Kissinger has always struck me as sleazy. Intuition here. Don’t need a court.

But after all, he is a member of the political class so off with his head.

So over 6 years ago Henry the K delivers a half-assed bitch slap to a drunken scribbler. Kissinger was a brilliant SOB, but a more timely post, given her recent passing, would be a recollection of Orianna Fallaci’s brutal interview of the latter day Metternich.

Nah, let’s not and say we did.

I like Hitchens, but do not understand his insistance that Kissinger is a “war criminal” based upon the Vietnam War. Particularly, as I recall, his emotion arises from visiting hospitals and homes with alleged Agent Orange victims. I use the term alleged here not to deny the real victims of Agent Orange in Indochina, but that to underscore that no serious study has been done to verify that all the victims shown are indeed AO victims, and not victims of other agricultural or industrial use chemicals. This in a country where peasants routinely apply herbicides and pesticides dressed only in shorts, a straw hat, and sandals. And where the local home made liquor is often sold in containers previously used for other liquids such as battery acid. Moreover, as I understand Hitchens, his reasoning is that Kissinger was the national security advisor, later Sec State, therefore he is responsible. Yet the military chain of command was the final authority for the use of defoliation agents, not Kissinger. Again, I like much of what Hitchens writes these days, and am no fan of King Henry, but I do like my causal relationships a bit more defined.

kb, perhaps as an admirer of Chomsky, that great master in linguistics, you can explain how it is that one sovereign nation, responding to a request for assistance from another sovereign nation, who is under attack by its neighbor, has committed an “invasion”. For this “cataract” sufferer, Chomsky lost any respect I might have had when he sought to deny, then downplay the Hue massacre. As for the surrounding countries being “bombed practicaly back to the stone age”, that is absolutely hillarious. You quite obviously have no conception of reality as it related to the Vietnam War.

“kb, perhaps as an admirer of Chomsky, that great master in linguistics”

As well as several other disciplines don’t forget. I’m not sure if this was to infer that he should stick to “his field” of linguistics or not, but if so it’s laughable. Just about a month ago I was having a discussion of Chomsky’s position on Descartes work with a British philosopher who knew nothing about Chomsky at all who actually tried to make the argument that Chomsky was, and I quote “A linguist and not a philosopher”. I thought it odd that he’d even make such a statement given his lack of knowledge of Chomsky’s work. Anyway, finding it funny, and being quite well aware that this is a common form of argument when one is looking for a way not to deal with the subject, but rather questioning the credentials of the person arguing, I copying and sent the mail to Chomsky. His response was funny, but predictable. He DID say however that this was the first time he’d had this exact charge regarding philosophy and went on to say that he probably has much more background in philosophy, which I already knew. Anyway, as he also mentioned, he’s never asked about his credentials by serious folks when invited to give talks in economics departments, mathematics departments, political science departments, etc…They’d be met with scorn for such nonsense. They’re interested in whether or not he makes an argument and then challenge it or whatever. I mean, I just wanted to make sure you weren’t going anywhere near THAT ballpark.kb

“you can explain how it is that one sovereign nation”

Who are you referring to? Surely NOT Vietnam.kb

“responding to a request for assistance from another sovereign nation”

Once again, don’t know who you’re referring to. Are you talking about the U.S.’s invasion of South Vietnam when we started bombing them?kb

“who is under attack by its neighbor”

Which neighbor are you referring to?kb

“has committed an “invasion”Â?.””

I don’t know what you’re refering to. Perhaps you’re referring to one of the many invasions within Central and South America?kb

“Who asked to For this “cataract”Â? sufferer, Chomsky lost any respect I might have had when he sought to deny, then downplay the Hue massacre.”

He has never “downplayed” any massacre to my knowledge. He often talks about those which are completely avoided, which I’d consider a little worse than supposedly downplaying something.”

“As for the surrounding countries being “bombed practicaly back to the stone age”Â?, that is absolutely hillarious.”

I don’t cosider having countries being bombed into the stone age as funny.kb

“You quite obviously have no conception of reality as it related to the Vietnam War.”

