Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Russia ''invades'' Georgia
Options
Comments
-
ok youve drilled opiate figures into me for 40 odd posts now; what's your conclusion again?
edit: no wait, I just re-read those posts, and all you did was quote figures... so what's your point? all youve said is opiate production is up since america went into afghanistan. thats like saying rainfall has gone up since america invaded afghanistan if you dont back it up with a conclusion. (btw, does this mean the invasion of afghanistan is a catalyst for global warming? (dont answer that))
ps. its spelled Beacon.
actually I don't. Like most teenagers I'm sure I was out trying to get drunk or worrying about losing my virginity to a busty young one (mmph) when all that was going on. Then I went into college and lost 2 years of television. I do remember images of blue-inked fingers though.What sources are required Overheal?
I remember Ayatollah Sistani and mass protests for elections.
Don't you remember that guy Paul Bremer's general mis-management and delaying elections?
But again what does any of that have to do with South Ossettia?0 -
Not centuries ,7 years. I've no "boggle" with you, I just think your all one sided.
America is not a "beakon of light" anymore thats my point and the russias aren't the "bad guys either".The only reason their bad is because the likes of sky news says there bad ok.
Genuine thanks for the history lesson as I have not researched much into that area.
You seem to think I'm a faithful follower of America the great bastion of freedom and religion. My views on America as on all things are far from simple. Never at any stage in it's history was America a "beacon of light" except for in the minds of dreamers, nor was any other country for that matter. As I pointed America made a mistake dropping the bomb on Japan, they could have done many things differently before using the bomb as a last resort. America was definitely wrong in it's support of the corrupt South Vietnamese regime, it was also wrong in it's support for Saddam in the Iran/Iraq war and many other despicable regimes it's propped up through the years.
Whether their support for the Mujahideen against the Soviets was a good thing is debatable as the red army was brutal in it's treatment of Afghan civilians. In the current conflict stabilising the country has to take priority over combating the production of opium, for it would not be possible to even try to combat the opium trade if stability does not exist. I also don't agree with your argument that the Taliban were a legitimate force to be used in combating the trade as the tactics they used were so inhumane and brutal.
Getting back on topic as I have already stated Russia was wrong to arm the separatists who then attacked Georgian forces. Georgia was wrong to react and break the ceasefire, Russia was justified in sending reinforcements to the region to push back the Georgians. But they were not justified in attacking Georgia proper nor occupying Georgian territory. The biggest idiot in this whole mess has to be Saakashvili who is more than likely to be forced out of power in the not too distant future.
I also agree with Judgement Day in his assertion that the US and the west in general missed a golden opportunity to embrace Russia and bring it into international organisations as an equal partner.
P.s in case your wondering where boggle comes from. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbSXrH_CPKg0 -
It seems from the last news I heard that one of Russia's primary objectives in the invasion was to cripple the Georgian infrastructure, and render their pipeline useless. They never intended to take over the country.0
-
Overheal
Your biased because your american, thats understanable.
I just re-read your posts and I've come to the conclusion your an idiot.I can't join the dots for you overheal common sense is supposed to kick in and do that for you.edit: no wait, I just re-read those posts, and all you did was quote figures
I said your country murdered and maimed close to 1 million people in 7 years what part of that don't you understand?
Here's something you might understand ....
Alot of the points you make I agree with sink.
I used to always look up to america ,I'm sure many people still do.The last 7 or so years it's turned into an emperialistic war machine invading countries at will.
That video was comical thanks
0 -
I'm not refuting the death toll I'm asking what the hell Opium production has to do with anything in this thread? So the US has let the trade go unchecked (thanks sink)? They have other priorities. But yes, it does sound criminal from a country with a War on Drugs not to go after Opium. But the boots in Afghanistan aren't there with the mandate to hunt down the drug trade.0
-
Advertisement
-
Conceited banned.
Overheal, if you have a problem with a post, report the post, don't reply to it, it just inflames the matter.
You get a warning this time, next time you get infracted.0 -
I said your country murdered and maimed close to 1 million people in 7 years what part of that don't you understand?
Despite the fact that those figures are in dispute, what does it matter if they killed 20 million people in six minutes flat? It's got as much to do with the inherent merits or otherwise of the Taliban government in Afghanistan as the price of apples. In fact, probably less, depending on what the Taliban's position was on apples and the agrarian sector in general.
And just how we got there from discussing Ossetia is beyond me.
NTM0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »Despite the fact that those figures are in dispute, what does it matter if they killed 20 million people in six minutes flat? It's got as much to do with the inherent merits or otherwise of the Taliban government in Afghanistan as the price of apples. In fact, probably less, depending on what the Taliban's position was on apples and the agrarian sector in general.
And just how we got there from discussing Ossetia is beyond me.
NTM
Do you really expect a 27 page internet thread to be on topic by this stage? :P0 -
besides the fact that Chomsky is an anarchist and a social libertarian, that interview cites no sources: its all opinion.
besides the fact what?? What has that got do with it? Are you disputing it? Pick up any of Chomsky's books and they are full of references - I think for this interview you will find the references in 'Failed States'. He doesnt repeat references in Interviews because he is going over ground already covered in his books .. which are referenced.0 -
"The reason was what the President's liberal press calls his 'Messianic Mission' to bring democracy to Iraq and immediately everyone had to leap on the democratisation bandwagon and it began to be described as the most noble war in history and so on and so forth. Well, anyone with a particle of sense would know that you can't take that seriously and, in fact, if you look at the events that followed, it just demonstrated that. The US tried, in every possible way, to prevent elections in Iraq. They offered effort after effort to evade the danger of elections. Finally, they were compelled to accept elections by mass non-violent resistance, for which the Ayatollah Sistani [moderate Shi'ite leader] was a kind of a symbol. Mass outpourings of people demanding elections. Finally, Bush and Blair had to agree to elections."
What this quote shows is one of two things - either George Bush is smarter than Noam Chomsky, or Noam Chomsky is dumber than George Bush.
Democracy is not holding elections. Zimbabwe holds elections. That doesnt make Mugabes regime a democracy.
The Coalition clearly recognised that Iraq did not have the support in place for a successful democracy - massive ethnic tension, vaccum of authority and a power carve up, rising violence, no functional or accountable system of law and order or local democracy. Introducing elections into that enviroment? Electoral competition based on appeals to Iraqis as Shias, Sunnis and Kurds? For a hailed genius Chomsky is a bit of a moron.
Elections in Iraq were held long before Iraq was structurally ready to uphold the protection of minorities and losers of elections that makes democracy work. Without them, democracy is 3 wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. In the tense ethnically defined post-Saddam power grab this was like throwing petrol on the fire, as the losers werent just looking at 4 years of being ruled by the guy they didnt vote for - they were fighting for the power of their community in post war Iraq, an with so many guns lying around, no trust in the state institutions, and with the losers unwilling to accept the results.....well, do the maths.
The Coalition were 100% right to attempt to delay elections until the foundations of democracy were in place.
Conceited1999
Bumper opium crop of 4,600 tons in Afghanistan. UN Drug Control Program estimates around 75% of world's heroin production is of Afghan origin.
2008
Bumper opium crop of 9,000 tons in Afghanistan.
A. Point. Do. You. Have. One?
Opium production above Taliban levels. So? Conclusion?I just re-read your posts and I've come to the conclusion your an idiot.
And thats the second time youve gone down the personal attack route in this very thread. Someone didnt read the board charter...
OverhealIt seems from the last news I heard that one of Russia's primary objectives in the invasion was to cripple the Georgian infrastructure, and render their pipeline useless. They never intended to take over the country.
It would seem so, the Georgians were complaining about provocation from the South Ossetians attacking their bordering troops - with the Georgian reaction leading to the Russian invasion of Georgia proper.
More than likely the South Ossetians wouldnt do anything to anger Russia, so such attacks on Georgian troops were designed to suck the Georgians into a trap. Which they fell into head first.
Now the Russians will do everything possible to do as much harm to Georgias territorial integrity, infrastructure, political process with the aim of preventing the Georgian pipeline. They essentially have a free hand, as they have troops to roam Georgia at will pillaging - the Georgians cant stop them, and NATO absolutely does not want to get drawn into a fight with Russia over Georgia. Russia has absolutely no reason to leave, and if anything the sight of Putin and Medev showing up NATO as powerless will do wonders for cementing their approval ratings in Russia. Its been a fantastic move by them - short, sharp total victory, with potentially months and years of winding up NATO.0 -
Advertisement
-
So I'm a bit confused by this.
The South Ossetians and Abkhazian's want independence.
Why shouldn't they get it?
They have a far better case than say, Tibet, where the calls for independence are coming from an exiled minority (even then the Dalai Lama himself only wants greater autonomy, not independence).
Yet the public opinion seems to be "Freedom for Tibet" and "get those evil russians out of Georgia".0 -
Because Russia was very uneasy as they have their own Chechnya vying for independence. Now they can paddle the excuse, 'to protect those regions of Georgia, they must get independence from Georgia with Russian help'.
Russians are not invited into Georgia by the Georgian govt unlike Americans who have been invited into Iraq/Afghanistan post those wars whether anyone here likes it or not.
The Russians have no right to be in Georgia, they have been exposed as constant liars by still having troops in Poti which lies miles outside their 'buffer zone'.0 -
What this quote shows is one of two things - either George Bush is smarter than Noam Chomsky, or Noam Chomsky is dumber than George Bush.
lol .. and you forgot to add that you are smarter than Chomsky :rolleyes:Sand wrote:Democracy is not holding elections. Zimbabwe holds elections. That doesnt make Mugabes regime a democracy.
Where did he say that democracy is holding elections?Sand wrote:The Coalition clearly recognised that Iraq did not have the support in place for a successful democracy - massive ethnic tension, vaccum of authority and a power carve up, rising violence, no functional or accountable system of law and order or local democracy. Introducing elections into that enviroment? Electoral competition based on appeals to Iraqis as Shias, Sunnis and Kurds? For a hailed genius Chomsky is a bit of a moron.
Or maybe you just got it wrong? It takes quite an ego to call someone like Chomsky a moron based on small excerpt from an interview.
Do you really believe that the reason the coalition forces did not want to have free and open elections was because they were concerned about quality of life in Iraq .. yeah because Iraq is just like a holiday paradise since they moved in looking from WMD's :rolleyes:
"Now suppose that Iraq were to become sovereign and democratic, what would happen? Just think of the policies they would undertake. I mean, we can run through them, it would be a nightmare for the US."
Think about that quote for a second .. and it might become apparent what Chomsky is trying to tell you
Or have a look here and have it explained for youSand wrote:Elections in Iraq were held long before Iraq was structurally ready to uphold the protection of minorities and losers of elections that makes democracy work. Without them, democracy is 3 wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. In the tense ethnically defined post-Saddam power grab this was like throwing petrol on the fire, as the losers werent just looking at 4 years of being ruled by the guy they didnt vote for - they were fighting for the power of their community in post war Iraq, an with so many guns lying around, no trust in the state institutions, and with the losers unwilling to accept the results.....well, do the maths.
The Coalition were 100% right to attempt to delay elections until the foundations of democracy were in place.
lol at this waffle. The foundations of democracy? And they are?? And they are being implented how?? And who is implementing them??
The US wants a Pro West puppet government in Iraq that they can control. They are no more interested in democracy than Stalin or Hitler were.0 -
lol at this waffle. The foundations of democracy? And they are?? And they are being implented how?? And who is implementing them??
There is no universal definition of democracy but there are two main principles all definitions adhere to.- All citizens must have equal access to power.
- All citizens are afforded equal rights and freedoms.
The US wants a Pro West puppet government in Iraq that they can control. They are no more interested in democracy than Stalin or Hitler were.
Ah more evidence of Godwin's law in action. You know first time I heard of the law I thought it was a joke now I am convinced it's a reality.0 -
There is no universal definition of democracy but there are two main principles all definitions adhere to.
- All citizens must have equal access to power.
- All citizens are afforded equal rights and freedoms.
And the point being? Maybe you missed the part where it was stated that free and open elections in Iraq would result in a scenario that would totally undermine US objectives in Iraq and the middle east. The suggestion that coalition or US forces were holding back on elections because they were trying to establish the foundations for democracy is laughable and moronic in the extreme.sink wrote:Ah more evidence of Godwin's law in action. You know first time I heard of the law I thought it was a joke now I am convinced it's a reality.
Sounds like an interesting project :rolleyes:0 -
"In Soviet Russia: Waffle eats you."Playboy wrote:The US wants a Pro West puppet government in Iraq that they can control.
Well I know I wouldn't spend billions of dollars installing my new worst enemy.. that would just be silly.
But this is about Georgia. We know Russia is not interested in occupying Georgia. It wants South Ossetia and Abkhazia and they won't take no for an answer, clearly. As they are not interested in installing a puppet government as your argument suggests america is trying to do in Iraq: then I really don't see the parallel.So I'm a bit confused by this.
The South Ossetians and Abkhazian's want independence.
Why shouldn't they get it?
Well like all things I'm sure its a grey area.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian%E2%80%93Abkhazian_conflict
I'm just opening this article now so I havent read it yet. But its a big deep can of worms from the opening paragraph. According to the article Abkhazia has demanded over $18 billion in damages from Georgie in the past that weren't delivered. I wonder if Russia didn't cripple the infrastructure to deliver Abkhazia's payback?0 -
And the point being? Maybe you missed the part where it was stated that free and open elections in Iraq would result in a scenario that would totally undermine US objectives in Iraq and the middle east. The suggestion that coalition or US forces were holding back on elections because they were trying to establish the foundations for democracy is laughable and moronic in the extreme.
It's hard enough to know what the US objectives are in the ME for certain. With incomplete knowledge at the base of your argument I don't see how you can jump to conclusions 10 steps down the line. There is a possibility you are right but I'm sceptical.
What would be best for the US economy is not democracy but stability. Instability pushes up the oil price which damages the US economy. History has shown that stable mature democracies are the most stable form of government around. So from the US perspective this would be the ideal not for moral reasons but for purely economic reasons.
I'm not sure what Chomsky is getting at when he says Iraqi democracy would be bad for the US. It really depends on what level of democracy he's talking about. If it is a dysfunctional democracy where the tyranny of the majority rules then I completely agree with him.
The largest sect (in Iraq's case the Shia) would take control and force their will upon the minority (the Sunnis and Kurds). That would create a backlash against the government and extremist would most likely take up an armed rebellion. This would force the government to take a hard line against the rebels opening the door for extremists to enter the government most likely Shia islamic fundamentalists such and Muqtada al-Sadr and the Mahdi army. Of course this would be bad for the US as they are no friend of the west.
Now if the US managed to stabilise the country and bring enough peace whereby the principles of democracy where allowed to gain a foothold (equal rights & equal access to power) no single sect would have enough power to force their will on others. The moderates within each sect combined would outnumber each separate group of extremist within each sect. The moderates would then be able to come together to form a government. As this government would have to represent the views of each of the three main sects there would be no room for extremist views harmful to America. This form of government would be the ideal for both America and Iraq. It would be more stable than any kind of hegemony or dictatorship and would be moderate and able to work with the Americans.
I don't for one second underestimate the difficulty in attaining a functioning democracy. It is one of the main reasons I have always been against the war as it is unlikely to succeed. But this does not mean that the US administration does not believe it can accomplish it and trying to postpone the election would be part of their overall strategy do so.
So if the American administration believes as I do that accomplishing the goal of a functioning Iraqi democracy is nigh on impossible then your scenario is most likely to be correct and they are just trying to install a friendly puppet regime. But if they don't share my view and are optimistic enough (and naive enough) to believe they can set up a functioning democracy then the scenario I outlined is most likely to be correct.
The administration has already shown time and time again how naive it is. From their massive underestimation of troop numbers require to stabilise the country after the collapse of the bath party to their complete and utter lack of post war planning prior to the conflict which compounded the insurgency against them. I think since they got so much wrong already there is potential they also grossly underestimated the difficulty in setting up a functioning stable democracy.0 -
Chomsky's own words are far better than my own
On the US motives for staying in Iraq, I can only repeat what I've been saying for years. A sovereign Iraq, partially democratic, could well be a disaster for US planners. With a Shia majority, it is likely to continue improving relations with Iran. There is a Shia population right across the border in Saudi Arabia, bitterly oppressed by the US-backed tyranny. Any step towards sovereignty in Iraq encourages activism there for human rights and a degree of autonomy - and that happens to be where most of Saudi oil is.
Sovereignty in Iraq might well lead to a loose Shia alliance controlling most of the world's petroleum resources and independent of the US, undermining a primary goal of US foreign policy since it became the world-dominant power after the Second World War. Worse yet, though the US can intimidate Europe, it cannot intimidate China, which blithely goes its own way, even in Saudi Arabia, the jewel in the crown - the primary reason why China is considered a leading threat. An independent energy bloc in the Gulf area is likely to link up with the China-based Asian Energy Security Grid and Shanghai Cooperation Council, with Russia (which has its own huge resources) as an integral part, and with the Central Asian states (already members), possibly India. Iran is already associated with them, and a Shia-dominated bloc in the Arab states might well go along. All of that would be a nightmare for US planners and their Western allies.
There are, then, very powerful reasons why the US and UK are likely to try in every possible way to maintain effective control over Iraq. The US is not constructing a palatial embassy, by far the largest in the world and virtually a separate city within Baghdad, and pouring money into military bases, with the intention of leaving Iraq to Iraqis. All of this is quite separate from the expectations that matters can be arranged so that US corporations profit from the vast riches of Iraq.
These topics, though high on the agenda of planners, are not within the realm of discussion, as can easily be determined. That is only to be expected. These considerations violate the fundamental doctrine that state power has noble objectives, and while it may make terrible blunders, it can have no crass motives and is not influenced by domestic concentrations of private power. Any questioning of these Higher Truths is either ignored or bitterly denounced, also for good reasons: allowing them to be discussed could undermine power and privilege.
There is another issue: even the most dedicated scholar/advocates of " democracy promotion" recognise that there is a "strong line of continuity" in US efforts to promote democracy going back as far as you like and reaching the present: democracy is supported if and only if it conforms to strategic and economic objectives. For example, supporting the brutal punishment of people who committed the crime of voting "the wrong way" in a free election, as in Palestine right now, with pretexts that would inspire ridicule in a free society. As for democracy in the US, élite opinion has generally considered it a dangerous threat which must be resisted. But some Iraqis agreed with Bush's mission to bring democracy to the world: 1 per cent in a poll in Baghdad just as the noble vision was declared in Washington.
Taken from here0 -
-
Honestly, I give very little credence to Mr Chomsky. The man is a genius when it comes to etymology and linguistics, but that qualifies him to speak on international politics about as well as John Williams, a genius in the world of music. Does make him a good orator though. He makes no bones about his political leanings. Nothing wrong with that, but it does allow one to place his comments in perspective. He has an opinion and a standpoint, just like everyone else in the world. He may share your opinion, so it's fine to quote him, but he's not the final word on the subject.
Frankly, I think I know more about what the Shia in Iraq think of Iran than he does. At least I've asked a bunch of them. Combined with my friends and colleagues who have also asked a bunch of them, I've got what I think is a fair assessment. What's his sample size?
NTM0 -
Advertisement
-
Chomsky's own words are far better than my own
He is speculating what would happen in a flawed democracy and assumes that the US believes that this is all it can accomplish. The point I argued in my last post is that the US administration believes it can accomplish anything including a fully functioning democracy in which I outlined how this would not be damaging to US interests. I'm not disregarding what he asserts I'm just sceptical of the basis upon which he builds his assertion. The basis that the current administration is not as naive and optimistic as it outwardly appears.
I don't follow Noam Chomsky's political views but I always find him thought provoking and he helps me gain a new perspective on my own view of the world.0 -
Perhaps he basis his assertion upon past examples of American duplicity where it talked about building a fuctioning demoracy. As we all know America has bypassed demoracy in the past when it suited their interests. We also know they have given succour to tyrants who were in line with their economic objectives. With this in mind I wonder why some people are so quick to give America the benefit of the doubt given their chequered past. I mean i doubt they'd trust the assurance of a known serial gambler if he/she asked them for a loan. Of course the counter is not everything a dishonest man says is a lie but you should at least be skeptical of what he says. Also, Chomsky might base some of his views on the fact the leaders of the BADR brigade(now known as the BADR ORGANISATION), which is closely linked to the scii - who hold senior positions in the current Iraqi goverment, all spent time exiled in Iran while Saddam was in power, and forged closed links with the Iranian leadership during this period. Leaders of both the Madhi army and the Badr Organisation have also stated their members would fight alongside the Iranian if they are attacked. The Badr Organization are also believed to have assassinated Iraqi intelligence officers on behalf of Iran
While the current adminstration are in power i don't see a fully fuctioning democracy emerging anytime soon. Afterall, its made of people who engaged in 'death march' campaigns against Iraqis whom they deem to be immoral: i.e. unchaste women, shopkeepers that sell alcohol or western consumer goods or people believed to be engaging in homosexuality or cross-dressing.0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »Honestly, I give very little credence to Mr Chomsky. The man is a genius when it comes to etymology and linguistics, but that qualifies him to speak on international politics about as well as John Williams, a genius in the world of music. Does make him a good orator though. He makes no bones about his political leanings. Nothing wrong with that, but it does allow one to place his comments in perspective. He has an opinion and a standpoint, just like everyone else in the world. He may share your opinion, so it's fine to quote him, but he's not the final word on the subject.
Frankly, I think I know more about what the Shia in Iraq think of Iran than he does. At least I've asked a bunch of them. Combined with my friends and colleagues who have also asked a bunch of them, I've got what I think is a fair assessment. What's his sample size?
NTM
Exactly how are you qualified to speak about international politics?
Chomsky gets coverage because of his academic standing, however one could argue that because of his political leanings, his views are scrutinized far more than the average blogger.
While I respect your opinion, your casual dismissal of a source based on...ermm actually, from your post, based on a whim and because it doesn't suit your point of view, doesn't sit well with me.
Like all debating here, if you intend to discredit a source, do so with a counter point, not with a casual dismissal.
You're around long enough to know how things work in this forum. Not that I wish to pick on you, but I don't think it would be your intention for the forum to descend into the debating style where wanton dismissal is thought a valid response.0 -
Exactly how are you qualified to speak about international politics?
What qualifies Chomsky? His acomplishments in the field of linguistics? Essentially what Chomsky says has no more weight or insight than any other rant you might find on a left wing blog. His viewpoint is fairly tired and predictable really. His books are mostly for people who already agree with him and like being told theyre right.
If you look at his comments that have been quoted youll notice he leaps directly to conclusions without employing logical analysis or citing any evidence other than his own suspicions to develop and argue for his case, often with a wanton dismissal of other views, possibilities or context of action.
Like I said, if you want a one sided tirade, Chomsky is your man but you can get it for free on indymedia and similar sites.
Playboylol .. and you forgot to add that you are smarter than Chomsky
No not really. Chomskys made a fortune out of scrawling his silly rants and tirades. I have to do this pro-bono.Where did he say that democracy is holding elections?
For a Chomsky fan, you dont seem to read what he says.The reason was what the President's liberal press calls his 'Messianic Mission' to bring democracy to Iraq and immediately everyone had to leap on the democratisation bandwagon and it began to be described as the most noble war in history and so on and so forth. Well, anyone with a particle of sense would know that you can't take that seriously and, in fact, if you look at the events that followed, it just demonstrated that. The US tried, in every possible way, to prevent elections in Iraq.Or maybe you just got it wrong? It takes quite an ego to call someone like Chomsky a moron based on small excerpt from an interview.
"Thou shalt not question the one true God - Chomsky is his name!!!!"
I can call him Sandra if I like to be honest - I've read his quoted view which you deemed demonstrated some point. And I have criticised it. And I have laid out my reasons for criticising it.
Build a bridge. And get over it. Its not like political and international figures of all stripes arent called all the names under the sun by posters here anyway, and accused of monstrous crimes and malevolence.lol at this waffle. The foundations of democracy? And they are?? And they are being implented how?? And who is implementing them??
Thats an extremely long tangent youre inviting.
Iraq is currently trying to implement them through policing, rule of law, building trust in the institutions of the state, constitutional law and the protection of the rights of individuals and minorities, limits on the power of democratic mandates etc etc.
But its a lot harder to patch up a car whilst its racing 60 miles an hour down the road. Its a lot harder to establish rule of law when the losers of the last election have taken up arms to defend themselves from the winners.
But for someone who sneers at the concept of "foundations of democracy" and at the same time is outraged that I might suggest Chomsky believes something as simplistic as elections=democracy you seem to be very confused.
Is democracy just holding elections, or is there more to it? Like the foundations I mentioned? When youve figured out what you believe, apart from Chomsky being infallible of course, let me know.0 -
So Russia is th eonly country now to recognise South Ossetia and Abkhazia violating international norms prompting serious talk of a new cold war. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/26/russia.georgia2?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront
Can the west now go ahead and recognise Chechnya or any other region within Russia that wants independence?0 -
If it does become a cold war..... well damn. Who do I want running the country? Probably McCain considering he served in the last one and Obama has no foreign policy experience.
Instead of answering them in cold war shouldn't NATO the UN and EU be trying to warm up their ties with Russia again? Poor relations brought us to the need for M.A.D.0 -
What qualifies Chomsky? His acomplishments in the field of linguistics? Essentially what Chomsky says has no more weight or insight than any other rant you might find on a left wing blog. His viewpoint is fairly tired and predictable really. His books are mostly for people who already agree with him and like being told theyre right.
If you look at his comments that have been quoted youll notice he leaps directly to conclusions without employing logical analys I][B]If you had ever read any of his books you would understand that a large amount of what he is writes focuses on LOGIC[/B][/Iis or citing any evidence other than his own suspicions to develop and argue for his case, often with a wanton dismissal of other views, possibilities or context of action.
Like I said, if you want a one sided tirade, Chomsky is your man but you can get it for free on indymedia and similar sites.
Omg your ego really does know no bounds. What qualifies Chomsky .. hmmm maybe the fact that he is a scholar and a philosopher who has written international best sellers on politics. Maybe the fact that he is globally recognised as one of the leading intellectuals (even though he hates being called one is critical of intellectual communities) in the world. Maybe the fact that he has spoken and given lectures on politics in many of the leading universities in the world. Lets see his resume shall we?
Political works
Some of the books are available for viewing online.
Chomsky, Noam (1969). Perspectives on Vietnam [microform].
Chomsky, Noam (1969). American Power and the New Mandarins. New York: Pantheon.
Chomsky, Noam (1970). At War with Asia. New York: Pantheon.
Chomsky, Noam (1971). Problems of Knowledge and Freedom: The Russell Lectures. New York: Pantheon.
Chomsky, Noam and Howard Zinn (Eds.) (1972) The Pentagon Papers. Senator Gravel ed. vol. V. Critical Essays. Boston: Beacon Press; includes index to vol. I-IV of the Papers.
Chomsky, Noam (1973). For Reasons of State. New York: Pantheon.
Chomsky, Noam and Edward Herman (1973). Censored full text Counter-Revolutionary Violence: Bloodbaths in Fact and Propaganda. Andover, MA: Warner Modular. Module no. # 57.
Chomsky, Noam (1974). Peace in the Middle East: Reflections on Justice and Nationhood. New York: Pantheon.
Chomsky, Noam (1978). Human Rights' and American Foreign Policy.
Chomsky, Noam (1978). Intellectuals and the State.
Chomsky, Noam (1979). Language and Responsibility. New York: Pantheon.
Chomsky, Noam and Edward Herman (1979). Political Economy of Human Rights (two vols.). Boston: South End Press. ISBN 0-89608-090-0 & ISBN 0-89608-100-1.
Otero, C.P. (Ed.) (1981, 2003). Radical Priorities. Montréal: Black Rose; Stirling, Scotland: AK Press.
Chomsky, Noam (1982). Towards a New Cold War: Essays on the Current Crisis and How We Got There. New York: Pantheon.
Chomsky, Noam (1983, 1999). The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians. Boston: South End Press. ISBN 0-89608-601-1.
Chomsky, Noam (1985). Turning the Tide: U.S. Intervention in Central America and the Struggle for Peace. Boston: South End Press.
Chomsky, Noam (1986). Pirates and Emperors: International Terrorism and the Real World. New York: Claremont Research and Publications.
Chomsky, Noam (1987). On Power and Ideology: The Managua Lectures. Boston: South End Press.
Peck, James (ed.) (1987). Chomsky Reader. ISBN 0-394-75173-6.
Chomsky, Noam (1988). The Culture of Terrorism. Boston: South End Press.
Chomsky, Noam and Edward Herman (1988, 2002). Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon.
Chomsky, Noam (1989). Necessary Illusions. Boston: South End Press.
Chomsky, Noam (1989). Language and Politics. Montréal: Black Rose.
Chomsky, Noam (1991). Terrorizing the Neighborhood: American Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold War Era. Stirling, Scotland: AK Press.
Chomsky, Noam (1992). Deterring Democracy. New York: Hill and Wang.
Chomsky, Noam (1992). Chronicles of Dissent. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press.
Chomsky, Noam (1992). What Uncle Sam Really Wants. Berkeley: Odonian Press.
Chomsky, Noam (1993). Year 501: The Conquest Continues. Boston: South End Press.
Chomsky, Noam (1993). Rethinking Camelot: JFK, the Vietnam War, and U.S. Political Culture. Boston: South End Press.
Chomsky, Noam (1993). Letters from Lexington: Reflections on Propaganda. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press.
Chomsky, Noam (1993). The Prosperous Few and the Restless Many. Berkeley: Odonian Press.
Chomsky, Noam (1994). Keeping the Rabble in Line. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press.
Chomsky, Noam (1994). World Orders Old and New. New York: Columbia University Press.
Chomsky, Noam (1996). Class Warfare. Pluto Press.
Chomsky, Noam (1997). (Ed.) The Cold War & the University: Toward an Intellectual History of the Postwar Years Authors: Ira Katznelson, R. C. Lewontin, David Montgomery, Laura Nader, Richard Ohmann, Ray Siever, Immanuel Wallerstein, Howard Zinn ISBN 1-56584-005-4
Chomsky, Noam (1999). The New Military Humanism: Lessons from Kosovo .
Chomsky, Noam (1999). The Fateful Triangle: United States, Israel and the Palestinians. Pluto Press. ISBN 0-7453-1530-5.
Chomsky, Noam (1999). Profit over People: Neoliberalism and Global Order. Seven Stories Press.
Chomsky, Noam (1999). The Umbrella of US Power: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Contradictions of US Policy. Seven Stories Press. ISBN 1-888363-85-1.
Chomsky, Noam (2000). A New Generation Draws the Line: Kosovo, East Timor and the Standards of the West. Verso Books. ISBN 1-85984-380-8.
Chomsky, Noam (2000). Rogue States: The Rule of Force in World Affairs. Cambridge: South End Press.
Chomsky, Noam (2001). Vietnam Inc. Phaidon Press. ISBN 0-7148-4152-8.
Chomsky, Noam (2001). 9-11. Seven Stories Press. ISBN 1-58322-489-0.
Mitchell, Peter and John Schoeffel (ed.) (2002). Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky.
Chomsky, Noam (2002). Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda. Seven Stories Press. ISBN 1-58322-536-6.
Chomsky, Noam (2002). Pirates and Emperors, Old and New: International Terrorism in the Real World. Pluto Press. ISBN 0-7453-1980-7.
Chomsky, Noam (2003). What Uncle Sam Really Wants. Pluto Press. ISBN 1-878825-01-1.
Chomsky, Noam (2003). Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky. Vintage. ISBN 0-09-946606-6.
Chomsky, Noam (2003). The Prosperous Few and the Restless Many. Pluto Press. ISBN 1-878825-03-8.
Chomsky, Noam (2003). Hegemony or Survival. Metropolitan Books. (Part of the American Empire Project).
Chomsky, Noam (2004). Middle East Illusions. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 0-7425-2977-0.
Chomsky, Noam (2004). Getting Haiti Right This Time: The U.S. and the Coup. Common Courage Press. ISBN 1-56751-318-2.
Chomsky, Noam (2005). Chomsky On Anarchism. AK Press. ISBN 1-904859-20-8.
Chomsky, Noam (2005). Government in the Future. Seven Stories Press. ISBN 1-58322-685-0.
Chomsky, Noam (2005). Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World. Metropolitan Books. (Part of the American Empire Project). ISBN 0-8050-7967-X.
Chomsky, Noam (2006). Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy. Metropolitan Books. ISBN 0-8050-7912-2.
Chomsky, Noam (2007). Interventions. City Lights. ISBN 0-87286-483-9.
And all of these works are referenced if you find the time to check.
Soooo Sand .. If Chomsky is not qualified then I would like to hear who is?Sand wrote:Playboy
No not really. Chomskys made a fortune out of scrawling his silly rants and tirades. I have to do this pro-bono.
Maybe you should try and get some of your stuff published .. that would be a laugh :rolleyes:Sand wrote:For a Chomsky fan, you dont seem to read what he says.
"Thou shalt not question the one true God - Chomsky is his name!!!!"
I can call him Sandra if I like to be honest - I've read his quoted view which you deemed demonstrated some point. And I have criticised it. And I have laid out my reasons for criticising it.
Build a bridge. And get over it. Its not like political and international figures of all stripes arent called all the names under the sun by posters here anyway, and accused of monstrous crimes and malevolence.
lol .. a bit of a stretch of logic trying to connect that point Sand? What feeble point are you trying to make by twisting what he said.
The US dont want democracy in Iraq and that is why they are trying to prevent elections. Do you think that people of Iraq given "equal access to power and universally recognized freedoms and liberties" are going to vote in a pro west government? Just take a look around the world where US has power and influence .. Egypt for instance .. where Mubarak is kept in power with American dollars .. Any idiot can see that the US props up corrupt regimes that are pro west who allow the US and its corporations rape the country to the disadvantage of the indigenous population. They do it everywhere from South America to the middle east .. But no .. now we have to believe that they are trying to establish the foundations of democracy in Iraq :rolleyes:. Funny I didnt take you for someone so naive Sand.Sand wrote:Thats an extremely long tangent youre inviting.
Iraq is currently trying to implement them through policing, rule of law, building trust in the institutions of the state, constitutional law and the protection of the rights of individuals and minorities, limits on the power of democratic mandates etc etc.
But its a lot harder to patch up a car whilst its racing 60 miles an hour down the road. Its a lot harder to establish rule of law when the losers of the last election have taken up arms to defend themselves from the winners.
But for someone who sneers at the concept of "foundations of democracy" and at the same time is outraged that I might suggest Chomsky believes something as simplistic as elections=democracy you seem to be very confused.
Is democracy just holding elections, or is there more to it? Like the foundations I mentioned? When youve figured out what you believe, apart from Chomsky being infallible of course, let me know.
I'm sneering at the fact you believe that the US is really trying to establish a functioning democracy in Iraq. History contradicts you. The motivations for the War contradict you and the reality on the ground in Iraq contradicts you.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
hide yout eldery and your children lest they get shot in the face or eaten!0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement