Peace March

Originally posted by britt2001b
Noam Chomsky is highly criticized for not getting his facts straight. I refer you to an example that connects with your pharmaceutical bombing post:

Chomsky Needs a Fact Checker

By Brian Carnell

Thursday, January 24, 2002

In ...[text shortened]... riticism of U.S. military action requires factual investigation.

He made a mistake in an interview and thus everything he says is suspect? Just the sort of argument I've come to expect from ignorant jingoists. Here's the reference Chomsky was thinking of, the one he now cites in his articles:

..."without the lifesaving medicine [the destroyed facilities] produced, Sudan's death toll from the bombing has continued, quietly, to rise... Thus, tens of thousands of people -- many of them children -- have suffered and died from malaria, tuberculosis, and other treatable diseases... [The factory] provided affordable medicine for humans and all the locally available veterinary medicine in Sudan. It produced 90 percent of Sudan's major pharmaceutical products... Sanctions against Sudan make it impossible to import adequate amounts of medicines required to cover the serious gap left by the plant's destruction.... [T]he action taken by Washington on Aug. 20, 1998, continues to deprive the people of Sudan of needed medicine. Millions must wonder how the International Court of Justice in The Hague will celebrate this anniversary" (Jonathan Belke, _Boston Globe_, Aug. 22, 1999).

Here is the relevant passages from Human Rights Watch:

"The Sudanese war and famine were overtaken on August 20 by the bombing without warning by the United States of a privately-owned pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum on August 20. The attack was in response to the August 7 terrorist bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa that killed hundreds and injured thousands. The U.S. alleged that Osama bin Laden masterminded these attacks and had an interest in the factory; bin Laden, a financier of “Afghan Arabs” and other Islamist militants, lived in Khartoum until 1996. He has been stripped of his Saudi citizenship earlier. The U.S. claimed the factory contained a precursor to deadly nerve gas and was linked to Iraq, but would not accept a U.N. chemical weapons inspection of the bombing site after the attack."


But I suppose you're not really interested in the actual citation, and the crime it points out. Just like you're not interested in actually investigating what Chomsky has to say. There is an instance of Chomsky making a mistake in an interview (gasp!), a mistake he's admitted to and recitfied in his writings. And that's enough for you, right, now you have a ready-made response to anyone who even mentions his name? This invalidates everything he has to say about Latin America? I swear, your arguments are like parodies. It's like you've been spoon-fed misinformation, and then been highly trained to avoid any evidence to the contrary. Imagine a similar argument against George Bush, here are three things he got wrong back in October:

President Bush, speaking to the nation in Octobert about the need to challenge Saddam Hussein, warned that Iraq has a growing fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used "for missions targeting the United States."

Asked if there were new and conclusive evidence of Hussein's nuclear weapons capabilities, Bush cited a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency saying the Iraqis were "six months away from developing a weapon."

Both assertions were powerful arguments for the actions Bush sought. And all three statements were dubious, if not wrong. Further information revealed that the aircraft lack the range to reach the United States; there was no such report by the IAEA. --10.22.02, Washington Post

So apparently we ought to believe nothing we hear from Bush. But you claimed earlier that you trusted our leaders...Strange double standard here.

Originally posted by britt2001b

It appears to me, by your logic, Mississippi has plenty of conservative company!

Indeed it does-- that's how Bush managed to almost beat Gore in the popular vote!

My point, which still stands, is that Mississippi is significantly more conservative than the nation taken as a whole, and hence opinion in Mississippi is a poor proxy for national opinion. Nothing that you have posted seems to challenge that point.

Originally posted by bbarr
... U.S. sponsored overthrows of democratically elected regimes in Latin America, the propping up of maniacal leaders (Pinoche in Latin America, Suharto in Indonesia, Saddam Hussein in Irag, Khaddafi in Lybia, etc. ad nauseum).

Completely trivial point; but I'm fairly certain the US never supported Khaddafi. Indeed, I believe the US was rather stunned at his coup; they thought every was a happy camper under King Idris. See we had this really big Airbase there, and we weren't so happy to lose it after Khaddafi took over. Only know because my mom was born and raised in Tripoli, and it's where she met my dad....

Originally posted by bbarr

..."without the lifesaving medicine [the destroyed facilities] produced, Sudan's death toll from the bombing has continued, quietly, to rise... Thus, tens of thousands of people -- many of them children -- have suffered and died from malaria, tuberculosis, and other treatable diseases... [The factory] provided affordable medicine for humans and all the locall ...[text shortened]... in The Hague will celebrate this anniversary" (Jonathan Belke, _Boston Globe_, Aug. 22, 1999).g...

This is a point that is debatable. It is quite possible that those people could have died as a result of the government in Khartoum withholding supplies of medicine and food from the areas under the control of the SPLA (Sudan People's Liberation Army), and from the effects of the long standing civil war in general. The Khartoum government's policy of using aid as weapon against the south has been a far greater contributor to the ongoing death toll than the lack of one pharmaceutical company.

Originally posted by bbarr
He made a mistake in an interview and thus everything he says is suspect? Just the sort of argument I've come to expect from ignorant jingoists. Here's the reference Chomsky was thinking of, the one he now cites in his articles:

..."w ...[text shortened]... lier that you trusted our leaders...Strange double standard here.

It's encouraging that you will admit Noam Chomsky made a mistake. But, I will give you the real reason I discount everything he has to say. A few days ago, an organization called "Not In Our Name" paid for a two-page advertisement in The New York Times, part of which said this: "We too watched with shock the horrific events of September 11, 2001. We too mourned the thousands of innocent dead and shook our heads at the terrible scenes of carnage -- even as we recalled similar scenes in Baghdad, Panama City and, a generation ago, Vietnam." Chomsky signed this ad.

Please remember, I highly respect his right to do so! But I also have the right to dispute it and I can do so freely in the eyes of the entire world without fear.

This advertisement is proclaiming that the United States of America is guilty of crimes comparable to the 9/11 attacks. If I have read you correctly from all your above postings you would have signed that advertisement also. There is a huge difference between honest dissent and distorted propaganda designed to denigrate your own country. Equating the terrorist attack on 9-11 with the United Nations' mandated removal of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait and the arrest of the drug-dealing dictator of Panama, Manuel Noriega, is incredibly insulting to the people of America. This text goes far beyond protest -- this is anti-Americanism.

Originally posted by britt2001b
It's encouraging that you will admit Noam Chomsky made a mistake. But, I will give you the real reason I discount everything he has to say. A few days ago, an organization called "Not In Our Name" paid for a two-page advertisement in The New York Times, part of which said this: "We too watched with shock the horrific events of September 11, 2001. We t ...[text shortened]... ng to the people of America. This text goes far beyond protest -- this is anti-Americanism.

I have signed the online version. 9/11 pales in comparison to our actions over the century.

Originally posted by bbarr
I have signed the online version. 9/11 pales in comparison to our actions over the century.

It's sad that you think the U.S. is more of a threat to the world than Suddam Hussein. You're entitled to your opinion, but when your dissent becomes vitriolic propoganda then I must make a judgement. Your signature on the online version of the ad shows that you think the U.S. committed terrorism in Panama and the Gulf War . That is outrageous and anti-American.

Originally posted by britt2001b
That is outrageous and anti-American.

And is it necessary ethical or logical to constantly be pro-American, just by virtue of the fact that one happens to live here? The loss of a critical attitude toward one's society brings about dangerous apathy off which the power-hungry can feed.

I agree with bbarr.

Originally posted by britt2001b
It's sad that you think the U.S. is more of a threat to the world than Suddam Hussein. You're entitled to your opinion, but when your dissent becomes vitriolic propoganda then I must make a judgement. Your signature on the online version of the ad shows that you think the U.S. committed terrorism in Panama and the Gulf War . That is outrageous and anti-American.

Here is the actual statement, is this "Anti-American"?

A Statement of Conscience:

Not in Our Name

Let it not be said that people in the United States did nothing when their government declared a war without limit and instituted stark new measures of repression.

The signers of this statement call on the people of the U.S. to resist the policies and overall political direction that have emerged since September 11, 2001, and which pose grave dangers to the people of the world.

We believe that peoples and nations have the right to determine their own destiny, free from military coercion by great powers. We believe that all persons detained or prosecuted by the United States government should have the same rights of due process. We believe that questioning, criticism, and dissent must be valued and protected. We understand that such rights and values are always contested and must be fought for.

We believe that people of conscience must take responsibility for what their own governments do — we must first of all oppose the injustice that is done in our own name. Thus we call on all Americans to RESIST the war and repression that has been loosed on the world by the Bush administration. It is unjust, immoral, and illegitimate. We choose to make common cause with the people of the world.

