For the thinkers at this forum

Recent November interview with Noam Chomsky regarding America's foriegn policy, Iraq in particular. U2U me if you ahve any trouble understanding the big words Russian, Krazy Ivan or TC.

Online Interview:

Washington, D.C.: I'm asking you this question sincerely: Why don't you direct your hatred of George Bush toward someone more worthy of such venom, such as Osama bin Laden?

Noam Chomsky: I don't recall having expressed any hatred for George Bush, though I have quoted people who expressed real fury at what he has done, and even compared him to the Japanese fascists who bombed Pearl Harbor: historian Arthur Schlesinger in this case. If what you mean is that I have criticized Bush's policies more than Osama's, that's because I take for granted, like everyone else, that Osama bin Laden is a murderous thug, who the current incumbents in Washington should never have supported through the 1980s, and who should be apprehended and tried for his crimes right now -- as I've written -- and don't see any point reiterating what 100% of us believe about him. But I am a citizen of the US, and therefore share responsibility for US government policies, and assume that one of the duties of citizenship is to live up to that responsibility -- by criticizing policies one thinks are wrong, for example

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: While I may agree with you that the United States is interested in preserving the dominant paradigms within society (i.e. capitalism, positivism, functionalism), it seems too simplistic to say that the U.S. foreign policy is unilaterally trying to secure its own hegemonic status. I believe the recent events are just a phase and most foreign policy analysts (including the President) know that if we cannot get back on track with international agreements and foreign cooperation then our own way of life is in jeopardy. Is it always fair to portray the United States as the rogue hegemony in an integrated world that is constantly trying to balance global economic and physical security?

Noam Chomsky: I basically agree (though I might differ with you about the nature of the "dominant paradigms"), but do not understand why you are directing the question to me. That the current US administration has declared that it will unilaterally act to secure its hegemonic status, now and for the indefinite future, is not seriously in question. That's the way the National Security Strategy of Sept. 2002 was interpreted at once, e.g., in the major establishment journal Foreign Affairs. It was not only stated clearly, but accompanied by "exemplary actions" to make it clear that the goal was intended seriously. But is this a permanent commitment? I don't know anyone who believes that. I've certainly never suggested it. The reason why I write, speak, and engage in other activism about these matters is to seek policy changes, which presuppposes that they can be changed, exactly as you assume. I don't see what issue you are raising.

As for US policies over the past (however long you like), it's surely unfair to describe them as you put it, but I never have, so can't really comment.

_______________________

Jamaica, N.Y.: Sir, it is an honor to speak with you today, what is your view on the statement that since we are the sole super-power, the U.S. has an obligation,not only to itself for protection, but to the international community to act, even when our allies are unwilling or unable, case in point Iraq, though the U.S. was never in direct danger, our allies in the Middle East were. Thank you sir.

Noam Chomsky: The assumption behind your question is that the US is entitled to act in the name of the international community, to defend their interests. One could debate this question, but it doesn't seem relevant. Take your example. The US went to war against the objection of an overwhelming majority of the international community. In the international Gallup polls of last December, there was hardly a country where support for the US-UK unilateral attack reached 10%. In fact, opposition was entirely without historical precedent. And remains so. How, in that case, can we even raise the question of the obligation of the US to act in the interests of the international community? Are we to assume that WE know the interests of others, but they don't? I'm sure you don't mean that.

_______________________
Rest of Article: monkeyfist.com...

VoD,

so is this a 7.1 chomsky moment you are creating for us here?

Lets see, Chomsky, Michael Moore, Chomsky, Moore.....Who cares these are some of the most biased liberals in the world. Chomsky is about as left wing as you can get. If you want to base a discussion on something, why dont you do opposing viewpoints. Taking something strictly from one "extreme" side of the political parties is nothing more than a bait thread if you ask me.

What is this guy a double agent?

Originally posted by Voice_of Doom
Recent November interview with Noam Chomsky regarding America's foriegn policy, Iraq in particular. U2U me if you ahve any trouble understanding the big words Russian, Krazy Ivan or TC.

Online Interview:

Washington, D.C.: I'm asking you this question sincerely: Why don't you direct your hatred of George Bush toward someone more worthy of such venom, such as Osama bin Laden?

Noam Chomsky: I don't recall having expressed any hatred for George Bush, though I have quoted people who expressed real fury at what he has done, and even compared him to the Japanese fascists who bombed Pearl Harbor: historian Arthur Schlesinger in this case. If what you mean is that I have criticized Bush's policies more than Osama's, that's because I take for granted, like everyone else, that Osama bin Laden is a murderous thug, who the current incumbents in Washington should never have supported through the 1980s, and who should be apprehended and tried for his crimes right now -- as I've written -- and don't see any point reiterating what 100% of us believe about him. But I am a citizen of the US, and therefore share responsibility for US government policies, and assume that one of the duties of citizenship is to live up to that responsibility -- by criticizing policies one thinks are wrong, for example

This is an opinion by a partisan left winger. Not a fact.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: While I may agree with you that the United States is interested in preserving the dominant paradigms within society (i.e. capitalism, positivism, functionalism), it seems too simplistic to say that the U.S. foreign policy is unilaterally trying to secure its own hegemonic status. I believe the recent events are just a phase and most foreign policy analysts (including the President) know that if we cannot get back on track with international agreements and foreign cooperation then our own way of life is in jeopardy. Is it always fair to portray the United States as the rogue hegemony in an integrated world that is constantly trying to balance global economic and physical security?

Noam Chomsky: I basically agree (though I might differ with you about the nature of the "dominant paradigms"), but do not understand why you are directing the question to me. That the current US administration has declared that it will unilaterally act to secure its hegemonic status, now and for the indefinite future, is not seriously in question. That's the way the National Security Strategy of Sept. 2002 was interpreted at once, e.g., in the major establishment journal Foreign Affairs. It was not only stated clearly, but accompanied by "exemplary actions" to make it clear that the goal was intended seriously. But is this a permanent commitment? I don't know anyone who believes that. I've certainly never suggested it. The reason why I write, speak, and engage in other activism about these matters is to seek policy changes, which presuppposes that they can be changed, exactly as you assume. I don't see what issue you are raising.
Saying we will attack for hegemonic status is not correct, we attack to uphold our national security. Hegemonic only lays in countries that are more concerned with global dominance instead of preserving/protecting beliefs set forth by people in our own country..

As for US policies over the past (however long you like), it's surely unfair to describe them as you put it, but I never have, so can't really comment.

_______________________

Jamaica, N.Y.: Sir, it is an honor to speak with you today, what is your view on the statement that since we are the sole super-power, the U.S. has an obligation,not only to itself for protection, but to the international community to act, even when our allies are unwilling or unable, case in point Iraq, though the U.S. was never in direct danger, our allies in the Middle East were. Thank you sir.

Noam Chomsky: The assumption behind your question is that the US is entitled to act in the name of the international community, to defend their interests. One could debate this question, but it doesn't seem relevant. Take your example. The US went to war against the objection of an overwhelming majority of the international community. In the international Gallup polls of last December, there was hardly a country where support for the US-UK unilateral attack reached 10%. In fact, opposition was entirely without historical precedent. And remains so. How, in that case, can we even raise the question of the obligation of the US to act in the interests of the international community? Are we to assume that WE know the interests of others, but they don't? I'm sure you don't mean that.
WHO THE HELL CARES WHAT THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY THINKS. We are not on this earth to please everyone else. We are not fighting in Iraq because we feel we need more friends. We are fighting for National Security, to enforce mandates set forth by the INTERNATIONAL community. If they don't support their own resoltions, then why are we even involved with the international community anyways. Meaning the UN.

_______________________
Rest of Article: monkeyfist.com...

[Edited on 9-12-2003 by Dreamz]

It is always lies with the left isn't it.

They are masters of the cheap shot.

If they can't win fairly then they screw you unfairly.

"WHO THE HELL CARES WHAT THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY THINKS. We are not on this earth to please everyone else. We are not fighting in Iraq because we feel we need more friends. We are fighting for National Security, to enforce mandates set forth by the INTERNATIONAL community. If they don't support their own resoltions, then why are we even involved with the international community anyways. Meaning the UN. "

"This is also an opinion by a partisan right winger. Not a fact. " FUN ISNT IT???


For the record, Chomsky describes himself as an anarchist not a left winger. I know...but its so much easier to hate lefties and liberals VOD...I know it is children. But sometimes in life we have to let go of little 'blankets of securities'. Its called stretching and growing and it will be ok!!


On another note...Im pleased that you actually read and responed to the article. Its posters like you that give me faith in this world. KUDOS

Nothing is true.

But I though that socialism was internationalism?

annother lefty misstep, miscue, blunder, contradiction, blowback?

Originally posted by Voice_of Doom
"WHO THE HELL CARES WHAT THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY THINKS. We are not on this earth to please everyone else. We are not fighting in Iraq because we feel we need more friends. We are fighting for National Security, to enforce mandates set forth by the INTERNATIONAL community. If they don't support their own resoltions, then why are we even involved with the international community anyways. Meaning the UN. "

"This is also an opinion by a partisan right winger. Not a fact. " FUN ISNT IT???


For the record, Chomsky describes himself as an anarchist not a left winger. I know...but its so much easier to hate lefties and liberals VOD...I know it is children. But sometimes in life we have to let go of little 'blankets of securities'. Its called stretching and growing and it will be ok!!


On another note...Im pleased that you actually read and responed to the article. Its posters like you that give me faith in this world. KUDOS

Nothing is true.

For the record I am an independant.

What I mean to state by "Who cares what the international community thinks" is that they are not looking out for the interests of America. The UN IMO is a joke, anytime you can have Syria head an international board on Human Rights, something is definately wrong with the body that has been formed.

The fact that the budget for the UN annually is only 2.3 billion, shows that they don't have the economic ability to implement any laws, resolutions they create on war.

So for them to constantly do so does nothing more than show a voice in the matter instead of fixing the matter. Saddam knew that and knew the economic fallbakcs of the UN would be unable to wage war against him, unless someone like the US or another country with the money and reason to attack him would do so.

You can't tell what you are, only others can do that for you. You can only say what you'd like to be, not what you are. You are not aware of your own behavior, it's always different for you than for those seeing you.

And your behavior is a perfect example for why some non Americans tend to "hate" Americans, I mean of course you don't care about what the international community thinks. You only forget that you need them more than you'd like to admit. I'd like to see some more respect. What the international community thinks is very important for America.

And what do you know about the UN ? It's easy to blame them for all your problems, but there are only a few who knows what's really cooking inside and outside the UN.

Originally posted by TigeriS
You can't tell what you are, only others can do that for you. You can only say what you'd like to be, not what you are. You are not aware of your own behavior, it's always different for you than for those seeing you. I think I am fully capable of understanding my political views without having someone tell me.

And your behavior is a perfect example for why some non Americans tend to "hate" Americans, I mean of course you don't care about what the international community thinks. You only forget that you need them more than you'd like to admit. I'd like to see some more respect. What the international community thinks is very important for America. Why does it matter what the International community thinks about America. We have our own problems to worry about internally and with our enemies. If the international community agress with our point of view fine, if they dont fine.

And what do you know about the UN ? It's easy to blame them for all your problems, but there are only a few who knows what's really cooking inside and outside the UN. I know quite abit about the UN. All anyone needs to know about its legitamacy is that it allows nations like Syria to head the board on issues of Human rights.

Originally posted by Dreamz
Lets see, Chomsky, Michael Moore, Chomsky, Moore.....Who cares these are some of the most biased liberals in the world. Chomsky is about as left wing as you can get. If you want to base a discussion on something, why dont you do opposing viewpoints. Taking something strictly from one "extreme" side of the political parties is nothing more than a bait thread if you ask me.

Hm, let's see, Limbaugh, Bob Novak, Limbaugh, Novak....Who cares? These are some of the most biased conservatives in the world. Limbaugh is about as right-wing as you can get.


I think I'm done making my point.

Just because you listen to two liberals doesn't make you wrong. Same as if you listen to two conservatives, but, then again, that makes you gullible.

I'm just poking fun at those right-wingers now, but hey, alot of truth is said in jest.

Well, have fun.

Somebody pass me a shovel; its getting pretty deep in here. It's an insult to intelligence as a concept to ignore/deny that there are big agendas at work. I haven't been digging into this shyte for fun and games, there is really not much to like about what is happening.

Some good advice that I was given once was 'Analyse results, not methods'.