Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Il terribile, terribile Saddam Hussein

Noam Chomsky intervistato sull'Iraq da Michael Albert
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2002-09/05chomsky.cfm
Various questions are circulating among people worried about war. On Sept 1,
2002, Michael Albert put a dozen of these to Noam Chomsky, via email. Here
are the first three questions and his responses...the whole interview will
appear in the October issue of Z Magazine.
1. Has Saddam Hussein been as evil as mainstream media says? Domestically?
Internationally?
He is as evil as they come, ranking with Suharto and other monsters of the
modern era. No one would want to be within his reach. But fortunately, his
reach does not extend very far.
Internationally, Saddam invaded Iran (with Western support), and when that
war was going badly turned to chemical weapons (also with Western support).
He invaded Kuwait and was quickly driven out.
A major concern in Washington right after the invasion was that Saddam would
quickly withdraw, putting "his puppet in [and] everyone in the Arab world
will be happy" (Colin Powell, then Chief of Staff). President Bush was
concerned that Saudi Arabia might "bug out at the last minute and accept a
puppet regime in Kuwait" unless the US prevented Iraqi withdrawal.
The concern, in brief, was that Saddam would pretty much duplicate what the
US had just done in Panama (except that Latin Americans were anything but
happy). From the first moment the US sought to avert this "nightmare
scenario." A story that should be looked at with some care.
Saddam's worst crimes, by far, have been domestic, including the use of
chemical weapons against Kurds and a huge slaughter of Kurds in the late
80s, barbaric torture, and every other ugly crime you can imagine. These are
at the top of the list of terrible crimes for which he is now condemned,
rightly. It's useful to ask how frequently the impassioned denunciations and
eloquent expressions of outrage are accompanied by three little words: "with
our help."
The crimes were well known at once, but of no particular concern to the
West. Saddam received some mild reprimands; harsh congressional condemnation
was considered too extreme by prominent commentators. The Reaganites and
Bush #1 continued to welcome the monster as an ally and valued trading
partner right through his worst atrocities and well beyond.
Bush authorized loan guarantees and sale of advanced technology with clear
applications for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) right up to the day of
the Kuwait invasion, sometimes overriding congressional efforts to prevent
what he was doing. Britain was still authorizing export of military
equipment and radioactive materials a few days after the invasion.
When ABC correspondent and now ZNet Commentator Charles Glass discovered
biological weapons facilities (using commercial satellites and defector
testimony), his revelations were immediately denied by the Pentagon and the
story disappeared. It was resurrected when Saddam committed his first real
crime, disobeying US orders (or perhaps misinterpreting them) by invading
Kuwait, and switched instantly from friend to reincarnation of Attila the
Hun.
The same facilities were then used to demonstrate his innately evil nature.
When Bush #1 announced new gifts to his friend in December 1989 (also gifts
to US agribusiness and industry), it was considered too insignificant even
to report, though one could read about it in Z magazine at the time, maybe
nowhere else.
A few months later, shortly before he invaded Kuwait, a high-level Senate
delegation, headed by (later) Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole,
visited Saddam, conveying the President's greetings and assuring the brutal
mass murderer that he should disregard the criticism he hears from maverick
reporters here.
Saddam had even been able to get away with attacking a US naval vessel, the
USS Stark, killing several dozen crewmen. That is a mark of real esteem. The
only other country to have been granted that privilege was Israel, in 1967.
In deference to Saddam, the State Department banned all contacts with the
Iraqi democratic opposition, maintaining this policy even after the Gulf
war, while Washington effectively authorized Saddam to crush a Shi'ite
rebellion that might well have overthrown him -- in the interest of
preserving "stability," the press explained, nodding sagely.
That he's a major criminal is not in doubt. That's not changed by the fact
that the US and Britain regarded his major atrocities as insignificant in
the light of higher "reasons of state," before the Gulf war and even
after -- facts best forgotten.
2. Looking into the future, is Saddam Hussein as dangerous as mainstream
media says?
The world would be better off if he weren't there, no doubt about that.
Surely Iraqis would. But he can't be anywhere near as dangerous as he was
when the US and Britain were supporting him, even providing him with
dual-use technology that he could use for nuclear and chemical weapons
development, as he presumably did.
10 years ago the Senate Banking Committee hearings revealed that the Bush
administration was granting licences for dual use technology and "materials
which were later utilized by the Iraq regime for nuclear missile and
chemical purposes." Later hearings added more, and there are press reports
and a mainstream scholarly literature on the topic (as well as dissident
literature).
The 1991 war was extremely destructive, and since then Iraq has been
devastated by a decade of sanctions, which probably strengthened Saddam
himself (by weakening possible resistance in a shattered society), but
surely reduced very significantly his capacity for war-making or support for
terror.
Furthermore, since 1991 his regime has been constrained by "no fly zones,"
regular overflights and bombing, and very tight surveillance. Chances are
that the events of Sept. 11 weakened him still further. If there are any
links between Saddam and al-Qaeda, they would be far more difficult to
maintain now because of the sharply intensified surveillance and controls.
That aside, links are not very likely. Despite enormous efforts to tie
Saddam to the 9-11 attacks, nothing has been found, which is not too
surprising. Saddam and bin Laden were bitter enemies, and there's no
particular reason to suppose that there have been any changes in that
regard.
The rational conclusion is that Saddam is probably less of a danger now than
before 9-11, and far less of a threat than when he was enjoying substantial
support from the US-UK (and many others). That raises a few questions. If
Saddam is such a threat to the survival of civilization today that the
global enforcer has to resort to war, why wasn't that true a year ago? And
much more dramatically, in early 1990?
3. How should the problem of the existence and use of weapons of mass
destruction in the world today be dealt with?
They should be eliminated. The non-proliferation treaty commits countries
with nuclear weapons to take steps towards eliminating them. The biological
and chemical weapons treaties have the same goals. The main Security Council
resolution concerning Iraq (687, 1991) calls for eliminating weapons of mass
destruction and delivery systems from the Middle East, and working towards a
global ban on chemical weapons. Good advice.
Iraq is nowhere near the lead in this regard. We might recall the warning of
General Lee Butler, head of Clinton's Strategic Command in the early 90s,
that "it is dangerous in the extreme that in the cauldron of animosities
that we call the Middle East, one nation has armed itself, ostensibly, with
stockpiles of nuclear weapons, perhaps numbering in the hundreds, and that
inspires other nations to do so."
He's talking about Israel of course. The Israeli military authorities claim
to have air and armored forces that are larger and more advanced than those
of any European NATO power (Yitzhak ben Israel, Ha'aretz, 4-16-02, Hebrew).
They also announce that 12% of their bombers and fighter aircraft are
permanently stationed in Eastern Turkey, along with comparable naval and
submarine forces in Turkish bases, and armored forces as well, in case it
becomes necessary to resort to extreme violence once again to subdue
Turkey's Kurdish population, as in the Clinton years.
Israeli aircraft based in Turkey are reported to be flying reconnaisance
flights along Iran's borders, part of a general US-Israel-Turkey policy of
threatening Iran with attack and perhaps forceful partitioning. Israeli
analysts also report that joint US-Israel-Turkey air exercises are intended
as a threat and warning to Iran. And of course to Iraq (Robert Olson, Middle
East Policy, June 2002). Israel is doubtless using the huge US air bases in
Eastern Turkey, where the US bombers are presumably nuclear-armed. By now
Israel is virtually an offshore US military base.
And the rest of the area is armed to the teeth as well. If Iraq were
governed by Gandhi, it would be developing weapons systems if it could,
probably well beyond what it can today. That would very likely continue,
perhaps even accelerate, if the US takes control of Iraq. India and Pakistan
are US allies, but are marching forward with the development of WMD and
repeatedly have come agonizingly close to using nuclear weapons. The same is
true of other US allies and clients.
That is likely to continue unless there is a general reduction of armaments
in the area.
Would Saddam agree to that? Actually, we don't know. In early January 1991,
Iraq apparently offered to withdraw from Kuwait in the context of regional
negotiations on reduction of armaments, an offer that State Department
officials described as serious and negotiable. But we know no more about it,
because the US rejected it without response and the press reported virtually
nothing.
It is, however, of some interest that at that time -- right before the
bombing -- polls revealed that by 2-1 the US public supported the proposal
that Saddam had apparently made, preferring it to bombing. Had people been
allowed to know any of this, the majority would surely have been far
greater. Suppressing the facts was an important service to the cause of
state violence.
Could such negotiations have gotten anywhere? Only fanatical ideologues can
be confident. Could such ideas be revived? Same answer. One way to find out
is to try.

of chemical weapons against Kurds
E contro l'Iran invece no ;) :))
*ROTFL*
E gli SCUD contro Israele nemmeno :))
*ROTFL*
Bah... Con una persona cosi' acculturata come Chomsky non c'e' proprio
discorso :))
-Stefano

 Internationally, Saddam invaded Iran (with Western support)
Il Dr Chomsky dimentica di dire che l'esercito irakeno, specialmente al
momento dell'attacco all'Iran, era pressoche' totalmente equipaggiato
con armi sovietiche, addestrato alla sovietica e, quando ci riusciva,
impiegava dottrine di derivazione sovietica. Cosi' come, a parte le
eccezioni di cui sotto,  l'aviazione. Per non parlaare
dell'equipaggiamento missilistico.
L'appoggio occidentale, certo, c'e' stato. In massima parte europeo dato
che i CB Super Etentard ed il relativo armamento erano francesi,
franco-tedeschi i sistemi SAM Roland, tedesche buona parte delle
tecnologie utilizzate per lo sviluppo di armi chimiche e per la
costruzione di bunker ed installazioni. Gli USA, a quanto se ne sa,
hanno fornito perlopiu' appoggio finanziario e di intelligence.
Ciao
Ale
--
*La sconfitta reclama ad alta voce perche' esige spiegazioni; mentre la
vittoria, come la carita', nasconde un gran numero di peccati*
Alfred T. Mahan

 hanno fornito perlopiu' appoggio finanziario e di intelligence.
-------------
Bush authorized loan guarantees and sale of advanced technology with
clear
applications for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) right up to the day
of
the Kuwait invasion, sometimes overriding congressional efforts to
prevent
what he was doing. Britain was still authorizing export of military
equipment and radioactive materials a few days after the invasion.
....
10 years ago the Senate Banking Committee hearings revealed that the
Bush
administration was granting licences for dual use technology and
"materials
which were later utilized by the Iraq regime for nuclear missile and
chemical purposes." Later hearings added more, and there are press
reports
and a mainstream scholarly literature on the topic (as well as
dissident
literature).
----------------
Non male per un membro dell'asse del male.
GT

 Non male per un membro dell'asse del male.
Che Saddam, prima del '91, facesse comodo a tutti non e' un segreto.
Mica l'ho negato.


 hanno fornito perlopiu' appoggio finanziario e di intelligence.
Come in Afghanista, più o meno. Ma non è che Chomsky "si dimentica" o
omette, è solo che da americano la sua critica è al governo USA
principalmente, dopotutto, non si può mica mettere sullo stesso piano
gli USA e l'Unione Sovietica, sarebbe ancora più una smentita di ogni
pretesa di superiore legittimità e moralità degli interventi USA, ti
pare? Lo sanno tutti che tanti eserciti in zona medio oriente sono
stati riforniti anche con l'equipaggiamento sovietico, mica lo nega o
cerca di far credere che l'Iraq era una colonia americana! Il punto è
l'appoggio dell'America, e tra finanziario e intelligence, dici poco
eh?
Se leggi qui da un suo discorso (non articolo, ma trascrizione -
quindi l'analisi è molto meno completa e molto discorsiva, incentrata
sulla politica USA sul Medio Oriente) trovi il succo della "critica" -
ossia il "giochino" strategico degli USA e Gran Bretagna  - e ovvi
riferimenti agli altri interessi tuttora presenti nei confronti
dell'Iraq, e pure l'ovvio riconoscimento che è verissimo Saddam HA
armi di distruzione di massa:
http://www.zmag.org/content/Mideast/chomskymecatalk.cfm
" Bush and Blair have recently, just a couple of days ago, have
repeated the standard line, of Clinton and others, that we've got to
get rid of Saddam Hussein.  He's such a criminal that he has even used
chemical weapons against his own people.  You heard that in Bush's
presidential news conference a couple of days ago.  And that's
perfectly true, he did use chemical weapons against his own people, an
ultimate crime.  All that's missing is that he did it with the full
approval of Daddy Bush, who continued to support him right through
that period and beyond, as did Britain.  They thought it was just fine
for him to use gas against his own people, to develop weapons of mass
destruction, which he was doing with the support of the United States
and Britain, which continued, irrespective of his atrocities, because
he was useful at that time."
"  I mean, it's true that he's a monster.  He was much more of a
monster then.  It's probably true that he's developing weapons of mass
destruction.  Then, he was certainly doing it with our support, and he
was far more dangerous, way more powerful and much more dangerous. 
He's a threat to anybody within his reach, but the reach is smaller
now. He's evil, all right, but his crimes can't possibly be the reason
for the planned attack."
"Russia have the inside track now, and that's not tolerable.  Maybe
close behind them is Dick Cheney, according to what I understand, who
seems to be getting Iraqi oil into the country, but I don't know about
that.
Anyway, France and Russia can't have privileged access. "
"The United States and Russia, those two countries, destroyed
Afghanistan.  In the last 20 years the two countries have destroyed
Afghanistan. "
Nelle analisi approfondite in articoli o libri, ha sicuramente
aggiunto parecchi altri dettagli sul ruolo dell'ex-unione sovietica.
Ma il suo fulcro rimane la critica al SUO governo, prima che agli
altri:
"Therefore, it follows that our criticisms should be directed
primarily to ourselves.  Indignation about the crimes of others is
easy and cheap and not particularly attractive, sometimes even
shameful.  Looking in the mirror is far more important, much more
difficult. "
Non vuol dire omettere o falsificare - ma pretendere, in quanto
americano, che il suo governo renda conto delle sue azioni alla sua
gente prima di tutto, e si comporti al livello di superiorità
democratica ed etica che ha usato come legittimazione delle sue azioni
rispetto a quelle inerentemente "maligne" degli allora nemici e oggi
alleati russi...
Non è proprio il caso di attribuire a un critico ebreo-americano della
politica americana certe simpatie filo-russe di certi nostri
connazionali dei bei tempi che furono ;) ... far passare Chomsky per
filosovietico o incline a omissis sul ruolo e i crimini di potenze
ALTRE che gli USA mi pare davvero forzato. (Non dico che fosse tua
intenzione, ma sicuramente c'è chi gli trova da fare questa critica in
mala fede).

i crimini di potenze ALTRE che gli USA mi pare davvero forzato.
Mica poi cosi' vero.  Gia' dimentica di dimostrare tutte le accuse che
lancia nelle sue favolette :))
-Stefano

Ma tu quale versione di emulatore mi consiglieresti? Ne sto cercando una che
oltre le risposte mi faccia anche domande, in modo da rendere più divertente
l'interazione....
http://www.geocities.com/bynoi/sdcemul.htm
...altro che Ronaldo....il fenomeno ce l'abbiamo solo noi!
--------------------------------
Inviato via 
http://usenet.libero.it

 ALTRE che gli USA mi pare davvero forzato. 
Non ho mica detto che Chomsky sia filosovietico, specialmente perche'
l'URSS non esiste piu' :-)


 armato in tutto e per tutto dagli USA.
chi spingeva (in vari modi) l'IRAK ad attaccare l'IRAN?


 chi spingeva (in vari modi) l'IRAK ad attaccare l'IRAN?
Chiedilo a loro :)
-Stefano