Thread
Iraq Is A Trial Run By Noam Chomsky
Chomsky: In Iraq, the United States will make a show of humanitarian reconstruction and will put in a regime that it will call democratic, which means that it follows Washington's orders. Then it will forget about what happens later, and will go on to the next one.
Am I the only one who see that as a rather over contradiction? If it is supposed to follow Washington's orders (i.e. under their attention and direction) how can it be ignored and (presumably) left to do its own thing?
Lots of other contradictions of that sort. I think Chomsky often does have a point. He establishes double standards. However where I think he is wrong is assuming double standards are wrong - that we ought to have a single value ranging across all people. But it seems intuitively correct that if I am at war, for instance, I ought to value the life of the person beside me more than the person I am fighting. Likewise it seems quite understandable for the United States to value the lives of those at the WTC more than those they fight.
I can certainly understand the opposing position on that. But that "equity" seems behind a lot of Chomsky's thought. I don't know if he has ever focused on it formally.
The other odd thing he does is relative to democracy - as if democracy is somehow the inherent good. This leads him to criticize anything not purely democratic (i.e. what the polls show the public wanting at a given moment) It ignores the very system of checks and balances and the fear the founders had of democracy unchecked. Further he assume that since Germany, France and other nations were being democratic in that protestations that it somehow implies the US ought not be upset.
Democracy at best is an honest way of saying a whole nation is to blame for its decisions. For instance because the US is a democracy, one can honestly say America in general is to blame (or takes credit) for actions in Iraq. You can't say, because of the dictatorship, that all the Iraqi people are to blame for the actions of Iraq. But that doesn't mean that somehow democratic choices are somehow akin to divine decree.
It also is an interesting contradiction since he dishonestly speaks about massive opposition around the world and then says the same is in the US - when polls show overwhelming support for the war. And if anything protestors are not well thought of in general. I note a double standard here. Democracy is, I suppose, only good when it supports his views. <grin> Otherwise it is to be brushed aside as hiding what people *really* think.
Am I the only one who see that as a rather over contradiction? If it is supposed to follow Washington's orders (i.e. under their attention and direction) how can it be ignored and (presumably) left to do its own thing?
Lots of other contradictions of that sort. I think Chomsky often does have a point. He establishes double standards. However where I think he is wrong is assuming double standards are wrong - that we ought to have a single value ranging across all people. But it seems intuitively correct that if I am at war, for instance, I ought to value the life of the person beside me more than the person I am fighting. Likewise it seems quite understandable for the United States to value the lives of those at the WTC more than those they fight.
I can certainly understand the opposing position on that. But that "equity" seems behind a lot of Chomsky's thought. I don't know if he has ever focused on it formally.
The other odd thing he does is relative to democracy - as if democracy is somehow the inherent good. This leads him to criticize anything not purely democratic (i.e. what the polls show the public wanting at a given moment) It ignores the very system of checks and balances and the fear the founders had of democracy unchecked. Further he assume that since Germany, France and other nations were being democratic in that protestations that it somehow implies the US ought not be upset.
Democracy at best is an honest way of saying a whole nation is to blame for its decisions. For instance because the US is a democracy, one can honestly say America in general is to blame (or takes credit) for actions in Iraq. You can't say, because of the dictatorship, that all the Iraqi people are to blame for the actions of Iraq. But that doesn't mean that somehow democratic choices are somehow akin to divine decree.
It also is an interesting contradiction since he dishonestly speaks about massive opposition around the world and then says the same is in the US - when polls show overwhelming support for the war. And if anything protestors are not well thought of in general. I note a double standard here. Democracy is, I suppose, only good when it supports his views. <grin> Otherwise it is to be brushed aside as hiding what people *really* think.