41 ms·

You're just flat wrong about the Khmer apologist thing...a common attempt at character assassination by anti-Chomsky fanatics with no relevance at all to the su

You're just flat wrong about the Khmer apologist thing...a common attempt at character assassination by anti-Chomsky fanatics with no relevance at all to the subject at hand. Chomsky didn't say it was written down or announced. But there's no argument here - Baker simply DID say that there would be no eastward movement. It's not even remotely controversial.

nopenopenopeno 5y ago
Additionally, insofar as lies must be written down to qualify as such, that in itself is quite fascinating and deserves its own separate conversation.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Agreements between superpower nations should probably be in writing. Incidentally, if someone’s breaking agreements, it’s Russia. They wrote down an actual promise to not invade Ukraine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
  - nopenopenopeno 5y ago
    That is a different question.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      It's not. "We thought the US Secretary of State could make a verbal binding agreement on behalf of all of NATO" is simply absurd. Treaties exist for a reason; hell, a verbal contract isn't legally valid in the US for a $1,000 purchase, let alone to commit 30 countries' foreign policy.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
qsort 5y ago
It's completely irrelevant that a promise was or wasn't made. NATO is a defensive alliance whose members join voluntarily, we don't go around planting flags with the Safari icon by right of conquest. Hinting at a moral equivalence -- because let's be honest, that's what's happening here -- between Russian expansion and NATO "expansion" is at the very least intellectually dishonest.
- VictorPath 5y ago
  > NATO is a defensive alliance Like bombing Libya? (there is more about Russia vis-a-vis Libya but no need for me to Tangent into that)
- causi 5y ago
  Indeed. Complaining about one lie from decades ago in view of the torrent of lies every day from the Russian government is like complaining about a grain of sand in an ocean of piss.
  - DaltonCoffee 5y ago
    Indeed. One teensy tiny little lie. NATO expanding east is a legitimate concern to Russia, and it makes sense they would view it as a longstanding insidious aggression.
    - scotty79 5y ago
      No, it isn't a legitimate concern. Even if Russia bordered with only NATO countries it wouldn't mean they are in any danger of getting invaded. Because NATO doesn't invade. NATO is only legitimate danger to the Russia interests in bordering countries like the one they are currently pursuing in the Ukraine, by commiting warcrimes among other things.
      - DaltonCoffee 5y ago
        How is NATO (and it's minimal expansions) not a concern to Russia again? It's more complex now, but for awhile they were the two players at the game.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
vorpalhex 5y ago
Baker doesn't set NATO policy for all time.
_ZeD_ 5y ago
But do this promise makes sense? NATO it's not a "sentient entity", that choose to expand. Instead are the states that ask to join it. No one forced Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia to join NATO
- axiomsEnd 5y ago
  From perspective of some people, like here, countries from ex-Soviet block do not exist and do not make sovereign decisions about their aliences. It's really weird to read (mostly US-based, left-wing) authors who simply forget about whole nations just to push USA-bad narrative. Which is even more disturbing once you see what kind of parties in Europe are pro-Russia.
  - qsort 5y ago
    Indeed, but that sentiment is by no means limited to the US. It's a story older than I am, even real intellectuals (like Chomsky himself) are consumed by this idea that whatever happens and no matter what's the reality of the situation, America must somehow be the bad guy.
    - axiomsEnd 5y ago
      I guess it started with Cold War, and Chomsky is just part of the generation that distrusted goverment due to internal issues (racism, womans laws, etc), but later started beliving that information about USSR are also fake. What is weird from my perspective is shifting this perspective to modern Russia. When USSR tried to push pro-feminist, pro-international propaganga against USA, current Russia and pro-Russia movements are not hiding their disgust with LGBT+, abortion, multiculturalism and such. Which looks like minorities in this countries should be sacrificed on altar of anti-USA sentiment.
- CapricornNoble 5y ago
  >>>No one forced Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia to join NATO No, but the US should have carefully measured (and probably rejected) any interest from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, and Ukraine. Accession into NATO requires unanimous endorsement from all extant members. The most powerful member of the alliance saying "No" sends an even stronger signal. And then we should have offered military training, maybe even subsidized armament sales (aka "foreign aid") to encourage a strong self-defense capability....but NO formalized or even informal assurances of mutual defense, and no US assets based in their borders. I think that would have been a smart compromise: help these countries make themselves too costly to invade, without making Russia more paranoid and without growing our "surface area" of treaty risks.
cuteboy19 5y ago
Chomsky is a Khmer Rouge apologist. It's a well documented fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chomsky_and_Herman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chom...
timeon 5y ago
Anyway it is not Russia's business where sovereign countries are going to do outside of Russia's borders.
- CapricornNoble 5y ago
  I think the entire point of the past ~6 weeks has been to demonstrate that such a sentiment is clearly false. Something the world forgot after the US demonstrated it in 2001...and again in 2003.....and again in 2011 (Libya, after taking over from France's lead). Next we'll be waiting for the Chinese to remind everyone, probably 2025-2030 (after they finish taking notes on Russia's experience and incorporating lessons learned).
- yucky 5y ago
  This is naïve. If the Chinese government struck a deal with Mexico (or Canada) to put military units, bases, people, surveillance etc. in those countries, would the US just say "meh, that's their sovereign right"? We need to be realistic about this, not idealistic.
tptacek 5y ago
I don't think the "character assassination" argument is tenable. Chomksy later condemned the Khmer Rouge, long after it was politically relevant, but he was indeed an apologist for it during its era in power, and he hasn't (to my knowledge?) acknowledged having done so. https://web.archive.org/web/20010915014621/http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/chombookrev.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20010915014621/http://www.zmag.o... This is hard to read knowing what actually happened.
- scotty79 5y ago
  I think Chomsky is so focused of USA wrongdoings that sometimes outside wrongdoing slips his mind for extended period of time. Especially if USA is somehow involved in that situation too which it almost always is in one way or another. He focuses on USA to the point of being boring now. At this point nobody outside US believes any justifications to US foreign wars. If there was any willingness to believe any of that George W Bush pretty much trew in on a pile and set it on fire while doing stupid face. Everybody knows USA just goes around the world and starts wars with whatever local evil they can safely engage (from geopolitical standpoint) to further their economical interests, both global and domestic. It's not that the rest of the world is doing nothing because they believe any word USA puts out. It's because they can do nothing against current military and market hegemon. Other countries will even happily pretend they believe US propaganda so they can calm their populace and keep themself safe from the next round of "democracy spreading" that comes out of US.
- VictorPath 5y ago
  > he was indeed an apologist for it during its era in power The US did indeed arm the "Khmer Rouge", whatever that is, after its era in power.
  - kasey_junk 5y ago
    That’s a highly contended assertion. We know the Carter administration contemplated arming the Khmer Rouge and we know they hated the idea. There is no evidence that they actually ever gave military aid.
  - 5y ago
legohead 5y ago
If there's nothing written down, there's nothing. The next President has his own ideals, and the next, and the next.
BuckRogers 5y ago
So what? NATO antagonization wouldn't even warrant an invasion. Let alone this genocidal war. There's no excuses for this.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Baker simply DID say that there would be no eastward movement Look, if Mexico tomorrow invaded Honduras because some diplomatic approach by the UK to Honduras (following similar ones to other Central American states) violated some commitment, not ever incorporated into any treaty, that a British official had made to Spain while the Viceroyalty of New Spain was still a thing, no one, anywhere, would take that as a serious excuse, no matter how much evidence there was that the official had, in fact, made the representation. This is pretty much exactly the same thing; whether the discussion occurred is irrelevant; there is no scenario where it even slightly mitigates the enormity of, much less justifies, the Russian invasion of Ukraine or the war crimes committed during that invasion.
hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
Let's assume for a moment that not only he said that, but also made a promise, and later even signed it. Now, imageine you are one of ex-Warsaw Pact countries. You know very well NATO is the only thing that can stop Russia from changing their mind and taking over your country. What will your government do? They will do everything to join NATO. And this is exactly what happened. Putin's propaganda is that NATO is a threat to Russia. Yet, NATO has never attacked Russia. NATO is, however, a threat to Russia's imperialism. After Ukraine they can turn to Kazakhstan and a few other countries that are not NATO members. He can't just invade the Baltics just as he invaded Ukraine - just because of that single reason. No wonder Putin is having a fir over it again and again.

