Why America and Israel Are the Greatest Threats to Peace--Noam Chomsky

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
A friend of mine forwarded this to me today. Personally I really like Noam, he's a great man in my eyes.

A lot of others however have their issues, but he makes a great argument in this piece. I will link some of the article and discuss the specific points I found most interesting. Here is the first part of the article:

Full Article


It is not easy to escape from one's skin, to see the world differently from the way it is presented to us day after day. But it is useful to try. Let's take a few examples.

The war drums are beating ever more loudly over Iran. Imagine the situation to be reversed.

Iran is carrying out a murderous and destructive low-level war against Israel with great-power participation. Its leaders announce that negotiations are going nowhere. Israel refuses to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty and allow inspections, as Iran has done. Israel continues to defy the overwhelming international call for a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the region. Throughout, Iran enjoys the support of its superpower patron.


Now this is a reversal of the current conditions that we see in today's media and world social economic reality. However it's a great piece of contrats and IMO he's right about what would happen.


an engaged in nuclear development programs under the shah, with the strong support of official Washington. The Iranian government is brutal and repressive, as are Washington's allies in the region. The most important ally, Saudi Arabia, is the most extreme Islamic fundamentalist regime, and spends enormous funds spreading its radical Wahhabist doctrines elsewhere. The gulf dictatorships, also favored U.S. allies, have harshly repressed any popular effort to join the Arab Spring.


This is something I"ve discussed for a long time. The fact that all these recent conflicts we have seen are with dictators that had US/European support when they were elevated to their positions, now all of the suddent they are the bane of the world?


We may have democracy in this country, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both."


I wonder, is this true? To me it certainly is. We can't argue that the wealth of the great nation of the US a long with all major 1st world nations, is concentrated among the very few. Oligarchy is more appropriate than the idea of Democracy in these nations.

This is a book that he does mention within this piece that I intend on getting relatively soon. I think analysis of this topic is quite important and this current election cycle has spent far too much time discussion nonsense issues like Abortion and Rape, instead of the hard economic and power play questions that should dominate the news.

So ATS, I ask, what do you think of Noam's positions? Is he right? Clearly some will argue he is just anti-Israel and anti-US and that may be true. But he's got good reasons.

According to others who live in wealthy nations, they too agree that these two powers are the most dangerous and have the power to create conflict at the drop of a dime.

~Tenth




posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Without getting overly philosophical...

The way things are remain this way because people do not want to risk what they have and what could potentially be for their families.

This ignorant outlook on life is what perpetuates our current model of living; in the west anyways.

Allot of people don’t think of the world of the future, so why care how things are going? Well i tend to think of our future generations that will have to deal with mess we create.



I add to the capitalist machine, as we most do, I just count myself among the few that agree somewhat with Chomsky's interpretations and have a concern for my childrens, childrens children. I fear that our generations of convenience has made us far to lazy to enact any real kind of change. I just hope our decendants are not born into a world of slavery.

Just my thoughts
edit on 4-9-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-9-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by MDDoxs
 


Agreed Dox.

I'm rather looking forward to when our generation are completely at the help of things and see how it works out.

I know I have faith in my kids generation than I do ours to be honest. We had it really good for the last few decades and we have forgotten where we came from. My kids at least are starting to feel the damage that we have done, and they don't seem too intent on letting it slide.

Let's hope that they are the ones that will truly change things for the better.

~Tenth



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   

We may have democracy in this country, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both."


We may have rights in this country, or we may democracy, but we cannot have both.

Chomsky is a self described intellectual, but he constantly throws about this drivel about democracy, a word that isn't mentioned in our Declaration of Independence, or our Constitution, or the Constitutions of any of the States.

The constitution guarantees a republican form of government. The founding father understood that rights come first and laws come second, and only to protect those rights and nothing more. They also understood, unlike Chomsky apparently, that democracy is a system where 51% of people can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Thanks again for starting this thread and to have notable thinkers being added to the discussion gives further credance to these issues.

Unfortunately the issues at hand we are discussing are so ingrained into our way of life, it would seem apparent to me that a really tramatic and choatic event is needed to revolutionize the system. God forbid it comes to war, weather it be war between nations to end all wars, or nations against corporations.

I have a real fear that corporations will gain enough power to host their own private armies and that is bad news bears right there



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
So ATS, I ask, what do you think of Noam's positions? Is he right? Clearly some will argue he is just anti-Israel and anti-US and that may be true.


Noam Chomsky tends to ignore that if the USA wasn't dominant, Russia or China would be and they would both be pursuing their own self interests using military power (as China is doing at the moment in Tibet and the South China Sea and Russia did in Georgia) on a much grander scale.

Would he prefer to live in a world with the Russians or Chinese calling the shots and pushing their weight around? I wouldn't.

I suspect that Noam Chomsky should be careful what he wishes for.





edit on 4-9-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Thats a real possibility, but i think the issue does not just bowl down to individual nations. I think in the grander scheme of things we must re-evaluate our way of life.

I know its a deep concept and i see no pleasure in doing so, but at some point quality of life will no longer benefit from persuit of monetary gain.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


That's a good point and you are right about that.

Without the US dominance on the world stage we would see more of other countrie's interests being acted in favor of.

However I would be careful with that argument, it can lead down a path of justifying the lesser of two evils. Which in todays world is pretty common. We should look to change that ideal to " follow the leader, who is actually leading by example."

I find the US does very little of that in it's international affairs. Intentional, or just a product of the current socio-economic time frame we live in is the part we can argue.

~Tenth



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   


ndeed in many polls majorities hold that the region would be more secure if Iran had nuclear weapons to balance the threats they perceive.
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 

Now that is the biggest bit of drivel I have ever seen and I follow US politics! The problems in the ME are compounded by the religious schisms in Islam. Sunni, #te or Wahabi none of them will play nice with each other. Lest we forget in Iran nothing goes on with out the approval of the "supreme guide". Religion mixed into your politics for the ultimate combo. How often has religion & government together done something positive for the world? In the US the "left" demonize the "right" for it's religious views interfering with politics, yet these same people will be ignoring the religious control of Iran's gov't. Religion more often then not does not mean reasonable.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Why America and Israel Are the Greatest Threats to Peace--Noam Chomsky

I don't think there is any one 'greatest threat' to peace.

Corporations. Ideology Religion. Ego. Power grabs. Stupidity. And of course plain ol' evolutionary psychology. Take your pick. Nearly every group/country/entity on the planet has at least one of these going against them. I don't think anyone has a 'corner market' on 'the greatest threat to peace'.

China is a threat to peace ... they kill their own for the supposed 'greater good'.
Kinda looks like Noam 'forgot' that.
Iran is a threat to peace ... they are sponsors of international terrorism.
Kinda looks like Noam 'forgot' that.
Saudi Arabia is a threat to peace ... they 'feed the croc with hopes it'll bite them last'.
Kinda looks like Noam 'forgot' that.

etc etc etc.
Like I said .. I don't think anyone can get the title 'GREATEST' threat to peace.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Flyer i agree with everything you are saying, but the article does not imply that the US and Israel are the only threat ot peace, more that it is currently the greatest concern to peace presently.

During the cold war it was Probably US, Russia and Cuba. The context changes for who are the major contributors to global distruction, but all the other factors remain the same.

Perhaps in the future, if and when another nation obtains weaponized Uranium, could be Iran could not be, those countries may be propelled to the top of list.

Again i agree with you that you can not put the onus for inhibiting peace on just two parties, but they certainly can be the major contributors.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by MDDoxs
the article does not imply that the US and Israel are the only threat ot peace, more that it is currently the greatest concern to peace presently.

I understand that is what it says. And I'm saying .. I disagree. Nearly every entity/group/country on the planet has something about them that is a serious threat to peace. The USA or Israel aren't 'the greatest'. Many many countries or groups (or whatever) serious threats .. in different ways .. but all equally serious. (IMHO)



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Please dont misunderstand. I agree with you here. I just want to suggest that there is a quanitifiable difference between smaller issues and bigger ones. I would say Racism and religious intolerance is more damaging to the peace process then increased numbers of thefts in detroit.

I apologize if i am missing your point, but again we are on the side here



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
I think many people realized that there is a connection between Israel and USA. Somehow, there was no peace in this world and never will be. Human, the most wise, is the greediest creature of the world. We don't kill just for relieving the starvation but sometime for richness. If we human really give precedence to peace, we have to learn to diminish our greedy.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 01:10 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by METACOMET
Chomsky is a self described intellectual, but he constantly throws about this drivel about democracy, a word that isn't mentioned in our Declaration of Independence, or our Constitution, or the Constitutions of any of the States.

The constitution guarantees a republican form of government. The founding father understood that rights come first and laws come second, and only to protect those rights and nothing more. They also understood, unlike Chomsky apparently, that democracy is a system where 51% of people can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic.


You do realise that a republic IS a democracy? A republic is a form of democracy where the people are represented by a member of government, as apposed to direct democracy. So the word democracy did not need to be mentioned.

I agree though that representative democracy is not real democracy.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by hangedman13
 


That is the official story, but it is not the complete story.

The west has been meddling in the ME to keep it unstable ever since oil was discovered in 1908. Starting with France and Britain who ended the Ottoman empire, and created the countries borders. Western influence is to keep the ME from becoming a financial competitor.




posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   
I'll shorten it to the real issue:

Israel is a symbol of nationalism; Chomsky's a post nationalist advocating a anarcho-socialist world government.

Israel is therefore "evil", not because of its actions - and you're a coward liar for not saying up front your real feelings, instead of hiding behind a false concern for Palestinian nationalism - but because it perpetuates an ideology that has been "outgrown" by the intelligentsia of Europe and America.

That's it.

Everything else is political games designed to effect that end.
edit on 22-9-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 01:36 AM
link   
The problem is, when war becomes so profitable that it creates a military industrial complex that thrive off war, there is always going to be the likelihood of armed conflict. Take Afghanistan. America is currently spending 2 billion dollars a week, in a conflict that has lasted longer than both world wars. do we really still need to be there?
Could we have left years ago?

It's obviously a profitable business and people are making a lot of money ( not the soldiers though) . The military and security agencies are making a killing, why would you want to end such a gravy train?



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
I'll shorten it to the real issue:

Israel is a symbol of nationalism; Chomsky's a post nationalist advocating a anarcho-socialist world government.


That is the most contradictory claim I've heard yet.

How can a libertarian socialist support world government? Libertarian socialism (anarcho-socialism) is another term for anarchism. Since when did anarchists support government?


Libertarian Socialism is a term essentially synonymous with the word "Anarchism". Anarchy, strictly meaning "without rulers", leads one to wonder what sort of system would exist in place of one without state or capitalist masters... the answer being a radically democratic society while preserving the maximal amount of individual liberty and freedom possible.

Libertarian Socialism recognizes that the concept of "property" (specifically, the means of production, factories, land used for profit, rented space) is theft and that in a truly libertarian society, the individual would be free of exploitation caused by the concentration of all means of wealth-making into the hands of an elite minority of capitalists.


Libertarian Socialism

If anyone knows the meaning of terms it would be a linguist...



edit on 9/22/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join