I've always agreed with Noam Chomsky about western governments condemning an anti-western government for doing bad things, but not applying the same standards to themselves. However, is he talking about only the immediate consequences or also the long term effects? I don't think Britain today should be blamed for Zimbabwe's current state more so than Mugabe himself or the USSR blamed for the Taliban's actions, but I do think they're to blame for the immediate consequences of what they did,
Or those who thinks that oil is much more important than a brown bunch of useless dirt people. But I'm not for this war because first is that we in Europe got those people who "flee" from Iraq to us and later starts to comitts crimes, second was Saddam a quite good leader.
Chomsky has makes no real arguments here. CIting past crimes and an "imperial mindset" are not an indictment of the war.
When he asks "what Iraqis want" how did he think this desire was going to be fulfilled under the Saddam regime? Does he make any attempt to say if the Iraqis' opinions are actually correct? Would the Shia/Sunni violence not have come about if Saddam had died in lieu of US invasion? Chomsky simply does not care, and supports fascists because of this
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Interesting, I wonder how he feels about the generations of North Koreans lost to the Kim Jong Il regime. Perhaps Mr. Chompsky should consider his life under Saddam or Il or even Mao. Oh to be born into the safe a safe American home with no worries of the real world just that of academia and leisure. The spoiled of western civilization in revolt, how inspiring.
Chomsky thinks (correctly) that criticizing the crimes of his government has more moral value than criticizing the crimes of official enemies (which is what Soviet party hacks did). He, of course, criticized US support for Saddam through his worst atrocities, as well as US efforts to keep him in power after 1991 against Shiite & Kurdish rebellions. As for freedoms internal to the US, it was not the system, but people like him who fought AGAINST the system who won all the freedoms in our society
But who is fighting for the people living under repressive regimes? And what percent of Iraqis up until the invasion actually wanted to get rid of Saddam? Did the Shiites and Kurds suddenly change their mind after the US invasion?
@deathcar: Perhaps you would prefer so-called spoiled Westerners to not give a flying fuck at all?
Why don't you get back on your 20K fishing boat, with your $500 fishing pole, and disregard your lack of academics and go back to your leisurely fishing?
@chinopisces Spoiled Westerners don't give a flying fuck, that's my whole point. If we did, every Tyrant State in the world would be long dead and gone. I don't suppose old Chompsky has a solution to getting rid of Tyrants thats any better than old Georgie. Then again i don't suppose either of them has ever worked a real job in their lives.
@deathcar: I don't disagree with your statement, but you cannot place Chomsky in their category.
His family was poor, and he was lucky to be get an education. No one has earned the title of Professor at MIT if they were slackers. His contribution to the Civil Rights Movement is unprecedented and helped this nation become more civilized than it was.
Why would Chomsky bother being at odds with our government if he didn't give a fuck? Death threats aren't something to feel comfortable about.
He'd say it was unacceptable. Those who are charged with committing crimes of any sort should, if at all possible, be handed over to the relevant judicial system to be tried and punished. Only if their arrest is resisted so violently that it becomes necessary to use lethal force to restrain them would it become acceptable to kill a person charged with a crime.
what is someone going to do, put Bush under a citizens arrest, haha? Yeah right
I dont think Bush would consent to that.
I am just curious what Chomsky would say to the idea that Bush is going to get away with this crime?? Maybe Chomsky would support something, I am only curious because Chomsky is so revered.
It's amazing how Dr. Chomsky cuts through all of the propaganda and lays out the Iraqi situation as it really is. This is truly the 'NO SPIN ZONE' and it's not pretty!
nubbs, what in the hell are you talking about? free and fair elections? in Iraq? it isn't even a sovereign country, there are no such things as free and fair elections considering.
You don't have a functioning Democracy in your own country, what makes you think you're qualified to export it to another in the first place?.. that's an Imperialist mentality, Iraq will most likely be a hellhole for many years to come, but the sooner the US army leaves Iraq entirely, the sooner the road to healing can come.
Haha! You think I'd want to spread Democracy? Well I'd half to like the idea of Democracy first. I am an Ararchist. Anarcho-Pacifist, to be specific. And "my" country? I've writen, and signed my own Declaration of Independance. As of right now, I have no country!
As for me being an 'Imperialist'...
I pretty much said to have a government by Iraqis, for Iraqis. A government by Americans for Americans won't work in Iraq.
Your tone is not clear. Are you agreeing with me or arguing with me?
'American-style Democracy won't work in Iraq. We need to come up with a Democratic System of Government customized for the Iraqis.'
It was the arrogance in the statement i was refering to, the 'we need to come up with a system for the Iraqi's', my point is, that the Iraqis will never be able to form any type of stable government that represents the vast majority of the people until the US army leaves, which they won't, as they're already building permanent (or is that enduring?) bases.
Ah, you mistook the "we." By "we" I meant the Iraqis. Because my grammar skills are bad. And I never said anything about my stance on the Military leaving/staying, so once again your point is totally different from what I'm talking about.
Also, I'm voting for Libertarian Bob Barr. The only US Presidential candidate calling to immediately start withdrawing troops, so once again our opinions seem to have no conflict.
Hey Nubbs. You are desperate to defend USA. Why? They do fine without your opinion and support. Now look at the situation objectively if you can. People who kill other innocent people are criminal and should be bought to justice. Period.
actually, that is just not true. are you saying that the shia militias bare no responsibility for murdering and raping fellow iraqis who have nothing to do with the invasion or occupation?
I'm saying International Law, the Nuremburg Trials, state that if a country carries out an illegal war of aggression like the United States HAS done, then they are responsible for the breakdown of that country and all of the ensueing violence, if you disagree with these principles, all well and good for you, but that doesn't stop them from existing.
lol you really are a fucking idiot. international law says NOTHING about the responsibilities of an ILLEGAL invading power. where do you get this shit?
ps there is a difference between international law and the nuremburg trials. but you knew that, right
BUT if the US is responsible for the breakdown of iraq then they have, according to you logic, a responsibility to STAY in iraq and ensure the safety of the iraqi people, which is why they are staying.
The iraqis speak in 2 voices in their interpretation of islam. But they are pretty much unanimous in opposing an occupation of their home by a foreign military and the murder and rape of civilians by the american government.
The 2 voices I was referring to were sunni and shia. These are religious denominations. Not political parties. They are fighting each other for the same reason protestants fight catholics. & I don't recall taking the shia's side. I said that both sunnis and shias want the invasion of their homes to stop. We are now taking the sunni's side in this because they oppose the shia government in iran. Btw,
al qaida=sunni. If you knew anything about iraq that wasn't on fox news, you might know that.
we don't get fox news in canada, so so much for that theory.
btw, everyone knows "al qaida=sunni". i never suggested otherwise.
if you knew anything about iraq, you would know, as i stated, that it is shia militias that are responsible for almost all cases of rape, which are many
i made this point only because you said "... the murder and rape of civilians by the american government"
it's the shia militias (not the sunni al qaida fighters which acount for less than 5% of fighters) that rape
btw, my point stands that you can not even divide iraq into TWO groups, like you have. there are many divisions within and overlaps of the sunni and shia communities.
you would know this is unlike chomsky you didn't act like all iraqis "speak with one voice", which is either racist or plain ignorant
Racist? Aren't most iraqis the same race? I'm not the 1 who divided iraq into sunnis & shia. & I do know that there are other groups in iraq that are not either 1. The kurds being the most prominent. But sunni & shia combined make up a large majority of iraq. & these are the 2 groups currently fighting for control. & I didn't say they were of the same idealogy. I said both groups agree that they don't like being bombed. If I'm racist why am I speaking against genocide while you're defending it?
actually, all humans are the same race, moron. there are many ethnicities inside iraq. it is racist to stereotype any ethnic group. you have stereotyped all iraqis as wanting the "rape and murder by american troops to end".
if you knew anything about iraq you would know that a majority of sunnis and shia want the americans to stay and provide security and protection from the militias, and you would know the only genocide in iraq was committed by the bathists, moron.
so far as i know, and i follow this closely, there are about 10 cases of rape that have been alleged by iraqis to have been committed by americans. so far, 5 americans have been charged.
there are about 10,000 reported cases of shia militias raping both sunnis and moderate shia. so far, none have been charged.
where do you get your news? the internet? youtube videos?
ps. halliburton doesn't have a private army, moron. and no, no haliburon contractor has been accused of rape.
iraqis don't speak with one voice, and it is a gross simplification on chomsky's part to suggest you can just ask iraqis what they want, as if they all think with one head
well, guess what. iraqis held free and fair elections, a governing coalition was formed, and they have asked the americans to stay until 2011 - ie 3 and a half more years.
