6 ms·

Noam Chomsky: US Military Escalation Against Russia Would Have No Victors

11 points by k1m 5y ago

kwertyoowiyop 5y ago
HN isn’t the place for geopolitical ruminations, unless there’s a strong technology angle. Agree or disagree?
- kragen 5y ago
  Disagree, cf. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
- version_five 5y ago
  I disagree, if it's new information or perspective, not discussed recently and broadly interesting it could be appropriate. That said, this article is pretty trollish, at least the beginning. Whether you agree or disagree with the side remarks he's making, he's throwing out stuff that will provoke an angry response and not advance the discussion.
  - k1m 5y ago
    He addresses that: "It’s easy to understand why those suffering from the crime may regard it as an unacceptable indulgence to inquire into why it happened and whether it could have been avoided. Understandable, but mistaken. If we want to respond to the tragedy in ways that will help the victims, and avert still worse catastrophes that loom ahead, it is wise, and necessary, to learn as much as we can about what went wrong and how the course could have been corrected. Heroic gestures may be satisfying. They are not helpful."
jdrc 5y ago
> internationally recognized as one of the most important intellectuals alive. Honestly not. It's been a long time since he made some interesting remarks that never panned out (there is no brain structure that corresponds to his ideas, and linguistics has gone past him). this is simply a journalistic parroting
namlem 5y ago
Chomsky should stick to linguistics given his poor track record in politics.
- coldtea 5y ago
  Aside from being right on almost every issue, and the actual politicians and think tanks shown demonstably and disastrously wrong (in the US propping up Saddam and Laden in the 80s, in the story of Iraq's WMDs, in the disastrous case of Afghanistan, and elsewhere), what exactly is his "poor track record"?
tomohawk 5y ago
Who will be the victors if there is no intervention? The question is not whether we should intervene or not. We already are. We are already intervening, albeit ineffectively. Supplying weapons is not the act of a neutral party. Continuing to buy oil from Russia, only sanctioning 25% of their banks, not sanctioning Belarus. These are not the actions of people who are serious.
bell-cot 5y ago
Hmm... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky ...from a quick skim, I'd say he believes WWII to be the only justified war that the US has fought in the past century. So "Chomsky advises against war" is barely more newsworthy than "warm water is wet". Throw the article's heavy Hagiographic slant on Dr. Chomsky himself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagiography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagiography)... It sure looks like the article is a sermon aimed straight at the choir of the One True Church of Chomsky.

11 points by k1m 5y ago

kwertyoowiyop 5y ago

HN isn’t the place for geopolitical ruminations, unless there’s a strong technology angle. Agree or disagree?

kragen 5y ago
Disagree, cf. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
version_five 5y ago
I disagree, if it's new information or perspective, not discussed recently and broadly interesting it could be appropriate. That said, this article is pretty trollish, at least the beginning. Whether you agree or disagree with the side remarks he's making, he's throwing out stuff that will provoke an angry response and not advance the discussion.
- k1m 5y ago
  He addresses that: "It’s easy to understand why those suffering from the crime may regard it as an unacceptable indulgence to inquire into why it happened and whether it could have been avoided. Understandable, but mistaken. If we want to respond to the tragedy in ways that will help the victims, and avert still worse catastrophes that loom ahead, it is wise, and necessary, to learn as much as we can about what went wrong and how the course could have been corrected. Heroic gestures may be satisfying. They are not helpful."

jdrc 5y ago

> internationally recognized as one of the most important intellectuals alive. Honestly not. It's been a long time since he made some interesting remarks that never panned out (there is no brain structure that corresponds to his ideas, and linguistics has gone past him). this is simply a journalistic parroting

namlem 5y ago

Chomsky should stick to linguistics given his poor track record in politics.

coldtea 5y ago
Aside from being right on almost every issue, and the actual politicians and think tanks shown demonstably and disastrously wrong (in the US propping up Saddam and Laden in the 80s, in the story of Iraq's WMDs, in the disastrous case of Afghanistan, and elsewhere), what exactly is his "poor track record"?

tomohawk 5y ago

Who will be the victors if there is no intervention? The question is not whether we should intervene or not. We already are. We are already intervening, albeit ineffectively. Supplying weapons is not the act of a neutral party. Continuing to buy oil from Russia, only sanctioning 25% of their banks, not sanctioning Belarus. These are not the actions of people who are serious.

bell-cot 5y ago

Hmm... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky ...from a quick skim, I'd say he believes WWII to be the only justified war that the US has fought in the past century. So "Chomsky advises against war" is barely more newsworthy than "warm water is wet". Throw the article's heavy Hagiographic slant on Dr. Chomsky himself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagiography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagiography)... It sure looks like the article is a sermon aimed straight at the choir of the One True Church of Chomsky.