Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Noam Chomsky's Savage UN Warmongering

Danny Sanchez emails:
Chomsky says that Ron Paul's ideas are "savage." For a true example of "savage ideas", consider Chomsky's support for murderous UN sanctions on Iraq during the Gulf War period.

Rothbard had Chomsky's number when he wrote:

"It started with the Gulf War, when lifelong anti-war warriors, people like the Red troubadour Pete Seeger and the Reverend William Sloane Coffin, suddenly whooped it up for war. Even Noam Chomsky, left-anarchist and always a gutsy battler against American war, supported the Gulf War. The argument given by these people was that this was the holy "United Nations" conducting the battle and not really the United States. In short, that the cause of a war-making world government is more important to them than anti-war principles. Showing that these people were not really against imperialism or foreign military intervention (they were always, of course, in favor of foreign economic intervention such as foreign aid), but in favor of world government imperialism, and war-mongering." (...)

"Before dealing with the Serbs in depth, let us focus a bit more on the pro-war anti-war movement people whom Harry Elmer Barnes bitterly used to call "the pro-war pacifists." This gang has just written an open letter to the UN...

But first let us name these traitorous ex-anti-warriors, now shilling for global military intervention on behalf of the Muslim government. The signatories include:........Noam Chomsky"


  1. There is nothing more savage than sanctions that affect women and children and the elderly and sick more than anyone else while the elites get by just fine. Pathetic.

  2. Let's see the quote from Chomsky supporting that war. Hurry up...

    Oh, wait, it doesn't exist, does it?

  3. Here u go... http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199102--02.htm

    Lots of verbal diarrhea in there but scroll mercilessly to the end to see for his call for "international" uses of force.

  4. "Let's return finally to the initial questions raised. Choice of policy is determined by the goals that are sought. If the goal had been to secure Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait, settle regional issues, and move towards a more decent world, then Washington would have followed the peaceful means prescribed by international law: sanctions and diplomacy."

    Sanctions are "peaceful"? Damn, Chomsky is a monster. He truly is.

  5. I don't think people here can read; nowhere in the article does Chomsky "support" sanctions. His whole argument is an explanation of why the U.S. followed the military option rather than rely on sanctions. Nowhere does he imply that sanctions should have been "supported" by a moral agent (again the point is that only two options were considered).

    1. Thank you for being the only literate person in here