Noam Chomsky Continues Venomous Attacks Spewing Hatred Against U.S.
Doug Bashford
On Tue, 06 Nov Iconoclast squealed about:
Noam Chomsky Continues Venomous Attacks Spewing Hatred Against U.S.
>The venom of this demented and deranged anarchist and nihilist is
>becoming intolerable. Because the U.S. is at war Chomsky's insane and
>hate-filled venom is intolerable for Americans
Oh really? So you think we should somehow
hide all our dirty laundry?
Or are you under the impression we have none?
America is the good guys in a Cowboy movie?
chuckle
snip
>More on the crazy but dangerous Chomsky can be read in the following
>article:
>
>http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=11/6/01&Cat=4&Num=018
ok, let's see here.
* Chomsky Attacks U.S. Double Standards on
* Terrorism
* TEHRAN TIMES INTL. DESK
* TEHRAN U.S. Massachusetts Institute of
* Technology (MIT) professor Noam Chomsky
* launched a stunning attack on Washington double
* standards on terrorism.
* According to the statesman, an English daily
* published from New Delhi, Chomsky in his clearest
* voice of dissent in contemporary America
* described the U.S.-led attacks on Afghanistan as a
* "silent genocide", affecting millions of innocent
* civilians. "They are not the Taleban," he told an
* overflowing audience at the Fifth D.T. Lakdawala
* memorial lecture on 'peering into the abyss of the
* future' which included Indian ministers, diplomats,
* members of the academia in a 70-minute lecture at
* the Ficci Auditorium in New Delhi recently.
errr...."demented and deranged intolerable"???
"insane and hate-filled venom???
intolerable for Americans" ???
Do let us know when you see something that
isn't at least arguably true, won't you?
Why don't you quote him, rather than a newspaper
clipping? Is it because you are not up to the
task? Because all you can do is squeal unsupported
names at him? Or are you really just afraid of
his words?
* "Terrorism is terrorism that is directed against the
* U.S. and its friends and allies," he said before
* reeling out a string of statistics on the misery of
* the Afghanistan people and U.S. neo-imperialist
* policies over the decades.
* "For the first time in modern history, Europe and
* its offshoots are the targets, not the perpetrators
* of horrifying crimes. Europeans have spent
* centuries slaughtering each other, but have not
* been attacked by their traditional victims,"
* professor of linguistics said.
That is insane? Seems like a good summery to me.
* Seven million Afghans are facing starvation, food
* will be available next year only to 20 percent of the
* population as the strikes have disrupted planting of
* crops. "But only 1 percent of the U.S. people knew
* about the real travails of the Afghan people," IRNA
* quoted him as saying.
What venom!
* Chomsky, who kicked off his fortnight long lecture
* tour of the subcontinent, which will also take him to
* Pakistan, highlighted the use of brute military and
* economic might by the U.S. against indigenous
* people in various parts of the world, particularly
* Central America.
"brute military and economic might"...err
perhaps you think its coincedence that the
WTC and Pentagon were the targets?
Perhaps you think Chomsky is saying something
that is not already common knowlege in Europe?
Clue: Europieans have no US-lapdog press.
* "In the Reagan years alone, U.S.-sponsored state
* terrorists in Central America left hundreds of
* thousands of tortured and mutilated corpses,
* millions on maimed and orphaned, and four
* countries in ruins, he said.
Do you deny this? Hell, didn't Ollie North
even have to go into snake-mode to get that
job done? Financed with cocain money.
You do know what Air America was all about, don't you?
* Also, two of Russia's top muftis criticised U.S.
* military action in Afghanistan on Monday, one of
* them describing Russia's support for the operation
* as a threat to the country's integrity.
CyberBMcD
> >The venom of this demented and deranged anarchist and nihilist is
> >becoming intolerable. Because the U.S. is at war Chomsky's insane and
> >hate-filled venom is intolerable for Americans
>
> Oh really? So you think we should somehow
> hide all our dirty laundry?
No, but we don't need an American Citizen speaking to foreign Nations
about his perceived injustice.
> Or are you under the impression we have none?
> America is the good guys in a Cowboy movie?
> chuckle
>
We have 'em, but having a prominent ( God knows WHY) Professor speaking
about them and essentially trashing America abroad is not productive.
Nothing was said in that paragraph except to establish what Chomsky was
doing...
> Why don't you quote him, rather than a newspaper
> clipping? Is it because you are not up to the
> task? Because all you can do is squeal unsupported
> names at him? Or are you really just afraid of
> his words?
>
> * "Terrorism is terrorism that is directed against the
> * U.S. and its friends and allies," he said before
> * reeling out a string of statistics on the misery of
> * the Afghanistan people and U.S. neo-imperialist
> * policies over the decades.
>
> * "For the first time in modern history, Europe and
> * its offshoots are the targets, not the perpetrators
> * of horrifying crimes. Europeans have spent
> * centuries slaughtering each other, but have not
> * been attacked by their traditional victims,"
> * professor of linguistics said.
>
> That is insane? Seems like a good summery to me.
>
Sure if you like to see only one side of the story, Why not mention that
Europe and America spend trillions of dollars to ad the Muslim world
while most of the leaders of those countries live in luxury.
> * Seven million Afghans are facing starvation, food
> * will be available next year only to 20 percent of the
> * population as the strikes have disrupted planting of
> * crops. "But only 1 percent of the U.S. people knew
> * about the real travails of the Afghan people," IRNA
> * quoted him as saying.
>
Planting of crops? In November? not likely.
> What venom!
>
> * Chomsky, who kicked off his fortnight long lecture
> * tour of the subcontinent, which will also take him to
> * Pakistan, highlighted the use of brute military and
> * economic might by the U.S. against indigenous
> * people in various parts of the world, particularly
> * Central America.
>
> "brute military and economic might"...err
> perhaps you think its coincedence that the
> WTC and Pentagon were the targets?
> Perhaps you think Chomsky is saying something
> that is not already common knowlege in Europe?
> Clue: Europieans have no US-lapdog press.
>
blah blah blah, so what? like you are all so fond of saying: reacting to
violence with more violence ( US foreign policy mistakes with two planes
turned into bombs killing 6000 ) is not the answer.
> * "In the Reagan years alone, U.S.-sponsored state
> * terrorists in Central America left hundreds of
> * thousands of tortured and mutilated corpses,
> * millions on maimed and orphaned, and four
> * countries in ruins, he said.
>
more Chomsky statistics, any facts to back them up?
> Do you deny this? Hell, didn't Ollie North
> even have to go into snake-mode to get that
> job done? Financed with cocain money.
> You do know what Air America was all about, don't you?
>
> * Also, two of Russia's top muftis criticised U.S.
> * military action in Afghanistan on Monday, one of
> * them describing Russia's support for the operation
> * as a threat to the country's integrity.
Yes that bastion of Integrity : Russia.
Lee Harrison
wrote on 11/6/01 12:18 PM:
> Doug Bashford wrote:
>
>>> The venom of this demented and deranged anarchist and nihilist is
>>> becoming intolerable. Because the U.S. is at war Chomsky's insane and
>>> hate-filled venom is intolerable for Americans
>>
>> Oh really? So you think we should somehow
>> hide all our dirty laundry?
> No, but we don't need an American Citizen speaking to foreign Nations
> about his perceived injustice.
Who are you to tell an American citizen where, to whom and on what subject
he can speak?
>> Or are you under the impression we have none?
>> America is the good guys in a Cowboy movie?
>> chuckle
>>
> We have 'em, but having a prominent ( God knows WHY) Professor speaking
> about them and essentially trashing America abroad is not productive.
Anything in particular you'd like to dispute, Cyberboy?
Why don't you get the book, look at his notes and figure it out for
yourself?
That's why Chomsky includes extensive notes and bibliographies.
______________
"The best thing to do is read widely and always skeptically. Remember
everyone, including me, has their opinions and their goals and you have to
think them through for yourself."
- Noam Chomsky
Lee
Doug Bashford
In <3BE7EE81...@home.com>
On Tue, 06 Nov 2001 14:24:35 GMT, Iconoclast <icono...@home.com>
wrote about:
>the WTC bombings and are now threatened by anthrax bioterrorism
>also perpetrated no doubt by Muslim Fundamentalists.
>
>Chomsky should immediately be dismissed from his teaching
>position at MIT as he is a pernicious, seditious
>incendiary. He should not be permitted to
>continue corrupting students with his totalitarian and diabolical
>mindset.
With minds of mush?
See my full reply at Subject:
...NOAM CHOMSKY really said this ...
Chomsky calls you a cultist.
Read what he actually says, if you are not too
frightened of him. In fact, get the mp3, and listen,
it will be easier on you, to have it read to you.
CyberBMcD
>
> in article 3BE826D7...@hotmail.com, CyberBMcD at cybe...@hotmail.com
> wrote on 11/6/01 12:18 PM:
>
> > Doug Bashford wrote:
> >
> >>> The venom of this demented and deranged anarchist and nihilist is
> >>> becoming intolerable. Because the U.S. is at war Chomsky's insane and
> >>> hate-filled venom is intolerable for Americans
> >>
> >> Oh really? So you think we should somehow
> >> hide all our dirty laundry?
>
> > No, but we don't need an American Citizen speaking to foreign Nations
> > about his perceived injustice.
>
> Who are you to tell an American citizen where, to whom and on what subject
> he can speak?
>
An American citizen who doesn't appreciate the traitorous ramblings of
Noam Chomsky.
I didn't tell anyone anything, I just suggested that it was improper.
> >> Or are you under the impression we have none?
> >> America is the good guys in a Cowboy movie?
> >> chuckle
> >>
> > We have 'em, but having a prominent ( God knows WHY) Professor speaking
> > about them and essentially trashing America abroad is not productive.
>
> Anything in particular you'd like to dispute, Cyberboy?
>
Why do liberals always feel the need to ridicule the screen names of
people who disagree with them? It's really very childish.
To directly answer your question: yes, I don't believe any of the US
actions of the past 30 years can be classified as terrorism. There may
have been some stupid things we did but we have never committed a
terrorist act.
AW, what's the matter? don't you have them on hand? I searched for an
hour and couldn't find any reference to :
U.S.-sponsored state "terrorists in Central America left hundreds of
thousands of tortured and mutilated corpses, millions on maimed and
orphaned, and four countries in ruins
Jez
"CyberBMcD" <cybe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3BE8B6C1...@hotmail.com...
> Lee Harrison wrote:
> >
> > in article 3BE826D7...@hotmail.com, CyberBMcD at
cybe...@hotmail.com
> > wrote on 11/6/01 12:18 PM:
> >
> To directly answer your question: yes, I don't believe any of the US
> actions of the past 30 years can be classified as terrorism. There may
> have been some stupid things we did but we have never committed a
> terrorist act.
WOW!
United States of Amnesia at it's best !
Ho hum
Jez
CyberBMcD
not amnesia, just a different point of view.
Amnesia is what Chomsky practices when he speaks of all the evils
America does while omitting all the good which FAR outweighs it.
Jez
Nope sorry you've got things the wrong way around.
Go read up on your history during the past 50 years....
Ho hum
Jez
Lee Harrison
wrote on 11/6/01 10:32 PM:
> Lee Harrison wrote:
> I didn't tell anyone anything, I just suggested that it was improper.
Nobody cares about your ignorant "suggestions."
>>>> Or are you under the impression we have none?
>>>> America is the good guys in a Cowboy movie?
>>>> chuckle
>>>>
>>> We have 'em, but having a prominent ( God knows WHY) Professor speaking
>>> about them and essentially trashing America abroad is not productive.
>>
>> Anything in particular you'd like to dispute, Cyberboy?
>>
>
> Why do liberals always feel the need to ridicule the screen names of
> people who disagree with them? It's really very childish.
>
> To directly answer your question: yes, I don't believe any of the US
> actions of the past 30 years can be classified as terrorism.
But longer than 30 years and we'd be terrorists, right?
Funny how you chop up history to suit yourself, and not history.
> There may
> have been some stupid things we did but we have never committed a
> terrorist act.
Remember Iran/Contra, ignoramus?
Lee Harrison
wrote on 11/7/01 9:12 AM:
> Jez wrote:
>>
>> "CyberBMcD" <cybe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:3BE8B6C1...@hotmail.com...
>>> Lee Harrison wrote:
>>>>
>>>> in article 3BE826D7...@hotmail.com, CyberBMcD at
>> cybe...@hotmail.com
>>>> wrote on 11/6/01 12:18 PM:
>>>>
>> <<<<<<Snip>>>>>>>
>>> To directly answer your question: yes, I don't believe any of the US
>>> actions of the past 30 years can be classified as terrorism. There may
>>> have been some stupid things we did but we have never committed a
>>> terrorist act.
>>
>> WOW!
>> United States of Amnesia at it's best !
>> Ho hum
>> Jez
>
> not amnesia, just a different point of view.
Ignorance is a point of view?
Where did bin Laden learn his terrorist tactics, ignoramus?
> Amnesia is what Chomsky practices when he speaks of all the evils
> America does while omitting all the good which FAR outweighs it.
Since you obviously don't know anything about the bad stuff we do because
the mainstream media doesn't tell you about it, what's your argument? That
you're too ignorant to learn about it?
CyberBMcD
get off the crack pipe, we are the SINGLE LARGEST CONTRIBUTOR to Third
World Aid.
go revise history somewhere else, we don't care about you and your
lover boy Chomsky.
CyberBMcD
>
> in article 3BE94F53...@hotmail.com, CyberBMcD at cybe...@hotmail.com
> wrote on 11/7/01 9:12 AM:
>
> > Jez wrote:
> >>
> >> "CyberBMcD" <cybe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:3BE8B6C1...@hotmail.com...
> >>> Lee Harrison wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> in article 3BE826D7...@hotmail.com, CyberBMcD at
> >> cybe...@hotmail.com
> >>>> wrote on 11/6/01 12:18 PM:
> >>>>
> >> <<<<<<Snip>>>>>>>
> >>> To directly answer your question: yes, I don't believe any of the US
> >>> actions of the past 30 years can be classified as terrorism. There may
> >>> have been some stupid things we did but we have never committed a
> >>> terrorist act.
> >>
> >> WOW!
> >> United States of Amnesia at it's best !
> >> Ho hum
> >> Jez
> >
> > not amnesia, just a different point of view.
>
> Ignorance is a point of view?
>
Oh I disagree with you and Chimsky so I'm ignorant yeah that's the
ticket.
> Where did bin Laden learn his terrorist tactics, ignoramus?
From the CIA, no shit, that doesn't make us exclusively responsible for
his taking the training we gave him and bastardizing it, it just means
we picked a dumbass to give the knowledge to.
Why did we train him in the first place?
I'm sure you'll say it was to further our terrorist agenda, while those
of us devoid of paranoia will say it was part of Reagan's plan to
bankrupt the USSR
see different point of view.
>
> > Amnesia is what Chomsky practices when he speaks of all the evils
> > America does while omitting all the good which FAR outweighs it.
>
> Since you obviously don't know anything about the bad stuff we do because
> the mainstream media doesn't tell you about it, what's your argument? That
> you're too ignorant to learn about it?
blah blah blah, because I disagree with you I'm just another pathetic
soul who can't think for himself right? Try again Chumpsky lover I
always think for myself I don't need Nim Chimsky to tell me all about
the mistakes y country has made, and I 'm not stupid enough to believe
that is the reason assholes like Bin Laden blow up American buildings.
CyberBMcD
>
> in article 3BE8B6C1...@hotmail.com, CyberBMcD at cybe...@hotmail.com
> wrote on 11/6/01 10:32 PM:
>
> > Lee Harrison wrote:
>
> > I didn't tell anyone anything, I just suggested that it was improper.
>
> Nobody cares about your ignorant "suggestions."
or your ignorant replies for that matter.
>
> >>>> Or are you under the impression we have none?
> >>>> America is the good guys in a Cowboy movie?
> >>>> chuckle
> >>>>
> >>> We have 'em, but having a prominent ( God knows WHY) Professor speaking
> >>> about them and essentially trashing America abroad is not productive.
> >>
> >> Anything in particular you'd like to dispute, Cyberboy?
> >>
> >
> > Why do liberals always feel the need to ridicule the screen names of
> > people who disagree with them? It's really very childish.
> >
> > To directly answer your question: yes, I don't believe any of the US
> > actions of the past 30 years can be classified as terrorism.
>
> But longer than 30 years and we'd be terrorists, right?
No dumbass I picked an arbitrary number, sort of like Chomsky's
"statistics"
>
> Funny how you chop up history to suit yourself, and not history.
>
The fact is, we are not the Evil empire you and your groupthink Chumpsky
lovers think we are. We are one of the Driving forces in the world for
Good as well as bad. It happens when you're the most powerful nation on
the planet.
> > There may
> > have been some stupid things we did but we have never committed a
> > terrorist act.
>
> Remember Iran/Contra, ignoramus?
>
yeah, so?
you guys can claim it was terrorism all you want. At the time those
people did what they thought was right for the country and the world at
that time.
> >>>> snip
Jez
> > > > <<<<<<Snip>>>>>>>
> > > > > To directly answer your question: yes, I don't believe any of the
US
> > > > > actions of the past 30 years can be classified as terrorism. There
may
> > > > > have been some stupid things we did but we have never committed a
> > > > > terrorist act.
> > > >
> > > > WOW!
> > > > United States of Amnesia at it's best !
> > > > Ho hum
> > > > Jez
> > >
> > > not amnesia, just a different point of view.
> > >
> > > Amnesia is what Chomsky practices when he speaks of all the evils
> > > America does while omitting all the good which FAR outweighs it.
> >
> > Nope sorry you've got things the wrong way around.
> > Go read up on your history during the past 50 years....
> >
> > Ho hum
> > Jez
>
> get off the crack pipe, we are the SINGLE LARGEST CONTRIBUTOR to Third
> World Aid.
>
> go revise history somewhere else, we don't care about you and your
> lover boy Chomsky.
What an erudite and informative reply !
Thanks
Ho hum
Jez
Samirhibri
> go revise history somewhere else, we don't care about you and your
> lover boy Chomsky.
Where, on the Bush newsgroup?
Shel Scott
>So you think we should somehow hide all our dirty laundry?
You see Chomsky's act as a matter of exposing America's "dirty
laundry". Do you think any country in Earth's history has had no
dirty laundry?
>* Chomsky in his clearest
>* voice of dissent in contemporary America
>* described the U.S.-led attacks on Afghanistan as a
>* "silent genocide", affecting millions of innocent civilians.
>
The attacks on Afghanistan are not silent, nor are they genocidal.
The civilian population of Afghanistan has been victimized for
decades, by the Soviets, by civil war, and by the Taliban. This war is
the beginning of the end of that victimization. Note that now the
focus of the bombing is the front lines, civilian casualties have
dropped off to nothing. This should serve as an indication that the
attacks are in no way genocidal
>* "They are not the Taleban," he told an
>* overflowing audience at the Fifth D.T. Lakdawala
>* memorial lecture on 'peering into the abyss of the
>* future' which included Indian ministers, diplomats,
>* members of the academia in a 70-minute lecture at
>* the Ficci Auditorium in New Delhi recently.
>
I wonder if there was even one person there who thought the entire
population of Afghanistan are "the Taleban".
>* "Terrorism is terrorism that is directed against the
>* U.S. and its friends and allies," he said before
>* reeling out a string of statistics on the misery of
>* the Afghanistan people and U.S. neo-imperialist
>* policies over the decades.
>
Apparently, Chomsky expects the US to be concerned with terrorism that
is not directed against the US or any of its allies. How odd. Should
any terrorist atrocity anywhere in the world make the US come running?
Up in the air! It's a bird! It's a plane!
No, it's Chomsky's inept and rather silly point of view.
BTW, note this "neo-imperialism". Is there no limit to the adjectives
these bozos will preface with "neo"?
>* "For the first time in modern history, Europe and
>* its offshoots are the targets, not the perpetrators
>* of horrifying crimes.
>
A total falsehood. Just why does the man go about putting forth such
retarded lies? Is he completely oblivious to criticism? Apparently
Chomsky missed the hostage incident at the Munich Olympics, various
acts of aircraft and cruise ship hijackings, bombings of US embassies
in which scores of non-Americans were killed... to name a few.
>* Europeans have spent
>* centuries slaughtering each other, but have not
>* been attacked by their traditional victims,"
>* professor of linguistics said.
>
Now he's on about the Europeans. That's hilarious; many Chomskyites
assure us that Europe is so different from the US, Europeans are so
much more aware of US shortcomings... implying that Europe has no such
shortcomings. Somebody should whisper to Chomsky just what Bin Laden
was referring when he spoke of "Andalusia". For those Chomskyites
taking the time to read this (gee, thanks loads, kids), Andalusia was
a fabled city near the Western edge of the Islamic empire in the 8th
century.
>* Seven million Afghans are facing starvation,
>
Chomsky _must_ know Afghans have been starving for years, just as he
most certainly knows about the Munich Olympics and the other points I
address above. I can only conclude that the man is having his very
supporters on! The Afghan situation has been so bad for so many
years, it's logical to accuse the Red Cross (Crescent) of actually
sustaining the Taliban by providing them with food, medicine, shelter,
blankets, etc.
>*food will be available next year only to 20 percent of the
>* population as the strikes have disrupted planting of crops.
>
I'm amazed at the advanced state of agriculture in Afghanistan, that
they can plant crops in the fall. Interesting technology.
Of course Chomsky is right out of it here.
>*"But only 1 percent of the U.S. people knew
>* about the real travails of the Afghan people," IRNA
>* quoted him as saying.
>
Given the number of years Afghanistan has been a backwater, it seems a
bit silly to claim that most of the US has no idea about what a mess
the place is. Even Hollywood movies have shown Afghanistan as a
barren, war-ravaged land. Not that Rambo movies are a documentary,
but nevertheless, it's fairly ignorant to claim that Americans don't
know what a mess Afghanistan is.
>* "In the Reagan years alone, U.S.-sponsored state
>* terrorists in Central America left hundreds of
>* thousands of tortured and mutilated corpses,
>* millions on maimed and orphaned, and four
>* countries in ruins, he said.
>
Chomsky leaves out the rather important point that those "terrorists"
were proxy soldiers in the Cold War. In the Cold War, even though
there were two main combatants, it usually took more than two to
tango. Chomsky hopes folks won't realize how utterly irrelevant these
decades-old Cold War accusations are to current history.
-------
Let's say you're getting a jug of milk at the corner store; you are
attacked, knocked down, your wallet taken. Does the fact that you won
a fight 20 years ago mean that no offence has been committed and that
you have no recourse? That seems to be the essence of Chomsky's
nattering. The man is an asshole.
--
): "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" :(
(: Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net :)
--
ab...@earthlink.com ab...@aol.com ab...@yahoo.com
ab...@hotmail.com ab...@msn.com ab...@sprint.com
Jez
"Shel Scott" <ssc...@unispam.com> wrote in message
news:3be99d77...@news.uniserve.com...
> see.m...@theBeach.edu ( Doug Bashford ) wrote:
> >So you think we should somehow hide all our dirty laundry?
> <snip>
> You see Chomsky's act as a matter of exposing America's "dirty
> laundry". Do you think any country in Earth's history has had no
> dirty laundry?
>
> Let's say you're getting a jug of milk at the corner store; you are
> attacked, knocked down, your wallet taken. Does the fact that you won
> a fight 20 years ago mean that no offence has been committed and that
> you have no recourse? That seems to be the essence of Chomsky's
> nattering. The man is an asshole.
> --
second-hand report....
A talk he gave on October 18 At M.I.T
Transcript : http://www.zmag.org/GlobalWatch/chomskymit.htm
Audio of his talk : http://web.mit.edu/tac/www/chomsky-18oct01-16k.ram
It's better to listen to him,
rather someones opinion of what he says, you can make
your own mind up then.
Ho hum
Jez
Kevin Waterson
> go revise history somewhere else, we don't care about you and your
> lover boy Chomsky.
This is what passes for maturity in the US?
Ho Hum
kevin
Kevin Waterson
, and I 'm not stupid enough to believe
> that is the reason assholes like Bin Laden blow up American buildings.
>
Bin Laden blew up a building?
please present proof
Kevin
Kevin Waterson
>
> t happens when you're the most powerful nation on
> the planet.
That does not give you the right to interfere in the matters
of other countries or cultures.
WAKE UP!
kevin
CyberBMcD
why be deliberately obtuse?, not only did he do it but he did it twice,
in '93 and then 9/11.
CyberBMcD
right, only when they come with their hands out right?
> kevin
Zoo Life
> see.m...@theBeach.edu ( Doug Bashford ) wrote:
> >So you think we should somehow hide all our dirty laundry?
> <snip>
> You see Chomsky's act as a matter of exposing America's "dirty
> laundry". Do you think any country in Earth's history has had no
> dirty laundry?
Thus dirty laundry is ok? Great. At any rate a relatively very few on the scale of the
U.S. What's your problem with Chomsky's exposing it? Just so you can continue to reap
its benefits? That's something you should be real proud of.
Chomsky, tho not infallible, has been an indespensible, unique voice and volumous source
of facts for the world. We can expect lots of people of lesser conscience to attempt to
discredit him. You're no surprise. Have at it.
hth,
zl
P.s. who wrote that cliched subject header?
The Lone Weasel
cybe...@hotmail.com wrote on 11/7/01 11:24 AM:
You're ignorant because you don't know what Chomsky wrote, otherwise
you could take points Chomsky makes and try to refute them.
>> Where did bin Laden learn his terrorist tactics, ignoramus?
> From the CIA, no shit, that doesn't make us exclusively responsible for
> his taking the training we gave him and bastardizing it, it just means
> we picked a dumbass to give the knowledge to.
"Bastardizing?"
Laugh laugh laugh laugh. The training assumes the trainers and
trainees are all bastards to begin with. Their goal is to terrorize,
torture and murder civilians as a means to defeating enemies of the US.
Which is everybody who doesn't bow to our multinational corporations.
Why aren't you bowing, Cyberboy?
> Why did we train him in the first place?
Because we're a terrorist nation, that's why.
> I'm sure you'll say it was to further our terrorist agenda, while those
> of us devoid of paranoia will say it was part of Reagan's plan to
> bankrupt the USSR
The two are not mutually exclusive, dumbass.
> see different point of view.
When you're done kissing my ass, read something by Chomsky, find
something you disagree with, and see if you can defend your opinion.
______________
"The best thing to do is read widely and always skeptically. Remember
everyone, including me, has their opinions and their goals and you have
to think them through for yourself."
- Noam Chomsky
--
Yours truly,
Lee Harrison
The Lone Weasel
<cybe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The Bush Administration has never provided the kind of evidence that
would serve to indict bin Laden that he was behind 9.11 - if you have
better information please post it.
Just saying "everbody knows he's guilty" is what Joe McCarthy used to
do. Now it's what Bush does.
How about you, Cyberboy?
Don Wagner
"Kevin Waterson" <ke...@oceania.net> wrote in message
news:3BE9D075...@oceania.net...
And if the other countries or cultures ask for your "interference"?
Don Wagner>
Kevin Waterson
>
> And if the other countries or cultures ask for your "interference"?
There is a difference between interference and aid.
Don Wagner
> Don Wagner wrote:
>
> >
> > And if the other countries or cultures ask for your "interference"?
>
> There is a difference between interference and aid.
Part of Bin Ladin's beef with the Americans is that they are in Saudi Arabia. They are
there because they were invited. Is it suddenly "interference" because you deem it so?
Don Wagner
>
Clay Smith
wrote:
Ask the people - not the government, but the people - of Saudi Arabia
whether they want the US troops there.
Clay
David Deilley
> P.s. who wrote that cliched subject header?
That would be John "iconoclast" Lambourn
His headers always remind me of the banners carried by communists or
by Arab street-rioters. This probably reflects his early training in
Afghanistan before he was sent to Canada as a sleeper to try and stir
up dissension.
E. Barry Bruyea
And in the same poll of the Saudi people, ask them if they want Saddam
Hussein as their leader. Because without the presence of U.S. troops,
who were invited by the Saudi government, that's exactly what would
have happened.
Samirhibri
>And in the same poll of the Saudi people, ask them if they want Saddam
>Hussein as their leader. Because without the presence of U.S. troops,
>who were invited by the Saudi government, that's exactly what would
>have happened.
You're confusing Saudi Arabia with Kuwait. In any case, Saddam could have been
eliminated within weeks of Desert Storm. What happened? Think about it.
CyberBMcD
Whatever his evidence is, it's good enough for Tony Blair, and
NATO.......
CyberBMcD
read something by Chomsky, find
> something you disagree with, and see if you can defend your opinion.
>
I have, numerous times, and never got any replies either. hmmmmm.
CyberBMcD
Ask the people of Saudi Arabia if they want their own leaders there....
Samirhibri
>sk the people of Saudi Arabia if they want their own leaders there....
While you're at it, ask them which foreign power has been propping up the Saudi
royal family for decades.
Also ask them why King Faysal was assassinated by his nephew.
And, if you're feeling really lucky, ask about his nephew's background.
The Lone Weasel
wrote on 11/8/01 9:51 AM:
>> The Lone Weasel wrote: read something by Chomsky, find something you disagree
>> with, and see if you can defend your opinion.
>> I have, numerous ti
> mes, and nev
> er got any replie
> s either. hmmmm
> m.
Post verbatim quotes from Chomsky's writings, not your vague hunches about
his meaning, then critique his thought.
Or admit you're clueless. Nobody will blame you for telling the truth.
______________
"The best thing to do is read widely and always skeptically. Remember
everyone, including me, has their opinions and their goals and you have to
think them through for yourself."
- Noam Chomsky
Lee
The Lone Weasel
wrote on 11/8/01 9:50 AM:
Blair didn't really disclose any evidence that incriminated bin Laden, and
apparently you don't know any either?
Thanks for admitting it.
________________
"The enemy is fanaticism."
- Johannes Rau
Lee
Brain Death
What, you don't believe Tony Blair?
BD
Couder Jim
Chomsky's last ebook "9/11" http://www.sevenstories.com/ebooks (don't
go to Amazon!!!).
CyberBMcD <cybe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3BEAAA1B...@hotmail.com>...
R4D20
> Because we're a terrorist nation, that's why.
>
Are you a terrorist? Is your next door neighbor a terrorist? this
notion of collective guilt is rather foolish. WE are not a terrorist
nation. Some people in ourgovernemtn (past and present) may have
helped, condoned, or participated in isolated acts of terrorism, but
WE are not terrorists.
For the record, most Afghans are not terrorists either: they are
just in the way. Unfortunatly, innocents always die in wars. Not
gonna stop now, not gonna stop ever. Face it people - this world is
ruled by power. The powerful will ALWAYS exploit the weak. The only
thing that changes is who is weak and strong at any given moment.
It's called Natural Selection. The fit live, the weak die. Argue
with Mother Nature if you don't like it, but I accept her judgement.
>
> "The best thing to do is read widely and always skeptically. Remember
> everyone, including me, has their opinions and their goals and you have
> to think them through for yourself."
>
> - Noam Chomsky
Many of you would do well to actually heed this advise. Noam is as
much a biased source or propaganda as any news agency you bash.
CyberBMcD
do you have any that he wasn't involved? what a silly childish remark.
CyberBMcD
>
> in article 3BEAA9DD...@hotmail.com, CyberBMcD at cybe...@hotmail.com
> wrote on 11/8/01 9:51 AM:
>
> >> The Lone Weasel wrote: read something by Chomsky, find something you disagree
> >> with, and see if you can defend your opinion.
>
> >> I have, numerous ti
> > mes, and nev
> > er got any replie
> > s either. hmmmm
> > m.
>
> Post verbatim quotes from Chomsky's writings, not your vague hunches about
> his meaning, then critique his thought.
>
Kevin Waterson
> do you have any that he wasn't involved? what a silly childish remark.
I dont have any evidence that Prince Charles or Operah was not involved either.
Should we bomb them?
Kevin
Matthew Healey
R4D20 wrote:
>
> >
> > Because we're a terrorist nation, that's why.
> >
>
> Are you a terrorist? Is your next door neighbor a terrorist? this
> notion of collective guilt is rather foolish. WE are not a terrorist
> nation. Some people in ourgovernemtn (past and present) may have
> helped, condoned, or participated in isolated acts of terrorism, but
> WE are not terrorists.
>
> For the record, most Afghans are not terrorists either: they are
> just in the way. Unfortunatly, innocents always die in wars. Not
> gonna stop now, not gonna stop ever. Face it people - this world is
> ruled by power.
You mean powerful nations obviously?
> The powerful will ALWAYS exploit the weak.
That applies to people and nations. Though the 'always' is a bit
strong...more accurate to say that the powerful exploit the weak more
often than the weak exploit the powerful.
> The only
> thing that changes is who is weak and strong at any given moment.
True.
> It's called Natural Selection.
No its not. Sorry. That is not natural selection.
> The fit live, the weak die.
That isn't natural selection either (plenty of weak people live and
plenty of fit folk die) What you are saying sounds more like 'social
darwinism'. The term 'survival of the fittest' is not Darwin's but comes
via Herbert Spencer (it was coined some years before D wrote Origin of
Species).
> Argue
> with Mother Nature if you don't like it
Sorry but your concept of natural selection is lacking.
Natural selection refers to how (over time) individuals and their
descendants with a particular 'trait' or adaptation survive (frequency
of..) in relation to other individuals and their descendants who posess
other traits/adaptations. NS suggests that those adaptations/traits that
confer a survival (reproductive) advantage will be selected for.
> but I accept her judgement.
To take scientific theories (or in this case misrepresentations of them)
and use them to justify human behaviour is fallacious (naturalistic
fallacy). Science is descriptive not prescriptive ie it tells us what IS
not what OUGHT to be.
> >
> > "The best thing to do is read widely and always skeptically. Remember
> > everyone, including me, has their opinions and their goals and you have
> > to think them through for yourself."
> >
> > - Noam Chomsky
>
> Many of you would do well to actually heed this advise. Noam is as
> much a biased source or propaganda as any news agency you bash.
But I'm with you 150% on this one :)
matt
:p
matt
:p
Samirhibri
>> Blair didn't really disclose any evidence that incriminated bin Laden, and
>> apparently you don't know any either?
>>
>> Thanks for admitting it.
>>
>
>do you have any that he wasn't involved? what a silly childish remark.
Guilty until proven innocent?!!! Are you training for Homeland Security?
Clay Smith
>>
>> Because we're a terrorist nation, that's why.
>>
>
> Are you a terrorist? Is your next door neighbor a terrorist? this
>notion of collective guilt is rather foolish. WE are not a terrorist
>nation. Some people in ourgovernemtn (past and present) may have
>helped, condoned, or participated in isolated acts of terrorism, but
>WE are not terrorists.
Not true. You can't just pretend that you don't participate in this
society, that you're not involved in the politics or the morality.
You're familiar with the system of checks and balances, the one that's
built into our government thanks to the constitution, aren't you? A
whole lot of the "checking" has to do with you and me.We're supposed
to be keeping an eye on our elected officials and they people who do
their bidding. In fact, that's pretty much the rationale for democracy
in the first place. According to this theory, if the leaders have to
win votes in order to obtain power, then those leaders will have to
answer to the voters for their actions (or inactions, as the case may
be). We are *obligated* to find out what they're up to and put the
brakes on when they get out of hand.
If the government is getting away with shit it's not supposed to - as
it clearly is - then we're not doing our job.
Besides, on whose behalf do they claim to do all this stuff? When
Ollie North got busted, what was his defense? He did it for his
country. Well, guess what? You're his country. I'm his country.
Politicians always say "The American people want X, therefore we must
go do Y." Well, you and I are the American people. I'd say we're
involved in this whether we like it or not.
Clay
Rudy Caine
>Hussein as their leader. Because without the presence of U.S. troops,
>who were invited by the Saudi government, that's exactly what would
>have happened.>>
But that's just not the case. During a ten year war with Iran Iraq barely
got through it in one piece. So then the U.S. government tells us that after
Kuwait Sadam was planning to take on Saudi Arabia, and then the rest of the
MIddle East until he declared himself emperor? I can't see how that could
possibly be possible, or even believed once you've looked at it for a minute.
They weren't able to deal with Iran after a ten year war so now they're going
to be able to take over Saudi Arabia?
Don Wagner
"Clay Smith" <Clay20...@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:TUDqOweo34l6mv...@4ax.com...
However, since the Government Of Saudi Arabia is the Government of
Saudi Arabia until someone else comes along, You seal with them.
Who are you to judge wether the Saudi Government represents it's
citizens as they desire?
Don Wagner
Don Wagner
Sorry, that would be Imperialism. I wonder why you fans of Chomsky
have no objections to a bunch of Arabs, Pakistani's, and other assorted
foreigners interfering in the affairs of Afghanistan?
Don Wagner
Clay Smith
wrote:
>
>"Clay Smith" <Clay20...@softhome.net> wrote in message
>news:TUDqOweo34l6mv...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 08 Nov 2001 07:41:20 GMT, "Don Wagner" <don...@home.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Kevin Waterson" <ke...@oceania.net> wrote in message
>> >news:3BEA3788...@oceania.net...
>> >> Don Wagner wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > And if the other countries or cultures ask for your "interference"?
>> >>
>> >> There is a difference between interference and aid.
>> >
>> >Part of Bin Ladin's beef with the Americans is that they are in Saudi Arabia. They are
>> >there because they were invited. Is it suddenly "interference" because you deem it so?
>> >
>> >Don Wagner
>> >>
>> >
>> Ask the people - not the government, but the people - of Saudi Arabia
>> whether they want the US troops there.
>
>However, since the Government Of Saudi Arabia is the Government of
>Saudi Arabia until someone else comes along, You seal with them.
>Who are you to judge wether the Saudi Government represents it's
>citizens as they desire?
>
>Don Wagner
>
It's true, the Saud's have to make up their own minds about their
government. You're absolutely right. We shouldn't tell them which
government they should have and which one they shouldn't; it's just
not our decision to make. Therefore, we should remove our troops from
Saudi Arabia, as their prescence is certainly having a great deal of
influence on the situation. I mean, if the military of the world's
most powerful superpower set up bases in your country and became very
friendly with the current regime... a regime you detested... would you
oppose them? Not if you wanted to keep breathing.
So I guess we agree then.. in order to avoid influencing the internal
politics of Saudi Arabia, we should withdraw our troops.
Clay
Orestes
And while your at it, please prove the non-existence of God. ;-(
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: No part of this usenet post knowingly contains coded messages for
the operatives of any state or anti-state organization.
E. Barry Bruyea
Troops that are present at the request of a government the Saudi
people appear to be satisfied with and have been for a very long time.
Maybe they would prefer the tender mercies of a Saddam Hussein, which
certainly would have been the case if not for the presence of those
troops. Their removal at this time might encourage that maniac to
take another run at it; a fact not lost on the Saudi government or a
large % of their population.
>
>
Clay Smith
wrote:
someone told you that the Saudi people are satisfied with their
government? I'm sorry, but I believe you are misinformed.
As for Saddam Hussein, I think there are any number of ways to defend
SA against him without the US troops taking up residence there.
Clay
>>
E. Barry Bruyea
<Clay20...@softhome.net> wrote:
As in Canada, there are citizens in Saudi that are not happy with
their government, but in general, as long as the government leaves
them alone, the average Saudi is satisfied with the hereditary
leadership. And, as the Saudi military is not all that large, they
are certainly not capable of defending the country against an
incursion by Iraq. How else could the country be defended without
U.S. aid.
>>>
>
The Lone Weasel
jgl...@valhalla.com wrote on 11/8/01 1:30 PM:
I think Blair's justabout shot his political load.
> BD
Yours truly,
Lee Harrison
The Lone Weasel
wrote on 11/8/01 4:30 PM:
So lack of evidence isn't the issue. The issue is obeying the Bush
Administration come what may.
No thanks, I'll waiting for the impeachments.
________________
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different
results."
- Alcoholics Anonymous
Lee
The Lone Weasel
wrote on 11/8/01 4:31 PM:
You can't defend your own criticism because you haven't read anything by
Chomsky.
chris.holt
> get off the crack pipe, we are the SINGLE LARGEST CONTRIBUTOR to Third
> World Aid.
Not as a percentage of GDP.
--
chris.holt
> Lee Harrison wrote:
>>CyberBMcD at cybe...@hotmail.com wrote on 11/6/01 10:32 PM:
>>>There may
>>>have been some stupid things we did but we have never committed a
>>>terrorist act.
>>Remember Iran/Contra, ignoramus?
> yeah, so?
> you guys can claim it was terrorism all you want. At the time those
> people did what they thought was right for the country and the world at
> that time.
So do many (if not most) terrorists.
--
lawrence day
Since Saudi Arabia is a 'top-down', authoritarian,
medieval monarchy, there is no way to know
what the average citizen thinks of their government.
Public lashings? Beheadings? Amputations?
It's pre-1776 for sure!
And American troops *prevent* democracy,
just as surely as they ensure the oil supply
for the American addicts.
Lawrence Day
E. Barry Bruyea
<chris...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:
>CyberBMcD wrote:
>
>> get off the crack pipe, we are the SINGLE LARGEST CONTRIBUTOR to Third
>> World Aid.
>
>Not as a percentage of GDP.
It's the cash that counts, not the %
>
>
>--
>
>chris...@ncl.ac.uk http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/~chris.holt/
>
E. Barry Bruyea
You lefties amaze me sometimes. On one hand you complain that the
U.S. tries to tell other countries how to govern and on the other you
complain because a culturally acceptable, traditional, partially
religious based form of government has survived for so long; mainly
because the people seem to want it that way.
Shel Scott
>"Shel Scott" <ssc...@unispam.com> wrote:
>> Let's say you're getting a jug of milk at the corner store; you are
>> attacked, knocked down, your wallet taken. Does the fact that you won
>> a fight 20 years ago mean that no offence has been committed and that
>> you have no recourse? That seems to be the essence of Chomsky's
>> nattering. The man is an asshole.
>
>Perhaps you should read what Chomsky said Rather than a
>second-hand report....
>
How peculiar to presume I've not read what Chomsky has to say. No
doubt your dismissive and officious attitude is what allows you to be
a fan of his predictable anti-US snivelling. The man is an asshole.
>It's better to listen to him,
>rather someones opinion of what he says, you can make
>your own mind up then.
>
How peculiar to presume I've not read what Chomsky has to say. No
doubt your dismissive and officious attitude is what allows you to be
a fan of his predictable anti-US snivelling. The man is an asshole.
>Ho hum
>Jez
>
Maybe you need to get some sleep...
--
): "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" :(
(: Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net :)
--
ab...@earthlink.com ab...@aol.com ab...@yahoo.com
ab...@hotmail.com ab...@msn.com ab...@sprint.com
Shel Scott
>P.s. who wrote that cliched subject header?
>
Look back in the thread.
CyberBMcD
>
> in article 3BEB079B...@hotmail.com, CyberBMcD at cybe...@hotmail.com
> wrote on 11/8/01 4:31 PM:
>
> > The Lone Weasel wrote:
> >>
> >> in article 3BEAA9DD...@hotmail.com, CyberBMcD at cybe...@hotmail.com
> >> wrote on 11/8/01 9:51 AM:
> >>
> >>>> The Lone Weasel wrote: read something by Chomsky, find something you
> >>>> disagree
> >>>> with, and see if you can defend your opinion.
> >>
> >>>> I have, numerous ti
> >>> mes, and nev
> >>> er got any replie
> >>> s either. hmmmm
> >>> m.
> >>
> >> Post verbatim quotes from Chomsky's writings, not your vague hunches about
> >> his meaning, then critique his thought.
>
> > I have, numerous times, and never got any replies
>
> You can't defend your own criticism because you haven't read anything by
> Chomsky.
>
and you know this how?
I have replied to numerous posts last week attacking Chomsky's article
point by point and received NO response. go away.
CyberBMcD
>
> The Lone Weasel wrote:
> >
> > in article 3BEB079B...@hotmail.com, CyberBMcD at cybe...@hotmail.com
> > wrote on 11/8/01 4:31 PM:
> >
> > > The Lone Weasel wrote:
> > >>
> > >> in article 3BEAA9DD...@hotmail.com, CyberBMcD at cybe...@hotmail.com
> > >> wrote on 11/8/01 9:51 AM:
> > >>
> > >>>> The Lone Weasel wrote: read something by Chomsky, find something you
> > >>>> disagree
> > >>>> with, and see if you can defend your opinion.
> > >>
> > >>>> I have, numerous ti
> > >>> mes, and nev
> > >>> er got any replie
> > >>> s either. hmmmm
> > >>> m.
> > >>
> > >> Post verbatim quotes from Chomsky's writings, not your vague hunches about
> > >> his meaning, then critique his thought.
> >
> > > I have, numerous times, and never got any replies
> >
> > You can't defend your own criticism because you haven't read anything by
> > Chomsky.
> >
>
> and you know this how?
>
> I have replied to numerous posts last week
oops, last month I mean.
The Lone Weasel
wrote on 11/9/01 4:11 PM:
> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>>
>> in article 3BEB079B...@hotmail.com, CyberBMcD at cybe...@hotmail.com
>> wrote on 11/8/01 4:31 PM:
>>
>>> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> in article 3BEAA9DD...@hotmail.com, CyberBMcD at
>>>> cybe...@hotmail.com
>>>> wrote on 11/8/01 9:51 AM:
>>>>
>>>>>> The Lone Weasel wrote: read something by Chomsky, find something you
>>>>>> disagree
>>>>>> with, and see if you can defend your opinion.
>>>>
>>>>>> I have, numerous ti
>>>>> mes, and nev
>>>>> er got any replie
>>>>> s either. hmmmm
>>>>> m.
>>>>
>>>> Post verbatim quotes from Chomsky's writings, not your vague hunches about
>>>> his meaning, then critique his thought.
>>
>>> I have, numerous times, and never got any replies
>>
>> You can't defend your own criticism because you haven't read anything by
>> Chomsky.
> and you know this how?
>
> I have replied to numerous posts last week attacking Chomsky's article
> point by point and received NO response. go away.
Sometime in the past you refuted everything Chomsky said, but now you can't
think of any examples.
I see.
Thanks for not wasting my time with these imaginary arguments.
_________________
"Some people are doers, and some are don'ters."
- Bart Simpson
Lee
Clay Smith
wrote:
Even if you were correct and the US had some sort of obligation or
need to stick its nose into a conflict between Iraq and Saudi Arabia -
a conflict which is hypothetical - that still wouldn't necessitate the
permanant occupation of SA by American troops.
Clay
>>
Russil Wvong
> CyberBMcD at cybe...@hotmail.com wrote
> > The Lone Weasel wrote:
> >> Post verbatim quotes from Chomsky's writings, not your vague hunches
> >> about his meaning, then critique his thought.
>
> > I have, numerous times, and never got any replies
>
> You can't defend your own criticism because you haven't read anything by
> Chomsky.
1. Let me start by saying that I'm not a rabid Republican; I'm Canadian,
and I'd describe my political views as moderate. But based on what
I've read by Chomsky, I'd trust him about as far as I'd throw him.
I've read a fair amount of modern history, particularly twentieth-
century history, and I find that Chomsky's political writings are
basically anti-US flaming -- the heavy sarcasm is a classic
flaming technique.
My preferred method of checking the reliability of a historical
source is to "triangulate" by looking up what other sources have
to say about the same events. When I do this with Chomsky, I find
that like an Internet flamer, Chomsky will seize on whatever
evidence casts his opponent (the US) in the worst possible light,
while dismissing or failing to mention any contrary evidence.
(This isn't unique to Chomsky, of course. All propagandists
employ these techniques.)
Enough generalities. I had a lengthy discussion recently on
can.politics with Lawrence Day about Chomsky's unreliability as a
source of historical information. The subject was a speech by
Chomsky, regarding US policy in the Third World during the Cold War.
It's at http://www2.prestel.co.uk/littleton/nc95_nwo.htm.
My main sources of information are mostly academic, except for
George Kennan's memoirs. (Chomsky describes Kennan in "Turning the
Tide" as one of the most thoughtful and humane thinkers in the
US State Department.)
- Paul Kennedy, "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers"
- George Kennan, "Memoirs 1925-1950" and "Memoirs 1950-1967"
- Skidmore and Smith, "Modern Latin America"
- Chasteen, "Born in Blood and Fire"
- James C. Scott, "Seeing Like a State"
- Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1999 edition
Some quotes from Chomsky,
[1945] is when the US was finally powerful enough to expel
its main enemies, France and Britain, from the Western
hemisphere ....
This is just wrong. The main enemy of the US after World War II
was the Soviet Union, not France and Britain! The US regarded
the Cold War as a global conflict; this applied to Latin America
as well as Europe. See Kennan.
This is a highly regarded monograph on the US takeover of
Brazil in 1945.
This sounds as though the US installed a dictatorship in Brazil
in 1945. (This is how Lawrence Day interpreted it.) In fact,
what happened in 1945 was that the Brazilian military forced
Vargas, who had ruled Brazil for 20 years, to resign. Elections
were held a month later. See Skidmore and Smith.
So the US took over the colossus of the South [Brazil] and,
quoting Haines again, turned it into a "testing area for
modern scientific methods of industrial development". In
fact we learn quite a lot about tonight's topic by seeing what
was achieved by close American tutelage for half a century
in this optimal testing area. Couldn't get a better test:
enormous resources, tremendous potential, no interference,
just perfect to see how the testing area works.
Chomsky goes on to describe the misery of the Brazilian masses
for the last 50 years as being the intended effect of US policy.
That wasn't the case at all. US policy everywhere in its sphere
of influence was to try to rebuild societies and to make them
prosperous and free, thus making the US sphere of influence more
attractive than the Soviet sphere. This worked in Western Europe
and Japan; for the most part, it failed in Latin America.
For a detailed discussion of why large-scale development projects
have mostly failed, not just in Latin America, see Scott's "Seeing
Like a State." His argument is that centrally planned projects
are necessarily based on simplified models which fail to match
reality.
It's also worth pointing out that establishing a stable democracy
is not easy. In general, not just in Latin America, self-government
is extremely difficult: it's hard to get people (leaders or voters)
to make decisions based on what's best for everyone, rather than
what's best for themselves. The more challenging the problems faced
by the society -- internal or external -- the worse the situation is.
The government fails to deal with the problems, there's protests and
disorder, the military gets impatient and overthrows the government....
Historically, there have been empires lasting for hundreds or even
thousands of years. How many examples of successful, long-lasting
democracies are there?
From the US point of view, a stable, friendly democracy is preferable
to a dictatorship; but a stable, friendly dictatorship is preferable
to an unstable, hostile democracy.
Finally, there were many examples of political violence in Latin
America prior to US involvement (the war which killed 90% of
the male population in Paraguay, the violence in Colombia in
the 1930s). Blaming all dictatorships and all brutality in
Latin America on the US is to subscribe to the "devil theory"
of international politics: all suffering can be ascribed to
some evil force.
One of the most dramatic [US achievements] was the installation
of the first neo-Nazi national security state in the hemisphere
in the early 1960s [in Brazil]. ... The purpose was to ward off
the threat of parliamentary democracy, which was beginning to
get out of control.
In fact, there was a military coup in 1964, at a time of high tension
in Brazilian society (Encyclopaedia Britannica describes it as being
"on the brink of civil war"). The US supported the coup, but it didn't
instigate it.
Chomsky also shows some inconsistency here. Earlier he says:
... we have to begin obviously by focusing attention on the
major actors in the world arena and their practices and their
guiding values and goals, and these of course we determine
not by listening to the words, which are cheap ....
And yet he feels free to quote the words of US leaders against them:
[The coup] was described by Kennedy's ambassador, Lincoln
Gordon, as "the single most decisive victory for freedom
in the mid-twentieth century".
Chomsky also claims that the Cold War was not a factor in US policy:
So there is a good testimony to our goals and values and a
very good indicator or what lies ahead under near optimal
conditions with no interfering factors, like the Cold War,
to obscure our guiding values. There was not a Russian in
sight, of course.
Wrong again. What happened to the Cuban missile crisis in 1962,
which was probably the closest the world came to general nuclear war?
Reading Chomsky, it's easy to forget that after the Communist
takeover of China in 1949, the North Korean invasion in 1950,
and the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, US leaders were extremely
worried about Communism in the Third World. This often led them
to support or install military dictatorships which were
anti-Communist, the idea being that it was better to choose the
lesser of two evils -- a constant theme of international politics.
I think Chomsky's line of argument is that the relatively benevolent
influence of the US in West Germany and Japan (e.g. the Marshall Plan)
was due to the Cold War, while Latin America demonstrates the true
brutality of the US in a situation where the Cold War wasn't a factor.
But in fact the Cold War was probably the most important factor in
US policy in Latin America, as elsewhere. The US did try a program
similar to the Marshall Plan in Latin America -- the Alliance for
Progress, initiated in 1961 (after the Cuban Revolution); but it was
basically a failure.
Mexico is a recent economic miracle until December 1994. The
number of billionaires in Mexico went from one in 1987 to
24 in 1994, mostly cronies of the president who benefited
from what is called "privatisation", which means the giving
away of public resources to your rich friends and family.
From 1993 to 1994 praises were rising to the skies. The
number of billionaires went from 13 to 24, rising just about
in parallel with poverty. According to the Mexican government,
the proportion of the population living in extreme poverty
increased from 13% to 24% in the same years, 1990 to 1994.
Wages fell about 50% for the population during the economic
miracle. Starvation increased; misery increased; billionaires
increased. It was terrific, a real economic miracle.
More sarcasm. Chomsky is suggesting that the misery of the poor
in Mexico was the intended effect of US policy towards Mexico.
There is no doubt that [poor Mexicans] would have regarded
Eastern Europe in the same years [1993 and 1994] as an
absolute paradise. That is a fact that also teaches some
obvious lessons, which are not drawn with quite impressive
discipline, because they are the wrong lessons.
In other words, Chomsky is saying that the correct comparison
between the US and Soviet spheres of influence is not between
Western Europe and Eastern Europe, which makes the US look like
the good guys, but between Latin America and Eastern Europe,
which makes the Soviet Union look like they weren't so bad.
Again, this is proceeding on the false assumption that the
US could have turned Latin American societies into free,
prosperous societies if it chose. The US was able to turn
defeated Germany and Japan into such societies, which was
an amazing achievement. That doesn't mean it had the power
to do so everywhere. See Scott again.
I don't want to make it sound like I'm some kind of rah-rah
cheerleader for the US. Chomsky mentions that the US supported
dictatorships in Latin America which practiced torture; in fact,
the US *trained* Latin American military personnel in torture,
in the name of "counter-insurgency". (See William Polk,
"Neighbors and Strangers.") Then there's the US war with
Mexico. Kennan gives some extremely harsh criticism of US
foreign policy in "American Diplomacy 1900-1950". But I'd sum
up Chomsky's description of US foreign policy as having very
little relation to reality.
2. Brad deLong isn't a rabid Republican either -- he's a liberal-minded
economist who worked in the Clinton administration. But he regards
Chomsky as intellectually dishonest. He reviews Chomsky's "What
Uncle Sam Really Wants" at
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/Politics/chomsky.html:
The book began with a sketch of the history of U.S. foreign
relations since World War II. By the second page Chomsky was in
the middle of a brief discussion of planning for the postwar period.
Four paragraphs were devoted to NSC 68--the end-of-the-1940s
policy planning document that proposed building a military strong
enough to confront the Soviet Union on any continent, and settling
down for a long Cold War of unlimited duration. But NSC 68 was
exhibited in a vacuum. There was not a word about the gradual
shift in the late 1940s of U.S. policy from Rooseveltian cooperation
with Stalin to Trumanesque confrontation, not a word about
escalation of tensions--the fate of former German prisoners
returned by the western allies to Stalin, the Soviet coup in
Czechoslovakia, the disputes over German reconstruction ending in
the Soviet blockade of Berlin--and not a word about how NSC 68
had no prospects of becoming policy until Josef Stalin took off the
leash and Kim Il Sung began the Korean War.
... In my view, the first duty that any participant in any speech
situation has: to tell it like he or she thinks that it is,
not to try to suppress big chunks of the story because they
are inconvenient in the context of your current political
goals. You can't show only half (or less than half) the picture.
That's an act of intellectual authoritarianism, an attempt to
lower the level of the discourse, an attempt to keep people
from knowing things that are not "good" for them--an intellectual
foul.
A user-contributed comment from Dan Hardie:
There is a key passage in George Orwell, in his finest essay,
'Looking back on the Spanish War', in which he comments that
a British and German historian in the twenties, discussing WW1,
would have had some profound differences but would have been
prepared to each cite some of the same material, however much
they would have disagreed with it. He contrasted this with the
collapse in intellectual honesty in the Thirties and Forties,
when many intellectuals would refuse to admit the existence of
any facts which were inconvenient to their chosen ideological
standpoint. The same with Chomsky. You can read the works of a
Marxist historian like Edward Thompson and derive a rightwing
argument from the evidence he has uncovered: Corelli Barnett did so
in his Thatcherite polemic 'The Audit of War'. You can be a
leftist, as I am, and find plenty of scholarly merit in
the works of right wing historians:if you want to criticise the
hysteria of right-wing European politicians before 1914, read
Norman Stone's 'Europe Transformed', written by a thoroughly
conservative author.
But what Chomsky is doing is not writing history: he is merely
a schoolboy debating star citing any fact which may be grist to
his mill and hiding all the difficult evidence well away from
his impressionable audience.
3. Bruce Sharp discusses Chomsky's record on Cambodia:
http://members.aol.com/bsharp26/cambodia/media_1.html
Having reread Chomsky's comments on Cambodia, having heard him
speak, and having seen the documentary about the good professor, I
have no doubt that he is a man of honor and great integrity.
However, he knows nothing about Cambodia.
No... that isn't true. The truth is much worse. He knows just
enough about Cambodia to sound knowledgable to all of the people
who really don't know anything about Cambodia....
How could Chomsky have so seriously misjudged the nature of the
Khmer Rouge? One reason is what I would refer to as the "The Curse
of the Generalist." Chomsky writes about events all over the
world. Can one person really understand all of the intricacies of
the politics and history of any one country? Probably. But can one
person understand the intricacies of ten countries? fifty? two
hundred? No.
There are conflicting accounts of the history of any country and
any event. How can a person who does not have specialized
knowledge of a given country evaluate which of those accounts is
accurate?
In Chomsky's case, he does not evaluate all sources and then
determine which stand up to logical inquiry. Rather, he examines a
handful of accounts until he finds one which matches his
predetermined idea of what the truth must be. He does not derive
his theories from the evidence. Instead, he selectively gathers
"evidence" which supports his theories and ignores the rest.
Comments welcome.
> "The best thing to do is read widely and always skeptically. Remember
> everyone, including me, has their opinions and their goals and you have to
> think them through for yourself."
>
> - Noam Chomsky
Russil Wvong
Vancouver, Canada
www.geocities.com/rwvong
John Caruso
reasonable responses to them. I'll make a few comments, though frankly
this is way, way too much to go into in depth:
In article <afe9ed76.01110...@posting.google.com>, Russil Wvong wrote:
> The subject was a speech by
> Chomsky, regarding US policy in the Third World during the Cold War.
> It's at http://www2.prestel.co.uk/littleton/nc95_nwo.htm.
>[...]
> Some quotes from Chomsky,
>
> [1945] is when the US was finally powerful enough to expel
> its main enemies, France and Britain, from the Western
> hemisphere ....
>
> This is just wrong. The main enemy of the US after World War II
> was the Soviet Union, not France and Britain!
It's apparent (to me) that Chomsky is speaking of France and Britain
from a historical perspective here; I think you're reading too much into
it. Also, he's speaking in particular of British and French involvement
in the Western hemisphere, and specifically Brazil. And finally, you're
asserting a judgement as though it's a fact (that the Soviet Union was
a serious challenge or concern to the United States)....and it's a
judgement that Chomsky treats at length in various books, e.g.
_Deterring Democracy_, and would doubtless dispute in the particulars.
By asserting it as a given, you're begging the question.
> The US regarded
> the Cold War as a global conflict; this applied to Latin America
> as well as Europe. See Kennan.
I'm sure that Chomsky would agree with you regarding the attitudes of
US policy makers; but he'd likely argue that they're not of particular
interest in looking at the institutional behaviors that make up US foreign
policy. Even Hitler undoubtedly had rationalizations for what he did.
> Chomsky goes on to describe the misery of the Brazilian masses
> for the last 50 years as being the intended effect of US policy.
> That wasn't the case at all. US policy everywhere in its sphere
> of influence was to try to rebuild societies and to make them
> prosperous and free, [...]
Again, you're simply begging the question, since this is the entire
point under consideration. And asserting that this was the US goal
flies in the face of the fact that the US supported dictatorships
throughout Latin America after WWII.
> From the US point of view, a stable, friendly democracy is preferable
> to a dictatorship; but a stable, friendly dictatorship is preferable
> to an unstable, hostile democracy.
I don't mean to repeat myself, but you're begging the question again.
That's my main critique of your entire posting, in fact. You seem to have
a basic faith in the goodness of the US, which leads you to assume here
that the US would have supported "stable, friendly" democracies if that
had been possible...but it was forced to fall back to the secondary
position of supporting (and helping to establish) brutal dictatorships
instead, throughout all of Latin America. Consistently.
And that's leaving aside the point of whether the US's judgements as
to whether a democracy is "unstable" or "hostile" give it the right to
subject the people of that country to years (or decades) of living in
an abattoir, in constant fear of torture, mutilation, and murder, as
they were in several of our subject countries.
> Finally, there were many examples of political violence in Latin
> America prior to US involvement (the war which killed 90% of
> the male population in Paraguay, the violence in Colombia in
> the 1930s). Blaming all dictatorships and all brutality in
> Latin America on the US is to subscribe to the "devil theory"
> of international politics: all suffering can be ascribed to
> some evil force.
And it's not what Chomsky does (as you yourself have implicitly acknowledged
when you cite his mention of Britain and France, who had greater influence
in the Western hemisphere prior to WWII). But to deny the preeminence
of US influence in the world since WWII is to deny the rise of US power
and US dominance in the political, economic, and military spheres. There's
a *reason* that the US is involved in so many of these issues (and in fact
is often at the root)...you're not going find Sri Lanka enforcing its will
around the world, for obvious reasons.
> One of the most dramatic [US achievements] was the installation
> of the first neo-Nazi national security state in the hemisphere
> in the early 1960s [in Brazil]. ... The purpose was to ward off
> the threat of parliamentary democracy, which was beginning to
> get out of control.
>
> In fact, there was a military coup in 1964, at a time of high tension
> in Brazilian society (Encyclopaedia Britannica describes it as being
> "on the brink of civil war"). The US supported the coup, but it didn't
> instigate it.
You're drawing a fine point here. The fact is that the US was supporting
and instigating coups like this not only in Brazil, but throughout Latin
America, as part of official policy. Surely if the US supported the coup
it would have considered it an "achievement"?
> Chomsky also shows some inconsistency here. Earlier he says:
>
> ... we have to begin obviously by focusing attention on the
> major actors in the world arena and their practices and their
> guiding values and goals, and these of course we determine
> not by listening to the words, which are cheap ....
>
> And yet he feels free to quote the words of US leaders against them:
>
> [The coup] was described by Kennedy's ambassador, Lincoln
> Gordon, as "the single most decisive victory for freedom
> in the mid-twentieth century".
Err...if he's using their words *against them*, he's not being inconsistent
at all. He's "not listening to the words, which are cheap."
In general, the point is not to reject all words out of hand, but to
look at how the words match the actions. If there's a contradiction, the
actions speak the loudest.
> Chomsky also claims that the Cold War was not a factor in US policy:
No, he doesn't--he argues that it's not as much of a factor in US policy
as it was claimed to be, and generally not in the ways that it was
claimed to be.
> So there is a good testimony to our goals and values and a
> very good indicator or what lies ahead under near optimal
> conditions with no interfering factors, like the Cold War,
> to obscure our guiding values. There was not a Russian in
> sight, of course.
>
> Wrong again. What happened to the Cuban missile crisis in 1962,
> which was probably the closest the world came to general nuclear war?
You cut out the context immediately prior to this statement:
"America's Brazilian policies were enormously successful", bringing
about "impressive economic growth based solidly on capitalism."
So he's talking about Brazil (where there was "not a Russian in sight, of
course")--NOT making a general statement, as you're trying to represent
it. The point being that US policy in this case is revealing precisely
because it CANNOT be claimed to be a direct response to the USSR. That's
the key point, in fact.
> I don't want to make it sound like I'm some kind of rah-rah
> cheerleader for the US. Chomsky mentions that the US supported
> dictatorships in Latin America which practiced torture; in fact,
> the US *trained* Latin American military personnel in torture,
> in the name of "counter-insurgency". (See William Polk,
> "Neighbors and Strangers.") Then there's the US war with
> Mexico. Kennan gives some extremely harsh criticism of US
> foreign policy in "American Diplomacy 1900-1950". But I'd sum
> up Chomsky's description of US foreign policy as having very
> little relation to reality.
Unfortunately, I'd sum up your summary of Chomsky's description of US
foreign policy as having very little relation to what he actually said,
or to the other views of his I'm aware of from having read him. And
I think you have some underlying assumptions that guide you in the
direction of rejecting and/or misunderstanding what he's saying--rather
key assumptions, in fact.
>Comments welcome.
I hope they were. And I apologize for the massive snippage. As I said,
I really don't have the desire to go into details on any of this...it
would take far too much time and it's far too wide-ranging. I just
wanted to respond with some general comments, since you're the first
sane person on the anti- side I've seen so far in this thread, and you
make some very reasonable points (though I disagree with them, as I'm
sure is clear by now...).
- John
Glenn Cooper
I'll piss on 'em," -- that's what your Statue
of Bigotry says. "Your poor huddled masses,
let's club 'em to death."
-- Lou Reed, "The Dirty Boulevard", 1989.
Glenn Cooper
> do you have any that he wasn't involved? what a silly childish remark.
Ah, right, so you're guilty until proven otherwise, hey?
Thanks for spelling out what sane people already knew about you.
Glenn C.
lawrence day
Considering how broadly you define 'leftie'
it is not surprising you get amazed.
Is support for despotic, absolute monarchies
the litmus test for a 'rightie'?
> On one hand you complain that the
> U.S. tries to tell other countries how to govern and on the other you
> complain because a culturally acceptable, traditional, partially
> religious based form of government has survived for so long; mainly
> because the people seem to want it that way.
Perhaps mainly because anyone who objects to,
or opposes the King, goes to jail and gets tortured.
Anyway, my point was: "..There is no way to know what
the average citizen thinks."
Lawrence Day
CyberBMcD
CyberBMcD
you're welcome. I don't have the time or energy to waste looking up a
post from a month ago just to prove you wrong.
zztop8970-
>
> Even if you were correct and the US had some sort of obligation or
> need to stick its nose into a conflict between Iraq and Saudi Arabia -
> a conflict which is hypothetical - that still wouldn't necessitate the
> permanant occupation of SA by American troops.
The conflict between SA and Iraq is far from hypothetical, as the Gulf war
has shwon, Some people sure do have short memories.
Calling the temporary presense of US troops in a few army bases on SA soil,
at the request of the SA governemt, "permanant occupation" shows how
meaningless that word is when used by left-wing whackos. "Occupation" has
come to mean 'any behaviour i disapprove of' in those circles.
>
>
> Clay
> >>
>
The Lone Weasel
russi...@yahoo.com wrote on 11/9/01 8:14 PM:
[snipped for brevity]
> Comments welcome.
Thanks for your post. I'll have time to respond tomorrow.
> Russil Wvong
> Vancouver, Canada
> www.geocities.com/rwvong
Yours truly,
Lee Harrison
Justin Felux
> I've read a fair amount of modern history, particularly twentieth-
> century history, and I find that Chomsky's political writings are
> basically anti-US flaming -- the heavy sarcasm is a classic
> flaming technique.
If you had any sense of what freedom and democracy means, you'd know we have
a responsibility to question the actions of our governments.
> My preferred method of checking the reliability of a historical
> source is to "triangulate" by looking up what other sources have
> to say about the same events. When I do this with Chomsky, I find
> that like an Internet flamer, Chomsky will seize on whatever
> evidence casts his opponent (the US) in the worst possible light,
> while dismissing or failing to mention any contrary evidence.
> (This isn't unique to Chomsky, of course. All propagandists
> employ these techniques.)
Chomsky does no such thing. Either way, he is not trying to be objective,
of course. There is so much propaganda in the other direction that
objectivity is not good enough. We need counterveiling forces. That's what
Chomsky is.
> Some quotes from Chomsky,
>
> [1945] is when the US was finally powerful enough to expel
> its main enemies, France and Britain, from the Western
> hemisphere ....
>
> This is just wrong. The main enemy of the US after World War II
> was the Soviet Union, not France and Britain! The US regarded
> the Cold War as a global conflict; this applied to Latin America
> as well as Europe. See Kennan.
It is obvious already at this point that you only have a rudimentary
understanding of history and the points Chomsky is trying to make. He is
implying that France and Britain are the United States foremost economic
competitors.
[snip]
> Historically, there have been empires lasting for hundreds or even
> thousands of years. How many examples of successful, long-lasting
> democracies are there?
Democracy is a relatively new thing.
> From the US point of view, a stable, friendly democracy is preferable
> to a dictatorship; but a stable, friendly dictatorship is preferable
> to an unstable, hostile democracy.
And you think that is justifiable? The early incipient moments of western
democracy were just as "unstable" as the attempts at democracy in places
like Latin America.
> Finally, there were many examples of political violence in Latin
> America prior to US involvement (the war which killed 90% of
> the male population in Paraguay, the violence in Colombia in
> the 1930s). Blaming all dictatorships and all brutality in
> Latin America on the US is to subscribe to the "devil theory"
> of international politics: all suffering can be ascribed to
> some evil force.
This is irrelevant. Chomsky or anyone here will not deny it, but it's
irrelevant. We only need to be concerned about the United States'
involvement. We are responsible for the actions of the United States.
> Chomsky also claims that the Cold War was not a factor in US policy:
>
> So there is a good testimony to our goals and values and a
> very good indicator or what lies ahead under near optimal
> conditions with no interfering factors, like the Cold War,
> to obscure our guiding values. There was not a Russian in
> sight, of course.
>
> Wrong again. What happened to the Cuban missile crisis in 1962,
> which was probably the closest the world came to general nuclear war?
The Cold War was real, but it was also used as a justification for many acts
that had absolutely nothing to do with Russia. The fact that American
military policy has stayed almost exactly the same after the collapse of the
Soviet Union proves that it was not the motivating factor behind policy
decisions; only a justification
> Reading Chomsky, it's easy to forget that after the Communist
> takeover of China in 1949, the North Korean invasion in 1950,
> and the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, US leaders were extremely
> worried about Communism in the Third World. This often led them
> to support or install military dictatorships which were
> anti-Communist, the idea being that it was better to choose the
> lesser of two evils -- a constant theme of international politics.
What you call communism the people of the region would call "independence"
or "democracy". Specifically in Latin America. First of all the fact that
a government has communistic tendencies or characterisitics does not make it
automatically bad. We support dictatorships over the "communist"
revolutionary forces because they cooperate with us, and they ensure that
the United States is the primary benefeciary of the resources of the region,
not the people who live there. If you don't see that, you're blind.
Russil Wvong
> I hope they were. And I apologize for the massive snippage. As I said,
> I really don't have the desire to go into details on any of this...it
> would take far too much time and it's far too wide-ranging. I just
> wanted to respond with some general comments, since you're the first
> sane person on the anti- side I've seen so far in this thread, and you
> make some very reasonable points (though I disagree with them, as I'm
> sure is clear by now...).
Thank you, and thanks for your response! I won't try to give a detailed,
point-by-point response, but if you'd like me to, just let me know.
Hmm. Let me try to summarize what Chomsky is saying about US foreign
policy during the Cold War:
1. The Cold War was not a major factor for US foreign policy
in Latin America. The US had a free hand in its sphere of
influence. (More generally, the USSR was not a significant
threat to the US at all.)
2. Therefore, US foreign policy in Latin America is a better
test of US goals and methods than US foreign policy in
Western Europe and Japan, where the US had to compete with
the USSR for influence.
3. If the US truly valued prosperity and freedom for the Third
World, it would have created stable, prosperous, democratic
societies in Latin America. The fact that it installed and
supported so many brutal dictatorships in Latin America
(and elsewhere, e.g. Iran, Indonesia) demonstrates the reverse:
the US values dictatorship over democracy, at least for the
Third World.
Did I get it right this time? :-) I'll leave my counter-arguments
to each of these points to a later article.
> That's my main critique of your entire posting, in fact. You seem to have
> a basic faith in the goodness of the US, which leads you to assume here
> that the US would have supported "stable, friendly" democracies if that
> had been possible...but it was forced to fall back to the secondary
> position of supporting (and helping to establish) brutal dictatorships
> instead, throughout all of Latin America. Consistently.
Hmm. I wouldn't say that I have a basic faith in the goodness of the US.
I see the US as being primarily interested in *stability*, in preserving
the status quo. And that includes supporting dictatorships, as the US
does throughout the Middle East, for example.
But it's also true that the US *did* establish stable, prosperous
democracies elsewhere in its sphere of influence -- in West Germany
and Japan, for example. They're now economic rivals to the US, but
also close political allies.
Why didn't the US do the same in Brazil and Argentina, for example?
Why this difference in US foreign policy between Western Europe and
Japan on the one hand, and Latin America on the other? Chomsky's
explanation is that the US was worried about competition from the
USSR in Western Europe and Japan, but not in Latin America.
I think Chomsky's explanation is wrong. He's assuming that the
US had the power to establish stable, prosperous democracies in
Latin America, if it chose; or that this would have happened
if the US had not interfered. In fact, the US tried to do this,
through the Alliance for Progress; it failed.
E. Barry Bruyea
I don't know, you tell me. Leftists in N.A. and most of Europe where
Stalin's apologists for so long, I consider them experts on despotic
governments.
>
>> On one hand you complain that the
>> U.S. tries to tell other countries how to govern and on the other you
>> complain because a culturally acceptable, traditional, partially
>> religious based form of government has survived for so long; mainly
>> because the people seem to want it that way.
>
>Perhaps mainly because anyone who objects to,
>or opposes the King, goes to jail and gets tortured.
Like in most Marxist states present and past; and you approved,
remember?
>
>Anyway, my point was: "..There is no way to know what
>the average citizen thinks."
>
>Lawrence Day
But there is a way to know how a lefitst thinks, and it usually
involves a huge chunk of hypocrisy.
Shel Scott
>CyberBMcD wrote:
>> do you have any that he wasn't involved? what a silly childish remark.
>
>involved either. Should we bomb them?
>Kevin
>
It hasn't occurred to you that no evidence linking Bin Laden to the
WTC atrocity is needed? After the bombings of various US embassies
and the attack on the USS Cole, there was more than enough reason to
go after the man. His culpability regarding 9/11 is immaterial.
Shel Scott
>> whether they want the US troops there.
>
>citizens as they desire?
>
herring. They seem to have a bottomless supply of these; no doubt
they keep them wrapped in their pet peeves to preserve freshness.
Shel Scott
>Sorry, that would be Imperialism. I wonder why you fans of Chomsky
>have no objections to a bunch of Arabs, Pakistani's, and other assorted
>foreigners interfering in the affairs of Afghanistan?
>
Interesting that you're the first person to mention this, Don.
All these "freedom loving" Chomsky fans have yet to acknowledge this
fact, preferring to harp on their usual target - the US.
Shel Scott
>So I guess we agree then.. in order to avoid influencing the internal
>politics of Saudi Arabia, we should withdraw our troops.
>
Sequitor" award. Congrats!
Kevin Waterson
> It hasn't occurred to you that no evidence linking Bin Laden to the
> WTC atrocity is needed? After the bombings of various US embassies
> and the attack on the USS Cole, there was more than enough reason to
> go after the man. His culpability regarding 9/11 is immaterial.
There is conclusive proof Bin Laden did these bombings also?
He was found guilty in what court?
I agree that his culpability regarding 9/11 is immaterial, but this is
the line the Govt's are giving us.
Kevin
Kevin Waterson
> But there is a way to know how a lefitst thinks, and it usually
> involves a huge chunk of hypocrisy.
whew, I thought he was going to say we were prone to
pre-judging and lumped attributes of an individual onto
a whole... like saying 'all blacks are thieves'
Clay Smith
wrote:
>
>Clay Smith <Clay20...@softhome.net> wrote in message
>news:govsOywLe2RkP+...@4ax.com...
>
>>
>> Even if you were correct and the US had some sort of obligation or
>> need to stick its nose into a conflict between Iraq and Saudi Arabia -
>> a conflict which is hypothetical - that still wouldn't necessitate the
>> permanant occupation of SA by American troops.
>
>The conflict between SA and Iraq is far from hypothetical, as the Gulf war
>has shwon, Some people sure do have short memories.
>Calling the temporary presense of US troops in a few army bases on SA soil,
>at the request of the SA governemt, "permanant occupation" shows how
>meaningless that word is when used by leftists. "Occupation" has
>come to mean 'any behaviour i disapprove of' in those circles.
Ah. So the troops aren't there permanantly? Well, then, when are they
leaving?
As for the Gulf War, that was, if you'll recall, about ten years ago.
Do you have an evidence to indicate that there's an Iraq/SA conflict
at present?
And of course, in a discussion of the presence of US troops in SA,
let's not forget the most important fact; it pisses off the Muslims to
no end.
Clay
Clay Smith
wrote:
>Clay Smith <Clay20...@softhome.net> wrote:
>>So I guess we agree then.. in order to avoid influencing the internal
>>politics of Saudi Arabia, we should withdraw our troops.
>>
>!!!! Winner of this week's " Non
>Sequitor" award. Congrats!
Note to self: No more sarcasm on Chomsky newsgroup. Right wingers
don't get it.
Clay
Clay Smith
wrote:
>>
>>Perhaps mainly because anyone who objects to,
>>or opposes the King, goes to jail and gets tortured.
>
>Like in most Marxist states present and past; and you approved,
>remember?
I'm sorry... perhaps I'm a bit confused. You're saying that Bruyea
has in the past registered his approval of totalitarian states that
were, nominally at least, marxist? Or you're saying that leftists in
general have done so?
Clay
zztop8970-
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2001 07:35:08 -0800, "zztop8970-" <no...@tospeakof.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Clay Smith <Clay20...@softhome.net> wrote in message
> >news:govsOywLe2RkP+...@4ax.com...
> >
> >>
> >> Even if you were correct and the US had some sort of obligation or
> >> need to stick its nose into a conflict between Iraq and Saudi Arabia -
> >> a conflict which is hypothetical - that still wouldn't necessitate the
> >> permanant occupation of SA by American troops.
> >
> >The conflict between SA and Iraq is far from hypothetical, as the Gulf
war
> >has shwon, Some people sure do have short memories.
> >Calling the temporary presense of US troops in a few army bases on SA
soil,
> >at the request of the SA governemt, "permanant occupation" shows how
> >meaningless that word is when used by leftists. "Occupation" has
> >come to mean 'any behaviour i disapprove of' in those circles.
>
>
> Ah. So the troops aren't there permanantly? Well, then, when are they
> leaving?
As soon as the SA government asks them to.
>
> As for the Gulf War, that was, if you'll recall, about ten years ago.
> Do you have an evidence to indicate that there's an Iraq/SA conflict
> at present?
My, my, what a naive little man you are. 10 years are a drop in the bucket
in the context of national conflicts.
The Gulf war did not end with any peace agrement. The onus is on YOU to
prove that th causes for that war are gone, and that the conflict has been
resolved
DO a little research on the billions that Iraq still owes SA and refuses to
pay back, on traditional Ba'athist opposition to the SA roayl family, and
come back to the ng when you're educated.
>
> And of course, in a discussion of the presence of US troops in SA,
> let's not forget the most important fact; it pisses off the Muslims to
> no end.
They were invited there by The SA royal family, who are, AFAIK, muslims.
>
>
> Clay
Honest John
wrote:
>Kevin Waterson <ke...@oceania.net> wrote:
>>CyberBMcD wrote:
>>> do you have any that he wasn't involved? what a silly childish remark.
>>
>>I dont have any evidence that Prince Charles or Operah was not
>>involved either. Should we bomb them?
>>Kevin
>>
>It hasn't occurred to you that no evidence linking Bin Laden to the
>WTC atrocity is needed? After the bombings of various US embassies
>and the attack on the USS Cole, there was more than enough reason to
>go after the man. His culpability regarding 9/11 is immaterial.
Bin Laden is seen on his latest tape admitting he was being the WTC
attack. Those who have been out there defending him can now crawl back
under their rocks.
lawrence day
He is trying to paint me as a 'leftist' Stalinist
even though I consider Stalin
to be one of the top ten villains
of the 20th century.
It is simply the 'far right' attacking 'centrists'
as being 'leftists'.
Outside of his warped perspective,
don't expect it to make sense.
Lawrence Day
Unnamed Sources
>(John Caruso) wrote:
>>In article <n9qnuts3r4njf3nam...@4ax.com>, Brain Death wrote:
>>>>>>The genocide he's referring to (presumably; we don't have the context)
>>>>>>is the risk of starvation to 7.5 million Afghans, as documented by
>>>>>>the UN and aid agencies. Thanks to the bombing, aid agencies have been
>>>>>>unable to get sufficient supplies to those who need it. They're calling
>>>>>>for *at least* a bombing pause so they can get the aid in before winter,
>>>>>>but the US refuses to do even that little bit to stop this catastrophe
>>>>>>from occurring. If the death toll is anywhere near what's predicted,
>>>>>>the US attack on Afghanistan will go from being just a serious crime to
>>>>>>being a crime of truly massive proportions.
>>>>>
>>>>>Hmmm, speaking of crimes of truly massive proportions, how about the
>>>>>Killing Fields of Cambodia? Wasn't it Chomsky who insisted back then
>>>>>that the reports of starvation and death were overblown and being
>>>>>accepted by the credulous media simply because they hated the
>>>>>communists?
>>>>
>>>>No, that's just you proving what I wrote in my posting: that the hallmark
>>>>of Chomsky-bashers is to attack their own fevered imaginings of what he
>>>>says, rather than the real thing.
>>>
>>>Okay, feel free to point out to me the columns where Noam admitted
>>>that there was terrible stuff going on in Cambodia and that the Khmer
>>>Rouge was to blame.
>>
>>Even a quick Google search would give you ones like "there is no
>>difficulty in documenting major atrocities and oppression, primarily
>>from the reports of the refugees"
>
>Yes, and it was exactly the reports of the refugees that he attacked
>at the time, saying that Western journalists were too willing to give
>credence to the genocide claims coming out of Cambodia.
>
>Here's a couple of quotes I managed to garner from a search:
>
>What is most noteworthy about "Starvation and Revolution" is the
>manner in which it was recieved by the far Left at the time of its
>publication. The most prominent scholar to praise the book was the
>esteemed Noam Chomsky. Chomsky described the book as "a carefully
>documented study of the destructive American impact on Cambodia and
>the success of the Cambodian revolutionaries in overcoming it, giving
>a very favorable picture of their programs and policies, based on a
>wide range of sources." He went on to note that "it has not been
>reviewed in the [New York] Times, New York Review, or any mass-media
>publication, nor used as the basis for editorial comment, with one
>exception. The Wall Street Journal acknowledged its existence in an
>editorial entitled 'Cambodia Good Guys'... which dismissed
>contemptuously the very idea that the Khmer Rouge could play a
>constructive role..."
>
>Chomsky himself from Z-Mag:
>
>"There's a careful analysis in Vickery's "Cambodia." He's a very
>serious Cambodia scholar, and his analysis is taken seriously by other
>reputable scholars (e.g., Australian scholar Robert Cribb, in his
>standard scholarly work on the Indonesian massacres with comparative
>evidence). Vickery estimates about 700,000 deaths "above the normal"
>in the Pol Pot years -- which, if accurate, would be about the same as
>deaths during the US war (the first phase of the "Decade of Genocide,"
>as 1969-79 is called by the one independent government analysis,
>Finland). For that period, the CIA estimates 600,000 deaths....If we
>wanted to be serious, we would also ask how many of the post-1975
>deaths are the result of the US war."
>
>Get it? Chomsky is implying that whatever the Khmer Rouge did, it was
>no worse that what the US did, and in fact may have been caused by the
>US.
I'm not so sure. My impression is, he's attempting to
inoculate Americans against the myth of America as
Goody-Two-Shoes. So, yes, out of context, he may
sound exactly as you have described him.
We only need to follow this 9/11 issue in the Media
to see both how prevailent this myth is, and how
dangerous it is regarding a winning stategy.
We are attempting to fight a fairytale war against
real enemies.
The real enemy is terrorism, is it not?
>>or "the record of atrocities in
>>Cambodia is substantial and often gruesome." But, as I said, you're
>>just Yet Another Internet Chomsky-Basher, intent on attacking only
>>your fevered imaginings of what he says rather than the real thing.
>>
>>And intent also on changing the subject--another hallmark of Chomsky
>>bashers, who know they can't counter his actual arguments, and so
>>instead rely on pulling out tired old canards like this one.
>
>Who's changing the subject? I'm pointing out that Chomsky's record is
>one of minimizing or denying claims of genocide when regimes he favors
>is doing the killing and maximizing or manufacturing claims of
>genocide when it is the US doing the "killing".
>
>> The fact
>>is that if Hitler himself were here today warning against the potential
>>disaster to come in Afghanistan due to the 7.5 million people at risk
>>of starvation, and the US bombing which makes it impossible to get food
>>aid to them, I would readily agree with him on this.
>
>Well, that shows the difference between you and I. If Adolph Hitler
>himself were today saying "continue the bombing campaign," I would
>seriously consider the possibility that we should stop it. I would
>not readily agree with him; I'd definitely be shaken in my beliefs.
>
>> Your pathetic
>>attempt to change the subject can't disguise your own real and immediate
>>lack of condemnation for the US refusal to even pause the bombing to allow
>>the necessary aid in to prevent a massive humanitarian catastrophe.
>
>Suppose the US had invaded Cambodia in 1975, "to prevent a massive
>humanitarian catastrophe". What would Chomsky's reaction have been?
>I can guarantee you he would have been fulminating against even the
>notion. The basic fact is that you don't delay a war for Ramadan, you
>don't delay it for humanitarian relief, you don't delay it for the
>Super Bowl. You prosecute the war quickly and get it over with rather
>than allow it to drag on. Remember, assuming you and I agree that the
>Taliban should be deposed (a big if), then your way results in them
>hanging on to power longer. That's longer that women must wear the
>burqas and must not go to school or laugh or sing. Who's the real
>humanitarian here?
>
>>This is a catastrophe that is preventable, RIGHT NOW, today. This is a
>>catastrophe that is not going on in a county closed to us--it's happening
>>right in front of our eyes, and it's being caused by OUR government's
>>actions. Yet you have nothing to say about it, and in fact apparently
>>excuse it. Which makes it obvious that your show of concern for innocent
>>life is just that: a pretense, driven solely by ideology, and completely
>>optional where US actions are concerned. Again, the hallmark of every
>>Chomsky basher I've ever seen.
>
>Nonsense. Chomsky doesn't really care about innocent life. He cares
>about bashing the United States. He knows we will not stop the
>bombing, so he manufactures this humanitarian crisis of 7.5 million
>people "at risk" of starvation (about 30% of the population of the
>country) and convinces you that any starvation deaths will be solely
>the cause of the United States. Never mind that the Mullah Omar looks
>like he could survive on one square meal a day for decades without
>fitting into one of Al Sharpton's sweatpants, his people have been
>suffering for the last two years from food shortages, before the US
>bombing even started. IOW, no matter how much food you send to
>Afghanistan, not a lot of it is getting past Mullah Omar's plate.
>Sort of like the ridiculous stuff you guys bring up about all the kids
>dying in Iraq because of the sanctions. Never mind that we let Iraq
>sell enough oil to save those lives, but Saddam uses it on his WMD
>programs. It's the sanctions killing those kids, not Saddam.
>
>Yeah, innocent people are dying in Afghanistan (although not as many
>as you would like). That is the direct fault of Osama bin Laden and
>the Taliban for refusing to hand him over. It is not our fault but
>theirs.
>
>BD
Unnamed Sources
caSPAMr...@paradiso.umuc.edu (John Caruso) wrote
Re: Noam Chomsky Continues Telling Unwelcome Truths About U.S.
>In article <60rout0oepbsfjnb7...@4ax.com>, Brain Death wrote:
[quoting Chomsky]
>>"There's a careful analysis in Vickery's "Cambodia." He's a very
>>serious Cambodia scholar, and his analysis is taken seriously by other
>>reputable scholars (e.g., Australian scholar Robert Cribb, in his
>>standard scholarly work on the Indonesian massacres with comparative
>>evidence). Vickery estimates about 700,000 deaths "above the normal"
>>in the Pol Pot years -- which, if accurate, would be about the same as
>>deaths during the US war (the first phase of the "Decade of Genocide,"
>>as 1969-79 is called by the one independent government analysis,
>>Finland). For that period, the CIA estimates 600,000 deaths....If we
>>wanted to be serious, we would also ask how many of the post-1975
>>deaths are the result of the US war."
>>
>>Get it? Chomsky is implying that whatever the Khmer Rouge did, it was
>>no worse that what the US did, and in fact may have been caused by the US.
>
>Of course--just as any serious person would consider how the Soviet
>invasion of Afghanistan affected the brutal wars that followed its
>departure. That you consider such a straightforward paragraph so
>startling says more about you than about Chomsky, frankly. As does
>the fact that you have no concern for the death toll the US achieved
>during its attack--even if (as is the premise here) the numbers are
>EQUAL. The US caused those deaths, so there's nothing wrong with them,
>apparently. Again, the classic position of the Chomsky basher.
>
>On the other hand, I (and Chomsky) have no problem condemning both the
>Khmer Rouge killings AND the US killings. That's exactly what bothers
>people like you, who vehemently defend (and practice) the right to excuse
>the crimes committed by one's own country.
However, it our greater context, we have greater truth:
"Know thy enemy"
Wars are not fairytales. There is no war of
"good v. evil" As Chomsky points out.
Fight no fairtale demons, use no fairytale heros.
>>Remember, assuming you and I agree that the
>>Taliban should be deposed (a big if), then your way results in them
>>hanging on to power longer. That's longer that women must wear the
>>burqas and must not go to school or laugh or sing.
>
>Yes, I'm sure you're feeling deep pain over the plight of Afghan women.
>There's at least one group that's felt it longer than you have, though--
>RAWA, the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, one of
>the most respected rights groups working in Afghanistan today. These
>are people who despise the Taliban, and who've been regularly putting
>their lives on the line to get rid of them, and to provide education to
>Afghans (an immediate death sentence in their country). So what is RAWA's
>position? Luckily we don't have to guess--we can just read this Chicago
>Tribune article ("Afghan Activist Decries U.S. bombing"):
>
> We are more than a month [into the bombing] and we have seen hundreds
> of civilian casualties, but what are the positives?" she asked. "We
> want to combat terrorism, but not by bombing the innocent people of
> Afghanistan."
> [...]
>
> The bombing has only deepened the suffering, Faryal said. She
> advocated that the United States combat terrorism through United
> Nations diplomacy and the sanctioning of countries that aid terrorists.
>
> [ http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0111090255nov09.story ]
>
>I saw Tahmeena myself this past Saturday, when she spoke in San Francisco.
>She's a true hero--and unlike you, she genuinely cares about the women of
>Afghanistan.
>
>>Who's the real humanitarian here?
>
>I'm confident of the answer when RAWA agrees with me. Who's the one
>sinking so low as to pretend to humanitarian concerns in order to justify
>an attack on Afghanistan that's causing so much suffering, and promises
>to cause far more? Who's the charlatan who calls for more bombing when
>the people who've been working for justice in that country for YEARS
>are saying it should stop? Were you this worked up over Afghan womens'
>rights on September 10th, too?
>
>>>This is a catastrophe that is preventable, RIGHT NOW, today. This is a
>>>catastrophe that is not going on in a county closed to us--it's happening
>>>right in front of our eyes, and it's being caused by OUR government's
>>>actions. Yet you have nothing to say about it, and in fact apparently
>>>excuse it. Which makes it obvious that your show of concern for innocent
>>>life is just that: a pretense, driven solely by ideology, and completely
>>>optional where US actions are concerned. Again, the hallmark of every
>>>Chomsky basher I've ever seen.
>>
>>Nonsense. Chomsky doesn't really care about innocent life. He cares
>>about bashing the United States. He knows we will not stop the
>>bombing, so he manufactures this humanitarian crisis of 7.5 million
>>people "at risk" of starvation (about 30% of the population of the
>>country) and convinces you that any starvation deaths will be solely
>>the cause of the United States.
>
>You already know this is a lie based on what I've cited elsewhere in
>this thread, but since you insist on playing games I'll embarass you by
>citing yet more information:
>
> - How many Afghans are in danger of starvation?
>
> According to the United Nations, 7.5 million people face starvation in
> Afghanistan, because of the severe food shortages and the onset of
> winter. In Hazarajat region, north-west of Kabul, there are now
> 400,000 people without food.
>
> [ http://www.observer.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1501,577996,00.html ]
>
> Famine threatened 5.3 million people in Afghanistan before bombing
> started on October 7. The UN has revised this to 7.5 million, at least
> two million of whom were likely to be cut off from road transport by
> November 15.
>
> [ http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2001370004-2001375024,00.html ]
>
>Yet you use quote marks when you say they're "at risk", and make the
>absurd claim that Chomsky has "manufactured this humanitarian crisis"--
>apparently in collusion with the the World Food Program, the UN (and
>Kofi Annan in particular), Christian Aid, Oxfam, Care International,
>etc, etc, etc. What a truly revolting display.
>
>You're simply revealing how low you'll sink in your desire to make
>excuses for the US attack--to the point of denying that any crisis
>even exists(!). The facts, as usual, are completely secondary to the
>goal of rationalizing US actions.
>
>>Sort of like the ridiculous stuff you guys bring up about all the kids
>>dying in Iraq because of the sanctions. Never mind that we let Iraq
>>sell enough oil to save those lives, but Saddam uses it on his WMD
>>programs. It's the sanctions killing those kids, not Saddam.
>
>Yet another attempt to change the subject, but it's worth responding
>in order to expose you for what you are one last time.
>
>You're right about the sanctions killing those kids. You're wrong (as
>usual) about Iraq using oil-for-food money for "WMD programs"--in fact,
>you're dead wrong, because it's literally impossible. The money from
>oil-for-food is deposited into an escrow account, entirely under the
>UN's control, as you'd know if you had even passing knowledge of this
>subject (beyond just knowing the propaganda incantations to use to try
>to justify the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocents). Here's
>the actual paragraph from UNSC 706, describing the establishment of
>the escrow account:
>
> Payment of the full amount of each purchase of Iraqi petroleum and
> petroleum products directly by the purchaser in the State concerned
> into an escrow account to be established by the United Nations and to
> be administered by the Secretary-General, exclusively to meet the
> purposes of this resolution;
>
> [ http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/scrs/scr706.htm ]
>
>Just three weeks ago I had a chance to listen to Hans von Spoeneck--the
>former coordinator for the Iraq program, who was in charge of running
>the oil-for-food program--discussing just how it worked. Or rather, how
>it DIDN'T work. Which is why he resigned his position, in protest, just
>as his predecessor Denis Halliday had done. Here's more information for
>you to twist, rationalize, and ignore:
>
> Hans von Sponeck, who resigned in March in protest of the effects of
> sanctions on the civilian population of Iraq, said that the "oil-for-
> food" program which he was administering was not meeting the most
> basic needs of the Iraqi population. He said that because of sanctions,
> Iraqis simply do not have enough to eat. "The conditions in hospitals
> are atrocious," he added. "Diseases that had disappeared from a country
> with one of the best infrastructures in the Middle East have reappeared
> and have become a major killer of children under five," he said.
>
> The UN estimates that about 5,000 Iraqis die every month as a result
> of economic sanctions.
>
> Denis Halliday was von Sponeck's predecessor as UN Humanitarian
> Coordinator in Iraq and who resigned in September 1998 in protest of
> the effects of what he called "the human calamity going on in Iraq
> today on account of widespread deprivation caused by US-driven
> economic sanctions."
>
> [ http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/000505/2000050524.html ]
>
>These two people are in a position to know what the REAL situation is,
>and they do not hesitate to blame the US-led sanctions. The facts matter
>to them; they're not just inconvient things to be rationalized away.
>Even Scott Ritter, a former US marine and chief weapons inspector in
>Iraq, has come to realize that, as you can see from the article (no, not
>as *you* can see...but as anyone else can see).
>
>These are REAL heros--people who are genuinely concerned about the
>deaths of innocent civilians, and who are trying to do something about
>it. Unlike you, and those like you, whose sole purpose is to rationalize
>any and every action taken by the US, no matter how base, no matter how
>destructive, no matter how deadly...and regardless of the facts.
>
>- John
John Caruso
>Bin Laden is seen on his latest tape admitting he was being the WTC attack.
Does anyone have an actual reference for this? I've seen the claim one
other place, but without hearing/seeing the words myself I have to assume
it's just the usual "he doesn't condemn it, so that means he admits it"
kind of handwaving people have been practicing so far.
- John
Kevin Waterson
I have seen nothing anywhere but usenet, so it must be true.
If it is true, then the US may have grounds for a retaliatory strike.
This does not include the right to bomb and then starve the
Afghani civilian popluation.
The decision to continue the bombing through out Ramadan
may make for some Christmas bombs of a kind the west
may not like.
Then there will be the 'outrage' that they have bombed during
this most holy and caring time of year.
Kevin
John Caruso
>Hmm. Let me try to summarize what Chomsky is saying about US foreign
>policy during the Cold War:
>
>1. The Cold War was not a major factor for US foreign policy
> in Latin America. The US had a free hand in its sphere of
> influence. (More generally, the USSR was not a significant
> threat to the US at all.)
>
>2. Therefore, US foreign policy in Latin America is a better
> test of US goals and methods than US foreign policy in
> Western Europe and Japan, where the US had to compete with
> the USSR for influence.
>
>3. If the US truly valued prosperity and freedom for the Third
> World, it would have created stable, prosperous, democratic
> societies in Latin America. The fact that it installed and
> supported so many brutal dictatorships in Latin America
> (and elsewhere, e.g. Iran, Indonesia) demonstrates the reverse:
> the US values dictatorship over democracy, at least for the
> Third World.
>
>Did I get it right this time? :-)
I think 1 is probably pretty accurate (as an assessment of Chomsky's
views), 2 is a little farther afield, and 3 is way off, because...
>Hmm. I wouldn't say that I have a basic faith in the goodness of the US.
>I see the US as being primarily interested in *stability*,
...*this* is much closer to what Chomsky would say (I'd imagine). The
US doesn't particularly care about the form of government--what it cares
about is "stability". However, you've left "stability" undefined here,
and that's crucial: I'd assert that it is most accurately translated as
"maintenance of US economic and military interests." And it's a corollary
(not universal, but generally true) that that kind of "stability" is easier
to achieve in a police state than in a democracy, where the local populace--
unaware that US interests must always come first--might cause problems by
achieving some measure of control over their own resources and political
direction.
However, I think you blow it with this additional clause:
>in preserving the status quo.
I totally disagree with this (and I think Chomsky would as well). The
US isn't interested in "preserving the status quo," unless it reflects
a relationship that is already desirable, in the sense of "stability"
I mentioned above. Otherwise, the US is interested (and has been,
historically) in *disrupting* the status quo, establishing a *new*
status quo which favors US interests (again, usually in the form of a
repressive police state), and then preserving *that* status quo.
And in addition: this is entirely natural and to be expected. It's
exactly what all nations throughout history have done, to the extent
that their influence allowed them to do so. But the problem is that
in the case of the US, we're expected to believe that this is NOT the
case any longer--that the US is the first nation in all of history that
has selflessly tried to export democracy, human rights, and prosperity
to the rest of the world, rather than primarily looking out for its own
interests. Unfortunately, this fairy tale is common currency here, and
is the basis for nearly every piece of political reporting and commentary
in our media. If you could summarize the main thrust of Chomsky's work,
I'd say it would be debunking this (ludicrous) mythos.
"Stability" is just one political term that's defined in this way, but
I'd assert that most others are as well. For instance, the Saudi regime
is indistinguishable from the Taliban in many of its repressive practices--
but because the Saudis service critical US economic interests, they are
"moderate", whereas the Taliban are "fundamentalist" and "radical". The
facts are completely beside the point.
(For any logic-impaired folk reading along: no, I didn't just imply that
the Taliban are "moderate". I'm saying that standards which determine the
applicability of such terms should not change so drastically solely on
the basis of national interests.)
Powell's statements about possibly incorporating "moderate" Taliban leaders
into a post-war government are a particularly direct example of this kind
of hypocritical misuse of language.
>But it's also true that the US *did* establish stable, prosperous
>democracies elsewhere in its sphere of influence -- in West Germany
>and Japan, for example. They're now economic rivals to the US, but
>also close political allies.
Chomsky deals with these cases at length, as a matter of fact, though
I forget where (_Deterring Democracy_ again, possibly). Different
situations call for different measures. Keep in mind that unlike the
countries of Latin America, these were essentially peers and (in a
very real sense, and especially after the end of WWII) allies.
>I think Chomsky's explanation is wrong. He's assuming that the
>US had the power to establish stable, prosperous democracies in
>Latin America, if it chose;
No, I don't think he's assuming anything of the sort. He's discussing
how the US chose to *destabilize* democracies in Latin America. It has
nothing to do with assigning to the US the ability--or the requirement--
of *establishing* democracies.
However, note that that is precisely what US propaganda (then and now)
would have us believe the US is doing around the world.
>or that this would have happened if the US had not interfered.
In some cases it had already happened (leaving aside wrangling over the
definitions of "stable" and "prosperous"). What would have happened in
the region generally without US interference is obviously impossible to
say, but I have a hunch it would have been quite a bit better for the
great majority of the populations than conditions now.
>In fact, the US tried to do this, through the Alliance for Progress; it
>failed.
A few seconds with Google pulled up several relevant Chomsky references,
among them:
How about raising living standards? That was supposedly addressed by
President Kennedy's Alliance for Progress, but the kind of development
imposed was oriented mostly towards the needs of US investors. It
entrenched and extended the existing system in which Latin Americans are
made to produce crops for export and to cut back on subsistence crops like
corn and beans grown for local consumption. Under Alliance programs,
for example, beef production increased while beef consumption declined.
[ http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/ChomOdon_Neighbor.html ]
And:
So it is small wonder, with this kind of background, that John
F. Kennedy should say that "governments of the civilmilitary type of
El Salvador are the most effective in containing Communist penetration
in Latin America." Kennedy said this at the time when he was
organizing the basic structure of the death squads that have massacred
tens of thousands of people since (all of this, incidentally, within
the framework of the Alliance for Progress, and, in fact, probably the
only lasting effect of that program).
[ http://monkeyfist.com:8080/ChomskyArchive/misc/grandarea_html ]
I haven't done enough research on the background to comment, but this
is certainly consistent with other US economic initiatives, which appear
to be nearly exclusively geared toward servicing US economic interests
(directly or indirectly). Again, just as you would expect, but again,
in complete contradiction to the prevailing propaganda frame here.
- John
John Caruso
>John Caruso wrote:
>> In article <3bee9603...@news.eagle.ca>, Honest John wrote:
>> >Bin Laden is seen on his latest tape admitting he was being the WTC attack.
>>
>> Does anyone have an actual reference for this? I've seen the claim one
>> other place, but without hearing/seeing the words myself I have to assume
>> it's just the usual "he doesn't condemn it, so that means he admits it"
>> kind of handwaving people have been practicing so far.
>
>I have seen nothing anywhere but usenet, so it must be true.
Heh. Good one.
I actually saw a teeny portion of a San Francisco Examiner headline to
this effect, but that paper is such a joke these days that I've taken to
calling it the San Francisco Enquirer, and I didn't feel like wasting the
$1.25 to find out that it was indeed just another red herring.
>If it is true, then the US may have grounds for a retaliatory strike.
>This does not include the right to bomb and then starve the
>Afghani civilian popluation.
Totally agreed. It sounds like you agree with me and most of the other
"pacifists" I've met: I'd have supported military action, but ONLY as a
last resort, ONLY after the evidence had been presented, ONLY after all
legal means had been exhausted...and especially ONLY on a very limited
basis and very specifically directed at bin Laden and al Qaeda.
Nice to see someone speaking sense (it's been pretty damn rare in this
thread so far...).
- John
Clay Smith
wrote:
>
>Clay Smith <Clay20...@softhome.net> wrote in message
>news:eEfuO=HNf0Cb4eCSi...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 10 Nov 2001 07:35:08 -0800, "zztop8970-" <no...@tospeakof.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Clay Smith <Clay20...@softhome.net> wrote in message
>> >news:govsOywLe2RkP+...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Even if you were correct and the US had some sort of obligation or
>> >> need to stick its nose into a conflict between Iraq and Saudi Arabia -
>> >> a conflict which is hypothetical - that still wouldn't necessitate the
>> >> permanant occupation of SA by American troops.
>> >
>> >The conflict between SA and Iraq is far from hypothetical, as the Gulf
>war
>> >has shwon, Some people sure do have short memories.
>> >Calling the temporary presense of US troops in a few army bases on SA
>soil,
>> >at the request of the SA governemt, "permanant occupation" shows how
>> >meaningless that word is when used by leftists. "Occupation" has
>> >come to mean 'any behaviour i disapprove of' in those circles.
>>
>>
>> Ah. So the troops aren't there permanantly? Well, then, when are they
>> leaving?
>
>As soon as the SA government asks them to.
For the people of the region, this would certainly translate to "they
may be here till the end of time." Clearly, that's not acceptable to
the people of the region.
>>
>> As for the Gulf War, that was, if you'll recall, about ten years ago.
>> Do you have an evidence to indicate that there's an Iraq/SA conflict
>> at present?
>
> 10 years are a drop in the bucket
>in the context of national conflicts.
>The Gulf war did not end with any peace agrement. The onus is on YOU to
>prove that th causes for that war are gone, and that the conflict has been
>resolved
>DO a little research on the billions that Iraq still owes SA and refuses to
>pay back, on traditional Ba'athist opposition to the SA roayl family.
Even if you were right about this - and you still haven't made a
convincing case - it still wouldn't make occupation a good idea. It
still creates more problems than it solves. And it's still wrong. SA
isn't our country.
>
>>
>> And of course, in a discussion of the presence of US troops in SA,
>> let's not forget the most important fact; it pisses off the Muslims to
>> no end.
>
>They were invited there by The SA royal family, who are, AFAIK, muslims.
What about the other 99.9% of he Muslims in the region? They are, as I
said, deeply pissed off about the presence of the US troops.
Clay