Re: Chossudovsky: Welcome to World War III

2002-06-08

Richard Moore

Website: http://cyberjournal.org
Bcc: contributors

============================================================================
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 16:27:44 -0400
To: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••>
From: Michel Chossudovsky
Subject: Re: Chossudovsky: Welcome to World War III

    rkm > Our featured article is by an author I hold in the
    highest respect, Michel Chossudovsky.  Perhaps a few
    comments at the end...

thanks for your kind words, your writings and analysis and
web page are much appreciated,

with kind regards,

Michel

============

Dear Michel,

I'm honored to hear from you, and more so that you're
familiar with my work.  Your "Globalization of Poverty"
opened my eyes about many things.  But my highest praise
goes for your ongoing work in debunking media reality as
fast as it gets invented.  Your articles on Yugoslavia, on
911, and many others, have been important and timely sources
of information and perspective for many of us.

all the best,
rkm
wexford, ireland

============================================================================
From: "Nicola Furey" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: Chossudovsky: Welcome to World War III
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 16:42:06 +0200

Dear Richard,

Thank you for the continuing information.

In our local Geneva Sunday newspaper  was a short quote of
Professor Jean Ziegler, a controversial and brilliant Geneva
figure who taught at the university and now will be the U.N.
(Sunday May 2002)

........GEORGE W. BUSH

  ¨¨C'est l'incarnation de la pire arrogance impériale.   Tout
  ce qu'il y a de pire dans un très grand et admirable pays
  que sont les Etats-Unis:  la bigoterie baptiste du Sud; la
  violence texane, comme le montre la condamnation à mort de
  centaines de jeunes gens, en général noirs, sur des indices
  tout à fit douteux; l'ignorance totale du monde et la
  stupide brutalité du militaire.  Et, en plus, une légitimité
  électorale incertaine.`

  (The incarnation of the worst imperial arrogance.   All
  there is of the worst in a large and admirable country such
  as the United States:  the baptist bigotry of the South; 
  the Texan violence, as shown in the condemning to death of
  hundreds of young people, generally black, on totally
  doubtful indications, the total ignorance of the world and
  the stupid brutality of the military. And, as well, an
  uncertain electoral legitimacy) (Translation)

For those of us who lived, admired and have never forgotten
the shock of Kennedy, these times are extremely painful.

============

Dear Nicola,

Thanks for the translation.  One wonders why they chose Bush
for the job.  He's proof that anyone could do it, so they
had plenty of other choices.  As long as you can read cue
cards more than 50% of the time, you qualify.  I suspect the
reason is that with him acting as the national figurehead,
unpredictability becomes the general expectation.  Elite
policy makers can follow whatever course they consider
necessary, and Bush-the-image will serve as the convenient 
lightning rod for all the 'collateral damage'.

cheers,
rkm

============================================================================
Delivered-To: moderator for •••@••.•••
From: "Peter Murphy" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: RE: Chossudovsky: Welcome to World War III
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 19:22:18 +1000

Richard,

When an article states the following:

> General Pervez Musharraf is a US puppet.

I'm inclined to believe it is nonsense. C'mon, even Blind
Freddy would be aware of the links between the ISI and the
CIA - but you naturally assume that the CIA is controlling
the ISI. As if. (Ironic chuckle.)

No, General Musharraf and the ISI are fools, but they are
fools of their own making. They're happy to take funding
from the United States, but does that make them take orders?
Bollocks. Remember how the Taliban was harboring old Osama
after those bombings in Kenya, and how the United States
wanted Osama for justice? That's would have been the time
for the United States to use its supernatural powers of
puppetry over the ISI - because the ISI were one of the
major supporters of the Taliban. It wasn't very effective,
was it?

And if the United States was so powerful, why didn't they
have any of their own agents on the ground in Afghanistan?
Well, because the CIA has turned into several fiefdoms of
bureaucrats more concerned about their comfortable houses in
the Virginia countryside and fights with rival directorates
in the Company. And if you sent them as a field agent to the
dirt and poverty of rural Afghanistan, most would squeal
with horror... But that's where the ISI were so "convenient"
- they would have their own "cadre" of agents speaking
fluent Pashto and directing the intelligence to the US. It
was convenient, of course - the paper-shufflers at Langley
wouldn't have to dirty their hands with blood, or face the
indignity of catching cholera.

And how useful was this intelligence? Well, let's look at
the current revelations about how much the United States
knew about September the eleventh in advance. A lot, as it
seems. But notice where this intelligence came from?
Suspicious FBI agents in the field. European police
agencies. But how much came via the ISI - the ones who
should be keeping tabs on the Taliban? Bloody little. If the
ISI knew about it (and I suspect a lot of them do), they
were keeping the information to themselves.

Let's get this straight. The United States did not use
Pakistan - Pakistan used the United States. Clear now?

That's the problem with Chossudovsky's article. It is easy
enough to prove collusion between the US and Pakistan.
Unfortunately for him, he has to prove control - that the
United States are actually controlling Pakistan from behind
the scenes. And none of the information in the article
actually does this. I think it's his implicit assumption
that collusion and control are the same thing when the
United States are involved; however, that doesn't convince
me. He shows that funding is going from the US to Kashmiri
militants, but funding doesn't mean control, does it? After
all, Osama also took money from the US once upon a time, and
look what he did with it. :-(

(Of course you could fall back to the position that Osama is
also the US's puppet - but that's even more dubious to me. )

Richard: you - and too many other members of the American
Left - share a delusion with the nutters at the Weekly
Standard and other American conservatives: the world
revolves around America. Of course, you are mirror images of
each other: the conservatives and neo-conservatives think
that the United States is a "beacon for decency", while you
seem to think it's the source of all Evil and Darkness.
Presumptuous as I sound, perhaps you may consider - perhaps
you may venture - perhaps you could even dream that bad
things DO happen without Uncle Sam's say-so, and Pakistan is
one of these instances.

Unfortunately, that seems hard for you. In your mind, the
Universe really does revolve around the United States - the
original Axis of Evil incarnate - all knowing and all
controlling. I don't know how you live with such national
self-hatred.

Consolatory,
Peter.

=============

Dear Peter,

I find your response intriguing.  You seem to be
knowledgeable about Pakistan, the ISI, etc... and I wonder
what your background might be.  In what circles can one
assume that "even Blind Freddy would be aware of the links
between the ISI and the CIA"?

This business of who is controlling who, who is manipulating
who, as regards the CIA vs. ISI (or Taliban, or whomever),
depends on what level of the game you are looking at.  As
even blind Freddy knows, the CIA created the Afghan-based
Islamic Jihad phenomenon.  Those groups used the CIA to
become what they are, and the CIA used them to destabilize
the Soviet Union.  Clearly each side gets something out of
such transactions, and each tries to maximize its relative
gain.

You emphasize the issue of 'control', and I think that's a
red herring.  The CIA unleashes a Jihad movement; it fights
fiercely and accomplishes the intended objectives vis a vis
the Soviets.   In the process, the CIA may or may not have
much control over how things are done on the ground.  And
that may or may not be important.  Even our Freddy knows
that Washington doesn't care a rats ass about the population
of Afghanistan, and so in that case I doubt if there was
much concern about micro-management.

If the objective is to stir up trouble, then detailed
control can often be a total side issue.  In that sense,
your elaborate critique of Chossudovsky is a bit like a
well-kicked soccer ball that unfortunately bounces off the
wrong side of the net.

---

This statement is rather revealing:
    > And if the United States was so powerful, why didn't they
    have any of their own agents on the ground in Afghanistan?
    Well, because the CIA has turned into several fiefdoms of
    bureaucrats...

This is fairy tale stuff.  This is the image of the CIA
you'd get from thriller cinema, or the New York Times, or
any other mainstream propaganda channel.  What makes you
think they had no agents on the ground in Afghanistan? 
Because one of their PR people said so in a newspaper
interview?  What do you know about how the CIA operates
internally, what its actual missions are, or how effective
it is in achieving them?  From what you say, I don't think
you have much of a clue.


The world revolves around America to the extent it does. 
Even blind Freddy would acknowledge that extent to be
non-trivial.  And post-911, that extent has clearly
expanded.  I have no reason to exaggerate US centrality, but
one cannot avoid noticing US involvement, to one degree or
another, in nearly everything going on in the world that is
of political or economic significance.  That's just fact.

"...source of all Evil and Darkness", "National
self-hatred"...  Why such hyperbole?  I see the US, as a
nation, as victim rather than perpetrator....

    Television, the drug of the nation, 
    breeding ignorance and spreading radiation.  
    Television, the drug of the nation...
      (Disposable Heroes).

A member of the American Left?  Give me a break.  The Left
and its mentality are some of the main things that have
gotten us into the mess we're in.  Always thinking they can
legislate a good society, and never noticing that the
resulting 'reforms' always make things worse.  Their basic
sin is not understanding power, confusing it with political
institutions and rhetoric.  They overlook the camels being
smuggled every time their liberal sentiments are aroused
to support this or that cause.

Thank you for sharing,
rkm

============================================================================

Share:

fuck google fuck google fuck google fuck google