This is remarkably puerile: you offer a false and propagandistic reading of the Gulf War, based on something you heard; you are properly corrected by reference to the person who has perhaps written more about that war that any other political commentator in the country (with typically detailed references) -- and you respond with an unsourced reference to a supposed mistake in something he wrote about World War II!
I'll bet Chomsky's comment, if you can find it, is accurate; your remark on the Gulf War is simply embarrassing. --CGE
On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Brad DeLong wrote:
> >Brad Delong wrote:
> >
> >> It still strikes me as very strange. According to people who ought to
> >> know, Bush offered Saddam Hussein the resolution of all prewar oil
> >> drilling disputes on Iraqi terms, plus a bunch of money in return for
> >> the peaceful Iraqi evacuation of Kuwait. But Saddam Hussein believed
> >> that he had a dominating interest in being seen to stand up to the
> >> U.S. in a military confrontation (even if he lost decisively) and
> >> Bush believed that he had a dominating interest in demonstrating
> >> America's military power...
> >.
> >
> >Gee whiz.
> >
> >That's approximately the exact opposite of what actually happened. Here's a
> >useful summary of pre-Gulf War diplomacy, by Noam Chomsky:
>
>
> Primary sources? Chomsky's take on reality is... weird. For
> example... in his potted history of the Allied reconquest of the
> Mediterranean, Chomsky tries to leave readers with the impression
> that the U.S. reconquered Africa and Italy and only then decided to
> put fascists like Darlan and Badoglio back in power, when the truth
> was quite different...
>
>
> Brad DeLong
>
>