Saddam Hussein captured.

[flagreen]

Pradeep,

That's unfortunate and demonstrates that there is much work is left to be done in Afghanistan. But tremendous progress has been made in many important areas. Europe was not rebuilt overnight, it took several years following WWII but it was successfully rebuilt. Afghanistan will also be rebuilt but as with Europe it is going to take several years.

 

[CityK]

Just to stir up the pot again. I thought this was a well written little article:

Norm Chomsky[/url]]Selective memory and a dishonest doctrine

All people who have any concern for human rights, justice and integrity should be overjoyed by the capture of Saddam Hussein, and should be awaiting a fair trial for him by an international tribunal.

An indictment of Saddam's atrocities would include not only his slaughter and gassing of Kurds in 1988 but also, rather crucially, his massacre of the Shiite rebels who might have overthrown him in 1991.

At the time, Washington and its allies held the "strikingly unanimous view (that) whatever the sins of the Iraqi leader, he offered the West and the region a better hope for his country's stability than did those who have suffered his repression," reported Alan Cowell in the New York Times.

Last December, Jack Straw, Britain's foreign secretary, released a dossier of Saddam's crimes drawn almost entirely from the period of firm U.S.-British support of Saddam.

With the usual display of moral integrity, Straw's report and Washington's reaction overlooked that support.

Such practices reflect a trap deeply rooted in the intellectual culture generally — a trap sometimes called the doctrine of change of course, invoked in the United States every two or three years. The content of the doctrine is: "Yes, in the past we did some wrong things because of innocence or inadvertence. But now that's all over, so let's not waste any more time on this boring, stale stuff."

The doctrine is dishonest and cowardly, but it does have advantages: It protects us from the danger of understanding what is happening before our eyes.

For example, the Bush administration's original reason for going to war in Iraq was to save the world from a tyrant developing weapons of mass destruction and cultivating links to terror. Nobody believes that now, not even Bush's speechwriters.

The new reason is that we invaded Iraq to establish a democracy there and, in fact, to democratize the whole Middle East.

Sometimes, the repetition of this democracy-building posture reaches the level of rapturous acclaim.

Last month, for example, David Ignatius, the Washington Post commentator, described the invasion of Iraq as "the most idealistic war in modern times" — fought solely to bring democracy to Iraq and the region.

Ignatius was particularly impressed with Paul Wolfowitz, "the Bush administration's idealist in chief," whom he described as a genuine intellectual who "bleeds for (the Arab world's) oppression and dreams of liberating it."

Maybe that helps explain Wolfowitz's career — like his strong support for Suharto in Indonesia, one of the last century's worst mass murderers and aggressors, when Wolfowitz was ambassador to that country under Ronald Reagan.

As the State Department official responsible for Asian affairs under Reagan, Wolfowitz oversaw support for the murderous dictators Chun of South Korea and Marcos of the Philippines.

All this is irrelevant because of the convenient doctrine of change of course.

So, yes, Wolfowitz's heart bleeds for the victims of oppression — and if the record shows the opposite, it's just that boring old stuff that we want to forget about.

One might recall another recent illustration of Wolfowitz's love of democracy. The Turkish parliament, heeding its population's near-unanimous opposition to war in Iraq, refused to let U.S. forces deploy fully from Turkey. This caused absolute fury in Washington.

Wolfowitz denounced the Turkish military for failing to intervene to overturn the decision. Turkey was listening to its people, not taking orders from Crawford, Texas, or Washington, D.C.

The most recent chapter is Wolfowitz's "Determination and Findings" on bidding for lavish reconstruction contracts in Iraq. Excluded are countries where the government dared to take the same position as the vast majority of the population.

Wolfowitz's alleged grounds are "security interests," which are non-existent, though the visceral hatred of democracy is hard to miss — along with the fact that Halliburton and Bechtel corporations will be free to "compete" with the vibrant democracy of Uzbekistan and the Solomon Islands, but not with leading industrial societies.

What's revealing and important to the future is that Washington's display of contempt for democracy went side by side with a chorus of adulation about its yearning for democracy.

To be able to carry that off is an impressive achievement, hard to mimic even in a totalitarian state.

Iraqis have some insight into this process of conquerors and conquered.

The British created Iraq for their own interests. When they ran that part of the world, they discussed how to set up what they called Arab facades — weak, pliable governments, parliamentary if possible, so long as the British effectively ruled.

Who would expect that the United States would ever permit an independent Iraqi government to exist? Especially now that Washington has reserved the right to set up permanent military bases there, in the heart of the world's greatest oil-producing region, and has imposed an economic regime that no sovereign country would accept, putting the country's fate in the hands of Western corporations.

