Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Not enough Praise for Noam Chomsky on this board, can you not handle him?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Christ was Socialist Donating Member (649 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 04:02 PM
Original message
Not enough Praise for Noam Chomsky on this board, can you not handle him?
I am willing to give the benifit of the doubt to anyone under 21 who hasn't heard of him. But I was finally able to brethe afte jeneane said she would have him on. He is on of the intellectual kings of earth, ranking up there with zinn and vidal amongst others. It's amazing how many so called liberals hate him, because he speaks the truth about Bill Clinton. Why is it ears close, when chomsky gives his account of all the evils america has done, and trust me there are alot. We have done more evil than good in the world. Chomsky is a genius. Read some material on the Great Leader:

Noam Chomsky Archive (WITH Respect to the great one)
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/index.cfm

The Chomsky Effect: Episodes in Academic Activism(a brilliant paper READ IT!!!!!!!!!!)
http://www.mit.edu/~saleem/ivory/ch6.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
stopthegop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 04:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. serious question:
do you really believe the US has done more evil than good in the world since 1776?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
el_gato Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. we could have a pissing contest if you want stopthegop

It's really more of a problem of what has been done
without the public knowing about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopthegop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. nope...not interested in any sort of contest...
it was a serious question to see if he actually thinks that...that's all...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christ was Socialist Donating Member (649 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Yes in addition to the things we don't know just think
about how close we came to not knowing about my lai or iraq torture. Shit most of the controversial stuff we know by accident. Did you also know the founding fathers were hypocrties and amoral at that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopthegop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. thank you for replying eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AgentLadyBug Donating Member (212 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
18. serious answer....
i know it wasn't addressed to me, but i'll horn in on it anyhoo :)

i don't think it's obvious that the opposite is true - that the us has done more good than evil. mebbe wwII trumps so much on the other side that good wins out, but i'm not clear on that..... take the wwII example: from another perspective, we were on the right side on the jewish genocide, but on the wrong side on another genocide (native americans)....

so all in all, it isn't clear to me...... i hope the scales would balance on the side of good, of course, but as we've learned recently (if not b4), hope isn't a plan....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christ was Socialist Donating Member (649 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. We didn't care about the jewish people durijng world war 2 in fact most
americans loved fascism. Thats just propaganda. Shit the bush's did business with germany during the war. Not to mention we basically forced japan to attack us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoyGBiv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #22
34. Now just wait...
Edited on Tue May-04-04 05:01 PM by RoyGBiv
There is room for a range of opinions of the United States' role in world affairs and whether it's been positive or negative overall. There is also certainly room to criticize, harshly, the US's failure to aid those fleeing Nazi terror, and there is even room to pick apart the US foreign policy that moved Japan to attack the United States.

However, you're throwing out some rather broad assertions with no data to back them up. In addition, the logic that concludes the US "basically forced" Japan to attack the US has some consequences I don't think you, or most of those who post to DU, would want to embrace.

So, let me ask, what's your source for asserting "americans loved fascism" and to what extent do you believe Americans embraced it, that is, how prevalent was it? Further, what's the reasoning behind saying the US forced Japan to attack it?

OnEdit: typo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christ was Socialist Donating Member (649 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #34
39. here are a few. Most is just common knowledge
Edited on Tue May-04-04 05:11 PM by Christ was Socialist
like washington was the first president.


The Rise of american fascism
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/rise_of_american_fascism.htm

Pearl harbor
http://www.straighttalkers.com/pearl_harbor.htm




here is an older file i had on my comp

The "Peace" Initiatives of 1945

Part I

In July of 1944, Saipan fell, and the Tojo government with it. The military had begun to fear Tojo. Japan's major problem was its chronically divided society which prevented the government from gaining control over its various entities. In answer to this, Tojo attempted to become a dictator, slowing concentrating all the ministerial power into his own hands. At one point he was head of 18 different ministries and agencies....

Needless to say, by 1943 it was obvious to many younger officers that the war was lost, though not to the government, which had no idea how the war was going. The military was split between the Army and Navy, which were fought each other as hard as they fought the Americans. Cooperation between the two had sunk so low that the Navy did not tell the Army (or the government) that it lost four carriers at Midway, while the Army built its own Navy so it could carry on operations without the other arm. In aircraft factories where the two had contracts, screens were built down the middle to wall off one sides planes from the other....the Army, the more dominant of the two in Japanese society, was split in scores of factions, which prior to war murdered each other and leading politicians in a period known as "government by assassination."

Nevertheless, no official movements to end the war were made until after the fall of Tojo, which brought the Koiso government to power. The Koiso government was hamstrung from the start. Koiso had been picked as a compromise candidate because the various centers of power --the civilian government, the military, the jushin (an informal but powerful council of former prime ministers that sat in on high-level decisions) and the Emperor could not agree on a candidate. "Purposely installed as an interim premier" as Toland put it.

There are no known peace overtures by anyone in Japan or out during the Koiso cabinet, with one exception. In January of 1945 Koiso contacted the rogue Chinese Miao Pin, a notorious intriguer, and attempted to use him to reach an understanding with the Chinese. Other Japanese found Pin disgusting, and the whole project was killed after Pin met with Prince Higashikuni. Pin was later executed by Chiang Kai-shek (Toland, p844).

The Koiso government was to fall in April of 1945, but the opening moves of Japanese diplomacy actually sounded in February. In that month, Shigemitsu, the foreign minister, contacted Naotoke Sato, who had the crucial post of Ambassador to Russia, and who, more than anyone, was to come to understand Japan's predicament and what the country had to do. Shigemitsu asked Sato to sound out the USSR about its intentions toward the nuetrality pact the two countries had, which was due for renewal in April of 1945. Sato fired off a blistering reply on Feb 12, asking how the government could have him undertake such a task without telling him what its own position was. For the next two months Sato reported periodically on this task, while Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov, famous for his stone-faced negotiating stance, put him off. This was to form the pattern of all subsequent dealings between Tokyo and Moscow, with Tokyo living in a dream that it had power and influence while the Soviets toyed with them, and Sato pleaded with Tokyo to embrace reality and surrender unconditionally. "My first responsibility," he wrote in July, "is to prevent the harboring of illusions which are at variance with the reality."

The 5th of April, 1945, was one of the most portentious days in Japanese history. The Koiso government collapsed and in swept Suzuki, still with bullets in his body from an assassination attempt in the 1930s. Toland regards Suzuki as a peacemonger from the start, but as Frank points out, all the evidence for this came to light after the war. At each crucial juncture during the war, Suzuki opted to continue the conflict rather than support the peace moves. Thus, Suzuki occupies one of the most ambiguous positions throughout these critical months. That same day the Soviets formally notified Japan that the Nuetrality Agreement would not be renewed. Any other country would have instantly recognized that it would be the natural next target (with Soviet tanks on the Elbe, and Germany due to be knocked out of the war), but Tokyo still floated in its dream world. The government, insulated by the military from the actual progress of the war, still considered itself master of Asia. After all, was not the map red with Japanese conquests? Didn't Japan still control all that territory, so useful as bargaining chips? Meanwhile, on hundreds of islands throughout the Pacific, Japanese troops starved....

A series of peace moves, all initiated outside Tokyo's control, began. Although they were initiated independently by widely separated individuals, they all had several things in common:
(1) they were all informal.
(2) they were all initiated by outsiders. The government in Tokyo was never involved.
(2) they were all vague, no conditions envisioned, no plans made
(3) they were all killed by Tokyo.

Throughout these discussions it is important to keep in mind that the US was reading all diplomatic traffic (MAGIC) and much military traffic (ULTRA). Thus, whenever a Japanese representative overseas contacted, or was contacted by, Tokyo, the US read the cable. Sometimes the decrypted cable reached Truman and the five others permitted to read the material before it reached its intended recipient in the Japanese government!

The Swedish Initiatives

On April 7, then-acting foreign minister Shigemitsu, without the knowledge of his superiors, asked W. Bagge, the Swedish representative in Japan, to have Sweden intercede on Japan's behalf with the US. Shigemitsu rejected unconditional surrender, and stated that any agreement must preserve the Emperor. This move was killed by the next Foreign Minister Togo, who felt that Sweden did not have the kind of influence Japan needed, and was already looking toward the Russian initiative (see below) (Toland, p915, Frank, p94).

A few days later, the Swedes moved independently of the Japanese offer. Prince Carl Bernadotte, and Eric Erickson, a business man with ties to Japan, approached the Japanese military attache in Stockholm, Maj. Gen. Makoto Onodera. The Prince said he would advise the King to send a letter to Japan suggesting that peace negotiations take place.

In one of the more nearsighted and childish acts of the war, the idiotic Swedish Foriegn minister, peeved that proper channels were being bypassed, protested to his Japanese counterpart in Stockholm, who in turn protested to Tokyo. On June 24 the wires were scorched with the following message to the hapless General Onodera from the Vice Chief of the Imperial General staff in Tokyo bent on stamping out any detestable peacemongering political intrigue:

As we have said before, Japan is firmly determined to prosecute the Greater East Asia war to the very end. There is a report, however, to the effect that some Japanese official stationed in Sweden is making peace overtures to America. That is demogoguery pure and simple, and if you have any idea as to the source of these reports, please inform us.(quoted in Frank p114 and Toland, p916)

Thus died the Swedish initiatives, both killed by Tokyo. Interested readers may wonder what effect the comment "As we have said before, Japan is firmly determined to prosecute the Greater East Asia war to the very end" had on Americans who had access to this data.

The Vatican Moves

In early June the Japanese representative to the Vatican was contacted by Monsignor Vagnozzi, who considered himself to have good contacts with the US. This move was also brushed off by Tokyo, which considered the Vatican to be too weak to effect a peace initiative. In fact, this attempt died stillborn and is usually left out of the standard references. I put it here merely for completeness.

Things light up in Switzerland

The final two initiatives came from individuals in Switzerland. In May of 1945 the former Naval Attache in Berlin, now in Bern, Yoshiro Fujimura, initiated his own one-man peace effort. Fujimura is one of history's more admirable men. In addition to attempting to end the war, he saved a handful of Jews in Berlin by trading imported food to the SS and obtaining visas for them. Along with a German Japanophile by the name of Hack, he approached the OSS men in Bern, whom Fujimura knew to be reliable from their work with Germans, and chatted them up. The conversation was amiable, and few days later they contacted him again.

On May 3, Hack dropped off a fateful note to two men he knew only as Mr. White and Mr. Blum, saying that Fujimura was interested in direct negotiations with the US. One of the OSS men was Allen Dulles, brother to the famous John Dulles. The State Department gave Dulles the go-ahead to continue the discussions. Interested readers will note that the US did not brush this off.

On May 8 Fujimura contacted Tokyo (remember that the US is reading his messages). Since he did not have Tokyo's backing, he presented the contacts as being initiated by Dulles. Thus, the Americans knew from the start that he did not have the backing of his government.

Days passed. No answer from Tokyo. Meanwhile the meetings with Dulles continued. In all thirteen days flew by, with Fujimura bombarding his navy superiors in Tokyo with descriptions of Germany in ruins, and veteran US infantry boarding ships bound for the Pacific. Finally, on the 21st, Tokyo responded. The telgram admitted that "the principle point of your negotiations with the OSS was fully understood," but added that "there are certain points indicative of an enemy plot; therefore we advise you to be very cautious."

Fujimura was crushed, but soldiered on, finally telling Dulles that since Tokyo was uncooperative, he would have to go there himself. Dulles gave him a counteroffer. The US would provide a plane, and fly out any Japanese official with the power to negotiate, with a guarantee of safety. Interested readers will note that the US actively pursued this even though it knew Tokyo was not supporting this offer.

May turned to June, and still nothing happened. The Navy Minister, Adm. Yonai, sent only one additional telegram. As Craig, who interviewed Fujimura, notes (p36), Yonai knew that anyone who attempted to get on that plane would almost certainly die before it left Tokyo. Instead, he let the initiative die. After the war, Yonai apologized to Fujimura. "I assume all responsibility for our failure successfully to guide the preparations for peace and peace negotiations with the Dulles agency."

Of all the various independent peace moves, this one showed most promise.

At the same time, but independently of Fujimura, the Japanese military attache in Zurich and Basel, Lt. Gen. Seigo Okamoto, launched his own independent effort to end the war. This was based on his close personal friendship with Imp. Army Chief of Staff Umezu. Nevertheless, he also failed to garner any support in Tokyo. Sadly, all of the independent efforts were killed by Tokyo...

To Russia, with Hope

On May 21, 1945, the new foreign minister, Togo, sent two fateful messages. First, cabled all his diplomatic posts in a circular, flatly denying that "Japan has ever made peace proposals to America and England." In his second message to Sato in Moscow, he directed the latter to sound out the glacial Molotov on Russia's intentions toward Japan. Sato met with Molotov, and then responded to Tokyo, Cassandra to Troy. "We are facing future trouble with Russia," he bluntly said, saying that it was imperative that the government clearly determine how far it would go with the Russians. It would never do that

Part II

Japanese policy during the war was set by the Supreme War Council, consisting of six members. The Big Six from April 5 on were PM Suzuki, Foreign Minister Togo, Navy Minister Yonai, Army Minister Anami, Chief of the Naval General Staff Oikawa (quickly replaced by Toyoda in May) and Chief of the Army General Staff Umezu. At the time the only known advocate of peace was the redoubtable Togo, though after the war claims were made on behalf of Toyoda and Suzuki. Nothing in the record at the time supports this contention.

There are several things that must be noted at this juncture, for they formed the background to all "peace" discussions held by the Big Six and other officials. First, the law stipulated that the Army Minister must be a serving officer. Since the government could not function without all the ministerial posts filled, this meant that if the military did not like a governmental decision, it could bring down the government simply by having the Army Minister resign (which is exactly what happened when Japan surrendered). Thus, no peace agreement could take place without the military's say-so. Since Anami did not support peace -- even after two A-Bombs and Soviet entry, he still argued that the war was not necessarily lost -- there was no question of any peace agreement being made. It could not have been made without his approval, and there was no hint that any such thing would ever occur.

The second vital problem faced by peace advocates (and war advocates as well) was "government by assassination." Japanese politics was restrained by fear of assassination by rightist junior military officers. Anyone who openly advocated peace was in danger. In fact, there was little discussion of it until May, when Togo prevailed upon the Big Six to meet without their staff, so that no military underlings would be present to make implicit threats. Assassination attempts were common throughout the war; Tojo was the object of several plots, including one by more than 50 officers.

The third problem was that Japan was a totalitarian state in which thought and information were strictly controlled. This meant that discussions that sought ways to end the war could only take place in secret, and much communication consisted of circumlocutions, euphemisms, and unspoken agreements, to avoid discovery by the secret police. Most high officials did not have a clear idea of the progress of the war, nor did they understand how completely the Japanese military had been overwhelmed by superior US numbers, equipment, tactics, firepower, and technology. Many Japanese leaders argued that the Japanese possessed sufficient resources in territory and troops (about 4 million men under arms) that the US could be brought to the negotiating table. They did not conceive of Japan as a nation totally outclassed by its opponents. Thus, the thinking among Japanese leaders was founded on fantasies of Japanese strength. Those men who had realistic appraisals of the situation, such as staff officers in Imperial General HQ in Tokyo, or Kase and Sato in their embassies abroad, either had no clout or were ignored.

The ultimate fantasy of Imperial Japan was the Russian "peace" initiative of the summer of 1945. This was an attempt to get the Russians to mediate an end to the war that would leave Japan and most of its holdings intact, forestall a forced disarmament, and enable Japan to continue its adventure in China, while using Russia to compel the US to the negotiating table. Sato, Japan's man in Moscow, put this entire initiative into perspective with a series of telegrams fired off in July and read by the US. Responding to Togo's suggestion that as a bargaining counter, Japan would give up territories it had taken since the beginning of the war, Sato scathingly replied:

How much of an effect do you expect our statements regarding the non-annexation and non-possession of territories which we have already lost or are about to lose will have on Soviet authorities?

As you are well aware, the Soviet authorities are extremely realistic and it is extremely difficult to persuade them with abstract arguments. We certainly will not convince them with pretty little phrases devoid of all connection with reality.

If the Japanese Empire is really faced with the necessity of terminating the war, we must first of all make up our own minds to terminate the war. Unless we make up our own minds, there is absolutely no point in sounding out the views of the Soviet Government.

Sato urged the government to end the war, saying that Japan would have to accept "virtually the equivalent of unconditional surrender."

The Russian "peace" initiative began in May. Togo gradually realized that the Army would never negotiate directly with the US. The Army had long envisioned war against Russia, however, a sound whipping at Nomohan prior to WWII in what was probably history's first true combined arms battle resulted in hasty revisions to this plan, as it was obvious Japan's army would never be able to face a real opponent (as WWII revealed). The focus on Russia remained (few top Army leaders knew anything about the US), and Togo, who was the only one among the Big Six who advocated an end to the war, finally realized that the Army would only negotiate through Russia.

On May 14, 1945, Togo drafted a memorandum outlining the proposed plan in the vaguest terms imaginable, after Suzuki gave his blessing in meetings held from May 11 to the 14th. He wrote, fantastically:

It should be clearly made known to Russia that she owes her victory over Germany to Japan, since we remained nuetral, and that it would be to the advantage of the Soviets to help Japan maintain her international position, since they have the United States as an enemy in the future.
The memorandum warned that Russia might demand a high price for this, and said that Japan might have to give up Port Arthur, Dairen, railways in Manchuria, and the northern portions of the Kuriles. Stalin had been promised much of this at Yalta anyway.

The draft was approved by all six of the Big Six, and Togo sent an experienced Russian specialist, Koki Hirota, to sound out Yakov Malik, the Russian ambassador. The devastating May 25 firebombing of Tokyo delayed his mission, and it was not until June 3 that he finally reached Malik in his home two hours from Tokyo. Preliminary talks yielded nothing but vague friendly comments.

Meanwhile, the military had not been idle. On June 6 there was another meeting of the Big Six. Far from seeking peace, in a new document from Supreme Command entitled The Fundamental Policy to be Followed Henceforth in the Conduct of the War, the military demanded an official confirmation of:

With a faith born of eternal loyalty as our inspiration, we shall -- thanks to the advatnages of our terrain and the unity of our nation, prosecute the war to the bitter end in order to uphold our national essence, protect the Imperial land and achieve our goals of conquest.

A list of steps followed, including preparations for homeland defence and the formation of a national volunteer army. It called for the "honorable death of the hundred million" -- national suicide. The resolution passed over Togo's horrified objections. The resolution was then forwarded to the emperor for approval. In meeting with a number of top leaders, the motion was approved without objections.

Kido, as shocked by this as Togo was, memorialized His Majesty on the Ninth, arguing that Japan must begin negotiations with an intermediary power to get the US to end the war before Japan was destroyed. Kido, like all Japanese statesman, knew that "the enemy's main object is the overthrow of the so-called military clique" and that if Japan threw down its weapons and withdrew from occupied areas in the Pacific (no one was willing to contemplate withdrawal from China) then perhaps it could end the war. Disarmament would also have to be accepted. On the 13th Suzuki made a speech to the Diet calling for peace, and was shouted down.

Finally, on June 22 the Emperor abruptly summoned the Big Six to his side. "This is not an imperial command," he said, "but merely a discussion." There he broached the idea of sending a special envoy to Russia to negotiate for peace. Togo had been keeping the Emperor informed of progress with Malik, and the Emperor asked when an envoy could be sent. "Probably mid-July," Togo estimated. Togo warned that Japan would have to give up much.

Hirota went back to Malik and bluntly asked Russia to renew the Nuetrality Pact (it was set to expire in April of 1946; the Russians had given one year notice as the Treaty stipulated; when they invaded in August they did so by breaking this Treaty). Malik was evasive. Hirota offered Japan's resources from the South Pacific, rubber, tin, lead, tungsten. "if the Soviet Army and the Japanese Navy joined forces," he argued, "Japan and the USSR would become the strong force in the world!" Inasmuch as the Japanese Navy rested on the ocean bottom, Malik was not impressed by this offer. He replied that a concrete plan would be necessary, echoing language Sato would later use.

In less than a week, Hirota came back. In return for a new non-aggression treaty and oil, Japan would give Manchuria her independence (which it already nominally had!) and fishing concessions in Japanese waters. This was wired to Molotov through Sato in Moscow.

A week passed with no reply from Moscow to this generous offers (during this time the Okamoto affair in Switzerland began). On July 7 the Emperor lost patience and sent for Suzuki. Why not dispatch a special envoy with a personal message from the Throne?

The obvious choice for this was Konoye, and he was summoned on July 12. Recall that, as background, US planes are bombing Japan everyday, the Imperial Japanese Navy is almost gone, civilians are suffering from starvation, Japan is cut off from its garrisons and possessions, and interested readers may wonder at the absurd lack of urgency in these affairs. Yet there is was. Weeks went by with no progress. The Soviets also informed the US of these manuevers, keeping us abreast of developments, and of course, the diplomatic traffic between Moscow and Tokyo is being read by the US. Finally, ULTRA was revealing the extent of the Japanese build-up in Kyushu.

Sato was informed by telegram to expect an envoy and to ask the Russians to smooth his place. With his usual bluntness, he replied with wonder how the USSR would profit from an early end to the war. Familiar with the real situation (unlike Tokyo) Sato watched troop trains transferring troops to the Far East and knew that Russia would move against Manchuria and the Japanese Far East. He also noted that Russia had shown no interest in the Hirota-Malik talks, so why would they now accept an envoy? Common sense, however, was out of fashion in Tokyo.

On July 11 Togo notified Sato that he was to find out the intent of the Russia government toward Japan and whether it could be used to end the war. On the 12th he cabled Sato again, notifying him of Konoye's expected arrival and asking for the conference to place after Potsdam (the Japanese were aware that the Big Three were meeting there). Togo again cabled Sato on the 17th, a famous cable often deliberately misquoted by revisionist propagandists. After describing the Russia initiative, Togo noted:

The Emperor himself has deigned to express his determination and we have therefore made this request of the Russians. Please bear particularly in mind, however that we are not seeking the Russians' mediation for anything like unconditional surrender.

Although it looks to the ignorant western reader that the Emperor has given an order and all are leaping to obey, in fact it was the opposite. Sato had already sent a telegram to Togo the previous day, asking for clarification on a vital issue:
I would like to point out that even on the basis of your various messages I have obtained no clear idea of the recent situation. Nor am I clear about the views of the Government and Military with regard to the termination of the war.


Sato had, in polite diplomatic language, asked the 64 thousand dollar question: did the military and other government leaders support ending the war? Togo had cabled him back an evasive no, saying with elaborate circumlocution, that only the Emperor suported this initiative. Togo could not say that there was broad support because no such support existed. As both Toyoda and Suzuki said after the war (Anami killed himself), there was no agreement on terms or even on the initiative itself from the Big Six. Indeed on the 14th they had a heated confrontation in which Anami, speaking for the military, said bluntly that he would never accept any document which concluded peace on terms of Japan's defeat. Togo's message, far from establishing that the government wanted peace, in fact establishes that there was no agreement among top leaders.

The use of this cable by revisionists highlights the extent to which the revisionist argument hinges on the ignorance of westerners of the realities of Japanese politics, and why revisionist writers spend so little time on what was going on in Tokyo. The only reason that anyone could think Japan was willing to surrender is if they didn't know anything about Japanese politics or the situation in 1945. In order to support their claim, revisionists must keep the audience in ignorance.

On July 19 Sato again cabled Tokyo. He said that the Soviets had challenged the purpose of the envoy, and warned that it was hard for him to "deny that Japanese authorities are out of touch with the prevailing atmosphere here."

On July 21 Togo summarized the situation in a cable back, saying that Sato believed that unconditional surrender with the sole proviso of the preservation of the Emperor would be acceptable to the Allies (as it later proved to be). Togo explained:

With regard to unconditional surrender we are unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatever. Even if the war drags on and it becomes that it will take much more than bloodshed, the whole country as one man will pit itself against the enemy in accordance with the Imperial Will so long as the enemy demands unconditional surrender. It is in order to avoid such a state of affairs that we are seeking a peace, which is not so-called unconditional surrender, through the good offices of Russia.

Togo ended by saying that this was the Cabinet's will. In other words, in black and white, Togo completely rejected the position that Sato was arguing for -- an offer of unconditional surrender with retention of the Emperor -- and said that this would never be acceptable. US leaders, reading this, had Togo's assurance that Japan would never surrender on terms acceptable to the US. The US had monitored many messages from Japanese abroad asking the government to accept unconditional surrender, but none from Tokyo going out. as US intelligence analyzed it, "until the Japanese leaders realize that an invasion cannot be repelled, there is little likelihood that they will accept any peace terms satisfactory to the Allies."

On July 25 Sato met again with USSR rep Alexander Lozovsky, but having no concrete plans to show the Russians, danced diplomatically and promised that Konoye would have such plans when he replied. Interested readers may note that the month of July passed without any results, yet Japan showed no urgency on the peace score. The Soviets, who had informed the US that they had no interest in such negotiations, were simply spinning things out while they got their forces ready to invade Manchuria.

In sum, the Japanese move for "peace" through Russia was simply a fantasy born of desperation. It was never a real peace initiative, never contained concrete offers, and never went anywhere. It certainly was not a move to end the war on terms acceptable to the US and its allies

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #39
47. You got your talking points mixed up.
The one you posted deals with whether the atomic bombing was justified to end the war with Japan.

The question was whteher we "forced" Japan to attack us.

Geez I hate a sloppy propagandist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #47
60. He's obviously pretending to be in to Chomsky
Look further in the thread. He had to be corrected on Chomsky's age as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoyGBiv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #39
61. Common Knowledge
Edited on Tue May-04-04 06:22 PM by RoyGBiv
The thing about common knowledge is that it is often false or based on a foundation of particularism. For example, the first President was George Washington only if you consider the United States not to have existed prior to 1789. Actually the first President of the United States in Congress Assembled was Samuel Huntington. The truth is often found in the details. Is this important? In most contexts, it probably isn't. But in certain contexts, it could be.

So, let's consider some context and some details.

Your assertion: "americans love fascism"

The context surrounding this remark was the failure of the United States to provide safe haven for Jews fleeing the Nazis or more broadly on the role, or lack thereof, the US played in halting the European genocide.

Yet, in the article you provided, the author writes, "The rise of fascism took a different, non-revolutionary, path in America than it took in Europe. European fascism was certainly more extreme and malignant, but it has to be repeated that the term "fascism" has an unfairly negative connotation today because of its association with the Axis powers. Describing the post Second World War American State as fascist isn't an attempt to stigmatize it..."

So, how is this relevant?

Further, the author of the article on fascism you present exhibits a remarkable ignorance of certain historical events, which makes me question many of his broader conclusions. For example, early in the article the author asserts, "Prior to the Civil War many people believed that all states had the right to remove themselves from the Union, in fact the Founders even made comments that this was possible."

Some people did believe this, yes, but the Founding Fathers made no overt suggestions that unilateral secession was legal, which is the important point. The Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, written by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, are often cited as proof in the belief of the writers of two of America's most important founding documents in the right of states to unilaterally secede. However, Madison's own remarks deny this notion, and Jefferson's view of the right of revolution is something different than a legal right of secession.

The author then claims, "The acts of President Lincoln and the Civil War established the position that this was not the case, and ever since the Civil War it has been understood that no state is able to voluntarily remove itself from the Union."

The is false on two counts. First, the key phrase is "unilateral secession," or secession without the consent of the United States as a whole, and this is effectively denied, not by the Civil War itself, but by the Supreme Court case of Texas v White, in which it was ruled that Texas had never legally seceded. Second, there is no legal principle that declares a state my not voluntarily secede, provided that state has the permission of the remainder of the states in the Union.

The author also places the Industrial Revolution squarely in the 20th century. The description of Roosevelt's "Brains Trust" is facile and so misleading. The author's discussion of the Pledge of Allegiance misplaces the government's role in its use by about 40 years. I could go on. I mention this in such detail only to show that the simplistic way in which the author examines these issues provides a false foundation for the remainder of the argument.

Your assertion: the US basically forced the Japanese into attacking

The two articles you presented as support for this assertion fail utterly to address the point. The one you included in your message itself has absolutely nothing to do with the attack on Pearl Harbor. The one provided by the link is patently absurd on its face. To argue that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was "forced" even "basically" by Perry's encroachment in 1853 is odd to say the least. I could extend that logic back and blame the English for making that section of the world a focal point of conquest and exploitation. None of it gives explicit justification to a particular events that took place a century later.

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was, when boiled right down to the basics, "caused" by the Japanese desire to acquire oil that the US was preventing them from taking at their leisure.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #22
36. "Not to mention we basically forced japan to attack us."
Sanctioning them for what we considered threatening gestures in the Pacfic(those little things of invading China and going after SE Asia), is "forcing" them into war? We cut them off from petroleum products. By that logic, the US was "forced" to invade Iraq(see Saddam and the Euro). Japan hit us as hard as they could because they saw us as an obstacle to their domination of that sphere of the world.

You're running in circles blathering cliches from the left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atreides1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #18
27. Off Topic Reply

"..we were on the right side on the Jewish genocide..."

But how many Jews were killed between 1938 and 1941 when the US became involved. Were we on the right side when the US refused to give visas to German Jews, especially when other countries were not
using their allotment of visas, and there were extra ones that could have been given to German Jews.

If you get a chance see if you can find a book titled "While Six Million Died". It's very eye opening as to how helpful the US Government was prior to its entry into WWII.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AgentLadyBug Donating Member (212 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #27
44. of course *real* history is a bit more complicated than my bastardization-
... but my reader's digest version isn't *completely* wrongheaded...

(1) as for not granting visas to german jews.... didn't the us attain it's scientific eminience specifically by virtue of such visas? if you then weaken your claim to something like "the us didn't give all the visas it *could*/*should* have... then it seems to me you're in something of a gray area....


(2) it's perfectly possible that the oft-quoted churchillian phrase, to the effect of - the us can always be counted on to do the right thing *eventually* - would be relevant in this context...


but more generally, and this goes out to all the responders to my "point" - was in fact aimed at giving a slightly pessemistic answer to the OP question - has the us, on balance, done more good or bad?

mebbe the us was late in wwII, mebbe there were more-or-less understandable reasons for this - wutever.... my only goal was to use that episode to contrast with our sadistic treatment of the native americans, and, i think, that contrast stands, even in the face of the various qualifiers that might be required by the various responses to my statement....

or to put it another way, to those who criticized my use of US/WWII as an exammple of good-US - fine, then that's just another example of my slight pessimism about how much good the us has done.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davekriss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
33. Cease to do evil; try to do good
It doesn't matter to me if America did more or less "evil" than it has done "good", as I do not believe the ends justify the means. Moral people need to find progressive means to achieve progressive ends, always.

If we just accomplished the first clause "cease to do evil" than the need to achieve the second ("try to do good") diminishes greatly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #1
55. Yes. But that's not even the right question.
Edited on Tue May-04-04 06:01 PM by Selwynn
The real issue is that while we certianly do some "good" things, we only do them when these good things do not conflict with our #1 priority. Our number one priority is not justice, not equality, not noble. Our number 1 priority is profit and power.

It's not just that we've done more evil in the world than good since 1976 - its also that we have the capacity to do far, far, far, far more good but choose not to because it is not comapatible with our number one concerns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
2. He's going to be on AirAmerican soon, I plan to tune in!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
el_gato Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
3. He's gonne be on AA?
can't wait to hear that

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lancdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 04:09 PM
Response to Original message
7. Maybe his "truth" about Bill Clinton and about America
isn't shared by other progressives? Everyone has a right to an opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 04:11 PM
Response to Original message
9. Judge not lest ye be judged.
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 04:14 PM
Response to Original message
10. Hey, he's one of my super stars - perhaps this is why?
Edited on Tue May-04-04 04:15 PM by 0007
"Stephen Pinker, a friend and admirer, has been cited in the Boston Globe Magazine (Nov. 19, 1995, p. 25) as saying that “he implies that people who disagree with him are stupid and ignorant. He is a brilliant debater and an out-and-out bully. It’s great fun if you’re on his side, but not if you’re suddenly the target. People storm off and hate his guts for the rest of their lives”. Pesetsky, another colleague of his at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), has stated that “the most striking fact is how consistently people with anything at all to say about language feel the need to strike some attitude for or against Chomsky’s ideas.” He’s considered as the ruler over the realm that he and Morris Halle founded at MIT, so there are also students from different disciplines and institutions who have described to me a kind of MIT-UPenn or Berkeley or Yale or Chicago rivalry, complete with spies and espionage expeditions. In that same article Joan Bresnan of Stanford is cited as saying that “he revolutionized linguistics but did it in a divisive way…. He’s a polarizer. He’s created warring schools”.

