Chomsky excerpt

[BigSqwert]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10682403/site/newsweek/

 

01/03/06 "Newsweek" -- -- Jan. 9, 2006 issue - Noam Chomsky has been called one of the most influential intellectuals of the 20th century, but it's an accolade the 77-year-old MIT professor doesn't take very seriously. "People just want to hear something outside the rigid dogma they're used to," he says. "They're not going to hear it in the media." The linguistics prodigy turned political theorist has been a leading mind in the antiwar movement since the early '60s; he's also still a prolific author, producing more than six books in the past five years. He spoke to NEWSWEEK's Michael Hastings about the current geopolitical climate. Excerpts:

 

Hastings: Where do you see Iraq heading right now?

Chomsky: Well, it's extremely difficult to talk about this because of a very rigid doctrine that prevails in the United States and Britain which prevents us from looking at the situation realistically. The doctrine, to oversimplify, is that we have to believe the United States would have so-called liberated Iraq even if its main products were lettuce and pickles and [the] main energy resource of the world were in central Africa. Anyone who doesn't accept that is dismissed as a conspiracy theorist or a lunatic or something. But anyone with a functioning brain knows that that's not true—as all Iraqis do, for example. The United States invaded Iraq because its major resource is oil. And it gives the United States, to quote [Zbigniew] Brzezinski, "critical leverage" over its competitors, Europe and Japan. That's a policy that goes way back to the second world war. That's the fundamental reason for invading Iraq, not anything else.

Once we recognize that, we're able to begin talking about where Iraq is going. For example, there's a lot of talk about the United States bringing [about] a sovereign independent Iraq. That can't possibly be true. All you have to do is ask yourself what the policies would be in a more-or-less democratic Iraq. We know what they're likely to be. A democratic Iraq will have a Shiite majority, [with] close links to Iran. Furthermore, it's right across the border from Saudi Arabia, where there's a Shiite population which has been brutally repressed by the U.S.-backed fundamentalist tyranny. If there are any moves toward sovereignty in Shiite Iraq, or at least some sort of freedom, there are going to be effects across the border. That happens to be where most of Saudi Arabia's oil is. So you can see the ultimate nightmare developing from Washington's point of view.

 

You were involved in the antiwar movement in the 1960s. What do you think of the Vietnam-Iraq analogy?

I think there is no analogy whatsoever. That analogy is based on a misunderstanding of Iraq, and a misunderstanding of Vietnam. The misunderstanding of Iraq I've already described. The misunderstanding of Vietnam had to do with the war aims. The United States went to war in Vietnam for a very good reason. They were afraid Vietnam would be a successful model of independent development and that would have a virus effect—infect others who might try to follow the same course. There was a very simple war aim—destroy Vietnam. And they did it. The United States basically achieved its war aims in Vietnam by [1967]. It's called a loss, a defeat, because they didn't achieve the maximal aims, the maximal aims being turning it into something like the Philippines. They didn't do that. [but] they did achieve the major aims. It was possible to destroy Vietnam and leave. You can't destroy Iraq and leave. It's inconceivable.

Was the antiwar movement more successful in the '60s than it is today?

I think it's the other way around. The United States attacked Vietnam in 1962. It took years before any protest developed. Iraq is the first time in hundreds of years of European and American history that a war was massively protested before it was launched. There was huge protest in February 2003. It had never happened in the history of the West.

Where do you put George W. Bush in the pantheon of American presidents?

He's more or less a symbol, but I think the people around him are the most dangerous administration in American history. I think they're driving the world to destruction. There are two major threats that face the world, threats of the destruction of the species, and they're not a joke. One of them is nuclear war, and the other is environmental catastrophe, and they are driving toward destruction in both domains. They're compelling competitors to escalate their own offensive military capacity—Russia, China, now Iran. That means putting their offensive nuclear missiles on hair-trigger alert.

 

The Bush administration has succeeded in making the United States one of the most feared and hated countries in the world. The talent of these guys is unbelievable. They have even succeeded at alienating Canada. I mean, that takes genius, literally. (Not sure if this last paragraph is part of Chomsky's quote or the writer's own opinion. Check the website and decide for yourself.)

Edited January 12, 2006 by BigSqwert

[YASNY]

Go To Hell!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just kidding.

[Texsox]

Interesting insights.

[kapkomet]

The Bush administration has succeeded in making the United States one of the most feared and hated countries in the world. The talent of these guys is unbelievable. They have even succeeded at alienating Canada. I mean, that takes genius, literally.

 

Is this last part your quote, or a part of the article?

[BigSqwert]

Is this last part your quote, or a part of the article?

 

 

I added nothing. Straight cut and paste.

 

Perhaps I should edit and add to previous paragraph?

[NorthSideSox72]

I added nothing.  Straight cut and paste.

 

Perhaps I should edit and add to previous paragraph?

 

Something is wrong there. That last graf is loaded with grammatical errors and strident conjecture. I think it was part of Chomsky's quote, though it seems a little weird, even for him.

[kapkomet]

And a comment on the article - part of his whole premise is flawed, IMO. We are there for oil... partially true. But I think we're there more for having a thumb in the middle east to launch intelligence missions and the like, some of which we will never even fathom. Quite frankly, it does make sense. You have to be where things are happening to get a truer sense of what is going on. We were not really able to have that presence after Saudi Arabia decided we shouldn't be there. I know we're in UAE, but Iraq is dead center of it all. Also, we were itching for a "war" for economic reasons as well, which people sometimes forget. Let's take out the spending on the war IN THIS COUNTRY and see where we are economically. That would be an interesting stat. That's not the right reason to go to war, but I also think that's a part of it was to gain more "market share" in the middle east. The problem is, they don't really want us to dump our crap there.

 

More later.

[kapkomet]

I added nothing.  Straight cut and paste.

 

Perhaps I should edit and add to previous paragraph?

Just clarifying. Thanks. (That really wasn't meant as a slight... )

[kapkomet]

Something is wrong there.  That last graf is loaded with grammatical errors and strident conjecture.  I think it was part of Chomsky's quote, though it seems a little weird, even for him.

That's why I asked... it didn't fit with the rest of the article. It was weird.

[BigSqwert]

Just clarifying.  Thanks.  (That really wasn't meant as a slight... )

Added a hyperlink to article. Last paragraph might be the columnist's opinion. I can't really tell.

Edited January 12, 2006 by BigSqwert

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

I don't put any credence into anything Chomsky says...he's an ignorant, f##king douchebag.

 

[Soxy]

I don't put any credence into anything Chomsky says...he's an ignorant, f##king douchebag.

 

Gosh, don't be such an anti-semite.

[Balta1701]

I don't put any credence into anything Chomsky says...he's an ignorant, f##king douchebag.

 

That detailed, well-thought-out rebuttal of his points certainly convinced me.

[BigSqwert]

I don't put any credence into anything Chomsky says...he's an ignorant, f##king douchebag.

 

Well that's a solid rebuttal.

[kapkomet]

Gosh, don't be such an anti-semite.

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

Gosh, don't be such an anti-semite.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Could you idiots be any more immature?!

 

Why don't you "intellectuals" check out chomsky.info if you want to read his anti-American, anti-Israel rantings and ravings?!

Edited January 12, 2006 by Steve Bartman's my idol

[Rex Kickass]

Chomsky has a definitely interesting point of view, but I think that oil is only part of the equation as well. I think Chomsky, master linguist that he might be, didn't fully say that as well. Perhaps because he sees a coming resource war and control of resources = power.

[kapkomet]

Chomsky has a definitely interesting point of view, but I think that oil is only part of the equation as well. I think Chomsky, master linguist that he might be, didn't fully say that as well. Perhaps because he sees a coming resource war and control of resources = power.

That's part of it. I don't have time to say much more until later.

[NorthSideSox72]

Chomsky has a definitely interesting point of view, but I think that oil is only part of the equation as well. I think Chomsky, master linguist that he might be, didn't fully say that as well. Perhaps because he sees a coming resource war and control of resources = power.

 

I agree on the resource war. And while we are distracted by the oil thing, we are forgetting about a big one plaguing the world and getting worse: water.

 

Just recently, the BLM made a bizarre decision regarding oil and water. In New Mexico (where water is a big problem), there is a place called the Otero Mesa. Otero was found to have a huge acquifer, capable of sustaining the freshwater needs of all of NM and west Texas for 100+ years. No exagerration - that was the conservative estimate.

 

But the BLM chose to stop the water plan that the state of NM proposed, and instead allocated plots of land all over the mesa for natural gas testing and drilling. That drilling, BTW, would make the acquifer non-usable due to specific water regulations (something about possible toxicity, and reverse, the possible effects on the gas if water is extracted). So, we chose to drill for possible nat gas (and not that much of it on a market scale), instead of providing all of NM and west Texas with 100 years of water.

 

Can someone tell me why that makes sense?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I don't put any credence into anything Chomsky says...he's an ignorant, f##king douchebag.

 

 

 

You can add to that a leftist POS.