War Talk

I first want to start off this review by saying that "I love America." I don't love, or condone the malicious acts that iniquitous individuals in our government have committed in the past and are still committing today, but I love my country. I think sometimes individuals such as Arundhati seem to forget the good that has come out of America's struggle. Thomas Jefferson said, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." And there are many Americans that are vigilant today. Individuals such as Martin Luther King Jr., John F. Kennedy and Milton William Cooper have died for the cause of vigilant libertarianism, which I think many of us forget from time to time.What gets me in angst is that individuals such as Arundhati pontificate about the evils in our government, but fail to separate the people from the government, and this failure has a tendency to lead people into contemplating the wrong conclusions.A case in point: Arundhati wrote an introduction to Noam Chomsky's book "For Reason of State"(which is reprinted in this book) and in it she says, "How has the United States survived its terrible past and emerged smelling so sweet? Not by owning up to it [in reference to the American Indian Wars], not by making reparations, not by apologizing to black Americans or native Americans, and certainly not by changing its ways. Like most other countries, the United States has rewritten its history. But what sets the United States apart from other countries, and puts it way ahead in the race, is that it has enlisted the services of the most powerful, most successful publicity firm in the world: Hollywood."Now here's where her diatribe suffers a syllogistic dilemma; the United States is a country not a political institution. Governments are political institutions entrusted to run a country and (so-called) qualified individuals are placed in-charge of running these institutions in the interest of the people.But we must remember that sometimes-corrupt individuals egregiously take advantage of governments. This is known as Machiavellianism.So, to put it in layman's terms, the inquiry is, who are the people running the government? And what are their individual crimes? When making arguments such as this, one has to identify the perpetrators of the crimes in question.Perpetrators: meaning the people who committed the criminal acts!Arundhati Roy (like many others) commits a dubious deed. Which is, she doesn't name names. Accusations without naming the accused are vapid complaints.{{{GIVE US THE NAMES OF THE PERPATRATORS IN QUESTION!}}}That's all I'm trying to say.Furthermore, insofar as her remark about the U.S. rewriting history, the U.S. has not rewritten history. U.S. history is in abundance; it's just based on a litany of interpretations and opinions that cause one to resort to syllogisms to delineate the axiomatic conclusions. There are no absolute truths in history, that's just a fact considering the world governments' conspiracies that are hidden from public scrutiny. But we can come to some semblance of the truth by going to the library and reading books or researching on-line.Now, if she wanted to point out that the U.S. educational system is mendacious with its ad hominems she'd be totally correct. So, then why doesn't she identify the individuals who own and control the educational institutions in question? Always ask yourself these questions when reading books like this. Don't ever take anything anyone says at face value.And about her Hollywood comment: institutionalized-Hollywood is part of the governmental conspiracy, not part of the American people. The people that control, abuse and manipulate the government are the ones who own Hollywood. So the government never enlisted Hollywood because institutionalized-Hollywood has always been apart of the conspiracy.Here's another remark she makes without thinking it through. "Wars are never fought for altruistic reasons. They're usually fought for hegemony, for business. And of course, there's the business of war." If you read her entire account you'll see where she's going with this particular argument since she is referring to U.S. oil/war profiteering, but to say that wars are never fought altruistically is absurd, it depends on whose side you're on. There are noble causes, remember Nat Turner's "Great Slave Rebellion," Osceola and "the Seminole Wars", or "Shay's Rebellion." Yes, there are antagonist then there's the opposition who'll stand recalcitrant to antagonistic hegemony, (in other words, heroes who are ready to stand up against the opposition.)Also, on page-50 she said, "To call someone anti-American, indeed to be anti-American (or for the matter anti-Indian, or anti-Timbuktuan) is not just racist, it's a failure of the imagination. An inability to see the world in terms other than those that the establishment has set out for you: If you're not a Bushie, you're a Taliban. If you don't love us, you hate us. If you're not Good, you're Evil. If you're not with us, you're with the terrorist." She then said, "I too made the mistake of scoffing at this post-September 11th rhetoric, dismissing it as foolish and arrogant. I've realized that it's not foolish at all. It's actually a canny recruitment drive for a misconceived, dangerous war." Her statement rings so true, but if she really believes that then why does she speak in absolutes and generality instead of naming the accused.This book has a lot of faults, which is why what I'm going to say is an incongruity. I enjoyed this book. Arundhati Roy is an extremely articulate speaker and writer who I think is sincere about being the voice of the downtrodden. I just think she should be more mindful of what she says and start charging individual perpetrators with war crimes instead of marginalizing an entire nation when discussing world affairs. Anyhow, I'm looking forward to more of her writing in the future because I believe she has a good heart and means well.

Arundhati Roy's "War Talk" is written with an unique blend of passion and moral clarity. By sympathizing with the struggles of the lower and middle classes against their increasing exploitation by the powerful, the book serves as a bottom-up indictment of violent global capitalism. Ms. Roy suggests that war is merely the most extreme manifestation of an elitist capitalist system that is sustained by subsuming all available land, labor and resources to its own ends. The result is a scathing and compelling critique of capitalism and politics as practiced in both the U.S. and her native India.Ms. Roy initially made her mark as a novelist, and her gift for prose is turned to very good use here. In an era when the corporate media routinely treats moral issues in an ambiguous manner, the author's convictions seem to be almost revelatory. For example, when discussing the standoff between India and Pakistan over the contentious issue of Kashmir, she writes, "Why do we tolerate the men who use nuclear weapons to blackmail the entire human race?" Why, indeed?While Ms. Roy minces no words about the growth of fascism in India, she credits President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair with creating "a congenial international atmosphere" for fascism to take root. This is a world where the U.S. uses its military might to support its multinational corporate empire. Destroying countries that harbor terrorists is only its most obvious and visible form. Ms. Roy believes that it is the mistreatment of the poor by the powerful -- e.g., the lack of respect for human rights; the privatization of public resources; the monopolization of "free" speech by media corporations; and so on -- that ultimately defines the empire and, conversely, the struggle that must ensue to confront and supplant it.I give this book the highest possible rating and highly recommend it to anyone who might be struggling to understand the increasingly violent world we are inhabiting.

Whether or not you agree with Ms. Roy, reading her book will provoke you, and thus, to me, it is worth-while. It is particularly incendiary if you a regular American living a regular life. Ms. Roy spares few in allotting responsibility for the troubles of the world's poor and war-stricken. I did find her somewhat anti-American, but then, I'm biased.Definitely take a look. Ms. Roy is extremely readable. I loved God of Small Things, and though I normally don't read political non-fiction, I thoroughly enjoyed this book.

This is a wonderful book.The essays cover an enormous range of subjects, from politics in India to the rapid rise of the US to Empireship.Two things are most refreshing: First, Roy's clear-eyed ridicule of US self-importance and self-mythologizing. Second, her unwavering contention that all war is essentially a war of the rich against the poor.She is biting and humorous and absolutely indignant at the misinformation and disinformation people in the US are fed to justify the US corporate takeover of the world--with the aid and support of almost every government, bought and bribed and stolen.

Interesting read. Arundhati Roy is vivid in her descriptions and brings home reality.

good book and good author, worth reading if you havent already, just short but human sensitive and very well written

well written articles on the economic miseries of India caused by the US

I'm a huge fan of Arundhati Roy's writing. But... when I bought 'War Talk' I immediately felt ripped off, and no matter how you look at it, it's difficult to see how Ms Roy is not responsible for that.The problem is apparent as soon as you look at the Contents page. Of the six essays that comprise this book, four of them can be found in 'Ordinary Person's Guide to Empire', and the other two can be found in 'Algebra of Infinite Justice', both of which I already have.Not good.