What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
All-time Low Fares for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up. Nifty all-airline calendar identifies absolute cheapest dates to fly.
159 Comments
- allowners, on 02/12/2008, -19/+53FTA: The report did not mention other good news: Iraqis appear to accept the highest values of Americans, as established at the Nuremberg Tribunal -- specifically, that aggression -- "invasion by its armed forces" by one state "of the territory of another state" -- is "the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole". The chief US prosecutor at Nuremberg, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, forcefully insisted that the Tribunal would be mere farce if we do not apply its principles to ourselves.
- inactive, on 02/12/2008, -21/+38I never get tired of reading Chomsky stuff.....thanks for the shout, notque.
- purpmint008, on 02/12/2008, -3/+19Okay, I get it, digg isn't Chomsky-friendly...
- neocognitism, on 02/12/2008, -21/+35Sigh. I'm digging this, but I am already weary at the thought of the impending onslaught of meaningless attacks on Chomsky's person, and not the words in the article.
- notque, on 02/12/2008, -14/+28Information about the polling of Iraqis from the Washington Post on this study.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ... - SuperMoses, on 02/12/2008, -10/+23"In the same frightening speech, Hillary went on the blame the Iraqis for the mess in their country: "The American military has succeeded. It is the Iraqi government which has failed to make the tough decisions that are important for their own people.''
Let me get this straight. The Iraq disaster is not the fault of the delusional neo-cons, the greedy oil companies, or the gullible and cowardly Congressional warhawks. (Most senators including Clinton didn't even bother to read the 90-page National Intelligence Estimate). According to Hillary, the real culprit is the Iraqi government that we created virtually overnight and left to govern a fractured, impoverished society. Talk about blaming the victim! " - Mike Gravel - SLuM, on 02/12/2008, -2/+14First of all Chomsky didn't support Pol Pot (if he did i missed it, please correct me). Secondly he argued that because of the US Pol Pot was put into power which is probably true. Third the US government supported Pol Pot. Chomsky isn't the most likable person or the most friendly but he tries to rationalize everything. Which is fine if you look at the situations. I mean can you really except the world to be sad about 9/11 when we've been over there murdering their grandfathers and fathers for the last 60 years?
- chipsngravy, on 02/12/2008, -21/+31Once again Chomsky cuts through the ***** and gets right to the heart of the issue.
The United States, supposedly in Iraq to restore "freedom" and "democracy" are showing utter contempt for the democratic wishes of the Iraqi people. Over 90% of Sunni's and 80% of Shia Moslems want the US out of their country as soon as possible, yet the US digs in and wilfully ignores the express wishes of the Iraqi people..
Money earmarked for rebuilding is being siphoned off into the pockets of the Bush regime's corporate butt-buddy's, and Iraq is more segregated than ever, having gone from a cosmopolitan melting pot where Shia and Sunni freely intermingled to a society sharply divided along ethnic lines.
- swrostmore, on 02/12/2008, -1/+11"the impending onslaught of meaningless attacks on Chomsky's person, and not the words in the article."
oh hai ... heres one now - phnx0221, on 02/12/2008, -4/+14Why in the hell are you getting dugg down for saying this? Really? Do the majority of people here on digg right now, actually believe that we are actually there to restore "freedom" and democracy". Do people really believe that the majority of the population actually wants us to stay and continue to "liberate" them? Even while undermining the very government they have created in order to continue the occupation? Do you really, honestly believe that there isn't money involved? That Blackwater continues to operate, profiting in areas of billions of dollars a year, even though they have slaughtered innocent people, killed bodyguards of government officials, lied about the circumstances, and investigated themselves to cover it up? Do you think that, say, you're running a business here, and you commit fraud on a gross scale, that endangers the lives of people living here, that you could just write it off and continue to operate?
Is it true, that you actually believe this? Or is it just something that you don't like to hear because it speaks ill of your country? - swrostmore, on 02/12/2008, -0/+10"You can read about why he is attacked on this point, because he was pointing out that the U.S. bombings of Cambodia were part of what caused the Khmer Rouge to develop."
OWNED by notque, as per usual - Gerz1219, on 02/12/2008, -0/+10You're right. Physicists, having tired of spouting up the same rubbish, *float* around all day talking about how much Netwon's law of gravitation sucks.
- inactive, on 02/12/2008, -7/+15You're "starting to feel a draft here"?
Yeah, us too....it's because you're a ***** windbag. - notque, on 02/12/2008, -4/+12@andrew
Reread the passage. He was wrong closer to the correct number than the press was. - phnx0221, on 02/12/2008, -1/+9Napoleone, I have to disagree with you. There are a lot of people who are actually working to affect change. We talk about how cruel our policies are, and we talk about how these policies and actions have been hidden away from the majority of the public by a massive media campaign, and a government campaign of ignorance and pacification. Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Amy Goodman, William Blum, Cindy Sheehan, these and many, many other people, speak out at the risk of their own reputation (slanderous claims by the media and government officials), and sometimes there very careers (Finklestein) to bring their knowledge to the awareness of the people. Independent media publications work to inform us about the lies that are told, the tricks that are employed, and the many millions of deaths that are caused by these actions, as well as the lives that are ruined because of them. We here on the internet, work very hard to inform ourselves, and to inform others.
The change is, that once people are aware, they think differently, they don't support these actions, they speak out against it, and they move en masse to make sure that their voices and presence is heard and understood. The world sees this, other people see this. And, even though we cannot expect change to occur overnight, or even in this election year, we know that bit by bit, progress is being made, in the greater awareness of what our government does to dehumanize us and those elsewhere.
By doing this, we move toward the realization that the 300 million people that occupy this country, are greater than the few thousand, or hundred thousand, that work for it, that work against what we desire, in lieu for profit, power, and leverage.
That is a hell of a lot more, than the implication that you are giving, that we are doing nothing.
In regards to the rest of your comment, yes, that is true. We are not done with them yet, and we are certainly organizing to move in to other countries. This makes what we do that much more important, because it is continuing. The draft issue is worrisome too, but I do not believe for a minute that the millions of people who are against these policies will actually go and fight for them. If a draft is instituted, it may well prove to be the catalyst that moves everyone into action. - inactive, on 02/12/2008, -11/+19I wonder why the assumption that Iraq would dissolve into chaos without American troops murdering people and tearing up their country is so prevalent?
- doublejay1973, on 02/12/2008, -0/+7dugg because everyone needs a bit of chomsky
- aaarrrghh, on 02/12/2008, -1/+8What is it with these people going around calling people "commie"? The Cold War ended ages ago dude.
- archiesteel, on 02/12/2008, -1/+8There probably was a call to arms by freepers. Chomsky makes them lose their marbles.
- notque, on 02/12/2008, -14/+20Of course, you can read his denunciations of Pol Pot, and the Khmer Rouge. You can read about why he is attacked on this point, because he was pointing out that the U.S. bombings of Cambodia were part of what caused the Khmer Rouge to develop.
Now we know from studies done recently that Chomsky was wrong on Cambodia. Everyone was. He estimated higher than Government estimates based on other evidence.
We now know Chomsky got it wrong. Cambodia was bombed much more heavily than he had said. It was the most bombed country ever.
But for that to matter, you have to have a respect for facts.
"You can’t mention anything. You can’t read anything. All you can do is report gossip . So you heard some gossip saying that I was in favour of Pol Pot or I support Osama bin Laden. That I’m in favour of [Slobodan] Milosevic. And then you heard it at a dinner party so it must be true. My previous interviewer is doing a documentary mainly on Palestine. She just got a PhD at New York University. She was telling me that if she ever so much as mentioned my name her faculty members practically collapsed in terror. The idea that you could look at anything of mine was so frightening it couldn’t happen. Which is standard. You can’t think because that’s too dangerous. " - Noam Chomsky - crapmatic, on 02/12/2008, -3/+9Will someone explain what's up with all the Chomsky-hating going on? I'm happy to listen to what the haters have to say, but so far I'm not getting a clear view of what the deal is. Did he just walk in off Bush's cabinet?
- archiesteel, on 02/12/2008, -2/+8I still fail to see the point in your second past. Where exactly do you disagree with the article? (Or is this another cowardly ad hominem attack against someone who challenges the status quo?)
- notque, on 02/12/2008, -3/+9He's answered these questions. If you're interested in them, I suggest you look them up, although I will give you his basic answer.
It should work just as the Doctor's principal. If you can do nothing but harm, do nothing at all.
If you can do something positive, you should do it.
But in regards to our actions, that's entirely irrelevant based on a systematic history that it would do well for you to research on your own time if you deem these topics important. - d1ss3nt, on 02/12/2008, -1/+7I have to disagree about the false assumptions.. his books are very methodical and he really takes time to make his points. He tends to boil things down to very simple moral ideas that most of us can agree on (e.g. universality).
Chomsky debates are actually really easy to find.. he's been in several debates over the length of his career. I recommend watching his debate with Richard Perle (i.e. a right-wing Straussian).
Also, short CNN segments that range from 30 seconds to a couple minutes aren't nearly enough time for someone who is trying to make a point against mainstream opinions/thinking. For instance, if someone goes on television and calls Saddam Hussein a villain, there's almost unanimous agreement without having to provide any evidence or facts. If someone goes on television and calls Bush a villain, there is a burden of proof involved (which generally doesn't fit into 30 seconds of air time). - neocognitism, on 02/12/2008, -1/+7Yeah I'm with begbie on this. You're a moron.
- niczar, on 02/12/2008, -2/+7The USA has not been a force for good since the end of WWII, except maybe as a counterweight to the USSR. But its actions, foreign-policy-wise, have been almost consistently wrong and evil. The USA was responsible for toppling Iran's democratic government in 1953, which eventually lead to the current crop of islamists. It toppled democratically elected government all over the place actually, from Chile to Nicaragua to Haiti.
As Emmanuel Todd points out, there is one measure by which the USSR was notably less evil than the US wrt its imperialistic foreign policy: look at former USSR satellites, they generally have higher literacy and health than they used to or compared to other similar countries. Look at US satellites, they have been mostly ruined and sent back a few centuries in development.
Of course, European colonialism was very bad too, but at least it's now considered evil. In the US you still have plenty of repugs cheering for Pinochet. - inactive, on 02/12/2008, -7/+12you mean because he calls out atrocities no matter who commits them? say goodbye to your right wing majority
- blackjack75, on 02/13/2008, -0/+5Simple: disable all topics except the ones you understand: Celebrities and Video games.
- notque, on 02/12/2008, -13/+18Yes. And we wouldn't allow it as we've shown. We are pushing through bad worker's rights, and privitization of the oil. That's are number one focus right now, getting the Iraqi government to agree to allow us to pillage them by law.
- SLuM, on 02/12/2008, -0/+5Rationalizing=/=supporting.
- phnx0221, on 02/12/2008, -0/+5What, someone who has worked his entire life, to gather and spread this information? Someone who is booked two years in advance, because everyone knows that what he has to say is important, not because he is the person saying them, but because he has information that we don't all have access too? That we don't all devote the time to gather, or, that we don't have the time to learn? This isn't about idols, or making saints of people. This is about learning, speaking, spreading, and acting. He is but one part of it, who happens to have access to large numbers of people.
- d1ss3nt, on 02/12/2008, -2/+7Where has Chomsky said that the US was popular in the Muslim world before the war occurred??? He's been writing books on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict for years and has consistently written about widespread contempt for related U.S. policies...
However, if you want to talk about whether or not opinions of the U.S. have gotten *worse* as a result of the war... that's something entirely different (they have -- check his references). - inactive, on 02/12/2008, -1/+6yes hard to believe it but mccain is losing in all polls.
- niczar, on 02/12/2008, -0/+4He doesn't actually go as far as claiming that international law is a good thing, he merely points out that the US is hypocritical in this respect, calling for respect of int'l law when it suits its purposes, and breaking it whenever it wants.
- inactive, on 02/12/2008, -5/+9The insurgents live there. They didn't start it. Remember? We invaded them.
- inactive, on 02/12/2008, -0/+4"the more reason they give Bush to justify keeping the troops there."
Nothing the Iraqis do at this point can "justify" George Bush's crimes against humanity. The time for "justification" is before you kill a million civilians. After, you need a criminal defense lawyer. - d1ss3nt, on 02/12/2008, -2/+6pics or it didn't happen
- d1ss3nt, on 02/12/2008, -1/+5I think there are 2 main points to this article..
1. The invasion of Iraq was a violation of international law as established in response to Nazi regression during WWII. He's of the opinion that international law is a good thing and that countries/leaders that break such laws should be held accountable. The United States tends to agree, however, only when it is beneficial to them. He believes U.S. foreign policy is hypocritical and thus flawed.
2. If the original purpose for the war was to bring democracy to Iraq, why are the opinions of Iraqis being ignored? The real question should be: do the citizens of Iraq have a right to self-determination? If so, why are we still there? If not, then was never about democracy -- this was about securing U.S. interests in the region (in which case, see point #1). - inactive, on 02/12/2008, -5/+9"leftists will want to force their opinions on other people regardless what the other people think"
Unintended irony is the funniest kind. - begbie2, on 02/12/2008, -5/+9Click on "JimmySpazza" to read more of his excellent commentary.
"Or strong evidence that an Intelligent Designer used the same materials and genetic systems."
- - - - - - - -
"Yeah, right. Like an extremely leftwing Obama would suddenly unite the nation...
Whatever."
- - - - - - - -
That JimmySpaza is just ripe with intelligent design, err, i mean posts. - archiesteel, on 02/12/2008, -3/+6shruggeatlas: he does not say the US is the most evil regime in history. In fact, there are many things he says is great about the US. I believe he cares about this country, and it is precisely because of that that he wants it to be beyond reproach. We should all fix our own houses before telling others how to fix theirs.
You'll find that Chomsky was also *very* critical of the USSR. His political philosophy, for example, is staunchly opposed to Stalinism. - SeethisPass, on 02/12/2008, -10/+13 We brought the chaos. Iraq was at peace under our sanctions and our bombing for 10 years and never retaliated in any way, yet you think we are there to help instead of our having brought the chaos, death and destruction through our aggression. Your level of delusion is unrepairable.
- inactive, on 02/13/2008, -0/+3"Polls mean nothing."
Unless they say what you want to hear, am I right? Didn't Americans want to invade Iraq in 2003? You know... according to polls. - begbie2, on 02/12/2008, -3/+6You know, I checked out that site, and I couldn't find a single mention of violence. And I sure didn't see any poll results. So why would this be source for "what the Iraqi people are saying and doing?"
The reason why I would listen to Chomsky is because he is internationally respected as someone who can find out "what the Iraqi people are saying and doing." That site you linked to is pretty useless.
- inactive, on 02/13/2008, -0/+3So does one need to be beaten with a stick to know it would hurt?
- heuranit, on 02/12/2008, -0/+3agreed.
- inactive, on 02/12/2008, -4/+7Check out Michael Parenti: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eKMspN-7Co
why 3rd world countries are poor... - archiesteel, on 02/12/2008, -2/+5Overall, I think it's pretty clear but for those at the bottom of the bell curve that invading Iraq was *not* a positive development. Saddam was contained, weakened internally and externally, and the people - though hurt by the sanctions - were better off than they are now.
- archiesteel, on 02/12/2008, -3/+6You guys should go back with your freeper friends.
- chipsngravy, on 02/12/2008, -0/+3wow, that's an intelligent piece of commentary. Let me guess you're a rocket scientist right? A professor of political science at least?
Once I considered Chomsky to be a fine source of facts and information, but now, thanks to nastronomical's lucid exposition I can see clearly that I was mistaken. No longer will I be gulping down the "cheap wine" proferred by this "douche liberal wannabe".
Thankyou "nastronomical" for setting me on the straight path to wisdom and enlightenment.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 161 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is