I guess Lesly from the, Bush is responsible for all wrongs, perspective you clearly hold, this is how you see me. That’s fine – but not accurate. And I consider that point of view the same way you see mine.

If you want to debate an issue then lets do it. Not agreeing and then calling the other viewpoint “blind support” is clearly not fair.


Chomsky was against not only Gulf one but the Afghanistan invasion as you surly know. Are you? Chomsky calls the millions of jobs and billions of $$$ US companies give to third world countries through jobs – imperialism – do you agree. Or is it just the Iraq war?

Your blind support for our foreign policy decisions, as I termed it, is not rooted in the current occupants in the White House. I believe it is rooted in the belief that America can do no wrong, but when you admit it does, it is still justified.

DTOM brought up good questions for Zack, though. Questions perhaps you could answer?



I thought we were debating an issue until it got sidetracked 'cause DTOM had the gall to quote Chomsky.


That depends on why he was against stopping Saddam an the Gulf. To be honest I've read two or three Wertz posts regarding both and he swayed me on both. Maybe Chomsky can finish what Wertz started. In any case I'm against Afghanistan as another nation-building effort and democratic initiative.


If imperialism is the same as neoliberalism, then yes.

Now taking all of this into account, what of it? Did someone tell you you can't use a member of the political left or right as a source unless you accept the entirety of their political views? Who made this school yard rule?

Such as? Quote me please.

I thought we were debating an issue until it got sidetracked 'cause DTOM had the gall to quote Chomsky

No. I pointed out where Chomsky comes from and why I disagree with him.

.


OK then you disagree with 95% + of the American people – who you can surely label as “blind supporters" and count me in that group.

Here is Noam:

“Noam Chomsky was the most conspicuous American intellectual to rationalize the Al Qaeda terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. The death toll, he argued, was minor compared to the list of Third World victims of the “far more extreme terrorism” of United States foreign policy. Despite its calculated affront to mainstream opinion, this sentiment went down very well with Chomsky’s own constituency. He has never been more popular among the academic and intellectual left than he is today.

Chomsky has been a celebrity radical since the mid-1960s when he made his name as an anti-Vietnam War activist. Although he lost some of his appeal in the late-1970s and 1980s by his defense of the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia, he has used September 11 to restore his reputation, indeed to surpass his former influence and stature. At seventy-four years of age, he is today the doyen of the American and much of the world’s intellectual left.

He is, however, an unconventional academic radical. Over the past thirty years, the left in the humanities has been smitten by high theory, especially neo-Marxist, feminist, and postmodernist philosophy out of Germany and France. Much of this material was arcane enough in its own language but in translation it elevated obscurantism to a badge of prestige. It inundated the humanities with relativism both in epistemology and moral philosophy.

Of all the major powers in the Sixties, according to Chomsky, America was the most reprehensible. Its principles of liberal democracy were a sham. Its democracy was a “four-year dictatorship” and its economic commitment to free markets was merely a disguise for corporate power. Its foreign policy was positively evil. “By any objective standard,” he wrote at the time, “the United States has become the most aggressive power in the world, the greatest threat to peace, to national self-determination, and to international cooperation.”
http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/may03/chomsky.htm

I was thirty three when I joined and as a few of the older members may remember, I was pretty much a left winger back then. My dissillusionment finally took place in 2006, when I was thirty six, so I can still give you the benefit of the doubt due to your years, youngster.

In all seriousness though, I cannot hold you to account for any opinion you might hold Lesly. I don't believe I have all the answers and I'm willing to concede to rational debate, or even debate with a sense of humour. You seem gifted at both so I am remain your admirer, regardless of your defence of a communist. My disapointment with DTOM stems more from the fact that we seemed to have passed each other by as we moved across the political divide.

I am curious though, what are the politically significant points you agree with Noam Chomsky on? is it just about Iraq?

For my own part I cannot abide the hypocrisy of communists and socialists and you know why having read about what these people are doing in my country. Granted Noam Chomsky has not personally thrown fire bombs at the Danish police, but the people who have, have used writers like Chomsky to justify their actions.



I can no longer believe in such simplistic terms as right or wrong with regards to foreign policy. It seems to me now that the best intentions in the world can lead to disasterous results and where as policies that I would regard as 'evil', such as the EU CAP is all that gives us our daily food on the table.

Certainly Chomsky, and yorself, are entitled to your opinions, and I'm probably sympathetic when we get down to the bare bones, but none of you whom who are apt to say what is right from wrong in foreign policy can offer any viable alternative. I realised that when I saw socialist politicians attending Hizb'Allah rallies in my capital and left wing extremists using political violence to intimidate people with whom they disagreed.

I don't know whats right or wrong in foreign policy any more but I do know what the price of failure is.


Never mind Ted and Zach, please explain what yu mean because I don't understand you. How is backing out of an international system that supports your political and economic elites going to change things for the better? It was those elites that created the country you call home today. Scrapping the system you have today is easy in words, but what are you going to replace it with? Chomsky style socialism?

This is my position defined. The USA is wont to be a nasty brute when it perceives merit in violence. Your political leaders have used military force on numerous occaisions to push forwards a muscular capitalism that has given the USA pre-eminence in the world today.

Take away the willingness to use military force to acheive foreign policy goals and America will undoubtably lose its pre-eminence. Your simply not big enough to sit at the top without it. China and India will become the worlds leading economies, (is already happening) and American hegemony will become a relic of the past.

I just can't see any viable alternative. The moral code that says military force is always wrong is foolish for it allows those who are willing to use military foce to grow strong enough to actually use it. The USA maintains control through military supplies to countrys which left to their own devices would all become as dangerous as Iran, and yes I believe Iran is extremely dangerous.

For as long as people like Chavez and Chomsky exist, then socialism is nothing but a recipe for poverty and oppression and we've seen that, so many times. What has Chomsky got to offer that we havven't seen before and which won't lead to more tears?

Could you tie this into the topic? I thought the thread you started involved nations we've wronged turning to terrorism. It seems to have delved into everything anyone hates about America and everything we should be ashamed of (I started a thread on that one already). Every nation has, BTW, and/or lived under the blanket of protection of a nation that has. And Saudi has experienced more terrorism than we have. And how is Kuwait a theocracy by ME standards?

To turn this back to the topic that is venturing off into Chomsky...How has our treatment of Sudan, for example, the birthplace of Al Qaeda, been so vastly worse than our treatment of the Serbs? Al Qaeda bombed the USS Cole and two embassies. Hundreds died before we bombed that asprin factory. Does China now have to worry about Al Qaeda attacks over its support of the Sudanese government? Want to place a bet on that? How did arming the Afghanis against the Soviets somehow cause them to lash out at us and become the world's foremost terrorist training ground? I don't think we made active plans to attack France after they helped us in our fight for independence from England and then left.

Exactly.

These terrorists are not motivated by any thing America has done. They have their own internal ideological reasons for attacking other people and they attack any one and everyone who falls into the 'kufffar category', not just Americans.

Any one who believes that contrition is going to prevent Islamic terrorism better think again, long and hard, because the only thing contrition is going to get you in the face of the global jihad is a swelling Muslim population, with all the social consequences that implies, followed inexorably by the subsequent introduction of sharia law in your home town.

Any one who thinks this 'just ain't gonna happen in the USA', better open their eyes to whats already taking place in those areas of your country where Muslims are congregating. There is no difference between Brooklyn or Berlin or Beijing to the jihadist. No one is exempt from the will of Allah.

As for the Chinese Mrs P, they already have a serious home grown Muslim problem. We just don't get to hear that much about it probaby because China doesn't broadcast its internal problems lke the western nations do.

Who are you to tell me what I know or don't know about the man? I posted his quote because I agreed with it in the context that it pertained to this thread. Your fetish with smearing him has taken the thread off track. So since I've quoted Chomsky exactly one (1) time in 2824 posts, quit asking if I'm a "Chomsky man" and stick to the questions for debate, eh?



Take a breath Ted, I already answered you're question in the previous post.



First let me say that I appreciate the reason and logic in your posts. I may not agree always, but you at least provide rationale for your beliefs. We may have skirted around the political divide from one another, but perhaps not in the way you are referring. I have experienced a significant shift in ideology, but towards Minarchism and Free-Market Anarchism, not to the left. Of course to many mouth breathers, there is only left and right.....and if you reside to the left of fascism, you're a card carrying communist.

I do not attribute all problems to America's foreign policy, but I have come to the conclusion that many of the problems that we face are in direct consequence to our actions in the political, economic and military spheres. This is not to say that we should retreat within our own borders and merely peek over the fence at world affairs; but I believe in order to maintain our long term existence and not fall in the same manner as all previous empires, a shift needs to occur. I believe that our actions should match our principles and not not smack of bullying hypocrisy. And I believe that American lives should not be squandered on military adventurism in the pursuit of political agendas, especially when led by men who know war from movies.

America should lead by example and attempt diplomacy first rather than launching threatening ultimatums. America should respect the sovereignty and the pursuit of liberty and freedom of people around the world, and not simply make empty gestures when it suits our economic interests.

But I suppose that since I question some of our foreign policy motives and actions rather than blindly whistle God Bless America, I must be an America hater.......not directed to you, Moif

1) people don't like their world view challenged. If they took the fingers out of their ears and actually listened to different points of view they might be forced to see our government's clay feet. So instead, they label dissent as unpatriotic to make it easier to ignore it.

2) In the sense that you described legitimacy- essentially as karma- yes our foreign policy does make us targets. Whether or not you think some of our more double plus ungood policies are necessary for our way of life or not, you can't honestly deny that some of them have really screwed up other places. Within the karma-esque way of looking at things it makes sense that some folks are going to seek retribution.

3) Because the issue of whether or not we "deserved" it is a stickman that is much easier to refute than the arguments that call in to question the merits of some of our more egregious foreign policies.


Moif

There are several things wrong with this. There are more than enough resources on this planet to go around. The entire world can fit in the state of Texas (268,820 sq. mi.) with less than the population density of New York City (27,200 people per sq. mi.). This idea that the world can't support its population is bunk. Everyone wouldn't to be able to drive a Hummer and have a plasma tv, but that's not to say we'd all be on Sally Struthers infomercials, either.

The dichotomy you present here between being a "realist" and an "idealist" is a fallacy. How can you deny the spectrum between those two extremes?


Just because that's the way things have been in the past, does that mean we should not try to do differently? Chalking it up to our nature seems to me a poor excuse for a lack of humanity. I'd like to think we are trying to progress toward something, and that we aren't doomed to repeat the past. I feel that most people who participate in healthy criticism of our country's policies do so in accordance with the the Asante principle of Sankofa- those who do not learn from their past are doomed to repeat it.

?

Our most aggressive adversaries over the past 100 years have not been “victims of American policy” unless one feels that the containment of Russia and China to some extent is included in that scenario.

Countries compete. Countries, looking for economic opportunities ally and expand their fields of influence. Some political systems such as Communism demand violent expansion/conquest and countries like the Soviet Union are clear examples of this. With over 80 million dead as a result since 1917.

Were we right to resist this – I believe so even though excesses have certainly not helped us the good far outweighs the bad.

I would like to see us pull back some from the role of “world cop” but that does not mean that we can abandon our self interest which includes resisting countries like Iran in their pursuit of nuclear weapons that would destabilize the ME.

On the economic front our Corporations overseas are an overwhelmingly positive force for prosperity – esp. in the third world where they provide millions of jobs and billions of $$ in income to those that need it most.

If there is one person on who's opinions I take for granted as being truly patriotic DTOM, they are yours.

I can't comment on what passes for a communist in the USA, I can only say we have the real deal here in my country and I would be a liar if I said I didn't see strong parrallels between mainstream 'centralist socialist' politicians and the far left extremists. These similarities are so blatant as to be impossible to ignore.

