TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- False Doctrine in Iraq

False Doctrine in Iraq

Its funny how there are still supporters of this filthy government the American people were forced to "elect"

In any event, the Iraq situation is getting worse... the intentions are obvious and Chomsky helps put that into persepective quite articulately.

quote:

Selective Memory and False Doctrine by Noam Chomsky All people who have any concern for human rights, justice and integrity should be overjoyed by the capture of Saddam Hussein, and should be awaiting a fair trial for him by an international tribunal. An indictment of Saddam's atrocities would include not only his slaughter and gassing of Kurds in 1988 but also, rather crucially, his massacre of the Shiite rebels who might have overthrown him in 1991. At the time, Washington and its allies held the "strikingly unanimous view (that) whatever the sins of the Iraqi leader, he offered the West and the region a better hope for his country's stability than did those who have suffered his repression," reported Alan Cowell in the New York Times. Last December, Jack Straw, Britain's foreign secretary, released a dossier of Saddam's crimes drawn almost entirely from the period of firm U.S.-British support of Saddam. With the usual display of moral integrity, Straw's report and Washington's reaction overlooked that support. Such practices reflect a trap deeply rooted in the intellectual culture generally - a trap sometimes called the doctrine of change of course, invoked in the United States every two or three years. The content of the doctrine is: "Yes, in the past we did some wrong things because of innocence or inadvertence. But now that's all over, so let's not waste any more time on this boring, stale stuff." The doctrine is dishonest and cowardly, but it does have advantages: It protects us from the danger of understanding what is happening before our eyes. For example, the Bush administration's original reason for going to war in Iraq was to save the world from a tyrant developing weapons of mass destruction and cultivating links to terror. Nobody believes that now, not even Bush's speech writers. The new reason is that we invaded Iraq to establish a democracy there and, in fact, to democratize the whole Middle East. Sometimes, the repetition of this democracy-building posture reaches the level of rapturous acclaim. Last month, for example, David Ignatius, the Washington Post commentator, described the invasion of Iraq as "the most idealistic war in modern times" - fought solely to bring democracy to Iraq and the region. Ignatius was particularly impressed with Paul Wolfowitz, "the Bush administration's idealist in chief," whom he described as a genuine intellectual who "bleeds for (the Arab world's) oppression and dreams of liberating it." Maybe that helps explain Wolfowitz's career - like his strong support for Suharto in Indonesia, one of the last century's worst mass murderers and aggressors, when Wolfowitz was ambassador to that country under Ronald Reagan. As the State Department official responsible for Asian affairs under Reagan, Wolfowitz oversaw support for the murderous dictators Chun of South Korea and Marcos of the Philippines. All this is irrelevant because of the convenient doctrine of change of course. So, yes, Wolfowitz's heart bleeds for the victims of oppression - and if the record shows the opposite, it's just that boring old stuff that we want to forget about. One might recall another recent illustration of Wolfowitz's love of democracy. The Turkish parliament, heeding its population's near-unanimous opposition to war in Iraq, refused to let U.S. forces deploy fully from Turkey. This caused absolute fury in Washington. Wolfowitz denounced the Turkish military for failing to intervene to overturn the decision. Turkey was listening to its people, not taking orders from Crawford, Texas, or Washington, D.C. The most recent chapter is Wolfowitz's "Determination and Findings" on bidding for lavish reconstruction contracts in Iraq. Excluded are countries where the government dared to take the same position as the vast majority of the population. Wolfowitz's alleged grounds are "security interests," which are non-existent, though the visceral hatred of democracy is hard to miss - along with the fact that Halliburton and Bechtel corporations will be free to "compete" with the vibrant democracy of Uzbekistan and the Solomon Islands, but not with leading industrial societies. What's revealing and important to the future is that Washington's display of contempt for democracy went side by side with a chorus of adulation about its yearning for democracy. To be able to carry that off is an impressive achievement, hard to mimic even in a totalitarian state. Iraqis have some insight into this process of conquerors and conquered. The British created Iraq for their own interests. When they ran that part of the world, they discussed how to set up what they called Arab facades - weak, pliable governments, parliamentary if possible, so long as the British effectively ruled. Who would expect that the United States would ever permit an independent Iraqi government to exist? Especially now that Washington has reserved the right to set up permanent military bases there, in the heart of the world's greatest oil-producing region, and has imposed an economic regime that no sovereign country would accept, putting the country's fate in the hands of Western corporations. Throughout history, even the harshest and most shameful measures are regularly accompanied by professions of noble intent - and rhetoric about bestowing freedom and independence. An honest look would only generalize Thomas Jefferson's observation on the world situation of his day: "We believe no more in Bonaparte's fighting merely for the liberties of the seas than in Great Britain's fighting for the liberties of mankind. The object is the same, to draw to themselves the power, the wealth and the resources of other nations."

Sorry, you can jump on my case about this, but I put Chomsky into the same realm as our friend Michael Moore. I can't even read the rhetoric these two spew in the name of their own agenda. Someone needs to tell them both that communism failed and there's a reason why what they "preach" will never be taken seriously by the main stream American public. Bash away at the country that gave you free speech and prosperity, offer no reasonable alternatives or positive criticism and blatantly ignore the other side of issues and you'll be relegated to where these two men find themselves; gonzo journalism. They've found a hardcore audience to which they continuously spew the same rehashed ideas on how our government commits one atrocity after another while the "innocent man" is yet again degraded. There will always be some conspiracy nut or anti-government fanatic out there for them to sell their books and lectures to, thankfully these people do not make up the concensus of the American population. Hunter S. Thompson may have coined the term "gonzo journalism," but these men try to push off their "New Journalism" as the ultimate truth, and that's what pisses me off.

And no, I didn't even read the article. I've read enough of his books and listened to more than enough of his lectures to know he is blinded by his own bias and agenda.

Blah blah blah.. chomsky is this ,, michael moore is that...

Im not surprised that when a politocal dissedent gets just a bit of mediation, they are condemned from people who complain about how they whine, as opposed to WHY they are expressing their concerns and intellect.

ITs just "cool" to dislike these guys, becuase you cant disprove their heavy research and analytical observations.

Ill take Chomsky's words over any American news agency.

You are whining about whining...he is whining about Something that should be mediated...

No, I'm "whining" about someone who distorts the truth or flat out lies, and then sells it as the "utlimate truth." That is what I'm "whining" about. Many people, smarter than me, have torn apart Chomsky and his "heavy research and analytical observations." If you'd like links, I'd be happy to oblige.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono No, I'm "whining" about someone who distorts the truth or flat out lies, and then sells it as the "utlimate truth." That is what I'm "whining" about. Many people, smarter than me, have torn apart Chomsky and his "heavy research and analytical observations." If you'd like links, I'd be happy to oblige.

Where does he distort truth... you are not arguing how he is wrong..you seem to only use labels to get your argument through.

I guess every single thing that he mentions in his book is distorted and unfactual and just fucked up, even though its been re-iterated, and researched by other political dissedents.

Please give me the links to these "smarter" people and how they "tore" apart Chomsky.

I have yet to see an equally strong oppositional response to Chomsky's political words.

I can call anyone "bias" in many different and unique way.... the english language is powerful inthat respect...however, it still doesnt hold a plausible attack compared to the MIT professor.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono No, I'm "whining" about someone who distorts the truth or flat out lies, and then sells it as the "utlimate truth." That is what I'm "whining" about. Many people, smarter than me, have torn apart Chomsky and his "heavy research and analytical observations." If you'd like links, I'd be happy to oblige.

your words are no better than chomsky's "lies" until you disprove them yourself. until you do that, then im afraid youre just fighting fire with fire.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono No, I'm "whining" about someone who distorts the truth or flat out lies, and then sells it as the "utlimate truth."

We share common ground my friend. I also loathe being misled, whether by a journalist, political pundit, or...

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...836#post2195836

Neophono, let me help you out, i despise Noam even more so then Moore. the last straw for me with noam was in one of his books about the israeli/palestinian conflict. he went on for a whole page describing how israeli's had shot at ambulances and conducted seizers and blocks for passing emergcy vehicles. In all his ramblings of this inhumanity and violations of the geneva accord, not once did he mention the fact that on numerious occasions (ie, more the once) ambulances were caught smuggling terrorists and weapons.

anyways let me take a few pot-shots at this current post

quote:

Naom Chomsky: Such practices reflect a trap deeply rooted in the intellectual culture generally - a trap sometimes called the doctrine of change of course, invoked in the United States every two or three years. The content of the doctrine is: "Yes, in the past we did some wrong things because of innocence or inadvertence. But now that's all over, so let's not waste any more time on this boring, stale stuff."

hindsight is twenty-twenty. it's easy to look back and see if you have made a mistake or not. what about the ones the were not mistake? you wont hear about those. At the time of each administration's dilema (what ever the crisis maybe) much thought goes into desciding a certain course of action or position. it's not like the government goes into an issue happazardly and innocent and decides. the state department and CIA employ thousands of people to advise the president on the possibilities and their consequences.

quote:

For example, the Bush administration's original reason for going to war in Iraq was to save the world from a tyrant developing weapons of mass destruction and cultivating links to terror. Nobody believes that now, not even Bush's speech writers.

although there have been no WMD found nor do i think any will be, it's still to early to say that saddam did not have a plan for them or even developing them. furthurmore for noam to say saddam did not have links to terror is the most absurd thing ever. What about terrorism money linked directly to hamas and families of suicide bombers, what about the terror he inflicted on kuwait...

quote:

The new reason is that we invaded Iraq to establish a democracy there and, in fact, to democratize the whole Middle East.

is there anything wrong with freeing a people from tyranny and making sure a government is held accountable by its citizens?

quote:

As the State Department official responsible for Asian affairs under Reagan, Wolfowitz oversaw support for the murderous dictators Chun of South Korea and Marcos of the Philippines.

here's why i have my red flag warning go off... after i read the israeli ambulance shooting stuff i explained earlier, Noam here gives me nothing to compare to. What if the other alternatives for wolfowitz's support were ten times worse. by not showing that there was a better alternative noam proves nothing. all he is doing is stating one fact and giving it a mean adjective (such as murderous dicators), pointless brabble. agian the fact he is argueing my be corrent (im not knowledgable in asian affiars) but the way he constructs his arguements is childish.

quote:

Wolfowitz's alleged grounds are "security interests," which are non-existent, though the visceral hatred of democracy is hard to miss - along with the fact that Halliburton and Bechtel corporations will be free to "compete" with the vibrant democracy of Uzbekistan and the Solomon Islands, but not with leading industrial societies.

LIE!!! i caught him
the UK has already been awarded many contracts
"THE BBC has been awarded the first contract to help get Iraq�s television and radio stations back on air." from:
http://www.business.scotsman.com/me...m?id=1396892003
and there are many more to come... i saw on CNN that spain was about to get one of the contracts and italy is in the running for another.

quote:

...putting the country's fate in the hands of Western corporations.

oh no run for your lives, it's the Western corporations, how evil

i bet i could go more indepth and disect more of his arguements, but frankly i could care less....

seriously cyrus, there are much better anti-war critics out there then noam chomsky... just look at renegade

LINK

This is perhaps my favorite of the more recent critiques on Chomsky. It is long, but a great summary of the "history" of Chomsky and his repeated contradictions and gonzo technique from Vietnam to today. It is written by an Australian political professor, so please don't give me any "American bias" on this one.


LINK 2

This link gives more examples of Chomsky not using facts in his "research."


LINK 3

This is a chapter from a Cambodian political refugee's honors thesis, describing the difference in what Chomsky told us of the actions of Pol Pot, versus what he was a direct witness to. Along with this is also an explaination of the way Chomsky led everyone so astray.


LINK 4

Another great current critique of Chomsky and his tactics.


LINK 5

Another article.


LINK 6

On Chomsky's poor understanding of economics.


That should satisfy my lack of examples. If you'd like more let me know. Just make sure you read all of these first. If you can't find any clear examples in there, more probably won't help.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy Neophono, let me help you out, i despise Noam even more so then Moore. the last straw for me with noam was in one of his books about the israeli/palestinian conflict. he went on for a whole page describing how israeli's had shot at ambulances and conducted seizers and blocks for passing emergcy vehicles. In all his ramblings of this inhumanity and violations of the geneva accord, not once did he mention the fact that on numerious occasions (ie, more the once) ambulances were caught smuggling terrorists and weapons. anyways let me take a few pot-shots at this current post

are you going to condemn him of all his knowledge becuse of this? He is merely describing the collective punishment the israeli government imposes on palestinians, EVEN when there are no hidden terrorsits caught...

Ive seen video on numerous occasion whereambulances with their flashing emergency lights have been HELD, not even checked for terrorsists... HELD, as the IDF take their time while someone is in labour or is bleeding to death. In any case, the womans baby died in that incident while settler cars were driving by in the dozens.

And as a matter of fact, he does mention it in Prates and Emperors: old and New.

Does is really take that long to check an ambulance?

quote:

hindsight is twenty-twenty. it's easy to look back and see if you have made a mistake or not. what about the ones the were not mistake? you wont hear about those. At the time of each administration's dilema (what ever the crisis maybe) much thought goes into desciding a certain course of action or position. it's not like the government goes into an issue happazardly and innocent and decides. the state department and CIA employ thousands of people to advise the president on the possibilities and their consequences.

OBVIOUSLY THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING WHEN THE WORLD HATES THE US!

this is a pattern that the US has taken on numerous occassions. Most times, by looking at history, one can get a picture of the consequences, espescially, like the case in the US, when it has happened within 50 years.

quote:

although there have been no WMD found nor do i think any will be, it's still to early to say that saddam did not have a plan for them or even developing them. furthurmore for noam to say saddam did not have links to terror is the most absurd thing ever. What about terrorism money linked directly to hamas and families of suicide bombers, what about the terror he inflicted on kuwait...

Bush was making a simple statement, that Hussein and Alqaeda had a connection, and implied that he had something or will have something to do with a terrorist attack like 9/11 on american soil. That is what he is reffering to, and there is yet no evidence proving this bold accusation. Chomsky was not reffering to the terrorism caused by palestinians to the israeli's which he may have had a connection. He is very specific, yet you generalize everything he says.

quote:

is there anything wrong with freeing a people from tyranny and making sure a government is held accountable by its citizens?

You sound like Bush. Where is the freedom? they have been occupied for 9 months...more people are dying than before, the place is anarchy...

WHat about afghanistan...WOMAN are not completely free there still...yeah there are freedoms that have been reinstituted, however, the US has not done enough reconstruction to help those in need. America has forgotten about that country. Even with this new government, there is still instability. Iraq is the new problem.

quote:

here's why i have my red flag warning go off... after i read the israeli ambulance shooting stuff i explained earlier, Noam here gives me nothing to compare to. What if the other alternatives for wolfowitz's support were ten times worse. by not showing that there was a better alternative noam proves nothing. all he is doing is stating one fact and giving it a mean adjective (such as murderous dicators), pointless brabble. agian the fact he is argueing my be corrent (im not knowledgable in asian affiars) but the way he constructs his arguements is childish.

POINTLESS 'BRABBLE'?????????

Supporting a dictator responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of peasants is pointless babble????? Even without the adjectives, this supportive measure speaks for itself...

Did you think it is "babble" when Chomsky highlights the supportive measures saddam was given in the 80's when the US supported him in gassing the kurds and torturing thousands of his own civilians? He is giving EXAMPLES of how hypocritical a man like Wolfowitz is, a man proclaiming that just and democratic nations should veil the mid-east, that people should be "liberated" and "freed"....yet he was one that supported the dictators who went against everything this so called "moral" man espressed.

quote:

LIE!!! i caught him the UK has already been awarded many contracts "THE BBC has been awarded the first contract to help get Iraq�s television and radio stations back on air." from: http://www.business.scotsman.com/me...m?id=1396892003 and there are many more to come... i saw on CNN that spain was about to get one of the contracts and italy is in the running for another. oh no run for your lives, it's the Western corporations, how evil i bet i could go more indepth and disect more of his arguements, but frankly i could care less.... seriously cyrus, there are much better anti-war critics out there then noam chomsky... just look at renegade

Corporations have benefitted from the blood of Iraqi's....the US will get the most out of this... they are the ones who bassically CONTROL and DECIDE who gets what...Iraq is in the hands of Corporate America, they will reap the benefits. By just saying the UK has got a contract means didly without mentioning that the US granted them this venture.

quote:

OBVIOUSLY THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING WHEN THE WORLD HATES THE US!

Now who's making generalizations? In all caps to boot.

quote:

Bush was making a simple statement, that Hussein and Alqaeda had a connection, and implied that he had something or will have something to do with a terrorist attack like 9/11 on american soil. That is what he is reffering to, and there is yet no evidence proving this bold accusation.

That depends on who you believe. I've given a list in a previous post of the links between Al Qaeda and Hussein, along with their various sources. You believe Chomsky, who has a record of fabricating his "facts," and I believe a broad base of differing individuals all confirming the links between these two terrorists.

quote:

more people are dying than before, the place is anarchy...

You contradict this in your own post. You tell us of how horrible Saddam (and the US) are for the times he "gassed the kurds and tortured thousands of his own civilians," yet now they are worse off? I find it very, very hard to believe that there are "more people dying" then before the US stepped in. Please give some figures on this one...I'm dying to see what you find.

quote:

You sound like Bush. Where is the freedom? they have been occupied for 9 months...more people are dying than before, the place is anarchy... WHat about afghanistan...WOMAN are not completely free there still...yeah there are freedoms that have been reinstituted, however, the US has not done enough reconstruction to help those in need. America has forgotten about that country. Even with this new government, there is still instability. Iraq is the new problem.

Okay, what are you complaining about here? First you state that the Iraqi's aren't free, as they've been "occupied" for nine months. Then you go on to say that the US has not done enough reconstruction to help those in need in Afghanistan. So in Iraq our occupation in itself is a violation of freedom, but in Afghanistan our occupation should do more to bring about more freedom? Are you saying a US occupation should lead to more freedoms, or none at all?

quote:

Corporations have benefitted from the blood of Iraqi's....the US will get the most out of this... they are the ones who bassically CONTROL and DECIDE who gets what...Iraq is in the hands of Corporate America, they will reap the benefits. By just saying the UK has got a contract means didly without mentioning that the US granted them this venture.

US blood was lost in this "war" along with US dollars. It is rediculous to think that countries that stood in the way of the removal of Saddam should "reap the benefits" (as you put it) of the blood and money lost by coalition forces.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono LINK This is perhaps my favorite of the more recent critiques on Chomsky. It is long, but a great summary of the "history" of Chomsky and his repeated contradictions and gonzo technique from Vietnam to today. It is written by an Australian political professor, so please don't give me any "American bias" on this one.

havent read the others yet, but isnt this written by the same guy who is trying to justify the british colonization of tazmania, by saying that the aborigines had it coming to them because of their "criminal" behavior?

anyways, it was an interesting read (did a good job at making noam look like a hypocrite, not to say that he is or isnt one, yet) until i read this near the end:

quote:

This kind of two-faced morality has provided a model for the world-wide protests by left-wing opponents of the American-led coalition�s war against Iraq. The left was willing to tolerate the most hideous acts of state terrorism by the Saddam Hussein regime, but was implacable in its hostility to intervention by Western democratic governments in the interests of both their own security and the emancipation of the Iraqi people. This is hypocrisy writ large.

if he is going to bash one person for hypocrisy, fine. however, this whole paragraph is a generalization obviously motivated by his bias. in other words, this statement is bullshit in my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King Bush was making a simple statement, that Hussein and Alqaeda had a connection, and implied that he had something or will have something to do with a terrorist attack like 9/11 on american soil. That is what he is reffering to, and there is yet no evidence proving this bold accusation. Chomsky was not reffering to the terrorism caused by palestinians to the israeli's which he may have had a connection. He is very specific, yet you generalize everything he says.

correct. i whole-heartedly concur.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King You sound like Bush. Where is the freedom? they have been occupied for 9 months...more people are dying than before, the place is anarchy...

i suppose weve missed something. weve invaded iraq to give them freedom, but:

quote:

"Any demonstration against the government or coalition forces will be fired upon," Jaburi's voice said, according to an army interpreter. "This is a fair warning." Demonstrators risk a year in jail and, if they work for the state as civil servants or teachers, they will loose their jobs, the message said. All demonstrations are illegal in the U.S.-occupied province.

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackag...&storyID=423620

gotta love our views of "freedom", huh? but i guess we can always just use our ever so abused "terror" excuse to justify this oppression...

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King WHat about afghanistan...WOMAN are not completely free there still...yeah there are freedoms that have been reinstituted, however, the US has not done enough reconstruction to help those in need. America has forgotten about that country. Even with this new government, there is still instability. Iraq is the new problem.

afganawhat?

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy is there anything wrong with freeing a people from tyranny and making sure a government is held accountable by its citizens?

no. it sounds quite heroic, actually. however, using this and other self-righteous excuses to justify our immperialist war wont change the fact that this war was to serve a capitalist and neo-conservative agenda. i wonder what excuses well use next? holy war against those savage and backwards people to teach them the proper way to live? nah, already taken.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono LINK This is perhaps my favorite of the more recent critiques on Chomsky. It is long, but a great summary of the "history" of Chomsky and his repeated contradictions and gonzo technique from Vietnam to today. It is written by an Australian political professor, so please don't give me any "American bias" on this one.

I just read throught that whole article...And i can say that it was engaging, but too bad he didnt truly show any "facts" that he made up, you so agressively express.
With respect to the Sudanses bombing of the pharmatceutical plant, he uses the idea of the three month intervaul of replacing the drugs as a way to strenthen his argument without really proving how those crucial three months DIDNT kill tens of thousands that needed medicine.... And yes, THREE months is a long time for people who NEED medicine.

People die every day from Malaria, Cholera and other very viral diseases. Along with that, a civil war, which resutled in hundreds of thousands needing these medicines quickly, couldnt receive it....

Chomsky was insisting that the AFFECTS of this destruction, whether direct or indirect, resulted in many thousands dying.

Being a patient in an hospital who needs medicine, espescially an African hostpital, will have complications, espescially if it is vital for them. That plant produced the majoirity of the medicines used by that region.

The article is long and all of it isnt cited....
HE says, letters weres sent to Salon.com by Human rights watch stating they did no research into the bombing findings. Who was this person??? Why are they credible??? Why isnt there a mention of what exactly was said in the letter?

quote:

LINK 2 This link gives more examples of Chomsky not using facts in his "research."

This website is so ghetto as well as the links within it. After reading the content, there was no proof that Chomsky fabricated facts or made them up..

Sure he may have not been exact in his attempt at quoting facts, but he is accurate.

Second..as soon as i saw the Dershowitz paragraph i laughed. This guy has been proven by Finklestein as making up facts.... it was even proven infront of a live audience on radio. I wont take this link seriously by someone who was humiliated by proof of his plagiarism and MADE UP FACTS... the other links merely state Chomsky's opinions and what others think about him.

quote:

LINK 3 This is a chapter from a Cambodian political refugee's honors thesis, describing the difference in what Chomsky told us of the actions of Pol Pot, versus what he was a direct witness to. Along with this is also an explaination of the way Chomsky led everyone so astray.

I somewhat skimmed throught this very long link and still did not find any proof at how Chomsky made things up?

And this is coming from ONE person. However, im not too familiar with the cambodia situation or the Chomsky-Lacouture Controversy, but the guy has a detailed anaylsis...yet he only accuses as opposed to proving.

Ive only read his publications from the 80's and on....or what he has written about the past from the 80's and on. Presently, these links are not strengthening you argument about him.. they are only accusations and no proof is given so far.

quote:

LINK 4 Another great current critique of Chomsky and his tactics.

A critque of his "tactics" was just that. Nothing to disprove his analyses once again.

Attacks were made on his chioce of words like "silent genocide", in which he therorized the US has utilized or has helped governments utilize in the past.

His assumptions, which are also confused with "facts" by anti-chomskyites, was blown way out of proportion in this article. Why is it soooooooooooo bad when someone like Chomsky assumes something without mentioning its "factual", becuase hes has seen it before.

Its as if people pounce and analyze every syllable he says. As long as the big untold picture is given at least a bit of mediation, i think thats enough...

Chomsky goes beyond that and helps us understand the depth of what its like by describing and even CITING his qotes and figures at the end of his chapters or even at the bottom of the page that it was mentioned in. But those are all invisible to you guys.

quote:

LINK 5 Another article.

This article is merely a critique at how Chomsky perceives hypothetical situations, and criticizes his apporach to behavioural and/or societal reponses.

Unfortunately for me, I am not interested in these studies, but he is.. and this is different from the Political dissent that Chomsky is also famous for and what we are arguing about; that is is apparently frequent use of "made up facts"

This article didnt even disprove Chomsky's analysis.

It doenst have anything to do with your stance.

quote:

LINK 6 On Chomsky's poor understanding of economics.

Once again, this is a debate about how Chomsky is apprently known to frequent made up facts. Not about his knowledge regarding economics...
Im not too familiar with econmoics, and if I wanted to learn about it i wouldnt just go straight in finding articles that have economic analyses written specifically by Chomsky.

quote:

That should satisfy my lack of examples. If you'd like more let me know. Just make sure you read all of these first. If you can't find any clear examples in there, more probably won't help.

It seems as thought the links you posted are so specific in nature, yet you try to warrant its content as justification to discredit the majority of Chomskys work.

These people certianly havent given me the impression that they have "torn" Chomsky apart.

Try a little harder. Give me more.

Although I haven't read the links NeoPhono posted (I will later) I've been on the lookout for Chomsky-critical statements and argumentations for a while and I must say I have yet to find any piece that actually tries (and succefully succeed) to counter Chomsky's so-called "factual lies".

Most often the piece against Chomsky is retorting to a whole bunch of name calling, avoiding the things Chomsky points out as facts. I remember when the political editor of our local newspaper just had to comment on Chomsky while he was visiting the book fair in Gothenburg last year. This political editior is usually a smart, educated pundit but all he could muster against Chomsky was to call him a Pol-Pot lover (without proving anything) and a sect-leader (which didn't make much sense). Chomsky wrote a reply to this new paper and I must say it was a fun read.

So, wether I agree with Chomsky or not, I'm still waiting for someone to succesfully argue against Chomsky, point by point, fact by fact. Whatever you may think of Chomsky, I would think most people agree that he is doing a lot of research on his subjects. However, I leave to the eye of the beholder to decide wethere he then actually spins this research to proove points.

From Link 1

quote:

I don�t accept the view that we can just condemn the NLF terror, period, because it was so horrible. I think we really have to ask questions of comparative costs, ugly as that may sound. And if we are going to take a moral position on this�and I think we should�we have to ask both what the consequences were of using terror and not using terror. If it were true that the consequences of not using terror would be that the peasantry in Vietnam would continue to live in the state of the peasantry of the Philippines, then I think the use of terror would be justified.

This is Chomsky rationalizing the terrorism found in countries converting to a socialist/communist regime, or when terrorism supports his own cuase. Not really a fact I'm disproving, but an interesting look at his rationalization of anything that supports his goals.

quote:

In 1980, Chomsky expanded this critique into the book After the Cataclysm, co-authored with his long-time collaborator Edward S. Herman. Ostensibly about Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, the great majority of its content was a defense of the position Chomsky took on the Pol Pot regime. By this time, Chomsky was well aware that something terrible had happened: �The record of atrocities in Cambodia is substantial and often gruesome,� he wrote. �There can be little doubt that the war was followed by an outbreak of violence, massacre and repression.� He mocked the suggestion, however, that the death toll might have reached more than a million and attacked Senator George McGovern�s call for military intervention to halt what McGovern called �a clear case of genocide.�

Here is Chomsky telling us that the death toll caused by Pol Pot could in no way reach 1 million, after attacking four seperate books and writings telling him so. He was trying to do this in defense of his pro Pol Pot regime stance.

quote:

Chomsky revealed his original 1977 source for this (number) had been Ben Kiernan, at the time an Australian graduate student and apologist for the Pol Pot regime, who wrote in the Maoist-inspired Melbourne Journal of Politics. What Chomsky avoided telling his readers, however, was that well before 1980, the year After the Cataclysm was published, Kiernan himself had recanted his position. Kiernan says that in the evacuation of Phnom Penh in 1975, tens of thousands of people died. Almost the entire middle class was deliberately targeted and killed, including civil servants, teachers, intellectuals, and artists. No fewer than 68,000 Buddhist monks out of a total of 70,000 were executed. Fifty percent of urban Chinese were murdered. Kiernan argues for a total death toll between April 1975 and January 1979, when the Vietnamese invasion put an end to the regime, of 1.67 million out of 7.89 million, or 21 percent of the entire population. This is proportionally the greatest mass killing ever inflicted by a government on its own population in modern times, probably in all history.

To this day, Chomsky still will not apologize or recant on his position toward the Pol Pot regime. His own source for the death toll recanted, yet he still "sticks" by his faulty numbers...faulty facts, disproven countless times.


In regards to 9/11 Chomsky says:

quote:

(Chomsky)told a reporter from salon.com that, rather than an �unknown� number of deaths in Khartoum, he now had credible statistics to show there were many more Sudanese victims than those killed in New York and Washington: �That one bombing, according to estimates made by the German Embassy in Sudan and Human Rights Watch, probably led to tens of thousands of deaths.�

One of his sources calls his bluff:

quote:

One of his two sources, Human Rights Watch, wrote to salon.com the following week denying it had produced any such figure. Its communications director said: �In fact, Human Rights Watch has conducted no research into civilian deaths as the result of US bombing in Sudan and would not make such an assessment without a careful and thorough research mission on the ground.�

His second "source" was actually taken from an anti-American propaganda piece in which a German diplomat wrote:

quote:

It is difficult to assess how many people in this poor African country died as a result of the destruction of the Al-Shifa factory, but several tens of thousands seems a reasonable guess.

So, we see that Chomky's "fact" that tens of thousands died from a chemical plant bombing was taken from a german diplomats "guess." There's some rock hard evidence for you. It's even further degraded by some simple logic. As shown in the article, the factory was only out of commission for 3 months. If, in this time frame "tens of thousands" had died, one of the four world health organizations in the area would surely have known about it as this would have been an epedemic in proportion. However, none of the four report any increase in deaths in that area during those four months. Both of his sources turn up lame, while at the same time there is no statistical proof of these deaths, yet again Chomsky sticks by his "facts" to make his point.


I'll skip LINK 2 since so many of you seem to not like it...it is a "classic" anti-Chomsky piece on the net though...thought I'd put it in there for those reasons.


LINK 3 is a well written report by a Cambodian that was a first-hand witness to the Pol Pot regime. In the report, the student systematically discounts the "facts" Chomsky uses in his book "After the Cataclysm." I recommend you just read it, instead of me paraphrasing it. It's quite good.


Here is the meat of LINK 4. As I've said before, it demonstrates his "misuse" of facts, by not including both sides of the story. As well as failing to analyze the other issues involved, as well as the ramifications of his own accusations.

quote:

Chomsky is chiefly concerned with condemning the history of U.S. foreign policy, with special emphasis on 1980s Nicaragua, the Soviet-era Afghanistan War, sanctions on Iraq, support for Israel and the 1998 bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan -- which he continues to describe as a much worse crime, comparatively, than Sept. 11. Chomsky, however, is far less sloppy with the facts than the contributors to Beyond the Curtain, unless you count the many facts he chooses to leave out. As a result, it's his conclusions that are suspect, such as this reductive explanation of U.S. involvement in Yugoslavia: "In the early 90s, primarily for cynical power reasons, the U.S. selected Bosnian Muslims as their Balkan clients, hardly to their benefit." What about public outcry over Serb atrocities and the siege of Sarajevo? Or former secretary of state Madeleine Albright's very personal belief that appeasing European dictators is bad strategy? Or eloquent and persuasive pressure from international leaders such as Vaclav Havel? Apparently irrelevant, compared to sliming Washington and spreading conspiracy theories. Chomsky's logical gimmick, which involves taking the loftiest of U.S. rhetoric and comparing it with the grimiest of U.S. history, is seductive as it is paralytic, for those inclined to blame America or seek out subversive explanations for official history. The bombing of Serbia couldn't possibly have been motivated by "humanitarian intervention," he argues, because if humanitarian intervention was a real concern, Washington wouldn't have looked the other way while Indonesia massacred the East Timorese. This rhetorical cul-de-sac gains a conspiratorial edge (as it must, to explain away that vast majority of international thinkers who find his theories bunk), by liberal use of the phrase "of course," sprinkled with sarcastic comments about how "the doors are better left closed" on certain topics. But there is a lie in Chomsky's premise. Again and again, he presents his concerns as being rooted in humanism, yet more often than not, his rancid ideology produces analysis that sounds alarmingly inhumane. As in this horrifying exchange, which begins with a feeble stab at hope by one of Chomsky's softball interviewers: "Q: If the Taliban regime falls and bin Laden or someone they claim is responsible is captured or killed, what next? What happens to Afghanistan? What happens more broadly in other regions?" "A: The sensible administration plan would be to pursue the ongoing program of silent genocide, combined with humanitarian gestures to arouse the applause of the usual chorus who are called upon to sing the praises of the noble leaders who are dedicated to 'principles and values' for the first time in history and are leading the world to a 'new era' of idealism and commitment to 'ending inhumanity' everywhere." Ultimately, the questions Chomsky never asks are the ones most damning for him and his followers, who number in the hundreds of thousands: Why is the world a much better place than it was 13 years ago? Why have more than 100 countries ended single-party or military rule?

I put in LINK 5 to show Chomsky's almost maniacal and unrealistic views on a socialist/communist state. In this article states that people should work because of the "socialsitic rewards" for such actions. Again, someone tell Chomsky that communism failed. The article also points out several other blantant holes left by Chomsky in his socialistic dream of the world. I think it to be a good attack on Noam's overall philosophy.


LINK 6 is an attack on Chomsky's economic viewpoints, as laid out by an economist. It deals mostly with Noam's belief in a Syndicalistic society.

quote:

Chomsky follows Marx in opposing the private ownership of the means of production, which he believes permits "elite groups" to :"command resources, based ultimately on their control of the private economy," and ends up excluding the public from "basic decisions concerning production and work."[3] Let's stop right there. As Ayn Rand so eloquently argued, the ultimate means of production is the human mind. Chomsky of course doesn't want to abolish the private ownership of our minds (I hope.) What he means is hard capital: machines, buildings and so on. One would think that if private persons and business concerns cannot own these things, the state will do so. We call that state socialism. Chomsky apparently is against that too. So, if the state isn't going to own income-producing property, and private concerns are not going to own it, who is going to own it? Apparently, and this all very fuzzy, the means of production will somehow be collectively owned by the workers themselves, wherein we arrive at the silly concept of anarcho-syndicalism. Instead of greedy capitalists owning the corporation, the workers themselves will own it. But it will not be ownership in the form of individual shares that can be sold. That's capitalism. No, he favors a vague and ill-defined form of collective ownership that the workers will figure out as they bumble and stumble along towards bankruptcy. As Mises writes in Socialism, "as an aim, Syndicalism is so absurd, that speaking generally, it has not found any advocates who dared to write openly and clearly in its favor

quote:

Chomsky is apparently against the division of labor: "In its early stages, the industrial system required the kind of specialized labor� Now this is no longer true."[4] Here again he follows Marx. We won't have accountants, doctors, carpenters, etc. Rather, (former) carpenters will take their turn at brain surgery; (former) lawyers will build skyscrapers; airplanes will be driven by (former) dental hygienists and so on. Everyone will take turns. There will be plenty of opportunities to work at a mortuary as well. Chomsky apparently holds to the labor theory of value, another Marxist concept. According to this theory, all the value of a business is contributed by the "workers". That worker we call the owner, apparently contributes nothing. Only someone who never owned a business could believe this preposterous theory. Since the owner contributed nothing to the business, why did the workers show up there in the first place? According to the labor theory of value, the workers could have gone to a vacant lot, and produced the same amount of wealth by replicating the same physical actions they undertook working for the greedy capitalist, this time without a building and without any equipment, management, customers or business plan. If we take away the greedy capitalist, these little details must go as well. Just think of Marcel Marceau pretending to work. That's right. You syndicalists pretend to work and we capitalists will pretend to pay you. Chomsky is apparently against mass production because of its dehumanizing effects on workers. (Does this not also follow Marx? Make a note of that.) He apparently thinks each worker should spend an inordinate amount of time placing his or her own personal and artistic stamp on those widgets. (How do you do that with a hammer?) Chomsky is oblivious to the fact that such workers would then live in miserable poverty because of their drastically reduced productivity. Right now, people are free to live a Chomskyesque fantasy life. Few do, outside of Bohemia, where they are known as starving artists. Not even Chomsky is Chomskyesque, ensconced as he has been at non-syndicalist MIT, specializing in linguistics, for forty-seven years.

quote:

Chomsky denies he is a pacifist. Thus, it must be assumed that he would approve the use of force to establish fundamental justice. Third, it is obvious from his over-heated anti-capitalist rhetoric such as "wage slavery" that he considers capitalism extremely unjust. Fourth, the historical example he cites as best exemplifying his own views�the anarchists in and around Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War�involved the use of a great deal of force to collectivize firms and farms.

Again, Chomsky is a communist, with ideas that are far more incredible that Marx's ever were. His utopian vision of a future society is not only impossible in his own description, but contradicts itself on numerous times. Chomsky should have stayed with linguistics, a field he is truely good at. Instead, as he crossed into politics and economics, his short comings have been found.

I think I have shown examples where Chomsky either lied, or purposefully did not show all sides of a story to make his point...gonzo journalism. I also wanted to give some sources in which his very ideologies were shown to be either hypocritical or faulty, at best. I'm sorry to have quoted so much from the sources, but it seems that it may have been difficult to find my points in them, so I drug them out.

quote:

It seems as thought the links you posted are so specific in nature, yet you try to warrant its content as justification to discredit the majority of Chomskys work.

Well, I don't really have the time to go through and try to disprove every stance Chomsky has taken, because I can't. However, with both the Pol Pot regime and the chemical plant bombing, I did show that facts at the core of his arguement were false, and he refused to admit his error after he knew he was wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I don't give "specific" examples, I cannot show he fabricates his facts...however my "specific" examples are not "broad" enough to show he has a track record of misleading his readers...I'm at a loss as to what to do at this point.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.