Anyway. Thank you for your thoughts. Are you saying that the 10,000 number does not fit with your experiences in Somalia?
I agree with you about stupidity; however this analysis does seem, as Andy says, to be correct in some of its conclusions, ie, American foreign policy has historically been imperialistic, this is not how it was presented to the American public, and perhaps this is still the case.
Despite the overuse of the word "imperialist" by empty-headed leftists in the sixties, there is no disputing the first conclusion -- see
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/modsbook34.html
The second seems correct, based on the differences today between coverage in the American media and news coverage abroad.
I am not sure about the third.
Your comments seem to be that well, maybe we weren't nice people but neither were their politicians. Can you imagine saying, well, the Americans massacred my parents and everyone else in their village in a very horrible manner, but the Viet Cong massacred everyone in the next village up, so that balanaces out?
People aren't that rational. I'm not, anyway. If my children were injured by an occupying force, I would be a resistance fighter so fast it would make your head spin. And that is the problem when you have video of a peaceful wedding celebration pounded by missiles. Nobody wants to accept the death of a child as an honest mistake.
Your comments are matter for reflection. I am just not sure that previous atrocities can weigh against *our* atrocities, nor that our reasons for our military adventures are always so very humanitarian.
Dana
>I am very skeptical of these conspiracy arguments. I've always found that
>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
>
>>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
