Jingos won't want to read ...

http://www.b92.net/intervju/eng/2001/0919-chomsky.phtml

Ship his ass to Afganistan and send there CYRUSSIAN too and everybodyelse who dont like it the way it is. Fed up with the whiny pinkos. Send em to Binladen and THEN BOMB THE HELL OUT OF THE PLACE!!!!! TWO BIRDS WITH ONESTONE..........

Thank you for this incisive analysis of Chomsky's comments. Glad to see the level of discussion raised to new intelletual heights.

He's also about 50 times smarter than you are. He can articulate his position a little better than you too.


natedogg

Chomsky loves to sprinkle a bit of truth and a dash of sources in with his obfuscation and outright lies. Throughout, his absolute hate for the US totally eliminates his ability to clearly see both sides of any issure. My rebuttal..


"B 92: Why do you think these attacks happened?

CHOMSKY: The end result was to "destroy a moderate regime and create a fanatical one, from groups recklessly financed by the Americans" ( "London Times" correspondent Simon Jenkins, also a specialist on the region). "


Yes, that was an end result, though I'm hesitent to call the previous Communist regime of Afghanistan moderate. Besides it is irrelevant, the war against the communists in Afghanistan was hugely popular in Afghanistan (or is Chomsky now against hugely popular wars of liberation against super powers). More importantly, the end result of that conflict and the Cold War in general was the collapse of the Soviet Union which in the grand balance of justice was far worse than the Taliban. Score one for the good guys even if we've had to take some hits along the way.


Chomsky: "The "Afghanis" did not terminate their activities, however. They joined Bosnian Muslim forces in the Balkan Wars; the US did not object, just as it tolerated Iranian support for them, for complex reasons that we need not pursue here, apart from noting that concern for the grim fate of the Bosnians was not prominent among them."


This is why I can't stand Chomsky. I can't wait to hear the complex reasons for our support for the Bosnian Muslims. I'm sure it will have nothing to do with America's desire to end the ethnic cleansing (i.e. massacres) being committed by the Serbs. Indeed, we should be faulted for not acting much sooner, and for not arming the Bosnians (though I'm sure Chomsky would have been against sending arms anywhere.


Chomsky: "Bin Laden and his "Afghanis" turned against the US in 1990 when they established permanent bases in Saudi Arabia - from his point of view, a counterpart to the Russian occupation of Afghanistan, but far more significant because of Saudi Arabia's special status as the guardian of the holiest shrines."


Note that Palestine is not high among Bin Laden's agenda. Indeed this is true, as Bin Laden has been criticized for not pushing the Palestinian issue enough. His main enemy is the US becuase we dare tread in the Middle East.


Chomsky: "Bin Laden is also bitterly opposed to the corrupt and repressive regimes of the region, which he regards as "un-Islamic," including the Saudi Arabian regime, the most extreme Islamic fundamentalist regime in the world, apart from the Taliban, and a close US ally since its origins. Bin Laden despises the US for its support of these regimes."


True, but not the whole truth. Bin Laden wants to replace these corrupt and repressive regimes with even more corrupt and repressive regimes, ala the Taliban!! Apparently, according to Chomsky, this is ok. The Taliban executes homesexuals and treats women like chattel. We shoudn't fight against a movement that executes homosexuals just for being gay, or treats women like chattel. I'm not a big fan of Saudia Arabia, but if the Taliban and Bin Laden are the alternative I'm on their side. Chomsky prevents no evidence otherwise, nor can he. The democratic movement in the Middle East isn't very strong.


Chomsky: "Like others in the region, he is also outraged by long-standing US support for Israel's brutal military occupation, now in its 35th year: Washington's decisive diplomatic, military, and economic intervention in support of the killings, the harsh and destructive siege over many years, the daily humiliation to which Palestinians are subjected, the expanding settlements designed to break the occupied territories into Bantustan-like cantons and take control of the resources, the gross violation of the Geneva Conventions, and other actions that are recognized as crimes throughout most of the world, apart from the US, which has prime responsibility for them."


Where is the evidence that the US supports Isreal's brutal military occupation? Yes, we send Isreal arms and aid, as we do for other countries in the Middle East, but the vast majority in the US dearly desires peace in the Middle Peast. It is the siren song of so many Presidents. Yes, there is a long record of UN votes against Isreal with US supporting Isreal. But how credible is the UN. The recent example of Durban is a perfect example of the UN bias. Durban was a UN conference on Racism and the only thing to come out of it was condemnation of Isreal!! Iran had a regional planning conferenence for meeting and excluded two groups for religious and racial reasons! But, no mention of that. No mention of the recent Serbian actions. No mention of Syria bulldozing an entire city to suppress Islamic fundamentalists, Iraq's killing of Kurds and Sh'ite minorities.


