Modernizing Conservative Republicans and informing you of the events and elections.
CrimsonPolitics no longer supports neither the Republican Party nor the conservative movement (nor the tea party movement) nor the libertarian movement any longer. We've found that progressives and Democrats are simply more correct on a huge number of issues (social, economical, foreign policy) and we have changed our stances as a collective group. We also apologize if we mislead you about Obama, he has been doing a great job on the economy based on the evidence. (we still do not like Nancy Pelosi though, she is still corrupt; but honestly Newt Gingrich and John Boehner are much worse)
Noam Chomsky: Israel Should Leave
Noam Chomsky outperforms his usual naive thinking processes in a radio interview on the 'progressive' radio show Democracy Now.
The thought that Noam Chomsky would advocate defense of a nation as "leaving" and allowing rebels to win is ridiculous. I suppose he believes that whenever someone wants to rebel and create their own nation, they should be allowed to do it (or have the right to do it).
Isn't Noam Chomsky suppose to be a professor? Has he not studied human history? Does he not realize that sometimes both sides can be right or both sides can be wrong?
So, here's exactly what he said today about Israel-Gaza conflict:
NOAM CHOMSKY: It’s approximately the Bush position. He began by saying that Israel, like any democracy, has a right to defend itself. That’s true, but there’s a gap in the reasoning. It has a right to defend itself. It doesn’t follow that it has a right to defend itself by force. So we might agree, say, that, you know, the British army in the United States in the colonies in 1776 had a right to defend itself from the terror of George Washington’s armies, which was quite real, but it didn’t follow they had a right to defend themselves by force, because they had no right to be here. So, yes, they had a right to defend themselves, and they had a way to do it—namely, leave.
This is a very irrational form of thought. He starts off by bashing Obama as being "just another Bush."
Then he argues that the right to defend oneself is to "leave."
This is very interesting, especially the American Revolution example. Britain had a right to defend itself from George Washington's armies, after all, it was British territory. That's why there was a war. They lost the war and decided that the territory is not worth the struggle.
However, that does not mean Britain was wrong to try and keep their territories. That doesn't mean George Washington was wrong to rebel. They were BOTH right.
Same with Israel and Palestine; they both have a right to defend themselves and they both have claims on the same territory. The difference is, Israel backs off of Gaza, and yet they are still constantly attacked because Hamas wants all of Israel to leave the Middle East. Hamas loses war after war and does not give up.
Noam Chomsky's idea is naive because if he were Abraham Lincoln, he would have said "OK, we will defend the Union by leaving the South Confederates alone, let them have their confederacy."
Chomsky would advocate "Let's not go into Afghanistan to stop Al Qaeda, we should defend ourselves by not fighting terrorists but by keeping to ourselves."
Chomsky would advocate "Let's not attack Nazi Germany, let them do as they will, we have a right to defend ourselves by leaving them alone."
This is not how the world works Chomsky. The world tries to cleanse itself by defending itself from evil and this sometimes includes offensive attacks.
Being anti-war won't make the world be safe, it will only make it more war-like.
This guy is insane. His views on anything is that of a person who has for so long refused to grow up and face reality.
Post new comment