From: David Robjant (David.Robjant@irismurdoch.plus.com)
Date: Thu Jun 03 2004 - 20:38:30 BST
Adam, all,
To my post challenging myths about US foreign policy pre pearl-harbour Adam
responds:
> Yawn.. Where to begin? David, again, on what basis are you accusing Chomsky of
> being guilty of 'idiotic bi-polar simplifications'?
On the basis of the fact that american military interventions abroad are
treated as "imperialism" by Chomsky. Next:
> What were you reading that
> cause you to come to this conclusion? Really, I'd love to know.
I've read newspaper articles (including some by the man himself) detailing
his campaign against the neo-cons and reporting his views with something
like adulation and orthodoxy (I take the left leaning Guardian newspaper in
the UK, and of course I have to put up with the Today programme on BBC
radio, you know, the 'Terrorist Bomb in Iraq - Bush and Blair definitely
evil' show - both of which treat N Chomsky as some sort of God), and I've
read Chomsky fans (such as yourself) extolling the Chomsky take in exactly
the terms "imperialsism", "unjusfified aggression" etc.
By the way, I know my history where the Chomsky analysis is concerned: it's
a repackaging of the Pilger view (Pilger is an antipodean journo, for those
who know him not), with some traces of the old east coast type, what's his
name now, who wrote about America as the new Rome (I'm ashamed to forget
this name - you'll remind me). Pilger was right about vietnam and cambodia,
or as near right as makes no difference on the important question of in or
out - I'd put that Kissinger on trial right now, and start with Chile. But
the trouble with discovering malice and conspiracy is that once you've made
a career out of it, it becomes addictive, and common sense goes on holiday.
Saddam was clearly a threat to the US and the West as a whole in a way that
Vietnam never was: what was known of his weaponry and incomplete disposal of
it, his violation of very necessary international verification proceedures,
his goals evinced in Kuwait, and yes, his position where the world economy
gets most of its oil from etc etc etc - to say nothing of the threat he
posed to his own people. In fact I think it is guilt about this last one,
guilt about what happened to the millions of oppressed and rebelling marsh
arabs and kurds when the American invasion of Baghdad that all Iraqis were
expecting failed materialise last time around (on account of a scrupulous
observation of the terms of a UN resolution, as I recall), that might form
the decisive element of the much analysed 'like father like son' complex
that so many think Bush had about Iraq and unfinished business.
I'd say that world-guilt about that failure to support the 1991 rebellions
against Saddam was well warranted, and that US/UK presence there might be
worth it *if* we can thereby atone for that guilt, and put things on the
road away from tyranny. If, I say, if. For this reason I hope it works
out. There seem to be plenty hoping that it doesn't work out.
> [you] comically refer to Bush as an
> 'anti-terrorist'... what definition of the term 'terrorist' are you using
> here? Again, I'd love to know.
No I didn't refer to Bush as an 'anti-terrorist'. I refered to Bush as
someone who wrongly devides the entire world into terrorists and
anti-terrorists.
I guess that in this failing Bush might resemble *you*, only you have Bush
as the terrorist.
> I could say plenty more
> about the above post, but that will suffice for now.
When you say that "plenty more", Adam, I recommend you tackle my observation
that throughout the twentieth century US foreign policy far more consitently
shows the influence of a succession of electorally significant minorities
than it shows the influence of the interests of 'Big Business', whatever
these may be thought to be (and it's usually possible to offer contradictory
accounts here).
By the by, your analysis in which spending lives and dollars on the
liberation of Europe was simply a bid to improve corporate profits is
creative, not to say bizarre. Do you really beleive this?
I recall, from having been myself a leftie in my youth, that much of the
attraction is in the way it offers you a systematic understanding of the
world. Well, surprise surprise, the world ain't that systematic. There is
a variety of facts and factors that one must remain alive to, and one needs
to avoid the mistake of attibuting all the evil in the world to one person
or mechanism. Take note Bush, take note Chomsky.
Heart felt appreciation to all Pirsig readers, especially to anyone who
answers my separate Q about tinnitus,
David
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 : Thu Jun 03 2004 - 21:01:59 BST