Throughout history, even the harshest and most shameful measures are regularly accompanied by professions of noble intent — and rhetoric about bestowing freedom and independence.

An honest look would only generalize Thomas Jefferson's observation on the world situation of his day: "We believe no more in Bonaparte's fighting merely for the liberties of the seas than in Great Britain's fighting for the liberties of mankind. The object is the same, to draw to themselves the power, the wealth and the resources of other nations."

Love that Jefferson quote.

 

[flagreen]

Consider the source CityK. Consider the source...

 

[CityK]

A professor from MIT. Whats wrong with that?

 

[CityK]

Looks like a reliable source to me

 

[CougTek]

Probably that for Flagreen, anyone who isn't a die hard right-sided republican is awefully biased. For the record, what this guy is saying matches what the great majority of international observers are saying too. I guess that the entire world is wrong and only the American rednecks hold the key to the infinite truth.

 

[flagreen]

Noam is a well known nut case.

From - http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/may03/chomsky.htm

In part...

The hypocrisy of Noam Chomsky
by Keith Windschuttle

There’s a famous definition in the Gospels of the hypocrite, and the hypocrite is the person who refuses to apply to himself the standards he applies to others. By that standard, the entire commentary and discussion of the so-called War on Terror is pure hypocrisy, virtually without exception. Can anybody understand that? No, they can’t understand it.
—Noam Chomsky, Power and Terror, 2003

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.

<snip>

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.

<snip>

Chomsky is the most prominent intellectual remnant of the New Left of the 1960s. In many ways he epitomized the New Left and its hatred of “Amerika,” a country he believed, through its policies both at home and abroad, had descended into fascism. In his most famous book of the Sixties, American Power and the New Mandarins, Chomsky said what America needed was “a kind of denazification.”
<snip>

The worst current example, he claims, is American support for Israel:

virtually everything that Israel is doing, meaning the United States and Israel are doing, is illegal, in fact, a war crime. And many of them they defined as “grave breaches,” that is, serious war crimes. This means that the United States and Israeli leadership should be brought to trial.
Yet Chomsky’s moral perspective is completely one-sided. No matter how great the crimes of the regimes he has favored, such as China, Vietnam, and Cambodia under the communists, Chomsky has never demanded their leaders be captured and tried for war crimes. Instead, he has defended these regimes for many years to the best of his ability through the use of evidence he must have realized was selective, deceptive, and in some cases invented.

In fact, had Pol Pot ever been captured and tried in a Western court, Chomsky’s writings could have been cited as witness for the defense. Were the same to happen to Osama bin Laden, Chomsky’s moral rationalizations in his most recent book—“almost any crime, a crime in the street, a war, whatever it may be, there’s usually something behind it that has elements of legitimacy”—could be used to plead for a lighter sentence.

This kind of two-faced morality has provided a model for the world-wide protests by left-wing opponents of the American-led coalition’s war against Iraq. The left was willing to tolerate the most hideous acts of state terrorism by the Saddam Hussein regime, but was implacable in its hostility to intervention by Western democratic governments in the interests of both their own security and the emancipation of the Iraqi people. This is hypocrisy writ large.

The long political history of this aging activist demonstrates that double standards of the same kind have characterized his entire career.

Chomsky has declared himself a libertarian and anarchist but has defended some of the most authoritarian and murderous regimes in human history. His political philosophy is purportedly based on empowering the oppressed and toiling masses but he has contempt for ordinary people who he regards as ignorant dupes of the privileged and the powerful. He has defined the responsibility of the intellectual as the pursuit of truth and the exposure of lies, but has supported the regimes he admires by suppressing the truth and perpetrating falsehoods. He has endorsed universal moral principles but has only applied them to Western liberal democracies, while continuing to rationalize the crimes of his own political favorites. He is a mandarin who denounces mandarins. When caught out making culpably irresponsible misjudgments, as he was over Cambodia and Sudan, he has never admitted he was wrong.

Today, Chomsky’s hypocrisy stands as the most revealing measure of the sorry depths to which the left-wing political activism he has done so much to propagate has now sunk.

Read the whole thing... it's a hoot.

 

[flagreen]

Probably that for Flagreen, anyone who isn't a die hard right-sided republican is awefully biased. For the record, what this guy is saying matches what the great majority of international observers are saying too. I guess that the entire world is wrong and only the American rednecks hold the key to the infinite truth.

Taken a poll of "the great majority of international observers" have you?

 

[CougTek]

Here we have news papers from everywhere. I'm not just talking about France and Canada, I mean a lot of EU nations, your country and other places with important daily or weekly publications. I often browse through them and except for the american press, there isn't much support for your government's actions. However, I'm sure most if not all Jewish newspapers also cheer your occupation, but those people are so unbiased anyway... :roll: At the very least, it should tell you how poor your international PR is, since you can't accept the criticism targeted at your government's motivation.