I can't explain all the hate for Isreal and the U.S. but Isreal's presence in the Middle East is only part of it. Also, US halted the ill-conceived 1956 war that was started by England, France, and Isreal, to the benefit of Isreal. Helped to pressure Isreal out of Lebanon, and, most important of all, brokered a peace agreement that had Isreal offering 95% of the West Bank and Jerusalem!! Arafat turned it down. Yes, Isreal isn't perfect, and has fought a harsh war harshly. But, what is the Palestinian end game? It is the elimination of Isreal entirely. It is in their textbooks for christ sakes! (I can't remember the exact quote, but the textbook said something along the lines of 'We have some of our land back and soon will get it all back') To this date, Arafat is hesitent to talk about the end game, I believe because the end game most of his people want is to push Isreal into the Sea. Until the PA stands up and admits this will never happen, there will never be peace in the region. Chomsky's one sided attack on Isreal is intellectually dishonest, and criminally insane for the support it gives the psychotic suicide bombers.


Chomsky: "And like others, he contrasts Washington's dedicated support for these crimes with the decade-long US-British assault against the civilian population of Iraq, which has devastated the society and caused hundreds of thousands of deaths while strengthening Saddam Hussein - who was a favored friend and ally of the US and Britain right through his worst atrocities, including the gassing of the Kurds, as people of the region also remember well, even if Westerners prefer to forget the facts."


Yes, he was an ally when fighting Iran. I wish we picked our allies better, but it is a dangerous world, and I can't fault them to much for this. As to the decade-long assault ont he civlilian population of Iraq, I agree with it in one sense...I hate sanctions, they don't work and tend to punish the innocent. We should have taken Hussein out the first time. However, we aren't responsible for those deaths. Right now sanctions is the best we have. Hussein is murderous, and won't feed his people when he could. I wonder about Chomsky's views of the war on Iraq. Also, recent story indicates that the Kurds in Northern Iraq are able to feed their people despite operating under the same sanctions. Maybe because they are buying food with their oil revenue. Hussein spends his on monuments and weapons even selling food to increase money for those purposes. Link:

http://www.tnr.com/061801/rubin061801.html


Chomsky: "These sentiments are very widely shared. The "Wall Street Journal" (Sept. 14) published a survey of opinions of wealthy and privileged Muslims in the Gulf region (bankers, professionals, businessmen with close links to the US). They expressed much the same views: resentment of the US policies of supporting Israeli crimes and blocking the international consensus on a diplomatic settlement for many years while devastating Iraqi civilian society, supporting harsh and repressive anti-democratic regimes throughout the region, and imposing barriers against economic development by "propping up oppressive regimes." Among the great majority of people suffering deep poverty and oppression, similar sentiments are far more bitter, and are the source of the fury and despair that has led to suicide bombings, as commonly understood by those who are interested in the facts."


More drivel. I love the logic. The US is responsible for propping up these oppressive regimes. How? Syria, Iran, Iraq? According to Chomsky, the "people suffering deep poverty and oppression" support suicide bombings. Yet, surprisingly, rather than lash out at the oppressive regimes over them, they only bomb US targets. Get real Chomsky. Much of the poor and oppressed support their repressive regimes. Didn't he himself just write that we have strengthened Hussein by our sanctions which are apparently creating great poverty (Hussein is certainly oppressive). Yet, we hardly prop up his regime. Which is it? If, according to Chomsky, this is the best wisdom these poeple can produce, i.e. blame the US when there own leader spends his vast oil revenues on monuments and weopons, I don't see much chance of democracy in the region. Maybe the US is correct to support the moderate regimes that are in place. Besides, it isn't like democracy can't produce evil. Hitler was voted into power. For Chomsky, the US it to blame for all evils. The US is blamed for propping up oppressive regimes when those regimes cause poverty, and the US is blamed for not propping up oppressive regimes when those regimes cause poverty. How about something simpler: these people are responsible for their governments, not the US.


Chomsky: "The US, and much of the West, prefers a more comforting story. To quote the lead analysis in the 'New York Times' (Sept. 16), the perpetrators acted out of 'hatred for the values cherished in the West as freedom, tolerance, prosperity, religious pluralism and universal suffrage.' US actions are irrelevant, and therefore need not even be mentioned (Serge Schmemann)."


I believe in blowback, and I think the US has made some bad decisions. I also believe we have made some tough decisions, that were right and still led to blowback. The world isn't a safe place, and the vast majority of the danger emanates from regions outside of the US. We should question our actions, and see if we couldn't do better. My Masters thesis dealt with the subject of US foreign policy towards Third World countries during the Cold War. My idea arose out of the curious fact that almost all Third World "victories" won by the two main Cold War protagaonists involved client countries throwing out the sponsor: Iran throwing out the US, Egypt throwing out Russia, Nicaragua throwing out Somoza (US backed), Afghanistan throwing out Russia, Vietnam throwing out the US, Eastern European countries trying to throw out Russia and finally succeeding. Nations want to be free of foreign governement even more then the people want to be free themselves (Afghanistan is a great example of this principle). When heavily supporting oppressive regimes, their eventual fall led to their replacement by far more anti-American governments. The support we offered was a tactical (and by its wide spread practice, strategical) mistake. However, we were FIGHTING A WAR against the Soviet Union and Communism. It was a war worth fighting and winning. How can anyone look at Eastern Europe and not say this was a war worth fighting? How can anyone who believes in freedom not say this was a war worth fighting? How can anyone compare the United States (for all the evil it has done in its past) with the evil that billowed out of the Soviet Union. So, yes, examine our actions and see what we could have done better. But, don't let the past color your interpretation of the coming conflict. There is no comparison between the moral worth and weight of the United States and the policies advocated by Islamic Fundamentalism.


