Matthew,
You are quite rude. I've been reading your posts over the last little
while and I think your hostility is uncalled for. The U.S. has
continued to support right-wing dictatorships, it's not simply a cold
war phenomenon. While I can't give you a Faulcaudian answer, I can tell
you that the U.S. is not held accountable for its interventionist policy
toward Chile, and many many other countries because, however
contentious, U.S. retains its hegemonic position within the global world
order. It maintains controlling interest in the IMF/World Bank, It
maintains its leverage in every meeting of GATT (now the WTO), the UN
and NATO. From a global political economy perspective, it should be
quite obvious why the U.S. remains "unchastened" for all of its many
crimes throughout the post WWII era. I don't think this is a wise-ass
response, and I think you should simmer down.
April
>
>April,
>
>Yes, you are right Johnson used the quote in question to describe
>Battista and not Pinochet. Battista was Johnson's contemporary;
>Pinochet was a Nixon-era creation. My point, clear enough, was that
>Johnson's statement summed up with brutal clarity the U.S. attitude
>toward friendly right-wing dictatorships during the Cold War period.
>That, is why I said "would have put it," rather than "said of
Pinochet;"
>to my knowledge Johnson never said a word about the man. So if you must
>get nit-picky, read my goddamn sentences.
>
>Better still, can someone steer me toward the Foucauldian doctrine
which
>can help me comprehend why Pinochet might be held responsible for his
>crimes but the United States, without whom there would be no Pinochet
>(my comment about his imminent demise was a bit exaggerated; he's
>recovering quickly from surgery; still he was not as Mrs. Thatcher
says,
>"A frail old man," when he ordered people thrown out of airplanes), is
>left unchastened. If someone possesses this wisdom (read: Wis-dom, not
>wise-ass) please respond.
>
>
>Thanks,
>MT
>
>>From owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Tue Dec 1 10:22:56
1998
>>Received: (from domo@localhost) by lists.village.virginia.edu
>(8.8.5/8.6.6) id MAA62784 for foucault-outgoing; Tue, 1 Dec 1998
>12:23:28 -0500
>>X-Authentication-Warning: lists.village.virginia.edu: domo set sender
>to owner-foucault@localhost using -f
>>Received: from hotmail.com (f16.hotmail.com [207.82.250.27]) by
>lists.village.virginia.edu (8.8.5/8.6.6) with SMTP id MAA37436 for
><foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Tue, 1 Dec 1998 12:23:21 -0500
>>Received: (qmail 18684 invoked by uid 0); 1 Dec 1998 17:22:47 -0000
>>Message-ID: <19981201172247.18683.qmail@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Received: from 209.47.109.130 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP;
>> Tue, 01 Dec 1998 09:22:44 PST
>>X-Originating-IP: [209.47.109.130]
>>From: "April Biccum" <april_biccum@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: RE: disappeared
>>MIME-Version: 1.0
>>Content-Type: text/plain
>>Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 09:22:44 PST
>>Sender: owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Precedence: bulk
>>Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>To wit: There would be no Pinochet without the United States. U.S.
>>>business and government interests put Pinochet into, and kept him in,
>>>power for most of his career. "He's a son of a bitch," I think
>Johnson
>>>would have put it, "but he's our son of a bitch."
>>
>>Sorry, but didn't Johnson say that about Battista and not Pinochet?
>>Perhaps I'm mistaken.
>>
>>
>>
>>______________________________________________________
>>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>>
>
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com