Let's take this comic paragraph :
--Iraq was gassing Kurds & we were supporting Saddam. But now Chomsky is against us opposing him because civilians are being harmed. But, if we opposed him conventially, so as to alleviate the suffering of the Kurds and his own people, this would cause civilian casualties, radicalize the people, and be terrible as well;
Chomsky points out, accurately, that our "conventional" opposition causes much harm to civilians, and none to Saddam. Further, please point out where Chomsky is against us opposing Saddam militarily? Last, Chomsky's MAIN POINT, which you conveniently ignore, is that we shouldn't have been giving Saddam weapons. That is the main point. Do you disagree with this?
Tom |
