chomsky and moore

[o.i.c]

Sorry, I don't get your point. I can't speak for KK but I have nothing against Russia or Russians. I have alot against Sovietism, communism and what have you.

I just wanted to know the connection between a totalitarian state and its population being bastards. It no longer requires an answer because KK explained he does not actually believe it.

I can understand perfectly why the US government conducted a Cold War against this regime...

U.S. foriegn policy is laid out in declassified U.S. National Security Council documents.

Well, I came to the conclusion that the sky is blue (not green) and water is wet (not dry).

You lost me here. And you still haven't voiced reasons for disagreeing with Chomsky - content vs. content that is. If that was your direction with the statistics, and you have concluded the U.S. does not "meddle in foreign affairs", read the US NSC documents. If you are actually asking why because you are aware the U.S. does meddle in foreign affairs, I think Chomsky followers and Bush followers will agree that it is for "U.S. national interests", though top officials tend to rake in $$$ on certain occassions as well.

[August1991]

My point was the following: the US does not need nor care for the outside world. I gave the trade stats to show this in an economic sense.

The US is a democracy and its governments reflect the will of Americans who, for the most part, know little and care less about the outside world. There is a strong thread of isolationism in the US and in general, the US government can only get domestic support if there is a clearly perceived threat. Domestic issues decide American elections, not foreign issues.

Moreover, non-Americans see the US president and believe he decides. The US political system doesn't work that way.

IOW, the US government does not meddle abroad for fun and profit. Frankly, I tend to think the US government is generally inconsistent abroad because it matters so little. There was consensus - more or less - to stand up to the Communists. (This was a good fight and the US was successful.)

Look, we in Canada have suffered for the past several decades because of the so-called "National Question". Some Canadians think this is all a bluff but Canada nevertheless exists under a weird threat. As a result, our federal leaders tend to come from Quebec and our federal governments are skewed in strange ways.

This situation is entirely our own doing. It would be absurd to blame the US for the situation in which we Canadians find ourselves.

Yet people like Chomsky invent a dastardly link and then blame the US for separatism in Quebec.

Underneath it, Chomsky's view says much more about his opinion of the US (government and country) than anything else.

[Moderate Centrist]

"Why do you think communism is evil?"

o.i.c

I can't speak for Krusty but communism has been completely discredited as both and economic and political system.

It is based soley on rule by terror, paranoia, a complete rejection of human rights, placing power into the hands of a select few rulers, extreme isolationism, brainwashing and a general contempt for human dignity.

For an idea on the brutality this style of government has brought check out the Russian Revolution, Russian Civil war, the Purges and the repressive nature of the Soviet government. Keep in mind the soviet regime was expansionist in nature and aggressive in action.

For a taste of the Chinese variety check out the Great Leap Forward and the Culture Revolution.

Now many will argue that these societies don't reflect true communism. They were still driven by communist ideology.

You may also want to check out the Khmer Rhouge in Cambodia and the current situation in North Korea.

I would suggest reading the following books:

A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia by A. N. Iakovlev

Robert Tucker has written extensively on Stalin so you may want to check out some of his works as well.

There is no doubt that the United States has meddled in Foreign affairs of other nations. However it was never to the same extent and never as brutal as the Soviets.

As for the immperialist tag of the US I believe this was mostly anti-communist ideology driving them for the bulk of the cold war. They gained nothing from their involvement in Vietnam execpt an international black eye.

I do not believe in meddling in the affairs of other nations but it should be remembered that communism was a bad system. Russia, China, North Korea and Cambodia chose those paths for themselves but it's certainly not right for the western world.

[o.i.c]

The US is a democracy and its governments reflect the will of Americans who, for the most part, know little and care less about the outside world.

Define democracy in the context of your last post. I question whether the U.S. government "reflect the will of Americans". However, before I say more, do you have evidence of what you say? And why do Americans, as you say, know little and care less about the outside world?

There is a strong thread of isolationism in the US and in general, the US government can only get domestic support if there is a clearly perceived threat.

Isolationism? Why do you think that? You probably do not mean the U.S. gov't believes in isolationism, so I will assume you mean the general American public. I believe you have contradicted yourself in that case. You say the U.S. government reflects the will of Americans. If Americans believe in isolationism, then explain U.S. foreign policy and action for the past 50 years (at least) laid out by the U.S. gov't. If you meant the U.S. gov't believes in isolationism, then explain the U.S. NSC documents.

US government does not meddle abroad for fun and profit.

Any reasons behind this? I wouldn't want to try to discuss whether they are doing it for fun, seems futile because none of us can really know that. However, it is possible to discuss profits because there exists a trail of money somewhere.

Some Canadians think this is all a bluff but Canada nevertheless exists under a weird threat.

Sorry please explain further. Threat of seperatism, or the ever-popular terrorism? Not sure what threat you are refering to.

As a result, our federal leaders tend to come from Quebec and our federal governments are skewed in strange ways.

Are you arguing our democratic process is flawed in Canada because of a "wierd threat"?

Yet people like Chomsky invent a dastardly link and then blame the US for separatism in Quebec.

I haven't come across Chomsky's argument for that yet. What is it?

[o.i.c]

[Communism] is based soley on rule by terror, paranoia, a complete rejection of human rights, placing power into the hands of a select few rulers, extreme isolationism, brainwashing and a general contempt for human dignity.

Terror:

In 1986, the United States was convicted by the World Court of violating international law in Nicaragua. One reference is here, with a link to the full U.N. findings. Has a communist state been convicted of this? (I'm genuinely asking you since you should know).

Paranoia:

For instance, the original "reasons" for the United States to enter a unilateral war against Iraq was to eliminate the "threat" of such a state owning "weapons of mass destruction". Over a year later, only the United States has proven (time and time again) they own "weapons of mass destruction." Additionally, the general American population has become ecstatic to this fad of "weapons of mass destruction", buying into the sentiment of feeling threatened by those they have never met. Applying the same logic of the American people to people around the world. Just imagine how threatened they feel when the U.S. has by far the most advanced military capability (and are more than willing to show it off).

Complete rejection of human rights: (I will assume you mean those granted by the U.N.)...

Article 1: Aristide certiantly did not feel free while being ousted by the U.S. recently in Haiti.

Article 2: Explain racial profiling in U.S. law enforcement (i.e. customs), or something a little more subtle, the car insurance system which (all?) capitalist states allow.

Article 3: The Iraqi civilian death toll is between 8818 and 10668 people.. To add to that, 617 American soldiers have died, 478 of which died after Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech.

etc...etc...etc..

Placing power into the hands of a select few rulers:

Like a corporate oligarchy? Just one resource of how corporations hold a lot of power. Corporations have all the "rights and freedoms" of the average American because they are considered "persons" under the U.S. constitution. There is just so much on this problem of corporate power. http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/, http://www.corpwatch.org/...etc..etc..etc. Or better, read the literature on it.

Extreme isolationism:

- See 'Brainwashing' below -

Brainwashing:

Besides all the problems of mass media...I again refer to the U.S. NSC documents. Read the propaganda and psychological warfare tactics for yourself.

General contempt for human dignity:

Define human dignity - or if you just mean something similar to the issue of human rights, see my response to that above.

All of the above examples merely scratch the surface of what I'm trying to illustrate. Thank you for your references, I will check them out eventually. However, I have read Nietzsche, which, as some would argue, explains Stalin and Hitler among others.

[KrustyKidd]

Complete rejection of human rights: (I will assume you mean those granted by the U.N.)...

Article 1: Aristide certiantly did not feel free while being ousted by the U.S. recently in Haiti.

Article 2: Explain racial profiling in U.S. law enforcement (i.e. customs), or something a little more subtle, the car insurance system which (all?) capitalist states allow.

[/url]. To add to that, 617 American soldiers have died, 478 of which died after Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech.

etc...etc...etc..

Placing power into the hands of a select few rulers:

Like a corporate oligarchy? Just one resource of how corporations hold a lot of power. Corporations have all the "rights and freedoms" of the average American because they are considered "persons" under the U.S. constitution. There is just so much on this problem of corporate power. http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/, http://www.corpwatch.org/...etc..etc..etc. Or better, read the literature on it.

Extreme isolationism:

- See 'Brainwashing' below -

Brainwashing:

Besides all the problems of mass media...I again refer to the U.S. NSC documents. Read the propaganda and psychological warfare tactics for yourself.

General contempt for human dignity:

Define human dignity - or if you just mean something similar to the issue of human rights, see my response to that above.

All of the above examples merely scratch the surface of what I'm trying to illustrate. Thank you for your references, I will check them out eventually. However, I have read Nietzsche, which, as some would argue, explains Stalin and Hitler among others.

[Communism] is based soley on rule by terror, paranoia, a complete rejection of human rights, placing power into the hands of a select few rulers, extreme isolationism, brainwashing and a general contempt for human dignity.

Terror:

In 1986, the United States was convicted by the World Court of violating international law in Nicaragua. One reference is here, with a link to the full U.N. findings. Has a communist state been convicted of this? (I'm genuinely asking you since you should know).

Nice try, Russia commits the Titanic of all murders with over twenty million dead in purges and you try and swing attention to a cork in the ocean with the US in Nicaragua.

Paranoia:

For instance, the original "reasons" for the United States to enter a unilateral war against Iraq was to eliminate the "threat" of such a state owning "weapons of mass destruction".  Over a year later, only the United States has proven (time and time again) they own "weapons of mass destruction."  Additionally, the general American population has become ecstatic to this fad of "weapons of mass destruction", buying into the sentiment of feeling threatened by those they have never met.  Applying the same logic of the American people to people around the world.  Just imagine how threatened they feel when the U.S. has by far the most advanced military capability (and are more than willing to show it off).

First off, as soon as the attention shifted from WMD to 'Regime Change' any body with half a clue knew the WMD was secondary (or even further down the list) to the actual reasons for this action.

Second, without going into legitimacy or right to posess, just assuming OBL, or Saddam or any third world dictator had WMD you would feel that the world would be just as safe as it was with say, only France, the US, Britain, Israel and so on posessing them? And are you trying to say that Saddam, OBL and others like them are in full capacity of their humanity, liberal reasoning powers and are able to separate themselves from their emotion so that some safeguards are in place to prohibit launching of these hypothetical weapons? Also, in this scenario, what safe guards are in place that make accidental launching impossible or unlikely. Is there codes and stuff like that or simply guys dancing around them firing AKs in the air waiting for the order to launch? If you can't verify or assure me of that then your argument is really out to lunch.

Article 3: The Iraqi civilian death toll is between 8818 and 10668 people.

That's not very many. Saddam killed on average, something like five thousand a month during his overall reign. Seeing as how the US has had 10 thousand Iraqis die on them in the last year and a third (15 months) that makes it an average of 600 or so. I'd say that a 1500% decrease in death is a good thing wouldn't you?

[August1991]

Some Canadians think this is all a bluff but Canada nevertheless exists under a weird threat.

Sorry please explain further. Threat of seperatism, or the ever-popular terrorism? Not sure what threat you are refering to.

As a result, our federal leaders tend to come from Quebec and our federal governments are skewed in strange ways.

Are you arguing our democratic process is flawed in Canada because of a "wierd threat"?

Yet people like Chomsky invent a dastardly link and then blame the US for separatism in Quebec.

I haven't come across Chomsky's argument for that yet. What is it?

Oh my. I meant this all as a little joke, but your last query "I haven't come across Chomsky's argument for that yet. What is it?" shows that my joke was too frighteningly close to the truth.

I don't want to change the subject but please bear with me.

Like families, countries sometimes become dysfunctional. Lebanon was like this, Sri Lanka is like this. Israelis and Palestinians are the Hatfields and the McCoys.

We in Canada are also a dysfunctional country. (If you don't believe me, why have all our recent federal leaders come from Quebec?) Our saving grace is that, excepting events in the 1960s or so, there has been no violence.

Anyone with a passing knowledge of Canadian history understands that it would be absurd to blame our predicament on the US. The same story applies for other dysfunctional situations in the world.

Chomsky, because he's anti-American, finds ways to do precisely that - blame the US for the "dysfunctional" behaviour of others.

Now, imagine a French journalist writes sophisticated articles - against his own government - explaining how Chirac and the French governmment were meddling in Canada and this explains really why those Quebecers always complain.

Would that French journalist be popular in English-Canada? As an English-Canadian, how would you feel? Innocent!

Now you understand Chomsky's schtick.

[Black Dog]

Chomsky, because he's anti-American, finds ways to do precisely that - blame the US for the "dysfunctional" behaviour of others.

Oh, pish posh. Can you give a concrete example of a time Chomsky has done that? Comparing Canada with Lebanon or any other third world country is specious logic. Each country's situation must be evaluated in the broad historical context.Chomasky knows this and, indeed, I've never found his work to be anything but exacting in its detail. So your caricature of Chomsky as a wild-eyed soapboxer blaming all the ills and evils of the world on the U.S. is just wrong.

[August1991]

Comparing Canada with Lebanon or any other third world country is specious logic.

Specious? No, it's smugness to pretend that we Canadians are different. (BD, have an honest chat with a Canadian cab driver - the closest you probably come to the third world.)

Each country's situation must be evaluated in the broad historical context.

Precisely. I assume you are Canadian BD so you know that the Liberal King was the grandson of his 1837 radical namesake - and Henri Bourassa was the grandson of Papineau. And I suppose you know that Duplessis told Laporte "to take it", what the phrase meant and then what happened to Pierre Laporte.

You are right, domestic politics are complex.

Admit it. The CIA, NSA and DIA had absolutely nothing to do with the kidnapping of James Cross in 1970, Mulroney's free-trade victory over Turner in 1988, or or the razor thin result in 1995? How about the sponsorship scandal (CIA organized)?

We Canadians are responsible for our own fate. We -thank God- have as neighbours the Americans who let us decide on our own what to do.

Estonians, Bulgarians, Tibetans, Kuwaitis, Tutsis - heck, Palestinians - have not had the luck of such good neighbours.

Excepting 1775 and 1812, the Americans have left us physically alone. As a non-American, world citizen, I don't fear jazz and Mickey Mouse. I fear 777s into Place-Ville-Marie.

By the way, René Lévesque chose the US to go abroad and defend freedom.

To protect American "national security", the US Federal Government has had every reason to meddle in Canadian affairs. The world knows that Canada is a divided country. But America has not meddled in our divisions.

If you are an American citizen and you read this, as a Canadian citizen, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. You Americans have left us free to decide our own fate.

As a Canadian, I understand that you Americans go abroad to defend your freedom. You do not go abroad to impose arbitrary rule. You could have made us American but you didn't. Instead, you let our Prime Minister criticise you.