the saying "Never attribute to malice that which can be better explained by
stupidity." to be a much better reflection of what's out there. One thing he
did not mention that what happened in these countries happened during the
cold war. The US in the last 50 years did have the policy of the enemy of my
enemy is my friend.
I also noticed that he made little or no mention of Cambodia or Pol Pot. Or
the same time as mentioning the civilian casualties in Vietnam, he made no
comment on the atrocities that the Viet Cong and NVA committed in Vietnam
during the Vietnam conflict. That sort of weakens his point. He mentions
East Timor, but doesn't mention that the US had cut off military supplies
and aid to the Indonesian government about 3 years before those massacres.
As for Mozambique, he made no mention of the fact that UNITA was self
financing from diamond and other mines in the territory it controlled.
As for Somalia, he tosses out that number but in no way sources it. Where
did it come from? He makes no mention of the chaotic conditions there or the
humanitarian mission that was ongoing in the area while the military
conflict was happening. He also did not mention that the reason why the US
went into Somalia was at the request of the UN.
Yugoslavia is a good example of his very selective examination of the
issues. He pointedly ignores the nationalist movements that were very active
for the previous generation before Tito died. Yugoslavia split up because
his successors were considerably weaker than Tito. Tito was remarkable in
that he was able to get support from all regions and ethnic groups. It was
to the US' advantage to have a united Yugoslavia, especially since it
provided a very stable and industrially advanced region that was interested
in European good. Moreover it provided an excellent window into the Soviet
dominated countries of the Balkans. But I guess reality isn't necessary for
his polemics.
I noticed that he also gave a buy to the Taliban and Al Queda in
Afghanistan, considering them to be poor victims of US oppression. Funny I
am sure that those women who were buried up to their necks and stoned to
death because they showed their face at the wrong time will be heartened to
realize that they were victims of US oppression.
As far as I can see the guy is just an apologist for the extremist end of
the left. Quite willing to excuse atrocities etc., because these governments
were usually communist or extreme left wing dictatorships. It seems to me
that he is committing the same sins as he claims for the US governments.
Sounds a bit like projection to me.
I'm left of center on many issues. But I disavow this sort of extremist.
larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 9:14 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: comments?
>
>
> welp, he does use the word "compatriot," I'll give you that.
> And it bugs the hell out of me that the text is centered not
> left-justified.
>
> But I still can't find anything exactly *wrong* in his
> argument. Even if you are right about Greece -- this is not a
> central issue in his thesis is it? Even if you are right
> about Somalia -- do you actually think that his is why we
> went in? This seems to be a case you are familiar with. Is
> the figure of 10,000 Somali killed wrong in any way?
>
> One of the interesting things about Google News is that it
> presents news stories from outside the US. I frequently
> notice stories about Iraqi casulties that don't make US
> media. I also notice, while we are on the subject, an
> increasing use of the "evil twin" defense by the US military.
> It wasn't US who had Nick Berg in custody. It was the Iraqis.
> It wasn't us that bombed that weddding. It was the Iraqis. It
> wasn't us who raided the Chalabi (sp?) compound. It was the
> Iraqis. I thought the Iraqi military was on our side?
>
> I am pretty sure the author of the Eldorado Sun is to the
> left of me politically. This may not mean that he doesn't
> have some things to say. The details about Haiti and
> Guatemala sound pretty familiar. The fact is that most
> Americans would adamantly deny that the US has ever gone to
> war on behalf of a fruit company. He is right about that. Yet
> it is sober historical fact.
>
> That being said, the bit about Yugoslavia sounds a bit
> wild-eyed. Nor does that paragraph contain many facts.
>
> I grant you the overall tone of condemnation. I don't
> especially like it either. But I think he may be right....
>
> (?)
>
> Dana
>
> >>I'd like feedback on this. It looks true to me, but I'd like to be
> >>sure that isn't my prejudices talking. I can say, though,
> that if it
> >>was bradcast on KUNM, that's a pretty powerful endorsement.
> >>
> >>http://eldoradosun.com/sunpg2.html#Arrogance
> >
> >
> >I disagreed with most of the article. It was a radical extremist
> >polemic filled with distortions and half truths. For instance the
> >author claimed that the US intervened in twice in Greece. While he
> >didn't mention the years, I'm assuming it involved the civil war in
> >1949 and the coup in 1967. There was no intervention in 1949. The US
> >supplied arms and equipment to the democratically elected Greek
> >government at the time. They were fighting a communist insurgency
> >that was much worse in comparison to the Shining Path in Latin
> >America, and the equivalent of Pol Pot. They had a nasty habit of
> >tieing up and disemboweling those who did not support them. This
> >included priests, teachers and doctors. Such brave liberators of the
> >proletariat. The Greek government, with British help and military
> >advisors finally put down this brutal group in the mid 1950's.
> >
> > As far as I can figure the second intervention involved the 1967
> >military coup. What he doesn't mention that the US did sever
> >relations with Greece immediately afterwards, and froze all military
> >aid and contracts.
> >
> >Generally this person is an apologist for the extremist imperialist
> >communist system of thought. Nothing to do with the left or right
> >wing, rather he seems to support and serves as an apologist of some
> >fairly brutal human rights abusers. this sort I prefer to dismiss
> >and ignore.
> >
> >larry
> >
> >--
> >
> >Larry C. Lyons
> >
> >========================================================
> >Life is Complex. It has both real and imaginary parts.
> >========================================================
> >Chaos, Panic and Disorder. My work here is done.
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
