From the perspective of a non-American, I can't believe so many Americans think Noam Chomsky is one of the greatest intellectuals of all time. He's a loonie with an agenda who should probably stick to science.
http://www.alternet.org/chomsky-no-wond ... est-threat (http://www.alternet.org/chomsky-no-wonder-world-terrified-america-were-biggest-threat)
The man's political views are incredibly biased against his own country. He thinks the USA is the greatest threat to world peace, even though American values have created one of the most advanced, freest societies in the world, and American intervention has often helped the world get rid of several unsavory characters like Hitler or the communists. Yes that's right, US is supposedly the greatest threat to world peace, it's not North Korea with its psychopath man-child daddy's boy mentality dictator, it's not Iran with its nuclear ambitions and Islamofascist government, it's not Saudi Arabia who funds cultural jihad with petro-dollars, building mosques all over the world, spreading their repressive dogma, it isn't China with its still communist regime or the authoritarian-style Russian Federation masked as a pseudo-democracy, it isn't Egypt, the unstable birthplace of the Muslim Brotherhood who has tried to revive Islam as a political entity not just in the Islamic world but the west as well through propaganda front groups.
No... it's MURICCAAAA! They're the Big Satan.
As for the poll that supposedly shows a good chunk of the world thinks US is the greatest threat to peace, well, what most people think or what a plurality of people think doesn't really matter in terms of establishing truth. Personally, I think the world would be more peaceful if every country was a copy of the United States or even of the EU. But that will probably not happen to due human nature and bad ideologies.
It's been a long time since anyone has brought up Noam Chomsky. I thought he was on his way to becoming a vague memory. I even read a book of his once. Sometimes I agreed with him. Sometimes I thought he was trying hard to be sensational, but I thought he was at least as articulate as Rush Limbaugh, although much softer spoken. He must have made a bigger impression on others than he did on me, because he sure pissed a lot of people off.
Make an honest guess of how many wars/interventions the US has fought in since World War II. Then, after guessing, click the spoiler and see how close you were.
[spoil:1bwd8oru]United States Intervention in Greek Election, 1947-1949
Operation PBFORTUNE, Guatemala, 1952
Operation Ajax, US overthrow of Iranian Government, 1953
Operation PBSUCCESS, Guatemala, 1954
Bay of Pigs Invasion, Cuba, 1961
Operation Powerpack, Dominican Republic, 1965 - 1966
Korean War, 1950 - 1953
United States overthrow of Guatemalan Government, 1907-1933
Operation Blue Bat, Lebanon, 1958
United States Intervention at Panama Canal, 1958
Vietnam War, 1962 - 1973
United States Occupation of Laos, 1962 - 1973
United States Intervention at Panama Canal, 1964
Cambodian Civil War, 1969 - 1970
United States Overthrow of Chilean Government, 1964
Turkish invasion of Cyprus, 1974
Operation Eagle Claw, Iran hostage crisis, 1980
First Gulf of Sidra Incident, Libya, 1981
Contra War, El Salvador, 1981-1990
Occupation of Beirut, Lebanon, 1982-1984
Invasion of Grenada, Grenada, 1983-1984
Operation El Dorado Canyon, Libya, 1986
Iran-Iraq War, 1987 - 1989
Operation Just Cause, Panama 1989 - 1990
Second Gulf of Sidra Incident, Libya, 1989
Persian Gulf War, Iraq, 1991
Operation Desert Shield, 1991
Operation Desert Storm, 1991
Somali Civil War, 1992 - 1994
Operation Provide Relief, 1992
Operation Restore Hope, 1992 - 1994
Yugoslav wars, 1994 - 1999
Bosnian Conflict, 1994 - 1995
Kosovo Conflict, 1997 - 1999
War on Terrorism, 2001 - present
Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan 2001 - present
Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines 2002 - present
Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa 2002 - present
Operation Iraqi Freedom, 2003 - present
Waziristan War, 2004 - present
War in Somalia, 2006 - present
Operation Iraqi Freedom - Trans Sahara 2007 - present[/spoil:1bwd8oru]
Quote from: "Plu"Make an honest guess of how many wars/interventions the US has fought in since World War II. Then, after guessing, click the spoiler and see how close you were.
