US Savage Imperialism

[elvis]

sometimes I wonder if these America hating assholes will ever have the guts to move out of the country?

I don't understand. I hated the winters in IL so I moved. If I hated all of America? Well Canada speaks the same language.

But Canada's winters are worse than Illinois'.

Crap!

there's a hole in my plan.

On the bright side, I wouldn't have to put up with the Lake Effect anymore.

i'm on the other side of the lake. this is real lake effect.

 

[georgephillip]

Is today's "Iranian Threat" the latest manifestation of John Quincy Adams's grand strategy of security through expansion, the belief "...that you can't really have security until you control everything"?

I figure.....if I was an Iranian....and, someone asked me why I needed nukes....I'd point to Iraq, and say.....

"That's what happens, when you DON'T have nukes."

(...Especially when Chickenhawks know you have no Nukes.)​

Iranians don't suffer from historical amnesia to the extent Americans do.

One of their leaders they well remember was
"Mohammad Mosaddegh (Persian: محمد مصدّق, IPA: [mohæmˈmæd(-e) mosædˈdeɣ] ( listen)* also Mossadegh, Mosaddeq, Mossadeq, Mosadeck, or Musaddiq) (19 May 1882 – 5 March 1967) was the democratically elected[1][2][3][4] Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 to 1953 when he was overthrown in a coup d'état backed by the United States Central Intelligence Agency."

Mossaddegh had to go in 1953 because he was a secular nationalist who thought Iran should control its own oil.

Chomsky recounts the NYT's editorial take on the coup:

"The New York Times, for example, had an editorial praising the overthrow of the government as an 'object lesson' to small countries that 'go berserk' with radical nationalism and seek to control their own resources.

"This will be an object lesson to them: don't try any of that nonsense, certainly not in an area we need for control of the world.

"That was 1953."

Do you think Mosaddegh would have served out his term if Iran had had nukes in '53?

 

[Sallow]

chomsky's an idiot.

Not entirely.

I don't agree with the guy..indeed I chuckled when he was debating William Buckley and Buckely threatened to punch him in the nose if he called him a nazi, again. But he makes some interesting points here and there.

Definitely not a person to be taken lightly.

Only to a douche bag antiamerican communist like yourself he makes sense! To everyone else with common sense he is beyond clueless! But then again you will believe anything as long as its hating on America and/or the Jews does matter how much lack of logic goes into it!

Blistering..Blistering, I say...

Encore..encore.

 

[Sallow]

Is today's "Iranian Threat" the latest manifestation of John Quincy Adams's grand strategy of security through expansion, the belief "...that you can't really have security until you control everything"?

I figure.....if I was an Iranian....and, someone asked me why I needed nukes....I'd point to Iraq, and say.....

"That's what happens, when you DON'T have nukes."

(...Especially when Chickenhawks know you have no Nukes.)​

Iranians don't suffer from historical amnesia to the extent Americans do.

One of their leaders they well remember was
"Mohammad Mosaddegh (Persian: محمد مصدّق, IPA: [mohæmˈmæd(-e) mosædˈdeɣ] ( listen)* also Mossadegh, Mosaddeq, Mossadeq, Mosadeck, or Musaddiq) (19 May 1882 – 5 March 1967) was the democratically elected[1][2][3][4] Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 to 1953 when he was overthrown in a coup d'état backed by the United States Central Intelligence Agency."

Mossaddegh had to go in 1953 because he was a secular nationalist who thought Iran should control its own oil.

Chomsky recounts the NYT's editorial take on the coup:

"The New York Times, for example, had an editorial praising the overthrow of the government as an 'object lesson' to small countries that 'go berserk' with radical nationalism and seek to control their own resources.

"This will be an object lesson to them: don't try any of that nonsense, certainly not in an area we need for control of the world.

"That was 1953."

Do you think Mosaddegh would have served out his term if Iran had had nukes in '53?

Kermit Roosevelt.

That man was a genius.

 

[Rozman]

Only Iran wants a nuclear Iran.

Actually every signatory of the NPT has already legally agreed to Iran's rights to civilian Nuclear technology. No evidence exists to support allegations that Iran's nuclear program is military or illegal under the NPT.

Saudi Arabia and Israel are not "everybody". We already invaded Iraq twice and Afghanistan once to placate the security concerns of Israel and SA. How many more nations must we invade before they can feel secure?

Looking into the future when Iran has at least two nukes.When they say they will disarm both those bad boys in return for the destruction of Israel.I wonder how the vote in the UN will go?
I wonder if the US will abstain.....?

 

[georgephillip]

Most of the middle east wants Iran dealt with.

The most recent poll I've seen distinguishes between what Middle Eastern elites view as their prime threat and what a majority of the total population of the Middle East perceive as threatening.

By a wide margin Israel and the US are seen by most Arabs as far greater threats than Iran is.

I don't expect you to take my word.
I'll try to find a link.

 

[georgephillip]

What were his contributions? I've never seen any other than his hatred of America.

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?

From Noam Chomsky: Politics or Science:

"NOAM CHOMSKY ranks among the leading intellectual figures of modern times.

"He has changed the way we think about what it means to be human, gaining a position in the history of ideas – at least according to his supporters – comparable with that of Darwin or Descartes.

"Since launching his intellectual assault against the academic orthodoxies of the 1950s, he has succeeded – almost single-handedly – in revolutionizing linguistics and establishing it as a modern science.

"Such victories, however, have come at a cost. The 'Linguistics Wars' (Harris 1993) began when, as a young anarchist, Chomsky published his first book.

"He might as well have thrown a bomb.

"'The extraordinary and traumatic impact of the publication of Syntactic Structures by Noam Chomsky in 1957', recalls one witness (Maclay 1971: 163), 'can hardly be appreciated by one who did not live through this upheaval.'

"From that moment, the battles have continued to rage."

It doesn't surprise me the Pentagon would gladly pay for some of Chomsky's research in a society where cost is socialized and profit privatized largely through "defense" spending.

Perhaps some in the Pentagon even agree with Noam's interpretation of Cold War politics.

Do you?

"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."

 

[shintao]

Description of Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.​

Yeah, we know,,,,,,,,,,,,, Beck - O'Rielly - Ingraham - Hannity - Coulter - Palin - Dobbs _ Limbaugh (Recycle >>>>>>) - Beck - O'Rielly - Ingraham - Hannity - Coulter - Palin - Dobbs _ Limbaugh......................

 

[georgephillip]

Only Iran wants a nuclear Iran.

Actually every signatory of the NPT has already legally agreed to Iran's rights to civilian Nuclear technology. No evidence exists to support allegations that Iran's nuclear program is military or illegal under the NPT.

Saudi Arabia and Israel are not "everybody". We already invaded Iraq twice and Afghanistan once to placate the security concerns of Israel and SA. How many more nations must we invade before they can feel secure?

Looking into the future when Iran has at least two nukes.When they say they will disarm both those bad boys in return for the destruction of Israel.I wonder how the vote in the UN will go?
I wonder if the US will abstain.....?

How will Israel's 200 nuclear weapons vote?

If you're worried about nuclear blackmail, the racist demagogues in the Jewish state are the ones with the Sampson Option.

 

[Revere]

I say let Israel bomb Iran into the stone age.

 

[Agit8r]

I say let Israel bomb Iran into the stone age.

Just make sure that they do it before we cut them off from the billions in aid that maintains their military infrastructure... cuz of course the power to maintain such foreign entanglements is not enumerated in our constitution

 

[Revere]

Cut them off. See what happens next.

 

[georgephillip]

What were his contributions? I've never seen any other than his hatred of America.

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?

In other words, he's a chickenred.

Noam's proven his courage from Jim Crow jails to El Salvador.

During the 60s those like Chomsky who protested against racial segregation in this country were often told to "Love it or leave it."

Were the bigots right?

They too were "proud conservatives."

 

[Revere]

The religious led the fight against segregation.

Where did it get them?

 

[georgephillip]

Cut them off. See what happens next.

Civil War in Israel?

 

[Revere]

Who cares if Israel bombs Iran into the stone age?

 

[georgephillip]

The religious led the fight against segregation.

Where did it get them?

DADT?

Are you saying that ending segregation put us on a slippery slope to Sweden?

 

[Samson]

There doesn't seem to be any disagreement with the claim that Chomsky is the eighth most widely quoted author in History.

Shakespeare, Freud, Marx, Chaucer, Cicero...Chomsky.

He's the only living member of an all time top ten list that begins with the Bible.

Whether you endorse his politics or not, it's hard to ignore his contributions.

Since I suppose, all he contributed was writing about socialism, for what else could he be ignored? (Ditto Marx).

For anyone outside the Ivory Towers of Academia, its pretty easy to ignore Chomsky.

I could list at least a dozen others who do nothing but spend all their lives jerking off the sociology departments of Universities.

 

[georgephillip]

Who cares if Israel bombs Iran into the stone age?

20,000 to 25,000 Jews of Iran?

 

[Revere]

Who cares if a theocracy based on a medieval religion is destroyed?