knowbuddee
2011-06-12 13:19:38 UTC
Noam Chomsky: The US Will Do Anything to Prevent Democracy in the Arab
World
Speaking at the 25th anniversary celebration of the national media
watch group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, world-renowned
political dissident and linguist Noam Chomsky analyzes the U.S.
response to the popular uprisings sweeping the Middle East and North
Africa. "Across the [Middle East], an overwhelming majority of the
population regards the United States as the main threat to their
interests," Chomsky says. "The reason is very simple... Plainly, the
U.S. and its allies are not going to want governments which are
responsive to the will of the people. If that happens, not only will
the U.S. not control the region, but it will be thrown out." Source:
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/5/11/noam_chomsky_the_us_and_its Copy
of the transcript is below: NOAM CHOMSKY: The U.S. and its allies
will do anything they can to prevent authentic democracy in the Arab
world. The reason is very simple. Across the region, an overwhelming
majority of the population regards the United States as the main
threat to their interests. In fact, opposition to U.S. policy is so
high that a considerable majority think the region would be more
secure if Iran had nuclear weapons. In Egypt, the most important
country, that’s 80 percent. Similar figures elsewhere. There are some
in the region who regard Iran as a threat—about 10 percent. Well,
plainly, the U.S. and its allies are not going to want governments
which are responsive to the will of the people. If that happens, not
only will the U.S. not control the region, but it will be thrown out.
So that’s obviously an intolerable result. In the case of
WikiLeaks, there was an interesting aside on this. The revelations
from WikiLeaks that got the most publicity—headlines, euphoric
commentary and so on—were that the Arabs support U.S. policy on Iran.
They were quoting comments of Arab dictators. Yes, they claim to
support U.S. policy on Iran. There was no mention of the Arab—of the
Arab population, because it doesn’t matter. If the dictators support
us, and the population is under control, then what’s the problem? This
is like imperialism. What’s the problem if it works? As long as they
can control their populations, fine. They can have campaigns of
hatred; our friendly dictators will keep them under control. That’s
the reaction not just of the diplomatic service in the State
Department or of the media who reported this, but also of the general
intellectual community. There is no comment on this. In fact, coverage
of these polls is precisely zero in the United States, literally.
There’s a few comments in England, but very little. It just doesn’t
matter what the population thinks, as long as they’re under
control. Well, from these observations, you can conclude pretty
quickly, pretty easily, what policies are going to be. You can almost
spell them out. So in the case of an oil-rich country with a reliable,
obedient dictator, they’re given free rein. Saudi Arabia is the most
important. There were—it’s the most repressive, extremist, strongest
center of Islamic fundamentalism, missionaries who spread ultra-
radical Islamism from jihadis and so on. But they’re obedient, they’re
reliable, so they can do what they like. There was a planned protest
in Saudi Arabia. The police presence was so overwhelming and
intimidating that literally nobody even was willing to show up in the
streets of Riyadh. But that was fine. The same in Kuwait. There was a
small demonstration, very quickly crushed, no comment. Actually,
the most interesting case in many respects is Bahrain. Bahrain is
quite important for two reasons. One reason, which has been reported,
is that it’s the home port of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, major military
force in the region. Another more fundamental reason is that Bahrain
is about 70 percent Shiite, and it’s right across the causeway from
eastern Saudi Arabia, which also is majority Shiite and happens to be
where most of Saudi oil is. Saudi Arabia, of course, is the main
energy resource, has been since the '40s. By curious accident of
history and geography, the world's major energy resources are located
pretty much in Shiite regions. They’re a minority in the Middle East,
but they happen to be where the oil is, right around the northern part
of the Gulf. That’s eastern Saudi Arabia, southern Iraq and
southwestern Iran. And there’s been a concern among planners for a
long time that there might be a move towards some sort of tacit
alliance in these Shiite regions moving towards independence and
controlling the bulk of the world’s oil. That’s obviously
intolerable. So, going back to Bahrain, there was an uprising,
tent city in the central square, like Tahrir Square. The Saudi-led
military forces invaded Bahrain, giving the security forces there the
opportunity to crush it violently, destroyed the tent city, even
destroyed the Pearl, which is the symbol of Bahrain; invaded the major
hospital complex, threw out the patients and the doctors; been
regularly, every day, arresting human rights activists, torturing
them, occasionally a sort of a pat on the wrist, but nothing much.
That’s very much the Carothers principle. If actions correspond to our
strategic and economic objectives, that’s OK. We can have elegant
rhetoric, but what matters is facts. Well, that’s the oil-rich
obedient dictators. What about Egypt, most important country, but not
a center of—major center of oil production? Well, in Egypt and Tunisia
and other countries of that category, there is a game plan, which is
employed routinely, so commonly it takes virtual genius not to
perceive it. But when you have a favored dictator—for those of you who
might think of going into the diplomatic service, you might as well
learn it—when there’s a favored dictator and he’s getting into
trouble, support him as long as possible, full support as long as
possible. When it becomes impossible to support him—like, say, maybe
the army turns against him, business class turns against him—then send
him off somewhere, issue ringing declarations about your love of
democracy, and then try to restore the old regime, maybe with new
names. And that’s done over and over again. It doesn’t always work,
but it’s always tried—Somoza, Nicaragua; Shah in Iran; Marcos in the
Philippines; Duvalier in Haiti; Chun in South Korea; Mobutu in the
Congo; Ceausescu is one of Western favorites in Romania; Suharto in
Indonesia. It’s completely routine. And that’s exactly what’s going on
in Egypt and Tunisia. OK, we support them right to the end—Mubarak in
Egypt, right to the end, keep supporting him. Doesn’t work any longer,
send him off to Sharm el-Sheikh, pull out the rhetoric, try to restore
the old regime. That’s, in fact, what the conflict is about right now.
As Amy said, we don’t know where it’s going to turn now, but that’s
what’s going on. Well, there’s another category. The other
category is an oil-rich dictator who’s not reliable, who’s a loose
cannon. That’s Libya. And there, there’s a different policy: try to
get a more reliable dictator. And that’s exactly what’s happening. Of
course, describe it as a humanitarian intervention. That’s another
near historical universal. You check history, virtually every resort
to force, by whoever it is, is accompanied by the most noble rhetoric.
It’s all completely humanitarian. That includes Hitler taking over
Czechoslovakia, the Japanese fascists rampaging in northeast China. In
fact, it’s Mussolini in Ethiopia. There’s hardly any exceptions. So
you produce that, and the media and commentators present—pretend they
don’t notice that it has no—carries no information, because it’s
reflexive. And then—but in this case, they could also add
something else, which has been repeated over and over again, namely,
the U.S. and its allies were intervening in response to a request by
the Arab League. And, of course, we have to recognize the importance
of that. Incidentally, the response from the Arab League was tepid and
was pretty soon rescinded, because they didn’t like what we were
doing. But put that aside. At the very same time, the Arab League
produced— issued another request. Here’s a headline from a newspaper:
"Arab League Calls for Gaza No-Fly Zone." Actually, I’m quoting from
the London Financial Times. That wasn’t reported in the United States.
Well, to be precise, it was reported in the Washington Times, but
basically blocked in the U.S., like the polls, like the polls of Arab
public opinion, not the right kind of news. So, "Arab League Calls for
Gaza No-Fly Zone," that’s inconsistent with U.S. policy, so that, we
don’t have to honor and observe, and that disappeared. Now, there
are some polls that are reported. So here’s one from the New York
Times a couple days ago. I’ll quote it. It said, "The poll found that
a majority of Egyptians want to annul the 1979 peace treaty with
Israel that has been a cornerstone of Egyptian foreign policy and the
region’s stability." Actually, that’s not quite accurate. It’s been a
cornerstone of the region’s instability, and that’s exactly why the
Egyptian population wants to abandon it. The agreement essentially
eliminated Egypt from the Israel-Arab conflict. That means eliminated
the only deterrent to Israeli military action. And it freed up Israel
to expand its operations—illegal operations—in the Occupied
Territories and to attack its northern neighbor, to attack Lebanon.
Shortly after, Israel attacked Lebanon, killed 20,000 people,
destroyed southern Lebanon, tried to impose a client regime, didn’t
quite make it. And that was understood. So the immediate reaction to
the peace treaty in Israel was that there are things about it we don’t
like—we’re going to have to abandon our settlements in the Sinai, in
the Egyptian Sinai. But it has a good side, too, because now the only
deterrent is gone; we can use force and violence to achieve our other
goals. And that’s exactly what happened. And that’s exactly why the
Egyptian population is opposed to it. They understand that, as does
everyone in the region. On the other hand, the Times wasn’t lying
when they said that it led to the region’s stability. And the reason
is because of the meaning of the word "stability" as a technical
meaning. Stability is— it’s kind of like democracy. Stability means
conformity to our interests. So, for example, when Iran tries to
expand its influence in Afghanistan and Iraq, neighboring countries,
that’s called "destabilizing." It’s part of the threat of Iran. It’s
destabilizing the region. On the other hand, when the U.S. invades
those countries, occupies them, half destroys them, that’s to achieve
stability. And that is very common, even to the point where it’s
possible to write— former editor of Foreign Affairs—that when the U.S.
overthrew the democratic government in Chile and instituted a vicious
dictatorship, that was because the U.S. had to destabilize Chile to
achieve stability. That’s in one sentence, and nobody noticed it,
because that’s correct, if you understand the meaning of the word
"stability." Yeah, you overthrow a parliamentary government, you
install a dictatorship, you invade a country and kill 20,000 people,
you invade Iraq and kill hundreds of thousands of people—that’s all
bringing about stability. Instability is when anyone gets in the way.
AMY GOODMAN: World-renowned political dissident and linguist, Noam
Chomsky, speaking at the 25th anniversary of Fairness and Accuracy in
Reporting. Source: http://www.democracynow.org/2011/5/11/noam_chomsky_the_us_and_its
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 There is a
good number of very thoughtful and informative Progressive news
programs here that are nice to sit back and watch: http://rt.com/on-air/rt-america-air/
////////////////////////////// Please note that this post has been
crossposted to multiple newsgroups. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX It will be
helpful for many more of us that the military industrial complex is a
huge scam, steeped in deception, lawlessness, and the merciless
slaughter of countless human beings. It helps insanely greedy
billionaires get more billions, while pissing on the poor, both
foreign and domestic. They work to avoid peace on earth because it
would shut down their massive porkbarrels that cost us around one
trillion dollars per year, and they are so f'd up that they can not
get enough billions. The truth will eventually set us free (from that
too). Peace on Earth, Goodwill to All!
More options Jun 12, 5:43 pm
Newsgroups: alt.fifty-plus.friends, soc.men, misc.survivalism,
talk.politics.mideast, alt.politics.org.un
From: President of Ground Control Ops <***@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 05:43:10 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Sun, Jun 12 2011 5:43 pm
Subject: Noam Chomsky: The US Will Do Anything to Prevent Democracy in
the Arab World
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Speaking at the 25th anniversary celebration of the national media
watch group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, world-renowned
political dissident and linguist Noam Chomsky analyzes the U.S.
response to the popular uprisings sweeping the Middle East and North
Africa. "Across the [Middle East], an overwhelming majority of the
population regards the United States as the main threat to their
interests," Chomsky says. "The reason is very simple... Plainly, the
U.S. and its allies are not going to want governments which are
responsive to the will of the people. If that happens, not only will
the U.S. not control the region, but it will be thrown out."
Source:
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/5/11/noam_chomsky_the_us_and_its
Copy of the transcript is below:
NOAM CHOMSKY: The U.S. and its allies will do anything they can
to
prevent authentic democracy in the Arab world. The reason is very
simple. Across the region, an overwhelming majority of the population
regards the United States as the main threat to their interests. In
fact, opposition to U.S. policy is so high that a considerable
majority think the region would be more secure if Iran had nuclear
weapons. In Egypt, the most important country, that’s 80 percent.
Similar figures elsewhere. There are some in the region who regard
Iran as a threat—about 10 percent. Well, plainly, the U.S. and its
allies are not going to want governments which are responsive to the
will of the people. If that happens, not only will the U.S. not
control the region, but it will be thrown out. So that’s obviously an
intolerable result.
In the case of WikiLeaks, there was an interesting aside on this.
The revelations from WikiLeaks that got the most publicity—headlines,
euphoric commentary and so on—were that the Arabs support U.S. policy
on Iran. They were quoting comments of Arab dictators. Yes, they
claim
to support U.S. policy on Iran. There was no mention of the Arab—of
the Arab population, because it doesn’t matter. If the dictators
support us, and the population is under control, then what’s the
problem? This is like imperialism. What’s the problem if it works? As
long as they can control their populations, fine. They can have
campaigns of hatred; our friendly dictators will keep them under
control. That’s the reaction not just of the diplomatic service in
the
State Department or of the media who reported this, but also of the
general intellectual community. There is no comment on this. In fact,
coverage of these polls is precisely zero in the United States,
literally. There’s a few comments in England, but very little. It
just
doesn’t matter what the population thinks, as long as they’re under
control.
Well, from these observations, you can conclude pretty quickly,
pretty easily, what policies are going to be. You can almost spell
them out. So in the case of an oil-rich country with a reliable,
obedient dictator, they’re given free rein. Saudi Arabia is the most
important. There were—it’s the most repressive, extremist, strongest
center of Islamic fundamentalism, missionaries who spread ultra-
radical Islamism from jihadis and so on. But they’re obedient,
they’re
reliable, so they can do what they like. There was a planned protest
in Saudi Arabia. The police presence was so overwhelming and
intimidating that literally nobody even was willing to show up in the
streets of Riyadh. But that was fine. The same in Kuwait. There was a
small demonstration, very quickly crushed, no comment.
Actually, the most interesting case in many respects is Bahrain.
Bahrain is quite important for two reasons. One reason, which has
been
reported, is that it’s the home port of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, major
military force in the region. Another more fundamental reason is that
Bahrain is about 70 percent Shiite, and it’s right across the
causeway
from eastern Saudi Arabia, which also is majority Shiite and happens
to be where most of Saudi oil is. Saudi Arabia, of course, is the
main
energy resource, has been since the '40s. By curious accident of
history and geography, the world's major energy resources are located
pretty much in Shiite regions. They’re a minority in the Middle East,
but they happen to be where the oil is, right around the northern
part
of the Gulf. That’s eastern Saudi Arabia, southern Iraq and
southwestern Iran. And there’s been a concern among planners for a
long time that there might be a move towards some sort of tacit
alliance in these Shiite regions moving towards independence and
controlling the bulk of the world’s oil. That’s obviously
intolerable.
So, going back to Bahrain, there was an uprising, tent city in
the
central square, like Tahrir Square. The Saudi-led military forces
invaded Bahrain, giving the security forces there the opportunity to
crush it violently, destroyed the tent city, even destroyed the
Pearl,
which is the symbol of Bahrain; invaded the major hospital complex,
threw out the patients and the doctors; been regularly, every day,
arresting human rights activists, torturing them, occasionally a sort
of a pat on the wrist, but nothing much. That’s very much the
Carothers principle. If actions correspond to our strategic and
economic objectives, that’s OK. We can have elegant rhetoric, but
what
matters is facts.
Well, that’s the oil-rich obedient dictators. What about Egypt,
most important country, but not a center of—major center of oil
production? Well, in Egypt and Tunisia and other countries of that
category, there is a game plan, which is employed routinely, so
commonly it takes virtual genius not to perceive it. But when you
have
a favored dictator—for those of you who might think of going into the
diplomatic service, you might as well learn it—when there’s a favored
dictator and he’s getting into trouble, support him as long as
possible, full support as long as possible. When it becomes
impossible
to support him—like, say, maybe the army turns against him, business
class turns against him—then send him off somewhere, issue ringing
declarations about your love of democracy, and then try to restore
the
old regime, maybe with new names. And that’s done over and over
again.
It doesn’t always work, but it’s always tried—Somoza, Nicaragua; Shah
in Iran; Marcos in the Philippines; Duvalier in Haiti; Chun in South
Korea; Mobutu in the Congo; Ceausescu is one of Western favorites in
Romania; Suharto in Indonesia. It’s completely routine. And that’s
exactly what’s going on in Egypt and Tunisia. OK, we support them
right to the end—Mubarak in Egypt, right to the end, keep supporting
him. Doesn’t work any longer, send him off to Sharm el-Sheikh, pull
out the rhetoric, try to restore the old regime. That’s, in fact,
what
the conflict is about right now. As Amy said, we don’t know where
it’s
going to turn now, but that’s what’s going on.
Well, there’s another category. The other category is an oil-rich
dictator who’s not reliable, who’s a loose cannon. That’s Libya. And
there, there’s a different policy: try to get a more reliable
dictator. And that’s exactly what’s happening. Of course, describe it
as a humanitarian intervention. That’s another near historical
universal. You check history, virtually every resort to force, by
whoever it is, is accompanied by the most noble rhetoric. It’s all
completely humanitarian. That includes Hitler taking over
Czechoslovakia, the Japanese fascists rampaging in northeast China.
In
fact, it’s Mussolini in Ethiopia. There’s hardly any exceptions. So
you produce that, and the media and commentators present—pretend they
don’t notice that it has no—carries no information, because it’s
reflexive.
And then—but in this case, they could also add something else,
which has been repeated over and over again, namely, the U.S. and its
allies were intervening in response to a request by the Arab League.
And, of course, we have to recognize the importance of that.
Incidentally, the response from the Arab League was tepid and was
pretty soon rescinded, because they didn’t like what we were doing.
But put that aside. At the very same time, the Arab League produced—
issued another request. Here’s a headline from a newspaper: "Arab
League Calls for Gaza No-Fly Zone." Actually, I’m quoting from the
London Financial Times. That wasn’t reported in the United States.
Well, to be precise, it was reported in the Washington Times, but
basically blocked in the U.S., like the polls, like the polls of Arab
public opinion, not the right kind of news. So, "Arab League Calls
for
Gaza No-Fly Zone," that’s inconsistent with U.S. policy, so that, we
don’t have to honor and observe, and that disappeared.
Now, there are some polls that are reported. So here’s one from
the New York Times a couple days ago. I’ll quote it. It said, "The
poll found that a majority of Egyptians want to annul the 1979 peace
treaty with Israel that has been a cornerstone of Egyptian foreign
policy and the region’s stability." Actually, that’s not quite
accurate. It’s been a cornerstone of the region’s instability, and
that’s exactly why the Egyptian population wants to abandon it. The
agreement essentially eliminated Egypt from the Israel-Arab conflict.
That means eliminated the only deterrent to Israeli military action.
And it freed up Israel to expand its operations—illegal operations—in
the Occupied Territories and to attack its northern neighbor, to
attack Lebanon. Shortly after, Israel attacked Lebanon, killed 20,000
people, destroyed southern Lebanon, tried to impose a client regime,
didn’t quite make it. And that was understood. So the immediate
reaction to the peace treaty in Israel was that there are things
about
it we don’t like—we’re going to have to abandon our settlements in
the
Sinai, in the Egyptian Sinai. But it has a good side, too, because
now
the only deterrent is gone; we can use force and violence to achieve
our other goals. And that’s exactly what happened. And that’s exactly
why the Egyptian population is opposed to it. They understand that,
as
does everyone in the region.
On the other hand, the Times wasn’t lying when they said that it
led to the region’s stability. And the reason is because of the
meaning of the word "stability" as a technical meaning. Stability is—
it’s kind of like democracy. Stability means conformity to our
interests. So, for example, when Iran tries to expand its influence
in
Afghanistan and Iraq, neighboring countries, that’s called
"destabilizing." It’s part of the threat of Iran. It’s destabilizing
the region. On the other hand, when the U.S. invades those countries,
occupies them, half destroys them, that’s to achieve stability. And
that is very common, even to the point where it’s possible to write—
former editor of Foreign Affairs—that when the U.S. overthrew the
democratic government in Chile and instituted a vicious dictatorship,
that was because the U.S. had to destabilize Chile to achieve
stability. That’s in one sentence, and nobody noticed it, because
that’s correct, if you understand the meaning of the word
"stability."
Yeah, you overthrow a parliamentary government, you install a
dictatorship, you invade a country and kill 20,000 people, you invade
Iraq and kill hundreds of thousands of people—that’s all bringing
about stability. Instability is when anyone gets in the way.
AMY GOODMAN: World-renowned political dissident and linguist, Noam
Chomsky, speaking at the 25th anniversary of Fairness and Accuracy in
Reporting.
Source:
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/5/11/noam_chomsky_the_us_and_its
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
There is a good number of very thoughtful and informative Progressive
news programs here
that are nice to sit back and watch:
http://rt.com/on-air/rt-america-air/
//////////////////////////////
Please note that this post has been crossposted to multiple
newsgroups.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
It will be helpful for many more of us to see that the USA's military
industrial
complex is a huge scam, steeped in deception, lawlessness, and the
merciless slaughter of countless human beings. It helps insanely
greedy billionaires get more billions, while pissing on the poor,
both
foreign and domestic. They work to avoid peace on earth because it
would shut down their massive porkbarrels that prevent world peace
and cost Americans around one trillion dollars per year. They are so
f'd up that they can not get enough billions and they are not bothered
by the blood that their money is soaked in.
The truth will eventually set us free (from them too).
--------------------------------
Here is a great example. See USA war crimes for your self:
http://collateralmurder.com/
The killers are still free. The heroic, ethical young American
soldier who is suspected of sharing the videos with wikileaks has been
locked up in prison under tortuous conditions. According to
international law,covering up war crimes is a war crime. Both Bush and
Obama should be prosecuted for war crimes.
World
Speaking at the 25th anniversary celebration of the national media
watch group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, world-renowned
political dissident and linguist Noam Chomsky analyzes the U.S.
response to the popular uprisings sweeping the Middle East and North
Africa. "Across the [Middle East], an overwhelming majority of the
population regards the United States as the main threat to their
interests," Chomsky says. "The reason is very simple... Plainly, the
U.S. and its allies are not going to want governments which are
responsive to the will of the people. If that happens, not only will
the U.S. not control the region, but it will be thrown out." Source:
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/5/11/noam_chomsky_the_us_and_its Copy
of the transcript is below: NOAM CHOMSKY: The U.S. and its allies
will do anything they can to prevent authentic democracy in the Arab
world. The reason is very simple. Across the region, an overwhelming
majority of the population regards the United States as the main
threat to their interests. In fact, opposition to U.S. policy is so
high that a considerable majority think the region would be more
secure if Iran had nuclear weapons. In Egypt, the most important
country, that’s 80 percent. Similar figures elsewhere. There are some
in the region who regard Iran as a threat—about 10 percent. Well,
plainly, the U.S. and its allies are not going to want governments
which are responsive to the will of the people. If that happens, not
only will the U.S. not control the region, but it will be thrown out.
So that’s obviously an intolerable result. In the case of
WikiLeaks, there was an interesting aside on this. The revelations
from WikiLeaks that got the most publicity—headlines, euphoric
commentary and so on—were that the Arabs support U.S. policy on Iran.
They were quoting comments of Arab dictators. Yes, they claim to
support U.S. policy on Iran. There was no mention of the Arab—of the
Arab population, because it doesn’t matter. If the dictators support
us, and the population is under control, then what’s the problem? This
is like imperialism. What’s the problem if it works? As long as they
can control their populations, fine. They can have campaigns of
hatred; our friendly dictators will keep them under control. That’s
the reaction not just of the diplomatic service in the State
Department or of the media who reported this, but also of the general
intellectual community. There is no comment on this. In fact, coverage
of these polls is precisely zero in the United States, literally.
There’s a few comments in England, but very little. It just doesn’t
matter what the population thinks, as long as they’re under
control. Well, from these observations, you can conclude pretty
quickly, pretty easily, what policies are going to be. You can almost
spell them out. So in the case of an oil-rich country with a reliable,
obedient dictator, they’re given free rein. Saudi Arabia is the most
important. There were—it’s the most repressive, extremist, strongest
center of Islamic fundamentalism, missionaries who spread ultra-
radical Islamism from jihadis and so on. But they’re obedient, they’re
reliable, so they can do what they like. There was a planned protest
in Saudi Arabia. The police presence was so overwhelming and
intimidating that literally nobody even was willing to show up in the
streets of Riyadh. But that was fine. The same in Kuwait. There was a
small demonstration, very quickly crushed, no comment. Actually,
the most interesting case in many respects is Bahrain. Bahrain is
quite important for two reasons. One reason, which has been reported,
is that it’s the home port of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, major military
force in the region. Another more fundamental reason is that Bahrain
is about 70 percent Shiite, and it’s right across the causeway from
eastern Saudi Arabia, which also is majority Shiite and happens to be
where most of Saudi oil is. Saudi Arabia, of course, is the main
energy resource, has been since the '40s. By curious accident of
history and geography, the world's major energy resources are located
pretty much in Shiite regions. They’re a minority in the Middle East,
but they happen to be where the oil is, right around the northern part
of the Gulf. That’s eastern Saudi Arabia, southern Iraq and
southwestern Iran. And there’s been a concern among planners for a
long time that there might be a move towards some sort of tacit
alliance in these Shiite regions moving towards independence and
controlling the bulk of the world’s oil. That’s obviously
intolerable. So, going back to Bahrain, there was an uprising,
tent city in the central square, like Tahrir Square. The Saudi-led
military forces invaded Bahrain, giving the security forces there the
opportunity to crush it violently, destroyed the tent city, even
destroyed the Pearl, which is the symbol of Bahrain; invaded the major
hospital complex, threw out the patients and the doctors; been
regularly, every day, arresting human rights activists, torturing
them, occasionally a sort of a pat on the wrist, but nothing much.
That’s very much the Carothers principle. If actions correspond to our
strategic and economic objectives, that’s OK. We can have elegant
rhetoric, but what matters is facts. Well, that’s the oil-rich
obedient dictators. What about Egypt, most important country, but not
a center of—major center of oil production? Well, in Egypt and Tunisia
and other countries of that category, there is a game plan, which is
employed routinely, so commonly it takes virtual genius not to
perceive it. But when you have a favored dictator—for those of you who
might think of going into the diplomatic service, you might as well
learn it—when there’s a favored dictator and he’s getting into
trouble, support him as long as possible, full support as long as
possible. When it becomes impossible to support him—like, say, maybe
the army turns against him, business class turns against him—then send
him off somewhere, issue ringing declarations about your love of
democracy, and then try to restore the old regime, maybe with new
names. And that’s done over and over again. It doesn’t always work,
but it’s always tried—Somoza, Nicaragua; Shah in Iran; Marcos in the
Philippines; Duvalier in Haiti; Chun in South Korea; Mobutu in the
Congo; Ceausescu is one of Western favorites in Romania; Suharto in
Indonesia. It’s completely routine. And that’s exactly what’s going on
in Egypt and Tunisia. OK, we support them right to the end—Mubarak in
Egypt, right to the end, keep supporting him. Doesn’t work any longer,
send him off to Sharm el-Sheikh, pull out the rhetoric, try to restore
the old regime. That’s, in fact, what the conflict is about right now.
As Amy said, we don’t know where it’s going to turn now, but that’s
what’s going on. Well, there’s another category. The other
category is an oil-rich dictator who’s not reliable, who’s a loose
cannon. That’s Libya. And there, there’s a different policy: try to
get a more reliable dictator. And that’s exactly what’s happening. Of
course, describe it as a humanitarian intervention. That’s another
near historical universal. You check history, virtually every resort
to force, by whoever it is, is accompanied by the most noble rhetoric.
It’s all completely humanitarian. That includes Hitler taking over
Czechoslovakia, the Japanese fascists rampaging in northeast China. In
fact, it’s Mussolini in Ethiopia. There’s hardly any exceptions. So
you produce that, and the media and commentators present—pretend they
don’t notice that it has no—carries no information, because it’s
reflexive. And then—but in this case, they could also add
something else, which has been repeated over and over again, namely,
the U.S. and its allies were intervening in response to a request by
the Arab League. And, of course, we have to recognize the importance
of that. Incidentally, the response from the Arab League was tepid and
was pretty soon rescinded, because they didn’t like what we were
doing. But put that aside. At the very same time, the Arab League
produced— issued another request. Here’s a headline from a newspaper:
"Arab League Calls for Gaza No-Fly Zone." Actually, I’m quoting from
the London Financial Times. That wasn’t reported in the United States.
Well, to be precise, it was reported in the Washington Times, but
basically blocked in the U.S., like the polls, like the polls of Arab
public opinion, not the right kind of news. So, "Arab League Calls for
Gaza No-Fly Zone," that’s inconsistent with U.S. policy, so that, we
don’t have to honor and observe, and that disappeared. Now, there
are some polls that are reported. So here’s one from the New York
Times a couple days ago. I’ll quote it. It said, "The poll found that
a majority of Egyptians want to annul the 1979 peace treaty with
Israel that has been a cornerstone of Egyptian foreign policy and the
region’s stability." Actually, that’s not quite accurate. It’s been a
cornerstone of the region’s instability, and that’s exactly why the
Egyptian population wants to abandon it. The agreement essentially
eliminated Egypt from the Israel-Arab conflict. That means eliminated
the only deterrent to Israeli military action. And it freed up Israel
to expand its operations—illegal operations—in the Occupied
Territories and to attack its northern neighbor, to attack Lebanon.
Shortly after, Israel attacked Lebanon, killed 20,000 people,
destroyed southern Lebanon, tried to impose a client regime, didn’t
quite make it. And that was understood. So the immediate reaction to
the peace treaty in Israel was that there are things about it we don’t
like—we’re going to have to abandon our settlements in the Sinai, in
the Egyptian Sinai. But it has a good side, too, because now the only
deterrent is gone; we can use force and violence to achieve our other
goals. And that’s exactly what happened. And that’s exactly why the
Egyptian population is opposed to it. They understand that, as does
everyone in the region. On the other hand, the Times wasn’t lying
when they said that it led to the region’s stability. And the reason
is because of the meaning of the word "stability" as a technical
meaning. Stability is— it’s kind of like democracy. Stability means
conformity to our interests. So, for example, when Iran tries to
expand its influence in Afghanistan and Iraq, neighboring countries,
that’s called "destabilizing." It’s part of the threat of Iran. It’s
destabilizing the region. On the other hand, when the U.S. invades
those countries, occupies them, half destroys them, that’s to achieve
stability. And that is very common, even to the point where it’s
possible to write— former editor of Foreign Affairs—that when the U.S.
overthrew the democratic government in Chile and instituted a vicious
dictatorship, that was because the U.S. had to destabilize Chile to
achieve stability. That’s in one sentence, and nobody noticed it,
because that’s correct, if you understand the meaning of the word
"stability." Yeah, you overthrow a parliamentary government, you
install a dictatorship, you invade a country and kill 20,000 people,
you invade Iraq and kill hundreds of thousands of people—that’s all
bringing about stability. Instability is when anyone gets in the way.
AMY GOODMAN: World-renowned political dissident and linguist, Noam
Chomsky, speaking at the 25th anniversary of Fairness and Accuracy in
Reporting. Source: http://www.democracynow.org/2011/5/11/noam_chomsky_the_us_and_its
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 There is a
good number of very thoughtful and informative Progressive news
programs here that are nice to sit back and watch: http://rt.com/on-air/rt-america-air/
////////////////////////////// Please note that this post has been
crossposted to multiple newsgroups. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX It will be
helpful for many more of us that the military industrial complex is a
huge scam, steeped in deception, lawlessness, and the merciless
slaughter of countless human beings. It helps insanely greedy
billionaires get more billions, while pissing on the poor, both
foreign and domestic. They work to avoid peace on earth because it
would shut down their massive porkbarrels that cost us around one
trillion dollars per year, and they are so f'd up that they can not
get enough billions. The truth will eventually set us free (from that
too). Peace on Earth, Goodwill to All!
More options Jun 12, 5:43 pm
Newsgroups: alt.fifty-plus.friends, soc.men, misc.survivalism,
talk.politics.mideast, alt.politics.org.un
From: President of Ground Control Ops <***@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 05:43:10 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Sun, Jun 12 2011 5:43 pm
Subject: Noam Chomsky: The US Will Do Anything to Prevent Democracy in
the Arab World
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Speaking at the 25th anniversary celebration of the national media
watch group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, world-renowned
political dissident and linguist Noam Chomsky analyzes the U.S.
response to the popular uprisings sweeping the Middle East and North
Africa. "Across the [Middle East], an overwhelming majority of the
population regards the United States as the main threat to their
interests," Chomsky says. "The reason is very simple... Plainly, the
U.S. and its allies are not going to want governments which are
responsive to the will of the people. If that happens, not only will
the U.S. not control the region, but it will be thrown out."
Source:
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/5/11/noam_chomsky_the_us_and_its
Copy of the transcript is below:
NOAM CHOMSKY: The U.S. and its allies will do anything they can
to
prevent authentic democracy in the Arab world. The reason is very
simple. Across the region, an overwhelming majority of the population
regards the United States as the main threat to their interests. In
fact, opposition to U.S. policy is so high that a considerable
majority think the region would be more secure if Iran had nuclear
weapons. In Egypt, the most important country, that’s 80 percent.
Similar figures elsewhere. There are some in the region who regard
Iran as a threat—about 10 percent. Well, plainly, the U.S. and its
allies are not going to want governments which are responsive to the
will of the people. If that happens, not only will the U.S. not
control the region, but it will be thrown out. So that’s obviously an
intolerable result.
In the case of WikiLeaks, there was an interesting aside on this.
The revelations from WikiLeaks that got the most publicity—headlines,
euphoric commentary and so on—were that the Arabs support U.S. policy
on Iran. They were quoting comments of Arab dictators. Yes, they
claim
to support U.S. policy on Iran. There was no mention of the Arab—of
the Arab population, because it doesn’t matter. If the dictators
support us, and the population is under control, then what’s the
problem? This is like imperialism. What’s the problem if it works? As
long as they can control their populations, fine. They can have
campaigns of hatred; our friendly dictators will keep them under
control. That’s the reaction not just of the diplomatic service in
the
State Department or of the media who reported this, but also of the
general intellectual community. There is no comment on this. In fact,
coverage of these polls is precisely zero in the United States,
literally. There’s a few comments in England, but very little. It
just
doesn’t matter what the population thinks, as long as they’re under
control.
Well, from these observations, you can conclude pretty quickly,
pretty easily, what policies are going to be. You can almost spell
them out. So in the case of an oil-rich country with a reliable,
obedient dictator, they’re given free rein. Saudi Arabia is the most
important. There were—it’s the most repressive, extremist, strongest
center of Islamic fundamentalism, missionaries who spread ultra-
radical Islamism from jihadis and so on. But they’re obedient,
they’re
reliable, so they can do what they like. There was a planned protest
in Saudi Arabia. The police presence was so overwhelming and
intimidating that literally nobody even was willing to show up in the
streets of Riyadh. But that was fine. The same in Kuwait. There was a
small demonstration, very quickly crushed, no comment.
Actually, the most interesting case in many respects is Bahrain.
Bahrain is quite important for two reasons. One reason, which has
been
reported, is that it’s the home port of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, major
military force in the region. Another more fundamental reason is that
Bahrain is about 70 percent Shiite, and it’s right across the
causeway
from eastern Saudi Arabia, which also is majority Shiite and happens
to be where most of Saudi oil is. Saudi Arabia, of course, is the
main
energy resource, has been since the '40s. By curious accident of
history and geography, the world's major energy resources are located
pretty much in Shiite regions. They’re a minority in the Middle East,
but they happen to be where the oil is, right around the northern
part
of the Gulf. That’s eastern Saudi Arabia, southern Iraq and
southwestern Iran. And there’s been a concern among planners for a
long time that there might be a move towards some sort of tacit
alliance in these Shiite regions moving towards independence and
controlling the bulk of the world’s oil. That’s obviously
intolerable.
So, going back to Bahrain, there was an uprising, tent city in
the
central square, like Tahrir Square. The Saudi-led military forces
invaded Bahrain, giving the security forces there the opportunity to
crush it violently, destroyed the tent city, even destroyed the
Pearl,
which is the symbol of Bahrain; invaded the major hospital complex,
threw out the patients and the doctors; been regularly, every day,
arresting human rights activists, torturing them, occasionally a sort
of a pat on the wrist, but nothing much. That’s very much the
Carothers principle. If actions correspond to our strategic and
economic objectives, that’s OK. We can have elegant rhetoric, but
what
matters is facts.
Well, that’s the oil-rich obedient dictators. What about Egypt,
most important country, but not a center of—major center of oil
production? Well, in Egypt and Tunisia and other countries of that
category, there is a game plan, which is employed routinely, so
commonly it takes virtual genius not to perceive it. But when you
have
a favored dictator—for those of you who might think of going into the
diplomatic service, you might as well learn it—when there’s a favored
dictator and he’s getting into trouble, support him as long as
possible, full support as long as possible. When it becomes
impossible
to support him—like, say, maybe the army turns against him, business
class turns against him—then send him off somewhere, issue ringing
declarations about your love of democracy, and then try to restore
the
old regime, maybe with new names. And that’s done over and over
again.
It doesn’t always work, but it’s always tried—Somoza, Nicaragua; Shah
in Iran; Marcos in the Philippines; Duvalier in Haiti; Chun in South
Korea; Mobutu in the Congo; Ceausescu is one of Western favorites in
Romania; Suharto in Indonesia. It’s completely routine. And that’s
exactly what’s going on in Egypt and Tunisia. OK, we support them
right to the end—Mubarak in Egypt, right to the end, keep supporting
him. Doesn’t work any longer, send him off to Sharm el-Sheikh, pull
out the rhetoric, try to restore the old regime. That’s, in fact,
what
the conflict is about right now. As Amy said, we don’t know where
it’s
going to turn now, but that’s what’s going on.
Well, there’s another category. The other category is an oil-rich
dictator who’s not reliable, who’s a loose cannon. That’s Libya. And
there, there’s a different policy: try to get a more reliable
dictator. And that’s exactly what’s happening. Of course, describe it
as a humanitarian intervention. That’s another near historical
universal. You check history, virtually every resort to force, by
whoever it is, is accompanied by the most noble rhetoric. It’s all
completely humanitarian. That includes Hitler taking over
Czechoslovakia, the Japanese fascists rampaging in northeast China.
In
fact, it’s Mussolini in Ethiopia. There’s hardly any exceptions. So
you produce that, and the media and commentators present—pretend they
don’t notice that it has no—carries no information, because it’s
reflexive.
And then—but in this case, they could also add something else,
which has been repeated over and over again, namely, the U.S. and its
allies were intervening in response to a request by the Arab League.
And, of course, we have to recognize the importance of that.
Incidentally, the response from the Arab League was tepid and was
pretty soon rescinded, because they didn’t like what we were doing.
But put that aside. At the very same time, the Arab League produced—
issued another request. Here’s a headline from a newspaper: "Arab
League Calls for Gaza No-Fly Zone." Actually, I’m quoting from the
London Financial Times. That wasn’t reported in the United States.
Well, to be precise, it was reported in the Washington Times, but
basically blocked in the U.S., like the polls, like the polls of Arab
public opinion, not the right kind of news. So, "Arab League Calls
for
Gaza No-Fly Zone," that’s inconsistent with U.S. policy, so that, we
don’t have to honor and observe, and that disappeared.
Now, there are some polls that are reported. So here’s one from
the New York Times a couple days ago. I’ll quote it. It said, "The
poll found that a majority of Egyptians want to annul the 1979 peace
treaty with Israel that has been a cornerstone of Egyptian foreign
policy and the region’s stability." Actually, that’s not quite
accurate. It’s been a cornerstone of the region’s instability, and
that’s exactly why the Egyptian population wants to abandon it. The
agreement essentially eliminated Egypt from the Israel-Arab conflict.
That means eliminated the only deterrent to Israeli military action.
And it freed up Israel to expand its operations—illegal operations—in
the Occupied Territories and to attack its northern neighbor, to
attack Lebanon. Shortly after, Israel attacked Lebanon, killed 20,000
people, destroyed southern Lebanon, tried to impose a client regime,
didn’t quite make it. And that was understood. So the immediate
reaction to the peace treaty in Israel was that there are things
about
it we don’t like—we’re going to have to abandon our settlements in
the
Sinai, in the Egyptian Sinai. But it has a good side, too, because
now
the only deterrent is gone; we can use force and violence to achieve
our other goals. And that’s exactly what happened. And that’s exactly
why the Egyptian population is opposed to it. They understand that,
as
does everyone in the region.
On the other hand, the Times wasn’t lying when they said that it
led to the region’s stability. And the reason is because of the
meaning of the word "stability" as a technical meaning. Stability is—
it’s kind of like democracy. Stability means conformity to our
interests. So, for example, when Iran tries to expand its influence
in
Afghanistan and Iraq, neighboring countries, that’s called
"destabilizing." It’s part of the threat of Iran. It’s destabilizing
the region. On the other hand, when the U.S. invades those countries,
occupies them, half destroys them, that’s to achieve stability. And
that is very common, even to the point where it’s possible to write—
former editor of Foreign Affairs—that when the U.S. overthrew the
democratic government in Chile and instituted a vicious dictatorship,
that was because the U.S. had to destabilize Chile to achieve
stability. That’s in one sentence, and nobody noticed it, because
that’s correct, if you understand the meaning of the word
"stability."
Yeah, you overthrow a parliamentary government, you install a
dictatorship, you invade a country and kill 20,000 people, you invade
Iraq and kill hundreds of thousands of people—that’s all bringing
about stability. Instability is when anyone gets in the way.
AMY GOODMAN: World-renowned political dissident and linguist, Noam
Chomsky, speaking at the 25th anniversary of Fairness and Accuracy in
Reporting.
Source:
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/5/11/noam_chomsky_the_us_and_its
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
There is a good number of very thoughtful and informative Progressive
news programs here
that are nice to sit back and watch:
http://rt.com/on-air/rt-america-air/
//////////////////////////////
Please note that this post has been crossposted to multiple
newsgroups.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
It will be helpful for many more of us to see that the USA's military
industrial
complex is a huge scam, steeped in deception, lawlessness, and the
merciless slaughter of countless human beings. It helps insanely
greedy billionaires get more billions, while pissing on the poor,
both
foreign and domestic. They work to avoid peace on earth because it
would shut down their massive porkbarrels that prevent world peace
and cost Americans around one trillion dollars per year. They are so
f'd up that they can not get enough billions and they are not bothered
by the blood that their money is soaked in.
The truth will eventually set us free (from them too).
--------------------------------
Here is a great example. See USA war crimes for your self:
http://collateralmurder.com/
The killers are still free. The heroic, ethical young American
soldier who is suspected of sharing the videos with wikileaks has been
locked up in prison under tortuous conditions. According to
international law,covering up war crimes is a war crime. Both Bush and
Obama should be prosecuted for war crimes.