You use denounciations of former directors of the 'Oil for Food' program to support your claim the US isn't approaching the reconstruction effort in Iran properly?  Surely you can't be serious. 

 I would like to point out the US has done just fine in rebuilding countries it has 'conquered'.  You might query Japan and German if they feel as though we are still their slave masters.  Judging by the comments of Mr. Kohl over the course of the past decade, I think not.

There is more complete report of whats going on the hegemony map written by chomsky. There is a lot of info being trown you aren't gonna find in mainstream media.. ( at one point of time, I kinda was thinking that chomsky was slowing down because of age ( I don't really know his age); I was wrong the man is as sharp as ever )

Thank you.  That pretty much sums it up.

hello Johnno. welcome to the blogs, I think the questions you raise have mostly been answered By Chomsky and other bloggers, take your time and read the blogs.. The main problem in Iraq or any country in the ME is not insurgent, be they from other countries, the maun problem is the US.

I agree with most of what Noam says and I think he has opened my eyes a lot over the years. I am not sure that I agree with what he and a lot of people are saying in regards to pulling out of Iraq.

I'm sure these points have been raised, but just to say it again, look at what happened when the US pulled out of Afghanistan last time. Iraq does appear to be in a civil war at the moment and they can't even seem to scrape a parliament together. The fighting in Iraq is not just between Iraqis, but also insurgents from other countries.

If you look at what happened in Northern Ireland, the English had to stay there for nearly 40 years.

What happens if another group or country decides to come in and take over with force?

Anyway, just some thoughts.

Kris , it must have been a pain for you to be targeting and killing Iraqi civilians , women and children.. when was the last time you look in your victim human face before you murdered? I guess this question is above your pay grade.

Perhaps a word of condemnation is in order for the perpetrators of marketplace bombings, executions and other acts of intimidation aimed at undermining the foundations of Iraqi civil society. Perhaps, my dear, ignorant Norwegian, you can spare some charitable thoughts for those who fight for the same good life that those of us living in safe, prosperous countries take for granted.

If a thoughtful, historical approach is too much for you, I ask only that you consider this one truth that should (one hopes, perhaps in vain) force upon you a certain period of reflection: if the terrorists stopped killing innocents, there would be no more killing of innocents in Iraq. I fully expect from you a justification for such acts against "occupying forces." Before you memorialize your ignorance, however, pass briefly over the reciprocal justification that you must logically allow to those who by force sought to overthrow the deposed despot for whom you pine.

Historyman wrote: The only way you can believe that is if you want to see America fall. Period. If America fall, would it be a bad thing? for many countries this fall is equivalent to deliverance.. also I am very sure more human people would rise from america ashes to build a better society, a better people.

First, that is a U.S. based poll by a liberal media organization.  CNN is a known liberal outlet.  If the same poll was reported concurrently by CNN and Fox then I would believe it.  However, just CNN, I doubt the verility of it.

 

On top of the CNN thing, there is more evidence to the contrary of what the poll says.  I live near Fort Leonard Wood, MO. and I work for a moving company that moves nearly half of all of the people into and out of the Fort.  I talk to every military member I can and they all say the same thing, the Iraqi's want us to help.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070721/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iraq;_ylt=A0WTcVU_daFGNg0B.BCs0NUE

 That is an article refuting what you have said.  Not only are the Iraqi forces nearly there.  Nearly ready to take over, but the Sunni's have ended the boycott of the government.  That is a HUGE step forward.

 Last thing, how is the U.S. "occupation" of Iraq at all related to the Nazis occupation of France, The Low Countries, Austria, Russia, Hungary, etc?  The only way you can believe that is if you want to see America fall.  Period.

I am not sure if this is the right place to ask this but I was wondering what you thought of the latest Report to Congress In accordance with the Department of Defense Appropriations Act 2007.

I just finished reading it and what confuses me somewhat about this process ( and this document ) is not so much what is going on but just how bad the efforts to bury various things within it seem!

