|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
nicholas_chiasson

Joined: 14 Jun 2007 Location: Samcheok
|
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 8:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| quoting Chomsky is like quoting Satan. Even if you agree, you've got a problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003
|
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Chomsky and the Khmer Rouge
http://jim.com/chomsdis.htm
http://www.cyberussr.com/hcunn/e-asia/chomsky.html
| Quote: |
Summary (added later):
Prof. Chomsky did not explicitly say the Khmer Rouge were wonderful. Instead, his support was indirect, "at fourth hand": ridiculing Khmer Rouge opponents (who told the truth) as imperialist lackeys or dupes, and praising Khmer Rouge apologists (who told falsehoods) for scholarship and objectivity. |
| Quote: |
| No, I think they do. And I think there is a "liberal" media and a "conservative" media. Obviously there is a huge difference between Keith Olberman and Fox News. But, ask yourself why the media covers stories in the rest of the world that are ignored in the U.S. Why are certain questions off limits? Why did the mainstream press not ask the hard questions about Iraq before the invasion and even years after, when these questions were being asked by media around the globe in the months before the invasion? For example, Canada's long-serving Prime Minister Jean Chretien, would not even entertain the idea of participating in the invasion. Was this covered by the U.S. press? I doubt it. This is the largest trading partner to the U.S. larger than China or Japan or Mexico, a country that shares not only the largest non-defended border in the world, but also which is incredibly close culturally to the U.S. We are also a country that takes a keen interest in America, and that frame of reference should be something that Americans would want to look at, in terms of what is NOT being looked at by the American media. Our most respected news magazine show, the Fifth Estate, on the publicly funded CBC, looked into questions about 911. Just questions. I mean, what is wrong with asking questions? This is the role of journalists. If you don't ask questions, then you are accepting the official stories. That is not the press' job. It's job is to question authority, period. And, in the case of the Bush administration, we are talking about one of the most secretive, closed administrations in history. We are talking about an administration filled with old boys from long-dead administrations, brought back from the dead. These guys know exactly how the machine works. Why would the press en masse take them at their word? Looking at what has occurred in the U.S. since 911, I think Noam Chomsky's profetic words are certainly none to be summarily dismissed. In the case of the Cambodia, I have no idea what you are referring to. He pointed out that while a genocide was occuring in Cambodia, another genocide in East Timor was ignored by the American press. |
Jean Chretien is like Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder of Germany.
Chirac used to be a buddy of Saddam Hussein.( Osirk nuclear reactor)
| Quote: |
Gerhard Schroeder's Sellout
Tuesday, December 13, 2005; A26
IT'S THE SORT of behavior we have -- sadly -- come to expect from some in Congress. But when Gerhard Schroeder, the former German chancellor, announced last week that he was going to work for Gazprom, the Russian energy behemoth, he catapulted himself into a different league. It's one thing for a legislator to resign his job, leave his committee chairmanship and go to work for a company over whose industry he once had jurisdiction. It's quite another thing when the chancellor of Germany -- one of the world's largest economies -- leaves his job and goes to work for a company controlled by the Russian government that is helping to build a Baltic Sea gas pipeline that he championed while in office. To make the decision even more unpalatable, it turns out that the chief executive of the pipeline consortium is none other than a former East German secret police officer who was friendly with Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, back when Mr. Putin was a KGB agent in East Germany. If nothing else, Mr. Schroeder deserves opprobrium for his bad taste.
But the announcement should also raise questions in German voters' minds about the real reasons Mr. Schroeder was so keen to see this pipeline project launched. The pipeline has cost Germany diplomatically by infuriating its Central European and Baltic neighbors. They point out that the Russian government chose to use the sea route rather than run a new pipeline alongside one that already exists on land, despite the far greater expense. The only possible reason for doing so was political: The Baltic Sea pipeline could allow Russia, a country that has made political use of its energy resources, to cut off gas to Central Europe and the Baltic states while still delivering gas to Germany. Many have wondered why Germany chose to go along with this project. Could it have been because the former chancellor realized that he was, in effect, creating his own future place of employment?
On a broader level, Mr. Schroeder's decision to swap his job with the German government for a job funded by the Russian government should raise questions for German voters about their country's relationship with Russia. During his seven years as chancellor, Mr. Schroeder went out of his way to ignore the gradual suppression of political rights in Russia and to play down the significance of Russia's horrific war in Chechnya. Throughout his term in office, Mr. Schroeder thwarted attempts to put unified Western pressure on Russia to change its behavior. We can only hope that Germany's new chancellor, Angela Merkel, uses this extraordinary announcement as a reason to launch a new German policy toward Russia, one based on something other than Mr. Schroeder's private interests. |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/12/AR2005121201060_pf.html
Nothing particularly meritorious about any of these people |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006 Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Joo, I will take a look at your links. However, please try to stay on point. The Iraq movie, ok?
Meanwhile, Chomsky's words (www.chomsky.info :
Let us assume the accuracy of the condemnation of the Khmer Rouge (noting, however, that the susceptibility of intellectuals to fabricated atrocity stories has been no less notorious since World War I than their apologetics for some favored state, and that skepticism is aroused in this case by the many documented falsehoods). On this assumption, should we reconsider opposition to the Vietnam War?
One who raises this question must be assuming (1) that the U.S. war was intended to avert Khmer Rouge barbarity, or might have had this likely effect; and (2) that the U.S. has the right to exercise force and violence to avert potential crimes.
Assumption (1) is ludicrous in the light of the factual record. Cambodia was an island of relative tranquility prior to the American invasion of 1970, though it had been repeatedly attacked by American and U.S.-backed forces from 1957 on. There was limited local insurgency, aroused by government repression, even by the 1960s. As Vietnamese were driven to a narrow border strip by the savage American military operations of early 1967, direct U.S. attacks on Cambodia escalated. By May 1967, the Pentagon was concerned that Cambodia was "becoming more and more important as a supply base -- now of food and medicines, perhaps ammunition later," an obvious consequence of U.S. operations in Vietnam and Laos. In March 1969. shortly after the "secret bombings" began, Sihanouk vainly called upon the Western press to publicize his government's protest over the "criminal attacks" on Khmer peasants. The 1970 invasion helped organize the Khmer Rouge rebellion as thousands of peasants rallied to the resistance under the impact of the vicious bombing and ground attacks of the U.S. military and the Vietnamese forces it organized. Charles Meyer, who had long been close to ruling forces in Cambodia, warned then that "it is difficult to imagine the intensity of the hatred (of the peasants) for those who destroyed their villages and their possessions" (Derriere le sourir khmer). This was well before the murderous American bombings of the 1970s, which surely inflamed peasant hatred and desire for revenge.
Those who failed to devote their energies to ending the American war in Indochina bear a double burden of guilt: for the atrocities committed under American initiative and for the legacy of starvation, disease, hatred, and revenge that was a direct and predicted consequence of the attack on rural Cambodia. Similar remarks apply in the case of Vietnam and Laos. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003
|
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 8:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
You can see his entire article together with an analysis next to it .
http://jim.com/chomsdis.htm
Noam Chomsky said: (놈) get it
| Quote: |
Ponchaud's book is based on his own personal experiences in Cambodia from 1965 until the capture of Phnom Penh, extensive interviews with refugees and reports from the Cambodian radio. Published in France in January 1977, it has become the best-known unread book in recent history, on the basis of an account by Jean Lacouture (in the New York Review of Books), widely cited since in the press, which alleges that Ponchaud has revealed a policy of �auto-genocide� (Lacouture's term) practiced by the Communists.
Before looking more closely at Ponchaud's book and its press treatment, we would like to point out that apart from Hildebrand and Porter there are many other sources on recent events in Cambodia that have not been brought to the attention of the American reading public. Space limitations preclude a comprehensive review, but such journals as the Far Eastern Economic Review, the London Economist, the Melbourne Journal of Politics, and others elsewhere, have provided analyses by highly qualified specialists who have studied the full range of evidence available, and who concluded that executions have numbered at most in the thousands; that these were localized in areas of limited Khmer Rouge influence and unusual peasant discontent, where brutal revenge killings were aggravated by the threat of starvation resulting from the American destruction and killing. These reports also emphasize both the extraordinary brutality on both sides during the civil war (provoked by the American attack) and repeated discoveries that massacre reports were false. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006 Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003
|
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ponchaud's book is based on his own personal experiences in Cambodia from 1965 until the capture of Phnom Penh, extensive interviews with refugees and reports from the Cambodian radio. Published in France in January 1977, it has become the best-known unread book in recent history, on the basis of an account by Jean Lacouture (in the New York Review of Books), widely cited since in the press, which alleges that Ponchaud has revealed a policy of "auto-genocide" (Lacouture's term) practiced by the Communists.
* * *
Before looking more closely at Ponchaud's book and its press treatment, we would like to point out that apart from Hildebrand and Porter there are many other sources on recent events in Cambodia that have not been brought to the attention of the American reading public. Space limitations preclude a comprehensive review, but such journals as the Far Eastern Economic Review, the London Economist, the Melbourne Journal of Politics, and others elsewhere, have provided analyses by highly qualified specialists who have studied the full range of evidence available, and who concluded that executions have numbered at most in the thousands; that these were localized in areas of limited Khmer Rouge influence and unusual peasant discontent, where brutal revenge killings were aggravated by the threat of starvation resulting from the American destruction and killing. These reports also emphasize both the extraordinary brutality on both sides during the civil war (provoked by the American attack) and repeated discoveries that massacre reports were false. They also testify to the extreme unreliability of refugee reports, and the need to treat them with great caution, a fact that we and others have discussed elsewhere (cf. Chomsky: At War with Asia, on the problems of interpreting reports of refugees from American bombing in Laos). Refugees are frightened and defenseless, at the mercy of alien forces. They naturally tend to report what they believe their interlocuters wish to hear. While these reports must be considered seriously, care and caution are necessary. Specifically, refugees questioned by Westerners or Thais have a vested interest in reporting atrocities on the part of Cambodian revolutionaries, an obvious fact that no serious reporter will fail to take into account.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Mon Feb 25, 2008 9:31 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Paul Craig Roberts is a 9-11 conspiracy theorist. |
Arjuna, you must be onto something. Whenever people-never-plot-anything-together theorists cannot refute presented facts, they hurl the "conspiracy theorist" epithet. |
Well you take one of his charges and go with it if you wish to.
Since he is a 9-11 conspiracy theorist his words aren't worth that much time. |
I don't suppose you've seen or read Manufactured Consent, Joo? Chomsky actually says in the 1992 documentary that conspiracy theorist is a term thrown out against anyone who speaks non-convential wisdom. Instead of lobbing such a generic term as conspiracy theorist, it would strengthen your argument if you could actually adress someone with a differing view as yourself in a real way, and not by attaching labels. If it weren't for so-called "conspiracy theorists" the world would not be privy to many state secrets. As I believe Hunter S. Thompson once said, All Governments lie, all the time. Or do you believe Bush and Cheney are truthful?
Have you watched "No end in sight" yet? |
The correct title is Manufacturing Consent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Justin Hale

Joined: 24 Nov 2007 Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:27 pm Post subject: Re: Must see documentary: "No end in sight" |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| Justin Hale wrote: |
I'm of the view that the executors of the war didn't completely and naively neglect the possibility of chaos and war between Sunnis and Shiites. Rather than an incompetent quest for democracy, it is a quite ingenious quest for a war within Islam. Almost every day in Iraq, a mosque is blown up by other Muslims. The same happens in Pakistan on a weekly basis and it is waiting to happen in Syria and Iran. The schism goes back to the 6th Century dynastic/inheritance squabble (regarding Mohammed's offspring, basically)
It's always surprising to see that this is not as clear to all as it is to myself. |
Justin, you seem to believe that the planners of the war actually planned properly. |
Depends on what the plan really is. I think anyone who thinks bloody chaos in a highly sectarian state (characterized by coup and countercoup prior to Saddam Hussein's rule) is an accidental byproduct of a war with suspiciously lower than necessary numbers of troops (a RAND study stated that 500,000 troops would be required for success) and suspiciously inadequate planning for post-invasion, is living in Cloud Cuckoo Land.
| Adventurer wrote: |
You also had disagreements. The person who preceded Bremer thought it was folly to disband the Iraqi Army. You also seem to think that there would be Sunnis and Shiites who would attack each other over religion in Iran. It would not happen. You mentioned Syria.
Syria has Alawites and Sunnis. The Alawites broke off from the Shiites some centuries ago, but have an alliance with the Shiites. The Middle East and the world is not that simple. There has been a long Shiite-Sunni divide. I don't believe the US Government is trying to promote that.
You said you believe something about the war, but I have not seen analysts stating that is their aim. In the past, Israel did promote conflict within Iraq to weaken their enemies, but the US does not have the same identical interests to that of Israel. I am glad the Kurds have more of a say in Iraq. I hope there will be a democratic government in Iraq, and I hope the Sunni tribes in the Anbar area will be accepted by the Iraq Government, and that it will have good relations with the West and the U.S. Anyway, if you could show me evidence that the neo-cons wanted such a fight, I am more willing to look at it..
Thanks.. |
The War Within Islam |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
JOO
Watch the freakin movie.
WATCH THE MOVIE |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Julius

Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
| Please explain "all the good" over the past few years. |
a) Keeping the fight against islamic terrorism focussed in one place.
b) Sending the message that there are consequences for outrageous acts of international terrorism, and that they will fight back.
c) Establishing an outpost of civilisation in the heartland of Arab-ia with an eye to holding an enduring and needed presence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
endo

Joined: 14 Mar 2004 Location: Seoul...my home
|
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
JOO
Watch the freakin movie.
WATCH THE MOVIE |
and 1
Last edited by endo on Tue Feb 26, 2008 3:21 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006 Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 2:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Julius wrote: |
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
| Please explain "all the good" over the past few years. |
a) Keeping the fight against islamic terrorism focussed in one place.
b) Sending the message that there are consequences for outrageous acts of international terrorism, and that they will fight back.
c) Establishing an outpost of civilisation in the heartland of Arab-ia with an eye to holding an enduring and needed presence. |
a) ???
b) what outrageous acts of international terrorism did Iraq commit running up to the invasion?
c) Iraq was already civilised. The invasion took them back to the stone age. watch the movie to see Iraq before and after. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003
|
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 3:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
| Julius wrote: |
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
| Please explain "all the good" over the past few years. |
a) Keeping the fight against islamic terrorism focussed in one place.
b) Sending the message that there are consequences for outrageous acts of international terrorism, and that they will fight back.
c) Establishing an outpost of civilisation in the heartland of Arab-ia with an eye to holding an enduring and needed presence. |
a) ???
b) what outrageous acts of international terrorism did Iraq commit running up to the invasion?
c) Iraq was already civilised. The invasion took them back to the stone age. watch the movie to see Iraq before and after. |
A) The US invaded Iraq not to invade Iraq but to invade the middle east.
B) Saddam's was a greater killer than i Amin's that is civilized? And Saddam would have done far worse had he been allowed to go free. Of course Saddam never gave up his war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
endo

Joined: 14 Mar 2004 Location: Seoul...my home
|
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 3:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| endo wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
JOO
Watch the freakin movie.
WATCH THE MOVIE |
and 1 |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
BS.Dos.

Joined: 29 Mar 2007
|
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 4:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm releaved that No End In Sight didn't win an Oscar. I didn't really think it deserved one. Hardly ground breaking reporting. I think if anyone found this documentary to be revealing in anyway regarding whats actually been going on in Iraq since 2003, then I can only conclude that they must have had their heads buried in the sand for the last 5-years.
You trying to tell me that you didn't know the Bush et al were making a complete and utter balls up of things over there until now?
Disappointing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|