::: Qx: Well, at least he's backing ot up and here's some more back up.Can you go word for word on this with anybody else here? C'mon Stu...give it a try.::: SDF: I'd especially like to see a debate about the declarative sentences laid out in this essay.
I'm a little loathe to paste the thing over here for fear of
copyright infringement but seeing as you most likely have it
memorized I'll procede.
Conspicuously missing from nearly everything Chomsky writes in
his critisism of his homeland is the slightest mention of a reason
for U.S. actions. The essay is repleat with demonizing
mischaracterizations of U.S. policy as well; eg. - "...they were afraid
of a positive example of successful developement", "...there might be
successful developement outside of our influence", "...the major policy
goal of the U.S. has been to maximize repression and suffering",
"...the United States achieved its major objectives in Indochina.
Vietnam was demolished". These accusatory comments are Chomsky's
perception of events and show bias.
The war protestors of the 60's and on have consistantly skewed facts
about the Vietnam conflict to support an anti-U.S bias. In the 9447
news stories broadcast by the 3 networks between '63 and '77 you can
count on your fingers and toes any references to:
Land reforms: Between '53 and '56 communist-led land reforms
claimed between 5000 and one million people. This, as a rationale for
U.S. action, is diminished because of the argument over how many deaths
were incurred. Nixon said 500,000 - Edwin (what a guy) Moise says 5000.
Using Moise's 5000 expressed as a percentage of that population, the
land reforms of the communists would be analogous to 100,000 teachers
and professors dying in a U.S. education reform. Any principled nation
might want to stop that - don't you think, Sam?
Trail 559: In '59, Hanoi's politboro started getting reports
that, although they had been ruthlessly fighting a guerrilla war for
two years, they were falling behind the south socially and
economically. That motivated them to create trail 559 (Ho Chi Minh -
years later) and carry out the Second Indochina War. In '61 they
were assasinating 100 village or district officials per month and were
at around 1000 per month in '62. What could Eisenhower or Kennedy have
been thinking when they ordered troops in there?
Hue (5000 dead), Baray (20,000 dead), Song Be City (shelled into
oblivion), thousands of peasants slaughtered in stalled columns as they
fled the Central Highlands, The fall of Saigon (70,000 dead). Could
this be what Chomsky means when he says "...positive example of
successful developement"? At any rate, the actions taken by the U.S.
are certainly defendable on a moral basis.
You didn't hear much from the networks on those subjects. You did
hear a lot about My Lai. Accounts of the U.S. atrocities at My Lai
number past 500 in those 9447 broadcasts. My Lai was a cross-verifyable
incident but the generalized accounting of atrocities which became
folklore by the mid-70's was not and has never been.
With regard to the Mennonites, Oxfam, ect. I wonder if Chomsky omits
anything interesting that the Mennonites might have sent. I make no
accusation whatsoever as to their motives, but the shipment in question
must have included more than pencils. I wish Chomsky would cite his
sources for some of this stuff. Let's not overlook the fact that there
were sanctions in place. As for Oxfam;
This link has
David Bryer - head of Oxfam U.K. - admitting that humanitarian aid
can prolong an internal conflict. Again, I'm not suggesting that
the U.S. used this rationale, but Chomsky is definately not going to
be even-handed in his tirade.
The bloodbath that followed Suharto's replacing of Sukarno stands as
a legitimate horror that should be evaluated closely (as it has been)
to be sure that in the future, U.S. policy is beyond reproach. It
clearly was not in Indonesia. There is much argument as to whether or
not U.S. forces participated directly in the atrocities. There is
evidence to support the claim that the U.S. supplied Suharto in this
action. It certainly was the outcome of choice for CIA officials.
Events such as these should be regrettable to all men regardless of
their idealism. Chomsky, however, tends to ascribe a gleefull
disposition in Washington officials who participate in these things.
I've seen that same attitude in you too, Sam. My position is that these
people have to make huge decisions - the pressure of which would make
a puddle out of most men. I'm not wishing to make them. I sure don't
think you could make them. I do know one thing though; The Black Book
of Communism which chronicles some 85-100 million deaths directly
attributable to godless communism should leave us with no doubt who the
enemies of peace and freedom are. In the past you've accused me of
turning away from things I don't want to see. Can you see this?
Some things are worth fighting for no matter how ugly the fighting
gets. A sinister movement which administers death at the level of the
historical communist movement must be stopped at whatever price. It's
easy for us to point to the failures of men in their efforts to do
this. It also seems easy for you to ascribe all manner of evil to them
as they make that effort. Try to keep in mind that you would today live
in a totalitarian regime which murders by the millions if it were not
for the efforts of those you despise.
Stuart Gort
