Hypocrisy of Noam Chomsky

[Nie Trink Wasser]

This is a very enlighting read for any critics of Noam Chomsky ....

a very nasty fellow




http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/may03/chomsky.htm

Chomsky has been a celebrity radical since the mid-1960s when he made his name as an anti-Vietnam War activist. Although he lost some of his appeal in the late-1970s and 1980s by his defense of the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia, he has used September 11 to restore his reputation, indeed to surpass his former influence and stature. At seventy-four years of age, he is today the doyen of the American and much of the world’s intellectual left.

...........

In 1980, Chomsky expanded this critique into the book After the Cataclysm, co-authored with his long-time collaborator Edward S. Herman. Ostensibly about Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, the great majority of its content was a defense of the position Chomsky took on the Pol Pot regime. By this time, Chomsky was well aware that something terrible had happened: “The record of atrocities in Cambodia is substantial and often gruesome,” he wrote. “There can be little doubt that the war was followed by an outbreak of violence, massacre and repression.” He mocked the suggestion, however, that the death toll might have reached more than a million and attacked Senator George McGovern’s call for military intervention to halt what McGovern called “a clear case of genocide.”

Instead, Chomsky commended authors who apologized for the Pol Pot regime. He approvingly cited their analyses that the forced march of the population out of Phnom Penh was probably necessitated by the failure of the 1976 rice crop. If this was true, Chomsky wrote, “the evacuation of Phnom Penh, widely denounced at the time and since for its undoubted brutality, may actually have saved many lives.”

[svero]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
This is a very enlighting read for any critics of Noam Chomsky ....

a very nasty fellow




I don't know too much about Chomsky and Pol Pot. It seems to be the standard argument. Chomsky was wrong about Cambodia so nothing he says is relevent. Bla bla bla. But since you're the one bringing it up maybe you can support some of this argument with a link to articles by Chomsky where he supports the khmer revolution and more specifically where he advocated the killings and torture they eventuallly resorted to so I can read for them myself.

[a_unique_person]

Keith Windschuttle himself is a very nasty fellow. For example, his book on the Australian Aboriginies states that the destruction of the Aboriginal culture never happened, and that they were just barbarians who more or less deserved to die out.

Chomsky's basic treatise on Cambodia, that it only occurred because the destabilisation due to American interference in Asia, is not addressed. Just some arguments over the extent of the killings there. Chomsky has apparently not been aware at first how bad these were, and had to revise his view on what happened in that country.

That does not, however, invalidate his initial assesment of the situation, that without the US intervention in the area, the whole disaster probably would not have happened.

[Supercharts]

Chomsky?
Bwahaha. :D :D :D
An 'intellectual'?
:D :D :D
Chomsky's writings are so anal he could be used as a case for the reviving of Freudian psychology.

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Supercharts
An 'intellectual'?


Yes, he is.
But only in the field of linguistics.
Outside that field you can savely call him an imbecile.

[Mr Manifesto]

Keith Windschuttle -as has alredy been pointed out- is the holocaust denier of the 21st century. I doubt Chomsky supported the butchery of Cambodia. He may have made a mistake as to the intentions of Pol Pott but Chomsky has always been a man of peace.

---
Edit

Nie Essen SteirScheiße

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth


Yes, he is.
But only in the field of linguistics.
Outside that field you can savely call him an imbecile.

Quite correct.

[BillyTK]

I found this version (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13824) of the discussion of "Hanoi Noam" more entertaining.

[svero]

Originally posted by Supercharts


Quite correct.

Well I guess you're smarter than Chomsky since you're so quick to judge him. Why don't you wow us with some examples of his stupidity. Instead of posting bwahahaha and a bunch of happy faces show me something he got wrong. Prove it with facts. And don't post some childish bs by another critic. You show me yourself from his writing.

[Cleopatra]

The one expert ( Lord Emsworth )says:
An 'intellectual'?
Yes, he is.
But only in the field of linguistics.
Outside that field you can savely call him an imbecile.

And the other expert( Supercharts) replies...

Quite correct.



Can you, gentelmen, inform me on the contribution of Professor Chomsky in the science of linguistics? I always wondered in which field does he specialize.

[alancarre]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth


Yes, he is.
But only in the field of linguistics.
Outside that field you can savely call him an imbecile.

Of course, if you know anything about him, you'd know that he never studied linguistics in a formal manner. The fact that he caused a revolution in the subject had nothing to do with rigourous training in this field (of which he had none). As it is with true intellectuals, he was able to look at an old problem from a new angle, unencombered by dogmatic constrants. Armed with reason, intelligence, and scepticism, he was able to revolutionize the subject. Should this apply to his other ineterests, maybe, maybe not. I find his writing to be very articulate and knowledgeble. I have yet to see a convincing counter argument to any of his observations.

- A

[Cleopatra]

Hey!! alancarre

Why you spoiled all the fun?:)

I wanted Lord Emsworth to tell me in which field Chomsky specializes but you spoiled all the fun by revealing that he hasn't studied linguistics... :)

Although, I dissagree with most of what Chomsky has written regarding Middle East, I must admit that this man can make you think!

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by alancarre

I have yet to see a convincing counter argument to any of his observations.

- A


here's one to start you off :

"..............In Chomsky’s telling, the bi-polar world of the Cold War is viewed as though there were only one pole. In the real world, the Cold War was about America’s effort to organize a democratic coalition against an expansionist empire that conquered and enslaved more than a billion people. It ended, when the empire gave up and the walls that kept its subjects locked in, came tumbling down. In Chomsky’s world, the Soviet empire hardly exists, not a single American action is seen as a response to a Soviet initiative, and the Cold War is "analyzed" as though it had only one side.

This is like writing a history of the Second World War without mentioning Hitler or noticing that the actions of the Axis powers influenced its events. But in Chomsky’s malevolent hands, matters get even worse. If one were to follow the Chomsky method, for example, one would list every problematic act committed by any part or element in the vast coalition attempting to stop Hitler, and would attribute them all to a calculating policy of the United States. One would then provide a report card of these "crimes" as the historical record itself. The list of crimes – the worst acts of which the allies could be accused and the most dishonorable motives they may be said to have acted upon -- would then become the database from which America’s portrait would be drawn. The result inevitably would be the Great Satan of Chomsky’s deranged fantasy life.

In What Uncle Sam Really Wants, Chomsky begins with the fact of America’s emergence from the Second World War. He describes this fact characteristically as the United States having "benefited enormously" from the conflict in contrast to its "industrial rivals" -- omitting in the process any mention of the 250,000 lives America lost, its generous Marshall Plan aid to those same rivals or, for that matter, its victory over Nazi Germany and the Axis powers. In Chomsky’s portrait, America in 1945 is, instead, a wealthy power that profited from others’ misery and is now seeking world domination. "The people who determine American policy were carefully planning how to shape the postwar world," he asserts without evidence. "American planners – from those in the State Department to those on the Council on Foreign Relations (one major channel by which business leaders influence foreign policy) – agreed that the dominance of the United States had to be maintained."

Chomsky never names the actual people who agreed that American policy should be world dominance, nor how they achieved unanimity in deciding to transform a famously isolationist country into a global power. America, in short, has no internal politics that matter. Chomsky does not bother to acknowledge or attempt to explain the powerful strain of isolationism not only in American policy, but in the Republican Party – the party of Wall Street and the Council on Foreign Relations businessmen whom he claims exert such influence on policy. Above all, he does not explain why -- if world domination was really America’s goal in 1945 – Washington disbanded its wartime armies overnight and brought them home. ......"

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=1018

[Victor Danilchenko]

Chomsky revolutionized linguistics by introducing the concept of "universal grammar". Whatever else you might accuse him of, his contribution to linguistics is indisputable.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

The thread is about Chomsky's POLITICS, not about his resume.

[Cleopatra]

...and we are expecting to see what do YOU thing about Chomsky and not what you have read in questionable Media sources

[corplinx]

You know, when I'm talking to the woman checking out my groceries at the store, she never says "did you hear what Chomsky said the other day?"

When I'm getting a spot at the gym or playing a pickup game of 21 on their basketball court, nobody asks me "did you hear what chomsky said?"

I think too many people get hung up on Chomsky and the thimble-full of people who agree with him.

It reminds me of Michael Moore's article in the nation a while back about modern liberalism isn't connecting with average joe anymore.

[alancarre]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser


[SNIP]

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=1018

I will get to this... There's more than a few things here, so it might take some time. Needless to say, the article, being entitled: "The Sick Mind of Noam Chomsky" is not exactly what I would call "impartial". Be that as it may, I think it should be fairly easy to discredit the arguments one by one.

Back in a while...
- Alan

[Victor Danilchenko]

Cleopatra

...and we are expecting to see what do YOU thing about Chomsky and not what you have read in questionable Media sourcesI didn't learn about Chomsky's linguistic contributions in "questionable Media sources" -- I learned about them in grad school when I was doing AI research towards my degree. There are people out there who don't draw their knowledge about science from popular sources alone, you know.

His politics? I sometimes agree with him, more often I disgaree, but never fail to have my thinking challenged and provoked by his ideas.

[Cleopatra]

Victor , I wasn't addressing to you but to Nie Trink Wasser :)

My post is next to his but I will be more clear next time!

[DaChew]

I think too many people get hung up on Chomsky and the thimble-full of people who agree with him.

Absolutely. I'd have thought that after Chomsky spit forth his view that the U.S. was committing systematic "savage, silent genocide" in Afghanistan and that at least a million innocent people would die from it, that nobody would even bother to waste their time on him anymore. However, not unlike the dupes who follow the various psychics, leftist Chomskyites simply forget about his misses and focus on the hate-America venom he's currently pushing.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Cleopatra

Victor , I wasn't addressing to you but to Nie Trink Wasser :)Ummm, sorry, I assumed incorrectly. My apologies, your divine superbness.

[alancarre]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser



here's one to start you off :



Well, a few things...

David Horowitz... who is that guy? I know the name....


The first 6 or so paragraphs amount to merely a character assasination, so require no refutation (no facts being given). So I will proceed to the 7th paragraph:

In What Uncle Sam Really Wants, Chomsky begins with the fact of America’s emergence from the Second World War. He describes this fact characteristically as the United States having "benefited enormously" from the conflict in contrast to its "industrial rivals" -- omitting in the process any mention of the 250,000 lives America lost, its generous Marshall Plan aid to those same rivals or, for that matter, its victory over Nazi Germany and the Axis powers. In Chomsky’s portrait, America in 1945 is, instead, a wealthy power that profited from others’ misery and is now seeking world domination. "The people who determine American policy were carefully planning how to shape the postwar world," he asserts without evidence. "American planners – from those in the State Department to those on the Council on Foreign Relations (one major channel by which business leaders influence foreign policy) – agreed that the dominance of the United States had to be maintained."


The first, incorrect assumptiom is that the loss of 250,000 americans is a "loss" in terms of the powerful elite that sent them to their deaths. That is not a loss to them. It did not cost them money, their wives, their property, wealth or other things that matter to them. The people that send soldiers to their deaths consider such 'sacrifices' as about as meaningful as they would the 'sacrifice' of stepping on a cockroach. It is not of insterest as long as it does not effect them in any direct way. What is also clear is that the US gained the significant role as governor of middle east oil reservers "the larget material prize in the history of warfare". As to the 'generous' marshall plan, chomsky writes:

"In his comprehensive study of this program, Michael Hogan outlines its primary motivation as the encouragement of a European economic federation much like the United States, with over $2 billion annually in U.S. aid in the early years "to avert `economic, social and political' chaos in Europe, contain Communism (meaning not Soviet intervention but the success of the indigenous Communist parties), prevent the collapse of America's export trade, and achieve the goal of multilateralism." Such an economic stimulus was required "to protect individual initiative and private enterprise both on the Continent and in the United States." The alternative would be "experiments with socialist enterprise and government controls," which would "jeopardize private enterprise" in the United States as well. A major concern was the "dollar gap," which prevented Europe from purchasing U.S. manufactured goods, with grave implications for the domestic economy."

Not entirely altruistic, if you believe Hogan's assessment.


Chomsky never names the actual people who agreed that American policy should be world dominance, nor how they achieved unanimity in deciding to transform a famously isolationist country into a global power.

Well... Just look at PNAC (Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle ...) for the current manefesto on world domination. Hell, just listen to GWB if you're not too bright. In any case, it's been clear for 50 years that the US has relied on military perponderance for interntati0nal domination. The reasons are not too subtle either.

Back in the 50s for instance:


In the early Cold War years, Dean Acheson and Paul Nitze planned to "bludgeon the mass mind of `top government'," as Acheson put it with reference to NSC 68. They presented "a frightening portrayal of the Communist threat, in order to overcome public, business, and congressional desires for peace, low taxes, and `sound' fiscal policies" and to mobilize popular support for the full-scale rearmament that they felt was necessary "to overcome Communist ideology and Western economic vulnerability," William Borden observes in a study of postwar planning. The Korean War served these purposes admirably. The ambiguous and complex interactions that led to the war were ignored in favor of the more useful image of a Kremlin campaign of world conquest. Dean Acheson, meanwhile, remarked that in the Korean hostilities "an excellent opportunity is here offered to disrupt the Soviet peace offensive, which...is assuming serious proportions and having a certain effect on public opinion." The structure of much of the subsequent era was determined by these manipulations, which also provided a standard for later practice


And it goes on of course...

- A

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by alancarre
The first, incorrect assumptiom is that the loss of 250,000 americans is a "loss" in terms of the powerful elite that sent them to their deaths. That is not a loss to them. It did not cost them money, their wives, their property, wealth or other things that matter to them.

Which powerful elite are do you speak of?

People like the Kennedy family or the Bush family? Some other powerful elite that did not risk their families in the war, perhaps?

[alancarre]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Which powerful elite are do you speak of?

People like the Kennedy family or the Bush family? Some other powerful elite that did not risk their families in the war, perhaps?

For instance, ya. Who else?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by alancarre


For instance, ya. Who else?

All four of Roosevelt's sons went to war, as well.

That would be the Bush family, the Kennedy family, and the Roosevelt family who sent their sons to war.

[Cain]

More of the same nonsense.

The narrative:

Chomsky is a habitual liar. I'm sure he's a brilliant linguist, but his views on foreign policy and media control can only be described as imbecilic.

What's the evidence?

Passages from a book he co-authored 25 years ago with Ed Herman dealing with the Khmer Rouge.

Anything else?

It's so easy to caricature claims from a text (that few people seem to own) written umpteen years ago. Nevertheless, Chomsky has dealt with these criticisms extensively. You can even send him a letter.

Since Chomsky's views on foreign policy are clearly moronic, feel free to expose the lies and falsehoods in anything recent (preferably something most people have read).

Alan Sokal refers to Chomsky in _Fashionable Nonsense_ about the qualifications required by political "scientists" to prove a larger point (relating to postmodernism), but it's relevant here:

"Chomsky states that when he made certain political remarks, he was immediately attacked by political scientists for not having formal training in political science. However, when he gave a lecture at the Harvard University Mathematics department, no one in the audience cared about his lack of formal mathematical credentials, they merely listened to what he had to say, and made up their minds solely based on the content of his lecture. According to Chomsky, this was because of the fact that mathematics is a real subject in which credentials are developed based on verifiable results, especially when compared to political science."

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
The one expert ( Lord Emsworth )says:


And the other expert( Supercharts) replies...





Can you, gentelmen, inform me on the contribution of Professor Chomsky in the science of linguistics? I always wondered in which field does he specialize.

A coherent definition of the term language, for example:
From now on I will consider a language to be a set (finite or infinite) of sentences, each finite in length and constructed out of a finite set of elemnetsSyntactic structures (1957: 13)

Although N. Chomski has not himself studied Linguistics, I, as a stundent, have to study him and know, for example, about Structuralism.
So I might very well consider him as an intellectual on that subject, mightn't I
But I apologise for using the term "field". That was a little rash.

[svero]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


All four of Roosevelt's sons went to war, as well.

That would be the Bush family, the Kennedy family, and the Roosevelt family who sent their sons to war.

Which war did the Bush family sons go to when they were in power? I'm not being sarcastic, it's just that so far as I know at least gwb hasn't served in a war so is it Jeb then or who and when?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by svero


Which war did the Bush family sons go to when they were in power? I'm not being sarcastic, it's just that so far as I know at least gwb hasn't served in a war so is it Jeb then or who and when?

alancarre was talking about WWII:

The first, incorrect assumptiom is that the loss of 250,000 americans is a "loss" in terms of the powerful elite that sent them to their deaths. That is not a loss to them. It did not cost them money, their wives, their property, wealth or other things that matter to them. The people that send soldiers to their deaths consider such 'sacrifices' as about as meaningful as they would the 'sacrifice' of stepping on a cockroach.

MattJ

[svero]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


alancarre was talking about WWII:

MattJ

Well then in that context wouldn't be more relevent to look at Roosevelt's family or the people in his cabinet than to look at Bush or the Kennedys? or were they political elite during the time of ww2 as well?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by svero

or were they political elite during the time of ww2 as well?

Well, he didn't say 'political' - only 'powerful' elite. But that hardly matters:

In the 20th century, Bush's family didn't hobnob with kings, but they certainly mingled with presidents before taking over the White House themselves. Bush's great-grandfather was a steel and railroad magnate who became a personal advisor to President Hoover, who was in fact a distant relative. Grandfather Prescott Bush, the Connecticut senator, was a favored golf partner of President Eisenhower (not a relative). Grandmother Dorothy Walker Bush's father founded a Wall Street investment house and was a close advisor to FDR, another Bush relative.

source (http://archive.salon.com/politics2000/feature/2000/03/31/bush/print.html)

Surely these were people who would not have had to risk their family members in WWII had they chose not to.

Edit: The Kennedys were also part of the powerful elite (and political elite). I believe I've read that JFK's father (Joe Sr., a powerful senator, at the time) promised to support Roosevelt in exchange for Roosevelt's promise to support his son, (Joe Jr.) when he eventually ran for political office. Joe Jr. died (http://www.who2.com/josephkennedyjr.html) when his bomber was shot down over Europe.

MattJ

[RandFan]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
All four of Roosevelt's sons went to war, as well.

That would be the Bush family, the Kennedy family, and the Roosevelt family who sent their sons to war. Thanks aerocontrols,

I get so damn sick of that old saw. The rich and powerful send "others" off to war. *********! Yes there those who get out of the war but such a broad brush is simple intelectual dishonesty.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by svero
Which war did the Bush family sons go to when they were in power? I'm not sure what you mean by "in power" but Prescott Bush was elected a Senator from Connecticut in 1952 and was an influential busisness man and banker when his son George H. W. Bush enlisted in the armed forces. George was a pilot who flew 58 combat missions during World War II.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by alancarre
...in terms of the powerful elite that sent them to their deaths.

e·lite or é·lite ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-lt, -lt)
n. pl. elite or e·lites

A group or class of persons or a member of such a group or class, enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status: “In addition to notions of social equality there was much emphasis on the role of elites and of heroes within them” (Times Literary Supplement).

I would propose that the Bush family were members of the elite.

[RandFan]

bump

[Baker]

Originally posted by RandFan
bump

No I said bump up jk’s threads don’t make me have to declare a bumping war!!:mad:

Well I was actually kidding but I have to ask why are you bumping all of these threads?

[rdtjr]

Originally posted by alancarre
[B]

Well, a few things...

David Horowitz... who is that guy? I know the name....

The first 6 or so paragraphs amount to merely a character assasination, so require no refutation (no facts being given). So I will proceed to the 7th paragraph:

The first, incorrect assumptiom is that the loss of 250,000 americans is a "loss" in terms of the powerful elite that sent them to their deaths. That is not a loss to them. It did not cost them money, their wives, their property, wealth or other things that matter to them. The people that send soldiers to their deaths consider such 'sacrifices' as about as meaningful as they would the 'sacrifice' of stepping on a cockroach. It is not of insterest as long as it does not effect them in any direct way. What is also clear is that the US gained the significant role as governor of middle east oil reservers "the larget material prize in the history of warfare". As to the 'generous' marshall plan, chomsky writes:

Others have mostly tackled this one. I will ask how having two countries declare war on the U.S. results in an analysis that U.S. 'power elites' sent Americans to their deaths? We were attacked remember. (Don't even try to go down the FDR knew about Pearl Harbor road. I completely disagree with that position, but say it's moot even if true... the Japanese planned and carried out that attack all on their own.) And do you just ignore the fact that many Americans volunteered to fight? Or that many of those industrial power elites invested their own fortunes, at some substantial risk, into the American war machine? And in what way did the end of WWII result in the U.S. "role as governor of middle east oil reservers[sic]"?


quote: "In his comprehensive study of this program, Michael Hogan outlines its primary motivation as the encouragement of a European economic federation much like the United States, with over $2 billion annually in U.S. aid in the early years "to avert `economic, social and political' chaos in Europe, contain Communism (meaning not Soviet intervention but the success of the indigenous Communist parties), prevent the collapse of America's export trade, and achieve the goal of multilateralism." Such an economic stimulus was required "to protect individual initiative and private enterprise both on the Continent and in the United States." The alternative would be "experiments with socialist enterprise and government controls," which would "jeopardize private enterprise" in the United States as well. A major concern was the "dollar gap," which prevented Europe from purchasing U.S. manufactured goods, with grave implications for the domestic economy."


Not entirely altruistic, if you believe Hogan's assessment.
I don't particularly "believe" Hogan's assessment, but let's take it at at face value:
- 'to avert economic, social and political' chaos in Europe
Excuse me? Isn't this just as good for the Europeans as for us? Sure, if they don't descend into chaos they can afford to buy more of our stuff, but they also don't continue to die in droves... poor old Europe really suffered under all that free aid. Should we have not done it because we also stood to gain?
- contain Communism (meaning not Soviet intervention but the success of the indigenous Communist parties)
Except that we now know that nearly all 'indigenous' communist parties were directly supported, funded, and even controlled by Moscow, with the Soviets going so far as to kidnap and murder communist leaders it found unacceptable. This is all documented in the KGBs own archives as smuggled out by Mitrokhin and documented in the book "The Sword and the Shield". Given the alternative, and all that we now know about the Soviet methods of control through terror, which system would you rather live in?\
- prevent the collapse of America's export trade
- A major concern was the "dollar gap," which prevented Europe from purchasing U.S. manufactured goods, with grave implications for the domestic economy." I'll tackle these two together by asking the simple question: Doesn't the U.S. currently have a trade deficit, and haven't we for several decades now? Boy, those evil American industrialists really screwed the pooch on that plan... FYI - 'American Materialism' keeps most of the rest of the world employed.
- and achieve the goal of multilateralism
I don't get it, what's wrong with multilateralism? I mean we did create the U.N. and all right? Oh we should have been unilateral after WWII when we could have been, but not now? I don't understand why this should be a criticism.
- Such an economic stimulus was required "to protect individual initiative and private enterprise both on the Continent and in the United States." The alternative would be "experiments with socialist enterprise and government controls," which would "jeopardize private enterprise" in the United States as well
Yeah? Well, I happen to like individual initiative and private enterprise. Given how the Soviet system worked soooo well, I'll keep it.

Well... Just look at PNAC (Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle ...) for the current manefesto on world domination. Hell, just listen to GWB if you're not too bright. In any case, it's been clear for 50 years that the US has relied on military perponderance for interntati0nal domination. The reasons are not too subtle either.

Really? I guess I must be one of those, 'not too bright people'. Where is this manifesto, have they posted it somewhere? We're doing a bang-up job of stealing all that Iraqi oil and installing a puppet regime.

Back in the 50s for instance:
In the early Cold War years, Dean Acheson and Paul Nitze planned to "bludgeon the mass mind of `top government'," as Acheson put it with reference to NSC 68. They presented "a frightening portrayal of the Communist threat, in order to overcome public, business, and congressional desires for peace, low taxes, and `sound' fiscal policies" and to mobilize popular support for the full-scale rearmament that they felt was necessary "to overcome Communist ideology and Western economic vulnerability," William Borden observes in a study of postwar planning. The Korean War served these purposes admirably. The ambiguous and complex interactions that led to the war were ignored in favor of the more useful image of a Kremlin campaign of world conquest. Dean Acheson, meanwhile, remarked that in the Korean hostilities "an excellent opportunity is here offered to disrupt the Soviet peace offensive, which...is assuming serious proportions and having a certain effect on public opinion." The structure of much of the subsequent era was determined by these manipulations, which also provided a standard for later practice

Again, their fears of Soviet style rule and leadership turned out to be well founded. Did those Soviet peace initiatives include the brutal repression of independent revolts against Soviet backed regimes in Eastern Europe? Yes, the Soviet tanks rolling through Prague looked very peaceful. Given that the chief Soviet method of rule and control, by their own admission, was unbridled terror, I don't really understand why people don't see them as the threat to humanity that they were. Continuing: Wasn't the Korean war started by the North Koreans? Once again a model example of enlightened leadership, with prison camps bigger than Rhode Island it's a wonder more people aren't trying to get in to the country. Wow, I just don't understand the apologists for brutally murderous, dictatorial regimes. For cripes sake the Soviets and Communist Chinese killed more of their own people than Hitler killed non-Germans... yet Nazi apologists are nearly universally ridiculed. Really, am I missing something here?