So, back to his original point. Does Bin Laden value "freedom, tolerance, prosperity, religious pluralism and universal suffrage"? Hell no, and only a moron would argue such. Yes, America's position as the sole superpower, and American support for the sole Democracy in the Middle East, has brought us to the attention of Bin Laden. And, yes, the exercise of American power (often in poor and damaging ways) has heightened the hate for us. At bottom, however, this is a war between the values of the US and the valued of Islamic Fundamentalism. I'm pretty sure I know where I stand. It is a shame that Chomsky provides moral cover for Islamic Fundamentalism.


Chomsky: "It is also widely recognized that Bin Laden and others like him are praying for "a great assault on Muslim states," which cause "fanatics to flock to his cause" (Jenkins, and many others.). That too is familiar. The escalating cycle of violence is typically welcomed by the harshest and most brutal elements on both sides, a fact evident enough from the recent history of the Balkans, to cite only one of many cases."


Yes, Bin Laden wants this war. Hitler wanted WWII, Iraq was ready for the Mother of All Battles. Yes, violence escalates, and is welcomed by the harshest and most brutal elements on both sides. War sucks, violence sucks. Some of you believe that violence is never warranted. I believe that view is naive and dangerous. Some evil must be confronted, and sometimes the only path is violence. That doesn't mean we need to massively bomb Afghanistan. This war doesn't call for such action, and despite the apocalyptic cries of the Chomsky's of the world, I'm pretty sure you won't see that response.


"B 92: What consequences will those attacks have on US inner policy and to the American self reception?

CHOMSKY: US policy has already been officially announced. The world is being offered a "stark choice": join us, or "face the certain prospect of death and destruction.""


Wrong. Either you are with us, or with the terrorists. That doesn't mean you will automatically face certain death and destruction. To conclude that is absurd, and indicative of Chomsky's constant effort to use an ounce of truth to spice a pound of lies when pushing his view. There are times when you are faced with a choice, and it is a stark choice. Chomsky outlined Bin Laden's hates, but he conveniently forgot Bin Laden's solutions. He wants all Americans and Jews out of Muslim countries. He wants the harsh Taliban regime replicated in the Muslim countries that hold close to a billion poeple. You get that Chomsky?? He wants close to a billion people (say 500 million women, and who knows how many gays) to suffer the way the poeple of Afghanistan suffer (the gays won't suffer long as they will be executed). In his world, women who even hint at Christian missionary work will be imprisoned and possibly subject to the death penalty. I think the choice is pretty stark, and hope most will choose to support us. If they don't, they most certainly will not be killed and destroyed as Chomsky claims.


Chomsky: "Congress has authorized the use of force against any individuals or countries the President determines to be involved in the attacks, a doctrine that every supporter regards as ultra-criminal. That is easily demonstrated. Simply ask how the same people would have reacted if Nicaragua had adopted this doctrine after the US had rejected the orders of the World Court to terminate its "unlawful use of force" against Nicaragua and had vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on all states to observe international law. And that terrorist attack was far more severe and destructive even than this atrocity."


I don't even understand what he is saying here. What is ultra-criminal mean? and what supporters? In any case, the right of self defense is well respected in international law, and there is no question the bombing of the WTC and Pentagon was an attack on the United States. As for Nicaragua, I'm pretty sure the Sandinistas didn't affect a peaceful take over of Nicaragua. In fact, I'm sure you could match the Contras with the Sandinistas atrocity for atrocity, terror attack for terror attack. War sucks, violence sucks. But some wars are worth fighting. The Sandinistas could have implemented a liberal, capitalist society rather than the communist society they did. And don't try to BS me with how democtratic they were (just like Cuba). They took power when Carter was president and he was initially very favorably poised towards them. If you can piss off Carter, I don't think you are a very democratic government. [sidenote on Cuba. I once had a Marxist professor spend months lecturing on the relative freedoms of Cuba vs. the lack of democracy in Mexico. It became obvious that Cuba wasn't as oppressive as the far right would have you believe, nor was Mexico very democratic. It was his hope that this months long obfuscation would lead the students to believe that Cuba was pretty good. I wasn't fooled. Cuba is a dictatorship, clear and simple. Mexico has serious problems as well. Pointing out Mexico's troubles doesn't make Cuba any better, it just makes Mexico worse, but this is a common tactic for those who hate America. Obfuscate, point out the evil in American allies, push for a relativist view of the world. When you waver, they gain. If they gain enough, they'll take power. When you then try to point out the bad in them (as they point out the bad in America) you'll go to jail. Whoops).


"B 92: Do you expect US to profoundly change their policy to the rest of the world?

CHOMSKY: The initial response was to call for intensifying the policies that led to the fury and resentment that provides the background of support for the terrorist attack, and to pursue more intensively the agenda of the most hard line elements of the leadership: increased militarization, domestic regimentation, attack on social programs. That is all to be expected. Again, terror attacks, and the escalating cycle of violence they often engender, tend to reinforce the authority and prestige of the most harsh and repressive elements of a society. But there is nothing inevitable about submission to this course."