Something else you should look are the results of your country's interventions in the past. How many of them have resulted in properous democracies again? Nice track record, really. But of course, it's always possible to find people whiling to sacrifice more american soldiers' lifes no matter how.

 

[flagreen]

Something else you should look are the results of your country's interventions in the past. How many of them have resulted in properous democracies again?

Well lets see... there's Japan, Germany, the Philippines, South Korea. Seems to me that they are all fairly prosperous. In fact they rank among the most prosperous nations on earth. And not one is being raped of it's natural resources by Uncle Sam.

 

[CityK]

Bill, thank you for the link, I enjoyed reading the essay.

1) It would appear that Chomsky is himself rather two faced. However, the fact that Chomsky may be a raging "nut case", or better yet, someone who has never come to terms with the fact that he use to shake pom-poms in support of Pol Pot, only subtracts from his own crediblity of character. What attacking Chomsky's character does not achieve in removing, however, is the validity surrounding the arguments expressed in his article, as outlined above. Moreover, regardless of his own past idiosyncrasies, I believe it is the succinct expressions in that article that embody the truth about/on Iraq. I believe that this feeling is shared by a rather large number of other individuals around the globe.

Aside from his character, what fault do you find with points raised in that article?

2) If one is to attack/critique Chomsky, then that person should be open to examination himself. Taking your sage advice ("consider the source") to heart, looking at a few of the rebuttals against Windschuttle and some other articles about the man's other works, I am not left with such a high opinion there either. Indeed, Windschuttle appears to have embarked on a career of calling the kettle black himself:

Some Aussie commie leftist named Bob Gould, on the Marxism mailing list[/url]] Windschuttle's Chomsky article is of a piece with his general rewinding of his own psyche. Who knows, he may eventually get back to childhood.

In his most seriously left-wing political period, as a confident young veteran of tabloid journalism in his mid-twenties, he edited the Sydney University student paper Honi Soit in a vintage year in the 1960s, and a little later he was one of the editors of The Old Mole.

His journalism helped introduce to a provincial Australian audience key pieces from the New York Book Review, and he helped to introduce to an Australian audience, Chomsky's seminal political book, American Power and the New Mandarins.

This does not sit very well with the picture of himself at that period that he now gives. Windschuttle now suggests that he was a naive young Stalinist at the time, but in fact he was a good deal better than that. The overseas influences that he helped introduce into Australian intellectual life included much better things than naive Stalinism.

It's those things he is now slandering in his attack on Chomsky. See my Open Letter http://members.optushome.com.au/spainter/Windschuttle.html for further elaboration on this point.

Further, it appears that Windschuttle is no stranger to creating controversey. His book, The Fabrication of Aboriginal History: Volume One, Van Diemen's Land 1803-1847, seems to have created quite a stir in the intellectual circles down under. You can read about some of the backlash, which in turn layed the foundations for the colllaborated work Whitewash: On Keith Windschuttle's Fabrication of Aboriginal History, right here. Funny how Windschuttle denounces Chomsky for dismissing the massacres in Cambodia, yet here he is on the other side of the fence dissing eye witness accounts of Australian autrocities as fabrications....interesting. Perhaps he and Chomsky aren't all that different.

CK

 

[CougTek]

Well lets see... there's Japan, Germany, the Philippines, South Korea.

...And not one is being raped of it's natural resources by Uncle Sam.

Philippines!?! Ah! You gotta be kidding me!

Here, instruct yourself :

When the U.S. came to our shores a century ago, it was continuing a wave of territorial expansion conducted throughout the 19th century - from its east coast across the mainland continent to the west coast and various Pacific islands, then into Central America, then across the Pacific to the Philippines. We were desired not only for our rich forests and vast minerals but also as a staging post from which to expand into the markets of China and the rest of Asia - in short, extending the U.S.' imperial reach into this part of the world. Senator Beveridge said to the U.S. Senate in 1900:

"...the archipelago is a base for commerce of the East. It is a base for military and naval operations against the only powers with whom conflict is possible."

Things have changed little even after the Cold War. The U.S.' 1995 East Asian Strategy Report of the Department of Defense:

"reaffirms our commitment to maintain a stable forward presence in the region, at the existing level of 100,000 troops, for the foreseeable future... for maintaining forward deployment of U.S. forces and access and basing rights for U.S. and allied forces... If the American presence in Asia were removed... our ability to affect the course of events would be constrained, our markets and interests would be jeopardized."

U.S. imperialism first tried to extract an Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement (ACSA) which would have allowed U.S. forces to refuel, repair and store war materiel in the country. Vigorous protests and mass demonstrations put this down. This was repackaged in 1997 as the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and, again, was met with great opposition and put down.

Yet, quietly, RP-U.S. military exercises were still held in the country even after total U.S. withdrawal in 1992. These exercises allow the U.S. to gain familiarity with other countries' forces and potential battlefield terrain, as well as cement political and military ties of dependence.

The U.S. was finally able to force a Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) through in 1999 despite the protestations of our Junk VFA Movement. Approved by the Senate as a treaty - and by the U.S. as a mere executive agreement - the VFA effectively makes the country one gigantic U.S. military facility at its convenience. Full access to Philippine territory is granted by giving U.S. military and civilian forces, including their personnel, warships, and warplanes, extraordinary rights and privileges.

The VFA is fully a piece of the U.S.' global military spread spanning over 800 military installations (including 60 major facilities) in over 140 countries, significant troop deployments in 25 countries, and at least 36 security arrangements. It's part of a string of dozens of security treaties, arrangements, ACSAs and SOFAs in Asia stretching from North Asia through Southeast Asia to Australia and the South Pacific - including Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hongkong, Burma, Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia, Brunei, the Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, the Marshall Islands and so on.

The U.S. lost no time in taking advantage of this and conducted Balikatan 2000 in January 2000 in Nueva Ecija, Tarlac, Pampanga, Zambales, Bataan, Cavite and Palawan - i.e. in exercise venues exceeding the scope of any before it.

We have always argued that these agreements make a mockery of Philippine sovereignty and lay the basis for a return of U.S. troops to the country and direct armed intervention. Well a scant decade after the ejection of the military bases, the foot soldiers and grunts of U.S. imperialism are well and truly back - this time for their "war on terrorism".

In short, Philippines are ruled by a puppet government carefully controlled by the U.S.

And BTW, from the same article :

Since 1946, the U.S. has conducted hundreds of military operations in over 70 countries, not even considering yet countless covert operations. It actively had a hand in attempts to overthrow some 40 foreign governments and in efforts to crush 30 freedom and liberation movements.

Yet you could name only 4, with one awefully flawed, two dating from the second World War and one from the early fifties, but having a ugly half-brother (North Korea). So basicly, what you are telling me is that your government has done no positive intervention in the last 40 years. As I said, great track record.

 

[flagreen]

Congratulations for likely being the first person to ever use the "Worker's Party of Denmark" as a reference source for purposes other than to incite another October revolution. What can I say to such drivel? How about ... garbage in ... garbage out?

The Philippines is a thriving democracy. Your statement that the Philippines is a puppet of the U.S. is complete nonsense.

Japan, Germany and South Korea are also thriving democracies. There are interventions and then there are interventions. What is taking place in Iraq is a very close paralell to what took place in Japan, Germany and South Korea. You may not like it but those were all incredibly successful "incursions". Yes these all took place over forty years ago. But it has been that long since the U.S. went to war, won that war, and then sought to set up a completely new government.

 

[flagreen]

CityK,

Fair enough. I don't have any respect for Chomsky (nor does Alan Dershowitz) and you haven't any for Windschuttle. Chomsky hasn't any for Wolfowitz, and Wolfowitz no doubt hasn't any for Noam. So it would appear that we are right back where we started. At any rate...

1) It would appear that Chomsky is himself rather two faced. However, the fact that Chomsky may be a raging "nut case", or better yet, someone who has never come to terms with the fact that he use to shake pom-poms in support of Pol Pot, only subtracts from his own crediblity of character. What attacking Chomsky's character does not achieve in removing, however, is the validity surrounding the arguments expressed in his article, as outlined above. Moreover, regardless of his own past idiosyncrasies, I believe it is the succinct expressions in that article that embody the truth about/on Iraq. I believe that this feeling is shared by a rather large number of other individuals around the globe.

The truth? The truth about Iraq? The truth is always supported by direct evidence. Evidence that is other than circumstantial. But neither you, or Chomsky have anything other than circumstantial evidence to offer as regards American intentions in Iraq. No it is not the truth. It is "opinion" fraught with human bias and nothing more.

 

[CougTek]

No it is not the truth. It is "opinion" fraught with human bias and nothing more.

You're just painting yourself in the corner. Your way to attack only the source and not the facts is pityful and shows a certain level of despair.

Regarding the validity of my puppet government claim in Philippines, why else would a country accept such kind of invasive occupation by the U.S. army if its strings weren't pulled from the WhiteHouse? Think further than your nose.

 

[flagreen]

No it is not the truth. It is "opinion" fraught with human bias and nothing more.

You're just painting yourself in the corner. Your way to attack only the source and not the facts is pityful and shows a certain level of despair.

Woe is me!

Regarding the validity of my puppet government claim in Philippines, why else would a country accept such kind of invasive occupation by the U.S. army if its strings weren't pulled from the WhiteHouse? Think further than your nose.

Here we go again. What are you talking about now? There are no U.S. Military bases in the Philippines. There is no "occupation".

 

[time]

Much as I admire your eel-like adroitness, Bill, I notice that you didn't really respond to CityK's quote - and it's not all opinion.

I don't much enjoy left-wing cheerleading, but that doesn't make me automatically believe right-wing ravings either. I'm not a fan of anyone like Chomsky who seeks to demonize, but your quoting of Keith Windschuttle completely destroyed the credibility of your argument. Now there's a real nutter! :roll:

A quick bit of research turned up this, which includes:

As soon as Chomsky and I criticized media coverage of Cambodia, in 1977, we, and especially Chomsky, were accused of being apologists for Pol Pot.
...
Lewis then goes on: "A few Western intellectuals, notably Prof. Noam Chomsky, refused to believe what was going on in Cambodia. At first, at least, they put the reports of killing down to a conspiratorial effort by American politicians and press to destroy the Cambodian revolution."
This is a multiple lie:
- First, we did not disbelieve the reports in general and were very clear that "gruesome" atrocities were being carried out. We did contest some blatant lies, like those of Lacouture, and media gullibility, which in this case, where points were being scored against an enemy, reached remarkable levels.
-Second, we never believed or said that there was any conspiracy going on, and regularly cited State Department experts as sources of plausible information.
- Third, we weren't defending the "Cambodian revolution," and never believed that the propaganda campaign was designed to destroy it; in fact, we stressed that its spokespersons didn't do, or even propose doing, anything to help Cambodians. We saw the propaganda campaign as aimed at Americans, to help reconstruct an imperial ideology that had been badly damaged by the Vietnam War.
...
A letter from Chomsky answering Lewis's lies, and several other letters doing the same, were refused publication in the New York Times.

I think this illustrates CityK's point that you're trying to shoot the messenger rather than hearing him out. I thought at least the first half of Chomsky's piece had some merit.

Can't abide his Jefferson quote however (sorry CityK). That was pure politicking by Jefferson; there's no question the British were fighting to retain their sovereignty rather than extend their empire. As usual, America supported a despot rather than a democracy.

 

[flagreen]

David,

First of all welcome back. It's very good to hear from you again.

You are right in that I have attacked the messenger in regards to Chomsky's article. And I make no apology for having done so. After all the article is an editorial and not a news report. As such one must weigh the credibility of the author when deciding how much stock one shall put in the opinions expressed in regards to any factual imformation contained with the work. To fail to do so is to accept the "opinion" along with the facts which they relate to as being the "truth" which it most certainly is not.

Noam is a nutter, make no mistake about it. Windschuttle's article is but one of many which I could have (and apparently should have) quoted in support of the idea that Noam is a few bricks short of a full load and prone to denying the obvious truth.

But to address what appears to be the theme of his article which, when not unfairly attacking Paul Wolfowitz, seems to be that American foreign policy should be based first upon morality and second upon the best interests of the American people. I would respond by pointing out that such an idea well meaning though it may be is completely unrealistic. I say this because there are many situations in which there is no moral high road which may be taken. Frequently one must choose between the lesser of two evils lest the greater evil triumph to the regret of all - Stalin vs. Hitler for example. Such was also the case with Saddam in the 1980's.

Wolfowitz is not an evil baby murdering war monger. Nor is this war about big business or oil. These are the kneejerk reactionary outcries which we always hear from the left in situations where the U.S. must resort to military action, particularly when it is a Rebuplican President who is in office. The men who formulate these policies including the President who must ultimately approve or disapprove them are really no different from you or me. You are an entrepreneur if I am not mistaken David and are quite familiar with capitalism. Were you to be placed in a position in which you must formulate the foreign policy of your country I am sure that you would do so without any ulterior motive that you might profit from the decisions which you must make while serving your nation. Certainly you would never send the sons and daughters of Australia off to war solely to enrich yourself or your mates down at the pub. Nor would President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld or Paul Wolfowitz ever do such a thing in my opinion.

That last statement should stir things up a bit I suspect.

 

[CougTek]

About shooting the messenger...

Dick Cheney worked for an oil company in the nineties (I forgot the name) that happily bought oil from Iraq despite the fact that Iraq was under a U.S. embargo at that time. Tells me a lot about his credibility and patriotism.

General War Bush sent wrong financial reports to hide huge deficits in 1992 for the company for which he worked back then. He did the same thing the CEO of Enron has been proven guilty of about ten year later, yet you apparently don't question his credibility either.

Clown Rumsfeld is from th oil industry and his blood is probably more black than red.

You tell us to look at the source before believing anything yet the bastards who have your trust have pathetic credibility. Admit it, you only listen to what you want.

 

[flagreen]

You tell us to look at the source before believing anything yet the bastards who have your trust have pathetic credibility. Admit it, you only listen to what you want.

Oh? That isn't what I said. Go back and read it again.

As for your charge against Dick Cheney, please know that virtually every U.S. oil company purchased oil from Iraq in the 1990s under the UN oil for food program. In fact eight percent of U.S. oil imports came from Iraq. One half of Iraq's oil sales under the U.N. program went to the U.S.. This was not in violation of the U.N. sanctions or of U.S. law. In fact the U.N. program was designed to help alieviate the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of the UN sanctions.

 

[time]

An extremely eloquent response to my charge, Bill. Clearly, you have been researching this thoroughly and I find your argument convincing.

I still suspect that Chomsky is not as much of a nutter as you maintain, but I already felt that he was a little over the top for my tastes. As I don't read his stuff anyway, it's not a point that I'm prepared to spend time pursuing.

I will say, however, that the aspect that drew me into this discussion was my frustration with what I would describe as media polarization. Perhaps it's worse in this little country, but I'm sick and tired of published commentary being either loony left or rabid right. I think such obvious barrow-pushers should pay me to read their idealistic twaddle.

Certainly, I do believe that the media's role is to question the government of the day and make them justify their actions. It's the only access citizens have to the bastards, so I expect to see the tough questions asked, and answers not just blindly accepted.

Unfortunately, my impression is that this process has come unstuck in modern America. Anyone critical or questioning of the administration's actions is accused of being un-American or supporting Bin Laden, etc.

Quit incredibly, the same technique has been used in Australia, i.e. certain branches of the media have been attacked for being anti-American - for trying to maintain balance in their overall reporting! And similarly in the UK.

This is absolutely unacceptable if the word democracy is going to mean anything at all.

My point is that I think many people are naturally skeptical of the honesty and integrity of current western leaders (or more accurately, their administrations). In this climate of mistrust, the citizenry is more receptive to exaggerated and possibly wild claims about personal motivations and conspiracies.

That doesn't mean that said claims are wrong, just that most people can't begin to understand what motivates the political animals that inhabit the corridors of power. Political gain is always the first consideration, with financial gain far less likely. Having said that, it's only natural to want to reward your friends ... and by degrees this is corruption.

I wholeheartedly agree with your lesser-of-two-evils homily, something the more extreme critics of Suharto seem to miss, for example. Unfortunately, I suspect Saddam was already the lesser evil when compared to the alternatives - US foreign policy assumed this for many years. While Afghanistan stumbles and Pakistan teeters on the brink, I think Bush has been served badly by his advisers. To this extent, I think they became blinded by the oil as well as overconfidence in their capacity to impose themselves on the Arab world.

Consider the consequences if Musharraf's nine lives run out with the next assassination attempt.

 

[flagreen]

An extremely eloquent response to my charge, Bill. Clearly, you have been researching this thoroughly and I find your argument convincing.

I still suspect that Chomsky is not as much of a nutter as you maintain, but I already felt that he was a little over the top for my tastes. As I don't read his stuff anyway, it's not a point that I'm prepared to spend time pursuing.

I will say, however, that the aspect that drew me into this discussion was my frustration with what I would describe as media polarization. Perhaps it's worse in this little country, but I'm sick and tired of published commentary being either loony left or rabid right. I think such obvious barrow-pushers should pay me to read their idealistic twaddle.

Certainly, I do believe that the media's role is to question the government of the day and make them justify their actions. It's the only access citizens have to the bastards, so I expect to see the tough questions asked, and answers not just blindly accepted.

Unfortunately, my impression is that this process has come unstuck in modern America. Anyone critical or questioning of the administration's actions is accused of being un-American or supporting Bin Laden, etc.

Quit incredibly, the same technique has been used in Australia, i.e. certain branches of the media have been attacked for being anti-American - for trying to maintain balance in their overall reporting! And similarly in the UK.

This is absolutely unacceptable if the word democracy is going to mean anything at all.

Well first of all let me say that I agree with you that a free press has a significant roll to play in any democratic society. A free press is the first line of defense against the abuse of power by those to whom great power has been entrusted by the people.

I do however find it difficult to agree with your notion that an overall balance in reporting the news is essential to the roll which the media must play. I say this because "balance" is in my opinion is not a concept which can be readily applied to the relating of factual information to the public which is after all what news reporting media is supposed to do. One either reports all of the relavent facts in regards to a particular news story or one does not. Any interpretation of, or personal opinion in regards to those facts belongs on the editorial page and not in the story itself. And therein lies the problem as I see it with the reporting done by the media today. The line between what is commentary and what is the news has become very murky. It seems to me that social activism has become firmly entrenched within today's news media at the expense of objectivity.

In regards to the current conflict in Iraq, is there really a balanced view point which can be presented? It seems to me that one is either supportive of that war, opposed to the war, or one has no opinion in regards to the war at all. What is being discussed in the global media today as well as in this thread is not Iraq itself or what is in the best interest of the Iraqi people, but rather the discussion seems to center around whether or not America is an imperialistic, greedy and evil nation of sheep-like materialistic idiots being led by a half-wit warmoger and his administration in Washington. Forgive me but I take offense at that characterization of my country and of my countrymen. To me, those who hold such a grossly unfair and false impression of America and Americans are indeed anti-American no matter how many times they might say "but I support the troops" or how vociferously they protest the charge. Take a fresh look at Chomsky's article above. Note that he begins with a disclaimer of sorts that he is glad Saddam that has been deposed. Those two brief paragraphs are then followed by twenty plus blistering paragraphs of typical Chomsky condemning the administration for having deposed Saddam in the first place!

My point is that I think many people are naturally skeptical of the honesty and integrity of current western leaders (or more accurately, their administrations). In this climate of mistrust, the citizenry is more receptive to exaggerated and possibly wild claims about personal motivations and conspiracies.

That doesn't mean that said claims are wrong, just that most people can't begin to understand what motivates the political animals that inhabit the corridors of power. Political gain is always the first consideration, with financial gain far less likely. Having said that, it's only natural to want to reward your friends ... and by degrees this is corruption.

Well I am not quite so cynical as to believe that political gain is always the first consideration of politicians. Frequently perhaps but certainly not always. Certainly Tony Blair has gained nothing politically from his support of America in this war. Nor has President Bush gained much politically thus far. Doing the right thing does occasionaly steer policy I believe. Particularly when that policy involves the risking of lives.

While I am on my soap box let me add a word or two about oil. Chomsky insinuates in his article that oil is the driving force behind this war as have many other talking heads. Yet neither Noam or the other of the oil conspiracy theorists ever mention that it was that very same oil which allowed Saddam to assemble one of the largest and best equiped armed forces on earth. Nor do they consider that it would have been far less expensive in dollars, lives and in political captial at home and abroad for Bush and Blair to have simply allowed the sanctions to be lifted so that all the oil either man desired could be simply purchased from Iraq. Indeed, even now any oil which leaves Iraq must still be purchased by whatever oil company is inteterested in buying it. No one is getting or is going to get free oil as a result of this war. No American or British oil company will be making one cent more profit as a result of this war then they would have made had the sanctions simply been lifted.

 

[time]

Well, your last claim simply isn't true. Of course companies invited into Iraq are making money. In particular, I note that Dick Cheney's old company, Halliburton, had a windfall of $61 million (through overcharging).

Mind you, that doesn't mean I believe it to be the reason for invasion.

I think you're being a little naive about the importance of access to oil for the US, however. I recommend you read this report from 30 years ago (if you haven't already). It's worth noting that US dependency on Middle East oil is actually higher now than back then.

 

[flagreen]

continued...

I wholeheartedly agree with your lesser-of-two-evils homily, something the more extreme critics of Suharto seem to miss, for example. Unfortunately, I suspect Saddam was already the lesser evil when compared to the alternatives - US foreign policy assumed this for many years. While Afghanistan stumbles and Pakistan teeters on the brink, I think Bush has been served badly by his advisers. To this extent, I think they became blinded by the oil as well as overconfidence in their capacity to impose themselves on the Arab world.

Consider the consequences if Musharraf's nine lives run out with the next assassination attempt.

As you may have surmised from my earlier comments, I do not believe that this war is about oil. In my opinion the only role which the Iraqi oil reserves have played in this war has been to invite the cat calls from the left of "thief!". Oil is a distraction and nothing more.

I do agree with you however that this war is about the imposition of American will upon the Arab world. This war is the Bush administration's answer to those who called for the root cause of terrorism to be addressed by America following the events of 9-11. Granted this is not what those who called for the root cause to be addressed had in mind, but nevertheless this is the drivng force behind the war.

The democratization of the middle east is America's alternative to simply giving the terrorists what they want. Having determined the latter course of action to be both unacceptable and dangerously irresponisible, the administration has chosen to address the root cause by changing the status quo in the middle east. Post 9-11, the "status quo" which produced such horific radicalism in the first place is no longer acceptable to America. In short, we not only going after the 'crocs' but we are draining the 'billabong' as well. This war is far more than simply the manifestation of conservative idealism which Chomsky holds in such contempt. It is also very pragmatic.

Can that be done? Indeed it is happening as we speak. Iraq is well on the way to becoming the first truly democratic Arab nation in the Gulf region. And yes there will be an American military presence Iraq long term to ensure that Iraq remains free of totalitarianism. The front line in the war on terror is in Iraq and in Afghanistan today and not in New York as it was on 9-11. Libya has agreed to voluntarily disarm itself of WMD. Iran has agreed to IAEA inspections and monitoring of their nuclear program and is cooperating with the EU. I would contend that neither of this positive developments in the middle east would have come about were it not for the war in Iraq.

Note - I just noticed that you had replied to the first half of this post while I was typing this second half. I'll get to back to you with my response to your new post in a bit.

 

[flagreen]

Well, your last claim simply isn't true. Of course companies invited into Iraq are making money. In particular, I note that Dick Cheney's old company, Halliburton, had a windfall of $61 million (through overcharging).

Mind you, that doesn't mean I believe it to be the reason for invasion.

I think you're being a little naive about the importance of access to oil for the US, however. I recommend you read this report from 30 years ago (if you haven't already). It's worth noting that US dependency on Middle East oil is actually higher now than back then.

That particular article had been brought up in a another forum which I frequently visit earlier today. I am not sure how it relates to the current situation in the middle east or to what I had said earlier which you have taken exception with. Of course the U.S. is dependent on middle east oil. But the problems of the 1970's of oil being used as a weapon against America have been resolved through diplomatic means over the past thirty years. There was no need to take military action to ensure access to middle east oil.

Halliburton is not an oil company. They are an engineering and construction firm. They along with other such companies will benefit from construction contracts with Iraq. Someone has to get those contracts David. There are only a handful of companies in the world who could handle such a contract. No matter who landed in it the recipient was going to make a profit. But consider too that the state of Iraqi idustrial infrastructure was such that lifting of the sanctions would have required many contracts being issued by the former regime to be able pump, refine and transport the oil anyway. It is entirely possible that Halliburton would have been successful in garning a fair portion of those contracts as well. After all, that is their specialty.

Having dealt with Department of Defense contracts, prepared bids for such and the like I can tell you that contracts of the size and complexity of those awarded to Halliburton cannot be filled or even successfully bid upon by very many firms. I don't know the specifics of Halliburtons contracts. But this is good excuse to see what I can find out as to what transpired in Halliburton having being awarded these contracts.

As I recall, the alleged overcharging is the result of a Kuwaiti firm, which Halliburton had subcontracted the delivery of gasoline to the U.S. Army with, having overcharged for the fuel they delivered. If this is true then Halliburton will take it up the ass and refund the money overcharged to the government. Halliburton can then sort out their losses with the Kuwaitis.

 

[flagreen]

Here is a link to a fairly informative transcript of a news conference held by the Department of Defense regarding both the issuing of the contract to Halliburton and the alleged overcharging.

http://www.dod.gov/transcripts/2003/tr20031211-0985.html

Here are a few key points from the transcript;

Usually after the completion of major combat operations, normal contracting measures such as competitive procurement of goods and services are often delayed and we use sole source providers. This was necessary in Iraq in order to quickly establish basic services to the people. The provisions of the acquisition regulations allow for these types of contracts and they fall under the rubric of “urgent and compelling circumstances” and the guidelines that attach thereto.

We recognized early in the period after combat operations in Iraq that we had to transition to normal contracting procedures, specifically full and open competition wherever possible. This was the direction we gave to the CPA, the Coalition Provisional Authority.

In May 2003 Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz assigned executive procurement authority to the Army Acquisition Corps with the instruction to transition from sole source procurement actions to full and open competition. At the same time, that is in May, I asked the Defense Contract Audit Agency, DCAA, to audit major contracts and provide assistance and advice to the CPA. I felt this was necessary in a sole-source contracting environment. I believe I briefed you before on the fact that we had created a cell in Iraq, including DCAA.

And this in regard to who actually profited from any overcharging which may have taken place;

Q: If they were deficient in some way it was in not shopping around or negotiating a good market price for that delivered product, not in the fact that they inflated the price in order to enrich themselves.

Senior Defense Official: I think that’s a fair characterization of it.

And finally as to who will have to eat the loses if overcharging did take place;

Q: If the $61 million would be disallowed at some future point, who would eat that cost?

Senior Defense Official: KBR.

Q: And then they would --

Di Rita: They would have a suit against their subcontractor.

(Multiple voices.)

Senior Defense Official: -- their subcontractor