Noam Chomsky - On possède le monde / Éducation sur les guerres US

.
Noam Chomsky - On possède le monde / Éducation sur les guerres US

Voici un article fort intéressant de Noam Chomsky sur la mentalité de plusieurs à la tête des États-Unis et aussi à travers la population. Bien des éléments de leur politique étrangère commencent à avoir du sens si on les analyse à travers le filtre selon lequel ils pensent que le monde leur appartient.

Suite à cela, j'ai posté un lien vers une campagne d'un Allemand qui a acheté des pages dans le New York Times pour essayer d'éduquer les Américains sur les guerres qu'ils ont mené dans l'histoire. Vous trouverez les pages en question en liens PDF plus bas.

Bonne lecture!

We Own The World

Just a little footnote. How many offensive nuclear armed missiles does the United StatesChina may now have maybe 400, if you believe the hawks. That proves that they are trying to conquer the world. have? Well, it turns out to be 10,000.

We Own The World

Noam Chomsky

ZNet, January 1, 2008

You all know, of course, there was an election -- what is called "an election" in the United States -- last November. There was really one issue in the election, what to do about U.S.Iraq and there was, by U.S. standards, an overwhelming vote calling for a withdrawal of U.S. forces on a firm timetable. forces in

As few people know, a couple of months earlier there were extensive polls in Iraq, U.S.-run polls, with interesting results. They were not secret here. If you really looked you could find references to them, so it's not that they were concealed. This poll found that two-thirds of the people in Baghdad wanted the U.S. troops out immediately; the rest of the country -- a large majority -- wanted a firm timetable for withdrawal, most of them within a year or less.

The figures are higher for Arab Iraq in the areas where troops were actually deployed. A very large majority felt that the presence of U.S. forces increased the level of violence and a remarkable 60 percent for all of Iraq, meaning higher in the areas where the troops are deployed, felt that U.S. forces were legitimate targets of attack. So there was a considerable consensus between Iraqis and Americans on what should be done in Iraq, namely troops should be withdrawn either immediately or with a firm timetable.

Well, the reaction in the post-election U.S. government to that consensus was to violate public opinion and increase the troop presence by maybe 30,000 to 50,000. Predictably, there was a pretext announced. It was pretty obvious what it was going to be. "There is outside interference in Iraq, which we have to defend the Iraqis against. The Iranians are interfering in Iraq." Then came the alleged evidence about finding IEDs, roadside bombs with Iranian markings, as well as Iranian forces in Iraq. "What can we do? We have to escalate to defend Iraq from the outside intervention."

Then came the "debate." We are a free and open society, after all, so we have "lively" debates. On the one side were the hawks who said, "The Iranians are interfering, we have to bomb them." On the other side were the doves who said, "We cannot be sure the evidence is correct, maybe you misread the serial numbers or maybe it is just the revolutionary guards and not the government."

So we had the usual kind of debate going on, which illustrates a very important and pervasive distinction between several types of propaganda systems. To take the ideal types, exaggerating a little: totalitarian states' propaganda is that you better accept it, or else. And "or else" can be of various consequences, depending on the nature of the state. People can actually believe whatever they want as long as they obey. Democratic societies use a different method: they don't articulate the party line. That's a mistake. What they do is presuppose it, then encourage vigorous debate within the framework of the party line. This serves two purposes. For one thing it gives the impression of a free and open society because, after all, we have lively debate. It also instills a propaganda line that becomes something you presuppose, like the air you breathe.

That was the case here. This is a classic illustration. The whole debate about the Iranian "interference" in Iraq makes sense only on one assumption, namely, that "we own the world." If we own the world, then the only question that can arise is that someone else is interfering in a country we have invaded and occupied.

So if you look over the debate that took place and is still taking place about Iranian interference, no one points out this is insane. How can Iran be interfering in a country that we invaded and occupied? It's only appropriate on the presupposition that we own the world. Once you have that established in your head, the discussion is perfectly sensible. [...]

À suivre dans l'article sous l'hyperlien ci-haut... -LNI

One German Man Buys Three Full Pages of New York Times in Attempt to Educate Americans About American Wars

Jürgen Todenhöfer says on his website that he has drafted 10 theses to be printed in 3 parts. The first 2 parts, containing the first 5 theses, were printed on two full pages of today's New York Times, pages 6 and 7, and in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and the Al-Quds Al-Arabi. The third part is to be printed on Sunday. These hugely expensive ads refer readers to this website: www.why-do-you-kill-zaid.com

Here is part 1: PDF.

Here is part 2: PDF.