The Sudanese Factory Bombing:chomsky defended

Max Sawicky sawicky at bellatlantic.net
Fri Sep 14 09:31:05 PDT 2001


I think this is well said, but what is true in and of itself is not necessarily pertinent to what is in question. And what is impertinent can be inhumane.

If I am bawling my guts out over a dead relative and you tell me that Clinton caused the death of innocents in Somalia, you would be accurate but offensive.

Right now the Gov is groping for a response. *Some* kind of response involving force and death is clearly appropriate. So a focus on U.S. crimes/blunders of the past can be a pain in the ass. Just desserts for the perpetrators is my slogan. Don't blow up some jerks that you don't like just to make me feel better.

mbs

RE: Leo, your argument pivots on a dogmatic assertion of an ethics of intent. Putting it in those terms, and charitably, Clinton was trying to bomb a gas factory, and killed one person. But an ethics of responsibility has him blowing up a pharmaceuticals plant, and likely killing thousands in the process due to med shortages. We can extend this to Clinton maintaining an embargo against Iraq, intending to bring down Sadaam. Does that mean he's not responsible for the dead kids? Can't you at least concede that, as the US prepares to "smart bomb" a subjugated Afghani people into even smaller rubble piles with the intention of killing terrorists, we need to assert an ethics of responsibility? And, isn't that what Chomsky did? Echoing an earlier post of mine, aren't you pissed off about matters of tact, rather than substance, and, for that matter, given what's on the way, can't you appreciate the limits on tact for the dead, when we need to be concerned about the living?



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list