[Peace-discuss] Some sense on Sunday morning

[LAURIE]

I guess that this raises the question of whether or not such a rational
discussion can be considered rational in an irrational world where
irrational actions, discussions, claims, and accusations hold sway. It makes
one think that they are living in the theater of the absurd to have little
islands of rational and reasonable discussion and analysis in an otherwise
absurd environment.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net [mailto:peace-discuss-
> bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C. G. Estabrook
> Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 11:43 AM
> To: Peace-discuss
> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Some sense on Sunday morning
> 
> [Press TV is an English-language international television news channel
> funded by
> the Iranian government, based in Tehran and broadcasting in English on
> a
> round-the-clock schedule <http://www.presstv.ir/>. --CGE]
> 
> 	Brazen imperialism in the Middle East
> 	Sat, 14 Jun 2008 22:05:51
> 
> The following is Press TV's exclusive full-length interview with
> American
> linguist, philosopher, political activist, author and MIT professor
> Avram Noam
> Chomsky:
> 
> Press TV: How do you characterize this so-called security treaty
> between
> Washington and Baghdad?
> 
> Chomsky: The security arrangement was in fact declared last November.
> There was
> a declaration from the White House, presumably a Bush-Maliki
> declaration, but
> had nothing to do with the Congress or Parliament or any other official
> institution. It called for an indefinite long-term US military presence
> in Iraq
> and that could include the huge air bases that are now being built
> around Iraq.
> The US is building what's called an embassy but it's unlike any embassy
> in the
> world. Its essentially a city inside a city. These are all declared
> intentions
> to retain a permanent dominant presence in Iraq.
> 
> The declaration also, a little to my surprise, had a rather brazen
> statement
> about exploiting the resources of Iraq. It said that the economy of
> Iraq, which
> means its oil resources, must be open to foreign investment,
> privileging
> American investors. That's pretty brazen. Now that's brazen imperialism
> saying
> we invaded you so that we can control your country; and so that our
> corporations
> can have privileged access to your resources.
> 
> It was not at all clear that any Iraqi was ever going to accept this
> and in the
> steps that had followed as there was an attempt to sort of formulate
> it, more
> precisely, there have been predictably increasing objections.
> 
> Different formulations and so on but without going through the details
> leading
> to prime minister al-Maliki's recent comment that you quoted.
> 
> Press TV: Do you think Nouri al-Maliki will eventually succumb? I mean
> previous
> occupants of that position, well, they have come and gone. Haven't
> they?
> 
> Chomsky: I mean look the country is under military occupation. It is
> not a free
> country, so there is a limit on how much any individual can do when
> your country
> is under military occupation.
> 
> The Wall Street Journal, which is not exactly a radical newspaper,
> states that
> the Maliki government survives only on the basis of US arms. That's an
> exaggeration but not an inconceivable perception, so he might not
> survive if he
> doesn't accept it.
> 
> Press TV: Professor Chomsky, of course, one country that is being
> blamed by
> Washington is Iran and what's on a lot of minds in the Middle East is
> this
> drumbeat of war as it were. Do you think the United States wants
> military action
> and will there be military action against Iran? And how do you
> characterize the
> IAEA's nuclear negotiation process?
> 
> Chomsky: It is interesting, the way everything is blamed on Iran. And
> that's a
> rather striking reflection of how deep-seated the imperial mentality is
> in the
> West, so for example when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is asked
> by the
> press: is there a solution to the problem in Iraq, and she says yes a
> simple
> solution - foreign forces should be withdrawn and foreign arms should
> be
> withdrawn, referring of course to Iran -, people don't laugh and
> collapse in
> ridicule.
> 
> I mean, of course, there are foreign forces and foreign arms in Iraq,
> but not
> Iranian. They are American, but those are not considered foreign
> forces.
> 
> In the Western conception, US and, indeed, much of the West, if our
> forces are
> anywhere, they are indigenous. They are not foreign because
> fundamentally there
> is a tacit assumption that we own the world, so our forces are not
> foreign -
> they are indigenous.
> 
> We talk about Iranian interference: it's like talking about Allied
> interference
> in Nazi occupied Vichy France; it doesn't make any sense, but the
> mentality
> accepts it.
> 
> Now as far as the IAEA is concerned, the United States handed over to
> the
> international agency a collection of documents recently and the agency
> says they
> have not received adequate explanation about them from Iran. OK that's
> where
> things now stand.
> 
> I have my own opinion about what ought to be done and, in fact, it
> happens to be
> the same as the opinion of the overwhelming majority of Americans and
> also the
> overwhelming majority of Iranians, according to the polls in the two
> countries,
> namely that the right solution to this problem is to declare a nuclear
> weapons
> free zone in the entire region which would include Iran, Israel and
> American
> forces deployed there and so on. About three quarter of Americans are
> in favor
> of that, and I think that's the right idea!
> 
> Press TV: Professor Chomsky, that's obviously not going to happen...
> 
> Chomsky: Who says? It won't happen on the assumption that the United
> States is a
> completely undemocratic country in which public opinion can't influence
> policy.
> I don't think that's a necessary assumption.
> 
> Press TV: We're hearing things from Israel. There were remarks about
> some 'Iran
> Command' being set up. Of course, we had Seymour Hersh in the United
> States
> saying that there was going to be an attack on Iran, obviously...
> 
> Chomsky: So will it happen you mean. Nobody knows whether it will
> happen. I mean
> it's conceivable. I mean the whole world is aghast at the possibility.
> One
> leading British military historian, Corelli Barnett, said it'll mean
> world war
> III. It will have very serious consequences, undoubtedly, not to speak
> of what
> would happen to Iran, but it's conceivable that they would be willing
> to take a
> kind of a wild gamble and just see what happens.
> 
> Remember that everything the Bush administration has done, almost
> without
> exception, has turned into a catastrophe for the interest that they
> represent.
> And it's possible that they might decide to go out in some blaze of
> glory just
> to see what happens. Hit the system with a sledgehammer and see what
> happens. I
> frankly doubt it. I think that as far as anyone can tell, the US
> military is
> opposed and US intelligence seems to be opposed and surely the world is
> opposed.
> On whether they will accept those pressures or not, you can't really
> tell.
> People like Dick Cheney are unpredictable.
> 
> Press TV: Professor Chomsky, if people in your own country are opposed
> to the
> Iraq war, Afghanistan seems to be a sort of good war. There was
> recently a
> donors' conference in Paris. How do you see the situation in
> Afghanistan moving
> on with more money from multinational companies, more so-called donors
> and yet
> the security situation seems to be deteriorating.
> 
> Chomsky: Well this is a long topic, and I think we ought to talk about
> it
> another time, but, very briefly, what matters in this case is the
> opinion of
> Afghans. And though we don't have very good evidence about that, we
> have some.
> So, for example, this is a recent study, a very interesting study, a
> Canadian
> study of Taliban fighters... You know, it seems what they want is to
> get foreign
> forces out of the country in which case they can accommodate to the
> rest.
> 
> The general opinion in Afghanistan seems to be somewhat similar. They
> want
> accommodation with the Taliban not war and the majority think it's
> possible. If
> foreign involvement was reconstruction, that would be accepted
> undoubtedly, and
> it should be in my opinion not aid but reparations.
> 
> Russia, the United States, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have torn this
> country to
> shreds and they owe reparations for what happened, and then maybe the
> people can
> accommodate among themselves. That's what diplomacy ought to be pushing
> for.
> 
> C Press TV 2007. All Rights Reserved.
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss