> Chomsky et al have been out there swinging, organizing in the trenches, on
> the side of the angels, fighting US imperialism day in and day out for the
> entire period...
Walzer and Chomsky both condemned the cold war, which seems to encompass the entirety of pre-90's "imperialism." They disagree with one another on the topic of supposed "humanitarian interventionism." Incidentally, that's where I split with you and the majority of the list. Perhaps, then, you'd like to point out why Walzer and I are wrong (as opposed to saying that we just ought to know better, which I've heard many times before and never believed once).
> when Walzer has been pissing and moaning about them (and not
> blasting the bad guys) at the Institute in Princeton. Chomsky may have
made
> a few bad calls, like his comments on the KR back in 1977-78,
You know, Justin, if your criticism of Chomsky on the KR were any less equivocal, you'd find yourself on the wrong side of the Chomsky beatification society. NC's writings on the KR could hardly have fallen further from the mark, and the fact that he has continually refused to rethink them shows something about the old man's abstinence.
> but that's the
> risk you take when you engage.
Yep, by engaging, we risk the possibility of being grossly mistaken. However, when we're clearly shown the error of our ways, we have a responsibility to try to set the record straight.
> As forAfghansitan, C has been right about it,
> and W's defense of this vile and evil war will be addedto the litany of
his
> crimesw hen he is called before God's great judgment seat.
As you may remember, I initially thought the war would end up being evil and vile. Now that the conflict has neared its completion, I can find very little evidence to support that view. Where's yours?
-- Luke
> jks