Noam on Iraq

[cbacon 0]

The Future of Iraq and U.S. Occupation

Noam Chomsky

International Relations Center, January 26, 2005

The Future of Iraq and U.S. Occupation

Noam Chomsky

International Relations Center, January 26, 2005

Let’s just imagine what the policies might be of an independent Iraq, independent, sovereign Iraq, let’s say more or less democratic, what are the policies likely to be?

 

Well there’s going to be a Shiite majority, so they’ll have some significant influence over policy. The first thing they’ll do is reestablish relations with Iran. Now they don’t particularly like Iran, but they don’t want to go to war with them so they’ll move toward what was happening already even under Saddam, that is, restoring some sort of friendly relations with Iran.

 

That’s the last thing the United States wants. It has worked very hard to try to isolate Iran. The next thing that might happen is that a Shiite-controlled, more or less democratic Iraq might stir up feelings in the Shiite areas of Saudi Arabia, which happen to be right nearby and which happen to be where all the oil is. So you might find what in Washington must be the ultimate nightmare—a Shiite region which controls most of the world’s oil and is independent. Furthermore, it is very likely that an independent, sovereign Iraq would try to take its natural place as a leading state in the Arab world, maybe the leading state. And you know that’s something that goes back to biblical times.

 

What does that mean? Well it means rearming, first of all. They have to confront the regional enemy. Now the regional enemy, overpowering enemy, is Israel. They’re going to have to rearm to confront Israel—which means probably developing weapons of mass destruction, just as a deterrent. So here’s the picture of what they must be dreaming about in Washington—and probably 10 Downing street in London—that here you might get a substantial Shiite majority rearming, developing weapons of mass destruction, to try to get rid of the U.S. outposts that are there to try to make sure that the U.S. controls most of the oil reserves of the world. Is Washington going to sit there and allow that? That’s kind of next to inconceivable.

 

What I’ve just read from the business press the last couple of days probably reflects the thinking in Washington and London: “Uh well, okay, we’ll let them have a government, but we’re not going to pay any attention to what they say.” In fact the Pentagon announced at the same time two days ago: we’re keeping 120,000 troops there into at least 2007, even if they call for withdrawal tomorrow.

 

And the propaganda is very evident right in these articles. You can even write the commentary now: We just have to do it because we have to accomplish our mission of bringing democracy to Iraq. If they have an elected government that doesn’t understand that, well, what can we do with these dumb Arabs, you know? Actually that’s very common because look, after all, the U.S. has overthrown democracy after democracy, because the people don’t understand. They follow the wrong course. So therefore, following the mission of establishing democracy, we’ve got to overthrow their governments.

 

I think that [conscription] is going to be a last resort. The reason is the Vietnam experience. The Vietnam experience, I think, is the first time in the history of European imperialism that an imperial power tried to fight a colonial war with a citizen’s army. I mean the British didn’t do it, and the French had the Foreign Legion… In colonial wars, civilians are just no good at. [Colonial wars are] too brutal and vicious and murderous. You just can’t take kids off the street and have them fight that kind of war. You need trained killers, like the French Foreign Legion.

 

In fact you could see it happening in Vietnam. To its credit, the U.S. army fell apart. It took too long, but finally the army essentially fell apart. Soldiers were on drugs, they were fragging officers, not following orders, and so on and the top brass wanted them out. If you look back at the military journals in the late Sixties, they were writing about how we gotta get this army out of here or the army’s going to collapse—much like the head of the Army reserves said two or three days ago. He said this is becoming a broken force.

[Justice 0]

Wow, what a way to make a return to the board. And Lord knows Noam is such so credible when it comes to international policy.

[The Czech Republic 0]

How odd that the most intelligent and thought-provoking thing Noam Chomsky ever said was "colorless green ideas sleep furiously."

[KingPK 0]

Sounds like a Mad Lib I did once.

[Guest MikeSC]

Doesn't he have a genocide to deny or something?

-=Mike

[cbacon 0]

And Lord knows Noam is such so credible when it comes to international policy.

 

He sure is.

 

Doesn't he have a genocide to deny or something?

 

For the record, he never has. Although it is arguable that he underestimated the genocide your referring to. It is ironic that you chastize Chomsky for this glaring omission though, and use it as a basis to descredit it him, yet at the same time you stand by your countries foriegn policy record when it downright IGNORED genocide that was occuring in Rwanda. (And where it may occur in Iraq with a Shiite majority)

 

But that's just Chomsky, the anti-semtic Jew that's got it all backwards

[The Czech Republic 0]

And Lord knows Noam is such so credible when it comes to international policy.

 

He sure is.

No more than Henry Kissinger would be in the field of linguistics.

[Guest MikeSC]

And Lord knows Noam is such so credible when it comes to international policy.

 

He sure is.

 

 

Um, not amongst people who actually study int'l studies. Hell, he's not even that hot of a linguist.

Doesn't he have a genocide to deny or something?

 

For the record, he never has.

See that quote in my sig?

 

Verbatim.

Although it is arguable that he underestimated the genocide your referring to.

Underestimating and "it isn't real" aren't quite similar.

It is ironic that you chastize Chomsky for this glaring omission though,  and use it as a basis to descredit it him, yet at the same time you stand by your countries foriegn policy record when it downright IGNORED genocide that was occuring in Rwanda. (And where it may occur in Iraq with a Shiite majority)

No, I don't discredit Chomsky solely for that. I also chastise him for utterly being oblivious to American society, blind to the crimes of Communists, etc.

 

He's every liberal cliche rolled up into one shitty writer.

 

BTW, if you oppose us acting without UN approval, you can't really blame us for doing nothing about Rwanda.

But that's just Chomsky, the anti-semtic Jew that's got it all backwards 

Chomsky is very much an anti-Semitic Jew.

 

And a man whose death will be as bright a day for humanity as Arafat's.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

 

And a man whose death will be as bright a day for humanity as Arafat's.

       -=Mike

 

This is why you can't be taken seriously. You went from arguing points, to a cheap line of hate.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

You know, last night when I was playing my Madden '05 game, I was thinking to myself "What does Noam Chomsky think about the Iraq situation?"

 

Thanks for coming through in the clutch, C-Bacon...

[Vyce 0]

 

And a man whose death will be as bright a day for humanity as Arafat's.

       -=Mike

 

This is why you can't be taken seriously. You went from arguing points, to a cheap line of hate.

This is Noam Chomsky we're talking about.

 

I'll be dancing a jig when he croaks, just like I did when Said kicked it, just like I did when Arafat kicked it.

 

I just hope that Chomsky has the decency to fucking die soon.

[NoCalMike 0]

 

And a man whose death will be as bright a day for humanity as Arafat's.

       -=Mike

 

This is why you can't be taken seriously. You went from arguing points, to a cheap line of hate.

This is Noam Chomsky we're talking about.

 

 

I just hope that Chomsky has the decency to fucking die soon.

why exactly?

[SuperJerk 0]

Sounds like a Mad Lib I did once.

Let’s just imagine what the (NOUN) might be of an independent Iraq, independent, sovereign Iraq, let’s say more or less (ADJECTIVE), what are the (NOUN) likely to be?

 

Well there’s going to be a (ADJECTIVE) majority, so they’ll (VERB) some significant (NOUN) over policy. The first thing they’ll do is reestablish relations with (NOUN). Now they don’t particularly like (NOUN), but they don’t want to (VERB PHRASE) with them so they’ll move toward what was happening already even under (NOUN), that is, restoring some sort of friendly relations with (NOUN).

 

Good times.

[Justice 0]

You rock.

 

Question: Can I call you Rob E. the Robot?

[cbacon 0]

See that quote in my sig?

 

Underestimating and "it isn't real" aren't quite similar

Yes, and it's laughable considering it's taken out of context. He says that Robert Moss' interpretation of the Khmer Rogue slaughter is a 'New York Times Creation', not the event in question. In the same paragraph (which i've posted before) he still acknowledges the atrocities being committed.

 

But that's typical of someone criticizing Chomsky. The charges against him really don't hold up unless you've actually read what he writes, but that scares certain people because it's a conflict of interest with their ideals, thus he must not only 'shut up' but he has to die as well because of such blind hatred and obvious denail of truth.

 

BTW, if you oppose us acting without UN approval, you can't really blame us for doing nothing about Rwanda.

 

Who's said the US was pristine? We've done some horrible things in our past. Our leaving the S. Vietnamese to get slaughtered by the N. Vietnamese in 1975 was a sin. Our ignoring of the Rwandan genocide in the 1990's was quite the blight.

 

So what is it, are they are or they not to blame? If so, surely supposdely 'denying' a genocide is occuring is on par with knowing about it and not doing anything?

[SuperJerk 0]

You rock.

 

Question: Can I call you Rob E. the Robot?

My new username is an inside joke from another board. Over there, many would just call me "Bob", though.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Chomsky is a classic example of someone who fancies themselves an authority on everything, but is (at best) an authority on one realtively obscure thing.

[Special K 0]

Chomsky asside, Iraq's gonna be a muslim state. Sorry! You may hate Chomsky, but it's true.

[Guest INXS]

Never heard of this guy but I cant argue with his synopsis

[SuperJerk 0]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky

[Vyce 0]

Never heard of this guy

Oh, you'd like him. He's insane, a vile anti-Semite (despite what his equally-insane followers argue) who, as Mike's sig demonstrates, has a history denying that various monstrous atrocities such as the Holocaust and the Khmer Rouge ever happened, all of the while blaming America for....pretty much every evil thing that happens in the world.

 

You know how some hard-right conservatives throw out the label "anti-American"? Most times it doesn't fit, but with Chomsky, it fits like a goddamn glove.

 

Therefore, YOU would absolutely LOVE this cuntrag.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Didn't you know Nero was an American?

[Guest MikeSC]

See that quote in my sig?

 

Underestimating and "it isn't real" aren't quite similar

Yes, and it's laughable considering it's taken out of context. He says that Robert Moss' interpretation of the Khmer Rogue slaughter is a 'New York Times Creation', not the event in question. In the same paragraph (which i've posted before) he still acknowledges the atrocities being committed.

Moss "exaggeration" UNDERSTATED the horror of the Khmer Rouge regime. Saying that his interpretation of the slaughter (which was actually VERY conservative in scope) was a "creation" is flat-out stating that it is not happening.

 

You really have no clue how bad they were.

 

And, please, feel free to provide the "proper context". Try to explain why it took him over 10 years to even ACKNOWLEDGE that it happened. Read his reviews of three books on the Khmer Rouge from the 1970's. 2 are critical of the regime, one praises.

 

Care to guess which one Noam liked?

But that's typical of someone criticizing Chomsky. The charges against him really don't hold up unless you've actually read what he writes, but that scares certain people because it's a conflict of interest with their ideals, thus he must not only 'shut up' but he has to die as well because of such blind hatred and obvious denail of truth.

I've actually read Chomsky. Impossible to get through poli. sci without being subjected to him.

 

Reading him makes it impossible to notice how uneducated he is and how weak and shoddy his opinions are.

BTW, if you oppose us acting without UN approval, you can't really blame us for doing nothing about Rwanda.

Who's said the US was pristine? We've done some horrible things in our past. Our leaving the S. Vietnamese to get slaughtered by the N. Vietnamese in 1975 was a sin. Our ignoring of the Rwandan genocide in the 1990's was quite the blight.

So what is it, are they are or they not to blame? If so, surely supposdely 'denying' a genocide is occuring is on par with knowing about it and not doing anything?

I think it was horrible.

 

But since YOU came out against acting without UN support, you have no business making similar claims.

-=Mike

[The Czech Republic 0]

I'm taking a linguistic anthropology class this semester, and I think Chomsky knows his stuff when it comes to that, and I respect the work he did. But when it comes to foreign affairs, I gotta say he's out of his element, and at times, just a total blowhard. My anarchist friends seem to like him, though.

[Guest Brian]

Universal grammar and semantic universality, Czech?

[The Czech Republic 0]

Yeah we're talking about universal grammar. We watched some video a few days ago about Chomsky and the whole "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" thing, and it had George Carlin constructing sentences that were grammatically correct but semantically nonsense.

 

"Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going down to the softball field to beat up Hitler's widow."

 

"Hey, could you hand me a few more anchors? I think I can fit at least two more in my back pocket."

[Guest Brian]

I think I've seen that exact same video. Is that the one where they dissect the little kids speaking, and how they acquire language? I've seen a bunch of them, read most of his principle work.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Yeah you probably did. There was a kid in a rainbow Denver Nuggets shirt!

[cbacon 0]

Moss "exaggeration" UNDERSTATED the horror of the Khmer Rouge regime. Saying that his interpretation of the slaughter (which was actually VERY conservative in scope) was a "creation" is flat-out stating that it is not happening.

 

You really have no clue how bad they were.

 

And, please, feel free to provide the "proper context". Try to explain why it took him over 10 years to even ACKNOWLEDGE that it happened. Read his reviews of three books on the Khmer Rouge from the 1970's. 2 are critical of the regime, one praises.

 

Care to guess which one Noam liked?

 

In the New York Times Magazine, May 1, 1977, Robert Moss (editor

>of a dubious offshoot of Britain's Economist called "Foreign Report"

>which specializes in sensational rumors from the world's

>intelligence agencies) asserts that "Cambodia's pursuit of total

>revolution has resulted, by the official admission of its

>Head of State, Khieu Samphan, in the slaughter of a million

>people." Moss informs us that the source of this statement is

>Barron and Paul, who claim that in an interview with the Italian

>weekly Famiglia Cristiana Khieu Samphan stated that more than a

>million died during the war, and that the population had been

>7 million before the war and is now 5 million. Even if one places

>some credence in the reported interview nowhere in it does

>Khieu Samphan suggest that the million postwar deaths were a result

>of official policies (as opposed to the lag effects of a

>war that left large numbers ill, injured, and on the verge of

>starvation). The "slaughter" by the Khmer Rouge is a Moss-New York

>Times creation.

 

Since you're the type who enjoys reading things in context, and following up, you'll find that while Chomsky has admitted to initially underestimating the Khmer Rouge atrocities, his main concern at the time was to point out the American involvement in laying the base for the Khmer Rouge takeover, and to contrast the intense media coverage of Khmer Rouge atrocities with the total lack of coverage of comparable atrocities in East Timor.

 

Oh, you'd like him. He's insane, a vile anti-Semite (despite what his equally-insane followers argue) who, as Mike's sig demonstrates, has a history denying that various monstrous atrocities such as the Holocaust and the Khmer Rouge ever happened, all of the while blaming America for....pretty much every evil thing that happens in the world.

 

The anti-semite bit is just stupid, he's a Jew who taught Hebrew school in his youth and was a member of several zionist organizations. He lived on a kibbutz and has described zionism as being the main interest of his youth. But, yeah, anti-semitic to the core, really. Find me any place where he denies the holocaust, I'd love to see that.

 

You know how some hard-right conservatives throw out the label "anti-American"? Most times it doesn't fit, but with Chomsky, it fits like a goddamn glove.

 

This is perhaps the most ridiculous of arguments. It's like saying if I passionately despise my own representatives,and will criticize no matter who's in power, I must be anti-Canadian!

 

Finally, though it's totally irrelevant, Chomsky regularly condemns both modern American "liberal" intellectual culture and communist atrocities.

 

Mud-slinging - so much more fun than real arguments.

[SuperJerk 0]

But that's typical of someone criticizing Chomsky. The charges against him really don't hold up unless you've actually read what he writes, but that scares certain people because it's a conflict of interest with their ideals, thus he must not only 'shut up' but he has to die as well because of such blind hatred and obvious denail of truth.

I've actually read Chomsky. Impossible to get through poli. sci without being subjected to him.

Mike, you'd have loved the college I went to. I took a ton of Poli. Sci. classes for my major, and we only had to read/read about folks like Machiavelli, Plato, Socrates, Keynes, Locke, Hobbes, etc. (i.e. people who actually mattered)...but no Chomsky.