Monday, March 29, 2004

C'mon Proffessor Chomsky, open up some comments....what are you afraid of?

The infamous Noam Chomsky has started his own weblog, located here.

Unsuprisingly, Noam has neglected to add comments to his blog, which allows him to make his unsubstantiated claims without fear of reprisal on his own blog. Pretty sad if you ask me.

I feel like a'fiskin someone today, and no one deserves it more than Mr Linguistics Proffesor-turned-foreign-policy-expert (yeah, I'm still trying to figure that one out) Noam Chomsky. I don't pretend to have a monopoly on the truth with these matters myself, but the points Noam makes in the following posts needs to be addressed.

Proffessor Chomsky writes here-

"All opponents of the invasion of Iraq -- at least, all those who bothered to think the matter through -- took for granted that there would be beneficial effects, as is often the case with military interventions: the bombing of Pearl Harbor, for example, which led to the expulsion of Western imperial powers from Asia, saving millions of lives. Does that justify Japanese fascism and its crimes? Of course not: there is far more to consider, and I've never had any question that these other considerations amply justify condemning Japan's aggression as a war crime -- the "supreme crime" of Nuremberg. "

Huh? Japan's raping of China compared to the US invading Iraq? Hoookay....Thank god he doesn't EQUATE it.....Not sure what he's trying to say with that paragraph. War to remove fascists is a good thing? Yes?

"Arthur Schlesinger, perhaps the most respected mainstream American historian, had ample reason to recall the attack on Pearl Harbor as the bombing of Iraq began. FDR was right to condemn the Japanese attack as a date that will live in infamy, Schlesinger wrote, but now it is Americans who live in infamy as their government adopts the policies of imperial Japan, he added, as the first bombs fell on Baghdad."

Whoops. Too late. Yes, he does. The US invading Iraq is akin to the Imperial policies of Japan. This is comparable to this. Noam, sorry. But there is NO WAY you can compare the two. Coming from Noam, this is hardly suprising.

"The invasion of Iraq brought two murderous regimes to an end: the sanctions regime, and the rule of Saddam Hussein. Orders from on high are that we are to ignore the first, on the usual grounds: we are responsible for those crimes, and therefore they must be dispatched deep down the memory hole. But we are not obliged to subject ourselves to the commands of state authority and doctrinal managers."

So wait, despite the absolutely corrupt "Oil-For Palaces and Kickbacks" program, somehow this is the US's fault? Didn't the whole UNSC agree on the sanctions? Like multiple times? How is this the US's fault? Does he even give a reason why the sanctions were the US's fault? That would be a no. You're supposed to know how evil the US already is YOU STOOPID EVIL CONSERVATIVES!!!

"Every decent person should welcome these two outcomes, and all serious opponents of the war have always done so, though advocates of state violence labor to suppress this fact. The sanctions regime killed hundreds of thousands of people, by conservative estimates. It devastated the civilian society, strengthened the tyrant, and compelled the population to rely on him for mere survival. It's because of these hideous consequences that the highly respected international diplomats who administered the programs, Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck, resigned in protest at what Halliday called the "genocidal" sanctions regime. Recall that they are the Westerners who knew Iraq best, having access to regular information from a great many investigators in all parts of the country. The sanctions regime was administered by the UN, but everyone understood that its cruel and savage character was dictated by the US and its British subordinate. Ending this regime is certainly a very positive aspect of the invasion, and a cause for gratification. But of course that could have been done, and sanctions could have been directed to weapons programs instead, without an invasion. So this beneficial consequence, doubtless greatly welcomed by Iraqis, provides no justification for the invasion."

Are these the same "highly respected international diplomats" that are currently er, "on vacation" right now? Ya know, the ones who might have embezzled billions of dollars from the sanctions and are conveniently "missing"? Now doubt working tirelessly to embezzle -er I mean- help those poor unwashed masses. If I were any of these respected dimplomats, I would be RUNNING to the UN with my books open about this. Instead, the are all asking for "diplomatic immunity" or some such. In my book, that means they either have something to hide, or they are flat out guilty. But don't let this distract you from Noam's central thesis, that the US and Britain could have just lifted the sanctions, ignoring the fact that Saddam hadn't lived up to the terms in the sanctions, thereby giving him the green light to continue to make all the WMD's he wanted. No, according to Noam, if the sanctions were lifted, those poor oppressed Iraqis would have risen up and removed Saddam, silly! Just would've taken a little while, that's all. What's another few million dead if the Iraqis were able to do it themselves, right?

"There is reason to believe -- as Halliday and von Sponeck had argued -- that if the vicious sanctions regime had been ended the population of Iraq would have been able to send Saddam Hussein to the same fate as other murderous gangsters supported by the US and UK: Ceausescu, Suharto, Marcos, Duvalier, Chun, Mobutu.... -- quite a rogue's gallery, some of them easily comparable to Saddam, to which new names are being added daily by the same Western leaders, whose values are unchanged. If so, both murderous regimes could have been ended without invasion. Postwar inquiries, such as David Kay's, add weight to these beliefs by revealing how shaky Saddam's control of the country was in the last few years."

Yep, that's all the Iraqi's needed. It was the sanctions that kept them from removing Saddam. Once again, finding fault with the US in the most unique of ways is one of Noams most distinguishable talents. Noam doesn't mention that if the sanctions were removed it would have made Saddam more powerful too, but why bother with logic at this point?

"We may have our own subjective judgments about this matter, but we should at least have the honesty to recognize that they are completely irrelevant. Completely. Unless the population is at least given the opportunity to overthrow a murderous tyrant, as they did in the case of the other members of the rogue's gallery supported by the US and UK (including the current incumbents), there is no justification for resort to outside force to do so. Another truism, which has repeatedly been pointed out -- and systematically ignored within the doctrinal system."

Yes, Noam, you're opinions are, thankfully, completely irrelevant. Once again you blame the US for removing a fascist tyrant before the Iraqis had a chance to do it on their own. HOW DARE WE!!

"That is sufficient to undermine the arguments contrived by Blair and Bush, or their handlers, after the collapse of their official reasons for invasion: WMD and Iraq's alleged ties to terror. On different grounds, these arguments have been thoroughly refuted by Human Rights Watch in the introduction to its latest annual report. But there are further considerations as well. It was predicted by just about every serious specialist that the invasion of Iraq would increase the threat of terror as well as proliferation of WMD. The first prediction has been amply verified, with terrible consequences and probably more to come, and Iraq itself has admittedly become a "terrorist haven" for the first time. "

So far, No WMD's. But according to Hans Blix, there is A LOT missing from the 90's, and no one is disputing his angelic account of Saddams activites. But Noam went back to smoking banana peels if he thinks that Iraq "has admittedly become a "terrorist haven" for the first time."

Noam, you are wrong, wrong, wrong .
How you can make statements like that and expect anyone to take you seriously is quite fascinating.

"The second prediction is also considered to have been confirmed by many regional specialists and strategic analysts, and is unfortunately all too plausible. There is more. Uncontroversially, the invasion struck a serious blow at the system of international law and institutions that offers at least some hope of saving the world from destruction. And though victors do not tabulate the consequences of their crimes, there is little doubt that the numbers of Iraqis killed is in the tens of thousands. And there is a good deal more.

Currently, LESS mass graves are being filled up in Iraq. LESS rape squads are doing their work. Noam's swan-song about the "system of international law and institutions" was precisely what was allowing this to happen, not only in Iraq but still on-going in places such as North Korea or Zimbabwe. Funny how you hear so few Iraqi's clamoring for this " system of international law and institutions " to return and save them. Go figure.

"These are the kinds of considerations relevant to the evaluation of the resort to violence, without any credible pretext, in gross violation of the most basic principles of international law, and against the will of an overwhelming majority of the world's population just about everywhere that has been investigated. "

"War! UNH!! What is it good for?!! Besides ending Fascism, Communism, Dictatorships, Slavery, Genocide, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! Say it again....unh............"

So according to Noam, instead of removing Saddam from power, the US should have demanded the sanctions be lifted, thereby giving Saddam the green light to make as much money as he desired from the sale of oil, thus allowing the poor oppressed Iraqis to rise up and overthrow Saddam because they would have had more money TOO. What is he, a capitalist all of the sudden? Sorry Noam, the Iraqi's I speak with, as well as the others who speak to us through their new weblogs (yet another piece of freedom Saddam would NEVER have allowed), all think that people like you are appeasing morons. And I think they are right.

Bring coments to your blog Noam, get the FULL experince of the blogosphere. Coward.

No comments: