Iraq is a trial run - Noam Chomsky
- Thread starter burek
- Start date
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Nice work by Chomsky. The man pretty much pegs why everyone is pissed at us.
"In any legal system that you take seriously, coerced judgments are considered invalid, but in the international affairs conducted by the powerful, coerced judgments are fine - they are called diplomacy."
"In any legal system that you take seriously, coerced judgments are considered invalid, but in the international affairs conducted by the powerful, coerced judgments are fine - they are called diplomacy."
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
In my opinion, other than his alarmist but accurate portrayal of the current administration being a near likeness to Reagan's, he completely avoids the topic altogether and takes a trip down memory lane. I guess where Noam and I differ on this topic is that I think the public has woken up to when our leaders are BSing us on the big issues. The ability of the media to funnel us information from every possible viewpoint is just too strong.
I would think that a good number of Americans knew that Iraq is far from being a direct threat, but was certainly working its way towards being one. For exactly the reasons below, what crackpot dictator wouldn't want nukes and useful chemical weapons to prop up their regimes? Noam just totally feeds the counter-argument to what he's saying. I admire the man's intelligence; I'd just like to see it now used towards supplying an alternative solution to the problems he brings up.
Ramachandran: You have written that this war of aggression has dangerous consequences with respect to international terrorism and the threat of nuclear war.
Chomsky: I cannot claim any originality for that opinion. I am just quoting the CIA and other intelligence agencies and virtually every specialist in international affairs and terrorism. Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy , the study by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the high-level Hart-Rudman Commission on terrorist threats to the United States all agree that it is likely to increase terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
The reason is simple: partly for revenge, but partly just for self-defence.
There is no other way to protect oneself from U.S. attack. In fact, the United States is making the point very clearly, and is teaching the world an extremely ugly lesson.
Compare North Korea and Iraq. Iraq is defenceless and weak; in fact, the weakest regime in the region. While there is a horrible monster running it, it does not pose a threat to anyone else. North Korea, on the other hand, does pose a threat. North Korea, however, is not attacked for a very simple reason: it has a deterrent. It has a massed artillery aimed at Seoul, and if the United States attacks it, it can wipe out a large part of South Korea.
So the United States is telling the countries of the world: if you are defenceless, we are going to attack you when we want, but if you have a deterrent, we will back off, because we only attack defenceless targets. In other words, it is telling countries that they had better develop a terrorist network and weapons of mass destruction or some other credible deterrent; if not, they are vulnerable to "preventive war".
For that reason alone, this war is likely to lead to the proliferation of both terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.
I would think that a good number of Americans knew that Iraq is far from being a direct threat, but was certainly working its way towards being one. For exactly the reasons below, what crackpot dictator wouldn't want nukes and useful chemical weapons to prop up their regimes? Noam just totally feeds the counter-argument to what he's saying. I admire the man's intelligence; I'd just like to see it now used towards supplying an alternative solution to the problems he brings up.
Ramachandran: You have written that this war of aggression has dangerous consequences with respect to international terrorism and the threat of nuclear war.
Chomsky: I cannot claim any originality for that opinion. I am just quoting the CIA and other intelligence agencies and virtually every specialist in international affairs and terrorism. Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy , the study by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the high-level Hart-Rudman Commission on terrorist threats to the United States all agree that it is likely to increase terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
The reason is simple: partly for revenge, but partly just for self-defence.
There is no other way to protect oneself from U.S. attack. In fact, the United States is making the point very clearly, and is teaching the world an extremely ugly lesson.
Compare North Korea and Iraq. Iraq is defenceless and weak; in fact, the weakest regime in the region. While there is a horrible monster running it, it does not pose a threat to anyone else. North Korea, on the other hand, does pose a threat. North Korea, however, is not attacked for a very simple reason: it has a deterrent. It has a massed artillery aimed at Seoul, and if the United States attacks it, it can wipe out a large part of South Korea.
So the United States is telling the countries of the world: if you are defenceless, we are going to attack you when we want, but if you have a deterrent, we will back off, because we only attack defenceless targets. In other words, it is telling countries that they had better develop a terrorist network and weapons of mass destruction or some other credible deterrent; if not, they are vulnerable to "preventive war".
For that reason alone, this war is likely to lead to the proliferation of both terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.
I will agree with part of what he said. But Chomsky leaves out that we are in the beginning stages of playing multilateral diplomatic hardball with NK. NK has decided multilateral talks with the US, Japan, China about its nuclear problem are in its best interest. NK may only need a small push for its goverment to collapse. Chomsky leaves these little bits out.
I dunno. It seems like a reasonable interview to me. While I don't agree with all of what he says, I don't think he is that far off either.
Was he that far off when he predicted the collapse of the entire middle east into a holy war against the US before the War?
I am not familiar with this person, and this is the first article/interview I have read that involved him. I don't know what he said in the past, and I believe I did say that I do not agree with everything he said in the interview. In the case of this one link I read, I just think some of waht he said was reasonable. I really try not to get caught up in this such and such author is liberal wacko, or a conservative nut, and just read the articles and develop my own opinion.
CaptnKirk
Lifer
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
Iraq is a tinderbox
You must remember this - We may be there for a month, a year, a decade before we pull out ....
But the inhabitants af Iraq will stay there - and eventually have it their way, like at Burger King.
You must remember this - We may be there for a month, a year, a decade before we pull out ....
But the inhabitants af Iraq will stay there - and eventually have it their way, like at Burger King.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter