Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: frankw1900 who wrote (11797)	11/28/2001 10:41:43 AM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 281500

Hi frankw1900; Re Chomsky's obsession to criticize the country he lives in. The implication is that if we drive him out of the country he'll stop criticizing us. I doubt it. -- Carl

To: frankw1900 who wrote (11797)	11/28/2001 1:00:38 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

Be clear about Chomsky. He's not a pseudo-intellectual. Wrong... Chomsky has completely thrown out scientific objectivity. He will indentify actions and events as being the result of American causality, while almost completely ignoring the international political environment and decision making process from which US foreign policy derives. Chomssky is a paragon of intellectual dishonestly, as we've seen displayed by several of his acolytes on this discussion thread. All of us are guilty of attempting to "containerize", or sterilize how foreign policy is created, asserting that this multi-headed beast we call the US government is acting in unity. But if there is ANYTHING we know, it's that a Republican democracy is intentionally disorganized to the point where power is diffused throughout the system, and not centralized to an overwhelming extent (even the executive branch has checks and balances on its creation of foreign policy). As Churchill aptly stated, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for every other kind." But we don't see the same degree of diffusion of policy exerted by totalitarian regimes, with the USSR being the greatest example through the reign of Stalin, (and China through Deng and possibly even currently with Ziang). He held ABSOLUTE DICTATORIAL POWER, and thus we can't claim that Soviet policy was diffused during his reign, because it was solely an extension of Stalin's will (or those ideas presented to him by his advisors which he approved). And I would suggest the same can be said for Cuba, where Castro is the sole source of Cuban foreign policy (and every other kind.. :0) And even later, with Kruschev, and later Soviet CP through Gorbachev, the sources of governmental policy were created primarily in the politburo, as influenced by the polical "troika" (KGB, CP, and Red Army) all vying for domination of that body. And possessing a heavily politicized military as part of the Soviet government almost assured that there would be an aggressive foreign policy (if only to justify the military budget). So I perceive US foreign policy have being reactive to Soviet proactive foreign policy (spreading the revolution). And this aggressiveness on the part of the Soviet system is something Chomsky conveniently chooses to ignore. Rather, he'll focus on US FP as the causal agent in created instability or repression, when in fact, it already existed, and was in danger of growing even MORE repressive under the totalitarian advances of the Soviets (and later.. China). There is a lot to criticize about US foreign policy. But to ignore the influences that fostered that FP is to reach only a partial conclusion and to ignore the realities of power politics on the international level. And to fail to take into context that the US, and the American people, have traditionally been isolationist, thus fostering a reactive, or "fire-fighting" foreign policy, also leads to developing false conclusions. Anyone can find examples where US corporate interests, or corrupt officials like the Dulles brothers, were able to manipulate US foreign policy to engage in actions which might benefit their own interests, while create longer-term problems for US foreign policy. But that is NOT Ameican Foreign Policy. In fact, I would opine that US foreign policy may not really exist except on a very broad scale (promoting capitalism and democratic institutions). On a micro-scale, it's often dictated by whatever is the latest, greatest, international crisis. And as we saw in the Balkans, US foreign policy was dictated by CNN, and the pictures of starving Bosnian and Kosovar children. All throughout the early '90's US foreign policy was that Europe should deal with their own "backyard". And even the Europeans wanted it that way, as they thought it was time to show how they could get out from under the US foreign policy umbrella. Well, we know well that went... and we saw how US foreign policy was forced to change based upon the European failure, and how we were required to impose our own ad hoc political and military solution. And quite likely, the US will be blamed by people like Chomsky for whatever future chaos erupts in that region. Hawk