Another good
interview with Noam Chomsky this time by Vincenç Navarro professor of political science at Barcelona Pompeu Fabra University and John Hopkins University in the USA.
VN: Would you foresee any difference between McCain and Obama administrations in terms of foreign policy?
NC: Yes. McCain may be worse than Bush. He doesn’t say much, because you’re not supposed to say much about issues, but the few things he has said are pretty frightening. He could be a real loose cannon.
Chomsky is also of the opinion that McCain will win the election. Although I don't think it particularly matters who wins - neither McCain or Obama offer Americans any genuine hope since American democracy is now so deeply corrupted - McCain's propaganda machine will go into overdrive into the final run-up to the election. As in 2004, I think America's central states will continue to vote Republican in force - especially for a war "hero" - and that will see him through albeit narrowly.
Another good interview with Noam Chomsky this time by Vincenç Navarro professor of political science at Barcelona Pompeu Fabra University and John Hopkins University in the USA.
7 comments:
Even though Barrack Obama isn't perfect, I think it's foolish to say that it won't make any difference whether he or McCain is elected. Sure, you can argue that much of the support for Obama is hype. But McCain appears to be totally insane. Added to that, he is a keen neo-conservative at a time when even George Bush won't give them the time of day... I understand how tempting it is to view 'all politicians as the same' and accept that the Democrats and Republicans are often two faces of the same movement. But in the US; the man who's elected president can make a real difference. The thought of McCain getting there is terrifying, and yes, he could be much worse than Bush.
I thought I might get hauled over the coals for that. I tried to add the caveat that it doesn't make a "particular" difference who gets elected but it's true and I agree, I'd rather see Obama than McCain in power but I'd simply see him as the lesser of two evils. I certainly do view Democrats and Republicans as "two cheeks of the same arse" as George Galloway likes to say. They're the two cheeks of the arse that is the business community. I'd agree with Chomsky that Obama would simply move the American administration to the centre-right like Clinton did. That's still preferable to what McCain would do though which is probably send the government so far right off the political spectrum that the world would actually tilt on it's axis and possibly keel over.
And George Galloway is a complete arse!!!
The other big difference is that McCain is an isolationist-preemptivist, exactly the sort of president that makes America unpopular overseas. Obama seems much more worldly and may well be able to reverse some of the terrible bad feeling that has risen against America over the last 8 years.
And yeah, Galloway is a shit. He liked Saddam, after all.
I'm not sure if he liked Saddam - if he did, he didn't like him as much as the American and British governments did when he was a good client.
He does come across as cocky but Galloways stance on Saddam depends on whether the Arab interpretation of his "infamous" speech was correct. From his wikipedia entry:
In 1994, Galloway faced some of his strongest criticism on his return from a Middle-Eastern visit during which he had met Saddam Hussein "to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war." At the meeting, he reported the support given to Saddam by the people of the Gaza Strip and ended his speech with the phrase "Sir: I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability," although Galloway maintains that he was misinterpreted. Galloway's speech was translated for Hussein, and Anasal-Tikriti, a friend of Galloways and a Respect candidate, spokesman for the Muslim Association of Britain said: "I understand Arabic and it [Galloway's salutation] was taken completely out of context. When he said "you" he meant the Iraqi people, he was saluting their indefatigability, their resolve against sanctions. Even the interpreter got it right and, in Arabic, says salutes the stand of the Iraqi people'." [5] Additionally he reportedly said "hatta al-nasr, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-Quds" (Arabic for "until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem").[citation needed]
you know, logic says there are all sorts of reasons not to be optimistic, but the barrack debate really brings to mind a poem by Sheena Pugh:
Sometimes things don't go at all,
from bad to worse. Some years muscadel
faces down frost; green thrives;the crops don't fail,
sometimes a man aims high, and all goes well.
A people sometimes will step back from war;
elect an honest man; decide they care
enough, that they can't leave some stranger poor.
Some men become what they were born for.
Sometimes our best efforts do not go
amiss; sometimes we do as we meant to.
The sun will sometimes melt a field of sorrow
that seemed hard frozen: may it happen for you.
Post a Comment