Confronting Empire

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [snip] : I will also remind you that, so far, there is NO PROOF that Saddam does have : WMD. In fact there is absolutely no reason to doubt it. Unless there is evidence, there is every reason to doubt it. (Shit, there’s better evidence for the tooth fairy – at least she used to leave quarters under my pillow. But that’s just my opinion. Note that I haven’t proved my assertion. And you didn’t prove yours! Are you getting the point yet?) So, regardless of whether there is or isn’t relevant evidence – you haven’t brought it forward! You have the burden of proof backwards here: as a condition for ending the 1991 war, Iraq agreed to give up its WMD and to submit to inspections to prove that they had done so. They have clearly failed to cooperate with inspection efforts. That’s the equivalent of reinstituting the war. Iraq has to prove that it has given up the WMD — it’s not the US’s burden to prove that Iraq has not done so. This imminent war is simply an attempt to enforce the terms of that agreement.

You have missed the point as completely as Doug Quarnstrom. I have not been making any case for or against Saddam. I entered this thread because Doug advanced the proposition, while defending the huge arsenal of the US: [condensing] "mere possession of weapons is not indicative of warlike intent." I first pointed out that Doug’s proposition could equally be applied to Saddam. From then on I have been pointing out the **logical** deficiencies in Doug’s argument as applied to Saddam. I have been trying to show him that his case **as he presented it** does not hang together. I have not said a case couldn’t be made, and I have not discussed on whom the burden properly falls. It is about the deficiency of Doug’s arguments, their internal inconsistency and incompleteness, that I have been speaking. If we ever get Doug’s capability up to assembling his points in a coherent and logical fashion, then we can look at the actual issues. Because of Doug’s technical incompetence to present an argument, we can’t take him seriously until then. His beliefs, no matter how intense, do not constitute an argument by themselves. Regards,

Response:

[snip] : I will also remind you that, so far, there is NO PROOF that Saddam does have : WMD. In fact there is absolutely no reason to doubt it. Unless there is evidence, there is every reason to doubt it. (Shit, there’s better evidence for the tooth fairy – at least she used to leave quarters under my pillow. But that’s just my opinion. Note that I haven’t proved my assertion. And you didn’t prove yours! Are you getting the point yet?) So, regardless of whether there is or isn’t relevant evidence – you haven’t brought it forward!

You have the burden of proof backwards here: as a condition for ending the 1991 war, Iraq agreed to give up its WMD and to submit to inspections to prove that they had done so. They have clearly failed to cooperate with inspection efforts. That’s the equivalent of reinstituting the war. Iraq has to prove that it has given up the WMD — it’s not the US’s burden to prove that Iraq has not done so. This imminent war is simply an attempt to enforce the terms of that agreement.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : So can we infer from your proposition that Saddam’s possession of military : capability (possibly even including WMD) is not, per se, evidence of intent to : use it? In and of itself it does not constitute such evidence, which is one reason why we do not object to, say, France having nukes. : If so, Saddam will be much relieved, for then his military : capabilities (real or imputed) wouldn’t – of themselves – constitute a : "threat" at all, let alone an imminent one. Saddam’s relief exetends only to the point where he understands that we *remember* that he tried to assasinate a US president and that he is working with people who attacked us. Hell, I do not begrudge him the desire to destroy us. But I do applaud Bush’s intent to extinguish that desire. doug Saddam’s supposed "desires" (and these, too, are just your presumptions and speculations) are not punishable offences, certainly not by war on Iraq. So, cutting through your obfuscation, you agree that *even if Saddam did have WMD* (even though that would be unlawful) that, by itself, would NOT consititute an "imminent threat." It follows that it would not be possible to justify the ludicrous "preemptive defence" excuse used by Bush in his unsupportable attempt to go to war on his own initiative by invoking the "right of self-defence" aspect of the UN charter and international law. No. Hussein’s supposed possesion of WMD does constitute a legitimate response of self-defense against armed-attack allowed in the UN charter.

No, it doesn’t. First of all, it violates the terms of the 1991 cease fire agreement, by which Iraq was to have destroyed all its WMD. Second, as far as nuclear weapons, it violates Iraq’s obligations as a signatory to the NPT.

Response:

: Will America actually be making the way for peace by conquering the : Middle East? =20 Yes. doug

From this "answer" we can all easily discern "Doug Quarnstrom"’s agenda. Josh

Response:

No. Hussein’s supposed possesion of WMD does constitute a legitimate response of self-defense against armed-attack allowed in the UN charter. Likewise, many nations are fully justified in attacking the United States because of the US posession of WMD, and we must all back their efforts to "defend" themselves wherever and whenever they chose to attack the United States. Josh

Response:

: Saddam’s supposed "desires" (and these, too, are just your presumptions and : speculations) are not punishable offences, certainly not by war on Iraq. I think you will be surprised.

You are clearly someone who can’t even begin to follow an argument, and you’re even weaker at making them. My boy, I’m a cranky, sarcastic old man who doesn’t suffer fools gladly. So, even though you may not like what I say or the way I say it, shut your mouth, listen, and learn. I’m going to explain why no one is going to take you seriously unless you clean up your act and bring forward better arguments. I won’t extend this sort of charity more than once. There may or may not be a case for going after Saddam, but your logic sure isn’t enough to make it – that’s the point of my critique. : So, cutting through your obfuscation, you agree that *even if Saddam did have : WMD* (even though that would be unlawful) that, by itself, would NOT : consititute an "imminent threat." That Saddam has them and works with Al-Qaeda. That is an unacceptable threat and it will be dealt with. In the abstract, the mere possession of WMDs by a nation does not necessarily constitute an unacceptable threat.

Right, that’s what you said. It’s your own argument. So, if you want to assert that Saddam should be taken out, you’d better have something else to bring to the party. : I will also remind you that, so far, there is NO PROOF that Saddam does have : WMD. In fact there is absolutely no reason to doubt it.

Unless there is evidence, there is every reason to doubt it. (Shit, there’s better evidence for the tooth fairy – at least she used to leave quarters under my pillow. But that’s just my opinion. Note that I haven’t proved my assertion. And you didn’t prove yours! Are you getting the point yet?) So, regardless of whether there is or isn’t relevant evidence – you haven’t brought it forward! : You can’t even establish that he does have such weapons, and *your : own arguments* entail that *even if he did* that would still not be enough to : constitute proof of intent to use them. Your logic for preemptive attack : fails twice over. Fortunately Bush is the decision maker here. He recognizes the threat even if you do not.

Are you trying to state some logic of your own (which is how you started off) or are you making an appeal to the authority and infallibility of Bush? Make up your mind. The question was not what Bush will do, but whether there is any valid rationale for it. You haven’t presented an argument that will hold up – your own points shoot it down. : So, with "imminent threat" and "self-defence" out of the way as unsupportable, This is not the case. Saddam has weapons and the likelihood of his using them is way too high to be acceptable.

Saddam has weapons? Ok, it’s a plausible proposition. So have you got any evidence to back it up? If not, your argument comes down to "proof by repeated assertion." Blix and al Bareidi have so far found nothing. They’re not happy about Saddam’s lack of cooperation, but that’s a different issue, one you have not raised. You haven’t pointed to any evidence. Likelihood? Too high? Acceptable? By what measures? To whom? On what grounds? Applying what criteria? : the US (unless it further wishes to confirm its rogue state status) has NO : legitimate excuse for *unilateral* False. (or even multilateral) action, and must : work through the UN to try to get a Security Council resolution under Article : 42 of the UN charter. And the procedure for getting that **required** : Security Council resolution before any war is pellucidly clear – any veto : defeats the resolution.

Since you snipped my post, it’s tough to walk you through it. But it was *you* who said mere possession of weapons is NOT proof of intent to use them. You were trying to stick up for the US, but your proposition was general. Nor did you qualify it to exclude WMD. If mere possession of weapons isn’t proof of intent to use them, then there can hardly be a "threat" from Saddam, let alone an "imminent" one – unless there’s some additional reason, one you have not produced. And without an "imminent threat" how can Bush justify pre-emptive defence? Your logic is completely flawed. You haven’t even shown Saddam has weapons (oh, sure, you *said* he does, but that won’t cut it). And even if he *does* have them, you said (in your general proposition) that that *isn’t* proof of intent to use them. So where’s the threat? : So fish or cut bait, fella. You don’t have a defensible rationale for your : war. Wrong.

Well, if you have a defensible rationale, you sure as hell haven’t presented it. Next time, be sure that brain is operating before putting mouth in gear. Further tutoring will not be for free. Regards,

Response:

[snip] Saddam’s supposed "desires" (and these, too, are just your presumptions and speculations)

They’re based on the man’s track record — they’re hardly unsupported speculation. are not punishable offences, certainly not by war on Iraq.

His desires alone may not be — but his failure to comply with the terms he signed on to at the conclusion of the 1991 Gulf war is another story. So, cutting through your obfuscation, you agree that *even if Saddam did have WMD* (even though that would be unlawful) that, by itself, would NOT consititute an "imminent threat." It follows that it would not be possible to justify the ludicrous "preemptive defence" excuse used by Bush in his unsupportable attempt to go to war on his own initiative by invoking the "right of self-defence" aspect of the UN charter and international law.

There’s really nothing particularly "pre-emptive" about it — he has failed to comply with the agreement he signed which brought the 1991 war to a conclusion. That agreement was the precondition for our agreeing to end the war. By violating that agreement, he has, in effect, reinstated hostilities. The fact that the UN security council may not feel like enforcing that agreement hardly means the US is prohibited from doing so. I will also remind you that, so far, there is NO PROOF that Saddam does have WMD.

You wouldn’t really expect there to be any in the absence of full cooperation of Iraqi scientists, would you? The evidence is clear enough to justify action — at least that’s the assesment of the US government, and they’re the ones who are going to be taking action. You can’t even establish that he does have such weapons, and *your own arguments* entail that *even if he did* that would still not be enough to constitute proof of intent to use them. Your logic for preemptive attack fails twice over.

You’re missing the point: he agreed to disarm as a precondition for ending the 1991 war. The burden is on him to prove that he has complied — it’s not on the US to prove that he hasn’t. No smoking gun is needed to justify action, only a failure to fully cooperate and comply with the agreement. So, with "imminent threat" and "self-defence" out of the way as unsupportable, the US (unless it further wishes to confirm its rogue state status) has NO legitimate excuse for *unilateral* (or even multilateral) action, and must work through the UN to try to get a Security Council resolution under Article 42 of the UN charter.

I can’t imagine where you got the idea that sovereign nations have to submit to the UN when they believe that is contrary and dangerous to their national interests. And the procedure for getting that **required** Security Council resolution before any war is pellucidly clear – any veto defeats the resolution. So fish or cut bait, fella. You don’t have a defensible rationale for your war.

As it so happens, the US doesn’t have to provide what you or the French or anyone else regards as a "defensible rationale" before it can take action. It’s just a matter of time now. Powell just presented evidence that they’re concealing nerve agents, and there is absolutely no way that they will ever declare those or allow inspectors to observe them, so a war is inevitable. The bottom line is that, despite the fact that the consequences of taking this military action are horrible, inaction would be even more horrible in the long run.

Response:

: Saddam’s supposed "desires" (and these, too, are just your presumptions and : speculations) are not punishable offences, certainly not by war on Iraq. I think you will be surprised. : So, cutting through your obfuscation, you agree that *even if Saddam did have : WMD* (even though that would be unlawful) that, by itself, would NOT : consititute an "imminent threat." That Saddam has them and works with Al-Qaeda. That is an unacceptable threat and it will be dealt with. In the abstract, the mere possession of WMDs by a nation does not necessarily constitute an unacceptable threat. : I will also remind you that, so far, there is NO PROOF that Saddam does have : WMD. In fact there is absolutely no reason to doubt it. : You can’t even establish that he does have such weapons, and *your : own arguments* entail that *even if he did* that would still not be enough to : constitute proof of intent to use them. Your logic for preemptive attack : fails twice over. Fortunately Bush is the decision maker here. He recognizes the threat even if you do not. : So, with "imminent threat" and "self-defence" out of the way as unsupportable, This is not the case. Saddam has weapons and the likelihood of his using them is way too high to be acceptable. : the US (unless it further wishes to confirm its rogue state status) has NO : legitimate excuse for *unilateral* False. (or even multilateral) action, and must : work through the UN to try to get a Security Council resolution under Article : 42 of the UN charter. And the procedure for getting that **required** : Security Council resolution before any war is pellucidly clear – any veto : defeats the resolution. : So fish or cut bait, fella. You don’t have a defensible rationale for your : war. Wrong. doug

