good essay by chomsky

[alex cortex]

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=2938


here´s the first few lines:

The most powerful state in history has proclaimed, loud and clear, that it intends to rule the world by force, the dimension in which it reigns supreme. Apart from the conventional bow to noble intentions that is the standard (hence meaningless) accompaniment of coercion, its leaders are committed to pursuit of their “imperial ambition,” as it is frankly described in the leading journal of the foreign policy establishment – critically, an important matter. They have also declared that they will tolerate no competitors, now or in the future. They evidently believe that the means of violence in their hands are so extraordinary that they can dismiss with contempt anyone who stands in their way. There is good reason to believe that the war with Iraq is intended, in part, to teach the world some lessons about what lies ahead when the empire decides to strike a blow -- though “war” is hardly the proper term, given the array of forces.

[alex cortex]

one more. it´s an interview from december.

http://zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=1&ItemID=2804


first few lines:

Mark Thomas: If we can start with US foreign policy in relation to Iraq and the War on Terror, what do you think is going on at the moment?

Noam Chomsky: First of all I think we ought to be very cautious about using the phrase 'War on Terror'. There can't be a War on Terror. It's a logical impossibility. The US is one of the leading terrorist states in the world. The guys who are in charge right now were all condemned for terrorism by the World Court. They would have been condemned by the U.N. Security Council except they vetoed the resolution, with Britain abstaining of course. These guys can't be conducting a war on terror. It's just out of the question. They declared a war on terror 20 years ago and we know what they did. They destroyed Central America. They killed a million and a half people in southern Africa. We can go on through the list. So there's no 'War on Terror'.

[wheezer]

I just completed a course in theoretical computer science last semester - chomsky is the man.

[invisibleplanet]

chomsky hits the prverbial nail on the head, so to speak!

wonderful article. this is what the underground new network of ordinary world citizens has come to understand as the closest to the truth about the current situation on terror and weapons of mass destruction stockpiling, which despite the end of the cold war, has continued to escalate at an alarming rate.

i noticed today how north korea makes a stand against the usa stockpile and current 'monopoly' on the production and stockpile of nuclear arsenal. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030201-69533888.htm

[antipolis]

GREENPEACE CUTS MILITARY SUPPLY
CHAIN TO WAR ON IRAQ


Southampton, England, Monday 27th January 2003 The Greenpeace flag ship "Rainbow Warrior" today blocked the departure of UK military supply vessels heading for the Gulf. The Rainbow Warrior occupied the Marchwood Military port in Southampton, on the South coast of England by dropping anchor and blocking the exit, while Greenpeace climbers attached themselves to the loading crane and anchor chain of the supply ship the Magdelena Green. Crews in inflatable boats are painting No War on the side of the vessel.
Other commandeered civilian vessels have been also loading day and night with helicopters, tank transporters, trucks and other military hardware.

The Greenpeace non-violent direct action is part of the global campaign to prevent a military attack on Iraq.

Speaking from the bridge of the Rainbow Warrior, Stephen Tindale, Director of Greenpeace in the UK said:

We are determined to stop the headlong rush to a war which places a higher price on oil than on blood. War with Iraq would not make the world a safer place: it would increase support for terrorism and could lead to the use of weapons of mass destruction. The human and environmental impacts would be appalling and no one would benefit other than George Bush and oil companies like ExxonMobil.

Greenpeace is opposed to war in Iraq, whether or not an attack is sanctioned by the United Nations, because it would have devastating human and environmental consequences. According to military and health experts a conventional war could kill over 200,000 people, mainly civilians, and a further quarter of a million could die from famine and disease (MEDACT).
If war escalates to involve chemical or nuclear weapons the death toll could even run into millions.

US President George Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair have cited Saddam Hussein s desire to acquire weapons of mass destruction as justification for an invasion. However, pre-emptive military strikes against states possessing or suspected of possessing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons do not
provide a stable basis for controlling them. It would require repeated armed interventions against numerous countries. States known to have nuclear weapons include India, Pakistan and Israel. The Bush administration has stated that at least 13 countries are pursuing biological weapons research.

The war is clearly motivated by oil. The same forces that are backing the war are also opposing the US signing the Kyoto Protocol, which would begin to combat climate change. The same US companies that fuel America's oil addiction and oppose the Kyoto Protocol are also backing the war against Iraq. The British Government has recently announced that one of the top five priorities for foreign policy is securing access to energy supplies. Yet
Blair still denies that an attack on Iraq has anything to do with oil.

[Yer_Maw]

Hmm, some very interesting points made. But I don’t know how he can 'wax lyrical' about American wrongdoing for the entire essay and not mention anything about maybe some of the bad stuff Iraq have done, no?

Funny how his main point is that war and fear distracts us from what’s really going on at home, an idea ripped off from 1984 (written almost 60 years ago). Doesn’t he realise that in his hated America he is at least allowed to say and think the things he does? If chomsky was living under a real oppressive dictatorship he would be in his room 101 of giant American foreign policy attacking him, out drinking victory gin, playing deep blue at chess before he could say "Mujahideen."

:)

[grobelaar]

Well apart from the fact that Chomsky hasn't had a word in print (not counting the internet) in a mainstream US publication or Journal since writing an essay about the Causes and Consequences of the 9/11 attacks...

He was expecting to be attacked by the right wing in America - but what stunned him was the strength of vilification that came from so-called 'left-wing' organisations and media instituitions - In many cases their accusations against Chomsky were stronger than those of the right - who had simply dismissed him as a wooly thinking liberal - they probaby accused to wearing sandals and procuring facial hair too :-) ...

Oppression comes in many forms and sure it isn't fair to compare, a subtly controlled media machine with torture chambers and death camps - but the results can be just as effective and perhaps a little more insidious; particular given such regimes claim to being free, democratic and just...

[grobelaar]

Link to that Chomsky post 9/11 essay...
http://monkeyfist.com/ChomskyArchive/essays/mirror_html

and a link to an archive of Chomsky writings...
http://monkeyfist.com/ChomskyArchive/essays

[grobelaar]

Also check out the replies to Chomsky's writing and Chomsky's replies to them for a nice bit of cut and thrust...

http://www.zmag.org/chomskyhitchens.htm

http://www.zmag.org/casey.htm

http://www.zmag.org/chomreply.htm

[alex cortex]

more reading:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=2974