PDA

View Full Version : reformatted chomsky post for easy reading for your pleasure


brad
07-26-2003, 12:29 PM
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=7630

heres my quick review.

[ QUOTE ]
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.”

[/ QUOTE ]

// well after enron etc. and our troops everywhere inclding plan to invade iran syria and n. korea what do u think?

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]

// 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.

-------
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

//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.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

// 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.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

// 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.

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]

// 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.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

// hey it was common knowlegde before iraq war that
that whole niger uranium thing was a total lie, yet no
one reported it. why?

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]


// hey fcc just authorized virtual monopoly of media by
big business.

[ QUOTE ]
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.”

[/ QUOTE ]

// 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)

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

// 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.

brad
07-26-2003, 12:31 PM
ok thru copy/paste or whatever the formatting is still messed up but at least article quotes are clear. heh

btw, no one has rebutted my defense and actually in trying agree with chomsky, so thats reassuring /images/graemlins/smile.gif

MMMMMM
07-26-2003, 01:40 PM
brad I have the feeling this debate with you could easily last a few years...;-)

Chomsky's points are wrong, it is an oversimplificatpon to automatically say we are wrong to deal with or support bad leaders. Sometimes we are and sometimes we aren't. You can't operate entirely idealistically in a very corrupt and brutal world. We aren't 100% responsible for the bad actions of leaders we deal with or support. Chomsky's view also does not acknowledge that sometimes, unfortunately, we are faced with choosing the lesser of two evils. He lays the blame for everything any bad regime ever does directly at our feet as if we can completely control those we deal with, and as if there wouldn't be horrors in those country anyway even if we never got involved.


He pays lip service, once in a blue moon, to the fact that the USSR and China did terrible things, while writing entire books on lesser bad things we have done. He calls for war crimes trials for the West while never calling for war crimes trials of the Communist countries who actually did FAR, FAR worse. He then 'nobly' claims that this is because our responsibility lies with us first. But that is a smokescreen: his real agenda is to tear us down and to spread communism and to weaken us. If he were really concerned about humanity as a whole he would equally condemn and expose the atrocities of every nation, so that everyone would realize that historically, communism always leads to the greatest of state-sponsored evil. However he does not do this. He is a partisan attack dog with a clear agenda who is deceitful and cunning in the methods he has chosen by which to advance his goals.

Chomsky wants to see a communist world, and doesn't care about the bloodshed it would take to get there. Not does he care about the 100 million innocent people comunnism has killed so far. How do we know this? Because if he did care, the thought of it would have so revolted him that he would have written at least one book absolutely condemning communism and China and the USSR. Instead he focuses his attacks on the better members of the world society (who I admit are none too perfect, but at least they'rte better). He also believes in revolutionary horror if it brings about more "social eqality' (see hois comments regarding Vietnam, for instance).

I am convinced now that he is a master propagandist with an insidiously evil agenda and that he has made great strides in advancing it. Too bad most people who read his works cannot see through him to his true nature and agenda. His goal is to undermine the resolve and morale of the West and free world in order to pave the way for furtherance of the greatest state evil the world has ever known: communism. It is tragic that someone so intelligent can be so misguided and so callous.

brad
07-26-2003, 02:19 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I am convinced now that he is a master propagandist with an insidiously evil agenda and that he has made great strides in advancing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

well alex jones agrees 100% with you (when alex had him on his show he was polite for a while but at the end of the interview (20 min - 1 hour i cant remember) alex just totally castigated him and called him a liar and evil /images/graemlins/smile.gif )

although im not sure hes made 'great strides in advancing it'.

having said that...

'Chomsky's points are wrong, it is an oversimplificatpon to automatically say we are wrong to deal with or support bad leaders. '

i totally bashed the article in frontpagemag and you couldnt refute any of my points.

to sum up, UN and UNESCO are evil, and chomsky seems to be for them, so ? but you know he doesnt support china or russia if you think that u just arent familiar with his speeches and stuff. in any case, if you still believe government never lies and stuff u must be naive.

MMMMMM
07-26-2003, 04:23 PM
huh? I refuted at least a couple of your points and didn't yet even attempt to refute the others. There you go again...jumping to conclusions;-)

Of course government lies sometimes but Chomsky blows it way out of proportion especially when he claims we are all essentially mindlessly indoctrinated and easily conned into "manufactured consent."

Wake up CALL
07-26-2003, 04:32 PM
brad i see you are a communist, keep the word out jackboots are made for walking on others

brad
07-26-2003, 04:37 PM
[ QUOTE ]
huh? I refuted at least a couple of your points

[/ QUOTE ]

id like to see what others think.

MMMMMM
07-26-2003, 04:50 PM
I'm not going to go searching through both threads again now, but if you do, you'll clearly see the points. One had to do with your using Albright's statement to discount the humanitarian justification for the war. Whether or not there existed humanitarian justification for the war is in no way dependent on Albright's statement. Are you disputing this?

brad
07-26-2003, 05:08 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not going to go searching through both threads again now, but if you do, you'll clearly see the points. One had to do with your using Albright's statement to discount the humanitarian justification for the war. Whether or not there existed humanitarian justification for the war is in no way dependent on Albright's statement. Are you disputing this?

[/ QUOTE ]

well theres two issues i addressed in main rebuttal of frontpagemag.

1) frontpagemag said chomsky was lying on issue of 1/2 million dead iraqi children. i think its easy to see chomsky was right since even madelein albright agrees with him. [ QUOTE ]

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.


[/ QUOTE ]
so u see albright confirmed this was true and said it was ok.

2) reasons for war were propaganda. (ie, wmd, etc.)

now i went beyond the scope of my main argument and said, hey, if humanitarian issue was so important, why did US wait until 1 million iraqi children were dead? im strongly implying that humanitarian argument for war was propaganda too, although of course wmd and imminent threat to US was main US excuse for war.

MMMMMM
07-26-2003, 05:20 PM
and I said just because Albright said something does not make it so. I hold to my former position that Saddam caused most of those deaths and in fact deliberately exacerbated them in order to create greater international pressure to have the sanctions lifted.

Reasons for war may have included some propaganda but cannot be classified overall as propaganda. Why?

Because reason #1: WMD programs: it has been widely known for many years, by many intelligence services and governments, that Saddam had WMD programs.

Because reason #2: the humanitarian argument. Even if the US government did not give two craps about the humanitarian argument, that doesn't mean the humanitarian argument didn't exist. It did. So even if the reason the US gave (humanitarian argument) was not something the US government cared about at all, it was still a very real and important reason because the Iraqi people gravely and desperately needed humanitarian aid in the form of forcible relief from their tyrant.

I don't see why you seem to find these two issues (the humanitarian need and the humanitarian reason given) so hard to separate. The given humanitarian reason may be BS as far as US motivations were concerned, but it was incredibly true and terribly real for the Iraqi people. Why isn't this clear?

So Saddam had WMD programs for many years even if some of the info. was wrong or fabricated, and the Iraqi people desperately needed relief even if the US government didn't care about them at all.

brad
07-26-2003, 05:31 PM
[ QUOTE ]
So Saddam had WMD programs for many years even if some of the info. was wrong or fabricated, and the Iraqi people desperately needed relief even if the US government didn't care about them at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) all evidence seems to contradict your opinion on saddams wmd

2) time will tell how the iraqi people are treated. if in , say 2 years, their standard of living has declined then u will see why humanitarian argument was pure propaganda. if , on the other hand, they actually do have a better life (and shooting unarmed demonstrators by US forces is a long gone memory) then you will be right. but now it is too soon to tell.

so, basically i think that the facts do not support you in 1) and for 2) there are no facts yet , ie, too soon to tell.

brad
07-26-2003, 05:34 PM
you know i just realized perfect example of doublethink.

on the one hand u say government tells truth.

on the other hand u say that just because high ranking official (sec state madeline albright) says somethning (500k dead iraqi children) doesnt make it so.


ps jus cause i say they lie doesnt mean every single thing they say is a lie,

MMMMMM
07-26-2003, 10:46 PM
re: 1), what are you talking about? Do you really think that:

A: Saddam unilaterally destroyed and renounced his long love affair with WMD for some inexplicable reason,

AND

B: that ALL the foreign and domestic intelligence service reports over the last 6 years were wrong about Iraq having WMD programs?

I mean c'mon, that's just preposterous. He might not have had massive WMD in storage and ready to fly but he sure as hell never completely stopped working on that crap.

Re: 2): I think it's extremely unlikely the Iraqi pepople won't be better off after being relieved of Saddam's tyranny. Also weighing it merely by "standard of living" is not really right. Doesn't being free of fear of midnight secret police arrests for political reasons mean anything, too? Standard of living my ass, how about some civil rights first.

brad
07-26-2003, 10:53 PM
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/taketwo.gif

2) iraqis rights may be diminished also. already gun confiscation. (under saddam anyone could ave guns)

MMMMMM
07-26-2003, 11:01 PM
good pictures lol but it is hard to imagine how Iraqi civil rights could suffer overall, unless you're imagining that those occult rituals reported on Alex Jones will be moved from California to Iraq, and administered by the ghosts of Uday and Qusay.

brad
07-26-2003, 11:21 PM
fyi , former german prime minister or whatever bernhard schroeder said they have a grove over in germany but he likes bohemian grove better.

search the internet you will find very mainstream articles on it.

btw, its going on now i think and latest news from bohemian grove is that republicans will support schwarzenegger if he decides to run.

brad
07-28-2003, 12:16 AM
qoutes in pics r real, btw