-----Original Message----- From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Luke Weiger Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 1:42 PM To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Subject: Re: Chomsky takes down Hitchens
> Well, of course the Sudan bombing was intentional. That wasn't a stray
> cruise missile that hit the factory. The question is whether the Clinton
> gang knew it was a pharmaceutical plant or not. They certainly knew what
it
> was AFTER the fact, and they lied about their intentions to cover up what
> was an act of terrorism. Chomsky's point is that the US has blocked the UN
> from going in to assess the numbers of those who've died and continue to
die
> as a result, which he estimates is easily in the thousands, if not tens of
> thousands. That no one really cares what the numbers are, and that people
> like Hitchens take offense with the mere question in relation to WTC, this
> is what Chomsky finds immoral and racist. And I agree with him.
>
> DP
The "intent" in question isn't whether the "Clinton gang" wanted to bomb some target but rather whether they had any interest in destroying a pharmaceutical plant. That seems doubtful to me. Even as a consequentialist, I have a problem with Chomsky assigning moral responsibility on the basis of all the often unforeseeable consequences of an act as opposed to the original calculation of expected utility.
So, as Noam A stated, the true failure was less the bombing itself than the failure of the US to rectify the damage done. As Noam A also pointed out, this is a failure the rest of the first world was also quite capable of compensating for.
-- Luke