digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

The U.S. Role in India and Pakistan Nuclear Programs watch!

fora.tv — Noam Chomsky argues that America supported atomic proliferation for these nations

Who dugg this? Made popular Oct 20, 2009

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

53 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • idbjoshm, on 10/20/2009, -3/+32America is in Iraq, America is in Afghanistan, America hasn't had diplomatic relations with Iran since the 1970's, Bush Jr put Iran in the Axis of Evil (essentially calling them an enemy of America.) What do you expect Iran to do?! America went into Iraq on pre-emptive motives, and there is nothing suggesting to Iran that America won't go into Iran on pre-emptive motives either. If they want nuclear weapons, they have every right to defend themselves from American aggression. If America really wants to show Iran that they have no intention of ever attacking, pull troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
  • inactive, on 10/20/2009, -3/+29Noam Chomsky - a shining beacon of integrity in a dark world.
  • inactive, on 10/20/2009, -9/+34noam chomsky right again, as usual.
  • ChileanGoD, on 10/20/2009, -3/+21Dugg because of Noam Chomsky
  • spartan777, on 10/20/2009, -2/+19"they should all be disarmed, and they should all sign the NPT."

    He'd agree with you there. It seems that you think pointing out the US's hypocrisy somehow lets others off the hook. If you were at all familiar with Chomsky, you'd know he supports getting rid of all nuclear weapons whatsoever.

    "As far as us, supporting Israel, Pakistan, and India with our technology, did you ever consider this could be so that we have not only more influence over their nuclear program for future disarmament but also technology that improves the safety of these weapons?"

    This is idiotic. So helping spread nuclear weapons around the world was *really* a plan to disarm the world, and helping criminals build nukes was meant to keep the nukes safe (as if there was any such thing as a safe nuke)? This is absurd and not even worth responding to.
  • spartan777, on 10/20/2009, -2/+19Its always been true, the US spreads nuclear weapons to our "friends," trampling over international laws and treaties, while on the other hand trying to keep the "bad guys" from getting nukes by exploiting those same laws and treaties the US refuses to apply to itself (and its friends).
  • spartan777, on 10/20/2009, -1/+17Calling him a communist shows how little you know who he is or even what he believes. By calling him a communist, I'm sure you imply Marxist-Leninist, and Chomsky could not be FURTHER from that. You could call him a libertarian socialist, or an anarcho-syndicalist, or council-communist (all 3 he's used to describe himself), but you CANNOT call him a soviet-style communist. Chomsky also criticizes China and the USSR intensely, the reason he mostly criticizes the US is because it is the moral thing to do. Instead of pointing the finger to China or the Russians, lets talk about our own crimes and what we can do about them.
  • NorthMass, on 10/20/2009, -3/+14I disagree 100% with Chomsky on economics as he is a true communist(not the USSR type, the textbook type), but I respect him. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't make them a "joker".
  • Terwa, on 10/20/2009, -6/+17China and Russia were not and are not communist.

    Oh and by the way, just because someone believes in communism does not mean they are dull or that they do not belong at educational institutions. Read some Marxist literature and you'd be impressed at how brilliant most of them are.
  • inactive, on 10/20/2009, -5/+16davidniven is a moron also glitchbit
  • T8erT0T, on 10/20/2009, -2/+12A person can make reasonable inferences on topics they don't have an exact degree in.

    Hell, you can speak about topics without having any proficiency in anything: Rush Limbaugh. I rather listen to Chomsky who at least is educated in something than nothing at all.
  • novicechap, on 10/20/2009, -12/+21The only reason you are getting dugg up is because more Digg users are from the US. Otherwise what Noam says is absolutely true.
  • superkeer, on 10/20/2009, -0/+8Being a linguist is, in many ways, being a true philosopher of human endeavors. Some of the best political and social thinkers have also been linguists.

    Language defines everything, because without language and the nature with which it describes ideas from person to person, culture to culture, and civilization to civilization, then there's nothing but animals in an endless zoo.

    I would think the Right would understand this, considering the biggest weapon they use to confuse their followers is the manipulation of language in order to change the meanings of things you don't understand into things you're sure you should be angry about.
  • bsdfree, on 10/20/2009, -4/+12As much as I respect Chomsky, I don't think he's seeing or at least discussing the broader perspective of these actions, especially regarding India (he's right on Pakistan and doesn't talk too much about Israel here). India has had nuclear generation continuously since 1969 and demonstrated weapons capabilities from about a decade later. All of this was during the Cold War, in which India had a neutral stance that was driven more towards the Soviet Union if any superpower. It was certainly not the USA that supplied India with nuclear technology for either generation or weapons. In fact, the recent nuclear deal with the US and other NATO countries has less to do with technology and more to do with India's increasing, peaceful need for fissile materials to use as fuel in their nuclear reactors.

    If the USA is to blame for anything, it's tacitly aiding Pakistan in a shortsighed attempt to balance the Soviet-oriented India in South Asia, despite the fact that Pakistan's constantly changing governments have never been friendly to America or its allies. At least Bush and Obama have understood this in their authorization for UAV strikes in Pakistan.
  • bsdfree, on 10/20/2009, -1/+8Athough intelligent, he's way too liberal for mainstream America.
  • zoomer123, on 10/20/2009, -2/+9DavidNiven is a "stinging indictment of the lackluster, screwed-up education system in America". If you're not open to different opinions, then GTFO.

    Rush Limbaugh flunked ballroom dancing? Who cares what this joker says about foreign affairs, economics, or internal politics?
  • RilDaddy, on 10/20/2009, -2/+9Sounds like you're a narcissistic ass who thinks your opinion is of value to everyone. Welcome to Digg!
  • Manchowder, on 10/20/2009, -3/+9How did Chomsky get on Digg? This is amazing! Truly fabulous news.
  • inactive, on 10/20/2009, -0/+5maybe we should all listen to your rhetoric instead? lol
  • appleseed1234, on 10/20/2009, -0/+4He would be assassinated assuming they were unsuccessful in assassinating his character through the media.
  • embolized, on 10/20/2009, -1/+5If you want to explore this issue further, you should pick up a copy of "The Atomic Bazaar" by William Langewieseche. A very interesting book to say the least.
  • askantik, on 10/20/2009, -0/+4Most intelligent people are.
  • spartan777, on 10/20/2009, -0/+3It would be great to see Chomsky on Digg more often. Chomsky is a regular feature of news programs around the world, and has great respect nearly everywhere outside the US. He's often on the CBC, BBC, and Al Jazeera, maybe through Digg, more people could at least become acquainted with his point of view- and his is a voice which is desperately needed in the national conversation.
  • inactive, on 10/20/2009, -3/+6ad hominem
    +ad populum
  • acroyear2, on 10/20/2009, -1/+4I thought everyone already knew this...?
  • Ymeg, on 10/20/2009, -11/+13Chomsky '12
  • bman1984, on 10/20/2009, -0/+2If the though of having an option of public health insurance is deemed radically left-wing by the American right, I can only imagine what they think of truly radically left-wing ideals such as those held by Chomsky.

  • spartan777, on 10/21/2009, -0/+1"You think somehow the United States can stop someone from building nuclear weapons?"

    Yes, by not giving it to them. Also, the US and other nations could submit to giving some kind of direct control of nuclear weapons technology to the UN and the IAEA, as other nations have suggested.

    "It helped countries that already had it."

    A completely false assertion. The US is the sole reason Pakistan, Israel and China developed nukes.

    "[the United States] has never helped a country create its own nuclear weapons program."

    You mean like when Clinton gave our nuclear weapons secrets to China? Or when Iraqi physicists were invited to a conference on nuclear weapons technology in Seattle?
  • spartan777, on 10/20/2009, -0/+1"despite the fact that Pakistan's constantly changing governments have never been friendly to America or its allies."

    What does it matter whether Pakistan was "friendly" to the US or not? This is part of the double-standards that he is talking about. Also, India was part of the non-aligned movement, and they weren't more friendly towards the USSR any more than they were to the US. The fact that they had (and have) many communists and socialists in their government is irrelevant to their relations toward the USSR.
  • inactive, on 10/20/2009, -8/+9israel = poop.

    i hope that iran gets their nukes if that's what they're building. maybe the israeli filth will stop oppressing palestinians and give them their country back.
  • askantik, on 10/20/2009, -2/+3Are you an expert of Noam Chomsky? No? Then why should we believe you?

    Ha, you've been foiled by your own logic!
  • bman1984, on 10/20/2009, -1/+2"Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." -Mikhail Bakunin
  • AntoineDigg, on 10/20/2009, -6/+7lol...poor Chomsky, nobody listens, this is quite an old news, and there is no denying it.
  • bsdfree, on 10/20/2009, -0/+1It matters that Pakistan has been unfriendly because it's stupid to fund and arm a country that supports the very same people who will attack you (Islamic extremists). Although India was one of the founding members of the NAM, just a quick look at their military will tell you whose side they were on. You see MiGs and Sukhois, not American aircraft. India was pushed to the USSR in large part because the US pushed it away by taking sides with Pakistan.
  • executex, on 10/20/2009, -1/+1Wrong, it's smart. You think somehow the United States can stop someone from building nuclear weapons? They kept the technology secret as long as they could. It was the cold war that allowed Nuclear technology to pass to other nations.

    US didn't help spread it. It helped countries that already had it. This is to gain influence in their nuclear program, make their nuclear weapons safe (yes there is such a thing as unsafe nuclear weapons, DUUUUH, especially secure placement and protection of nuclear weapons).

    If you were in United States's position you would not do it any differently. It's easy to criticize when you're not faced with the tough choices as Noam Chomsky does all the time.

    If you believe the US is just going around spreading nuclear weapons to people, well you obviously don't understand world politics or the goals of the United States.

    The United States has stationed nuclear weapons in other countries, but has never helped a country create its own nuclear weapons program. Go do your research before blindly following Noam Chomsky like Sheeple.
  • Spacejack, on 10/20/2009, -1/+1Ah. "Too many notes."
  • sanman, on 10/20/2009, -2/+1Since when did the US help India get nuclear weapons?

    The US created the Non-Proliferation Treaty in response to India's detonation of a nuclear explosion in 1974, It also formed the Nuclear Suppliers Group to bar global nuclear trade with India.

    Pakistan, on the other hand, got lots of help from the US in nuclearizing. During the 1980s, the US passed the Pressler Amendment to weaken its non-proliferation laws towards Pakistan by removing Congressional oversight of these laws, instead passing to the President who could issue a waiver with little or no scrutiny, essentially giving Pakistan a free pass.

    There seems to be an attempt by Chomsky to play a game of moral equivalency between India and Pakistan, when clearly their nuclear programs took different paths. India developed its technology through its own large technical base, while Pakistan basically smuggled it all from illegal trade with crooked regimes, including China which gave them a nuclear warhead on the sly.
  • bman1984, on 10/20/2009, -2/+1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5sRQO9i014
  • DevilInPgh, on 10/20/2009, -3/+1Something I don't get: what the hell does his formal education in linguistics have anything to do with him espousing his views? He forfeited any shame he had when he wrote a foreward for Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson's book.
  • kaelyiesta, on 10/20/2009, -7/+3"Read some Marxist literature and you'd be impressed at how brilliant most of them are."

    Brilliant writers and mob inciters. Poor social and economic theorists. Marx in particular, whose most impressive achievement was to create a rhetorical device for refuting naysayers of socialism and communism by simply saying that their specific class consciousness prevented them from being able to see reason; That their social status itself made their minds irrational. Amusingly, he fell victim to his own trick when other socialist writers took over and diverted his followers away from his subsistence utopia, saying that as a member of the bourgeois, Marx could not fully understand the correct social ordering.

    If you want the emotional incoherent nonsense of dreamers, read "The Communist Manifesto" by Marx and Engels. If you want a rational and empirically supported argument for productive social and economic systems, read "Socialism" by Mises.

    But, you're right that China and Russia were not communist. It is logically impossible for communism to exist, as it requires a stateless society along side a coercive agent to enforce collective will, legally. That is a contradiction, and such things do not exist in reality.
  • CapnSlam, on 10/20/2009, -8/+4It must be liberals who deemed this guy as "smart" because his convoluted logic here is beyond taxing
  • loki49152, on 10/20/2009, -7/+2Chomsky believes that the physical world doesn't exist. Why would anyone listen to him... on anything?

    He's a linguist, not a historian or expert on political science. He is speaking so far out of his depth that light doesn't even penetrate down that far.
  • jacquesLEshock, on 10/20/2009, -10/+2nice ad hominem there
  • inactive, on 10/20/2009, -12/+5Oh Chomsky-san~ ♥
  • DevilInPgh, on 10/20/2009, -10/+1AmericanGoy (yeah, that's what his username was before his ass was banned the first time), please kindly STFU and go back to Stormfront.
  • DavidNiven, on 10/20/2009, -12/+2That's news to the communists.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 58 of 58 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.