PBH / Colombia / Forums (active) Travelguide Cheap hostels Pictures

Noam Chomsky: ''Hablar de soberanía colombiana es un chiste''

Noam Chomsky:
''Hablar de soberanía colombiana es un chiste''

También el tono del discurso hacia Venezuela se ha hecho más fuerte, con acusaciones que ya se hacían y ahora continúan ahora más formales, acusando a Venezuela de permitir el narcotráfico, terrorismo, y ha habido un aumento del presupuesto militar del Pentágono, para el Comando Sur en esta región.

TeleSUR _ 28/08/2009

Primera Parte: Entrevista a Noam Chomsky durante su primera visita a Venezuela realizada por Eva Golinger para Venezolana de Televisión (VTV)
Caracas 24 Agosto 2009

Eva Golinger (EG): Bienvenido a Venezuela, Sr. Noam Chomsky. Estamos muy emocionados por su visita, especialmente durante un momento histórico en el que están ocurriendo muchos cambios en América Latina, potenciales cambios en la relación de EE.UU. con naciones latinoamericanas, y actualmente existen importantes tensiones y conflictos que causan gran preocupación a los latinoamericanos.

En este contexto, y con el recrudecimiento de las agresiones en los últimos meses, con el golpe de Estado en Honduras, el aumento de la presencia militar en Colombia, con la ocupación de más de siete bases militares, además de un control territorial a nivel militar en Colombia, tenemos también la reactivación de la cuarta flota de la armada que ocurrió el año pasado pero está siendo usada ahora en este contexto. También el tono del discurso hacia Venezuela se ha hecho más fuerte, con acusaciones que ya se hacían y ahora continúan ahora más formales, acusando a Venezuela de permitir el narcotráfico, terrorismo, y ha habido un aumento del presupuesto militar del Pentágono, para el Comando Sur en esta región.

La pregunta es, ¿es este algún tipo de fenómeno? Ahora con un presidente supuestamente progresista en la Casa Blanca vemos más ataques contra movimientos progresistas en América Latina.

Noam Chomsky (NC): Y en el resto del mundo. Pero lo que ocurre en América Latina ha ocurrido por más tiempo. EE.UU. por mucho tiempo dio por sentado que podía controlar a América Latina, y de hecho este fue un principio básico de su política exterior desde sus orígenes como república, como una aspiración, que lograron concretar en el siglo XX. El Consejo de Seguridad Nacional, la mayor entidad de planificación, dice que si no podemos controlar América Latina, ¿cómo podemos el resto del mundo?

Henry Kissinger, cuando el golpe de Pinochet, dijo "tenemos que deshacernos de Allende o no tendremos credibilidad en el resto del mundo". Esa es la clave para controlar el mundo, y por supuesto gran parte de la economía estadounidense estaba basada en inversiones, que eran una especie de saqueo, desde el siglo XIX. Todo esto ocurrió por mucho tiempo y de distintas maneras, intervención militar, golpes de Estado, agresiones, durante el gobierno de Kennedy, con agresión de Estado, el ejército instaurando Estados de seguridad al estilo neonazi. Luego llegó el período neoliberal, el control de los países por medios económicos, pero a finales de los noventa ya no era tan frecuente, Venezuela es un ejemplo, pero ocurría en muchos otros países. Lentamente los países latinoamericanos empezaron a escapar del largo período, desde la época de los conquistadores españoles y portugueses, de una u otra forma de colonización.

Empezaron a librarse del FMI, pagar y reestructurar sus deudas, enfocarse en los problemas internos, y EE.UU. empezaba a perder control, y tenía que haber una respuesta, que se ha desplegado desde finales de los noventa, y que tiene dos frentes, uno militar, y el otro que denominan promoción de la democracia, que es un eufemismo de sometimiento. Uno es militar y el otro es el sometimiento, y Obama sencillamente les está dando continuidad. No está haciendo nada nuevo. Parece diferente a Bush, pero la razón es, si vemos la opinión pública, voceros del gobierno, ellos critican a Bush por no haber prestado atención a América Latina, y que la región sufrió por esto. De hecho es lo mejor que le ha pasado a América Latina, que EE.UU. dirija su atención a otras regiones. Pero Obama quiere remediar esa situación desde una perspectiva progresista liberal, prestando más atención a América Latina, lo que implica un retorno a políticas más tradicionales, la militarización y el sometimiento. Lo que tú mencionas es un ejemplo, pero viene de antes, de hace muchos años, por ejemplo el entrenamiento de militares latinoamericanos por los últimos diez o quince años ha aumentado en gran medida, quizá 50% más de lo que era en los años noventa. Y ahora la posición militar de EE.UU. en América Latina es relativamente mayor que durante la Guerra Fría. Por primera vez, hay más oficiales de entrenamiento militar que asesores económicos. La estrategia ha cambiado hacia un esfuerzo por reconstruir una estructura de intervención potencial, y también para la llamada promoción de la democracia.

EG: Que hemos experimentado en gran medida aquí en Venezuela a través de la USAID, la National Endowment for Democracy con financiamiento a grupos opositores y ahora con participación en una campaña de contrainsurgencia al interior de las fuerzas revolucionarias que apoyan al gobierno, que intentan neutralizar.

