I take up wolf’s remarks one by one
hopefully wolf can read this and think about it
re: “we’ve just destroyed the country . . . ” wolf blithely says the country was “pretty dysfunctional” already. Say that’s true. Out of about 28 million, as a result of the war about 1 million were killed, and 4 million were made refugees (half inside the country, half outside). By wolf logic, since it was “pretty dysfunctional” the extreme carnage caused by us is of little moment, couldn’t possibly constitute destroying the country.
“if we apply . . . worse crime.” wolf likens the US invasion and occupation to “stop[ping] a rape.” How is that? We invaded to improve their lot, create freedom, he says. Really? Bush said it was to stop Saddam from getting WMD (he said it over and over). UN inspectors were going anywhere, anytime and not finding anything; Bush basically forced the inspectors out by moving in and bombing/invading the place. By wolf logic, it’s true by DEFINITION that the US is trying to impose/instill “freedom.” What’s the substance of the “freedom”? Is it Freedom to be divided and ruled?
“leading them ... watch out.” Wolf needs some background on the Cold War, the concept of the Domino Effect, and Chomsy’s take on the Domino Effect. You see, during the Cold War, the idea was that the Russians take Vietnam today, then Japan (say) tomorrow. Many liberals downplayed this as exaggeration. Chomsky said No, there IS a “domino effect,” actually, and that’s the threat of “independent nationalism,” meaning, the Vietnamese take charge of their own affairs, and the next thing you know it’s Guatemalan peasants and lord knows who else doing it, too. THAT’S what the US wanted to stomp out (it had nothing to do with stopping the Russians, that was the excuse). No one ever said that e.g. USSR control over e.g. Czechoslovakia was in itself a “domino” or “domino effect” (what could that mean, Wolf?).
Wolf raises a hypothetical (viz., but what IF Iraq had obtained nukes?!). Pretty hard for it to do, actually, given that the US controlled the airspace, and given the intrusive inspections going on, etc. Colin Powell himself said, a few months before 9/11, that Saddam was “in his box,” contained, not a threat to us. And it was pretty unlikely Saddam Hussein would try to acquire WMD, given that he’d ordered the stuff destroyed in 1994 or so. Saddam Hussein knew he’d be inviting a strike if he came close to developing major WMD. Also, he was trying to get out from under sanctions, precisely by allowing intrusive inspection to certify Iraq as WMD free (late ‘90s). (Finally, you think he’d “give” WMD to Al Qaeda?! Those guys hated him, and might have used it against him, for all he knew.)
Re: this hypothetical about nukes, you can always use it. E.g. What if Uzbekistan got a nuke? Scary! Let’s invade Uzbekistan!
re: the last comment on the “wired” world. What’s naive is to think that just because information can be “put out there” that that means much. What’s crucial is the DOMINANT frame of discourse. Example: politicians (“left” Democrats vs. “right” Republicans) debate on CNN or FOX about the meaning of the “success of the Surge.” This presupposes that it’s a success, and furthermore, that if it really is a success, then that’s a GOOD thing. The presupposition is INSTILLED in the very discussion. Result? If Chomsky were to go on CNN and say “that the Surge ‘worked’ is all the more reason to oppose it,” he (truly) would NOT BE UNDERSTOOD by his interviewers.
Finally, the “79 year-old” wisecrack is frankly AGEIST, just as saying “that comment might be ok for a woman” would be SEXIST.
Posted by mffanaddict on Jul 30, 2008 at 11:35 PM
Yeah, I think you’re right, Nevada. I’m over 40 now, and what “never ceases to amaze me” is how “polite” conversation (even among leftish/alternative “Nation”-reader type of folks) turns on just this point. Everyone has to sort of agree that the US is a “force for good in the world” (etc.). See Obama’s “Audacity,” for example. He quickly states that he tuned in to the exact moment, in college dorm conversations, where things get “too” victim-ish and blame-America-first-ish. He’s not into that, he writes (signal to the establishment: I won’t engage Israel/Palestine or Venezuela, Cuba, or whatever country in a FUNDAMENTALLY different or critical way). I.e. if “we” could have (e.g.) “done” Iraq in a nicer, SMARTER way, THEN “we” would be so much better off (blah, blah, blah). Chomsky’s critique has truly been the most MORAL, based on commonly held assumptions. For example: you can’t just invade a country and say “well, ‘the world is better off w/o Saddam Hussein, so there’” and feel like that wins the argument. The “Nation” readership? They will say (in conversation with young vets, FOX newsfans, and whomever) “yeah, we/the world ARE ‘better off,’ BUT, it could have ‘been handled’ so much better.” The RIGHT
TO AGGRESSION: as long as it’s “handled” well, as long as it WINS, as long as it can be SOLD as “moral”—very few question that.— This explains why so many who are progressives know about and mention and cite Chomsky, but precious few really read him, and so many get drawn into these morally repulsive presuppositions . . .
