From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Sun Nov 21 2004 - 10:10:14 GMT
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the pointers. As it happens I'm one of the ZNet 'sustainers', and it has been my primary
source of information about Chomsky up to now. I used to subscribe to Norman Solomon's regular
e-mails, until after 9/11, when I got fed up with him. But I'll go back to exploring him again.
(Generally I think it sane to get as many points of view as possible, especially those you disagree
with, otherwise you're simply circulating stale tea in the tea cup. I'm still fairly right wing
though.... ;-)
> sam:
> Chomsky is concentrating his criticisms on the US, his own country,
> for very valid reasons. My point was that those in positions of
> decision-making have to get dirty hands; that is, it can sometimes be
> the highest Quality decision available to carry out a course of
> action which in and of itself is profoundly flawed.
>
> msh says:
> I knew this was what you were getting at, but figured I'd wait for
> you to come back. In fact, I believe I can argue that NC and other
> critics of American foreign and domestic policy base their analyses
> on the full spectrum of available information, rather than ignoring
> certain context as you suggest. I'm not convinced this can be said
> of the so-called decision-makers.
This is what I want to investigate further, and the decision to go to war in Iraq is a useful
test-case. My underlying sense is that the logical consequence of your position is that those in
positions of power are frighteningly corrupt, and I am reluctant to believe that they are quite as
corrupt as all that. But I'll see what I can dig out.
Thing is, I was also having this argument with a friend, and saying that Bush wasn't quite as
immoral as my friend was alleging. And then my friend pointed out that Bush was happy to execute
minors and the mentally retarded, and I was silenced, because (as my friend well knew) I think
capital punishment is indefensible. So there we go.
> msh says:
> Of course what I am actually saying has nothing to do with a media
> conspiracy. In the case of the last war run-up, the WH ignored
> reports from their own intelligence agencies when such reports did
> not support their agenda....
> Sam, FYI, here's a link to a BBC story about this incident:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3056626.stm
I think it has been well established that Blair, for example, strongly distorted the evidence re WMD
to drum up support for going to war. What I am not so convinced about is that this distortion makes
the overall decision worthless.
Cheers
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 21 2004 - 10:35:44 GMT