>
>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).
No point, Luke. I've explained to you that I don't trust the US in
itsforeign and military policy, that I think it's so-called humanitarian
interventions have been cynical and destructive frauds that have caused more
harm that good, that I think its a bad precedent to turn it loose to bomb
various axises of evil, that I favor diplomatic solutions and genuinely
international action, and that USD out of everywhere is as it always has
been is the best rule of thumb. I would have made an exception for Rwanda,
but it supports my convictions that it didn't happen there.
>
> >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.
Chomsky said in the late 70s that the evidence about the KR was uncertain and that before anything could be reasonably confirmed, it was bruited in the press as another example of communist evil. Iyt happened that this time it turned out to be an example of communist evil. But if you read his treatment of the early press and so-called scholarly coverage of the KR, you'll see he was right. He's said that in view of the later evidence, the early alarm shows that the KR was very wicked. For the rest, he was right about the early stuff, so he has nothing to retract.
>
>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.
He has, tediously.
>
> > 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?
>
>--
The war is not nearly over, and I stand by my judgment. Or do you like the prospect of an endless war against everyone, now involving the prospect of tactical mininuclear weapons?
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.