To be honest, I never made an actual numerical guess. I just thought "A shitload" was close enough. I thought the list would be longer, however.
[spoil:2vhuopqk]It's 42 interventions or wars in about 70 years. That's slightly more than one every 2 years. The past 20 years it's been closer to one every year, and there are currently 7 active war zones. That's a lot, especially when you're trying to make a claim that the US is bringing peace to the world.[/spoil:2vhuopqk]
Quote from: "Plu"Make an honest guess of how many wars/interventions the US has fought in since World War II. Then, after guessing, click the spoiler and see how close you were.
[spoil:3960z74p]United States Intervention in Greek Election, 1947-1949
Operation PBFORTUNE, Guatemala, 1952
Operation Ajax, US overthrow of Iranian Government, 1953
Operation PBSUCCESS, Guatemala, 1954
Bay of Pigs Invasion, Cuba, 1961
Operation Powerpack, Dominican Republic, 1965 - 1966
Korean War, 1950 - 1953
United States overthrow of Guatemalan Government, 1907-1933
Operation Blue Bat, Lebanon, 1958
United States Intervention at Panama Canal, 1958
Vietnam War, 1962 - 1973
United States Occupation of Laos, 1962 - 1973
United States Intervention at Panama Canal, 1964
Cambodian Civil War, 1969 - 1970
United States Overthrow of Chilean Government, 1964
Turkish invasion of Cyprus, 1974
Operation Eagle Claw, Iran hostage crisis, 1980
First Gulf of Sidra Incident, Libya, 1981
Contra War, El Salvador, 1981-1990
Occupation of Beirut, Lebanon, 1982-1984
Invasion of Grenada, Grenada, 1983-1984
Operation El Dorado Canyon, Libya, 1986
Iran-Iraq War, 1987 - 1989
Operation Just Cause, Panama 1989 - 1990
Second Gulf of Sidra Incident, Libya, 1989
Persian Gulf War, Iraq, 1991
Operation Desert Shield, 1991
Operation Desert Storm, 1991
Somali Civil War, 1992 - 1994
Operation Provide Relief, 1992
Operation Restore Hope, 1992 - 1994
Yugoslav wars, 1994 - 1999
Bosnian Conflict, 1994 - 1995
Kosovo Conflict, 1997 - 1999
War on Terrorism, 2001 - present
Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan 2001 - present
Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines 2002 - present
Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa 2002 - present
Operation Iraqi Freedom, 2003 - present
Waziristan War, 2004 - present
War in Somalia, 2006 - present
Operation Iraqi Freedom - Trans Sahara 2007 - present[/spoil:3960z74p]
The US is the world police simply by virtue of the strength of its army -- its military budget equals the next 10 countries combined military budgets. Does it intervene for the right reasons? Most likely not. But then again, if the US would abandon that role, it would be quickly filled by the likes of China, Russia or any country that wants to bully around for whatever reason. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know.
http://pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/0053_defense-comparison (http://pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/0053_defense-comparison)
I know. The fact that it's responsible for 40% of the world's spending on weapons is another reason why it's difficult to see them as a "force for peace". Especially considering US defense spending is big business and money needs to be made from those weapons. Or at least that's how it looks to the rest of the world.
When a country invades another country based on out right lies and kills civilians, even children, and claims it is for peace like Bush did they are the greatest threat to world peace. How many other countries have recently invaded another country besides the United States? We have the largest military force throughout the world with the most redundant weapons of mass destruction. We support the dictators of the world with millions of dollars, we put Saddam Hussein and Osama Ben laden in power and supplied them with weapons, killed both of them and Hussein's sons. Has any other country done that to another country recently? We love war because it makes the super rich of the world richer like those in Saudi Arabia etc. while claiming to be the peace makers.
