OT- Do people like Johnny, LouAnne, SJHamina, and Bush Intend To Dominate The Whole World By Force and destroy the non-white world? I say yes indeedy! They will probably destroy the human race in trying as Hitler did.
Knowledge
KKK pea brain will explode if you try and digest the massive amount of
truth within these lines. Others, who sympathize with you need to
avoid this post as well. You all are the enemy to the human race, and
you need to be made an offer that you can't refuse.
The rest of you read this carefully and disseminate it world-wide as
soon as possible!
The greatest danger of WHITE culture; is their
belief in the necessity of roguery, deception, thieving,
and extreme violence as a means of human uplift.
GLOBAL AFRICAN PRESENCE: www.cwo.com/~lucumi/runoko.html
Morris Dees for PRESIDENT!! He is a GREAT White American Terrorist
fighter. http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/09/08/morris.dees.profile/
www.splcenter.org/center/history/dees.jsp
US SANCTIONS ON IRAQ FROM 1991 TO 2000 HARMED MILLIONS OF INNOCENT
BABIES AND CHILDREN: www.redcross.org/news/archives/2000/2-7-00.html
American Global Roguery
www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/feb98herman.htm
Baby killing Pictures in Iraq: www.marchforjustice.com
Whites United to seek reparations for African Americans
www.reparationsthecure.com/
Does The USA Intend To Dominate The Whole World By Force?
Noam Chomsky, shortwave expert, from rec.radio.shortwave, interviewed
on the Amsterdam Forum
......... by Noam Chomsky June 02, 2003
Amsterdam Forum Printer Friendly Version
EMail Article to a Friend
ANDY CLARK
Hello and welcome to Amsterdam Forum - Radio Netherlands' interactive
discussion programme.
Today a special edition featuring the world-famous author and
political activist Noam Chomsky.
Professor Chomsky, once described by the New York Times as arguably
the most important intellectual alive, is an outspoken critic of US
foreign policy. He says, following the war in Iraq, the US is seeking
to dominate the world by force, a dimension in which it rules supreme.
And he warns this policy will lead to proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and terror attacks based on a loathing of the US
administration. He says the very survival of the species may be at
stake.
Well professor Chomsky joins us to take questions from our listeners
around the world. Welcome professor Chomsky.
The first e-mail is from Norberto Silva, from the Cape Verde islands,
and he says: "Could the USA and president Bush lead the world into a
nuclear war with their policy of pre-emptive attacks?"
NOAM CHOMSKY
They very definitely could. First of all we should be clear - it is
not a policy of pre-emptive attacks. Pre-emption means something in
international law. A pre-emptive attack is one that is taken in the
case of an imminent, on-going threat. For example, if planes were
flying across the Atlantic to bomb New York, it would be legitimate
for the US Air Force to shoot them down. That's a pre-emptive attack.
This is what is sometimes called preventive war. That's a new doctrine
that was announced last September in the National Security Strategy.
It declares the right to attack any potential challenge to the global
dominance of the United States. The potential is in the eye of the
observer, so that, in effect, gives the authorisation to attack
essentially anyone. Could that lead to a nuclear war? Very definitely.
We've come very close in the past. Just last October, for example, it
was discovered, to the shock and horror of those who paid attention,
that, during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, the world was literally
one word away from probably terminal nuclear war. Russian submarines
with nuclear weapons were under attack by US destroyers. Several
commanders thought a nuclear war was on, and gave the order to shoot
nuclear missiles. It was countermanded by one officer. That's why
we're around to talk. There have been plenty of such cases since.
ANDY CLARK
Are we in a more dangerous situation now, with this preventive
doctrine in place?
NOAM CHOMSKY
Sure. The preventive war doctrine is virtually an invitation to
potential targets to develop some kind of deterrent, and there are
only two kinds of deterrent. One is weapons of mass destruction, the
other is large-scale terror. That's been pointed out over and over
again by strategic analysts, the intelligence agencies and so on, so
sure, it raises the danger that something will get out of control.
ANDY CLARK
This email is from Don Rhodes, from Melbourne, in Australia, and he
says: "I do not believe that the US wants to dominate the world. The
Americans have been attacked on several fronts, 9/11 being only one of
them. Someone has to bring into line rogue states and it is the USA
alone that has the capability to do this. Without such a 'world
policeman' the world would just disintegrate into warring factions.
Look at history for examples of this." What do you make of that sort
of statement?
NOAM CHOMSKY
The first sentence is simply factually incorrect. The National
Security Strategy states fairly explicitly that the US intends to
dominate the world by force, which is the dimension in which it rules
supreme, and to ensure that there is never any potential challenge to
this domination. That was not only stated explicitly, it has also been
commented on repeatedly, right away in the main establishment - the
Foreign Affairs journal in its next issue is pointing out that the
United States is declaring the right to be what it calls a
"revisionist state", which will use force to control the world in its
own interests. The person who sent the email may believe that the US
has some unique right to run the world by force. I don't believe that,
and contrary to what was stated I don't think history supports that at
all. In fact the US record, incidentally with the support of
Australia, since the period of its global dominance in the 1940s, is
one of instigating war and violence and terror on a very substantial
scale. The Indochina War, just to take one example in which Australia
participated, was basically a war of aggression. The United States
attacked South Vietnam in 1962. The war then spread to the rest of
Indochina. The end result was several million people killed, the
countries devastated, and that's only one example. So history does not
support the conclusion and the principle that one state should have a
unique right to rule the world by force. That's an extremely hazardous
principle, no matter who the country is.
ANDY CLARK
This is from Noel Collamer, from Bellingham, in Washington, in the
USA, and he writes: "Noam says: 'The Bush administration intends to
dominate the world by force, the one dimension in which it rules
supreme, and to do so permanently.' To this I ask, if we, who can, do
not act with force against tyrants, then what does he suggest be done?
That the brutalized populace should use non-violent resistance against
their tyrant even though this will result in their own genocide?"
NOAM CHOMSKY
First of all - I don't say that, the Bush administration says it. I'm
simply repeating what is stated quite explicitly, and that's not
particularly controversial. As I mentioned, it was commented on,
essentially in those words, in the first issue of Foreign Affairs
immediately afterwards. As for countries suffering under tyranny -
yes, it would be very good if somebody would help and support them.
Take for example the current administration in Washington. They
themselves - remember, these are mostly re-cycled Reaganites - they
supported a series of monstrous dictators, who subjected their
populations to vicious tyranny, including Saddam Hussein, Ceausescu,
Suharto, Marcos, Duvalier. It's quite a long list. The best way to
deal with that would have been to stop supporting them. Incidentally,
support for terror and violence continues. The best way to stop it is
to stop supporting them. Often, in fact in every one of those cases,
they were overthrown by their own populations, even though the US was
supporting the dictator. Ceausescu, for example, was a tyrant
perfectly comparable to Saddam Hussein. He was overthrown in 1989 by
his own population, while he was being supported by the current
incumbents in Washington, and that continues. If there are people
resisting oppression and violence, we should find ways to support
them, and the easiest way is to stop supporting the tyrants. After
that, complicated issues arise. There is no record, that I know of, of
the US, or any other state - [there are] very rare examples -
intervening to try to prevent oppression and violence. That's
extremely rare.
ANDY CLARK
OK, another email. This is from H.P. Velten, who is from New Jersey,
in the USA, and he says: "Why isn't there more controversy about
Bush's motives in the US media?"
NOAM CHOMSKY
Well, actually there is plenty of controversy. One thing that was
quite striking about the war in Iraq and the National Security
Strategy, which is the framework for it, was that is was very strongly
criticised, right at the core of the foreign policy elite - it was
sharply criticised in the two major foreign affairs journals, Foreign
Affairs and Foreign Policy. The American Academy of Arts and Sciences,
which rarely takes a position on current controversial issues, had a
monograph condemning it. There's a whole series of other articles.
It's partly reflected in the media, but not very much, because
remember, the media tend to be quite supportive of power, for all
sorts of reasons.
ANDY CLARK
OK, another email. This is from Rijswijk, in The Netherlands, from
M.J. "Bob" Groothand. This message says: "Throughout history some
nations have always tried to rule the world. Most recently Germany,
Japan and Russia come to mind. If the US is now the latest 'would-be
conqueror' then we can thank our lucky stars. It would be done with
decency and honour for all mankind. The fact is that nothing like this
is being considered by Bush or the American government. You forget
that the US has a constitution and, unlike Stalin, Hitler, Hussein and
other despots, Bush is up for re-election in two years and American
voters are not dumb nor are they oppressed or intimidated. It's a
secret ballot." Will electoral accountability rein in the US
government, do you think, as this listener suggests?
