US Savage Imperialism

[loosecannon]

Palin's worked in the real world. Chomsky hasn't.

Palin has only worked in the salmon industry and backwater corners of the globe.

Chomsky is an academic, but there haven't been two other American political scientists of his caliber since his birth.

To brush him and his message off without considering it is proof that you are an ideologue hiding your head in the sand dreadfully afraid of mere ideals.

THINK for God sakes and stop feeling threatened by mere ideals. Esp when they are world class ideas.

What makes you think I haven't considered his message? Are you so simple-minded that you believe anyone who disagrees with him hasn't investigated what he says?

I've read his shit. He's king retard of the America Sucks club. He should stick to linguistics.

Hell nobody loves Karl Marx, but virtually EVERYBODY on the American right is devoutly committed to Marx's ideas!

Ummmm...wrong. Insanely, astoundingly, utterly, universally wrong.

OK, YOU are DEFINITELY a devout Marxist and I will prove that irrefutably within a few days.

IF you have considered Chomsky seriously discuss anything he ever wrote or said and why you disagree with it. And no googling!

If the pentagon sponsors his opinions why don't you!?!?

 

[JW Frogen]

Do you think US imperialism is bad, just wait until China wons her tons on the world.

The US was "just a spoon full of Sugar Empire"; it can only go downhill from here.

 

[georgephillip]

1. He has figured out how to make an exceptional fortune while living as a self-described ‘anarchist-socialist’ dissident in a capitalist society he has described as a ‘police state.’

a. He claims to be constantly threatened with censorship, while publishing dozens of books.

b. He denounces the Pentagon as the epitome of evil, while making million from his work for the very same institution. As a tenured MIT professor he actually works for the Research Laboratory of Electronics at MIT, and same is entirely funded by the Pentagon and a few multinational corporations.

c. His first book, “Syntactic Structures,” was written with grants from the US Army (Signal Corp), the Air Force (Office of Scientific Research, Air Research, and Development Command), and Office of Naval Research.

2. A Professor of Linguistics, Chomsky is vital to the air force and others to improve their “increasingly large investment in so-called ‘command and control’ computer systems” that were being used in Vietnam. Since the computer cannot ‘understand’ English, the commanders’ communications must be translated into a language that the computer can use. Noam Chomsky: Politics or Science?

George, how long are you going to ignore this? Chomsky is a war profiteer.

George, how long are you going to ignore this? Chomsky is a war profiteer.

daveman:

As I said on page 5 post #66 I will continue supporting Noam for the same reason I'll continue quoting Einstein in spite of the hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths his theory contributed to.

The Pentagon and Wall Street will continue the killing for profits as long as patriots like you (and Chomsky) dedicate decades of your lives to helping them do it.

It's a CLASS WAR, dman.

Noam and Al got some of it.

You're still in denial.

 

[loosecannon]

George, how long are you going to ignore this? Chomsky is a war profiteer.

MIT is a war profiteer. The pentagon probably just supports his dept because he offers valuable analysis of geopolitics that they want access to.

Why would the Pentagon pay good money to be told that America is the source of all evil in the world?

Idiot.

Because the pentagon is tasked with bizarro missions like winning hearts and minds of insurgents, propaganda across the globe and information wars. You may not realize this but our propaganda, intel and espionage budget is considerably larger than our military hardware/military personnel/military installation bill. Something like 40% of the military is intel and propaganda tasked.

And Chomsky is a gold mine for propaganda specialists. Nobody decodes propaganda or distills it better.

 

[georgephillip]

Do you think US imperialism is bad, just wait until China wons her tons on the world.

The US was "just a spoon full of Sugar Empire"; it can only go downhill from here.

If the Chinese military ever replaces the US as the global cop on the beat, we won't have to worry about having conversations like these anymore.

It's going to be a little more than ironic if in the next two or three decades the US military is all that's standing in the way of a Chinese Century (or two)

 

[Sallow]

Do you think US imperialism is bad, just wait until China wons her tons on the world.

The US was "just a spoon full of Sugar Empire"; it can only go downhill from here.

China has no plans for Empire.

 

[loosecannon]

Do you think US imperialism is bad, just wait until China wons her tons on the world.

The US was "just a spoon full of Sugar Empire"; it can only go downhill from here.

Absolutely!

But to the emerging nations it is just the opposite.

 

[Sallow]

What makes you think "North" Korea started that fight?

History?

The situation escalated into open warfare when North Korean forces invaded South Korea on 25 June 1950.[30] It was the first significant armed conflict of the Cold War.[31]
Korean War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History usually has at least two sides.

Also from wiki:

"On 8 September 1945, Lt. Gen. John R. Hodge of the United States arrived in Incheon to accept the Japanese surrender south of the 38th parallel.[47]

"Appointed as military governor, General Hodge directly controlled South Korea via the United States Army Military Government in Korea (USAMGIK 1945–48).[63]:63

"He established control by restoring to power the key Japanese colonial administrators and their Korean police collaborators.

"The USAMGIK refused to recognise the provisional government of the short-lived People's Republic of Korea (PRK) because he suspected it was communist.

"These policies, voiding popular Korean sovereignty, provoked civil insurrections and guerrilla warfare."

The view from the Left is that the US meddled in Korean affairs for five years by installing a dictator (Syngman Rhee) who spent WWII living in New Jersey.

While Japanese collaborators were being hunted and killed in North Korea, Rhee and his US patrons were installing Japanese officials and their Korean helpers in key posts in the military and police agencies.

Here's another left perspective on who invaded whom?

"On June 25, 1950, the north and the south each claimed the other side had invaded.

"The first reports from U.S. military intelligence were that the south had invaded the north.

"Both sides agreed that the fighting began near the west coast at the Ongjin peninsula, meaning that Pyongyang was a logical target for an invasion by the south, but an invasion by the north there made little sense as it led to a small peninsula and not to Seoul.

"Also on June 25th, both sides announced the capture by the south of the northern city of Haeju, and the U.S. military confirmed that.

"On June 26th, the U.S. ambassador sent a cable confirming a southern advance: 'Northern armor and artillery are withdrawing all along the line.'

"South Korean President Syngman Rhee had been conducting raids of the north for a year and had announced in the spring his intention to invade the north, moving most of his troops to the 38th parallel, the imaginary line along which the north and south had been divided.

"In the north only a third of available troops were positioned near the border.

"Nonetheless, Americans were told that North Korea had attacked South Korea, and had done so at the behest of the Soviet Union as part of a plot to take over the world for communism."

Seriously..

Korea's been asking for other nations to help fight their civil wars for centuries.

However, after WWII, 2 powers were charged with rebuilding Korea. Soviets in the North and the US in the South. During which..the North attacked the South. The US had little choice.

This was not the fault of the United States by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[georgephillip]

Most of the middle east wants Iran dealt with.

We want Iran to be dangerous enough to justify US intervention in the region, but not so dangerous that they upset the balance of power. By that same token, we don't want a weak Iran -- because vulnerable or failed states have an equally undesirable effect on the balance of power.

Different topic. Here is the sad thing about Republicans when it comes to words like "Empire" and "Imperialism". They unwittingly bought into the Left's 60's jargon, and believe these are bad words. They aren't. My friend, we live in a jungle. Either you bend other nation's over a sofa, or they bend you over a sofa. Either they spill your innocent blood, or you spill their innocent blood. Study history and power vacuums, or biology and food chains: non-violent options don't exist. Resources like oil and precious metals are scarce. If you want to have a great nation -- a nation where your people comprise only 3% of the global population but enjoy over 35% of her resources -- you have to colonize weaker powers and take their natural resources. It's called survival, and it's a beautiful thing when done well -- like Rome, who celebrated war and bloodshed.

Son, the old way of Empire was with guns; the new Empire is done mostly with dollar diplomacy or "structural adjustments", e.g., you get a weaker power to borrow money to fix-up their nation. Then, when they default on the loan, as they always do, you seize their assets. Reagan perfected this. The point of the Cold War was to inflate the Soviet threat in order to pull larger portions of the 3rd world under our "protective" umbrella, that is, the point of the Cold War was to seize global assets on behalf of the great American lifestyle. (It's called survival, son. Be proud of it. I hate to tell you this, but God didn't give the lion claws so he could have a tea party. The lion's power is not maintained by spreading freedom or letting other animals take their fair share of food. Nope. The lion takes what he needs. Grow up son!)

Listen, the real men who run the country have to make tough choices. They know the woman and children back on the homeland can't handle what it takes to turn the pig into the sausage, so they feed the serfs feel-good lies about spreading freedom. It's time you "toughen-up" and join the men. It's time you learn that "Empire" and "Imperialism" and the bloodshed required to run a great nation are not bad things.

Son, geopolitics is contact sport. Own it. Be proud of it.

[Passt: Mark Levine doesn't talk about these things. His job is to protect the women and children from the harsh truth of what men must do to make a great nation. It's time you join the men. Don't be a Lefty weakling who is afraid of Empire and hard power. Don't tremble in front of Power. Be proud of it. Inside the belly of every lion their lies a lamb. Don't be afraid of power son. Don't apologize for it. Don't dress it up in pretty words like freedom. Man-up!]

Wouldn't it be cheaper to jail the richest one percent of humanity (and their children) and redistribute all that money?

Supermen would tax war into extinction.

And save the lions.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

History?

History usually has at least two sides.

Also from wiki:

"On 8 September 1945, Lt. Gen. John R. Hodge of the United States arrived in Incheon to accept the Japanese surrender south of the 38th parallel.[47]

"Appointed as military governor, General Hodge directly controlled South Korea via the United States Army Military Government in Korea (USAMGIK 1945–48).[63]:63

"He established control by restoring to power the key Japanese colonial administrators and their Korean police collaborators.

"The USAMGIK refused to recognise the provisional government of the short-lived People's Republic of Korea (PRK) because he suspected it was communist.

"These policies, voiding popular Korean sovereignty, provoked civil insurrections and guerrilla warfare."

The view from the Left is that the US meddled in Korean affairs for five years by installing a dictator (Syngman Rhee) who spent WWII living in New Jersey.

While Japanese collaborators were being hunted and killed in North Korea, Rhee and his US patrons were installing Japanese officials and their Korean helpers in key posts in the military and police agencies.

Here's another left perspective on who invaded whom?

"On June 25, 1950, the north and the south each claimed the other side had invaded.

"The first reports from U.S. military intelligence were that the south had invaded the north.

"Both sides agreed that the fighting began near the west coast at the Ongjin peninsula, meaning that Pyongyang was a logical target for an invasion by the south, but an invasion by the north there made little sense as it led to a small peninsula and not to Seoul.

"Also on June 25th, both sides announced the capture by the south of the northern city of Haeju, and the U.S. military confirmed that.

"On June 26th, the U.S. ambassador sent a cable confirming a southern advance: 'Northern armor and artillery are withdrawing all along the line.'

"South Korean President Syngman Rhee had been conducting raids of the north for a year and had announced in the spring his intention to invade the north, moving most of his troops to the 38th parallel, the imaginary line along which the north and south had been divided.

"In the north only a third of available troops were positioned near the border.

"Nonetheless, Americans were told that North Korea had attacked South Korea, and had done so at the behest of the Soviet Union as part of a plot to take over the world for communism."

Seriously..

Korea's been asking for other nations to help fight their civil wars for centuries.

However, after WWII, 2 powers were charged with rebuilding Korea. Soviets in the North and the US in the South. During which..the North attacked the South. The US had little choice.

This was not the fault of the United States by any stretch of the imagination.

Very true.

 

[loosecannon]

None of whom I listen to. Meanwhile, you fail to notice that those you named are experts in the field of political commentary.

Chomsky's a linguist.

Define "expert".

How many are quoted as often as Plato?

Marx?

Satan has been quoted more than almost anyone else. Let's all become Satanists.

nobody has ever quoted Satan. Even the bible doesn't list a single quote credited to Satan, Lucifer, Beelzebub. There is a little passage wherein Jesus speaks with a legion of spirits, none of which are identified as Satan.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Most of the middle east wants Iran dealt with.

We want Iran to be dangerous enough to justify US intervention in the region, but not so dangerous that they upset the balance of power. By that same token, we don't want a weak Iran -- because vulnerable or failed states have an equally undesirable effect on the balance of power.

Different topic. Here is the sad thing about Republicans when it comes to words like "Empire" and "Imperialism". They unwittingly bought into the Left's 60's jargon, and believe these are bad words. They aren't. My friend, we live in a jungle. Either you bend other nation's over a sofa, or they bend you over a sofa. Either they spill your innocent blood, or you spill their innocent blood. Study history and power vacuums, or biology and food chains: non-violent options don't exist. Resources like oil and precious metals are scarce. If you want to have a great nation -- a nation where your people comprise only 3% of the global population but enjoy over 35% of her resources -- you have to colonize weaker powers and take their natural resources. It's called survival, and it's a beautiful thing when done well -- like Rome, who celebrated war and bloodshed.

Son, the old way of Empire was with guns; the new Empire is done mostly with dollar diplomacy or "structural adjustments", e.g., you get a weaker power to borrow money to fix-up their nation. Then, when they default on the loan, as they always do, you seize their assets. Reagan perfected this. The point of the Cold War was to inflate the Soviet threat in order to pull larger portions of the 3rd world under our "protective" umbrella, that is, the point of the Cold War was to seize global assets on behalf of the great American lifestyle. (It's called survival, son. Be proud of it. I hate to tell you this, but God didn't give the lion claws so he could have a tea party. The lion's power is not maintained by spreading freedom or letting other animals take their fair share of food. Nope. The lion takes what he needs. Grow up son!)

Listen, the real men who run the country have to make tough choices. They know the woman and children back on the homeland can't handle what it takes to turn the pig into the sausage, so they feed the serfs feel-good lies about spreading freedom. It's time you "toughen-up" and join the men. It's time you learn that "Empire" and "Imperialism" and the bloodshed required to run a great nation are not bad things.

Son, geopolitics is contact sport. Own it. Be proud of it.

[Passt: Mark Levine doesn't talk about these things. His job is to protect the women and children from the harsh truth of what men must do to make a great nation. It's time you join the men. Don't be a Lefty weakling who is afraid of Empire and hard power. Don't tremble in front of Power. Be proud of it. Inside the belly of every lion their lies a lamb. Don't be afraid of power son. Don't apologize for it. Don't dress it up in pretty words like freedom. Man-up!]

Wouldn't it be cheaper to jail the richest one percent of humanity (and their children) and redistribute all that money?

Supermen would tax war into extinction.

And save the lions.

This sounds similar to Stalin's state control and his war against the business class. How well did that work out?

 

[georgephillip]

History?

History usually has at least two sides.

Also from wiki:

"On 8 September 1945, Lt. Gen. John R. Hodge of the United States arrived in Incheon to accept the Japanese surrender south of the 38th parallel.[47]

"Appointed as military governor, General Hodge directly controlled South Korea via the United States Army Military Government in Korea (USAMGIK 1945–48).[63]:63

"He established control by restoring to power the key Japanese colonial administrators and their Korean police collaborators.

"The USAMGIK refused to recognise the provisional government of the short-lived People's Republic of Korea (PRK) because he suspected it was communist.

"These policies, voiding popular Korean sovereignty, provoked civil insurrections and guerrilla warfare."

The view from the Left is that the US meddled in Korean affairs for five years by installing a dictator (Syngman Rhee) who spent WWII living in New Jersey.

While Japanese collaborators were being hunted and killed in North Korea, Rhee and his US patrons were installing Japanese officials and their Korean helpers in key posts in the military and police agencies.

Here's another left perspective on who invaded whom?

"On June 25, 1950, the north and the south each claimed the other side had invaded.

"The first reports from U.S. military intelligence were that the south had invaded the north.

"Both sides agreed that the fighting began near the west coast at the Ongjin peninsula, meaning that Pyongyang was a logical target for an invasion by the south, but an invasion by the north there made little sense as it led to a small peninsula and not to Seoul.

"Also on June 25th, both sides announced the capture by the south of the northern city of Haeju, and the U.S. military confirmed that.

"On June 26th, the U.S. ambassador sent a cable confirming a southern advance: 'Northern armor and artillery are withdrawing all along the line.'

"South Korean President Syngman Rhee had been conducting raids of the north for a year and had announced in the spring his intention to invade the north, moving most of his troops to the 38th parallel, the imaginary line along which the north and south had been divided.

"In the north only a third of available troops were positioned near the border.

"Nonetheless, Americans were told that North Korea had attacked South Korea, and had done so at the behest of the Soviet Union as part of a plot to take over the world for communism."

Seriously..

Korea's been asking for other nations to help fight their civil wars for centuries.

However, after WWII, 2 powers were charged with rebuilding Korea. Soviets in the North and the US in the South. During which..the North attacked the South. The US had little choice.

This was not the fault of the United States by any stretch of the imagination.

I don't think this subject really is that simple.

Do you agree with the following:

"However, an anti-communist named Syngman Rhee, who moved back to Korea after decades of exile in the US, was considered an acceptable candidate to provisionally lead the country since he was considered friendly to the US.

"Under Rhee, the southern government conducted a number of military campaigns against left-wing insurgents who took up arms against the government and persecuted other political opponents.

"Over the course of the next few years, between 30,000[8] and 100,000 people would lose their lives during the war against the left-wing insurgents.[9]

"In August 1948, Syngman Rhee became the first president of South Korea, and U.S. forces left the peninsula."

Division of Korea

 

[georgephillip]

"Nonetheless, Americans were told that North Korea had attacked South Korea, and had done so at the behest of the Soviet Union as part of a plot to take over the world for communism."

there is a reason why the USA has refused for more than 65 years to sign an armistice with NK and officially end the Second World War. At first it was about re establishing our quarantine around the USSR/Russia and our war against labor unions/"communism". But since the cold war ended it becomes increasingly clear that it was always about empire and keeping nearly 100,000 US troops deployed and armed in the Western Pacific for power projection purposes.

"For those who want to understand American foreign policy, an obvious place to look is what happened after the Soviet Union disappeared."

For US elites affecting substantial control over the world is the dream that never dies. As long as they're spending other people's money and killing other people's children.

More from Noam:

"For a long time during the Cold War years, policies were invariably justified by the threat of the Russians. It was mostly an invented threat. The Russians ran their own smaller empire with a similar pretext, threat of the Americans.

"These clouds were lifted after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

"For those who want to understand American foreign policy, an obvious place to look is what happened after the Soviet Union disappeared.

"That's the natural place to look and it follows almost automatically that nobody looks at it.

"It's scarcely discussed in the scholarly literature though it's obviously where you'd look to find out what the Cold War was about. In fact, if you actually do look, you get very clear answers.

"The president at the time was George Bush I.

"Immediately after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, there was a new National Security Strategy, a defense budget, and so on. They make very interesting reading. The basic message is: nothing is going to change except pretexts.

"So we still need, they said, a huge military force, not to defend ourselves against the Russian hordes because they're gone, but because of what they called the 'technological sophistication' of third world powers.

"Now, if you're a well trained, educated person who came from Harvard and so on, you're not supposed to laugh when you hear that. And nobody laughed.

"In fact, I don't think anybody ever reported it.

"So, they said, we have to protect ourselves from the technological sophistication of third world powers and we have to maintain what they called the 'defense industrial base'—a euphemism for high tech industry, which mostly came out of the state sector (computers, the Internet, and so on), under the pretext of defense.

 

[Londoner]

Wouldn't it be cheaper to jail the richest one percent of humanity (and their children) and redistribute all that money?

The richest 1% is the lion -- and you can't jail the lion. He "jails" you.

During Stalin's time, the lion was the state, and the state was powerful enough to steal Ayn Rand's father's pharmacy.

But times change. Now business is king of the jungle, e.g., big pharma owns the state. Unlike during the earlier stages of capitalism where government was king of business, today large transnationals have financial leverage over nation states, whose elections they fund, and governments they staff.

Learn history bubby. During the late stages of socialism, government owns business. During the late stages of capitalism, however, business owns the state, as evidenced by the cancerous lobbying growths in Washington.

Notice how structural adjustments work. Learn how the lion uses his claws globally and domestically.

GLOBALLY: The lion identifies a vital geopolitical asset, "a lamb" ripe for slaughter -- a territory with vital trade routes, or basing locations, or sugar, or oil, or copper. Then the lion finds a corruptable dictator inside the territory -- Contra, Shaw, or Pinochet -- a man or group willing to help him slaughter the lamb. Which is to say: the lion gets the dictator to sign for massive "structural improvement" loans. The structural improvement is carried out by the lion's fundamental organs -- big business, who get no bid contracts ("above market compensation") to rebuild the things Lockheed Martin blows up. Predictably, the weak lamb defaults. This puts the lamb in technical receivership, giving the lion full control over the lamb's politics and resources.

DOMESTICALLY: the lion finds equally corruptible people who want structural improvements in the form of bigger & better homes. In an act of brilliant predation, the lion loans the dump corruptible lamb money knowing he will default. And so . . . when the lamb defaults, the lion forecloses and seizes his assets.

Marx was a pussy because he called this exploitation. He didn't respect the state of nature. He was a scared child trying to impose sheepish morality on the Lion. (Christianity redux. Humans have always tried to restrain the powerful with fake morality)

"You can't handle the truth!" The powerful eat the weak on the plains of Africa, in the boardroom, and at Countrywide. It's called a food chain. It's called biology. Own it. Man-up.

If Chaney has to spill some blood to get me cheap gas, I don't apologize for it. I don't dress it up in freedom's song. I own it. I marvel at it.

Why can't the women and children accept the Lion's power? Why can't the right wing appreciate Nietzsche? The strong eat the weak not because they're evil (as the sissy Left would have it), but because they are living organisms. This is how God built the world. It's one big restaurant. Big fish eat little fish.

The state of nature is beautiful if you have the courage to stare directly at it . . . without comforting myths. Join the men son.

 

[georgephillip]

That Chomsky operates in academiaville and is funded hugely through government grants should provide sufficient evidence of his irrelevance to society. His leap to somehow combine libertarianism and socialism sends his credibility over the cliff. Personally, I find more substance in a wal mart greeter and that's not a slap at them either.

Oh, yes it is.

Now tell us why you hate Walmart?

The confusion over libertarianism and socialism stems from what "libertarian" meant in Europe and how the same word transformed itself into something entirely different in this country.

Think of Chomsky's version as Left-libertarianism,Left-libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No slap at wal mart at all. I shop there for several different things. My disdain is for huge centralized government, corporate welfare and an evergrowing nanny state. The contempt at which our leaders view the constitution is a tragedy. But still, I don't look through the prism with negativity. Classical liberalism, circa late 1700's, US colonies, renders Chomsky's views null.

Why such fascination with Chomsky?

Chomsky is also disdainful of state capitalism (like the Pentagon) and private tyrannies (corporations), but his conception of the Nanny State extends to conservative entitlements.

