Dan Rather Article About US Press

[brad]

'think there's a helluva difference between Condoleeza Rice imploring the news media not to run the full recent bin-Laden tape '

youre right its implicit but not really i guess i was wrong but uknow what i mean.

a better example. israel announced it would rescind its policy of refraining from sending death squads to its allies (like US ) soil.

was that reported? why not? im sure it wasnt because reporters were told not to run it. but still it wasnt run.

[Jimbo]

brad if it wasn't reported how did you hear about it? Is this the same as if a tree falls in the forest and noone is there to hear it did it make any noise? For what it is worth I saw the death squad article on the network news and heard it on radio as well.

brad are you going to be like Barney Fife and have the bullets in your shirt pocket? [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[brad]

well first of all im only allowed one bullet.

but really dont u think it should have been frontline news that a foreign country was sending death squads into our country (with the apparant blessing of our government)?

also you are better informed than most so i would figure most people havent heard of it.

lastly i dont think its fair of u to use such logic on someone only allowed to carry one bullet.

[IrishHand]

He's apparently equating the goals of totalitarian governments with the goals of democratic-style governments.
He should - governments generally do some combination of what's best for them personally and what's best for their country (or portions of it). Whether it's the vilest dictator or the most benevolent Prime Minister, they're still going to fall into that gross generalization. You seem to think that totalitatian governments have as their political mission the service of Satan, the murder of innocents, the violation of all 'civilized' norms, etc. Totalitarian governments do what they think is best - for whom is debatable, as noted above, but they're still acting in a manner consistent with "governing" in the general sense. Our government is no different. No matter what the issue, domestically or internationally, we're making decisions for someone's benefit. In our case, that someone is guaranteed to be American (one or more). That's the nature of the beast - countries will act in the best interests of some portion of its constituents.

I like to think that the ideal form of government is one wherein the government - no matter how they came to power or remain there (frankly, it's irrelevant to what they do and accomplish while in power) - acts more and more for the benefit of the many than the few. Of course, how you define "benefit" is problematic - as are other aspects of pure "utilitarianism."

Condemning a government because it's "communist" or "socialist" or "capitalist" or any other "ist" is pointless and short-sighted. Regardless of the label, a government should be considered on its merits.

Why is this not surprising, coming from Chomsky?
Because he's a very bright guy.

[MMMMMM]

M: "He's apparently equating the goals of totalitarian governments with the goals of democratic-style governments."

IrishHand: "He should - governments generally do some combination of what's best for them personally and what's best for their country (or portions of it)."

North Korea stockpiled two years' worth of food and fuel for its military at the same time as 2 million of its own people starved to death--what do you make of that?

Totalitarian regimes put their own interests ahead of the interests of their people to a far greater degree than do freely elected governments--if you can't see this you are indeed living on a different planet from me.

[Mark Heide]

Tom,

I agree, with reservations about the percentage you indicate. But, I was referring to a particular group of muslims. Here's a link to the article and it should make the story clearer (I had my facts about the story mixed up a bit, but the premise of my argument remains the same):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1939566.stm

Mark

[Mark Heide]

I am not going to argue this subject any longer.

IrishHand's post above explains my point better than I could have.

Good Luck

Mark

[IrishHand]

I suspect many people live on a different planet from you, but that's besides the point.

We'll assume that what you're saying is true and that the North Korean government stored two years worth of food and fuel while 2 million North Koreans starved. I don't have the faintest idea why they did that, but I can make some guesses. First of all, North Korea is incredibly isolated economically - due in no small measure to US policies (reminds me a lot of pre-Dec 7, 1941 Japan, although not on the same scale of course - see Toland's excellent The Rising Sun). Given this isolation and the effect it would have on a highly populated country, the leaders must make tough choices with scarce resources. Clearly, a strong military is a necessity for a number of reasons - and apparently they felt this necessity required the sacrifice of some of their citizens. Consider the possible result of the alternative decision - their people are fed while the military loses some of its power, or at the very least, is rendered incredibly vulnerable to a complete blockade and/or more severe economic sanctions. An ancillary benefit of starving their citizens is the potential increase in food aid from foreign governments. Again, this is all pure guesswork - I haven't studied the country in any real detail - but its not as though it doesn't make sense from the perspective of their leadership.

As a comparison, Nazi Germany imposed progressively harsher conditions (rationing, etc) on its people in order to assist their re-armament in the early- to mid-30s. Germans suffered incredible privations for many years - and many of them did so willingly (the reoccupation of the Rhineland and the annexations of Austria and the Sudetenland were extremely popular events in Germany at that time and most Germans probably felt their sacrifices up 'til then were more than worth it). As a result of their continued sacrifices, their nation nearly conquered all of Europe and a significant portion of Russia. If they'd been able to beat Russia, giving them the Greater Reich that was Hitler's ultimate goal, Germans would likely have enjoyed a standard of life far above that of any other nation's for several years. (This assumes of course that a 1942 Germany, victorious over Russia and able to reap it's vast resources while no longer fighing a 2-front war would have been able to knock Great Britain out of the war in a fairly timely fashion, leaving Hitler free to pursue his long-term domestic policies.) Now - his means and methods were certainly reprehensible in the extreme in many instances, but it cannot be rationally argued that Hitler wasn't acting in what he truly believed was in the best interests of his nation.

Totalitarian regimes put their own interests ahead of the interests of their people to a far greater degree than do freely elected governments
I believe that they might act in the interests of a smaller proportion of their populace than do most elected governments, but I don't think the difference is nearly as stark as you'd like it to be. Ultimately, it all comes down to the individual government. There are some elected governments that do better jobs at acting in the interests of the majority of their people, while others act generally in the interests of a smaller portion - almost always the wealthy that support the government or the government itself. Yes, there are a ton of countries who are far worse than the US on this account, but there are also many more that far surpass this country.