Yes, and you have demonstrated that you do. If you have an argument then make it. You have yet to mention the bombing of South Vietnam, the CIA being in there long before, etc…Let me guess, you’re going to skip all of the inconvenient facts and just start talking about how bad Ho was to his people. That’s like saying Castro is bad compared to anyone who the U.S. has supported in Central America. Castro is an absolute angel in comparsion. I mean, if numbers of murders count for anything. Would you like a long list? Let me know. But I’m sure since you’re not into “downplaying” things that you’ll be quite familiar with these numbers, yes?kb

“Chomsky is a hypocrit”

Name-calling and empty of content. Prove it.kb

“he talks about all American action south America and then has the nerve to go down to Cuba”

“The nerve”? What nerve? You wish to work with a country, you talk to them. If only our politicians were so clever. I mean, this is really “deep”. What? Talk to the liberator of the country from which you country as committed perhaps the most terrorism against in the hemisphere? How silly? Yeah, he should have just proven his “patriotism” by staying up here and spewing the anti-Castro nonsense. That’s productive.kb

“and talk about them while never mentioning imperialism”

The imperialism they had to fight against doesn’t come close to that of which they have themselves. Not even close. There’s really not much to talk about as it hardly exists, as most folks know. Well, at least most folks around the planet. You know, those you haven’t been indoctrinated to maintain a perception which sees the liberators as the criminals. Rather than talking about how Castro has held ontop power for so long, I’d rather hear you discuss what led to a Castro, or any number of other liberators, in the first place. You folks ALWAYS start your line of reasoning after the fact. You entirely skip causes.kb

“done by cuba for the soviet union”

This is a perfect example. I’ll assume that you were unaware that Castro was actually anti-communist in the early days and was even jailing folks of the communist party. Sorry if this fact doesn’t fit your picture, but it’s a fact. And he was resistant to have anything to do with the Soviet Union at all, too, until he decided, as many did, to take help from wherever he could get it. This is nothing new at all. This IS the rotton apple theory. I would have thought that you knew this?kb

“and beyond especially in places in South America.”

You act as if the Soviet Union forced themselves into these places. For the most part they were welcomed with open arms as they were willing to support their causes of kicking out the murdering dictators who had been running their countries for years. Doesn’t mean that they didn’t have their own ulterior motives, as those countrie being used even knew. But that hardly matters if you’re hungry and offered help immediately. The question should be is why weren’t we helping them in the first place? Why would they have ever even needed to look twice at the Soviet Union? The U.S. is a lot closer. Most of them wanted to be partners with the U.S. in the first place, as Castro did. Well, what was the U.S. response? Support the brutal murdering dictators who were ALL FAR worse than Castro. These are like the a,b,c’s of history and not even disputable or controversial as far as I know. You can probably find the stats on the CIA web page, or NSA web page even. It’s not like a secret except for those who have internalized the Cold War propaganda. Here’s a little actual scholarship for you. Just a simply passage by Chomsky quoting a Reagan man. I want to know why you haven’t quoted this Reaganite, but Chomsky has. Perhaps he knows mnore about Reagan than you? That’s probably a safe bet. Here you go:

**We may put aside the conclusions of years of scholarship, recently updated for the 1980s by Reagan State Department official Thomas Carothers: democratization in Latin America was uncorrelated (in fact, negatively correlated) with US influence, and the United States continued “to adopt prodemocracy policies as a means of relieving pressure for more radical change, but inevitably sought only limited, top-down forms of democratic change that did not risk upsetting the traditional structures of power with which the United States has long been allied.” We need not waste words on the nature of these “traditional structures.” In practice, “democracy” has been defined in terms of outcome, not conditions and process. But that cannot affect what is true by definition of our “national identity.”

Now, does this make Carothers a hypocrite, or even funnier, an “anti-American” like Chomsky when he states the exact same facts? You can try and ignore the facts, and give them as much spin as you wish, but they’re not going to change in reality. Perhaps in the minds of a few people, but not in reality, unless new data comes out to support it.kb

“HIs excuse of it being patriotic to crticised died there.”

I’m not sure if he’s ever said that, but to any even modestly democratic thinker this isn’t even a question. This is like step one of what it means to even begin to be democratic. And this is one of the primarly problems, in my opinion, today with the U.S. There’s has been FAAAAAR to little criticism, and instead fighting to stay in denial, and go through all the usual rationalizations, excuses, denials, etc…that most alcoholics usually do. Blame the therapist for making him look at his problem. “He was fine before he started therapy and was just drunk all the time. But when that damn therapist made him start examing his own pathetic and sad behavior, yes, that’s when the problem started. It’s the therapists fault! Let’s attack the therapist! He only wants to bring the guy down!” I thought that this stage would have been passed somewhere back in junior high. Geez!kb

“Not to mention i have not seen him take any action against Chevez quotin him”

Take action against what? That he called Bush the devel to which the vast majority of his country said that he should have said it? I’ve seen Chomsky comment on this. I doubt he paid too much attention as this is an almost invisible incident as compared to the actual issues. He was probably, and more appropriately, watching what Chvez’z actual actions are regarding using his oil for his people, etc…And if Chavez starts being a brutal dictator, Chomsky will criticize him, too. He always has. Nothing new, or at least if you know his works at all.kb

“a man who is def subverting democracy in venezuella-”

Let me get this straight. Because Chavez has the overwelming support of the vast majority of the population, even while under attack from a few criminals, and won a free and fair election, etc…that he is subverting democracy? I don’t know who you’re referring to. It surely can’t be Chomsky. You’ll have to be a little clearer.kb

I’ve been studying him for more than 20 years

Well that about says it all…

He has never made an apologetic for tyranny of any kind

I believe his long standing position on the Khmer Rouge might be one example…

Bill said (thinking he meant something):

“I’ve been studying him for more than 20 years”(kb)

“Well that about says it all”¦”

Yes, it does. It says that I know his work quite well and can easily spot when someone hasn’t a clue. I’ve been studying other folks for even longer. Would you like their names?kb

“He has never made an apologetic for tyranny of any kind”

Nope. None. No apologetics in any of his writings. Not a single sentence. But I’ll allow you the opportunity to presen one if you think you can.kb

“I believe his long standing position on the Khmer Rouge might be one example”¦”

Well, then you believe wrong. He has had no long standing position on the Khmer Rouge other than it being horrendous. Don’t tell me that you’re still regurgitating the WAY outdated “Pol Pot” apologetics charges. These were debunked within hours after the illiterate who made the charges put them out there, knowing all the while that most folks, the naive and lazy ones who wouldn’t bother to read, would simply keep perpetuating the dis/dis-information. Not a single line of apologetics. It doesn’t exist. Sorry, to burst your under-informed bubble, but that’s the way it is. He does, however, discuss the U.S.’s support of him in trying to get him a seat at the U.N. It’s hardly a wonder why anyone would call Chomsky the Pol Pot apologist instead of those who supported him. Better look a little close at your history, not to mention actually reading a few of his books before making such silly comments.(Oh, by the way Curzon, once again, it was the “other” person bringing Chomsky back into the disussion.) I guess that just about says it all…..You see, if you were simply making these assertions because you are unfamiliar with his work, and are simply babbling the anti-Chomsky line, then it’s potentially something which you could be forgiven for. You know, like you don’t NOT teach a kid math, and then accuse them of getting it wrong when they just start blurting out embarrassing things. You feel a little sorry for them and try and help them. Onthe other hand, if you actually HAVE read Chomksy and just were this far off on interpreting it, that’s a far worse problem. Please tell me you aren’t making these accusations after having actually reading him. Oh, and by the way, by “actually reading him” I DO NOT mean reading the writings of illiterates like Oliver Kamm. David Horowitz, and the like, and their WAY out of context quotes and phrases, as this means nothing. I mean YOU reading several of his books from front to back without the influnce of a bad interpretation. Let me know if you’ve done this and I’ll give you the chance of demonstrating some of your assertions. And, if you even think about lifting the writings of the “gentlemen” who I’ve mentioned, I’ll know within a sentence or two as I have most of their writing as well. I’m ready when you are. (Next thing you know he’ll be makng the charges that Chomsky has written something “anti-American” in his life)kb

Curzon said:

“KB, did you even read the link in my previous comment?”

Yes. I’ve read all of the anti-Chomsky links. He has never even come close to inferring apologetics to any regime of the sort. ANd if you think he has you simply aren’t familiar with his work. It’s quite simple.kb

“Here it is again. Chomsky’s apologetics for Communist genocide and tyrrany during the Cold War are documented beyond the realm of your comments changing anyone’s mind.”

No, they are NOT. This is an uninformed statement. Had you actually read his work and then you came to these “conclusions” then you would only be illiterate or a liar. I will assume that you haven’t read any and that’s why you’re referring to the anti-Chomskyites ALL of who I am familiar with. There is NO documentation of any apologetics whatsoever. Or if there is I have yet to read them in the past 20+ years of studying not only his work, but even more so his critics. None. Zero. Oh, and those things which you think are “documentation” are textbook examples of what it means to “take statements out of context” and “misinterpret”. Why would I lie about this? I have no reason to blindly supprt anything Chomsky says at all. I’ve never even said that I liked him. You may have inferred that I have simply because I have kept up with his work, but anything more than that is also a misinterpretation. This is typical and happen all the time though. Someone knows about his work and then they’re called a “Chomskyite”, which is quite funny. I guess I’m a Michael Jordanite, too, since I know many of his statistics. Come to think of it, I’m a manyperson-ite if knowing their work means that I’m an “ite” of some sort. I REALLY suggest, I mean for your own sakes as wishing to portrait yourselves as Victorian gentlemen, for reasons which are WAY beyond me(not really)I ‘d advise that you actuallytake the time to study the subject and not simply what amounts to little more than book reviews by folks who have never even read the books. I mean, were I on a philosophy blog talking about Descartes being Spanish, and fighting in Irian Jaya, and singing opera, and being a black woman….I’d hope that someone would tell me what to read or set me straight. There isn’t a single apologetic in any of his writings. None. Zero. I’ve been there. They don’t exist. And PLEASE don’t tell me to keep loking at that which you think you have found which demonstrates otherwise. I’ve been there too and that’s exactly why I have the position I do. Of course it helps to correspond with Chomsky himself from time to time and allow him to speak to these things. But he’s done this so many times he usually has better things to do. Actually, it’s quite obvious by your comments that you haven’t even watched the film ‘Manufacturing Consent’. This and all of the other non-issues were dealt with there. I recommend that you at least watch a film. Reasonable?kb

Curzon demonstrating exact what I mentioned above said:

“KB, I can only conclude that you are illiterate.”

I would expect you to conclude this based on you sources. I’ve already mentioned that I’m quite familiar with the nonsense above as well as dozens of other such nonsensical charges. Remember? Simply because you’re basing your supposed “evidence” on what an illiterate himslef says hardly makes you some expert on Chomsky. It simply means that you have found one out of a few references from which to confirm your preconceived notions. I can find miore for you if you want. They’re similarly laughable. Have you read his book yourself? This is what I would like to know. And have you read the many articles by the man himself? This is what I would like to know. And you actually spoken to the man about these things? I have. Anyway, as I said, most of this nonsense was dispelled in the film of Manufacturing Consent, which, as I said, is obvious that you haven’t watched. I would advise you NOT to watch it either if you insist on maintaining this mis-belief. Anyway, let’s have a look at what you’ve chosen.

“The above article dissects Chomsky’s co-authored book “The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism: The Political Economy of Human Rights, Volume I.”Â? To quote cited excerpts:”

Well, you’ve already screwed up. It dissects nothing. It’s the classic example of a fellow picking out of context statements to confirm their preconceived notion, as I said above. There is one radical way though for you to find out if this is true or not. And it’s a way I often recommend to readers unfamilar with the topic. And that’s to read the books for yourself. I’d say in the past 10 years this has happened once or twice that I can recall. It so much easier just to look for the things you want to find. This is old, at least to those who know the subject.kb

“Chomsky and Herman flatly deny the post-war atrocities in Vietnam, congratulating the communist dictatorship on its “miracle of reconciliation and restraint”Â? involving “close to zero retribution deaths”Â? (p28)”

Notice that the “author is telling you what he “thinks” Chomsky and Herman are saying. The quote above “miracle of reconciliation and restraint”Â? is a textbook example of picking something out of context and misrepresentation. It also give no idication of what would have led them to such conclusions. A slight oversight I’d say. Does he think they’re communists or something? Another equally as absurd a notion? Anyway, let’s continue:

“and concluding that there has been “no bloodbath, so far as is known; nothing like what happened in France”Â? after the Second World War (pp79-80).”

Yes? That’s correct. At the time which this was written, given the documentation which was available at the time, this is accurate. Does he think they just made something up? Perhaps it is HE that is illiterate. Anyway, AFTER you’ve read for yourself, if this clowns mis-interpretation hasn’t jaded your anility for object thought and reasoning too much, you can tell me yourself. Until then this means nothing. Secondhand heresay with footnotes.kb

“Chomsky and Herman suppress the abundant contemporary accounts of repression and brutality [1], and they do not even hint at the massacre of perhaps 200,000 South Vietnamese [2] ““ with victims beheaded, eviscerated or buried alive [3] ““ or the mass killings in concentration camps [4] or the mass expulsions that drowned 200,000-250,000 boat people [5].”

They do? Once again, they do not. This is another blatant misrepresentation, not to mention it showing the weakness of the writers own knowledge and vulnerability to propaganda which much of what follows is recognized to be. I mean, at least by those who study the subject. There are dozens of articles, interviews, etc…regarding Vietnam, Pol Pot, etc…which one wishing to know about the topic can Google and find out. And I mean articles written by the nam himself without the “translations” and “interpretations” of real illiterates. Like I said, I can forgive you for not knowing any better because you haven’t read the material for yourself. You can be excused to a degree, though only in the sense that wishing to stay ignorant of the topic is safe. They, presumably have read the material, and have just gotten this far off. It’s really embarrassing. There are links everywhere. Let me know if when you’re ready to start studying the topic…seriously anyway.
http://www.flagrancy.net/khmerchomsky.html

“Could any reader, no matter how diligent, guess the truth from these pages?”

Yes, they could. But notice the assertion “the truth”. He already has a preconceived idea that he knows what “the truth” is, and this is precisely the point. It is exactly this supposed “knowledge” which prevents him from understanding the words on the page and how to interpret them. Are you trying to help me here or something? Chomsky talks at length about what the scholarly work is made up of, uses all sorts of governmental documents, scholarly research, and is actually quite reserved in many ways. If there is no way of really knowing what the answers are, as in the case of just how many people were killed by the North, Khmer, U.S., they say that based on the only evidence avilable, as is made quite claer to any literate person who actually reads the books. This is old. It’s like trying to argue with someone who persists on believing the world is flat because someone gave them a photo of the earth and the photo is flat. Basically, the author of this article is interpreting the photo as evidence that the world is flat. I’m not joking either. He really IS that far off. Fortunately, the affects of indoctrination are often so great, and remember the goal of indoctrination, that this sort of interpetation is a predictable outcome. Anyway, Chomsky and Herman have written about this as well in great detail, so it’s doubly funny to tell the truth.kb

“Hardly less shameful is the whitewashing of massive communist atrocities during the war”

Not a one.kb

“such as the claim that Viet Cong success was based on “understanding and trying to meet the needs of the masses”Â? (p340)”

Mis-interpretation and mis-representation. Sort of leaves out the reason this is being said and the context. Almost makes it sound as though Chomsky is trying to make an apologetic for something. Sorry, it’s not there. There are no apologetics. And if the VietCong say that they’re “trying to meet the needs of the masses”, and Chomsky repeats what they said they’re up to, this in no way, shape, or form, is an apologetic. Only an illiterate would think otherwise. Chomsky also said that the Soviet Union went from a backward third world country which basically served western Europe, to a world superpower which developed in a great many ways, within one generation, and was the envy of many other third world countries who were in similar straits, and who would love to extricate themselves from similar horrendous conditions. Now, some actually interpret THIS as an apologetic for the Soviet Union and infer that Chomsky thinks it must have been great, that he’s a communist, etc….When read in the context of the rest of the book, not to mention all of the other books, a literate person easily sees through this nonsense. He’s quite critical of the Soviet Union, and always was, especially given his anti-communist stance which he said started when he was about 12 years old. So, once again, the person you’re relying on for your data is a joke. You can find better criticisms in bus stop bathrooms.kb

“or the suggestion that the terrorists are “not likely to resort to bloodbaths”Â? because they seek the support of the peasants (p341).”

Notice that he is telling you the “suggestion” without saying why he would have made the statement. Geez! Cuzon, I would have thought you a little more astute than to be this gullible. Yes, everyone who is familiar with Chomsky’s work knows that he would assert, infer, or anything else that “terrorists are “not likely to resort to bloodbaths”Â? because they seek the support of the peasants (p341).” This is actually very funny.kb

“The reader is not told that Viet Cong death squads butchered some 37,000 civilians [6], or that the victims ““ typically doctors, teachers, social workers and their families ““ died after sadistic torture and mutilation: “Sometimes they chop off a finger or a hand, just as a warning. In other instances, they disembowel a man or impale him alive before the eyes of his fellow villagers”Â? [7].”

Note the authors supposed knowledge of the subject. Chomsky is quite well aware of most all of the data with regards to these suggestions. He has written extensively about them, who uses them(this unsuspecting writer), how they are used, and what’s wrong with them. Of course one would have actually had to read Chomsky to know this, but that’s part of the point, to keep people from reading. If they read, they will probably learn. It’s much better to have folks like this guy informing folks who are too lazy to read for themselves. And, the few times someone has read them that I’m aware of, they did a 180 and actually began challenging the other naive of the likes they had once been.kb

Curzon, I must say that I thought you were a little more insightful than this. After all wasn’t it you who said on a more recent post regarding the environment that certain researchers has only looked for the evidence they wanted to find? Perhaps it was another of your group. Well, this is the perfect example of one such character. The few items he has taken out of context and mis-represented mean nothing. I mean, they DO say a lot about him, but not much about the works of Chomsky at all. Now, I’m also quite well aware that the next logical step at this point in the “debate” is for the person making the assertions, that would be you, to think that even in the face of what you perceive to be “evidence”, that only a “Chomskyite” or something equally as simple is preventing me from “plainly seeing what is right there. The author just put it there. It’s there, right in front of your eyes, and you are just refusing to see it because you don’t want to believe it. You’re a hopeless Chomskyite!” Sorry, but it really is there ONLY in the sense which I’ve said. There is NO evidence here, nor in the book, of any apologetics, of any kind. And this ISN’T my interpretation of the writings. This is simply what they say. Chomsky says X, he means X, not Z, like the author has inferred. Actually, the supposed criticisms are of very little interest to me because they’re old, funny, and were debunked immediately after the first charges were made. What interestes me much more is how even after having been debunked almost 50 years ago, there are STILL illiterate folks interpreting them this way. THIS is the interesting point. NOT that they have something. They don’t, and never did. It’s their belief that they do which interests me, and, hence, my interest in psychology and propaganda. kb

There is also all of the crimes which “the good guys” carried out, which, once again, far exceeds those of the perceived “bad guys”. So, rather than basing your accusations of illiteracy on someone who knows the subject, perhaps you should study the topic for yourself. Usually the person who doesn’t read is considered the illiterate. I have read. You haven’t. Try again. You can see Oliver Kamm, David Horowitz, Keith Windschuttle, and many others if you’re wishing to further deepen your non-knowledge of Chomsky, but I’d recommend just picking up several of his books at the library and reading for yourself. I have about a hundred lecture tapes if you wish to have any additional materials which may help you to dispell some of your mis-perceptions. Let me know. Always willing to help someone learn.kb

A wise man once said, “Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics, even if you win, you’re still retarded.”

Once again, it is probably good to examine the “interpretations” and misprepresentations of a liar (Paul B.) a little more carefully. The passage:

“In a phenomenon that has few parallels in Western experience, there appear to have been close to zero retribution deaths in postwar Vietnam. This miracle of reconciliation and restraint, instead of receiving respectful attention in the West and generating some soul-searching over another exposed layer of official fabrications, has been almost totally ignored. The search has been exclusively for flaws.”

Has a footnote which he doesn’t elaborate on. Actually there are several, but I’ll choose just one as an example, though this will not give due credit to Chomsky’s comments. The sentence from the passage above which ends with “.....has been almost totally ignored (which, of course, he has mounds of evidence which demostrate as well, another topic)” ends with a footnote. Chapter 1 footnotes p.369 #78 which reads:

Not entirely, however. For example Jean and Simmone Lacouture point out that after “the reconquest and unification of Vietnam by Vietnamese citizens” in April 1975, there was no bloody revenge. The Vietnamese revolutionaries did not follow the example of “their Frence, Russian, or Chinese predecessors. Not to kill is a great virtue; one seems to ignore a bit too easily.” “They are probably the first victors in a civil war (embittered and aggravated by two foreign interventions) who have not unleashed any operation of massive reprisal.” Furthermore, “the Vietnamese maquisards, more honorable than their French comrades of 1944,” did not humiliate the hundreds of thousands of prostitutes created by the American invasion..(Seuil, 1976, p.7,11,110)

The Lacoutures’ book is a record of their visit to Vietnam in April-May 1976. Though highly critical of the Vietnamese revolution—-so much so as to elicit a sharp rejoinder in the Vietnamese press—-it was nevertheless sympathetic and balanced, and did not fail to describe the horrendous residue of thirty years of imperial violence. It was unable to find a U.S. publisher, and it’s very existence was denied in the U.S. press, as we shall see in Volume II, chapter 6.

(footnote 79 then refers the reader, the serious ones anyway, to Vol.II, chap.2, section 2 where “western precedents, considered highly moral in contrast to the barbarous behavior of the Vietnamese” is examined.

Now, do you think you see some sort of apologetics here? Once again, I ask the question, why would there be a need for anyone to give apologetics of any sort at all. Chomsky has no pro-communist agenda. Remember, he’s more or less anti-communist, and always has been. One STILL needs to review the other item in Vol. II which I mentioned so as to understand where the propganda has come from which folks like Paul B. are basing his notions on in the first place, thereby causing him to “interpret” things the way he does. It’s probably a good idea to know what propaganda is being and has been used by your own governments so that you’ll at least have some notion about where your “ideas” have been coming from. Chomsky and Herman do this in GREAT detail reviewing just about everything they could get their hands on fromt he press, official documents and responses, etc….before making their theses. So, when folks who know the topic, know Chomsky’s works, can easily spot a victim of the very propaganda he writes about ad nauseum(as most every reference they use Chomsky has already used, shown it’s origins, demonstrated it’s falsity, and sometimes even retractions by the folks putting out the propganda, etc…), read what amounts to little more than the comic ramblings of a drunken lunatic like Paul. B, there really isn’t much one can do but to sit back and enjoy watching Chomsky’s writings be further confirmed and validated by the very folks who think they’re onto something. They are basically unwitting supporters of most of his theses, as I have often told them, shown them, etc…However, being that the grip of the indoctrination is so strong, they atill can’t see it when it’s right in front of their face. It’s actually pretty sad, and one would have sympathy for them if it weren’t for some of their fierce arrogance and refusal to read a little bit.kb

First of all, let me say that I’m greatly enjoying this thread. It’s got the thrills and chills of confrontational talk radio, but (despite various accusations to the contrary upthread) is quite literate indeed.

I read Chomsky deeply in my teens, and though I was later purged of my Socialist tendencies by reading the works of Nietzsche, I still retain a great deal of respect for the man and his work.

I do find it interesting that whenever I hear criticism of Chomsky, it almost always tends to be of the ad hominem variety, almost always seeking to attack the man himself (to claim that his reputation is insufficient to have his argument considered) rather than the specific argument in question.

It reminds me a bit of the scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark where Indy is confronted by a big man with a sword- knowing he can’t stand up to him in hand-to-hand combat, Indy simply takes out his gun and shoots him.

But perhaps a more appropriate analogy is the Swift Boat Veterans- the attack against Chomsky is almost exclusively of the Swift Boat variety. That is, in the sense that, the whole discussion turns into did-he-or-didn’t-he say such-and-such-a-thing thirty years ago, and whether or not you come out believing the accusation or not, you realize that the debate has been entirely hijacked from its original course, when we were discussing something meaningful to us in the present day.

Anyway, I apologize for going off on a tangent, thank you for indulging me in that”¦ what were we talking about again?

Chris, nice to hear a voice of reason, not to mention the voice of at least one person who has actually read some of the works of the person in question.

This is priceless when it comes from the one guy here who couldn’t even read the article Curz was posting. Chomsky’s good at denial, not surprising that his rabid disciple is in teh same category.

Oh yeah, and Kissinger rules. Big time.

Oh, BB, I just realized what you and Curz must have been referring to regarding Chomsky’s “apologetics” and “denial”. He makes apologetics for folks like you, when folks like me, when we’re feeling rowdy, would call dumbasses for making the comments you do reagarding his work, as it’s not entirely your fault that you know no better given your indoctrination and lack of familiarity with the subject. I mean, if the only lesson you’ve ever been taught at school, on TV, etc… is that the world is flat, one shouldn’t really blame you for thinking, and believing that the world is flat. You’re beliefs, though not correct, understandable(this is usually something the right often has difficluty understanding). Chomsky, being wise enough to be aware of this, as well as being humanitarian enough to have a little sympathy for these poor folks, like yourself, then, makes apologetics for them/you. Of course now that you’re aware of this, as I’ve told you, at least to an extent, you can now go read and study the subject to see just what degree the apologetics are in relation to yourself. This being said, the next time I hear from you, it had better be good because I’ve already been too nice. No more apologetics. Just as the kid who refuses to acknowledge that 2+2=4 would be treated, I’ll ground you from watching your Paris Hilton sex video until you know what you’re talking about. And regarding the “denial”, well, you must have meant his denial that you should know any better, which, of course leads to his apologetics for you. Anyway, have fun reading, and get back with us when you’ve finished. Oh, and I’ll be the one to determine when you’re finished. Now, turn that video off!kb

lou said:

“KB. Your red herrings on Central America, Castro, etc., etc. are irrevelant.”

Don’t know what you’re referrring to.kb

“If you would argue that the Republic of Vietnam did not enjoy the right of a sovereign state to request military assistance from the United States (sovereign state #2), then you have stepped beyond the pale of reason.”

The U.S. bombing South Vietnam in 1962 came about as an invitation by the people of Vienam? Really? I’m totally unaware of this fact.kb

“It then becomes easy to see how you would define U.S. actions as an “invasion”Â? however spurious that claim.”

