Noam Chomsky: Why its over for America

Has America lost its way?

  • Yes, and the damage cannot be undone

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, but only under the present administration

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No, they are empire building and should carry on, regardless of any criticism

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No, the present situation, however it is interpreted, has always been their way

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No, their peaceful, humanitarian intentions are widely misunderstood

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
#3
Honestly Frenchie, you'll be telling us to listen to Michael Moore soon.

"An inability to protect its citizens" Well they seem to be doing alright so far, sure there was 9/11, but we had the london bombings, Spain had the Madrid train bombings etc.
 
#4
frenchperson said:
An inability to protect its citizens. The belief that it is above the law. A lack of democracy. Three defining characteristics of the 'failed state'.
is that not bliars' government in a nutshell?
 
#5
Of all the words I would use to describe Noam Chomsky, or anything he has said or done to date, devastating is not one of them. Tedious, boring and single minded would be more suitable.
 
#6
#7
frenchperson said:
Noam Chomsky...America's leading thinker explains how his country lost its way
Having...difficulty...reading...this...with..a...straight...face :rofl:

Chomsky should stick to linguistics, as he's been wrong on every international issue since the Spanish Civil War, most pointedly in his cheerleading for the Khmer Rouge.

Any man who openly admits to being an anarcho-syndicalist should be committed. He's been foretelling the downfall of America for decades - he was wrong during the Cold War, and he's wrong now.

Both Chomsky and Eric Hobsbawn should be placed in a museum - the Museum of Failed Ideologies perhaps? - as exhibits labelled 'Clapped-out Leftist Apologists - Homo Intellectulus Pseudous' .
 
#8
gallowglass said:
frenchperson said:
Noam Chomsky...America's leading thinker explains how his country lost its way
Having...difficulty...reading...this...with..a...straight...face :rofl:

Chomsky should stick to linguistics, as he's been wrong on every international issue since the Spanish Civil War, most pointedly in his cheerleading for the Khmer Rouge.

Any man who openly admits to being an anarcho-syndicalist should be committed. He's been foretelling the downfall of America for decades - he was wrong during the Cold War, and he's wrong now.

Both Chomsky and Eric Hobsbawn should be placed in a museum - the Museum of Failed Ideologies perhaps? - as exhibits labelled 'Clapped-out Leftist Apologists - Homo Intellectulus Pseudous' .
I don't like Chomsky (he's a linguist not a historian) but I think the Cambodia debacle has to be contextualised in the the reaction many in the liberal left had to American actions in South East asia. The true nature of the Khmer Rouge wasn't automatically apparent, at first the atrocities of the KR were explained away as the excesses of war by many on the left. A reaction no doubt caused by the apparent hostility of establishment and media to the new communist regime. Then take on board the whole arguments over the number of deaths, Lacouture over estimation of the number of deaths was no doubt a red flag, to Chomsky and no doubt appeased some of the doubts that he must have been having. But still I cant understand why he just cant say 'mea culpa' and admit he was wrong, instead of saying that his main problem with Cambodia was with the numbers killed. I think what he suffers from was what happened to communists when they found out about the real extent of Stalin's atrocities.

However on' Imperialist America '- Chomsky I think (and I hate to say this) he is right, as he has rightly predicted some of the unintended consequences of 'Imperial policy' not only on America but on other countries effected by American Imperialism. Though the background behind this does seem owe quite a lot to Kolko.

On Hobsbawn, whatever his politics the man is a great historian, his work on the working classes in both France and Britain was ground breaking and he single handedly in my view made social history what it is today.
 
#9
He has a point, sort of, I'll give him that. However it's not as inevitable as he's saying it is, things can change, and regardless of whether he's right or wrong on this issue, Chomsky is still a prick.
 
#10
And he's recently stood side by side with Hizbollah in Beruit...how did he manage to escape without losing his head? Anytime Noam rears his silly head I always go and read Oliver Kamm who usually destroys Chomsky and his infantile (and usually wrong) twitterings.

http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2006/05/chomsky_on_milo.html on Chomsky's views about Milosevic et al
 
#11
castlereagh said:
...
On Hobsbawn, whatever his politics the man is a great historian, his work on the working classes in both France and Britain was ground breaking and he single handedly in my view made social history what it is today.
Hobsbawn is a great historian, one of my favorites. His Age of Revolution/Capital/Empire books and 'Industry and Empire' are good stuff for anyone interested in the development of industrial society in the West. I find Chomsky almost infuriatingly selective and biased who panders to a foreign audience so much so he alienates even many leftist academics and intellectuals in the US.
 
#12
frenchperson said:
An inability to protect its citizens. The belief that it is above the law. A lack of democracy. Three defining characteristics of the 'failed state'. And that, says Noam Chomsky, is exactly what the US is becoming. In an exclusive extract from his devastating new book, America's leading thinker explains how his country lost its way:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article621899.ece
You missed out "Neom Chomsky: Why has he lost his marbles?"
 
#14
Chomsky is full of crap!
 
#15
Trip_Wire said:
Chomsky is full of crap!
Thanks for that in-depth and thorough analysis. I'd welcome any debate you wish to have on Chomsky's writings. In the meantime, I'd just like to point out that the President and Trustees of MIT, where he has been employed for the last 51 years, would disagree with you; as would:

University of London, University of Chicago, Loyola University of Chicago, Swarthmore College, Delhi University, Bard College, University of Massachusetts, University of Pennsylvania, Georgetown University, Amherst College, Cambridge University, University of Buenos Aires, McGill University, Universitat Rovira I Virgili, Tarragona, Columbia University, University of Connecticut, Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, University of Western Ontario, University of Toronto, Harvard University, University of Calcutta, and Universidad Nacional De Colombia; all of who have conferred honorary degrees on him

He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the National Academy of Science. In addition, he is a member of other professional and learned societies in the United States and abroad, and is a recipient of the Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award of the American Psychological Association, the Kyoto Prize in Basic Sciences, the Helmholtz Medal, the Dorothy Eldridge Peacemaker Award, the Ben Franklin Medal in Computer and Cognitive Science, and others. He is twice winner of The Orwell Award, granted by The National Council of Teachers of English for "Distinguished Contributions to Honesty and Clarity in Public Language"
 
#16
crabtastic, how many of those posts and accolades are for:

A. His work on Linguistics;

B. Pontificating on Middle-Eastern Affairs and US foriegn policy?

Just out of interest.

If someone's a highly-qualified brain surgeon, it doesn't mean s/he knows shoite about football :p
 
#17
Does it really matter? All of us here feel that we're entitled to express opinions whether we're qualified to speak on them or not. The only difference is that Chomsky has been hugely influential among the professional thinkers within the discipline of international relations- especially the postmodernists, constructivists, scholars like Richard Falk and others who were part of the World Order Models Project etc. etc. etc.

Personally, I think he goes a little too far on occassion, but even so, as a rhetorician his contribution has been invaluable since even if you disagree with him, you have to be able to to counter his arguments. Furthermore, IMHO, it would not be entirely inappropriate to call him a renaissance figure since his influence has been felt even further- into psychology and computer science etc.
 
#19
crabtastic:

Debate? Surely you jest?

This academic idiot couldn't, pour urine out of a boot, with the instructions written on the heel!

Do I care what his fellow academics think of him? Nope! He's still full of crap!! :lol:
 

Latest Threads

Top