Failed states, rougue states, and America

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
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
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
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

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
I think not said:
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

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Finder said:
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

Senate Member
I think not said:
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?

:lol: :lol:

Do you mean Noam Chomsky, the tax-dodger?
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
I think not said:
Finder said:
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

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Toro said:
I think not said:
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?

:lol: :lol:

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

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Finder said:
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

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
I think not said:
Toro said:
I think not said:
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?

:lol: :lol:

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

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Finder said:
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

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
I think not said:
Finder said:
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

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
I think not said:
Finder said:
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... :twisted:
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Finder said:
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.

Finder 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).

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

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
Well if you were actually a hard core communist you were a stupid one because you have not read Chomsky well enough.

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/86-soviet-socialism.html


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

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
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

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
I think not said:
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

Council Member
Dec 31, 2005
1,274
2
38
Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill, Mikey Moore, Donald Duck.

Most people would opt for Donald.
:laughing4:
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Finder said:
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

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
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.