3 ms·

Chomsky's position has never been "America bad". This article is atrocious. His position has always been that it doesn't matter who did it, it only matters what

Chomsky's position has never been "America bad". This article is atrocious. His position has always been that it doesn't matter who did it, it only matters what was in fact done. For some reason this is very difficult for most people to accept. This sentence is telling: "And yet when Chomsky discusses the Gulf War, he dismisses the notion that American foreign policy became more idealistic after the Soviet threat receded" It's a better question why the author is considering that argument. It might be true, it might not, but is there any proof? But with all that said, I don't understand why this was flagged. I feel like people flag articles a lot more than they used to, just because they don't like it. Maybe people that flag should be forced to write a comment why they flagged it or at least that everyone sees they did.

JieJie 2y ago
There is considerable proof in the public record for just such a belief. "The logic of humanitarian military intervention gained force in the 1990s after the fall of the Soviet Union, “the unipolar moment” of American dominance, and after the Sept. 11 attacks, when it became increasingly common among conservatives to tie national security to democracy promotion abroad."* *https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/20/opinion/biden-afghanistan-intervention.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/20/opinion/biden-afghanistan...
- locallost 2y ago
  Is that proof or just an opinion? My opinion is that it's just different rhetoric to justify military action as the Boogeyman of communism was no longer there. Again, an opinion.
consumer451 2y ago
> His position has always been that it doesn't matter who did it, it only matters what was in fact done. I still give Chomsky a lot of credit for his past contributions, but his opinions on the Russian imperialist invasion of the sovereign state of Ukraine made me not believe that he was as objective as I had once hoped. Maybe it was advanced age leading to a decline of neuroplasticity, but he is entirely wrong on that count.

JieJie 2y ago

There is considerable proof in the public record for just such a belief. "The logic of humanitarian military intervention gained force in the 1990s after the fall of the Soviet Union, “the unipolar moment” of American dominance, and after the Sept. 11 attacks, when it became increasingly common among conservatives to tie national security to democracy promotion abroad."* *https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/20/opinion/biden-afghanistan-intervention.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/20/opinion/biden-afghanistan...

locallost 2y ago
Is that proof or just an opinion? My opinion is that it's just different rhetoric to justify military action as the Boogeyman of communism was no longer there. Again, an opinion.

consumer451 2y ago

> His position has always been that it doesn't matter who did it, it only matters what was in fact done. I still give Chomsky a lot of credit for his past contributions, but his opinions on the Russian imperialist invasion of the sovereign state of Ukraine made me not believe that he was as objective as I had once hoped. Maybe it was advanced age leading to a decline of neuroplasticity, but he is entirely wrong on that count.