40 ms·
In my experience, the only country in which Chomsky is seen as uninteresting or nitpicking is in the U.S. That's not to say there are no complexities to whethe
by lazaroclapp 10y ago
In my experience, the only country in which Chomsky is seen as uninteresting or nitpicking is in the U.S.
That's not to say there are no complexities to whether or not a Pax Americana is better than the alternative (based on previous U.S. govts.), or that all governments records are equivalent when it comes to propaganda or human rights (for their own citizens). But no other country sees the U.S. unequivocally as "the good guys". A few see it as "the less-bad guys", but plenty of countries in Latin America saw the U.S.S.R. as "the less-bad guys" by comparison too.
- saiya-jin 10y ago> But no other country sees the U.S. unequivocally as "the good guys". well you would have to be a complete ignorant to last 60 years of history and present to consider US the good guys. Economically strong police state with more innocent blood on their hands for last 20 years than any other state in this world. Axis of evil my ass
- seppin 10y agoputting aside the simplistic rhetoric, who are the "good guys" then ?
- lazaroclapp 10y agoSome people can be very moral, very amoral or very immoral. All countries and all governments are made of a mix of all three. To judge nations by the standards of individuals you would need to declare them all schizophrenic. "Good guys" live in comic books, not history books. Again, not saying that making attempts to legally commit and then follow through with principles on the part of nations is a bad thing. I am a constructivist, I think nations can "improve morally". But is more a matter of which nation has the best institutions to curb their own (or each other's) abuses in practice, rather than anyone being "the good guys".
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]