Noam Chomsky: The U.S. and its allies will do anything to prevent democracy in the Arab world" --

the reason being that a democratic government will do the will of its people. And the Arabian
people want the West to get out of their countries. This is exactly what the Western
Corporations do not wish to do because of the oil, and we know how much Western governments are
influenced by their business corporations.

http://readersupportednews.org/off-site-opinion-section/133-133/5928-arab-springs-threat-to-western-colonialism

Several European nations had colonized much of the Near East from the mid-1800s right up until
World War II. They not only treated the people very badly, but also robbed them of their natural
resources. Hence the hatred of these people for the West.

After WWII colonialism somehow began to turn into a dirty word. I suppose the fact that much of
Europe had been taken over by Germany -- and Europeans had acquired a first-hand knowledge and
experience of what it felt like being under Hitler's heel -- could have played a role in the
change of heart that bigger and stronger nations have no right to simply walk in and take over
smaller and weaker ones.

But certain types of people simply can't give up the notion of wanting and craving more. If open
aggression is no longer in vogue, there are ways of robbing others (not only foreign countries,
but also their own countrymen) through more subtle means.

After WWII, the growth of corporations has been phenomenal, and before long they also spread
abroad, sometimes joining forces with corporations of other countries. But their goal of relieving
the smaller nations of their natural resources -- oil, in more recent decades -- remained the same.
And their methods, whether crude or subtle, would fail in the end, and open warfare was often the
result anyway. Let's face it, the people of the Middle Eas know what's going on. They're no
dummies.

Does this mean that Obama would have to convince not only business corporations, but also the
governments of several European countries as well, before he will be able to pull our troops out
of the Middle East?

It's going to be an awfully tough job -- convincing the greedy business corporations, especially!

show how the Islamic nationalists expanded their empire and subjugated much of the Mediterranean.

In fact, it wasn't until Portugal sailed around the Cape of Africa that the strangle hold of east west trade was taken from the Arabic Tribes.

After the caravan method of trade fell apart, the Arab/Islamic benevolence that we now remember with tales of wonderful medical, mathematic and scientific progress, deteriorated into the fundamentalist tendencies that swept across the mid eastern lands.

And how about those turks who colonized all of persia and the Arabic world.

He is parsing history to fit his narrative which is what, of course, many people do.

The reality is that being involved with international trade ads vibrancy to a society and no one really wants to admit that because it also, if done for nothing more than pillaging, can destroy indigenous cultures.

Although I'd say the Mongol invasions also played a major part in the disappearance of the enlightened ideals from Arabic states.

more recently, and forget what evils we ourselves had done longer ago.

When has it ever been that stronger nations haven't conquered and
colonized weaker ones? The Romans had England as a colony for 400
years. Britania is the Roman word for England.

But, we are supposed to be living in more "enlightened" times today.
And are we? The death penalty was suspended for about 14 years, until
it was brought back again. One step forward, and two steps backward.

at least to me, implies that the indigenous people were victims when in truth, it is the ebb and flow of history and human nature...

I'm not apologizing for capitalism, but the way he presents his arguments always portrays everyone else in, frankly, a subordinate position and that they were somehow pure and innocent before the west stepped in.

Even in this speech he mentioned how historically the US is hardly unique in its imperialist tactics. I see it as a principled objection to imperialism, and I think he can prefer that we not needlessly intervene in other countries w/o his unwittingly making saints of those countries.

simply trading fairly with other nations? Why are still living as if we are in the dark ages, using what should be considered the medieval method of invading countries who have things we want? Wasn't this country founded on the exact opposite of those brutal policies?

What we are doing today, makes it seem there never was a new vision of how the world could be and it took WW11, as Chomsky says, to move Europe forward from its brutal past. Now, thanks to the neocon gang, we have gone backwards again, and we are worse off in every way because of it.

my stuff over the years.

I am a big fan of dissembling the American war machine since it is only subsidizing the other economies around the world, especially the one's competing with us.

To me, Chomsky is set into a rigid ideology that inevitably forces him to always fit his frame of reference around any given situations. Nothing wrong with that. But if does get tiresome to some people who try to be objective and take into as account many different approaches to historical trends.

writings when I see them. He is definitely not objective about torture, eg, or illegal wars nor do I think there is any room for objectivity on such basic principles. We are now 'discussing' torture in this country, 'debating' it. The war criminals responsible for torture policies have never been brought to justice. I find it hard to be objective about war crimes, but I do see a softening of attitudes towards many of these issues in some parts of the left. I will never understand how that could happen. The right will never restore this country to even a semblance of a civil society, so the country's future in that regard depended on the left to lead the way. I'm not sure if this is what you mean, that we need to be objective on these matters, forgive me if I am misunderstanding, but I see no room for compromise on these issues.

Nor do I see much room for objectivity on Social Programs in a country where tens of thousands are dying for lack of them. We provide less for the most vulnerable citizens in this society already, than any other civil, democratic nation. So there is really no room for 'compromise' when people's lives are at stake, imo.

We are in a fight for this country right now, and the only way that fight can be won, is by fighting hard against those who want to take even more from the poor and disabled and give more to the wealthiest Americans. That fight has not been fought, imo. And as a result people will continue to die when they don't need to. Our foreign policies are horrendous, they are making us less safe after ten years of war, and the cost is draining this country's wealth with nothing to show for it.

Being objective is fine, but not when people's lives depend on decisions made by our elected officials, if being objective puts their political careers ahead of the needs of people.

That's the nature of a pluralistic society.

do tell us why US so silent on Bahrain? I guess Robert Fisk is "stupid" too, eh?

I think not.

K&R

:puke:

The sock puppets are attacking like mad.

astute.

No problem with anything he said.

Are we running out of sockpuppets?

of Wall Street and Global War inc seriously changed their stripes and appetites all that much since?
No.

K & R.

But I can't see Obama included in it on any level.
In fact, I'd expect him to blow the whistle.

-- which might have been a good thing, were the Neocons half-way sane.
But they are not. Obama might have the right intentions, but it's the wrong
people he is dealing with. Even if they joined him in a bi-partisanship,
the Neocons would be working towards Obama's destruction, this time from
the inside.

I keep hoping that Obama, being the highly intelligent person he is, must be
aware how sick the Neocons are, and that he might have a special plan up his
sleeve in dealing with them. Of course the chances are that this is only
wishful thinking on my part. Bi-partisanship is probably a fixation with him,
from which he can't separate himself -- regardless of whether there's a
possibility of success practicing it with the Neocons or not.

The fact is that with Palestine, the elections were held and the Islamic theocracy won. This is a really inconvenient truth for the Middle East democracy crowd. Its something Glenn Beck has been banking on recently, saying that we shouldn't support the revolutions because they will lead to theocracy (via democracy, the part he doesn't mention) thus we need to fight liberty and the values of the founding fathers over there so we can enjoy them here. What he's banking on is more Islamic regimes taking charge so he can look right. HE will probably get that, and he will look like the prophet if we ignore Chomsky.

The simple fact is that this about identity and colony. As America becomes more and more beholden to foreign powers via globalization, you can see the rising tide of nationalism as a force which transcends party: we want the jobs back in America, we want American control over our destinies. This is the same sentiment that's been shaking the middle east, who has a lot more to gripe about than we do. But you have to see the mental link between literally escaping the mechanisms and foreign control and embracing a certain national identity. Though they are functionally totally separate, they go together in the mind. Over there the national identity not shared with the west is Islam, just as here its the values of the founders and other things. So for them the narrative of escaping foreign control is tied to identities we equate as foreign, so we don't get it intuitively. Allah is their Mom and Apple pie, and that's hard for us to grasp but its a fact.

The only way the situation will ever be resolved is by the US getting our finger out of their asses. Real positive revolution in the middle east is possible, but it has to be homegrown, not about colonization. And it will always wear the face of Islam. When we can accept this and let them work it out on their own terms, they will eventually get something they are proud of, and that will be the beginning of a real world peace.

Minor beef--I think you are pretty much dead-on overall.

about colonization." This is very true. But colonization is exactly what the
Corporatists and Neocons want. They crave the profits that come from their oil.
And to hell with the Middle-East people.

Some time ago somebody wrote that today, it's no longer blue vs. red, Dem. vs. Repub.
Today its corporations vs. you and me. We can extend that to "Corporations vs. you,
me, and the whole world."

Today corporations are the main cause of all the suffering, misery and death on our
planet. They are the chief trouble-makers. That's because corporations (and
their minions, many of the politicians) are mostly headed by sick peodple, the
sociopaths. And these greedy people can't stop themselves -- they keep on cheating,
corrupting, stealing, robbing, and even causing death wherever they spread.

They are trying to take over and enslave the whole wide world. Corporations, like
cancers, spread disease and death wherever they go.

Really thoughtful post!