Clearly it was a mistake to try to discuss this with you. You're more interested in pulling facts out of thin air that have nothing to do with what I said, arguing against your imaginary facts & then telling me "if you knew anything about iraq you'd know that". What I know about iraq doesn't fit into 500 words. But I'm sure your response will be "Anything worth knowing fits into 500 words. If you knew anything about iraq you'd know that."
The war was illegal. Iraq is occupied by a Foriegn Military, it is basically being controlled by a Purpose built 'green zone' city state, the elections were a PR exercise, people voted, but got nothing from the action, most of the country is still without electricity for a good portion of the day, no clean water, sketchy safety at best, fractured society, let us not forget the US torture prisons, there is no way you can have a functioning Democracy under these conditions
The Invasion was illegal, your first point, makes the rest of your points illegitimate. the Invasion was illegal, therefore it was the supreme war crime, a war of aggression, from which all other war crimes branch from, so the government is illegitimate, you can't have a functioning democracy whilst being occupied by a foreign power, points 4 and 5 are also products of the illegal invasion, therefore the US shares responsibility for them, this is a legal and moral truism you cannot escape.
um, and this has WHAT to do with the argument in this thread?
iraq voted in a democratic parliament with massive support from the people (even sunni) to elect local leaders they trust, who represent over 20 different political parties, who formed a democratic coalition, which voted to keep american troops in the country until 2011 to help stabilize a situation which they helped create and should have forseen but now have a moral responsibilty to stabilize
Let me spell this out for you in simple language, you cannot have real or transparent democratic elections whilst being occupied by a foriegn power, this is basic logic here. The Vast majority of Iraqi Citizens want the US to LEAVE the country, Poll after poll after poll says this.. i'm not interested in the mandate a puppet government born under occupation wants, i'd rather listen to what the Iraqi people themselves want.
Hahaha.. look at the anger in you, all bluster and bullshit. I'm not saying the elections were not fairly conducted, what i'm saying is, the pattern of voting in any occupied country is affected to the point of making any result a foregone conclussion. You are not thought of as Liberators, 650,000+ dead and 3-4 million refugees in other neighbouring countries, the wholesale pillage of Iraqi oil to Foreign (Western) Oil companies. No more of your angy ranting, we'll never see eye to eye.
Yes i'm sure the Japanese loved being Vapourized in the hundreds of thousands and then having their entire educational, political and economic system written for them by the US, sure, that's a wonderful Democracy they inherited, one that refuses to listen to popular public opinion, like most, Germany is a unique case, as Both Russia and the US share responsibiility for its Division. Brush up on your chess skills.
No sectarian violence before the US came, again this goes back to my point about the Supreme war Crime under International Law which the US government commited, all subsequent warcrimes branch from the act of aggression against another State, hopefully when the republicans are out of office, there will be enough Political Will to hold Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld accountable for their Warcrimes. by the way, calling an Irish man a racist colonial is about the stupidest thing i've ever heard, Kudos.
He called me a racist colonial, I'm Irish, if you know History you'll know how absudly stupid that is, if you don't... well i guess you'll scratch your head.
Again, you seem to be missing the obvious point here, the enormously obvious one at tht, he clled me a racist colonial, you claim to know history, yet you fail to see the absurdity in someone calling me, an Irishman, a racist colonial, maybe you're not aswell versed in history as you claim to be, as the obvious doesn't seem so... obvious to you :)
If you believe that where you grew up and your cultural background (i realise that being American you have none) has no direct bearing on who you are, then you're either ignorant or just plain stupid.
I have a very diverse heritidge, part of it is Irish (Also, I'm not American). Anyway, I'm sure there are racist Irishmen, technophobic Japanese, in-shape Americans, and freedom-loving Koreans. Get it through your head, people ARE effected by their heritige, but it doesn't mean they turn out any certain way.
You seem to be missing the point over and over and over again, are you retarded?... Where you are from and your culture DO affect who you are, i never said they completely define you, it was you who insisted they don't affect or shape you, and that's just bullshit, can't accept that?... too bad, i'm Irish, we lived under Colonial and Imperial rule for 800 years, so we're LESS likely to be racist or Colonial to other people, because our culture has born the brunt for so long, we don't forget.
You seem to be missing the point, what's the difference between you saying that and me saying that because your Irish you're more likely to be a drunk. They're both steriotypes based on race, and once again YOUR RACE DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING.
Good lord you are stupid, i was called a Colonial racist by some bigoted idiot and i point out that calling and Irishman a Colonialist is one of the most stupidest things anyone could ever possibly say because we lived under the bootheel of Colonialism for 800 years and you go and disagree because you're a fucking idiot, well done retard, end of discussion. Again you miss the point, because of your lack of historical perspective no doubt.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Chomsky talks alot and makes little to no difference. Get a gun and go to city hall (or do some type of revolutionary act)itll do alot more than participating in interviews.
its in our heritage its called manifest destiny its our destiny to bomb and invade and murder other people around the world so they can have some sort of democracy nomatter how many people die then try to justify it when it was found to be a lie
in short: anarcho-syndicalism means, that there are organizations that care of security too, but every organization is less hierarchical ... nothing to do with the current situation in Iraq
LOL "higher social conciousness" god, you're pathetic. You can't defend anything you say can you? Passive aggressive! Lower social consciousness! You're not a rebel or an intellectual. You're a theocrat, and all you can do is shut out the unbelievers and drone the dogmas of your religion.
Especially hilarious is the fact that you bring up Pol Pot, the favored totalitarian of Noam Chomsky. Or didn't you know? lol Have fun making all the bad, "imperialist" thoughts go away.
ahhaaaahaa! That's awesome. From "Chomsky is brilliant" to this. Well, at least I can know that you're not a total fanatic now. That's my boy.
And I know all about the ails of American interventionism, but if you want to synonymise American foreign policy and global instability, you're seeing only what you want to. Who were these so-called "anti interventionists" pleading to when the Serbs were raping their way across Kosovo? The French? Good thing they got their way in Rwanda and Darfur.
Whose navy protects international trade routes? Who, with their land, their funds, and their protection ensures the ability of the world's nations to assemble? You tell me, post-cold war, what country has provided MORE stability?
its funny you talk about the cold war, as situation which both russia and amerikkka were responsible for, it wasnt a natural disaster!! it was a calculated imperialist foreign policy on the part of both nations
what chomsky talks about in relation to history and politics and world events isnt a revelation, hes not coming up with new ideas or facts, its just many in the west are not conditioned to question or analyse events.
