Chomsky: US acts like Nazi Germany

[W4d5Y]

Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:39:24
Damn, I still love the guy, it never gets old...nevar.

Chomsky compared US foreign policies to the conduct of Nazis within Germany, citing the Nuremberg trials as an example of the contradictions between US political speech and government-sanctioned actions.

"I think the ironies of United States deployed treacheries in Vietnam, Nicaragua, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are self-evident," The Daily Free Press quoted the Pulitzer-Prize winning author as saying at Roxbury Community College.

He also condemned the abusive actions of General David Petraeus and US ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, against the Iraqi nation.

"Lord Petraeus has initiated tyrannically destructive policies, including, but not limited to, the surge proposed on Sept. 11, 2007 in a despicably theatrical manner before Congress," exclaimed the MIT professor.

Chomsky also referred to the ill deeds of other US administrations, slamming Ronald Reagan for causing the overthrow of the legally elected Sandinista government in Nicaragua in 1984.

"Reagan was a thug and a coward, he managed to physically diminish a democratically-elected government and throw a nation into civil chaos for well over a decade . . . because the Sandinistas didn't back US trade policies," he expounded.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=41283&sectionid=3510203

 

[CptStern]

funny how you omit the most crucial part of the newsreport:

Chomsky compared US foreign policies to the conduct of Nazis within Germany, citing the Nuremberg trials as an example of the contradictions between US political speech and government-sanctioned actions.

your thread gives the wrong impression which you do nothing to clarify, please spare us your alarmist nonsense

 

[Gray Fox]

As far as I know the people at Nurenburg were tried for planning and waging an aggressive war.
By those standards the current administration would be tried.
As far as I know that is the connection he is making or at least the hypocrisy he's exposing.

He's not saying the US is racist or the equivalent of nazi germany.

 

[ericms]

It's almost as if he wants everything he posts to be less credible.

 

[W4d5Y]

Wtf?

There you go, I added the phrase you longed for, I tried keeping out biased, pessimistic conspiracy-blaffling, and still
it
seems
as
if
I wanted to have less of those bits and pieces of credibility you believe were the only ones I could handle???


[alarmist]MY GOD NOW I GET IT YOU ARE ONE OF THEM
OH NOES YOU HAVEN'T DONE YOUR HOMEWORK THAT'S WHY YOU THROW RANDOM, FEEBLE ACCUSATIONS AT ME BOY!!!!1111[/alarmist]

This society needs more alarmists, so the people don't just fall asleep at the governing peoples' wish.

 

[Escaep]

What are you hoping to accomplish wadsy?

 

[Qonfused]

I absolutely love hypocrites.

 

[CptStern]

I absolutely love hypocrites.

this is the extent of your participation in the politics forum? it just amounts to spam, why even bother?

 

[W4d5Y]

Was this directed at Qonfused or me?

I'd be terribly grief-stricken if latter theoretical purpose of said statement accounts for your intention.

 

[Moto]

funny how you omit the most crucial part of the newsreport:



your thread gives the wrong impression which you do nothing to clarify, please spare us your alarmist nonsense

"New poll reveals 52% americans favour military strikes on Iran"

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=133684

Your thread gives the wrong impression which you do nothing to clarify. Please spare us your alarmist nonsense.

 

[CptStern]

"New poll reveals 52% americans favour military strikes on Iran"

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=133684

Your thread gives the wrong impression which you do nothing to clarify. Please spare us your alarmist nonsense.

point out exactly where I give the wrong impression ..be specific

 

[Calhoun]

Was this directed at Qonfused or me?

It is fairly obvious it's directed at Qonfused. He did quote Qonfused and respond to that post Qonfused made, after all.

Your thread gives the wrong impression which you do nothing to clarify. Please spare us your alarmist nonsense.

I didn't sense a wrong impression coming from that thread. When I read, "New poll reveals 52% Americans favor military strikes on Iran," I assumed that a new poll revealed 52% of Americans favored military strikes on Iran, which it did.

 

[Solaris]

It was actually quite misleading; because they only favored it if they tried to develop nuclear weapons.

 

[Krynn72]

Hahah, it seems that, judging from everyone's replies, I made the right choice to put wadsy on my ignore list.

 

[Raptor_Jesus]

lol^


6char

- sulk

 

[Escaep]

Hahah, it seems that, judging from everyone's replies, I made the right choice to put wadsy on my ignore list.

Seconded.

 

[CptStern]

It was actually quite misleading; because they only favored it if they tried to develop nuclear weapons.

how is it misleading if the very first quote in the OP mentions that?

A majority of likely voters - 52 percent - would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53 percent believe it is likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election, a new Zogby America telephone poll shows.

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2427789&postcount=1


should the thread title have been:


"New poll reveals 52% americans favour military strikes on Iran to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon"

is it too much to ask that people read beyond the thread title?

 

[Que-Ever]

Stern's post gave me deja vu D:

 

[Raptor_Jesus]

how is it misleading if the very first quote in the OP mentions that?



http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2427789&postcount=1


should the thread title have been:


"New poll reveals 52% americans favour military strikes on Iran to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon"

is it too much to ask that people read beyond the thread title?

it's okay with you if Iran has nukes?

 

[Solaris]

how is it misleading if the very first quote in the OP mentions that?



http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2427789&postcount=1


should the thread title have been:


"New poll reveals 52% americans favour military strikes on Iran to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon"

is it too much to ask that people read beyond the thread title?

I apologies actually, it wasn't so much misleading as just giving the wrong impressions.

I could make a thread like "90% of people favor assassination of Bob Dylan"

And then the post could say: "90% of people in a poll say they would support the assassination of Bob Dylan if he had nuclear weapons and was threatening to fire them at US cities."

It just seems like a bit of alarmist headline our of context; akin to what we would read in the daily mail.

But I don't believe that was your intention.

 

[Raptor_Jesus]

also Solaris ,I am very sceptical of polls.
it always depends on so many factors most importantly what city the survey was held i etc!


That reminds I have a vid with Hitchens and his opinions on polls





EDIT: just watch them all,very good interviews.

http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?s=1yYboMOP0Do

 

[CptStern]

I apologies actually, it wasn't so much misleading as just giving the wrong impressions.

I could make a thread like "90% of people favor assassination of Bob Dylan"

And then the post could say: "90% of people in a poll say they would support the assassination of Bob Dylan if he had nuclear weapons and was threatening to fire them at US cities."

It just seems like a bit of alarmist headline our of context; akin to what we would read in the daily mail.

But I don't believe that was your intention.

I'm sorry but that's flawed reasoning ..there would have to be an implied justification in bombing iran or else why not pick Australia or Angola. The whole bob dylan analogy doesnt work either because that would never cross the mind of anyone ..bombing iran for possession of nukes is a given unless you've been on deserted island for the last few years

 

[Solaris]

I'm sorry but that's flawed reasoning ..there would have to be an implied justification in bombing iran or else why not pick Australia or Angola. The whole bob dylan analogy doesnt work either because that would never cross the mind of anyone ..bombing iran for possession of nukes is a given unless you've been on deserted island for the last few years

But Iran doesn't have Nukes yet, no-body thinks that.

The statement 60% of Americans support a strike on Iran; implies that they support it right now, and not, in the future, given some other conditions.

 

[Absinthe]

The statement 60% of Americans support a strike on Iran; implies that they support it right now, and not, in the future, given some other conditions.

Yeap.

But fuck it! Let's all laugh at the stupid hawkish Americans for even thinking about possibly, maybe bombing somebody under hypothetical circumstances.

FUCKING YANKS

 

[Moto]

Here's what's misleading about your thread, Stern.

You claim in the thread title and in your post that 52% of Americans favor military strikes on Iran. If you actually read the article, it clearly says that 1,028 people we polled by telephone. You go on to sensationalize it as if it accurately represents what Americans, as a whole, think. How could it?

First, how many people actually use their LAN phones anymore? Second, how many of those people that use a LAN phone are young people? Not many, most are using cell phones. Young people (18-20something) are the ones that have to be out there in the thick of combat and most of us certainly don't want to fight and die in another needless war. The article mentions that "Younger likely voters are more likely than those who are older to say a strike is likely to happen before the election." Wow, sounds definitive. How young are we talking? 18-24? 25-30? 35-40? Regardless of that, it says younger voters think a strike could happen. That doesn't mean they favor it. With our current administration, even I haven't thrown that possibility out the window.

Third, how can 1,028 people polled at random by telephone represent the collective opinions of over 300,000,000 people? What type of person actually participates in a phone poll anyway? Telephone polls are pointless. They have no basis for claims like this. The headline of that article and your thread would have been more accurate if they said "52% of Americans polled by telephone at random favor nuclear strikes on Iran." But that doesn't sound as sexy huh?

The whole post was misleading and alarmist nonsense.

 

[CptStern]

But Iran doesn't have Nukes yet, no-body thinks that.

The statement 60% of Americans support a strike on Iran; implies that they support it right now, and not, in the future, given some other conditions.

right now? as in right now Oct 29th 2007? the day that polls findings were publihed meaning the poll had to have been conducted before that

we didnt have this report in oct:

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Dec03/0,4670,USIranAnalysis,00.html

so lets look at the "right now" of October 2007 ..here's an interesting article posted 4 days before the poll was published:

Yeap.

But fuck it! Let's all laugh at the stupid hawkish Americans for even thinking about possibly, maybe bombing somebody under hypothetical circumstances.

FUCKING YANKS

brits call yanks, yanks ..canadians call you americans ..but I guess you associate that word with canadians or at least this canadian in particular to highlight your misplaced indignation ..this isnt the first time you gone off half cocked absinthe, really it's becoming tiring

Here's what's misleading about your thread, Stern.

You claim in the thread title and in your post that 52% of Americans favor military strikes on Iran.

umm no, I dont claim anything ..the poll does

If you actually read the article, it clearly says that 1,028 people we polled by telephone. You go on to sensationalize it as if it accurately represents what Americans, as a whole, think. How could it?

are you kidding me? are you saying that every poll should ask every single american? all 300,000,000 of them?

do you understand how polling works ..from your answers it doesnt seem like you do

this is Zogby's methodology:

Zogby International conducted a telephone survey of [likely voters].

The target sample is [1028] interviews with approximately [59] questions asked. Samples are randomly drawn from telephone cd?s of national listed sample. Zogby International surveys employ sampling strategies in which selection probabilities are proportional to population size within area codes and exchanges. Up to six calls are made to reach a sampled phone number. Cooperation rates are calculated using one of AAPOR?s approved methodologies[1] and are comparable to other professional public-opinion surveys conducted using similar sampling strategies.[2] Weighting by [region, party, age, race, religion, gender] is used to adjust for non-response. The margin of error is +/- 3.2 percentage points. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups.

Zogby International?s sampling and weighting procedures also have been validated through its political polling: more than 95% of the firm?s polls have come within 1% of actual election-day outcomes.

http://www.zogby.com/methodology/readmeth.dbm?ID=1226

First, how many people actually use their LAN phones anymore? Second, how many of those people that use a LAN phone are young people? Not many, most are using cell phones.

sample polling, it's not perfect but try door to door for 300,000,000 people ...but they do include margin of errors

Young people (18-20something) are the ones that have to be out there in the thick of combat and most of us certainly don't want to fight and die in another needless war. The article mentions that "Younger likely voters are more likely than those who are older to say a strike is likely to happen before the election." Wow, sounds definitive.

you dont understand what it says

"Younger likely voters" ..those that said "likely" as a response to the question of

"will you in the next election"

How young are we talking? 18-24? 25-30? 35-40?

they're very clear:

First Age Group
Breakdown
18-29, 30-49, 50-64, 65+

Second Age Group
Breakdown
18-24, 25-34, 35-54, 55-69, 70+

they even go so far as to break it down between gender, rural vs urban, political ideology, religious beiefs, station in life, they even asked race ...all this you could have fond had you did a simple google search

Regardless of that, it says younger voters think a strike could happen. That doesn't mean they favor it. With our current administration, even I haven't thrown that possibility out the window.

that's not what the poll says ..it says:

53% believe it is likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election

Third, how can 1,028 people polled at random by telephone represent the collective opinions of over 300,000,000 people?

you dont understand the concept behind polling

oh and ..

The margin of error is +/- 3.2 percentage points.

What type of person actually participates in a phone poll anyway?

every kind, that's why they use sample polling ..if you have a beef with the poll search through their methodology and report any inaccuracies to Zogby international, I'm sure they'd be interested to hear from you

Telephone polls are pointless. They have no basis for claims like this.

why because you say so? you've conducted a door to door poll that says otherwise? please post your research findings

The headline of that article and your thread would have been more accurate if they said "52% of Americans polled by telephone at random favor nuclear strikes on Iran." But that doesn't sound as sexy huh?

hey why didnt you write it then? a headline is a headline, I dont have to answer to you or anyone else ..I clarified the statement right ****ing in the OP ..

The whole post was misleading and alarmist nonsense.

probably because you didnt read past the thread title ..because any idiot can see that I've clarified in the OP:

A majority of likely voters - 52 percent - would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53 percent believe it is likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election, a new Zogby America telephone poll shows.

now you want to take this discussion to the proper thread and get the **** back on topic?


oh and to those of you who would compare me to a conspiracy nut like W4d5Y ...go **** yourself

 

[Escaep]

I dont see what the big deal is really.

 

[CptStern]

it's CptStern, that's what the big deal is ..no one would have said anything had it been anyone else

 

[Sulkdodds]

Stop talking about Stern's thread outside of Stern's thread.

Bunch of holocaust deniers!

 

[Absinthe]

Edit: Maybe this is entirely not worth it.

 

[Escaep]

it's CptStern, that's what the big deal is ..no one would have said anything had it been anyone else

I dont understand as to why the arguing is a big deal.

 

[CptStern]

edit ..taken to PM

 

[Solaris]

Villagers! There he is! There's captain stern! Gather your pitchforks. Start the fires! We'll get him! Look, he's made a grammar mistake! Attttack!

 

[Raptor_Jesus]

he took our jobs!!! durrr


no seriously I think stern was right on this one.

 

[Dan]

how is it misleading if the very first quote in the OP mentions that?

should the thread title have been:

"New poll reveals 52% americans favour military strikes on Iran to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon"

Yes, it definitely is misleading. It is like me saying that 100% of Americans will die from terrorism related causes!!

But the hidden condition is:
if they don't die of something else first.

Your argument for your title is that the actual condition is within the thread. But the OP can use your exact same argument: The hidden clause is in the body of the article if you read it.

 

[CptStern]

Yes, it definitely is misleading. It is like me saying that 100% of Americans will die from terrorism related causes!!

But the hidden condition is:
if they don't die of something else first.

Your argument for your title is that the actual condition is within the thread. But the OP can use your exact same argument: The hidden clause is in the body of the article if you read it.

he omitted the clarifying point (he later added it, read further down the thread) ..I did not, there's a world of difference

 

[Dan]

So clicking on the thread and reading more deeply into the topic is complete non-analogous to clicking on the article link and reading more deeply into the topic? I disagree whole heartedly. I think that it is hypocritical, especially considering how hard you jumped on him for this.

 

[Calhoun]

So clicking on the thread and reading more deeply into the topic is complete non-analogous to clicking on the article link and reading more deeply into the topic? I disagree whole heartedly. I think that it is hypocritical, especially considering how hard you jumped on him for this.

They are different. It's important to include essential information the original post, when the thread title itself is attracting you to that one piece of information, which is left omitted from the post. The original poster should be the one to present all evidence for something which was actually said, rather than assume people will go off searching an article to prove themselves that the original poster is correct, no matter how easy or difficult it is to find that information. I don't know, maybe it isn't very important and maybe a lot of people do search articles for that kind of information, but I do not know, for a fact, that any person I know does that.

 

[W4d5Y]

Okay, listen, I just wanted to copy the body of the article to keep down the size and not omit anything.
For what reason should I?
I am conditioned to offer information, not to hide it!

 

[CptStern]

So clicking on the thread and reading more deeply into the topic is complete non-analogous to clicking on the article link and reading more deeply into the topic?

ummm yes, especially when it's the quantifying point, the lynchpin of the entire article. Omiting the crucial element to the story is being purposefully misleading ..that was not the case with my thread

also, what Calhoun said

I disagree whole heartedly. I think that it is hypocritical, especially considering how hard you jumped on him for this.

how is that hypocritical in light of the point I just made? ..I didnt omit anything, W4d5Y did

For what reason should I?
I am conditioned to offer information, not to hide it!

by omitting the essential point of the story you slant it in the way you want it to be ..just like how you slant evidence around 9/11 to implicate the government




you know, it's pretty ironic that the one time I actually defend the US (against comparisons to nazis) I'm jumped all over ...there's just no pleasing some of you