Noam Chomsky [offtopic from role models thread]

[Russ]

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.

This is using literally the narrowest definition of empire possible.

[Chavi]

The topic exists, although I disagree with it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism

[Cianyx]

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.

I believe you are referring to colonialism?

[Cthulhu]

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.

American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
U.S. Virgin Islands
Northern Marianna Islands
and a number of other islands around the world.

[Chavi]

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.

American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
U.S. Virgin Islands
Northern Marianna Islands
and a number of other islands around the world.

A few tiny islands outside the mainland territory doesn't constitute an empire. Otherwise we could apply the rule to Australia:

Ashmore and Cartier Islands
Norfolk Island
Christmas Island
Coral Sea Islands Territory
Heard and McDonald Islands

Chomsky: "OMG those radical, imperialist Australians occupying and dispossessing the native inhabitants in a blatant violation of international law, in order to dominate the region in their fanatical, imperialist, capitalist, right wing, bourgeois cosmopolitan, autocratic, fascist, neo-conservative agenda. Quick comrades, lets organize a humanitarian flotilla to liberate the oppressed, uninhabited Ashmore and Cartier Islands."

[Cthulhu]

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.

American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
U.S. Virgin Islands
Northern Marianna Islands
and a number of other islands around the world.

A few tiny islands outside the mainland territory doesn't constitute an empire. Otherwise we could apply the rule to Australia:

Ashmore and Cartier Islands
Norfolk Island
Christmas Island
Coral Sea Islands Territory
Heard and McDonald Islands

Chomsky: "OMG those radical, imperialist Australians occupying and dispossessing the native inhabitants in a blatant violation of international law, in order to dominate the region in their fanatical, imperialist, capitalist, right wing, bourgeois cosmopolitan, autocratic, fascist, neo-conservative agenda. Quick comrades, lets organize a humanitarian flotilla to liberate the oppressed, uninhabited Ashmore and Cartier Islands."

I didn't say anything about an empire. Duck asked a question and I answered.

[Yitzi_K]

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.

Is it not in American (or Western) interests to not have nuclear bombs launched at them? Because failing to combat Iran could lead to that, and personally that's not a risk I'd be willing to take.

[Eriny]

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.

This is using literally the narrowest definition of empire possible.

Indeed. After WWII, the were a lot of discussions as to how the US would maintain its strength as a superpower. The answer was never to invade other countries physically as such, it was to invade them ideologically. At the time, this came down to stopping the spread of communism. If one state were to become communist, then others may follow their example and see it as an effective ideology (the domino theory). Communist states are those that the US would be unable to trade with for in traditional communist discourse, communism involves no external trade. Among other things, this could potentially cut the supply of oil to the US, it would also mean that the US would not hold the power to boycott countries whose policies it may be in opposition to (these days, a 'rouge state' is one that the US refuses to trade with) and it definitely would limit the wealth of the US through imports and exports. Thus, the Vietnam War occurred. I maintain that the US holds a great deal of 'superpower' and that it is not necessarily a benevolent force to those who may oppose their interests. Whether or not this is a good thing can surely be debated, but if you think it doesn't occur then you are being held captive by the beliefs the US government would like you to have.

Additionally, in defence of Chomsky, I have no idea about what his opinions are about current events. None whatsoever. However, I have read a lot of his early theoretical papers in linguistics and social sciences and there is a lot of very interesting and good ideas there. His work on the media and on the way the media critiques the government and/or the status quo is really informative and interesting.

[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.

Is it not in American (or Western) interests to not have nuclear bombs launched at them? Because failing to combat Iran could lead to that, and personally that's not a risk I'd be willing to take.

Could lead to that. I wouldn't be so quick to brush off the Iran state as stupid because they certainly are not. They've got very few allies and any form of action which could be considered threatening would be essentially suicide. Notice why President Imadinnercard hasn't taken any military against Israel, much less the US? Also, US intelligence is also quite efficient is sussing out any potential attacks rather quickly. Not starting a full-blown war with two nations for an attack highly unlikely to occur is a risk I am willing to take

Not strictly related but the Currency War is like super awesome right now. American dollar weakening <333

[Yitzi_K]

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.

Is it not in American (or Western) interests to not have nuclear bombs launched at them? Because failing to combat Iran could lead to that, and personally that's not a risk I'd be willing to take.

Could lead to that. I wouldn't be so quick to brush off the Iran state as stupid because they certainly are not. They've got very few allies and any form of action which could be considered threatening would be essentially suicide. Notice why President Imadinnercard hasn't taken any military against Israel, much less the US? Also, US intelligence is also quite efficient is sussing out any potential attacks rather quickly. Not starting a full-blown war with two nations for an attack highly unlikely to occur is a risk I am willing to take

Not strictly related but the Currency War is like super awesome right now. American dollar weakening <333

Is Iran stupid? Possibly not. Are they run by a maniacal, genocidal, fundamentalist mullahcracy? Yes.

[Chavi]

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.

This is using literally the narrowest definition of empire possible.

Indeed. After WWII, the were a lot of discussions as to how the US would maintain its strength as a superpower. The answer was never to invade other countries physically as such, it was to invade them ideologically. At the time, this came down to stopping the spread of communism. If one state were to become communist, then others may follow their example and see it as an effective ideology (the domino theory). Communist states are those that the US would be unable to trade with for in traditional communist discourse, communism involves no external trade. Among other things, this could potentially cut the supply of oil to the US, it would also mean that the US would not hold the power to boycott countries whose policies it may be in opposition to (these days, a 'rouge state' is one that the US refuses to trade with) and it definitely would limit the wealth of the US through imports and exports. Thus, the Vietnam War occurred. I maintain that the US holds a great deal of 'superpower' and that it is not necessarily a benevolent force to those who may oppose their interests. Whether or not this is a good thing can surely be debated, but if you think it doesn't occur then you are being held captive by the beliefs the US government would like you to have.

Additionally, in defence of Chomsky, I have no idea about what his opinions are about current events. None whatsoever. However, I have read a lot of his early theoretical papers in linguistics and social sciences and there is a lot of very interesting and good ideas there. His work on the media and on the way the media critiques the government and/or the status quo is really informative and interesting.

Since when does 'pure communism' outlaw external trade ? I'm not sure if this is historically correct.
Communist Russia wasn't surviving on a bribe economy, and had to import all of their wheat from the West in the 70s and 80s. . .
China has adopted capitalism and enjoys healthy external trade - even though it remains a communist dictatorship.
ditto for Vietnam>

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.

Is it not in American (or Western) interests to not have nuclear bombs launched at them? Because failing to combat Iran could lead to that, and personally that's not a risk I'd be willing to take.

Could lead to that. I wouldn't be so quick to brush off the Iran state as stupid because they certainly are not. They've got very few allies and any form of action which could be considered threatening would be essentially suicide. Notice why President Imadinnercard hasn't taken any military against Israel, much less the US? Also, US intelligence is also quite efficient is sussing out any potential attacks rather quickly. Not starting a full-blown war with two nations for an attack highly unlikely to occur is a risk I am willing to take

Not strictly related but the Currency War is like super awesome right now. American dollar weakening <333

Iran has been attacking Israel for the past 30 years by proxy war. Hamas and Hezzbollah are Iranian funded and trained, and they receive their orders from Tehran.
And there's little chance that under the Obama administration, Israel will receive military assistance from the US. BTW, I wouldn't be so quick to write off Iran as a threat. You're forgetting that the country is ruled by people who are willing to commit national suicide for the fundamentalist fantasy of reviving the 12th imam.

The impending war will look like Israel vs Iran + Syria + Hamas + Hezzbollah. It's gonna be '67 all over again, and Obama's pacifist stance is resembling that of Neville Chamberlain's every day.
It seems that the Nobel Peace Prize will become an object of scorn much like the "Peace in our time" catchcry.

[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.

Is it not in American (or Western) interests to not have nuclear bombs launched at them? Because failing to combat Iran could lead to that, and personally that's not a risk I'd be willing to take.

Could lead to that. I wouldn't be so quick to brush off the Iran state as stupid because they certainly are not. They've got very few allies and any form of action which could be considered threatening would be essentially suicide. Notice why President Imadinnercard hasn't taken any military against Israel, much less the US? Also, US intelligence is also quite efficient is sussing out any potential attacks rather quickly. Not starting a full-blown war with two nations for an attack highly unlikely to occur is a risk I am willing to take

Not strictly related but the Currency War is like super awesome right now. American dollar weakening <333

Is Iran stupid? Possibly not. Are they run by a maniacal, genocidal, fundamentalist mullahcracy? Yes.

See. We do agree on something

[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.

Is it not in American (or Western) interests to not have nuclear bombs launched at them? Because failing to combat Iran could lead to that, and personally that's not a risk I'd be willing to take.

Could lead to that. I wouldn't be so quick to brush off the Iran state as stupid because they certainly are not. They've got very few allies and any form of action which could be considered threatening would be essentially suicide. Notice why President Imadinnercard hasn't taken any military against Israel, much less the US? Also, US intelligence is also quite efficient is sussing out any potential attacks rather quickly. Not starting a full-blown war with two nations for an attack highly unlikely to occur is a risk I am willing to take

Not strictly related but the Currency War is like super awesome right now. American dollar weakening <333

Iran has been attacking Israel for the past 30 years by proxy war. Hamas and Hezzbollah are Iranian funded and trained, and they receive their orders from Tehran.
And there's little chance that under the Obama administration, Israel will receive military assistance from the US. BTW, I wouldn't be so quick to write off Iran as a threat. You're forgetting that the country is ruled by people who are willing to commit national suicide for the fundamentalist fantasy of reviving the 12th imam.

The impending war will look like Israel vs Iran + Syria + Hamas + Hezzbollah. It's gonna be '67 all over again, and Obama's pacifist stance is resembling that of Neville Chamberlain's every day.
It seems that the Nobel Peace Prize will become an object of scorn much like the "Peace in our time" catchcry.
[/quote]

I meant to say direct military action but I'll concede that. Anyway, I highly doubt they would commit "national suicide". For one, Iran showed clear interests in attaining western technology. That is why they are willing to submit to western markets and not shut it all off like Iraq. Plus, a large minority of the population, mainly students and under 30s who were not born early enough to remember the 1979 revolution, are quite the progressive bunch of chaps. I believe there were university protests against the construction of atomic weapons.
There was a report a few years ago outlining the possible options if Iran made nuclear weapons. A number of them, such as a full-blown invasion or clandestine operations were renounced but a deal would be quite likely.

[Pappa-Bohr]

Not strictly related but the Currency War is like super awesome right now. American dollar weakening <333

err America want their dollar to depreciate, especially against the Chinese RMB....weaker USD = more exports

[Cianyx]

The more you know. I know literally shit all about economics. Either way, I'm still not complaining