I know chess players with this same attitude. I love it when they can deliver. Hate with contempt when one can't back up or deliver. Noam Chomsky can deliver.

.... and I love him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 04:16 PM
Response to Original message
11. Nope, Can't handle him. read his letter to a fan
He advised him to stay put, lay off activism, it will be the press at the behest of the rich who will dispose of W - we should just sit and watch (of course his words were prettier).
And I saw websites where his "work" was displayed next to Ken Starr's, freeper clenis sniffing 'ooks and Nader stuff too. :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dumpster_baby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #11
42. but he is right, isn't he? The press is killing off Bush
The press is starting to turn against him, and who else do they obey but the corporations.
Even Leno has turned against him.

Activism probably does not do any good because most people have been brainwashed into thinking activism is not a fit activity for normal people.

What we need to concentrate on is getting cheap communication channels to the masses so that progressive artists/film makers can get their stuff widely disseminated to the masses. Computer technology is already heading there. In 5 years, when the NEXT presidential elections comes along, you will be able to buy a device for $100 or so that will let you download movies from the Net and play the movies on it, or on a TV. But the main thing is the channel, the CHEAP broadband access.

Once we get cheap broadband at $10/month or so, then the progressive film makers can get the masses to watch movies that propagate progressive and subversive and ACTIVIST memes. Instead of watching movies that have product placement ads in them and consumerism-oriented memes, they can watch movies that promote activism.

Rap music already does have some subversive memes, but not so much activist memes. And it is highly consumerism oriented.

This is one reason why Europe is much more liberal than the USA--many of the movies they watched decades ago had a strong progressive/liberal message. We never had much of that here.

But once we get cheap computing devices + cheap broadband, it's GO TIME, baby!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 04:16 PM
Response to Original message
12. Let's see....
Revolution now threads, Hollywood blacklists, and now a "Great Leader".....I smell the stink of Stalin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christ was Socialist Donating Member (649 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. stalin??
I'm anti-marxism. Not that stalin was a marxist. Why is it everytime someone is outside of the status quo he is a communist? this country gives them too much credit. I am aligning myself with them at protests, as well at swp (trotskyist) now if cpusa (stalinist) and swpand wwp can work together there is hope for us all. The workers world part organized the biggest anti war protest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. Didn't call you a communist.....
Edited on Tue May-04-04 04:34 PM by rinsd
I called you a Stalinist.

On Edit: Oh and the CPUSA is not Stalinist that would be the WWP. They were the breakway party after the Hungary invasion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christ was Socialist Donating Member (649 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #19
25. I personally dislike the man<nt>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #25
30. )n edit: Erased by poster.
Edited on Tue May-04-04 04:42 PM by rinsd
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dumpster_baby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #12
45. take it easy, Comrade
The Great Leader will show us the way to go....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
swag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
13. I think he is fine
as far as his prism lets him see, but he is of little practical value in unseating the Bush/Cheney junta. He is a true patriot in terms of enlightening us all to the nefarious nature of corporate interests run amock, but he is not going to help us take the first step toward regaining our Republic.

He is a great linguist, as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fenris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 04:18 PM
Response to Original message
14. Going around accusing others of being evil does not seem Christian
to me. But what do I know. I am under 21 and have heard of him and read him, but I also have the ability to form my own opinions about the subjects which he addresses. And I also would like you to give me an example of a major country that has not at some time in its past committed an act of "evil". Also, referring to him as "the Great Leader" and "intellectual king" sounds a bit like idolatry to me, but then again, what do I know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christ was Socialist Donating Member (649 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. is that your justification?
We're evil but so is everyone else. That's not a very strong argument. And he is the intellectual king, its deference to someone greater than myself, which most people can't do out of ego. If you saw 1% of what this man saw in his life you would understand, in addition to the era he grew up in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fenris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. Justification, no.
I am arguing that making crass and unsubstantiated statements like "we've done more evil than good" is quite foolish on your part. If one uses that sort of logic, one can make the same sort of oversimplified statements about most of the nations of the earth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christ was Socialist Donating Member (649 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. what good have we done. We've overthrown more governments
than anyone else, probably except for the ussr. So show me some good things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fenris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. Good and evil are subjective terms
What is good to one group is evil to another. History is objective. It is in formulating opinions of history that one creates a good side and an evil side, even though history is full of ambiguity. And further, I never said that I thought the U.S. has done more good than evil. I do not think that nations or government can commit either. It is the people who are capable of good and evil, and I am not willing to characterize the American people as either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GirlinContempt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #24
29. USSR was less than USA
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christ was Socialist Donating Member (649 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. by the way i'm not a christian. <nt>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Waverley_Hills_Hiker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 04:29 PM
Response to Original message
21. I saw the movie...
...the Chomster is OK. Im just not into reading much political economy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
23. I'd say Chomsky is well-regarded here at DU
But he's not worshipped, fortunately.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
26. Another place
Here is site that is educational.

http://www.serendipity.li/cia.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dumpster_baby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 04:44 PM
Response to Original message
31. chomsky is a god of political analysis
but he is a pariah in the Democratic and Republican parties, of course
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
32. sorry but he bores the shit out of me ...
Parenti, too.

