CHOMSKY Archives

The philosophy, work & influences of Noam Chomsky

CHOMSKY@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Marques, Jorge" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
The philosophy, work & influences of Noam Chomsky
Date:
Wed, 9 Jun 1999 11:30:35 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (43 lines)
I would agree that there is no logic to what you are espousing, but that was the closest thing I could find that at least resembled a logical argument: that the NATO structure is better and should be supported because it can make quick decisions and act
on them. That was the only argument you used to back up your claims, so that was the only thing I could go on. I simply extended that "logic" one step (actually two steps) further and asked whether it was still valid.

As for the 19 members of NATO being there of their free will. Fine. There they are, and despite the considerable coercive military and economic power of the US, I'll grant that they could possibly choose to disagree and leave if they want. Great. But
where do they derive the right to exercise any authority whatsoever over a non-member country?

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin William Smith [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 1999 12:57 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CHOMSKY] Bombs and the ad campaign


Marques, Jorge writes:
> Ah. So we should support NATO simply because of its
> structure. Because it is able to quickly make a decision and act on
> it. You're going to have to do better than that.

I don't have to do anything at all.  NATO and other structures like
it, corporations, militaries, etc exist because they fill a need.  As
long as the whole system is based on rules that generate that need,
organizations like NATO will continue to be created.  That's the way
it works.

> Again, despite your childish comments (I'd call them witty, but I
> would only be half right), I can make decisions even quicker than
> NATO can. By your logic, I should be the supreme arbiter on what
> countries to invade and what countries to sanction.

But that's not my logic; that's your logic.  For one thing, quickness
isn't the only requirement.  In NATO, there are 19 nations.  You can
argue that the US gets its way, but I can argue that's because the
other nations either agree with it or don't disagree with it enough to
leave and lose the benefits of membership.  The 19 members are there
because they choose to be there, and some amount of agreement among
them is also required.

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2