NC: Pero estas son políticas de larga data. EE.UU. de hecho inició una nueva fase del imperialismo hace un siglo, al convertirse en una potencia mundial, ya había sido una potencia regional, pero con la conquista de Filipinas, ese fue el momento crucial, por los años 1900, mató a cientos de miles de personas, estableció un control militar parcial, pero tenían que gobernar el país. ¿Cómo gobernar el país? Bueno, desarrollaron una nueva forma de colonialismo, con un Estado de vigilancia muy complejo, usando la última tecnología de la época para socavar movimientos políticos, para desintegrarlos, promover el faccionalismo. Crearon una fuerza militar-policial paralela que podía usar la fuerza cuando fuese necesario. Era muy minucioso y complejo, y de hecho ha regresado a los países de origen, los Estados de vigilancia el Occidente: EE.UU., Inglaterra, desde la Primera Guerra Mundial, basados en el modelo filipino. Y sigue hasta hoy. Filipinas es el único país en el este asiático que no ha participado en el rápido crecimiento económico de las últimas décadas, y aún tiene una fuerza militar terrorista, violaciones a derechos humanos, etc.

Las técnicas son: primero, una fuerza militar internamente, si es necesaria, y segundo la colaboración de los líderes del Estado, por eso es que quieren infiltrar los movimientos revolucionarios, incitar la separación, socavar el poder de otros grupos y obtener beneficios de sus contactos con el poder imperial. Los británicos y los franceses hicieron cosas parecidas, pero esta vez se hizo con gran detalle, algo nuevo en la historia del imperialismo, y por supuesto se extendió a América Latina. Por eso es que después de cada intervención, por ejemplo Haití, República Dominicana, Nicaragua, donde sea, dejan el país en manos de la Guardia Nacional y en colaboración con líderes del Estado. Y la Guardia Nacional es una fuerza de terrorismo de Estado. La Guardia Nacional haitiana nunca luchó contra otro país. Su ejército lucha contra la población, lo mismo con Somoza.

Esa capacidad se perdió en parte en los años noventa y ahora se reconstruye de otra manera. Pero es una tradición antigua. De hecho data de mucho antes. Vale recordar que EE.UU. es el único país del mundo que fue fundado como un imperio. George Washington lo describió como un imperio infante y por supuesto tuvieron que conquistar el territorio nacional, eso es imperialismo, no cruzaron mares, pero aparte de eso, es imperialismo estándar. Prácticamente exterminaron a la población, se robaron la mitad del territorio de México y en 1898 empezaron a expandirse a otras regiones, pero el proceso es el mismo. Y es importante saber que lo hacen con toda franqueza y con una creencia en el carácter divino de su misión. Es un país religioso y siempre ha actuado para cumplir la misión de la Divina Providencia. George Bush hablaba en esos términos. Obama no necesita usar las mismas palabras. Es sofisticado. El mejor ejemplo, como todos saben, es la primera colonia en EE.UU.: Massachussets. Su carta fundacional es de 1629, establecieron su escudo en el que aparecía un indio apuntando su lanza hacia abajo y un pergamino saliendo de su boca, que decía "venid a ayudarnos", así que los colonos que iban allá a quitarles sus tierras y exterminarlos estaban convencidos de que estaban respondiendo a ese llamado de auxilio, y esa actitud sigue en la actualidad. Cada agresión, intento de sometimiento tiene la misma inspiración. Otros países imperialistas como Francia tienen actitudes similares pero está mucho más arraigada en la cultura y creencia estadounidenses. Hay un importante trasfondo religioso, todo se justifica. Lo más que puede pasar es que se cometan errores.

EG: Eso es también como una guerra psicológica, una manipulación de la realidad, para dar esa impresión.

NC: Es importante entender que es aceptado internamente. Por ejemplo, no se puede hacer un comentario crítico sobre cualquier acción de EE.UU. Obama, por ejemplo, es muy elogiado por ser uno de los principales críticos de la guerra en Irak. ¿Cuál fue su crítica? Dijo que era un error garrafal estratégico. Asumió la misma posición que asumió el estado mayor alemán después de Stalingrado. O la posición de los rusos sobre Afganistán a principios de los ochenta. Y no lo llamamos crítica cuando es de nuestros enemigos, lo llamamos servilismo al poder. Pero en nuestro caso, los liberales, progresistas lo llaman oposición principal. Y se puede ir más allá y estar aún dentro del marco doctrinal básico, y viene de esa autopercepción de nobleza, de la misión divina de civilizar el mundo, elevarlo a un mayor nivel, entonces el sometimiento y la militarización son considerados primordiales, y de hecho en el caso de América Latina la izquierda condena a Bush por no enfocarse en América Latina, por no cumplir con la misión civilizadora. No es sorpresa entonces las acciones de Obama.

EG: Y es un proceso cuyo ritmo está aumentando rápidamente.

NC: En parte por estas razones y en parte porque los problemas son más apremiantes. La llamada "marea rosa" es considerada un verdadero peligro. De hecho el gobierno de EE.UU. está apoyando gobiernos que hace cuarenta años habría derrocado. El gobierno de Brasil, por ejemplo. Las políticas de Lula no son tan diferentes de las políticas de Goulart a principios de los sesenta, cuando el gobierno de Kennedy inició un golpe militar e instaló el primer Estado de seguridad nacional estilo neonazi, y ahora es un país amigo, porque todo el espectro se ha desplazado tanto que ahora EE.UU. debe apoyar al tipo de gobierno que antes habría derrocado y por supuesto tratar de someter a los otros.

EG: Hablemos de eso específicamente, porque está el tema del aumento de presencia militar estadounidense en Colombia, que ha causado tensión en la región. El gobierno de Colombia y el gobierno de EE.UU., Obama, sostienen que esto es un asunto bilateral, que esto no es una ocupación o el establecimiento de nuevas bases militares; es un acuerdo de cooperación en seguridad. Pero algunos de los detalles que sabemos, aparte de las tres bases que EE.UU. ya ha ocupado bajo el Plan Colombia, y más de una docena de estaciones de radar, es que definitivamente tendrán acceso a siete bases, una de las cuales, en Palanquero, les dará acceso aéreo a todo el hemisferio, que no tenían anteriormente, con gigantescos aviones militares de carga tipo C17, y más allá de eso, está el tema de lo que EE.UU. llama defensa interna en un país extranjero, con la que entrenan fuerzas armadas colombianas, equipos comando especiales, fuerzas especiales, la Policía Nacional colombiana, los entrenan, los comandan y los controlan, y ahora existe la posibilidad de una reubicación de la Escuela de las Américas, ahora llamada WHINSEC, en Colombia, para empezar el entrenamiento en otros países de la región. El próximo viernes 28 habrá una reunión de presidentes de Unasur en Argentina para tratar este tema, que muchos dicen que es una amenaza para la estabilidad regional. Pero hay naciones que mantienen la posición de que hay que respetar la soberanía colombiana. Con gobiernos apoyados por Washington como Brasil, y con el golpe en Honduras que ha sido visto como un ataque contra los países del ALBA, ¿es esta ocupación o ampliación de presencia militar en Colombia un intento de dividir e impedir un mayor progreso de la integración latinoamericana, primero mediante la promoción de estos conflictos entre naciones, aparte del conflicto entre Colombia como gobierno de derecha y Venezuela como gobierno de izquierda, con países como Brasil o Chile, que pueden asumir una posición más ambigua u neutral en cuanto al respeto de la soberanía colombiana, que se oponen a la expansión militar estadounidense pero sin llegar a condenarla.

NC: Hablar de soberanía colombiana es un chiste. El Plan Colombia, creado por Clinton, es una intervención agresiva en los asuntos internos de Colombia, que ha tenido consecuencias. Hay un pretexto, y el pretexto es la guerra contra el narcotráfico, pero es solo un pretexto y no se puede tomar en serio. Y el establecimiento de las bases militares en Colombia es una reacción al hecho de que EE.UU. ha perdido su posición militar en otros países. Ecuador desactivó la base en Manta, que le daba a EE.UU. gran capacidad de vigilancia aérea en la región. Paraguay era una especie de base militar estadounidense, y eso ya se acabó. Tenían que reconstruirla en otra parte y Colombia es el único país donde podían hacerlo. El golpe en Honduras es parte de otro proceso. Centroamérica había sido tan devastada por las guerras contra el terrorismo de Reagan que no era parte de la tendencia de la llamada marea rosa, hacia la integración latinoamericana. Honduras estaba en el camino de la integración, y bueno ahora ya no, ellos creen, y en realidad se ha expandido en Centroamérica. Nicaragua es otro caso. Todo esto me parece que es un intento de recuperar la posición tradicional incluso antes, hace 10 ó 15 años el entrenamiento de oficiales ha aumentado rápidamente, y ha cambiado, ahora el entrenamiento es en tácticas de infantería. La idea es crear fuerzas paramilitares, no están entrenando policías de tránsito. El control de la "ayuda" oficial ha cambiado del Departamento de Estado, ahora está en manos del Pentágono, que es un cambio relevante. Cuando estaba bajo el Departamento de Estado tenía al menos en teoría supervisión del Congreso, que quiere decir que había condiciones que había que cumplir sobre derechos humanos por ejemplo, que no se implementaban mucho, pero eran una limitación a posibles abusos, pero bajo el control del Pentágono, no hay reglas, todo es válido.

Eva Golinger

http://www.telesurtv.net/noticias/entrev-reportajes/index.php?ckl=361

By C5vzla on Aug 30, 2009, 10:31 in Politics & the war.

makopp5 says on Aug 30, 2009, 10:39:

Stupid guy, I`m sure he has never been to Colombia and just know some lies from Chavez.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

C5vzla says on Aug 30, 2009, 10:50:

stupid guy???

Avram Noam Chomsky (pronounced /ˌnoʊm ˈtʃɒmski/; born December 7, 1928) is an American linguist, philosopher,[2][3][4] cognitive scientist, political activist, author, and lecturer. He is an Institute Professor and professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[5] Chomsky is well known in the academic and scientific community as one of the fathers of modern linguistics.[6][7][8] Since the 1960s, he has become known more widely as a political dissident, an anarchist,[9] and a libertarian socialist intellectual.

(...)
According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index in 1992, Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar during the 1980–92 period, and was the eighth most-cited source.[14][15][16] He is also considered a prominent cultural figure.[17] At the same time, his status as a leading critic of US foreign policy has made him controversial.[18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_chomsky

1 funny, 0 helpful.

makopp5 says on Aug 30, 2009, 10:57:

c5
yes stupid because he talks about Colombia without knowing nothing about Colombia. How many years and time of his live he spend in Colombia, that he can talk like this about Colombia. Has he been here in the last 5 years?

0 funny, 1 helpful.

Mephisto410 says on Aug 30, 2009, 11:11:

why stupid chomsky?? i actually read the whole thing cause i usually agree with him, and he doesnt say colombia is a joke, he is referring to plan colombia as a joke, and the war on drugs as a front for the military presence that is needed to maintain survailance and a strong hold on south america.... so why stupid chomsky?

Induite vos arma Dei ut possitis stare adversus insidias diaboli

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rikito says on Aug 30, 2009, 11:12:

Noam Chomsky is one of the foremost educators/researchers/authors on Linguistics. But his ignorance through his activism leaves so much to doubt about this guy. Why is it that there are so many people like this who because they are preeminent people in their discipline think they are also experts at everything else.

Chomsky has been discredited many times in the past with the latest being his unequivocal support for a world class idiot professor at the U of Colorado who lied about his ethnicity on his employment application to teach, falsified several documents in his research, plagiarized books and other documents to give credence to his beliefs, and caused the reputation at a great school to be questioned. Chomsky supported Ward Churchill through all of his lies and he lies about Colombia as well to the extent that I would seriously doubt that Chomsky has ever been to Colombia in the first place. I would have to see some serious proof first. I do know his main thesis outside of academics as he has stated in many of his campus romps. He feels that democracy is over rated and that the U.S. system of Democracy should be replaced with a more socialistic/communistic approach. That makes me feel good about what crap he spews about Colombia. He is a very dangerous guy because he commands a lot of respect and credibility in his academic research. Too bad.

