Noam Chomsky in Iceland: Compares Nixon and Kissinger to bin Laden - Page 2

little grey rabbit · 23rd September 2011, 01:15 AM

Originally Posted by foxholeatheist

I would hardly call OBL unarmed at the time of his death.

Chomsky may know far more than I but I think I am smarter.

And I am sure your mum does too.

jimtron · 23rd September 2011, 07:26 AM

Originally Posted by Gazpacho

It's from 2000. People focus on the CIA for good historical reasons, but remember that its operations were only part of a broader capitalist reaction against Allende that included US public policy and the efforts of foreign corporations.

I agree.

TubbaBlubba · 23rd September 2011, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

One of the problems with Chomsky's criticism of both the US and the Soviets is that it isn't actually equal. And by that, I do not mean that he's criticizing us more than them, but that the effects of such criticism are not, and never can be, equal. This is not a new problem, and Orwell wrote about this essential asymmetry during WW2:

Granted, this isn't an exact parallel to Chomsky. The cold war may not have been quite as stark a contrast as WW2, and I do not mean to suggest that we should be above criticism. But the fact is that criticism of the US and criticism of the USSR were never equal. It seems like he treats his criticism of the USSR as if it were just as significant as his criticism of the US, but Chomsky's protests of Soviet imperialism were always going to come to naught.

It might be worthwhile to consider the converse - It's better to spend your criticism on non-totalitarian states, because someone might actually listen. I don't say that all of your action should be going toward that, but I am in favour of doing things that might have an effect, ahead of doing things for the sake of fairness of critique. Not as if the Sovjeti weren't getting their fair share anyway.

Gazpacho · 23rd September 2011, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Granted, this isn't an exact parallel to Chomsky. The cold war may not have been quite as stark a contrast as WW2, and I do not mean to suggest that we should be above criticism. But the fact is that criticism of the US and criticism of the USSR were never equal.

Remember what was going on when Chomsky started writing about foreign policy in 1967. The US was claiming to fight North Vietnamese aggression by bombing and rounding up South Vietnamese civilians. The pictures were running in the press, and public commentators by and large were applauding this. Supposedly that was the way it should be. It showed how determined we were, how committed we were to freedom, how sensitive we were to the threat that Vietnamese peasants posed to the world, etc. etc. It was lot of garbage, and people should call that out when it happens, without waiting for "the other guy" to clean up his record.

Virus · 24th September 2011, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by Gazpacho

Remember what was going on when Chomsky started writing about foreign policy in 1967.

The Khmer Rouge was conducting genocide and Chomsky denied it.

Gazpacho · 24th September 2011, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by Virus

The Khmer Rouge was conducting genocide and Chomsky denied it.

The Khmer Rouge didn't begin any genocide until after it took power in 1975. You're terrible at this.

Ziggurat · 24th September 2011, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba

It might be worthwhile to consider the converse - It's better to spend your criticism on non-totalitarian states, because someone might actually listen.

But when your criticism is essentially indistinguishable from "stop fighting totalitarian states", is that even going to help if they listen?

TubbaBlubba · 24th September 2011, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

But when your criticism is essentially indistinguishable from "stop fighting totalitarian states", is that even going to help if they listen?

More like "stop fighting totalitarian states by supporting coups that results in leaders who execute people on an assemby line".

The idea is, I would presume, that the ends don't always justify the means, even if the ends is stopping a state as terrible as the CCCP.

Darth Rotor · 25th September 2011, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by Gazpacho

Remember what was going on when Chomsky started writing about foreign policy in 1967. The US was claiming to fight North Vietnamese aggression by bombing and rounding up South Vietnamese civilians. The pictures were running in the press, and public commentators by and large were applauding this. Supposedly that was the way it should be. It showed how determined we were, how committed we were to freedom, how sensitive we were to the threat that Vietnamese peasants posed to the world, etc. etc. It was lot of garbage, and people should call that out when it happens, without waiting for "the other guy" to clean up his record.

Gazpacho, that's a good point, about what was going on in 1967. It's part of why the Viet Nam War was the most screwed pooch in the American policy kennel. People like John Paul Vann were trying to get the ear of policy makers back in 1963 ( he wasn't the only one) and were ignored. So, crap like what you describe happened, which guaranteed that the average guy in a village in South Viet Nam was not likely to trust the government in the South, nor its American allies/supporters.

I would also note that the year is now 2011.

Chomsky seems to remain stuck in 1967.

That's part of his problem. It was also part of his problem when he stood tall as an apologist for the Khmer Rouge.

Gazpacho · 25th September 2011, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

I would also note that the year is now 2011.

Chomsky seems to remain stuck in 1967.

Yes, it is 2011. It is neither 1967, nor is it 1942, when Orwell had his say. The US sponsors butchers abroad far less than it did when Dulles, Rusk and Kissinger were running the show.

However, in 2011 the US is still making a huge mess in Afghanistan, and just left one in Iraq. In 2011, instead of enlightened jingoism from Irving Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, we have it from William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer (and Thomas Friedman for comedy's sake). Some things have changed, some things haven't.

Drachasor · 26th September 2011, 02:14 AM

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba

More like "stop fighting totalitarian states by supporting coups that results in leaders who execute people on an assemby line".

The idea is, I would presume, that the ends don't always justify the means, even if the ends is stopping a state as terrible as the CCCP.

The ends DO justify the means. Problem is, the ends there involve changing states into new states that aren't necessarily a lot better than before. That doesn't justify much.

Chaos · 26th September 2011, 02:45 AM

Originally Posted by Gazpacho

Yes, it is 2011. It is neither 1967, nor is it 1942, when Orwell had his say. The US sponsors butchers abroad far less than it did when Dulles, Rusk and Kissinger were running the show.

However, in 2011 the US is still making a huge mess in Afghanistan, and just left one in Iraq. In 2011, instead of enlightened jingoism from Irving Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, we have it from William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer (and Thomas Friedman for comedy's sake). Some things have changed, some things haven't.

Not to mention that a significant fraction of the US, as seen in this thread as well as others, is still in complete denial about sponsoring butchers and/or about there being anything wrong with sponsoring butchers as long as they are right-wing butchers.

Virus · 26th September 2011, 03:55 AM

Originally Posted by Chaos

Not to mention that a significant fraction of the US, as seen in this thread as well as others, is still in complete denial about sponsoring butchers and/or about there being anything wrong with sponsoring butchers as long as they are right-wing butchers.

Do you understand the concept of replacing a bad ruler with a worse one? One that hates America's guts and wants to help the Soviets point nukes at it?

Chaos · 26th September 2011, 04:06 AM

Originally Posted by Virus

Do you understand the concept of replacing a bad ruler with a worse one? One that hates America's guts and wants to help the Soviets point nukes at it?

Do you understand the concept of replacing a bad ruler with a worse one? One who kills his own citizens with the US´ blessing?

Virus · 26th September 2011, 04:10 AM

Communists killed way more people than a few US-backed juntas did.

You could at least admit there is such a thing as bad and worse.

23rd September 2011, 07:26 AM	#42
jimtron Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Chicago Posts: 2,966	Originally Posted by Gazpacho It's from 2000. People focus on the CIA for good historical reasons, but remember that its operations were only part of a broader capitalist reaction against Allende that included US public policy and the efforts of foreign corporations. I agree.
	__________________

23rd September 2011, 03:12 PM	#43
TubbaBlubba Knave of the Dudes Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Communist Kingdom of Sweden Posts: 7,414	Originally Posted by Ziggurat One of the problems with Chomsky's criticism of both the US and the Soviets is that it isn't actually equal. And by that, I do not mean that he's criticizing us more than them, but that the effects of such criticism are not, and never can be, equal. This is not a new problem, and Orwell wrote about this essential asymmetry during WW2: Granted, this isn't an exact parallel to Chomsky. The cold war may not have been quite as stark a contrast as WW2, and I do not mean to suggest that we should be above criticism. But the fact is that criticism of the US and criticism of the USSR were never equal. It seems like he treats his criticism of the USSR as if it were just as significant as his criticism of the US, but Chomsky's protests of Soviet imperialism were always going to come to naught. It might be worthwhile to consider the converse - It's better to spend your criticism on non-totalitarian states, because someone might actually listen. I don't say that all of your action should be going toward that, but I am in favour of doing things that might have an effect, ahead of doing things for the sake of fairness of critique. Not as if the Sovjeti weren't getting their fair share anyway.
	__________________ Disagreement begets progress.

23rd September 2011, 08:43 PM	#44
Gazpacho Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Valley Lodge, USA Posts: 2,136	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Granted, this isn't an exact parallel to Chomsky. The cold war may not have been quite as stark a contrast as WW2, and I do not mean to suggest that we should be above criticism. But the fact is that criticism of the US and criticism of the USSR were never equal. Remember what was going on when Chomsky started writing about foreign policy in 1967. The US was claiming to fight North Vietnamese aggression by bombing and rounding up South Vietnamese civilians. The pictures were running in the press, and public commentators by and large were applauding this. Supposedly that was the way it should be. It showed how determined we were, how committed we were to freedom, how sensitive we were to the threat that Vietnamese peasants posed to the world, etc. etc. It was lot of garbage, and people should call that out when it happens, without waiting for "the other guy" to clean up his record.
	Last edited by Gazpacho; 23rd September 2011 at 10:08 PM.

24th September 2011, 11:58 AM	#46
Gazpacho Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Valley Lodge, USA Posts: 2,136	Originally Posted by Virus The Khmer Rouge was conducting genocide and Chomsky denied it. The Khmer Rouge didn't begin any genocide until after it took power in 1975. You're terrible at this.
	Last edited by Gazpacho; 24th September 2011 at 12:00 PM.

24th September 2011, 12:23 PM	#47
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,203	Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba It might be worthwhile to consider the converse - It's better to spend your criticism on non-totalitarian states, because someone might actually listen. But when your criticism is essentially indistinguishable from "stop fighting totalitarian states", is that even going to help if they listen?
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

23rd September 2011, 01:15 AM	#41
little grey rabbit Banned Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 3,167	Originally Posted by foxholeatheist I would hardly call OBL unarmed at the time of his death. Chomsky may know far more than I but I think I am smarter. And I am sure your mum does too.

24th September 2011, 07:58 AM	#45
Virus Master Templar Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Australia Posts: 6,201	Originally Posted by Gazpacho Remember what was going on when Chomsky started writing about foreign policy in 1967. The Khmer Rouge was conducting genocide and Chomsky denied it.

24th September 2011, 12:48 PM	#48
TubbaBlubba Knave of the Dudes Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Communist Kingdom of Sweden Posts: 7,414	Originally Posted by Ziggurat But when your criticism is essentially indistinguishable from "stop fighting totalitarian states", is that even going to help if they listen? More like "stop fighting totalitarian states by supporting coups that results in leaders who execute people on an assemby line". The idea is, I would presume, that the ends don't always justify the means, even if the ends is stopping a state as terrible as the CCCP.
	__________________ Disagreement begets progress.

25th September 2011, 05:15 PM	#49
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,265	Originally Posted by Gazpacho Remember what was going on when Chomsky started writing about foreign policy in 1967. The US was claiming to fight North Vietnamese aggression by bombing and rounding up South Vietnamese civilians. The pictures were running in the press, and public commentators by and large were applauding this. Supposedly that was the way it should be. It showed how determined we were, how committed we were to freedom, how sensitive we were to the threat that Vietnamese peasants posed to the world, etc. etc. It was lot of garbage, and people should call that out when it happens, without waiting for "the other guy" to clean up his record. Gazpacho, that's a good point, about what was going on in 1967. It's part of why the Viet Nam War was the most screwed pooch in the American policy kennel. People like John Paul Vann were trying to get the ear of policy makers back in 1963 ( he wasn't the only one) and were ignored. So, crap like what you describe happened, which guaranteed that the average guy in a village in South Viet Nam was not likely to trust the government in the South, nor its American allies/supporters. I would also note that the year is now 2011. Chomsky seems to remain stuck in 1967. That's part of his problem. It was also part of his problem when he stood tall as an apologist for the Khmer Rouge.
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis Last edited by Darth Rotor; 25th September 2011 at 05:17 PM.

25th September 2011, 08:10 PM	#50
Gazpacho Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Valley Lodge, USA Posts: 2,136	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor I would also note that the year is now 2011. Chomsky seems to remain stuck in 1967. Yes, it is 2011. It is neither 1967, nor is it 1942, when Orwell had his say. The US sponsors butchers abroad far less than it did when Dulles, Rusk and Kissinger were running the show. However, in 2011 the US is still making a huge mess in Afghanistan, and just left one in Iraq. In 2011, instead of enlightened jingoism from Irving Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, we have it from William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer (and Thomas Friedman for comedy's sake). Some things have changed, some things haven't.

26th September 2011, 02:14 AM	#51
Drachasor Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 1,718	Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba More like "stop fighting totalitarian states by supporting coups that results in leaders who execute people on an assemby line". The idea is, I would presume, that the ends don't always justify the means, even if the ends is stopping a state as terrible as the CCCP. The ends DO justify the means. Problem is, the ends there involve changing states into new states that aren't necessarily a lot better than before. That doesn't justify much.
	Last edited by Drachasor; 26th September 2011 at 02:47 AM.

26th September 2011, 02:45 AM	#52
Chaos TAM Chocolate Dispenser Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: The Heart of Old Europe Posts: 9,779	Originally Posted by Gazpacho Yes, it is 2011. It is neither 1967, nor is it 1942, when Orwell had his say. The US sponsors butchers abroad far less than it did when Dulles, Rusk and Kissinger were running the show. However, in 2011 the US is still making a huge mess in Afghanistan, and just left one in Iraq. In 2011, instead of enlightened jingoism from Irving Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, we have it from William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer (and Thomas Friedman for comedy's sake). Some things have changed, some things haven't. Not to mention that a significant fraction of the US, as seen in this thread as well as others, is still in complete denial about sponsoring butchers and/or about there being anything wrong with sponsoring butchers as long as they are right-wing butchers.
	__________________ Grand Master, Knights of the Question Mark Illusion: too good to be true - Reality: too true to be good Authors build castles in the sky, readers live in them and publishers collect the rent. - Maxim Gorki Folks enjoy a witch-hunt as long as they are on the blunt end of the pitchfork. - Suezoled You can't use logic to talk a man out of a position that he didn't use logic to get himself into - passed down by Nyarlathotep Kids these days are better than their parents since they constitute the newest edition, the beta version of our societies - Cleopatra YouÂ´ll have to accept the fact that some people are just plain nuts. - Paul C. Anagnostopolous

26th September 2011, 03:55 AM	#53
Virus Master Templar Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Australia Posts: 6,201	Originally Posted by Chaos Not to mention that a significant fraction of the US, as seen in this thread as well as others, is still in complete denial about sponsoring butchers and/or about there being anything wrong with sponsoring butchers as long as they are right-wing butchers. Do you understand the concept of replacing a bad ruler with a worse one? One that hates America's guts and wants to help the Soviets point nukes at it?
	Last edited by Virus; 26th September 2011 at 03:58 AM.

26th September 2011, 04:06 AM	#54
Chaos TAM Chocolate Dispenser Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: The Heart of Old Europe Posts: 9,779	Originally Posted by Virus Do you understand the concept of replacing a bad ruler with a worse one? One that hates America's guts and wants to help the Soviets point nukes at it? Do you understand the concept of replacing a bad ruler with a worse one? One who kills his own citizens with the US´ blessing?
	__________________ Grand Master, Knights of the Question Mark Illusion: too good to be true - Reality: too true to be good Authors build castles in the sky, readers live in them and publishers collect the rent. - Maxim Gorki Folks enjoy a witch-hunt as long as they are on the blunt end of the pitchfork. - Suezoled You can't use logic to talk a man out of a position that he didn't use logic to get himself into - passed down by Nyarlathotep Kids these days are better than their parents since they constitute the newest edition, the beta version of our societies - Cleopatra YouÂ´ll have to accept the fact that some people are just plain nuts. - Paul C. Anagnostopolous

26th September 2011, 04:10 AM	#55
Virus Master Templar Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Australia Posts: 6,201	Communists killed way more people than a few US-backed juntas did. You could at least admit there is such a thing as bad and worse.
	Last edited by Virus; 26th September 2011 at 04:13 AM.