NOAM CHOMSKY
First of all, the account of history is mostly fanciful, but let's put
that aside. The fact that a country has a constitution and is
internally democratic does not mean that it does not carry out
violence and aggression. There is a long history of this. England, for
example, was perhaps the most free country in the world in the 19th
century and was carrying out horrifying atrocities throughout much of
the world, and the case of the United States is similar. The record
goes back very far. The United States was a democratic country, for
example, when it invaded the Philippines a century ago, killing
several hundred thousand people and leaving it devastated. It was a
democratic country in the 1980s, when the current incumbents in
Washington carried out a devastating war of terror in Nicaragua,
leaving tens of thousands dead and the country practically ruined, an
attack for which they incidentally were condemned by the World Court
and the Security Council in a veto-ed resolution, but then escalated
the attack, and so it continues. As to the democratic election, yes,
true, there is an election, and the Republicans have explained very
clearly how they intend to overcome the fact that their policies are
pretty strongly opposed by the majority of the population. They intend
to overcome it by driving the country into fear and panic, so that
they will huddle under the umbrella of a powerful figure who will
protect them. In fact, we've just seen that last September when the
Security Strategy was announced and the drumbeat of propaganda for war
began. There was a government media propaganda campaign, which was
quite spectacular. It succeeded in convincing the majority of the
population that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to the security
of the United States. No-one else believed that. Even Kuwait and Iran,
where they despise him, didn't regard him as a threat. They knew he
was the weakest country in the region. It also succeeded in convincing
probably the majority of the population that Saddam Hussein was behind
9/11, in fact instigated it and carried it out, and was planning
further attacks. Again, there isn't a particle of evidence for this,
and there is no intelligence agency or security analyst in the world
who believes it.
ANDY CLARK
Where is the political opposition in the US then - the Democrats? Why
don't they seek to make inroads into the Republican camp? Obviously,
there is a substantial peace movement - we saw hundreds of thousands
of people on the streets in the US who were opposed to the military
action. Where is the political opposition in the US now?
NOAM CHOMSKY
The Democratic political opposition is very tepid. There has been very
little debate, traditionally, over foreign policy issues. That's
recognised right in the mainstream. Political figures are reluctant to
put themselves in a position where they can be condemned as calling
for the destruction of the United States and supporting its enemies
and presenting fantasies, and be subjected to fantasies of the kind
that in fact were included in that email. Politicians are unwilling to
subject themselves to that, and the result is that the voice of a
large portion of the population simply is barely represented, and the
Republicans recognise it. Karl Rove, the Republican campaign manager,
made it clear before the last election in 2002 that the Republicans
would have to try to run the election on a security issue, because if
they faced it on issues of domestic policy they would lose. So they
frightened the population into obedience, and he has already announced
that they are going to have to do the same thing next time in the 2004
election. They are going to have to present it as voting for a war
president who will defend you from destruction. Incidentally, they are
simply rehearsing a script that runs right through the 1980s, the
first time they were in office - the same people, approximately. If
you look, the policies they implemented were unpopular. The population
was opposed, but they kept pressing the panic button, and it worked.
In 1981 Libya was going to attack us. In 1983 Grenada was going to set
up an airbase from which the Russians would bomb us. In 1985 Reagan
declared a national emergency because the security of the United
States was threatened by the government of Nicaragua. Somebody
watching from Mars would have collapsed in laughter. And so it went on
through the 1980s. They managed to keep the population intimidated and
frightened enough so that they could maintain a thin grasp on
political power, and that's the effort since. They didn't invent that
tactic, incidentally, but it unfortunately has its effects, and
political figures and others are reluctant to stand up and face the
torrent of abuse and hysteria that will immediately come from trying
to bring matters back to the level of fact.
ANDY CLARK
OK, another email. This is from Boris Karaman, from Wyoming in the
USA, and he says: "Peace can only come from strength and often comes
after a just war. The Pax Romana resulted from the strength of the
Roman Empire, not from any pacifist ideology. There is more to
criticize in U.S. history when we failed to act soon enough. As
examples, Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot rose to power because of a lack
of aggression against them. Your criticisms of a power-based approach
to foreign policy are either naive or disingenuous. Those who act
against threats make possible a world where arrogant leftists enjoy
the freedom of speech to exhibit their errors in reasoning. Long may
it be so. Peace to you, but peace through strength." What do you make
of that email?
NOAM CHOMSKY
Well, we can begin by looking at the facts. Take, say, Hitler. Hitler
did rise to power with the support of the United States and Britain.
As late as 1937, the State Department was describing Hitler as a
moderate standing between the extremes of right and left, who we must
support, or else the masses of the population might take power and
move in a leftist direction. In fact, the United States did not enter
the war until it was attacked by Japan, and Germany declared war on
the United States. In the case of Stalin, the United States didn't
bring him to power, and they also didn't particularly oppose him. As
late as 1948, Harry Truman, the president, was stating that he thought
Stalin was a decent man, who was honest, [but] being misled by his
advisers, and so on and so forth. In the case of Pol Pot, the Khmer
Rouge developed in the early 1970s - they were virtually unknown in
1970 - and they developed in the context of a massive US bombing
campaign in Cambodia. About 600,000 people died, according to the CIA,
but it helped energise a fierce, vicious resistance, which took over
in 1975. After it took over, the United States did nothing to try to
stop it, but when Vietnam did eliminate Pol Pot, in 1978-1979, by
invading and driving him out, Vietnam was bitterly attacked by the
United States for the crime of getting rid of Pol Pot. The US
supported a Chinese invasion to punish Vietnam, and imposed harsh
sanctions on them, and in fact turned to direct support of the
remnants of the Pol Pot armies in Thailand. So, if you want to talk
about history, get it straight. Then we can start with the tirades.
ANDY CLARK
Do you think there is a point where force can be justified? We heard a
lot of arguments about the Iraq war - that this was the lesser of two
evils. The recent history of Iraq was well-known, but now it was a
stage whereby something had to be done to get rid of Saddam Hussein.
Lots of Iraqi people themselves - within the country - seemed to
support that argument.
NOAM CHOMSKY
First of all, we don't know that Iraqis were calling out to be
invaded, but if that was the goal, what was the point of all the
lying? What you are saying is that Tony Blair, George Bush, Colin
Powell and the rest are fanatic liars - they were pretending until the
last minute that the goal was to get rid of weapons of mass
destruction. If the goal was to liberate the Iraqi people, why not say
so? Why the lies?
ANDY CLARK
President Bush did say that in the very last weeks [before the war].
He started talking about a war of liberation.
NOAM CHOMSKY
At the last minute, at the Azores summit, he said that, even if Saddam
Hussein and his associates leave the country, the United States is
going to invade anyway - meaning the US wants to control it. Now, in
fact, there is a serious issue behind this. It has nothing to do with
liberating the Iraqi people. You might ask the question why Iraqis did
not overthrow Saddam the way, say, Romanians overthrew Ceausescu...
and so on through a long series of others. Well, you know it's pretty
well understood. The westerners who know Iraq best - Dennis Halliday
and Hans von Sponeck, the heads of the UN oil for food programme -
they had hundreds of investigators running through the country. They
knew the country intimately, and they have been pointing out, as have
plenty of others, that what has prevented any kind of uprising in Iraq
is the murderous sanctions regime, which killed hundreds of thousands
of people by conservative estimates, strengthened Saddam Hussein, and
made the population completely reliant on him for survival. So the
first step in allowing Iraqis to liberate themselves would have been
to stop preventing it, by permitting the society to reconstruct, so
that then they could take care of their own affairs. If that failed,
if Iraqis were unable to do what other populations have done under the
rule of comparable tyrants, at that point the question of the use of
force might arise, but until they have been at least given an
opportunity, and haven't been prevented by US-British action from
undertaking it, we can't seriously raise that question, and in fact it
was not raised by Britain and the United States during the build-up to
war. The focus was on weapons of mass destruction. Just look at the
record.
ANDY CLARK
This is an email from Bob Kirk, in Israel. He says: "Why is Professor
Chomsky so opposed to the spread of democracy and the liberation of
most of the world's peoples (by the US if necessary, since the EU has
abandoned challenging dictators), and what means other than persuasion
and sometimes justifable force would he propose in order to liberate
the unfree societies of the world?"
NOAM CHOMSKY
I would be strongly in favour of bringing democracy to the world, and
I am opposed to preventing democracy. One of the reasons - it's very
striking, if you look at the last few months - [is that] I have never
seen, that I can recall, such clear and brazen contempt and hatred for
democracy as has been expressed by US elites. Just have a look.
Europe, for example, was divided into what was called Old and New
Europe. There was a criterion - Old Europe were the countries where
the governments, for whatever reason, took the same positions as the
vast majority of their populations. That's called democracy. New
Europe - Italy, Spain, Hungary - were the countries where the
governments overrode an even larger percentage of their populations.
The population was more opposed in those countries than in Old Europe,
but the governments disregarded their populations - maybe 80 or 90
percent of them - and followed orders from Washington, and that's
called good! Turkey is the most striking example. Turkey was bitterly
attacked by US commentators and elites, because the government took
the same position as about 95 percent of the population. Paul
Wolfowitz, who is described as the great exponent of democratisation,
a few weeks ago condemned the Turkish military for not intervening to
compel the government to, as he put it, "help Americans", instead of
paying attention to 95 percent of their own population. This expresses
brazen contempt for democracy, and the record supports it. It's not
that the United States is uniquely bad, it's like any other powerful
state, but take a look at the record in the areas where the US has
controlled the region for a long time - Central America and the
Caribbean. It's about a hundred years. The US has been willing to
tolerate democracy, but as they themselves put it, only if it is - I'm
quoting from a Reagan administration advocate of democracy - "top-down
democracy", in which traditional elites remain in power, elites that
have been associated with the United States and run their societies
the way the US wants. In that case, the US will tolerate democracy.
They are very similar to other powerful states, but let's not have any
illusions about it. The sender is writing from the Middle East, if I
remember...
ANDY CLARK
From Israel.
NOAM CHOMSKY
...and there the United States has supported brutal, oppressive
dictatorships for a long time, and it has known for a long time that
that is the major reason for popular opposition. Back in the 1950s, we
know from internal records, president Eisenhower discussed with his
staff what he called the "campaign of hatred against us" among the
people of the Middle East, and the reason was that the US was
supporting oppressive and undemocratic regimes and blocking democracy
and development because of our interest in controlling near-east oil.
Well that continues until the present day. You hear the same thing
from wealthy westernised Muslims interviewed in the Wall Street
Journal at this very moment. There is a long record of opposing
democracy, unless it is under control, and for reasons that are rooted
in familiar great power politics.
ANDY CLARK
Let's take another email. This is from Vera Gottlieb, from British
Columbia, in Canada, and she says: "Under the guise of 'fighting
terrorism', the US Bill of Rights is being strongly curtailed, not to
say decimated. I can't understand why the average American is not up
in arms over it. Does the average American know, or care, what is
really going on?"
NOAM CHOMSKY
Very few are well aware of what's going on. The Patriot Act, and the
new, planned Patriot 2 Act, it is true, undermine - in principle at
least, in words, and partially in actions - fundamental civil
liberties to a remarkable extent. So, the current justice department
has claimed the right to arrest people, including American citizens,
put them in confinement indefinitely, without charge, without access
to lawyers and families, until the president declares that the war on
terror is over. They have even gone beyond that. The new plans include
plans to actually take away citizenship if the attorney general
decides to do so. This has been very harshly condemned by civil rights
lawyers, law professors, others, but very little of it leaks into the
media. It's not really well-known. These moves are quite dramatic.
President Bush is supposed to have on his desk a bust of Winston
Churchill, given to him by his friend Tony Blair, and in fact
Churchill had something to say about this. He said, and this is
virtually a quote, [that] for a government to put a person in prison
without trial by his peers is in the highest degree odious, and the
foundation of all totalitarian governments, whether nazi or communist.
He said that in 1943, condemning proposals of a similar nature in
England, which weren't enacted. Remember, in 1943 England was in
pretty desperate straits - it was under attack and facing destruction
by the most vicious military force in history, and nevertheless
Churchill rightly described measures like these as "in the highest
degree odious", and "the foundation of totalitarian governments". Yes,
people should be very upset about it.
ANDY CLARK
Why isn't this an issue of common debate in the USA then? And why
isn't there grassroots opposition against the Patriot Act and these
things you've just been describing?
