Noam Chomsky: America is accelerating the apocalypse

Options
245678

Comments

  • pjhawks
    pjhawks Posts: 12,907
    Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:
    pjhawks wrote:

    second part I bolded - so you complain about our intervention in some situations...yet then complain about our NOT intervening in another?

    no, he's saying that the US uses selective intervention based on the benefits. when has the US ever intervened and overthrown an existing government/dictator when they had no interest in the resources or geographical location of said region?

    of course we have used selective intervention, every situation calls for a cost-benefit analysis. it would be stupid not to. the point being is when we do intervene we are bad guys and when we don't intervene we are bad guys. how can we ever win in these situations?
  • Pap
    Pap Serres, Greece Posts: 29,895
    Jason P wrote:
    I blame the Greeks for inventing the alphabet.


    :lol:
    Athens 2006 / Milton Keynes 2014 / London 1&2 2022 / Seattle 1&2 2024 / Dublin 2024 / Manchester 2024 / New Orleans 2025
  • satansbed
    satansbed Posts: 2,139
    Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:
    pjhawks wrote:

    second part I bolded - so you complain about our intervention in some situations...yet then complain about our NOT intervening in another?

    no, he's saying that the US uses selective intervention based on the benefits. when has the US ever intervened and overthrown an existing government/dictator when they had no interest in the resources or geographical location of said region?

    Vietnam and afganastain don't have much resources
  • badbrains
    badbrains Posts: 10,255
    satansbed wrote:
    Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:
    pjhawks wrote:

    second part I bolded - so you complain about our intervention in some situations...yet then complain about our NOT intervening in another?

    no, he's saying that the US uses selective intervention based on the benefits. when has the US ever intervened and overthrown an existing government/dictator when they had no interest in the resources or geographical location of said region?

    Vietnam and afganastain don't have much resources

    You couldn't be more wrong.........especially in afganastan
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,657
    badbrains wrote:
    satansbed wrote:

    Vietnam and afganastain don't have much resources

    You couldn't be more wrong.........especially in afganastan

    Rare earths and poppies, right?
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni











  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    brianlux wrote:
    badbrains wrote:
    satansbed wrote:

    Vietnam and afganastain don't have much resources

    You couldn't be more wrong.........especially in afganastan

    Rare earths and poppies, right?


    mmm poppies..... yes... poppies will make them sleep.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Hugh Freaking Dillon
    Hugh Freaking Dillon Posts: 14,010
    pjhawks wrote:
    of course we have used selective intervention, every situation calls for a cost-benefit analysis. it would be stupid not to. the point being is when we do intervene we are bad guys and when we don't intervene we are bad guys. how can we ever win in these situations?

    you answered your own question. it's not about being the world's big brother. it's about being the world's biggest opportunist. the US never helps anyone merely to help them (and "helping" is even stretching it). they need to benefit from it otherwise it doesn't happen.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    pjhawks wrote:
    Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:
    pjhawks wrote:

    second part I bolded - so you complain about our intervention in some situations...yet then complain about our NOT intervening in another?

    no, he's saying that the US uses selective intervention based on the benefits. when has the US ever intervened and overthrown an existing government/dictator when they had no interest in the resources or geographical location of said region?

    of course we have used selective intervention, every situation calls for a cost-benefit analysis. it would be stupid not to. the point being is when we do intervene we are bad guys and when we don't intervene we are bad guys. how can we ever win in these situations?

    You've made my point.

    Don't try to rationalize your military actions under the noble guise of big brother protecting everyone when a cost-benefit analysis needs to be performed before deciding whether or not you wish to intervene. You unravel your military might when it benefits you- not as you seemed to suggest in the post I referenced.

    I think it is fair to be critical of some countries (Canada included) that fail to intervene when intervention is necessary. I also think it is fair to be critical of some countries when they are excessive in their aggression. You can win by helping when help is needed and by leaving countries alone that should be left alone.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:
    ...You can win by helping when help is needed and by leaving countries alone that should be left alone.

    and by whose criteria do 'we' determine which countries should be left alone? and define 'left alone'
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    catefrances wrote:
    Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:
    ...You can win by helping when help is needed and by leaving countries alone that should be left alone.

    and by whose criteria do 'we' determine which countries should be left alone? and define 'left alone'

    Well... I guess I look at the US response to 9-11 as an example. Off the top of my head, 15 of the 19 terrorists were identified as Saudi Arabian; yet, the US invades Afghanistan... and then moves to Iraq and it still hasn't left.

    I understand all the reasons that were offered for such a response (such as the weapons of mass destruction myth and the 'terrorist training grounds'), but am I the only one to think the US retaliation efforts might have been misplaced?

    I guess what I am saying is the 'common sense' rule should come into play when establishing a legitimate need to invade another country or not.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:
    Well... I guess I look at the US response to 9-11 as an example. Off the top of my head, 15 of the 19 terrorists were identified as Saudi Arabian; yet, the US invades Afghanistan... and then moves to Iraq and it still hasn't left.

    I understand all the reasons that were offered for such a response (such as the weapons of mass destruction myth and the 'terrorist training grounds'), but am I the only one to think the US retaliation efforts might have been misplaced?

    I guess what I am saying is the 'common sense' rule should come into play when establishing a legitimate need to invade another country or not.

    Both invasions were criminal acts, and both pretexts for invading were clear-cut bullshit. The perpetrators should have been hunted down the same as any dangerous criminal, and in the same way that the terrorists responsible for almost weekly skyjackings between the years 1968 and 1973 viewtopic.php?f=13&t=208751&start=75#p5068409 were hunted down.
    To use an act of terrorism as justification for bombing and invading a country is Bullshit, with a capital B.
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:
    catefrances wrote:
    Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:
    ...You can win by helping when help is needed and by leaving countries alone that should be left alone.

    and by whose criteria do 'we' determine which countries should be left alone? and define 'left alone'

    Well... I guess I look at the US response to 9-11 as an example. Off the top of my head, 15 of the 19 terrorists were identified as Saudi Arabian; yet, the US invades Afghanistan... and then moves to Iraq and it still hasn't left.

    I understand all the reasons that were offered for such a response (such as the weapons of mass destruction myth and the 'terrorist training grounds'), but am I the only one to think the US retaliation efforts might have been misplaced?

    I guess what I am saying is the 'common sense' rule should come into play when establishing a legitimate need to invade another country or not.


    see that's the thing isn't it? what the hell is the common sense rule? and if it exists then why is it so difficult to follow? is it that those 'in charge' are more interested in power than justice? is it indifference to 'the other' ? or is it that common sense is more a bullshit concept than actual 'fact' and rolled out purely to corral people to a certain, collective way of thinking?
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    the US is by far the biggest threat to world peace ...

    * global warming and the planet: as the biggest polluters per capita and home to big oil ... this worldwide problem is the single biggest threat to peace now and the US are the leaders in contribution in both a physical way and in their policy favouring corporations ...

    * world's largest arms dealer: political instability is a key to US economic imperialism and war profiteering ... you can't be a country that bases their economy on arms expenditures and exploitation without political instability ... with the crux of the US economy (consumerism) being shown to be foolish - is it any wonder that the US is still at war in so many places?

    * unconditional support for israel: the unconditional support for israel is only radicalizing and polarizing the world ... as the US allows israel to continue to commit crimes against humanity - the hatred for americans grows stronger and stronger ... imagine what most of you felt because of the explosion at the boston marathon that killed 3 people ... now, imagine that death rate occurring every hour because of US foreign policy ... terrorist organizations don't need to run ads to recruit anymore ...
  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    catefrances wrote:
    Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

    Well... I guess I look at the US response to 9-11 as an example. Off the top of my head, 15 of the 19 terrorists were identified as Saudi Arabian; yet, the US invades Afghanistan... and then moves to Iraq and it still hasn't left.

    I understand all the reasons that were offered for such a response (such as the weapons of mass destruction myth and the 'terrorist training grounds'), but am I the only one to think the US retaliation efforts might have been misplaced?

    I guess what I am saying is the 'common sense' rule should come into play when establishing a legitimate need to invade another country or not.


    see that's the thing isn't it? what the hell is the common sense rule? and if it exists then why is it so difficult to follow? is it that those 'in charge' are more interested in power than justice? is it indifference to 'the other' ? or is it that common sense is more a bullshit concept than actual 'fact' and rolled out purely to corral people to a certain, collective way of thinking?

    You are asking me to explain or describe policy that sets appropriate conditions for military intervention. I'm not sure one can do that with any degree of thoroughness. You have described the problem accurately though when you refer to the leadership and its motivation. These decisions are ultimately are in the hands of the country's leadership and if that leadership is corrupt and acts poorly- to come full circle- we have the right to be critical. If that leadership acts on the behalf of a people in need... we can be grateful.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:
    catefrances wrote:
    Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

    Well... I guess I look at the US response to 9-11 as an example. Off the top of my head, 15 of the 19 terrorists were identified as Saudi Arabian; yet, the US invades Afghanistan... and then moves to Iraq and it still hasn't left.

    I understand all the reasons that were offered for such a response (such as the weapons of mass destruction myth and the 'terrorist training grounds'), but am I the only one to think the US retaliation efforts might have been misplaced?

    I guess what I am saying is the 'common sense' rule should come into play when establishing a legitimate need to invade another country or not.


    see that's the thing isn't it? what the hell is the common sense rule? and if it exists then why is it so difficult to follow? is it that those 'in charge' are more interested in power than justice? is it indifference to 'the other' ? or is it that common sense is more a bullshit concept than actual 'fact' and rolled out purely to corral people to a certain, collective way of thinking?

    You are asking me to explain or describe policy that sets appropriate conditions for military intervention. I'm not sure one can do that with any degree of thoroughness. You have described the problem accurately though when you refer to the leadership and its motivation. These decisions are ultimately are in the hands of the country's leadership and if that leadership is corrupt and acts poorly- to come full circle- we have the right to be critical. If that leadership acts on the behalf of a people in need... we can be grateful.

    tbh ive never been grateful for any actions of my government.. cause I know they've never been on behalf of the people in need... but on behalf of a greater power... whether that be a foreign nation under the guise of or the govt itself acting as an omnipotent being disregarding the needs and wants of the people it imposed itself upon.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    catefrances wrote:
    Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

    You are asking me to explain or describe policy that sets appropriate conditions for military intervention. I'm not sure one can do that with any degree of thoroughness. You have described the problem accurately though when you refer to the leadership and its motivation. These decisions are ultimately are in the hands of the country's leadership and if that leadership is corrupt and acts poorly- to come full circle- we have the right to be critical. If that leadership acts on the behalf of a people in need... we can be grateful.

    tbh ive never been grateful for any actions of my government.. cause I know they've never been on behalf of the people in need... but on behalf of a greater power... whether that be a foreign nation under the guise of or the govt itself acting as an omnipotent being disregarding the needs and wants of the people it imposed itself upon.

    The questions you posed were legitimate. I never got the impression you were being defensive. I think we can agree (as you have essentially stated it here) that the presidency's role has shifted to become somewhat of a puppet for big business.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:
    catefrances wrote:
    Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

    You are asking me to explain or describe policy that sets appropriate conditions for military intervention. I'm not sure one can do that with any degree of thoroughness. You have described the problem accurately though when you refer to the leadership and its motivation. These decisions are ultimately are in the hands of the country's leadership and if that leadership is corrupt and acts poorly- to come full circle- we have the right to be critical. If that leadership acts on the behalf of a people in need... we can be grateful.

    tbh ive never been grateful for any actions of my government.. cause I know they've never been on behalf of the people in need... but on behalf of a greater power... whether that be a foreign nation under the guise of or the govt itself acting as an omnipotent being disregarding the needs and wants of the people it imposed itself upon.

    The questions you posed were legitimate. I never got the impression you were being defensive. I think we can agree (as you have essentially stated it here) that the presidency's role has shifted to become somewhat of a puppet for big business.


    I can never be defensive when discussing the actions of other. im not responsible for them. ;) and tbh I do not believe I am responsible for the actions of politicians I vote for when my decision was predicated on 'truths' they stated yet later reneged on, once they gained the power they sought.

    I can not agree with your supposition in this instance about my views of the presidents role vis a vis big business cause my comments as stated were relation to the australian govt.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    catefrances wrote:


    I can never be defensive when discussing the actions of other. im not responsible for them. ;) and tbh I do not believe I am responsible for the actions of politicians I vote for when my decision was predicated on 'truths' they stated yet later reneged on, once they gained the power they sought.

    I can not agree with your suppostion about my views of the presidents role vis a vis big business cause my comments as stated were relation to the australian govt.

    Well call me a moron! :lol:
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:
    catefrances wrote:


    I can never be defensive when discussing the actions of other. im not responsible for them. ;) and tbh I do not believe I am responsible for the actions of politicians I vote for when my decision was predicated on 'truths' they stated yet later reneged on, once they gained the power they sought.

    I can not agree with your suppostion about my views of the presidents role vis a vis big business cause my comments as stated were relation to the australian govt.

    Well call me a moron! :lol:

    not gonna happen. ;)8-)
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • badbrains
    badbrains Posts: 10,255
    brianlux wrote:
    badbrains wrote:
    satansbed wrote:

    Vietnam and afganastain don't have much resources

    You couldn't be more wrong.........especially in afganastan

    Rare earths and poppies, right?

    Bingo! What is 3 billion on poppies a year???

Categories