Galloway wipes the floor with Sky News anchor

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

"Reading Chomsky is like standing in a wind tunnel.

Surrounded by hot air?

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

With relentless logic, Chomsky bids us to listen closely to what our leaders tell us--and to discern what they are leaving out...The questions Chomsky raises will eventually have to be answered.

If Chomsky is only a critic, then of course he's going to find sources that agree with *his* criticisms. He's not going to source out anyone that agrees with the points he disagrees with.

Scholar or not, extra sources or not, he still has his bias and his agenda.

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Agree with him or not, we lose out by not listening."

You can say this about 99% of the people and things said out there, on both sides of the political spectrum. That said, it doesn't mean that his opinion is worth any more than any other person out there.

I've always maintained that the message is more important than the person who said it. Chomsky or Bush or anyone can open their mouths and have garbage come out and it would sound just like any one of us spewing garbage. A homeless person on the street can come up with the best idea in the world, and it should rival the other best ideas out there.

Content is key. Without it, it's just a bunch of hot air.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Bingo

You brought him up as the source, and I pointed out the guy seems to have an agenda. I think through the 11 pages you've actually agreed to that.

I don't agree. What does he stand to gain from his stance? You really think he's in it for notoriety or to make money from speaking engagements? I think that's silly. Using the word "agenda" implies that he has some sort of hidden motivation. What is it?

Of course how would you know if you are basing everything you know of the guy off second hand info and haven't bothered to read something of his?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Scholar or not, extra sources or not, he still has his bias and his agenda.

What's his agenda? People seem to keep spouting this, let's have it out please.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

What's his agenda? People seem to keep spouting this, let's have it out please.

Everybody has an agenda.. including you. Yours is obviously to defend Chomsky in face of and in spite of any criticism.

If he is a constant (8 administration) critic of the US and its foreign policy, then his agenda is obviously to constantly criticize the US government no matter what it does.

I've never read Chomsky and never plan to. I've never read Wolfowicz and never plan to either. Politics and all this foreign policy stuff just doesn't interest me enough to devote that much time to it. (and I perfectly realize and accept that you will immediately disregard my opinion because of it)

I am critical of a constant backing of an individual. Just like those who find that Bush has no faults, I find it just as bad when people constantly back Chomsky and everyone else. Heck, even Sutter has made mistakes.

If you and others want to blindly follow someone, and immediately ignore or discredit all criticisms of that someone, then go nuts.... but don't find it as a slight when others disagree with you.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Wow ...

I'm sick and tired of being questioned on how I think based on the standards of ignorance of others.

-You're actively reinforcing your own ignorance by refusing to even acknowledge information that isn't the status quo --

BS ... by not dropping to my knees to bow at the alter of Noam Chomsky is hardly eliminating all independent thought that falls out side of the status quo.

No, you're actively reinforcing your own ignorance by refusing to acknowledge his peer reviewed academic credentials while at the same time dismissing him outright as a legitimate source based on the skimmed testimonials of those who oppose his views. You even insinuated that he was correct, yet still refuse to accept him as a legitimate voice of reason in this discussion. If his writings are correct, what does it matter if he has a bias?

-By dismissing '20%' of the argument on both sides, you're only getting just over half of the conversation. Is that not terrifying?

Two problems with this ... 1) I think we all know that 60, 20 and 20 are thrown out there as estimates. I haven't honestly built a scale of all opinions and counted out where the tails should fall. It could be 80, 10 and 10, it could be 30, 35 and 35 for all I know. 2) Nothing scary about tossing out the so jaded and intellectually committed that they barely bring anything to the table worth discussing. A person that thinks the US is the complete evil do'er in every foreign policy initiative in the past 40 years holds way less water for me than the guy that is suddenly upset with something when he's been supportive on others. One is a pattern, the other free thought.

See, your lack of ability to even recognize the possibility that US Foreign Policy has done more harm than good is a prime example of the error in judgement of dismissing 'fringe' points of view. For the same reason, 80 percent of Americans believe that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military requirements of ending the second World War.

The fact that you call the US "vessel for human suffering all over the world" would certainly explain your support of of Chomsky. I see mistakes both unforseen and through poor planning, though ill conceived ideas and through unpredictable events. I also see hind sight as the judge and jury for many issues, and the fact that as the world's only superpower, it's pretty hard to come out on top.

But then I'm just ignorant. I should just buy a radicals book and quote it all day.

I see conjecture being passed off as informed opinion. I think it is irrational to weigh in on a subject, especially one as specific as the credibility of a source on Israeli history and policy, without prior knowledge of the topic. It is clear that the sum total of your knowledge regarding Chomsky and his writings is quite inchoate. I don't mean to be dismissive, rather, I would like to use this as an opportunity to be inclusive.

I don't know what you're talking about in regards to the buying a chomsky book and quoting it all day. There's any number of authors who could tell you almost the same thing chomsky is. As per the original topic of discussion, if you were interested in Lebannon specifically, I would suggest articles by Robert Fisk, or his two books on the country. If you would like an overview of some of the negative aspects of american foreign policy over the last 50 years, I'd suggest William Blum.

I offer up the following links as introductory pieces to him and his writing. Make sure you have a comfortable reading environment, one of the things lost in skimming chomsky's writing is his attention to specific language. His arguments also tend to be thorough.

Chomsky reader: Personal Influences
Transcript of Debate with former CIA director James Woolsey
Chomsky written debate with Professor Samuel P. Huntington, Author of Clash of Civilizations
'War Is Peace', Excerpt from the book,Fateful Triangle

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by calculoso

If he is a constant (8 administration) critic of the US and its foreign policy, then his agenda is obviously to constantly criticize the US government no matter what it does.

Well you'd fail Logic 101 with that kind of thinking. He'd criticize them no matter what they do? That doesn't make sense.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by calculoso

I am critical of a constant backing of an individual. Just like those who find that Bush has no faults, I find it just as bad when people constantly back Chomsky and everyone else. Heck, even Sutter has made mistakes.

If you and others want to blindly follow someone, and immediately ignore or discredit all criticisms of that someone, then go nuts.... but don't find it as a slight when others disagree with you.

I don't suggest blindly following anybody. What I disagree with is dismissing the guy outright before someone's even read anything of his. And several people are guilty of that in this thread.

I wouldn't have to defend him at all if there weren't some ridiculous accusations in this thread about him. I wouldn't have posted anything about him except the article I originally posted if Bingo hadn't immediately dismissed the guy as a non-credible source. And I certainly don't believe he's faultless, don't put words in my mouth.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Well you'd fail Logic 101 with that kind of thinking. He'd criticize them no matter what they do? That doesn't make sense.

He's done it to the past 8 adminstrations, if I remember correctly, and I'm pretty sure those 8 administrations did a lot of different things.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

He's done it to the past 8 adminstrations, if I remember correctly, and I'm pretty sure those 8 administrations did a lot of different things.

I think Chomsky would probably argue that, while slightly different, all 8 administrations pursued the same fundamental goals internationally, to a greater or lesser extent; the expansion and continuation of American dominance in foreign economic and political spheres and maintaining (what he would argue is the) unfair trade system the world currently works under, to the great benefit and advantage of the West over the rest.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

I was just born when the Cold War ended, so I wouldn't know anything about the manipulation or whatever you want to call it.

Holy smoke, you don't even know what the Fairness Doctrine is or what impact it had on media!!!

So I've been basically right all along. You ARE a kid talking about **** he knows nothing about. I ****ing knew it!!!

I guess what I'm trying to say is; both Fox, CNN, MSNBC, CBS and others can all report the news. In this day on age, most of the news they report will be true, and I'm sure the major news networks have learned to not jump the gun.

Uh, no. FauxNews has been CAUGHT running stories PRODUCED by the Bush Administration. That is called running propaganda. That is not news. The minute you do that, you lose all credibility as a source for objective journalism.

I'm talking about the websites, and not the talk-show hosts, or the opinionists on either side. Yes, Fox News does lean right, but not in their news, rather their hosts...O'Rielly(more in the center-right) Hannity, Gibson, Hume and others.

Their news is grossly biased. How many networks have been caught telling their people what to report, how to report it, and when to report it? How many networks have killed stories to appease advertizers? FauxNews is pretty well unique in their willingness to do this.

You don't have to agree with them, but there should be no problem in watching Fox or CNN for the latest news reports. I believe the media is all the same, "if it bleeds, it leads" and it has nothing to do with a conspiracy.

It's not a conspiracy, because its been proven to be true. Roger Ailes admits it. Its in court documents and sworn testimony proves all of the ugly things Fox does. Sorry, you don't have a clue what you are talking about, AGAIN.

It is easy for a talk-show/TV show host to manipulate their viewers. The only two people I watch/listen, Savage and O'Rielly, to me can be as critical of the Bush adminstration, as they can be supportive.

O'Reilly is a joke. Always has been, always will be. He should really go back to doing "A Current Affair". At least there he was allowed to be the sleezy piece of **** he was, as it fit with the program. O'Reilly is a liar and a cheat.

Savage to me is a straight shooter, and miles ahead of all the others. You are right in your assertion that most right-wing hosts will tow the party line, as most do, especially Hannity.

I'm starting to wonder if we are talking about the same Savage. You are refering to Dan Savage? The way you describe him does not sound like him and more like hate radio personality Michael Savage. If that's the guy you're refering to you seriously need some couch time. Michael Savage is a raving lunatic who needs a bullet behind his left ear.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

He's done it to the past 8 adminstrations, if I remember correctly, and I'm pretty sure those 8 administrations did a lot of different things.

8 Administrations puts us back to Eisenhower, so I don't think Chomsky has been a critic that long. IIRC Chomsky decided to get vocal about his views during the Vietnam/Nixon era. So that would put us at 6 administrations.

Now also consider the affiliations of those administrations. There have been both Republican and Democratic admins. Chomsky has been a critic of the foreign policy, not that party. That is consistency and does not show boas. It shows clarity of thought and a belief in what is right, regardless of party affiliation. Chomsky is very much a person who believes the United States should let countries govern themselves, and keep the American nose out of their business. That is a refreshing attitude to see. I applaud him for it.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Chomsky is very much a person who believes the United States should let countries govern themselves, and keep the American nose out of their business. That is a refreshing attitude to see. I applaud him for it.

I don't believe that's the case. See...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/ma...rvention1.html

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

You are just avoiding answering the question.

I know the purpose of why they captured the soldiers. What I am asking is why didn't they capture civilians instead? They could still try to negotiate an exchange with civilian captives.

If Hezbollah's sole purpose (like you claim) is to simply kill Jews and cause terror (sic), then why did they go after military captives in this situation? Surely civilians would be easier to capture and would be worth as much in an exchange.

Could it be that Hezbollah does actually have a military goal, and they didn't just wake up one day wanting to kill Jews?

Hezbollah could never defeat the Israeli military. The reason they choose the solidars is because there are many outposts along the border. Much easier to do a quick attack against an outpost than attempt to inflitrate Israeli territory capture citizens and then retreat back to Lebanon.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I don't believe that's the case. See...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/ma...rvention1.html

Good point. How about I clarify that to "not enforce their will on other countries"? I picked the wrong words. I think he speaks to this in "Distorted Morality". I'll have to re-watch it and post his exact comments.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

No, you're actively reinforcing your own ignorance by refusing to acknowledge his peer reviewed academic credentials while at the same time dismissing him outright as a legitimate source based on the skimmed testimonials of those who oppose his views. You even insinuated that he was correct, yet still refuse to accept him as a legitimate voice of reason in this discussion. If his writings are correct, what does it matter if he has a bias?

I insinuated he was correct?

Don't remember doing that and if I did I mislead you. He's anti-American, and that seems to be his bent in almost everything he's done since 1967. To me that hurts his credibility and because of that I questioned him as THE source for the Middle East.

Amazing that I've now repeated that about 6 times and we've now gone 8 or so pages with the same questions.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

See, your lack of ability to even recognize the possibility that US Foreign Policy has done more harm than good is a prime example of the error in judgement of dismissing 'fringe' points of view. For the same reason, 80 percent of Americans believe that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military requirements of ending the second World War.

See now that's kind of funny.

I talked openly about US mistakes in my last post while you talked about the US being some kind of vessel for human suffering, really the fact that you are now admitting some "good" means you've come along way!!!!

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I see conjecture being passed off as informed opinion. I think it is irrational to weigh in on a subject, especially one as specific as the credibility of a source on Israeli history and policy, without prior knowledge of the topic. It is clear that the sum total of your knowledge regarding Chomsky and his writings is quite inchoate. I don't mean to be dismissive, rather, I would like to use this as an opportunity to be inclusive.

I don't know what you're talking about in regards to the buying a chomsky book and quoting it all day. There's any number of authors who could tell you almost the same thing chomsky is. As per the original topic of discussion, if you were interested in Lebannon specifically, I would suggest articles by Robert Fisk, or his two books on the country. If you would like an overview of some of the negative aspects of american foreign policy over the last 50 years, I'd suggest William Blum.

I offer up the following links as introductory pieces to him and his writing. Make sure you have a comfortable reading environment, one of the things lost in skimming chomsky's writing is his attention to specific language. His arguments also tend to be thorough.

Chomsky reader: Personal Influences
Transcript of Debate with former CIA director James Woolsey
Chomsky written debate with Professor Samuel P. Huntington, Author of Clash of Civilizations
'War Is Peace', Excerpt from the book,Fateful Triangle

Hopefully I get a chance to look some of that up.

However, I wouldn't hold my breath if I was you. I've read a few of his lectures and essays today and the run on anti-American sentiment has me thinking of the teacher in the Peanuts classic cartoon before I'm a few paragraphs in.

I just can't understand the emtional attachment a few of you have to this guy. The whole topic has been shoved aside for like 8 pages to defend the man.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I think Chomsky would probably argue that, while slightly different, all 8 administrations pursued the same fundamental goals internationally, to a greater or lesser extent; the expansion and continuation of American dominance in foreign economic and political spheres and maintaining (what he would argue is the) unfair trade system the world currently works under, to the great benefit and advantage of the West over the rest.

I disagree.

I think Clinton took a different approach to terrorism then Bush has, and Reagan is incomparable to any of the past 8 administrations.

Carter was more of an appeaser, thinking peace would work especially during the Iranian Hostage situation, while Reagan seemed to be willing to take the hard-line approach to foreign problems. Would Clinton have taken the same stance on Soviet Missiles as Reagan did, as Carter did?

I would agree that each administration has sought to promote American dominance in foreign and domestic issues, but IMO they did it through different methods.

[Azure]

8 Administrations puts us back to Eisenhower, so I don't think Chomsky has been a critic that long. IIRC Chomsky decided to get vocal about his views during the Vietnam/Nixon era. So that would put us at 6 administrations.

I never made that assertion, rather picked it up from different posts throughout the thread.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

I disagree.

I think Clinton took a different approach to terrorism then Bush has, and Reagan is incomparable to any of the past 8 administrations.

Carter was more of an appeaser, thinking peace would work especially during the Iranian Hostage situation, while Reagan seemed to be willing to take the hard-line approach to foreign problems. Would Clinton have taken the same stance on Soviet Missiles as Reagan did, as Carter did?

I would agree that each administration has sought to promote American dominance in foreign and domestic issues, but IMO they did it through different methods.

Yeah, well... what you consider to be 'big differences' in these administrations, Chomsky might argue, are really minute shifts in the details of foreign policy, rather than radically different styles of foreign relations. The ultimate goal, he would say, has always been the same for every administration; the expansion of US domination over foreign political and economic spheres. Whether Clinton supported that status quo system slightly differently than Bush, or Carter, is really just arguing semantics from the 'global' perspective.

Its not necessarily what each administration has specifically done itself when it comes to foreign policy, but rather what the American corporate-capitalist machine has been allowed to do (and heartily supported) by these administrations. He might say they've had obligations to curtail or control US corporate/military actions abroad, and that they are responsible for allowing abuses of US military/economic/political power to happen unnecessarily.

[Azure]

Yeah, well... what you consider to be 'big differences' in these administrations, Chomsky might argue, are really minute shifts in the details of foreign policy, rather than radically different styles of foreign relations. The ultimate goal, he would say, has always been the same for every administration; the expansion of US domination over foreign political and economic spheres. Whether Clinton supported that status quo system slightly differently than Bush, or Carter, is really just arguing semantics from the 'global' perspective.

Yet each has taken a different approach. I cannot argue that each administration DID NOT seek the expansion of American domination throughout the world.

But you can't just disagree with every administration and seek their faults. Reading through this thread, that is one of the obvious problems Chomsky has. I guess it wouldn't seem so bad if he could find the positives like he finds the negatives in everything.

Its not necessarily what each administration has specifically done itself when it comes to foreign policy, but rather what the American corporate-capitalist machine has been allowed to do (and heartily supported) by these administrations.

I think any/every country in the world will seek to do whats best for their corporate world, as it is the corporate world that drives the economy. So is Chomsky right to disagree with the natural means by which a country will support those that fuel its economy?

He might say they've had obligations to curtail or control US corporate/military actions abroad, and that they are responsible for allowing abuses of US military/economic/political power to happen unnecessarily.

I would argue they had the responsibility as well, but used that responsibility in demeaning ways.

[Hack&Lube]

Galloway is considered a nutcase ultra-leftist in the U.K. This guy actually flew to visit Saddam a few times to make buddy buddy with him.