NOAM CHOMSKY
First of all, to know these things you have to do a bit of a research
project. I don't say that it is hidden - you can find the facts if you
look, but they are certainly not common knowledge. To the extent they
are common knowledge, there is opposition, but you have to recall the
great success of the government media propaganda campaign, since last
September, to convince the population of the United States that they
are in imminent threat of destruction by the monster Saddam Hussein,
and next week it will be someone else who we have to protect ourselves
against. Incidentally, the majority, who were convinced by those
propaganda lies, their attitudes correlate very closely with support
for war, and you can understand why - if you really believe that,
you're willing to see civil liberties erode. Of course, it was
fabrication, one of the most spectacular examples of propaganda
fabrication known, as many have pointed out, but it did work. When
people are frightened they will - sometimes - be willing not to defend
the rights that they have won.
ANDY CLARK
OK, another email. This is from Venezuela. This is from Alberto
Villasmil Raven, and he says: "I would like to know if Professor
Chomsky thinks it possible that the US will invade Venezuela."
NOAM CHOMSKY
Well, I don't think they'll directly invade, but among the regions
that are targeted for so-called preventive war, one of them is almost
certainly the Andes region. It's a region of substantial resources. It
is, to a certain degree, out of control. The US already has extensive
military resources - a large military basing system in Ecuador, the
Dutch islands, El Salvador - surrounding the region, and quite a few
forces on the ground. My suspicion is that the US will probably, in
Venezuela, once again support a coup as it did last year. But if that
doesn't work, direct intervention is not impossible. Remember, this
has long been planned. One of the very good things about the United
States is it's a very free society, uniquely so. We have extensive
records of internal planning. Right in the middle of the Cuban missile
crisis, where we have the records, president Kennedy and his brother
were discussing the threat of the Cuban missiles, and they said one of
the big problems they posed was: "They might deter an invasion of
Venezuela, if we decide to invade." That was 1962. These are old
policies, deeply rooted.
ANDY CLARK
OK, this is from Berrada M. Ali, from Rabat, in Morocco, and his
question is as follows: "Do you think that, after the unjustified and
unjustifiable war against Iraq, the world will lose the meaning of its
existence, like in the field of language, when we lose the gramatical
rules? Will we automatically lose the reference of the meaning of
sentences, and consequently the meaning of the world around us?"
NOAM CHOMSKY
In my opinion, the most honest commentary on this point has been made
by strong supporters of the war in Iraq. For example, if you take a
look at the current issue of Foreign Affairs, the main establishment
journal, there is a lead article by a well-known specialist on
international law, Michael Glennon, who argues that we should
recognise that international law and international institutions are
what he calls "hot air". They have proven their inapplicability by the
fact that the United States disregards them, and he says it is right
to disregard them, and the United States must maintain the right to
use force as it chooses, independent of these institutions, which we
simply have to dismiss and disregard. Well that's at least an honest
statement. I think it's a terrible threat to the world, and it's part
of the reason why the US government has become an object of massive
fear around the world. The international polls on this are remarkable,
and it's understandable. When a country takes that position, of course
people are going to be frightened, and furthermore, as again has been
pointed out over and over by intelligence agencies and analysts and so
on, they'll do something about it. They'll try to find means of
deterrence. The United States is calling on the world to proliferate
weapons of mass destruction and terror, if only as a deterrent.
ANDY CLARK
One final email. This is from John Blessen, in Beverly Hills, in the
United States, and his message is: "How can the United States best
protect itself from rogue states like North Korea? And from nuclear,
chemical, and biological threats from outlaw states? Cataclysmic
threats to the United States are real and some say imminent, so how
would you, Dr Chomsky, fashion a defense policy for the United
States?"
NOAM CHOMSKY
Well, let's take the one example that was mentioned - North Korea. You
can't make a general comment, it depends on the case. Take the case of
North Korea. Here there is a strong consensus among the states of the
region - South Korea, Japan, China and Russia - that a diplomatic path
should be followed, a path of negotiations to reduce the threat, which
is real, and to integrate North Korea slowly back into the region in
some fashion, and that's a wise move. Actually, Clinton made moves in
that direction. He didn't actually implement them, but he made them.
They were pretty successful, and I think that consensus is correct.
The way to defend yourself against such threats is to prevent them
from arising. There are many ways to do that, and the same is true in
other cases that were mentioned. In the case of Iraq, it was a
horrible regime. That's why I was always opposed to the fact that the
United States supported Saddam Hussein, and also was opposed to the
sanctions regime, which prevented a revolt against him, but, horrible
as it was, it was not a threat. Kuwait and Iran, which despise Saddam
Hussein - they were both invaded by him - nevertheless didn't regard
him as a threat, and there was good reason for that. Iraq was the
weakest state in the region. Its military expenditures were about a
third those of Kuwait, which has ten percent of its population. It had
been decimated by the sanctions, virtually disarmed - a horrible
place, but not a threat. This was propaganda - grotesque, ugly
propaganda. If you want to look at other cases that one has a reason
to be worried about - yes, then make up appropriate plans for them.
Take, say, the threat of terror. That's very real and very dangerous.
The threat of terror has been increased by actions of the Bush
administration. For example, intelligence agencies are pointing out
that recruitment for terrorist organisations like al-Qaeda has risen
very sharply since the threat to invade Iraq began, and then the
invasion, and that's to be anticipated for good reasons. It's
understood why.
ANDY CLARK
You are somebody who seeks to debunk this propaganda that you say the
US government is pushing onto the population. What sort of attitudes
do people take towards you now - someone who speaks out against
current US policy?
NOAM CHOMSKY
I probably spend an hour a night just very reluctantly writing letters
turning down invitations to talk all over the country - huge
audiences, tremendous interest. The United States is not different
from other countries in the world in this respect. There is great fear
and concern about the policies that the Bush administration is
pursuing. If you eliminate the element of panic, which was induced by
the propaganda, which is unique to the United States, then opposition
to the war and to the security strategy here are approximately the
same as elsewhere. I and in fact other people who are willing to speak
publicly are simply overwhelmed by requests and demands to discuss
these issues.
ANDY CLARK
Professor Noam Chomsky, author, political activist and linguistics
professor from the Massachussetts Institute of Technology, thank you
very much for joining us.
NOAM CHOMSKY
Thank you.
ANDY CLARK
And thank you all very much for listening.
Donna in NC
OT- Do people like Johnny, LouAnne, SJHamina, and Bush Intend To
Dominate The Whole World By Force and destroy the non-white world? I say
yes indeedy! They will probably destroy the human race in trying as
Hitler did.
Group: alt.adoption.searching Date: Fri, Dec 3, 2004, 2:36pm (EST-1)
From: know...@charter.net (Knowledge)
Read this carefully. little Johnny, do not attempt to read this. Your
KKK pea brain will explode if you try and digest the massive amount of
truth within these lines. Others, who sympathize with you need to avoid
this post as well. You all are the enemy to the human race, and you need
to be made an offer that you can't refuse.
The rest of you read this carefully and disseminate it world-wide as
soon as possible!
<snipping redundancy>
Johnny
"Knowledge" <know...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:4gj1r05dif6igm0l1...@4ax.com...
> Read this carefully. little Johnny, do not attempt to read this. Your
> KKK pea brain will explode if you try and digest the massive amount of
> truth within these lines. Others, who sympathize with you need to
> avoid this post as well. You all are the enemy to the human race, and
> you need to be made an offer that you can't refuse.
>
> The rest of you read this carefully and disseminate it world-wide as
> soon as possible!
>
Sjhamina
Sjhamina
'thinks' people are interested in his rantings.
He is a lunatic. Most blacks would have nothing to do with him. Life is hard
enough without a black Adolf Clyde Hitler.
bcmackie
re-format). You know he complains about all of the "whites" but really its
the people like him that make a bad name for everyone else.
"Donna in NC" <Donn...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:6721-41B...@storefull-3336.bay.webtv.net...
Donna in NC
Donna in NC
green, he gives everyone a bad name!
bcma...@shaw.ca (bcmackie)
Sjhamina
Donna in NC
Sjhamina
about the Alabama wind chime ;o) (what you call 9 negros hanging from a tree)
Johnny
"Sjhamina" <sjha...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041205022600...@mb-m17.aol.com...
>I don't know Johnny, my co-workers are still laughing their hillbilly asses
>off
> about the Alabama wind chime ;o) (what you call 9 negros hanging from a
> tree)
>
That was one of my favorites!!