We too watched with shock the horrific events of September 11, 2001. We too mourned the thousands of innocent dead and shook our heads at the terrible scenes of carnage — even as we recalled similar scenes in Baghdad, Panama City, and, a generation ago, Vietnam. We too
joined the anguished questioning of millions of Americans who asked why such a thing could happen.

But the mourning had barely begun, when the highest leaders of the land unleashed a spirit of revenge. They put out a simplistic script of “good vs. evil” that was taken up by a pliant and intimidated media. They told us that asking why these terrible events had happened verged on treason. There was to be no debate. There were by definition no valid political or moral questions. The only possible answer was to be war abroad and repression at home.

In our name, the Bush administration, with near unanimity from Congress, not only attacked Afghanistan but arrogated to itself and its allies the right to rain down military force anywhereand anytime. The brutal repercussions have been felt from the Philippines to Palestine, where Israeli tanks and bulldozers have left a terrible trail of death and destruction. The government now openly prepares to wage all-out war on Iraq — a country which has no connection to the horror of September 11. What kind of world will this become if the U.S. government has a blank check to drop commandos, assassins, and bombs wherever it wants?

In our name, within the U.S., the government has created two classes of people: those to whom the basic rights of the U.S. legal system are at least promised, and those who now seem to have no rights at all. The government rounded up over 1,000 immigrants and detained them in secret and indefinitely. Hundreds have been deported and hundreds of others still languish today in prison. This smacks of the infamous concentration camps for Japanese-Americans in World War 2. For the first time in decades, immigration procedures single out certain nationalities for unequal treatment.

In our name, the government has brought down a pall of repression over society. The President’s spokesperson warns people to “watch what they say.” Dissident artists, intellectuals, and professors find their views distorted, attacked, and suppressed. The so-called USA PATRIOT Act — along with a host of similar measures on the state level — gives police sweeping new powers of search and seizure, supervised if at all by secret proceedings before secret courts.


In our name, the executive has steadily usurped the roles and functions of the other branches of government. Military tribunals with lax rules of evidence and no right to appeal to the regular courts are put in place by executive order. Groups are declared “terrorist” at the stroke of a presidential pen.

We must take the highest officers of the land seriously when they talk of a war that will last a generation and when they speak of a new domestic order. We are confronting a new openly imperial policy towards the world and a domestic policy that manufactures and manipulates fear to curtail rights.

There is a deadly trajectory to the events of the past months that must be seen for what it is and resisted. Too many times in history people have waited until it was too late to resist. President Bush has declared: “you’re either with us or against us.” Here is our answer: We refuse to allow you to speak for all the American people. We will not give up our right to question. We will not hand over our consciences in return for a hollow promise of safety. We say NOT IN OUR NAME. We refuse to be party to these wars and we repudiate any inference that they are being waged in our name or for our welfare. We extend a hand to those around the world suffering from these policies; we will show our solidarity in word and deed.

We who sign this statement call on all Americans to join together to rise to this challenge. We applaud and support the questioning and protest now going on, even as we recognize the need for much, much more to actually stop this juggernaut. We draw inspiration from the Israeli reservists who, at great personal risk, declare “there IS a limit” and refuse to serve in the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

We also draw on the many examples of resistance and conscience from the past of the United States: from those who fought slavery with rebellions and the underground railroad, to those who defied the Vietnam war by refusing orders, resisting the draft, and standing in solidarity with resisters.

Let us not allow the watching world today to despair of our silence and our failure to act. Instead, let the world hear our pledge: we will resist the machinery of war and repression and rally others to do everything possible to stop it.

Originally posted by bbarr
Here is the actual statement, is this "Anti-American"?

A Statement of Conscience:

Not in Our Name

Let it not be said that people in the United States did nothing when their government declared a war without limit and instituted st ...[text shortened]... ression and rally others to do everything possible to stop it.

I have problems with patriotism. I can't believe in a patriotism which implies that one nation is inherently superior to any other. But I can accept patriotism at another level, for it is only natural to want your own nation to be a source of pride, embracing the kinds of ideals that you want to be associated with.

This statement is unpatriotic by the first criteria, for it refuses to assume the superiority of the US in the way many American leaders do. But by the second criteria, it is one of the most patriotic statements I have ever read - a desperate plea to a nation that has lost its way.

I feel much the same about the UK.

Rich.