nopenopenopeno 5y ago

Additionally, insofar as lies must be written down to qualify as such, that in itself is quite fascinating and deserves its own separate conversation.

ceejayoz 5y ago
Agreements between superpower nations should probably be in writing. Incidentally, if someone’s breaking agreements, it’s Russia. They wrote down an actual promise to not invade Ukraine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
- nopenopenopeno 5y ago
  That is a different question.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    It's not. "We thought the US Secretary of State could make a verbal binding agreement on behalf of all of NATO" is simply absurd. Treaties exist for a reason; hell, a verbal contract isn't legally valid in the US for a $1,000 purchase, let alone to commit 30 countries' foreign policy.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

qsort 5y ago

It's completely irrelevant that a promise was or wasn't made. NATO is a defensive alliance whose members join voluntarily, we don't go around planting flags with the Safari icon by right of conquest. Hinting at a moral equivalence -- because let's be honest, that's what's happening here -- between Russian expansion and NATO "expansion" is at the very least intellectually dishonest.

VictorPath 5y ago
> NATO is a defensive alliance Like bombing Libya? (there is more about Russia vis-a-vis Libya but no need for me to Tangent into that)
causi 5y ago
Indeed. Complaining about one lie from decades ago in view of the torrent of lies every day from the Russian government is like complaining about a grain of sand in an ocean of piss.
- DaltonCoffee 5y ago
  Indeed. One teensy tiny little lie. NATO expanding east is a legitimate concern to Russia, and it makes sense they would view it as a longstanding insidious aggression.
  - scotty79 5y ago
    No, it isn't a legitimate concern. Even if Russia bordered with only NATO countries it wouldn't mean they are in any danger of getting invaded. Because NATO doesn't invade. NATO is only legitimate danger to the Russia interests in bordering countries like the one they are currently pursuing in the Ukraine, by commiting warcrimes among other things.
    - DaltonCoffee 5y ago
      How is NATO (and it's minimal expansions) not a concern to Russia again? It's more complex now, but for awhile they were the two players at the game.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

vorpalhex 5y ago

Baker doesn't set NATO policy for all time.

_ZeD_ 5y ago

But do this promise makes sense? NATO it's not a "sentient entity", that choose to expand. Instead are the states that ask to join it. No one forced Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia to join NATO

axiomsEnd 5y ago
From perspective of some people, like here, countries from ex-Soviet block do not exist and do not make sovereign decisions about their aliences. It's really weird to read (mostly US-based, left-wing) authors who simply forget about whole nations just to push USA-bad narrative. Which is even more disturbing once you see what kind of parties in Europe are pro-Russia.
- qsort 5y ago
  Indeed, but that sentiment is by no means limited to the US. It's a story older than I am, even real intellectuals (like Chomsky himself) are consumed by this idea that whatever happens and no matter what's the reality of the situation, America must somehow be the bad guy.
  - axiomsEnd 5y ago
    I guess it started with Cold War, and Chomsky is just part of the generation that distrusted goverment due to internal issues (racism, womans laws, etc), but later started beliving that information about USSR are also fake. What is weird from my perspective is shifting this perspective to modern Russia. When USSR tried to push pro-feminist, pro-international propaganga against USA, current Russia and pro-Russia movements are not hiding their disgust with LGBT+, abortion, multiculturalism and such. Which looks like minorities in this countries should be sacrificed on altar of anti-USA sentiment.
CapricornNoble 5y ago
>>>No one forced Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia to join NATO No, but the US should have carefully measured (and probably rejected) any interest from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, and Ukraine. Accession into NATO requires unanimous endorsement from all extant members. The most powerful member of the alliance saying "No" sends an even stronger signal. And then we should have offered military training, maybe even subsidized armament sales (aka "foreign aid") to encourage a strong self-defense capability....but NO formalized or even informal assurances of mutual defense, and no US assets based in their borders. I think that would have been a smart compromise: help these countries make themselves too costly to invade, without making Russia more paranoid and without growing our "surface area" of treaty risks.

cuteboy19 5y ago

Chomsky is a Khmer Rouge apologist. It's a well documented fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chomsky_and_Herman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chom...

timeon 5y ago

Anyway it is not Russia's business where sovereign countries are going to do outside of Russia's borders.

