just as i said last time, I've never read a piece by Chomsky that gives a solution to both our problems and the iraqis. His only try at a solution in that entire paper is "One way is to try to alleviate the threats by paying some attention to legitimate grievances, and by agreeing to become a civilized member of a world community, with some respect for world order and its institutions. "
What are the legitimate grievances by saddam hussein or the people he would hire or the people that run his weapons programs? That is what he's trying to get at right? trying to help alleviate the extremism by removing their angst.
Secondly, the only reason why other countries are scared of US power is simply that will make those countries less powerful, hold less influence, be unable to control less. So in order to solve that, you have to give them more control. But how much is enough control?
Also, just because we have large arguments between France, Russia, China, and Germanay does not mean peace will diminish. We're not going to go to war with those nations. In fact, it's a testimony to the fact that too much firepower and global economies show that war is not a viable option, so alternatives must be used. If he's arguing the it's the terrorist breeding grounds among the middle east countries is caused by oppression by governments and our support of these governments. I don't believe the US has this immense power over those nations. That's illustrated in this war. So removing what influence we have, I believe it is doubtful those countries will immediately solve their own problems. The question is who is worse, the briber or the one who takes the bribe?
The problem is not the US in causing war. The problem is the US has lost a PR battle in a world that blames the US for it's problems. Those people in those countries with oppresive regimes are simply not willing to die for freedom. I paraphrase from what foofoo posts, those countries would rather have tyranny than risk anarchy. So whether or not we wage war, will probably not effect the situation, because no matter what reasons will always be given. Therefore, it is in our interest to defend our interests, and say to the world: go to hell. However, the US does not do this. This nation feels we have an obligation to spread our freedom elsewhere (whether you're cynical about the government, the American people have always felt this). This feeling coupled with the fact of our immense power not only militarily but economically means we can do this.
What are the legitimate grievances by saddam hussein or the people he would hire or the people that run his weapons programs? That is what he's trying to get at right? trying to help alleviate the extremism by removing their angst.
Secondly, the only reason why other countries are scared of US power is simply that will make those countries less powerful, hold less influence, be unable to control less. So in order to solve that, you have to give them more control. But how much is enough control?
Also, just because we have large arguments between France, Russia, China, and Germanay does not mean peace will diminish. We're not going to go to war with those nations. In fact, it's a testimony to the fact that too much firepower and global economies show that war is not a viable option, so alternatives must be used. If he's arguing the it's the terrorist breeding grounds among the middle east countries is caused by oppression by governments and our support of these governments. I don't believe the US has this immense power over those nations. That's illustrated in this war. So removing what influence we have, I believe it is doubtful those countries will immediately solve their own problems. The question is who is worse, the briber or the one who takes the bribe?
The problem is not the US in causing war. The problem is the US has lost a PR battle in a world that blames the US for it's problems. Those people in those countries with oppresive regimes are simply not willing to die for freedom. I paraphrase from what foofoo posts, those countries would rather have tyranny than risk anarchy. So whether or not we wage war, will probably not effect the situation, because no matter what reasons will always be given. Therefore, it is in our interest to defend our interests, and say to the world: go to hell. However, the US does not do this. This nation feels we have an obligation to spread our freedom elsewhere (whether you're cynical about the government, the American people have always felt this). This feeling coupled with the fact of our immense power not only militarily but economically means we can do this.
Facebook
Twitter