I’d be interested to read the article or book in which Chomsky did this. Perhaps you could let me know which one/s to look for?
I’ve been looking this up and, apparently, it was a completely malicious misinterpretation of his work. I’d have to read the book in question to be 100% sure.
But I’ve found an excellent transcription of a seminar in which he gives his view of what constitues “humanitarian intervention”. Anyone reading this can plainly see there’s no way in hell this guy would support a genocide.
It’s a real eye-opener.
So far, and just off the top of my head, the negative results of the war in Iraq include:
(i) 16,000 dead. Thousands and thousands more injured. (I would wager that that is more than Saddam would have killed in the same period. A number of those are American and British soldiers, ZERO of whom would have been killed by Saddam in this period.)
(ii) Hundred’s of thousands, if not millions, of Iraqis without power for months.
(iii) A collapsed health care system in a city of 5 million.
(iv) A dramatic increase in the power of radical Islamists within Iraq.
(v) The utter collapse of the Iraqi economy, plunging almost its entire population into poverty.
(vi) The lowest level of international support and respect for the US and its policies since, well, ever.
(vii) The expenditure, to date of what, $50 Billion? With the total cost of the “war”, not including the occupation (oops, sorry, “administration of liberated Iraq”) estimated to top $100 Billion. And then another $75 Billion a year in “administration costs” for how long? 5 more years? 10? 20?
(viii) The continuing death and injury of Iraqi civilians at the hands of soldiers who are trying to do a job (policing) for which they are not trained and are ill suited.
(ix) The continuing death and injury of US and British soldiers stuck in Iraq in a policing role.
Positive Results:
(i) Saddam can’t hurt any more people (and, I know, he was a very, very bad guy. But we support some very bad guys in the region even today, not to mention gentle souls like the Shah of Iran and the House of Saud. Jesus, millions are being killed in genocidal wars in Africa, people are hunting and eating each other there, and we don’t seem to be sending any troops. Face it, despite the spin, we did not go into Iraq because Saddam was a bad guy).
(ii) The US now has bases in Iraq, and can move troops out of Saudi Arabia.
Help me expand my list of positives. Otherwise I gotta go against the view of the majority of the American people on this one. There were vastly less costly options.
mhendo->
I found this chronology of articles which reference this issue.
Of course, by the very nature of the chronology, the premise of the author is that Chomsky indeed endorsed a criminal regime.
But, anyway, it looks like a good starting point if you want to get to the source.
I’d be interested to read the article or book in which Chomsky did this. Perhaps you could let me know which one/s to look for?
Chomsky, during the period in question, wrote many articles denying that there was a genocide, and citing the progress the regime had made. Although not slavish support, it was a glaring wrong that he never actually owned up to.
Now, back to Bush and WMD.
No one has really come to grips with this question: Why should Bush have believed there were no WMD when no other nations’ intelligence indicated that either? Was Clinton a liar? Was Chirac a liar? How about Kenneth Pollack? HIllary Clinton? Joe Liberman? John McCain?
You can’t just pick and choose based on ideology. If there are indeed no WMD, you inevitable have to come to grips with the fact that everyone was wrong.
This is a convenient dodge and non sequitur.
No one other than Bush and his lapdog Blair led the charge to war regardless of whether or not other world leaders beleived WMD’s existed. Plenty of nations including our own, have them.
While over 40 countries on the U.S. dole may have acquiesed to provide humanitarian aid in the wake of our bloodshed, the invasion was overwhelmingly condemned by the world. Opposition to this occupation ranged from 80% to 90% even among our strongest allies: Britain, Spain, and Australia. Pre-war opposition in the U.S. was near 50%. The other 50% still think S.H. was responsible for 9-11. I’ll grant you, as we watched the shock and awe Bagdad fireworks display from our comfy lazyboy nightly, national pride, patriotism et al vastly increased support in the U.S.
TOUCHDOWN! woohoo! You’ve got to love having a superbowl every night where our team always wins.
The pentagon brilliantly handled the media. Unlike Vietnam where we saw charred bodies and children shot in the head, we got real time reports of what it was really like at the front; A soldier adopts a homeless puppy that wanders into camp and he shares his MRE’s with the dog. Camera zooming in on the loving pup licking his face. Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick! You really bought into that crap? We were there to kill, slaughter, maim, and descimate a nation to pillage their resources against the will of the world. We put our young men and women’s life on the line so that Haliberton could get a good contract. And suddenly, since the U.N. isn’t on board, they don’t have legitamacy. Everyone is out of step but Johnny. Pour out your wine and throw away your cheese to protest the French for having the balls to say that mass murder is wrong. Eat some freedom fries. What will it take for you to realize that this was the unprovoked act of a megalomaniac bent on power, control, world domination, and not unlike Hitler? Bahhh.
“Meek and obedient you follow the leader down well trodden corridors into the valley of steel.”
Bag the “Hitler” reference next time, ok? We don’t need hyperbole, we’ve got facts. Let them rely on bullshit.
[hijack]
adaher:
I challenge you to find even so much as a single quote written by Chomsky in which he denies that the Khmer Rouge committed genocide; otherwise, please retract this malicious lie.
What’s really ironic about this sub-discussion, IMO, is the conveniently forgotten fact that the Khmer Rouge received US support in coming to power, and that, despite a non-stop barrage of outraged condemnation during the genocide, chose to sanction Vietnam when it finally moved in to stop the atrocities in the late 70s. The reason? Vietnam, according to the US, had launched an “unprovoked military assault” on a neighboring, sovereign state. And yet somehow now, in the reversed prism of revisionist history, Chomsky supported Pol Pot’s regime while the US opposed it? And at the same time, an unprovoked assault by the US on a sovereign state (Iraq) is completely acceptable?
The sheer volume of hypocrisy makes one’s head swim.
[/hijack]
Point taken. It’s hard not to get carried away sometimes.
Suppose the Hokey Pokey really ** is ** what its all about.
Depends what day you quote him from.
I believe he has:
- denied having them (even though he used them already)
- admitted to destroying the weapons he denied having.
- Threatened to use the weapons he said he destroyed (but didn’t provide proof of) against invading troups.
It could be he just forgot to properly brief his body doubles on the correct truth.
As for hiding the weapons, he had both biological and nuclear labs that were mobile. Only a couple of the biological, and none of the nuclear labs have been found. There were traces of cyanide and mustard agents in the Euphrates River (Cyanide could be from industrial waste).
I think it would be as easy to remove chemical and biological weapons (and the mobile labs that make them) without a trace. It would be harder to hide nuclear material.
No doubt you can back up all of the above with cites, Magiver. Please do so.
Interesting that you didn’t even name a single one of them.
Actually, when i asked for the references in the first place, i was well aware of what Chomsky had and had not written about the wars in Indochina, including Cambodia and the rise of the Khmer Rouge.
The problem is that many of the people who call Chomsky an apologist for Pol Pot are completely happy to take other people’s word about this, and have never actually got off their asses to read what Chomsky actually wrote about the issue. I was just interested in determining whether UnwrittenNocturne was just another in a string of uninformed sheep, or whether s/he had actually made his/her determination based on an actual reading of what Chomsky wrote on the subject.
While Chomsky did call into question some of the numbers being thrown around in the late 1970s about how many people had actually died under the Khmer Rouge (above the normal death rate), and while he outlines the way in which heavy US bombing of Camodia helped to create a situation in which a demagogue like Pol Pot could rise to power, he was not, and is not, an apologist for Pol Pot.
As ChaosGod has suggested, it takes a “completely malicious misinterpretation” of Chomsky’s writing to suggest that he actually supported Pol Pot, as claimed by UnwrittenNocturne. And i join Mr. Svinlesha in asking for a citation that demonstrates exactly where he did this.
And, for those who have been content to spread the slander without checking the sources, here’s a hint: start with the two-volume work by Chomsky and Edward Herman, The Political Economy of Human Rights (Boston: South End Press, 1979). Then maybe look at the stuff Chomsky wrote for The Nation during the mid to late 1970s. That should give you a good starting point. If you’re still stuck, you might want to look at this article by Christopher Hitchens, in which he summarizes the debate and gives some references that you could follow up on.
All right. The precious UN released report after report in 1998 saying “SH has WMD! Turn 'em over…if you feel like it”.
Bill Clinton (an honest man of high morals) bombed Iraq. What for? The oil? No, he said specifically that he was going after 'dem WMDs.
Iraq gassed the Kurds…I doubt they used water balloons.
What, now we say they had no WMDs? Nice memory span there…
Sigh. Chemical weapons were used in the Iran-Iraq war. That doesn’t automatically mean they’re still around.
And the Kurds? This is what Bush said:
http://www.dod.gov/news/Mar2003/n03…_200303151.html
What did the Defense Intelligence Agency think at the time?
What, other than 12 years of news reports, do you need? What specifically do you find in dispute? Saddam’s statements have been all over the map.
Find them, cite them. Prove that what you are saying is something other than bullshit.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Desmostylus *
**
This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq’s main target.
And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.
The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds’ bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.**
Interesting read. It would make sense that the Iranians would gas the Kurds because it kills 2 birds with one stone. The Iranians have the same problem with Kurdish independence. The qoute also implies it is possible to differentiate between the 2 weapons used.
It doesn’t make sense for Saddam to gas his own people as part of a battle plan. Kinda defeats the purpose of repelling the enemy. It also doesn’t negate the use of gas against Iranians.
Still waiting on those cites, Magiver.
Well, no. However, when Iraq said “We used this many bombs”, and they said “We had this many to begin with”, and then we find out that they didn’t use as many bombs as they claimed they did, what are we to believe? What happened to the rest of the bomds. You said you had x many bombs and used y many against the kurds (and others) which came out to z. now we find out that your y isn’t quite as high as you claimed, and you cannot account for the now extra bombs in z. Where are they? We can’t find them, and you can’t say where they are at, or show evidence they were destroyed, or give a logical explanation for where they are at.
Understand what I mean?