Posted by mffanaddict on Aug 3, 2008 at 9:30 PM
“Well to be fair, one might wish to recall that the country was pretty dysfunctional before the invasion.”
etcetera etcetera
Oh Wolf. It’s sad to see you are still flogging the same old points about the illegal attack, invasion and occupation of Iraq. Pretty soon I expect you will be calling it the other good war.
Getting back to your assertion that Iraq was dysfunctional ... surely you are aware that before 1991 US led hostilities against Iraq it was one of the most modernized countries in the region? It was only after the ‘91 war and subsequent sanctions (which likey killed many more innocent civilians than the war itself) coupled with the so called no fly zones and the accompanying low level bombing campaigns that the country of Iraq was rendered dysfunctional .
“Well now, if a cop breaks into a house and stops a rape, then is that a worse crime too?”
Puhhhhlease spare me this drivel! If we want to talk about crimes lets talk about the war crime committed every time an American or British soldier uses a depleted uranium bullet/bomb.
Posted by Jiminy Cricket on Aug 7, 2008 at 10:31 PM
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
“We
re: wolfy comments
Yes it was dysfunctional by a decade of illegal sanctions enforced by the US, one might wish to remember that as well. And your agrument for pre-emptive war falls to pieces..“if a cop breaks into a house and stops a rape….is that a worse crime?”
If you want to apply the Iraq war to this twisted logic it would be better to say “If a cop bombs a house where he thinks a rape might be happening…is that a worse crime ?”
How about that fact that the US sold Hussein his weapons arsenal in the 1980’s is a worse crime no ? the ones he used against Kurds and the Iranians ? “how many excess deaths would occur if Iraq had obtained nukes and either used them directly or provided them to anti-west groups?” Iraq never had nukes and this is a well documented fact, along with the threat to the US which was never there until the illegal invasion, although if you watch FOX news you wouldnt know that. I wouldnt call Chomskys comments humorous or naive unless you have the resume and the intelligence he has, which i doubt judging by your comments. You probably think Iraq was behind 911 right ? haha
I take up wolf’s remarks one by one
hopefully wolf can read this and think about it
re: “we’ve just destroyed the country . . . ” wolf blithely says the country was “pretty dysfunctional” already. Say that’s true. Out of about 28 million, as a result of the war about 1 million were killed, and 4 million were made refugees (half inside the country, half outside). By wolf logic, since it was “pretty dysfunctional” the extreme carnage caused by us is of little moment, couldn’t possibly constitute destroying the country.
“if we apply . . . worse crime.” wolf likens the US invasion and occupation to “stop[ping] a rape.” How is that? We invaded to improve their lot, create freedom, he says. Really? Bush said it was to stop Saddam from getting WMD (he said it over and over). UN inspectors were going anywhere, anytime and not finding anything; Bush basically forced the inspectors out by moving in and bombing/invading the place. By wolf logic, it’s true by DEFINITION that the US is trying to impose/instill “freedom.” What’s the substance of the “freedom”? Is it Freedom to be divided and ruled?
“leading them ... watch out.” Wolf needs some background on the Cold War, the concept of the Domino Effect, and Chomsy’s take on the Domino Effect. You see, during the Cold War, the idea was that the Russians take Vietnam today, then Japan (say) tomorrow. Many liberals downplayed this as exaggeration. Chomsky said No, there IS a “domino effect,” actually, and that’s the threat of “independent nationalism,” meaning, the Vietnamese take charge of their own affairs, and the next thing you know it’s Guatemalan peasants and lord knows who else doing it, too. THAT’S what the US wanted to stomp out (it had nothing to do with stopping the Russians, that was the excuse). No one ever said that e.g. USSR control over e.g. Czechoslovakia was in itself a “domino” or “domino effect” (what could that mean, Wolf?).
Wolf raises a hypothetical (viz., but what IF Iraq had obtained nukes?!). Pretty hard for it to do, actually, given that the US controlled the airspace, and given the intrusive inspections going on, etc. Colin Powell himself said, a few months before 9/11, that Saddam was “in his box,” contained, not a threat to us. And it was pretty unlikely Saddam Hussein would try to acquire WMD, given that he’d ordered the stuff destroyed in 1994 or so. Saddam Hussein knew he’d be inviting a strike if he came close to developing major WMD. Also, he was trying to get out from under sanctions, precisely by allowing intrusive inspection to certify Iraq as WMD free (late ‘90s). (Finally, you think he’d “give” WMD to Al Qaeda?! Those guys hated him, and might have used it against him, for all he knew.)
Re: this hypothetical about nukes, you can always use it. E.g. What if Uzbekistan got a nuke? Scary! Let’s invade Uzbekistan!
re: the last comment on the “wired” world. What’s naive is to think that just because information can be “put out there” that that means much. What’s crucial is the DOMINANT frame of discourse. Example: politicians (“left” Democrats vs. “right” Republicans) debate on CNN or FOX about the meaning of the “success of the Surge.” This presupposes that it’s a success, and furthermore, that if it really is a success, then that’s a GOOD thing. The presupposition is INSTILLED in the very discussion. Result? If Chomsky were to go on CNN and say “that the Surge ‘worked’ is all the more reason to oppose it,” he (truly) would NOT BE UNDERSTOOD by his interviewers.
Finally, the “79 year-old” wisecrack is frankly AGEIST, just as saying “that comment might be ok for a woman” would be SEXIST.
Congratulations to ITT for running the Chomsky interview. Too many articles, in both the alternative and mainstream press, are based on a merely tactical critique of the war (“is it working?”) instead of a fundamental critique: we have no right to invade and occupy Iraq.
Yeah, I think you’re right, Nevada. I’m over 40 now, and what “never ceases to amaze me” is how “polite” conversation (even among leftish/alternative “Nation”-reader type of folks) turns on just this point. Everyone has to sort of agree that the US is a “force for good in the world” (etc.). See Obama’s “Audacity,” for example. He quickly states that he tuned in to the exact moment, in college dorm conversations, where things get “too” victim-ish and blame-America-first-ish. He’s not into that, he writes (signal to the establishment: I won’t engage Israel/Palestine or Venezuela, Cuba, or whatever country in a FUNDAMENTALLY different or critical way). I.e. if “we” could have (e.g.) “done” Iraq in a nicer, SMARTER way, THEN “we” would be so much better off (blah, blah, blah). Chomsky’s critique has truly been the most MORAL, based on commonly held assumptions. For example: you can’t just invade a country and say “well, ‘the world is better off w/o Saddam Hussein, so there’” and feel like that wins the argument. The “Nation” readership? They will say (in conversation with young vets, FOX newsfans, and whomever) “yeah, we/the world ARE ‘better off,’ BUT, it could have ‘been handled’ so much better.” The RIGHT
TO AGGRESSION: as long as it’s “handled” well, as long as it WINS, as long as it can be SOLD as “moral”—very few question that.— This explains why so many who are progressives know about and mention and cite Chomsky, but precious few really read him, and so many get drawn into these morally repulsive presuppositions . . .
“Well to be fair, one might wish to recall that the country was pretty dysfunctional before the invasion.”
etcetera etcetera
Oh Wolf. It’s sad to see you are still flogging the same old points about the illegal attack, invasion and occupation of Iraq. Pretty soon I expect you will be calling it the other good war.
Getting back to your assertion that Iraq was dysfunctional ... surely you are aware that before 1991 US led hostilities against Iraq it was one of the most modernized countries in the region? It was only after the ‘91 war and subsequent sanctions (which likey killed many more innocent civilians than the war itself) coupled with the so called no fly zones and the accompanying low level bombing campaigns that the country of Iraq was rendered dysfunctional .
“Well now, if a cop breaks into a house and stops a rape, then is that a worse crime too?”
Puhhhhlease spare me this drivel! If we want to talk about crimes lets talk about the war crime committed every time an American or British soldier uses a depleted uranium bullet/bomb.
Moncler jackets are not ordinary. When you wear one of your favorites, you can get away from cold. You can also wear Moncler coats where heavy snowfall often.Konw the history. Moncler men Jackets I was deeply shocked by their company they found them belong to Admir youngth.i them.You should never forget that moment when people would look at your Moncler women jacket and Moncler kids jackets.For fashion and popular accessories,Moncler bags is your best choice.The Moncler sale have many choice for your of the Moncler vest.Go to the google to find the best Moncler online shop.That will help you to save much from the shopping store.
register a new account »Posting Security