From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sun Jun 06 2004 - 07:06:34 BST
On 5 Jun 2004 at 23:53, David Robjant wrote:
I don't know who you mean by the "others". Marsha posted a
considered post which used the choice word "bickering" to decribe the
level of some of the debate, but I don't think she was objecting to
talking about Chomsky per se, but rather about the way in which this
might seem to be being conducted (eg: 'The war is an imperialist
plot' - 'I don't agree' - 'You are ignorant and haven't read all of
Chomsky').
msh says:
Please provide the exact interchange with me that you think is an
example of this childish bickering. Should be easy enough to paste
in. BTW, this is an example of what I mean by unsupported opinion.
Why not simply paste in my actual words and context?
DavidR said:
I have not posted "unsupported attacks against the man". ... Perhaps
if we got out of the "chomsky: for or against" discussion we could
address the matter at hand.
msh says:
I have pasted above the first and last sentences of a long paragraph
so you can refer to it. The entire paragraph is unsupported opinion.
Seems like you should be able to paste some text in support of your
assertions about "Chomsky fans," a phrase with a belittling tone,
don't you think?
DavidR:
OK. Fair enough, on the vocabulary Chomsky favours I'll take your
word for it. But actually what I said was something about Pilger.
Maybe Pilger will in future take Chomsky's advice (your advice?) and
substitute "unaccountable institutions" for "conspiracy". As far as
I can see, the substitution don't make much odds. What's the
difference between an "unaccountable institution" and a "conspiracy"
again?
msh says:
If you cannot see the difference for yourself, then I'm afraid
nothing I can say will clarify it for you.
DavidR:
BTW, what this "conspiracy attack" I'm supposed to be launching?
What attack is that? Finding out conspiracies, like the one that
involved the USA in bombing Cambodia, is a highly worthwhile
exercise. Did I doubt that? What I was claiming was that finding
conspiracies is *addictive*, not that it is in itself bad. I note
your failure to comment on what I actually did claim.
msh says:
Ok, here's what you said:
"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"
Are you saying this comment wasn't directed at Chomsky? What else
would be the point of making it in a discussion of Chomsky's thought?
The comment itself is an attempt to associate "someone" with the ol'
whacky, non-common sensical, conspiracy nut people. Please.
> David Robjant wrote:
> 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 osition where the world economy gets most of its oil
> from etc etc etc -
>
> msh says:
> Seen as a threat by whom? The NY Times?
By the UN. By France. By Russia. By the Kurds. By his own people
in Basra and the south. By the arab nations adjacent him. By the
Pope. By everyone.
msh says:
You provide no documentation, so can't comment. I can and will
provide documentation that Iraq's mid east neighbors saw him as a
thug, vicious to his own people, but not at all a threat to
themselves or the region. That, in fact, they were quite clear that
a US attack would be a much more serious threat. Even if these
groups felt threatened, how is it that UN and world opinion was
almost completely against a US invasion as a means of dealing with
the threat? So much so that the US pulled an SCR from the table
because they knew it would be vetoed by France?
DavidR:
Recall that Saddam could, at any stage, have taken away our reason to
fear, and made himself entirely untreatening, through full co-
operation with the the UN inspection teams.
msh says:
How is it that you are unaware of Scott Ritter's, Hans Blix, Dennis
Halliday's, et al, contradictory testimony regarding Iraq's
cooperation, and the amount of certainty attained by the UN
inspections team, as well as the totally misdirected brutality of the
the UN sanctions. I don't have direct references at hand, but will
provide them if you are unable to simply google these guys and find
out what they had to say.
> David Robjant continued:
> to say nothing of the threat he posed to his own people.
>
> msh says:
> Yes, the threat he posed to his own people, which was fine
> evidently, till he got a little too uppity and invaded Kuwait.
(See
> above.)
DavidR:
What are you arguing here? That if western policy is mistaken it
should at least have the decency to please you by being
*consistently* mistaken?
msh says:
No, that western policy wasn't mistaken at all. That it's been
quite consistent. That state policy cannot POSSIBLY be about saving
people from brutal dictators, if those same dictators have been
supported by state policy for years. Or are you suggesting that
policy-makers suddenly realized that Saddam was a brutal dictator in
1991? These leads directly to the next...
> msh says:
> It's stunning, really, given the nearly endless list of brutal
> dictatorships installed and/or supported by the US, (Armas,
> Pahlavi, Somoza, Suarto, Marcos, Duvalier, Pinochet on and on),
> many of them replacing democratically elected governments, that
> anyone still seriously suggests that US interventions are basically
> "humanitarian" in nature.
DavidR:
I made no such claim.
Secondly, in specifically addressing Iraq, I did not claim that the
entirety of the reasons for war were Humanitarian. I beleive the war
to have been fully warranted on UK national security grounds alone.
WMD's are sufficiently dangerous to all that we cannot afford to have
UN inspection regimes disregarded - we need to know who's got this
stuff and where - and the seriousness with which the WMD issue is now
being taken in Libya and Iran is a testament to a genuine security
gain here.
msh says:
See comments re WMD, above and below. As for official justification
for the invasion, this seemed to change over time, as each was
contradicted or mitigated by evidence.
1) Saddam's In cahoots w alQueda; he was behind WTC attack
2) He has WMDs, can be deployed against Israel and WE in 40 minutes
3) He's starting up a nuclear weapons program, those aluminum tubes,
that African uranium connection
4) Well, he's brutal to his own people (of course, he has been all
along, but NOW we gotta do something about it!)
5) We're bringing democracy to Iraq
Since you are a big fan of common sense, don't you think this
suggests that there is a REAL reason behind the invasion, that no one
wants to talk about?
DavidR:
Nor can we, either, afford to have armistice terms routinely ignored
by an aggressor nation, as did Iraq for the full decade following the
Kuwait war.
msh says:
A little documentation? Anyway, the main thing that happened after
the armistice, was a brutal, murderous onslaught of UN sanctions
(forced by the US) against the people of Iraq, that added to their
misery and only forced them to rely more on Saddam for basic
necessities, making it that much more difficult for the very real
Iraqi opposition to make any progress.
> msh says:
> But again, this isn't just the US. As Chomsky says,
> states are not moral agents, they, all of them, will act in ways
> that will project and protect their power, unless their citizens,
> the real moral agents, do something about it. This BTW would
cover
> my response to your ideas about guilt being the motivating factor,
> as well.
DavidR:
Er, how? Do you mean that states can't have moral obligations? Well
that's a very interesting point. How about I rephrase my claim and
say that peoples have moral obligations which states have a duty to
embody, and that the American and British people have a moral
obligation to the millions of Iraqi civilians who were murdered by
their dictator, and the the millions more Iraqi civillians that this
carnage cowed into a despairing survival, praying all the while for
an army, any army, to get rid of Saddam. That suit you any better?
msh says:
Again, this whole paragraph suggests that the world became suddenly
aware of Saddam's brutality in 1991. People had been complaining
about it, writing about it, for YEARS. Where was all this moral
outrage then? Why not invade Iraq when he gassed his own people,
with US supplied technology, I might add?
DavidR:
BTW, all opinion polling carried out *in Iraq* shows overwhelming
public support for the UK/US intervention - even if the other 30
percent have guns. It's in the US and the UK that the polls go the
other way.
msh says:
No documentation. Here's a link to your own Guardian, supporting the
idea that Iraqi's were not so crazy about the idea of a US invasion.
http://www.btinternet.com/~e.c.apling/Kosovo/Iraq300103.htm
> David Robjant wrote:
> 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).
>
> msh says:
> I've invited just such contradictory accounts. As for my view of
> the intertwining of business and government, see my previous post
to
> you.
DavidR:
That is not an answer.
msh says:
It isn't? My previous post was quite specific about what Fascist
states can and do do for Big Business. As for my invitation of
contradictory accounts, where US interventionism was performed for
humanitarian reasons, I'm still waiting. There might even be a case
or two, I just don't know of one. That's why I'm asking. I can and
will provide many examples where neither the reasons nor the outcomes
were in any way humanitarian.
Please also provide examples of "electorally significant minorities"
in your statement above.
> David Robjant wrote:
> 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?
>
> msh says:
> Can't speak for Adam, but I believe nothing even remotely so
> simplified. If you would like to engage me over the idea that
> governments, when they are the shadows cast by Big Business, have
> fascist tendencies, then please do.
DavidR:
Maybe I'll grant that governments, when they are the shadows cast by
Big Business, may have fascist tendencies - even if I remain a little
unclear about exactly what is being said here... What is being said
here?
msh says:
Oops. My mistake. My post about the connections between Fascism and
Big Business was sent to someone else, not you. Sorry. Here's the
gist of it:
Fascism and big business go hand in hand, from the totalitarian
structure of corporations, to state supported business subsidy for
R&D, advertising, tax-breaks; state adventurism and market/resource
expansion for business, state intervention in crushing labor
movements, keeping labor costs way down, and instilling fear in the
labor force. It's a match made in heaven.
David R:
If you are talking about the anti-democratic effects of
reliance on political TV advertisments and the fundraising that has
to go along with this, I heartily agree. How did you lot manage to
let that happen?
msh says:
Don't blame me. I've been bitching about it for years. How it
happened would involve a long conversation about how wealth
influences EVERYTHING in american society. How, many years ago, the
public air waves we're turned over to corporations to be used for the
generation of private profit. It's a long, sad story. However, if
you cast an objective glance at your own society, you will see
similar influences at work. Again, take a look at MediaLens.org.
DavidR:
But once again, I'm not sure if 'facism' fits the case, untill I see
exactly what you mean by it. I'm guessing you mean 'evil project for
world domination' - and there I find myself head-scratching.
msh says:
See quote above. If your head still itches, I can go into more
detail. It's pretty straight forward.
DavidR:
BTW - this "full spectum dominance" aim of the pentagon, the one that
get's complained about as a conclusive sign of US facism, isn't that
*by definition* the objective, resources allowing, of every military
on the face of the earth? After all, you have a military to win
wars, and you don't win wars by being kinda OK only slightly less
good than the other guy, now do you?
msh says:
Since no one even comes close to being able to successfully engage
the US in all out war, the conclusion has some resonance, don't you
think? Why press the "full spectrum of dominance", and completely
ignore ideas of peaceful integration with the rest of the world
community, unless you are planning to dominate the world by force?
DavidR:
Lets have your constructive suggestions about how the preferred
democratic arrangement is to be brought about. Remember, you're not
allowed to include US military might here, that you say is
imperialism.
msh says:
See below: Chomsky's alternatives to invasion of Iraq.
> David Robjant wrote:
> 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. ... Take note Bush, take note Chomsky.
>
> msh says:
> As noted above, Chomsky offers no such all-encompassing system of
> understanding, and has often said that he doesn't see how such a
> system can ever exist. He offers a framework for analysis of very
> real events, causing very real misery for very real people, in the
> hopes that such analysis will lead to some understanding of the
> world, and, more important, some hope for making things better.
Hm. If it looks like a duck, flys like a duck, quacks like a duck,
it's a duck. If it treats all military involment abroad as
automatically the expression of the devious interests of capital and
greed, it quacks like a marxist-leninist. Maybe it flies differently
- I don't know.
msh says:
Evidently not. Read him.
msh says:
And I'm not absolutely sure that we *need* "a framework for analysis
of very real events". I don't need a framework to get up off the
stove. I don't think I need a framework to see that when someone is
crying they need comforting. I don't think I need a framework to see
that when large numbers of people suffer in a situation that is
partly our fault and which we alone can change then we should try to
help them.
msh says:
So YOU don't need it. My guess is that his "framework" is quite
useful to others. Why this focus on YOU? I don't understand the
intensity of your feelings against Chomsky. It's a little spooky, I
gotta tell ya.
> msh says:
> As for the Republican guard, they were murderous, you're right.
> What's interesting is that you know all about them, but not,
> apparently, about some other activity of the misnamed Gulf War,
> (misnamed if your concept of war involves two more or less equally
> powerful enemies in combat).
>
> Since "Deterring Democracy" is on the table, here's a quote from
the
> Afterward of the fifth printing, 1993: [talking about the Kuwait
> war]
>
> "The second component of the attack was the slaughter of Iraqi
> soldiers in the desert, largely unwilling Shi'ite and Kurdish
> conscripts it appears, hiding in holes in the sand or fleeing for
> their lives -- a picture remote from the disinformation relayed by
> the press about colossal fortifications, artillery powerful beyond
> our imagining,
DavidR:
You're wrong. Contrary to the claim about "misinformation" I do know
about it.
msh says:
I think we're not talking about the same event. But so what? Even
if you did know about it, I can assure you that it was not known
here, via the commercial media. If Chomsky's writing about it made
more people aware of it, then why is that a problem for you? Your
reaction to him is very strange.
What was described was the bulldozing of Iraqi "soldiers" into
trenches to be buried alive, their arms and legs still kicking.
Chomsky's point is that THIS WAS NOT WAR, in any meaningful sense of
that word, but slaughter. So even your "Well, that's war"
justification doesn't fly.
DavidR:
What do I think about this? What do I think of your argument here
that the US military were as barbourous as the Republican Guard? And
what do I think about your [chomsky's] citing of it as conclusive
proof of the evils of American agression?
msh says:
No one cited this as a conclusive proof of anything. Just one more
incident in a long and bloody history, on all sides, and my attempt
to show that not just the Republican Guard were guilty of atrocities.
DavidR:
I am not sure how this deep reflection about the future that we owe
both to the living and the dead is assisted by the kind of treatment
Chomsky offers.
msh says:
A very important contribution he makes is to remind us that any
theory of morality that is applied to others, and not to ourselves,
is hypocrisy.
And again, your reaction to him is, somehow, out of kilter. So YOU
don't find him useful. So what? You've already said you don't read
him, so one would figure you don't find him useful. I don't
understand the level of your animosity.
DavidR says:
What is Chomsky's positive proposal about how we should deal with
tyrants and aggressors, if not, on warranted occasions, by military
force, with all, all the known horror, that this involves?
msh says.
Finally, a question. I'll let Chomsky answer for himself, regarding
the very "war" we are discussing:
"The choice was never restricted to war or murderous sanctions that
destroy the society and strengthen the dictator. Another possibility
was allowing the society to reconstitute so Iraqis could determine
their own fate, in which case Saddam Hussein would probably have gone
the way of a string of other tyrants supported by the present
incumbents in Washington when they were supporting him, and plenty of
others. Actions to prevent development of weapons of mass destruction
and delivery systems are a different matter -- and should be
undertaken throughout the region (in accord with UN Resolution 687,
to which Bush-Blair-etc. selectively refer), and in fact the world;
we may recall that the nuclear powers are committed to "good faith"
efforts to eliminate these awful weapons, which may destroy us all.
"Right now, what we should hope for is termination of a destructive
war, vast reparations for the victims (or if that is too much to ask,
at least aid, which they can use in their own way to reconstruct
their society), and measures to increase the likelihood that
repressive and brutal regimes will be contained and internally
undermined. There's no simple formula that applies for all cases.
"Probably most of the population of the world regards the US as the
major threat to world peace, which is a rather serious matter: a
superpower threat to world peace is a threat to survival. If they're
right, the world would be much better off (for example, there'd be a
higher chance for the survival of the species) if the current regime
were eliminated. Or maybe even the institutions of the society. Does
it follow that we all ought to join al-Qaeda and try to achieve that
goal?
"There are a great many horrible regimes in the world. To take just
one, the world's longest military occupation. There's litttle doubt
that those under the military occupation would be much better off if
the occupation were terminated. Does it follow that we should bomb
Tel Aviv?
"It's easy to continue. Such questions can, perhaps, be raised by
those who regard themselves as God-like, entitled to determine how to
use violence to "rid the world of evil," as in fairy tales and
ancient epics. Are we so exalted that we have the right to make such
decisions?
"We all agree that Iraqis would be better off without Hussein. Just
as their subjects would have been better off without Ceausescu,
Suharto, Marcos, Duvalier, Mobutu,..... -- quite a long list. I've
just listed those who were supported by the present incumbents in
Washington, just as they supported Saddam Hussein. Some, like
Ceausescu, were easily comparable to Saddam Hussein as tyrants and
torturers. All were overthrown, from within. There's every reason to
believe that SH would have gone the same way if the US hadn't
insisted on devastating the civilian society, strengthening the
tyrant, and compelling people to rely on him for survival -- the
primary effect of the US-UK sanctions, as has been pointed out for
years by the Westerners who know Iraq best, the administrators of the
UN programs, Denis Halliday and Hans van Sponeck -- among others.
"If there had been any interest in allowing Iraqis to determine their
own fate, these considerations point the way. But there wasn't. Hence
the call that their torturers must use violence to "liberate them."
An intelligent Martian watching this would be bemused, to put it
mildly.
"At the time of the 1991 uprising there were many things that could
have been done, had there been any interest in allowing Iraqis to run
their own affairs. It would have been possible, for example, not to
authorize Saddam to use military aircraft to crush the uprising. Or
not to deny rebels access to captured Iraqi military equipment.
"Inspectors were in the country constantly until 1998. If you review
the details, you'll find that US-UK actions contributed materially to
their withdrawal. They didn't improve the human rights situation, but
they did carry out very extensive disarmament, to the extent that
Iraq is now one of the weakest states in the region. Otherwise it's
unlikely the Bush administration would have attacked."
DavidR:
...The Republican guard, however, was routinely deployed under
saddam's regime with the *objective* of murdering large numbers of
Iraqi civillians. I feel this difference is material.
msh says:
Last count of Iraqi civilians dead since the invasion of Iraq, I
believe, is well over 12000. I can provide a long list of more
civilian dead, routinely killed directly or indirectly by American
force, all over the world, for just the last 100 years. You should
be able to provide the same for Britain for the last 500 years. If
you can't, I can.
DavidR:
The truck driving analogy may seem inappropriately light, given the
gravity of the topic. But I beleive it expresses a sound point.
msh says:
You're analogy is fine. But it springs from the false premise that
trucking is the only way to get the load to its destination. See
Chomsky's alternate means of transportation, quoted above.
Thanks. And, again, sorry for the crack about tintinitus. Sometimes
my fingers fly faster than my brain.
Best,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is everything." -- Henri Poincare' 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 Jun 06 2004 - 11:02:08 BST