On Tuesday, February 8, 2005 at 03:31:06 (-0800) soula avramidis writes: >Google this "chomsky friend saddam" you will find this to the first >http://www.epsilonpress.se/ncinter/ncdimaggio20021206.htm >you then do find friend and you will find this paragraph: > >'Do you believe the Gulf War was primarily to secure American >access to Kuwaiti oil? Did it also have to do with teaching >Saddam a lesson for his aggressive behavior with Kuwait? Do >you have any insight into which factor was more of a determinant >for the Bush Administration? > >I think the main reason for the first Gulf War was what�s called >�credibility�: Saddam had defied orders; no one can get away with that. >Ask any Mafia Don and you�ll get the explanation. There�s good reason >to suppose that a negotiated withdrawal would have been possible, but >that wouldn�t make the point; again, ask your favorite Don. > >The reason for leaving Saddam in place was explained very openly and >frankly: As the diplomatic correspondent of the New York Times, >Thomas Friedman, explained when the US backed Saddam�s crushing >of the Kurds, �the best of all worlds� for Washington would be an >�iron-fisted junta� ruling Iraq just as Saddam did, but with a different >name, because his is now embarrassing, and since no one like that >seemed to be around, they�d have to settle with second-best, their old >friend and ally the butcher of Baghdad himself. You can find plenty of >material about all of this in what I wrote at the time, reprinted in >"Deterring Democracy"; more has appeared since.' > >Now is not this an open game ticket to Bush. ...
This is nothing like an "open game ticket" --- quite the opposite. Chomsky is *criticizing* the resort to force, not approving of it. Bill