CapricornNoble 5y ago
I think the entire point of the past ~6 weeks has been to demonstrate that such a sentiment is clearly false. Something the world forgot after the US demonstrated it in 2001...and again in 2003.....and again in 2011 (Libya, after taking over from France's lead). Next we'll be waiting for the Chinese to remind everyone, probably 2025-2030 (after they finish taking notes on Russia's experience and incorporating lessons learned).
yucky 5y ago
This is naïve. If the Chinese government struck a deal with Mexico (or Canada) to put military units, bases, people, surveillance etc. in those countries, would the US just say "meh, that's their sovereign right"? We need to be realistic about this, not idealistic.

tptacek 5y ago

I don't think the "character assassination" argument is tenable. Chomksy later condemned the Khmer Rouge, long after it was politically relevant, but he was indeed an apologist for it during its era in power, and he hasn't (to my knowledge?) acknowledged having done so. https://web.archive.org/web/20010915014621/http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/chombookrev.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20010915014621/http://www.zmag.o... This is hard to read knowing what actually happened.

scotty79 5y ago
I think Chomsky is so focused of USA wrongdoings that sometimes outside wrongdoing slips his mind for extended period of time. Especially if USA is somehow involved in that situation too which it almost always is in one way or another. He focuses on USA to the point of being boring now. At this point nobody outside US believes any justifications to US foreign wars. If there was any willingness to believe any of that George W Bush pretty much trew in on a pile and set it on fire while doing stupid face. Everybody knows USA just goes around the world and starts wars with whatever local evil they can safely engage (from geopolitical standpoint) to further their economical interests, both global and domestic. It's not that the rest of the world is doing nothing because they believe any word USA puts out. It's because they can do nothing against current military and market hegemon. Other countries will even happily pretend they believe US propaganda so they can calm their populace and keep themself safe from the next round of "democracy spreading" that comes out of US.
VictorPath 5y ago
> he was indeed an apologist for it during its era in power The US did indeed arm the "Khmer Rouge", whatever that is, after its era in power.
- kasey_junk 5y ago
  That’s a highly contended assertion. We know the Carter administration contemplated arming the Khmer Rouge and we know they hated the idea. There is no evidence that they actually ever gave military aid.
- 5y ago

legohead 5y ago

If there's nothing written down, there's nothing. The next President has his own ideals, and the next, and the next.

BuckRogers 5y ago

So what? NATO antagonization wouldn't even warrant an invasion. Let alone this genocidal war. There's no excuses for this.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Baker simply DID say that there would be no eastward movement Look, if Mexico tomorrow invaded Honduras because some diplomatic approach by the UK to Honduras (following similar ones to other Central American states) violated some commitment, not ever incorporated into any treaty, that a British official had made to Spain while the Viceroyalty of New Spain was still a thing, no one, anywhere, would take that as a serious excuse, no matter how much evidence there was that the official had, in fact, made the representation. This is pretty much exactly the same thing; whether the discussion occurred is irrelevant; there is no scenario where it even slightly mitigates the enormity of, much less justifies, the Russian invasion of Ukraine or the war crimes committed during that invasion.

hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago

Let's assume for a moment that not only he said that, but also made a promise, and later even signed it. Now, imageine you are one of ex-Warsaw Pact countries. You know very well NATO is the only thing that can stop Russia from changing their mind and taking over your country. What will your government do? They will do everything to join NATO. And this is exactly what happened. Putin's propaganda is that NATO is a threat to Russia. Yet, NATO has never attacked Russia. NATO is, however, a threat to Russia's imperialism. After Ukraine they can turn to Kazakhstan and a few other countries that are not NATO members. He can't just invade the Baltics just as he invaded Ukraine - just because of that single reason. No wonder Putin is having a fir over it again and again.