Chomsky
This is an excerpt from an old (August 29, 2002) Chomsky interview. It's a fairly comprehensive look at where Chomsky stands on the war, terrorism, international law, etc., though his views on the criminality of Israel's policies are only barely touched upon.
"Christopher Hitchens makes the point that while Saudi Arabia, Scowcroft, and Kissinger oppose war with Iraq because of its potential destabilizing effect in the region, the left should not care about the stability of the reactionary and corrupt regimes of the Middle East. Does this refute a commonly-heard objection to war?
It is hard to imagine what the point is supposed to be. The left has always been strenuously opposed to US support for "the reactionary and corrupt regimes of the Middle East," and would of course welcome their "destabilization" in favor of something better. On the other hand, if "destabilization" brought to power something even worse -- say, what Hitchens calls "Islamic fascism" -- then the left would oppose it, and I presume he would too. So what is the point?
I don't see how these considerations bear on any "objection to war," commonly heard or not, at least from the left. What Scowcroft and Kissinger may have in mind is another matter. "
"Christopher Hitchens makes the point that while Saudi Arabia, Scowcroft, and Kissinger oppose war with Iraq because of its potential destabilizing effect in the region, the left should not care about the stability of the reactionary and corrupt regimes of the Middle East. Does this refute a commonly-heard objection to war?
It is hard to imagine what the point is supposed to be. The left has always been strenuously opposed to US support for "the reactionary and corrupt regimes of the Middle East," and would of course welcome their "destabilization" in favor of something better. On the other hand, if "destabilization" brought to power something even worse -- say, what Hitchens calls "Islamic fascism" -- then the left would oppose it, and I presume he would too. So what is the point?
I don't see how these considerations bear on any "objection to war," commonly heard or not, at least from the left. What Scowcroft and Kissinger may have in mind is another matter. "
posted by Mockrates at 5:32 PM
4 Comments:
Jeff,
I suppose the very issue of our relationship with the Saudis is proof that we don't really have an American left, at least not one that's being represented by the Democrats.
My problem with the faux left is that they oppose wars and ignore the fact that we have open trade, indeed increasing oil trade (compared to, say, our oil trade with the sha'ria loving Canadians), with the most religiously repressive nation on earth.
To get snitty on the one hand (war) while ignoring the other (open trade with the nation that gave us 19 of the 20 hijackers and doesn't even let Jewish people into the "Kingdom") shows that liberal moral highground rests with, well, Chomsky.
"I suppose the very issue of our relationship with the Saudis is proof that we don't really have an American left, at least not one that's being represented by the Democrats."
That's basically why I posted the link, to give an idea of the difference between the left's (such as it is) attitude towards the war, and that of the Democrats, who obviously went along with it for the most part because of the country's mood at the time.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0504.html
I could have sworn I read something different on this same site two months ago. I stand here corrected, thanks Ragin'.
Thanks for correcting my Mongoloid self.
Haven't seen you around these parts: what's your opinion on our trading with Saudi Arabia? The war? The legalization of ferrets?
Post a Comment
<< Home