Increased militarization, domestic regimentation, attack on social programs??? Get real. As a libertarian, I can only hope for the last, but it won't happen. Yes, our military will grow some. That is only bad if we use it poorly, as we have in the past. However, for the last few decades we've been pretty damn good. In this case, I can honestly say that a straight up fight with Isalmic fundamentalist terrorism, and the countries that support it, is a good fight. As a libertarian, I also fear domestic regimentation, but I don't see it as very damaging. We've lost far more freedoms fighting the war on drugs. I hate that war, but I don't see a vast consipiracy to remove our freedoms for some evil purpose, simply misguided efforts to fight wars that are basically good in intent. Not that I won't fight the loss of those freedoms.


"B 92: After the first shock, came fear of what US answer is going to be. Are you afraid, too?

CHOMSKY: Every sane person should be afraid of the likely reaction - the one that has already been announced, the one that probably answers Bin Laden's prayers. It is highly likely to escalate the cycle of violence, in the familiar way, but in this case on a far greater scale."


Yes, we'll be answering Bin Laden's prayers, but we'll be answering mine as well if we wipe out this threat. One gets the impression from Chomsky that we never should have fought WWII. You know, you wouldn't want to escalate the cycle of violence.


Chomsky: "The US has already demanded that Pakistan terminate the food and other supplies that are keeping at least some of the starving and suffering people of Afghanistan alive. If that demand is implemented, unknown numbers of people who have not the remotest connection to terrorism will die, possibly millions. Let me repeat: the US has demanded that Pakistan kill possibly millions of people who are themselves victims of the Taliban. This has nothing to do even with revenge. It is at a far lower moral level even than that. The significance is heightened by the fact that this is mentioned in passing, with no comment, and probably will hardly be noticed. We can learn a great deal about the moral level of the reigning intellectual culture of the West by observing the reaction to this demand. I think we can be reasonably confident that if the American population had the slightest idea of what is being done in their name, they would be utterly appalled. It would be instructive to seek historical precedents."


First, some of this food comes from US and Western aid agencies. In return for this help, the Taliban harbors and protects the organization that just killed thousands of US citizens. Gee, thanks, sorry we aren't sending you anymore food. I suspect we will be aiding and feeding the members of the Northern Alliance (in fact, reports suggest we are already doing so). I think the lesson is pretty clear. Support terrorism and receive no help from us. I don't think that is all bad. War sucks. Violence sucks. I wish we didn't have to bomb most of Japan in WWII, but I'd support it all over again. War sucks, Violence sucks. Sometimes it is necessary [Sidenote: Afghanistan is on the edge of starvation because they have been fighting for the last 20 years. Yet, the US is blamed for this as well. We didn't start the uprising against the USSR in Afghanistan. It was a hugely populare war among Afghanis and we simply aided them because it met our interests as well. Nothing wrong with that. When the Soviets left, we left. The Afghanis continued to fight. This isn't our fault. We are not responsible for every evil in the world that is undertaken by non-Americans. We didn't hold a gun to the heads of the Afghanis and ask them to continue killing themselves when we left. I don't want to hear anymore that the current Afghan condition is because we left them. BS. They are as they are, because they are as they are. Hell, the Afghans take great pride in the fact they were never colonized, so they can skip that excuse as well.


Chomsky: "If Pakistan does not agree to this and other US demands, it may come under direct attack as well - with unknown consequences. If Pakistan does submit to US demands, it is not impossible that the government will be overthrown by forces much like the Taliban - who in this case will have nuclear weapons. That could have an effect throughout the region, including the oil producing states. At this point we are considering the possibility of a war that may destroy much of human society."


Could be true. As Scooby-doo like to say: Yikes!! Time to

return to our shell and hope the wave of Islamic Funcamentalism stops somewhere else. Of course, a couple decades from now Chomsky will be going on and on about how we failed to stop it. Ever get the idea that Chomsky would have been a huge Chamberlain supporter?


Chomsky: "Even without pursuing such possibilities, the likelihood is that an attack on Afghans will have pretty much the effect that most analysts expect: it will enlist great numbers of others to support of Bin Laden, as he hopes. Even if he is killed, it will make little difference. His voice will be heard on cassettes that are distributed throughout the Islamic world, and he is likely to be revered as a martyr, inspiring others. It is worth bearing in mind that one suicide bombing - a truck driven into a US military base - drove the world's major military force out of Lebanon 20 years ago. The opportunities for such attacks are endless. And suicide attacks are very hard to prevent."


Agreed, simply killing Bin Laden will have little effect on terrorism. Personally, I think it will make it worse. Time for the poker analogy. It is surprising how often the best choice in poker is to raise, and the second best choice is to fold. To non-students of the game, this is surprising. Intuitively, they figure that if the best choice is to raise, then calling (which is one notch down in agression) must be best. In this situation, I think American (and the West in general) is in a raise or fold situation. Just calling (which I view as killing/apprehending Bin Laden and a few of his supporters amongst a general wave of low level violence) will probably increase the dangers we face in the region as we further radicalize the population. I lean towards raising. By this, I mean a comprehensive campaign that directly confronts the root causes of this conflict a) the Isreali/Palestinian conflict where BOTH parties need to be pushed towards peace, and b) terrorism and its supportes (particularly Iraq, if we don't eliminate Iraq in this raising scenario we haven't helped matters at all, and c) Islamic Fundamentalism. The latter is the long term danger (Iraq's weapons of mass destruction being the second most danger). Islamic Fundamentalism will also be devishly difficult to eliminate and would require a vast expenditure of blood and resources. However, if you fail to remove it, you can forget about the first two. And, if you don't want to confront the dangers of Islamic Fundamentalism, I suggest we just fold our hand and get out of the Middle East.

However, in no way is the US morally responsible for any of these tasks, nor can Islamic Fundametalism hold a candle to Western virtues or values. Chomsky is very dangerous as he sprinkels truths and sources throughout his work, but he twists them in devious ways, and is not to be trusted. The main purpose of this essay is to combat Chomsky.


Pat Charlton

"Where is the evidence that the US supports Isreal's brutal military occupation?"


Oh please. You might want to do a little research instead of using your ignorance to fabricate a dispute.


In the middle 1990's, direct U.S. aid to Israel, not including loan guarantees, trade preferences and interest paid by the U.S. on the money it borrowed to give Israel, amounted to more than $10,000 per Israeli. Comparable figures for sub-saharan Africa and Latin America/Caribbean basin were, respectively, $42 and $73. The U.S. has traditionally been the largest supplier of foreign, especially military aid to Israel, and Israel has traditionally been the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid.

And? The evidence that we support the brutal military occupation? Is it possible that we support Isreal and use the support to moderate Isreali behaviour? Maybe Isreal would have been even more brutal if we hadn't pushed Isreal to be less brutal.


All you can do is point to US funding of Isreal and say: see, we must support their brutal occupation. That isn't proof. I can just as easily argue that because of our aid we were able to end the 1956 war and return the Sinai to Egypt. We were able to force Isreal to eventually withdraw from Lebanon, and we have prevented the Isrealis from outright annexing the West Bank rather than trying to steal it one house at a time. Maybe, if the Palestinians got off their butt, they could make a peace that we support before they do lose all their land, one house at a time.


I can also look at the brutality of Palestinian terrorists and the Palestinian and Arab obstinancy, and the tons of evidence that suggest the Arabs will never be happy until Isreal is pushed out of the region. I can then point to our funding of Isreal and, with a clean conscience, say they are fighting for their survival, and as a general rule are much less indiscriminate in their killing than the Palestinians or Arabs. The Isrealis bulldoze one house at a time. The Syrians bull doze whole cities.


I've read my history, lots of it. Isreal hasn't been perfect, but they are STILL fighting for their very survival. When the Palestinians are ready to make peace, I believe that Isreal will give them that peace, especially as the US will force them to make it. The Palestinians aren't ready for peace yet (ok, I shouldn't be so monolithic in my views. Not enough Palestinians are ready to make a true peace).


Go read the history of the recent summit and get back to me.


Pat

He's an educated, right of center, social scientist.

"The evidence that we support the brutal military occupation? Is it possible that we support Isreal and use the support to moderate Isreali behaviour? Maybe Isreal would have been even more brutal if we hadn't pushed Israel to be less brutal."


So you think that countries that give weapons to terrorists shouldn't be accused of supporting terrorism unless it can be proven that they don't use such gifts to "moderate" the terrorists' behavior, and that without such assistance the terrorists might be even worse?


Would you apply that standard to bin Laden and the Taliban, or Iraq or Libya?


F-16's, cluster bombs, and Apache and Cobra attack helicopters provided in order to "moderate" their behavior? You're joking.


Why not cut to the chase: show me a single instance where the U.S. has cut aid to Israel, or even threatened to cut aid to Israel, because of Israeli aggression or brutality.


"I can just as easily argue that because of our aid we were able to end the 1956 war and return the Sinai to Egypt.


We were able to force Isreal to eventually withdraw from Lebanon, and we have prevented the Isrealis from outright annexing the West Bank rather than trying to steal it one house at a time."


None of the foregoing is true, the U.S. didn't "force" Israel to withdraw from Lebanon, aid to Israel didn't put an end to the 1956 war, and not even Israel wants to annex the West Bank. But even if it were true, what you're saying makes no sense. You contend that "funding of Isreal [sic]" "isn't proof" that "we ... support their brutal occupation" because the funding we've provided gives us leverage of Israel's actions, and without the funding Israel might be worse. It's akin to the terrorist that funded the 9/11 attacks denying that he "supported" the terrorism because his leverage over them. I can just imagine the epithets you'd hurl to a poster that condemned U.S. criticsim of bin Laden by speculating that his influence over terrorists might have actually prevented something worse.


"I can also look at the brutality of Palestinian terrorists and the Palestinian and Arab obstinancy ...."


