It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S foreign policy, Iraq and Vietnam...Chomsky style

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 07:45 PM
link   
www.zmag.org...

This interview is from Dec 2004...pretty recent. Here's a sampling....

"I don't see any possibility of Britain and the US allowing a sovereign independent Iraq, that's almost inconceivable. If you think what its policies would be likely to be. But there has been an astonishing failure to achieve what was pretty clearly the original war aim: to make sure that Iraqis don't rule Iraq. If they'd wanted Iraqis to rule Iraq they would not have supported [former Iraqi dictator] Saddam Hussein when he crushed the Shiite rebellion in 1991 and they would not have imposed the kinds of sanctions that made it impossible to send him the same way as other tyrants. But it looks as if that goal might not be attainable, amazingly. I don't think it is obvious any more. The constellation of forces is such that it should have been easy. But I still find it hard to imagine that the US cannot crush the armed resistance, which has limited internal support and almost no external support. It takes real genius to be incapable of crushing such weak opposition. "


More of this at the link above. Chomsky points out some interesting comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam. Including the bombshell idea that the U.S didn't lose Vietnam at all...



There is no friend anywhere - Lao Tse




posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Thanks for posting that VoD. I may not reply to the many threads you have created regarding Chomsky, but that is usually due to Chomsky being so succinct that I have nothing to add and I usually feel silly for posting "thanks for posting that" on message boards.

What I wanted to note was Chomsky's 9/11 conspiracy opinion at the bottom of the article. While I really am suspect that those are his true thoughts on the matter, it benefits him and other public intellectuals to dismiss conspiracy notions to further their ideas in a society which has fully destroyed the credibility of those who publicly proclaim conspiracy theory charges are true. Chomsky damns governments by outright calling their actions illegal so its fairly unecessary for him to add more to the fire he stokes. I feel such conspiracies are a matter of secret policy, not conspiratorial matters, so in a way he is correct in saying 9/11 was no conspiracy.

With the giant number of alphabet group intelligence agencies and the billions/trillions sunk into them, anything can be kept a secret. Its not like the days of yesteryear where perhaps just a scant few people were involved in keeping secrets. Today there are layers upon layers of people keeping secrets and other people keeping checks on them to make sure those secrets are kept.

[edit on 9-3-2005 by Frith]



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Agreed Frith. I also noted how he manuevered around the question...and I can understand why. Things like Pearl Harbor and the Gulf of Tonkin incident should really be reflected on when newer atrocities occur. Actually, there are some historians that believe most wars the U.S has fought in (and probably most other nations as well) were "created by false incidents. There can be no doubt that the sinking of the Lusitania and the illegal arms shipments brought the US into the first world war.
The war in Panama began with a CIA created incident in a west German disco that was later rebuked by the international community.
The American Civil war started at Fort Sumter in South Carolina after Lincoln sent armed freighters down to surround the island. The North also hoisted a 50 foot flag...right in the middle of the Charleston Harbor, one of the hotbeds for Confederate unity. Newspapers were already running a story of an open confederate attack in the northern states before any action had happened. Sadly, it was a public relations stunt to "stir up the fever".
This is also true of the war with Mexico. The US had been doing guerilla runs into Mexican territory for almost a decade. The "alamo" and the resulting "stirred fever" was a sound defeat for the American forces in occupied territory. There are some who believe that reinforcements were deliberately withheld so the defeat could be as "inspiring as possible" to public.

I understand Chomsky's views. In other articles I have seen him write about the influence of "affinity groups" in international affairs. I don't think its a long step from there.

Good reply, Frith...well thought out.


There is no friend anywhere - Lao Tse



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 01:54 PM
link   

as posted by Voice_ofDoom
Actually, there are some historians that believe most wars the U.S has fought in (and probably most other nations as well) were "created by false incidents.


Not no real academic historian. Got names? Sources? Surely your not indicating ihr.org are you?

Those "historians" that you refer to are historical revisionists, and of those real historians and real revisionists seeking to amend/revise but small aspects of historical recording errors, those that you refer to simply wish to write history as they see it, and as such, give those real historians and real historical revisionists bad names.

Think not, simply as a real historian.


But as with anything else, Voice_ofDoom, perception is a matter of self-perspective.




seekerof

[edit on 9-3-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 02:10 PM
link   

It takes real genius to be incapable of crushing such weak opposition.

Classic Chomsky. I love this guy because his words are so subtle and yet if you listen, he's always saying something much larger. He truly is a God of the english language. Great quote.


How is it that the US has been so inept in Iraq? As Chomsky says here, it's nothing short of pure genius.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Not no real academic historian. Got names? Sources? Surely your not indicating ihr.org are you?