...and so it goes

0 funny, 0 helpful.

makopp5 says on Aug 30, 2009, 11:16:

meph
and Plan Colombia is and was for the mayority of the Colombians a big help, so if he do not recognize this, because he hasn´t been to Colombia and has not seen the changes but talks after the lies from Chavez about Colombia, so he is stupid. He is like most lefties just talking a lot and never have real ideas how some can make things better.

0 funny, 1 helpful.

C5vzla says on Aug 30, 2009, 11:17:

makopp:
I think you talk a lot about chavez and the political situation in vzla, what if i send you back your argument, changing col for vz: "How many years and time of YOUR live YOU spend in VENEZUELA, that YOU can talk like this about VZLA.?

p.s. nothing personal with you ;-), for the sake of arguments... I think you don't need to live in a country to have access to information, analyze it and make an opinion. Furthermore he is american and he analyzes the policies of his government, if you read the article he doesn't criticize Colombia, it all about the US foreign policies...

1 funny, 0 helpful.

ferran says on Aug 30, 2009, 11:17:

Noam Chomsky is one person that knows what he is talking about, highly well educated and concern in world injustices and the deceit of the imperialists.

All truth goes through three phases. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self evident.

1 funny, 0 helpful.

makopp5 says on Aug 30, 2009, 11:20:

c5
for having an opinion about a country like he expressed in Venezuela you must have much more information than he got from Chavez.

I´m not a public person like him, so my opionen is not public like his. He is a stupid guy talking like this about Colombia without knowing nothing about Colombia.

I´m not going to Colombia and making public anouncements about Venezuela that´s a big difference.

0 funny, 1 helpful.

Mephisto410 says on Aug 30, 2009, 11:24:

I fully agree with you, i enjoy the added security of colombia today as much as the next guy. i dont take away from the fact that i probably couldnt be driving around from city to city on my own ten years ago. im only playing devils advocate and saying that what he said wasnt so stupid, to say that the front of saying plan colombia is about helping colombia get rid of the drug problem is the only reason the plan was put together. like saying the only reason we are in iraq is because we actually felt bad about the people sadam was abusing and killing. will it have positives in the end, yea it might, but it wasnt charity, it was also in the self intrest of the US to do so. In the end im American, so if somebody has to be on top, i rather it be us, people can complain all they want about it, but its reality that somebody has to be on top, and im sure its a lot better the US than the chinese taking over everything, or if the germans would have won wwII.

Induite vos arma Dei ut possitis stare adversus insidias diaboli

0 funny, 0 helpful.

aztec says on Aug 30, 2009, 11:28:

It is when he ventures outside his academic realm of Linguistics that he gets into trouble. There is something about these "academics" who assume a mantel of supreme intellectual capacity to know what is best for you.

No one begrudges his status in his chosen academic field but many of the American people question his qualifications to lecture us on the evils of Capitalism and the benefits of Socialism. Especially when his position is supported somewhat by our own moneys via public taxes.

He also pushes the boundary of the envelope of Academic Tenure. The concept was never designed (at least in the States) to protect a teacher when he/she ventured beyond his/her teaching area.

0 funny, 1 helpful.

C5vzla says on Aug 30, 2009, 11:37:

congratulations so far. it is the first time i see a discussion here on pbh that doesn't get into hate and illogical arguments and personal attacks on such a sensitive issue, especially considering the wide political spectrum of the people that have commented so far....

1 funny, 0 helpful.

JGD says on Aug 30, 2009, 12:08:

eva golinger interviwing Noamsky?
Now, that´s impartial !!

Panties not best thing on earth, but next to best thing on earth.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Aug 30, 2009, 12:10:

haha if Chomsky is stupid then the world is really fucked up.
I can't believe some of the clownish ad hominem that people try to discredit ideas when they can't actually come up with worthy argument.

1 funny, 0 helpful.

makopp5 says on Aug 30, 2009, 12:13:

romy
where is your argument?
Has Chom an argument why Plan Colombia is not working? no. so what?

0 funny, 1 helpful.

romy says on Aug 30, 2009, 12:21:

tell me where his argument is at fault, that your years at poblado have given you more knowledge (smarter)

"Hablar de soberanía colombiana es un chiste. El Plan Colombia, creado por Clinton, es una intervención agresiva en los asuntos internos de Colombia, que ha tenido consecuencias. Hay un pretexto, y el pretexto es la guerra contra el narcotráfico, pero es solo un pretexto y no se puede tomar en serio. Y el establecimiento de las bases militares en Colombia es una reacción al hecho de que EE.UU. ha perdido su posición militar en otros países. Ecuador desactivó la base en Manta, que le daba a EE.UU. gran capacidad de vigilancia aérea en la región. Paraguay era una especie de base militar estadounidense, y eso ya se acabó. Tenían que reconstruirla en otra parte y Colombia es el único país donde podían hacerlo. El golpe en Honduras es parte de otro proceso. Centroamérica había sido tan devastada por las guerras contra el terrorismo de Reagan que no era parte de la tendencia de la llamada marea rosa, hacia la integración latinoamericana. Honduras estaba en el camino de la integración, y bueno ahora ya no, ellos creen, y en realidad se ha expandido en Centroamérica. Nicaragua es otro caso. Todo esto me parece que es un intento de recuperar la posición tradicional incluso antes, hace 10 ó 15 años el entrenamiento de oficiales ha aumentado rápidamente, y ha cambiado, ahora el entrenamiento es en tácticas de infantería. La idea es crear fuerzas paramilitares, no están entrenando policías de tránsito. El control de la "ayuda" oficial ha cambiado del Departamento de Estado, ahora está en manos del Pentágono, que es un cambio relevante. Cuando estaba bajo el Departamento de Estado tenía al menos en teoría supervisión del Congreso, que quiere decir que había condiciones que había que cumplir sobre derechos humanos por ejemplo, que no se implementaban mucho, pero eran una limitación a posibles abusos, pero bajo el control del Pentágono, no hay reglas, todo es válido."

