Professor Noam Chomsky speaks of U.S. led invasion of Iraq

Given the impossibly high praise lavished upon him - "One of the finest minds of the twentieth century" (The New Yorker); "Arguably the most important intellectual alive" (The New York Times) - it is hard to know what to expect when Noam Chomsky enters the room, a beam of pure white light perhaps, or at least the regal swish of academic royalty. Or the whiff of sulphur. He has also been called a man with a "deep contempt for the truth" (The Anti-Chomsky Reader) and an appeaser of Islamic fascism (Christopher Hitchens), among some of the milder criticism.

As has often been remarked, Professor Chomsky is modesty personified, quietly spoken and generous with his time, diligently answering the thousands of e-mails sent to him every week, a laborious task that eats up seven hours a day; usually signing off simply with "Noam". "He recognises no hierarchies," says Chomsky's long-time assistant, Bev Stohl. "He is what people who love him say he is, a man who cares deeply for others."

Of all that has been said about him, Bono's quip "rebel without a pause" fits as well as anything. At 76, and despite a recent struggle with cancer, Chomsky seems to have increased his prodigious output. Bookshelves across the world groan with his political writings, his voice can be heard in radio interviews every week and apart from e-mailing and extensive blogging he gives hundreds of speeches in dozens of cities every year.

"This is how it has been since 9/11," he says. "That had a complex effect on the US which I don't think is appreciated abroad. The picture is that it turned everyone into flag-waving maniacs, and that is just nonsense. It opened people's minds and made a lot of people think, 'I'd better figure out what our role is and why these things are happening'."

Still, he says, he is amazed at how the invasion of Iraq has turned out in what he believes "should have been one of the easier military occupations in history". He says: "I thought the war itself would be over in two days and that the occupation would immediately succeed. It was known to be the weakest country in the region. The US never would have invaded otherwise. The sanctions had killed hundreds of thousands and compelled the people to rely on Saddam for survival, otherwise they probably would have overthrown him.

"The country is obviously going to fall apart as soon as you push it. And any resistance is going to have no outside support, a trickle but nothing significant. But, in fact, it is proving harder than the German occupation of Europe in the Second World War. The Nazis didn't have this much trouble in Europe. But somehow the US has managed to turn it into an unbelievable catastrophe. And it is partly because of the way they are treating people. They have been treating people in such a way that engenders resistance and hatred and fear."

read more at
source: news.independant.co.uk

too bad there arent more people like professor chomsky around.
at least one guy that is AWAKE,
and not sleeping.


[edit on 24-1-2005 by Souljah]

I think the root is that a large portion of our troops went there and were told to basically treat everyone as a terrorist.

When we go into a house there for random searches, we automatically treat the people there as temporary prisoners. Guns are pointed directly at them till they have been frisked and are seated.

We are making more "terrorists" there by creating terror in them.

Originally posted by Xerrog
We are making more "terrorists" there by creating terror in them.

exactly!
and this "war against terror" is basicly creating more terrorists instead of getting rid of them.


[edit on 24-1-2005 by Souljah]

A fact that no one really ever addresses, is that we never should have been there in the first place. We still had a mission in Afghanistan to finish. We never caught/captured/killed OBL. This is where we should have succeeded before any other action was taken. Bush did a halfarsed job with Afghanistan, and now he is doing a fourth of an arsed job in Iraq. Interesting little fact. We wouldnt even have had an excuse to stand on for going to Iraq if we had caught OBL in Afghanistan. It should be coming clear what the true motivations of the Bush cabal really are.

"Avram Noam Chomsky (born December 7, 1928) is an Institute Professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and creator of the Chomsky hierarchy, a classification of formal languages. His works in generative linguistics contributed significantly to the decline of behaviorism and led to the advancement of the cognitive sciences. Outside of his linguistic work, Chomsky is also widely known for his radical left-wing political views and his criticism of the foreign policy of U.S. governments. Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian socialist and a supporter of anarcho-syndicalism."

"It was during this time that Chomsky became more publicly engaged in politics: from around 1964, he became one of the leading opponents of the Vietnam War. Since that time, Chomsky has become well known for his political views, speaking on politics all over the world, and writing numerous books. His far-reaching criticism of US foreign policy and the legitimacy of US power has made him an extremely controversial figure. He has a devoted following among the radical left, but he has also come under increasing criticism from liberals as well as from the right, particularly because of his response to the September 11, 2001 attacks.

In 1979, Paul Robinson wrote in the New York Times Book Review that "Judged in terms of the power, range, novelty and influence of his thought, Noam Chomsky is arguably the most important intellectual alive today." (However, Robinson goes on to describe Chomsky's political writings as "maddeningly simple-minded.")"



Chomsky, is a typical arrogant ultra-left wing academic with no knowledge of the real world outside of his little world of left wing worshipers. He is of the "old" school of academic "socialist" still trying to enforce there "ideas" and agenda on the world. He's not even that good of a linguist much less a authority on anything rational................

Imagine President Noam Chomsky?

Ok DrHoracid, what do you say you list some of your credentials now so we can decide for ourselves why it is that Noam is, as you put it, "not even that good of a linguist much less a authority on anything rational."

He is after all, a long time "Professor of linguistics" as well as being a very well traveled and acomplished man who has seen more than 75 years of history personally.

What have you got in comparison that makes your "Character Evaluation(Assassination)" of him and his ideas so credible??

[edit on 24-1-2005 by mOjOm]

Originally posted by mOjOm
Ok DrHoracid, what do you say you list some of your credentials now so we can decide for ourselves why it is that Noam is, as you put it, "not even that good of a linguist much less a authority on anything rational."

He is after all, a long time "Professor of linguistics" as well as being a very well traveled and acomplished man who has seen more than 75 years of history personally.

What have you got in comparison that makes your "Character Evaluation(Assassination)" of him and his ideas so credible??

[edit on 24-1-2005 by mOjOm]

Try this source............it's "official" encyclopedia data on this idiot..........
The same source I quoted earlier.................

en.wikipedia.org...

Gee is that a tryanical dictator he's talking to?

maybe "Castro"?

Well first of all, even after two posts you still have not posted anything that I asked for, namely "YOUR" credentials proving why your opinion is so well informed as opposed to 'ol Noam here.

Second, I don't think your post to wikipedia helped your argument like you thought it would. Not in my case anyway. It certainly reinforced the idea in my mind that "You and I" are probably not going to agree on most issues, most likely for similar reasons why You and Noam also would not agree.

Finally, I don't find Naom talking to Castro as a real scary thing. Especially not in the setting that they are in. It's not as if they're huddled over a map of the World with strategic little plastic War Pieces scattered around. You know, some people find that "Talking" and "Communication" may actually be a more productive method for developing relationships with other People, Governments, etc. Just blowing everyone up all the time isn't always the best method when it comes to "Foreign Relations" ya know.

I guess with your logic this guy should be our next target??
Pope prepares to sit down with Castro


edition.cnn.com/WORLD/ 9801/21/cuba.pope.update

It is the popes JOB to make peace. So are you nominating Noam for the next POPE? It would seem you hold his rantings in very high esteme. Again he is a VERY small academic surrounded by worshipers of the leftist "elite".

As to my credentials, I have two PhD’s, and have been published many, many times in my area of expertise. One does not need credentials to speak to the lunacy of the left, it becomes self evident.

Hey Doc, I seem to remember a meeting that occoured between Bush senior and Saddam. There was even video of them shaking hands.

Originally posted by DrHoracid
It would seem you hold his rantings in very high esteme. Again he is a VERY small academic surrounded by worshipers of the leftist "elite".

I don't find what he has to say too "Unbelievable" or "Unthinkable", for lack of a better word. I certainly don't find him or what he has to say any more dangerous than the actual "Things, People & Events" of which he is actually speaking about either. I also don't blame him or automatically group him in the same company of those who choose for themselves to "worship" him.

Being that he has critics from just about every side shows me just how "Non-Partisan" he actually is. He's a Jew and Zionist who has been called an Anti-Semite for his opinions of Isreal and admits that his views today are actually anti-Zionist by today's standards. Calling himself a "Conservative" he's most well known and in the company of the "Left". :puzz: Just a couple examples of how he is probably more truthfully "Balanced" between the Extremes than anyone else, especially those who speak out against him. No matter what side you're on 'ol Noam is going to look like your enemy simply cause he's more in the middle.

In either case, whether you agree or not it doesn't matter. He has just as much of a reason to speak out about how he feels as you or I or anyone else. I'm not saying he's some super genius and always right either.

I am wondering how and why I should listen to you and your claim that he is some crazy, small minded, idiot who should shunned for his opinion and thought of as a master of lies and lunacy. Instead of pointing out all the negatives about him, how about providing some kind of counter argument to his claims. If he is wrong and your right, prove it in the same way he is. Convince me that your ideas are better, not just that his are bad. What good is that supposed to do anyway. Let's say his are bad, big deal, I have plenty of bad ideas now, that's the problem. Where are all your Great Ideas that are supposed to help the situation??

DrHoracid:

As to my credentials, I have two PhD’s, and have been published many, many times in my area of expertise. One does not need credentials to speak to the lunacy of the left, it becomes self evident.

PhD's don't mean crap in this particular case. What are your doctorates in? If you have a PhD in Forensic Medicine, your credentials are probably not going to measure up too much with Professor Chomsky.

The Wikipedia link you referenced does more to undermine your point than it does to support it. Chomsky has been around for decades, he's a well-educated, well-written intellectual whom many people around the world read. From the highest levels of governments to the halls of your local highschool.


For me the best example of his impact is summed up in this quote from your link:

According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, between 1980 and 1992 Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any living scholar, and the eighth most cited source overall.

I don't agree with every single thing the man says, but he knows what he speaks of, and he's not afraid to voice unpopular opinions.

It's men like Chomsky who bring about change in soceity, for better or for worse. In his case, I think it's for the better.


jako

Originally posted by mOjOm
I am wondering how and why I should listen to you and your claim that he is some crazy, small minded, idiot who should shunned for his opinion and thought of as a master of lies and lunacy. Instead of pointing out all the negatives about him, how about providing some kind of counter argument to his claims. If he is wrong and your right, prove it in the same way he is. Convince me that your ideas are better, not just that his are bad. What good is that supposed to do anyway. Let's say his are bad, big deal, I have plenty of bad ideas now, that's the problem. Where are all your Great Ideas that are supposed to help the situation??

Why should you "listen" to anyone? Read, research and form YOUR own opinion. My personal opinon of this guy is he is old school "socialist" period. He got left behind in the 80's when America woke up and realized that liberalism was and is a big lie. Form your own opinon.........

Originally posted by Jakomo
DrHoracid:

As to my credentials, I have two PhD’s, and have been published many, many times in my area of expertise. One does not need credentials to speak to the lunacy of the left, it becomes self evident.

PhD's don't mean crap in this particular case. What are your doctorates in? If you have a PhD in Forensic Medicine, your credentials are probably not going to measure up too much with Professor Chomsky.

One of my doctorates is in Psychology. I have studied Chomsky's rantings. They are ONE mans opinion, that is all.

The liberal left media has "idolized" this "genius" for decades because of where he teaches. He is the most quoted because the media is lazy and they identify with his lunacy. Again credentials are irrelevant. For your own opinion based on your own research, don't follow anyone's ideology "just because".

Dr Horacid:

The liberal left media has "idolized" this "genius" for decades because of where he teaches. He is the most quoted because the media is lazy and they identify with his lunacy.

? They give him more credence because he is a professor at MIT? How many other MIT porfs are world-reknowned (and not a tech teacher)?

It's my opinion that he is quoted most often because he is RELEVANT, not because the entire world media is "lazy" and they identify with his lunacy.

For a person with a PhD in Psychology you sure throw around words like "lunatic" alot.

As to my credentials, I have two PhD’s, and have been published many, many times in my area of expertise. One does not need credentials to speak to the lunacy of the left, it becomes self evident.

Expertise? Mass murder and persecution?

One of my doctorates is in Psychology.

Just don't ever put yourself in the chair. Doubt you could pay the bill.

Why is everyone fighting about one persons opinions. The amount of schooling one has means little to nothing in world of perception or truth.

There have been brilliant minds who have had little to no education. I personally choose to educate myself as I need no further education in my current field.

Paper is just that, meaningless outside of the workplace.

Originally posted by DrHoracid

Try this source............it's "official" encyclopedia data on this idiot..........
The same source I quoted earlier.................

en.wikipedia.org...

I tried your "official encyclopedia data" from wikipedia. At the top of the page it warns, "The neutrality of this article is disputed." Usually, earning a Ph.D involves a lot of research.
I'm not calling you a liar, I just think you're full of it.

P.S.-Chomsky for president.