The U.S is a Leading Terrorist State

Commy

stickfig13 wrote:

I see how you could take that out of the article....and your very correct. However, I feel that he is not pointing anything out...He is blaming the US like usual for something that it is only loosely involved in.

I guess my point is that Chomsky always seems to take a situation and make it the United State's fault. Even if it means sympatizing (sp) with an evil regime such as the Khmer Rouge. He fails to analyze geo-politics for what they ARE and trys to point out double standards as much as he possibly can. If the US acts in the name of self interest they are horrible....but if the Khmer Rouge end up killling millions it is a diabolical plan by set up by the US to get the communist......Get my Point?

Yeah, he may stretch his points a bit, but I think he's pretty objective for the most part. He looks at the world in a very grounded way...he realizes the gov't of a nation acts with the consent of the people. He knows that the people are ultimately repsonsible for the actions of the gov't. And that's true in any structure-despotic, tyranic, monarchy, whatever. He realizes this and is doing everything he can to prevent them from doing these terrible things in his name-its out of guilt that he is doing what he does, not hatred or anything like that. He's trying to prevent things like the Khmer Rouge, or East Timor.

And I personally think he has a great point about the United States involvement in allowing someone like Pol Pot to come to power in Cambodia...we dropped more bombs on that country in 2 years than we dropped on vietnam during the entire vietnam war, creating a very unstable environment ripe for a killer regime like Khmere Rouge to rise up.

stickfig13

Commy wrote:

Yeah, he may stretch his points a bit, but I think he's pretty objective for the most part. He looks at the world in a very grounded way...he realizes the gov't of a nation acts with the consent of the people. He knows that the people are ultimately repsonsible for the actions of the gov't. And that's true in any structure-despotic, tyranic, monarchy, whatever. He realizes this and is doing everything he can to prevent them from doing these terrible things in his name-its out of guilt that he is doing what he does, not hatred or anything like that. He's trying to prevent things like the Khmer Rouge, or East Timor.

And I personally think he has a great point about the United States involvement in allowing someone like Pol Pot to come to power in Cambodia...we dropped more bombs on that country in 2 years than we dropped on vietnam during the entire vietnam war, creating a very unstable environment ripe for a killer regime like Khmere Rouge to rise up.

I agree with your take...

However, I think to say that the US makes a country unstable and then is responsible for mass genocide is crazy. That is what a majority of Chomsky's political writings are about. Misplaced blame or the idea that one thing leads to another. In his eyes the US creates every problem situation that it has ever been involved in. This may be true in theory, However, some blame must be placed with the actors themselves.

The US doesn't create every problem in the world.....as Chomsky would lead you to believe.

Commy

stickfig13 wrote:

I agree with your take...

However, I think to say that the US makes a country unstable and then is responsible for mass genocide is crazy. That is what a majority of Chomsky's political writings are about. Misplaced blame or the idea that one thing leads to another. In his eyes the US creates every problem situation that it has ever been involved in. This may be true in theory, However, some blame must be placed with the actors themselves.

The US doesn't create every problem in the world.....as Chomsky would lead you to believe.

Suplying 50% of the world's arms the US is responsible for more than we think, I'd imagine. Not everything...and its just opinion now, but I don't think Chomsky believes the US is responsible for everything that happens in the world. But as the world's superpower they influence much of the world-through economic or military means-a word from Washington can end genocide in some cases...and has in the past.

stickfig13

Commy wrote:

Suplying 50% of the world's arms the US is responsible for more than we think, I'd imagine. Not everything...and its just opinion now, but I don't think Chomsky believes the US is responsible for everything that happens in the world. But as the world's superpower they influence much of the world-through economic or military means-a word from Washington can end genocide in some cases...and has in the past.

I think we are getting into a chicken or the egg argument......Good Stuff.....The US sells arms.....who gets killed by them can blame who they want.

Chomsky has always just been food for thought in my book and their is no doubt that the guy has superior credentials. I just happen to think that pointing out double standards does nothing much to solve any "real world" situations. He seems to guide his theory in a "perfect world" context....

Commy

stickfig13 wrote:

I think we are getting into a chicken or the egg argument......Good Stuff.....The US sells arms.....who gets killed by them can blame who they want.

Chomsky has always just been food for thought in my book and their is no doubt that the guy has superior credentials. I just happen to think that pointing out double standards does nothing much to solve any "real world" situations. He seems to guide his theory in a "perfect world" context....

I hear you...which is attainable to some extent, I think...not a perfect world, but we can certainly do better than this.

Byrnzie

stickfig13 wrote:

I guess my point is that Chomsky always seems to take a situation and make it the United State's fault. Even if it means sympatizing (sp) with an evil regime such as the Khmer Rouge.

"...sympathizing (sp) with an evil regime such as the Khmer Rouge"???

Why are you saying that he sympathised with the Khmer Rouge? Please provide evidence of this.

El_Kabong

stickfig13 wrote:

I see how you could take that out of the article....and your very correct. However, I feel that he is not pointing anything out...He is blaming the US like usual for something that it is only loosely involved in.

the us is responsable for the genocide in east timor...we gave indonesia the weapons and they started the genocide right after nixon (or wa it kissinger?) left a visit to indonesia. if you see someone committing genocide w/ the weapons you sell them shouldn't you think about not giving them anymore??

stickfig13

Byrnzie wrote:

"...sympathizing (sp) with an evil regime such as the Khmer Rouge"???

Why are saying that he sympathised with the Khmer Rouge? Please provide evidence of this.

you obviously didn't take the time to read the article above....or read any of the post after for that matter...

Byrnzie

stickfig13 wrote:

you obviously didn't take the time to read the article above....or read any of the post after for that matter...

There's nothing obvious about it. I did read the article, and at no point does Chomsky express sympathy for the Khmer Rouge.

stickfig13

Byrnzie wrote:

There's nothing obvious about it. I did read the article, and at no point does Chomsky express sympathy for the Khmer Rouge.

Well then you missed the point of the article when you read it. Everyone who has followed Chomsky's career knows that this is his biggest flaw.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anti-Chomsky_Reader

see the first section under contents....it is the first chapter of the book.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

Many people see Chomsky as blaming America for the world's problems, but I think they're missing his main point that we should be criticizing ourselves before we criticize others for doing the same things. He's an American, so he criticizes American policy first and most often. That doesn't mean he's ignoring the crimes of other nations. He just wants to focus on America, because he's an American and he's not happy with its policies.

stickfig13

Saturnal wrote:

Many people see Chomsky as blaming America for the world's problems, but I think they're missing his main point that we should be criticizing ourselves before we criticize others for doing the same things. He's an American, so he criticizes American policy first and most often. That doesn't mean he's ignoring the crimes of other nations. He just wants to focus on America, because he's an American and he's not happy with its policies.

That is my point....he criticizes America first before he even looks at the rest of the world doings....He them overlooks them.....= double standards

Byrnzie

stickfig13 wrote:

Well then you missed the point of the article when you read it. Everyone who has followed Chomsky's career knows that this is his biggest flaw.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anti-Chomsky_Reader

see the first section under contents....it is the first chapter of the book.

You mean the section which quotes exclusively from 'The Anti-Chomsky Reader', which doesn't refer to, or quote from his work, but instead makes some sweeping, un-supported statements that have the sole intention of criticising him?
If you can go to his actual writings and/or sayings instead and find me an example of, for instance, an expression of sympathy for the Khmer Rouge then I'll be grateful.

stickfig13

Byrnzie wrote:

You mean the section which quotes exclusively from 'The Anti-Chomsky Reader', which doesn't refer to, or quote from his work, but instead makes some sweeping, un-supported statements that have the sole intention of criticising him?
If you can go to his actual writings and/or sayings instead and find me an example of, for instance, an expression of sympathy for the Khmer Rouge then I'll be grateful.

http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm

stickfig13

Byrnzie wrote:

You mean the section which quotes exclusively from 'The Anti-Chomsky Reader', which doesn't refer to, or quote from his work, but instead makes some sweeping, un-supported statements that have the sole intention of criticising him?
If you can go to his actual writings and/or sayings instead and find me an example of, for instance, an expression of sympathy for the Khmer Rouge then I'll be grateful.

http://www.jim.com/chomsdis.htm

stickfig13

Byrnzie wrote:

You mean the section which quotes exclusively from 'The Anti-Chomsky Reader', which doesn't refer to, or quote from his work, but instead makes some sweeping, un-supported statements that have the sole intention of criticising him?
If you can go to his actual writings and/or sayings instead and find me an example of, for instance, an expression of sympathy for the Khmer Rouge then I'll be grateful.

see section on Cambodia. With collected writings...http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomskyhoax.html

Eliot Rosewater

stickfig13 wrote:

That is my point....he criticizes America first before he even looks at the rest of the world doings....He them overlooks them.....= double standards

As an American citizen he sees it as his duty to participate. Wouldn't it be a better place if we all felt that way? We certainly wouldn't have such a large democratic deficit - the gap between public opinion and policy. Chomsky is a true American. He's not trying to find someone to blame, he's trying to change policy for the better and so it can be even in the same ballpark as public opinion. Most people just don't give a fuck. It's like Ed said in Storytellers when he said that it's like a childhood game.....we know they're fucking with us yet we do nothing about it. Chomsky refuses to accept that. He can change things here in his own country far better than anywhere else. Plus, we all know that this is where the problem lies anyway, let's all open our eyes please.

stickfig13

don't gimme no wrote:

As an American citizen he sees it as his duty to participate. Wouldn't it be a better place if we all felt that way? We certainly wouldn't have such a large democratic deficit - the gap between public opinion and policy. Chomsky is a true American. He's not trying to find someone to blame, he's trying to change policy for the better and so it can be even in the same ballpark as public opinion. Most people just don't give a fuck. It's like Ed said in Storytellers when he said that it's like a childhood game.....we know they're fucking with us yet we do nothing about it. Chomsky refuses to accept that. He can change things here in his own country far better than anywhere else. Plus, we all know that this is where the problem lies anyway, let's all open our eyes please.

The rest of the world is doing it.....but he is a patriot by calling out the US because it practices geo-politics.

and Ed is any political converstion doesn't carry much weight with me....uh um

Commy

stickfig13 wrote:

The rest of the world is doing it.....but he is a patriot by calling out the US because it practices geo-politics.

and Ed is any political converstion doesn't carry much weight with me....uh um

practicing geo-politics, aka- attempt to take over the world.

NewJPage

Commy wrote:

Not at all. They found actual stories about the Khmer Rouge massacre that were completely fabricated, and pointed that out. When we look back on it now we can see they really didn't need to, there were plenty oif horror stories..but they wanted a Russian sattelite to be so evil and look so bad in the world's eye that they fabricated stories about an already terrible atrocity that was taking place.

It is a look at the very complex propaganda system in the United States, not a look into the Khmer Rouge Massacre.

truth is, no one knew of what was going on in cambodia for sure until 1979, when they were liberated by the vietnamese.

i'm not commenting on chomsky in this respect, cause i don't know all the facts about what he did or did not say, or the context to which he did or did not say them in. if he said things in support of cambodia and the khmer rouge, though, that is unfortunate. it would, however, put him directly in line with US policy, seeing that we both covertly and overtly supported the khmer rouge well into the 90's. so for those of you that think he disagrees with US policy no matter what, then i guess he would have been greatly against the khmer rouge regime.

seriously, it is the most depressing thing i have ever wittnessed. i was in cambodia this past january, and visited the killing fields and tuol sleng, and was speechless...in tears. the fact that we supported this regime for so long, even after they were thrown from power, is sickenning...all part of our anti-vietnamese platform that lasted until clinton in '94.

ok, i'm depressed again...