What is Digg?240 Comments
- jmichaelwarner, on 10/10/2007, -9/+51It is amazing that the Bush administration keeps meddling in the middle east, and has the gall to accuse Iran of meddling in Iraq.
- GiggaDigga, on 10/10/2007, -14/+52I'm re-posting this article in the hope that it will get more attention than before.
In this outstanding piece, Chomsky puts Bush administration's policies and rhetoric towards Iran in a much-needed context, something completely absent in the current public debate. - Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -8/+36The real shame is that it was only the invasion of Iraq that pushed Iran back to its hard-line conservatism. Prior to this Iran had been moving consistently to the center ground looking to emulate EU economics. Were it not for the sanctions placed on Iran it is likely to have been the major player in establishing Middle East stability. Left to its own domestic influences the upwardly mobile Iranian youth would have acted as truly moderating force on its old institutions.
Its acts of moderation still go unrecognised as the ironic demonisation continues. - swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -9/+32Doesn't somebody want to commence the straw man attacks? Anybody? Come on, Chomsky printed something controversial! Please attack the source and don't address the content of his argument! Quickly!
If you don't, the liberals will win! - swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -5/+28JAV that's ridiculous - Bush's antagonism has DESTROYED Iran's moderate and democratic movements. All it takes now is for them to be accused of working with the Americans, and they have no credibility. Amadenijad was elected as a reaction to Bush - he was sold as a hardliner who would protect them from American aggression.
- jthomp3120, on 10/10/2007, -6/+27Chomsky is ugly, and ugly people are rarely have all the facts on international affairs. hes old too. who likes old people?!
- justinjstark, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20Thom Hartmann, the radio talk show host and author who was just on C-Span, stated these statistics about enemy combatants in iraq:
50% of enemy combatants from foreign nations captured in Iraq are from Saudi Arabi
Only 2-3% of enemy combatants from foreign nations captured in Iraq are from Iran - bratpack8, on 10/10/2007, -3/+21It is amazing, but as much as I don't like Bush and this administration, we have been meddling in the Middle East before W was old enough to spell (that's about age 12, right?)... We started many moons ago and both Democrats and Republicans are responsible for this mess we find ourselves in today.
- archiesteel, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16The invasion gave the hardliners an excuse to drum up the aggressive rhetoric - you know, just like 9/11 gave Bush the excuse to basically do whatever he wanted.
If the US hadn't invaded, the gradual marginalization of the Iranian hardliners would have continued. And I won't even mention that the CIA-backed 1953 coup is what put Iran on the road to fundamentalism in the first place... - scilfish, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16The reason Chomsky's points are ignored is that he doesn't present them in the easy-to-digest sound bite format favored by the mainstream media, which shoots for something like a 4th grade reading level. It is perhaps not accidental that the greatest American critic of propaganda has no talent for producing it.
- bobthebruce123, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12"Let them starve and die of disease before they decide to be reasonable." Our friend 'Irony' just gave up and died of a fatal heart attack.
- notque, on 10/10/2007, -4/+15Iran wants what the people of Iraq want. Get that through your head now.
IRAN's goals would be for IRAQ to do as it wants. IRAN would be fine with IRAQ being a democracy.
Because a DEMOCRACY would mean they would WORK WITH IRAN.
IRAQ wants to work with IRAN. We don't want that. It's pretty clear.
I agree with your Justin, I am just adding to your point. - Matthew720, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12That's a backwards argument. The moderate Palestinians weren't radicalized until the late 90s when peace talks with Israel failed because Israel refused to hand over the West Bank and instead offered the Palestinians patches of sovereign towns separated by illegal Jewish settlements. Seeing their homeland slipping away, the Palestinians found an alternative in radical groups in hopes that THEY will make a difference. Let's not ignore the fact that the Israeli government has long supported and financed the building of illegal settlements on Occupied Palestinian land in the West Bank and in Gaza. Many Israeli scholars and legal experts agree that the settlements are illegal, the international community agrees and so does the UN, but the Israeli government is turning a blind eye and choosing to do the opposite.
- BrainInAJar, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Yeah, one of them goes in under pretenses of freeing people from opressors, meanwhile killing thousands of civilians and tries to shape the country to serve it's own selfish intrests
the othe goes in under pretensnes of freeing people from opressors, and kills thousands of civilians, while trying to shape the country for it's own interests...
I'll leave you to guess which one america is - Jambi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11But if that's the case, shouldn't we all be taking Iran's side in the whole nuclear argument? After all, President Ahmadinejad is both younger and better looking than President Bush!
- Matthew720, on 10/10/2007, -5/+14Let's assume that it's NOT political rhetoric, and that Iran REALLY wants to wipe out Israel. How will Iran wipe out Israel when Israel has nuclear weapons and Iran doesn't? Also, how will Iran bomb Israel with nuclear weapons with Jerusalem, one of the holiest sites of Islam, being a mere 60 miles from Tel Aviv and the West Bank (where the Palestinians live) is a mere 20 miles from Tel Aviv?
Take a look at a map and you'll realize how you've been brainwashed. - archiesteel, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12On the contrary, DaveV. Since the government represents him as a citizen, it is his *duty* to criticize it when it does bad.
- BrainInAJar, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11I have a problem with that in much the same way I have a problem with the USA buying high-calibre weapons for central american fascist factions like they did throughout the 70's and 80's, or Israel like they are currently doing now.
But financially supporting a counter insurgency against a hostile invader... To claim that as being a problem would leave France culpable for the American insurgency against the British - andrewmp, on 10/10/2007, -6/+14Great you've based your entire idea around a myth http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm
- notque, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11That is attacking the person and not the argument. He's talked about the very issue you bring up. Several times infact, I suggest reading what he says about the issue if you care enough to find out what he thinks on it. I said the same thing to you last time, and you still haven't taken the time to check.
- archiesteel, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12He's not anti-everything, he's just lucid enough to understand the damage caused by American foreign policy since after WWII. You would do well to actually read some of his books - it looks as if you're in dire need of some edumacation.
- swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Attacking the source is a logical fallacy also known as an "ad hominem." This is universally recognized to *****, for lack of a better term. It is obvious that you have no complaints with the factual accuracy of Chomsky's writing, or with the conclusions he draws, because if this were the case you would have brought up specifics instead of attacking the messenger.
- swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12But I thought we invaded middle eastern countries to bring them "democracy?" I guess we only like democracy when they elect who we want them to.
- swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9dugg up for proving jamesallen74's point
Chomsky is a professor of linguistics at MIT, what kind of military applications do you think his research is used for? - Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -6/+12They do play a huge part in the troubles but that is not to play down the role they have since played installing regime change, funding regimes, invading and occupying foreign countries. Far from being robbed of its spine, the people are beginning to find platforms to protest the present and previous behaviour and reluctantly some governments are starting to listen.
You've been fed enough for today. Back under the bridge with yer. - jamesallen74, on 10/10/2007, -6/+12Whenever I see a Noam digg on here, I love watching the emotional mob-talk appear when the Noam-haters come out and add no subtance-filled counterpoint. All they usually add is an elementary "Noam sucks" or "Noam is a ultra left commie pinko". There are a few intelligent counter-commenters out there, but most just add fluff.
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10Can't digg you up enough there. Iran was reasonably moderate pre-Iraq war.
- notque, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8His books are banned there, and he's went there before to fight for people's rights to not be jailed/killed for publishing his work.
- archiesteel, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9So? According to you he should then praise the DoD instead of, you know, telling the truth?
Chomsky has said many times that the freedom of speech we have in the US is what allows him to criticize American foreign policy. He doesn't hate the US, he wants it to be better. Meanwhile, you and your ilk are happy to just wallow in your own refuse. - notque, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Everyone deserves freedom. The Iraqis in Iraq should have a direct democracy and decide what they want. If they don't have that, they should decide what they have.
The last people deciding are anyone but them. They must decide what they should do, hopefully within a direct democracy. Their will should be carried out. No one elses. - Matthew720, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9She was freed. That negates your argument. She was arrested for political reasons, just like Bush arrests innocents and accuses them of being terrorists and then drops the charges a year later.
- Matthew720, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Neo-Con philosophy says that the masses (the public) are ignorant and that self - determination is an antiquated concept. According to them, the elite must decide for them, because the elite (those in positions of power) KNOW better.
- breadbin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7I'd say you just missed the point of the question. The Russians installing missile "defences" in Canada would be *exactly* like the US doing the same in former soviet states that border Russia. The US still won't play nice with Cuba 45 years later, as you may have noticed. I'm not in the least bit surprised that Putin is making his objections known, to do anything else would make him look like a complete pussy wouldn't it? Is it so hard to understand that as the US continues to pursue an unnecessarily aggressive foreign policy in most parts of the world, that other players in those regions are liable to counter-act with aggressive stances of their own?
- notque, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Attack the argument, not the person.
- bjornski, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Saddam moved toward the Euro and we attacked.
Iran moves toward the Euro and we're about to attack.
Coincidence? - Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -7/+12The thing with youths is they grow up as old radical mullahs grow old. Their way id for them to realise.
If you can specifically recall these youths advocating invasion can you specifically provide a link please, I must say I am a little dubious. I also dare say that if you shop around parts of Cornwall you'd find youths that want to be liberated from westminster. That doesn't mean America is justified in invading England. - notque, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9The US invaded Iraq unilaterally based on it's own criteria that had nothing to do with the U.N. as the U.N. wasn't ran through.
They can make up whatever reason they want, but it's not anything official with the U.N., it's aggression based on their own criteria. - Matthew720, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10You should go to Iran to see what REALLY goes on in there, perhaps then you'd come back with the realization that you're an idiot for being so easily brainwashed by your masters.
- santaclaws, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Also he likes eating babies!
- Dush, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6"democracies grant their citizens are unquestionably superior to the rights granted by many Middle Eastern governments"
That is an interesting viewpoint about democracies you have.
The US is founded on an opposing premise that rather than governments granting rights to the citizens, it is the People who grant certain powers to government in order to secure the rights the People already possess. - issachar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Are you suggesting that the missile shield actually would stop a nuclear attack by a country with lots of warheads like Russia? Somehow I don't think so. As for what Putin's reasoning is, only Putin knows, but the fact remains that the missile shield wouldn't stop a Russian attack. (Not that the Russians want to attack us).
- Matthew720, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Chomsky hates America? lol Why is it that people like you, who claim to be patriots, bash and disparage everyone that disagrees with you? America is about freedom and liberty, don't you know? Why are you trying to silence Chomsky? That's something that goes against everything that is American. So to recap, why do YOU hate America so much?
- synaesthesia, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5If Iran ever get nukes, I would expect Israel to move their government to Jerusalem (if for no other reason than to ensure the continuation of the center of governance). I would also expect Iran's primary target not to be Tel Aviv, but Dimona or Haifa, both with good sized populations (and one with a nuclear reactor) and safe distance from Palestinian territories.
Argue it either way, but with Iran gaining nuclear weaponry, the tense Middle East situation would inevitably become even more hazardous. - issachar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Actually, there are good reasons why a missile shield would NEVER work against a large scale attack. It's just too easy to put up dummy warheads. Put up enough and the system can't shoot them all down. And since it's MUCH cheaper to put up dummy missiles than to expand the capacity of the missile shield...
- archiesteel, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8So I guess you are unable to challenge any of his arguments, and instead resort to ad hominem attacks because that's what cowards like you do? Nice.
- archiesteel, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7"The problem with Iran (imo) is that they have a stated policy as a nation to "wipe out" another nation (namely Israel)."
This is incorrect. Iran does *not* have a policy to wipe out Israel. - archiesteel, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6We should note that the insurgents are very likely buying weapons with some of the missing billions of dollars in cash "lost" by the US in Iraq.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8you have no idea of the real world do you?
Israel has invaded and occupied palestinian land, divided the peoples with walls and fences and checkpoints, and treat them with little or no respect. Are you really surprised they want them gone, any way possible?
Don't get me wrong here, i deplore the methods Hamas have chosen to use, but i DO agree with the desired outcome. The removal of ALL Isrealis from the occupied territories (although most of them are actually American citizens), and THEN we will see who can sit down and be reasonable, eh? - Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5It is perhaps not a coincidence that Saddam announced he was moving Iraq's oil pricing to Euros from Dollars in 2000.
- Matthew720, on 10/10/2007, -7/+11A borderline communist socialist? Do you even know what these labels mean and how they apply? Get a grip with your none sense.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 240 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is