Noam Chomsky: America is accelerating the apocalypse
Options
Comments
-
polaris_x wrote:
the world would most definitely be more safe ... and i pose these points for why i believe it to be so:
a) US foreign policy is based strictly on economic imperialism ... this means that while many want to believe the US venture into foreign lands to instill democracy and build hospitals ... that is simply not factual ... incursions into central america and the middle east have all been to ensure US corporations have access to resources ... and in some degree provide "engineering contracts" for companies like haliburton ... is it a coincidence that you get into a war in iraq based on lies then hand out no bid contracts to haliburton and have them overcharge the gov't? ...
b) the military industrial complex ... any country that bases a good chunk of their economy on war profiteering cannot be good for peace ... how do you promote arms sales? ... you create wars and create political instability in regions ... who's arming the "rebels" in Syria? ... known al qaeda operatives? ... that's right the world's biggest purveyor of arms ... the US ...
c) now, if we focus on other threats to peace such as population destabilization ... i could go on about global warming and famine and disease ... but i'm sure many here would simply ignore it ... so, i'll save my fingers the time ...
But doesn't proclaiming that the world would be more safe just assume that whatever nation filled the vacuum created at the top would be better? I think that is a rather large assumption.___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
Moonpig wrote:
I'm not sure what you want me to expand on. I'm of the opinion that if similar efforts and budgets were placed on ensuring hunger & poverty was eradicated and alternative fuels harnessed, that are put into the ever expanding war machine then what a place we would live in.
This is not solely an American issue, but again responsibility for the current state of affairs, and the place the world currently finds itself cannot be shirked either.
I too would like to see increased means of harnessing alternative fuels.
I guess I don't totally see your point here because while more could certainly be done no country in the world gives more humanitarian aid than the US.
http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance ... ted-states___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
JimmyV wrote:But doesn't proclaiming that the world would be more safe just assume that whatever nation filled the vacuum created at the top would be better? I think that is a rather large assumption.
but that is based on the assumption that every country would choose to operate in the same manner as the US if they could ... if that was the case - corporations like monsanto would have a larger foothold in europe ... but they don't ... it would mean that countries that the US has no interest in - others would exploit ... that isn't necessarily the case ...0 -
DittoJimmyV wrote:
But doesn't proclaiming that the world would be more safe just assume that whatever nation filled the vacuum created at the top would be better? I think that is a rather large assumption.With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
I don't think that's what his assumption is. There are infinite possibilities as to how any country would choose to operate, and any number of those ways could be as bad or much worse than the US now (the chances of it being worse are far greater than it being better IMO).polaris_x wrote:
but that is based on the assumption that every country would choose to operate in the same manner as the US if they could ... if that was the case - corporations like monsanto would have a larger foothold in europe ... but they don't ... it would mean that countries that the US has no interest in - others would exploit ... that isn't necessarily the case ...With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
PJ_Soul wrote:I don't think that's what his assumption is. There are infinite possibilities as to how any country would choose to operate, and any number of those ways could be as bad or much worse than the US now (the chances of it being worse are far greater than it being better IMO).
based on what? ... how many other countries are currently engaged in multiple wars for the sole purpose of resource control and war profiteering? ... how many innocent people have died (many children) in iraq because of a lie? ... yet, other countries are more of a threat?
throw me a bone here ... give me some back up to your beliefs ... all i hear is this country or that country will be worse ... but with absolutely no reasoning whatsoever ...
i pose my reasons for my beliefs and all i get is ... muslim extremists are a bigger threat ... followed by i agree ... like, do you guys not get how frustrating that is? ...0 -
Based on what? On the fact that all people and government are totally fucked up, and I would never trust any nation to do a good job of being the most powerful country in the world. We're talking fake scenarios here - I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue. You have as little or less reasoning behind your assumption that a fantasy nation would do better than the US, sooooo....polaris_x wrote:
based on what? ... how many other countries are currently engaged in multiple wars for the sole purpose of resource control and war profiteering? ... how many innocent people have died (many children) in iraq because of a lie? ... yet, other countries are more of a threat?
throw me a bone here ... give me some back up to your beliefs ... all i hear is this country or that country will be worse ... but with absolutely no reasoning whatsoever ...
i pose my reasons for my beliefs and all i get is ... muslim extremists are a bigger threat ... followed by i agree ... like, do you guys not get how frustrating that is? ...With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
PJ_Soul wrote:Based on what? On the fact that all people and government are totally fucked up, and I would never trust any nation to do a good job of being the most powerful country in the world. We're talking fake scenarios here - I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue. You have as little or less reasoning behind your assumption that a fantasy nation would do better than the US, sooooo....
soo ... i give you reasons why the US is the greatest threat to peace and you just diagree with no counterpoints to my reasoning ... then i explain why the world would indeed be a safer place and again no counterpoints nor any foundation ... i list things that should disgust you as a human being and instead of trying to prove that it's not true or something like that ... all you do is say another country would be worse but without any supporting evidence ...
not even sure where you got this fantasy nation thing either ...0 -
I don't have any evidence that another country would be worse. I don't have any evidence that another country would be better either, and neither do you. There is no possible way to say that one way or the other, and no way to present evidence for or against. I have read your reasoning behind thinking that the US is currently the greatest threat to world peace, and respect your views, and haven't argued with the facts that you outline (and of course I'm disgusted; I just don't discuss things like this with my emotions, because it's counterproductive). I just don't agree that these facts equal the US being the greatest threat to world peace in the world, because I think that any nation that is currently developing a nuclear weapons program and seems to possibly have a mind to actually use them, or to use them as leverage as they start a new war is more of a current threat. Iran fits that bill IMO (if we're talking nations only). The US doesn't IMO. I've already said that. Also, the US also has a role in the world as a nation that initiates diplomacy, which also works to balance things out, which no one seems to take into account while discussing the theoretical, unprovable idea of who or what is the biggest threat in the world.polaris_x wrote:
soo ... i give you reasons why the US is the greatest threat to peace and you just diagree with no counterpoints to my reasoning ... then i explain why the world would indeed be a safer place and again no counterpoints nor any foundation ... i list things that should disgust you as a human being and instead of trying to prove that it's not true or something like that ... all you do is say another country would be worse but without any supporting evidence ...
not even sure where you got this fantasy nation thing either ...With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
PJ_Soul wrote:I don't have any evidence that another country would be worse. I don't have any evidence that another country would be better either, and neither do you. There is no possible way to say that one way or the other, and no way to present evidence for or against. I have read your reasoning behind thinking that the US is currently the greatest threat to world peace, and respect your views, and haven't argued with the facts that you outline (and of course I'm disgusted; I just don't discuss things like this with my emotions, because it's counterproductive). I just don't agree that these facts equal the US being the greatest threat to world peace in the world, because I think that any nation that is currently developing a nuclear weapons program and seems to possibly have a mind to actually use them, or to use them as leverage as they start a new war is more of a current threat. Iran fits that bill IMO. The US doesn't IMO. I've already said that. Also, the US also has a role in the world as a nation that initiates diplomacy, which also works to balance things out, which no one seems to take into account while discussing the theoretical, unprovable idea of who or what is the biggest threat in the world.
there is only 1 that has ever used nuclear weapons ... and continues to use nuclear weapons ... and it's the USA ...
diplomacy? ... you call sending drones into pakistan diplomacy? ... you call arming al qaeda in syria diplomacy? ... you call vetoing every UN resolution against Israel diplomacy? ... i'm really not sure how you can give a country that has killed millions of innocent people and caused horrendous suffering based on a lie diplomatic ...0 -
I know - but that was then, and we're talking now I thought. What the US has done in the past is irrelevant to the discussion IMO.polaris_x wrote:
there is only 1 that has ever used nuclear weapons ... and continues to use nuclear weapons ... and it's the USA ...
diplomacy? ... you call sending drones into pakistan diplomacy? ... you call arming al qaeda in syria diplomacy? ... you call vetoing every UN resolution against Israel diplomacy? ... i'm really not sure how you can give a country that has killed millions of innocent people and caused horrendous suffering based on a lie diplomatic ...
No, I don't call those things diplomatic, but they don't wipe out other things that the US has done. I'm not defending the US's actions; I'm just being objective when considering who is currently the biggest threat to world peace. what the US has done in the past shouldn't be a factor here. The only things I'm considering are current events that could lead to the greatest threat. I think Iran is the nation that is currently posing the greatest threat.... I think you are being overly emotional when considering this question. I'm not arguing with you about what the US has done wrong, yet you continue to act as though I am.With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
PJ_Soul wrote:I know - but that was then, and we're talking now I thought. What the US has done in the past is irrelevant to the discussion IMO.
