It's more selective than that.

The US and it's allies try to prevent any government from holding power if that government opposes US interests.

Wait.

All nations try to prevent any government from holding power if that government opposes their interests.

Chomsky's rallying cry for moral equivalency in assessing the hypocrisy of American foreign policy is drowned out by his abject failure to rally cries for the equivalent moral failures of any other nation at all.

Point in fact, Gadhafi starts murdering his own people and when the UN asks for help to stop it and America steps up, America is the bad guy, and apologies are made for Gadhafi...

Moral equivalence would seem to place Gadhafi and his government at much greater fault and failure. But instead Chomsky comes out swinging the biggest axe at America for backing the UN resolution to stop Gadhafi.


It's really terribly sad to see what Chomsky has come to these days.

>> ^bcglorf:

It's more selective than that.
The US and it's allies try to prevent any government from holding power if that government opposes US interests.
Wait.
All nations try to prevent any government from holding power if that government opposes their interests.
Chomsky's rallying cry for moral equivalency in assessing the hypocrisy of American foreign policy is drowned out by his abject failure to rally cries for the equivalent moral failures of any other nation at all.
Point in fact, Gadhafi starts murdering his own people and when the UN asks for help to stop it and America steps up, America is the bad guy, and apologies are made for Gadhafi...
Moral equivalence would seem to place Gadhafi and his government at much greater fault and failure. But instead Chomsky comes out swinging the biggest axe at America for backing the UN resolution to stop Gadhafi.

It's really terribly sad to see what Chomsky has come to these days.


You've never actually read Chomsky have you? Because if you had you would've heard him say time and time again that he is an American...so his job is to talk about America because all other American commentators are really good at assessing other nations crimes but not Americas. It's literally in almost every book he writes...he does an astounding amount of research and work and you want this 80+ year old man to do more?

Sorry but I agree with Chomsky...as Americans we have to look in the mirror FIRST. We have to assess our decisions and decision making capabilities because that's what We have control over more than anything else.

Seriously READ some Chomsky sometimes he does no good adding his voice to the obvious things other countries do wrong because we see those clearly. America is his subject and he's well versed in it's foreign policy...much more so than you.

Also notice that this is 15 minutes of a much longer speech.

as Americans we have to look in the mirror FIRST.

You can't do that unless you've got a mirror handy somewhere.

If I invent a time machine, and go back and beat out Clinton for the presidency and deploy American troops into Rwanda and save 700,000 lives by slowing the genocide it looks pretty good to us. BUT if you only look at America, and ignore the crimes of the Hutu militia's in Rwanda, all you would see is American intervention precipitating another African civil war that killed 100,000 Africans.

You can't judge the interactions between two nations in a vacuum where only one nation's crimes and failures are considered, which is the unfortunate turn Chomsky has been taking for awhile now.

You can't judge America's role in Libya without equally assessing the role of Gadhafi as well. Without assessing both you are not only being dishonest with your audience, but deliberately so.

Also notice that this is 15 minutes of a much longer speech.

My point sadly applies to pretty much all of Chomsky's work for the last couple of years .

>> ^bcglorf:

as Americans we have to look in the mirror FIRST.
You can't do that unless you've got a mirror handy somewhere.
If I invent a time machine, and go back and beat out Clinton for the presidency and deploy American troops into Rwanda and save 700,000 lives by slowing the genocide it looks pretty good to us. BUT if you only look at America, and ignore the crimes of the Hutu militia's in Rwanda, all you would see is American intervention precipitating another African civil war that killed 100,000 Africans.
You can't judge the interactions between two nations in a vacuum where only one nation's crimes and failures are considered, which is the unfortunate turn Chomsky has been taking for awhile now.
You can't judge America's role in Libya without equally assessing the role of Gadhafi as well. Without assessing both you are not only being dishonest with your audience, but deliberately so.
Also notice that this is 15 minutes of a much longer speech.
My point sadly applies to pretty much all of Chomsky's work for the last couple of years .


I guess you just don't get it then.