line of thought,
or you can give critical examination to the statements,
but few of us are capable of doing both. If you pause
to question some assertion, you invariably lose the
thread of the argument. Either way, by the conclusion
of the talk you will very little recollection and
understanding of what was said.
The unfortunate fact is that most listeners will evaluate
such a talk based on factors like:
- Did the orator's statements seem to make sense
at the time they were spoken?
- Did the orator speak in tones of conviction?
- Did the orator make eye contact with the audience?
The other thing you notice is that delivering an argument
orally is very slow - material sufficient for an hour's
talk can typically be read in fifteen minutes. So oral
remarks must be pared down to the bare essentials, forcing
a careful selection of the most "relevant" factual support.
As regards Chomsky, since he is not bashful about committing
his thoughts to paper, it probably isn't fair to single him
out for criticism. But I would criticize anyone who depends
on oratory to inform their world view.
-SEan
G*rd*n
Sean Burke <foo...@mystery.org>:
> So you concede that Castro's regime is not a "shining example
> of democracy", yet you still expect us to take their statistics
> about literacy and infant mortality at face value? ...
Are these not confirmed by independent observation? I
thought they were. Anyway, I don't see any necessary
connection between democracy and veracity. The United
States is at least formally a democracy with a free
press, and yet both its government and its media lie
constantly, often in unison. Democracy would impinge
on this business only if the people cared about the
lying, which, evidently, they generally do not. Or
else they favor it.
balanced
Hah. Both Chavez and Aristide realized that they had the
overwhelming support of the poor, so they naturally
decided to set about creating even more poor people.
Both succeeded.
I'll let you off the hook in providing me references for the above (just how
these leaders made poor people even poorer) and making you explain to me how
democracy=truth in your implicit assumption below....
So you concede that Castro's regime is not a "shining example
of democracy", yet you still expect us to take their statistics
about literacy and infant mortality at face value? I suppose
you also believed the North Koreans when they denied that their
people were starving?
If you let me off the hook for going through the trouble of having to prove
to you that these statistics came from 3rd-party sources?
(So much to study, so little time, you understand!!)
If you agree to this deal, I appreciate your dialogue in this thread it has
helped me to further concretize my ideas and concepts.... Kudos, SEan!
If not just let me know and I'll get my lazy ass into gear for the rebuttal
tomorrow... ciao 4 niao.
Sean Burke
"balanced" <askm...@nospam.com> writes:
> Perfect.
>
> > Hah. Both Chavez and Aristide realized that they had the
> > overwhelming support of the poor, so they naturally
> > decided to set about creating even more poor people.
> > Both succeeded.
>
> I'll let you off the hook in providing me references for the above (just how
> these leaders made poor people even poorer)
By reducing the middle class to poverty as well,
of course. I'm surprised that that requires explanation.
> and making you explain to me how
> democracy=truth in your implicit assumption below....
The phrase "shining example of democracy" was not mine.
I would describe Castro's Cuba, accurately I think,
as a dictatorship.
> > So you concede that Castro's regime is not a "shining example
> > of democracy", yet you still expect us to take their statistics
> > about literacy and infant mortality at face value? I suppose
> > you also believed the North Koreans when they denied that their
> > people were starving?
>
> If you let me off the hook for going through the trouble of having to prove
> to you that these statistics came from 3rd-party sources?
>
> (So much to study, so little time, you understand!!)
>
> If you agree to this deal, I appreciate your dialogue in this thread it has
> helped me to further concretize my ideas and concepts.... Kudos, SEan!
>
> If not just let me know and I'll get my lazy ass into gear for the rebuttal
> tomorrow... ciao 4 niao.
Castro's Cuba is a place where you can be imprisoned for
criticizing the government. Under these circumstances,
how could anyone, "3rd-party" or not, expect to be able
to be able to gather reliable statistics? Would a teacher
really tell the truth about how many children were attending
school, if the truth could get them jailed? This very post
that I am writing now would get me jailed if I posted it
from Cuba.
The entire point of an authoritarian regime's control of
media, and punishment of dissent, is to suppress the truth.
How can you possibly overlook this?
-SEan
Constantinople
> Perfect.
>
> Hah. Both Chavez and Aristide realized that they had the
> overwhelming support of the poor, so they naturally
> decided to set about creating even more poor people.
> Both succeeded.
>
> I'll let you off the hook in providing me references for the above (just how
> these leaders made poor people even poorer) and making you explain to me how
> democracy=truth in your implicit assumption below....
You really should try to make your Usenet client distinguish between
what you write and what others write. Outlook Express version 6 should
have this ability, no?
balanced
How will I ever repay you??
Look, SEan, I know for a fact that fascism is an instituationalized way of
life in every nation of the globe.... I'm not about to waste anymore time
quibbling over gnatty details since, in my eyes, so called 'civilised'
nations are just about as despotic (if not more) than the banana republics
they help to create and/or maintain.
Have a nice daze.
"Sean Burke" <foo...@mystery.org> wrote in message
news:x7r7vsf...@bolo.xenadyne.com...
Sean Burke
"balanced" <askm...@nospam.com> writes:
> I'll never read Chomsky again... Thanks for showing me the light.
>
> How will I ever repay you??
>
> Look, SEan, I know for a fact that fascism is an instituationalized way of
> life in every nation of the globe.... I'm not about to waste anymore time
> quibbling over gnatty details since, in my eyes, so called 'civilised'
> nations are just about as despotic (if not more) than the banana republics
> they help to create and/or maintain.
>
> Have a nice daze.
Fair enough. My only question is, why do you continue to
follow up my posts, only to say that you don't intend to
"waste anymore time quibbling"?
-SEan
balanced
Didn't you know?
I've been trained well in the ways of the dominator culture.
;^)
"Sean Burke" <foo...@mystery.org> wrote in message
news:x7fzc7f...@bolo.xenadyne.com...
Sean Burke
"balanced" <askm...@nospam.com> writes:
> I get the last word....
>
> Didn't you know?
>
> I've been trained well in the ways of the dominator culture.
>
> ;^)
You dance like a puppet on my strings.
Follow up again, I command you! ;->
-SEan
James A. Donald
> In both Haiti & Venezuela the leaders you mentioned were overwhelmingly
> elected by the poor and began instituting policies that would create an
> economic environment suitable to human rights.
Such was his enthusiasm for human rights, that Aristide had the wife
of one of his opponents cut open and burning petrol poured into her
stomach cavity.
Aristide eventually fled his palace one step ahead of revolutionaries
who would have put his head on a pole for the crimes that he
committed. Somehow justice never seems to find those who commit their
crimes in the name of the poor and oppressed.
James A. Donald
> > So you concede that Castro's regime is not a "shining example
> > of democracy", yet you still expect us to take their statistics
> > about literacy and infant mortality at face value? ...
G*rd*n
> Are these not confirmed by independent observation?
I was there. Only the eyes of the faithful would find Castro's
statistics believable -- the same folk who found Mao's statistics
believable, and still do.
pseudonymus anonymous
"James A. Donald" wrote:
>
> "balanced" <askm...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<2hD5c.14656
> > In both Haiti & Venezuela the leaders you mentioned were overwhelmingly
> > elected by the poor and began instituting policies that would create an
> > economic environment suitable to human rights.
>
> Such was his enthusiasm for human rights, that Aristide had the wife
> of one of his opponents cut open and burning petrol poured into her
> stomach cavity.
woa!
Let's have the source for that fantastic piece of evidence,
shall we?
wow. who'd have thunk it. and he's a priest even!. wow.
> Aristide eventually fled his palace one step ahead of revolutionaries
> who would have put his head on a pole for the crimes that he
> committed. Somehow justice never seems to find those who commit their
> crimes in the name of the poor and oppressed.
revolutionaries.
yes.
Good thing we have those trusty revolution thingys
every once in a while, innit?
Now Let's hear 'bout all those crimes again. the whole deal!
all the pages, facts, sources,just let it rip!
woa!
fascinating!
just think!
Even a priest!
James A. Donald
> I wonder why you seem to be indirectly supporting despots by trying to cut
> down democratically elected leaders who's only crime was to 'defy' the
> united states?
Aristide was installed in power by US troops, "defied" the US by
murdering his opponents, and was removed from power by Haitian
revolutionaries.
Constantinople
"Democratically elected leaders" seems to be a common euphemism for
"some of the worst scum that anyone ever had the misfortune of being
subject to".
Maybe the OED editors should add this into their dictionary somewhere,
under "democratically" or "elected".
pseudonymus anonymous
Hey man!
cough up the sources, pages,urls and the works!
The public has a right to know, y'know!
we're suspended in terrifying horror and disbelief!
shock! a (former?)priest ordering murders! wow!
come on man!
So let's have the sources for that fantastic piece of information(sorry)!!!
like I said: who'd have thunk it???
and he's a priest even!. wow.
> Aristide eventually fled his palace one step ahead of revolutionaries
> who would have put his head on a pole for the crimes that he
> committed. Somehow justice never seems to find those who commit their
> crimes in the name of the poor and oppressed.
revolutionaries.
yes.
Good thing we have those trusty revolution thingys
every once in a while, innit?
Now Let's hear 'bout all those crimes again. the whole deal!
all the pages, facts, sources,just let it rip!
woa!
fascinating!
just think!
Even a priest!
johnny boy pseudonymous
(heh, that's johnny pseudonny to you, mister! :)
--
"The last time we listened to a Bush, we had
been wandering in the desert for 40 years."
pseudonymus anonymous
"Notice the Logic here" (freely translated points)
1. the Ton-ton macoutes return to Haiti
2. they attack the small policeforce of 5000 men is attacked
(Haiti has on theface of it/apparently no army)
and the contry is gradually taken over by the ton-ton's
3. the coup is de facto
4. "international" "peace keeping forces" ( USA etc) are called upon,
arrive and start disarming poor haitians (pistols,shotguns,machetes etc)
poor people who incidentally are aristide sympathisers who only days
ago depended upon theseweapons not to be hacked down and murdered by
the new "freedom fighters" .
in otherwords: those who did not destabilize Haiti are to be disarmed
not those who in fact did destabilise Haiti
Had aristide bben a corrupt dictator, nobody would have cared.
But aristide was elected by a majority.
The president that did not use his resources on
security police and death squadrons(ton-tons) to
supresss a opposition.
He now gets the order to keep his mouth closed
and not say anything that would make the democratic majority
protest against the coup
some people are guessing the new people in power wont hold
any election the first 3 years ( they need time to
indoctrinate people how bad and stupde aristide was,
and how stupid they were to vote for him)
making sure people do not have guns is a good
US tradition....
anyone remember the political reason for US citisens
should not have guns at home...?
balanced
Again?
"Sean Burke" <foo...@mystery.org> wrote in message
news:x7d67bf...@bolo.xenadyne.com...
Constantinople
>
> Constantinople wrote:
>
>>James A. Donald wrote:
>>
>>>"balanced"
>>>
>>>
>>>>I wonder why you seem to be indirectly supporting despots by trying to cut
>>>>down democratically elected leaders who's only crime was to 'defy' the
>>>>united states?
>>>
>>>
>>>Aristide was installed in power by US troops, "defied" the US by
>>>murdering his opponents, and was removed from power by Haitian
>>>revolutionaries.
>>
>>"Democratically elected leaders" seems to be a common euphemism for
>>"some of the worst scum that anyone ever had the misfortune of being
>>subject to".
>>
>>Maybe the OED editors should add this into their dictionary somewhere,
>>under "democratically" or "elected".
>
>
> "Notice the Logic here" (freely translated points)
>
> 1. the Ton-ton macoutes return to Haiti
You say that as if it meant anything. And your English is horrible. You
must be a Haitian posting from Haiti. As an American with no interest in
Haiti, there's nevertheless one thing I happen to know about the US and
Aristide, and that is that the US put him into power in 1994, after he
had been in exile (an exile not engineered by the US). He was in there
thanks to the US in the first place. Don't ask me why; maybe the US just
likes democracy or something. My point is, this would seem to be a key
event to keep in mind when discussing supposed American culpability for
his recent fall from power. The US helped him in 1994, and the Americans
claim to have helped him escape now in 2004, and I see no particular
reason to disbelieve them. It looks like they did help him. He is safe,
is he not? It was not Americans but local rebels who were after his
head, no? It looked like he was about to be defeated and removed from
power and probably murdered by the rebels, when the US moved in and took
him to safety.
> 2. they attack the small policeforce of 5000 men is attacked
> (Haiti has on theface of it/apparently no army)
> and the contry is gradually taken over by the ton-ton's
>
> 3. the coup is de facto
>
> 4. "international" "peace keeping forces" ( USA etc) are called upon,
> arrive and start disarming poor haitians (pistols,shotguns,machetes etc)
> poor people who incidentally are aristide sympathisers who only days
> ago depended upon theseweapons not to be hacked down and murdered by
> the new "freedom fighters" .
>
> in otherwords: those who did not destabilize Haiti are to be disarmed
> not those who in fact did destabilise Haiti
>
> Had aristide bben a corrupt dictator, nobody would have cared.
Not true. The US defeated Saddam and has been wiping out remaining
Baathist elements and it seems as though the entire world has been
against us. So obviously the world does care about those poor dictators.
No matter what the US does, everything that happens is said to be the
US's fault. If the US saved Aristide by escorting him to safety, then
the word becomes that US kidnapped Aristide.
> But aristide was elected by a majority.
> The president that did not use his resources on
> security police and death squadrons(ton-tons) to
> supresss a opposition.
>
> He now gets the order to keep his mouth closed
> and not say anything that would make the democratic majority
> protest against the coup
>
> some people are guessing the new people in power wont hold
> any election the first 3 years ( they need time to
> indoctrinate people how bad and stupde aristide was,
> and how stupid they were to vote for him)
>
> making sure people do not have guns is a good
> US tradition....
>
> anyone remember the political reason for US citisens
> should not have guns at home...?
Good point. But I don't know anything about this diarming that you mention.
G*rd*n
> >>I wonder why you seem to be indirectly supporting despots by trying to cut
> >>down democratically elected leaders who's only crime was to 'defy' the
> >>united states?
> James A. Donald wrote:
> > Aristide was installed in power by US troops, "defied" the US by
> > murdering his opponents, and was removed from power by Haitian
> > revolutionaries.
Thanks for the detailed explanation. I had wondered what
was going on, and this sort of exhaustive exposition is
just the ticket.
Constantinople <constan...@yahoo.com>:
> "Democratically elected leaders" seems to be a common euphemism for
> "some of the worst scum that anyone ever had the misfortune of being
> subject to".
> ...
Come now, there are many Bush fans on the Net, and you'll
hurt their feelings.
G*rd*n
> > > So you concede that Castro's regime is not a "shining example
> > > of democracy", yet you still expect us to take their statistics
> > > about literacy and infant mortality at face value? ...
G*rd*n
> > Are these not confirmed by independent observation?
jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald):
> I was there. Only the eyes of the faithful would find Castro's
> statistics believable -- the same folk who found Mao's statistics
> believable, and still do.
And what did you see that contradicted which statistics?
Sean Burke
pseudonymus anonymous <nos...@nospam.nope> writes:
> "James A. Donald" wrote:
> >
> > "balanced"
> > > I wonder why you seem to be indirectly supporting despots by trying to cut
> > > down democratically elected leaders who's only crime was to 'defy' the
> > > united states?
> >
> > Aristide was installed in power by US troops, "defied" the US by
> > murdering his opponents, and was removed from power by Haitian
> > revolutionaries.
>
>
> Hey man!
>
> cough up the sources, pages,urls and the works!
A quick Google for "Clinton restores Aristide" led me tothis page,
which is a detailed chronology of US involvement in Haiti from
1492 to the present:
http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/kretchik/appendixa.asp
In particular, I quote:
18 Sep 1994--President Clinton signs the execute order for Operation Uphold Democracy.
9 Sep 1994--CJCS sends execute order authorizing unopposed landing by 10th Mountain
Division (Light) and other elements of the MNF.
21 Sep 1994--CINCUSACOM estimates that a total of 14,900 troops will be in Haiti
by September 25, 1994.
2 Oct 1994--M N F troops in Haiti peak at 20,931. CINCUSACOM is given a force
ceiling of 21,000 troops.
15 Oct 1994--President Jean-Bertrand Aristide returns to Haiti.
-SEan
Gabrielle Rapagnetta
>No matter what the US does, everything that happens is said to be the
>US's fault. If the US saved Aristide by escorting him to safety, then
>the word becomes that US kidnapped Aristide.
When the kidnapee says he was kidnapped, when all his friends and
family say he has been kidnapped, it is reasonable to assume he was
kidnapped.
I was reading an AP article last night which said that Chavez
expressed his support for Aristide's "allegations" that he had been
kidnapped. That's just embarrassing that a news outlet could
manipulate the english language like that in the face of easily
verifiable facts.
And, for the record, I called for US military intervention in Haiti.
I outlined the steps that the US military could take to resolve the
conflict. The US had years to "save" Aristide. His life (and also
the lives of all Haitians) was intentionally allowed to be threatened.
There was never any reason for things to get to that point in Haiti in
the first place.
So, yes, he was kidnapped. Denying this puts you in the same camp as
all the media outlets who unanimously claimed that Chavez had resigned
less than two years ago. This was exposed as a bold-faced lie in a
matter of days. Likewise for the Aristide "resignation". The only
people making "allegations" are the US State Department, the major
media outlets, and people like yourself who are more interesting in
politicizing the issue than exploring actual facts.
Ivan Gowch
[snip]
==>Notice how Chomsky, in a telling act of selective amnesia,
==>mentions Cuba without mentioning Castro's brutal and homicidal
==>suppression of political opposition in Cuba. Notice how
==>Chomsky, in a telling act of selective amnesia, mentions
==>Venezuela without mentioning Chavez's brutal and homicidal
==>suppression of political opposition in Venezuela. Notice how
==>Chomsky, in a telling act of selective amnesia, mentions
==>Haiti without mentioning Aristide's brutal and homicidal
==>suppression of political opposition in that country.
Notice too, how Chomsky, in a telling act of selective
amnesia, frequently mentions the United States
without mentioning the frequent brutal and homicidal
suppression of political opposition in that country.
--
The virtue most often rewarded is patience.
-Ivan Gowch
Ivan Gowch
wrote:
[snip]
==>The entire point of an authoritarian regime's control of
==>media, and punishment of dissent, is to suppress the truth.
==>How can you possibly overlook this?
Absolutely. Exactly like the United Snakes'
authoritarian regime enjoys virtually total
control of the mainstream media, with its
goal the suppression of truth.
If you don't know this, you obviously have not
read Chomsky, who has demonstrated this
so conclusively only morons or administration
lackeys still deny it.
Sean Burke
Gabrielle Rapagnetta <n0spam....@gmx.net> writes:
> Constantinople wrote:
>
> >No matter what the US does, everything that happens is said to be the
> >US's fault. If the US saved Aristide by escorting him to safety, then
> >the word becomes that US kidnapped Aristide.
>
> When the kidnapee says he was kidnapped, when all his friends and
> family say he has been kidnapped, it is reasonable to assume he was
> kidnapped.
Unless the alleged kidnapee, and all his friends and
family, have excellent reasons to claim that they had
been kidnapped. Like escaping with their lives, and
then recovering a very lucrative kleptocracy in a
tiny Caribbean nation, for example?
-SEan
Sean Burke
Ivan Gowch <go...@SPAMTHEENOThotmail.com> writes:
If so, they've done an extraordinarily lousy job of
suppressing Chomsky. His works occupy entire shelves
of any Borders or Barnes&Noble that I've ever been in.
-SEan
balanced
refugees to the US decreased sharply during Aristides' initial months in
government, and the numbers of Haitian refugees sharply increased following
the coup, how the hell can you ascertain that he was some kind of bad guy?
Are the masses are idiots? Sounds like the mentality of the 'elites' to me
as opposed to anyone generally interested in investigating perpetrating
truths we can all learn from.
Do you have ANY information that cites his murderous ways? And the link dug
up by SEan does not contain any information dealing with this.
Are you guys Admin types or what?
(Since I'm fully aware that the CIA is an instrument of Wall Street and was
started by those who have more than enough and still want more, & has fully
admitted to political violence within it's own 'country', once again I am
fitted with enough knowledge to seriously ask: who butters your bread,
fellas?)
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:96dc81b9.04031...@posting.google.com...
Constantinople
> Gabrielle Rapagnetta <n0spam....@gmx.net> writes:
>
>
>>Constantinople wrote:
>>
>>
>>>No matter what the US does, everything that happens is said to be the
>>>US's fault. If the US saved Aristide by escorting him to safety, then
>>>the word becomes that US kidnapped Aristide.
>>
>>When the kidnapee says he was kidnapped, when all his friends and
>>family say he has been kidnapped, it is reasonable to assume he was
>>kidnapped.
>
>
> Unless the alleged kidnapee, and all his friends and
> family, have excellent reasons to claim that they had
> been kidnapped. Like escaping with their lives, and
> then recovering a very lucrative kleptocracy in a
> tiny Caribbean nation, for example?
>
> -SEan
Sounds like he says she says to me, and why should I believe Aristide? I
read an article in which an American participant in the operation was
interviewed. He claimed Aristide was not kidnapped.
Keep in mind, also, that the US was there in response to a plea for help
from Aristide himself. The US didn't do what Aristide wanted (to crush
his foes) and now Aristide is pissed that the US is not his obedient
guard dog. Aristide had been expecting more, and that expectation was
somewhat understandable, considering that the US had placed him into
power in the first place.
>>I was reading an AP article last night which said that Chavez
>>expressed his support for Aristide's "allegations" that he had been
>>kidnapped. That's just embarrassing that a news outlet could
>>manipulate the english language like that in the face of easily
>>verifiable facts.
What manipulation? Papers always say "alleged" about charges of crimes.
It is frankly nuts to call standard practice "embarrassing". And what
"verification" does Gabrielle offer? Only the say-so of Aristide and
those who can be counted on to agree with Aristide. Gabrielle is so
caught up in Aristide-worship that it does not occur to her that not
everyone will take Aristide's word as "verification".
>>And, for the record, I called for US military intervention in Haiti.
>>I outlined the steps that the US military could take to resolve the
>>conflict. The US had years to "save" Aristide.
What does that mean? What would it mean to "save" Aristide in
Gabrielle's opinion? Does she mean, get him out of Haiti? But as we can
see, he would just say he was kidnapped. Or does she mean, prop him up
with American firepower and American lives?
Probably the latter, knowing Gabrielle.
>>His life (and also
>>the lives of all Haitians) was intentionally allowed to be threatened.
>>There was never any reason for things to get to that point in Haiti in
>>the first place.
So Gabrielle thinks it's the US's proper role to prop up people like
Aristide.
>>So, yes, he was kidnapped.
"So"? That word implies a logical connection. That Aristide was
kidnapped is the conclusion of what argument? Gabrielle has been
complaining about how the US failed to prop up Aristide and to help him
crush his domestic enemies. And her conclusion from that complaint is
that Aristide was kidnapped in this situation?
The charge is intrinsically unbelievable. What would be the point of
kidnapping Aristide? Is the US hard up for cash? Is it hoping it can get
a nice ransom for Aristide so that it can pay for the new drug benefits?
The American story intrinsically makes sense. Aristide is not an enemy
of the US. Aristide asked for international help. The US was of course
not willing to wage a war on his behalf against his domestic enemies,
but it seems entirely within the realm of possibility that the US was
willing at least to rescue the man it had put into power ten years before.
>>Denying this puts you in the same camp as
>>all the media outlets who unanimously claimed that Chavez had resigned
>>less than two years ago. This was exposed as a bold-faced lie in a
>>matter of days. Likewise for the Aristide "resignation". The only
>>people making "allegations" are the US State Department, the major
>>media outlets, and people like yourself who are more interesting in
>>politicizing the issue than exploring actual facts.
Gabrielle takes the word of Aristide as gospel. Gabrielle argues that
the US ought to be helping Aristide crush his enemies. And Gabrielle
accuses me of taking a political side! That's rich.
Constantinople
I actually have read a bit of Chomsky as well as seen that movie that
was all about him (Manufacturing Consent, I think it was). Anyone who
claims, on the basis of such materials, that Chomsky has proven any such
thing conclusively is, well, I'll let the reader finish that thought.
Sean Burke
"balanced" <askm...@nospam.com> writes:
> Since Aristide was overwhelmingly popularly elected, the numbers of Haitian
> refugees to the US decreased sharply during Aristides' initial months in
> government, and the numbers of Haitian refugees sharply increased following
> the coup, how the hell can you ascertain that he was some kind of bad guy?
> Are the masses are idiots? Sounds like the mentality of the 'elites' to me
> as opposed to anyone generally interested in investigating perpetrating
> truths we can all learn from.
>
> Do you have ANY information that cites his murderous ways? And the link dug
> up by SEan does not contain any information dealing with this.
>
> Are you guys Admin types or what?
>
> (Since I'm fully aware that the CIA is an instrument of Wall Street and was
> started by those who have more than enough and still want more, & has fully
> admitted to political violence within it's own 'country', once again I am
> fitted with enough knowledge to seriously ask: who butters your bread,
> fellas?)
Let me begin by insulting your intelligence, since you don't
know how to quote or follow up properly, and because you
apparently are unaware of the existence of Google.
Since you are suspicous of disreputable media outlets
(and who wouldn't be after recent revelations at the NY Times),
would you believe Human Rights Watch?
Submitted for your autodidactory pleasure:
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/haiti/backgrounder.html
The article is dated Feb 2001, so it is not influenced
by the recent ruckus. The first two paragraphs read:
| When Jean-Bertrand Aristide is sworn in for a second term as Haitian
| president on Wednesday, February 7, he will face a number of pressing
| challenges in the areas of human rights and democracy. The country's
| democratic institutions, fragile to begin with, were seriously
| weakened over the course of 2000. Human rights conditions worsened
| considerably, with Haitians enduring a continuing series of killings,
| assaults, threats and other forms of intimidation.
|
| Perhaps the year's most shocking event was the assassination of
| acclaimed journalist Jean Dominique, a murder that has yet to be
| solved. But the year 2000 also saw the April burning of the
| headquarters of the opposition coalition, the deeply flawed May
| elections, the June flight into exile of the president of the
| electoral council, and the November pipe bomb explosions that killed
| two children and wounded numerous others, as well as a succession of
| violent street demonstrations that went largely unchallenged by the
| Haitian National Police. The spectre of violence persisted in 2001,
| particularly after a January 9th press conference at which popular
| organizations supporting President-elect Aristide issued verbal
| threats against numerous journalists and members of opposition
| parties.
-SEan
balanced
know how to quote or follow up properly, and because you
apparently are unaware of the existence of Google.
BA: What are you talking about? I know about google...
SE: Since you are suspicous of disreputable media outlets
(and who wouldn't be after recent revelations at the NY Times),
would you believe Human Rights Watch?
BA: I think you meant to say "reputable" here - however you might have
misineterpreted what I wrote: Your source is quite credible and factual,
SEan. However it does not point have ANY information that supports the
assertion that Aristide was "murderous" or in any other way a tyrant - in
fact it has information that would support the opposite!!
SE: Submitted for your autodidactory pleasure:
SE: http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/haiti/backgrounder.html
BA: Once again, you have proven nothing. Your article states that Aristide
is coming BACK to resume power after murdering was going on.
BA: The article doesn't implicate him as perpetrator or tyrant in any way
that I can see..... can you tell me how you're interpreting this or are you
just pulling our legs here?
BA:Are you reading your sources or are you just assuming they back you up
because you believe yourself to be right?
SE:The article is dated Feb 2001, so it is not influenced
by the recent ruckus. The first two paragraphs read:
BA: it also doesn't support your position. Again, are you reading your
sources? I am.
SEan's paste is all that follows: (how you like my quoting now, SEan??)
Dalibor Perković
"balanced" <askm...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uBH5c.19912$TxJ....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.
com...
> > So you concede that Castro's regime is not a "shining
example
> > of democracy", yet you still expect us to take their
statistics
> > about literacy and infant mortality at face value? I
suppose
> > you also believed the North Koreans when they denied
that their
> > people were starving?
>
> If you let me off the hook for going through the trouble
of having to prove
> to you that these statistics came from 3rd-party sources?
Actually, I'd like to prove this to myself. Although the
literacy thing isn't that astonishing, knowing what I know
about American education system, I find the information
about infant mortality rate highly unbelievable, although
maybe not that impossible. So, respecting other people's
lazyness (hey, I've crossed the thin red line many times),
could you please at least point me in the general direction
where I could find some official confirmation for these
facts?
--
? Pax et Discordia
/|\
?/|?\ Izitpajn
//?|\?\ p_dalibor(a)net,hr
| pdalibor(a)dominis,phy,hr
Gabrielle Rapagnetta
>
>"balanced" <askm...@nospam.com> writes:
>
>> Since Aristide was overwhelmingly popularly elected, the numbers of Haitian
>> refugees to the US decreased sharply during Aristides' initial months in
>> government, and the numbers of Haitian refugees sharply increased following
>> the coup, how the hell can you ascertain that he was some kind of bad guy?
>> Are the masses are idiots? Sounds like the mentality of the 'elites' to me
>> as opposed to anyone generally interested in investigating perpetrating
>> truths we can all learn from.
>>
>> Do you have ANY information that cites his murderous ways? And the link dug
>> up by SEan does not contain any information dealing with this.
>
>(and who wouldn't be after recent revelations at the NY Times),
>would you believe Human Rights Watch?
>
>Submitted for your autodidactory pleasure:
>
> http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/haiti/backgrounder.html
And, Sean, for your autodidactory pleasure as well:
[Also from a Human Rights Watch report, 1995]
"Neither the Haitian nor the U.S. governments enacted adequate
screening procedures to purge the army human rights violators prior to
establishing the interim force. By the end of January 1995, U.S.
officials of the State, Defense, and Justice departments, aided by the
Haitian military high command, had selected nearly 3,400 soldiers
through the rank of major, given them six days of training, and
returned them to their units to serve under the observation of
international police monitors of the multinational occupation force.
Yet a U.S. Embassy source admitted that in truth only the Haitian
officer corps had been individually scrutinized. Not surprisingly,
there are serious allegations of involvement in human rights
violations against members of the interim force and against senior
military officials who supervised the creation of the force."
strabo
"The people don’t need to know the results of the election;
it’s enough for them to know that there WAS an election."
- Josef Stalin
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing.
Those who count the votes decide everything."
- Josef Stalin
Gabrielle Rapagnetta
>>>Constantinople wrote:
>>>>No matter what the US does, everything that happens is said to be the
>>>>US's fault. If the US saved Aristide by escorting him to safety, then
>>>>the word becomes that US kidnapped Aristide.
>>>
>>>When the kidnapee says he was kidnapped, when all his friends and
>>>family say he has been kidnapped, it is reasonable to assume he was
>>>kidnapped.
>>
>> Unless the alleged kidnapee, and all his friends and
>> family, have excellent reasons to claim that they had
>> been kidnapped. Like escaping with their lives, and
>> then recovering a very lucrative kleptocracy in a
>> tiny Caribbean nation, for example?
One percent of the Haitian population owns 45% of the wealth.
Aristide's family is not part of that 1%. So if you take this theory
seriously then immediately we see that there are many people other
than Aristide with a much larger motive for "recovering a very
lucrative kleptocracy".
Not to mention that Aristide declines to accept his presidential
salary of $10,000 every month.
Constantinople wrote:
>Sounds like he says she says to me, and why should I believe Aristide? I
>read an article in which an American participant in the operation was
>interviewed. He claimed Aristide was not kidnapped.
You should believe Aristide because he was the person who was
kidnapped! That's just a no-brainer. Of course a marine who was
ordered to capture Aristide, at gunpoint if necessary, and who was
under orders to deny it would, whaddya know...deny it. Or you can
deny it for twenty years until the FOIA proves you wrong: Remember
Pinochet?
If the testimony of the kidnapee is not enough, then you could listen
to the testimonies of his friends and family. If that's not enough
you could consider that the source for your information is the same
source that told you, in an obvious lie two years ago, that Chavez had
resigned.
>Keep in mind, also, that the US was there in response to a plea for help
>from Aristide himself. The US didn't do what Aristide wanted (to crush
>his foes) and now Aristide is pissed that the US is not his obedient
>guard dog. Aristide had been expecting more, and that expectation was
>somewhat understandable, considering that the US had placed him into
>power in the first place.
Or considering that Aristide disbanded the Haitian military (a corrupt
creation of the US) ten years ago in an attempt to curb human rights
abuses.
Or considering that the US imposes an arms embargo on Haiti.
Or considering that the US already had 900 marines along the
Haiti/Domican border.
>> Gabrielle Rapagnetta writes:
>>>I was reading an AP article last night which said that Chavez
>>>expressed his support for Aristide's "allegations" that he had been
>>>kidnapped. That's just embarrassing that a news outlet could
>>>manipulate the english language like that in the face of easily
>>>verifiable facts.
>
Constantinople wrote:
>What manipulation? Papers always say "alleged" about charges of crimes.
>It is frankly nuts to call standard practice "embarrassing". And what
>"verification" does Gabrielle offer? Only the say-so of Aristide and
>those who can be counted on to agree with Aristide. Gabrielle is so
>caught up in Aristide-worship that it does not occur to her that not
>everyone will take Aristide's word as "verification".
Actually I am on record as saying that Aristide is an ineffective
leader.
As for the major media being an embarrassment: They were an
undeniable embarrassment two years ago with the Venezuela fiasco and
they are repeating their mistakes today. When are you going to wise
up?
>> Gabrielle Rapagnetta writes:
>>>And, for the record, I called for US military intervention in Haiti.
>>>I outlined the steps that the US military could take to resolve the
>>>conflict. The US had years to "save" Aristide.
>
Constantinople wrote:
>What does that mean? What would it mean to "save" Aristide in
>Gabrielle's opinion? Does she mean, get him out of Haiti? But as we can
>see, he would just say he was kidnapped. Or does she mean, prop him up
>with American firepower and American lives?
>
>Probably the latter, knowing Gabrielle.
Aristide does not need to be propped up. He has overwhelming support
from the Haitian people. It is democracy that needs to be propped up.
So what does the US do? It allows a few hundred well-armed rebels
lead by foreigners to march through Haitian cities, all the way up to
the capitol, and then it kidnaps the democratically elected leader,
leaving the armed rebels in place. Shameful!
I called for at least 1000 marines to be dispatched to Haiti three
weeks ago on a mission to disarm the rebels. I suspect that the US
played a role in arming these rebels in the first place, so I never
really expected to see that happen. But that would have been the
decent thing to do.
Speaking of "propping up", did you notice that not a single rebel
protested the US' announcement to send in marines? Why do you think
that is?
>> Gabrielle Rapagnetta writes:
>>>His life (and also
>>>the lives of all Haitians) was intentionally allowed to be threatened.
>>>There was never any reason for things to get to that point in Haiti in
>>>the first place.
>
Constantinople wrote:
>So Gabrielle thinks it's the US's proper role to prop up people like
>Aristide.
Haiti wouldn't be in this mess if the US hadn't propped up the
Duvaliers. Why would you neglect to mention that?
>>>So, yes, he was kidnapped.
>
>"So"? That word implies a logical connection. That Aristide was
>kidnapped is the conclusion of what argument? Gabrielle has been
>complaining about how the US failed to prop up Aristide and to help him
>crush his domestic enemies. And her conclusion from that complaint is
>that Aristide was kidnapped in this situation?
>
>The charge is intrinsically unbelievable. What would be the point of
>kidnapping Aristide? Is the US hard up for cash? Is it hoping it can get
>a nice ransom for Aristide so that it can pay for the new drug benefits?
For the same reason as almost every other US military intervention in
the Caribbean: Agribusiness and to "make an example".
You might be interested to know that the US-owned company Cintas
showed a profit of $234 million in 2002. At Cintas' Haitian
subcontractor plants, Haitian workers sew over 1,000 zippers in a
single day -- for less than $2 pay. Union organizers are kept away
from the barbed-wire fences by armed guards.
You might also be interested to know that these subcontractors are the
rebels. Andre Apaid, who is the spokesperson for the leading
anti-Aristide group, is one of these subcontractors.
>The American story intrinsically makes sense. Aristide is not an enemy
>of the US. Aristide asked for international help. The US was of course
>not willing to wage a war on his behalf against his domestic enemies,
>but it seems entirely within the realm of possibility that the US was
>willing at least to rescue the man it had put into power ten years before.
Is it within the realm of possibility that Aristide will be re-elected
in Haiti's next election? I believe your answer to that question will
demonstrate your degree of delusion.
Constantinople wrote:
>>>Denying this puts you in the same camp as
>>>all the media outlets who unanimously claimed that Chavez had resigned
>>>less than two years ago. This was exposed as a bold-faced lie in a
>>>matter of days. Likewise for the Aristide "resignation". The only
>>>people making "allegations" are the US State Department, the major
>>>media outlets, and people like yourself who are more interesting in
>>>politicizing the issue than exploring actual facts.
>
>Gabrielle takes the word of Aristide as gospel. Gabrielle argues that
>the US ought to be helping Aristide crush his enemies. And Gabrielle
>accuses me of taking a political side! That's rich.
The US has a responsibility to uphold democracy in Haiti from an
historical perspective, from an international perspective, from an
humanitarian perspective, and, at the very least, to keep from looking
like goddamn hypocrites -- again.
As for politics, I don't care if Aristide stays or goes. Hold an
election tomorrow for all I care. The Haitian people are mostly
united -- they will decide for themselves if they ever get another
chance.
strabo
>Constantinople wrote:
Electability determines political decisions concerning
guns in the US. The reason that Americans are still
armed is the 2nd A. backed by the millions that have guns.
Afghanistan, Iraq and Haiti are examples of US federal policy.
In this the US does not have to obey the Constitution. The US
accepted the UN disarmament treaty years ago and that includes
removing ALL arms from civilians.
SOP - The first rule of dictating terms is to disarm the locals.
Simple observation of history - slaves are always unarmed
- free men are always armed.
strabo
<constan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>pseudonymus anonymous wrote:
<snipped>
>> Had aristide bben a corrupt dictator, nobody would have cared.
>
>Not true. The US defeated Saddam and has been wiping out remaining
>Baathist elements and it seems as though the entire world has been
>against us. So obviously the world does care about those poor dictators.
>
>No matter what the US does, everything that happens is said to be the
>US's fault.
Largely because the US has been interfering with other nations
since WWII and has been responsible for many problems.
Simple facts...
- The US was instrumental in putting Ngo Dinh Diem in power in
Vietnam. It was a dictatorship.
- The US was instrumental in putting the Taliban in power in
Afghanistan. It was a dictatorship.
- The US was instrumental in putting Saddam in power in Iraq.
It was a dictatorship.
- The US was instrumental in putting Aristide in power in Haiti.
It was a dictatorship.
These are just four of many examples of US interference.
Simple result - the abuse of power and oppression.
Simple response - internal resistance and resentment toward the
US.
>If the US saved Aristide by escorting him to safety, then
>the word becomes that US kidnapped Aristide.
US foreign policy dictates that from time to time a new puppet
dictator is needed.
<snipped>
Sean Burke
Gabrielle Rapagnetta <n0spam....@gmx.net> writes:
> Sean Burke <foo...@mystery.org> wrote:
> >
> >"balanced" <askm...@nospam.com> writes:
> >
> >> Since Aristide was overwhelmingly popularly elected, the numbers of Haitian
> >> refugees to the US decreased sharply during Aristides' initial months in
> >> government, and the numbers of Haitian refugees sharply increased following
> >> the coup, how the hell can you ascertain that he was some kind of bad guy?
> >> Are the masses are idiots? Sounds like the mentality of the 'elites' to me
> >> as opposed to anyone generally interested in investigating perpetrating
> >> truths we can all learn from.
> >>
> >> Do you have ANY information that cites his murderous ways? And the link dug
> >> up by SEan does not contain any information dealing with this.
> >
> >Since you are suspicous of disreputable media outlets
> >(and who wouldn't be after recent revelations at the NY Times),
> >would you believe Human Rights Watch?
> >
> >Submitted for your autodidactory pleasure:
> >
> > http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/haiti/backgrounder.html
>
> And, Sean, for your autodidactory pleasure as well:
It's not clear to me what argument you feel this supports
or refutes. I don't see how it pertains to the question
whether Aristide has had his political opponents murdered.
-SEan
Gabrielle Rapagnetta
>
>Gabrielle Rapagnetta <n0spam....@gmx.net> writes:
>
>> Sean Burke <foo...@mystery.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >"balanced" <askm...@nospam.com> writes:
>> >
>> >> Since Aristide was overwhelmingly popularly elected, the numbers of Haitian
>> >> refugees to the US decreased sharply during Aristides' initial months in
>> >> government, and the numbers of Haitian refugees sharply increased following
>> >> the coup, how the hell can you ascertain that he was some kind of bad guy?
>> >> Are the masses are idiots? Sounds like the mentality of the 'elites' to me
>> >> as opposed to anyone generally interested in investigating perpetrating
>> >> truths we can all learn from.
>> >>
>> >> Do you have ANY information that cites his murderous ways? And the link dug
>> >> up by SEan does not contain any information dealing with this.
>> >
>> >Since you are suspicous of disreputable media outlets
>> >(and who wouldn't be after recent revelations at the NY Times),
>> >would you believe Human Rights Watch?
>> >
>> >Submitted for your autodidactory pleasure:
>> >
>> > http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/haiti/backgrounder.html
>>
>> And, Sean, for your autodidactory pleasure as well:
>
>> [Also from a Human Rights Watch report, 1995]
>> "Neither the Haitian nor the U.S. governments enacted adequate
>> screening procedures to purge the army human rights violators prior to
>> establishing the interim force. By the end of January 1995, U.S.
>> officials of the State, Defense, and Justice departments, aided by the
>> Haitian military high command, had selected nearly 3,400 soldiers
>> through the rank of major, given them six days of training, and
>> returned them to their units to serve under the observation of
>> international police monitors of the multinational occupation force.
>> Yet a U.S. Embassy source admitted that in truth only the Haitian
>> officer corps had been individually scrutinized. Not surprisingly,
>> there are serious allegations of involvement in human rights
>> violations against members of the interim force and against senior
>> military officials who supervised the creation of the force."
>It's not clear to me what argument you feel this supports
>or refutes. I don't see how it pertains to the question
>whether Aristide has had his political opponents murdered.
It suggests that with or without Aristide political opponents would
still get murdered, which is not only verified by historical
observation, but also can be predicted in the future.
Perhaps it doesn't refute your accusation that Aristide may have
killed somebody, but it does refute your narrow-minded demonization of
him.
Sean Burke
Gabrielle Rapagnetta <n0spam....@gmx.net> writes:
Since when is condemning political leaders who embezzle money,
steal elections, intimidate their opposition and allegedly have
had journalists and political competitors murdered,
"narrow-minded demonization"?
But, if you contend that Aristide is a less thuggish thug than
some of the other thugs in Haiti, I would not necessarily argue
with that.
-SEan
Constantinople
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 17:01:42 GMT, Constantinople
> <constan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>pseudonymus anonymous wrote:
>
>
> <snipped>
>
>>>Had aristide bben a corrupt dictator, nobody would have cared.
>>
>>Not true. The US defeated Saddam and has been wiping out remaining
>>Baathist elements and it seems as though the entire world has been
>>against us. So obviously the world does care about those poor dictators.
>>
>>No matter what the US does, everything that happens is said to be the
>>US's fault.
>
>
> Largely because the US has been interfering with other nations
> since WWII and has been responsible for many problems.
>
> Simple facts...
>
>
> - The US was instrumental in putting Ngo Dinh Diem in power in
> Vietnam. It was a dictatorship.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, but what is the world like where US influence does not
reach? Inside the Soviet Union under Stalin or inside China under Mao,
to pick to massive areas of no or scant American influence.
Your descriptions are all of the form:
a) Americans were there.
b) Bad stuff happened there.
But that doesn't show anything about causality. It doesn't even begin to
suggest that the Americans did not actually make things better than they
would have been.
For example, the Americans tried to defend the South Vietnamese
government against a North Vietnamese invasion. Thereby, no doubt,
supporting a nasty government (since they're all nasty, aside from a
rare few which are merely awful). But their intervention, had it
succeeded (instead of failed, which is what happened), would have
prevented the the Communist invasion from the North.
Since the Americans failed in Vietnam, we can use Vietnam as a case of
"what would have been" had Americans failed in these other countries
where they did not fail, but succeeded. Going by the example of Vietnam,
the other countries benefitted by American intervention.
The main spots where Americans did the most intervening, actually sent
in the troops and took part in a major war, were Europe, Japan, South
Korea, and Vietnam. Of all these places, all of them turned out
conspicuously well with the exception of Vietnam, which is the one place
where American intervention failed.
The lesson is that American intervention helps.
Gabrielle Rapagnetta
>> >Gabrielle Rapagnetta writes:
>> >> And, Sean, for your autodidactory pleasure as well:
>> >
>> >> [Also from a Human Rights Watch report, 1995]
>> >> "Neither the Haitian nor the U.S. governments enacted adequate
>> >> screening procedures to purge the army human rights violators prior to
>> >> establishing the interim force. By the end of January 1995, U.S.
>> >> officials of the State, Defense, and Justice departments, aided by the
>> >> Haitian military high command, had selected nearly 3,400 soldiers
>> >> through the rank of major, given them six days of training, and
>> >> returned them to their units to serve under the observation of
>> >> international police monitors of the multinational occupation force.
>> >> Yet a U.S. Embassy source admitted that in truth only the Haitian
>> >> officer corps had been individually scrutinized. Not surprisingly,
>> >> there are serious allegations of involvement in human rights
>> >> violations against members of the interim force and against senior
>> >> military officials who supervised the creation of the force."
>>
>> >It's not clear to me what argument you feel this supports
>> >or refutes. I don't see how it pertains to the question
>> >whether Aristide has had his political opponents murdered.
>>
>> It suggests that with or without Aristide political opponents would
>> still get murdered, which is not only verified by historical
>> observation, but also can be predicted in the future.
>>
>> Perhaps it doesn't refute your accusation that Aristide may have
>> killed somebody, but it does refute your narrow-minded demonization of
>> him.
>
>Since when is condemning political leaders who embezzle money,
>steal elections, intimidate their opposition and allegedly have
>had journalists and political competitors murdered,
>"narrow-minded demonization"?
Whoa, easy there! Someone asked you for evidence that Aristide
actually murdered people. We are still waiting. If you'd like to
provide evidence of embezzling and election rigging at the same, feel
free.
Simply piling more accusations upon your previous accusations does not
make your demonization any less narrow-minded.
Josh Dougherty
news:c3coa1$co$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> Sean Burke <foo...@mystery.org>:
> > > > So you concede that Castro's regime is not a "shining example
> > > > of democracy", yet you still expect us to take their statistics
> > > > about literacy and infant mortality at face value? ...
>
> G*rd*n
> > > Are these not confirmed by independent observation?
>
> jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald):
> > I was there. Only the eyes of the faithful would find Castro's
> > statistics believable -- the same folk who found Mao's statistics
> > believable, and still do.
>
>
> And what did you see that contradicted which statistics?
You're making the mistake of assuming that conclusions follow from
observations. You have it backwards.
Josh Dougherty
> Constantinople <constan...@yahoo.com>:
> > "Democratically elected leaders" seems to be a common euphemism for
> > "some of the worst scum that anyone ever had the misfortune of being
> > subject to".
> > ...
>
>
> Come now, there are many Bush fans on the Net, and you'll
> hurt their feelings.
>
Except that doesn't resemble Bush....at least the first part. ;-)
Sean Burke
Gabrielle Rapagnetta <n0spam....@gmx.net> writes:
> Sean Burke wrote:
> >Since when is condemning political leaders who embezzle money,
> >steal elections, intimidate their opposition and allegedly have
> >had journalists and political competitors murdered,
> >"narrow-minded demonization"?
>
> Whoa, easy there! Someone asked you for evidence that Aristide
> actually murdered people. We are still waiting. If you'd like to
> provide evidence of embezzling and election rigging at the same, feel
> free.
And I pointed out that tons of information about Aristide's
regime is only a google search away, so there's no need to
wait for me to do your research.
> Simply piling more accusations upon your previous accusations does not
> make your demonization any less narrow-minded.
These aren't my accusations - these are the accusations
that all of the opposition political parties in Haiti have
been making for years. Surely you don't pretend to be
unaware of them?
-SEan
charles panella
Hey how about the U.S. support for the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia
(Kampuchea). We even gave those nazi marxists a seat in the U.N. We
were soooo concerned about not supporting the North Vietnamese
government that we actually supported a genocidal regime. For those
who haven't read about any U.S. foreign policy prior to 911 the Khmer
Rouge killed a quarter of all Cambodians in this world in under ten
years systematically. Because of U.S. support the Khmer Rouge still
holds power in many towns and their leaders have never been brought to
an international tribunal. Yet we march half way across the globe for
Sadam. We didn't even admit the Khmer Rouge commited genocide or
performed human rights abuses officially untill Bush seniors
government in the early 90's, almost two decades after the genocide
occured.
Any libertarian or human with a brain will realize any military
intervention is the stupidest thing ever. This is the entire reason we
are subject to terrorist attacks (support for the ilegitimate state of
israel, and the Iran contra). Military should only be used for self
defense when a country officially declares war on the U.S. Not to
promote our hegemony by the force of and muder of billions.
cj
Josh Dougherty
news:t17k50913m1oljomi...@4ax.com...
Well, at least you know that your suggestion is contradictory. It's obvious
that US policy was to overthrow the elected government. These efforts
included an embargo on the government, and using it to give the rebels veto
power over the embargo and a political settlement. And most likely
financial and arms support, as one might tend to wonder how the rebels got
so well armed in a country under arms embargo. The whole point was to get
Aristede out, and get people with the right kind of priorities, like wealthy
businessmen and death squad leaders, in. Your plan then is obviously in
direct opposition to the whole goal. Incidentally, "American firepower and
American lives" are going to be used and put at risk just as much as they
would have been in any other situation, but it's only time to send the
marines in after the coup succeeds, as the mission for them is to make sure
that Aristede really is out of the picture, to calm the natives, stabilize
the new status quo and solidify the new lackeys in power.
Gabrielle Rapagnetta
>> Sean Burke wrote:
>> >Since when is condemning political leaders who embezzle money,
>> >steal elections, intimidate their opposition and allegedly have
>> >had journalists and political competitors murdered,
>> >"narrow-minded demonization"?
>>
>> Whoa, easy there! Someone asked you for evidence that Aristide
>> actually murdered people. We are still waiting. If you'd like to
>> provide evidence of embezzling and election rigging at the same, feel
>> free.
>
>And I pointed out that tons of information about Aristide's
>regime is only a google search away, so there's no need to
>wait for me to do your research.
Well if you (and Google, for that matter) don't have any evidence that
Aristide is going around killing people himself (or even ordering
others to do it), then perhaps you should temper your accusations to
something more truthful like, "Some violent Haitians murder
politicians and journalists." If you subtract your unfounded
accusations that's about all you've said so far to help anyone
understand the situation.
And may I remind you that you entered into this thread with a
disbelief of a common statistic which is easily found on Google.
>> Simply piling more accusations upon your previous accusations does not
>> make your demonization any less narrow-minded.
>
>These aren't my accusations - these are the accusations
>that all of the opposition political parties in Haiti have
>been making for years. Surely you don't pretend to be
>unaware of them?
I'm aware of the accusations. But in the meantime, we know for a fact
that the opposition parties are murderous thugs, don't we? Hmm, maybe
there's more to this story than one Evil socialist Haitian.
charles panella
influence allows bad events is totally flawed. Vietnam would have
never been involved in any war without U.S. involvment. The subsequent
struggles between north and south were completly caused by outside
involvement. Nobody in Vietnam, Kampuchea, or Laos even knew what the
hell (Barring a few intelectuals foreign educated in france) communism
and capitalism was. Still in many of these states (esp. Laos)people
have no concept of communism and capitalism respectively today. If you
do the research you will find many of the minority hill-tribes in Laos
(accounting 46% of the total population) to this day dont even know
what america is or what the bombs are that they build their houses
around TODAY. The entire conflict in the region was caused by
soviet/chinese and american involvment equally. Laos attempted to
maintain neutrality throughout the coldwar however the U.S. was the
only viable source of income for the royal government and
vietnam/soviet forces were the only viable source of income for
phathet lao forces. Both factions wanted to remain neutral in the cold
war struggle. Unfortunately because of U.S. and soviet legacies laos
became the most bombed country in the vietnam conflict. In fact more
tonnage of bombs was dropped on Laos than in all of wwII, 55,000
people have been maimed in Laos because of UXO's and 55,000 have died
SINCE THE CONFLICT IN VIETNAM ENDED NOT DURING THE WAR. This was all
produced, financed, and pushed because certain groups in south east
asia favored socialism. Without U.S. or outside involvment not one
bomb would have been dropped in Laos.
Why would the U.S. actually waste money, resources, and human lives
solely to help some backward countries in SEA. If you actually believe
this you are sorely confused. The only reason any world power
capitalist or socialist would ever undertake such costly military
expeditions is to advance their own hegemony selfishly. SEA is a
resource abundant and capital scarce region obviously the soviet and
U.S. forces could benefit greatly from increased access to trade and
increased political clout. Why did we not get involved in stopping
socialism in sweden, norway, and finland respectively?? Because they
are members of the white race and because they have very few resources
and much more capital than impoverished laos and vietnam. Subsequently
we did little to abridge the centralized and socialist nature of
Japan. Our military involvment their was purely to end a facist
regime. Korea in addition has, to this day, some of the most violent
and well developed labor unions. Why did we not enforce capitalism
here as vehemently as we did in SEA? They have little resources (Korea
and Japan) and much more money. Similarly we did cause the "Korean
Nation" much hardship and much suffering. Their probably will never
(at least in our lifetime) be a unified korean state. In addition we
still benefit from the stationing of troops (military influence) in
Japan and Korea respectively. Again the soviet union is just as at
fault. Military intervention is never in humanitarian interests. The
military advances purely for its own interests.
cj
strabo
panella) wrote:
I certainly agree about the use of the US military. But there are
those in and out of government that have no other way of dealing
with conflict. There are also those individuals that use the fear
of communism/terrorism as an excuse to expand their political
base and for personal gain. And then there is the
military-industrial complex that has become an global power
independent of government or political control.
Terrorism exists as a natural response to the expansion of the
nation state and made practical by advances in technology. It is
a pervasive and seductive method for personal gain and changing
states precisely because it is effective.
However, I think the US would be a target even if US foreign
policy had not been interventionist just as any influential
state would be.
Sean Burke
Gabrielle Rapagnetta <n0spam....@gmx.net> writes:
> >> Sean Burke wrote:
> >> >Since when is condemning political leaders who embezzle money,
> >> >steal elections, intimidate their opposition and allegedly have
> >> >had journalists and political competitors murdered,
> >> >"narrow-minded demonization"?
> >>
> >Gabrielle Rapagnetta writes:
> >> Whoa, easy there! Someone asked you for evidence that Aristide
> >> actually murdered people. We are still waiting. If you'd like to
> >> provide evidence of embezzling and election rigging at the same, feel
> >> free.
> >
> Sean Burke wrote:
> >And I pointed out that tons of information about Aristide's
> >regime is only a google search away, so there's no need to
> >wait for me to do your research.
>
> Well if you (and Google, for that matter) don't have any evidence that
> Aristide is going around killing people himself (or even ordering
> others to do it), then perhaps you should temper your accusations to
> something more truthful like, "Some violent Haitians murder
> politicians and journalists." If you subtract your unfounded
> accusations that's about all you've said so far to help anyone
> understand the situation.
The only facts are that journalists and politicians
opposed to the regime keep turning up dead, and no
suspects are ever apprehended.
I believe it is unlikely that Aristede committed these
murders personally. On the other hand, he has made it
clear that those who murder the enemies of the regime
will be shielded from prosecution. I'm not inclined to
draw fine moral distinctions between the two cases,
but let your conscience be your guide.
> And may I remind you that you entered into this thread with a
> disbelief of a common statistic which is easily found on Google.
I entered this subthread when you made the assertion
that "Aristide, his wife, and friends all claim that
he was kidnapped by the US, so it must be true."
I think that they all have very excellent reasons
to lie.
> >> Simply piling more accusations upon your previous accusations does not
> >> make your demonization any less narrow-minded.
> >
> >These aren't my accusations - these are the accusations
> >that all of the opposition political parties in Haiti have
> >been making for years. Surely you don't pretend to be
> >unaware of them?
>
>
> I'm aware of the accusations. But in the meantime, we know for a fact
> that the opposition parties are murderous thugs, don't we? Hmm, maybe
> there's more to this story than one Evil socialist Haitian.
So Lavalas's crimes are mere "accusations", while those
of other groups "we know for a fact"? It's not clear to
me why you find the evidence so much more convincing in
the latter case.
Regardless, I do not contend that Aristede is uniquely
evil. Nor am I happy to see mob rule making a return to
Haiti. But I do think it is fair to say that Aristede
and Lavalas are no longer part of the solution to Haiti's
problems - they are part of the problem.
-SEan
Ivan Gowch
wrote:
askme:
==>> ==>The entire point of an authoritarian regime's control of
==>> ==>media, and punishment of dissent, is to suppress the truth.
==>> ==>How can you possibly overlook this?
IG:
==>> Absolutely. Exactly like the United Snakes'
==>> authoritarian regime enjoys virtually total
==>> control of the mainstream media, with its
==>> goal the suppression of truth.
==>>
==>> If you don't know this, you obviously have not
==>> read Chomsky, who has demonstrated this
==>> so conclusively only morons or administration
==>> lackeys still deny it.
==>If so, they've done an extraordinarily lousy job of
==>suppressing Chomsky. His works occupy entire shelves
==>of any Borders or Barnes&Noble that I've ever been in.
I said "mainstream media."
No, the ruling cabal has not yet found a way to ban
books. The last time it tried, it got its ass kicked
by (what was then still an honourable) Supreme
Court.
But when was the last time you saw Chomsky on,
say, CNN's Crossfire, or any of FOX's right-wing
talkfests, or ANY widely watched TV forum?
The mainstream media denies him a voice because the
truths he demonstates so convincingly in his books
can't be allowed to "pollute" the minds of the mainly
brain-dead consumers who can be otherwise be relied
on to buy the required products, and that includes the
Administration line on public policy, faithfully
parroted by its TV mouthpieces.
--
The virtue most often rewarded is patience.
-Ivan Gowch
Ivan Gowch
<constan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
IG:
==>> Absolutely. Exactly like the United Snakes'
==>> authoritarian regime enjoys virtually total
==>> control of the mainstream media, with its
==>> goal the suppression of truth.
==>>
==>> If you don't know this, you obviously have not
==>> read Chomsky, who has demonstrated this
==>> so conclusively only morons or administration
==>> lackeys still deny it.
==>
==>I actually have read a bit of Chomsky as well as seen that movie that
==>was all about him (Manufacturing Consent, I think it was). Anyone who
==>claims, on the basis of such materials, that Chomsky has proven any such
==>thing conclusively is, well, I'll let the reader finish that thought.
==>
Wow! I am awestruck.
Thanks for that incisive analysis of Chomsky and
his works.
I'll never read him again.
When does your book come out?
Constantinople
You made an assertion, I rejected it. Neither of us has supplied any
analysis, so what's the point of the sarcasm?
G*rd*n
> news:uBH5c.19912$TxJ....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.
> com...
> > > So you concede that Castro's regime is not a "shining
> example
> > > of democracy", yet you still expect us to take their
> statistics
> > > about literacy and infant mortality at face value? I
> suppose
> > > you also believed the North Koreans when they denied
> that their
> > > people were starving?
> >
> > If you let me off the hook for going through the trouble
> of having to prove
> > to you that these statistics came from 3rd-party sources?
"Dalibor Perković" <sve....@u.sigu.hr>:
> Actually, I'd like to prove this to myself. Although the
> literacy thing isn't that astonishing, knowing what I know
> about American education system, I find the information
> about infant mortality rate highly unbelievable, although
> maybe not that impossible. So, respecting other people's
> lazyness (hey, I've crossed the thin red line many times),
> could you please at least point me in the general direction
> where I could find some official confirmation for these
> facts?
> --
> ? Pax et Discordia
> /|\
> ?/|?\ Izitpajn
> //?|\?\ p_dalibor(a)net,hr
> | pdalibor(a)dominis,phy,hr
>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1739773.stm
http://www.leftwatch.com/articles/2002/000023.html
http://havanajournal.com/culture_comments/P1431_0_3_0/
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't
Constantinople
So the communists would have taken over peacefully? Or are you saying
that the US exported communism?
Here's an easy exercise: pick one of the two above. Either:
a) Vietnam would have gone communist peacefully without American
involvement, or
b) Vietnam would not have gone communist.
> Why would the U.S. actually waste money, resources, and human lives
> solely to help some backward countries in SEA. If you actually believe
> this you are sorely confused. The only reason any world power
> capitalist or socialist would ever undertake such costly military
> expeditions is to advance their own hegemony selfishly.
It was to prevent the expansion of communism. Keeping the communists
from taking over the world is the same as keeping the Nazis from taking
over the world. If your description of American motives is appropriate
here, then it is also appropriate to say that Americans defeated Hitler
in order to advance American hegemony.
Now, that may be true, at least in your way of speaking, but I expect
many people would say, "in that case, it's a good thing that Americans
were advancing their hegemony."
G*rd*n
> ==>> ==>The entire point of an authoritarian regime's control of
> ==>> ==>media, and punishment of dissent, is to suppress the truth.
> ==>> ==>How can you possibly overlook this?
IG:
> ==>> Absolutely. Exactly like the United Snakes'
> ==>> authoritarian regime enjoys virtually total
> ==>> control of the mainstream media, with its
> ==>> goal the suppression of truth.
> ==>>
> ==>> If you don't know this, you obviously have not
> ==>> read Chomsky, who has demonstrated this
> ==>> so conclusively only morons or administration
> ==>> lackeys still deny it.
Sean Burke <foo...@mystery.org>:
> ==>If so, they've done an extraordinarily lousy job of
> ==>suppressing Chomsky. His works occupy entire shelves
> ==>of any Borders or Barnes&Noble that I've ever been in.
Ivan Gowch <go...@SPAMTHEENOThotmail.com>:
> I said "mainstream media."
>
> No, the ruling cabal has not yet found a way to ban
> books. The last time it tried, it got its ass kicked
> by (what was then still an honourable) Supreme
> Court.
>
> But when was the last time you saw Chomsky on,
> say, CNN's Crossfire, or any of FOX's right-wing
> talkfests, or ANY widely watched TV forum?
>
> The mainstream media denies him a voice ...
If people are "brain-dead", metaphorically speaking, then that
is their responsibility, isn't it? It's not quite authoritarian
to serve them what they desire, even if their desires are
stupid.
balanced
from taking over the world is the same as keeping the Nazis from taking
over the world."
The Nazi regime was far right - funded in major ways by american moneyed
interests - and communism is far left - by the people and for the people in
it's purity & what the hell is wrong with that anyway? - so there's nothing
the same about it.
Keeping the Nazi's from taking over the world was preventing fascism.
Keeping communists from taking over the world is perpetrating the unequal
distribution of goods and services from occuring (fascism) by those who
claim that "trickle down" economics will save us all - and this on the back
of an economic fantasy that relies on unlimited, unending growth as one
fundamental cornerstone while using limited fossil fuels as another.... what
a joke, heh? The solidity of this way we're living is a temporary shot in
the arm of 'civilization' provided by non-renewable resources - THAT is the
reality.
--> If your description of American motives is appropriate
here, then it is also appropriate to say that Americans defeated Hitler
in order to advance American hegemony."
How apropo, indeed!! ... check out Chomsky's article on how the Nazi's won
the war:
"In his book Blowback, Chris Simpson described Operation Paper Clip, which
involved the importation of large numbers of known Nazi war criminals,
rocket scientists, camp guards, etc."
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/ChomskyOdonian_Nazis
balanced
make it their business to attack Chomsky, like SB,
habitually hurl accusations that he's "not credible"
or opining, like U.S. apologist Burke does here,
that Chomsky's writings are full of "holes," and then
run away. with nary an effort to support their
nonsense with facts.
Gabrielle Rapagnetta
>"Gabrielle Rapagnetta" wrote:
>> Aristide does not need to be propped up. He has overwhelming support
>> from the Haitian people. It is democracy that needs to be propped up.
>> So what does the US do? It allows a few hundred well-armed rebels
>> lead by foreigners to march through Haitian cities, all the way up to
>> the capitol, and then it kidnaps the democratically elected leader,
>> leaving the armed rebels in place. Shameful!
>>
>> I called for at least 1000 marines to be dispatched to Haiti three
>> weeks ago on a mission to disarm the rebels. I suspect that the US
>> played a role in arming these rebels in the first place, so I never
>> really expected to see that happen. But that would have been the
>> decent thing to do.
"Josh Dougherty":
>Well, at least you know that your suggestion is contradictory. It's obvious
>that US policy was to overthrow the elected government. These efforts
>included an embargo on the government, and using it to give the rebels veto
>power over the embargo and a political settlement. And most likely
>financial and arms support, as one might tend to wonder how the rebels got
>so well armed in a country under arms embargo. The whole point was to get
>Aristede out, and get people with the right kind of priorities, like wealthy
>businessmen and death squad leaders, in. Your plan then is obviously in
>direct opposition to the whole goal.
Yeah, but when else am I going to get a chance to prove that I'm a
'real American' and yell "Send in the marines!"?
> Incidentally, "American firepower and
>American lives" are going to be used and put at risk just as much as they
>would have been in any other situation, but it's only time to send the
>marines in after the coup succeeds, as the mission for them is to make sure
>that Aristede really is out of the picture, to calm the natives, stabilize
>the new status quo and solidify the new lackeys in power.
The American commander James Hill has announced his mission to "get
guns off the street". Sound familiar? But he is not talking about
the rebels. The US is attempting to disarm the mostly pro-Aristide
populace. They have recovered two shotguns so far.
Xavier Pons, the French commander, was asked if his troops would
attempt to disarm the rebels. He said that was the role of the local
police.
Now if that's not hypocritical enough for you, check out this next
quote from General James Hill: "The fact that we got in very quickly
... prevented a tremendous amount of chaos."
Sure, General. Whatever you say...
Constantinople
---
>Keeping the Nazi's from taking over the world was preventing fascism.
>Keeping communists from taking over the world is perpetrating the unequal
>distribution of goods and services from occuring (fascism)
The funniest thing is that you really are for real.
balanced
is the epitome of high-minded dialogueing.... ha!, sorry - I just couldn't
resist.
"Constantinople" <constan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:NYG6c.174025$iA2....@news.easynews.com...
Sean Burke
"balanced" <askm...@nospam.com> writes:
> ++> Don't bother. The type of retrograde morons who
> make it their business to attack Chomsky, like SB,
> habitually hurl accusations that he's "not credible"
> or opining, like U.S. apologist Burke does here,
> that Chomsky's writings are full of "holes," and then
> run away. with nary an effort to support their
> nonsense with facts.
>
> What I'm trying to figure out is, if they don't like Chomsky or give him =
> any credibility, how come they spend so much time arguing about him?
>
> Do you suppose these types have some kind of "saviour" complex and =
> they're waiting for us to say something like "Gee, you've shown me the =
> light, can you recommend a CREDIBLE alternative??
>
> Funny thing is I don't think they do - they're mostly just here to argue =
> for arguments' sake.
No, we're here to poke fun at his cult-like following.
And, let me also cast an aspersion upon twits who post
MIME+HTML.
-SEan
balanced
Well I guess if that's what you're really into I'm not one to cut you down
for it. I'm glad we give you something useful to do. Myself I've always
had a sense of self-esteem that was above getting my jollies off on cutting
others down.
: And, let me also cast an aspersion upon twits who post MIME+HTML.
Aww, thanx, SEan - I wasn't sure you cared but now I do - having been
sprinkled with holy water through the wire sure is a mystery and an honour!
Anyway could I bother you to explain why MIME+HTML is a bad thing?? I
haven't been posting to newsgroups very long so I'm not aware of the
problem(s) this might cause....
Thanx.
Also, since you interjected at this point maybe you could mention: have
*you* seen http://www.thecorporation.tv/ yet?? If so what's your opinion on
it?
Constantinople
> Well I'm happy you're so amused. Thank you for your deeply engaging reply it
> is the epitome of high-minded dialogueing.... ha!, sorry - I just couldn't
> resist.
I can only imagine where you are posting from, that you can say such
things (as quoted below) with a straight face (metaphorically speaking).
i.e.:
>>Keeping communists from taking over the world is perpetrating the unequal
>>distribution of goods and services from occuring (fascism)
This is in the context of the Vietnam War and the Cold War, i.e., the
communists you're referring to is not the free-oatmeal-cookie types but
the North Vietnamese and Soviet types.
Sean Burke
"balanced" <askm...@nospam.com> writes:
> : No, we're here to poke fun at his cult-like following.
>
> Well I guess if that's what you're really into I'm not one to cut you down
> for it. I'm glad we give you something useful to do. Myself I've always
> had a sense of self-esteem that was above getting my jollies off on cutting
> others down.
So you've never made fun of Rush Limbaugh's ditto-heads?
Be honest, now. ;->
> : And, let me also cast an aspersion upon twits who post MIME+HTML.
>
> Aww, thanx, SEan - I wasn't sure you cared but now I do - having been
> sprinkled with holy water through the wire sure is a mystery and an honour!
> Anyway could I bother you to explain why MIME+HTML is a bad thing?? I
> haven't been posting to newsgroups very long so I'm not aware of the
> problem(s) this might cause....
Cuz it looks like gobbledegook to people who use text
newsreaders, because it wastes bandwidth and storage
in newservers, because it poses security risks to
to those foolish enough to use Microsoft Outbreak,
and because it adds nothing to the discussion?
> Thanx.
>
> Also, since you interjected at this point maybe you could mention: have
> *you* seen http://www.thecorporation.tv/ yet?? If so what's your opinion on
> it?
Haven't had the opportunity to see it.
-SEan
Robert N. Newshutz
> balanced wrote:
>
>> Well I'm happy you're so amused. Thank you for your deeply engaging
>> reply it
>> is the epitome of high-minded dialogueing.... ha!, sorry - I just
>> couldn't
>> resist.
>
>
> I can only imagine where you are posting from, that you can say such
> things (as quoted below) with a straight face (metaphorically speaking).
>
> i.e.:
>
> >>Keeping communists from taking over the world is perpetrating the
> unequal
> >>distribution of goods and services from occuring (fascism)
>
> This is in the context of the Vietnam War and the Cold War, i.e., the
> communists you're referring to is not the free-oatmeal-cookie types but
> the North Vietnamese and Soviet types.
>
It seems from his other posts that he is a Chomsky fan,
so the answer to where he is coming from should be obvious.
Constantinople
news:3hdc509qm6at565ml...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 17:43:17 GMT, "balanced" <askm...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> ==>BA: So in reading that book I only checked about 3 or 4 of those
> resources ==>and they checked out perfectly and maybe you studied his
> references more ==>than I so if you have a concrete example of these
> "holes" you're referring ==>to please submit them for consideration in
> your reply because I don't ==>swallow anyones' point of view
> completely (even Chomsky's) without ==>considering someone elses' and
> hell, for all I know, you could be right..... ==>so do you have any
> specific examples I could check?
>
> Don't bother. The type of retrograde morons who
> make it their business to attack Chomsky, like SB,
> habitually hurl accusations that he's "not credible"
> or opining, like U.S. apologist Burke does here,
> that Chomsky's writings are full of "holes," and then
> run away. with nary an effort to support their
> nonsense with facts.
>
> That's understandable, since few of them have ever
> actually read Chomsky, and the rest did not understand
> what he was saying.
Creativity in formatting just does not work. I have seen people try it
for a decade. It's ugly, it's confusing, it screws up newsreaders that
necessarily aren't designed to deal with every possible creative format
someone might dream up (see for example the weird wrapping done here by
my newsreader of the doubly quoted text), it marks the poster as a
newbie, it calls attention to itself, and it's entirely unnecessary.
James A. Donald
Constantinople:
> > I actually have read a bit of Chomsky as well as seen that
> > think it was). Anyone who claims, on the basis of such
> > materials, that Chomsky has proven any such thing
> > conclusively is, well, I'll let the reader finish that
> > thought.
Ivan Gowch <go...@SPAMTHEENOThotmail.com> wrote in message
> Wow! I am awestruck.
>
> Thanks for that incisive analysis of Chomsky
> and his works.
That was not analysis, but conclusion.
For some analysis, a comparison of what Chomsky claims the
sources he so learnedly cites said, and what those sources
actually said, see http://www.jim.com/chomsdis.htm
(It is a new and improved version. The earlier version merely
pointed out one big lie by Chomsky in one infamous article,
thus implying that everything else he said was also a lie. The
new version goes through the article paragraph by paragraph,
and shows that everything he said was a lie.)
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
yTJNOPPxQNhix4ySqGQo0Y0x3PvRODA1RxDUJv1f
44AY7Q8yEHe9WrONCY98AcgfTIxGB3V5M+RyqdjBv
James A. Donald
Sean Burke <foo...@mystery.org>:
> > > > So you concede that Castro's regime is not a "shining
> > > > example of democracy", yet you still expect us to take
> > > > their statistics about literacy and infant mortality at
G*rd*n
> > > Are these not confirmed by independent observation?
James A. Donald:
> > I was there. Only the eyes of the faithful would find
> > Castro's statistics believable -- the same folk who found
> > Mao's statistics believable, and still do.
G*rd*n
> And what did you see that contradicted which statistics?
I found, among other things, a two track health care system,
with the ordinary people denied effectual health care.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
aXyPtPTfbr/PP24rFLE3+RARsqpHjTF8Xb/+3LzJ
4F52g3/Lia0yQPFpw8+v6uSD2whpAofBKMv4zl0WR
bertignac
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 17:43:17 GMT, "balanced" <askm...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
> Don't bother. The type of retrograde morons who
> make it their business to attack Chomsky, like SB,
> habitually hurl accusations that he's "not credible"
> or opining, like U.S. apologist Burke does here,
> that Chomsky's writings are full of "holes," and then
> run away. with nary an effort to support their
> nonsense with facts.
>
> That's understandable, since few of them have ever
> actually read Chomsky, and the rest did not understand
> what he was saying.
well, here we have a Chomsky acolyte it seems ... even taking on his
name-calling approach ... Chomsky is a dangerously mendacious weaver
of lies so intricately tight in their falsity that trying to criticise
them is as painstaking as some kind of metaphysical surgical
procedure. He is a hypocrite, unable to admit error. He is a moral
poser, with the obnoxious attitude that he is judging from the high
moral plane of absolute truth. He is the arrogant Mandarin that he
criticised. Too bad he didn't live in China around 1967. Mao would
have sent him straight to re-education camp in the country. Instead he
pointed that accusatory, self-righteous index finger from his cozy
office at MIT.
James A. Donald
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 17:53:15 GMT, "balanced"
<askm...@nospam.com> wrote:
> And I am highly selective of facts when I have a limited
> amount of space to present an argument. Aren't you?
Chomsky uses selection to lie by implication:
Here is an example from http://www.jim.com/chomsdis.htm
Chomsky:
: : The pictures show armed soldiers guarding people
: : pulling plows, [...] we might ask why people should
: : be pulling plows in Cambodia. The reason is clear,
: : if unmentioned. The savage American assault on
: : Cambodia did not spare the animal population.
Chomsky omits to mention that the accusation was not that
cambodians were forced to pull plows, but that they were forced
to pull plows until they dropped dead, a method of plowing that
cannot be blamed on the exigencies of the war.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
PQSzKVu8VfDBkv5I0kV8dFfYouT4g/Lw56MAXCBi
4yd0LLHxVOrMCJH1lAfpmOltdIsJMbKqCsPj7sVEe
James A. Donald
I find this hard to believe. I checked out every single
resource that Chomsky cited in "Distortions at fourth hand",
and every single citation turned out to be at best deceptive,
at worst a barefaced lie. Not one citation gave an accurate
account of the material cited, not one.
I have created a table. One side of the table is what Chomsky
said, the other side of the table is what was actually in the
sources Chomsky cited. See http://www.jim.com/chomsdish.htm
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
6PWcHn9DOtucbRirRAi2mGRB2CP0Vh3CP4mwGKWX
4ocFW8j4Naszo2rucEFs6jogWZSAfR0bDA6GevyCE
James A. Donald
On 16 Mar 2004 02:08:05 -0800, mwe...@europe.com (Marcus Welch)
wrote:
> Every self-respecting "dissident" has a doctrine attached to
> his name. The core principle of the Chomsky's doctrine is
> human rights.
Wherever there is tyranny and murder, wherever the master's
boot smashes into the face of a child, you can count on Chomsky
and his fans to deny the crimes of the master and demonize the
child as a CIA agent
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
vYyPe6P4eqS+tfCFBy5oLrRNaBrBRKmmKILLRoEn
4GesIJcheBLLOO40tEmgu8wLFuTSrsuXXfVxvnHCj
G*rd*n
Ivan Gowch <go...@SPAMTHEENOThotmail.com>:
> > Don't bother. The type of retrograde morons who
> > make it their business to attack Chomsky, like SB,
> > habitually hurl accusations that he's "not credible"
> > or opining, like U.S. apologist Burke does here,
> > that Chomsky's writings are full of "holes," and then
> > run away. with nary an effort to support their
> > nonsense with facts.
> >
> > That's understandable, since few of them have ever
> > actually read Chomsky, and the rest did not understand
> > what he was saying.
melber...@yahoo.com (bertignac):
> well, here we have a Chomsky acolyte it seems ... even taking on his
> name-calling approach ... Chomsky is a dangerously mendacious weaver
> of lies so intricately tight in their falsity that trying to criticise
> them is as painstaking as some kind of metaphysical surgical
> procedure. He is a hypocrite, unable to admit error. He is a moral
> poser, with the obnoxious attitude that he is judging from the high
> moral plane of absolute truth. He is the arrogant Mandarin that he
> criticised. Too bad he didn't live in China around 1967. Mao would
> have sent him straight to re-education camp in the country. Instead he
> pointed that accusatory, self-righteous index finger from his cozy
> office at MIT.
It would be more helpful to the unenlightened if you could
give and analyze in detail some evidence for your charges.
I suggest it not consist of any of the well-known canards,
which depend heavily upon interpretation, but material
which clearly contains deliberate and undeniable lies.
In particular, I have difficulty understanding the concept
of "mendaciously woven lies so intricately tight in their
falsity that trying to criticize them is as painstaking as
some kind of metaphysical surgical procedure." These sound
like extremely interesting constructions, and I wonder if
you could point out both Chomskyite and non-Chomskyite
variety. Hitherto I have generally regarded Dr. Chomsky
as rather a purveyor of leftish clichés and platitudes,
which cause excitement and anguish only because they run
counter to the clichés and platitudes issued by the
Established Order. I look forward eagerly to reading this
new and unsuspected aspect of the Chomsky phenomenon.
James A. Donald
"balanced"
> > > In both Haiti & Venezuela the leaders you mentioned were
> > > overwhelmingly elected by the poor and began instituting
> > > policies that would create an economic environment
> > > suitable to human rights.
"James A. Donald"
> > Such was his enthusiasm for human rights, that Aristide had
> > the wife of one of his opponents cut open and burning
> > petrol poured into her stomach cavity.
pseudonymus anonymous
> woa! Let's have the source for that fantastic piece of
> evidence, shall we?
Can't find the source for that particular crime, but for
similar crimes, committed on the way to power, see
http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/03/11.html
and
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1994/vo10no01.htm
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
E0ghMAZBVx0X7ZhkoTg6nn6mlUyup/zs6g6fIEFT
4qsVfRzCa1Td8pffRcorkiF6VdmCYQtelmUxS89wn
James A. Donald
bertignac:
> > well, here we have a Chomsky acolyte it seems ... even
> > taking on his name-calling approach ... Chomsky is a
> > dangerously mendacious weaver of lies so intricately tight
> > in their falsity that trying to criticise them is as
> > painstaking as some kind of metaphysical surgical
> > procedure. He is a hypocrite, unable to admit error. He is
> > a moral poser, with the obnoxious attitude that he is
> > judging from the high moral plane of absolute truth. He is
> > the arrogant Mandarin that he criticised. Too bad he didn't
> > live in China around 1967. Mao would have sent him straight
> > to re-education camp in the country. Instead he pointed
> > that accusatory, self-righteous index finger from his cozy
> > office at MIT.
G*rd*n
> It would be more helpful to the unenlightened if you could
> give and analyze in detail some evidence for your charges.
This has been done times without number, so many times as to
become tedious in repetition.
For a detailed analysis of Chomsky mendaciously weaving lies,
see my essay "Chomsky lies" http://www.jim.com/chomsdis.htm
> I suggest it not consist of any of the well-known canards,
> which depend heavily upon interpretation, but material which
> clearly contains deliberate and undeniable lies.
Chomsky:
: : Space limitations preclude a comprehensive review,
: : but such journals as the Far Eastern Economic
: : Review, the London Economist, the Melbourne Journal
: : of Politics, and others elsewhere, have provided
: : analyses by highly qualified specialists who have
: : studied the full range of evidence available, and
: : who concluded that executions have numbered at most
: : in the thousands; that these were localized in areas
: : of limited Khmer Rouge influence and unusual peasant
: : discontent, where brutal revenge killings were
: : aggravated by the threat of starvation resulting
: : from the American destruction and killing. These
: : reports also emphasize both the extraordinary
: : brutality on both sides during the civil war
: : (provoked by the American attack) and repeated
: : discoveries that massacre reports were false.
So how about providing an example of one of these "discoveries
that massacre reports were false"? Surely you should be able
to find them just by looking up the learned citations Chomsky
gave for the Far Eastern Economic Review, etc?
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
qrnyrDxS7fDjxaEM8J/gacI9OuOJSDpsNtNt2p6d
4Aq0W3uqZwArJpT0LbYzHx0+nJdl7QSmj6gOx3EMl
James A. Donald
> said, the other side of the table is what was actually in the
> sources Chomsky cited. See http://www.jim.com/chomsdish.htm
That should read
http://www.jim.com/chomsdis.htm
charles panella
I am saying exactly that the communists would never have a) "taken
over" and b) if socialism grew in popularity in vietnam laos or
kampuchea it would not have caused 1/100th the destruction that our
irresponsible war caused.
As for point A: Like I posted above nobody except those educated in
France knew what capitalism or communism was. In Vietnam, Laos, and
Cambodia there were no universities, hardly anybooks, any literate
people. How could communism/capitalism have spread??? The only way is
through outside support so the soviets support a little militarily and
then the U.S. supports a little militarily. Only after this support
can the "take over" even be plausible. No groups in these nations had
the economic, military, or mass support to 'take over'. You can thank
that to world powers.
As for point B: again go to previously posted statistics. We did not
even declare war in Laos. It was bombed more than all the bombs in
WWII. Had the U.S. not gotten involved would this kind of destruction
and death been possible?? After the vietnam war ended, still in Laos
55,000 have died because of our irrisponsible bombing and another
55,000 maimed. In cambodia another country we never declared war on
more bomb tonnage was dropped than in Japan in WWII. Would this have
been possible had the U.S. not gotten involved??? And look they still
had to suffer through communism.
It was to prevent the expansion of communism. Keeping the communists
> from taking over the world is the same as keeping the Nazis from taking
> over the world. If your description of American motives is appropriate
> here, then it is also appropriate to say that Americans defeated Hitler
> in order to advance American hegemony.
>
> Now, that may be true, at least in your way of speaking, but I expect
> many people would say, "in that case, it's a good thing that Americans
> were advancing their hegemony."
Yeah thank god for us probably right now some young child will end up
with a blown off leg in Laos.. ... it was soooo worth it. Oh wait!!!
they ended up commie anyway. Oh and never mind that sweden norway and
finland are all strongly socialist countries. Or that we never
attacked the soviet union. If we wanted to stop commies why did we
actually attack those that harbored the socialist world order
directly? Oh i know because they actually had weapons and we are too
big of pussies to fight against somebody armed. Just like right now.
We bring down sadam.... not kim jung il. Why?? he may actually have
the ability to hurt us or our allies.
cj
Constantinople
www.jim.com unreachable from here at the moment.
Constantinople
So you are shifting from one claim to another. The claim I was asking
you to confirm or reject, and which you confirmed, was that the US (not
the outside world, the US, the United States of America) introduced
communism into Vietnam. But your last statement above says only that
outsiders (not specifically the US, but outsiders) introduced communism.
You include, among those outsiders, the Soviets, suggesting that you
think it was the Soviets, not the Americans, who actually introduced
communism into Vietnam.
But I did not ask you to confirm whether you believe that Soviets
introduced communism into Vietnam. If that is your belief, I don't
disagree. I asked you to confirm whether you believed that Americans
introduced communism into Vietnam. Earlier on in the thread the question
had been about the effect of American involvement in events worldwide.
Not Soviet involvement. American involvement. If you want to argue that
Soviet involvement in events worldwide has been harmful, that's nothing
I have anything to say against.
Nathan Folkert
> --
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 17:43:17 GMT, "balanced"
> <askm...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > So in reading that book I only checked about 3 or 4 of those
> > resources and they checked out perfectly
>
> I find this hard to believe. I checked out every single
> resource that Chomsky cited in "Distortions at fourth hand",
> and every single citation turned out to be at best deceptive,
> at worst a barefaced lie. Not one citation gave an accurate
> account of the material cited, not one.
While he may not have accurately reported the views of Fox
Butterfield, "with his ideological blinders", he probably accurately
represented the views of Carol Bragg in the New England Peacework,
with her "eyewitness testimony". Or perhaps not?
- Nate
G*rd*n
> > > well, here we have a Chomsky acolyte it seems ... even
> > > taking on his name-calling approach ... Chomsky is a
> > > dangerously mendacious weaver of lies so intricately tight
> > > in their falsity that trying to criticise them is as
> > > painstaking as some kind of metaphysical surgical
> > > procedure. He is a hypocrite, unable to admit error. He is
> > > a moral poser, with the obnoxious attitude that he is
> > > judging from the high moral plane of absolute truth. He is
> > > the arrogant Mandarin that he criticised. Too bad he didn't
> > > live in China around 1967. Mao would have sent him straight
> > > to re-education camp in the country. Instead he pointed
> > > that accusatory, self-righteous index finger from his cozy
> > > office at MIT.
G*rd*n:
> > It would be more helpful to the unenlightened if you could
> > give and analyze in detail some evidence for your charges.
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com>:
> This has been done times without number, so many times as to
> become tedious in repetition.
>
> For a detailed analysis of Chomsky mendaciously weaving lies,
> see my essay "Chomsky lies" http://www.jim.com/chomsdis.htm
Last time I looked, your material depended on interpretation
(and this is what we see below). To show that someone was
lying, you have to show positively that the person knew, when
he lied, that the truth was different -- not that he _ought
to have known_ this or that. My perception of Uncle Noam
is that he is far, far too cagey to get caught out uttering
a lie without carefully fencing it off with academic
caveats.
In any case, a plain lie isn't the same as mendaciously weaved
lie so intricately tight in its falsity that trying to criticize
it is as paintstaking as some kind of metaphysical surgical
procedure. Saying that the Khmer Rouge killed fewer people
that one knows for a fact that they did kill is merely a plain
lie. Clearly, a m.w.l.s.i.t.i.i.f.t.t.t.c.i.i.a.p.a.s.k.o.m.s.p.
is something of another order. I expect Byzantine involution
and decor. You have anything like that? Conceded, _you_ did
not make the claim; it is up to bertignac to provide the
particular evidence for this particular item. I am eager to
see it, for a lie of the indicated quality could be expected
to be highly entertaining, as opposed to the kind we get from
our politicians and media, which have been of such low quality
in recent years.
But please -- no more canards. Let us have a _cygne_, or at
least a goose we can cook, this time!
G*rd*n:
> > I suggest it not consist of any of the well-known canards,
> > which depend heavily upon interpretation, but material which
> > clearly contains deliberate and undeniable lies.
>
> Chomsky:
> : : Space limitations preclude a comprehensive review,
> : : but such journals as the Far Eastern Economic
> : : Review, the London Economist, the Melbourne Journal
> : : of Politics, and others elsewhere, have provided
> : : analyses by highly qualified specialists who have
> : : studied the full range of evidence available, and
> : : who concluded that executions have numbered at most
> : : in the thousands; that these were localized in areas
> : : of limited Khmer Rouge influence and unusual peasant
> : : discontent, where brutal revenge killings were
> : : aggravated by the threat of starvation resulting
> : : from the American destruction and killing. These
> : : reports also emphasize both the extraordinary
> : : brutality on both sides during the civil war
> : : (provoked by the American attack) and repeated
> : : discoveries that massacre reports were false.
>
> So how about providing an example of one of these "discoveries
> that massacre reports were false"? Surely you should be able
> to find them just by looking up the learned citations Chomsky
> gave for the Far Eastern Economic Review, etc?
balanced
: Be honest, now. ;->
I honestly don't understand you... why the hell would I waste my time
engaging people who see things so differently than I do? This is the
'dominator culture' mentality and, although I joked about it previously, I
have escaped the indoctrination of this currently prevalent (unfortunately
for me) mentality.
It does not satisfy me to 'engage the opponent' and best them. To me that
is base, infantile, and worst of all, monotonous. In my opinion the way to
spread your opinion is by working together with like-minded people to
explore, evolve and perfect it as much as it possibly can be - and being
mature enough to let it go if such exploring reveals it to be inferior to
other, contradictory ideas.
I've heard Rush Limbaugh & his dittos on the radio before and I can only
listen so long before I simply get bored out of my skull. This is why I
can't understand you - it seems as though the opinions we 'chomsky fans'
hold are quite contrary to your own. Yet no matter how much fun you poke at
us it isn't going to do anything for yourself (outside of the illusory boost
to your ego) or your own community of like-minded individuals. Don't you
get bored of this? As for humour I get my fair share of it wihthout it
being at someone else's expense: I just look at the human situation
(slavery to our biology wasn't enough, it seems - we have to invent further
forms of systematic enslavement on top of it!!) for one helluva good belly
laugh...
But I digress...
As far as I'm concerned the energy I waste increasing the resolve of the
ditto-heads (since my poking fun at them will only cause them to feel even
more justified in their opposing position) could have been used to instead
increase the confidence and betterment of my own community. Does that make
any sense to you?
: Cuz it looks like gobbledegook to people who use text
: newsreaders, because it wastes bandwidth and storage
: in newservers, because it poses security risks to
: to those foolish enough to use Microsoft Outbreak,
: and because it adds nothing to the discussion?
:
Thank you for outlining this I won't use HTML in my newsgroup postings
anymore however I gotta disagree with the last statement: It's great for me
when people include HTML links in their messages - I can read their source
with simply a click - but of course this reveals that I am simply lazy & for
lazy people clickable links do indeed add to the discussion!! ;)