"Political debates in the United States are routinely framed as a battle between conservatives who favor market outcomes, whatever they may be, against liberals who prefer government intervention to ensure that families have decent standards-of-living.

"This description of the two poles is inaccurate; both conservatives and liberals want government intervention.

"The difference between them is the goal of government intervention, and the fact that conservatives are smart enough to conceal their dependence on the government."

Conservative Nanny State

 

[Cecilie1200]

Possibly the children?

US bombs first pulverized every North Korean city, town and village into rubble, then the planes came back and turned the rubble into pebbles.

Do you thing the profit margin on each bomb explains why this occurred?

No. I think the North Koreans attacking South Korea..our Allies..was why it occurred.


You don't want death..don't start the fight.

What makes you think "North" Korea started that fight?

The fact that we aren't lobotomized psych patients who worship and idolize Noam Chomsky and would believe his inane and dishonest prattlings over God Himself if presented the chance, unlike SOME people I could mention.

I love how you present quotes from Chomsky as "proof" of Chomsky's correctness and brilliance, though. Nothing like a lying fool being substantiated by himself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That's because most Arabs are lied to by their governments, who hope to blame someone other than themselves for their nations being stuck a few centuries behind the rest of us.

All governments lie; however, most Arabs have Al Jazeera to SHOW them the threats that Israel and the US present to poor and middle class Arabs from Iraq to Area C.

It's possible US opinion would change if we saw the same side of empire the Arabs see every night.

Al Jazeera lies to them too, you idiot.

This mouthbreather thinks Noam Chomsky is a fucking prophet. Do you really expect him to know how fucking laughable it is to champion al Jazeera as a news source?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Define "expert".

What Chomsky is as a linguist. Antonym: What Chomsky is discussing geopolitics.

How many are quoted as often as Plato?

Marx?

A thousand years ago, everybody believed the world was flat. Did that make it so?

Palin's an expert in geo-politics and Chomsky isn't?

Why?

Who, other than you, brought up Palin, peabrain? What makes you think YOU get to decide who the only other alternative to Noam-my head is so far up my ass I pipe in air through my navel-Chomsky? Given your choice of heroes, I wouldn't let you decide between pizza and burritos for dinner.

 

[Cecilie1200]

True or False?

"It (the US) was a very racist country all the way through its history, not just anti-black. That was Jefferson's image and the others more or less agreed with it. So it's a settler colonialist society.

"Settler colonialism is far and away the worst kind of imperialism, the most savage kind because it requires eliminating the indigenous population.

"That's not unrelated, I think, to the kind of reflexive U.S. support for Israel—which is also a settler colonial society. Its policies resonate with a sense of American history.

"It's kind of reliving it. It goes beyond that because the early settlers in the U.S. were religious fundamentalists who regarded themselves as the children of Israel, following the divine commandment to settle the promised land and slaughter the Amalekites and so on and so forth. That's right around here, the early settlers in Massachusetts."

Chomsky has published numerous volumns on US foreign policy.

He's far more qualified to his political opinions than you are to judge his political opinions.

Not that that's likely to stop you.

US Savage

If he's so "qualified" for them, how come they're always so egregiously, demonstrably WRONG? Given his track record, if he said, "I am Noam Chomsky", I'd demand documentation, just to be sure.

Is he wrong about the Arab League's 1976 Peace Proposal?

"The fact that the Israel-Palestine conflict grinds on without resolution might appear to be rather strange. For many of the world's conflicts, it is difficult even to conjure up a feasible settlement.

"In this case, it is not only possible, but there is near universal agreement on its basic contours: a two-state settlement along the internationally recognized (pre-June 1967) borders -- with 'minor and mutual modifications,' to adopt official U.S. terminology before Washington departed from the international community in the mid-1970s.

"The basic principles have been accepted by virtually the entire world, including the Arab states (who go on to call for full normalization of relations), the Organization of Islamic States (including Iran), and relevant non-state actors (including Hamas).

"A settlement along these lines was first proposed at the U.N. Security Council in January 1976 by the major Arab states.

"Israel refused to attend the session.

"The U.S. vetoed the resolution, and did so again in 1980. The record at the General Assembly since is similar."

First of all, chucklehead, given the way Chomsky has tried to backpedal throughout the years on all of his OTHER spectacular failures, I wouldn't believe him if he told me my eyes were green, so don't even bother "triumphantly" linking me to anything he's written lately about his past as though it proves anything except that the gullibility that allowed Jim Jones to convince hundreds of people to poison themselves still thrives in modern-day America, all right? You want to prove Chomsky right about something, the absolute LAST person you need to be citing for it is Chomsky himself, so please don't be surprised when I don't bother reading a single frigging word of this post beyond your dimwitted link.

I can, however, answer your question without sullying my brain with any of Chomsky's bullshit. He was not only wrong about the 1976 Arab "Peace Proposal". He out-and-out lied about it, as he has about the Middle East and Israel in general, because he's an anti-Jewish bigot.

Here's some of the things he's said, versus the truth:

"“The policies of Hamas are more forthcoming and more conducive to a peaceful settlement than those of the United States or Israel… There is a long-standing international
consensus that goes back over thirty years that there should be a two-state political settlement
on the international border… Hamas is willing to accept that as a long-term truce.”

The truth: What he forgot to mention was that his vaunted "two-state political settlement" would requires the dissolution of Israel entirely. As for the peacefulness of Hamas, only a purblind dumbass like you would believe that. Hamas remains committed to Israel’s destruction: “Before Israel dies, it must be humiliated and degraded . . . Allah willing, we will make them lose their eyesight, we will make them lose their brains.” (Hamas leader Khaled Mashal); “Oh Allah, vanquish the Jews and their supporters . . . count their numbers and kill them all, down to the very last one.” (Hamas parliamentary speaker Ahmad Bahr).

Chomsky lie:

“There has been one elected leader in the Middle East, one, who was elected in a reasonably fair, supervised election . . . namely Yassir Arafat. So how do the great ‘democrats’ like Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld treat him? Lock him up in a compound so that he can be battered by US-provided arms to their local client under military occupation.”

Truth:

Israel and Turkey both had freely elected leaders. The Palestinian elections were rigged, and Arafat’s PLO colleagues compared him to Idi Amin and Saddam Hussein. Arafat was trapped in his compound after he sabotaged the peace process and started a campaign of violence.

Chomsky lie:

“These facts are automatically cut out of history, along with others unacceptable to US power, including repeated PLO initiatives through the 1980s calling for negotiations with Israel leading to mutual recognition.”

Truth:

At the end of the 1980s, PLO deputy leader Salah Khalaf (Abu Iyad) declared: “There was no PLO recognition of Israel.” PLO leader Yasser Arafat issued a joint statement with Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi avowing that “the so-called ‘State of Israel’ was one of the consequences of World War II and should disappear, like the Berlin Wall.

And let us not forget your original claim to "brilliance" for Chomsky, the 1976 Peace Proposal:

“In January 1976, the US was compelled to veto a UN Security Council Resolution calling for a settlement in terms of the international consensus, which now included a Palestinian state alongside Israel . . . [Israel alleged] that the PLO not only backed this peace plan but in fact ‘prepared’ it; the PLO then condemned ‘the tyranny of the veto’ (in the words of the PLO representative) by which the US blocked this important effort to bring about a peaceful two-state settlement.”

Truth:

The draft UN resolution endorsed the PLO’s “Right of Return” for millions of Palestinian Arabs, which entails the dissolution of Israel. The PLO publicly declared that “this Zionist ghetto of Israel must be destroyed” and stressed that “we will not recognize Israel.”

(Thanks to Paul Bogdanor for the preceding information.)

A peace proposal that involves unconditional surrender by and obliteration of one side of the argument is only worth extolling if you happen to be a hate-filled bigot like Noam Chomsky, or a brain-damaged acolyte of a hate-filled bigot, like you.