Is it just that free information sources are functioning better than they ever before so various branches of the US Govt now have to lie less? Or is it that the White House is just doing a poor job of controlling various forms of propganda due to its own internal problems?

Why in this document for instance do they make the clear and open statement that Iran is giving weapons and training to Iraqi Shi'a militants?

Is this because they want to set us all up for war with Iran or what?

Chomsky responds in the sustainer forum (the original post in this thread is such a response). Join here: http://blog.zmag.org/Sustainers.

I agree that Iraq is in discord.  I agree that it is not in control.  However, I disagree that the United States will keep Iraq in a state of war to exploit the oil.  What has stopped the US from exploiting it before now?  NOTHING!  So, why hasnt it been done unless that was not the objective?

Do you know what nationalism means?  It means the governement owns everything.  What money the people get comes from the government, not earned.  The only reason to have a nationalized anything is if a bunch of people are lazy.  Maybe you should look at this sight before you say that nationalized oil was good for Iraq:

http://library.thinkquest.org/3526/facts/iraq.html

You are right about one thing, Saddam was an anti-christ.  However, because the United States is predominatly christian, I dont see how the U.S. could be the anti-christ.

Do you think a guy with this impressive list of Crimes was a good guy to live under?

 http://academic.regis.edu/jriley/saddam_hussein.htm

 That list doesnt include the "lesser crimes."  Rape, murder, theft, torture, etc.  Are you blind?

Mr Chomsky,

 You insinuate that America is the new owners of Iraq.  What proof do you have of that?  Are your referring to the old arguement that the Iraq War is about oil and not terrorism?  If that is what you are trying to say, then pray tell, how has gas prices, and milk prices gone since the War in Iraq?  If I remember correctly they went up.

What makes you say that the United States are "conquerers?"  Was the United States "conquerers" in Germany, France, Belgium, Philipines, China or Japan in 1945?  I believe if you talk to anybody from that time who was German or Japenese, they would say that the United States were liberators.  I know, I have talked to Germans from that time and I have been to Normady, Bastogne, Saint Vithe, Prague, Vienna, Saltzburg, and Auschwitz.

 Are you insinuating that America is raping Iraq for their natural recourses?  I think if you went to Iraq and talked to Iraqi's you would find different.  In fact, the Iraqi military has taken over much of the reighs from the U.S. troops.  They are being given responcibility, this is not an occupation, it is reconstruction.

 Also the Iraqi's need the United States.  It is unfortunate, and I do hate war, but it is necessary.  What happens to people who have lived under tyranny and then liberated?  Look at the French Revolution, the August Revolution, the Weimar Republic, Cuba just to name a few.  They ALL turn to even more tyrannical government.  Is that what you want?  People to live in tyrany?

 Also, what do U.S. based polls have to do with what the Iraqi's want?  If you want an accurate measure of what Iraqi's want, I think an Iraq based poll is needed.

 Finally, why should the United States pay reparations for anything?  There have been no war crimes. There has not been a lost war.  Who is "they" you mention in the final sentence of your responce?

 

Thank you for your time.

John

Guerras promovidas pelo estado, estão sempre ligadas a um roubo.

O povo Americano sofre de um mal, que na realidade o planeta sofre, porém me parece um pouco maior nos Estados Unidos, chama-se de mal do bonzinho.

Só um imbecil acreditaria que essa guerra do iraqui foi feita para libertar alguem ou para dar autonomia a um povo, as guerras apenas solidificam a obediencia a escravidão, é o poder do estado fraco, abrindo mão mão do governo, para um governo forte entrar em ação.

Não existe governo bom, se o governo do estado fraco é ruim, pior é a força exercida pelo estado forte.

Americanos mandam seus filhos para matar filhos de Iraquianos, essa estupidez tão grande, pois, o povo Americano ainda não descobriu que o homem é universal, que as diferenças são apenas em que quintal nasceram, só isso, a imbecilidade do patriotismo americano venda seus olhos, deixando todo o povo na escuridão.