Although he does make it easy for conditioned individuals to open their minds
he is not left wing because he simply states the TRUTH using FACTS, so are you saying that being left wing means telling the truth and not left wing means lying?
Not necessarily, no. But once we've achieved an objective analysis of reality or at least made an honest attempt at objectivity we're left with the question of what we're going to do. If you believe in extending democracy, labor rights, women's rights, environmental rights then yes, that makes you left-wing. And if you believe in socialism that most certainly makes you left-wing. By definition. It comes down to what your values are - especially on economic and social issues.
but his personal political leanings are actually irrelevant, he merely compiles the FACTS into an easily inderstandable and digestable from for the average person to comprehend. This is one of his genius talents, the ability to as an intellectual clearly convey clarity of FACTS to ordinary people.
In the same breath that he accuses "imperialist mentality" he employs the absolutist, totalitarian and anti-peace mentality most characteristic of him: "aggression encompasses all the evil that follows" THAT is the justification of all evil, of nazis, terrorists and tyrants. Chomsky's only condition for using the blank check of past grievances is being non-western. I laugh at him and his acolytes who actually lay claim to open-mindedness and depth of reason.
Actually I believe he's quoting Nuremberg, and I'm sure they meant that the overthrow of a government gives people the sacred unopposible right to rape and murder the unarmed and unaffiliated at their leisure.
"legalize cannabis and oppose islamofascism" that's gonna be my sig from now on lol. I love the thought of shrieking moral jingoist hypocrites like helium96 laying awake at night knowing how useless their once-comforting notion that all those on the side of the US are neo-cons really is.
can you actually make a point or are you after a literary medal?!!
chomsky is the first to say that islamic terrorism is a big threat, but hed also tell you that its mostly because of countries like the u.s, france, israel and russia to name a few.
most middle easter states were secular before the 1980s, but thanks to western imperialism that has changed
Ah, yes. Western imperialism. The perfect red herring. As if to say that one has no right to oppose apocalyptic totalitarians because of past transgressions. I also love how so-called leftists cite the past US support of Saddam has cause for any and all Americans to be butchered at their discretion, while they feel absolute, unquestionable pride in demanding in screaming tones that we should have perpetuated his rule, in fact citing it as a reason that we had no right to impugn his sovereignty.
Anybody who has a palace built mostly out of gold in a country with that many people starving is not on my nice list. But for as much of a dick as he was, he was politically a moderate who kept the more extremist sects mostly at peace in his country. With him gone they are free to fight each other. Which is what they are doing now with American soldiers caught in the crossfire. That it's another country should be a good reason for sovereignty.
6. but unlike the shia murderers and rapists, american troops are tried and convicted
THUS (and here is where arthurnomad can come back in) it is the shia who really need to brought to justice. period.
7. chomsky oversimplifies the situation in iraq. and he didn't need over 500 words to do it. surprise. (this from the guy who though mao was a real small d democrat and that pol pot was basically a good guy - look it up)
8. and yes, you did "clearly make a mistake" arguing with someone like me who deals in facts and not platitudes and is infinitely more intelligent than you. if want to engage in a battle of wits, make sure you come armed
"if you want to engage in a battle of wits make sure you come armed" thats the most cliche thing ive ever heard. anyway i dont know much about pol pot but what khmer rouge was trying 2 do, if im correct in what i think he was trying 2 do, was a good thing. like i said i only have basic info on it but he definitely carried his ideas out wrong and deserved to be killed. seems like he was trying to make a better future with the sacrifice of the now like colonists slaughtering natives to create U.S.
Chomsky has spoke at length about the crimes of Pol Pot (and US links), aswell as Mao, throwing these names at someone like Chomsky means nothing, if you knew anything about leftist politics you would be aware of that.
-"throwing these names at someone like Chomsky means nothing, if you knew anything about leftist politics you would be aware of that."
"Leftist politics"? Are you talking about Chomsky? Because Leftists, by definition, want bigger government. Anarchists, like Chomsky, want no government. Why does everyone think we're leftist?
Anarchists are historically leftist, not all leftist ideas are about bigger government, as far as myself and many other people are concerned, the left is about progressive government, be it big, small, or non-existent, Chomsky himself considers himself a leftist(See Znet), bigger (or no) government can mean many things, particularly if that government is made up of the citizenry itself, which is where leftist Politics has been heading for some time now. All progression is born on the left.
chomsky has never once said he is a "leftist". he's been asked many times and every time he says "when you look at public opinion data i'm usually right up the middle with most americans"
he has also laughed at the labels "left" and "right" many times. chomsky almost never uses terms like "leftist" or "right"
read some chomsky before spreading falsehoods about him in some vein attempt to pass as educated
Seriously, stop pretending like you have a clue, 'chomsky almost never uses terms like "leftist" or "right"' That is one of the most laughable comments i've seen in my life, which Chomsky are you reading?.. Go to Znet, home of the World Leftist Progressive movement, then get a clue as to were Chomsky stands.
I'm sorry, but someone who talks like a 12 year old spoilt brat does not work with Michael Albert or even at Znet.. you should just present yourself and your opinions as they stand, instead of firing off batty and childish insults, you make yourself look like more and more of a liar, which makes it tough for me, let alone anyone else, to take you seriously.
Actually, by the ORIGINAL definition of the political left-right. Left was simply more government control, right was less. However, people seem to have changed the definitions of Left-Right to fit the Democrats and Republicans, instead of changing the definitions of those parties.
However, it is IMPOSSIBLE to judge the whole political system on one dimension alone. Even the newer 2 dimensional spectrum is lacking. Personally, I find there is at least 11 dimensions in the whole political spectrm
not in the 1970 he didn't. were you even around then? chomsky was then a great supporter of both pol pot and mao, because the enemy of his enemy was his friend.
i know more about leftist politics, and have done more for leftist politics, than you ever will.
but if you can show in which book chomsky criticizes them (i have almost every one he's written) i'd love to look it up and be proven wrong
You want me to dignify this absurdity with a response?.. it is always dangerous to claim you are more Politically aware than someone else and then make such a fantastical leap as this.."i know more about leftist politics, and have done more for leftist politics, than you ever will." If you so eager to presume to know so much about a complete stranger, then i really have no reason to take you seriously, Chomsky has never denied the crimes of Pol Pot, merely said the crimes in Eas Timor were worse
holy fuck you are an idiot. east timor!? the indonesian "atrocities" (to use chomsky's favorite word) happened AFTER chomsky was defending pol pot's and mao's "exercise in real democracy". hey fuck face, try reading "american power and the new mandarins" BEFORE you read "manufacturing consent".
Don't pretend that you wield your "western imperialism" in any way as to compel people to do the right thing after years of doing wrong, to you and Chomsky it's just a Treaty of Versailles one uses to legitimize "all the evil that follows" as well as his pitiful absolutist worldview that's failed so miserably.
There's a real revolutionary left in Iraq that's on the side of the US. But you knew that because you've read Hitchens and Hanson and all of them. You're no moral coward or anything. ;)
i dont think there is any substantial group who is on the side of the u.s in iraq, and if there is it is irrelevant and doesnt justify the u.s and its imperial allies. iran, egypt, syria, afghanistan and iraq were all secular before the west interfered. Now we have a reactionary islamic movement against the likes of the u.s. Also it doesnt matter how much of a tyrant saddam is, regime change is ILLEGAL.
HAHAAA never in my life have I heard anyone even pretending to the label of rebellion or revolution shriek the dogma of law like I have the anti-war acolytes. I don't the fact that it was apparently legal in the case of Afghanistan means much to you anyway, nor would Saddam being in violation of all 4 tenets of sovereignty (again, google Hitchens if you dare) or the victims of Saddam or Jihad or the fact that other victims of colonialism and realpolitik have managed not to become fanatics.
So don't bother to pretend that you care about Iraqis or peace when you wield the club of past grievances as an eternal, never ending enabler for the aggression and absolute dominion of your favored totalitarians. Just keep screaming and banging the drum of romantic absolutism. Imperialism! Illegal! Heil Chomsky!
i dont have to pretend to care, i do. I suppose you wouldnt understand that concept, not having a higher social consciousness. Past grievences should be have been the end of it, but present crimes continue the cycle. Youre exxageration of "my favourite totalitarian" shows youre bitter passive aggressiveness, as i obviously despise totalitarians, especially those which are or were friends of the u.s such as saddam, the taliban, pol pot, the brits, apartheid african govs, pinochet, etc
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Chomsky hates America, why is his opinion of any value at all? What a jerk. But he is loved by anti-American intellectual left-wing fools who wouldn't know anything about building a nation, or defending it.
His view his own self-importance is nauseating, not to mention completely without merit. So he hates America, what has he done for anyone, anywhere? What a jerk.
No. I think you are mistaken in drawing the conclusion that he hates America. In this video he outlines his disagreement with some of America's foreign policy in Iraq that's all.
The purpose of the Iraq War was not to defeat Saddam; it was to destroy Iraq. The plan is to destroy Iran, to destroy Syria, to destroy Lebanon, to destroy every part of that region and beyond, and they call them failed states.
I think the public is less responsible for that than state powers are (not that the public is entirely "innocent," though). It's extremely advantageous to the white house to cultivate things like fear and patriotism and so on among the populace. This manipulation of public emotions is a very old practice, and it's been perfected by neo-conservatives and other repressive regimes.
Not so much the neo-cons but the entire PR industry they have ridden upon :P democrats would use entirely the same playbook if they didn't have to pretend to be progressive and liberal on occasion lol
it's amazing how our media can gloss over the massive inhumanity of what we have done and are still doing to innocent people in iraq every day that we remain there
and yet at the same time they convince the american populace that leaving would somehow be worse for them
worse than having us kick in their doors, blow them up, rape them, kill them, destroy their infrastructure and of course torture them at will?
at least they have a chance at defending themselves from their own
Does Chomsky support going AWOL?
tonybonez 1 year ago
I've always agreed with Noam Chomsky about western governments condemning an anti-western government for doing bad things, but not applying the same standards to themselves. However, is he talking about only the immediate consequences or also the long term effects? I don't think Britain today should be blamed for Zimbabwe's current state more so than Mugabe himself or the USSR blamed for the Taliban's actions, but I do think they're to blame for the immediate consequences of what they did,
Gunderson002 1 year ago
Everyone pro-war is an imperialist cunt who hates the Iraqi people.
CountOrlok1 2 years ago
Comment removed
MrSauron93 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Or those who thinks that oil is much more important than a brown bunch of useless dirt people. But I'm not for this war because first is that we in Europe got those people who "flee" from Iraq to us and later starts to comitts crimes, second was Saddam a quite good leader.
MrSauron93 2 years ago
Chomsky has makes no real arguments here. CIting past crimes and an "imperial mindset" are not an indictment of the war.
When he asks "what Iraqis want" how did he think this desire was going to be fulfilled under the Saddam regime? Does he make any attempt to say if the Iraqis' opinions are actually correct? Would the Shia/Sunni violence not have come about if Saddam had died in lieu of US invasion? Chomsky simply does not care, and supports fascists because of this
gonzoredux 2 years ago
Noam Chomsky is incredible.
JeffWilsonMusic 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Interesting, I wonder how he feels about the generations of North Koreans lost to the Kim Jong Il regime. Perhaps Mr. Chompsky should consider his life under Saddam or Il or even Mao. Oh to be born into the safe a safe American home with no worries of the real world just that of academia and leisure. The spoiled of western civilization in revolt, how inspiring.
deathcar 2 years ago
Chomsky thinks (correctly) that criticizing the crimes of his government has more moral value than criticizing the crimes of official enemies (which is what Soviet party hacks did). He, of course, criticized US support for Saddam through his worst atrocities, as well as US efforts to keep him in power after 1991 against Shiite & Kurdish rebellions. As for freedoms internal to the US, it was not the system, but people like him who fought AGAINST the system who won all the freedoms in our society
mr1001nights 2 years ago 6
But who is fighting for the people living under repressive regimes? And what percent of Iraqis up until the invasion actually wanted to get rid of Saddam? Did the Shiites and Kurds suddenly change their mind after the US invasion?
deathcar 2 years ago
What a frail and pitiful rebuttal - "Your life is good in this country, therefore you shouldn't criticise us when we commit genocide for 50 years."
lol, moron.
QwidgyboMan 1 year ago
Sorry, I wasn't aware that the "genocide" police were monitoring this page.
deathcar 1 year ago
@deathcar Wtf does that nonsense mean?
QwidgyboMan 1 year ago
@deathcar: Perhaps you would prefer so-called spoiled Westerners to not give a flying fuck at all?
Why don't you get back on your 20K fishing boat, with your $500 fishing pole, and disregard your lack of academics and go back to your leisurely fishing?
chinopisces 1 year ago
@chinopisces Spoiled Westerners don't give a flying fuck, that's my whole point. If we did, every Tyrant State in the world would be long dead and gone. I don't suppose old Chompsky has a solution to getting rid of Tyrants thats any better than old Georgie. Then again i don't suppose either of them has ever worked a real job in their lives.
"the sea was my harvard and my yale"
deathcar 1 year ago
@deathcar: I don't disagree with your statement, but you cannot place Chomsky in their category.
His family was poor, and he was lucky to be get an education. No one has earned the title of Professor at MIT if they were slackers. His contribution to the Civil Rights Movement is unprecedented and helped this nation become more civilized than it was.
Why would Chomsky bother being at odds with our government if he didn't give a fuck? Death threats aren't something to feel comfortable about.
chinopisces 1 year ago
His absolutely right!
halflifeproductionz 2 years ago
I love Noam Chomsky.
ErichoTTA 2 years ago 2
Chomsky is against aggression and other immoral and irrational behavior. You haven't read any of his books have you...
tstruss912 2 years ago 4
Think about this:
Chomsky says that George Bush is guilty of the worst crime known to man (aggression) and he will get away with it!
I wonder what he would say to someone who wanted to harm Bush!!
What would Chomsky say to them??
tonybonez 2 years ago
He'd say it was unacceptable. Those who are charged with committing crimes of any sort should, if at all possible, be handed over to the relevant judicial system to be tried and punished. Only if their arrest is resisted so violently that it becomes necessary to use lethal force to restrain them would it become acceptable to kill a person charged with a crime.
TheXylophone123 2 years ago 2
what is someone going to do, put Bush under a citizens arrest, haha? Yeah right
I dont think Bush would consent to that.
I am just curious what Chomsky would say to the idea that Bush is going to get away with this crime?? Maybe Chomsky would support something, I am only curious because Chomsky is so revered.
tonybonez 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It will be a terrible tragedy when millions of "Anti-Zionists" in Iraq kill each other.
I hope Dr. Chomsky lives long enough to see it.
rachelgolem 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dear Chomsky,
the values shift for the West because the West is Best (especially when it comes to democracy, human rights, and economic development)
TechnoDevotee 2 years ago
Thats the most contemptable, ignorant, hypocritical statement I've read on the entire internet in a long time. You should be ashamed of yourself.
adamthebaddun 2 years ago 5
It's amazing how Dr. Chomsky cuts through all of the propaganda and lays out the Iraqi situation as it really is. This is truly the 'NO SPIN ZONE' and it's not pretty!
veganthrope 3 years ago 11
wanna see him trash oreilly
aaron343432 3 years ago
o reilly would probably just drown his voice out with shouts
paganiniGOGO 3 years ago 5
It couldn't happen on OReilly's show because Oreilly just turns off his opponents mics when they whip him.
veganthrope 3 years ago 5
There's a reason why Chomsky will never be on TV.
He would make O Reilley shit his pants.
I don't think that any commentator could last literally 30 seconds against him
paganiniGOGO 2 years ago 18
nubbs, what in the hell are you talking about? free and fair elections? in Iraq? it isn't even a sovereign country, there are no such things as free and fair elections considering.
hunterschomsky 3 years ago
American-style Democracy won't work in Iraq. We need to come up with a Democratic System of Government customized for the Iraqis.
DoomHippie 3 years ago
You don't have a functioning Democracy in your own country, what makes you think you're qualified to export it to another in the first place?.. that's an Imperialist mentality, Iraq will most likely be a hellhole for many years to come, but the sooner the US army leaves Iraq entirely, the sooner the road to healing can come.
HoboSoulder 3 years ago
Haha! You think I'd want to spread Democracy? Well I'd half to like the idea of Democracy first. I am an Ararchist. Anarcho-Pacifist, to be specific. And "my" country? I've writen, and signed my own Declaration of Independance. As of right now, I have no country!
As for me being an 'Imperialist'...
I pretty much said to have a government by Iraqis, for Iraqis. A government by Americans for Americans won't work in Iraq.
Your tone is not clear. Are you agreeing with me or arguing with me?
DoomHippie 3 years ago
'American-style Democracy won't work in Iraq. We need to come up with a Democratic System of Government customized for the Iraqis.'
It was the arrogance in the statement i was refering to, the 'we need to come up with a system for the Iraqi's', my point is, that the Iraqis will never be able to form any type of stable government that represents the vast majority of the people until the US army leaves, which they won't, as they're already building permanent (or is that enduring?) bases.
HoboSoulder 3 years ago
Ah, you mistook the "we." By "we" I meant the Iraqis. Because my grammar skills are bad. And I never said anything about my stance on the Military leaving/staying, so once again your point is totally different from what I'm talking about.
Also, I'm voting for Libertarian Bob Barr. The only US Presidential candidate calling to immediately start withdrawing troops, so once again our opinions seem to have no conflict.
DoomHippie 3 years ago
Very well, i misunderstood your intentions, apologies!.
HoboSoulder 3 years ago
Really, I do not know what is happening...!
asiul65 3 years ago
Hey Nubbs. You are desperate to defend USA. Why? They do fine without your opinion and support. Now look at the situation objectively if you can. People who kill other innocent people are criminal and should be bought to justice. Period.
arthurnomad 3 years ago
i dont support US foreign policy.
(see my next post, in response to fistintheair420)
nubbs 3 years ago
"one voice is missing: iraqis"
but iraqis don't speak with one voice. some want the US to stay. some want the US to leave
"the united states is responsible for the sectarian violence"
partially, but far from entirely
nubbs 3 years ago
According to the Nurnberg Principles accords the aggressor bears the responsibility for all of the evil that follows.
The shared belief of the iraqis is that the US should leave.
lastofthegang 3 years ago
actually, that is just not true. are you saying that the shia militias bare no responsibility for murdering and raping fellow iraqis who have nothing to do with the invasion or occupation?
you are sick in the head
nubbs 3 years ago
I'm saying International Law, the Nuremburg Trials, state that if a country carries out an illegal war of aggression like the United States HAS done, then they are responsible for the breakdown of that country and all of the ensueing violence, if you disagree with these principles, all well and good for you, but that doesn't stop them from existing.
HoboSoulder 3 years ago
lol you really are a fucking idiot. international law says NOTHING about the responsibilities of an ILLEGAL invading power. where do you get this shit?
ps there is a difference between international law and the nuremburg trials. but you knew that, right
BUT if the US is responsible for the breakdown of iraq then they have, according to you logic, a responsibility to STAY in iraq and ensure the safety of the iraqi people, which is why they are staying.
check mate
nubbs 3 years ago
The iraqis speak in 2 voices in their interpretation of islam. But they are pretty much unanimous in opposing an occupation of their home by a foreign military and the murder and rape of civilians by the american government.
FistInTheAir420 3 years ago
if iraqis speak in 2 voices why are there over 20 political parties with seats in the iraqi parliament?
and why did that parliament agree that american forces are needed until 2011.
ps. if you knew anything about iraq, you would know that shia militias are responsible for about 99% of all rape cases.
these same shia militias are responsible for about 10 times as many innocent iraqi death than are the american troops.
nubbs 3 years ago
The 2 voices I was referring to were sunni and shia. These are religious denominations. Not political parties. They are fighting each other for the same reason protestants fight catholics. & I don't recall taking the shia's side. I said that both sunnis and shias want the invasion of their homes to stop. We are now taking the sunni's side in this because they oppose the shia government in iran. Btw,
al qaida=sunni. If you knew anything about iraq that wasn't on fox news, you might know that.
FistInTheAir420 3 years ago
we don't get fox news in canada, so so much for that theory.
btw, everyone knows "al qaida=sunni". i never suggested otherwise.
if you knew anything about iraq, you would know, as i stated, that it is shia militias that are responsible for almost all cases of rape, which are many
i made this point only because you said "... the murder and rape of civilians by the american government"
it's the shia militias (not the sunni al qaida fighters which acount for less than 5% of fighters) that rape
nubbs 3 years ago
btw, my point stands that you can not even divide iraq into TWO groups, like you have. there are many divisions within and overlaps of the sunni and shia communities.
you would know this is unlike chomsky you didn't act like all iraqis "speak with one voice", which is either racist or plain ignorant
nubbs 3 years ago
Racist? Aren't most iraqis the same race? I'm not the 1 who divided iraq into sunnis & shia. & I do know that there are other groups in iraq that are not either 1. The kurds being the most prominent. But sunni & shia combined make up a large majority of iraq. & these are the 2 groups currently fighting for control. & I didn't say they were of the same idealogy. I said both groups agree that they don't like being bombed. If I'm racist why am I speaking against genocide while you're defending it?
FistInTheAir420 3 years ago
actually, all humans are the same race, moron. there are many ethnicities inside iraq. it is racist to stereotype any ethnic group. you have stereotyped all iraqis as wanting the "rape and murder by american troops to end".
if you knew anything about iraq you would know that a majority of sunnis and shia want the americans to stay and provide security and protection from the militias, and you would know the only genocide in iraq was committed by the bathists, moron.
nubbs 3 years ago
So Blackwater & Halliburton fighters never rape any iraqis? Just Shia militias? That's an interesting fact. You sure you don't get fox in canada?
FistInTheAir420 3 years ago
so far as i know, and i follow this closely, there are about 10 cases of rape that have been alleged by iraqis to have been committed by americans. so far, 5 americans have been charged.
there are about 10,000 reported cases of shia militias raping both sunnis and moderate shia. so far, none have been charged.
where do you get your news? the internet? youtube videos?
ps. halliburton doesn't have a private army, moron. and no, no haliburon contractor has been accused of rape.
nubbs 3 years ago
iraqis don't speak with one voice, and it is a gross simplification on chomsky's part to suggest you can just ask iraqis what they want, as if they all think with one head
well, guess what. iraqis held free and fair elections, a governing coalition was formed, and they have asked the americans to stay until 2011 - ie 3 and a half more years.
nubbs 3 years ago
Clearly it was a mistake to try to discuss this with you. You're more interested in pulling facts out of thin air that have nothing to do with what I said, arguing against your imaginary facts & then telling me "if you knew anything about iraq you'd know that". What I know about iraq doesn't fit into 500 words. But I'm sure your response will be "Anything worth knowing fits into 500 words. If you knew anything about iraq you'd know that."
