Point out where Chomsky states that he supports the Iraqi regime, he does not. You do realize that Saddam was an ally through his worst atrocities, after he gassed 100,000 kurds guess who was there within the year shaking his hand? none other than Donald Rumsfeld. All the things you say in your first paragraph are garbage, Chomsky's views did not support any of that and it amazes me that you can state the contrary from that article. Simply amazing.
Point out where Chomsky states that he supports the Iraqi regime, he does not. You do realize that Saddam was an ally through his worst atrocities, after he gassed 100,000 kurds guess who was there within the year shaking his hand? none other than Donald Rumsfeld. All the things you say in your first paragraph are garbage, Chomsky's views did not support any of that and it amazes me that you can state the contrary from that article. Simply amazing.
I would strongly argue that you are in need of some history lessons, just because you read something that you do not agree with you can't handle it, your brain simply does not want to accept that all you have been taught for the past 10 years or whatever could possibly be false, there are many more truths like that one that most americans are simply not aware of because it is not productive for them to be aware of it, dig deeper. Why most people have a problem with Chomsky is because his writings expect you to come in with some knowledge, actually, they expect you to come in with a pretty good deal of it. When I first read some of his writings I was skeptical, but I have read more and more, and other books along the way, and have come back to something I read by chomksy a few years earlier with a new understanding. It honestly takes a lot of work to try and understand the world, especially from the way we are brought up.
Chomsky rants and rails and uses someone's comparsion of Bush to Hitler but the one thing he does not do is offer any alternatives. The alternative was leaving Saddam in power.
Originally posted by: Jimbo
When you finally can tell the difference between and argument and an observation, ring me up, ass-hat.
The volumes of material refuting Chomsky's writings are legion. Why re-invent the wheel when you would never listen anyway?
Chomsky is obviously a fraud when he rants against Capitalism yet lives in an opulent life style that is well above his needs.
there may be volumes of material attempting to refute chomsky, but I really haven't seen anything solid. I would expect Chomsky to be able to out debate just about anyone else in the world on US foreign policy. Even if you don't agree with Chomsky, it is incredibly ignorant to simply ignore his views. His knowledge of the world of the past 50 years is astonishing, and it is not like he just says things without evidence. Frequently he quotes declassified documents and a lot of other writers, so you can go looking if you suspect something he says is bogus very easily. One of the recent books put out that takes parts of his speeches and question and answer sessions has 500 pages of footnotes for a 400 page book, very well documented. The book i am talking about is called "Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky" and I urge anyone who wants a better grasp on US foreign policy to read it, and when you see something you disagree with, look it up in the footnotes.
Sorry, but that last bit right there proves he is an idiot. So because our military is more powerful, we should have continued to allow Iraq to oppress it's own people, train terrorists, ignore UN resolutions, and develop WoMD? All past history aside, the Iraqi regime has had this coming for many years.
He spoke at my school on Friday, and I was tempted to go see what he had to say, but I passed....
TheShiz
Chomsky lies:
"When Chomsky lies, he does not say plainly in so many words "X is true", instead he uses convoluted, indirect, and lawyer like sentences that lead the reader to believe that X is true, and that Chomsky has presented a well documented case that X is true, supported by copious citations of reputable sources, whereas in fact not only do the numerous sources that Chomsky quotes say nothing of the kind, indeed they usually forcefully deny X, but also Chomsky himself has not actually said X in so many words .
If Chomsky believed what he seeks to persuade the reader to believe, he would not have used such elaborately careful and evasive phrasing. "
Chomsky lies:
"When Chomsky lies, he does not say plainly in so many words "X is true", instead he uses convoluted, indirect, and lawyer like sentences that lead the reader to believe that X is true, and that Chomsky has presented a well documented case that X is true, supported by copious citations of reputable sources, whereas in fact not only do the numerous sources that Chomsky quotes say nothing of the kind, indeed they usually forcefully deny X, but also Chomsky himself has not actually said X in so many words .
If Chomsky believed what he seeks to persuade the reader to believe, he would not have used such elaborately careful and evasive phrasing. "
give me a break, read his books and think for yourself. Also, a 1 page refutation is quite disgusting considering Chomksy has over 20 books in print.
I have read enough Chomsky to know that all he does is attack. He does not supply solutions. His agenda and bias seem obvious to me. Of course he does make a tidy income from selling books to the people that are already inclined to belive his agenda.
what I see Chomsky consistently doing is bringing out facts that people seem to somehow miss. He mostly writes about what the US does that people don't know about, and it is important because most people wouldn't consider doing that. It denies you the mainstream from the start. What is his agenda? I think it is to bring out into public discussion the wrong doings of the United States, is that such a bad agenda, it is important. I really don't see a huge bias, all anyone here quotes of him is his US discussion, but he has plenty to say for the rest of the world. When he is being questioned by someone he frequently talks about the country where the questioner is from. The foreign policy of the United States is undoubtably the most important, and also it is the country where he lives, so I really don't see why people can't understand why most of his books are mostly concerned with the US.
I still say that last quote proves he is an idiot. Also, he would be far more useful if he actually supplied solutions.
So he lies and distorts what happened to show the entire world just how bad and evil the US really is while making money off of the books he sells. That is the common theme is all of the articles of his that I have read, the US is evil. He never gives any suggestions as to improving the situation, just the US is evil.
I got it, I don't agree with it. End of story.
do you know the history of US foreign intervention of the past 20 years? Go read about East Timor for a start. He does sometimes point to where he thinks things nead to change and whatnot, there is no easy solution to complex problems.
Please, just look at how he describes Iraq as defenseless. His bias is clearly evdient. "Defenseless" are the people of Iraq, not the regime. Again, whatever reasons he or anybody thinks the US is there is really beside the point, in the end, Saddam and his regime have had this coming for many years. Period. I don't see any solutions in that article, just biased attacks. That's easy, anybody can attack. If he truly wishes to be useful he can supply alternatives.
do you know what he does with his money? he donates a load to causes and groups working for progress, he doesn't live some extravagent lifestyle. If he was concerned with money I doubt he would be spending the incredible amount of time he does researching and writing articles and books. He doesn't say the US is evil, if you have read much of his work you'll know that he says many good things about the US. Namely that it is the most free country in the world, you can say what you want, you can change things through hard work. But that doesn't discredit the importance of documenting and discussing the bad policies and actions that come out of this country, someone has to do it, and it is quite expected that a lot of people simply cannot handle that.
Can you prove what he does with his money?
I can handle the US's past. I can't handle someone with a clear as an agneda as Chomsky. And as shown in the link I provided earlier, his documentation is at best suspect.
he is describing Iraq's military force as "defenseless" in regard to what the US has, do you want to try and argue that the what? 100 deaths from US is anything close to the death count for the other side? He has stated many many times before the effects that Saddam has had on the Iraqi people, and he usually points out the commonly left out fact that by far the worst atrocities committed by Saddam came at a time when he had support from the US. This is very important information that doesn't seem to get discussed much. Why is that?
it is hard to come up with what chomsky does with his money with a link. But I have heard him talk a few times about when he writes checks to all the groups and whatnot he thinks are a worthy cause, that they sometimes do not know about similar groups with with they could combine to have a stronger cause. If you haven't, watch "Manufacturing Consent" it is a good movie even if you don't agree with Chomsky, and if you come away with the idea that he is in it for the money, I will be amazed. Either he does believe in what he is doing or he is really good at faking it.
Read my earlier statement...are you going to argue that our military superiority is a reason for us to not put an end to Saddam's regime? Spare me. Also, again, all history aside, this should have been done long ago, or do you not agree? Are past mistakes a reason to stand aside now and not correct them? Again, spare me that ludicrous line of thought. And again, he can point out everything he wants about the US or Iraq, until he provides solutions it's all ultimately useless rhetoric.
it is important because people don't know it. Shouldn't people be aware that we supported him when he gassed the kurds. This is what I am speaking of. I posted about it in that huge thread and wish I could somehow find my post in that thing.
no to the first question, agree that it should have been done really long ago, instead of rumsfeld shaking the mans hand. I would argue about the ways of correcting these mistakes yes, it is not useless because it is good information to keep in mind when you make judgements. You make judgements based on information, this is the kind of information that our major press lacks, so I would argue it is not rhetoric but something to consider.
BS, that statement is misleading. We supported his war against Iran, not his gassing of the Kurds. Same sort of twisting of the facts that Chomsky is guilty of.
Well, then you disgree with Chomsky. His article clearly indicates that what we are doing is wrong.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter