Split Thread Noam Chomsky

[McHrozni]

Chomsky is whataboutism personified.

That's basically all you need to know about the guy. Everything else is just useless details.

McHrozni

 

[Toontown]

Chomsky never whitewashed anything - he just disputed some of the Hysterical casualty figures associated with the Cambodian Genocide: figure for which population demographics and corpses do not support.

An avalanche of deceptive words, signifying nothing.

What purpose was served by disputing the accepted numbers other than to attempt to downplay the magnitude of the genocide with nothing but words? He had no evidence of his own to establish a more accurate measure of the magnitude of the genocide. He was just talking deceptively out his ass.

After the US got beat in Vietnam and retreated, there were a lot of parties in the west that were just too willing to show that only disaster happens when he Great Defender of Freedom - the USA - pulled out of Vietnam. And it was these same parties that exagerated the tragedy that was occuring in Cambodia: especially War-Hawk Universities like Yale and their ilk..

Excuses, excuses.

His detractors are right about him. He can't tolerate any disagreement with himself. He will continue to emit avalanches of words (each of which will need to be checked and independently verified before quoting) until his dying breath.

Nevertheless, Cambodia was a tragedy - just not as great as the hawks would have you believe.

What difference does it make? What measure of the magnitude of the genocide would make you feel vindicated?

Later, the Chinese got tired of Vietnams pacification efforts in Cambodia and invaded Vietnam in 1979. This did not go well for the Chinese, and they withdrew. Actually, Vietnam had stopped the Chinese Army without ever recalling their frontline troops from Laod and Cambodia: they beat the Chinese with the Vietnamese-Army "B Team". Geez...Those Vietnamese were some fighting mofo's: First America....then China.

It is hardly surprising that the NVA mauled the Chinese. The Chinese weren't that good back then. When the Chinese entered the Korean conflict, one worn, half frozen Marine division was surrounded by 10 divisions of fresh Chinese troops. The Marine division and the supporting Marine air wing mauled them so badly that The Chinese dissolved the remnants of all 10 divisions. The Marines escaped the encirclement with all their casualties and equipment, and were further burdened by many Chinese soldiers who surrendered to them.

I'm sure today's Chinese army would do much better. But there remains only one military on the planet that has stayed nose to nose with the NVA for an extended time.

I was within spitting distance of NVA troops on several occasions. These encounters were largely a series of SNAFU's on both sides, but I did get 1 of them (totally in self defense, they were after my ass) and another from long range (they were after my ass again), and they didn't get any of me. So me 2, NVA 0. Presumably you will be less effusive in your praise of the NVA in the future.

But I'd bet on the NVA against Hesbollah. And I'd give odds. The NVA of the Vietnam war era were tough customers in close combat. They were also very good in large unit actions, but it wasn't a fair fight due to US air and artillery support, which was very effective. So the NVA used hit and run tactics and avoided extended large unit combat, except at Khe San. But they were badly mauled at Khe san, and never tried that again.

The NVA had no military strategy in their struggle against the US in South Vietnam. Their strategy was political. They sought to send as many of us home in body bags as possible, to turn public opinion in the US and thereby force the US to pull out of the conflict. They used our open, democratic society against us. To that end, they were willing to trade a lot of Vietnamese blood for much less American blood.

And China's experience in Vietnam should serve as a warning....and a rebuke....for those ignorant American Warhawks who insist that the US should have invaded North Vietnam. I mean, what a crazy idea. It would have been an utter disastor for the US Military.

A successful invasion was possible, but it wouldn't have been worth it. A successful invasion of North Vietnam would have required a WWII level effort, likely resulting in a long occupation with an insurgency and a cacaphonous international outcry over too many civilian casualties. The South Vietnamese army probably would not have been up to the task of occupying and pacifying the North.

The containment strategy to limit the spread of aggressive communism was correct, but not that way. Perfect hindsight suggests that Vietnam could have been pried away from the USSR and China after Vietnam was unified by the North Vietnamese.

 

[BStrong]

Chomsky never whitewashed anything - he just disputed some of the Hysterical casualty figures associated with the Cambodian Genocide: figure for which population demographics and corpses do not support.

After the US got beat in Vietnam and retreated, there were a lot of parties in the west that were just too willing to show that only disaster happens when he Great Defender of Freedom - the USA - pulled out of Vietnam. And it was these same parties that exagerated the tragedy that was occuring in Cambodia: especially War-Hawk Universities like Yale and their ilk.

Nevertheless, Cambodia was a tragedy - just not as great as the hawks would have you believe.

Also, a lot of the insane exageration about the Cambodian Genocide was done to cover the fact that the US dropped over 2 Million Tonnes of Bombs on Cambodia and so set the stage for the rise of the Khmer Rouge - who were hot to wipe out anyone they suspected of being responsible for the west dropping bombs on them, and for all the fighting that had spilled over from vietnam into Cambodia. Since the Vietnamese helped carry the fighting into Cambodia during the mid 1970s...they bear a bit of blame too, but they did later liberate Cambodia from the Khmer Rouge while the US and China ignored the situation and just pointed fingers.

Later, the Chinese got tired of Vietnams pacification efforts in Cambodia and invaded Vietnam in 1979. This did not go well for the Chinese, and they withdrew. Actually, Vietnam had stopped the Chinese Army without ever recalling their frontline troops from Laod and Cambodia: they beat the Chinese with the Vietnamese-Army "B Team". Geez...Those Vietnamese were some fighting mofo's: First America....then China.

And China's experience in Vietnam should serve as a warning....and a rebuke....for those ignorant American Warhawks who insist that the US should have invaded North Vietnam. I mean, what a crazy idea. It would have been an utter disastor for the US Military.

I don't even know where to begin.

I live in an area with a great many refugees from S.E.A.

i volunteered with Refugee Relief International

https://www.refugeerelief.org

and visited refugee camps outside of Aranyaprathet, Thailand.

If you want to play casualty number games as part of a defense of Chomsky, have at it, but nobody that knows the subject matter first hand is going to pay you any mind.

Chomsky viewed everything that went down in S.E.A. through his political prism, but to the best of my knowledge never set foot there.

It's very easy to have abstract political theories when you never watch a fellow human being suffer, no matter what politics are involved.

If you have an actual interest in the subject matter I suggest that you take a trip to S.E.A. and see for yourself. The Khmer have maintained the existing records to bear witness to the genocide, and I have -0- reason to believe that what they've documented did not occur in the numbers most quoted. I know enough refugees from Cambodia and Laos that have consistent accounts of what they faced to escape and what they themselves witnessed to lead me to believe that the accounts Chomsky rejected where in fact true, and the only reason that I can imagine is that he simply couldn't accept that the movement he supported (rhetorically only, Noam talks a good game but never suits up) could be capable of what they did - he couldn't face the fact he wasn't on the side of the angels.

 

[Eddie Dane]

What does a little Holocaust Denial matter?

Didn't some Neo-Nazi "revisionist" trick Chomsky into writing a preface to his book?

 

[Jules Galen]

I don't even know where to begin.

I live in an area with a great many refugees from S.E.A.

i volunteered with Refugee Relief International

https://www.refugeerelief.org

and visited refugee camps outside of Aranyaprathet, Thailand.

If you want to play casualty number games as part of a defense of Chomsky, have at it, but nobody that knows the subject matter first hand is going to pay you any mind.

Chomsky viewed everything that went down in S.E.A. through his political prism, but to the best of my knowledge never set foot there.

It's very easy to have abstract political theories when you never watch a fellow human being suffer, no matter what politics are involved.

If you have an actual interest in the subject matter I suggest that you take a trip to S.E.A. and see for yourself. The Khmer have maintained the existing records to bear witness to the genocide, and I have -0- reason to believe that what they've documented did not occur in the numbers most quoted. I know enough refugees from Cambodia and Laos that have consistent accounts of what they faced to escape and what they themselves witnessed to lead me to believe that the accounts Chomsky rejected where in fact true, and the only reason that I can imagine is that he simply couldn't accept that the movement he supported (rhetorically only, Noam talks a good game but never suits up) could be capable of what they did - he couldn't face the fact he wasn't on the side of the angels.

Yeah...Noam has been to Sotheast Asia....so what?

Anyways, all Noam did was question some of the inflated and hysterical figures that were bandied about at the time - and some of those figures were extremely inflate. nevertheless, no one denies there was as great killing and that the Khmer Rouge are Bad Boyz.

But people certainly don't like Noam Chomsky - the guy that took the filthy truth of America's involvement in the Vietnam War and rammed it up the Keester of every Warhawk in the USA. Fort that, Noam Chomsky will never be forgiven and, as a result, these hawks will never miss an opportunity to slander the man - no matter how frivolous the charges.

So many Americans are still so ignorant about what went on in Vietnam and SE Asia - and it's really not their fault. The chorus of lies and revisionist history that has originated from the Hawks has drowned out a lot of truth.

Anyways....there is hope. The Vietnam Generation will soon be dead and the last tangible remnant we'll have left of the matter will be that Black Gash of Shame in Washington DC that they call the Vietnam War Memorial - and that will be how America's involvement in Vietnam will ultimatly be remembered - With SHAME.

Latter generations will then be able to concentrate on the truth of what happened and perhaps learn some lessons.

 

[Toontown]

Yeah...Noam has been to Sotheast Asia....so what?

Anyways, all Noam did was question some of the inflated and hysterical figures that were bandied about at the time - and some of those figures were extremely inflate. nevertheless, no one denies there was as great killing and that the Khmer Rouge are Bad Boyz.

Chomsky denied it for a long time. Then he had to admit it. Then he started downplaying it, like you did there.

Yeah, the Khmer Rouge were just some "bad boyz" who were angry at the Cambodian people, who they held responsible for the U.S. bombing NVA troops in Cambodia.

They weren't the indoctrinated followers of the communist ideologue Pol Pot, who was taught the ideology of genocide by a communist college professor in France. They were just some boys who got a bit carried away in the heat of the moment. Right?

Wrong. They were the poster boys of a scourge which, all told, killed scores of millions in various places. This scourge was precisely the reason why the containment strategy existed, and why the U.S. chose to make a stand in Vietnam in the first place.

In the words of my former VC brother in arms: "No VC, no bok-bok. Marine no lai day." (rough translation: 'If it weren't for the stinking commies, there would be no war, and your ass wouldn't be here.')

And here's a little bonus for you. You earned it.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2011/05/chomskys_follies.html

 

[Jules Galen]

Wrong. They were the poster boys of a scourge which, all told, killed scores of millions in various places. This scourge was precisely the reason why the containment strategy existed, and why the U.S. chose to make a stand in Vietnam in the first place.

Well...I guess the Warhawks have to find some good excuse as to why they went over to Vietnam and killed millions. This is one of the best I've heard yet.

 

[Toontown]

Odd that you never knew why the containment strategy existed. Perhaps your mentor forgot to mention it. He certainly wasn't one for taking notice of vast communist slaughters.