His voice is from another time and the years have not treated my recollection of that voice very well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pollock Donating Member (152 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #32
35. Voice from another time?
Truth telling time? Maybe, but sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoyGBiv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
37. I like Chomsky

He's made some amazing contributions in a number of areas and has forced a lot people, both his detractors and his fans, to think about things in new and more productive ways. However, I don't worship any individual thinker, nor do I think he's infallible. There are times when he's much better at tearing down than building up, which is the problem I have with a lot of people who make their names through criticism. It's much easier to criticize than it is to suggest solutions. I know Chomsky has done both, but as I said, there are times when the criticism overshadows his attempts at presenting solutions.

But, I suspect Chomsky would bristle at being called the Great Leader, in caps no less. Half of what he writes about is in opposition to the blind loyalty that this kind of expression implies.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pollock Donating Member (152 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. I read Chomsky differently.
Never saw him as an activist. He does political history, and very well.
Plus, his public lectures on political history are astounding; he is a great speaker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christ was Socialist Donating Member (649 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #37
41. It's called respect
the man is in his mid-50's and it's true he shuns being an icon. But his knowledge is Grandfatherly, wisdom beyond his years, and he needs to be awknowledge above the younger/more callow academics, or as they say, in a league all his own. His intellect is beyond 99.9% of humanity and i give him credit for it. I alwasy show the proper respect to those whom have earned it, or should i say not destoyed it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dumpster_baby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #41
48. Actually, he is about 74 years old
But intellectually he is still one of the smartest people ever!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Malva Zebrina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
40. So many intellectualists;so many analysts
none have a solution to the tyranny of a stupid man who is seated in the White House due to a coup--NONE

the only thing that can turn this around is a revolution of the commone people, first.

Something has to get the people armed with their pitchforks

It ain't happening, no matter how much atrocity is committed in their name

They do not seem to be concerned or even care.

Why?

Too many toys. Too much consumerism and too much loss of values and ethics and morality

No sense of an inner life. Everything of value is based upon a monetary value and children have been taught to value their success upon how many toys they can buy--or their parents can buy for them
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
info being Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #40
49. Something like that, yes.
I am alone in my inner world, that much I know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 05:18 PM
Response to Original message
43. Should there be a mandate of how much praise he should get here?
Edited on Tue May-04-04 05:22 PM by wyldwolf
Should there be a quota? Must there be at least three threads praising him daily? Four threads? Five?

If people want to praise him, more power to them.

But some may disagree with the praise. Can you not handle that?

If "so-called liberals" don't care for him is that why they are "so-called liberals" and not just "liberals?"

We've heard the "truth" about Bill Clinton from all sides. Frankly, I'm tired of people's "truth" about Bill Clinton.

No thanks. I'm not taken in by idealogical purity tests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
info being Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #43
50. So many Kerry supporters...like wyldwolf
hold so much contempt for truth and good in the world. Just an observation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christ was Socialist Donating Member (649 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. Exactly. It's just the status quo as usual <nt>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #52
56. No, just realistic
appealing to the highest possible amount of voters.

Unlike the fringe that you apparently occupy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #50
53. because I don't find Chomsky appealing?
BIG leap. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #50
57. Chomsky does not represent "truth and good"
he's a very good analyst, but I think even he would reject being characterized in
such an overblown way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #57
59. I agree - he would reject it. He is a good analyst, like you said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christ was Socialist Donating Member (649 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #43
51. then thank clinton for 2000 and bush <nt>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #51
54. No. I thank idealistic Nader voters, The US Supreme Court...
Edited on Tue May-04-04 05:58 PM by wyldwolf
...and Jeb Bush and his voter purge.

Poor attempt to pin Bush on Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMDemDist2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
46. if given the choice I'll take Tariq Ali
although I find Chomsky very thought provoking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 06:06 PM
Response to Original message
58. Chomsky Anthology, Understanding Power is one of the best books I've read
I've read Professor Chomsky for a long time now. He and Howard Zinn are two of the most important thinkers of Modern times in my opinion. No one is perfect, and Chomsky takes a lot of criticism for some of his early views and his take on the I/P conflict. But when it comes to his analysis of propaganda in this country, the media, the nature of power in politics, and the U.S. rule of force in world affairs, he is brutally, brutally right.

Even though its dated, one of the best things I ever heard was Free Market Fantasies - a audio recording of a lecture on the real nature of American "free market" myths under Regan and through Bush Sr. It was so very true. Chomsky is also very observant about cases of U.S. Hypocrisy when it comes to our human rights record.

Anyway, the most valuable thing Chomsky contributes to the discussion is the collection of his lectures called "Understanding Power." That is a must.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christ was Socialist Donating Member (649 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-04 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #58
63. I wish i had that intellect
He is a figure on campuses, yet most americans don't know him. Its a shame ann coulter gets air time but noam is ignored. I think he will be a catylyst for the enxt generation. He is a legend, and wona lmost every award imaginable. His linguistic theroies baffle me though, he revolutionized that field also. i hope it doesn't desinegrate when he is gone, into behavrial science or some other curriculum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dawn Donating Member (876 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
62. Chomsky is great...I've only read a few of his books but I like them.
I'd like to read more.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 09th 2024, 07:29 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC