Noam Chomsky on Vaclav Havel

[bangdazap]

Who can forget his prediction that the US military would kill millions of innocent Afghans in October 2001?? The man is blinded by his own anti-American biases.

-zilla

The US effectivly cut off food for millions of Afghans during the onset of winter by closing the Pakistani border for food transports before and during the war. If the war had lasted longer then millions would have perished, yes. Chomsky didn't "predict" anything, he just stated what I just wrote.
(the "prediction" is available here: http://www.zmag.org/GlobalWatch/chomskymit.htm)

 

[Skeptic]

The point was, that Vietnam under american 'occupation' was a lot worse than czechoslovakia was under the USSR. That is, a country at war in which over a million people died is a lot worse than a country that is at peace, even if it is occupied by an unwanted power, without the war.

Gee, that's funny.

When the North Vietnamese were fighting to "free" South Vietnam from the Americans, or the Arabs are fighting to "free Palestine" from the existence of the jews, all of a sudden Chomsky doesn't think that they are morally required to stop fighting and accept their position as "occupied" because a bad peace is better than a good war.

It is ONLY when the Americans (or the jews, or the western world, or its supporters in general) are fighting against communist and/or religious tyrrany that the fighting suddenly becomes "immoral", and therefore the "right thing to do" is to have "peace"--that is, surrender to the tyrant.

Chomsky (like you) does NOT oppose war or violence per se; he only opposes war when democracies or freedom-loving people fight back against opression. As long as it is some insane kleptocratic theocracy (or marxist "paradise") that's doing the fighting, Chomsky is all for it. Tyrants have a "right" to fight; democracies have no right to fight back. This is Chomsky's "enlightened" position.

Of course, Chomsky had never hated America enough, or loved Marxism enough, to actually LEAVE America and move to one of the marxist paradises he keeps talking about, such as Vietnam, Cambodia, or North Korea. Which means that even he, deep down, doesn't believe his own bulls--t.

 

[bangdazap]

IIRC the South Vietnamese requested American military aid, which initially was supposed to consist of little more than the availability of US military advisors to the South Vietnamese forces, but developed into a full military engagement.

The "South Vietnamese" being the oppressive dictatorship that had the dishonour of topping Amnesty Internationals list of worst users of torture in the world while it existed.
In the 50s and early 60s the "South Vietnamese" had mobile guillotines* adorned with decapited heads of it's victims working around the countryside to stop people from getting funny ideas about controlling their own lives.


* a guillotine is a machine used for chopping peoples heads off.

 

[a_unique_person]

The point was, that Vietnam under american 'occupation' was a lot worse than czechoslovakia was under the USSR. That is, a country at war in which over a million people died is a lot worse than a country that is at peace, even if it is occupied by an unwanted power, without the war.

Gee, that's funny.

When the North Vietnamese were fighting to "free" South Vietnam from the Americans, or the Arabs are fighting to "free Palestine" from the existence of the jews, all of a sudden Chomsky doesn't think that they are morally required to stop fighting and accept their position as "occupied" because a bad peace is better than a good war.

It is ONLY when the Americans (or the jews, or the western world, or its supporters in general) are fighting against communist and/or religious tyrrany that the fighting suddenly becomes "immoral", and therefore the "right thing to do" is to have "peace"--that is, surrender to the tyrant.

Chomsky (like you) does NOT oppose war or violence per se; he only opposes war when democracies or freedom-loving people fight back against opression. As long as it is some insane kleptocratic theocracy (or marxist "paradise") that's doing the fighting, Chomsky is all for it. Tyrants have a "right" to fight; democracies have no right to fight back. This is Chomsky's "enlightened" position.

Of course, Chomsky had never hated America enough, or loved Marxism enough, to actually LEAVE America and move to one of the marxist paradises he keeps talking about, such as Vietnam, Cambodia, or North Korea. Which means that even he, deep down, doesn't believe his own bulls--t.

I was not arguing that I agreed with chomsky on this at all. I was just trying to point out what he said, not what he was accused of saying.

When I asked a cambodian refugee once what he liked most about australia, his answer was not the fact that it was peaceful, wealthy, sunny etc. He said freedom was what he valued most. This made me think a bit. It also made me wonder about the palestinians a bit more.

 

[stamenflicker]

Chomsky is without a doubt out on a crazed political limb. But let's not forget what this man has given us in the field of linguistics. Earth-shattering material on phonology and knowledge coding, sub-texts and meaning, and media construction. He is without a doubt one of the most intelligent souls to have ever lived.

He too often assumes the worst though... that's a lack of an attribute called wisdom, no reflection on his genius.

Flick

 

[Ben Shniper]

I was not arguing that I agreed with chomsky on this at all. I was just trying to point out what he said, not what he was accused of saying.

Then why are you posting in his defense? Chomsky claims he DEPLORED the actions of the Stalinists and North Vietnamese. So why doesn't he list grievances against them, only against America? I think I know why! He may claim to deplore something equally, but if you read what he says, you'll see he's just a dumb old commie. He supported Pol Pot, by listing American crimes against the Cambodians. But did he ever speak up for the millions Pol Pot killed?

You CLAIM to not necessarily agree with Chomsky. Your actions prove otherwise. Just like your mentor. Be proud... Or not.

-Ben

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by bangdazap:

The "South Vietnamese" being the oppressive dictatorship that had the dishonour of topping Amnesty Internationals list of worst users of torture in the world while it existed.
In the 50s and early 60s the "South Vietnamese" had mobile guillotines* adorned with decapited heads of it's victims working around the countryside to stop people from getting funny ideas about controlling their own lives.

I wonder who it was introduced the Vietnamese to the guillotine?

 

[a_unique_person]

Then why are you posting in his defense? Chomsky claims he DEPLORED the actions of the Stalinists and North Vietnamese. So why doesn't he list grievances against them, only against America? I think I know why! He may claim to deplore something equally, but if you read what he says, you'll see he's just a dumb old commie. He supported Pol Pot, by listing American crimes against the Cambodians. But did he ever speak up for the millions Pol Pot killed?

You CLAIM to not necessarily agree with Chomsky. Your actions prove otherwise. Just like your mentor. Be proud... Or not.

-Ben

RTFP. I was saying if you are going to attack him, do it for a reason, not for the something he never said.

 

[Drooper]

To my mind, Chomsky must be one of the most overrated "intellectuals" on the planet.

This very argument is a straw man.

It makes no more sense to criticise Havel's favourable view of America, given their conduct in Europe than it does to chastise a "Vietnamese villager's" view based on US conduct of the Vietnam war.

Chomsky needs to watch the Life of Brian.

"What have the Romans ever done for us..?"

 

[rikzilla]

RTFP. I was saying if you are going to attack him, do it for a reason, not for the something he never said.

What a laugh.

Chomsky's a loon. There's that old saw about there being a thin line between genius and insanity....Chomsky waltzes back and forth across that line like a 3rd grader doing the hokie-pokie.

Just because he's a genius does not mean he's more moral than the rest of us. I'm sure Mother Theresa was nowhere near as smart as Chomsky....and no matter what Chomsky or his sycophants think....he's nowhere near as moral as the good mum. Smart does not equal good. Chomsky is an ass with an anti-American agenda.

-z

 

[Mike B.]

I think what Chomsky is really mad at is an intellectual like Havel who lived through the "Prauge Spring" and all that happened because of it does not buy Chomsky's fundamentalist views about worker's paradises.

I mean Chomsky knows(not someone who lived through it) that Havel must be wrong...

 

[Barkhorn1x]

A long time ago...

Chomsky is without a doubt out on a crazed political limb. But let's not forget what this man has given us in the field of linguistics. Earth-shattering material on phonology and knowledge coding, sub-texts and meaning, and media construction. He is without a doubt one of the most intelligent souls to have ever lived.

He too often assumes the worst though... that's a lack of an attribute called wisdom, no reflection on his genius.

Flick

His linguist chops serve his political sophistry well as I've posted elsewhere.

And, unfortunately, his exalted intellectual status has provided him w/ far too wide an audience for his anti-American agitprop.

This is a phenomenon we see far too often - an expert in one field declaiming as an authority in another. How else to explain the political "activism" of a Sean Penn, a Susan Sarandon or a Pat Robertson.

Again unfortunately, the media just lap it up.

Regards,
Barkhorn.