An Article By Noam Chomsky

[etech]

Was the US the only country that supported Saddam during that time?

Thraxen also pointed out the fallacy of your statement.

That is the problem with Chomsky and his fans. It doesn't matter what other countries did at that time, only that the evil US did it. It doesn't matter that the US did not condone what Saddam did, only that the US was supporting Iraq so they would not lose a war with the religious fundies in Iran.

 

[TheShiz]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Shouldn't people be aware that we supported him when he gassed the kurds.

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.

no to the first question, agree that it should have been done really long ago

Well, then you disgree with Chomsky. His article clearly indicates that what we are doing is wrong.

i said "we supported him when he gassed the kurds" I did not say we supported his gassing of the kurds. My statement implies that we still supported him, which we did, after he gassed the kurds. You are mis reading what I mean, I should have been more clear. I may agree that Saddam needs to be dealt with, but still disagree about the methods to do it. And yeah, my opinion may differ from Chomsky's, that doesn't mean I don't think what he has to say is unimportant, to the contrary.

 

[TheShiz]

Originally posted by: etech
Was the US the only country that supported Saddam during that time?

Thraxen also pointed out the fallacy of your statement.

That is the problem with Chomsky and his fans. It doesn't matter what other countries did at that time, only that the evil US did it. It doesn't matter that the US did not condone what Saddam did, only that the US was supporting Iraq so they would not lose a war with the religious fundies in Iran.

I disagree, it does matter what other countries did, but what is important to us, as US citizens, is the US's role, because that is something we can influence.

 

[Thraxen]

About the statement, I didn't say it was false, just that it was misleading...there are a couple of ways to read it.

I may agree that Saddam needs to be dealt with, but still disagree about the methods to do it.

OK, then what methods should we have used? Chomsky doesn't seem to keen on supplying anything useful, so how about you? We've already been through a decade of UN sanctions which didn't work, the people who oppose him have been slaughtered anytime any sort of uprising has been attempted...so what else? More waiting? More sanctions? I'll tell you now that neither of those would go anywhere.

I disagree, it does matter what other countries did, but what is important to us, as US citizens, is the US's role, because that is something we can influence.

I disagree with that. It is important what other countries have done. Especially when it comes to those same countries criticizing us via the UN.

 

[TheShiz]

Originally posted by: Thraxen
About the statement, I didn't say it was false, just that it was misleading...there are a couple of ways to read it.

I may agree that Saddam needs to be dealt with, but still disagree about the methods to do it.

OK, then what methods should we have used? Chomsky doesn't seem to keen on supplying anything useful, so how about you? We've already been through a decade of UN sanctions which didn't work, the people who oppose him have been slaughtered anytime any sort of uprising has been attempted...so what else? More waiting? More sanctions? I'll tell you now that neither of those would go anywhere.

It is true that the uprising was slaughtered, but do you know why? The US supported (vocally) that uprising and when it happened, they did not provide any support, if they had, maybe the problem would have been solved back then. That is why a lot of Iraqies are understandably undecided about US intervention with this war, when they rose up against Saddam in the past and the US said it would support that, when the time came we unfortunately did not support the movement, and they were crushed. I would have hoped that somehow we could support an in house regime change that might have worked, this way the majority of the country would have been behind it. But you are correct, that might never have happened because we failed to help them the first time.

Here's an interesting fact, are you aware that the United States is by far the leading country in vetoing UN resolutions since the 1970's? I didn't know that.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Thraxen
About the statement, I didn't say it was false, just that it was misleading...there are a couple of ways to read it.

I may agree that Saddam needs to be dealt with, but still disagree about the methods to do it.

OK, then what methods should we have used? Chomsky doesn't seem to keen on supplying anything useful, so how about you? We've already been through a decade of UN sanctions which didn't work, the people who oppose him have been slaughtered anytime any sort of uprising has been attempted...so what else? More waiting? More sanctions? I'll tell you now that neither of those would go anywhere.

You just completely owned the bush basher Noam Chomsky is no greater than a whore in the red light district.

One immediate task is to lend what weight we can to more benign outcomes. That means, primarily, caring for the needs of the victims, not just of this war but of Washington?s vicious and destructive sanctions regime of the past ten years, which has has devastated the civillian society, strengthened the ruling tyrant, and compelled the population to rely on him for survival. As has been pointed out for years, the sanctions therefore undermined the hope that Saddam Hussein would go the way of other murderous tyrants no less vicious than he. That includes a terrible rogues gallery of criminals who were also supported by those now at the helm in Washington, in many cases to the last days of their bloody rule: Ceausescu, to mention only one obvious and highly pertinent case.

That is the worst part of the entire article. I would to see someone back that up. Like Saddam is really going to put money into his people. Yea sure

 

[TheShiz]

Originally posted by: Thraxen
About the statement, I didn't say it was false, just that it was misleading...there are a couple of ways to read it.

I may agree that Saddam needs to be dealt with, but still disagree about the methods to do it.

OK, then what methods should we have used? Chomsky doesn't seem to keen on supplying anything useful, so how about you? We've already been through a decade of UN sanctions which didn't work, the people who oppose him have been slaughtered anytime any sort of uprising has been attempted...so what else? More waiting? More sanctions? I'll tell you now that neither of those would go anywhere.

I disagree, it does matter what other countries did, but what is important to us, as US citizens, is the US's role, because that is something we can influence.

I disagree with that. It is important what other countries have done. Especially when it comes to those same countries criticizing us via the UN.

what I should have said is that the US policy is more important, but I guess that can be debated. I did say it does matter what other the other countries did.

 

[etech]

what I should have said is that the US policy is more important, but I guess that can be debated. I did say it does matter what other the other countries did.

Unless all the facts are stated and put into context then they are misleading. Chomsky is very good at that. You have had a good teacher.

 

[TheShiz]

Originally posted by: etech

what I should have said is that the US policy is more important, but I guess that can be debated. I did say it does matter what other the other countries did.

Unless all the facts are stated and put into context then they are misleading. Chomsky is very good at that. You have had a good teacher.

if you are uncertain about a point i make, just ask and I will be glad to say what I mean.

 

[Thraxen]

It is true that the uprising was slaughtered, but do you know why? The US supported (vocally) that uprising and when it happened, they did not provide any support, if they had, maybe the problem would have been solved back then

That was clearly a mistake. Many people in the US thought it was a mistake to not take out Saddam in the first war with Iraq. That's already an established point. But what does that have to do with the here and now? Is Saddam any less evil now than he was a decade ago? He needs to go and I still haven't seen any alternatives to the current war supplied by the opposition to the war.

 

[TheShiz]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

It is true that the uprising was slaughtered, but do you know why? The US supported (vocally) that uprising and when it happened, they did not provide any support, if they had, maybe the problem would have been solved back then

That was clearly a mistake. Many people in the US thought it was a mistake to not take out Saddam in the first war with Iraq. That's already an established point. But what does that have to do with the here and now? Is Saddam any less evil now than he was a decade ago? He needs to go and I still haven't seen any alternatives to the current war supplied by the opposition to the war.

Saddam may not be less evil, but he definately is less powerful than he was a decade ago. Why is the majority of the world against the war? They must have some reason or another. I actually haven't said that I am against it. The problem doesn't just depend whether we go to war or not, but how we go about doing it. I don't think blowing up everything is so productive, say we blow up all Saddam's palaces, those could have been put to good use I would think. I am uncertain that we will really rebuild the way we should after the war is over. We spent 4 billion blowing up afganistan and only have provided them with 300 million so far I think to rebuild. I agree he needed to go, but how the US has handled things in the past is good information to look at when deciding what to do in a given situation.

 

[Thraxen]

We spent 4 billion blowing up afganistan and only have provided them with 300 million so far I think to rebuild.

Most of that 4 billion was dropped on terrorist camps and the desert/mountains. It's not like we blew up 4 billions dollars worth of buildings. BTW, the UN supported that war, so where is all the aid from other countries? I'd bet money that the US has done far more than anyone else to help the people of Afghanistan, starting with getting rid of the Taliban.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: TheShiz

Originally posted by: Thraxen

It is true that the uprising was slaughtered, but do you know why? The US supported (vocally) that uprising and when it happened, they did not provide any support, if they had, maybe the problem would have been solved back then

That was clearly a mistake. Many people in the US thought it was a mistake to not take out Saddam in the first war with Iraq. That's already an established point. But what does that have to do with the here and now? Is Saddam any less evil now than he was a decade ago? He needs to go and I still haven't seen any alternatives to the current war supplied by the opposition to the war.

Saddam may not be less evil, but he definately is less powerful than he was a decade ago. Why is the majority of the world against the war? They must have some reason or another. I actually haven't said that I am against it. The problem doesn't just depend whether we go to war or not, but how we go about doing it. I don't think blowing up everything is so productive, say we blow up all Saddam's palaces, those could have been put to good use I would think. I am uncertain that we will really rebuild the way we should after the war is over. We spent 4 billion blowing up afganistan and only have provided them with 300 million so far I think to rebuild. I agree he needed to go, but how the US has handled things in the past is good information to look at when deciding what to do in a given situation.

That was the agreement. The US would provide the majority of the military force and the other countries would provide the funds for rebuilding.

I like your rhetoric by the way, "blowing up Afghanistan". Deceptive, misleading and not factual. Yes, you have learned your lessons well.

 

[TheShiz]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

We spent 4 billion blowing up afganistan and only have provided them with 300 million so far I think to rebuild.

Most of that 4 billion was dropped on terrorist camps and the desert/mountains. It's not like we blew up 4 billions dollars worth of buildings. BTW, the UN supported that war, so where is all the aid from other countries? I'd bet money that the US has done far more than anyone else to help the people of Afghanistan, starting with getting rid of the Taliban.

well, the money spent is just to try and show what our priorities are. Do you know the figures of support to Afganistan, personally I don't know all the numbers. In the US it is common knowledge that the US is concerned with "spreading democracy" but there are a lot of cases that show that to not really be the case. So I am wondering about Post war Iraq, are we really going to give them a democracy? because if we do the Shia will have a majority and may side with Iran, do we want that?

 

[TheShiz]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: TheShiz

Originally posted by: Thraxen

It is true that the uprising was slaughtered, but do you know why? The US supported (vocally) that uprising and when it happened, they did not provide any support, if they had, maybe the problem would have been solved back then

That was clearly a mistake. Many people in the US thought it was a mistake to not take out Saddam in the first war with Iraq. That's already an established point. But what does that have to do with the here and now? Is Saddam any less evil now than he was a decade ago? He needs to go and I still haven't seen any alternatives to the current war supplied by the opposition to the war.

Saddam may not be less evil, but he definately is less powerful than he was a decade ago. Why is the majority of the world against the war? They must have some reason or another. I actually haven't said that I am against it. The problem doesn't just depend whether we go to war or not, but how we go about doing it. I don't think blowing up everything is so productive, say we blow up all Saddam's palaces, those could have been put to good use I would think. I am uncertain that we will really rebuild the way we should after the war is over. We spent 4 billion blowing up afganistan and only have provided them with 300 million so far I think to rebuild. I agree he needed to go, but how the US has handled things in the past is good information to look at when deciding what to do in a given situation.

That was the agreement. The US would provide the majority of the military force and the other countries would provide the funds for rebuilding.

I like your rhetoric by the way, "blowing up Afghanistan". Deceptive, misleading and not factual. Yes, you have learned your lessons well.

well i'm talking about bombs, I guess I could say "we spent 4 billion on bombs, dropped on the afganistan region", is that better?

 

[Thraxen]

So I am wondering about Post war Iraq, are we really going to give them a democracy? because if we do the Shia will have a majority and may side with Iran, do we want that?

I'm not sure what our plans are for the Iraqi government. We apparently already have at least plans for a temporary government according to the news. Anyway, I need to go get some dinner. I'm sure I'll be on this board later...enjoyed the debate...have a good night all.

 

[TheShiz]

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: Thraxen
About the statement, I didn't say it was false, just that it was misleading...there are a couple of ways to read it.

I may agree that Saddam needs to be dealt with, but still disagree about the methods to do it.

OK, then what methods should we have used? Chomsky doesn't seem to keen on supplying anything useful, so how about you? We've already been through a decade of UN sanctions which didn't work, the people who oppose him have been slaughtered anytime any sort of uprising has been attempted...so what else? More waiting? More sanctions? I'll tell you now that neither of those would go anywhere.

You just completely owned the bush basher Noam Chomsky is no greater than a whore in the red light district.

One immediate task is to lend what weight we can to more benign outcomes. That means, primarily, caring for the needs of the victims, not just of this war but of Washington?s vicious and destructive sanctions regime of the past ten years, which has has devastated the civillian society, strengthened the ruling tyrant, and compelled the population to rely on him for survival. As has been pointed out for years, the sanctions therefore undermined the hope that Saddam Hussein would go the way of other murderous tyrants no less vicious than he. That includes a terrible rogues gallery of criminals who were also supported by those now at the helm in Washington, in many cases to the last days of their bloody rule: Ceausescu, to mention only one obvious and highly pertinent case.

That is the worst part of the entire article. I would to see someone back that up. Like Saddam is really going to put money into his people. Yea sure

I haven't even talked about bush and I'm a "bush basher", nice.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: TheShiz

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: TheShiz

Originally posted by: Thraxen

It is true that the uprising was slaughtered, but do you know why? The US supported (vocally) that uprising and when it happened, they did not provide any support, if they had, maybe the problem would have been solved back then

That was clearly a mistake. Many people in the US thought it was a mistake to not take out Saddam in the first war with Iraq. That's already an established point. But what does that have to do with the here and now? Is Saddam any less evil now than he was a decade ago? He needs to go and I still haven't seen any alternatives to the current war supplied by the opposition to the war.

Saddam may not be less evil, but he definately is less powerful than he was a decade ago. Why is the majority of the world against the war? They must have some reason or another. I actually haven't said that I am against it. The problem doesn't just depend whether we go to war or not, but how we go about doing it. I don't think blowing up everything is so productive, say we blow up all Saddam's palaces, those could have been put to good use I would think. I am uncertain that we will really rebuild the way we should after the war is over. We spent 4 billion blowing up afganistan and only have provided them with 300 million so far I think to rebuild. I agree he needed to go, but how the US has handled things in the past is good information to look at when deciding what to do in a given situation.

That was the agreement. The US would provide the majority of the military force and the other countries would provide the funds for rebuilding.

I like your rhetoric by the way, "blowing up Afghanistan". Deceptive, misleading and not factual. Yes, you have learned your lessons well.

well i'm talking about bombs, I guess I could say "we spent 4 billion on bombs, dropped on the afganistan region", is that better?

No, because it is still misleading. The US did not spend 4 billion on bombs to drop on Afghanistan. The US spent money to remove the Taliban that was harboring an international terrorist organization known as Al-Queada. That organization had attacked US interests many times and the Taliban had refused to extradite it's leader or close the terrorist training camps in it's lands. Through a combined land and air offensive the repressive Taliban regime was removed. That operation which is still on-going has cost the US around 4 billion dollars.

 

[Alistar7]

I stopped reading when I got to the part "Bush and his "cronies"".....

 

[elzmaddy]

The US did not spend 4 billion on bombs to drop on Afghanistan. The US spent money to remove the Taliban that was harboring an international terrorist organization known as Al-Queada.

Well, whatever its significance is it still remains that a large portion of this $4 billion was spent on bombs to drop on Afghanistan.

 

[swifty3]

Originally posted by: NightTrain
"Washington?s vicious and destructive sanctions regime of the past ten years"

That was all I need to give the entire article the official <flush>.

Call me crazy, but I keep seeing people with american flag icons posting messages stating how little they chose to read of the original posted message. Thanks for taking the time to bring to our attention your lack of focus, lack of patience, lack of interest in a possibly different opinion, and (let's hope not) lack of ability to read.

You invalidate yourself by highlighting your inability to address these issues. Since you probably haven't even read this message thus far, I will just end by saying that your mother is a goat and your father smells of urine. Have a nice day.

 

[swifty3]

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: Morph

Originally posted by: etech

The sanctions are by the UN.

That is nothing but semantics. It was the US that was the driving force behind those sanctions.

Everything good = UN
Everything bad = US

I guess when we get to pick and choose, whatever reality we wish just opens right up for us.

I guess when we get to pick and choose, whatever reality we wish just opens right up for us.[/
The first and only intelligent you have ever posted here nightrain.

simple-mindedness = simple comparison

 

[swifty3]

Originally posted by: etech
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.

Well said etech. I'm not a big fan of Chomsky, especially because he is so good at highlighting a problem, and so bad at offering any tangible, real solutions. Whats the point of raising an issue, if you never spend anytime thinking about a solution to it?

I have to concede here, Chomsky IS kind of an "ass nugget" in my mind.

 

[swifty3]

Originally posted by: Jmman
He spoke at my school on Friday, and I was tempted to go see what he had to say, but I passed....

You should have gone. It would have been interesting, and educational at the very least.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: swifty3

Originally posted by: etech
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.

Well said etech. I'm not a big fan of Chomsky, especially because he is so good at highlighting a problem, and so bad at offering any tangible, real solutions. Whats the point of raising an issue, if you never spend anytime thinking about a solution to it?

I have to concede here, Chomsky IS kind of an "ass nugget" in my mind.

I agree that some kind of alternative is nice to have, but OTOH knowing the problem is half the battle. From my limited reading of Chomsky it appears to me that he is filled with moral outrage not only of what his government does in his name, but also in the lack of awareness of what the government is doing.