We think money can buy off everyone, but the terrorists know better after our CEO's destroy their countries economically, their environments, for their oil and natural resources, and cheap labor. Oliver North supplied weapons to our enemies. We talk about making the Middle East a democracy by destroying them, and ignore all the blood shed in Africa and poverty in other countries, even our own. violence begets violence through history has shown, and now, even in our cities. People are scared of our government, even here in our own country, from Police State tactics used against protestors that are a threat to Wall Street. We are the Bullies of the world, and the disenfranchised are fighting back for freedom and peace, telling us to mind our own business, and mind the problems we have in our own country that is destroying our work force. :evil: :popcorn: Solitary
Quote from: "Plu"I know. The fact that it's responsible for 40% of the world's spending on weapons is another reason why it's difficult to see them as a "force for peace". Especially considering US defense spending is big business and money needs to be made from those weapons. Or at least that's how it looks to the rest of the world.
I'm not sure I would qualify the US as a "force for peace", but nevertheless, I would guess that the number of conflicts in the world would drastically rise without the US as the world police. Just take the conflict between China and Japan over Senkakus in Japan and Diaoyus in China. Without the US, that conflict would have easily sparked a war between these two countries. Most countries in Southeast Asia are living under the US umbrella in fear that China would just walk all over them. In Europe, you can bet that Russia would have done the same a long time ago, and will still do it in the future if ever the US decides to go home.
QuoteThe fact that it's responsible for 40% of the world's spending on weapons is another reason why it's difficult to see them as a "force for peace".
The problem is, peace and pacifism are two different things. I don't think it's fair to say that someone is dangerous merely because he has more and better guns. It's how they are used.
(On the opposite extreme however a US with a theoretical 0 military spending wouldn't be a force for peace, all it would be is an impotent and vulnerable target.)
Also as someone pointed out already, if the US isn't a world power, others will fill the void. It's a cruel cruel world out there with some really bad power-hungry people.
hypotheticals are just maybe's. Why are we the so-called Peace Makers and not the United Nation's Peace force? It's because every other country in the world fears us knowing how we bombed Japan and killed civilians, invaded Viet Nam doing the same, North Korea doing the same, supplying weapons to the very terrorist that are a threat to us now while fighting a cold war with Russia being stupid enough to think a political ideals can be destroyed by military action anymore than a religious one can. Maybe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction---well so does China and Pakistan. Our country tries to shove Democracy down everyone's throats just like religion does. It's not going to happen, anymore than us becoming a communist country, or a theocracy by military action. This is why Peace is a delusion because every country thinks it can push it's ideals with the military, even religious ones. All this fear rhetoric is just propaganda used as an excuse to go to war for whatever reasons. :evil: Solitary
Quote from: "Solitary"When a country invades another country based on out right lies and kills civilians, even children, and claims it is for peace like Bush did they are the greatest threat to world peace. How many other countries have recently invaded another country besides the United States?
Just to stop you there for a minute, the US is constantly blamed for Iraq.
Why however is Iraq blameless? Even if you disagree with the invasion, which in all fairness was probably a bad idea to begin with, you have to admit that the people there had a great opportunity and they blew it thanks to Islam and thanks to a backward culture. Instead of welcoming the fall of a murderous dictator and rebuilding their society into an open, secular and democratic one, they prefer bullshit sectarian violence fueled by their intolerant religion and irrational anti-Americanism.
I mean seriously, Romania also had a dictator, there was violence yes, but the country was stable very fast (relatively speaking, it's still a mess in many ways, but it's not a
murderous mess.) We weren't invaded sure, but:
Germany was ruled by Nazi dictatorship, but recovered and it's now one of the best places to be in.
Japan was very backward but changed a lot after WWII as well.
Saddam was committing Genocide, but sadly that's not why we went in
Quoteif the US isn't a world power, others will fill the void.
And it would be the United Nations, and not the United States, or any other country trying to force the ideal of democracy, or another ideal throughout the world. We talk about human rights. We should look at our own country and see how that is working. Solitary
I wouldn't put much trust in the UN, essentially what it is is a "democracy of tyrants". They sign treaties and form "commissions" most of them never respect (free countries are vastly outnumbered by authoritarian ones at the UN), its human rights council elects members that are in no position to talk about human rights for example China, Cuba, Russia and Saudi Arabia. They do this all the time.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/ ... 9E20131112 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/12/us-un-rights-council-idUSBRE9AB19E20131112)
It is a very corrupt entity that has failed all its ideals.
Quote from: "VladK"I wouldn't put much trust in the UN, essentially what it is is a "democracy of tyrants". They sign treaties and form "commissions" most of them never respect (free countries are vastly outnumbered by authoritarian ones at the UN), its human rights council elects members that are in no position to talk about human rights for example China, Cuba, Russia and Saudi Arabia. They do this all the time.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/ ... 9E20131112 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/12/us-un-rights-council-idUSBRE9AB19E20131112)
It is a very corrupt entity that has failed all its ideals.
Only because the United States has taken over their responsibilities. And why should the United Nations respect tyrannical authority regimes like China, Cuba, Russia and Saudi Arabia? The United States is not wrong to oppose them, only that it should be all countries belonging to the United Nations. You like being under tyrannical authoritarian regimes like that, then you are a sheep and don't deserve freedom, just like people that are religious fanatics that want freedom while their minds are in enslavement by authority figures. :roll: Solitary
QuoteAnd why should the United Nations respect tyrannical authority regimes like China, Cuba, Russia and Saudi Arabia? The United States is not wrong to oppose them, only that it should be all countries belonging to the United Nations. You like being under tyrannical authoritarian regimes like that, then you are a sheep and don't deserve freedom, just like people that are religious fanatics that want freedom while their minds are in enslavement by authority figures.
I think you missed my point or didn't quite understand what I was saying. It shouldn't but then again it has no choice. It happens. It has happened. It is no accident however. Most countries that are members of the UN (which is almost all countries on Earth at this point) are not free and democratic countries, but tyrannical/ authoritarian ones cause human nature is messed up like that. The UN charter sounds nice in theory but it cannot work in practice if most UN members don't really believe in it and just sign a bunch of papers they ignore when it matters the most.
Even if the UN opposed China, so what? The problem is it's big enough that it can do what it wants including ignore all the human rights conventions it wants to. These are the kind of countries that would fill the void if the US pursues some kind of isolationist policy and steps off the world stage.
By the way, there would also be more bloodshed in the world if we tried to implement Chomsky's ideas of "libertarian socialism", his political philosophy is a complete joke. Maybe he has deluded himself to believe he is a man of peace, but he's not, certainly not in practice.
QuoteThe problem is, peace and pacifism are two different things. I don't think it's fair to say that someone is dangerous merely because he has more and better guns. It's how they are used.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure "how they are used" is
exactly the problem ;) Because the answer to it is "often and on everything", basically. The US is great at sending soldiers to shoot at everything that moves, but they're not exactly getting good results when it comes to rebuilding and protecting.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "Plu"Make an honest guess of how many wars/interventions the US has fought in since World War II. Then, after guessing, click the spoiler and see how close you were.