Response:

: [snip] : Saddam’s supposed "desires" (and these, too, are just your presumptions and : speculations) : They’re based on the man’s track record — they’re hardly unsupported : speculation. Look at it this way. He tried to assasinate George Bush. He quite quite clearly wants revenge for the Gulf War, and only somebody who ignores the clear signals sent before will deny that he wants more than just that. But just that is enough for us to determine that he is an unacceptabel threat to America given his WMD and his ties with terror groups. I realize that there is not anything I can say that will convince nemo, but one wonders what his argument will become when the security council DOES endorse military action against Iraq. Or for that matter, why would it be ok for France to be unilateralist given all the nations that *do* support the US? : are not punishable offences, certainly not by war on Iraq. : His desires alone may not be — but his failure to comply with the terms : he signed on to at the conclusion of the 1991 Gulf war is another story. Absolutely. : : So, cutting through your obfuscation, you agree that *even if Saddam did have : WMD* (even though that would be unlawful) that, by itself, would NOT : consititute an "imminent threat." It follows that it would not be possible to : justify the ludicrous "preemptive defence" excuse used by Bush in his : unsupportable attempt to go to war on his own initiative by invoking the : "right of self-defence" aspect of the UN charter and international law. : There’s really nothing particularly "pre-emptive" about it — he has : failed to comply with the agreement he signed which brought the 1991 war : to a conclusion. That agreement was the precondition for our agreeing to : end the war. By violating that agreement, he has, in effect, reinstated : hostilities. The fact that the UN security council may not feel like : enforcing that agreement hardly means the US is prohibited from doing so. : : I will also remind you that, so far, there is NO PROOF that Saddam does have : WMD. : You wouldn’t really expect there to be any in the absence of full : cooperation of Iraqi scientists, would you? The proof is more than adequate. : The evidence is clear enough : to justify action — at least that’s the assesment of the US government, : and they’re the ones who are going to be taking action. Of course they are trumping the whole thing up. Trust Saddam, but never the US. : You can’t even establish that he does have such weapons, and *your : own arguments* entail that *even if he did* that would still not be enough to : constitute proof of intent to use them. Your logic for preemptive attack : fails twice over. : You’re missing the point: he agreed to disarm as a precondition for : ending the 1991 war. The burden is on him to prove that he has complied : — it’s not on the US to prove that he hasn’t. No smoking gun is needed : to justify action, only a failure to fully cooperate and comply with the : agreement. : : So, with "imminent threat" and "self-defence" out of the way as unsupportable, : the US (unless it further wishes to confirm its rogue state status) has NO : legitimate excuse for *unilateral* (or even multilateral) action, and must : work through the UN to try to get a Security Council resolution under Article : 42 of the UN charter. : I can’t imagine where you got the idea that sovereign nations have to : submit to the UN when they believe that is contrary and dangerous to : their national interests. : And the procedure for getting that **required** : Security Council resolution before any war is pellucidly clear – any veto : defeats the resolution. : : So fish or cut bait, fella. You don’t have a defensible rationale for your : war. : As it so happens, the US doesn’t have to provide what you or the French : or anyone else regards as a "defensible rationale" before it can take : action. It’s just a matter of time now. And chances are good that the UN will be on board anyhow… doug

Response:

: Chomsky: Confronting Empire : The most powerful state in history has proclaimed, loud and clear, : that it intends to rule the world by force, It has done nothing of the sort. doug

Response:

: The most powerful state in history has proclaimed, loud and clear, : that it intends to rule the world by force, It has done nothing of the sort.