FistInTheAir420 3 years ago
here is what i know. you tell me where i am wrong:
1. the invasion was illegal, but
2. free and fair elections were held and a governing coalition has been established
3. this legitimate democratic governing coalition has told the US to stay in iraq until 2011.
4. the sunni uprising, mainly of former bathists and military workers, are now fighting with the americans
5. the shia militias have killed and raped an tens of thousands of more innocent iraqis than american troops or contractors
nubbs 3 years ago
free and fair my balls
Kegofbeer 3 years ago
yeah, all those ngo's and un inspectors who monitored the election were full of shit. just another cog in your great conspiracy theory, right
nubbs 3 years ago
The war was illegal. Iraq is occupied by a Foriegn Military, it is basically being controlled by a Purpose built 'green zone' city state, the elections were a PR exercise, people voted, but got nothing from the action, most of the country is still without electricity for a good portion of the day, no clean water, sketchy safety at best, fractured society, let us not forget the US torture prisons, there is no way you can have a functioning Democracy under these conditions
HoboSoulder 3 years ago
The Invasion was illegal, your first point, makes the rest of your points illegitimate. the Invasion was illegal, therefore it was the supreme war crime, a war of aggression, from which all other war crimes branch from, so the government is illegitimate, you can't have a functioning democracy whilst being occupied by a foreign power, points 4 and 5 are also products of the illegal invasion, therefore the US shares responsibility for them, this is a legal and moral truism you cannot escape.
HoboSoulder 3 years ago
um, and this has WHAT to do with the argument in this thread?
iraq voted in a democratic parliament with massive support from the people (even sunni) to elect local leaders they trust, who represent over 20 different political parties, who formed a democratic coalition, which voted to keep american troops in the country until 2011 to help stabilize a situation which they helped create and should have forseen but now have a moral responsibilty to stabilize
nubbs 3 years ago
Let me spell this out for you in simple language, you cannot have real or transparent democratic elections whilst being occupied by a foriegn power, this is basic logic here. The Vast majority of Iraqi Citizens want the US to LEAVE the country, Poll after poll after poll says this.. i'm not interested in the mandate a puppet government born under occupation wants, i'd rather listen to what the Iraqi people themselves want.
HoboSoulder 3 years ago
you are a fucking arrogant little racist if you think YOU know what ALL iraqis want.
show me one poll. one link. just one. im calling you on your bullshit
apparently YOU think you know more than the carter center, the UN, and about a dozen other ngo's which all said the iraqi elections were fair.
puppet government? lol i guess you think all those millions of iraqis who voted are idiots. and this is more proof of your racism
nubbs 3 years ago
Hahaha.. look at the anger in you, all bluster and bullshit. I'm not saying the elections were not fairly conducted, what i'm saying is, the pattern of voting in any occupied country is affected to the point of making any result a foregone conclussion. You are not thought of as Liberators, 650,000+ dead and 3-4 million refugees in other neighbouring countries, the wholesale pillage of Iraqi oil to Foreign (Western) Oil companies. No more of your angy ranting, we'll never see eye to eye.
HoboSoulder 3 years ago
PS ask the people of japan and west germany what they think about having real elections and a functioning democracy while being occupied.
double check mate, moron
nubbs 3 years ago
Yes i'm sure the Japanese loved being Vapourized in the hundreds of thousands and then having their entire educational, political and economic system written for them by the US, sure, that's a wonderful Democracy they inherited, one that refuses to listen to popular public opinion, like most, Germany is a unique case, as Both Russia and the US share responsibiility for its Division. Brush up on your chess skills.
HoboSoulder 3 years ago
PSS
hey fuck face, when was the last time you ask a sunni iraqi living in fear of shia militias what he want the US military to do in iraq?
or in your little racist colonial mind are all brown iraqis think the same?
nubbs 3 years ago
No sectarian violence before the US came, again this goes back to my point about the Supreme war Crime under International Law which the US government commited, all subsequent warcrimes branch from the act of aggression against another State, hopefully when the republicans are out of office, there will be enough Political Will to hold Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld accountable for their Warcrimes. by the way, calling an Irish man a racist colonial is about the stupidest thing i've ever heard, Kudos.
HoboSoulder 3 years ago
"calling an Irish man a racist colonial is about the stupidest thing i've ever heard"
Umm, did you just play the Race Card?
DoomHippie 3 years ago
He called me a racist colonial, I'm Irish, if you know History you'll know how absudly stupid that is, if you don't... well i guess you'll scratch your head.
HoboSoulder 3 years ago
I know history.
A also know it's stupid to think that a person's personality is drawn from his heritage. It's still the Race Card.
DoomHippie 3 years ago
Again, you seem to be missing the obvious point here, the enormously obvious one at tht, he clled me a racist colonial, you claim to know history, yet you fail to see the absurdity in someone calling me, an Irishman, a racist colonial, maybe you're not aswell versed in history as you claim to be, as the obvious doesn't seem so... obvious to you :)
HoboSoulder 3 years ago
You seem to miss that all I'm saying is that your ethnicity or nationality doesn't directly effect who you are.
Example: Im part German and part Polish, but I dislike the taste of sausage.
DoomHippie 3 years ago
If you believe that where you grew up and your cultural background (i realise that being American you have none) has no direct bearing on who you are, then you're either ignorant or just plain stupid.
HoboSoulder 3 years ago 4
I have a very diverse heritidge, part of it is Irish (Also, I'm not American). Anyway, I'm sure there are racist Irishmen, technophobic Japanese, in-shape Americans, and freedom-loving Koreans. Get it through your head, people ARE effected by their heritige, but it doesn't mean they turn out any certain way.
DoomHippie 3 years ago
You seem to be missing the point over and over and over again, are you retarded?... Where you are from and your culture DO affect who you are, i never said they completely define you, it was you who insisted they don't affect or shape you, and that's just bullshit, can't accept that?... too bad, i'm Irish, we lived under Colonial and Imperial rule for 800 years, so we're LESS likely to be racist or Colonial to other people, because our culture has born the brunt for so long, we don't forget.
HoboSoulder 3 years ago
You seem to be missing the point, what's the difference between you saying that and me saying that because your Irish you're more likely to be a drunk. They're both steriotypes based on race, and once again YOUR RACE DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING.
DoomHippie 3 years ago
Good lord you are stupid, i was called a Colonial racist by some bigoted idiot and i point out that calling and Irishman a Colonialist is one of the most stupidest things anyone could ever possibly say because we lived under the bootheel of Colonialism for 800 years and you go and disagree because you're a fucking idiot, well done retard, end of discussion. Again you miss the point, because of your lack of historical perspective no doubt.
HoboSoulder 3 years ago
Uh, America lived under the boothell of colonialism too, in case you didn't know. And it's one of the biggest Imperial Countries there is.
Race Card proves nothing.
DoomHippie 3 years ago
Chomsky is a socialist libertarian. Look it up fascist!
mcainiac 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
He looks like Kermit, the Frog with a white wig and a wool-knit sweater.
ludachris475 3 years ago
he doesn't look as ugly as some of the 'hot chicks' you faved.
Mockni 3 years ago 3
Senator McCain wants to stay Iraq for another 100 years...
Just months shy of his 300th birthday.
ludachris475 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I read Chomsky's Rhetorical History of Incest. And I found it to be a decrepit relic of the butt.
ludachris475 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Chomsky talks alot and makes little to no difference. Get a gun and go to city hall (or do some type of revolutionary act)itll do alot more than participating in interviews.
HardBodyNyC 3 years ago
its in our heritage its called manifest destiny its our destiny to bomb and invade and murder other people around the world so they can have some sort of democracy nomatter how many people die then try to justify it when it was found to be a lie
johno934 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Obviously as an anarchist, Chomsky should be quite happy with the current state of Iraq.
RiverHockey 3 years ago
in short: anarcho-syndicalism means, that there are organizations that care of security too, but every organization is less hierarchical ... nothing to do with the current situation in Iraq
nukn 3 years ago
Why does he even bother. The world is messed up and theres nothing he can do about it. He should just smoke some weed and chill out.
graze47 3 years ago
How sad that since 9/11 America has become the real terrorists. While our country is in a coma, someone dares to speak some truth. Right on, Chomsky!
maulhoik 3 years ago
LOL "higher social conciousness" god, you're pathetic. You can't defend anything you say can you? Passive aggressive! Lower social consciousness! You're not a rebel or an intellectual. You're a theocrat, and all you can do is shut out the unbelievers and drone the dogmas of your religion.
Especially hilarious is the fact that you bring up Pol Pot, the favored totalitarian of Noam Chomsky. Or didn't you know? lol Have fun making all the bad, "imperialist" thoughts go away.
Raieldon 3 years ago
i couldnt give a shite if chomsky sucked pol pots balls, doesnt mean i have to like him.
answer the core of what im saying which is that american imperialism is the cause of much instability and war.
irishrebelalert 3 years ago
ahhaaaahaa! That's awesome. From "Chomsky is brilliant" to this. Well, at least I can know that you're not a total fanatic now. That's my boy.
And I know all about the ails of American interventionism, but if you want to synonymise American foreign policy and global instability, you're seeing only what you want to. Who were these so-called "anti interventionists" pleading to when the Serbs were raping their way across Kosovo? The French? Good thing they got their way in Rwanda and Darfur.
Raieldon 3 years ago
Whose navy protects international trade routes? Who, with their land, their funds, and their protection ensures the ability of the world's nations to assemble? You tell me, post-cold war, what country has provided MORE stability?
Raieldon 3 years ago
its funny you talk about the cold war, as situation which both russia and amerikkka were responsible for, it wasnt a natural disaster!! it was a calculated imperialist foreign policy on the part of both nations
irishrebelalert 3 years ago 3
And I'm sure would all be better off had the co-idealists of your precious Che, a man who executed children for stealing food, had their way.
I'll take it you have no answer to my previous question, then. Better no answer then a bad one, I guess.
Raieldon 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
chomsky is a commie whinner
yomkippur2 3 years ago
what chomsky talks about in relation to history and politics and world events isnt a revelation, hes not coming up with new ideas or facts, its just many in the west are not conditioned to question or analyse events.
Although he does make it easy for conditioned individuals to open their minds
CHOMSKY IS BRILLIANT
irishrebelalert 3 years ago
if you knew anything youd know he is not "left wing".
irishrebelalert 3 years ago
How is Chomsky not left-wing? How the heck are you defining the 'left' if I doesn't include Chomsky and anarcho-syndicalism?
Xenu 3 years ago
he is not left wing because he simply states the TRUTH using FACTS, so are you saying that being left wing means telling the truth and not left wing means lying?
irishrebelalert 3 years ago
Not necessarily, no. But once we've achieved an objective analysis of reality or at least made an honest attempt at objectivity we're left with the question of what we're going to do. If you believe in extending democracy, labor rights, women's rights, environmental rights then yes, that makes you left-wing. And if you believe in socialism that most certainly makes you left-wing. By definition. It comes down to what your values are - especially on economic and social issues.
Xenu 3 years ago
but his personal political leanings are actually irrelevant, he merely compiles the FACTS into an easily inderstandable and digestable from for the average person to comprehend. This is one of his genius talents, the ability to as an intellectual clearly convey clarity of FACTS to ordinary people.
irishrebelalert 3 years ago
In the same breath that he accuses "imperialist mentality" he employs the absolutist, totalitarian and anti-peace mentality most characteristic of him: "aggression encompasses all the evil that follows" THAT is the justification of all evil, of nazis, terrorists and tyrants. Chomsky's only condition for using the blank check of past grievances is being non-western. I laugh at him and his acolytes who actually lay claim to open-mindedness and depth of reason.
Raieldon 3 years ago
actually hes quoting the geneca convention there
irishrebelalert 3 years ago
Actually I believe he's quoting Nuremberg, and I'm sure they meant that the overthrow of a government gives people the sacred unopposible right to rape and murder the unarmed and unaffiliated at their leisure.
"legalize cannabis and oppose islamofascism" that's gonna be my sig from now on lol. I love the thought of shrieking moral jingoist hypocrites like helium96 laying awake at night knowing how useless their once-comforting notion that all those on the side of the US are neo-cons really is.
Raieldon 3 years ago
can you actually make a point or are you after a literary medal?!!
chomsky is the first to say that islamic terrorism is a big threat, but hed also tell you that its mostly because of countries like the u.s, france, israel and russia to name a few.
most middle easter states were secular before the 1980s, but thanks to western imperialism that has changed
irishrebelalert 3 years ago 3
Ah, yes. Western imperialism. The perfect red herring. As if to say that one has no right to oppose apocalyptic totalitarians because of past transgressions. I also love how so-called leftists cite the past US support of Saddam has cause for any and all Americans to be butchered at their discretion, while they feel absolute, unquestionable pride in demanding in screaming tones that we should have perpetuated his rule, in fact citing it as a reason that we had no right to impugn his sovereignty.
Raieldon 3 years ago
Let me say up front I agree Saddam was a dick.
Anybody who has a palace built mostly out of gold in a country with that many people starving is not on my nice list. But for as much of a dick as he was, he was politically a moderate who kept the more extremist sects mostly at peace in his country. With him gone they are free to fight each other. Which is what they are doing now with American soldiers caught in the crossfire. That it's another country should be a good reason for sovereignty.
FistInTheAir420 3 years ago
6. but unlike the shia murderers and rapists, american troops are tried and convicted
THUS (and here is where arthurnomad can come back in) it is the shia who really need to brought to justice. period.
7. chomsky oversimplifies the situation in iraq. and he didn't need over 500 words to do it. surprise. (this from the guy who though mao was a real small d democrat and that pol pot was basically a good guy - look it up)
nubbs 3 years ago
8. and yes, you did "clearly make a mistake" arguing with someone like me who deals in facts and not platitudes and is infinitely more intelligent than you. if want to engage in a battle of wits, make sure you come armed
nubbs 3 years ago
"if you want to engage in a battle of wits make sure you come armed" thats the most cliche thing ive ever heard. anyway i dont know much about pol pot but what khmer rouge was trying 2 do, if im correct in what i think he was trying 2 do, was a good thing. like i said i only have basic info on it but he definitely carried his ideas out wrong and deserved to be killed. seems like he was trying to make a better future with the sacrifice of the now like colonists slaughtering natives to create U.S.
yndarjabelo 3 years ago
Chomsky has spoke at length about the crimes of Pol Pot (and US links), aswell as Mao, throwing these names at someone like Chomsky means nothing, if you knew anything about leftist politics you would be aware of that.
HoboSoulder 3 years ago
-"throwing these names at someone like Chomsky means nothing, if you knew anything about leftist politics you would be aware of that."
"Leftist politics"? Are you talking about Chomsky? Because Leftists, by definition, want bigger government. Anarchists, like Chomsky, want no government. Why does everyone think we're leftist?
DoomHippie 3 years ago
Anarchists are historically leftist, not all leftist ideas are about bigger government, as far as myself and many other people are concerned, the left is about progressive government, be it big, small, or non-existent, Chomsky himself considers himself a leftist(See Znet), bigger (or no) government can mean many things, particularly if that government is made up of the citizenry itself, which is where leftist Politics has been heading for some time now. All progression is born on the left.
HoboSoulder 3 years ago
chomsky has never once said he is a "leftist". he's been asked many times and every time he says "when you look at public opinion data i'm usually right up the middle with most americans"
he has also laughed at the labels "left" and "right" many times. chomsky almost never uses terms like "leftist" or "right"
read some chomsky before spreading falsehoods about him in some vein attempt to pass as educated
nubbs 3 years ago
Seriously, stop pretending like you have a clue, 'chomsky almost never uses terms like "leftist" or "right"' That is one of the most laughable comments i've seen in my life, which Chomsky are you reading?.. Go to Znet, home of the World Leftist Progressive movement, then get a clue as to were Chomsky stands.
HoboSoulder 3 years ago
you are right - the US has a responsiblity for the violence in iraq.
that is the they are staying in iraq. check mate.
ps. i was writing for zmag and michael albert while you were still playing playstation, bitch
nubbs 3 years ago
I'm sorry, but someone who talks like a 12 year old spoilt brat does not work with Michael Albert or even at Znet.. you should just present yourself and your opinions as they stand, instead of firing off batty and childish insults, you make yourself look like more and more of a liar, which makes it tough for me, let alone anyone else, to take you seriously.
HoboSoulder 3 years ago
Actually, by the ORIGINAL definition of the political left-right. Left was simply more government control, right was less. However, people seem to have changed the definitions of Left-Right to fit the Democrats and Republicans, instead of changing the definitions of those parties.
However, it is IMPOSSIBLE to judge the whole political system on one dimension alone. Even the newer 2 dimensional spectrum is lacking. Personally, I find there is at least 11 dimensions in the whole political spectrm
DoomHippie 3 years ago
exactly. people focus on the socialism and not the libertarian. it's libertarian socialism for a reason
nubbs 3 years ago
Yeah, we Anarchists really need a new name. Most of the names have a negative public image.
DoomHippie 3 years ago
not in the 1970 he didn't. were you even around then? chomsky was then a great supporter of both pol pot and mao, because the enemy of his enemy was his friend.
i know more about leftist politics, and have done more for leftist politics, than you ever will.
but if you can show in which book chomsky criticizes them (i have almost every one he's written) i'd love to look it up and be proven wrong
nubbs 3 years ago
You want me to dignify this absurdity with a response?.. it is always dangerous to claim you are more Politically aware than someone else and then make such a fantastical leap as this.."i know more about leftist politics, and have done more for leftist politics, than you ever will." If you so eager to presume to know so much about a complete stranger, then i really have no reason to take you seriously, Chomsky has never denied the crimes of Pol Pot, merely said the crimes in Eas Timor were worse
HoboSoulder 3 years ago
holy fuck you are an idiot. east timor!? the indonesian "atrocities" (to use chomsky's favorite word) happened AFTER chomsky was defending pol pot's and mao's "exercise in real democracy". hey fuck face, try reading "american power and the new mandarins" BEFORE you read "manufacturing consent".
nubbs 3 years ago
Don't pretend that you wield your "western imperialism" in any way as to compel people to do the right thing after years of doing wrong, to you and Chomsky it's just a Treaty of Versailles one uses to legitimize "all the evil that follows" as well as his pitiful absolutist worldview that's failed so miserably.
There's a real revolutionary left in Iraq that's on the side of the US. But you knew that because you've read Hitchens and Hanson and all of them. You're no moral coward or anything. ;)
Raieldon 3 years ago
i dont wield any imperialism! i despise it.
i dont think there is any substantial group who is on the side of the u.s in iraq, and if there is it is irrelevant and doesnt justify the u.s and its imperial allies. iran, egypt, syria, afghanistan and iraq were all secular before the west interfered. Now we have a reactionary islamic movement against the likes of the u.s. Also it doesnt matter how much of a tyrant saddam is, regime change is ILLEGAL.
irishrebelalert 3 years ago
HAHAAA never in my life have I heard anyone even pretending to the label of rebellion or revolution shriek the dogma of law like I have the anti-war acolytes. I don't the fact that it was apparently legal in the case of Afghanistan means much to you anyway, nor would Saddam being in violation of all 4 tenets of sovereignty (again, google Hitchens if you dare) or the victims of Saddam or Jihad or the fact that other victims of colonialism and realpolitik have managed not to become fanatics.
Raieldon 3 years ago
So don't bother to pretend that you care about Iraqis or peace when you wield the club of past grievances as an eternal, never ending enabler for the aggression and absolute dominion of your favored totalitarians. Just keep screaming and banging the drum of romantic absolutism. Imperialism! Illegal! Heil Chomsky!
Raieldon 3 years ago
i dont have to pretend to care, i do. I suppose you wouldnt understand that concept, not having a higher social consciousness. Past grievences should be have been the end of it, but present crimes continue the cycle. Youre exxageration of "my favourite totalitarian" shows youre bitter passive aggressiveness, as i obviously despise totalitarians, especially those which are or were friends of the u.s such as saddam, the taliban, pol pot, the brits, apartheid african govs, pinochet, etc
irishrebelalert 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Chomsky hates America, why is his opinion of any value at all? What a jerk. But he is loved by anti-American intellectual left-wing fools who wouldn't know anything about building a nation, or defending it.
His view his own self-importance is nauseating, not to mention completely without merit. So he hates America, what has he done for anyone, anywhere? What a jerk.
HalRogers2000 3 years ago
No. I think you are mistaken in drawing the conclusion that he hates America. In this video he outlines his disagreement with some of America's foreign policy in Iraq that's all.
1leigui1 3 years ago
chomsky has repeatedly proclaimed his love of america. he happens to think american govt foreign policy is illegal, cruel and dangerous which it is.
monkeysmile1 3 years ago
how exactly does he hate america?? everything he has stated is fact based, therefore it is not his opinion but FACTS.
The invasion was illegal therefore = a war crime.
explain youreself?
irishrebelalert 3 years ago
The purpose of the Iraq War was not to defeat Saddam; it was to destroy Iraq. The plan is to destroy Iran, to destroy Syria, to destroy Lebanon, to destroy every part of that region and beyond, and they call them failed states.
ludachris475 3 years ago 3
It'll be a long time before the general public practice what they preach and stop seeing this world as black and white as good vs. evil.
aaycumi 4 years ago 6
I think the public is less responsible for that than state powers are (not that the public is entirely "innocent," though). It's extremely advantageous to the white house to cultivate things like fear and patriotism and so on among the populace. This manipulation of public emotions is a very old practice, and it's been perfected by neo-conservatives and other repressive regimes.
Tadamun 4 years ago 7
Not so much the neo-cons but the entire PR industry they have ridden upon :P democrats would use entirely the same playbook if they didn't have to pretend to be progressive and liberal on occasion lol
lGnossos 3 years ago
Living up to the principles we espouse. If only.
Mjhavok 4 years ago 9
it's amazing how our media can gloss over the massive inhumanity of what we have done and are still doing to innocent people in iraq every day that we remain there
and yet at the same time they convince the american populace that leaving would somehow be worse for them
worse than having us kick in their doors, blow them up, rape them, kill them, destroy their infrastructure and of course torture them at will?
at least they have a chance at defending themselves from their own
onlywhenprovoked 4 years ago 11