brad
07-25-2003, 03:24 PM
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=7630
heres my quick review. (after // is my opinion other is quote from article.)
------------------------------------
Of all the major powers in the Sixties, according to
Chomsky, America was the most reprehensible. Its
principles of liberal democracy were a sham. Its
democracy was a “four-year dictatorship” and its
economic commitment to free markets was merely a
disguise for corporate power. Its foreign policy was
positively evil. “By any objective standard,” he wrote
at the time, “the United States has become the most
aggressive power in the world, the greatest threat to
peace, to national self-determination, and to
international cooperation.”
// well after enron etc. and our troops everywhere inclding plan to invade iran syria and n. korea what do u think?
--
At the time, the traditional left was still dominated
by an older generation of Marxists, who were either
supporters of the Communist Party or else Trotskyists
opposed to Joseph Stalin and his heirs but who still
endorsed Lenin and Bolshevism. Either way, the emerging
generation of radical students saw both groups as
compromised by their support for the Russian Revolution
and the repressive regimes it had bequeathed to eastern
Europe.
// speaking of trotskyists, all thse 'neocons' (richard perle, etc.) are trotskyists!! look it up. read ron pauls speech on neocons that i posted
--
//chomskys defense of foreign nation's atrocities? what
ive read he compares himself to sakarov in the soviet
union. sakarov criticized s.u.'s policies and when
officicals said, yes, but what about america, sakarov
said, hey, thats upto them , we have to clean up our
own house.
-------
Chomsky has persisted with this pattern of behavior
right to this day. In his response to September 11, he
claimed that no matter how appalling the terrorists’
actions, the United States had done worse.
//not really . chomsky said look , they dont hate our
ideals, our thoughts of freedom. they hate us cause we
bomb them and murder them, btw on a much greater scale
than 911. but we do it with state sanctioned force.
------------------------
This Sudanese incident was an American missile attack
on the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum,
where the CIA suspected Iraqi scientists were
manufacturing the nerve agent VX for use in chemical
weapons contracted by the Saddam Hussein regime. The
missile was fired at night so that no workers would be
there and the loss of innocent life would be minimised.
The factory was located in an industrial area and the
only apparent casualty at the time was the caretaker.
// come on. we all know about how clinton bombed an
aspirin factory, ect. for christ's sake, we know the
whole iraq war was builit on solid lies, wmd, etc.
------------------------------
was a largely anti-American tirade criticizing the
United States’ international human rights record,
blaming America for the 1980s Iran-Iraq war, accusing
it of ignoring Iraq’s gassing of the Kurds, and holding
it responsible for the purported deaths of 600,000
Iraqi children as a result of post-1991 economic
sanctions.
// madeline albright, on national tv on 60 minutes in
199x (3 or something) said that 500,000 dead iraqi
children was 'an acceptable price for stability in
region' or something like that. bet me 10,000 dollars.
bet me 10,000 dollars she didnt say that. go ahead.
-----------------------
The central argument of American Power and the New
Mandarins is that the humanities and social sciences
had been captured by a new breed of intellectuals.
Rather than acting as Socratic free thinkers
challenging received opinion, they had betrayed their
calling by becoming servants of the military-industrial
state. The interests of this new mandarin class, he
argued, had turned the United States into an imperial
power.
// jesus christ, all the neocons inthe administration
(eg, richard perle, aka prince of darkness, hey thats
his moniker given to him by pentagon brass) are openly
talking about the need for american imperialism.
-----------------------
//manufacturing consent
Nowhere do the authors explain how journalists and
other news producers come to believe they are
exercising their freedom to report the world as they
see it.
// hey it was common knowlegde before iraq war that
that whole niger uranium thing was a total lie, yet no
one reported it. why?
Nor do they attempt any analysis of why millions of
ordinary people exercise their free choice every day to
buy newspapers and tune in to radio and television
programs. Chomsky and Herman fail to explain why
readers and viewers so willingly accept the world-view
of capitalist media proprietors. They provide no
explanation for the tastes of media audiences
// hey fcc just authorized virtual monopoly of media by
big business.
Reactions to the terrorist attacks, he said, “should
meet the most elementary moral standards: specifically,
if an action is right for us, it is right for others;
and if it is wrong for others, it is wrong for us.”
// obvious. how can u argue with this. chomsky is
saying terrorism is wrong, but US practices it too. US
must stop. we cannot stop enemies from killing
civilians, but we can stop ourselves. we dont have any
moral high ground if we sponsor death squads (as in
central america and other)
Yet Chomsky’s moral perspective is completely
one-sided. No matter how great the crimes of the
regimes he has favored, such as China, Vietnam, and
Cambodia under the communists, Chomsky has never
demanded their leaders be captured and tried for war
crimes.
// not true i have heard chomsky say that 'of course
these regimes are evil and corrupt, everybody knows
that' . his point is that this fact doesnt mean we have
to be evil and corrupt as well.
finally nothing in the article was footnoted so im not
even sure chomskys quotes given in there are real.
heres my quick review. (after // is my opinion other is quote from article.)
------------------------------------
Of all the major powers in the Sixties, according to
Chomsky, America was the most reprehensible. Its
principles of liberal democracy were a sham. Its
democracy was a “four-year dictatorship” and its
economic commitment to free markets was merely a
disguise for corporate power. Its foreign policy was
positively evil. “By any objective standard,” he wrote
at the time, “the United States has become the most
aggressive power in the world, the greatest threat to
peace, to national self-determination, and to
international cooperation.”
// well after enron etc. and our troops everywhere inclding plan to invade iran syria and n. korea what do u think?
--
At the time, the traditional left was still dominated
by an older generation of Marxists, who were either
supporters of the Communist Party or else Trotskyists
opposed to Joseph Stalin and his heirs but who still
endorsed Lenin and Bolshevism. Either way, the emerging
generation of radical students saw both groups as
compromised by their support for the Russian Revolution
and the repressive regimes it had bequeathed to eastern
Europe.
// speaking of trotskyists, all thse 'neocons' (richard perle, etc.) are trotskyists!! look it up. read ron pauls speech on neocons that i posted
--
//chomskys defense of foreign nation's atrocities? what
ive read he compares himself to sakarov in the soviet
union. sakarov criticized s.u.'s policies and when
officicals said, yes, but what about america, sakarov
said, hey, thats upto them , we have to clean up our
own house.
-------
Chomsky has persisted with this pattern of behavior
right to this day. In his response to September 11, he
claimed that no matter how appalling the terrorists’
actions, the United States had done worse.
//not really . chomsky said look , they dont hate our
ideals, our thoughts of freedom. they hate us cause we
bomb them and murder them, btw on a much greater scale
than 911. but we do it with state sanctioned force.
------------------------
This Sudanese incident was an American missile attack
on the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum,
where the CIA suspected Iraqi scientists were
manufacturing the nerve agent VX for use in chemical
weapons contracted by the Saddam Hussein regime. The
missile was fired at night so that no workers would be
there and the loss of innocent life would be minimised.
The factory was located in an industrial area and the
only apparent casualty at the time was the caretaker.
// come on. we all know about how clinton bombed an
aspirin factory, ect. for christ's sake, we know the
whole iraq war was builit on solid lies, wmd, etc.
------------------------------
was a largely anti-American tirade criticizing the
United States’ international human rights record,
blaming America for the 1980s Iran-Iraq war, accusing
it of ignoring Iraq’s gassing of the Kurds, and holding
it responsible for the purported deaths of 600,000
Iraqi children as a result of post-1991 economic
sanctions.
// madeline albright, on national tv on 60 minutes in
199x (3 or something) said that 500,000 dead iraqi
children was 'an acceptable price for stability in
region' or something like that. bet me 10,000 dollars.
bet me 10,000 dollars she didnt say that. go ahead.
-----------------------
The central argument of American Power and the New
Mandarins is that the humanities and social sciences
had been captured by a new breed of intellectuals.
Rather than acting as Socratic free thinkers
challenging received opinion, they had betrayed their
calling by becoming servants of the military-industrial
state. The interests of this new mandarin class, he
argued, had turned the United States into an imperial
power.
// jesus christ, all the neocons inthe administration
(eg, richard perle, aka prince of darkness, hey thats
his moniker given to him by pentagon brass) are openly
talking about the need for american imperialism.
-----------------------
//manufacturing consent
Nowhere do the authors explain how journalists and
other news producers come to believe they are
exercising their freedom to report the world as they
see it.
// hey it was common knowlegde before iraq war that
that whole niger uranium thing was a total lie, yet no
one reported it. why?
Nor do they attempt any analysis of why millions of
ordinary people exercise their free choice every day to
buy newspapers and tune in to radio and television
programs. Chomsky and Herman fail to explain why
readers and viewers so willingly accept the world-view
of capitalist media proprietors. They provide no
explanation for the tastes of media audiences
// hey fcc just authorized virtual monopoly of media by
big business.
Reactions to the terrorist attacks, he said, “should
meet the most elementary moral standards: specifically,
if an action is right for us, it is right for others;
and if it is wrong for others, it is wrong for us.”
// obvious. how can u argue with this. chomsky is
saying terrorism is wrong, but US practices it too. US
must stop. we cannot stop enemies from killing
civilians, but we can stop ourselves. we dont have any
moral high ground if we sponsor death squads (as in
central america and other)
Yet Chomsky’s moral perspective is completely
one-sided. No matter how great the crimes of the
regimes he has favored, such as China, Vietnam, and
Cambodia under the communists, Chomsky has never
demanded their leaders be captured and tried for war
crimes.
// not true i have heard chomsky say that 'of course
these regimes are evil and corrupt, everybody knows
that' . his point is that this fact doesnt mean we have
to be evil and corrupt as well.
finally nothing in the article was footnoted so im not
even sure chomskys quotes given in there are real.