1 funny, 0 helpful.

makopp5 says on Aug 30, 2009, 12:24:

romy
and exactly fro mthat reason he is stupid. He did not see that kidnapping went down from 4000 a year to about 100 this year, killings from nearly 30.000 to about 17.000 in 2008. That´s stupid not seeing this, because it´s not in the line from his political view.
How many drugdealers are now in jail, thanks Plan Colombia? How many new jobs exists in Colombia because there is much more security and foreign investment? That´s stupid not seeing this.

0 funny, 1 helpful.

romy says on Aug 30, 2009, 12:25:

you clearly do not understand his argument, perhaps somebody with analytical abilities can step in to help you out

3 funny, 0 helpful.

makopp5 says on Aug 30, 2009, 12:46:

romy
you and he have a problem to recognize the positve results for most of the Colombians.

0 funny, 2 helpful.

romy says on Aug 30, 2009, 12:51:

you still don't get it... read it again

1 funny, 0 helpful.

makopp5 says on Aug 30, 2009, 12:54:

romy
you don´t get it because he is stupid.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Aug 30, 2009, 12:59:

I get it
It's simple really, the US has lost ground in latin america and they need to make it up in Colombia. Explain how walking you through that makes him stupid

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Simon says on Aug 30, 2009, 14:01:

Isn't Chomsky known for being a staunch anti-American?

"Just an honest, decent Colombian trying to do the right thing."--Simon

0 funny, 1 helpful.

C5vzla says on Aug 30, 2009, 14:08:

He IS american, born in Philadelphia.
But the point in discussion is not about Chomsky or if he is stupid. It is about the validity or not of his argumentation.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

C5vzla says on Aug 30, 2009, 14:15:

aztec: who would have the "qualifications" to lecture about the evils or qualities of any political system, capitalism or other? a journalist from Fox, Cnn or washington post would be more qualified than a philosopher? and eventually, who would have the quality to judge who is qualified or not?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Simon says on Aug 30, 2009, 14:22:

"He IS american, born in Philadelphia."

I know that and that still doesn't preclude him from being anti-American. Just look at Timothy McVeigh or Obama's former pastor.

"Just an honest, decent Colombian trying to do the right thing."--Simon

0 funny, 1 helpful.

C5vzla says on Aug 30, 2009, 14:28:

Chomsky (...) has described himself as a "fellow traveller" to the anarchist tradition, and refers to himself as a libertarian socialist, a political philosophy he summarizes as challenging all forms of authority and attempting to eliminate them if they are unjustified for which the burden of proof is solely upon those who attempt to exert power. He identifies with the labor-oriented anarcho-syndicalist current of anarchism in particular cases, and is a member of the IWW. He believes that libertarian socialist values exemplify the rational and morally consistent extension of original unreconstructed classical liberal and radical humanist ideas to an industrial context.[1]

Chomsky is considered "one of the most influential left-wing critics of American foreign policy" by the Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers. [2]

and about being anti-american:
Chomsky has stated that he believes the United States remains the "greatest country in the world",[68] a comment that he later clarified by saying, "Evaluating countries is senseless and I would never put things in those terms, but that some of America's advances, particularly in the area of free speech, that have been achieved by centuries of popular struggle, are to be admired."[69] He has also said "In many respects, the United States is the freest country in the world. I don't just mean in terms of limits on state coercion, though that's true too, but also in terms of individual relations. The United States comes closer to classlessness in terms of interpersonal relations than virtually any society."[70]

from Wikipedia

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tolú says on Aug 30, 2009, 14:36:

How exactly does one be a "staunch anti-American"?

Burn their blue jeans and fly into a fit of rage at the sight of hamburgers?

2 funny, 0 helpful.

greg says on Aug 30, 2009, 14:38:

C5vzla
Good posts
Chomsky is one of the most sought after speakers on the planet, with good reason

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Simon says on Aug 30, 2009, 14:40:

No, but by parking a truck in front of a federal building killing 168 people.

"Just an honest, decent Colombian trying to do the right thing."--Simon

0 funny, 1 helpful.

aztec says on Aug 30, 2009, 14:51:

Yes, Simon he is anti American! That is one of the reasons so many of the Europeans love him.

0 funny, 1 helpful.

Rikito says on Aug 30, 2009, 15:20:

I beg to differ with you on this ferran. When it comes to social activism and subjects like Colombian polices, Chomsky is a complete moron. I have heard this guy speak on the U of Colo campus and other forums in Denver and one in Wisconsin. He usually gets booed when he strays off what he best known for...linguistics. HE is a buffoon and has on many occasions fabricated much of what he says. He and Ward have one great thing in common. They love to use other people’s words as his own and he has been called out on it.

As axtec rightfully stated he is anti-American and is an avowed anarchist…just ask him or read some of the stuff he writes.

...and so it goes

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ferran says on Aug 30, 2009, 15:41:

Rikito you could be right or perhaps you are, as far as I'm concern this guy N.C. does not pay my rent or find girls for me. So I gain nothing on this matter.

All truth goes through three phases. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self evident.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

theflatline says on Aug 30, 2009, 15:43:

He is anti american but chooses to live in the states. He is/was a brilliant linguist but unfortunately his ego has convinced him that he is a politician as well.

Legaleez for Complete Morons - A book for gringos in Colombia for who think they understand the nature of the law in a country where they cannot speak the language.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tolú says on Aug 30, 2009, 15:52:

Chomsky is one of the most respected intellectuals of the past fifty years, in both linguistics and politics. He was voted number one in a poll conducted by Prospect Magazine of the greatest living intellectual of our time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_100_Public_Intellectuals_Poll

You can, of course, disagree with him. But to link him to Ward Churchill is just laughable, regardless of what Chomsky might have said in his defense.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

aztec says on Aug 30, 2009, 16:26:

Totu that is BS!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

makopp5 says on Aug 30, 2009, 16:31:

Tolu
he can talk a lot of shit the whole day, but he knows nothing about Colombia. Then talking about Colombia politics is stupid.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

greg says on Aug 30, 2009, 16:46:

makopp5 (☼Travelguide writer) says on Aug 30, 2009, 16:31 (today): flag

Tolu
he can talk a lot of shit the whole day, but he knows nothing about Colombia. Then talking about Colombia politics is stupid.

How do you know he knows nothing about Colombia? You don`t have to live there to know about its politics

0 funny, 0 helpful.

theflatline says on Aug 30, 2009, 16:53:

Probably because he lives in Massachusettes, they do not call them massholes for nothing.

Legaleez for Complete Morons - A book for gringos in Colombia for who think they understand the nature of the law in a country where they cannot speak the language.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

makopp5 says on Aug 30, 2009, 17:41:

greg
that`s often the people who do not know nothing give their opinion. He says "El Plan Colombia, creado por Clinton, es una intervención agresiva en los asuntos internos de Colombia, que ha tenido consecuencias.
" Who is financing the terrorists? The druguser. Where are they? Lots of them in the USA, so its not only "asuntos internos".
"Hay un pretexto, y el pretexto es la guerra contra el narcotráfico, pero es solo un pretexto y no se puede tomar en serio." SO IT`S JUST A JOKE THAT SO MANY COLOMBIANS HVE DIED FOR THIS CASE?
So no drugdealer behind the bars, not much safer Colombia? Less kidnappings and deads etc...
What does he knows about Colombia? If he had been here he could have talked to people, they could have told him how Colombian changed for most of the them to better.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

greg says on Aug 30, 2009, 18:38:

Makopp5
I don`t know how much he knows about Colombia. My point is that a person can live in northern NY where i live
and have access to a lot of the same info that someone living in Colombia gets. A person could know a lot
about Colombia without ever living there.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Chriscan says on Aug 30, 2009, 19:20:

Where things get confusing with plan Colombia is that it is sold as a war on drugs. In that sense it is a huge failure considering the amount of money that is spent. For people living in Colombia, the fact that drug export numers have hardly changed doesn't matter. In a sense, it's good that drug money is still flowing into Colombia. What matters in Colombia is that security is greatly increased. So for Colombians it's a great success and that is what Mr Chomsky along with the vast majority of the world fails to see.

It's not hard to tell who hasn't read any of Chomsky's stuff here. For sure he isn't anti - american. He often speaks of the good things and is constantly repeating that things are consistently getting better. what he sees is how much better things could be if law makers could just pull their heads out of their asses.

I think that he is a little delusional about Venezuela at the moment but so are people who claim Chavez has done nothing positive. He probably has done more harm than good and his ego really gets in the way. It's unfortunate because one really positive thing is how he has reclaimed power from large multinational corporations.

No problem is so formidable that you can't walk away from it.

0 funny, 1 helpful.

makopp5 says on Aug 30, 2009, 19:27:

greg
yes there is a difference. You can see and feel and talk direct. You are not sticked to an opinion from another person and his interests and ideas

0 funny, 0 helpful.

C5vzla says on Aug 30, 2009, 19:39:

agreed chriscan, and worst is that the military bases are sold also as war on drugs, and everybody knows that effective war on drugs is done with coast guard, police work, not military operations.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

makopp5 says on Aug 30, 2009, 19:45:

5
yes this part of the drugtrade is now leaving from Venezuela. In Colombia there are now nearly no planes leaving. With good military equipment you can also detect the movement from terrorists in realtime, so no more time to hide in Venezuela like now.

1 funny, 1 helpful.

mikemack42 says on Aug 30, 2009, 19:47:

Let's look at Chomsky's argument, or at least try to find it. From what I can tell, he makes one coherent argument, where he states an opinion and supports it with facts. The rest is just unsupported conjecture.

"Hablar de soberanía colombiana es un chiste. El Plan Colombia, creado por Clinton, es una intervención agresiva en los asuntos internos de Colombia, que ha tenido consecuencias. Hay un pretexto, y el pretexto es la guerra contra el narcotráfico, pero es solo un pretexto y no se puede tomar en serio."

- To talk about Colombian sovereignty is a joke because..... because.... anyone?

"Y el establecimiento de las bases militares en Colombia es una reacción al hecho de que EE.UU. ha perdido su posición militar en otros países. Ecuador desactivó la base en Manta, que le daba a EE.UU. gran capacidad de vigilancia aérea en la región. Paraguay era una especie de base militar estadounidense, y eso ya se acabó. Tenían que reconstruirla en otra parte y Colombia es el único país donde podían hacerlo."

- This is actually coherent- Colombia was the only place in S. America that'd accept a US military base, and it's proven by the US losing bases in other S. American countries.

"El golpe en Honduras es parte de otro proceso. Centroamérica había sido tan devastada por las guerras contra el terrorismo de Reagan que no era parte de la tendencia de la llamada marea rosa, hacia la integración latinoamericana. Honduras estaba en el camino de la integración, y bueno ahora ya no, ellos creen, y en realidad se ha expandido en Centroamérica. Nicaragua es otro caso. Todo esto me parece que es un intento de recuperar la posición tradicional incluso antes, hace 10 ó 15 años el entrenamiento de oficiales ha aumentado rápidamente, y ha cambiado, ahora el entrenamiento es en tácticas de infantería. La idea es crear fuerzas paramilitares, no están entrenando policías de tránsito."

- What is the argument here? What exactly is the "esto" he's referring to in "todo esto"? Maybe it's because my Spanish is only about intermediate, but he's lost me here. Is he saying the US is trying to get its original position back, or the Central American countries are?

"El control de la "ayuda" oficial ha cambiado del Departamento de Estado, ahora está en manos del Pentágono, que es un cambio relevante. Cuando estaba bajo el Departamento de Estado tenía al menos en teoría supervisión del Congreso, que quiere decir que había condiciones que había que cumplir sobre derechos humanos por ejemplo, que no se implementaban mucho, pero eran una limitación a posibles abusos, pero bajo el control del Pentágono, no hay reglas, todo es válido."

- So the Pentagon is controlling government aid instead of the State Department and the proof of this is that, well, Noam Chomsky says so.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

C5vzla says on Aug 30, 2009, 19:49:

makopp read the official DEA page, they don't even mention venezuela....

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/state_factsheets.html

Colombian drug trafficking organizations increasingly rely upon the eastern Pacific Ocean as a trafficking route to move cocaine to the United States. Law enforcement and intelligence community sources estimate 65 percent of the cocaine shipped to the United States moves through the Central America-Mexico corridor, primarily by vessels operating in the eastern Pacific. Colombian traffickers utilize fishing vessels to transport bulk shipments of cocaine from Colombia to the west coast of Mexico and, to a lesser extent, the Yucatan Peninsula. The cocaine is off-loaded to go-fast vessels for the final shipment to the Mexican coast. The loads are subsequently broken down into smaller quantities to be moved across the Southwest border.

However, cocaine continues to be transported through the Caribbean; Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, and Haiti are the predominant transshipment points for Colombian cocaine transiting the Caribbean. Because of lawlessness and deteriorating economic conditions, Haiti is a growing transshipment point for Colombian cocaine destined for eastern U.S. markets. Haitian drug traffickers, utilizing maritime shipments to transport cocaine to South Florida, are becoming a major threat. Law enforcement reporting indicates that Jamaica is an increasingly significant transshipment point for cocaine destined for the United States since it is located midway between South America and the United States. Cocaine is primarily smuggled into Jamaica by maritime methods, and the cocaine transshipped through Jamaica often is destined for the Canadian, European, and U.S. markets. Cocaine destined for the United States is usually smuggled from Jamaica to the Bahamas aboard go-fast boats. The cocaine is subsequently smuggled to the Florida coast using go-fast boats, pleasure craft, and fishing vessels.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

makopp5 says on Aug 30, 2009, 20:00:

c5
yes, because this has changed the last years. Your factsheed is very old from 2002. Now it quiet different.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

makopp5 says on Aug 30, 2009, 20:11:

http://www.el-universal.com/2009/07/20/en_pol_art_us-congress-report-c...

US Congress report claims Venezuela hinders counternarcotics efforts
The report was prepared at the request of Republican Senator Richard Lugar, the Ranking Member of the Committee on Foreign Relations, US Senate, amidst concerns about growing drug traffic through Venezuela

While Caracas says it does not need US assistance, available data indicate that drug trafficking through Venezuela is increasing
Increasing drug traffic through Venezuela, in addition to Caracas' support for illegal Colombian armed groups, is undermining the United States efforts to fight illegal drug traffic, said the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) in a report published on Monday.
"While Venezuela has its own counternarcotics initiatives and says it does not need US assistance, available data indicate that drug trafficking through Venezuela is increasing," added the document published by the GAO, the investigative arm of the US Congress, AFP quoted.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Aug 30, 2009, 20:46:

I guess Chomsky wins this argument, all anyone can counter with is ad hominem. He wasn't even trying...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

quantum says on Aug 30, 2009, 21:50:

Romy, Ive been reading Chomsky for years and have long considered him an intellectual beacon,but when he makes a moronic statement about Venezuela being "a new model of development in latin america" hes lost me. I can understand him being suspicious of American foreign policy, so am I, but regarding Chavez's new Bolivarian republic as a shining example a new order of things in latin america is just too much. He will have to be taken to task on this one........dont care what his credentials........Venezuela is a mess and getting worse and anybody with any skills is leaving, for all points of the compass.......surely he must be aware of this........

quantum

0 funny, 1 helpful.

borat says on Aug 30, 2009, 22:14:

If you live outside of Colombia, access to accurate information with regard to Colombia is more easily available, this is one or the reasons why Makopp is confused.

what you believe is not important, it's what you do that counts

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Aug 30, 2009, 22:22:

quantum, Venezuela has been a "a new model of development in latin america". Or who do you believe started the trend? Chavez has been at work to combat US hegemony, which has made so many Americans very mad.
I'm a defender of sovereignty so I agree with Chomsky that nations should run themselves and control their own resources, not foreign powers.

0 funny, 1 helpful.

La_Huella says on Aug 30, 2009, 22:42:

I moved here to get away from US culture and mentality. It succeeded. Ergo, Colombia is not quite the US yet, obviously.

Saying Colombia is not a sovereign nation is just patently ridiculous. Anybody who LIVES HERE would know differently.

And Venezuela from the mouths of people who have RECENTLY BEEN THERE, and even some who are CURRENTLY LIVING THERE, is an absolute disaster.

Drawing Brazil's soverignty into question is even more laughable. If there is ONE sovereign nation in the region it's Brazil. I couldn't think of a place in the Western Hemisphere where the USA has LESS influence. Of course, I have actually BEEN THERE.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Dolfi says on Aug 31, 2009, 04:01:

makopp5 is the best example for a person that lives in Colombia and hasn´t any clue about the reality of the country, because he doesn´t know anything about the history (before 2002) and doesn´t ever talk to anybody outside his own upper class circles.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

El Expatriado says on Aug 31, 2009, 04:07:

OK Not stupid guy, Idiot savant. Good at Linguistics, but stupid at politics and economics.

0 funny, 1 helpful.

El Expatriado says on Aug 31, 2009, 04:09:

For once I agree with Quantum on his last statement. 100%.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

El Expatriado says on Aug 31, 2009, 04:13:

And La Huela as well. If people of such different backgrounds and viewpointscan agree with this, it's pretty obvoious, Chavez ia a raving lunatic, dragging hois country down the toilet. Any idiot (or 12 year old kid) can say how bad the US is and what a useless bufoon Bush was. That doesn't make you a great leader or spokesman.

And Chavez definitely isn't a great oratator. "El Brute"

0 funny, 1 helpful.

El Expatriado says on Aug 31, 2009, 04:16:

"sovereignty" (as the socialists like Chomsky define it)= protectionism= economic depression"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

makopp5 says on Aug 31, 2009, 04:21:

Dolfi
I visit every day an average of 3-4 clients in evrey company I talk an average of 3 people. There I have contact from a secreary, recepcionista, printers to buisness owners (people who creats jobs and not just talking a lot of empty word like you). So I do not talk to people? I create jobs. What are you doing to help Colombia? You want to destroy it and go back 10 years, that`s great.

0 funny, 1 helpful.

El Expatriado says on Aug 31, 2009, 04:22:

Chriscan says "Claimed Power from the multi-National CorporationS" And any Venezuelan Engineer, technician, geoligist who is worth his salt wants to get th Fok out of there.

I won't lecture you about driving taxis in Banff Chris, don't try to lecture the rest of us about something you have absolutely no clue about. Sorry for being so rude, but I have many good friends in Venezuela who have no future because of this character.

0 funny, 1 helpful.

Dolfi says on Aug 31, 2009, 04:22:

Wow, I´m impressed, you talk to people in your office.

1 funny, 0 helpful.

makopp5 says on Aug 31, 2009, 04:26:

Dolfi
no I`m going out to visit clients. My question, what are you doing to help Colombia, apart from talking a lot without knowing nothing?

0 funny, 1 helpful.

La_Huella says on Aug 31, 2009, 09:33:

I don't even like Chomsky as a linguist. I think he's so far off base it's not even funny. He's full of nonsense theories, like most modern "soft" scientists. He has ZERO success as proof. The facts don't bear ANYTHING he's written. He believes that the features of languages have no consequence or influence whatsoever, and that the essence of all human expression is the same. Nothing could be further from actual reality, as anybody who actually SPEAKS more than one language knows instinctively.

The people I hang out with here include people from all six estratos, and every point on the political spectrum. I know card carrying Polo members who are going to be marching on Friday. That's the truth right from the mean streets of Bogota.

0 funny, 1 helpful.

tasco66 says on Aug 31, 2009, 09:56:

Chomsky praised Chavez and his "Bolivarian revolution".

That's all you need to know about this nut case.

Nuff said.

Newsweek on Uribe: "he's delivered the trifecta of peace, security, and prosperity"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rikito says on Sep 1, 2009, 08:59:

Tolú, "Chomsky is one of the most respected intellectuals of the past fifty years, in both linguistics and politics. He was voted number one in a poll conducted by Prospect Magazine of the greatest living intellectual of our time." Where did you hear or read about this crap? Yes he is a well known linguist throughout the world, but if you read books like "Before The Dawn" you will find that he has many many detractors amongst his own peers. He has been known to "manufacture" many of his theories and he has been accused (right fully) of refusing to study the evolution of language. He refuses to discuss the topic and attacks those that make such an attempt. Why? Because he would have to share the limelight with others. Chomsky seldom collaborates with other renowned linguists and because of this he has been minimize in recent years. If you want I can give you many quotes and sources that dispel the myth of Chomsky's greatness. HE reminds me of the baseball player was the world's best 20 years ago and he still thinks that he is the best even though he strikes of 90% of the time. Why? Because others are jealous of him and are ganging up to make him a lesser person.

So he has turned to an anarchist thinking that his laurel wreaths from education will naturally follow him to socialism and anarchism. Didn't work then...and doesn't work now...he is forever tied to Ward Churchill whom he mentored into the lie he lives.

And let me add one thing for you. If you want to attian some credibility around here I suggest that you try and not use Wiki as your source of information. That is what lazy high school students use

...and so it goes

0 funny, 1 helpful.

Chriscan says on Sep 1, 2009, 16:06:

Working in Bogota now in IT but I don't know why I should respond to such a childish remark. HAHA I actually read one of Chomsky's books while I was driving cab. So in a way, cab driving did make me qualified to comment.

Sorry about your friends but change always has winners and losers. I'm sure that it could have been done a lot better but Chavez probably wanted to get even with the unions. What can you do with a madman. The same thing you do with someone who thinks that they are better than every single person who doesn't have an engineering degree.

No problem is so formidable that you can't walk away from it.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Chriscan says on Sep 1, 2009, 16:32:

BTW driving cab in Banff is the best job one could have. I hope I can be back at it by next summer. There is so much better scenery than in my square office.

I love how Canadian girls can go around in winter like that. Why can't they in Bogota?

When I first got a digital camera, I took a bunch of pictures of taxi scarlets. http://www.wildbanffgirls.blogspot.com/

No problem is so formidable that you can't walk away from it.

0 funny, 0 helpful.