Interventions: Foreign Policy Since 9-11 »
Posted by: populist 1 year, 2 months agoA review of Noam Chomsky's new book, "Interventions," which is a collection of essays on American policy since 9-11. Chomsky's first essay is titled "9/11: Lessons Unlearned" in which he addresses the question: "Why do they hate us?"
Read Full Story at populistamerica.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 97
-
100%
jovial1 year, 2 months ago
Noam has been consistently right about with his views about the world. A scholarly gentleman and a credit to the human race. Thanks pop for bringing this story in view.
Reply-
83%
populist1 year, 2 months ago
I agree with much of his foreign policy analysis, that's for sure.
A lot of people out there can't stand him - consider him to be too leftist, or whatever other label they give him. But ad hominem attacks don't change the reality that is our devastating foreign policy!
Reply-
92%
DanmLiberals1 year, 2 months ago
Populist:
I dont think I have ever read a story that is pro-USA from you. Do you live in a different country or something?
Reply
-
44%
beachboy60001 year, 2 months ago
Noam? Guess you are on a first name basis with him. His picture is on Osama bin Laden's cave wall. Chomsky was dead set against the U.S. taking military action against al Qeda and the Taliban. If you agree with that position, then you. like him, are a complete a$$hole.
Reply-
0%
Lurch1 year, 2 months ago
Al Zawahiri invited Dubya over for juice in the Green Zone, that`s how closely they are aligned.
Something about appreciation for a job well done in postponing a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq indefinitely.
Without a common enemy, the Iraqi insurgents would just turn on each and Al Zawahiri and his ilk would be dead before you know it.
"And lest Bush worry, I congratulate him on the success of his security plan, and I invite him on the occasion for a glass of juice, but in the cafeteria of the Iraqi parliament in the middle of the Green Zone," al-Zawahiri says.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270241,00.html
Reply
-
-
100%
Aurinkohirvi1 year, 2 months ago
The public image of the USA and it's true foreign policy are in a serious conflict. It's nothing new though: this has been the case since the Cold War. The people who get their image of the USA from Hollywood and pop-culture have quite different image than those who READ about news and their backgrounds.
A lot of people thinks USA is the Evil Greed Empire, and has been that decades before wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As long as US foreign policy's leading idea is to secure the mega corporations' profits from foreign countries, it will continue on this dirty, bloody path.
USA was about to start a war against Afghanistan already before 9/11, and the reason? The oil pipe that now has been built from Central Asia to Pakistan through Afghanistan.
USA was interfering Iraq before Saddam, helped Saddam to gain power, helped him to finance and wage the war against Iran, and later supported Iraqi rebellions against Saddam's regime.
The more you know, the more you hate US foreign policy.
Reply-
40%
ETproductions1 year, 2 months ago
Oh, you forgot to mention that before we financed and armed Saddam to attack Iran, our CIA helped overthrow a popular elected Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammad Mossadegh. We replaced him with the hated dictator Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran. Why? Because Mossadegh wanted to nationalize the oil industry of Iran and the British and American oil firms wanted to keep it for themselves.
When a popular uprising finally overthrew the brutal Shah, the Iranians rightly turned their hatred toward America and Britain. And we dealt with that through a proxy war using Saddam as our puppet. Only when he also exerted his own independence did a war with him loom on the radar.
The PNAC white paper of 1999 shows quite clearly that the Neocons wanted a war with Iraq. It even mentions that it would take a Pearl Harbor style attack on America to sell the war to the American people. We got that in 2001 after the Neocons took over in 2000.
Reply-
100%
donald511 year, 2 months ago
...and why Paul Wolfowitz even put pre-emptive war and unilateralism into the 1992 Defense Planning Guidance. Paul, a man who should be rotting in a jail convicted of war crimes by the World Criminal Court that Dubya denies. I liked Chomsky's example of preventive war being the "supreme international crime" for which many were hung for by the Nuremberg Tribunal.
Reply -
0%
rimbaud1 year, 2 months ago
I'm sure the hanging of Saddam made a great impression on our allies, the monarchies in Jordan, Saudi and UAE, and the military dictatorship in Pakistan. No wonder they are trying to put some distance between us and them. Reflecting on the fate of the Shah and Saddam, they think, "Look how the mighty have fallen at the hands of their ally" and "With a friend like the USA, who needs enemies?":
http://www.ericblumrich.com/thanks.html
Reply
-
-
-
0%
jdhatl1 year, 2 months ago
Chomsky is not leftist. He accepts the findings of the warren commission. That means that conservatives need to start listening to him because he can explain why everything is so f***ed up without histrionics or emotional arm waving
Reply -
88%
quackpot1 year, 2 months ago
Th U.S. foreign policy has always been dictated by buisness interests. For example, the Mexican American war was nothing less than a land-grab by prominent land speculators.
The current situation differs in that the Iraq oil grab got bogged down by poor planning of how to handle post-invasion Iraq. From a big buisness view, the Iraq conflict still makes a lot of sense (in terms of profit, that is. Throughout U.S. history, lives have never been a factor in considering large buisness deals).
Reply-
31%
donald511 year, 2 months ago
...there was no plan! The state department had a plan, but Rummy refused it! How about failure to secure all those ammo dumps with 155 rounds that make great IEDs? How about failure to secure the Baghdad museum while making sure soldiers were at the oil ministry building? How about firing the iraqi bureacracy and military snding over a million upset people into the insurgent ranks? The plan of attack was flawed from the start if it didn't put sufficient force on the ground for followon actions. Shinsheki told the Congress before we went we needed at least 300,000 to start with; but, Rummy, who wanted to drop two active army divisions before 911, still wanted to do it all on the cheap. Rummy should be in jail too!
Reply
-
-
-
100%
populist1 year, 2 months ago
Exactly!!
that's the standard ad hominem attack. attack the messenger, not the message. This is what vieamie does all the time.
generally people do that when they don't have a leg to stand on. it's pretty weak.
Reply -
71%
donald511 year, 2 months ago
...so where examples from his book were given in this article, please validate where he is lying? Also, where are the quotes to validate him as a communist... or are you just one of those people who thinks that trying to help an impoverished kid is socialism and hence communism?
Reply
-
-
86%
ryan6011 year, 2 months ago
"He knows about as much about foreign policy as a pig, which is what he happens to be."
And you're a foreign policy expert? Exactly what qualifications do you have? How about experience?
quackpot is right. The only thing you, or any of us, can do is read his book and then comment on whether or not you think his conclusions make logical sense. Without even reading his book, you don't what the hell you're talking about.
Reply-
55%
foksipayne1 year, 2 months ago
Yes it's all about logic, and if anyone believe the sh!t we're in now is logical then they need a psych eval.
Reply
-
-
100%
djn3nunez31 year, 2 months ago
I suspect that truly a lying pig has given you (sheeple?) your opinion.
Reply -
100%
Calebe1 year, 2 months ago
thanks, its ignorant azzholes like you (typical bushies) that actually help to make folks WANT to read / learn more about great educators like Chomsky, especially since 9-11!
Reply -
-
29%
djn3nunez31 year, 2 months ago
....and having intervened in their countries for the better part of 80 years, the west could be seen as a threat.
So it looks like you agree with Chomsky.
Good for you.
Reply -
100%
UnusualSuspect1 year, 2 months ago
You may not waste your time with opinions on Netscape, but you waste our time with giving your opinion of others without having read their work, and then back off when pressed for an answer you can't give. So, tell us...on which blog do you post your opinions and vast knowledge, so someone as "simple" as myself might get a peek of your superior intellect?
Reply -
67%
Natureboy1 year, 2 months ago
"I don't waste my opinions and education on Netscape postings."
That is something on which we can all agree - what could be more obvious?
Reply
-
-
50%
skyking2p1 year, 2 months ago
vieamie you sound like a very intellectual person. Thanks for adding your special insight to the conversation.
Reply -
43%
Natureboy1 year, 2 months ago
"I wouldn't read his trash with a 100 foot pole."
How can you read trash with a pole? Think before you say such things.
Reply -
100%
CatholicRedneck1 year, 2 months ago
I like the quote by Israeli military intelligence chief, Yesoshaphat Harkabi: To offer an honorable solution to the Palestinians, respecting their right to self-determination. That is the solution of the problem of terrorism. When the swamp disappears, there will be no more mosquitoes.
Reply -
100%
djrevelky1 year, 2 months ago
I enjoy how Chomsky always writes about a subject that he isn't trained in. I'll let you guys in on a little secret...Chomsky doesn't have any form of a degree in History, Political Science, or International studys.
While SOME of Chomsky's arguements do raise interesting points to consider his liberalism and hatred of varying points of view is evident. Chomsky rarely attempts to refute the other point of view or use citations so from a strictly academic background his writings are not authoratative in the least.
Chomsky is exactly what he accuses his opposition of being. He is wraped around a single point of view and that encompasses all of his thoughts and feelings. Chomsky is, above all, an isolationist and a historical revionist who is not capable of understanding geopolitical reality.
Reply-
75%
skyking2p1 year, 2 months ago
djrevelky: "I'll let you guys in on a little secret...Chomsky doesn't have any form of a degree in History, Political Science, or International studys" Seems to me, he may have done a little studying since college. A lot of truth in this article.
"Chomsky is exactly what he accuses his opposition of being. He is wraped around a single point of view and that encompasses all of his thoughts and feelings. Chomsky is, above all, an isolationist and a historical revionist who is not capable of understanding geopolitical reality." What would be you experience in this area?
Reply
-
-
-
100%
UnusualSuspect1 year, 2 months ago
Wow...being welcomed in Albania is cetainly a biggie. I'm sure the White House Corps videotaped that for posterity! LOL...
Reply -
100%
Calebe1 year, 2 months ago
hey, is it dibdib as in dubya bush.. is that really you georgie? how do you find the time? but whats most surprizing is that we didn't think you could read or write, or do anything else above substandard.
Reply
-
38%
hsaleem1 year, 2 months ago
That's just it. The statements are based on facts and figures that each of us know very well. It's just that we have to accept them.
Reply -
38%
crotalus1 year, 2 months ago
The main problem I have with this article (and therefore, this book) is not laying ANY of the blame for world conflict on anyone but westerners, mainly the U.S. and British. It even compares the U.S. to Nazi Germany. Yes, we've screwed up big time on issues of foreign policy, but our actions do not deserve that comparison. The book brings up South Africa as an example of "a just peace" although things aren't great there now, in fact they're worse, because....Thatcher and the westerners. Could it have anything to do with total lack of good direction or leadership from their own people. I'm no neocon and not particularly religious (in fact I consider myself a very skeptical independent), but I am an American and I think we bring alot of light to this world. In the form of scientific discovery and human aid around the world. Yes, we screw things up like every society that has ever been on the planet, but we're not the pile of crap this books makes us out to be.
Reply-
100%
bigG1 year, 2 months ago
I believe Chomsky's focus is on our government and its' policies, not the American people. I travel extensively around the world and never have a problem with treatment by others just because I am a U.S. citizen. What I hear about our government's policies are a different matter altogether.
Reply-
0%
crotalus1 year, 2 months ago
I've traveled a bit myself and I've gotten the same response. No matter how convoluted governments try to make diplomacy, your average person in most nations understands that governments do not always speak for its people (e.g., when they invade another nation). In fact, when we start discussing issues in our respective nations, most have similar criticisms of thier government (bums that seem to get nothing done). I understand Chomsky is focusing on U.S. policies. And, I haven't read the book, just the article that was posted. But it seems Chomsky and many others have a problem admitting that in some if not most cases the other nation with which we're in conflict has equal or more culpability in the situation. As I stated below, I would've stayed out of Iraq in the first place. There's plenty of other nations in the region with more vested in the situation than the U.S.
Reply
-
-
-
70%
crotalus1 year, 2 months ago
And what happened to the new Democratic revolution? I'm not surprised in the slightest at how inneffective they've been. It's not that they're repubs or dems, they're career politicians. Maybe they'll be able to straighten some of this mess out when they have one of their own as president and don't have to worry about a veto. But, I wonder. Will we be any better off really? Will anything significant be done?
Reply-
100%
donald511 year, 2 months ago
...where did you get such high expectations of a "REVOLUTION"? Let's see: 49 Dems, 49 Repugs and 2 independants in the Senate... no one promised a revolution, except Faux Fox Facts which accuses the Dems of promising such to exagerate the failure of the Dems to get their agenda through the remaining Bush Republican sycophants in Congress (party over morals and conscience).
Reply-
63%
crotalus1 year, 2 months ago
Haha, you know maybe it wasn't revolution they promised. But, they did promise to do SOMETHING didn't they. Let's see how far government health care for all gets when a dem is president. I would love it. I pay $650/month for private health care now. The government couldn't possibly bleed me for more to cover the me and the non-workers of the nation. They will never work it out. It died in less than a year when Bill was first elected. You can call 'em repugs all you want but I can't see where one side is soooo superior to the other.
Reply
-
-
-
80%
crotalus1 year, 2 months ago
Personally, I think we should've left Iraq alone. Or at least not have been the lead nation on the invasion. If Sadaam's Iraq would've and Iran does develop any type of WMD, where are they going to use it if they choose? Most likely not in the U.S. because they have no means to get it here. They have no ICBM's. They'll use it on Isreal or part of Europe. Or perhaps an Islamic neighbor. That's great, leave them alone. It will not be our problem...not at first anyway. Am I remembering it correctly? Wasn't Sadaam thumbing his nose at and bascially crapping all over the U.N. and world by not allowing an inspection? I don't think he had WMD's, at least not anything that was close to functional. He could've avoided it all by letting in inspectors. But, no let's not lay any of the blame for conflict on them.
Reply-
100%
MonkeyBiz1 year, 2 months ago
"He could've avoided it all by letting in inspectors."
The UN inspectors WERE let in. They were warned out just before we invaded. Additionally, just before the invasion, a desperate Saddam sent a back channel message to Bush that he could send in AMERICAN inspectors to look at anything they wished. Inspections had nothing to do with the invasion.
You have been listening to too much screech radio, where history and facts are bent and distorted to match an argument, much like the intelligence and facts were before the invasion.
Reply -
75%
Natureboy1 year, 2 months ago
WMDs were the stated reason, but not the genuine reason, for the invasion.
It was/is the vision of the PNAC to conquer the middle-east and impose a "Pax Americana." This was published long before September 11, 2001.
Hence, the 14 permanent or "enduring" bases in Iraq. It is the base from which the US plans to launch attacks on other nations.
Reply
-
-
100%
entropy1 year, 2 months ago
"Why do they (Arabs/Muslims) hate us?" Fifty years ago Dwight Eisenhower's National Security Council explained it's because we support Middle East despots and "oppos(e) political or economic progress" wanting only control of the region's vast oil reserves. It's no different today with people everywhere respecting our freedoms but hating our policies, especially toward them. With good reason, they view the US as a "terrorist regime," which it is.
Thank you!!
Reply -
MichaelRhodenteComment removed: User banned.1 Reply
-
0%
ryan6011 year, 2 months ago
"Yeah, I am a foreign policy expert. I do not need to read his book to know that he is a liar and a communist and knows zip about foreign policy."
If that's true, then why don't you answer my questions? What qualifications do you have? What is your job title, and what exactly do you do with regard to foreign policy? How many years have you been at this job? And who do you work for?
I mean, let's face it, anyone can come on this board and claim to be anything they want. Hell, I could claim to be British royalty and you wouldn't be able to tell if I'm lying.
Reply -
-
75%
quiescence1 year, 2 months ago
Wizardcotx - Please examine the record before making such remarkably ignorant comments.
If you were even slightly familiar with Chomsky's work, you would know that he has been highly critical of both parties, since both parties are essentially beholden to the same corporate interests that dominate U.S. foreign policy.
You'll also find that he has been highly critical of the former Soviet Union; something that even a cursory examination of the facts would reveal to you.
Then again, judging by the content of your rant, examination of the facts doesn't seem to be something you're particularly interested in.
OH WELL
Reply
-
-
63%
tlakegrk1 year, 2 months ago
Chomsky a self hating Jew who believes that the DPRK and Khmer Rouge are (were) relevant forms of gov't. So what to do ? Ditch Israel and these issues / maniacs go away ? Leave Sadaam in place and he is to be considered the paragon of stability? Trust the UN and its, ahem, decsiveness ? ( Bosnia, Rwanda, Darfur et al) Bush lost the peace, no doubt. Chomsky and the radical left are bankrupt. Prof of semantics hhhmmmm does that mean Chomsky has a golden shovel ? If the world can survive the radical left and the radical religious muslims maybe there wont be armaggedon.
Reply -
100%
bigG1 year, 2 months ago
crotalus - good post. I agree to a certain extent, but unfortunately we are