Those "historians" that you refer to are historical revisionists, and of those real historians and real revisionists seeking to amend/revise but small aspects of historical recording errors, those that you refer to simply wish to write history as they see it, and as such, give those real historians and real historical revisionists bad names.

Think not, simply as a real historian.


But as with anything else, Voice_ofDoom, perception is a matter of self-perspective.




seekerof

[edit on 9-3-2005 by Seekerof]


ok? I have no idea what you're saying. "Perception is a matter of self-perspective"? Your statement should read, "Perception 'seems' to be a matter of perspective", as our definitions of ideas and history grow and change as we aquire new facts.

However, as fun as this philosophical journey has been...I'm going to have to ask you to keep your comments directed to the topic.

Noam Chomsky's article on Iraq, Vietnam and conspiracy.

There is no enemy anywhere - Lao Tse



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Voice_of Doom
There can be no doubt that the sinking of the Lusitania and the illegal arms shipments brought the US into the first world war.


I know this is off topic, but if you actually look at the primary documents surrounding America's supposed neutrality during the early years of WWI you may come up with a different opinion. The USA didn't declare war until 2 years after the sinking of the Lusitania, for one. Also, one should consider the fact that both Britain and Germany were in violation of America's neutral rights, but due to a clear British bias, Britains violations were largely overlooked.

Take, for instance, this quote by Woodrow Wilson, speaking to Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan: " We are face to face with something they[the British] are going to do , and they are going to do it no matter what representations we make. We cannot convince them or change them, we can only show them... that we mean to hold them to a strict responsibility for every invasion of our rights as neutrals." Did they hold them to a strict responsibility? Nope, not really.

It's clear that there was much leniance toward Britain for violating America's rights as a neutral country, but that courtesy was not extended toward Germany. Accordiing to a speech made by George W. Norris (Republican, Nebraska) on April 4, 1917, "Under international law no belligerent government has the right to place submerged mines in the high seas. Neither has it any right to take human life without notice by the use of submarines... In carrying out these two policies both Great Britain and Germany have sunk American ships and taken American lives without provocation and without notice."


Is there still no doubt that the US joined the war because of the sinking of the Lusitania?
I think they may say those are the reasons, but I don't believe it.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 07:59 PM
link   
I don't mind posting to say "thanks for the link".

The booming Voice_of Doom has been heard only softly of late, but when backed by the linguistic giant Chomsky a Voice_of Doom topic backed up by a Frith interpretation is well worth the look-in.

These are real posters posting on real issues of real importance that America and democratic countries purport to uphold.

Frith, if it's true that billions can be pumped into the alphabet groups to keep things quiet in an ever widening circle of cloak and dagger, surely there are those who will soon be prepared to disclose the truth, when their sense of national and civic duty exceeds the immediate boundaries of a job description that calls on them to maintain a litany of lies? They cannot be bought forever.





posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   
MA....long time, and thank god there's some discourse being brought back to ATS that isn't PG-13 and Disney family friendly!

On to the topic:

There is an interesting, to me, side link off that main Chomsky interview. I will look for it later; but in it, Chomsky draws attention to the TWO facets he claims are the real reason that Vietnam was abandoned militarilly. The first being that the Pentagon was concerned that public uprisings, revolts and protests had reached such a fever pitch that they might not be able to be suppressed. I mean militarilly suppressed....nice thought eh?
The second being that the American military presence had NOT been able to make it safe enough for American business interests. This is EXTREMEMLY important. Chomsky's conclusion was that once the business community pulled out, the military was right behind. So much for the "bringing democracy to the masses" rhetoric.
I think the Iraqi resistance is aware and utilizing this information. This would explain the 4 business contractors tortured and killed as well (and this is important) Bush's immediate and fierce retaliation against Falluja. That this was the demolition of a civilian population and a war crime not-withstanding, it was a powerfully public move to bolster business insecurities.
Consider the amount of mercs in this war. Extrememly high number and being paid by the business community with, I assume, some siphoning of public money. Also, consider the targeted attacks on the infrastructure, pipelines and Iraqi people willing to work for these American and British companies, by the resistance.
Consider also the Bremer Laws, now slightly modified because of international pressure, put into place opening up Iraqi's infrastructure and resources to UNHEARD of foreign business control.

There's more going than what's being reported....but as long as we remember its all for freedom, I think will be ok?


Increase in order equals escalation of chaos - R.A.W

More laws make more criminals - Lao Tse

[edit on 10-3-2005 by Voice_of Doom]




top topics



 
0

log in

join