Skip to main content

View Diary: Noam Chomsky on U.S. policy towards Iran (223 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I agree with Chomsky but... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greeseyparrot

      He hasn't been immune to propaganda himself, as when he cited credulous Maoists in a tiny M-L sect in the USA during the Pol Pot era as credible witnesses. See, a dissertation by a Cambodian-American here,
    Undergraduate Political Science Honors Thesis:
    The Khmer Rouge Canon 1975-1979:
    The Standard Total Academic View on Cambodia
    esp. this chapter,
    http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/... >...The second broadside came when Jean Lacouture, an academic and supporter of the antiwar movement and the FUNK, reviewed Ponchaud's Cambodia: Year Zero (French edition published in January 1977) in the French periodical, Le Nouvel Observateur. Lacouture, whose namesake I use as part of the Controversy, took on the difficult task of fighting Chomsky. Lacouture's review, "The Bloodiest Revolution," was translated and published in the March 31, 1977 edition of the New York Review of Books. The review had a number of mistakes which were corrected in "Cambodia: Corrections" (NYRB, 05/26/77). These corrections were prompted by Noam Chomsky, who brought these errors to the attention of Robert Silvers, editor of the NYRB. At about the same time, Chomsky wrote a letter to the Christian Science Monitor regarding an editorial titled "Cambodia in the year zero" (CSM, 04/26/77) which he correctly surmised was based on Lacouture's review of the Ponchaud book. Chomsky's objections were, as usual, methodical and blunt. (SNIP)

    •  Grasping at straws to attack Chomsky (17+ / 0-)

      At worst, those criticisms could prove that 30 years ago, Chomsky was wrong, once. That's quite a good track record, considering how just about everyone has been wrong all the time on the issues he addressed correctly all that time.
      And even then, when you look more closely at those claims, they don't hold much water.

      I just want to remind you that the Khmer Rouge rose to power because of the chaos perpetrated by the American bombing of Cambodian, a major war crime in itself, to begin with. And it was the VC that stopped the Khmer massacre IIRC. Those evil VC those brave US soldiers were fighting shortly before... /snark

      There is one lesson to learn from the Vietnam-Cambodia-etc war, it's that the US killed millions of innocents for nothing. And Chomsky was right about it from the beginning.

      A "centrist" is someone who's neither on the left, nor on the left.

      by nicta on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 07:32:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  yes, Chomsky was wrong about Cambodia (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo, skrekk, Dinclusin, DeepLooker

      Perhaps you didn't see this, since the other commenter making a similar comment did so in a fairly rude and trollish manner, and has been TRed off the board, but my point to him and to you is that Chomsky has made one mistake in the past 35 years and that is to underestimate the devastation that the Khmer Rouge did in Cambodia.  Having said that, I don't think the discussion of Cambodia is relevant in the current context, unless one wants to make an ad hominem argument trying to discredit Chomsky by pointing out that he's been wrong in the past, and not by directly addressing the arguments he is making now.

      It's safe to assume that any government agency that insists on total secrecy is totally incompetent.

      by RickD on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 08:50:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  chomsky and when he was wrong... (0+ / 0-)

          For a anti-Leninist libertarian socialist, he has from the time of the Vietnam war, always let his anti-imperialism trump his (correct) pov about Leninist Parties and Regimes from the N.Vietnamese (which Trotskyists and democratic socialists at Dissent magazine always knew was Stalinized Maoism), the Khmer Rouge, the Sandinistas, being the militarized monstrosities they always are/were.

        •  Because that's what's needed (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          corvo, skrekk, ibonewits, DeepLooker

          in this country.  We hardly have a shortage of anti-Leninist voices, but there's a terrible dearth of coherent anti-imperialist voices, and not a single one can get into the mainstream media.  This in a rogue state run completely amok that represents itself as controlled by its citizens.

          Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest... Gibbon

          by Dinclusin on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 10:05:23 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Right, you have to be perfect (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        corvo, skrekk, DeepLooker

        if you're up against the Noise Machine.  But if you're Bush or Kristol you never have to have been right about a single thing in your entire life.

        Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest... Gibbon

        by Dinclusin on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 10:06:42 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  i don't think you have to be perfect (0+ / 0-)

          That really won't matter anyway.  You have to be given a forum to get your message out.  The noise machine compensates for their myriad of intellectual flaws by controlling all of the apparatus.

          It's safe to assume that any government agency that insists on total secrecy is totally incompetent.

          by RickD on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 11:42:45 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site