Chomsky on Iran.

OhNoYouDidn't

Very interesting stuff - worth a read regardless of your opinion on the subject.

The Iranian Threat
By Noam Chomsky


The dire threat of Iran is widely recognized to be the most serious foreign policy crisis facing the Obama administration. General Petraeus informed the Senate Committee on Armed Services in March 2010 that "the Iranian regime is the primary state-level threat to stability" in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility, the Middle East and Central Asia, the primary region of U.S. global concerns. The term "stability"
here has its usual technical meaning: firmly under U.S. control. In June 2010 Congress strengthened the sanctions against Iran, with even more severe penalties against foreign companies. The Obama administration has been rapidly expanding U.S. offensive capacity in the African island of Diego Garcia, claimed by Britain, which had expelled the population so that the U.S. could build the massive base it uses for attacks in the Central Command area. The Navy reports sending a submarine tender to the island to service nuclear-powered guided-missile submarines with Tomahawk missiles, which can carry nuclear warheads.
Each submarine is reported to have the striking power of a typical carrier battle group.
According to a U.S. Navy cargo manifest obtained by the Sunday Herald (Glasgow), the substantial military equipment Obama has dispatched includes 387 "bunker busters" used for blasting hardened underground structures. Planning for these "massive ordnance penetrators," the most powerful bombs in the arsenal short of nuclear weapons, was initiated in the Bush administration, but languished. On taking office, Obama immediately accelerated the plans and they are to be deployed several years ahead of schedule, aiming specifically at Iran.

"They are gearing up totally for the destruction of Iran," according to Dan Plesch, director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the University of London. "US bombers and long range missiles are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours," he said. "The firepower of US forces has quadrupled since 2003,"
accelerating under Obama.

The Arab press reports that an American fleet (with an Israeli vessel) passed through the Suez Canal on the way to the Persian Gulf, where its task is "to implement the sanctions against Iran and supervise the ships going to and from Iran." British and Israeli media report that Saudi Arabia is providing a corridor for Israeli bombing of Iran (denied by Saudi Arabia). On his return from Afghanistan to reassure NATO allies that the U.S. will stay the course after the replacement of General McChrystal by his superior, General Petraeus, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen visited Israel to meet IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi and senior military staff, along with intelligence and planning units, continuing the annual strategic dialogue between Israel and the U.S. The meeting focused "on the preparation by both Israel and the U.S. for the possibility of a nuclear capable Iran,"
according to Haaretz, which reports further that Mullen emphasized that, "I always try to see challenges from Israeli perspective." Mullen and Ashkenazi are in regular contact on a secure line.

The increasing threats of military action against Iran are, of course, in violation of the UN Charter and in specific violation of Security Council resolution 1887 of September 2009 which reaffirmed the call to all states to resolve disputes related to nuclear issues peacefully, in accordance with the Charter, which bans the use or threat of force.

Some analysts, who seem to be taken seriously, describe the Iranian threat in apocalyptic terms. Amitai Etzioni warns that, "The U.S. will have to confront Iran or give up the Middle East," no less. If Iran's nuclear program proceeds, he asserts, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other states will "move toward" the new Iranian "superpower." To rephrase in less fevered rhetoric, a regional alliance might take shape independent of the U.S. In the U.S. army journal Military Review, Etzioni urges a U.S. attack that targets not only Iran's nuclear facilities, but also its non-nuclear military assets, including infrastructure-meaning, the civilian society. This kind of military action is akin to sanctions-causing 'pain' in order to change behaviour, albeit by much more powerful means."

What is the Threat, Exactly?

Such inflammatory pronouncements aside, what exactly is the Iranian threat? An authoritative answer is provided by military and intelligence reports to Congress in April 2010 [Lieutenant General Ronald L. Burgess, Director, Defense Intelligence Agency, Statement before the Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, 14 April 2010; Unclassified Report on Military Power of Iran, April 2010; John J. Kruzel, American Forces Press Service, "Report to Congress Outlines Iranian Threats," April 2010 (www.defense.gov). The brutal clerical regime is doubtless a threat to its own people, though it does not rank particularly high in that respect in comparison to U.S. allies in the region. But that is not what concerns the military and intelligence assessments. Rather, they are concerned with the threat Iran poses to the region and the world.

The reports make it clear that the Iranian threat is not military.
Iran's military spending is "relatively low compared to the rest of the region," and minuscule as compared to the U.S. Iranian military doctrine is strictly "defensive...designed to slow an invasion and force a diplomatic solution to hostilities." Iran has only "a limited capability to project force beyond its borders." With regard to the nuclear option, "Iran's nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy."

Though the Iranian threat is not military aggression, that does not mean that it might be tolerable to Washington. Iranian deterrent capacity is considered an illegitimate exercise of sovereignty that interferes with U.S. global designs. Specifically, it threatens U.S.
control of Middle East energy resources, a high priority of planners since World War II. As one influential figure advised, expressing a common understanding, control of these resources yields "substantial control of the world" (A. A. Berle).

But Iran's threat goes beyond deterrence. It is also seeking to expand its influence. Iran's "current five-year plan seeks to expand bilateral, regional, and international relations, strengthen Iran's ties with friendly states, and enhance its defense and deterrent capabilities.
Commensurate with that plan, Iran is seeking to increase its stature by countering U.S. influence and expanding ties with regional actors while advocating Islamic solidarity." In short, Iran is seeking to "destabilize" the region, in the technical sense of the term used by General Petraeus. U.S. invasion and military occupation of Iran's neighbors is "stabilization." Iran's efforts to extend its influence in neighboring countries is "destabilization," hence plainly illegitimate.
It should be noted that such revealing usage is routine. Thus, the prominent foreign policy analyst James Chace, former editor of the main establishment journal Foreign Affairs, was properly using the term "stability" in its technical sense when he explained that in order to achieve "stability" in Chile it was necessary to "destabilize" the country (by overthrowing the elected Allende government and installing the Pinochet dictatorship).

Beyond these crimes, Iran is also carrying out and supporting terrorism, the reports continue. Its Revolutionary Guards "are behind some of the deadliest terrorist attacks of the past three decades,"including attacks on U.S. military facilities in the region and "many of the insurgent attacks on Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces in Iraq since 2003." Furthermore, Iran backs Hezbollah and Hamas, the major political forces in Lebanon and in Palestine-if elections matter. The Hezbollah-based coalition handily won the popular vote in Lebanon's latest (2009) election. Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian election, compelling the U.S. and Israel to institute the harsh and brutal siege of Gaza to punish the miscreants for voting the wrong way in a free election. These have been the only relatively free elections in the Arab world. It is normal for elite opinion to fear the threat of democracy and to act to deter it, but this is a rather striking case, particularly alongside of strong U.S. support for the regional dictatorships, emphasized by Obama with his strong praise for the brutal Egyptian dictator Mubarak on the way to his famous address to the Muslim world in Cairo.