Yeah, you can always point to the bad things done by others in order to exculpate your side from it's crimes, it's a common practice, just as the other side can't point to yet others. But why bother to debate what the U.S. is responsible for if you're simply going to dney the concept of responsibility by looking for bad guys somewhere else?


"the tons of evidence that suggest the Arabs will never be happy until Isreal is pushed out of the region"


No question, but so what? You wound't need "tons of evidence" to determine whether Israel refuses the right of Palestinians to their traditional homeland, and has actually done to the Palestinians what they fear the Palestinians will do to them, because Israel admits as much. Intrasigence on both sides of a dispute doesn't favor one side or the other.


"I can then point to our funding of Isreal and, with a clean conscience, say they are fighting for their survival"


And murdering and torturing for their survival as well (according to Amnesy International)? How does transplanting settlers from Brookyln and Tel Aviv into the West Bank and Gaza help Israel "fight for its survival?" I could make the same argument to defend Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, or any similar conquests.

You bring up a lot of issues. I'd like to address just two of them and, hopefully, have something to say this time.


"we were FIGHTING A WAR against the Soviet Union and Communism. It was a war worth fighting and winning."


I don't question that the Soviets were evil. But we were too prone to see Soviet influence everywhere. Sometimes this was a mistake on our part, sometimes it was a smoke screen for other prioities. A good example would be our secret overthrow of the government in Guatemala in 1954. Arbenz was a leftist and communists had a part in his program. But Guatemala was not a Soviet outpost and a lot of good was being done for the majority of the people in Guatemala who had seen their government treat them like dirt for many years. The importance to our State Deparment of United Fruit's interests there is clear.


So we justified a secret coup with the rationale that we were fighting a war against the Soviet Union. The people of Guatemala suffered mightily as a direct result of that coup.


"I'm sure you could match the Contras with the Sandinistas atrocity for atrocity, terror attack for terror attack."


"And don't try to BS me with how democtratic they were"


The first statement is just not true. We don't need to sanctify the Sandanistas to acknowledge that the vast majority of the carnage was attributable to the Contra forces, as consistently reported by Amnesty International and other human rights groups at the time.


As for your second statement, the Sandanistas were voted out of office. And they left office. (In fact, I believe Mr. Ortega is running for President again now.) So there must have been at least some degree of commitment to democracy.


How do these two cases, one of which you brought up and one I did, relate to the present circumstances? We need to be wary of grand pronouncements. The Arbenz regime was not evil, it was not a Soviet tool. The Contras were not the moral equivalnets of our Founding Fathers (Ronald Reagan). And the attacks on Spetember 11 were not attacks on civilization.


I know you felt I wasn't saying anything when I said it before, but I want our country to be not just strong, but also good and also smart. We have seen our government do evil things under false pretenses. We have also seen our government do magnificent things under trying circumstances. Let's not sweep the former under the rug. I believe the actions of the Bush administration since September 11 are an example of the latter. I hope we see more of the same.

"I'm sure you could match the Contras with the Sandinistas atrocity for atrocity, terror attack for terror attack."


"And don't try to BS me with how democtratic they were"


I didn't see notice this until Andy pointed it out, but it's nonsense. Nothing the Sandinistas did came close to the number or nature of casualties inflicted by the contras, nor the government the Sandinistas replaced.


Not that it makes any difference, but the FSLN was an elected government during most of the contra attacks, and despite the newpaper shutdowns and jailing of dissidents, eminently more democratic and libertarian than the U.S.-backed regimes in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.

You are quite right.


This isn't the best time to argue with jingoist, right-wingers, Chris. They usually start with propaganda, and when they start losing the debate, then they turn to personal attacks.


I did find it refreshing that a local sports talk radio show expressed outrage that over 150 pretty harmless tunes were lifted from the airwaves nationwide. The reactionary rightwing will soon discover that the majority of Americans will not permit a wholesale abrogation of civil liberties under the guise of the patriotism.

--"I'm hesitant to call the previous Communist regime of Afghanistan moderate. Besides it is irrelevant, the war against the communists in Afghanistan was hugely popular in Afghanistan."


During the civil war, all the teachers in Afghanistan were murdered by the mujahedin for advocating such infamies as boys and girls sitting in the same class and eating together. The best and the brightest were hunted out of the country for wanting to bring about a modicum of 20th century civil liberties in a country that still lived in the 12th. Some, but not all of them, were communists. Most were progressive idealists, who wanted to see their country get ahead in the world and leave the Dark ages behind. Commies in a country without a proletariat...


But the islamic fundamendalists were fighting for a "noble cause", against a Soviet-friendly regime (that was at the time when the U.S. was propping up every anti-Soviet faction in the land and BEFORE the Soviets invaded). So when they were decapitating the Afghani elite of letters, politics and business, no one said anything. No one protested. In fact, they were hailed as heroes! Only now we "discover" that they're "not so nice". The fruits of these American foreign policy brilliancies are here for everyone to see : Tuesday Sept 11th.


--"The Taliban executes homesexuals and treats women like chattel. We shoudn't fight against a movement that executes homosexuals just for being gay, or treats women like chattel. I'm not a big fan of Saudia Arabia, but if the Taliban and Bin Laden are the alternative I'm on their side."


What a howler! What "side"?? The Saudis and the Taliban are equally strict about enforcing the Saria. Look a little deeper before plunging on, please. There are executions of "deviants" and "stray women" every other day in Saudi Arabia, not to mention other niceties performed in the town square, like cutting off the hands of thiefs, which make the eyes of American conservatives glaze over with jealousy. What "side"??? It's the SAME "side".. (different turbans).


--"[Bin Laden] wants the harsh Taliban regime replicated in the Muslim countries that hold close to a billion poeple. You get that Chomsky??""


What're you asking Chomsky for?? Bin Laden is YOUR creation, man, he was a product of the oil monarchy of Saudi Arabia, a democratic and liberal regime, "justly" and fanatically supported by the U.S. through thick and thin. Bin Laden's troops were hailed as heroes in America when they were executing on the spot any women who dared take up arms against a dictatorship of the Mullahs. Bin Laden's "holy cause" was amply supported by the U.S. throughout his fight against the Soviets.


And you dare ask Chomsky about America's Frankenstein?!?


--"Where is the evidence that the US supports Isreal's brutal military occupation?"


What a kidder! Tell me, where is the evidence of ONE single condemnation vote of the United States in the U.N. against human rigths' violations commited by Israel?? Surely there were SOME times when Israel committed SOME crimes without the need to "keep things in balance" by voting against the Arabs too.


The sad fact, of course, is that the United States, for domestic political resasons, have supported Israel practically unconditionally throughout, providing steady economic and military support.


You were right to hate the Palestinian kids in Nablus for being glad when the attack took place against the U.S., their "great friend and protector". I'm curious how you'll react when the American citizen spying in the U.S. for Israel is freed from federal prison and get's a hero's welcome in Israel.


-" ....Bosnia.."


Oh, please. Let's cordon off that U.S. crime area! Let's stay with the Middle East which is adequately blood-soaked. Why do you invoke the Balkans, where the U.S. (and Europe) shafted the natives for their own, usual, grand "geo-political" objectives?


But, kudos. After the smoke cleared, the U.S. was brokering a deal on European soil, in a European conflict, between former Yugoslavia's ethnic groups (after Germany precipitated the civil war, by prematurely recognizing a break-away Croatia) and was installing troops in the Balkans for the first time in history. Mission acomplished - give or take a coupla hundred thou refugees from every side.


Cue question by dumb-founded reader : "But what would YOU have us do? Nothing??" ..Some other time, folks.

Ray:


Good to see you back. I'd be interested in an email with your thoughts on the current situation.


Chris

I don't buy that we "created" the bin-Laden Frankenstein monster. Doesn't bin-Laden get any credit for inventing himself?


As for Israel, when the Arab world acknowledges Israel's right to exist and acts accordingly, Israel will no longer have to fight, and her seemingly "aggressive" or "brutal" actions will no longer be needed as a means of self-defense.


Condemn Israel? Perhaps the view of the Arab/Muslim states, that Israel has no right to exist, is what should be condemned instead.

I agree with almost everything you said. The one quibble is with the Sandinistas peacefully leaving power after being voted out of office. While true, you didn't mention that the Contra effort (for all its wrongs) and the US support of that effort went along way towards that peaceful transition of power.


Regarding Guatamala (and a number of other situations, e.g. Chile, Iran in '54, the overthrow of Diem in Vietnam) I agree the US over-reacted, and as a result caused more harm than good. I also agree that some of the over-reaction involved personal self-interest (e.g. business interests) rather than simple tactical mistakes by honest Cold War warriors.


As to your broader point, I also agree. We should examine our faults to see if we can't do better in the future. Surely, there is plenty of room for improvement. Could we do more to pressure Isreal to make peace (Yes, the settlements in the West Bank have to stop, and we should give Isreal an Ultimatum; Saddam should be out of power by now, and if we weren't willing to do that, we never should have fought the Gulf War; our reaction to previous terrorist attacks have been weak, as I fear this one will be; if we can't get moderate Arab support for rooting out terrorists we probably can't win the war, we need to either up the ante, Raise!, and really make countries choose between us and the terrorists, or we need to leave, fold, and let the chips fall where they may).


The faults I've been hearing to date our Isreal is Evil, the US is Evil. Yes, both countries have done evil things, but they have generally (not always) been done within the context of trying to do good. Once the Soviet Union fell we have seen the greatest explosion of Democracy that the world has ever seen. I don't think that is coincidence. We could have done better as you suggest, but that fact remains: we are still standing, the Soviet Union isn't; and Democracy has exploded around the globe (Latin America, Africa some, and certainly E. Europe).


Pat Charlton


Even in the Middle East we make plenty of mistakes that occurred recently, e.g. not taking Saddam out when we had the chance,

Hmmmm, eminently more democratic is pushing it. Many on the left insist that Cuba is a democracy. And, libertarian is beyond the pale, as a Libertarian myself I won't even answer that. More democratic than "our" regimes? Probably.


As I post to Andy Fox above, I'm not proud of our Central American policy both because we made tactical mistakes and because we outright did things to benefit US corporations at the expense of the poeple in the region.


As I wrote to Andy, it is no coincidence that once the USSR fell, there was a great deal of increased democracy in the region. We were fighting a war, and it appears the end of that war brought about some good results.


Pat Charlton

"Yeah, you can always point to the bad things done by others in order to exculpate your side from it's crimes, it's a common practice, just as the other side can't point to yet others. But why bother to debate what the U.S. is responsible for if you're simply going to dney the concept of responsibility by looking for bad guys somewhere else?"


LOL, looks like we can both use this tactic. And, thus my main point: The Isreali's and Palestinians are fighting a war. They main Palestinian antagonists certainly don't grant Isreal the right to exist, thus the brutal war that will continue until one side gives.


I support Isreal's right to exist and will continue to support providing them weapons until they no longer face enemies whose main goal is to push them into the sea. I'm adult enough to realize that awful things happen in war, and I'll hope we can moderate that behavior to some degree.


As to the Isreali settlements in the West Bank, I certainly agree with you. That is one area where I would favor an ultimatum to Isreal to either stop or lose all aid.

One thing I find incredible is my interest and passion about the entire situation. I suppose if you can't get passionate about 7,000 of your fellow citizens being brutally murdered, you can't get passionate about anything. But I have a brother-in-law who works for the government and he asked me recently if I was still as far out to the left (he's pretty far right, so it's relative) as I was when I was younger.


I told him yes, but that I wasn't anywhere near as interested or passionate about things. This was, of course, before 9-11. I am in general agreement with your thoughts in this post. But maybe the Soviet Union would no longer be in existence even had we fought the Cold War differently. (By the way, Putin seems to be going out of his way to be a friend to us right now.)


Your poker analogy is right on the button. As in poker, there are many situations where calling is the worst option: raise or fold. The present situation seems like one of them, although I imagine you and I probably disagree about exactly what kind of raise.

Sure hope that Lee Greenwood song was on the list.


John

--"I don't buy that we "created" the bin-Laden Frankenstein monster. Doesn't bin-Laden get any credit for inventing himself?"


Of course he does. But there are a thousand poisonous flowers ready to bloom around the globe. Which flowers does the U.S. cultivate & fertilize is the question. Denying America's involvement in the birth and/or emancipation of many monsters who now roam the planet, monsters created to fight the Evil Empire ostensibly, is futile. The cat's being out of the bag for a long time now.


--"As for Israel, when the Arab world acknowledges Israel's right to exist and acts accordingly, Israel will no longer have to fight, and her seemingly "aggressive" or "brutal" actions will no longer be needed as a means of self-defense."


The Arabs of the so-called "front line" have long since accepted that right. It is no longer an issue. Jordan and Egypt and Lebanon have done so officially. Syria tacitly (I don't follow too closely the pronouncements of Assad II) . Even Arafat has been categorical in that respect: Israel is here to stay.


The heart of the matter is NOT Israel's "right to exist". This is a smokescreen thrown up by Zionists: Israel is in no danger at all of being destroyed or even attacked by any Arab state, ever, as any child can see. What Israel wants on the contrary, and what is at the core of the continuous insurrections, is that THE PALESTINIANS DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO EXIST!..


You doubt that? Do you want me to dig up specific statements to that effect by prominent Israel leaders?? Like, for instance, the current Israeli Prime Minister ?...


Do you honestly believe that Israel would be so arrogant and so belligerent in its attitude towards Palestinians, a people who are treated like the blacks were in apartheid South Africa, if it wasn't for the limitless and unconditional United States support?? Yes, we should ALL be condemning that part of American foreign policy if we really want peace in the Middle East.


....You have chosen to address the pseudo-issue of "Israel's right to exist" and to ignore the very real and very important one : The United States have learned nothing from their serial bunglings in foreign policy. They have backed faithfully the Taliban and their ilk for quite a number of years. They are ready to plunge eadfirst into an alliance with yet another Taliban-like group, to ..topple the Taliban!


Does that seem sensible to you, M?

"Two birds with one stone"?


You said me, Chomsky and bin Laden. That makes 3 - and I'll have you know I'm a counter.


(Unless you have found out my big secret! That's right, no one has ever seen me and bin Laden in the same room.)

I read yesterday that Israel has suffered several dozen terrorist attacks over the last year.


Is Israel's position that the Palestinians themselves don't have a right to exist, or that they don't have a right to live on Israeli soil?


I thought the PLO was dedicated to the overthrow of Israel, among other things. Arafat may say otherwise now, but is it really true or is he talking out of both sides of his mouth? Maybe he just doesn't see any way to accomplish it for the foreseeable future.


I can't believe those states such as Syria and Libya, which support international terrorism, have decided to leave Israel alone now and forever.


I don't believe most of the rest of the Arab/Muslim world would mind one bit, or interfere, if another Middle Eastern state invaded Israel.


We have been doing far less, if any, of the Cold War sort of backing which helped build those such as the Shah of Iran and bin-Laden. So we should see, over time, a decline in the aftereffects.


Whether we join forces with the Northern Alliance in some way is not necessarily the same thing. It could turn out to be, but it doesn't necessarily have to be. It could be a good thing or a bad thing.