Milutin writes:
> Martin wrote, in part:
> >I don't think it is off to a fine start, but it does look like the
> >military objective of neutralizing the Serb military might succeed to
> >a high enough degree to then be able to send in a NATO ground force
> >that can maintain a stable situation in which a political settlement
> >can be reached.
>
> Your comments were so off the wall, I don't have the time to respond.
> here is some quotes instead...
>
> "...it is possible for an American president to stand up and proclaim that
> concern for human rights is 'the Soul of our foreign policy,' and to be
> listened to with respect-even critics limit themselves to noting
> contradictions,' inconsistencies,' and deviations,' thus reinforcing the
> basic principle of the propaganda system, that the Untied States is
> committed to a program of freedom and human rights (as is the West in
> general), one of the great lies of modern history, and one of the most
> effective." -- Noam Chomsky
I agree with Chomsky. But, talk about "off the wall", what does
Chomsky's statement have to do with mine? Nothing. The bombing has
nothing directly to do with concern for human rights, regardless of
all the rhetoric about freedom and human rights. The goal of the
bombing is purely military, to break down the Serb military, to ensure
NATO air superiority, to enable NATO and/or UN ground forces to go
into Kosovo to maintain a situation in which a political settlement
can be reached.
Why do you keep focusing on Clinton's rehetoric about human rights and
freedom, when Chomsky has so clearly demonstrated that it is for the
purpose of manufacturing consent?
> "I have the greatest admiration for your propaganda. Propaganda in the West
> is carried out by experts who have had the best training in the world -- in
> the field of advertizing -- and have mastered the techniques with
> exceptional proficiency ... Yours are subtle and persuasive; ours are crude
> and obvious ... I think that the fundamental difference between our worlds,
> with respect to propaganda, is quite simple. You tend to believe yours ...
> and we tend to disbelieve ours." -- a Soviet correspondent based five
> years in the U.S.
I agree again, and, again, this statement has nothing to do with
mine. Which makes your use of it "off the wall".
> To finish it off, here is the media-bashing man at his best....
>
> "When the mass media in some foreign countries serve as megaphones
> for the rhetoric of their government, the result is ludicrous
> propaganda. When the mass media in our country serve as megaphones
> for the rhetoric of the U.S. government, the result is responsible
> journalism." -- Norman Solomon
Off the wall again. I agree with Solomon. Chomsky has said the same
thing on more than one occassion. It has nothing to do with what I
said. Your avoiding the issue is brilliant, but doesn't it come under
the heading disinformation?
> I don't really feel like getting into a debate with you, but this
> email is really for the people who wasted their time reading your
> comments.
What debate? You have printed three quotes which I agree with 100%.
How do they relate to what I said? They don't. I think you are
illustrating the point I made in the first message I sent. There is
something else going on besides legitimate criticism of the NATO
action. It is as if any use of propaganda to convince anybody of
the need for any action automatically disqualifies that action.
> Media and Military apologetics bother me a lot.
Who is apologizing? Not I. I stated quite clearly that I am not
convinced that the NATO action is the right thing to do. I am also
not convinced it is not the right thing to do, given the current
situation. But I don't think NATO needs to apologize for doing what
NATO was set up to do. And so the apologetics bother me a lot too.
martin
Martin Smith Email: [log in to unmask]
P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet Tel. : +47 330 35700
N-3194 HORTEN, Norway Fax. : +47 330 35701
|
