Reply #50: just a few thoughts... [View All]

[Resistance]

Certainly we aren't lacking in incompetents and nitwits, particularly with this Bush administration. But when it comes to setting up a world-capitalist system that works in the interests of the huge corporations, I think U.S. planners have done a tremendous job of it. And we're still going: just look at what we've accomplished in Iraq, with careful orchestration.

For one, you can see where certain planners have been working on plans to get rid of Saddam for a number of years now. What has been needed is the right political situation to do it, and as soon as that situation arose, we had U.S. troops bombing neighborhoods on a march towards Baghdad, with the ultimate goal, of course, to install an Iraqi regime that will be friendly with oil companies. How could we have possibly invaded another country and overthrown their gov't without any justification whatsoever, if the country was run by incompetents and fools? There's no WMDs, there was no Hussein involvement in 9/11, there was no threat to the United States, and Iraq's neighbors weren't even worried about Saddam at the time.

These kinds of things couldn't happen with incompetent planning; there's alot of money at stake, and for the people who hope to enrich themselves by using the U.S. military to bully the rest of the world into capitalist submission, I think there is actually little room for ignorance or folly.

And to get back to Chomsky, you know, I saw him on CSpan about 6 or 7 months ago, and I remember his being asked by a caller if he thought the Bush admin knew that the Sept. 11 attacks were coming, yet stood by and did nothing. Now here, N.C. could have gone in the direction you describe, bemildred, as 'Darth-Vaderizing' and saying yes the Bush admin had to have known, and then maybe he could describe why they let the attacks happen, or how they could have worked with Osama Bin Laden behind the scenes, and then he could've gone on to talk about all these theories. But he didn't; he said no he doesn't think there is credible evidence that anyone in the Bush admin knew about 9/11 beforehand. What I am saying here is (and I know this is just one small example), I haven't seen where Chomsky makes things look worse than they really are, and I haven't seen where he "tends to assume malice and cunning where stupidity will do the job".

Anyway, that's just the judgement I've made. Perhaps in time it will change.