Chomsky On 'missile Defence', Justifications For War, Elections, And More

How can a supposedly educated person so completely misunderstand the missile defence system? He probably doesn't, he probably knows full well that it has no offensive capability because there are other systems for offense. So the reality is that he's simply using missile defence as another way to attack George Bush and show his support for the Democratic Party like he did in the last US election.

It's a disingenuous political tactic that appeals to the leftists who think the US deserves to be attacked again. Let's hope their posing and posturing fails because North Korean nuclear missiles could likely destroy Seattle or Vancouver today if that whack-job of a leader they have decided to launch.

First of all, I smell a troll. Anonymity is a great thing, eh?

Second, I don't think there are any leftists who actually would want or hope that America gets attacked again. The fact is that those on the left have different ideas about HOW to keep America safe. Those on the right continue to state that the only way to stay safe is to build bigger and better weapons and weapon systems. However they forget to mention how many of the old weapons are being sold to the people who they will, sometime in the future, be fighting.

I can not see how the world can be a safer place if weapons are being built, bought and sold continuously. If one only prepares to fight then there is really only one option when a decision has to be made.

As for America being attacked again. They were not even attacked by missiles in WTC attacks. Even if the BMD were in working order on 9/11 it would have been useless against the planes.

Chomsky described BMD as offensive not because of what it would do in the event of an attack but what it would do during the period before an attack. BMD is offensive it is meant to offend and, the hope is, deter. However, when a person is offended that person would likely rally support and, because no one wants to lose, build better weapons to compete. That is why a new arms race is likely to be started. Ahhh, remember the cold war?

Lastly, Chomsky DOES appeal to those on the left. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz, Fox News and others appeal to those on the right. This is only a problem if you disagree with someone or who hear something that runs counter to what you believe.

Peace,

rintrah

I don`t want to see anyone attacked- the USA included! But what country would be crazy enough to even start a war with the US? Everyone claims defense, even that psycho in Pyongyang. But i think the point here is, why do something that will start another arms race? The US is already armed to the teeth. Why not put that money toward social uplift?

---
Dave Ruston

THere's no doubt that it's virtually impossible to argue with Noam Chomsky, so he's often just lumped in with the label of 'lefts' and denounced simply because he's in that group. It's always hilarious to see the little minds of the internet who rarely even read trying to argue with him.
There's a lot most people don't like, simply because he uses their own words against them. Unlike those who make political claims based on their own interpretation of what leaders may be thinking (or what the media have told them), Noam actually uses their source material-The Wall Street News, The London Times, and government sources. In Canada he is much loved because he denounces the american government, and the vocal canadian loves that. They didn't love it so much when he came to Toronto and reminded them that that beacon of canadian pride Lester Pearson was in fact a war criminal. Most canadians ignore those remarks and focus just on what he says about america.
Keep in mind too that while he may have supported the democrats in the last election it was for the same reason as most voted for them, not because of any ideals about the candidate but simply because of the horrible record of the Bush administration. You'll note that the green party and Ralph Nader could hardly garner much support, not nearly as much as in the previous election, simply because americans no doubt knew what was at stake.
Anybody who looks at america today and thinks they are only planning defensive capabilities seems, and I hate to be derogatory, but clearly delusional or lacks even the most basic of a historical education.

It can never be a defensive system as long as they employ a pre-emptive policy. It is that simple.

---
If there was ever a time for Canadians to become pushy - now is the time - for time is running out on this nation called Canada.

Marcarc, I`d like to know, how is Pearson a war criminal?

---
Dave Ruston

You'll have to ask Chomsky that.

Can't argue with Chomsky because he rarely makes any sense, true.

When was the 'Arms race' ever stopped? - exactly never, if you need the answer. Worrying about starting 'another' one is nonsensical.

All nations always employ a pre-emptive policy, that's consistent throughout history, why should the US be any different?

Canada's an obvious exception because we have no capabilities as a nation and rely on hope that people will respect our sovereignty.

The arms race maybe has not ever stopped but speeding it up does not make sense either. I am worried about a new arms race; I am also worried about its continuation. We are arguing over mere words here. The minimization of my concern because I choose words ("new arms race" versus "continued arms race") that you would rather not have chosen does not seem like a valid reason to ignore the issue.

<blockquote> All nations always employ a pre-emptive policy, that's consistent throughout history, why should the US be any different? <br><br> Canada's an obvious exception because we have no capabilities as a nation and rely on hope that people will respect our sovereignty </blockquote> If "all nations always employ a pre-emptive policy" then how is it possible that Canada is an exception? Or is it possible that 99% of nations are exception? Before planes, bombs, missiles etc. it would have been pretty darn difficult to be pre-emptive. I would venture to say that most nations expect others to respect their sovereignty. I would also venture to say that the US does not use pre-emptive policies in order to ensure their sovereignty is repected. The BMD is not about sovereignty it is about ensuring supremacy and a dynasty of sorts. <br><br> Are you, Mr. Anonymous, suggesting that all nations build a pre-emptive war machine because this is historically the way things are done? Are you suggesting that because you feel that you are right about your history that we should continue in this fashion? I would like to see some of your evidence. To say that all nations always act in this way demands some sort of evidence. I would prefer some evidence from the several eras (Bible times, middle ages, dark ages, modernity, and today). The more the better.

Chomsky is absolutely right that the BMD system is offensive. Its designers say so openly. Here is a <a href="http://nobmdeh.blogspot.com/2005/02/bmd-larrys-party.html">quotation </a> from an article in a regular publication called "Inside Missile Defense," which explains what the American missile defence command is to do in a crisis:<br> <blockquote> “recommend apportionment and allocation of forces to optimize the deployment and employment of global ballistic missile defense in support of the [global combatant commanders] and recommend the employment of strike forces to defeat limited ballistic missile attacks in all phases of flight or prior to their launch in order to defend the US, our deployed forces, friends and allies.” </blockquote> Notice that the missiles can be hit prior to launch--that's offence. The American military refers to this as offensive/defensive integration.<br><br> Some people don't realize that Chomsky relies on <a href="http://nobmdeh.blogspot.com/2005/01/its-about-offence-stupid.html">comments </a> from Canadian military planners to make his point: they said, back in 2000, that the BMD system exists more to allow the US to strike pre-emptively (as in Iraq) without fear of being deterred by a nuclear counterattack. This is called preserving "freedom of action."<br><br> Finally, the system is offensive because the rockets at Ft. Greely in Alaska could be used to take out other countries' satellites in the even of conflict. In August 2004, the USAF issued its Counterspace Operations document showing they want to do just this kind of thing.<br><br> Anyway, I started a blog on this subject last month. Check it out if you're interested:<br><br> http://www.nobmdeh.blogspot.com<br><br> Comments are welcome.<br><br> --Stephen

Ignorance, it is growing…

"All nations employ pre-emptive policies." No they don't. Every nation will protect itself, but no nation other than the usual suspects - Germany/Hitler - Japan/Tojo and now USA/Bush do it under the cover of protecting their own interests. None of the above nations is or was under dire threat of attack. A few hundred terrorists with no army hardly constitute the right for America to go around the globe destroying everything.

You appeasers of fascism never cease to amaze me for your brazen backwardness.