Noam Chomsky [offtopic from role models thread]

[superflya]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFERPDn3i0o

[Chavi]

The invasion of Iraq is still certainly one that puzzles me. If anything, it's probably because they have always been a thorn in the US' side. Out of all the Middle Eastern nations, Iraq probably was seen to be the most violent and therefore most dangerous to American interests. ... Honestly, it's probably them finishing the job.

The entire logic behind this point collapses when you consider America's other enemies that have (and had even in 2003) far greater destructive potential than Iraq (read: confirmed nuclear weapons programs). Iran and North Korea pose far greater threats to the US and to the West - in fact, by invading Iraq, the US gave Iran a free ticket to control the region without Iraqi reprisals. By your logic, NK and Iran should have been invaded long before Iraq, and I'm not even getting into the 444 days hostage crisis @ the US embassy in Tehran or the fact that Iran is the world's #1 sponsor of terrorism.
Thorn in the US' side my a88

[TrueLight]

the whole premise of the Iraq war was flawed
"The problem with this war, I think, for many Americans, is that the premise on which we justified going to war turned out not to be valid" Robert Gates US defence secretary.
after the false weapons of mass destruction claim.. it was turned to Saddam Husein the dictator, brute etc etc and also mixed with bringing democracy to Iraq and getting rid of terrorists  and then waiting to train the Iraqi police and all these other silly reasons for the occupation of Iraq ... i find it quite hypocritical how America was fully supporting Iraq during the 80's after the whole Iranian revolution giving them weapons, intelligence, technology for the Iraq-Iran war... and then later fought against him and finally killed him...and it would have been useful in regards to America's attempt to try and squash the Islamic revolution to have an ally like Saddam who would have fought against it...
but its probably not surprising seeing as America usually walks both ways
but anyway America's militarism abroad won't last...the military-industrial complex won't be happy. no country who seeks to build an empire ever lasts, maybe once the economic situation worsen they won't be able to afford these wars..

[Chavi]

the whole premise of the Iraq war was flawed
"The problem with this war, I think, for many Americans, is that the premise on which we justified going to war turned out not to be valid" Robert Gates US defence secretary.
after the false weapons of mass destruction claim.. it was turned to Saddam Husein the dictator, brute etc etc and also mixed with bringing democracy to Iraq and getting rid of terrorists  and then waiting to train the Iraqi police and all these other silly reasons for the occupation of Iraq ... i find it quite hypocritical how America was fully supporting Iraq during the 80's after the whole Iranian revolution giving them weapons, intelligence, technology for the Iraq-Iran war... and then later fought against him and finally killed him...and it would have been useful in regards to America's attempt to try and squash the Islamic revolution to have an ally like Saddam who would have fought against it...
but its probably not surprising seeing as America usually walks both ways
but anyway America's militarism abroad won't last...the military-industrial complex won't be happy. no country who seeks to build an empire ever lasts, maybe once the economic situation worsen they won't be able to afford these wars..

Pax Americana and global capitalism over loss of American hegemony anyday

[TrueLight]

ha won't happen
look at history

[Chavi]

ha won't happen
look at history

so the dark ages are just a matter of time?

[TrueLight]

no i don't think the whole world will suffer as much as Americans
you can only reach so far

[Chavi]

'suffer' - what are you implying? If America goes down, we too go down.

[TrueLight]

as in living standards will decline dramatically if this comes true and a lot of people will be in poverty
no not necessarily... slowly other countries are trying to get out of the us dollar... like china buying other foreign currencies and gold and letting their currency appreciate...

[Yitzi_K]

but anyway America's militarism abroad won't last...the military-industrial complex won't be happy. no country who seeks to build an empire ever lasts, maybe once the economic situation worsen they won't be able to afford these wars..

You forget that weapons development and production represent a massive part of Americas economy. World peace is certainly not on their agenda, because a drop in demand for weapons will see their economy crash big time.

[Russ]

no country who seeks to build an empire ever lasts

Oh come on, that's just because nothing lasts forever. No country that ever sought to build a republic lasted either. Venice made it for a thousand years or so, but they eventually lost out to Bonaparte (an emperor)

[Duck]

Lol at anyone who thinks America is building an 'empire'. Remind me again where, other than North America, the USA claims ownership of land? If you say Hawaii or Antarctica then you are disqualified from the rest of the discussion.

[TrueLight]

no country who seeks to build an empire ever lasts

Oh come on, that's just because nothing lasts forever. No country that ever sought to build a republic lasted either. Venice made it for a thousand years or so, but they eventually lost out to Bonaparte (an emperor)

yeah i know because people change things happen....but nevertheless it will end

[TrueLight]

america occupies around 130 countries and has over 700 military bases around the world

heres some
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases

you still have around 40000 troops in japan... i thought world war 2 finished ages ago

[Cianyx]

The invasion of Iraq is still certainly one that puzzles me. If anything, it's probably because they have always been a thorn in the US' side. Out of all the Middle Eastern nations, Iraq probably was seen to be the most violent and therefore most dangerous to American interests. ... Honestly, it's probably them finishing the job.

The entire logic behind this point collapses when you consider America's other enemies that have (and had even in 2003) far greater destructive potential than Iraq (read: confirmed nuclear weapons programs). Iran and North Korea pose far greater threats to the US and to the West - in fact, by invading Iraq, the US gave Iran a free ticket to control the region without Iraqi reprisals. By your logic, NK and Iran should have been invaded long before Iraq, and I'm not even getting into the 444 days hostage crisis @ the US embassy in Tehran or the fact that Iran is the world's #1 sponsor of terrorism.
Thorn in the US' side my a88

Getting into anything with Iran would be quite messy. Invading Iran would provoke one of their allies, NK, simply can't have that happening, can we?. By my logic, America would never invade Iran or NK. For one, read the rest the post. I said American (or Western) interests. In particular, trade liberalization. In about 2000, Iran has embraced the market whereas NK doesn't have anything worth purchasing. Iraq, at this point, was still embracing nationalistic values.