The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
Dear Tom, When speaking "as someone whose 20 year career in academia may have been ended, at least in the U.S., due largely to an article in the NY Post " are you referring to Daniel Pipe's article enclosed under no 1) ? Or are there any other writings against you? "Da Pipe Man" (Danny) is a well known aberration from sanity. But seldom he testifies to that so convincingly as he did in that piece I posted earlier on CASI (see no 2) It sounds as if he were a ranking member of those black magic cults/orders exemplified/inspired by Aleister Crowley - which is only very partly a joke.... Tom, All the best for you, I send you my best and encouraging thoughts, Yes, THERE IS white magic. Andreas ========= 1) Profs Who Hate America 2) Another turn: "War as Social Work?" (by Da Pipe Man) ------------------------- 1) http://www.danielpipes.org/article/923 Profs Who Hate America by Daniel Pipes New York Post November 12, 2002 Americans broadly agree on two facts about the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq: its brutality and the danger it poses to themselves, especially the danger of nuclear attack. Disagreement arises primarily over what to do: Take out the regime now? Give Baghdad another chance? Follow the United Nations' lead? Visit an American university, however, and you'll often enter a topsy-turvy world in which professors consider the United States (not Iraq) the problem and oil (not nukes) the issue. Here's a typical sampling of opinion: Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at MIT and far-left luminary, insists that President Bush and his advisers oppose Saddam not because of his many crimes or his reach for nuclear weapons. "We all know . . . what they're aiming at," Chomsky said in a recent interview, "Iraq has the second-largest oil reserves in the world." Jim Rego, visiting assistant professor of chemistry at Swarthmore College, stated at a panel discussion that, even after Sept. 11, the U.S. government is merely manufacturing another enemy "to have an identity." Rego explained his thinking with an elegance characteristic of the Left: "I think we've run out of people's butts to kick and that we essentially want to keep the butt-kicking going." Eric Foner, professor of 19-century American history at Columbia University, states that a preemptive war against Iraq "takes us back to the notion of the rule of the jungle" and deems this "exactly the same argument" the Japanese used to justify the attack on Pearl Harbor. Glenda Gilmore, an assistant professor of history of the American South at Yale University, tells her school paper that confrontation with Iraq represents a plot to expand American power. It is nothing less, she asserts, than "the first step in Bush's plan to transform our country into an aggressor nation that cannot tolerate opposition." She concludes by quoting the wisdom of a cartoon character: "We have met the enemy, and it is us." Mazin Qumsiyeh, associate professor of genetics at Yale University and co-founder of "Al-Awda, the Palestine Right to Return Coalition," wrote in a Connecticut newspaper that "if Saddam Hussein is a dictator, [Washington] created him." He concludes that a U.S. war against Iraq would be just a diversion created by "Israeli apologists and [U.S.] government officials" who share a "tribal affiliation" (in other words, are Jewish). The only purpose of war would be to provide cover for Israel to commit what he calls "even higher atrocities" against Palestinians by removing them from the West Bank and Gaza. TOM NAGY, associate professor of business at George Washington University, proudly informed his university newspaper about providing aid to the Saddam regime against the United States during a recent (illegal) trip to Iraq. Specifically, he offered "estimates of the number of civilians needed to act as a human shield to protect infrastructure and buildings for Iraqi citizens." These views are unfortunately routine for the U.S. academy, which for some decades has been the major American institution most alienated from the rest of the country. As a 1978 bestseller memorably put it, "Harvard Hates America." Of course, professors have every right to express their opinions, however cranky and mistaken. Yet the relentless opposition to their own government raises some questions: * Why do American academics so often despise their own country while finding excuses for repressive and dangerous regimes? * Why have university specialists proven so inept at understanding the great contemporary issues of war and peace, starting with Vietnam, then the Cold War, the Kuwait war and now the War on Terror? * Why do professors of linguistics, chemistry, American history, genetics and business present themselves in public as authorities on the Middle East? * What is the long-term effect of an extremist, intolerant and anti-American environment on university students? The time has come for adult supervision of the faculty and administrators at many American campuses. Especially as we are at war, the goal must be for universities to resume their civic responsibilities. This can be achieved if outsiders (alumni, state legislators, non-university specialists, parents of students and others) take steps to create a politically balanced atmosphere, critique failed scholarship, establish standards for media statements by faculty and broaden the range of campus discourse. ----------- 2) [casi] Another turn: "War as Social Work?" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- From: "AS-ILAS" <AS-ILAS@DELETETHISgmx.de> Subject: [casi] Another turn: "War as Social Work?" Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 07:42:04 +0200 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- This gem - panically written by Daniel Pipes - of another turn in the ideological marketing of US interests appeared also in the New York Post. Now even gradually backstepping from the "Iraqi Liberation/Freedom" spin. Highlights: "The difficulties in fixing Iraq are being used to cast doubt on the whole military venture. The Afghan and Iraqi wars, in other words, are judged more by the welfare of the defeated than by the gains to the victors." That's scandalous, indeed, as it would turn any Hobbesian world view upside down. The victor would not be allowed to behave as a victor, and the wolf not as a wolf anymore: The sacred principle of "homo homine lupus est" to be abandoned? Never ! Preventively, the neocons' emergency unit rolls out, Danny lits another Pipe and blows any amount of fog necessary to smoke out the philanthrops and to re-align the revolting public mind back to hysterical patriotic group-think. "Almost unnoticed, war as social work has become the expectation." But: "Each state's obligations, in other words, are ultimately to its own citizens." That's a rather recent discovery by Pipes. "So, by all means, bring on "Iraqi Freedom." But always keep in mind, as President Bush has done, that the ultimate war goal is to enhance American security." Danny, what was in the pipe, you said? Andreas ------------ http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=%5CCommentary%5Carchive%5C200 305%5CCOM20030506a.html War as Social Work? By Daniel Pipes CNSNews.com Commentary May 06, 2003 When Bill Clinton deployed American troops in places like Bosnia and Haiti, he was criticized for turning foreign policy into "social work" (as Michael Mandelbaum pungently put it). By what authority, many asked in the 1990s, did the president place troops in harm's way without discernable American interests at stake? George W. Bush has made sure not to repeat this error. He deployed force twice - in Afghanistan and Iraq - and both times he made a convincing case for U.S. security requiring the elimination of the enemy regimes. But some in Congress, many in the media, and even more on campuses, not to speak of the demonstrators on the streets, are judging the hostilities in those two countries less in terms of what they do for Americans than how they affect the other side. Note the many voices from allied countries arguing that because Afghanistan continues to suffer from a range of maladies (warlordism, female repression, poverty, drug trafficking), U.S. efforts there failed. * Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.): the Afghan experience is a "cautionary tale of the problems that result from engaging the world too haphazardly, too arrogantly, and too belatedly." * World Bank president James Wolfensohn: Afghanistan has been "stranded" and the continued presence of drug lords and poverty could undermine the moral case for invading Iraq. * The Philadelphia Inquirer : "Frustration [and] failure mark the rebuilding of Afghanistan." * The Herald of Glasgow, Scotland: "Afghanistan has been well and truly betrayed." Even Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, when asked about U.S. "failures in Afghanistan," did not dispute the premise but defensively noted that on being liberated, Afghans "were singing; they were flying kites; they were happy." But this view forgets the substantial security benefits Americans derived from the elimination of Al-Qaeda's headquarters. The Taliban are no longer in business, sponsoring terrorism's headquarters. Something similar is now occurring on the subject of Iraq: gains to Americans and Britons from getting rid of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction seem to matter less than the outcome of plans to rehabilitate Iraq. The difficulties in fixing Iraq are being used to cast doubt on the whole military venture. The Afghan and Iraqi wars, in other words, are judged more by the welfare of the defeated than by the gains to the victors. Almost unnoticed, war as social work has become the expectation. To point out this strange turn of events is not to argue against Afghans and Iraqis benefiting from U.S. military action. They should; and in doing so they are joining a long list of former adversaries liberated by the United States: * Second World War : Germans, Austrians, Italians, and Japanese. * Cold War : Russians, Ukrainians, Kazakhs, Azerbaijanis, Armenians, Georgians, Mongols, Poles, East Germans, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Romanians, Bulgarians, Albanians, and many others. Iraqi gains are very welcome, but they come as a happy byproduct of the coalition pursuing its own interests, not as the primary goal. It is proper to put coalition forces' lives at risk only to the extent that liberating and rehabilitating Iraq benefits the United States, the United Kingdom, and the other partners. Each state's obligations, in other words, are ultimately to its own citizens. This is in no way to argue against providing benefits to Afghanistan and Iraq; but it is to say that these are not a moral obligation. Nor should wars be launched for humanitarian reasons alone. Should democratic leaders forget this iron law and decide to launch purely philanthropic efforts, the results will be unpleasant. Take the American case; when the population does not see the benefits to themselves of warfare, their soldiers flee the battlefield, as in Lebanon in 1983 and Somalia in 1992. There simply is no readiness to take casualties for the purposes of social work. So, by all means, bring on "Iraqi Freedom." But always keep in mind, as President Bush has done, that the ultimate war goal is to enhance American security. (Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and author of Militant Islam Reaches America.) Copyright 2003, Daniel Pipes http://www.danielpipes.org/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "nagy" <email@example.com> To: "CASI discussion list" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Voices UK" <email@example.com> Cc: "nagy" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent: Sonntag, 20. Juli 2003 18:45 Subject: [casi] sent to BBC 's "Have your say" re Dr. Kelly Dear Colleagues, Perhaps I may be permitted to sumbit this to CASI without attack, to CASI. I'm certainly no one compared to Dr. Kelly, but I think I also have not had a forum to defend myself, based on my stand re Iraq, water, and children. My quarrel is with Sen. Gregg (chair of the committee which is holding an "excecutive" hearing on the elevation of Dr. Pipes, my accusser in the NY Post to the U.U. Institute of Peace. Here is my statement to "Have Your Say" -- probably not to be published by BBC, but anything is possible. =============================================================== As someone whose 20 year career in academia may have been ended, at least in the U.S., due largely to an article in the NY Post and the refusal of Congress to permit a public hearing regarding my accusser who is has been nominated for a position requiring the Advice and Consent of the U.S. Senate, I can certainly empathize with Dr. Kelly's structural inability to defend himself. What can you, and you may be next, do when you are accussed but have no ability to respond in any apt forum? Thomas J. Nagy, Ph.D. George Washington U. Washington, D.C. p.s. A colleague's questioning my very sanity on my own university's listserv directed to my colleagues which I was not permitted to see until much later has certainly not helped. Finally, I am not at all sucidal, so if I'm found, I can only hope that the autopsy is done in a neutral country. But I don't think I have the importance to be the object of weapons other than words, which are quite enough to destroy me. ================================================================ My statement was sent in response to: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/3077395.stm Tom Thomas J. Nagy, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof. of Expert Systems George Washington Univeristy Sch. of Business & Public Mgt. Washington, D.C. 20052 home.gwu.edu/~nagy _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email email@example.com All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email firstname.lastname@example.org All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk