Failed states, rougue states, and America


darkbeaver
Republican
#1
We're talking about Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and one of the foremost critics of U.S. foreign policy. Professor Chomsky has just released a new book titled "Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy."

It examines how the United States is beginning to resemble a failed state that cannot protect its citizens from violence and has a government that regards itself as beyond the reach of domestic or international law. In the book, professor Noam Chomsky presents a series of solutions to help rescue the nation from turning into a failed state.

They include: Accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and the World Court, sign the Kyoto protocols on global warming, let the United Nations take the lead in international crises, rely on diplomatic and economic measures rather than military ones in confronting terror, and sharply reduce military spending and sharply increase social spending.

www.alternet.org/story/34321 (external - login to view)
 
I think not
#2
Good book, I have a better one for you, Noam Chomskys: Understanding Power, he claims Lester Pearson, you know him right? The Nobel Peace Prize winner? Semi god like hero figure in Canada? According to Noam Chomsky, good old Lester is a war criminal. You think he's right?
 
Finder
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

Good book, I have a better one for you, Noam Chomskys: Understanding Power, he claims Lester Pearson, you know him right? The Nobel Peace Prize winner? Semi god like hero figure in Canada? According to Noam Chomsky, good old Lester is a war criminal. You think he's right?

Pearson is not a god like figure here, most people under 30 most likely don't even know who he is. Also Noam Chomsky pretty much says almost anyone in power in the modern world has been a war criminal. *shrugs*
 
I think not
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Finder

Pearson is not a god like figure here, most people under 30 most likely don't even know who he is. Also Noam Chomsky pretty much says almost anyone in power in the modern world has been a war criminal. *shrugs*

Thank you, exactly the answer I was looking for.
 
Toro
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

Good book, I have a better one for you, Noam Chomskys: Understanding Power, he claims Lester Pearson, you know him right? The Nobel Peace Prize winner? Semi god like hero figure in Canada? According to Noam Chomsky, good old Lester is a war criminal. You think he's right?



Do you mean Noam Chomsky, the tax-dodger?
 
Finder
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

Quote: Originally Posted by Finder

Pearson is not a god like figure here, most people under 30 most likely don't even know who he is. Also Noam Chomsky pretty much says almost anyone in power in the modern world has been a war criminal. *shrugs*

Thank you, exactly the answer I was looking for.

Which is you want to be nit picky a lot of our leaders have not done nice things. But we live in a world were it is hard to be an angle. Though I might fault Chomsky for being so Utopian on how he wants people to act, almost any political scientist greats have had the same view on the presiding world as being wrong.

But I think what you have to give to Chomsky who is considered to abe a socialist Libertian, or a social libertian is he has been extremely critical of the left as well especially the Marxist left, the Soviet Union, China and so on.
 
I think not
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Toro

Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

Good book, I have a better one for you, Noam Chomskys: Understanding Power, he claims Lester Pearson, you know him right? The Nobel Peace Prize winner? Semi god like hero figure in Canada? According to Noam Chomsky, good old Lester is a war criminal. You think he's right?



Do you mean Noam Chomsky, the tax-dodger?

Yes, the one who insists on applying standards to others yet has a hard time applying them to himself, what do you call that again?

Oh I know, A HYPOCRIT.
 
I think not
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Finder

Which is you want to be nit picky a lot of our leaders have not done nice things. But we live in a world were it is hard to be an angle. Though I might fault Chomsky for being so Utopian on how he wants people to act, almost any political scientist greats have had the same view on the presiding world as being wrong.

But I think what you have to give to Chomsky who is considered to abe a socialist Libertian, or a social libertian is he has been extremely critical of the left as well especially the Marxist left, the Soviet Union, China and so on.

Chomsky has NEVER been critical of Mao's China, are you kidding me? You haven't read all of his works to make that claim. In a New York forum in the 60's he claimed Mao's reign of terror, "a necessary first step" to utopia. He's a hypocrit. He doesn't live up to his "morality", which would explain his speech "Distorted Morality".
 
Finder
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

Quote: Originally Posted by Toro

Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

Good book, I have a better one for you, Noam Chomskys: Understanding Power, he claims Lester Pearson, you know him right? The Nobel Peace Prize winner? Semi god like hero figure in Canada? According to Noam Chomsky, good old Lester is a war criminal. You think he's right?



Do you mean Noam Chomsky, the tax-dodger?

Yes, the one who insists on applying standards to others yet has a hard time applying them to himself, what do you call that again?

Oh I know, A HYPOCRIT.


As you find out a way to live like a socialist in a capitalist econmy let him know. Do you expect marxists to go around and refuse to use money? Libertians to go around and ignore the laws? It's not Hypocracy to live your live in a system you write against when you have no choice but to live in that system. Chomsky has used the system to invest and get by legally and you are trying to say he is a tax evador, indeed if you were to write a book about it you would be sued for libel.

You call him a hypocrit but you live in a world of hypocracy when you don't think these people have the right to use the system you believe in.
 
I think not
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Finder

As you find out a way to live like a socialist in a capitalist econmy let him know. Do you expect marxists to go around and refuse to use money? Libertians to go around and ignore the laws? It's not Hypocracy to live your live in a system you write against when you have no choice but to live in that system. Chomsky has used the system to invest and get by legally and you are trying to say he is a tax evador, indeed if you were to write a book about it you would be sued for libel.

You call him a hypocrit but you live in a world of hypocracy when you don't think these people have the right to use the system you believe in.

Nice try, I wouldn't call Chomsky a hypocrit if he invested, say in green technologies or....uhm....pampers? But I do have a problem when he invests in oil companies, weapons industries and so forth. You see pampers don't quite have the same return on investment.
 
Finder
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

Quote: Originally Posted by Finder

Which is you want to be nit picky a lot of our leaders have not done nice things. But we live in a world were it is hard to be an angle. Though I might fault Chomsky for being so Utopian on how he wants people to act, almost any political scientist greats have had the same view on the presiding world as being wrong.

But I think what you have to give to Chomsky who is considered to abe a socialist Libertian, or a social libertian is he has been extremely critical of the left as well especially the Marxist left, the Soviet Union, China and so on.

Chomsky has NEVER been critical of Mao's China, are you kidding me? You haven't read all of his works to make that claim. In a New York forum in the 60's he claimed Mao's reign of terror, "a necessary first step" to utopia. He's a hypocrit. He doesn't live up to his "morality", which would explain his speech "Distorted Morality".

You are right I have not read all of his works, and anyone who has, has too much time on there hands. Could you be getting your information from other people who have reviewed his work and have not read it all yourself to get the full contest of what he was ment to have said?

Also many of the classics we have today have had such stupity writen into them from writers such as Volitair, Rousseau and Marx which have been used to there proponants as a legit reasoning behind murder.



The only reason I can think that Chomsky would have any favour towards Mao's terror is that Mao had taken the situation out of his hands, and out of the communist party of China';s and given it to the students who went around a pretty much killed all the communist (Stalinist) higharchy and forced capitalists to either reform our die. Mao himself had little control over what he had allowed to release in the student movements of the red guard (and the other faction I can't remember).
 
Finder
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

Quote: Originally Posted by Finder

As you find out a way to live like a socialist in a capitalist econmy let him know. Do you expect marxists to go around and refuse to use money? Libertians to go around and ignore the laws? It's not Hypocracy to live your live in a system you write against when you have no choice but to live in that system. Chomsky has used the system to invest and get by legally and you are trying to say he is a tax evador, indeed if you were to write a book about it you would be sued for libel.

You call him a hypocrit but you live in a world of hypocracy when you don't think these people have the right to use the system you believe in.

Nice try, I wouldn't call Chomsky a hypocrit if he invested, say in green technologies or....uhm....pampers? But I do have a problem when he invests in oil companies, weapons industries and so forth. You see pampers don't quite have the same return on investment.

pampers are properly just as harmful to the enviroment though...
 
I think not
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by Finder

You are right I have not read all of his works, and anyone who has, has too much time on there hands. Could you be getting your information from other people who have reviewed his work and have not read it all yourself to get the full contest of what he was ment to have said?

No, I used to be a hard core communist, Chomsky was my hero, I've read almost every single book he has published and have attended lectures. And I always make the time to read. And I read everything I can get my hands on that contradict my personal views.

Quote: Originally Posted by Finder

Also many of the classics we have today have had such stupity writen into them from writers such as Volitair, Rousseau and Marx which have been used to there proponants as a legit reasoning behind murder.

The only reason I can think that Chomsky would have any favour towards Mao's terror is that Mao had taken the situation out of his hands, and out of the communist party of China';s and given it to the students who went around a pretty much killed all the communist (Stalinist) higharchy and forced capitalists to either reform our die. Mao himself had little control over what he had allowed to release in the student movements of the red guard (and the other faction I can't remember).

Chomsky works based on his bias, when he is confronted with atrocities by the "left" he makes excuses, that's a hypocrit in my books.
 
Finder
#14
Edit
Double post
 
Finder
#15
Well if you were actually a hard core communist you were a stupid one because you have not read Chomsky well enough.

www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles...socialism.html (external - login to view)


However if you were a the neo-socialist, social democratic or new left movements then you may have liked or worshipped Chomsky.

Chomsky like George Orwell is the biggest enemy to communism and communists as it is left wing critism to a so called left wing system. So I say again are you sure you were a communist in the first place, let alone hardcore communist when Chomsky had researved much of his attention is trying to dis-prove communism.
 
I think not
#16
Finder, Chomsky has always been anti-establishment, well at least anti-US establishment, when you're 18 and a communist, Chomsky works just fine. And yes I was a communist, big time. Not socialist, not a democratic socialist, a communist. Revolution was the only way to achieve a transitional socialist state.
 
Finder
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

Finder, Chomsky has always been anti-establishment, well at least anti-US establishment, when you're 18 and a communist, Chomsky works just fine. And yes I was a communist, big time. Not socialist, not a democratic socialist, a communist. Revolution was the only way to achieve a transitional socialist state.

How could you be a communist and support Chomsky when Chomsky thinks both Lenin and Marx are the worst things to happen to the left EVER! I just don't understand your logic. If I were a communist which I was almost when I was a teenager too, I'd be carrying around MArx, lenin and all the writers who are based on them. Chomsky however one of the biggest, if not the biggest anti-communist leftist I would not. Most communists I know from my more radical days just didn't talk about the guy because they knew he was populer with those on the democratic left.
 
zoofer
#18
Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill, Mikey Moore, Donald Duck.

Most people would opt for Donald.
 
I think not
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Finder

How could you be a communist and support Chomsky when Chomsky thinks both Lenin and Marx are the worst things to happen to the left EVER! I just don't understand your logic. If I were a communist which I was almost when I was a teenager too, I'd be carrying around MArx, lenin and all the writers who are based on them. Chomsky however one of the biggest, if not the biggest anti-communist leftist I would not. Most communists I know from my more radical days just didn't talk about the guy because they knew he was populer with those on the democratic left.

I realize he was critical of Marx and Lenin, but when it came to real world politics he would openly endorse regimes like Vietnam and China. He still believed in the socialist style revolution that would empower the masses. He perceived this somehow as being less affiliated with Soviet totalitarianism. Like I said, what he claims and what he does are two different things. This is why I lost respect for him.
 
Finder
#20
If you do not know the reasons to why he would support such movements I still wonder how you could have ever been a communist.

He supported Vietnam not because they were communist but because they were national liberation movements fighting against imperialists.


Chomsky was not critical of communism, marxism and Leninism, but said right out that if being left wing is to support any of these movements then he could not be considered left wing. He had said that Lenin was the worst thing to ever happen and also stated that the great evils of Stalin were possibly the worst thing to happen to human kind.


With Cambodia and China, you can not fault Chomsky for his initial support for either as both appeared to be better systems then those which came before them also appeared to be of a national liberation. However I have not seen one current statment by Chonsky in support of Chiness Communism nor of the Cambodian which he had at the time of it happen denounced Cambodian communism once it was found out what had truly happend.

But I think his main point are ppeople have the right to be free from there oppressors and whatever form of government they chose to rule themselves by is better then one chosen for them by an outside force. Which in theory sounds good but in practice can be a different story.
 
Finder
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by zoofer

Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill, Mikey Moore, Donald Duck.

Most people would opt for Donald.


*scratches head* damnit.... do I have to chose.... *kicks a stone*

zoofer, like any other political thinker, his theories are mostly theories and should never be put into practice as a doctrin, but being critical of any system is a good thing and he points out many flaws and many inhuman activities being done which we should really work hard on turning around.
 
aeon
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

Quote: Originally Posted by Toro

Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

Good book, I have a better one for you, Noam Chomskys: Understanding Power, he claims Lester Pearson, you know him right? The Nobel Peace Prize winner? Semi god like hero figure in Canada? According to Noam Chomsky, good old Lester is a war criminal. You think he's right?



Do you mean Noam Chomsky, the tax-dodger?

Yes, the one who insists on applying standards to others yet has a hard time applying them to himself, what do you call that again?

Oh I know, A HYPOCRIT.



Ohh i see, in the other thread, you seems to like chomsky, but now he is an hypocryte.
 
sanch
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Finder

Quote: Originally Posted by zoofer

Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill, Mikey Moore, Donald Duck.

Most people would opt for Donald.


*scratches head* damnit.... do I have to chose.... *kicks a stone*

zoofer, like any other political thinker, his theories are mostly theories and should never be put into practice as a doctrin, but being critical of any system is a good thing and he points out many flaws and many inhuman activities being done which we should really work hard on turning around.

My Major point of interest is how people profit from the poverty industry. There are people with better motives who can do this same form of analysis and are not as compromised as Chomsky is.
 
I think not
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by aeon

Ohh i see, in the other thread, you seems to like chomsky, but now he is an hypocryte.

A hypocrite is the person who applies to others standards that he refuses to apply to himself --- Noam Chomsky

When he condemns the oil and weapons industries and buys stocks for those industries he condemns, what other word would you like me to use?
 
Curiosity
#25
Self-portrait - Gnome Chumpsky

 
Curiosity
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by sanch

Quote: Originally Posted by Finder

Quote: Originally Posted by zoofer

Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill, Mikey Moore, Donald Duck.

Most people would opt for Donald.


*scratches head* damnit.... do I have to chose.... *kicks a stone*

zoofer, like any other political thinker, his theories are mostly theories and should never be put into practice as a doctrin, but being critical of any system is a good thing and he points out many flaws and many inhuman activities being done which we should really work hard on turning around.

My Major point of interest is how people profit from the poverty industry. There are people with better motives who can do this same form of analysis and are not as compromised as Chomsky is.

Sanch

How do people profit from the poverty industry?

Try the ACLU - how about Jesse Jackson who has run his empire on the very basis that people be helped temporarily and not permanently - Al Sharpton does the very same thing as well as many other Reverends such as Louis Farrakhan.....

The black people in America are used to running to the "godfather" for their assistance because that is how their parents did it and they are still clinging to the old ways of not standing up for themselves....

It is slowly changing but even now those representatives in the legislature in the U.S. are elected because of the "system of poverty" - which translates to a system of wealth for a few....

Poverty capitalism - I believe it was not what MLK envisioned. His heirs and family members did however and continued down the "helpless path" of creating victims.

It was the history of the black people in America which got me on the study of how governments can oppress people even when offering assistance. Confusing? It was at first but now many black intellectuals are fighting it - Bill Cosby's recent lectures are beginning to make some inroads and he is the most publicized.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#27
If it turns out that Lester was a war criminal we'll dig him up and hang him O/K. ITN you seem to be threatened by Chomsky and socialism in general but as much as you have critisized every writer I have mentioned you have not yet recommended any alternatives to socialism, nor any alternatives to the state of modern social political affairs, you are stalled at right wing critic, and like the dinosaur can,t evolve beyond your position and offer any solutions.
 
I think not
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver

If it turns out that Lester was a war criminal we'll dig him up and hang him O/K. ITN you seem to be threatened by Chomsky and socialism in general but as much as you have critisized every writer I have mentioned you have not yet recommended any alternatives to socialism, nor any alternatives to the state of modern social political affairs, you are stalled at right wing critic, and like the dinosaur can,t evolve beyond your position and offer any solutions.

I didn't say Pearson was a war criminal, Chomsky did. I think Wrong, Robertson and Pearson were great Canadians, they had a vision for Canada. All three men believed Canada should be engaged, and if they could see how borderline isolationist Canada has become, they would be spinning in their graves.

And I don't feel threatened by Chomsky or Socialism, I merely dislike both of them. As for my solution I have long been an advocate of some sort of mixed system. Socialism isn't the answer in my opinion, and neither is capitalism. I have yet to see a state fully immersed in socialist policies that have actually benefited the people. Canada is doing fairly well in a balancing act between the two, you need alot of work, but you're doing pretty well in my opinion.
 
sanch
#29
WC I am not sure MLK would have been able to recognize how the alleviation of injustice and poverty could be turned into a viable and very profitable economic pursuit.

For the last few decades there have been a lot of programs directed at improving conditions in the inner-city. These programs have failed. Why? Most people point their finger at corruption in the inner-city. But the actual amount of money that reaches the inner-city is miniscule. I participated as a volunteer for a couple of years in a few of these programs and the amount of money allocated to the intervention itself shrunk very quickly to less than 1% of the grant. This did not prevent the major beneficiaries of the grant money from blaming everything on the participants. Itís a big scam.

Now the newest academic trend is the study of the various disparities that exist in the US. The key word here is study and not elimination. How many studies are needed to prove something that is blatantly obvious? A lot especially when they provide overhead to Harvard and the like. Itís a crafty way to ensure the Ivy elite can keep their standard of living up. But no one is going to write a book called the Rougue Ivies are they?

I think there definitely are cultural factors that impede mobility in the inner-city but I donít think the culture of entitlement is one of them. First African American males have never really benefited from any of the entitlement programs. Neither have visible minorities in Canada. But when the programs donít work they always blame the supposed beneficiaries of the programs. This was obvious with people focusing on corruption among the Afghan warlords and President Karzai. Itís the same attitude well we tried and they either steal what we give them or squander the resources. Itís crazy.
 
Curiosity
#30
Sanch

When I came to the U.S. I brought with me many preconceived images of what it would be like (mostly from movies)...my sister and her family are staunch liberals and perpetuated the conversation regarding minorities as victims of the systems....

In university the professors continued the threads of victims....

When I was interning I learned much about the systems - both state and local and found that rarely were the ideals of "doing it for yourself" taught - nor was education stressed to the kids.

The old Italian "Don" system which preceded welfare in this country - came from Europe and the minorities adopted it as their way to security - "buy me for my vote".... or "my allegience in your cause"... or whatever was being sold... Rainbow? That's a joke.

Until I literally ran into (while jogging) a wonderful black woman about eight years ago....who has become one of my most valued friends. She fought the system, her welfare-crazed parents with six kids (more money)....dad never at home... she also fought the fact she was a woman....and is now a city council member, with her own company and can afford to effect some major changes in where she feels the basic problem lies: In education of the young.

I have listened to her, learned from her, compared what she tells me with what is happening out there....read her recommended list of the new "explorers" for the black American people....and found she was right on with her information.

My greatest learning experiences have for me been people. It is what I hope to find in forums. Sometimes it works...sometimes it doesn't....

I know you know exactly what I mean. The cries of "racism" when discussing this kind of topic used to terrify me. Not any more.
We know and recognize those who are truly racist are those who keep the people from evolving into self-sufficient, self-motivated and independent people..... and so satisfied!
 

Similar Threads

1201
7
Sudan tops the failed states list.
by Blackleaf | May 3rd, 2006
no new posts