Noam Chomsky: America is accelerating the apocalypse

Nice read. Thanks for posting.

Byrnzie wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/04/us-disaster-race-noam-chomsky
;...What happened in the missile crisis in October 1962 has been prettified to make it look as if acts of courage and thoughtfulness abounded. The truth is that the whole episode was almost insane. There was a point, as the missile crisis was reaching its peak, when Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev wrote to Kennedy offering to settle it by a public announcement of a withdrawal of Russian missiles from Cuba and U.S. missiles from Turkey. Actually, Kennedy hadn't even known that the U.S. had missiles in Turkey at the time. They were being withdrawn anyway, because they were being replaced by more lethal Polaris nuclear submarines, which were invulnerable.

So that was the offer. Kennedy and his advisors considered it – and rejected it. At the time, Kennedy himself was estimating the likelihood of nuclear war at a third to a half. So Kennedy was willing to accept a very high risk of massive destruction in order to establish the principle that we – and only we – have the right to offensive missiles beyond our borders, in fact anywhere we like, no matter what the risk to others – and to ourselves, if matters fall out of control. We have that right, but no one else does.

...At the moment, the nuclear issue is regularly on front pages in the cases of North Korea and Iran. There are ways to deal with these ongoing crises. Maybe they wouldn't work, but at least you could try. They are, however, not even being considered, not even reported.

Take the case of Iran, which is considered in the West – not in the Arab world, not in Asia – the gravest threat to world peace. It's a Western obsession, and it's interesting to look into the reasons for it, but I'll put that aside here. Is there a way to deal with the supposed gravest threat to world peace? Actually there are quite a few. One way, a pretty sensible one, was proposed a couple of months ago at a meeting of the non-aligned countries in Tehran. In fact, they were just reiterating a proposal that's been around for decades, pressed particularly by Egypt, and has been approved by the U.N. General Assembly.

The proposal is to move toward establishing a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the region. That wouldn't be the answer to everything, but it would be a pretty significant step forward. And there were ways to proceed. Under U.N. auspices, there was to be an international conference in Finland last December to try to implement plans to move toward this. What happened?

You won't read about it in the newspapers because it wasn't reported – only in specialist journals. In early November, Iran agreed to attend the meeting. A couple of days later Obama cancelled the meeting, saying the time wasn't right. The European Parliament issued a statement calling for it to continue, as did the Arab states. Nothing resulted. So we'll move toward ever-harsher sanctions against the Iranian population – it doesn't hurt the regime – and maybe war. Who knows what will happen?'

I will never understand the idea that talking with and dealing with middle eastern gov'ts is wrong. It isn't giving in, it isn't surrender. That is an archaic way of looking at the world, and the coming apocalypse will be a result of stubborness bred through years of the American Exceptionalism ideal. To be truly exceptional America would quit involving themselves in the affairs of others and just simply try to help the peoples of the world through trade agreements that do not benefit warlords and despots.

I don't know which type of apocalypse we will cause first, nuclear or environmental, but I will be very sad if it is simply because of stubborn assholes who are continuing their policies only because of campaign donations and votes. I think many in the country would rather have nuclear war than to leave the middle east to the middle easterners to figure out.

mikepegg44 wrote:

I don't know which type of apocalypse we will cause first, nuclear or environmental, but I will be very sad if it is simply because of stubborn assholes who are continuing their policies only because of campaign donations and votes. I think many in the country would rather have nuclear war than to leave the middle east to the middle easterners to figure out.

a nuclear war/attack in the mid-east would be highly more likely without he US being there. right or wrong we are often the deterrent.

"Meanwhile, the United States, the richest and most powerful country in world history, is the only nation among perhaps 100 relevant ones that doesn’t have a national policy for restricting the use of fossil fuels, that doesn’t even have renewable energy targets. It’s not because the population doesn’t want it. Americans are pretty close to the international norm in their concern about global warming. It’s institutional structures that block change. Business interests don’t want it and they’re overwhelmingly powerful in determining policy, so you get a big gap between opinion and policy on lots of issues, including this one."

Business interests are certainly a significant impediment and the the US as a whole may be close to the international norm in concern for global warming. However, those that are not are very vocal and do manage to influence some politicians. A few years ago my employer introduced a green initiative to offer some publications electronically to subscribers. It was a voluntary opt-in and print versions were still available to those who wanted them. The roll-out campaign was well received as a whole, but some of the negative response was shockingly venomous. I was quite surprised by how angered some people were by an invitation to go paperless.

pjhawks wrote:

a nuclear war/attack in the mid-east would be highly more likely without he US being there. right or wrong we are often the deterrent.

First I want to say I don't believe that. I think we are helping to breed an environment that makes it more and more likely that someone will set off a nuclear device. But I guess it is all how you look at it.

Is there a specific reason why you think that? What hostility would there be to the west and us specifically if we left the region to the people who live there?

We don't own the world, we have our land, we should stay on it.

Alliance with none and trade with all is a much faster way to peace than alliance with some and sanctions for others. But I could be wrong, I don't think if I am that the world would be a more dangerous place. I think at worst we would simply be in the same situation we are now, but i just don't see how that would be possible. Either way I think we would be safer. The west forces borders on people that don't want them, and we manipulate/control their efforts to change them change them.

I am not naive enough to think world peace is possible, but I do think that the more trade agreements countries have between each other the less likely they are to bomb each other, in the very least the less likely they are to attack us.

brianlux wrote:

Hey, now Byrnzie's laughing. Damn it, who let you guys know I'm gullible? I'll bet it was that Hedonist who clued you guys, right?

Hey hey! :evil:

:P

pjhawks wrote:

it is easy to say the U.S. shouldn't have nukes just as every other country shouldn't either, but the fact is the world would be a less safe place if we didn't have them. We are the world's big brother. we are counted on to protect the weak. right or wrong we are a deterrent. and if 'they' hate us because of it, maybe it makes us a bigger target, but maybe by inadvertently making ourselves a bigger target we lessen the target on the backs of the weaker countries?

I know we do some shitty things with that power and do at times overstep our bounds. I am not shrugging off the bad things we do. it's a delicate line we have to straddle though.

Or put another way..............https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32iCWzpDpKs