Chomsky: There Is No War on Terror

[ananda]

So right. Chomsky nails it again... a must read!

http://www.alternet.org/story/30487/

[savemefromdumbya]

1. they have war unto themselves

meaning that they control the terrorist organizations so there is no war. Little does a jihadist/terrorist know that he is really working for Dick cheney.

[MissWaverly]

2. thank you, refreshing article

we went in for the oil, the oil, the oil

[jonnyblitz]

3. I totally agree with his comments on the DEM party

although I am sure many here on the DEM party pep squad won't like them.

[ananda]

5. I dream of an opposition party.

Come on Dems, step up!

Filibuster that rightwing mf Alito!

Just do it cuz it's the right thing to do.

Sue

[leftofthedial]

17. dream on

“Our government is a bird with two right wings.” Lawrence Ferlinghetti

[jonnyblitz]

23. that's all. very simple you would think.

I don't require socialist revolution, just a party that is willing to stand up for what is right and not pander to some "center" that they treat as being conservative and pro bush.

[Mme. Defarge]

7. So,

Does this mean Nader was right after all? That the Democratic party is really a part of the problem and that real change can't happen unless the current so-called two-party system collapses?

I still believe we would be better off if a Democrat was Commander-in-Chief, but the Democratic party is a joke.

[Flabbergasted]

16. Maybe Maybe not

Both parties policies are very similar. Confirmed by a variety of voting: Iraq war, ALito, Roberts, etc.

[jonnyblitz]

22. i don't have the answers. I personally was never a huge fan

of Naders but I don't blame him or his supporters for everything that is wrong, either, like many here do.

I would hope the DEM party wouldnt be so timid and not live in fear of the RW noise machine and just be an opposition party.

[Coexist]

13. the best part:

<snip>
Geov Parrish: Is George Bush in political trouble? And if so, why?

Noam Chomsky: George Bush would be in severe political trouble if there were an opposition political party in the country. Just about every day, they're shooting themselves in the foot. The striking fact about contemporary American politics is that the Democrats are making almost no gain from this. The only gain that they're getting is that the Republicans are losing support. Now, again, an opposition party would be making hay, but the Democrats are so close in policy to the Republicans that they can't do anything about it. When they try to say something about Iraq, George Bush turns back to them, or Karl Rove turns back to them, and says, "How can you criticize it? You all voted for it." And, yeah, they're basically correct.
<snip>

Although, the Republicans would make hay even if they voted for unpopular bills - they turn the Dems strengths into their weaknesses with no problem.

THANKS DLC!!!

[jonnyblitz]

24. yup. the part of the interview that glared out at me what

exactly the part you "snipped". :thumbsup:

[cliss]

4. That was a must-read article.

Prof. Chomsky is right again - as usual.

He just cuts through the propaganda, and gets to the real issues.

Thanks for posting

[ananda]

6. Your welcome, and..

.. I agree.

Chomsky really has a way with ideas and cutting to the truth.

Thank God for people like him.. and Al Gore on Monday.

Sue

[Disturbed]

15. Blood for oil is a fair exchange in Bush World.

"The terrorists want to control the oil. Our way of life will be at risk". George W. Bush (Nov. 2005)



Bush Regime Iraq Successes (Phase 1)

1. Saddam will no longer sell Iraqi oil via the Euro.

2, A military foothold in the ME. Other than Saudi Arabia.

3, No countries will be able to buy Iraqi oil that the U.S. disapproves of.

4. The Multi-Intl. Oil Corps are reaping great profits.

5.The Military Industrial Complex is a booming Industry.


Phase 2?

[0007]

21. Gore will hit a home run Monday and knock the fucking socks

off the Nay Sayers!

[ixion]

8. kicked and recommended

Chomsky is consistently one of the best. :applause:

[0007]

9. Noam Chomsky blast away at today's Democratic leaders

A GREAT article. A big blast at Hillary Clinto also.

Noam Chomsky: George Bush would be in severe political trouble if there were an opposition political party in the country. Just about every day, they're shooting themselves in the foot. The striking fact about contemporary American politics is that the Democrats are making almost no gain from this. The only gain that they're getting is that the Republicans are losing support. Now, again, an opposition party would be making hay, but the Democrats are so close in policy to the Republicans that they can't do anything about it. When they try to say something about Iraq, George Bush turns back to them, or Karl Rove turns back to them, and says, "How can you criticize it? You all voted for it." And, yeah, they're basically correct.

How could the Democrats distinguish themselves at this point, given that they've already played into that trap?

Democrats read the polls way more than I do, their leadership. They know what public opinion is. They could take a stand that's supported by public opinion instead of opposed to it. Then they could become an opposition party, and a majority party. But then they're going to have to change their position on just about everything.

Take, for example, take your pick, say for example health care. Probably the major domestic problem for people. A large majority of the population is in favor of a national health care system of some kind. And that's been true for a long time. But whenever that comes up -- it's occasionally mentioned in the press -- it's called politically impossible, or "lacking political support," which is a way of saying that the insurance industry doesn't want it, the pharmaceutical corporations don't want it, and so on. Okay, so a large majority of the population wants it, but who cares about them? Well, Democrats are the same. Clinton came up with some cockamamie scheme which was so complicated you couldn't figure it out, and it collapsed.

Read more here

[Petreader]

42. Using Democrats and Leaders..

in the same sentence is absurd. The party today is made up of wimps and effite elitists.

The only thing that will stop these lunatics is a real revolution, not intellectual mental mastrubation.

[IndyOp]

10. Truth is scary --

Now let's talk about withdrawal. Take any day's newspapers or journals and so on. They start by saying the United States aims to bring about a sovereign democratic independent Iraq. I mean, is that even a remote possibility? Just consider what the policies would be likely to be of an independent sovereign Iraq. If it's more or less democratic, it'll have a Shiite majority. They will naturally want to improve their linkages with Iran, Shiite Iran. Most of the clerics come from Iran. The Badr Brigade, which basically runs the South, is trained in Iran. They have close and sensible economic relationships which are going to increase. So you get an Iraqi/Iran loose alliance. Furthermore, right across the border in Saudi Arabia, there's a Shiite population which has been bitterly oppressed by the U.S.-backed fundamentalist tyranny. And any moves toward independence in Iraq are surely going to stimulate them, it's already happening. That happens to be where most of Saudi Arabian oil is. Okay, so you can just imagine the ultimate nightmare in Washington: a loose Shiite alliance controlling most of the world's oil, independent of Washington and probably turning toward the East, where China and others are eager to make relationships with them, and are already doing it. Is that even conceivable? The U.S. would go to nuclear war before allowing that, as things now stand.

Now, any discussion of withdrawal from Iraq has to at least enter the real world, meaning, at least consider these issues. Just take a look at the commentary in the United States, across the spectrum. How much discussion do you see of these issues? Well, you know, approximately zero, which means that the discussion is just on Mars. And there's a reason for it. We're not allowed to concede that our leaders have rational imperial interests. We have to assume that they're good-hearted and bumbling. But they're not. They're perfectly sensible. They can understand what anybody else can understand. So the first step in talk about withdrawal is: consider the actual situation, not some dream situation, where Bush is pursuing a vision of democracy or something. If we can enter the real world we can begin to talk about it. And yes, I think there should be withdrawal, but we have to talk about it in the real world and know what the White House is thinking. They're not willing to live in a dream world.

[Martin Eden]

40. I was going to post those same two paragraphs ...

... along with the one that preceded it:

What do you think should be done in Iraq?

Well, the first thing that should be done in Iraq is for us to be serious about what's going on. There is almost no serious discussion, I'm sorry to say, across the spectrum, of the question of withdrawal. The reason for that is that we are under a rigid doctrine in the West, a religious fanaticism, that says we must believe that the United States would have invaded Iraq even if its main product was lettuce and pickles, and the oil resources of the world were in Central Africa. Anyone who doesn't believe that is condemned as a conspiracy theorist, a Marxist, a madman, or something. Well, you know, if you have three gray cells functioning, you know that that's perfect nonsense. The U.S. invaded Iraq because it has enormous oil resources, mostly untapped, and it's right in the heart of the world's energy system. Which means that if the U.S. manages to control Iraq, it extends enormously its strategic power, what Zbigniew Brzezinski calls its critical leverage over Europe and Asia. Yeah, that's a major reason for controlling the oil resources -- it gives you strategic power. Even if you're on renewable energy you want to do that. So that's the reason for invading Iraq, the fundamental reason.

Yes, Chomsky hit the nail on the head. There is no meaningful debate in Congress or in the MSM about Iraq because the underlying realities of the situation are not acknowledged.

[IndyOp]

11. This gives me reason to smile...

Chomsky says: "What gives me hope actually is public opinion. Public opinion in the United States is very well studied, we know a lot about it. It's rarely reported, but we know about it. And it turns out that, you know, I'm pretty much in the mainstream of public opinion on most issues.

Noam, from your mouth to God's ears! ;)

[Nutmegger]

12. K&R!!!

He articulates it so well...a recommended article.

[firefox]

14. You can comment on articles at AlterNet

There are a lot of them for this article and they are highly favorable.

[Neil Lisst]

18. The only WAR is the one between Bush and those who disagee with him

That war gets worse every day.

[neweurope]

19. K & R

-------------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[Flabbergasted]

20. This is infuriating and what I had been thinking

(Not only that but they had info that Russia moved some weopons into Syria before the attack)




We're told that they didn't find weapons of mass destruction. Well, that's not exactly correct. They did find weapons of mass destruction, namely, the ones that had been sent to Saddam by the United States, Britain, and others through the 1980s. A lot of them were still there. They were under control of U.N. inspectors and were being dismantled. But many were still there. When the U.S. invaded, the inspectors were kicked out, and Rumsfeld and Cheney didn't tell their troops to guard the sites. So the sites were left unguarded, and they were systematically looted. The U.N. inspectors did continue their work by satellite and they identified over 100 sites that were systematically looted, like, not somebody going in and stealing something, but carefully, systematically looted.

By people who knew what they were doing.

Yeah, people who knew what they were doing. It meant that they were taking the high-precision equipment that you can use for nuclear weapons and missiles, dangerous biotoxins, all sorts of stuff. Nobody knows where it went, but, you know, you hate to think about it. Well, that's increasing the threat of terror, substantially. Russia has sharply increased its offensive military capacity in reaction to Bush's programs, which is dangerous enough, but also to try to counter overwhelming U.S. dominance in offensive capacity. They are compelled to ship nuclear missiles all over their vast territory. And mostly unguarded. And the CIA is perfectly well aware that Chechen rebels have been casing Russian railway installations, probably with a plan to try to steal nuclear missiles. Well, yeah, that could be an apocalypse. But they're increasing that threat. Because they don't care that much.

[Gregorian]

25. Very scary.

So many things to think about.
Nuclear war, if they don't get what they want.
Our state of democracy, or lack thereof.
The Democratic party.
How small and expendible we are in their scheme of things. No wonder they can just "off" people who get in the way of their monster machine.


And on and on...

I am going to cherish this evening. And hope tomorrow morning actually comes.

[leesa]

26. Never was...9-11 was done by the neocons to get the TransAfghan pipeline

through. Then it was on to the oilfields of Iraq, then Iran, then Syria, etc., etc. Just following the PNAC playbook.

[pauldp]

28. but they wouldn't would they?

They may be liars, murderers and silver spoon gangsters, but they wouldn't
really create their clearly stated and much desired "New Pearl Harbor" in order
to achieve "Full Spectrum Dominance" of the world's resources? Would they?

I saw Bush cry once, so I know they couldn't be capable of that.


end/:sarcasm:

[Douglas Carpenter]

29. actually Chomsky himself does not believe that and he rejects

conspiracy theory as a way of thinking in general. You may considering reading his book 911

here is a link to an article on ZMag which deals with Dr. Chomsky's thinking about this matter:

http://www.zmag.org/ParEcon/conspiracy.htm

"For Chomsky, the problem is to discern the underlying institutional causes of foreign policy. The modus operandi of the institutional theorist would not make much sense for discovering which individuals conceived and argued for a policy, or who in particular decided to bomb a civilian shelter. To understand why these things happen, however, and under what conditions they will or will not continue to happen, institutional theory is indispensable and the motives, methods, and timetables of the actual perpetrators are beside the point.
...
The conspiracy approach will lead people to believe that either:

(a) They should educate the malefactors to change their motives, or

(b) They should get rid of the malefactors and back new editors, writers, newscasters, or owners.

The institutional approach will note the possible gains from changes in personnel, but explain how limited these changes will be. It will incline people

(a) Toward a campaign of constant pressure to offset the constant institutional pressures for obfuscation, or

(b) Toward the creation of new media free from the institutional pressures of the mainstream."

[pauldp]

33. I agree with this section of that article

<snip>
regarding progressive and left conspiracy theory, while it often uncovers important evidence, left activists ought to indicate its limits and augment it with institutional and contextual analysis.
<snip>

Can't argue with that, however, I don't think one can make such a distinction between conspiracy theory and institutional theory. I think well thought out conspiracy theories take institutional factors into account. In fact it is often people's understanding of the policies of particular institutions that leads them to consider certain facts as being evidence of a conspiracy.

The real reason conspiracy theories are becoming more prevalent now gets glossed over in the article:

<snip>
the desire for retribution helps fuel continuing forays into personal details.
<snip>

In other words: more and more people are getting f*cked over by government institutions and policy, so naturally more and more people are trying to figure out the who why what and where.

[rman]

36. Chomsky says about MIHOP, "they'd have to be insane".

Chomsky also says that much of what the powers that be do, is "perfectly sane within their insane frame of mind".

Also it's not that Chomsky just "doesn't do conspiracy theories"; he is convinced that there was a conspiracy to undermine labor unions - but he thinks that because he has proven it, analyzed and sourced as is all Chomsky's work.

But wrt to 9-11 he has no evidence of conspiracy. This is in large part due to the fact that he is not so much concerned with what individuals do as he is concerned with what institutions do.
He does not so much trace the network of connections between the individuals within those institutions - but that is not to say that the latter is not a valid approach. It is not the only valid approach, but neither is institutional analysis.
Basically Chomsky's approach is not the sort of approach that helps uncover conspiracies. And being the scientist that he is Chomsky is not going to make claims for which he has no evidence, nor does he think there's much of a point to speculate about it.

I can see what he means by

"The conspiracy approach will lead people to believe that either:

(a) They should educate the malefactors to change their motives, or

(b) They should get rid of the malefactors and back new editors, writers, newscasters, or owners."

Many people indeed do think that our problems will be solved if only we can either get the bad people to behave, or by getting rid of them all together. When the thinking is limited to that it's understandable that some people even want to be militant about it.
But there are also those think that the above would at best bring some short-term improvements, and that the only real remedy against these kind of big conspiracies (while realizing that much of what happens is not so much a result of conspiracy but one of self-interest) is to educate people, as to change certain aspect of the (media, political and economic) system.

I think the issue can be summarized with one question: "what would anyone need deception/propaganda for, if not to cover something up?".
Much of what's covered up is ('merely') malicious self-interest - but that does not exclude "secret planning" to serve those malicious self-interests.
It's not that much of a stretch from "hidden agenda" to conspiracy, but before concluding that there actually is conspiracy, it must be proven. And to prove it requires a different approach than that of Chomsky (which obviously is not to say that Chomsky's work is without value).

[Douglas Carpenter]

37. thank you for your response

I suppose I have heard so many right-wing conspiracy theories all my life having grown up around fundamentalist that I am sometimes a little too quick to be dismissive. In fact in regards to the election of 2004 I can now see that there is a lot more of a case there than I had realized earlier.

Since I have spent many years in the Middle East, I am just concerned that some people will latch on to a conspiracy theory without looking at the long history of European and more recently American hegemony in the region and not come to any understanding of the source of the resentment that can turn otherwise kindly people into terrorist sympathizers.

[IndyOp]

43. You said the magic words!!

"...in regards to the election of 2004 I can now see that there is a lot more of a case there than I had realized earlier."

So, more for you! Excellent interview with Mark Crispin Miller:
< http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x409319 >

[radio4progressives]

45. Chomsky also pooh poohs Kennedy's assisination as a conspiracy

he subscribes to the lone gun men, silver bullet cover up theory, concieved, plotted and pulled off by Lee Harvey Oswald and no other.

I love Chomsky for his insight on many many things and especialy regarding U.S. Foreign policies, but he has blind spots in certain areas and on certain subjects that are simply inexplicable to me.

[Douglas Carpenter]

27. here is a link to Noam Chomsky's Free audio/visual library

It has lots of good stuff:

http://www.chomsky.info/audionvideo.htm

here are just some of the audio/visual free download or streaming available:

link: http://www.chomsky.info/audionvideo.htm

· The Biggest Challenge Facing Mankind in 2006. BBC. January 2, 2006.
· On the Iraq Election. Radio Netherlands. December 18, 2005.
· On Imperial Ambitions. The Speakeasy. December 12, 2005.
· On Fake News and Other Societal Woes. NoOne's Listening. December 7, 2005.
· Debate with Alan Dershowitz. John F. Kennedy School of Government. November 29, 2005.
· An Hour with Noam Chomsky. CKUT. November 24, 2005.
· Chomsky's Basic View of the World. G'Day World. October 25, 2005.
· U.S. Foreign Policy and Iraq. Ideas Network. October 19, 2005.
· Washington's Messianic Mission. Hampshire College. October 11, 2005.
· On the Consequences of the Iraq Invasion. The Charles Goyette Show. June 8, 2005.
· Discourses on Iraq and the Middle East. MIT World. May 4, 2005.
· On Social Activism. Washington State University. April 22, 2005.
· Imminent Crises: Responsibilities and Opportunities. Washington State University. April 22, 2005.
· Illegal but Legitimate: a Dubious Doctrine for the Times. University of Washington. April 20, 2005.
· On the New Iraqi Government. KUOW. April 20, 2005.
· On Language and Freedom. University of Bologna. April 1, 2005.
· Forgotten History. Academic and Research Network of Slovenia. March 29, 2005.
· The United States, Israel, and Palestine. University of Leipzig. March 28, 2005.
· Illegal but Legitimate: a Dubious Doctrine for the Times. University of Edinburgh. March 22, 2005.
· The Idea of Universality in Linguistics and Human Rights. Technology and Culture Forum (MIT). March 15, 2005.
· The United States in the Middle East. Lebanese Student Club at MIT. February 15, 2005.
· On the State of Things. Left Business Observer. February 10, 2005.
· The Future of Iraq and U.S. Occupation. International Relations Center. January 26, 2005.
· Life With Noam Chomsky. Radio Islam. January 12, 2005.
· On the Election. Common Sense. November 30, 2004.
· The Life and Times of Noam Chomsky. Democracy Now. November 26, 2004.
· On the US Elections and the Independent Media Movement. Radioactive San Diego. November 23, 2004.
· Illegal but Legitimate: A Dubious Doctrine for the Times. The Earth Institute. November 16, 2004.
· Simple Truths, Hard Problems. Frumkes Lecture. November 15, 2004.
· On Yasser Arafat, Iraq and the Draft. Democracy Now. November 15, 2004.
· On the U.S. Election. Real Show with Bill Maher. November 5, 2004.
· Illegal but Legitimate: A Dubious Doctrine for the Times. Academic Freedom Lecture. October 28, 2004.
· On the State of the Nation, Iraq and the Election. Democracy Now. October 21, 2004.
· Empire-Building: Domestic and International Consequences. Technology and Culture Forum (MIT). October 8, 2004.
· On Reagan's Legacy. Democracy Now. June 7, 2004.
· On Hegemony or Survival. The Majority Report. June 3, 2004.
· On the Ideology of the New World Order. 'Another World is Possible! Network' (Budapest). June, 2004.
· American Hegemony or Human Survival? Your Call Radio. May 27, 2004.
· Preventive Warriors. Democracy Now. May 27, 2004.
· Doctrines and Visions. University of Oxford. May 20, 2004.
· On American Imperialism and British Me Too-ism. BBC News. May 19, 2004.
· On "Democratizing" Iraq and Negroponte's Appointment to Iraq's Embassy. Cambridge Forum. April 29, 2004.
· Iraq and Beyond. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. April 19, 2004.
· On Terrorism and the Occupation of Iraq. Speech Delivered on the International Day of Action. March 20, 2004.
· Haiti's History. Democracy Now. March 17, 2004.
· The Militarization of Science and Space. Technology and Culture Forum (MIT). February 15, 2004.
· On Bush and Empire. Left Business Observer. January 22, 2004.

[mirandapriestly]

30. Quote about democrats

""George Bush would be in severe political trouble if there were an opposition political party in the country. Just about every day, they're shooting themselves in the foot. The striking fact about contemporary American politics is that the Democrats are making almost no gain from this. The only gain that they're getting is that the Republicans are losing support. Now, again, an opposition party would be making hay, but the Democrats are so close in policy to the Republicans that they can't do anything about it. When they try to say something about Iraq, George Bush turns back to them, or Karl Rove turns back to them, and says, "How can you criticize it? You all voted for it." And, yeah, they're basically correct.""

Ugh

[nicknameless]

31. Does anyone else wonder about the level of blackmail that may be

influencing votes, etc.?

The illegal data mining that has been conducted by this administration is pretty much like gill nets were to fishing.
If they get enough dirt on anyone who might oppose them, they could pretty much end up being able to do whatever they wanted.
Who would be courageous enough to oppose them? It could affect both moderate repubs as well as dems.

[ananda]

32. Blackmail or something..

.. is definitely causing Dems to softpedal on Alito, as they have done way too often so far.

If Alito is confirmed, I'll know for sure that our country is headed for a permanent stay in hell.

Sue

[paineinthearse]

34. "...the Democrats are so close in policy to the Republicans..."

"... Now, again, an opposition party would be making hay, but the Democrats are so close in policy to the Republicans that they can't do anything about it..."

Alas, so true.

[paineinthearse]

35. Kerry, in his own words......

In support of the "there is no difference" theory:

"It's Time to Get Over It"
Kerry Tells Anti-War Movement to Move On
By MARK HAND
February 18, 2004

http://www.counterpunch.org/hand02182004.html

On the next page, Kerry informs his reader that it's time we stop questioning U.S. foreign policy intentions:

"As a veteran of both the Vietnam War and the Vietnam protest movement, I say to both conservative and liberal misinterpretations of that war that it's time to get over it and recognize it as an exception, not as a ruling example, of the U.S. military engagements of the twentieth century. If those of us who carried the physical and emotional burdens of that conflict can regain perspective and move on, so can those whose involvement was vicarious or who knew nothing of the war other than ideology and legend."

This last passage is probably the most unsettling part of Kerry's book and one that every advocate of the Anyone-But-Bush 2004 election strategy should read before heading to the polling station in November.

In this one passage, Kerry seeks to justify the millions of people slaughtered by the U.S. military and its surrogates during the twentieth century, suggests that concern about U.S. war crimes in Vietnam is no longer necessary, and dismisses the antiwar movement as the work of know-nothings.

Kerry and his comrades in the progressive internationalist movement are as gung-ho about U.S. military action as their counterparts in the White House. The only noteworthy difference between the two groups battling for power in Washington is that the neocons are willing to pursue their imperial ambitions in full view of the international community, while the progressive internationalists prefer to keep their imperial agenda hidden behind the cloak of multilateralism.

[PATRICK]

39. The dynamism of a mistake

especially when some scoundrel/idiot botches up an idea everyone had been toying with is "let me do it."

It isn't just Vietnam. Those obsessed with making a mistake dismiss the notion of continuing and repeating. Just let ME try. Before even dealing with the future and present problems - of the MISTAKE itself- they plunge into fundamental error and doom.

As for the use of military power it must be last resort and peace methods must be used on a larger scale. The latter are not even in the mindset of those who demand respect for the bullet.

[greiner3]

38. Go Noam! n/t

[Viva_La_Revolution]

41. ...

[noiretextatique]

44. the 2000 (s)election proved beyond a doubt

that democrats have no intention of doing anything meaningful to oppose bush, inc. "for the good of the country"...if that phrase had any meaning, "i strongly disagree" would not have been the official response to the SCOTUS coup.