On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Henry C.K. Liu wrote:
> Stephen E Philion wrote:
> > Henry,
> > Although your posting below is ostensibly a 'refutation' of Louis, can you
> > show us in any way how what you just wrote differs in any *substantive*
> > way from the Chomsky quote that Louis quoted? I think you have misread
> > the content of the main points raised by the Chomsky quote that Louis
> > reprinted for the list.
> It could be possible that I was misreading the line: "His writings are an extremely
> interesting illustration of the dovish position.post".
> If by that Chomsky meant that Kennan's opposition to the dovish position, then I have
> indeed misread its meaning.
> On the other hand, if the line meant Kennan represented the dovish position, then my
> post's intention was to challenge that claim.
Yes, I'm afraid that Louis and Chomsky are both arguing that there is a wing of American foreign policy makers that are called doves, which are more dovish in content than in substance. Nothing about the way Louis or Chomsky write should lead one to other conclusions. I should also perhaps add that nothing about their actions indicates otherwise as well.