Well, first of all, the U.S. invaded South Vietnam. There is no claim to be disputed. Let’s use your logic for a moment to see what would happen if the roles were reversed. Let’s say that Vietnam had had the CIA fooling around in the U.S., with it’s government, etc… for years.(Already an absurdity) Then, the Bush/Cheny/Rumsfeld posse, and the other few percentage of rich white folks like them decided that the masses, most of whom supported candidate X
(who was speaking of equal rights, making a constitution based on that of the U.S. Constitution, independence, whose leader said one of his heros was George Washington, etc….) asked Vietnam to come and help them stamp out what basically amounts to the masses. Now, when those folks came from Vietnam to the U.S., would it be considered an invasion? Perhaps not by the Bush posse, but it would by the majority of the people. Look at Iraq today. There are a few percentage who consider U.S. presence a “liberation” and about 90+ percent who view it as an occupation, which means invasion. Well? It hardly takes a Harvard scholar to recognize what’s taking place. (And while I’m aware that the analogy is loose, I think you get the point.)kb

“Since you suffer from an obvious lack of knowledge of the basic geography of those countries vis-a-vis the theatres of air and ground operations, we are precluded from having any meaningful discussion.”

And you’re basing this assesment of my knowledge on exactly what? One phrase where I mentioned bombing the countries in tghe surrounding region back into the stone age? This isn’t even an issue under discussion, nor could it be as this fact that this happened isn’t disputed by any side to my knowledge.kb

“Your obedient servant”

Don’t know who or what you’re referring to here.kb

“a proud Vietnam “invader”Â? who never “invaded”Â? anyone until October 1983”

The only folks I recall mentioning invading was the U.S. invasion of South Vietnam in 1961-2, having left out the even earlier hanky panky by the CIA in the area. Don’t know who you’re referring to regarding 1983. I guess being unaware of this we are precluded from having any meaningful discussion.kb

“and in that case, with the full support of well over 95% of Grenada’s people.”

Not the several thousand killed. What percentage of the population was that by the way. Yes, that was a textbook example of heroics in action. I would have thought the entire world would have willingly succumbed to U.S. interventions after that display of magnificant benevolence. Why didn’t we invade to help the Sandinistas given they had just about as much support? Sorry, but the U.S. has a long history of NOT supporting the preferred candidate of the masses. They’re usually shot before there’s even an election. The lucky ones are the ones who aren’T assassinated, and only have to endure the efforts to “make them scream” via sanctions, terrorism, and other measures. Anyway, I was talking breifly about what happened in Vietnam and the surrounding areas, so I’m not sure what you’re referring to.kb

Someone blows KB just wrote above:

Well, I’ll save you the trouble. There isn’t one line of truth in anything written here, including his assertion that he read the book in question. I mean, at least for his sake I hope this was a lie. It’s better to have not read it and simply collected a few lies from other ignorant-ass anti-Chomsky illiterates, than to actual have read it and simply interpreted it this far off. I think it would be difficult for anyone who has graduated from at least third grade of elementary school to come up with the ideas expressed here. So, once again, I hope SBKB (Someone Blows KB)chooses the lesser outright lying, than the less “honorable” not to mention embarrassingly ignorant just-can’t-read-and-understand-basic-sentences-path. He actually said “apologetics” somewhere as if there was one instance in the book somewhere. I’ll assume he saw Elvis dancing with Big Foot on a UFO there, too, somewhere. There is probably more evidence for this. Anyway, SBKB offers nothing, but opinion, old outdated and WAAAAY long ago disproven assertions, out of context mis-representations, and, well, you know. All the usual characteristics of the anti-Chomsky ilk. It’s actually quite funny though they don’t know why. For those of you familiar with the topic, or any of Chomsky’s work for that matter, the ramblings above are little more than bathroom gossip. The entire premise if off from what Chomsky and Herman set out to do, which they make quite clear, at least to those who can read and comprehend simple sentences. They take no position at all, nor was their point to try and take a position. If you “think” you see one, this is more a statement of your own indoctrination rearing it’s butt-ugly head, than it is anything they’ve written, or not, as in this case. Here, let’s refer this poor soul to the film ‘Manufacturing Consent’ which came out in about, what, 88’, which covers all of this in great detail. I mean, we all knew that those suseptible to the anti-Chomsky disorder/disease were a little slow, but the world really IS round. It isn’t flat. And as soon as you try and understand this, the sooner you won’t make yourself look like an idiot in public day after day. How embarrassing for you this “should” be. I’m almost embarrassed for you. It’s like every time I watch Bush speak, I sit and wit for the next idiotic statement, and feel as if he just farted during a quiet part as he was singing a Celine Dion song on American Idle (puns intended). Your statements here regarding Chomsky are sort of the same. It’s just so embarrassing that you haven’t a clue that each time you repeat these old debunked notions, that you are, in fact, supporting Chomsky’s theses regarding propaganda. You are unwittingly helping him, charlatan. Anyway, anything you can offer is more than welcome. Bitch-slap you soon. KB