If you look at the top ten military budgets in the world today, the #1 budget is greater than the other nine combined. That’s a loud and clear proclamation.

Response:

: The most powerful state in history has proclaimed, loud and clear, : that it intends to rule the world by force, It has done nothing of the sort. If you look at the top ten military budgets in the world today, the #1 budget is greater than the other nine combined. That’s a loud and clear proclamation.

Ask the Chinese if they would prefer that Japan re-arm as opposed to having the U.S. ensure its security, or if they’d prefer a South Korea with a defense capable of defending itself against the North. The Europeans, also, should be asked why they got so upset when, before 9/11 happened, the Pentagon announced plans to shift much of the forces stationed in Europe to Asia. Would the Saudis and the other nations of the Arabian peninsula prefer to be left to defend themselves? The U.S. is the status quo superpower and the guarantor of strategic peace. That’s why it has the military it does. And there are plenty of free riders among the nations of the world who depend on it.

Response:

"Gabrielle Rapagnetta": If you look at the top ten military budgets in the world today, the #1 budget is greater than the other nine combined. That’s a loud and clear proclamation. Ask the Chinese if they would prefer that Japan re-arm as opposed to having the U.S. ensure its security, or if they’d prefer a South Korea with a defense capable of defending itself against the North. The Europeans, also, should be asked why they got so upset when, before 9/11 happened, the Pentagon announced plans to shift much of the forces stationed in Europe to Asia. Would the Saudis and the other nations of the Arabian peninsula prefer to be left to defend themselves?

I agree. These countries should be asked.

Response:

: : The most powerful state in history has proclaimed, loud and clear, : : that it intends to rule the world by force, : : It has done nothing of the sort. : If you look at the top ten military budgets in the world today, the #1 : budget is greater than the other nine combined. That’s a loud and clear : proclamation. No, it isn’t. This arugment implies that any military spending indicates an effort to "rule" the world by force. The mere possession of a large military in no way constitutes a declaration of intent of any kind. doug

Response:

"Doug Quarnstrom" Gabrielle Rapagnetta: : If you look at the top ten military budgets in the world today, the #1 : budget is greater than the other nine combined. That’s a loud and clear : proclamation. No, it isn’t. This arugment implies that any military spending indicates an effort to "rule" the world by force. The mere possession of a large military in no way constitutes a declaration of intent of any kind.

Suit yourself. If you want to call the largest military buildup in the history of the world a "mere possession", then so be it. Most of us believe the military is actually used for something.

Response:

: "Doug Quarnstrom" : Gabrielle Rapagnetta: : : If you look at the top ten military budgets in the world today, the #1 : : budget is greater than the other nine combined. That’s a loud and clear : : proclamation. : No, it isn’t. This arugment implies that any military : spending indicates an effort to "rule" the world by : force. The mere possession of a large military : in no way constitutes a declaration of intent of any : kind. : Suit yourself. If you want to call the largest military buildup in the : history of the world a "mere possession", then so be it. Most of us believe : the military is actually used for something. I never said it wasn’t. Incidentally, when did you acquire the mandate to speak for "most of us"? Just curious. doug

Response:

: : The most powerful state in history has proclaimed, loud and clear, : : that it intends to rule the world by force, : : It has done nothing of the sort. : If you look at the top ten military budgets in the world today, the #1 : budget is greater than the other nine combined. That’s a loud and clear : proclamation. The mere possession of a large military in no way constitutes a declaration of intent of any kind.

Add to that the actions, justifications, and intentions of the USA, and what you have is a loud and clear proclamation that "I am the No.1 top dog, and now I’m about to prove it so that their no more question of that fact." Rouff!! Rouff!! And if wresting the bone from Iraq proves as easy as I suspect, we can count on quite a few more little dogs getting chomped and gnawed upon before long. Will America actually be making the way for peace by conquering the Middle East? Will America actually be protecting freedom and innocent life by spurning the UN and dropping 400 cruise missile on Baghdad in one day (that’s called "SHOCK AND AWE" — Isn’t that cool)? or will America really be fighting an imperialistic battle for world supremacy because they (s)elected a "leader" who simply couldn’t do it diplomatically, or by more difficult, courageous, intelligent means? obviously

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : : The most powerful state in history has proclaimed, loud and clear, : : that it intends to rule the world by force, : : It has done nothing of the sort. : If you look at the top ten military budgets in the world today, the #1 : budget is greater than the other nine combined. That’s a loud and clear : proclamation. No, it isn’t. This arugment implies that any military spending indicates an effort to "rule" the world by force. The mere possession of a large military in no way constitutes a declaration of intent of any kind. doug

I see… So can we infer from your proposition that Saddam’s possession of military capability (possibly even including WMD) is not, per se, evidence of intent to use it? If so, Saddam will be much relieved, for then his military capabilities (real or imputed) wouldn’t – of themselves – constitute a "threat" at all, let alone an imminent one. Regards,

Response:

: soon Iraq- this is the only language they understand. If, (I mean : *when*) we are attacked again, Iran, Syria, and maybe Saudi Arabia : will be next. If they don’t like that, don’t attack us! Each of these nations is involved in the terror network. They all work with and support Al-Qaeda. Unfortunately. I am hopeful the people of Iran will rise and throw off the evil masters that oppress them. doug

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : So can we infer from your proposition that Saddam’s possession of military : capability (possibly even including WMD) is not, per se, evidence of intent to : use it? In and of itself it does not constitute such evidence, which is one reason why we do not object to, say, France having nukes. : If so, Saddam will be much relieved, for then his military : capabilities (real or imputed) wouldn’t – of themselves – constitute a : "threat" at all, let alone an imminent one. Saddam’s relief exetends only to the point where he understands that we *remember* that he tried to assasinate a US president and that he is working with people who attacked us. Hell, I do not begrudge him the desire to destroy us. But I do applaud Bush’s intent to extinguish that desire. doug

Saddam’s supposed "desires" (and these, too, are just your presumptions and speculations) are not punishable offences, certainly not by war on Iraq. So, cutting through your obfuscation, you agree that *even if Saddam did have WMD* (even though that would be unlawful) that, by itself, would NOT consititute an "imminent threat." It follows that it would not be possible to justify the ludicrous "preemptive defence" excuse used by Bush in his unsupportable attempt to go to war on his own initiative by invoking the "right of self-defence" aspect of the UN charter and international law. I will also remind you that, so far, there is NO PROOF that Saddam does have WMD. You can’t even establish that he does have such weapons, and *your own arguments* entail that *even if he did* that would still not be enough to constitute proof of intent to use them. Your logic for preemptive attack fails twice over. So, with "imminent threat" and "self-defence" out of the way as unsupportable, the US (unless it further wishes to confirm its rogue state status) has NO legitimate excuse for *unilateral* (or even multilateral) action, and must work through the UN to try to get a Security Council resolution under Article 42 of the UN charter. And the procedure for getting that **required** Security Council resolution before any war is pellucidly clear – any veto defeats the resolution. So fish or cut bait, fella. You don’t have a defensible rationale for your war. Regards,

Response:

: Will America actually be making the way for peace by conquering the : Middle East? =20 Yes. doug

Response:

: So can we infer from your proposition that Saddam’s possession of military : capability (possibly even including WMD) is not, per se, evidence of intent to : use it? In and of itself it does not constitute such evidence, which is one reason why we do not object to, say, France having nukes. : If so, Saddam will be much relieved, for then his military : capabilities (real or imputed) wouldn’t – of themselves – constitute a : "threat" at all, let alone an imminent one. Saddam’s relief exetends only to the point where he understands that we *remember* that he tried to assasinate a US president and that he is working with people who attacked us. Hell, I do not begrudge him the desire to destroy us. But I do applaud Bush’s intent to extinguish that desire. doug

Response:

: Suit yourself. If you want to call the largest military buildup in the : history of the world a "mere possession", then so be it. Most of us believe : the military is actually used for something. I never said it wasn’t. Incidentally, when did you acquire the mandate to speak for "most of us"? Just curious. doug

He does speak for most of them *in here*- You see Doug, this is the lefties only platform where they can come to pat each other on the back. You are outnumbered, but far from outwitted. These people are simply anti-war or anti-government, and nothing short of nuking an American city would convince them otherwise. Even then, some would still whine about diplomacy, while others would say the CIA did it. The truth is, if we go to war or not, we will be attacked again. If we destroy Israel, *maybe* we would have a chance with diplomacy. There is no *in between* ask osama, or arafat. After 9-11- the extremist elements lost control of Afghanistan, partial control of Pakistan, and soon Iraq- this is the only language they understand. If, (I mean *when*) we are attacked again, Iran, Syria, and maybe Saudi Arabia will be next. If they don’t like that, don’t attack us!

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "Gabrielle Rapagnetta": If you look at the top ten military budgets in the world today, the #1 budget is greater than the other nine combined. That’s a loud and clear proclamation. Ask the Chinese if they would prefer that Japan re-arm as opposed to having the U.S. ensure its security, or if they’d prefer a South Korea with a defense capable of defending itself against the North. The Europeans, also, should be asked why they got so upset when, before 9/11 happened, the Pentagon announced plans to shift much of the forces stationed in Europe to Asia. Would the Saudis and the other nations of the Arabian peninsula prefer to be left to defend themselves? I agree. These countries should be asked.

Response:

Chomsky: Confronting Empire by Chomsky at Porto Alegre Sunday February 02, 2003 at 12:06 AM A few days ago a poll in Canada found that over 1/3 of the population regard the US as the greatest threat to world peace. The US ranks more than twice as high as Iraq or North Korea, and far higher than al-Qaeda as well. A poll without careful controls, by Time magazine, found that over 80% of respondents in Europe regarded the US as the greatest threat to world peace, compared with less than 10% for Iraq or North Korea. Even if these numbers are wrong by some substantial factor, they are dramatic. We are meeting at a moment of world history that is in many ways unique — a moment that is ominous, but also full of hope. 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. The doctrine is not entirely new, nor unique to the US, but it has never before been proclaimed with such brazen arrogance — at least not by anyone we would care to remember. I am not going to try to answer the question posed for this meeting: How to confront the empire. The reason is that most of you know the answers as well or better than I do, through your own lives and work. The way to "confront the empire" is to create a different world, one that is not based on violence and subjugation, hate and fear. That is why we are here, and the WSF offers hope that these are not idle dreams. Yesterday I had the rare privilege of seeing some very inspiring work to achieve these goals, at the international gathering of the Via Campesina at a community of the MST, which I think is the most important and exciting popular movement in the world. With constructive local actions such as those of the MST, and international organization of the kind illustrated by the Via Campesina and the WSF, with sympathy and solidarity and mutual aid, there is real hope for a decent future. I have also had some other recent experiences that give a vivid picture of what the world may be like if imperial violence is not limited and dismantled. Last month I was in southeastern Turkey, the scene of some of the worst atrocities of the grisly 1990s, still continuing: just a few hours ago we were informed of renewed atrocities by the army near Diyarbakir, the unofficial capital of the Kurdish regions. Through the 1990s, millions of people were driven out of the devastated countryside, with tens of thousands killed and every imaginable form of barbaric torture. They try to survive in caves outside the walls of Diyarbakir, in condemned buildings in miserable slums in Istanbul, or wherever they can find refuge, barred from returning to their villages despite new legislation that theoretically permits return. 80% of the weapons came from the US. In the year 1997 alone, Clinton sent more arms to Turkey than in the entire Cold War period combined up to the onset of the state terror campaign — called "counterterror" by the perpetrators and their supporters, another convention. Turkey became the leading recipient of US arms as atrocities peaked (apart from Israel-Egypt, a separate category). In 1999, Turkey relinquished this position to Colombia. The reason is that in Turkey, US-backed state terror had largely succeeded, while in Colombia it had not. Colombia had the worst human rights record in the Western hemisphere in the 1990s and was by far the leading recipient of US arms and military training, and now leads the world. It also leads the world by other measures, for example, murder of labor activists: more than half of those killed worldwide in the last decade were in Colombia. Close to

Filed under: Human Rights

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Activism Change

Learn, read, react :: Activism