Re: STATEMENT BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (fwd)

"colin s. cavell" wrote:
> 
> Pat,
> 
> That the judgement as to whether the US/NATO bombing of the Chinese embassy in
> Belgrade was either a "mistake" or a deliberate provocation is "pretty easy to
> make" on your part is understandable, Pat, given your continuous and systematic
> apologetics of US imperialism on the World Systems Network listserv.

Colin, before I can make any sense of this statement, you will have to
define some terms and tell me the basis for your interpretation. First,
in what sense do you regard the US as an imperialist? Second, how do you
define apologetic. Third, can you find an example of what you call my
apologetics, so that I can see what you are referring to. 


> There are many reasons why the US would want to intimidate and/or provoke China.
> For example, as you yourself state in your defense of Taiwan
> (http://www2.cybercities.com/g/gunning/taiwan/us_pcy.htm#Is Taiwan Part of China?):
> 
>      Let us take it for granted that the U.S. has chosen to be the world's police
>      force, as its laws and past policies seem to reflect. Then, it should
>      contain the PRC and protect democracy in Taiwan with a clear and open policy
>      to that effect. Given Taiwan material wealth and the U.S. capacity to
>      produce weapons, the direct cost to the U. S. citizens should be minimal.

To _contain_ the PRC is not the same as _provoking_ the PRC. I don't
follow your use of terms.


> On the other hand, one can interpret the bombing of the Chinese embassy as a
> warning to China to back off on its principled criticisms of the US/NATO war on
> Yugoslavia.  For example, Li Peng, Chairman of the National People's Congress
> (NPC) of China, stated on March 30

That was over a month ago. And if the bombing of the embassy was meant
as a warning, why would the U.S./NATO deny that it was and apologize for
it.


> Also, the bombing could well be the result of a deliberate attempt to silence a
> particular reporter.  As China's People's Daily stated in its article entitled "Top
> Chinese Paper Accuses NATO of Creating Humanitarian Disasters"

Well, anything is possible. But is it credible? Given the virtual
avalanche of anti-US/NATO propaganda that comes out of the Chinese
press, why would US/NATO pick out this one to punish? And why would it
not announce its intention in order to deter future attacks from the
Chinese press. And even if US/NATO wanted to punish a Chinese journalist
in this quasi-concealed way, it surely picked a stupid way to do it;
since the ultimate effect has been more fodder for the Chinese
propaganda cannon. 


> The truth is, Pat, that much of the world does not believe that the US/NATO
> bombing of the Chinese embassy was a "mistake".  The Times of India, perhaps,
> stated it best in today's paper (http://www.timesofindia.com/today/11edit1.htm):

"Much of the world" is barred from listening to and/or unable to
understand and interpret the multitude of diverse inputs from a free
press. What is your point? That the truth is determined by majority
opinion, regardless of the nature of the people with the opinions? If
scientific truth developed in this way, humankind would be climbing down
the evolutionary ladder instead of up.

-- 
Pat Gunning, Sultan Qaboos University, Oman
Web pages on Subjectivism, Democracy, Taiwan, Ludwig von Mises,
Austrian Economics, and my University Classes
http://www2.cybercities.com/g/gunning/welcome.htm
http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/barclay/212/welcome.htm