How America Determines Friends And Foes

[d4dev]

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...l=1038394944443

Excellent article by Noam Chomsky.

Let's ask a fair and simple question: What would the consequences be if we were to take the Bush doctrine seriously, and treat states that harbour terrorists as terrorist states, subject to bombardment and invasion?

The United States has long been a sanctuary to a rogues' gallery of people whose actions qualify them as terrorists, and whose presence compromises and complicates U.S. proclaimed principles.

[KrustyKidd]

Great article! Thanks.

One thing that Noam does a lot of is use 'givens.' I don't agree with most of his 'givens' so the dough he uses doesn't make for a great pizza. Know what I mean? In this argument, the given is that that the US (as usual) is the enemy, and that you and I are third world, dissatisfied potential terrorists who hate the west. Lacking any way out except the lure of retaliation, we want to join with those who have gone before, the honoured terrorists.

Sorry, I live in Pembroke Ontario, have a good life and want to keep it. These guys can settle on my terms, the US's terms, or the UN's. When things go downhill, after all the aid, bombing, retaliation, nation rebuilding go downhill and they have the upper hand, then I'll clitorise my daughter and kneel before them, not before. As for viewing my protectors as terrorists, well, better start with yourself, you live here, pay a dime in taxes, you're one in a big way.

[Black Dog]

I think KK doth protest too much.

Nowhere does Chomsky indicate the U.S. is the enemy. Indeed, he consistently rejects such simplistic notions of "us and them", "good guys and bad guys, etc.

In this case, he demonstrates that the U.S., in spite of high-minded rhetoric about fighting terror, is just as guilty of harbouring terrorists as any of the nations it deems enemies.

Chomsky uses such examples of western hypocricy to subvert the notion that western nations are fundamentally morally superior.

[KrustyKidd]

OK, enemy is a bit strong, how about this;

Chomsky uses such examples of western hypocricy to subvert the notion that western nations are fundamentally morally superior.

A contiual theme throughout his books, using givens that are riddled with arguable facts to mould his work to be anti US. I suppose that this would be propaganda with over attention to facts that support his premises and and ommision of others that do not support those as it's central theme. I do know that people want to come to the US in droves from the third world. Evidently, the US is not as bad as he portrays. Myself, if something was bad enough to have book after book written about it to tell people how bad it was, I certainly wouldn't want to be part of it. Same with the third world people who line up for blocks in front of US embasies around the world wanting to go there.

[Michael Hardner]

KK uses the tack that I have often seen used when the high ideals of US foreign policy are shown to be tarnished. Namely, fall back on pragmatism.

But if pragmatism was the currency of discussion from the outset, rather than just a fallback, we would have a far more interesting and honest public debate about these things.

It would also be difficult, if not impossible to convince the public to support such things as the war in Afghanistan, etc. Can you imagine President Bush telling his nation that the US needs to support terrorism in certain regions in order to keep a foothold there ? Of course not.

[Black Dog]

A contiual theme throughout his books, using givens that are riddled with arguable facts to mould his work to be anti US.

Anti-U.S policy, perhaps (a crucila difference). As for "arguable" facts, I've never seen Chomsky use anything but "official" sources (ie. the public record or actual government documents) to support his positions.

I do know that people want to come to the US in droves from the third world. Evidently, the US is not as bad as he portrays. Myself, if something was bad enough to have book after book written about it to tell people how bad it was, I certainly wouldn't want to be part of it. Same with the third world people who line up for blocks in front of US embasies around the world wanting to go there.

Irrelevant. I don't know how well Chomsky's books move in Port a Prince, or if Barnes and Nobles Bahgdad carries his works, but the idea that "people want to come here, so we can't be too bad" is, at best, flimsy. Third world citizens want to come to the U.S. and west because of our reputation as a place where the downtrodden can make a better life for themselves. What Chomsky is saying is that the actions of the U.S. and the west play a big part of why people need to leave their homeland in the first place.

[Michael Hardner]

I do know that people want to come to the US in droves from the third world. Evidently, the US is not as bad as he portrays. Myself, if something was bad enough to have book after book written about it to tell people how bad it was, I certainly wouldn't want to be part of it. Same with the third world people who line up for blocks in front of US embasies around the world wanting to go there.

This isn't logical. Just because people are immigrating to the US, it doesn't mean that the country is moral.

You must agree that the US has done some "bad" things. How many "bad" things does a country have to do before we decide it's a "bad" nation ?

[KrustyKidd]

How many "bad" things does a country have to do before we decide it's a "bad" nation ?

Kill millions like Russia, China, North Korea, Iraq, Iran. Supress human rights like Saudi Arabia, China, a host of third world countriues or simply hold their population in terror as do a third of the world's nations.

If you will note, the 'hedgmony' that the US strives for is a corporate one. Wherever they go, they make money for the west, and those of the country that they invest in. Where there was nothing, there is now a factory paying low wages. Better than starvation isn't it? When any other idealology takes over, it is with far greater brutal force and gives nothing. Nothing. Leaves nothng in return for the strife they bring and no Cola Factories, no payment, just complete turmoil.

How many bad things? Incalcuable. The US has a long way to go to match the list of offenders that have come before. You think the Islamo Fasists will bring prosperity and any kind of freedom to anybody? Destruction, death, enslavement to all that they rule. The fall of the Saudi Family will provide a basis for a country wide pandemic of starvation and terror to the people of SA. Is not the proping up of the Royals enough reason to stop that?

Reading an article in the Ottawa Sun yesterday about how High Schools are getting uniforms for the kids. Only uniforms made with companies that do not use child labor. Lofty and good, however, I suppose now that there will be some places where they make this type of thing that now will have no money. Places that have no other way to feed the people. It's not right, but that was all they had. Instead of doing good, it did bad. Problems have to be attacked from many aspects, not just from the end where the effect is. A program to stop child labor via boycotting has to made with replacement of money involved. You want to shut a sweat shop down? Provide an alternative, otherwise your good becomes bad.

[Michael Hardner]

KK:

Kill millions like Russia, China, North Korea, Iraq, Iran. Supress human rights like Saudi Arabia, China, a host of third world countriues or simply hold their population in terror as do a third of the world's nations.

Killing millions is setting the bar rather low. But I get your point.

If you will note, the 'hedgmony' that the US strives for is a corporate one. Wherever they go, they make money for the west, and those of the country that they invest in. Where there was nothing, there is now a factory paying low wages. Better than starvation isn't it? When any other idealology takes over, it is with far greater brutal force and gives nothing. Nothing. Leaves nothng in return for the strife they bring and no Cola Factories, no payment, just complete turmoil.

Well... I don't know about that. Hussein was a good enough friend of the US until the two nations miscommunicated about his intentions on Kuwait. And dictatorial communism, despite its flaws, was successful for a long time in several countries. I've heard an argument that communism can be a bridge between chaos and democracy, although we've yet to see that happen. China may yet succeed down that path.

How many bad things? Incalcuable. The US has a long way to go to match the list of offenders that have come before. You think the Islamo Fasists will bring prosperity and any kind of freedom to anybody? Destruction, death, enslavement to all that they rule. The fall of the Saudi Family will provide a basis for a country wide pandemic of starvation and terror to the people of SA. Is not the proping up of the Royals enough reason to stop that?

I thought you said above that Saudi Arabia was an example of a "bad" country. If we're propping up "bad" countries for the greater good, and without a long-term plan for these countries to become "good" countries then I don't see how we're better than "bad" countries that do the same thing.

If we allow ourselves to stray from a moral argument, then we can't criticize others for doing the same.

For example, Lybia has recently acknowledged its former role in state-sponsored terrorism. Hence, it was a "bad" country. But internally, Quadaffi did a lot for his people, increased literacy and so forth.

Shades of grey.

Reading an article in the Ottawa Sun yesterday about how High Schools are getting uniforms for the kids. Only uniforms made with companies that do not use child labor. Lofty and good, however, I suppose now that there will be some places where they make this type of thing that now will have no money. Places that have no other way to feed the people. It's not right, but that was all they had. Instead of doing good, it did bad. Problems have to be attacked from many aspects, not just from the end where the effect is. A program to stop child labor via boycotting has to made with replacement of money involved. You want to shut a sweat shop down? Provide an alternative, otherwise your good becomes bad.

I think child labour is a terrible thing. If a country is producing goods through child labour, I suspect they can continue to produce cheap goods without the children. But child labour is another thread...

[Black Dog]

If you will note, the 'hedgmony' that the US strives for is a corporate one. Wherever they go, they make money for the west, and those of the country that they invest in. Where there was nothing, there is now a factory paying low wages. Better than starvation isn't it? When any other idealology takes over, it is with far greater brutal force and gives nothing. Nothing. Leaves nothng in return for the strife they bring and no Cola Factories, no payment, just complete turmoil.

Funny, it seems a lot of people in the developing world managed to get by before Nike and Coca Cola came calling. If sweatshop wages are the only recourse left, why is that? Why are there no sustainable, functioning and stable local alternatives? I'll tell you: because the west, through "free" trade (actually dumping), subsidies for domestic producers, IMF austerity measures and a host of other trade imbalances, destroys local markets and producers. The people who once made a living locally then have no where left to go but to the factories and free trade zones to slave away for pennies while North American stockholders reap the rewards.

The idea that we're doing these people a favor by gutting local economies, and paying them a pittance for grueling work is ridiculous. It's economic colonialism, pure and simple. It hurts locals and it hurts us by sucking jobs out of our economy.

[d4dev]

I do know that people want to come to the US in droves from the third world. Evidently, the US is not as bad as he portrays. Myself, if something was bad enough to have book after book written about it to tell people how bad it was, I certainly wouldn't want to be part of it. Same with the third world people who line up for blocks in front of US embasies around the world wanting to go there.

KK, it is absolutely wrong to assume that just because people from the third world immigrate to the west, they agree with the US' policies or that they even care two hoots about the US. They come to the west only so that they can have a better standard of living and make big bucks. If you don't believe me, ask any immigrant you know why he comes to Canada or the US.

[KrustyKidd]

KK, it is absolutely wrong to assume that just because people from the third world immigrate to the west, they agree with the US' policies or that they even care two hoots about the US. They come to the west only so that they can have a better standard of living and make big bucks. If you don't believe me, ask any immigrant you know why he comes to Canada or the US. 

If Saddam paid real well, would you have ever considered becomming an Iraqi citizen?

[Black Dog]

If Saddam paid real well, would you have ever considered becomming an Iraqi citizen?

Depends. What are my current living conditions like? Am I living in crushing poverty or otherwise not seeing any opportunity for advancement? Is Saddam's Iraq marketing itself as a beacon of freedom and a place of prosperity for all? I am I completely unaware of the often grim realities of Saddam's nation?

If that was the case, sure, I'd possibly consider it.