Israel/Palestine

The terrorist acts attributed to Hamas and Hezbollah pale in comparison to U.S.-Israeli terrorism in the same region, but they are worth a look nevertheless. On May 25 Lebanon celebrated its national holiday Liberation Day, commemorating Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon after 22 years, as a result of Hezbollah resistance-described by Israeli authorities as "Iranian aggression" against Israel in Israeli-occupied Lebanon (Ephraim Sneh). That, too, is normal imperial usage. Thus.
President John F. Kennedy condemned the "the assault from the inside"
in South Vietnam, "which is manipulated from the North." This "assault"
by the South Vietnamese resistance against Kennedy's bombers, chemical warfare, programs to drive peasants to virtual concentration camps, and other such benign measures was denounced as "internal aggression" by Kennedy's UN Ambassador, liberal hero Adlai Stevenson. North Vietnamese support for their countrymen in the U.S.-occupied South is aggression, intolerable interference with Washington's righteous mission. Kennedy advisors Arthur Schlesinger and Theodore Sorenson, considered doves, also praised Washington's intervention to reverse "aggression" in South Vietnam-by the indigenous resistance, as they knew, at least if they read U.S. intelligence reports. In 1955, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff had defined several types of "aggression," including "Aggression other than armed, i.e., political warfare or subversion." For example, an internal uprising against a U.S.-imposed police state, or elections that come out the wrong way. The usage is also common in scholarship and political commentary, and makes sense on the prevailing assumption that We Own the World.

Hamas resists Israel's military occupation and its illegal and violent actions in the occupied territories. It is accused of refusing to recognize Israel (political parties do not recognize states). In contrast, the U.S. and Israel not only do not recognize Palestine, but have been acting relentlessly and decisively for decades to ensure that it can never come into existence in any meaningful form. The governing party in Israel, in its 1999 campaign platform, bars the existence of any Palestinian state-a step towards accommodation beyond the official positions of the U.S. and Israel a decade earlier, which held that there cannot be "an additional Palestinian state" between Israel and Jordan, the latter a "Palestinian state" by U.S.-Israeli fiat whatever its benighted inhabitants and government might believe.

Hamas is charged with rocketing Israeli settlements on the border, criminal acts no doubt, though a fraction of Israel's violence in Gaza, let alone elsewhere. It is important to bear in mind, in this connection, that the U.S. and Israel know exactly how to terminate the terror that they deplore with such passion. Israel officially concedes that there were no Hamas rockets as long as Israel partially observed a truce with Hamas in 2008. Israel rejected Hamas's offer to renew the truce, preferring to launch the murderous and destructive Operation Cast Lead against Gaza in December 2008, with full U.S. backing, an exploit of murderous aggression without the slightest credible pretext on either legal or moral grounds.

Turkey, a Model for Democracy

The model for democracy in the Muslim world, despite serious flaws, is Turkey, which has relatively free elections, and has also been subject to harsh criticism in the U.S. The most extreme case was when the government followed the position of 95 percent of the population and refused to join in the invasion of Iraq, eliciting harsh condemnation from Washington for its failure to comprehend how a democratic government should behave: under our concept of democracy, the voice of the Master determines policy, not the near-unanimous voice of the population.

The Obama administration was once again incensed when Turkey joined with Brazil in arranging a deal with Iran to restrict its enrichment of uranium. Obama had praised the initiative in a letter to Brazil's president Lula da Silva, apparently on the assumption that it would fail and provide a propaganda weapon against Iran. When it succeeded, the U.S. was furious, and quickly undermined it by ramming through a Security Council resolution with new sanctions against Iran that were so meaningless that China cheerfully joined at once-recognizing that at most the sanctions would impede Western interests in competing with China for Iran's resources. Once again, Washington acted forthrightly to ensure that others would not interfere with U.S. control of the region.

Not surprisingly, Turkey (along with Brazil) voted against the U.S.
sanctions motion in the Security Council. The other regional member, Lebanon, abstained. These actions aroused further consternation in Washington. Philip Gordon, the Obama administration's top diplomat on European affairs, warned Turkey that its actions are not understood in the U.S. and that it must "demonstrate its commitment to partnership with the West," AP reported, "a rare admonishment of a crucial NATO ally."

The political class understands as well. Steven A. Cook, a scholar with the Council on Foreign Relations, observed that the critical question now is "How do we keep the Turks in their lane?"-following orders like good democrats. A New York Times headline captured the general mood:
"Iran Deal Seen as Spot on Brazilian Leader's Legacy." In brief, do what we say, or else.

There is no indication that other countries in the region favor U.S.
sanctions any more than Turkey does. On Iran's opposite border, for example, Pakistan and Iran, meeting in Turkey, recently signed an agreement for a new pipeline. Even more worrisome for the U.S. is that the pipeline might extend to India. The 2008 U.S. treaty with India supporting its nuclear programs-and indirectly its nuclear weapons programs-was intended to stop India from joining the pipeline, according to Moeed Yusuf, a South Asia adviser to the United States Institute of Peace, expressing a common interpretation. India and Pakistan are two of the three nuclear powers that have refused to sign the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), the third being Israel. All have developed nuclear weapons with U.S. support, and still do.

Non-Proliferation Exemptions

No sane person wants Iran to develop nuclear weapons; or anyone. One obvious way to mitigate or eliminate this threat is to establish a nuclear weapons-free zone (NWFZ) in the Middle East. The issue arose
(again) at the NPT conference at United Nations headquarters in early May 2010. Egypt, as chair of the 118 nations of the Non-Aligned Movement, proposed that the conference back a plan calling for the start of negotiations in 2011 on a Middle East NWFZ, as had been agreed by the West, including the U.S., at the 1995 review conference on the NPT.

Washington still formally agrees, but insists that Israel be exempted-and has given no hint of allowing such provisions to apply to itself. The time is not yet ripe for creating the zone, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated at the NPT conference, while Washington insisted that no proposal can be accepted that calls for Israel's nuclear program to be placed under the auspices of the IAEA or that calls on signers of the NPT, specifically Washington, to release information about "Israeli nuclear facilities and activities, including information pertaining to previous nuclear transfers to Israel." Obama's technique of evasion is to adopt Israel's position that any such proposal must be conditional on a comprehensive peace settlement, which the U.S. can delay indefinitely, as it has been doing for 35 years, with rare and temporary exceptions.

At the same time, Yukiya Amano, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, asked foreign ministers of its 151 member states to share views on how to implement a resolution demanding that Israel "accede to" the NPT and throw its nuclear facilities open to IAEA oversight, AP reported.

It is rarely noted that the U.S. and UK have a special responsibility to work to establish a Middle East NWFZ. In attempting to provide a thin legal cover for their invasion of the Iraq in 2003, they appealed to Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), which called on Iraq to terminate its development of weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. and UK claimed that they had not done so. We need not tarry on the excuse, but that Resolution commits its signers to move to establish a NWFZ in the Middle East. Parenthetically, we may add that U.S. insistence on maintaining nuclear facilities in Diego Garcia undermines the NWFZ) established by the African Union, just as Washington continues to block a Pacific NWFZ by excluding its Pacific dependencies.

Obama's rhetorical commitment to non-proliferation has received much praise, even a Nobel peace prize. One practical step in this direction is establishment of NWFZs. Another is to withdraw support for the nuclear programs of the three non-signers of the NPT. As often, rhetoric and actions are hardly aligned, in fact are in direct contradiction in this case, facts that pass with as little attention as most of what has just been briefly reviewed.

Instead of taking practical steps towards reducing the truly dire threat of nuclear weapons proliferation, the U.S. is taking major steps towards reinforcing U.S. control of the vital Middle East oil-producing regions, by violence if other means do not suffice. That is understandable and even reasonable, under prevailing imperial doctrine, however grim the consequences, yet another illustration of "the savage injustice of the Europeans" that Adam Smith deplored in 1776, with the command center since shifted to their imperial settlement across the seas.

Z

Noam Chomsky is a linguist, social critic, and author of numerous articles and books, including Failed States and Hopes and Prospects.

OhNoYouDidn't

Cumann de Barra wrote: »

Chomsky is a lunatic. He should go back to training chimps and leave international politics to realistic people. I am prepared to go to war to stop Iran getting the bomb.

First one up is an ad homeium attack on the writer. Hoped we would get at least 10 posts in before that started.

Let me guess, 10 years ago you were willing to go to war with Iraq to stop them getting the bomb too?

zeds alive

Cumann de Barra wrote: »

am prepared to go to war to stop Iran getting the bomb.

No you're not.

mickeypat

Cumann de Barra wrote: »

Chomsky is a lunatic. He should go back to training chimps and leave international politics to realistic people. I am prepared to go to war to stop Iran getting the bomb.

well arent you great,are you in the marines/army?if not then no YOU are not prepared to go to war,you are prepared to send some young lad from kentucky or somewhere else go to war for you,typical chickenhawk bull**** from someone who will be far from the battlefield,btw my brother in law and nephew are in the navy

Rebelheart

Cumann de Barra wrote: »

Chomsky is a lunatic. He should go back to training chimps and leave international politics to realistic people.

Chomsky is still, fifty years later, one of the most refreshing thinkers around. And I get the impression from your views so far that Tom Barry would have pleasure in sorting you out on a wide variety of political issues.

Cumann de Barra wrote: »

I am prepared to go to war to stop Iran getting the bomb.

As somebody already said: No, you're not (sitting in front of the TV with beer and watching a US bombing attack on Iran does not constitute "going to war", by the way)

mickeypat

Cumann de Barra wrote: »

Everyone in the military is a volunteer. No one is forcing them to fight in wars.

you didnt answer my question are you in the service?

eamo12

mickeypat wrote: »

well arent you great,are you in the marines/army?if not then no YOU are not prepared to go to war,you are prepared to send some young lad from kentucky or somewhere else go to war for you,typical chickenhawk bull**** from someone who will be far from the battlefield,btw my brother in law and nephew are in the navy

I've nothing but admiration for anyone who will fight to stop Iran getting the bomb. If you hate Israel as most Irish do, then you'll be happy with Amanutjobs plans for that country and the A-Bomb. What navy is your nephew in - the Irish?Laughable. God help us if we ever have to rely on them to protect us from a real threat. When that happens, you'll quickly realize that the greatest defenders of Ireland all along have been the Brits and Yanks.

Cumann de Barra

eamo12 wrote: »

I've nothing but admiration for anyone who will fight to stop Iran getting the bomb. If you hate Israel as most Irish do, then you'll be happy with Amanutjobs plans for that country and the A-Bomb. What navy is your nephew in - the Irish?Laughable. God help us if we ever have to rely on them to protect us from a real threat. When that happens, you'll quickly realize that the greatest defenders of Ireland all along have been the Brits and Yanks.

i have alot of respect for the Irish navy but Ireland depends on NATO for its freedom

mickeypat

eamo12 wrote: »

I've nothing but admiration for anyone who will fight to stop Iran getting the bomb. If you hate Israel as most Irish do, then you'll be happy with Amanutjobs plans for that country and the A-Bomb. What navy is your nephew in - the Irish?Laughable. God help us if we ever have to rely on them to protect us from a real threat. When that happens, you'll quickly realize that the greatest defenders of Ireland all along have been the Brits and Yanks.

**** you and cummann their in the US navy moron,chickenhawks like you are the reason for the iraq war

eamo12

mickeypat wrote: »

**** you and cummann their in the US navy moron,chickenhawks like you are the reason for the iraq war

Moron, chickenhawk? You lefties will go to your grave muttering those words. The Iraq war was justified, and legal -even the UN mandated it for christsake. Get over it - go see the lunatic Galloway barfing on about it at the electric picnic to cheer yourself up.

Coillte_Bhoy

Cumann de Barra wrote: »

My skills are better utilised elsewhere

So how exactly are you prepared to go to war?

tricky D

Lads ignore the thread spoilers, they don't appear to be willing (or able) to have a discussion.


The Iranian threat is a long, long way off, if it is indeed as real as some would like to make it appear. Unlike the N Koreans who make poor quality bombs for bargaining chip purposes, Iran's motive would be deterrence and regional power. The North Korean tests were actually a bit of a failure pointing to no tangible and realistic weapons program. Iran's different goals would mean they need would need a proper weapons program which would take many years: purification to 90%+, test bombs, miniturisation, deployment of more than just a handful. That's a really big ask.


Here's another analysis of the Iran situation:

Rethinking American Options on Iran
August 31, 2010 | 0856 GMT

By George Friedman

Public discussion of potential attacks on Iran’s nuclear development sites is surging again. This has happened before. On several occasions, leaks about potential airstrikes have created an atmosphere of impending war. These leaks normally coincided with diplomatic initiatives and were designed to intimidate the Iranians and facilitate a settlement favorable to the United States and Israel. These initiatives have failed in the past. It is therefore reasonable to associate the current avalanche of reports with the imposition of sanctions and view it as an attempt to increase the pressure on Iran and either force a policy shift or take advantage of divisions within the regime.

My first instinct is to dismiss the war talk as simply another round of psychological warfare against Iran, this time originating with Israel. Most of the reports indicate that Israel is on the verge of attacking Iran. From a psychological-warfare standpoint, this sets up the good-cop/bad-cop routine. The Israelis play the mad dog barely restrained by the more sober Americans, who urge the Iranians through intermediaries to make concessions and head off a war. As I said, we have been here before several times, and this hasn’t worked.

The worst sin of intelligence is complacency, the belief that simply because something has happened (or has not happened) several times before it is not going to happen this time. But each episode must be considered carefully in its own light and preconceptions from previous episodes must be banished. Indeed, the previous episodes might well have been intended to lull the Iranians into complacency themselves. Paradoxically, the very existence of another round of war talk could be intended to convince the Iranians that war is distant while covert war preparations take place. An attack may be in the offing, but the public displays neither confirm nor deny that possibility.

The Evolving Iranian Assessment

STRATFOR has gone through three phases in its evaluation of the possibility of war. The first, which was in place until July 2009, held that while Iran was working toward a nuclear weapon, its progress could not be judged by its accumulation of enriched uranium. While that would give you an underground explosion, the creation of a weapon required sophisticated technologies for ruggedizing and miniaturizing the device, along with a very reliable delivery system. In our view, Iran might be nearing a testable device but it was far from a deliverable weapon. Therefore, we dismissed war talk and argued that there was no meaningful pressure for an attack on Iran.

We modified this view somewhat in July 2009, after the Iranian elections and the demonstrations. While we dismissed the significance of the demonstrations, we noted close collaboration developing between Russia and Iran. That meant there could be no effective sanctions against Iran, so stalling for time in order for sanctions to work had no value. Therefore, the possibility of a strike increased.

But then Russian support stalled as well, and we turned back to our analysis, adding to it an evaluation of potential Iranian responses to any air attack. We noted three potential counters: activating Shiite militant groups (most notably Hezbollah), creating chaos in Iraq and blocking the Strait of Hormuz, through which 45 percent of global oil exports travel. Of the three Iranian counters, the last was the real “nuclear option.” Interfering with the supply of oil from the Persian Gulf would raise oil prices stunningly and would certainly abort the tepid global economic recovery. Iran would have the option of plunging the world into a global recession or worse.

There has been debate over whether Iran would choose to do the latter or whether the U.S. Navy could rapidly clear mines. It is hard to imagine how an Iranian government could survive air attacks without countering them in some way. It is also a painful lesson of history that the confidence of any military force cannot be a guide to its performance. At the very least, there is a possibility that the Iranians could block the Strait of Hormuz, and that means the possibility of devastating global economic consequences. That is a massive risk for the United States to take, against an unknown probability of successful Iranian action. In our mind, it was not a risk that the United States could take, especially when added to the other Iranian counters. Therefore, we did not think the United States would strike.

Certainly, we did not believe that the Israelis would strike Iran alone. First, the Israelis are much less likely to succeed than the Americans would be, given the size of their force and their distance from Iran (not to mention the fact that they would have to traverse either Turkish, Iraqi or Saudi airspace). More important, Israel lacks the ability to mitigate any consequences. Any Israeli attack would have to be coordinated with the United States so that the United States could alert and deploy its counter-mine, anti-submarine and missile-suppression assets. For Israel to act without giving the United States time to mitigate the Hormuz option would put Israel in the position of triggering a global economic crisis. The political consequences of that would not be manageable by Israel. Therefore, we found an Israeli strike against Iran without U.S. involvement difficult to imagine.

The Current Evaluation

Our current view is that the accumulation of enough enriched uranium to build a weapon does not mean that the Iranians are anywhere close to having a weapon. Moreover, the risks inherent in an airstrike on its nuclear facilities outstrip the benefits (and even that assumes that the entire nuclear industry is destroyed in one fell swoop — an unsure outcome at best). It also assumes the absence of other necessary technologies. Assumptions of U.S. prowess against mines might be faulty, and so, too, could my assumption about weapon development. The calculus becomes murky, and one would expect all governments involved to be waffling.

There is, of course, a massive additional issue. Apart from the direct actions that Iran might make, there is the fact that the destruction of its nuclear capability would not solve the underlying strategic challenge that Iran poses. It has the largest military force in the Persian Gulf, absent the United States. The United States is in the process of withdrawing from Iraq, which would further diminish the ability of the United States to contain Iran. Therefore, a surgical strike on Iran’s nuclear capability combined with the continuing withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq would create a profound strategic crisis in the Persian Gulf.

The country most concerned about Iran is not Israel, but Saudi Arabia. The Saudis recall the result of the last strategic imbalance in the region, when Iraq, following its armistice with Iran, proceeded to invade Kuwait, opening the possibility that its next intention was to seize the northeastern oil fields of Saudi Arabia. In that case, the United States intervened. Given that the United States is now withdrawing from Iraq, intervention following withdrawal would be politically difficult unless the threat to the United States was clear. More important, the Iranians might not give the Saudis the present Saddam Hussein gave them by seizing Kuwait and then halting. They might continue. They certainly have the military capacity to try.

In a real sense, the Iranians would not have to execute such a military operation in order to gain the benefits. The simple imbalance of forces would compel the Saudis and others in the Persian Gulf to seek a political accommodation with the Iranians. Strategic domination of the Persian Gulf does not necessarily require military occupation — as the Americans have abundantly demonstrated over the past 40 years. It merely requires the ability to carry out those operations.

The Saudis, therefore, have been far quieter — and far more urgent — than the Israelis in asking the United States to do something about the Iranians. The Saudis certainly do not want the United States to leave Iraq. They want the Americans there as a blocking force protecting Saudi Arabia but not positioned on Saudi soil. They obviously are not happy about Iran’s nuclear efforts, but the Saudis see the conventional and nuclear threat as a single entity. The collapse of the Iran-Iraq balance of power has left the Arabian Peninsula in a precarious position.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia did an interesting thing a few weeks ago. He visited Lebanon personally and in the company of the president of Syria. The Syrian and Saudi regimes are not normally friendly, given different ideologies, Syria’s close relationship with Iran and their divergent interests in Lebanon. But there they were together, meeting with the Lebanese government and giving not very subtle warnings to Hezbollah. Saudi influence and money and the threat of Iran jeopardizing the Saudi regime by excessive adventurism seems to have created an anti-Hezbollah dynamic in Lebanon. Hezbollah is suddenly finding many of its supposed allies cooperating with some of its certain enemies. The threat of a Hezbollah response to an airstrike on Iran seems to be mitigated somewhat.

Eliminating Iranian Leverage In Hormuz

I said that there were three counters. One was Hezbollah, which is the least potent of the three from the American perspective. The other two are Iraq and Hormuz. If the Iraqis were able to form a government that boxed in pro-Iranian factions in a manner similar to how Hezbollah is being tentatively contained, then the second Iranian counter would be weakened. That would “just” leave the major issue — Hormuz.

The problem with Hormuz is that the United States cannot tolerate any risk there. The only way to control that risk is to destroy Iranian naval capability before airstrikes on nuclear targets take place. Since many of the Iranian mine layers would be small boats, this would mean an extensive air campaign and special operations forces raids against Iranian ports designed to destroy anything that could lay mines, along with any and all potential mine-storage facilities, anti-ship missile emplacements, submarines and aircraft. Put simply, any piece of infrastructure within a few miles of any port would need to be eliminated. The risk to Hormuz cannot be eliminated after the attack on nuclear sites. It must be eliminated before an attack on the nuclear sites. And the damage must be overwhelming.

There are two benefits to this strategy. First, the nuclear facilities aren’t going anywhere. It is the facilities that are producing the enriched uranium and other parts of the weapon that must be destroyed more than any uranium that has already been enriched. And the vast bulk of those facilities will remain where they are even if there is an attack on Iran’s maritime capabilities. Key personnel would undoubtedly escape, but considering that within minutes of the first American strike anywhere in Iran a mass evacuation of key scientists would be under way anyway, there is little appreciable difference between a first strike against nuclear sites and a first strike against maritime targets. (U.S. air assets are good, but even the United States cannot strike 100-plus targets simultaneously.)

Second, the counter-nuclear strategy wouldn’t deal with the more fundamental problem of Iran’s conventional military power. This opening gambit would necessarily attack Iran’s command-and-control, air-defense and offensive air capabilities as well as maritime capabilities. This would sequence with an attack on the nuclear capabilities and could be extended into a prolonged air campaign targeting Iran’s ground forces.

The United States is very good at gaining command of the air and attacking conventional military capabilities (see Yugoslavia in 1999). Its strategic air capability is massive and, unlike most of the U.S. military, underutilized. The United States also has substantial air forces deployed around Iran, along with special operations forces teams trained in penetration, evasion and targeting, and satellite surveillance. Far from the less-than-rewarding task of counterinsurgency in Afghanistan, going after Iran would be the kind of war the United States excels at fighting. No conventional land invasion, no boots-on-the-ground occupation, just a very thorough bombing campaign. If regime change happens as a consequence, great, but that is not the primary goal. Defanging the Iranian state is.

It is also the only type of operation that could destroy the nuclear capabilities (and then some) while preventing an Iranian response. It would devastate Iran’s conventional military forces, eliminating the near-term threat to the Arabian Peninsula. Such an attack, properly executed, would be the worst-case scenario for Iran and, in my view, the only way an extended air campaign against nuclear facilities could be safely executed.

Just as Iran’s domination of the Persian Gulf rests on its ability to conduct military operations, not on its actually conducting the operations, the reverse is also true. It is the capacity and apparent will to conduct broadened military operations against Iran that can shape Iranian calculations and decision-making. So long as the only threat is to Iran’s nuclear facilities, its conventional forces remain intact and its counter options remain viable, Iran will not shift its strategy. Once its counter options are shut down and its conventional forces are put at risk, Iran must draw up another calculus.

In this scenario, Israel is a marginal player. The United States is the only significant actor, and it might not strike Iran simply over the nuclear issue. That’s not a major U.S. problem. But the continuing withdrawal from Iraq and Iran’s conventional forces are very much an American problem. Destroying Iran’s nuclear capability is merely an added benefit.

Given the Saudi intervention in Lebanese politics, this scenario now requires a radical change in Iraq, one in which a government would be quickly formed and Iranian influence quickly curtailed. Interestingly, we have heard recent comments by administration officials asserting that Iranian influence has, in fact, been dramatically reduced. At present, such a reduction is not obvious to us, but the first step of shifting perceptions tends to be propaganda. If such a reduction became real, then the two lesser Iranian counter moves would be blocked and the U.S. offensive option would become more viable.

Internal Tension in Tehran

At this point, we would expect to see the Iranians recalculating their position, with some of the clerical leadership using the shifting sands of Lebanon against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Indeed, there have been many indications of internal stress, not between the mythical democratic masses and the elite, but within the elite itself. This past weekend the Iranian speaker of the house attacked Ahmadinejad’s handling of special emissaries. For what purpose we don’t yet know, but the internal tension is growing.

The Iranians are not concerned about the sanctions. The destruction of their nuclear capacity would, from their point of view, be a pity. But the destruction of large amounts of their conventional forces would threaten not only their goals in the wider Islamic world but also their stability at home. That would be unacceptable and would require a shift in their general strategy.

From the Iranian point of view — and from ours — Washington’s intentions are opaque. But when we consider the Obama administration’s stated need to withdraw from Iraq, Saudi pressure on the United States not to withdraw while Iran remains a threat, Saudi moves against Hezbollah to split Syria from Iran and Israeli pressure on the United States to deal with nuclear weapons, the pieces for a new American strategy are emerging from the mist. Certainly the Iranians appear to be nervous. And the threat of a new strategy might just be enough to move the Iranians off dead center. If they don’t, logic would dictate the consideration of a broader treatment of the military problem posed by Iran.

Rethinking American Options on Iran is republished with permission of STRATFOR.

eamo12

tricky D wrote: »

Lads ignore the thread spoilers, they don't appear to be willing (or able) to have a discussion.


The Iranian threat is a long, long way off, if it is indeed as real as some would like to make it appear. Unlike the N Koreans who make poor quality bombs for bargaining chip purposes, Iran's motive would be deterrence and regional power. The North Korean tests were actually a bit of a failure pointing to no tangible and realistic weapons program. Iran's different goals would mean they need would need a proper weapons program which would take many years: purification to 90%+, test bombs, miniturisation, deployment of more than just a handful. That's a really big ask.

And you know this because......:rolleyes:

wes

Excellent article detailing what may be a run up to another pointless Middle Eastern war by American extremists. Its truly sad that some seem to support such insane extremism which will lead to the deaths of many thousands of innocent people.

tricky D

eamo12 wrote: »

And you know this because......:rolleyes:

Because I read the article, unlike yourself. ...and many other articles, analyses.....

BlaasForRafa

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

First one up is an ad homeium attack on the writer. Hoped we would get at least 10 posts in before that started.

Let me guess, 10 years ago you were willing to go to war with Iraq to stop them getting the bomb too?

I wouldn't say Chomsky is a lunatic but his bias is clear for many many years. Theres a lot of over-egging the pudding in that article and a lot of assumptions and conclusions drawn. I highly doubt that USAF is at as high a state of readiness as Chomsky has concluded.

He does have some facts wrong though, the MOAB (mother of all bombs aka Massive Ordinance Air-blast) is the biggest bomb in the US inventory and is only delivered by transport planes like the C130 which you don't exactly want to do over airspace like Iran without absolute air superiority. These are different to bunker busters which are smaller in yield but can penetrate the reinforced concrete and rock which presumably Iran has the sensitive elements of its nuclear program hidden beneath.

eamo12

tricky D wrote: »

Because I read the article, unlike yourself. ...and many other articles, analyses.....

So that proves it - well done..

tricky D

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I wouldn't say Chomsky is a lunatic but his bias is clear for many many years. Theres a lot of over-egging the pudding in that article and a lot of assumptions and conclusions drawn. I highly doubt that USAF is at as high a state of readiness as Chomsky has concluded.

He does have some facts wrong though, the MOAB (mother of all bombs aka Massive Ordinance Air-blast) is the biggest bomb in the US inventory and is only delivered by transport planes like the C130 which you don't exactly want to do over airspace like Iran without absolute air superiority. These are different to bunker busters which are smaller in yield but can penetrate the reinforced concrete and rock which presumably Iran has the sensitive elements of its nuclear program hidden beneath.

It's a good article, Bill, not a great article.

While the MOAB is bigger, for intents and purpose ie. getting down to the manufacturing areas, the bunker busters are the most powerful.

Other inaccuracies might be the overstating of Iran's (shiite) support for Hamas (sunni) which is temporarily convenient.

tricky D

eamo12 wrote: »

So that proves it - well done..

Do try to keep up, it's a discussion, feel free to make a valuable contribution. The snipping is crass and boring.

eamo12

wes wrote: »

Excellent article detailing what may be a run up to another pointless Middle Eastern war by American extremists. Its truly sad that some seem to support such insane extremism which will lead to the deaths of many thousands of innocent people.

You are talking about America right, not Iran? The insanity is all yours. It never ceases to amaze me that people would rather see an Islamist dictatorship prevail who openly expresses a wish (when they are not stoning women to death) to destroy a whole country and it's people, over the US, a country that has saved us twice - once from German national socialists and the other from the communists.

No doubt who the lefties here would rather prevail.

Coillte_Bhoy

eamo12 wrote: »

You are talking about America right, not Iran? The insanity is all yours. It never ceases to amaze me that people would rather see an Islamist dictatorship prevail who openly expresses a wish (when they are not stoning women to death) to destroy a whole country and it's people, over the US, a country that has saved us twice - once from German national socialists and the other from the communists.

No doubt who the lefties here would rather prevail.

Link please to where Iran threatens to destroy a whole country?? Speaking of countries stoning women to death what is your view on the US staunch backing of the Saudi state and other totalitarian regimes?

karma_

Cumann de Barra wrote: »

Chomsky is a lunatic. He should go back to training chimps and leave international politics to realistic people. I am prepared to go to war to stop Iran getting the bomb.

And you have the gall to call someone else a lunatic, especially a world renowned linguist. I would pay to see someone like yourself debate a man like Chomsky, he would chew you up.

eamo12

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

Link please to where Iran threatens to destroy a whole country?? Speaking of countries stoning women to death what is your view on the US staunch backing of the Saudi state and other totalitarian regimes?

Just google "Israel must be wiped off the map". Here are some other quotes your hero never said.

“There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will wipe off this stigma (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world, ... The World without Zionism. Anybody who recognises Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nations' fury [and] is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world.”

http://news.scotsman.com/middleeastconflict/Suicide-bomber-kills-five-in.2672951.jp


"The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world."
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=16353#axzz0yOgFSHBt

eamo12

karma_ wrote: »

And you have the gall to call someone else a lunatic, especially a world renowned linguist. I would pay to see someone like yourself debate a man like Chomsky, he would chew you up.

Says who? One mans world renowned linguist is another's propagandist. Just another hamas loving anti-american elitist with university tenure-ship who, by the way, lives in the most free country in the world (well, until Obama changes it anyhow).

Byron85

eamo12 wrote: »

Says who? One mans world renowned linguist is another's propagandist. Just another hamas loving anti-american elitist with university tenure-ship who, by the way, lives in the most free country in the world (well, until Obama changes it anyhow).

This is actually indisputable. His work in the area is well recognised in the area of early child development in psychology and within other areas of the science. You can doubt his political beliefs all you want but you cannot doubt his science and his huge contribution to understanding language acquisition.

BlaasForRafa

karma_ wrote: »

And you have the gall to call someone else a lunatic, especially a world renowned linguist.

A cunning linguist?



.....sorry, couldn't resist.

Coillte_Bhoy

eamo12 wrote: »

Just google "Israel must be wiped off the map". Here are some other quotes your hero never said.

“There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will wipe off this stigma (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world, ... The World without Zionism. Anybody who recognises Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nations' fury [and] is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world.”

http://news.scotsman.com/middleeastconflict/Suicide-bomber-kills-five-in.2672951.jp


"The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world."
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=16353#axzz0yOgFSHBt

He's no hero of mine, far from it. Why do people such as american apologisits like yourself always throw insults like that about whenever anyone dares to disagree with you?

As for the originasl quote, there is disagreement ver what he actually said so both of us can claim whatever we want in this regard so im not going to waste time doing so.

Manic Preacher

Heated discussion here then, I haven't seen so many yellow and red cards since Holland's adventures in the World Cup.

America might invade Iran in 10 years, for the moment they're too caught up in Iraq. It will also most likely happen under a Republican president. If Iran develop nuclear weapons then the invasion is off

wes

eamo12 wrote: »

You are talking about America right, not Iran? The insanity is all yours.

I fail to see how calling me insane helps your argument.

Secondly, I stand by what i said. The war mongers regardless of where there from, who want to go to war with Iran, trying to use more or less the same bull**** story they used in Iraq is just crazy. If there are people in the US who want a 3rd war for there country to fight, with all the problems there having, really need to get there priorities straight.

eamo12 wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze me that people would rather see an Islamist dictatorship prevail who openly expresses a wish (when they are not stoning women to death) to destroy a whole country and it's people, over the US, a country that has saved us twice - once from German national socialists and the other from the communists.

No doubt who the lefties here would rather prevail.

The Iranian President called for regime change, which is no different than you know Israel and the US wanting regime change in Iran and other countries.

Secondly, there President can't actually start a war, that power is with the Supreme Leader, and I have yet to see any convincing case of a imminent Iranian attack on any one, and in fact they haven't started a war in the last 200 years, unlike the US or Israel.

Finally, i fail to see how Iran is any worse than the rest of the Middle East really. They just refuse to toe the US line, and want to keep there oil for themselves. There treatment of there own people is of course horrific, but there hardly the only ones in the region who do exactly that, and if it really was about Human Rights, then all of the US buddies in the region would be under UN sanction as well.

Frogeye

eamo12 wrote: »

I've nothing but admiration for anyone who will fight to stop Iran getting the bomb. If you hate Israel as most Irish do, then you'll be happy with Amanutjobs plans for that country and the A-Bomb. What navy is your nephew in - the Irish?Laughable. God help us if we ever have to rely on them to protect us from a real threat. When that happens, you'll quickly realize that the greatest defenders of Ireland all along have been the Brits and Yanks.

Quick point: If the Irish Navy is laughable its because the government haven't invested in it. The defense forces don't set their own budget. Their political masters ( voted for by us) do that. They get what they get and they make the most of it.


Just thought I throw that in there!

veritable

Naom Chomsky is one of the most dishonest and deliberately misleading intellectuals in recent times. He is a man who despises the country that provides him with so much opportunity and freedom and yet talks of the enemies of freedom as though they are angelic. There is nothing truthful that comes from this ignorant linguist.

karma_

veritable wrote: »

Naom Chomsky is one of the most dishonest and deliberately misleading intellectuals in recent times. He is a man who despises the country that provides him with so much opportunity and freedom and yet talks of the enemies of freedom as though they are angelic. There is nothing truthful that comes from this ignorant linguist.

Ahh the old self-hating Jew card, knew it wouldn't be long until it was played. If he is so dishonest or even ignorant, show us all some proof.

It's your post that is ignorant.

Manic Moran

Iran's different goals would mean they need would need a proper weapons program which would take many years: purification to 90%+, test bombs, miniturisation, deployment of more than just a handful. That's a really big task.

It is worth pointing out that the US managed to make a few bombs in only a few years, and they had no idea what they were doing when they managed it. It may be a big task, but I think it's fair to say that Iranian knowledge and technology is greater than that of the US in 1945.

He does have some facts wrong though, the MOAB (mother of all bombs aka Massive Ordinance Air-blast) is the biggest bomb in the US inventory and is only delivered by transport planes like the C130 which you don't exactly want to do over airspace like Iran without absolute air superiority.

MOP and MOAB are two separate weapons. MOP (Massive Ordnance Penetrator) can be carried by B-2 bombers. It is the larger of the two bombs in terms of weight, due to the higher density of its materials. It is smaller in terms of dimensions.

NTM

Padraig Mor

veritable wrote: »

Naom Chomsky is one of the most dishonest and deliberately misleading intellectuals in recent times. He is a man who despises the country that provides him with so much opportunity and freedom and yet talks of the enemies of freedom as though they are angelic. There is nothing truthful that comes from this ignorant linguist.

Could you point out what in that post is untruthful? Thought not.




Gotta say I love the effect Chomsky has on the pro-Israel/US side. Because his facts are clearly laid out and cannot be disputed, they are generally left with two counter strategies - either "he's a freedom hating nut" (with no substantiation beyond that) or else picking up on irrelevant minutae to discredit him ("he said this bomb is the biggest but it isn't").

OhNoYouDidn't

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Could you point out what in that post is untruthful? Thought not.




Gotta say I love the effect Chomsky has on the pro-Israel/US side. Because his facts are clearly laid out and cannot be disputed, they are generally left with two counter strategies - either "he's a freedom hating nut" (with no substantiation beyond that) or else picking up on irrelevant minutae to discredit him ("he said this bomb is the biggest but it isn't").

Nail on head. Chomsky's legacy as an academic and commentator is not up for debate. Its exceptionally telling that no-one has tackled what he actually said, rather than resorted to the personalised attacks on the guy.

veritable

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Nail on head. Chomsky's legacy as an academic and commentator is not up for debate. Its exceptionally telling that no-one has tackled what he actually said, rather than resorted to the personalised attacks on the guy.

It is up for debate. Following is a link to a collection of pieces from people who share my opinions. The reason why i post the link and not argue myself is because I think these individuals have put it better than i ever could.
http://markhumphrys.com/modern.leftists.html#chomsky

Padraig Mor

veritable wrote: »

It is up for debate. Following is a link to a collection of pieces from people who share my opinions. The reason why i post the link and not argue myself is because I think these individuals have put it better than i ever could.
http://markhumphrys.com/modern.leftists.html#chomsky

Again, please show us what was untruthful in the original post, rather than deflecting to a website. If "nothing truthful comes from this ignorant linguist", it should be pretty easy.

OhNoYouDidn't

veritable wrote: »

It is up for debate. Following is a link to a collection of pieces from people who share my opinions. The reason why i post the link and not argue myself is because I think these individuals have put it better than i ever could.
http://markhumphrys.com/modern.leftists.html#chomsky

Do you expect a blog that labels him "Bin Laden Approved" with the first line "life-long enemy of human freedom and human rights." to be taken seriously?

Is there anything in the ACTUAL ARTICLE that you dispute / disagree with?

veritable

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Do you expect a blog that labels him "Supported by Bin Laden" with the first line "life-long enemy of human freedom and human rights." to be taken seriously?

Is there anything in the ACTUAL ARTICLE that you dispute / disagree with?

Is a discussion on Chomsky on Iran specifically limited within the parameters of Chomsky on Iran or is it not important to be able to discuss both Iran (which others have been doing here) and Chomsky?

OhNoYouDidn't

veritable wrote: »

Is a discussion on Chomsky on Iran specifically limited within the parameters of Chomsky on Iran or is it not important to be able to discuss both Iran (which others have been doing here) and Chomsky?

Thats one for the Mods and I wouldn't presume to answer it, but so far you have just attacked him and used a quite frankly bat**** blog from a clear nutter to back yourself up. Its a classic Ad Homenium attack and you haven't made clear why Chomsky is dishonest, so I fail to see the relevance.

veritable

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Thats one for the Mods and I wouldn't presume to answer it, but so far you have just attacked him and used a quite frankly bat**** blog from a clear nutter to back yourself up. Its a classic Ad Homenium attack and you haven't made clear why Chomsky is dishonest, so I fail to see the relevance.

I haven't been ad hominem to Chomsky. If you were to read even one piece from the link you could see evidence to support my position.

If it is an issue for the Mod, I don't think you're in a position to say that discussion about chomsky himself is irrelevent to a discussion on chomsky on iran. that's the basis of your arguement.

Why are you dismissing the information as being from a nutter without having read any of it?

My point was that chomsky has a history of being dishonest. i provided a link to a dearth of evidence to support my arguement. Having read that information myself, i concluded that he is untruthful. I can't see where your ad hominem accusation is coming from.

OhNoYouDidn't

veritable wrote: »

I haven't been ad hominem to Chomsky. If you were to read even one piece from the link you could see evidence to support my position.

If it is an issue for the Mod, I don't think you're in a position to say that discussion about chomsky himself is irrelevent to a discussion on chomsky on iran. that's the basis of your arguement.

Why are you dismissing the information as being from a nutter without having read any of it?

My point was that chomsky has a history of being dishonest. i provided a link to a dearth of evidence to support my arguement. Having read that information myself, i concluded that he is untruthful. I can't see where your ad hominem accusation is coming from.

You provided a link to a site that is a rambling diatribe calling everyone who disagrees with his very blunt political outlook a terrorist. I have never seen Chomsky being described as anti human rights before, but there it is in black and white.

I accept that anyone as prominent as Chomsky will attract criticism, and some if it is interesting and valid, but that site is an amateur hour joke.

veritable

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

You provided a link to a site that is a rambling diatribe calling everyone who disagrees with his very blunt political outlook a terrorist. I have never seen Chomsky being described as anti human rights before, but there it is in black and white.

I accept that anyone as prominent as Chomsky will attract criticism, and some if it is interesting and valid, but that site is an amateur hour joke.

Your dismissive attitude is probably what allowed you to be attracted to chomsky in the first place. and i don't mean this as an attack on you personally but rather on those with a dismissive nature.
That site is a well researched and honest critique of many of the intellectuals that you would probably admire.
Maybe it would be in your interest no put down chomsky's propaganda once in a while and read some of the pieces by people who disagree with his assertions. I'm finished with this post and thread and wish you all the best.

OhNoYouDidn't

veritable wrote: »

Your dismissive attitude is probably what allowed you to be attracted to chomsky in the first place. and i don't mean this as an attack on you personally but rather on those with a dismissive nature.
That site is a well researched and honest critique of many of the intellectuals that you would probably admire.
Maybe it would be in your interest no put down chomsky's propaganda once in a while and read some of the pieces by people who disagree with his assertions. I'm finished with this post and thread and wish you all the best.

I have read critiques of Chomsky. Some good, some bad.

This site is not "well researched and honest"

Chomsky's book Manufacturing Consent claims that societies with a free press are not really free at all, or something.

I do have to laugh at being accused of a propaganda victm for dismissing a site that labels academics, politicians and filmakers as "Bin Laden approved"

DrumSteve

eamo12 wrote: »

I've nothing but admiration for anyone who will fight to stop Iran getting the bomb. If you hate Israel as most Irish do, then you'll be happy with Amanutjobs plans for that country and the A-Bomb. What navy is your nephew in - the Irish?Laughable. God help us if we ever have to rely on them to protect us from a real threat. When that happens, you'll quickly realize that the greatest defenders of Ireland all along have been the Brits and Yanks.

Speak for yourself there. I am not one of them.

Padraig Mor

So veritable, can we take it you CAN'T find anything untruthful in the OP's Chomsky piece (most likely because you simply rely on anti-Chomsky websites for your claims, being likely incapable of examining his pieces yourself)? BTW, several of the links on that site don't work, or do not direct to what they say they will. It's also rather ironic you chide others for a "dismissive attitude" when you openly dismiss what Chomsky has to say, yet you plainly have not read his work. Then again, he does tend to use a rather complicated grammatical structure....

And you may want to look up 'dearth' in a dictionary.......you have most certainly posted a "dearth of evidence" here.


edit: actually it seems most of the links on that page don't work. Gotta love the "well researched and honest critique" of Chomsky as a "fuzzy headed anti American" though - that's me convinced!

eamo12

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

As for the originasl quote, there is disagreement ver what he actually said so both of us can claim whatever we want in this regard so im not going to waste time doing so.

Don't waste you time on the facts if you don't want to. If you want to frame the Iranian nutjob leaders in a context that what he means is the opposite of what he says, then that's your prerogative.

eamo12

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Do you expect a blog that labels him "Bin Laden Approved" with the first line "life-long enemy of human freedom and human rights." to be taken seriously?

Yes, I think that's an excellent description of him. If I were a bin laden american hating terrorist, I would be quoting Chomski/Vidal/<insert University professor here> too. Thankfully, my do-gooder america/Israel hating days are behind me. Renowned linguist my arse.

OhNoYouDidn't

eamo12 wrote: »

Don't waste you time on the facts if you don't want to. If you want to frame the Iranian nutjob leaders in a context that what he means is the opposite of what he says, then that's your prerogative.

That makes no sense. What Chomsky is arguing is that Iran is not the threat to the west that he is being painted. Iran has never invaded a neighbour, never acted belligerantly and any future efforts to create nukes are defensive in nature largely due to US and Israeli direct threats. He does criticise the internal supression within Iran.

What exactly of that do you disagree with?

OhNoYouDidn't

eamo12 wrote: »

Yes, I think that's an excellent description of him. If I were a bin laden american hating terrorist, I would be quoting Chomski/Vidal/<insert University professor here> too. Thankfully, my do-gooder america/Israel hating days are behind me. Renowned linguist my arse.

Another one who hasn't read his stuff. Chomsky is a vocefeours critic of terrorism.

Byron85

eamo12 wrote: »

Renowned linguist my arse.

Since you seem to ignore my previous post on this issue, i'm going to post it again for posterity's sake.

Byron85 wrote: »

This is actually indisputable. His work in the area is well recognised in the area of early child development in psychology and within other areas of the science. You can doubt his political beliefs all you want but you cannot doubt his science and his huge contribution to understanding language acquisition.

Also, I really do not understand why you are being so aggressive and hostile. Most of the posters here are generally the opposite.