• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Noam Chomsky on Foreign Policy

gunner

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
6,551
Reaction score
2,879
Location
uk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Noam Chomsky on Foreign Policy from the ME Europe and America. A long lecture but worth a listen IMO.

[ame=http://vimeo.com/7350655]Chomsky: Palestine and the region in the Obama era: the emerging framework. on Vimeo[/ame]

Paul
 
After 8 minutes (of 117+), and Still in the Intros/beginning of the second, (sponsored by the Palestine Students org), I don't think there's any point in watching Blame America/Israel Chimpsky again.
Even in the first Intro, the leftist jerk damned only the USA and Israeli Nobel Peace Prize winners (not Arafat nor anyone else), as well as Alfred Nobel himself.

If, however, there is some Specific point in it you would like to make or throw out for discussion/debate... please do.
Otherwise, this is the equivalent of copying a small Book up here, when excerpts are the correct procedure.
-
 
Last edited:
After 8 minutes (of 117+), and Still in the Intros, (sponsored by the Palestine students org), I don't think there's any point in watching Blame America/Israel Chimpsky again.

If however, there is some Specific point you would like to make or throw out for discussion/debate... please do.
Otherwise, this is the equivalent of Copying a Small Book up here, when Excerps are the correct procedure.
-

I agree. I've got no problems discussing points made by Chomsky, but that is some dry stuff. I don't feel like falling asleep this early.
 
Planet Chomsky always ceases to amaze.

As pointed by prof. Dershowitz, this guy doesn't stick to reality and common sense, and completely bases his ideology on ridiculous conspiracy theories.
 
I actually agree with all three of you [in parts]:)

Even in Chomsky's world hes pretty consistently correct on actual fact. One example-on the signing, or not signing of non proliferation by certain countries. But i agree its a pretty broad brush look at foreign policy. If you haven't actually watched the 100+ minutes its pretty difficult for any of you to refute any specific claims. So i don't blame you for resorting to the usual Chomsky bashing:)

Paul
 
I actually agree with all three of you [in parts]:)

Even in Chomsky's world hes pretty consistently correct on actual fact. One example-on the signing, or not signing of non proliferation by certain countries. But i agree its a pretty broad brush look at foreign policy. If you haven't actually watched the 100+ minutes its pretty difficult for any of you to refute any specific claims. So i don't blame you for resorting to the usual Chomsky bashing:)

Paul
You haven't presented a Single "actual fact".. merely fallaciously demanded we watch and rebut a 2 Hour lecture.
Presenting "actual fact" was MY suggestion.
So far I'm the only one who commented on anything in it; the Biased intro #1.

A Lecture in which you apparently find Nothing memorable enough to be able to post here.
That is if You even watched it. LOL
-
 
Last edited:
I actually agree with all three of you [in parts]:)

Even in Chomsky's world hes pretty consistently correct on actual fact. One example-on the signing, or not signing of non proliferation by certain countries. But i agree its a pretty broad brush look at foreign policy. If you haven't actually watched the 100+ minutes its pretty difficult for any of you to refute any specific claims. So i don't blame you for resorting to the usual Chomsky bashing:)

Paul

Well I'm not bashing him, but I can't sit through a 2 hour long Chomsky snooze fest just so I can glean a handful of decent points.

Okay calling it a snooze fest is kinda bashing. :mrgreen:
 
I actually agree with all three of you [in parts]:)

Even in Chomsky's world hes pretty consistently correct on actual fact. One example-on the signing, or not signing of non proliferation by certain countries. But i agree its a pretty broad brush look at foreign policy. If you haven't actually watched the 100+ minutes its pretty difficult for any of you to refute any specific claims. So i don't blame you for resorting to the usual Chomsky bashing:)

Paul
There's no such thing as Chomsky bashing, this guy is bashing himself when he makes ridiculous assertions.

And it's not about the facts that he rarely brings to the table, but the conclusions that he draws from them and how he perceives international events.
 
You haven't presented a Single "actual fact".. merely fallaciously demanded we watch and rebut a 2 Hour lecture.
Presenting "actual fact" was MY suggestion.
So far I'm the only one who commented on anything in it; the Biased intro #1.

A Lecture in which you apparently find Nothing memorable enough to be able to post here.
That is if You even watched it. LOL
-


Watch the segment between 30/40 minutes. Here, amongst other issues, he discusses the non proliferation issue [of course if you have time].

Paul
 
Watch the segment between 30/40 minutes. Here, amongst other issues, he discusses the non proliferation issue [of course if you have time].

Paul

I won't watch 40 minutes of Chimpsky and I can't 'fast forward' it to that point.

Again, If you would like to make A point/assertion/claim -- I'd be happy to debate it.

Can you not even characterize the point/points he made you like so much?
-
 
Last edited:
Chomsky can cite accurate time lines as objectively as anyone else with a history knowledge. Its his assessments I tend to not agree with.
 
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
 
I actually agree with all three of you [in parts]:)

Even in Chomsky's world hes pretty consistently correct on actual fact. One example-on the signing, or not signing of non proliferation by certain countries. But i agree its a pretty broad brush look at foreign policy. If you haven't actually watched the 100+ minutes its pretty difficult for any of you to refute any specific claims. So i don't blame you for resorting to the usual Chomsky bashing:)

Paul

I'm just wondering what happened to the world when a person who describes himself as "centrist" is promoting the views of a person who is so uberleft extreme?
 
If he's a centrist... I must be smarty smurf. I'm surprised anyone really cares what Chomsky says any more... I thought he was sick or dead or something.
 
If he's a centrist... I must be smarty smurf. I'm surprised anyone really cares what Chomsky says any more... I thought he was sick or dead or something.

Agreed, why would anyone care what a linguist has to say on foreign policy?

Next we'll have the Rubik's cube inventor pontificating about sushi rolling... :roll:
 
If he's a centrist... I must be smarty smurf. I'm surprised anyone really cares what Chomsky says any more... I thought he was sick or dead or something.
He's sorta like Osama bin-Laden.

Whenever you think that he must already be dead, he comes up with another speech where he blames the West for everything that's bad in the world.
 
Agreed, why would anyone care what a linguist has to say on foreign policy?

Next we'll have the Rubik's cube inventor pontificating about sushi rolling... :roll:

As long as Dubya does not teach generative grammar:cool:
 
Whenever you think that he must already be dead, he comes up with another speech where he blames the West for everything that's bad in the world.

Well, you certainly must admit that it's quite comforting to know that the world is such a simple place that this is really all one needs to know.

It's the "one size fits all" approach to politics.
 
As long as Dubya does not teach generative grammar:cool:

You aren't misunderestimating him, by any chance, are you?
 
Noam Chomsky on Foreign Policy
Nothing like listening to two hours of a left-wing linguist talk about foreign policy.

paris said:
As long as Dubya does not teach generative grammar
No, he teaches degenerative grammar.
 
Last edited:
I seem to have ruffeled a few feathers:rofl

I cant actually recall where i have stated i agree, or disagree with any of the content in the lecture. I merely suggested it was IN MY OPINION worth a listen. As for offering points for discussion i,m sure that's open to any user as often the case posters post an article and simply write discuss.

Its a long clip-and Chomsky has a droning voice, which is of putting. But to simply suggest its not worth listening too etc etc is no different than perhaps me not offering opinions or discussion points. I,ll remain a CENTRALIST and continue to browse the Far Right Christian fundamentalist to the save the endangered Butter cup brigade!

Paul
 
Last edited:
Three people spoke, between they spoke of the lack of foreign policy in Europe particularly the UK since the cold war, the raising of Iran as a threat against reality, that criticism of Israel is in Israel's interest, that you need to be very brave to criticise Israel, that to criticise Israel without criticising the US is not to understand the situation.

Chomsky spoke of the change in Israel military from Kibbutz type mentality to religious mentality and the possibility of a civil war or a coup, though he thought this was unlikely.

He obviously spoke of the situation of the Palestinians throughout the different periods. He noted that the breaking of the Gaza ceasefire happened when oil was found in the sea off shore of Gaza.

He believes the war in Gaza was against international law as there was a possibility to solve it peacefully.

He believes a two state solution is the first step but that ideally that would lead to one secular state or even no state (though I fail to understand that bit)

He seems to believe that change will come when people start challenging their own governments, not Israel.

Thank you Paul for the link.
 
Three people spoke, between they spoke of the lack of foreign policy in Europe particularly the UK since the cold war, the raising of Iran as a threat against reality, that criticism of Israel is in Israel's interest, that you need to be very brave to criticise Israel, that to criticise Israel without criticising the US is not to understand the situation.

Chomsky spoke of the change in Israel military from Kibbutz type mentality to religious mentality and the possibility of a civil war or a coup, though he thought this was unlikely.

He obviously spoke of the situation of the Palestinians throughout the different periods. He noted that the breaking of the Gaza ceasefire happened when oil was found in the sea off shore of Gaza.

He believes the war in Gaza was against international law as there was a possibility to solve it peacefully.

He believes a two state solution is the first step but that ideally that would lead to one secular state or even no state (though I fail to understand that bit)

He seems to believe that change will come when people start challenging their own governments, not Israel.

Thank you Paul for the link.

And thank you Alexa for your synopsis:)
 
Back
Top Bottom