A paga do povo Americano por ter um governo forte que mata a todos, que domina o mundo, que amedronta as populações, que destroi aquele que pensa diferente, é sofrer mais que todos os males do estado forte, é ser escravo pela liberdade do estado forte.

Se perguntarmos a qualquer Americano, É certo matar? o imbecil logo diria que NÃO, porém, ele autoriza e banca as custas de toda a guerra, e ainda acha bonito e aplaude quando Americanos matam em guerra. O que muda a morte para quem morreu?

I have news for you folks. Bush is ‘The Leaker'.

In the Name of Brutus 

Dames and Gents,
           In times unprecedented and tinged with despair, it is appropriate to reflect on the founding of our great nation. It was not with George Washington, but with Brutus, and not the one who killed Caeser. There was another who rebelled against the tyrant monarchy of Rome, The Tarquins. He wrote the Roman Constitution that would stand for 500 years. His sons sided with the monarchy. The monarchy lost. So to punish his sons and found a perfect union, he immolated his own sons.
          Machiavelli speaks fluently and voluminoulsy and voiciferously on this subject, in ‘The Discourses', and yet is proved wrong on several counts by the miracle of America. He says that a nation founded in servitude, as America was a colony, will never win its freedom. He also says that a nation founded on fertile soil that is easily defended, will in time loose all of its freedoms because it will become, eventually, inevitably, sloth and sated, and will forget to protect them.
         As regards 'The DC Madam', I am personally involved. You can view my involvement at http://www.maytheygetwhattheydeserve.com/KAT.html
Sometimes a mouse will lead you to a kat, and a kat can lead you to a rat and a rat, ironically, can lead you to the truth. And the truth, as they say, and as it is written, will set you free.
        May all those who sincerely and patiently wait for freedom be free and may all those who desire to steal those freedoms find instead the dire consequences that accompany contempt for a great man like Brutus.
As regards Machiavelli,
eram sapiens tamen nefas
And again,
vox vocis publicus est vox vocis deus
May The Republic stand forever and bring the Glory Of The World, with Dignity, into Its Treasury.
Purple 

Virtue

Thanks for the (somewhat) positive reply. As the comment below me sheds light on (and we know from several polls), Iraqis want the US (and its clients) out. They think they are destabilizing the country and are the engine in the "civil war". I don't think anybody are so naive that they think there will be Nirwana in Iraq when the occupiers leave. The occupation and Saddam's rule have increased tensions between Shiites and Sunnis. And with Iraq possibly breaking apart, Sunnis will be in a bad situation with no/little oil income. So there are naturally tensions that needs to be dealt with. I don't, however, think the occupation is doing anything to reduce these tensions. Quite the opposite, the tensions are increasing (as we very clearly can see every day). I'm not aware of evidence of this (yet), but I won't be surprised at all if the US has been involved in blowing up holy sites to increase internal tension. After all, it's a very well-known trick to divide and conquer. In this case "experts" also say this internal fighting means the US cannot leave. I disagree. We know that the great majority of "insurgents" in Iraq are fighting the occcupation. Then there are some groups that are carrying out terrorist actions, such as blowing up buses in markets, and holy sites. We know that for people under great oppression (such as in "Palestine"), radical groups can much easier recruit and grow. We see this in every war. So if the US etc pulls out, I think there will be harder for these groups to get local support. The US are trying to fight the resistance, not the death squads. Despite propaganda efforts, I think this is quite obvious. For them, the death squads is positive, as the illusion they need to stay is strengthened. But to get back to the post below, if we care anything about democracy (which we, sadly, prove time and time again we don't), we should respect the opinion of Iraqis, and get out as fast as planes can take the occupiers out. Iraqis have gone through enough hell for the last 100+ years, it's about time we leave them alone. We know why we are there. It most certainly is not to spread democracy, freedom or anything of the sort. It's oil and spreading market fundamentalism (elites think this equals democracy, so for them the slogan makes sense). As to the Arab peacekeeping force. I think this would be a good idea. Johan Galtung (one of the few Norwegians I really respect) has said that it would probably be best if such a peacekeeping force was Muslim, but not necessarily Arab. Tensions within the force could be strong. So it would perhaps be better for other Muslims to do the job, such as Indonesians (which raises other problems - it's long been a US client state). I think that makes sense. What is very important, is that they're not seen as a client army doing the occupiers' job. I'm no peace negotiator (as Galtung is), so I bow to his superior knowledge. What is most important right now, is to end the occupation before even more lives are lost. The West are now responsible for killing more than a million people in Iraq over the last 15 years. It's about time we leave them alone. Since you live in Iran, may I ask what your position on Ahmadinejad and US threats are? Pangaea Oslo, Norway

 http://www.middle-east-online.com/ENGLISH/?id=18938:

What steps are necessary by the United States to address the "Iraq crisis" in light of experts' warning that an immediate US pullout will exacerbate instability in Iraq to the point of a full-fledged civil war and the country's disintegration?

NC: We are all entitled to our uninformed speculations, including those whose "expertise" is demonstrated by the catastrophic military failure in Iraq. But what matters is the opinion of Iraqis. If there is remaining doubt, the question of withdrawal should be submitted to a referendum, conducted under international supervision to minimize coercion by the occupying forces and their Iraqi clients. There are no mechanical formulas in human affairs, but this should certainly be a guiding principle in cases of aggression.

Your question is a very good one. What should be done? I agree with the Iraqi people, the the occupiers should leave the country as fast as planes can take them out of it. Then I think there should be put an Arab peacekeeping force in place, to reduce the risk of the civil war continuing. With the occupiers gone I think most of the terrorism will be reduced, as the occupation is fuelling the "civil war". Then the US (and other occupiers) should issue a public apology for the crimes they have committed, and pay massive reparations for the damages and casualties caused. As to what's worse between this and Saddam, I also agree with Iraqis. This is much worse. It says a lot when Shiites long for the days of Saddam's dictatorship. Pangaea Oslo, Norway

The truth is americans have lost control of Iraq; since it is not able to control Iraq , it will try to maintain Iraq in a state of war until it is able to exploit the oil.. Oily powers more putatives than Hussein was won gainst the detriment and the welfare of Iraqis. if you recall, Iraq oil was nationalized, it benefited Iraqis.. now it is privatized to the benefit of a few.. dont expect the US to ever withdraw from Iraq. Iraq inherited of a bigger anti-christ than Husssein was; chomsky being not a religious nature would just call this anti-christic evil capitalism and imperialism ...

The self-identity dynamic you are referring to is not unfamiliar. The natural course of human progression is interrupted by what Plato described as the assumed Truth- Truth meaning the indisputable "ever pure existing state" that exists beyond perception- of the corruption of human nature. A greedy selfish entity seeks to impose its self interest on others, regardless of whether this should be morally acceptable. Might makes right is the familiar mantra of the militarily advanced savages. The norm of enlightened self-interest, even if this means imposing on anothers interest, prevails.

Ideas of racial superiority play into all of this as well. The benign conqueror is teaching the incalcitrant child how to live; the racial connotations are obvious. The ideation that all humans were not created equal is engrained into inhereted doctrines of Western "Civilization". The very fact that the status-quo exists justifies their delusions of grandeur. It is almost as if they treat humans as if they were nothing more than purely instinctual carnivores; all seemingly justified from assumptions about Truth, backed up by various experiences that minds distorted in this way pervert.

Anyway, yeah there is a natural reaction to the unnatural circumstances of trying to subject people to an unfamiliar and cruel master. Progression is being mutilated by the efforts of self-proclaimed apex of human civilization. They seek to freeze human progress in a state that is eternally advantageous to their avarice. This is not having pleasant outcomes as nations outside of their domestic borders are feeling the force of this pneumatic hatred. I would predict that we would find ourselves at a situation where honesty and mutual respect is needed, otherwise the freedom of all on earth with be "in conflict with imposing powers." Societies and individuals are at different "forks in the road", to foolishly try and prove that your way is right will do nothing more than make the recipient of your aggressive self-adulation want to resist you more. If you are representing what is suppossed to be genuinely progressive and constructive ideas, then you are doing a great disservice to those ideas by alienating people against them for nothing more than a simper that dismisses your insecurities about an assumed Truth.

So what is this omniscience you are referencing? Is it that which we strive for – (yes even Chomsky strives) - in an ever pure existing state, or is it that which we create and construct during the trials of our lives – as everything we know has come to us through experience?  And what are these experiences if so?  Reminds me of Socrates, Plato, and Piety – you recall, I'm sure.  Now – in any case – on the cultural and individual's level - omniscience is surely achieved and not ascribed.  Would you agree?  And if it is ascribed – well that just ruins everything, right?  I mean what is having knowledge told to you?  I smell rebellion! Or perhaps on another note, omniscience is ascribed – perhaps from God – maybe through Devine Reverence? It's a head scratcher.    

Sense we don't agree on the content of omniscience – and I really don't know what you mean there referring to Chomsky as omniscient – that's a hoot; some may find support for individuals perceiving omniscience differently, maybe even you – and not just misconstruing words (e.g., whether an insane masterpiece, and I accept the complement dearly – or short jibes poking at nothing).  So what I'm interested in here is simply ‘how does freedom provide for all of a society and for individuals in a society when inherent needs are in conflict with imposing powers?'

That's all. 

Priceless or over taxed? 

So what is this omniscience you are referencing? Is it that which we strive for – (yes even Chomsky strives) - in an ever pure existing state, or is it that which we create and construct during the trials of our lives – as everything we know has come to us through experience?  And what are these experiences if so?  Reminds me of Socrates, Plato, and Piety – you recall, I'm sure.  Now – in any case – on the cultural and individual's level - omniscience is surely achieved and not ascribed.  Would you agree?  And if it is ascribed – well that just ruins everything, right?  I mean what is having knowledge told to you?  I smell rebellion! Or perhaps on another note, omniscience is ascribed – perhaps from God – maybe through Device Reverence? It's a head scratcher.    

Sense we don't agree on the content of omniscience – and I really don't know what you mean there referring to Chomsky as omniscient – that's a hoot; some may find support for individuals perceiving omniscience differently, maybe even you – and not just misconstruing words (e.g., whether an insane masterpiece, and I accept the complement dearly – or short jibes poking at nothing).  So what I'm interested in here is simply ‘how does freedom provide for all of a society and for individuals in a society when inherent needs are in conflict with imposing powers?'

That's all. 

Priceless! Nothing could illustrate the importance of clear, lucid prose in attempting to understand complex issues - as exemplified in  most of Chomsky's voluminous output - than to place this inane masterpiece of inscrutable gobbldeygook in juxtoposition to it. There is "much aloft" alright, one does tend to float off into the rhetorical stratosphere when full of too much hot air. "The cultural cognitive motivations of a people's life way" are no doubt the subject of intense discussions at the Pentagon. "Restoring an enviornment which  provides for the complete and unyielding systems of the Iraqi peoples' most omniscient heritage..." would certainly be a trick wouldn't it? Even thousands of years of civilization doesn't make anyone "omniscient" does it? Not even Chomsky is completely omniscient is he? But at least he makes some sense! Oh well, a little comic relief never hurt anyone, I suppose.

Professor Chomsky,

even though i find your article very interesting - i agree with the way you think, and i believe you are one of the few critical voices in american society - im writing this comment just to let you know that i'm a chilean literature student and that i have an important exam on two of the essays you wrote on generative grammar. i'm just asking for your blessing :)

 

I appreciate Professor Chomsky's practical approach to the Iraqi people crisis.  There is much aloft over centuries of political motivations lingering through generations of government powers, and interpretations of ethical and legal proactive approaches to war and occupation. Colonialism – from the times of the Greeks and Romans forward through the Middle Ages, up to today should have taught us that there is never a good plan to this madness called war and occupation.   There is what seems as infinite variables, which are playing into what has and is happening in Iraq.   Key to these interloping affairs, I think Professor Chomsky may agree, is that the tangible infrastructure was not only removed – the cultural cognitive motivations of a people's life way and their normality of existing were also destroyed - for the entirety of their society.   This is a very delicate situation now.     Restoring an environment which provides for the complete and unyielding systems of the Iraqi people's omniscient heritage is absolutely crucial to their equal human presence – if that is an objective.   Psychologically, western presence is impeding upon the motivations of ritualized life, behavioral rituals, personal and organizational forward movement, and whole life perspectives. This will remain devastating to progress for the Iraqis.   It is a very difficult situation as well to resolve.  On one hand you have the United States focused on developing a democratic society – based in liberty and freedoms.  On the other you have a reality of a people's homeland devastated and governed by a foreign body.  The ideologies conflict explicitly for the majority.  Simply put – they don't get it – either side.  Occupied people resist – they are psychologically bound.  As long as they are not able to respond to the environment in terms of their own definitions and personifications of freedoms – they will resist.  There are ‘national' native human tenets which will remain in a state of imbalanced in the contexts of occupation and war.  These core systems will remain in conflict with other social pressures—those introduced through the war—and they will continue to persist, endure, and remain vigilant. This vigilance—is persistent—to their personification and reemergence of freedoms, life ways, and futures which cannot be purchased or created in the tangible infrastructure.  Objects such as bridges, a city, or government facility are neutral. I am speaking of human needs which are in conflict at a much more primal level—aside material, and ideologies of formalized government.  These human needs—core isms—to be released without hesitations.  People need to be born into their mother's arms, father's houses, and people's land.  They need to have a future derived of centuries of experience.  This is impossible in their land at this time—as it is now a foreign land. This is a difficult human experience for any people to endure, and very complex from a variety of analytical perspectives.  From this cognitive cultural perspective of social and humanitarian needs – you can begin to understand the complexity involved.         No matter how transparent we attempt to make human needs issues, and justify change through a conquest of “if only” (e.g., if only someone would do or be something), we must at some point come to realize that these times now and their personifications are our realities.  These situations are quotient for Iraqi people at this time.  It is difficult for them to become something they never have been—or perhaps want to become.  And often though, when social change does come, on such profound levels it presides over years, decades, and even centuries.      We must take a hard look at normalcy.  Not necessarily the social construction of government—but normalcy for the people in a life way.  Iraq is plagued with political philosophy, and physical tangents of armed government – there seem many cooks are in the kitchen.  None can escape to just breath freedom for 10  inutes.  Nonetheless, albeit talk and prophecy, people exist – systems emerge – people adopt and adapt.  These basic social practices have brought society through the ages.  While the situations beg of intervention on many levels from a world safety ideology, Iraq also needs Iraq. 

Thanks JD..

A very relevant article is “The Rise of Disaster Capitalism” by Naomi Klein from The Nation: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050502/klein

Here you go.

hey sk that is interesting..

People who inhabit what is now Iraq had been using commerce and writing for close to 50 centuries when primitive inhabitants of, say, islands in Northern Atlantic were doing their hunting and gathering with their faces painted blue. When Romans encountered these indigenous people, they called them the 'Pritani' (painted people), which is root of the word 'Britain'. Now, descendants of the latter--and their offshoots elsewhere--are so full of themselves that they want to teach fishing to descendants of those who have been keeping written accounts for 7000 years.

Here's a direct link to MP3 of above interview. If the link times out, you might want to retry at a time of lower network traffic (e.g. late night) to get it to work.

Link dosen't work.

The way I see it SGTR, Iraqis know already to fish, they rejoice and becomes happy each time an american soldier's head fall..( could you blame them?) I am very much sure if you look up on the internet you will see some unfortunate soul's head posted somewhere, and with it the bottom line is that they died in vain to enrich a few profiteers in the US..

I doubt this is the same former Russian soldier Noam mentioned, but this audio interview of a Russian veteran of the Afghan War of the 80's is insightful in it's own right.

To hell with the old saying "Teach a man to fish."