No, I call those things diplomatic, but they don't wipe out other things that the US has done. I'm not defending the US's actions; I'm just being objective when considering who is currently the biggest threat to world peace. what the US has done in the past shouldn't be a factor here. The only things I'm considering are current events that could lead to the greatest threat. I think Iran is the nation that is currently posing the greatest threat.... I think you are being overly emotional when considering this question. I'm not arguing with you about what the US has done wrong, yet you continue to act as though I am.
i was referring to depleted uranium during the gulf war ... if that history doesn't count as current ... then the US may not be currently using nuclear weapons ... which if you consider the lifespan of radioactivity is still causing suffering in the region ... i'm not just talking hiroshima ...
what the US has done in its past (within the last decade) is an indication of what it is doing now and in the future ...
emotion!? ... the only thing that is somewhat emotional is the frustration of this particular conversation ... you believe iran is the biggest threat but give absolutely no factual argument ... has iran invaded any country in the last decade? ... my rationalization of the US is based on facts ... you suffer from the same issues as jimmy v as you believe i have some hatred for the country ... which is fine but then it renders our discussion useless as everything i write will be misinterpreted imo ...
you say there is no way of knowing if the world would be a safer place if the US didn't exist ... well, of course ... but the question was posed and if you believe that it wouldn't ... then state your reasons ... give your objective rationale ... i've given mine ... if you choose not to argue those points ... i can only assume they are not false which would then lead me to believe that if you still feel that is would be safer that you would have a reason to believe so ... of which i have yet to hear any ...0 -
It doesn't matter what Iran has done in the past 10 years. I'm thinking about what Iran could do in the future. I said earlier in the thread that if we were having this conversation 8 years ago, I would say that the US is the biggest threat to world peace. That is no longer the case, and now Iran is IMO, because Iran is the nation that is now developing a nuclear weapons program, basing its foreign policies largely on antisemitism and religious fanaticism, has Imams influencing politics, and they are threatening Israel with war on a regular basis, and considering who Israel's allies are, and who THEIR allies are, that could mean world war. The US is currently winding down their war, while Iran threatens a new one. I've already said all this earlier, so I wish you would stop accusing me of not explaining my point.polaris_x wrote:
i was referring to depleted uranium during the gulf war ... if that history doesn't count as current ... then the US may not be currently using nuclear weapons ... which if you consider the lifespan of radioactivity is still causing suffering in the region ... i'm not just talking hiroshima ...
what the US has done in its past (within the last decade) is an indication of what it is doing now and in the future ...
emotion!? ... the only thing that is somewhat emotional is the frustration of this particular conversation ... you believe iran is the biggest threat but give absolutely no factual argument ... has iran invaded any country in the last decade? ... my rationalization of the US is based on facts ... you suffer from the same issues as jimmy v as you believe i have some hatred for the country ... which is fine but then it renders our discussion useless as everything i write will be misinterpreted imo ...
you say there is no way of knowing if the world would be a safer place if the US didn't exist ... well, of course ... but the question was posed and if you believe that it wouldn't ... then state your reasons ... give your objective rationale ... i've given mine ... if you choose not to argue those points ... i can only assume they are not false which would then lead me to believe that if you still feel that is would be safer that you would have a reason to believe so ... of which i have yet to hear any ...
As for objective rationale as to what might happen if the US didn't exist.... I can't give any, as that would be impossible - anything you've said on that matter that you think is objective rationale isn't rational either. For all I know, if the US didn't exist, then China would have taken over the world and instated a Communist dictatorship on an international scale, using force to do it ... THAT certainly wouldn't be better than the current state of affairs, right? ... but that is just fantasy, and therefore totally irrelevant.With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
polaris_x wrote:
but that is based on the assumption that every country would choose to operate in the same manner as the US if they could ... if that was the case - corporations like monsanto would have a larger foothold in europe ... but they don't ... it would mean that countries that the US has no interest in - others would exploit ... that isn't necessarily the case ...
No, it isn't. You might be right and whatever comes next would be better, but that is far from a guarantee. I think it is shortsighted to just assume things would be better.___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
JimmyV wrote:No, it isn't. You might be right and whatever comes next would be better, but that is far from a guarantee. I think it is shortsighted to just assume things would be better.
this is what i'm getting at ...
i explain to you my rationale as to why it would be better ... it isn't an assumption ... it's an opinion based on rationalization of facts and observations ... if you disagree ... explain why ... counter my points ... just saying it won't be is a bigger assumption as you aren't basing it on anything ...0 -
polaris_x wrote:
this is what i'm getting at ...
i explain to you my rationale as to why it would be better ... it isn't an assumption ... it's an opinion based on rationalization of facts and observations ... if you disagree ... explain why ... counter my points ... just saying it won't be is a bigger assumption as you aren't basing it on anything ...
This is what I'm getting at...
I have no interest in countering any of your points because i believe them to be a) beside my point and b) ground we have already covered. I am not saying that anything you have said in this thread is either correct or incorrect. What I am saying is that it is easy to say that whatever comes next will be better but you have no way to know that for sure. Simply rehashing why you believe the US to be bad does not change that fact.
(I do see that you dropped in earlier that I have issues. Whatever dude.)Post edited by JimmyV on___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
I can't speak for JimmyV, but I'm not bothering to go any further into it because it's so pointless and feels like a waste of time and energy to get more into it. JimmyV and I will be just as "right" and justified as you on this matter without bothering to counter your points.polaris_x wrote:
this is what i'm getting at ...
i explain to you my rationale as to why it would be better ... it isn't an assumption ... it's an opinion based on rationalization of facts and observations ... if you disagree ... explain why ... counter my points ... just saying it won't be is a bigger assumption as you aren't basing it on anything ...With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
JimmyV wrote:... No country in the world gives more humanitarian aid than the US.
http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance ... ted-states
Irony: First you kill them, then you try to help them. Sorry, I couldn't resist.Athens 2006 / Milton Keynes 2014 / London 1&2 2022 / Seattle 1&2 2024 / Dublin 2024 / Manchester 2024 / New Orleans 20250 -
PJ_Soul wrote:It doesn't matter what Iran has done in the past 10 years. I'm thinking about what Iran could do in the future. I said earlier in the thread that if we were having this conversation 8 years ago, I would say that the US is the biggest threat to world peace. That is no longer the case, and now Iran is IMO, because Iran is the nation that is now developing a nuclear weapons program, basing its foreign policies largely on antisemitism and religious fanaticism, has Imams influencing politics, and they are threatening Israel with war on a regular basis, and considering who Israel's allies are, and who THEIR allies are, that could mean world war. The US is currently winding down their war, while Iran threatens a new one. I've already said all this earlier, so I wish you would stop accusing me of not explaining my point.
As for objective rationale as to what might happen if the US didn't exist.... I can't give any, as that would be impossible - anything you've said on that matter that you think is objective rationale isn't rational either. For all I know, if the US didn't exist, then China would have taken over the world and instated a Communist dictatorship on an international scale, using force to do it ... THAT certainly wouldn't be better than the current state of affairs, right? ... but that is just fantasy, and therefore totally irrelevant.
iran is not anti-semtic ... they are anti-zionist ... huge difference ... i showed you the video of the president meeting jewish rabbis - if they were anti-semites, do you think there would be such a cordial meeting!?? ...
the US is always on the verge of war ... the axis of evil ... and at the same time always engaged in proxy wars such as the one in Syria now ... and as for israel ... why is it that every other country supports those resolutions!? ... is the rest of the world anti-semitic? ... does the rest of the world hate jews ... if you were iran and you saw what israel was doing in terms of expansion - and they had nuclear weapons ... wouldn't you want to protect yourself?
how can objective rationale not exist!? ... that makes no sense whatsoever ... predicting the future is for sure very hard but it is not impossible ... one may be wrong or right ... you simply take the best information possible and go with it ... either way - if you don't believe in the exercise - that is fine ... call it irrelevant but then don't argue against it ...
as for your theory on china ... has china engaged in any wars outside of its territories? ... has china invaded any country based on lies? ... what rationale do you have to say china could and would instill a communist style dictatorship on the rest of the world? ...0 -
JimmyV wrote:This is what I'm getting at...
I have no interest in countering any of your points because i believe them to be a) beside my point and b) ground we have already covered. I am not saying that anything you have said in this thread is either correct or incorrect. What I am saying is that it is easy to say that whatever comes next will be better but you have no way to know that for sure. Simply rehashing why you believe the US to be bad does not change that fact.
(I do see that you dropped in earlier that I have issues. Whatever dude.)
then why pose the question then? ... and pose it twice as you weren't happy that no one responded? ... obviously, i have no way of knowing nor you ... but you asked the question ... so, what did you want to hear? ...
are you playing victim too? ... is it not true that you believe i have a prejudicial hatred for america? ... i don't think that's false in any way ... it's well documented ...0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 273 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.6K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help