steve wrote:

matthew wrote:Everything that is occuring in the Mid-East and Iran now is part of the long struggle of Islam against Christianity...

In this conflict, the Christians of Lebanon are allied with the Muslims of Hezbollah?

So what? Not to mention, Hezbollah has pushed the governing body in Lebanon into inaction and submission with fear. So what are you trying to say?

Andrew L. wrote:You carpet-bombed and napalmed Vietnam to end racism and communism?

We did that as a last ditch effort to show American citizens that we were accomplishing something over there.
It didn't work.
At least I don't think it did.

au contraire

Andrew L. wrote:

Lemuel Gulliver wrote:Look, I'm not dropping the Hitler card just to drop the Hitler card. Another example: The forceful demilitarizing of the CSA by the USA in 1860-65. If you're trying to suggest that wars don't solve anything, then just off the top of my head, we'd have to remove facism, slavery, racism, totalitarianism, communism just off the top of my head before you'd be correct.

...

Let's talk about Vietnam, for a moment, shall we. The Vietcong did not have a good political programme. And it was, in fact, comprised of dozens of different political and religious groups. But as a resistance force inseperable from Vietnamese life and society, they were unbeatable. The world's biggest, fanciest military couldn't lick them. Witness: Hezbollah viz the IDF in Lebanon.

This is such "collegiate revolutionary" nonsense...are you really that ignorant of history, Mr. L? If President Johnson wasn't such a dick, and later on if Congress weren't such a bunch of dicks, the Vietcong and their allies would have been annihilated utterly and the war in Vietnam would have been an overwhelming victory. The United States military was literally and figuratively crushing the Vietcong and NVA after the Tet offensive, but then politics as usual came into the fray and here we are now.

From an article by Assaf Kfoury

May 11, Hizbullah headquarters, Beirut. We meet Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah, the head of Hizbullah, in a heavily fortified compound. Hizbullah has widespread popular support, with representation in the Lebanese parliament and the council of ministers, largely the result of its role in the successful resistance to the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon in the 1990's. Nevertheless, American government officials -- from Condoleezza Rice, David Welch, Elliott Abrams, Jeffrey Feltman and on down -- routinely visit other Lebanese politicians and dignitaries, never Nasrallah, and they portray Hizbullah as a band of terrorists. The value of this meeting with Noam is as much in what Nasrallah has to say as in the public recognition by a public American, admittedly the most dissident of them, of Hizbullah's role in Lebanon and the Middle East at large. Nasrallah recognizes the value of trying to break the official American embargo: He has no objection to Noam quoting him on anything he has said, and his last question to Noam is a request for advice on what Hizbullah can do to counter the pernicious propaganda in the US.



In response, Noam points out the importance of separating policies emanating from Washington from public opinion in the US, with the latter often at odds with the former. Given the nature of electoral politics today in the US, he also points out that officials in Washington are usually elected by a minority of the population and represent two parties that are virtually indistinguishable on fundamental issues, and hence the importance of reaching out to the US public ahead of policy makers who are beholden to corporate interests.



Nasrallah covers a wide range of issues in his presentation, including the arms of Hizbullah, which the US and its allies have demanded be relinquished. Nasrallah presents the issue of the arms in the context of a strategy to defend southern Lebanon which, he argues, concerns all Lebanese and not only Hizbullah. After the meeting, to the pack of journalists and TV crews waiting outside, Noam declares: "I think Nasrallah has a reasoned and persuasive argument that the arms should be in the hands of Hizbullah as a deterrent to potential aggression, and there are plenty of background reasons for that ..." Enough to feed the right-wing rumor mill for a long time to come.

And this from Chomsky with a link to the full article:

Prof. Chomsky:

I do not have the complete text of any statements regarding Hezbollah, but I do believe you said:

I think Nasrallah has a reasoned and
persuasive argument that the arms
should be in the hands of Hizbullah as
a deterrent to potential aggression,
and there are plenty of background
reasons for that . . . .
(http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/20060712.htm )

Now, I know you dislike labels, but I pretty much feeling your ethics are

Consequentalist, so I am wondering what are a number of the top consequences you expect

(ed) from making this statement?

Respectfully,

Quentin



Reply from NC,

Thanks for raising an important question.

We can drop abstruse matters like consequentialism, and keep to one of the most elementary of moral truisms: we are responsible for the anticipated consequences of our actions, or inaction. Of course, that does not provide a simple guide, because there are always many varied and often conflicting consequences. But the question does come up all the time, and is worth considering. Take a few examples.

In 1977, Edward Herman and I revealed gross distortions, often outright (and uncorrectable) lies, in coverage of Cambodia. In particular, we pointed out that in the major book on the topic, considered then the prime source (rightly), the death toll resulting from the US bombing of Cambodia was vastly exaggerated, apparently because of a misreading of "casualties" as "deaths." I was aware that pointing that out might embolden elements of US political and intellectual classes to continue their support for terrible crimes and their preparation for others. Not a consequence I wanted, of course, but I thought it was outweighed by the need to unearth the truth.

To take another case, more closely related to your apparent concerns, for about 30 years I've been harshly condemning crimes of the PLO, and writing that Israel should have the rights of any state in the international system, including the right of self-defense. I realized, of course, that such statements and the review of the evidence could well contribute to the dedication of the US government, with the strong support of articulate opinion, to provide the requisite means for outrageous Israeli atrocities and to the unilateral US undermining of the very real opportunities for political settlement. But again, I thought telling the truth outweighed those dire consequences.

There are many other cases.

Interestingly, none of these cases has ever elicited a word of criticism. I don't recall receiving any letters from you about them, for example. Need we ask why?

Turning to your question, an accurate account of my response to a question asked by a TV journalist in Lebanon, and the context, has already appeared on Znet: an article by Assaf Kfoury, who accompanied my wife and me throughout my trip to Lebanon (and knows far more about Lebanon than I do, as does Irene Gendzier, who also accompanied us throughout, including visits that you didn't learn about from your sources, such as much longer ones with the leading opponents of Hezbollah). See

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle ... emID=10568.

His account on Znet also answers your question. As he points out, the anticipated consequence of the comments is that they should "feed the right-wing rumor mill for a long time to come," thereby contributing to US-Israeli crimes against Palestinians and Lebanese. These are now reaching new levels of intensity, with the US-Israel virtually destroying Lebanon, continuing the massive assault against Gaza, and systematically pursuing their programs of annexation, cantonization, and imprisonment in the West Bank to ensure that Palestinian rights will never be recognized.

So yes, the anticipated consequences were very ugly -- though of course I didn't know then how grotesque US-Israeli behavior would become. I didn't anticipate that Israel would step up its atrocities (always with US backing and the complicity of articulate opinion and the media) by kidnapping two civilians in Gaza, a doctor and his brother, and removing them to the oblivion of the thousands of others like them in Israeli prisons, commonly without charges or sentenced in courts that are a bad joke, hence kidnapped.. That was June 24. On June 25, in probable retaliation, Palestinian militants captured a soldier of the attacking army, Corporal Gilad Shalit. Israel responded by sharp escalation of its crimes in Gaza, followed a few weeks later by the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah and new US-Israeli war crimes in Lebanon.

The pretext is the kidnappings, but any person who bothers to think, instead of reflexively repeating state propaganda, knows that the US-Israel regard kidnapping is quite fine, including kidnapping of civilians, a far worse crime under international law than kidnapping of soldiers. The June 24 Israeli kidnappings are only one of many examples. Since the powerful don't investigate their own crimes, details are unknown, but there is plenty of evidence nevertheless. For example, the shocking revelations about Israel's secret prison/torture chambers, far worse than Guantanamo, in which hundreds of Lebanese have been kept, many abducted from Lebanon, some kept as hostages for many years. No one knows what happened to them, beyond the few who are acknowledged. There are some who are concerned about them, among them the father of the captured Israeli soldier Ehud Goldwasser, who expresse his sympathy for the families of the abducted Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails (Israeli radio, July 20).

That's barely the tip of an iceberg. We can dismiss the pretexts with contempt. Returning to your question, there are also "opportunity costs": while you and I are discussing this, we are not acting to put an end to the horrendous ongoing atrocities for which we both share responsibility. Back to the elementary moral truism.

NC

rayj wrote:Hey, do me a personal favor, and don't make that the last post here.

I have a question about these last statements. Mainly because the research I've mostly forgotten points towards the idea that 'solving' Nazism, Japanese Nationalism, and American slavery were really just useful by-products of what were intentionally wars over economics. A lot of what I've read recently paints the Serb/Croatian conflicts in a similar light.

And my apologies for hijacking an interesting thread.

Sorry, what's the question? I suspect you're asking something like "were these conflicts simply based on economics" or something like that. Or, why do people go to war? (If either of those ares the case, read on. If not, then ignore the following and just PM me.)

I'm a tired old man, it's late, I've no alcohol and only work, girltrouble, and an allergy induced sore throat. Don't read this as definitive. It's just me riffing, but I'll put it on the record preliminarily. Shit... You could probably look at any conflict through an economic lens. Anything from Israel v. Hezbollah now to two dudes in a lifeboat with limited provisions. This econmic take seems to be what Clocker Bob does. The shepherd exploits the flock, but even then, the shepherd has a boss who exploits the shepherd and makes him mess around with sheep all damned day. Chomsky more famously breaks things down into economic class warfare, just to throw a public intellectual's name out there. But to begin with, I don't think this is a sufficient means for understanding human affairs. For example, what's in it for all the little dudes who go to church on Sundays? Sure, you could say the church itself makes money, and the few leaders of the church can exploit the little dudes and skim off the top, and you'd be correct, but why do people actually go, give their money, time, hearts, to some invisible dude in the sky? This is a smartassy way of saying that there are things that matter besides the bottom line, profit, and cash. A lot of people have needs that go beyond the apparent bottom line and go right to the soul. This is but one thing that separates us from animals. It would seem to indicate needs of the human soul beyond a thick wallet, full belly, and happy reciprocal sexual parts. It needn't be limited to religion either. Don't make that mistake. I'm not saying that. A lot of people on this very forum are shining examples of this in their drive not to BS themselves or let anyone else do it to themselves. Steve and Gramsci are reliable examples. Just by their posts alone, we can tell that intellectual probity means more to them than popular opinion, so they're never milquetoast. For lack of a better term, it's a faith they have that doesn't pay as well as going along to get along. [That's not a moral judgment, fellas. I respect this, though find it abrasive for my tastes, but c'est la vie.] I suspect that it's the needs of their souls that goes beyond what might otherwise foster nice, easy commodious and hence profitable living that causes this. Shit, it's what allowed this whole DIY recording scene to grow, and that's just one more of its blessings: Making badass records by bands that we really love.

This is a practical, though long-winded, way of showing you that ideas have currency, too. Currency that's sometimes more valuable than literal currency. Ideas can shape a people's way of life. This is certainly more thought possible by and taken seriously by the ancients, Aristotle in the Politics and Plato in the Republic for example. What I mean by this is that the regime educates the people. People who grow up in the USA tend to be liberal democrats. People who grow up in a totalitarian regime tend to doubt the stability and workability of a democracy what with so many competing self-interests. How could Sunni minorities in Iraq trust that their interests will be sufficiently represented in a republican government? They've never seen anything like this for themselves. It was with Machiavelli's turn away from the ancients that man really started paying attention to the bottom line. What Machiavelli calls in Ch. XV of the Prince "the effectual truth"--what men do do rather than what they ought to do, started this. Or at least, when that turn was made, it was the first time it was officially endorsed by a philosopher in his own name. Eventually over the course of the centuries it was put into practice by us little dudes on forums like this one. To bring it home: After Machiavelli, Bacon and Descartes 'organized' for lack of a better term Machiavelli's advocacy of science to wage war with nature to relieve man's estate (hence comfortable shoes and AC); Hobbes put into motion the idea of strong government; Locke made it republican (e.g., he wrote the constitution of Virginia and the US Constitution is cribbed from his Second Discourse); Smith 'organized' his plan's economic implications (meritocracy which is the result of capitalism); and eventually you see this the Founding of the US, especially in the thought of Hamilton (see the Federalist and the Necessary and Proper Clause in the Constitution).

So, we can at least say that people will or could fight over ideas if they take them seriously enough as it's assumed they would tangible self-interest and profit. Be willing to die for them with no or even negative gain. Example: Suicide bombers. It's a bizarre thing: On the one hand the first pre-requisite for enjoying a political outcome is that you're alive to enjoy it. On the otherhand, these people are deadly serious about their cause and are willing to die to prove a point, so (ostensibly) people after them can enjoy that outcome. [I'm at odds with myself as to whether this is completely irrational or the pinnacle of commitment. It's probably both, but it's what I think about when I'm in traffic.] This might be the explanation closest to Japanese nationalism insofar as they had what were effectually suicide bombers (kamikaze), and it was only after the second (SECOND!) atomic bomb was dropped on their country thus vaporizing another city did they abandon the rightiousness of their cause and the idea that their particular Japanese will could overcome unimaginable firepower.

Then, there's self-interest. I'll separate this from economics (or the material self-interest of profit) which can and certainly does happen (e.g., Barbary Pirates). This would be something like self-interest of preservation. The distinction here is between fear (preservation) rather than ambition (material self-interest). For example, Thucydides explicitly states in his history of the Peloponesian Wars that fear caused Sparta to attack Athens. Sparta, btw, did this as a pre-emptive move. (If you want a juicy epic on the human pageant, you'd do a lot worse than this.) This is usually seen in a 'Your way of life is fundamentally at odds with ours, or we're at an irreconcilable point' problem. And this is, I think, the nature of the present problem between the West and the Islamic world when looked at from the perspective of the west. Again, the present action between Israel and Lebanon is but one battle in this war. Nazism wasn't going to stop until it had all of Europe. That much is clear if you just look in a 7th grade history text. There was no sign that Hitler would stop at the Sudetenland, and he didn't, just as he didn't stop at Poland after that or France after that. There could be no guarantee that the US wouldn't be next or on the list if this wasn't checked. The UK sure wasn't. Another example, The USA couldn't be a very united states if any state could just nullify parts of the Constitution piecemeal whenever it suited them and secede if they didn't get their way. [Somewhere on this forum I referenced the difference between Lincoln and Calhoun (of nullification and secession thinking) as an example of the problem within the UN. The UN values state sovereignty above individual sovereignty. Just as the US wouldn't have been worth a damn if it let half its citizens remain in chains, so to does the UN mean very little if it supports N. Korea's regime to exist, for example, while their people are as they are.] If so, the Constitution would've been trash. Not to mention there's the fundamental idea of equality in the Declaration that gets shit upon if the US lets the South leave over slavery. That battle was inevitable. So, in the case of the Civil War, you'd have to admit the cause was fundamentally slavery, which had to be dealt with one way or another, sooner or later. What sparked that fuel was interpretation of the Constitution, the law of the land.

How's that?

Lemuel Gulliver wrote:War did solve: Nazism

war also gave nazism quite a jumpstart if you'll recall.

but that has nothing to do with this argument.

stabby cat remains mysteriously absent

matthew wrote: the war in Vietnam would have been an overwhelming victory.

The war in Vietnam was an overwhelming victory. If you can't be bothered to read Smedley Butler or Orwell, then you will be stuck trying to make theatrical wars fit uncomfortably into your crusade mythology. A war like Vietnam is about transferring wealth from taxpayers to corporations. Vietnam was a stadium. Somebody had to play the game, so the US rounded up 100's of thousands of inconsequential-to-the-ruling class unfortunates ( skipping Clinton and Bush and their ilk), killed 58,000 of them ( okay, the viet cong killed them, but the US asked the viet cong to kill them ), and killed 3 million of the Vietnamese along with various Cambodians and Laotians to make the game look extra realistic for the audience parked in front of their televisions.

When public sentiment made continuing the war politically dangerous, they waved the checkered flag and took their chips to the window and cashed out. Following the normal pattern of returning the chess pieces to the back rows for future games ( as with our earlier adversaries like Germany and Japan, for example ), the US ended its embargo of Vietnam goods in '94, invited them to the WTO, and now we have substantial trade with our former killing partner.

See how things work out, matthew? It's money. I know that sounds too simple to be believable, especially for the indoctrinated who feast on war propaganda, but it really is all money. If you can grasp the marriage of capitalism to war, you will drastically alter your definition of a victorious war.

People don't really hate each other as much as they want you to think, not even close- corporations do hate peace, though.

matthew wrote:This is such "collegiate revolutionary" nonsense...are you really that ignorant of history, Mr. L? If President Johnson wasn't such a dick, and later on if Congress weren't such a bunch of dicks, the Vietcong and their allies would have been annihilated utterly and the war in Vietnam would have been an overwhelming victory. The United States military was literally and figuratively crushing the Vietcong and NVA after the Tet offensive, but then politics as usual came into the fray and here we are now.

Well shit, Matthew, if you want to talk tactics and play monday morning quarterback--and what else is history for?--then yes, you're right, sort of. Maybe. In some weird way. I agree that LBJ and McNamara were high-order dicks. But again, I likened Vietnam to the American Revolution. (Tactically and strategically, not fundamentally.) Americans doubted the rightness of the cause to begin with, just like the British did with us. The Vietnamese were nonplussed with us, just like the Colonists were with the British.

Sure, we could've won if we, say, doubled our troops, and expanded our carpet bombing, and really fucked their shit up, but what would be left? Certainly not a country to make into some shining pillar of democracy. That certainly wouldn't be the way to go if you're in this for humanitarian purposes. There was no immediate self-interest to sell to the public who were already skeptical of having their sons being drafted to go to a jungle no one could find on a map. The Vietnamese for whom we were supposedly fighting was less than enthusiastic, that's for goddamn sure. There wasn't any strategic value there. By that I mean even if the domino theory was correct, so what? Those little itty bitty countries weren't going to be a threat to the United States. There was the Soviet Union to worry about. You could make a case for Cambodia, because Khmer Rouge made the Minh look like a boy scout and people were getting killed by the millions. That I'd accept with no complaint.

Like I said, it was a nice idea, but one of doubtful positive outcome. I'm no peacenik, and I don't ascribe to a policy of isolationism or 'let 'em fend for themselves,' but on this one, I don't see any way of justifying an endeavor that amounts to pissing in the wind, which was about all that we accomplished.

This might be the first time I've ever been called a "collegiate revolutionary." It's kind of exciting.

Sverige wrote:

Lemuel Gulliver wrote:War did solve: Nazism

war also gave nazism quite a jumpstart if you'll recall.

but that has nothing to do with this argument.

It has everything to do with the argument. Especially if you want to lay down your arms and hope criminals never cross your path. No one put guns to Germany's heads and made them start that. Neither the Czechs, nor Poles, nor French, nor British, nor Hungarians, nor... provoke Germany.

To abandon the thought that war is never choiceworthy is to put yourself in the hands of those that are willing to exploit your humility.