Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Let's play the Noam Chomsky Drinking Game. See, he wrote some comments on the Iraq Study Group's report. You have to take a shot every time he trashes the U.S. Submitter will put ER on standby for alcohol poisoning cases   (middle-east-online.com) divider line
98
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

616 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Dec 2006 at 2:23 AM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



98 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2006-12-28 10:51:56 PM  
Oh, this will be fun!

"One notable feature of the Report is its lack of concern for the will of the Iraqi people."

(First sentence!) SHOT!

"The implicit assumption is that policy should be designed for US government interests, not those of Iraqis."

SHOT!

"The Report adopts standard imperial doctrine; the interests of the victims are at best secondary."

SHOT!

"There is a good reason why the Nuremberg Tribunal determined that aggression is "the supreme international crime," differing from others in that it encompasses all of the evil that follows."

SHOT!

"In Bush's version, Israel will annex valuable lands and major resources (particularly water), leaving the remnants dismembered by infrastructure project and other modalities, and imprisoned as Israel takes over the Jordan valley."

SHOT!

I'm only three paragraphs into this and I'm getting nauseated already.
 
FarkmeBlind
2006-12-28 10:59:17 PM  
Gee, I wonder who submitted this?

/glares at Merv
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2006-12-28 11:04:08 PM  
FarkmeBlind: Gee, I wonder who submitted this?

/glares at Merv

Imagine the NERVE of some people--actually submitting headlines on Fark!
 
Mordant
2006-12-28 11:04:36 PM  
we seem to have a "conservative" submitter tonight who hasn't even once had the balls (or the $5/month) to back his own plays.

What a weak little loser.
 
FarkmeBlind
2006-12-28 11:19:29 PM  
MyNameIsNotMervGriffin: Imagine the NERVE of some people--actually submitting headlines on Fark!

Er, no it's the posting to move it to commented, and the voting for oneself that's a tad self-serving.

So far, not a lot of bites. Enjoy.
 
40below [TotalFark]
2006-12-28 11:44:27 PM  
MyNameIsNotMervGriffin: Imagine the NERVE of some people--actually submitting headlines on Fark!

Some things are better left to the pros.
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2006-12-28 11:51:45 PM  
FarkmeBlind: Er, no it's the posting to move it to commented, and the voting for oneself that's a tad self-serving.

Haven't done any voting. Not sure what you mean by "move it to commented"; you could enlighten me if you want.

Here's the reason I posted, though:

I saw a headline elsewhere that said Noam Chomsky had weighed in on the Iraq Study Group report. Thought it would be fun to post it without reading it (gasp!), then tackle it as a drinking game, sight unseen, the same way you take a shot every time Bush says "terrah" or "Murrkins" in a live speech: Because you KNOW he's going to.

Chomsky didn't disappoint me. He managed to accuse the the Iraq Study Group of being owned by big oil, accuse Bush of lying his way into Iraq and drag Israel and Palestine into it within three paragraphs.

*shrug* I'm not unhappy with my greenlight track record so far. YMMV.
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2006-12-28 11:53:02 PM  
40below: Some things are better left to the pros.

I wasn't aware anyone's getting PAID to post in the threads. In fact, I seem to be laboring under the delusion that I'M paying for the privilege.
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2006-12-28 11:53:52 PM  
Mordant: we seem to have a "conservative" submitter tonight who hasn't even once had the balls (or the $5/month) to back his own plays.

?
 
40below [TotalFark]
2006-12-28 11:57:05 PM  
MyNameIsNotMervGriffin:

You just Bulldg'd the thread.
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2006-12-28 11:59:21 PM  
40below: You just Bulldg'd the thread.

Okay, so I've been TFing a little over a year and thought I knew my way around. But I don't know what "posting to move to commented" means and I don't know what "Bulldog'd" means.

Can I copy your notes? I must have skipped that class.
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2006-12-28 11:59:58 PM  
MyNameIsNotMervGriffin: I don't know what "Bulldog'd" means

I also don't know how to copy "Bulldg'd" correctly.
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2006-12-29 12:00:48 AM  
Mordant: the balls (or the $5/month) to back his own plays

Care to elaborate? I was just told it's tacky to post in your own threads.
 
40below [TotalFark]
2006-12-29 12:02:15 AM  
MyNameIsNotMervGriffin: I don't know what "Bulldog'd" means.

Making three consecutive and uninterrupted posts in a thread. You nearly did it twice.
 
40below [TotalFark]
2006-12-29 12:02:56 AM  
You're too fast for me, chatbot. Here, have a cookie.
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2006-12-29 12:03:19 AM  
40below: Making three consecutive and uninterrupted posts in a thread. You nearly did it twice.

Ah so. Etymology?
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2006-12-29 12:04:25 AM  
40below: Here, have a cookie.

Thanks. Here, have a pie:

[image from edisk.fandm.edu too old to be available]
 
omg_gay
2006-12-29 2:29:54 AM  
[image from rit.edu too old to be available]
 
Atario
2006-12-29 2:38:05 AM  
MyNameIsNotMervGriffin: Chomsky didn't disappoint me. He managed to accuse the the Iraq Study Group of being owned by big oil, accuse Bush of lying his way into Iraq and drag Israel and Palestine into it within three paragraphs.

Problem: None of the quotes you gave constitute "trashing the US".

Solution: Multiple posters in thread trashing submitter.

The system works!
 
HumbleGod
2006-12-29 2:52:30 AM  
Atario: Problem: None of the quotes you gave constitute "trashing the US".

Solution: Multiple posters in thread trashing submitter.

The system works!

Here's to the system!
 
zerkalo
2006-12-29 3:06:19 AM  
*BRAAAAAP* WRONG! Penalty for false dichotomy! 10 yards and first down!
 
Sum Dum Gai
2006-12-29 3:22:02 AM  
Overall, the key idea (that the future of troops in Iraq should be a decision made with much input from Iraqis) is something that should be obvious.
 
Ignorant McNugget
2006-12-29 3:27:53 AM  
Inebriated green idealists sleep furiously.
 
TheAfterbirthTycoon
2006-12-29 3:29:27 AM  
chomsky just makes me feel stupid. i farking hate that.
 
clifton
2006-12-29 3:52:13 AM  
What a trainwreck of a thread.
 
Maui Haui
2006-12-29 4:05:56 AM  
But do we still do the shot if the sentence is accurate? Need a clarification here.
 
RanDomino
2006-12-29 4:30:56 AM  
Did you know that $5 can make you special?
 
Futsin
2006-12-29 5:28:50 AM  
WOW!

Can I pay an extra $5.00 to fix the headlines so they are not completely retarded?

"Let's play the Noam Chomsky Drinking Game. See, he wrote some comments on the Iraq Study Group's report. You have to take a shot every time he trashes the US >>>GOVERMENT
Subtard, you can be against the US GOVERMENT and not against the US PEOPLE. As an example, I LIVE in the US, but I am not the US. George Bush lives in the US too, but that doesn't mean that him and I are the same being. With your reasoning, an assult on me, is an assult on George Bush, since both he and I live in the united states.
 
Pope George Ringo
2006-12-29 5:30:48 AM  
Trash [v.t.]

To lie about a country's foreign policy. To tell the truth about a country's foreign policy.
 
Loki-L
2006-12-29 7:26:40 AM  
Let's play the Noam Chomsky Drinking Game. See, he wrote some comments on the Iraq Study Group's report. You have to take a shot every time he trashes the US. Submitter will put ER on standby for alcohol poisoning cases

1) He did not write some comments. The linked piece was an interview not an essay.

2) Criticizing the US government and pointing out its mistakes is not the same as 'trashing' the US as a whole. If it was then the ISG itself should surely be held responsible for 'trashing' the US.

3) Criticizing the Iraq Study Group is not the same as 'trashing' the US either.

4) The article is rather short. Even if one were to interpret every answer Chomsky gives including "That would be an exaggeration, I think." as a mean spirited and unjustified attack on the United States of America one would only end up with a handfull of shots at best. Depending on what you are shooting with, this should not lead to alcohol poisioning. It might at best lead to server drunkeness with hugely impaired motoric and cognitive functions and leading someone to make an ass out of himself, so there would be little harm done in this case.

\ PS: can somebody point me to anything in that interview that is actually and unarguably wrong?
 
Sloth_DC
2006-12-29 7:26:50 AM  
RanDomino: Did you know that $5 can make you special?

Don't worry about it, mate - you're already quite special.
 
trev29
2006-12-29 7:33:03 AM  
But everything is going so well. How dare anyone take a sober view of our policy. The US foriegn policy is always right and should never be questioned.

/thinks that maybe if more people asked questions we wouldn't be in Iraq. And if Bush had asked more questions about the August6th Presidential Daily Briefing, 9/11 may have been prevented.
Questions are good. See Socrates.
 
PC LOAD LETTER [TotalFark]
2006-12-29 8:27:43 AM  
I want to take this thread out back and execute it.
 
Sloth_DC
2006-12-29 8:43:10 AM  
PC LOAD LETTER: I want to take this thread out back and execute it.

Don't forget to bill the smitty for the bullet.
 
mrexcess
2006-12-29 8:43:15 AM  
This thread is like a TotalFark episode of Jerry Springer.

/oh snap
 
priestrape
2006-12-29 8:51:00 AM  
is there anything funnier than some douchebag sitting around in his underwear and Doritos-stained two-sizes-too-small undershirt doling out lectures about chatroom etiquette?

Get a friggin' life, 40below. Christ almighty.
 
implementor
2006-12-29 8:52:12 AM  
Gotta love good ol' Noam. Anyone who wrote that Pol Pot was just a "peaceful agrarian reformer" should always be taken seriously on just about every other topic.
 
smeegle
2006-12-29 9:00:22 AM  
He managed to accuse the the Iraq Study Group of being owned by big oil, accuse Bush of lying his way into Iraq and drag Israel and Palestine into it within three paragraphs.


I don't disagree necessarily, but I just don't respect the source.
 
equilibrium
2006-12-29 9:36:00 AM  
implementor:
Gotta love good ol' Noam. Anyone who wrote that Pol Pot was just a "peaceful agrarian reformer" should always be taken seriously on just about every other topic

Can you post the source of that comment? I googled it and I don't see the essay or interview where Chomsky referred to Pol Pot as 'peaceful agrarian reformer'. The prase does, however, show up quite frequently in right wing publications attributing it vaguely to the "left wing" and in one instance George McGovern.

/difficulty: said statement must have been made after 1979
 
apeiron242
2006-12-29 9:53:42 AM  
Loki-L


"2) Criticizing the US government and pointing out its mistakes is not the same as 'trashing' the US as a whole. If it was then the ISG itself should surely be held responsible for 'trashing' the US."

Yeah, it is. The US gov't isn't something imposed on us, like say, the Ba'ath party was upon the Iraqis. Our gov't is us, we elected people from our population. If our gov't sucks, it is because WE suck... top to bottom.

The ISG seems to be arm chair monday morning quarter backs who are ignoring who is really causing the trouble in Iraq. But we can't blame the terrorists right? We can't blame the people DOING the killing, right? No it is clearly the bank's fault that someone robbed it, clearly the hot chick was just asking to be raped because she's hot and wore a short skirt.

No, we can't let reason and reality get in the way of partisanship and ad hominem.
 
TheRaven77
2006-12-29 9:58:56 AM  
subby wishes he could come up with an actual counter-argument to Chomsky. He knows more about that area of the world than you or anyone you know. Just because he hurts your feelings because he blames the Iraq war on the US doesn't mean he's wrong, it means you're a narrow-minded jingoist.

By the way, we WERE the ones who INVADED them, remember? We wouldn't be talking about any of this if WE hadn't invaded THEM. Therefore, everything that has happened thereafter is our fault and our responsibility, like it or not.

Typical right wing mentality; beat someone up and blame the victim.
 
equilibrium
2006-12-29 10:06:05 AM  
TheRaven77:
By the way, we WERE the ones who INVADED them, remember?

Yeah but Iraq was wearing that short little sundress that barely covered her massive oilfields. She was totally asking for it.
 
