Video Player by Kaltura

 

Spreading good ideas with someone you know is one of the simplest things we can do to improve the conversation.

  •  BUZZ
  • Delicious  DELICIOUS
  •  DIGG
  •  FACEBOOK
  •  LINKEDIN
  • Email_icon  EMAIL

Spreading good ideas with someone you know is one of the simplest things we can do to improve the conversation.

  • Sam Benson
    Sam Benson replied on 02:33 PM on March 26, 2008
    Very insightful and well-spoken. You continue to be an unwavering source of rationality and I look forward to your next aditions to Big Think.
  • Sam Benson
    Sam Benson replied on 06:33 PM on March 26, 2008
    Very insightful and well-spoken. You continue to be an unwavering source of rationality and I look forward to your next aditions to Big Think.
  • Mike Green replied on 07:33 PM on April 01, 2008
    You are the American Hero, a freedom fighter like no other. I remember in 85, when I first heard your central arguments. Your views have been both inspirational and enriching, and my life is better as a result of careful study of your arguments. Thanks, as always, looking forward to more soon...
  • Mike Green replied on 09:55 PM on April 01, 2008
    I really do not disagree, that was an accident!!!!!!!
  • Mike Green replied on 11:33 PM on April 01, 2008
    You are the American Hero, a freedom fighter like no other. I remember in 85, when I first heard your central arguments. Your views have been both inspirational and enriching, and my life is better as a result of careful study of your arguments. Thanks, as always, looking forward to more soon...
  • Mike Green replied on 01:55 AM on April 02, 2008
    I really do not disagree, that was an accident!!!!!!!
  • Benjamin Dozier replied on 06:29 PM on May 05, 2008
    The claim that the opinions of Iraqis should matter, that they should have a say over affairs that affect their country, is a reasonable one. Yet without a functioning democracy, by definition, the goal of empowering the Iraqi people will never be achieved. Under Saddam, "Iraqis" in the plural had essentially no power; one Iraqi controlled the whole system. Clearly, today the situation is little better in terms of the power that the common people hold. While the US was clearly incorrect when it acted as the aggressor in an unjustified war, I feel we now have some responsibility to make sure or at least make an effort to ensure that democracy does in fact take root in Iraq. If we simply leave now, while we will be satisfying the short term desire of Iraqis to be free of American occupation, we will be doing nothing to further the long term goal of empowering the Iraqi populace. If we genuinely think the opinions of Iraqis matter, we should help them to establish some system where the will of the Iraqi people is translated into policy ie a democracy. That being said, at some point it may become clear that our capacity to do good is far less than our tendency to damage (maybe this is already true), and at this point we should pull out. But then the decision is not based on our perception of Iraqi opinion, but rather on our estimation of our effect on the welfare of Iraq.
  • Benjamin Dozier replied on 10:29 PM on May 05, 2008
    The claim that the opinions of Iraqis should matter, that they should have a say over affairs that affect their country, is a reasonable one. Yet without a functioning democracy, by definition, the goal of empowering the Iraqi people will never be achieved. Under Saddam, "Iraqis" in the plural had essentially no power; one Iraqi controlled the whole system. Clearly, today the situation is little better in terms of the power that the common people hold. While the US was clearly incorrect when it acted as the aggressor in an unjustified war, I feel we now have some responsibility to make sure or at least make an effort to ensure that democracy does in fact take root in Iraq. If we simply leave now, while we will be satisfying the short term desire of Iraqis to be free of American occupation, we will be doing nothing to further the long term goal of empowering the Iraqi populace. If we genuinely think the opinions of Iraqis matter, we should help them to establish some system where the will of the Iraqi people is translated into policy ie a democracy. That being said, at some point it may become clear that our capacity to do good is far less than our tendency to damage (maybe this is already true), and at this point we should pull out. But then the decision is not based on our perception of Iraqi opinion, but rather on our estimation of our effect on the welfare of Iraq.
  • Tim Ray
    Tim Ray replied on 11:12 PM on May 05, 2008
    hey The Snoo....like your icon...Che is my favorite executioner of homosexuals!! i agree we should have left Iraqi's to Saddam....he knew how to torture!!! he knew how to eliminate the enemy!!
  • Robert Cusma replied on 10:31 PM on May 29, 2008
    I want to first thank Dr.Chomsky for raising such issues to sparks debates concerning critical issues. We can only hope that it leads to more public awareness. And also, excuse my use of wordiness and run-on sentences, I hope that my statements make some sort of sense, haha. To address area51ejc, I think that the only way that legitimate foreign policy and normal diplomatic relations can be reached is by understanding what IS legitimate about our interests. If our national interests are in nuclear proliferation, ecology, economics, etc,(and understand WHY these are important to us) then I think it is easy to say that a question will arise: are our interests and Israels interests what's popular to the Arab nations? If not, then why? I think that they disagree because they see a lack of legitimacy in our own national interests (perhaps benign, but still unshared in interest), yet there is a continuation of our (and Israels's)policy of the forcing of these people to be compliant and submit. Therefore, cooperation with these established, conflicting interests between the Arab world and the US, is out of question. Last, Israel was a state created out of the British-Mandate, a document which servers self interest while disregarding the current inhabitants opinion (and even international). So, to follow Chomsky's model, the evil which follows is the responsibility of those who committed to the evil. To chebyshev153, when you imply that this "democracy" is a step forward in empowering the Iraqi pop., I disagree. Although terrible atrocities were committed under Saddam, and although he had autocratic control, the Iraqi's still had the eventual ability to change their environment, but now that there is conlficting foreign interests(with the US aggressors), there is less focus on shared interests to compromise on, and more focus on fighting over what isn't commonly believed to be best. To me it seems to result in an nearly impossible compromise since there is a three way conflict in interest. I think when Chomsky mentions the US-led Iraqi government, and how there's no real idea of what the Iraqi's opinion is, he is implying that no legitimate democracy can function to serve the majority. If the government is only applying policy which serves the fortified green zone, then it is going to serve the interests of those in power, which trickles down to primarily US policy. The resulting policy from the new Iraqi government is only serving itself in order to carry out the ideals which it was initially founded on, and non-compliance with that ideal implanted by the US would result in self destruction.
  • Robert Cusma replied on 02:31 AM on May 30, 2008
    I want to first thank Dr.Chomsky for raising such issues to sparks debates concerning critical issues. We can only hope that it leads to more public awareness. And also, excuse my use of wordiness and run-on sentences, I hope that my statements make some sort of sense, haha.

    To address area51ejc, I think that the only way that legitimate foreign policy and normal diplomatic relations can be reached is by understanding what IS legitimate about our interests. If our national interests are in nuclear proliferation, ecology, economics, etc,(and understand WHY these are important to us) then I think it is easy to say that a question will arise: are our interests and Israels interests what's popular to the Arab nations? If not, then why? I think that they disagree because they see a lack of legitimacy in our own national interests (perhaps benign, but still unshared in interest), yet there is a continuation of our (and Israels's)policy of the forcing of these people to be compliant and submit. Therefore, cooperation with these established, conflicting interests between the Arab world and the US, is out of question. Last, Israel was a state created out of the British-Mandate, a document which servers self interest while disregarding the current inhabitants opinion (and even international). So, to follow Chomsky's model, the evil which follows is the responsibility of those who committed to the evil.

    To chebyshev153, when you imply that this "democracy" is a step forward in empowering the Iraqi pop., I disagree. Although terrible atrocities were committed under Saddam, and although he had autocratic control, the Iraqi's still had the eventual ability to change their environment, but now that there is conlficting foreign interests(with the US aggressors), there is less focus on shared interests to compromise on, and more focus on fighting over what isn't commonly believed to be best. To me it seems to result in an nearly impossible compromise since there is a three way conflict in interest. I think when Chomsky mentions the US-led Iraqi government, and how there's no real idea of what the Iraqi's opinion is, he is implying that no legitimate democracy can function to serve the majority. If the government is only applying policy which serves the fortified green zone, then it is going to serve the interests of those in power, which trickles down to primarily US policy. The resulting policy from the new Iraqi government is only serving itself in order to carry out the ideals which it was initially founded on, and non-compliance with that ideal implanted by the US would result in self destruction.
  • Robert Austin
    Robert Austin replied on 07:19 PM on June 10, 2008
    Why don%u2019t we allow the Iraqis to hold a nationwide referendum on whether or not the United States should promptly withdraw from Iraq? I have been wondering about this for some time. I have never seen this idea seriously proposed by anyone in our government, but it seems so obvious to me. The Bush administration touts that it has brought democracy to Iraq, and the world has seen elections successfully held in there. If Iraq is stable enough for its people to participate in a general election, then the country must be stable enough to hold a referendum on US withdrawel. A referendum of the sort I propose is good for both the United States and Iraq. If the Iraqis vote %u201CYes, the United States should leave,%u201D the United States could then withdraw without losing face and without emboldening Al Qaeda, since our withdrawal would be implemented out of respect for the will of the Iraqi people, not be due to a loss of will on behalf of the United States. Alternatively, if the Iraqis say, %u201CNo, the United States should stay to help maintain stability,%u201D the United States can justify its continued presence in Iraq to itself and to the rest of the world. The United States would then be seen as a peace keeping nation rather than an occupying nation.
  • Robert Austin
    Robert Austin replied on 11:19 PM on June 10, 2008


    Why don%u2019t we allow the Iraqis to hold a nationwide referendum on whether or not the United States should promptly withdraw from Iraq? I have been wondering about this for some time. I have never seen this idea seriously proposed by anyone in our government, but it seems so obvious to me. The Bush administration touts that it has brought democracy to Iraq, and the world has seen elections successfully held in there. If Iraq is stable enough for its people to participate in a general election, then the country must be stable enough to hold a referendum on US withdrawel. A referendum of the sort I propose is good for both the United States and Iraq. If the Iraqis vote %u201CYes, the United States should leave,%u201D the United States could then withdraw without losing face and without emboldening Al Qaeda, since our withdrawal would be implemented out of respect for the will of the Iraqi people, not be due to a loss of will on behalf of the United States. Alternatively, if the Iraqis say, %u201CNo, the United States should stay to help maintain stability,%u201D the United States can justify its continued presence in Iraq to itself and to the rest of the world. The United States would then be seen as a peace keeping nation rather than an occupying nation.
  • Richard Barcant replied on 08:50 AM on July 02, 2008
    What seems most amazing to me about this whole 'Iraq war' is that I hear talk on TV etc by some that seem to honestly beleive that the Iraquis need to 'pay us back', basically in oil of course, for re-building' their country.. We oursleves were lied to by our leaders and misled into 'buying off' the WMD etc etc justification, into overthrowing of our former ally (against Iran), Saddam. What a farce!! Why are we not involved in other African countries with worse problems? Are we that openly racial, or is simply that they don't have any thing we can exploit - or a combination perhaps? We are then stupefied why the (local) Iraqui 'insurgents' want us out of Iraq.. Why they are obstructists to us getting the infrastructure to remove their oil so they they can pay us back to rebuild the infrastructure -that we destroyed.. Can we step out of our closed little world and think what we would e doing if the shoe was on the other foot.. What if China invaded to get us out from under GW Bush? and they allowed us to use our natural resources to pay them back to rebuild with obviously crroked non-competitive contracts.. My stepson 'signed up' for the army in the post 9-11 fervor and is finally back - hopefully for good - although he keeps getting re-enlistment stuff in the mail to keep him, and us, on edge.. Many of his buddies were recently re-deployed - nedles to say h feels guilty - although he is fully aware of the sham that this war is.. He also made us aware of the 'Blackwater' & similar scams well before it hit the airwaves.. Talk about a disillusioned group of soldiers.. Do we think they are all blind and total morons not to see what is going on? God Bless Arerica.. The Lord knows fully how much we need all the blessings he can bestow on us!! Lord, please save us from our leaders!!!
  • Richard Barcant replied on 12:50 PM on July 02, 2008
    What seems most amazing to me about this whole 'Iraq war' is that I hear talk on TV etc by some that seem to honestly beleive that the Iraquis need to 'pay us back', basically in oil of course, for re-building' their country..

    We oursleves were lied to by our leaders and misled into 'buying off' the WMD etc etc justification, into overthrowing of our former ally (against Iran), Saddam. What a farce!!

    Why are we not involved in other African countries with worse problems? Are we that openly racial, or is simply that they don't have any thing we can exploit - or a combination perhaps?

    We are then stupefied why the (local) Iraqui 'insurgents' want us out of Iraq.. Why they are obstructists to us getting the infrastructure to remove their oil so they they can pay us back to rebuild the infrastructure -that we destroyed..

    Can we step out of our closed little world and think what we would e doing if the shoe was on the other foot.. What if China invaded to get us out from under GW Bush? and they allowed us to use our natural resources to pay them back to rebuild with obviously crroked non-competitive contracts..

    My stepson 'signed up' for the army in the post 9-11 fervor and is finally back - hopefully for good - although he keeps getting re-enlistment stuff in the mail to keep him, and us, on edge.. Many of his buddies were recently re-deployed - nedles to say h feels guilty - although he is fully aware of the sham that this war is..

    He also made us aware of the 'Blackwater' & similar scams well before it hit the airwaves.. Talk about a disillusioned group of soldiers.. Do we think they are all blind and total morons not to see what is going on?

    God Bless Arerica.. The Lord knows fully how much we need all the blessings he can bestow on us!!

    Lord, please save us from our leaders!!!
  • Mac Willson replied on 08:25 AM on September 10, 2008
    All this talk is nice and provocative, but until more is collectively expected from our elected officials, senators, representatives, there will always be people like Mr Chomsky, sitting on the sidelines telling us the truth--of which we should know but have not yet heard. And the automaton will chug along, regularly depositing people like Bush/Cheney in to positions of power, and fouling up the world everywhere. The macrocorporations are getting their way--it is their automaton--and we are working in its belly, keeping it going, and getting the shaft. Until we demand better, this will be our lot
  • Mac Willson replied on 12:25 PM on September 10, 2008
    All this talk is nice and provocative, but until more is collectively expected from our elected officials, senators, representatives, there will always be people like Mr Chomsky, sitting on the sidelines telling us the truth--of which we should know but have not yet heard. And the automaton will chug along, regularly depositing people like Bush/Cheney in to positions of power, and fouling up the world everywhere. The macrocorporations are getting their way--it is their automaton--and we are working in its belly, keeping it going, and getting the shaft. Until we demand better, this will be our lot
  • jorge rios replied on 09:29 PM on September 30, 2008
    this is for chebyshev153

    are you kidding... the US illegally murdered over one hundred thousand iraqis... mostly civilians...with no valid reason.....
    ... if the tables were turned do you honestly think you would want the invading force to stay or leave... lol.... the US should get the hell out.... and pay for all the damages...PERIOD


  • Clayton Santimore replied on 11:11 AM on November 25, 2008
    How can anyone really say we were unjust, had no right, etc. to invadeIraq? The leaders in Iraq violated numerous UN sanctions imposed upon it after the first Gulf War. Saddam kicked out weapons inspectors making it virtually impossible for us to verify whether or not he truly possesed them. Were we supposed to give him the benefit of the doubt? Saddam had used chemical weapons in the past. That is a fact. I truly belived that they had WMD. I think anyone who says that they truly believed Saddam when he said they had none prior to our invasion is a liar. If you believe in the UN's credibility even a little bit, didn't we need to move against Saddam after the first time he violated its sanctions (never mind the 12th or 13th time)? If not, why would any country listen to the UN?

    I know this a very elementary example but I still believe that it applies here. If you tell a child no, and he does it anyway what do you do? You give him/her a timeout, you ground them, whatever. If you do nothing or threaten to do something and then not back it up, won't the child repeat the action? After a while, empty threats and inaction just reinforce his/her behavior. We imposed sanctions. Iraq ignored them. We said don't do it again. Iraq did it again and again and again ...

    In my opinion, we were justified long before the ultimate invasion in 2003.
  • j lo replied on 09:06 AM on December 06, 2008
    um, i hate to break it to you csantimor, but the U.S has defied far more U.N resolutions than Iraq ever did. By your logic the U.S should be invaded. Go figure
  • Jim Stiene replied on 06:59 PM on April 24, 2009
    Sometimes the best way forwards is backwards. We should stop being the self appointed world police. It costs too much and we seem to create more problems than we solve.
  • tim hall replied on 09:04 PM on April 25, 2009

    The thing about Iraq, is that we cannot afford to be looking back with the exception of the U.N. investigations of our rogue leaders. We need to help rebuild their infrastructure. We need to help keep crime down when asked. We stuck our nose in it. Now we have to do what is right by their people.

    Iran's people are very modern thinking. If we leave them alone, they will overthrow their cultist goverment within 5 years. If we intervene, we will throw them behind 20 more years. This is a nation that can solve it's own problems.

    Afghanistan- the Pushtins, These are a very different people. You can never conquer these people. They are very tribal. The tribe leaders will fight anyone who stands in their way of being leader. Some of them are totally against opium trade but will use it to gain more weapons. If you were to solve all of their problems, they would be right back fighting over leadership. The era that the Taiban ruled was the most calm in 100 years. The Taliban is a religious fanatic cult. Maybe they would do better under their rule until they become more educated.

    Pakistan is the most dangerous situation in those parts. We should help them fight crime and try to build non religious schools in their country. We cannot allow western haters to take it over. We need all of Europe doing everything that they can.

    The Gaza Strip? Run all the leaders out of both countries and leave the people alone. They have lived together longer peacefully than anyone on the planet. They like each other. They both suffer from egotistic leaders. Take down that stupid wall, you bunch of facist losers. Land, earth does not belong to anybody. Take down all your stupid facist walls and fences. What is wrong with you people? You live your lives in fear. "He gonna git supin from me." "Ignorant" "feardoms"

  • kathy k replied on 09:48 PM on May 05, 2009

    Could  free world countries  'cut all ties' with countries that have different ideology than democracy?  

     

     

     


     

Sign up or log in to post a response to this idea.