I have become a nationalist because I am not a conservative and I can no longer stomach the hypocrisy of the left. In effect I am forced to become what I am today because the people I used to vote for came out in force to support Hizb'Allah. I cannot accept any politician who openly supports 'the party of God', not when 'the party of God' and the many other Muslim organisations like it, openly advocate the murdering of Jews.

Denmark is known as the country in Europe which saved its Jews from the Nazi's. We were the only occupied country which did. That was then. This is now. With the influx of Islam we've seen real anti semitism in our country. Jews attacked in the street. Synagogues fire bombed. Everything we associate with the budding Third Reich.

In this dark time, our leading socialist politicans (see image links below) can be found lamenting Islamophobia in our society, despite the absence of any similar attacks on Muslims, calling for sanctions against Israel at Hizb'Allah demonstrations, and generally putting all the blame, for everything bad which has happend since world war two solely on the USA.

Photographed at a Hizb'Allah rally before Copenhagen's town hall in 2006:
Frank Aean. Leader of the far left Unity party.
Holger K Nielsen. Former leader of the Socialist Peoples Party.
Mogens Lykketoft. Former leader and Prime minister candidate for the Social democrats. You can't get any further towards the middle and still be a socialist. Lykkertoft was without doubt the most senior politican present. He has been both finance and foreign minister at various times during his career under the previous Socialist government. He is the Danish equivalent to Al Gore.

These men are all vehemently anti American. They are all in lock step with Noam Chomsky in identifying the USA as the sole cause of the current global prediciment. They do not take context into account, and as any Jew in Denmark can tell you, they do not care to examine the people whom they seek to protect. Any one who criticises a Muslim, they label an Islamophobe. Any one who chooses to defend the integrity of the USA they label a war monger.

Any Muslim whom attacks a Jew is a criminal with mitigating circumstances...





Please explain to me what you mean by 'spectrum'. I do not understand which nuances you have identified by that broad term. I see none such.

The population of this planet is rapidly eating all other species out of existance. I don't know what criteria you are employing in your assessment of the long term chances of survival for human civilisation, but every indication I've seen shows that when the oil runs out things are going to get very unpleasant. As it is, we are already seeing food prices rising all across the globe as the costs of transporation rise along side the costs of oil.

Along with the loss of irreplacable bio-diversity, the long term appetites of the developing world are leading us striaght into oblivion. Europe is the only continent that has a (more or less) stable population and its very over crowded here.


Yeah, it sounds so good. Such valiant words.

And then you see what becomes of good intentions. The whole point of the USA was to be something new and free, and what are you become but the most war mongering nation on Earth. The largest military budget the world has ever seen. All voted for democratically.

Why bother pretending? Are we so afraid of our animal nature that we have to lean on unrealistic morality or supernatural fantasy in order to look at ourselves in the mirror?

I don't know of any animal which has a nastier nature than our 'humanity'



edited to clarify a sentence

The problem Ted has with Noam Chomsky is that he has never actually read Noam Chomsky- and if he did, he doesn't understand it too well- big words and stuff. Noam Chomsky is the most briliant man of our time- bar none, except possibly Stephan Hawking.

Don't critisize those so much smarter than you that you can't understand the material Ted, he is just too "elite" for you.

Moif- do you believe that the end justifies the means when the USA utilizes terrorism for corporate benefit? Why do you automatically assume because a goverment is "left leaning" is going to automatically give up it's soveriegnty to Russia or some such? Guatemala was in NO danger of doing this- in fact, his land reforms were more based on USA yoeman farmer model- not collective farming at all.

So what was the USA "stopping" when it set the stage for hundreds of thousands dead when it created the coup that toppled the popularly elected goverment?

Do you think it is a good idea that the USA topple popularly, freely elected goverments to install evil dictators?

So let me ask you again smart guy why you call yourself a Republican? If you agree with Noam, and his anti – capitalist crap I find it hard to believe your a Republican – so explain it to me.

And while you insult me on words you cannot even spell “brilliant” – much less associate it with this leftist.

As I said when I was a student in the late 60s I met Chomsky and read much of his work which I now consider garbage. What positions do you support CR?

I have said this on many threads dealing with Iraq: I was initially skeptical of the war; but, once we pulled the trigger, we must finish it, and here is where you and I differ: 20 years from now, if we have a foothold in the ME from which we can moderate Islamic terrorism, exert influence over the oil supply, and perhaps plant western seeds of govt and culture, then this war may well turn out to be very much in our self-interest.

Since there is no way out now, debating how we got there is academic (except as it may apply to future conflicts), and debating how we can leave even moreso, as there is no graceful way out now--we need to push this to a self-interested conclusion, as I describe above.

I do not buy into the American desire to be "liked"; That is why we are so bad at being an aggressive power and it is our biggest liability in the world of realpolitik . Power and control are its own reward.

Ted, I'm not gonna take this thread too further off topic and sift through your posts, a lot of which tend to be fly by posts sprinkled with talking points. One I remember off the top of my head had to do with oil and your full support for the U.S. accessing it no matter the cost, including the toll in service member lives and our economy. I doubt your position would change with regime change in the U.S. But then, if I did link that post, you'd probably think it was an example of patriotism, not blind support.


You did more than that. You baited DTOM with his "association" with Chomsky. Or tried to. You seem to think like a lot of Republican pundits you have some deluded duty to label Chomsky radioactive and disparage someone who so much as quotes the man.


I can live with it even if I'm in the five percent. At least we're not in our 18^th year of nation building in Iraq.


If Chomsky is what passes for contemporary radicalism in America I am very disappointed. So Chomsky had a second standard for Communist regimes. Most people do when their ideological sympathies are called into play. It doesn't mean they can't be right sometimes. Nobody stops reading National Review for the paper's infatuation with Francisco Franco right up to his death.


Ah, Moif.


I can't speak for him but I wouldn't be surprised about anyone serving in Iraq experiencing a paradigm shift. It's great to theorize about Iraqis, the military's role in Iraq, Iran, etc. from a safe distance. Who knows what knocks around inside a grunt's head when it's time to do the dirty work?


Iraq and overextending ourselves with military, lopsided commitments in Iraq and throughout the world. There may be other things I agree with him about.


The only evil thing about CAP is that it coincides with EU member state subsidies to disrupt foreign agribusiness, sink developing markets, increase foreign reliance on U.S. aid, prompting governments to borrow more from the World Bank, etc., but God forbid they implement their own protectionist policies if they want to borrow from the West.


Maybe something as idealistic as pushing one economic standard or no standard at all is delusional because the people with guns always think they know best and they retain the right to implement standards that almost always benefit the ruling class, but it may keep me away from the Kool Aid and adding my voice to policies I can't support.


The elites that created this country are ashes. So are the principles they penned to paper.


I believe it'll change things for the better for omitting the harm we cause on their behalf. That's better enough for me. I'm not looking to save the world from itself.


That's for the country to decide. You know, sovereignty and all that.


They may still become the world's leading economies. As you note it is already happening with our military force. Superior force isn't always a tie-breaker but we like to think so. Perhaps we need to think so in spite of the fact that Iraqi insurgents have been mocking us for years.

That's why expanding military outposts around the world sounds like a no-brainer. At best we're putting off hegemonic decline as long as we can.


I don't know what you're talking about. Do you think I'm a pacifist?

Just gonna chime in here on Chomsky, the American hero who's picture graces my avatar. Ted claims to have read a lot of his work, yet continues to say that Chomsky is, variously, a socialist, a communist, and against personal freedom. The thing is, even a cursory reading of Chomsky's material will reveal that he has more in common with libertarians than socialists. Indeed, he proposes a system called Anarcho-syndicalism.

Like all the whipping boys of the deranged right, Chomsky is a great source for out of context quotes. So instead of posting a quote about the crime of 9/11 - "Nothing can justify crimes such as those of September 11th" is from his book, 9/11 - they grab the part where he puts the crime into context, or they pull some random part of something from discussions of historical context.

Frankly, through all of this, I am more frightened by the views espoused by moif, who recognizes the truth of US foreign policy, but sees it as necessary, than I am by those who through their own - albeit willful - ignorance, refuse to see the truth at all. And I completely disagree with moif's characterization that it is only because of this policy that we can have these "soft" views. The truth is that all over the world, in every nation, the past century has seen working people fighting against authoritarian systems. The labor movement in the US has been fighting the same battle that has been echoed around the globe. Our solidarity and our struggle; our views of sane foreign policies and equitable labor policies and universal human rights are not the product of the softness of first world comfort; they cannot be, because they are shared in toto by the masses of people all over the world, most living in "hard" places.

And in truth it is not hard to see that it is brutal US interventionism that made communism and socialism seem to be the viable alternative. Many people in our country don't know what it is like to be on the receiving end of America's decidedly undemocratic foreign policies. But how can anyone be shocked that, for example, a country like Cuba would turn to the USSR for protection, when the US had variously invaded and controlled their country from the time it was a battleground in the war with Spain to its final liberation in 1959? To men like Castro and Guevara the other prevailing political power of the time must have seemed the only sane alternative.

Now, see, you could probably quote this post out of context and make me out to be a supporter of the USSR, or a communist. I expect nothing better of the desperate authoritarians on the right, and like Moif's "coming of age" and shifting his ideals to the most stark sort of realpolitik, I suppose that my lowered expectations of these folks with their heads in the sand is a sign of my own calcification. I'll throw out an optimistic bone, then, I suppose. Unlike those who end up like Moif, I think most people, even those who argue furiously but without even a basic understanding of history and global politics, upon learning the truth, will be drawn to my side of the aisle. There.

It's only academic if we're lazy. If we realize that we are on the wrong course in our foreign policy; that is, our goals are not being met and our actions are becoming more detrimental to our national security, then it would be our duty to change course. At least explore alternative courses of action. If we are sliding down a sinkhole, we don't simply say oh well, let's see this to it's logical conclusion. There is a way out, but politicians are too worried about public perception of alternatives, and the public is too interested in who wears a flag lapel pin or what some reverend has to say. Sadly, we are a disposable consumer society......and if this empire falls, it will be because we deserved it.



I care less about whether or not we're liked, and I'm not sure how this enters into the equation, unless you ascribe that brand of empathy on whomever wishes an alternative foreign policy. What I care about is liberty, freedom and sovereignty. What I care about is having our methods and practices match our principles. What I care about is pursuing a foreign policy that allows diplomacy, economic liberty and cultural relations to foster democratic liberalism throughout the world, instead of military intervention and occupation.

Gee then just call it blind support Lesley and include in that nearly every expert on Iraq most Americans and all candidates. All of whom would not just run from Iraq. - Ya “blind support” – I am guilty.



No I didn’t I point out politically where the man comes from. That ok with you? If I quoted GWB would you not tell me you thought the info was crap because of the “source”? Same thing. So why don’t you let DTOM deal with it.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you talking about experts like Petraeus's friend and Brookings Institute member Michael O'Hanlon or experts like Pentagon bureaucrat Joseph Collins (pdf)? The experts hardly share one opinion and they're increasingly agitated over our decision to invade Iraq and the aftermath.


I see. So when you wrote

the man is a Socialist

As I have said he is a dedicated Socialist

I pointed out where Chomsky comes from and why I disagree with him.

and linked an article to Chomsky's ideological beliefs you accidentally made his ideology something to take note of each and every time. How does one consistently trip themselves like that and stay employed? I mean, I have to assume you accidentally referred to Chomsky's political beliefs otherwise I have to call you a liar and a pitiful one at that.


I can't leave it alone. DTOM hardly needs me to deal with anything but I can't let the insinuations continue for the sake of preserving the legitimacy of my own political beliefs. Posting one paragraph from a leftist activist, intellectual, linguist or whatever shouldn't invoke the reaction you had. And Ted? I don't need to disparage a Bush quote because of the source. He's given me too much ammunition to shoot him down with "Eew, it's Bush".

Its past midnight so please forgive me any jumbled words or spelling errors...

Because small nations (like my own) need allies in order to survive, and countries which elect left wing extremists (like Hugo Chavez) are not going to tolerate alliance with the USA.

Even my own country would distance itself from America if the Socialists ever got full control of our government. They even tried to align us with Moscow during the Cold War, but failed largely due to the proportional representational political system which denies Danish political parties from forming single party governments.

To this day, socialists blame the USA for everything that has ever gone wrong, even when they are obviously no better themselves. I place little store in tales of CIA guilt in south America which come from left wing sources. It isn't that I find the CIA to be pleasant people who wouldn't stoop so low, only that as often not the people levelling the accusations, like Hugo Chavez, are themselves revolutionary types who see black propaganda as a valid tool in their fight to over throw capitalism.


In principle, no. In practice I think context is everything.




It is a vile policy that keeps people stuck in poverty. It is also the only way Europe can maintain the ability to manufacture food in the face of third world wages.

In recent years we have felt what it means to have Russia controlling gas lines into Europe. Moscow has felt no compunction about shutting off gas supplies, leaving people helpless in the face of cold weather, in order to force its political agenda's. Being subjected to other peoples whim in that fashion is unacceptable, thus the CAP must remain in place until a viable solution can be found. There is nothing to be gained by allowing other country's the opportunity to hold Europe ransom.


Even people without guns think they are right too, but since they don't have any guns, their opinions carry less weight. The answer is, to be the one holding the gun, then you can be as altruistic as you wish.

Of course, sooner or later both sides will have guns, and thats when we need diplomats. The trouble with diplomats, like lawyers, priests and other expert go-betweens, is that as time passes these people end up running everything to their liking. Thats how we got the UN and the EU.

Every so often, it might be a good idea to remind our politicians that they serve us, not the other way around.


Including the law?


Prudent, but not wise... I think you'd find that in pulling out, your only leaving room for some one else to make decisions for you. Kind of like Britain.


No, I don't know it any more. We lost ours to Bruxelles some time during the 1970's.


Well, you need cards on the table to play the game...


No. I wasn't talking about you specifically and anyway I remember what you wrote about Abu Laban's death. You shocked me and I haven't forgotten your admirable capacity for ruthlessness.

Its the way you temper that anger with humour that makes you so charming.





You had me right up until solidarity. The trouble with you and your kind Quarkhead (apart from being hardened into lime) is you actually believe the hype, or maybe I should say, still believe the hype. Even after so many socialists have led the way into utter horror for so many millions of people, you can still bandy about such a tired old buzz word like 'solidarity'. You remind me of a shop keeper I saw on the TV news a while back. Her shop had just been torched by left wing radicals rioting in the street because they saw themselves as fighting The Revolution and this unfortunate woman, who had voted Socialist her whole life was left with the costs of cleaning up. Thats your solidarity Quarkhead.

There is no solidarity in socialism. Socialists turn each other over to the secret police just like any one else. Party members disapear. People get airbrushed out of memory and socialist governments wage war upon each other. Our socialists love to put up taxes to pay for expensive state projects and yet we find they cheat on their taxes just as often as every one else. The Soviets, who were the logical end product of socialism, had nuclear weapons aimed at us, even when we had socialist led governments.

Solidarity is just code for 'do as your told'.


The lesser of two evils, as I said.

What made the USSR seem less evil to Castro was his context. He had never benefitted from the USA so he turned to the USSR. I have no doubt he milked them for all he could get. Cuba was a real feather in the Soviet cap so I don't doubt Castro was living the good life even when his people were left in squallor and poverty for the next forty years. Theres your 'solidarity' again. Eternal revolution takes precedence over people's quality of life, just so the chairman can stay glued to the seat of power until his spirit finally leaves his calcified body.


Well, moif hasn't 'ended up' quite yet.

Your side of the isle wants to change the world in its own image. The 'labour movement' is a pathological lie come about by a desire to bring others down rather raise them up. The speeches and the intellectuals who peddle them talk about 'solidarity', but when they get into power they are no different than any other politician.

Me, I have no ideology. I have no answers or solutions designed to save the world, or liberate the workers or end imperialism, or Nazism, or Colonialism, or Capitalism, or anyotherism catering to the need for a villain.

You say my position frightens you? I am not surprised. I have held your beliefs and seen them betray me.

Ted- I made the comments because you keep repeating that chomsky is this or that- but you really obviously have no idea what he is about, and obviously have not read one of his works in his entirety- Chomsky is a great proponent of capitalism, just not corporatism. He recognizes that the most free societies are those that are rooted in small scale capiltalism, for the most part. That is why it is SOO obvious from your comments that you have not even read ONE of his books. Not to mention, he is the greatest linguist of our time. In fact, he is the one that came up with the concept and defined "LAD"- the languange aquisition device/developement. You know- that little thing that lets you learn a language so easily before approximately 7 years old, then makes it so hard afterward?

Moif-

Okay- once again, gonna ask you to nail it down here- can you tell me what threat Guatemelan self determination harmed the US as a whole, and not just one special interest corporation with his land reforms, that were based on American style of agricultural developement?

I would like to you even tell me the slightest threat that they represented?

To the point that it was okay to destabilize the entire country, and for the next 20 years, coup attempt after coup attempt that left over 100k dead?

How is this good foriegn policy Moif? HOw is this good for the US, good for the Guatemelans, and make anyone more free?

By themselves, they probably represented no threat at all. As a constitute member of a Soviet south America however, they would have posed the same threat that Cuba did in 1962.

'I have no interest in Guatamala so I had to read about the country's recent history on Wikipedia. From what I can ascertain Guatamala's socialist government tried to break the contracts American companies, most specifically the United Fruit Company had with their country and which had largely led to a certain amount of economic growth in some sectors of Guatamalan society. The CIA responded by effectively disrupting Guatamala and keeping it in a state of disorganisation.

Link.

If you follow that link at the end of the quote it takes you to a US State Dept page which has the official American perspective. The last paragraph confirms my initial suspicion. The CIA acted to counter a perceived communist threat.
Link.

Given the dates and the context of the greater world situation, I am not really surprised at the actions undertaken by the CIA. That history demonstrates the lack of any credible connection between Guatamala City and Moscow at the time only demonstrates the suspicion and uncertainty that characterised the Cold War. Perhaps the CIA were too fast to react, but taking the stakes into account, and the fact that their fears were later realised by the Cuban Missile Crisis, I think one must accept that time was probably considered of the essence. The CIA probably acted with a sense of urgency, in order to nip the communist threat in the bud.

You must also remember that the Guatamalans took a side. They had pre-existing contracts with a major American company which they then tried to rob. I hadn't realised just how big and important the United Fruit Company actually was, but the loss of income it faced was no small amount. Its easy to ridicule the CIA as having acted to maintain 'cheap banana's' but the fact is the UFC was the biggest importer of fruit into the USA and you don't ignore threats to your food supply. Even if it is in the hands of a private company, food supply's are of paramount strategic importance.

War was never declared against Guatamala, because since the threat of nuclear war with the Soviet Union, the USA prudently does not declare war. Covert operations were how the Cold War was kept from ever become a Hot War. Once Guzmán did a deal with the Communists which threatened a major American company, and given the risk of Soviet involvement, the CIA had no better option that to topple the Guatamalan government. I honestly feel sorry for the innocent Guatamalan's who died, but to push sole responsibility for their deaths on the CIA is unfair. The CIA would not have responded if the Guatamalan president; Colonel Guzmán, had not allowed communists to gain a foot hold in his country. The risk he then posed was to great to be ignored. Much like Saddam Hussein as it turns out. The perceived threat, the possibilities posed, were too great to allow Guzmán the benefit of the doubt.

One should also remember that the CIA were not acting alone. A portion of the Guatamalan population were also involved. This isn't to lesson the blood on the hands of the CIA, only to point out that the CIA were also acting in Guatamala's own interests, as seen from the pragmatic perspective. The Hot War alternative might have led to nuclear war as almost happened over Cuba.


If you look at Venezuela today you can see a similar example in Hugo Chavez, another democratically elected Socialist revolutionary, who has acted in a like manner. He has annulled previous contracts and moved to confiscate the oil infrastructure built at great cost by foreign (mostly US) oil companies. These companies are in effect being robbed to prop up Chavez's government. Chavez himself is a typical Socialist. He can spend money (preferably other peoples money) but he is no good at making it. Consequence has granted Venezuela huge oil reserves and in Chavez's hands these are being used as a strategic weapon for his own ideological agenda.

Oil is just as important as food to a country like the USA, but you'll notice that Hugo Chavez is still in power. The CIA haven't toppled him. Chavez likes to bluster and make out that this is because he is so macho that he can stare down 'the gringo', but the truth of the matter is very simple. The USSR no longer exists to threaten the USA and the South American socialists like Chavez stand alone.

The answer to your questions then is pretty obvious to me. Context, as always, was everything. Guatamala shot itself in the foot by flirting with communism as a means to wrest control of its agricultural infrastructure from American companies it had already done deals with. Given the global situation at the time, this was possibly the stupidest course of action Guzmán could have taken, but as a Socialist his primary solution was ideological and the conclusion of that ideology is always confrontation.

Wow- I guess I thought a bit more of you than that Moif- what we did there had less to do with the communists than protecting a corporate interest- Guatamela didn't feed America- at the time, in fact, we were probably the number 1 food producer in the world- bar none. America didn't import food except "exotics"- like bananans.

What we did there was protect American companie's slave labor. Again-the ends justifies the means?

Pretty much of a stretch- in fact, you have it completely backwards Moif- companies were raping and pillaging the country- and the population reacted to the exploitation by turning to another goverment.

Chavez has been pushed into power by the excesses of the oil companies- and, eventually, probably Nigeria will go the same direction.

Had there been no abuses by major corporations, fighting to keep slaves basically- had they been treated fairly- similar to Cuba- there would have been no castro either.

Even Saddam, Noriega and Osama owed thier political existance to the US- they all eventually turned on us- which has been the oddest part of US interventions, as I mentioned to Mrs P- I think the genocide and evil we promote usually comes back to bite us in the butt.

Moif - it is easy to sit in a nice comfortable room and "feel sorrty for those innocents that die, but they brought it on themselves" kinda attitude is WHY the US is so evil in it's foriegn involvements- as long as the US has cheap bananas, it is just fine if we murder off a few hundred thousand innocent people- I mean, the US has to have cheap bananas, right>

When other countries populations hate us, and consider us the boogeyman- it is pretty clear why- because we do very, very bad things in thier countries, and the end DOES NOT justify the means.

At least, well, you do it with eyes wide open, and realize that the US engages in terrorism, and is probably the largest supporter of terrorism abroad, than any country on earth I suppose.

Moif - it wasn't that banana companies "already had deals with Guatemala" as much as "the US had already secured some slave labor with the help of some corrupt locals"- turns out, the slaves didn't like it so much.

Oh yeah, how is the Soviet Union worse than the United states in foriegn affairs again?

My belief is you favor rapid pullout from Iraq regardless of the situation. Few people agree with this and even the candidate hedge their statements on the issue. Most Americans don’t favor it either. And I agree – so if that makes me “blind” then I am guilty as charged.

.

No clue on your point. I specifically point out the mans politics as a way of revealing where he is coming from. Certainly this dedicated leftist is against the Iraq war – and the Afghanistan war as he was against Gulf War I. That was relevant – get it?



He hates everything about capitalism – he calls himself a libertarian socialist.
Noam Chomsky is a widely known intellectual, political activist, and critic of the foreign policy of the United States and other governments. Noam Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian socialist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Noam_Chomsky


And this includes:

“Libertarian socialism is a group of political philosophies that aim to create a society without political, economic or social hierarchies – a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved, and in their place every person would have free, equal access to tools of information and production, or a society in which such coercive institutions and hierarchies were drastically reduced in scope.[1]

This equality and freedom would be achieved through the abolition of authoritarian institutions and private property,[2] in order that direct control of the means of production and resources will be gained by the working class and society as a whole. Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that informs the identification, criticism and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of social life. Accordingly libertarian socialists believe that “the exercise of power in any institutionalized form – whether economic, political, religious, or sexual – brutalizes both the wielder of power and the one over whom it is exercised.”[3]
While many varieties of socialism emphasize the role of the state or political party in promoting [state control] and social engineering, libertarian socialists place their hopes in trade unions, workers' councils, municipalities, citizens' assemblies, and other non-bureaucratic, decentralized means of action.[4] Most libertarian socialists advocate doing away with the state altogether, seeing it as a bulwark of capitalist class rule.[5”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism


So please show me some Capitalist support statements from the man – if you can.

Your comment holds no water. It is by definiton academic to argue over whether going into Iraq was wise--we are there. As to getting out, leaving until the situation is stabilized will spawn a bloodbath, with much of the blood on our hands, and the end result with be a nation controlled by Iran and hostile to us. So, we are stuck. As Colin Powell so aptly said, "You break it, you bought it." The trick now is to have the wisdom to modify our policy there so the end result is beneficial--to us.

Also, I do not care what you think we "deserve". This all goes to the point below about being "liked". I want more than I deserve, better than I deserve. This is not some mediation of a high school fight--I could care less what is "fair" and in any event, who would decide what is "fair"--al Sadr? That nutjob in Iran? The UN?

As to casting aspersions on our standard of living, I rather like it....and would like to keep it, thank you very much. I do not have contempt for American society.






So you care about liberty, freedom and sovereignty? Me, too, but OUR liberty, freedom and sovereignty. I am fine with other countries sharing these values, and I am fine with assisting other nations when possible, BUT not at the expense of my own nation.

Oh, I don't know...They made all of the 'Stans into their personal toxic waste cans? Um, took foreign workers and employed them into their state projects, lured by handsome sums and then imprisoned them into gulags for decades, taking everything from them (after determining them to be "foreign spies") after the projects were finished? Um, Let's see....

West Germany, East Germany.
Western Europe countries, Eastern Europe countries
North Korea, South Korea
Sure is a horrifying US legacy. I can see why the Soviets seem the better alternative.

Interestingly enough Mrs P- those places have pretty much been going back to their old "communist" ways= turns out thier standard of living was quite a bit higher before the "wall fell"- look at Ukraine- the "orange revolution" has pretty much come full circle, hasn't it?

Even in Russia- after some time playing with Yeltsin- the coutry was FAR FAR FAR worse off under Yeltsin than under Breshnev- something the average US citizen can't even understand- and they went back to the stalinist model- Putin is actually MORE powerful than Stalin.

Most of those countries did much better after we left, in terms of our interference in other countries. Vietnam is a much better place 20 some years later without the US than it ever was while we were there.

REally- Mrs P- what the heck is the difference between us supporting autocratic regimes that kills hundreds of thousands of people and the USSR?

Point is- we are NOT supposed to be as bad as them- why do we keep doing just that?

Again- looked at Kosovo- we have let the genocidal terrorist maniacs have the country, let them off for war crimes, yet, like you pointed out- the Serbs have been better to us than the Kosovars have been, correct?

Hey Moif- since Hitler killed millions, rounded up and killed communist sympathizers- heck, those Jews shot themselves in the foot when they had communist sympathies, right?

Mrs P- I don't hold our country to the standards of other countries- I hold our country to the standards we claim to have- freedom, justice, that kind of thing- we can't accomplish it- then we don't need to be there, period. If we can't do it according to our rules- we need to let those citizens decide for themselves- if THEY choose an evil dictator- it's on them- I just don't want no part of that for our country.

What is oddest about the US is our difficulty in admitting we did something horrible and coming to terms with our past.

Germany at least admits hitler was evil and left an evil legacy. Can't fix things if you don't believe you have been bad.

And Moif- the guatemalen people DID NOT choose the USSR over the US- they chose a leader than they wanted to implement thier land reforms due to abuses by foriegn corporate entities- nothing more. They didn't want Russia OR the US determining their future- they excercised thier RIGHTS to self determination

the US just "determined" that those people should continue to be slaves to Chiquita banana- and that my friend, is pure, unmitigated evil. There is no other way to spin it. We chose to subjegate a people so we could have exotic fruit that we don't need to survive in the US- there is no defensive reason to ensure our banana supply.

You confuse “support” with the actual crimes. Yes we “supported” some right wing dictators during the cold war and the Soviets promoted and supported some left wing dictators. Because we didn’t go in run their countries you are saying we are responsible for “hundreds of thousands of deaths. (I dispute the numbers – post backup?)

Are you sure the alternative Communist/Socialist government would not have been as bad or worse?

And don’t compare us to the Soviets – that conquered, occupied and ran countries for decades and killed millions of people and enslaved millions more. Trying to make mistakes we have made the moral equivalent of any of this is ludicrous.

As for Vietnam after we ran:
Effects on Southeast Asia
Main articles: Mayagüez Incident, Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Democratic Kampuchea, Third Indochina War, Reeducation camp, and boat people
Phnom Penh, the capital of Cambodia, fell to the Khmer Rouge on April 17, 1975. The last official American military action in Southeast Asia occurred on May 15, 1975. Forty-one U.S. military personnel were killed when the Khmer Rouge seized a U.S. merchant ship, the SS Mayagüez. The episode became known as the Mayagüez incident.

The Pathet Lao overthrew the royalist government of Laos in December 1975. They established the Lao People's Democratic Republic.[107]

Hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese officials, particularly ARVN officers, were imprisoned in reeducation camps after the Communist takeover.[citation needed] Tens of thousands died and many fled the country after being released. Up to two million civilians left the country, and as many as half of these boat people perished at sea.[citation needed]

On July 2, 1976, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam was declared. After repeated border clashes in 1978, Vietnam invaded Democratic Kampuchea (Cambodia) and ousted the Khmer Rouge. As many as two million died during the Khmer Rouge genocide.

Vietnam began to repress its ethnic Chinese minority. Thousand fled and the exodus of the boat people began. In 1979, China invaded Vietnam and the two countries fought a brief border war, known as the Third Indochina War or the Sino-Vietnamese War.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

CR, when I read your "Democracy Now!" rants, I am just in awe. Why, oh why, do you live here? Don't you feel awful that your tax dollars are used by a corrupt government to pursue evil, genocide and terrorism all over the globe? How do you live with yourself?

I can say this--tens of millions of Soviet citizens died in Gulags and Pogroms. Those in captured Soviet satellites suffered the same fate. There were the ubiquitous late night knocks on the door and people disappeared in huge numbers.

I do not see us in the same light. I am worried about some of the trends I see lately, but we simply are not in the same sandbox.

Oh, as for terrorism, I define it fairly narrowly: Attacks without warning by un-uniformed personnel on civilians soley to intimidate them, and such attacks serve no strategic military purpose. I am not sure how you define it, but under my definition, we do not foray into terrorism. Or genocide, for that matter, as there are no ethnic groups we have sought to systematically exterminate--even if you want to bring up the centuries' long American Indian problem, I will note we still have many Indians here and there has been no concerted effort to kill all of them systematically.

Evil, I guess, is in the eye of the beholder, so call it as you see it.

Well, again I don't know what you're talking about. There are several withdrawal plans on the 'net to browse. Most of them predict it will take between 12 to 18 months for an orderly withdrawal. Leaving immediately would be a clusterf---. Our equipment, and maybe even some personnel would be abandoned in a race to get out. Most Americans want to withdraw and want a president who is willing to get out. What I don't support is redeploying to Iraq.


I'm really starting to believe you (1) drop acid when you post, (2) have problems with memory loss or (3) only care about your version of truth. It doesn't matter much at this point. You're the conservative version of liberals getting antsy when I dare quote the Trotskyite-turned-neocon Christopher Hitchens when he offers a valid observation and we're taking this thread further off topic.

Speaking of not holding any water. We weren't talking about the wisdom of going into Iraq, we speaking of our presence in Iraq. At least I was......



Strangely you still bring up the facet of 'being liked'.....who here is speaking to that, and thus justifying your responses?



I enjoy living here as well; I simply scoff at the fat, lazy and ignorant populace who believe that they are truly free, as long as they can shop at Wal-Mart and watch American Idol.



At least you're honest about the fact that you're values and principles only apply to people born within the same geographic region as you, most due to luck. You have every right to acquiesce and cooperate with exploitation, slavery, genocide, imperialism, colonization and hegemony.........as long as your not the victim, right? Surely I seem to be correct when I say that it appears you have no problem when our practices do not match our principles, and as long as a politician tells you that some facet of our foreign policy is in our best interest, your flexible values remain at peace?



The Taliban 'supported' Al Qeada. But by your definition, by invading Afghanistan did we not also confuse support with the actual crimes?

I find it interesting that those that post "what happened after we left" (even though we set the stage for that instability in the first place, usually by propping up corrupt goverments with no popular support, hence the instability)

they post the OMG- there were 2 million refugees after the war- but how about how "nice" it was while we were there?

How about this little left out factoid on Vietnam:

Over 1.4 million military personnel were killed in the war (only 6 percent were members of the United States armed forces), while estimates of civilian fatalities range up to 2 million. On April 30, 1975, the capital of South Vietnam, Saigon, fell to the communist forces of North Vietnam, effectively ending the Vietnam War.

BTW- this is the guy that was on OUR side-

Ngo Dinh Diem was chosen by the U.S. to lead South Vietnam. A devout Roman Catholic, he was fervently anti-communist and was “untainted” by any connection to the French. He was one of the few prominent Vietnamese nationalists who could claim both attributes. Historian Luu Doan Huynh notes, however, that “Diem represented narrow and extremist nationalism coupled with autocracy and nepotism.”[21]

The new American patrons were almost completely ignorant of Vietnamese culture. They knew little of the language or long history of the country.[7] There was a tendency to assign American motives to Vietnamese actions, and Diem warned that it was an illusion to believe that blindly copying Western methods would solve Vietnamese problems.[7]


On orders from U.S. President John F. Kennedy, Henry Cabot Lodge, the American ambassador to South Vietnam, refused to meet with Diệm. Upon hearing that a coup d'etat was being designed by ARVN generals led by General Dương Văn Minh, the United States gave secret assurances to the generals that the U.S. would not interfere. Dương Văn Minh and his co-conspirators overthrew the government on November 1, 1963.

The coup was very swift. On November 1, 1963, with only the palace guard remaining to defend President Diệm and his younger brother, Ngô Đình Nhu, the generals called the palace offering Diệm safe exile out of the country if he surrendered. However, that evening, Diệm and his entourage escaped via an underground passage to Cholon, where they were captured the following morning, November 2. The brothers were executed in the back of an armoured personnel carrier by Captain Nguyen Van Nhung while en route to the Vietnamese Joint General Staff headquarters.[60] Diệm was buried in an unmarked grave in a cemetery next to the house of the US ambassador.[61]



All because we don't like it when other countries determine thier own paths- and we behave so stupidly that even our own enemies can't believe it:


Upon learning of Diệm's ouster and death, Ho Chi Minh is reported to have said, "I can scarcely believe the Americans would be so stupid."[62] The North Vietnamese Politburo was more explicit, predicti