|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
 Posted - 02/22/2002 : 12:20:30 [Permalink]
|
This is just ridiculous as well. Chomsky's point is not that one crime excuses another.
That's in fact, his criticism of the U.S. The U.S. by definition cannot be a terrorist state because it is the U.S. It doesn't matter if it commits the same crimes as those it accuses of being terorists at all.
Keep up with this kind of reasoning, and I will accuse you of reading Horowitz.
quote:
2. The US has committed ‘crimes' elsewhere (his examples are Haiti and Costa Rica) and is not being held accountable for them, so we cannot hold the Taliban or al Qaeda accountable for any of their alleged crimes.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
 |
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2002 : 13:04:17 [Permalink]
|
No, it's not ridiculous. It's what Chomsky is saying. In the article you linked to, Chomsky makes one concession to the atrocity of September 11:
quote:
Should the perpetrators of the atrocities of Sept. 11 be punished for their crimes -- "crimes against humanity," as they were called by Robert Fisk, Mary Robinson, and others. On this there is virtually unanimous agreement -- though, notoriously, the principles do not extend to the agents of even far worse crimes who are protected by power and wealth. The question is how to proceed.
Yet even in the one concession he cannot leave it at that; he must tack on the qualifier that the US is evil, too.
The entire purpose of this article is to attribute all ills in Afghanistan today, and a lion's share of ills for the past 20 years to the United States. Oh, yes, that little attack at the WTC was a bad thing, but the US is even more bad and even the good that results from its actions is a bad thing.
He speaks well and at times eloquently, but his point is simple: US bad. Regardless. US bad.
He wraps his arguments in nice phrases, but he misuses numbers, misattributes responsibilities, and lets his emotional slip show throughout, and its color is anti-US.
He's allowed to be anti-US. But despite his obvious intellect, he has not provided support for his position, and so I do not adopt it.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2002 : 13:18:31 [Permalink]
|
Again, "Evil" is a word that you and Billy Graham and George Bush use. Not one that I use, and I don't see Chomsky using it unless he's quoting someone else.
Secondly, the point is that the U.S. does not, by definition, commit crimes. That is and has been his point. Because of its size it is bound to commit larger crimes than others. Are you saying that the U.S. has not committed greater crimes than that committed by Al-Quaeda? Surely the bombing of the Sudan pharmaceutical company and the bombing of Afghanistan far outweigh any crime they could have committed.
He makes it clear that that does not excuse anyone else's crimes, but you can't accept that. You have to excuse everything the U.S. does and call any critic, "Anti-US."
Maybe those of you who seem to need to use the term "Anti-U.S." really mean pro-reason.
quote:
Yet even in the one concession he cannot
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2002 : 13:32:29 [Permalink]
|
No, Gorgo, you're misreading me now.
I do not lump all US critics into the anti-US camp. I do put Chomsky there and you on its fence.
I criticize the US, and have on this forum.
quote:
Surely the bombing of the Sudan pharmaceutical company and the bombing of Afghanistan far outweigh any crime they could have committed.
Not by a long shot. I could understand an argument about the pharmaceutical company, but not about bombing Afghanistan--not to characterize it as a crime, anyway. This is your position, emotionally arrived at and emotionally defended. You bring up some valid points about past US misconduct and issues that amount to questions of effectiveness, but you do not even approach demonstrating this as a crime.
And I did not put the word 'evil' in quotation marks when I attributed it to Chomsky. We are allowed to interpret and to paraphrase, and I will not back off from the use of that word because Chomsky does everything but speak it aloud.
You and he describe the animal in your barnyard as a waterfowl with feathers, webbed feet, an orange bill, and a call that sounds like 'quack', then you object when we say that you called it a duck.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2002 : 13:41:23 [Permalink]
|
Didn't see your last link until I posted that reply. Have to leave soon, and I want to check out other forums, so I'll respond to it later.
Have a good weekend.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2002 : 13:54:11 [Permalink]
|
I see. My criticism of U.S. policy is "emotionally" arrived at and emotionally defended, but your terms "anti-US" and "evil" are not. What an amazing world.
quote:
This is your position, emotionally arrived at and emotionally defended.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2002 : 14:08:00 [Permalink]
|
No, that's what you hear, and that tells me more about you than it does about Chomsky.
quote:
And I did not put the word 'evil' in quotation marks when I attributed it to Chomsky. We are allowed to interpret and to paraphrase, and I will not back off from the use of that word because Chomsky does everything but speak it aloud.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2002 : 14:23:55 [Permalink]
|
My mistake. Chomsky is saying that it "seems like a silent genocide" - referring to the U.S. terror attacks on the Afghan people.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2002 : 14:35:59 [Permalink]
|
The article you cite does not say that U.S. crimes excuse other crimes. This is absurd, and I don't understand how you can read that into it. And you call me emotional.
quote:
No, it's not ridiculous. It's what Chomsky is saying.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2002 : 07:36:31 [Permalink]
|
Don't have time to comment, but here is the AP article to which Chomsky refers:
-------------------------------------------
U.S. bombing disrupting planting which provides 80 percent of Afghanistan's harvest
EDITH M. LEDERER; Associated Press Writer
UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ The U.S. bombing of Afghanistan is disrupting the planting of crops which normally provide 80 percent of Afghanistan's annual grain harvest, the head of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization said Thursday.
As a result, Afghanistan's already grave food supply situation will be further aggravated next year, FAO Director-General Jacques Diouf told reporters.
He said reliable estimates of wheat and barley planting were impossible because U.N. international staff were ordered to leave Afghanistan last month, and there is very little contact with local staff.
"Certainly, where the bombing is going on or where war preparation is going on, there would not be very many (farmers) planting _ not to talk of those who normally would plant and are rushing to the borders as refugees," Diouf said.
The FAO had forecast the country would produce 2 million tons of cereals.
Based on that expected harvest, the two agencies had estimated that Afghanistan would need 2.2 million tons of imported food for the 12 month period ending in June. The forecast noted mounting evidence of emerging widespread famine conditions.
But with the U.S.-led military campaign coming on top of three consecutive years of drought and severe economic disruptions caused by more than a decade of war, the FAO says the food and crop problems are being exacerbated, and the need for foreign food aid will be greater.
Earlier this month, the two Rome-based U.N. agencies agreed to provide 494,000 tons of food to 6 million vulnerable people inside Afghanistan and 1.5 million refugees over the next six months at a cost of $230 million.
Diouf said FAO has also appealed for $3 million to provide emergency seeds and fertilizer to farmers for the current winter planting.
The agency had been working in seven provinces including Kabul. It is still working in northern areas controlled by the opposition, but is not currently operating in 90 percent of the country controlled by the Taliban religious militia, he said.
In the short term, Diouf said, "it is estimated that we will need $80 million to assist 2 million farm families to continue to produce food for their needs" immediately after military actionends.
For long-term rehabilitation of Afghanistan's devastated agriculture and livestock sector, the FAO is seeking an additional $122 million.
Keywords: International
(C) The Associated Press
EDITH M. LEDERER; Associated Press Writer
U.S. bombing disrupting planting which provides 80 percent of Afghanistan's
harvest,10-19-2001
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2002 : 08:49:08 [Permalink]
|
I suppose that someone will have to explain to me why when Chomsky says that there is an article that says something, and there actually is an article that says that very thing that Chomsky would be guilty of a "deliberate misrepresentation which for now" Garrette so politely refrains from calling an "outright lie."
Garrette, I'd continue point for point, but I guess I need some guidance here.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2002 : 06:40:18 [Permalink]
|
Not much time today, so this is short.
quote:
I think this is enough evidence to use the phrase "No small part."
http://www.fair.org/extra/0112/samzidat.html
I was inexcusably unaware of this. I'll need to look at it more, but may need to revise some opinions based on it. Thanks.
quote:
I see. My criticism of U.S. policy is "emotionally" arrived at and emotionally defended, but your terms "anti-US" and "evil" are not. What an amazing world
Ain't it, though?
quote:
I suppose that someone will have to explain to me why when Chomsky says that there is an article that says something, and there actually is an article that says that very thing that Chomsky would be guilty of a "deliberate misrepresentation which for now" Garrette so politely refrains from calling an "outright lie."
Garrette, I'd continue point for point, but I guess I need some guidance here.
No problem.
Here is Chomsky's major argument in the article I commented on:
1. The number of starving Afghanis increased to about 3 million when the US demanded Pakistan close its borders to food convoys.
2. The number of starving Afghanis will/has increase(d) to 7.5 million over the winter due to an 80% reduction in grain yield.
3. The crop failures are a result of US bombing.
I concede #1.
The 80% figure in #2 has these problems:
a. He doesn't show where it comes from, and I couldn't find it.
b. It doesn't account for the fact that Afghanistan imports a significant amount of its grain and so even an 80% reduction in overall domestic yield does not equate to an 80% reduction in food supply.
c. He implies that the winter harvest is the total amount of grain. Winter wheat, in fact, IS Afghanistan's major grain crop, but not the sole grain; rice is important, too, and suffered HUGE drops in yield even prior to September 11 due to weather factors.
And most importantly, regarding #3, he shows no causation between the bombing and the projected yield reduction when there is ample evidence that the bombing has a minimal impact, and the greatest factor is a several-years old dry spell.
Better?
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2002 : 07:04:50 [Permalink]
|
Again, he says exactly what the article he refers to says. He did refer to an article which shows the 80% number, and I showed you complete article. You're not taking the time to read. You're reading things into what he said that aren't there.
quote:
The 80% figure in #2 has these problems:
a. He doesn't show where it comes from, and I couldn't find it.
b. It doesn't account for the fact that Afghanistan imports a significant amount of its grain and so even an 80% reduction in overall domestic yield does not equate to an 80% reduction in food supply.
c. He implies that the winter harvest is the total amount of grain. Winter wheat, in fact, IS Afghanistan's major grain crop, but not the sole grain; rice is important, too, and suffered HUGE drops in yield even prior to September 11 due to weather factors.
And most importantly, regarding #3, he shows no causation between the bombing and the projected yield reduction when there is ample evidence that the bombing has a minimal impact, and the greatest factor is a several-years old dry spell.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2002 : 07:15:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Again, he says exactly what the article he refers to says. He did refer to an article which shows the 80% number, and I showed you complete article. You're not taking the time to read. You're reading things into what he said that aren't there.
No. You're doing what I said in my first post about the article that Chomsky is doing.
Here's the quotation from what you say is the source of the 80% number:
quote:
The U.S. bombing of Afghanistan is disrupting the planting of crops which normally provide 80 percent of Afghanistan's annual grain harvest, the head of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization said Thursday.
This says the bombing is disrupting planting. It happens to be disrupting planting of the crop which normally provides 80 percent of the grain harvest.
It does NOT say that the harvest will be reduced by 80%, but Chomsky turns it around to make it seem as if it does.
And it pointedly does NOT say how much the bombing will disrupt the planting either absolutely or in comparison to the dry years which were recorded as having disastrous effect PRIOR to September 11.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