WizardX
2006-12-29 10:11:46 AM  
That's really impressive, apeiron242. I've reread your post thrice and I still can't decide for certain if you're being sarcastic or not.

But honestly, if you're NOT, and you truly believe that criticizing the US government is the same as criticizing the US as a whole "top to bottom," you've got issues to work through.
 
Lard_Baron
2006-12-29 10:24:35 AM  
apeiron242: The ISG seems to be arm chair monday morning quarter backs who are ignoring who is really causing the trouble in Iraq.

The invaders?
 
WizardX
2006-12-29 10:27:30 AM  
And now, having read TFA, my thoughts are that NC makes a number of good points BUT his primary gripe with the report seems to be that it doesn't blame the US enough.

Yes, it's accurate to say the US invading Iraq spurred the influx of terrorists - but it's not remotely HELPFUL. The question is, RIGHT NOW, what is causing the violence? And it would certainly appear to be sectarian.

I do believe he's right about there not being enough thought about what the Iraqis think, and our seeming hypocracy in not REALLY wanting a democratic process, though. We should work on that.
 
Phil Moskowitz
2006-12-29 10:28:49 AM  
Weee lets trash someone who's an order of magnitude brighter then I am! Perhaps my obtuse little jibe will make some twit in nebraska type lollers!

/I love fark.
 
Sloth_DC
2006-12-29 10:32:58 AM  
Phil Moskowitz: Weee lets trash someone who's an order of magnitude brighter then I am!

If this were a linguistics discussion, that argument might have merit. As we are not discussing linguistics, Chomsky's opinion is worth no more than any other asshole talking outside his field of expertise, and his grasp of the subject matter at hand has often proven to be rather subpar.
 
AndyKOctopus
2006-12-29 10:35:58 AM  
While I am totally against the war in Iraq, no matter what US government policy is, Chomsky will construe it as being evil in some way.

Example--( hypothetically according to Chomsky) If the US sends aid or money to refugees, for example, it is advancing Imperialist powers. If it is not sending aid, it is because it wants the refugees to die.

Basically, Chomsky is so predictable I don't even see the point of buying his books. I know what they will say before they are written. I prefer better reasoned critiscm.
 
WizardX
2006-12-29 10:42:26 AM  
What Chomsky tends to forget is it's possible to have multiple interests coinciding.

Is sending aid to impoversed nations "advancing imperialism"? You know what, it probably is. We make those nations dependent on us, then we start attaching more and more strings to the money. Just look at how we're trying to force abstinence-only education on Africa. (which quite possibly eclipses the Iraq debacle as the most ignorant, hurtful, and just plain DUMB foreign policy we've attempted to implement)

BUT...

That doesn't change the fact that if people are starving, and we help them out, we're still doing a good thing. And a lot of people legitimately DO want to help out starving peoples overseas. It's one of Americans' strong qualities, truly.

And just because A is true does not mean B cannot be true.

The real test is whether the good outweighs the bad. As long as we're just giving food and money to those who need it, that's not a bad thing, even if there is an imperialist mindset there. But once we start treating them as puppets, THEN it crosses over and becomes a bad thing.

But it is the *string pulling* that is the inherently evil act, NOT the giving of money.
 
AndyKOctopus
2006-12-29 10:42:52 AM  
to equilibrium:

The Chomsky publication about Pol Pot and the Khymer Rouge does in fact exist. Written in the late 1970s, with Edward Herrman, it is called "Distortions at a Fourth Hand."

It basically argues that the Khymer Rouge were not committing genocide (or at least no good evidence existed if they were), and whatever strange actions they had done, like evacuating the cities, was nessecary. It also says refugee sources should not be trusted, believe it or not. Any claims of genocide were just a trojan horse to bring American and Imperialist forces back in to Cambodia...etc, etc. The standard Chomsky stuff....

Then, predictably, it says that any unnatural deaths in Cambodia were the fault of the United States anyway
 
Displayed 50 of 98 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all



Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

Want to see behind the curtain? Try

TotalFark

It's how we feed the squirrel

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.