Tag: Noam Chomsky

U.S Foreign Policy & The End Of Empire

MIT Professor Noam Chomsky talks with Real News CEO Paul Jay about the history and current state of US foreign policy debunking various myths – including the myth that republicans are the warmongers and that democrats are more “peace” oriented, from FDR’s and Roosevelt’s vision for world domination by the U.S. after the second world war, through the current situation of U.S. toothless sanctions and delusional attempts at threats and references to a U.S led  “international community” that much of the rest of the world simply shrugs off and laughs at.

So by now, you know, the traditional backyard, the Western Hemisphere, a big piece of it, South America, it has become much more independent. They’re throwing out all US military bases. They’re moving towards some degree of integration. They’re not following the US orders. We just saw that when Brazil joined with Turkey to arrange for a mechanism for Iran to enrich substantial parts of its uranium outside of Iran.

[snip]

The issue of sanctions on Iran is a very striking illustration of the increasing limitations of US power. I mean, that’s kind of like-you read the foreign policy literature and, you know, government statements, this is the big problem. This is in fact called the year of Iran, and Iran is described as the greatest threat to world order. I’ll come back in a moment to what the threat is. But part of this is the US effort to try to get the world to accept the harsh US sanctions, not the UN sanctions. UN sanctions are pretty much toothless, so China and Russia and others go along with them willingly. The US sanctions are much harsher. They have no international legitimacy other than the force that lies behind them, and the US is getting desperate about the fact that the rest of the world isn’t following them.

So Brazil has-and Turkey, neighboring power and leading power in the Third World, have just essentially rejected them. Turkey’s announced it’s going to triple its growing trade with Iran, establish a new pipeline.

Brazil says, look, we go along with the Non-Aligned countries and most of the world in supporting Iran’s right to enrich uranium. But the big one is China. That they can’t push around, and they’re very upset about it. A couple of weeks ago, the State Department issued a warning to China and said that if you want to join the international community-meaning, what we run-you have to meet your international responsibilities, namely, follow US orders, follow our sanctions.

It probably elicited laughter in the Chinese foreign office. They cannot force them to do it. And this is indication of an erosion of the ability to coerce. You can have 800 military bases and spend as much as the rest of the world combined on the military, but you can’t force China, or even Turkey or even Brazil, to follow your orders.



Real News Network –  November 21, 2010

Chomsky on U.S. Global Policy

U.S. still wants to dominate but cannot order other big powers as it pleases;

Iran war threat is real


..full transcript below..

Noam Chomsky on American Foreign Policy and US Politics

He has authored more than 100 books, and is apparently the eighth most cited human being in history, after Marx, Lenin, Shakespeare, Aristotle, the bible, Plato, and Ford.

The Young Turks’ Cenk Uygur interviews MIT Professor Noam Chomsky on US foreign policy and politics…



From TYTInterviews | October 26, 2010

about 25 minutes

No Strings Attached

“Love is the ultimate outlaw.

It just won’t adhere to any rules.

The most any of us can do is to sign on as its accomplice.

Instead of vowing to honor and obey, maybe we should swear to aid and abet.

That would mean that security is out of the question.

The words “make” and “stay” become inappropriate.

My love for you has no strings attached.

I love you for free.”

– Tom Robbins (Still Life with Woodpecker)

I don’t have much blog time this whole week, but the bats in the belfry keep making noise.

No shame in voting for lesser of two evils.

Chomsky sed that there is no shame in voting for lesser of two evils.

Yes, there is.  

Yes, there is shame in being part of that system.  

Saying otherwise is like denying that the humiliated are humiliated.  

Where have you gone, Albert Einstein?



In a recent diary by Cassiodorus, one point of his in particular struck me:

Thus the comparison between the Great Depression and the current Great Recession falls flat, because the popular upheavals of the 1930s are only in evidence today among the least helpful segments of the population.  This of course is a major reason why we can expect no FDR-like President to save us from the…economic collapse…

…During the 1930s…intellectual figures such as John Dos Passos, John Steinbeck, Kenneth Burke, and Richard Wright were actual socialists and not just mere liberals offering occasional plugs for John Kerry.

Another prominent socialist, albeit a bit later than the Depression, was Albert Einstein.  He was an all around brilliant man, someone whom I admire greatly.  And he wisely said this, although today it would probably be considered way too radical for anyone respectable to utter:

Chomsky: Vote against McCain and for Obama – but without illusions

I know there are some who don’t like Chomsky.  I don’t agree with all he says, but he’s an anti-imperialist and is good on many labor/class issues.

Here, he endorses Obama, sort of.  🙂

Chomsky says while it’s true that the two parties are essentially like factions of one party – the party of business – the differences do matter to ordinary people. If you are living in a swing state, there is nothing wrong with picking the lesser of two evils.

http://therealnews.com/t/index…

I thought some folks here would both understand and appreciate this.  

I quote Noam Chomsky & Bill Moyers. (Media issues)

 (I couldn’t think of a title for this ‘essay’. But I like Noam Chomsky and I quote him 🙂

It is obvious our corporate controlled media often fails in its job of keeping the public informed and holding those with power accountable( i.e Iraq). All too often the media is willing to carry the water for the Power elite.

As Noam Chomsky said

We live in an era of media concentration, vast efforts on many fronts (political, economic, military, ideological) to insulate state and private power from critical discussion or even popular awareness, and to reduce citizens to isolated atomized creatures restricted to satisfying personal ‘created wants.’ This massive and coordinated campaign has been partially successful, but only in a limited way.

Regarding Noam Chomsky

This is not a pressing political issue.  If you want to read something “important”, read something else.

One thing that I have often been given grief for while blogging is my antipathy towards certain figures on the political left, notably Edward Said and Noam Chomsky.  Some people have deeply questioned my commitment to ending the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza because of it.

This post by David Bernstein of the Volokh Conspiracy illustrates very well why I have long felt that Chomsky is not to be taken seriously on political issues:

First, I’ve located the original source cited by Chomsky. It’s Yossi Beilin, Mehiro shel Ihud 42-43 (Revivim, 1985), a Hebrew book, never translated to English, written by Israeli dove Beilin. It’s a secondary source that provides only the barest context for Dayan’s remark–all the book tells us is that Dayan’s comment illustrates an extreme attitude toward Palestinian refugees, and was made during a meeting with other leaders of the small RAFI party, which was composed of hawkish defectors from the dominant Labor Party. Apparently, Chomsky couldn’t be bothered to look up the original transcripts, which are footnoted by Beilin.

Second, Dayan didn’t make this remark in the “early 1970s,” he made it in September 1967, just three months after the Six Day War.

Third, he didn’t say it to his “cabinet colleagues,” or in any official government capacity, but at meeting of the leaders of his small party, and his statement on that particular day may or may not have reflected his more general, or his longer-term, views regarding the Palestinians.

Fourth, according the book, Dayan was addressing the situation of Palestinian refugees in the West Bank, not all Palestinians, or even all Palestinians in the West Bank.

Fifth, and by far most significant, Chomsky leaves out the next few sentences uttered by Dayan: “For now, it works out. Let’s say the truth. We want peace. If there is no peace, we will maintain military rule and we will have four to five military compounds on the hills, and they will sit ten years under the Israeli military regime.” Thus, rather than this quote reflecting a long-term “plan” by Israel, it reflected Dayan’s view of the alternative if a peace deal with Jordan (Beilin notes on the same page that Dayan was willing “to divide authority on the West Bank with Jordan”), could not be reached. Moreover, even in the absence of an immediate peace deal, Dayan was not speaking of a permanent occupation, but of a ten-year Israeli presence.

Load more