A History of American Imperialism by Noam Chomsky

boadicea clearly adheres to a radically different worldview, one supported by lies and propaganda it would seem. as someone who has studied chomsky's writing and studied both politics and media, i can say that chomsky's views are much more deeply rooted in fact and logic than any argument (see: distortion, baseless allegation) that boadicea makes. the anti-chomsky propaganda is great but only because the threat that chomsky poses to power systems is even greater. please read chomsky's work for yourself. if you don't understand it, ask for clarification. it may change your perspective on the world. at the least, it will challenge your view on a wide array of important subjects.

If we mandate that all new vehicles sold in the US be either diesel/compressed natural gas, or flex fuel/compressed natural gas bi-fuel vehicles, we would have no need for petroleum within a few years with a concentrated effort to convert to biofuels.

With no need for imported oil, we would have no need to meddle in Middle Eastern politics and no need to maintain a massive military presence in the Middle East.

I think we need to mandate that all new vehicles sold in the US need to be diesel or flex fuel/CNG capable---and get us off of depending on petroleum. It causes enormous economic, political and environmental damage to the US.

The lowest estimates I've seen for subsidies to the oil industry are about $150 Billion per year. If we spent $150 Billion per year on converting to manufacture and use biofuels, we'd have more than ample capacity within 5 years.

Natural gas is plentiful and cheap. Consumers would end up spending less than 1/2 of what petroleum costs them now---and still be able to do everything they do now.

The air would be a lot cleaner, our water would be a lot cleaner, and the earth would not be turned into a dead zone.

And we'd spend a WHOLE lot less money on military weapons and logistics that are not accomplishing squat anyway.

Without oil revenues, arab terrorists, and two bit dictators and monarchs are just a bunch of towel head red necks riding around the desert on camels anyway.

I say why should we buy their oil so they can threaten and harrass us?

We need to quit buying oil. Let 'em put gun racks on the back of their camels and ride around the desert all they want. We've got our own deserts over here, we don't need their desert either.

Chomsky focuses on the US but that is because he is american.

“He believes that his work can have more impact when directed at his own government, and that he holds a responsibility as a member of a particular country of origin to work to stop that country from committing crimes. He expresses this idea often with a comparison of other countries holding that every country has flexibility to address crimes by unfavored countries, but is always unwilling to deal with their own.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Noam_Chomsky

Again if I am fighting with my wife, and I focus on everything she is doing wrong, and she focuses on everything I am doing wrong, and neither of us will listen to any criticism of ourselves we will never work through the issue. However if we listen to criticisms, and focus foremost on our own actions we might make peace of the same thing.

Though somewhat simple the same is true internationally. The US has an unprecedented opportunity as superpower to set up democratic rules for foreign engagement, and to allow a democratized UN power in policing the world, that could facilitate relative disarmament. However as long as the US abuses international law, won't join the ICC, won't democratize the security council, and continues to build up arms while underfunding the UN, it supports international military competition or an arms race, rather than collective and legal frameworks for engagement. It's time for peace.

Finally hidden behind boadaicea's view are these beautiful nuggets:

Thre is no such thing as a palestinian people. They are Jordanian Arabs and they have a state....Jordan.

Please read Chomsky and see how he stands up in debate. Especially read his "the year 501" and "manufacturing consent" and decide for yourself whether he is superficial and simple in his perspective. I don't know anyone again who has actually read his books that can argue that he is not thorough in his presentation of history.

I unfortunately haven't had time to keep up with the comments pertaining to this link. And unfortunately the comments got butchered by links to unbiased sorces like the “anti-chomsky reader” and “conservapedia”.

However a few things. Chomsky did not support the Soviet Union and has advocated for a decentralized worker control or cooperative driven social economic system not state central planning or centralized media.

He did no support the French Holicaust denier Faurisson, just the right of free speech.
“Chomsky wrote:
Faurisson's conclusions are diametrically opposed to views I hold and have frequently expressed in print (for example, in my book Peace in the Middle East, where I describe the Holocaust as "the most fantastic outburst of collective insanity in human history"). But it is elementary that freedom of expression (including academic freedom) is not to be restricted to views of which one approves, and that it is precisely in the case of views that are almost universally despised and condemned that this right must be most vigorously defended. It is easy enough to defend those who need no defense or to join in unanimous (and often justified) condemnation of a violation of civil rights by some official enemy. [6]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_affair

Chomsky actually was incredibly critical of the lack of freedom of speech within the Soviet Union, and the human rights abuses within it. He spoke out in Cuba against the human rights violations and the relative lack free speech. He speaks quite positively about the relative freedom of speech in the US, and suggests we need to hold up the same right no matter how offensive because a state cannot decide what acceptable speech is. Chomsky is infact criticized for defending the french holocaust deniers freedom of speech (though he as a jew himself he abhorred her perspective). “Chomsky often expresses his admiration for the civil liberties enjoyed by US citizens. According to Chomsky, other Western democracies such as France and Canada are less liberal in their defense of controversial speech than the US. However, he does not credit the American government for these freedoms but rather mass social movements in the United States that fought for them. The movements he most often credits are the abolitionist movement, the movements for workers rights and trade union organization, and the fight for African-American civil rights. Chomsky is often sharply critical of other governments who suppress free speech, most controversially in the Faurisson affair but also of the suppression of free speech in Turkey.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Noam_Chomsky) Freedom of speech means we have to put up with such things.

Chomsky does not deny or downplay the holocaust. He just does not believe the US should continue to aid Israel in expanding into UN recognized Palestine, and because of this he, like Desmond Tutu, or former president Carter, is called anti-semitic. If you want to see how his views on Israel stand up to debate please read his debate with Alan Dershowitz (http://www.chomsky.info/debates/20051129.htm ) and decide for yourself.

Golda Meier also came up with the great idea of using the Christian fundies beliefs in a restored Jewish Temple as a way to get their undying support; financially and religiously. She was a genius at manipulating people, using their beliefs, to accomplish her political goals.

No matter how much you copy and paste to defame Chomsky, the fact still remains. Israel's arrogance, and having its acolytes in the US and the UK, is at the heart of most terrorism today.

Here is what terrorism looks like from an Iraqi point of view.
INSIDE THE MILITARY MEDIA INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX: IMPACTS ON MOVEMENTS FOR PEACE AND SOCIAL JUSTICE

By Peter Phillips and Mickey Huff

Among the most important corporate media censored news stories of the past decade, one must be that over one million people have died because of the United States military invasion and occupation of Iraq. This, of course, does not include the number of deaths from the first Gulf War nor the ensuing sanctions placed upon the country of Iraq that, combined, caused close to an additional one million Iraqi deaths. In the Iraq War, which began in March of 2003, over a million people have died violently primarily from US bombings and neighborhood patrols. These were deaths in excess of the normal civilian death rate under the prior government. Among US military leaders and policy elites, the issue of counting the dead was dismissed before the Iraqi invasion even began. In an interview with reporters in late March of 2002 US General Tommy Franks stated, “You know we don’t do body counts.”[i] Fortunately, for those concerned about humanitarian costs of war and empire, others do.

In a January 2008 report, the British polling group Opinion Research Business (ORB) reported that, “survey work confirms our earlier estimate that over 1,000,000 Iraqi citizens have died as a result of the conflict which started in 2003. We now estimate that the death toll between March 2003 and August 2007 is likely to have been of the order of 1,033,000. If one takes into account the margin of error associated with survey data of this nature then the estimated range is between 946,000 and 1,120,000.”[ii]

The ORB report came on the heels of two earlier studies conducted by Dr. Les Roberts and colleagues at Johns Hopkins University and published in the Lancet medical journal. The first study done from January 1, 2002 to March 18, 2003 confirmed civilian deaths at that time at over 100,000. The second study published in October 2006 documented over 650,000 civilian deaths in Iraq since the start of the US invasion and confirmed that US aerial bombing in civilian neighborhoods caused over a third of these deaths. Over half the deaths were directly attributable to US forces. The now estimated 1.2 million dead six years into the war/occupation, included children, parents, grandparents, cab drivers, clerics and schoolteachers. All manner of ordinary Iraqis have died because the United States decided to invade their country under false pretences of undiscovered weapons of mass destruction and in violation of international law. An additional four to five million Iraqi refugees have fled their homes The magnitude of these million-plus deaths and creation of such a vast refugee crisis is undeniable. The continuing occupation by US forces has guaranteed a monthly mass death rate of thousands of people a carnage that ranks among the most heinous mass killings in world history. More tons of bombs have been dropped in Iraq than in all of World War II.[iii] Six years later the casualties continue but the story, barely reported from the start, has vanished.

http://www.mediafreedominternational.org/2009/12/21/inside-the-military-media-in...:+TheMediaFreedomFoundation+(The+Media+Freedom+Foundation)&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

Manufacturing consent is an incredible work. Everyone should read it, and I think it should be required reading in high school.

Thank you for posting this. It was a fantastic read.

Boadecia you are a disgrace to the real Boadecia. At least she died for what she believed in. But all you do is more of the Rush Limbaugh BS. Bill Moyers, Hoard Zinn, Noam Chomski and many other inetellectuals do not write just to see words on the page and expect to be paid vast royalties. They try to keep people educated and informed of things you are barred from hearing in school. Thanks too; for You Tube, there is also much to learn. Suppose that Prescott Bush was successful in the overthrow of the USA in 1933. and the Bush boys became like Sadaam's boys. Imagine a Nazi regime here in the USA and a NAZI for Fuhrer in the White House or if the fascists had won then Fuhrer Bush would be permanently installed as the Fuhrer or the Chancelor. Would you like this? I suggest that you learn a little bit about your fellow Propagandists who are spreading hate and arrogance. We need watchdogs here since our congress and senate are all part of this didtatorship.

Chomsky is not a historian, he is a linguist. And his error is his readiness to attribute almost every global problem to the United States. That is where he is wrong. He twists facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts. And his main theory is just that.

Historians are for the most part objective. And the fact that he is taken seriously only as a linguist is another indication. He is not a famous historian except among his left wing readers.

And before anyone calls me a neocon, I voted for Obama and I gladly call myself a democrat. But Chomsky is a man I would never take seriously when reading about history.

bodicea, i respect some of your criticism (particularly in reference to the need for historical revision and nuance in dealing with complex social affairs) but i get the sense that you (and many of his would-be critics) either 1) haven't read chomsky fully, 2) have failed to fully understand his writing, or, more likely, 3) have misrepresented his arguments to suit your own ideological predispositions (of course, you would probably accuse him of doing the same). i wish i could address your claims, one by one, but i really don't have the time at the moment. to put it bluntly, i suspect it is you (or those you have read) who have taken his words out-of-context and skewed (exaggerated/oversimplified) certain elements of his writing to make broad, largely false and inaccurate conclusions about his general analyses. for example, to say that chomsky blames the US for "all the pain and suffering inflicted on millions of people around the world by the enemies of the US" is disingenuous to say the least. furthermore, chomsky remains one of the most outspoken YET even-handed critics of soviet tyranny. the only difference is that he chooses to focus on the actions of his government, the purported role of an engaged and concerned citizen in a "democratic" society. and i'm sorry but he does not hold the US responsible for the rise of bolshevism. unless can you prove it? without going further into specifics, the burden of proof remains...

I think it is very strange that the very same people who vehemently decry totalitarianism, loss of freedom and sovereignty, the loss of the rule of law and constitutional values, the loss of dignity and respect for the individual and humanitarian concern for the well being of others--------are the same people who mock and deride Noam Chomsky and others who speak up for exactly the same values that they pay lip service to.

I can now summarize the modern history of mankind-Money Talks!

@boardica Nice rant. I take it you disagree with Noam. Still you did not show or prove in any way that what Mr. Chompsky has said is not true!!

"banned by the pentagon"--an author could not receive a better endorsement.

Its safe to say the US is an empire. However, its not an empire in the traditional sense of actually conquering and taking over land like the Romans did. Instead we use political, diplomatic and economic means to bind most of the worlds governments to our cause. Its a hell of a lot sneakier and easier to control than actually trying to dominate countries militarily.

The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski is a good read if youre interested.

For a nation of peace there have been too many young high school graduates that have been killed in war over the last 60 years. For a nation of peace there have been far too many innocent civilian men women and children killed by the various high tech killing machines of this Imperial twentyieth and already the twentyfirst century. How do people define sanity and civilization? If the state of existent is what they think is sane and civil, then I know that the real definition of Humanity is an vicious and ferocious animal kingdom. Any extraterrestrial who would want to come here must be mad, hungry or better equipped at warfare than we are.

For those interested in how Chomsky's ideas hold up in debate with people within the establishment check out the Perle-Chomksy debate from a while back.

http://www.chomsky.info/debates/1988----.htm

He has also debated Alan Dershowitz on issues relating to Israel Palestine.

http://www.chomsky.info/debates/20051129.htm

For any of you who were interested in this article please read some of his books. His "manufacturing consent" is one of the most important books in understanding the filtered nature of mass media. His "the washington connection and third world fascism" takes a historical look at the connection between US aid and a good investment climate (which means destroying labor and human rights in creating a submissive workforce, etc). His 'the year 501' is a long look at the history of the US and is fascinating. I've yet to meet someone who's read Chomsky and actually disagreed with him, despite the fact that he challenges many of the things we assumed to be true.