[spoil:2g0dv4c0]United States Intervention in Greek Election, 1947-1949
Operation PBFORTUNE, Guatemala, 1952
Operation Ajax, US overthrow of Iranian Government, 1953
Operation PBSUCCESS, Guatemala, 1954
Bay of Pigs Invasion, Cuba, 1961
Operation Powerpack, Dominican Republic, 1965 - 1966
Korean War, 1950 - 1953
United States overthrow of Guatemalan Government, 1907-1933
Operation Blue Bat, Lebanon, 1958
United States Intervention at Panama Canal, 1958
Vietnam War, 1962 - 1973
United States Occupation of Laos, 1962 - 1973
United States Intervention at Panama Canal, 1964
Cambodian Civil War, 1969 - 1970
United States Overthrow of Chilean Government, 1964
Turkish invasion of Cyprus, 1974
Operation Eagle Claw, Iran hostage crisis, 1980
First Gulf of Sidra Incident, Libya, 1981
Contra War, El Salvador, 1981-1990
Occupation of Beirut, Lebanon, 1982-1984
Invasion of Grenada, Grenada, 1983-1984
Operation El Dorado Canyon, Libya, 1986
Iran-Iraq War, 1987 - 1989
Operation Just Cause, Panama 1989 - 1990
Second Gulf of Sidra Incident, Libya, 1989
Persian Gulf War, Iraq, 1991
Operation Desert Shield, 1991
Operation Desert Storm, 1991
Somali Civil War, 1992 - 1994
Operation Provide Relief, 1992
Operation Restore Hope, 1992 - 1994
Yugoslav wars, 1994 - 1999
Bosnian Conflict, 1994 - 1995
Kosovo Conflict, 1997 - 1999
War on Terrorism, 2001 - present
Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan 2001 - present
Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines 2002 - present
Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa 2002 - present
Operation Iraqi Freedom, 2003 - present
Waziristan War, 2004 - present
War in Somalia, 2006 - present
Operation Iraqi Freedom - Trans Sahara 2007 - present[/spoil:2g0dv4c0]
The US is the world police simply by virtue of the strength of its army -- its military budget equals the next 10 countries combined military budgets. Does it intervene for the right reasons? Most likely not. But then again, if the US would abandon that role, it would be quickly filled by the likes of China, Russia or any country that wants to bully around for whatever reason. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know.
http://pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/0053_defense-comparison (http://pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/0053_defense-comparison)
You are most likely correct. However, I thought it was the next 13 countries combined, all of which were allies. Anyway, my only problem with that type of military spending (7-8 billion) it really gets my goat that people would rail against so called "entitlement" programs in the U.S. As if losing a billion or two really makes a difference when that type of spending on "defense" occurs.
Quote from: "VladK"From the perspective of a non-American, I can't believe so many Americans think Noam Chomsky is one of the greatest intellectuals of all time. He's a loonie with an agenda who should probably stick to science.
http://www.alternet.org/chomsky-no-wond ... est-threat (http://www.alternet.org/chomsky-no-wonder-world-terrified-america-were-biggest-threat)
The man's political views are incredibly biased against his own country. He thinks the USA is the greatest threat to world peace, even though American values have created one of the most advanced, freest societies in the world, and American intervention has often helped the world get rid of several unsavory characters like Hitler or the communists. Yes that's right, US is supposedly the greatest threat to world peace, it's not North Korea with its psychopath man-child daddy's boy mentality dictator, it's not Iran with its nuclear ambitions and Islamofascist government, it's not Saudi Arabia who funds cultural jihad with petro-dollars, building mosques all over the world, spreading their repressive dogma, it isn't China with its still communist regime or the authoritarian-style Russian Federation masked as a pseudo-democracy, it isn't Egypt, the unstable birthplace of the Muslim Brotherhood who has tried to revive Islam as a political entity not just in the Islamic world but the west as well through propaganda front groups.
No... it's MURICCAAAA! They're the Big Satan.
As for the poll that supposedly shows a good chunk of the world thinks US is the greatest threat to peace, well, what most people think or what a plurality of people think doesn't really matter in terms of establishing truth. Personally, I think the world would be more peaceful if every country was a copy of the United States or even of the EU. But that will probably not happen to due human nature and bad ideologies.
I'm not a fan of Chomsky, but there are a few things I completely disagree with you here...
Greatest threat to world peace: I would argue we are, but it is because we feel (rightly or wrongly) to compete with Russia, China and some smaller nations for, "Who's dick is the biggest". As has been pointed out, when you have as many wars as we have you simply cannot argue that we are a "pro-peace" country. It's just not happening. And don't even get me started on how many dictators and terrorists we have funded that make life very miserable for people in the rest of the world.
Free-ist society; Except we aren't even close. Economic freedom: 12 and dropping. Press Freedom: 46 and dropping.
America Getting Rid Of "Bad Guys": Hitler I'll give you, but communists are not inherently bad. Also, for every Hitler we take down we have funded 20 Noriegas, Osamas, Husseins and Mumbaraks.
You also realize that Saudi Arabia and Egypt (was at least) are allies of the United States, right?
There is alot I disagree with him on (ALOT), but he is right that American foreign policy is not "Pro-Democracy/Peace/Liberty" nor is much of it's internal policy.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Yeah well Vlad, that's what happens to people when they trade one banana republic with the other. It's astonishing that people from collapsed communist regimes are not able to recognise a biggest, richest form of oppression. Irony, baby. It is a bitch.
I always found that interesting with some of the Cuban Americans I know, how pro-unregulated capitalism and anti-anything-socialist they are. They are just swapping one extremism for another.
War, or conflict more like, seems like a necessary evil when you consider how people behave. The U.S. has, as already noted, simply played a role as the world police.
Quote from: "Shiranu"I'm not a fan of Chomsky, but there are a few things I completely disagree with you here...
Greatest threat to world peace: I would argue we are, but it is because we feel (rightly or wrongly) to compete with Russia, China and some smaller nations for, "Who's dick is the biggest". As has been pointed out, when you have as many wars as we have you simply cannot argue that we are a "pro-peace" country. It's just not happening. And don't even get me started on how many dictators and terrorists we have funded that make life very miserable for people in the rest of the world.
The thing is the world is a messed up place and there's little room for idealism. Take Mubarak in Egypt for example, yes he was a dictator, but many American conservatives supported him because they thought the Muslim Brotherhood would be worse. I certainly think it is, it's a supremacist Islamic group founded by Islamic revivalists who want to re-establish the caliphate and spread Islam throughout the world, it is also the forefather of Hamas and Al'Qaida. It got overthrown yes, so we'll see how things go, but I don't have much faith in Egypt becoming a civilized and secular country.
Quote from: "Shiranu"Free-ist society; Except we aren't even close. Economic freedom: 12 and dropping. Press Freedom: 46 and dropping.
I wonder if that might have something to do with the fact that the new generation (the "Millennials" as they call it) is farther to the left. They want bigger government and that's an automatic decrease in economic freedom.
Not sure about freedom of press though.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... -1.1611299 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/u-s-drops-state-free-press-ranking-report-article-1.1611299)
Seems like this sudden drop was motivated (in part) by cracking down on Snowden and others leaking confidential information. Which let's face it wasn't entirely fair, he leaked thousands of documents, most of which there was no way he could have read in the small time span he had, and put US security at risk. Then he sought refuge in Russia of all places... NSA spying is a big threat to privacy but he should have tried to challenge it the legal way first.
Quote from: "Shiranu"America Getting Rid Of "Bad Guys": Hitler I'll give you, but communists are not inherently bad. Also, for every Hitler we take down we have funded 20 Noriegas, Osamas, Husseins and Mumbaraks.
You also realize that Saudi Arabia and Egypt (was at least) are allies of the United States, right?
Okay, first of all, the communists were exactly as bad as the nazis. Oppressive totalitarian state, millions in bodycount. Even communism in theory is wrong and Marx's view of capitalism is incredibly biased.
As for supporting Saudi Arabia, well you're not going to see anything done about it until you elect people who aren't clueless about the threat from Islam. How many people for example know that Saudi Arabia builds Wahhabi mosques all over the world using oil money or that a lot of terrorist funding comes out of Saudi Arabia? As of now the people in the US who make any kind of sense about Islam are overwhelmingly tea partiers. I've seen virtually no secular liberal blog that recognizes the extent of the problem beyond "all religion bad atheist smash" simplistic criticism with no insight into the specific problems posed by the religion of Islam. Kind of ironic I would say.
@Vlad: First point I will give you, Mumbarak was the lesser of two evils. But can you argue that Osama and Noriega were the lesser of two evils? I have a very hard time believing the mujahadeen (went on to become Al Qaeda) and the Contras were the lesser of two evils.
QuoteI wonder if that might have something to do with the fact that the new generation (the "Millennials" as they call it) is farther to the left. They want bigger government and that's an automatic decrease in economic freedom.
The decline in economic freedom started long before the Millennial generation. The gap between the rich and the poor has been sky rocketing since the late 70s. Also there aren't any Millennials that I know of in the House/Senate/White House, and for the most part the Millennials are extremely disappointed with the job the government is doing.
QuoteSeems like this sudden drop was motivated (in part) by cracking down on Snowden and others leaking confidential information. Which let's face it wasn't entirely fair, he leaked thousands of documents, most of which there was no way he could have read in the small time span he had, and put US security at risk. Then he sought refuge in Russia of all places... NSA spying is a big threat to privacy but he should have tried to challenge it the legal way first.
For the most part I agree, but there are other issues as well that have dropped us and I can only see us getting worse rather than better.
QuoteOkay, first of all, the communists were exactly as bad as the nazis. Oppressive totalitarian state, millions in bodycount. Even communism in theory is wrong and Marx's view of capitalism is incredibly biased.
Negative, there have been no major Marx-communist states that I can recall. The only powerful "communists" were the Russian Stalinists, and to call them communists is a HUGE stretch given the ridiculous amount of class-ism involved in it.
Communism in theory is no more wrong than capitalism; by itself, it would not work just as by itself capitalism does not work (or rather, does not morally work).
QuoteHow many people for example know that Saudi Arabia builds Wahhabi mosques all over the world using oil money or that a lot of terrorist funding comes out of Saudi Arabia?
I have never seen a tea party person cite this, only "OMG THEY WANT TO ISTALL TEH SHARIA LAWZ!". The people I have heard it from were all leftists (central at best by the rest of the developed world's standards).
Well you've got a point about the mujahadeen. Maybe the US should have known better back then. Now in this day and age they definitely have no excuse not to know about the political and supremacist aspect of Islam and the foreign policy blunder of teaming up with or even tolerating political Islamic groups and regimes worldwide.
Has the US learned? No, its foreign policy doesn't show it, take for example Obama's backing of Syrian rebels which are largely jihadists and would create an anti-American Sharia state if Assad was overthrown. He was also friendly to the MB in Egypt while they had power, gave them military aid.
Its domestic policies and attitudes don't show it. The Fort Hood attack wasn't even referred to as "terrorism" but "workplace violence" (as if to imply that this was just a misunderstanding between some co-workers). Also FBI training manuals were scrubbed clean a few years ago of any mention of Islam or jihad in connection to terrorism committed by Muslims because political correctness trumps truth and they don't want to offend moderate Muslims and propaganda groups like CAIR.
Another thing I've noticed, there was this man on Twitter, some member of an advisory council at the DHS. And he used to display a "R4BIA" symbol, an Islamic supremacist symbol often used by MB supporters. He also had tweets favorable to the MB. With people like that at the DHS, who needs enemies...
http://www.r4bia.com/en/content/what-r4bia (http://www.r4bia.com/en/content/what-r4bia)
It would be like having a guy with KKK sympathies as a member of an organization dedicated to combating racism.
The Muslim Brotherhood is an enemy of the US, its own documents call for the destruction of "western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house". It should be considered a terrorist organization.
Sorry about the necro-bump, but anyways:
QuoteChomsky might object that to knowingly place the life of a child in jeopardy is unacceptable in any case, but clearly this is not a principle we can follow. The makers of roller coasters know, for instance, that despite rigorous safety precautions, sometime, somewhere, a child will be killed by one of their contraptions. Makers of automobiles know this as well. So do makers of hockey sticks, baseball bats, plastic bags, swimming pools, chain-link fences, or nearly anything else that could conceivably contribute to the death of a child. There is a reason we do not refer to the inevitable deaths of children on our ski slopes as "skiing atrocities." But you would not know this from reading Chomsky. For him, intentions do not seem to matter. Body count is all.
- Sam Harris, The End of Faith, 2005
Sam Harris has also posted a Youtube video about his exchange with Noam Chomsky which to me illustrated this point.
QuoteChomsky might object that to knowingly place the life of a child in jeopardy is unacceptable in any case, but clearly this is not a principle we can follow. The makers of roller coasters know, for instance, that despite rigorous safety precautions, sometime, somewhere, a child will be killed by one of their contraptions. Makers of automobiles know this as well. So do makers of hockey sticks, baseball bats, plastic bags, swimming pools, chain-link fences, or nearly anything else that could conceivably contribute to the death of a child. There is a reason we do not refer to the inevitable deaths of children on our ski slopes as "skiing atrocities." But you would not know this from reading Chomsky. For him, intentions do not seem to matter. Body count is all.
- Sam Harris, The End of Faith, 2005
What does that even mean? Like proguns making examples of how a gun is just a tool like a hammer or a lighter. Intentions. That simply tells that either Harris has no idea of Chomsky's work or he just find it easy to make a remark of the sort. What a shame for some scientist to talk about a world renowned scientist in a FOX channel manner. That's why he will stay only as 'a NY Times best seller' for me with his political opinions, aside his work in neuroscience. Why didn't he cite Chomsky, if he thinks can debunk his arguments, instead of backlashing in a passive agressive way with vague expression like 'intentions'.
Chomsky is talking about intentions all the time, and he is the one who has been trying to explain the herd of the world; the people, the BASIC FACTS that states and governments operate. Nobody likes it because he is telling the very ugly truth. Straight. About every country. Not just the US.
The American ignorance of Noam Chomsky is astonishing and somebody should make an exclusive study on it. This man is not someone who sat down a table and started to curse to American Empire because he just felt like it and then became famous for it. His work and thought is operating on vast fields of social sciences, most of the political concepts you would need to discuss and understand modern politics today in your mother language belongs to him. He is the father of modern linguistics and he has been writing on these subjects you turn your nose on getting offended, for the last fucking 70 years; that is 7 decades; a human life time around most of the world. He has been consistent on everything he writes, he is a scientist with great integrity. In this period of time he was rarely wrong.
I would need to type pages to just to name his work, the fields his work rules on. You cannot make a simple research on major social fields related without citing this man's work or refering to something he has said about it. You cannot ignore Chomsky if you desire to know about the modern world and its politics, its relation to 'us' the people. It would be like trying to learn about modern physics by ignoring Einstein. Too bad people do not aspire to promote men like him. You know because he is a social scientist, it's not cool. Physicists are cool, not political scientists and linguists.
He is not just criticising the US state policies domestic or international, but ALL the states and governments in ALL countries -the basic workings of state- in the world, with same principles and he is the best so far to do it that without any nationalism/bias or some fucked up notion that would serve a state or a government. He is on people's side. Our side.
And yet the most American sceptics think that he is some 'sensational character'. How embarrassing. That man is someone you should proud of.
And it is also funny, because in a nutshell, actually almost all of you agree with him. :lol: If Carlin's message is not alien to you, neither is Chomsky's.
I agree with you drunkenshoe. The comparison of dangerous sports, or other dangerous things causing harm or death to invasion and war is a Non Sequitur. Eisenhower pointed out in his farewell speech that the biggest threat to world peace is the military industrial complex, and history has shown overwhelmingly he was correct. And our military budget and invasion of Iraq, as well as the manufacturing of weapons of war supplied to allies like Saudi Arabia and other countries like Africa shows we are a threat to world peace for profit. And Obama getting the peace prize is ludicrous while continuing Bushes lies by sending troops to fight people we have divided and gave them weapons to give them power to continue their 2,000+ years of religious intolerance like the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland still have.