Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

independent.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 500 posts

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#461

Post by meiraleal »

darthrupert wrote: post #456
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is "we"? I'm not American. Why should I treat American and Russian aggression differently? And yes, the wars were not directly analogous but the stark reality of the matter is that the US and RUssia are two of the world bullies that are capable of invading anyone they like, and nobody can do anything about it. Again: why should I like one more than the other? Why should anyone, who is not their citizen?

You should treat then differently because they are altogether different. When is the last time USA annexed parts of another country?

ongoing: current American occupation of Syria

Check also: Germany, South Korea and Japan have more American militiamen stationed there than the active duty personnel of the majority of the countries in the world.

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#462

Post by Teever »

woooooo wrote: post #458
Teever wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you say that this particular episode is representative of the entire Russian military during this conflict?

Pretty much? They have logistics problems 20 miles from their borders, we had excellent logistics for 20 years in frickin Afghanistan. They built Taco Bell restaurants on the bases. These are entirely different leagues of capability.

Did the Taliban ever take out one of those taco bells with an American supplied ATACMS?

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#463

Post by HappySweeney »

meiraleal wrote: post #461
darthrupert wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should treat then differently because they are altogether different. When is the last time USA annexed parts of another country?

ongoing: current American occupation of Syria Check also: Germany, South Korea and Japan have more American militiamen stationed there than the active duty personnel of the majority of the countries in the world.

Do you believe the USA is attempting to make parts of Syria new American states? If not, then this is not an ongoing annexation attempt.

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#464

Post by AnimalMuppet »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #416
racional wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Putin wanted to recreate Imperial Russia, or the Soviet Union, then why would he negotiate for peace? Because as he keeps saying over and over -- the only "peace" he will accept is one in which his claims to sovereignty on the territories he is currently sitting are recognized by Western powers. This was his core demand during the Istanbul talks, and it's his current demand now (though he's upped it a bit recently…

That's probably because the wars started by "the West" (US and allies) are significantly more than the wars started by Russia or the USSR. See: vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan. Not that Russia is some big supporter of peace, but the US and its allies are the current global bully. And you don't need Mearsheimer to tell you that.

Who do you think started Korea? Free clue: It wasn't the US.

Afghanistan? You seem to forget that Russia also invaded them.

You also seem to forget Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Georgia, and Ukraine.

So, no, the wars started by "the West" are not significantly more than the wars started by Russia or the USSR.

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#465

Post by qsdf38100 »

hollerith wrote: post #314
CamperBob2 wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia is a nuclear-armed state. They have nothing to fear from NATO. They can never be invaded or conquered again, by anyone, ever. Except from within. Disagree? Answer my questions below, and explain exactly how you would go about attacking Russia.

>They can never be invaded or conquered again, by anyone, ever. Why does thinking about nuclear weapons cause most people to think in absolutist terms like this? Maybe Russia was counting on getting a 15-minute warning of ICBMs approaching, but if a hostile military can station missile right on their southwestern border (523 miles from the center of Moscow) their plan goes out the window.

Russia has had Baltic states right on their borders for 20 years since they joined NATO. So if this was their plan it’s out the window regardless.

Russia wants to regain its "lost" territories, started with annexation of tchetchenia (2 wars), annexation of parts of Georgia, and annexation of Crimea. Ukraine was next regardless. They already annexed the break away republics of Ukraine, and even land that they since lost.

No need for pretexts (NATO, denazification, biolabs, or protection of Ukraine ethnic Russians) to explain Ukraine invasion. Ukraine not ruling out joining NATO meant they had to invade while they could, or let go the dream of a glorious Grand Russia.

I mean, they don’t even hide it, it’s all over their state TV networks, with propagandists telling things like "Europe will be ours", "To Berlin", and "The world belongs to the superior Russian race". It’s textbook fascism, state-sponsored, casual, on modern TV shows. I find it disturbing that some still think they are the victim and it’s all about NATO imperialism. When was the last time some NATO country annexed some land?

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#466

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

racional wrote: post #450
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is "we"? I'm not American. Why should I treat American and Russian aggression differently? And yes, the wars were not directly analogous but the stark reality of the matter is that the US and RUssia are two of the world bullies that are capable of invading anyone they like, and nobody can do anything about it. Again: why should I like one more than the other? Why should anyone, who is not their citizen?

Why should I treat American and Russian aggression differently? One shouldn't, and both should be condemned of course. And not apologized for, like you are doing here.

Just to be clear, I did not "apologize" for anyone. I think you mean that I'm an apologist for someone or other? I should also clarify that, no, I am not. I am a peacenick and a anti-nationalist and I dislike all nations equally, especially the ones that go to war over perceived threats to their territorial integrity or their national interests etc. None of those things are more valuable than human lives.

To be even more clear: those nations include Russia, the US, China, and basically every other national entity with an army that you might want to propose.

For the record, I also dislike, strongly, people on the internet who cannot hold a conversation without insulting their interlocutor, or accusing them of some perceived mind crime.

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#467

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #464
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's probably because the wars started by "the West" (US and allies) are significantly more than the wars started by Russia or the USSR. See: vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan. Not that Russia is some big supporter of peace, but the US and its allies are the current global bully. And you don't need Mearsheimer to tell you that.

Who do you think started Korea? Free clue: It wasn't the US. Afghanistan? You seem to forget that Russia also invaded them. You also seem to forget Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Georgia, and Ukraine. So, no, the wars started by "the West" are not significantly more than the wars started by Russia or the USSR.

Fine, I stand corrected: I forgot about Czechoslovakia (I don't think you're right about Korea though).

In any case that still leaves Russia aggression on par with US aggression. My point in this thread is that I don't see the reason to prefer the US and "the West" to Russia. Or China. I would certainly not want to be a citizen of any of those three.

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#468

Post by roenxi »

_djo_ wrote: post #446
roenxi wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There has been order-of-magnitude 100 billion dollars worth of NATO gear provided to Ukraine with the express purpose of killing as many Russians as possible, let alone the intangible value of various forms of aid provided (things like intelligence are hard to assess). "Hehe, well we didn't file the proper paperwork" isn't exactly the sort of response that is going to get a good result. I doubt the Russians are worri…

You're mixing up cause and response, once again, and ignoring the timeline of events. > There has been order-of-magnitude 100 billion dollars worth of NATO gear provided to Ukraine with the express purpose of killing as many Russians as possible, let alone the intangible value of various forms of aid provided (things like intelligence are hard to assess). "Hehe, well we didn't file the proper paperwork" isn't exactly…

80s? NATO expands. 90s? NATO expands. 00s? NATO Expands. 10s? NATO expands. 20s? NATO expands. Russia at peace? NATO expands. Russia at war? NATO expands. Russia tries anything, including diplomacy? NATO expands. Only the neutrality of Switzerland prevents me from drawing a line through NATO from the Russian border to Spain.

The pattern here is not "oh Ukraine wasn't going to join up until the Russians invaded". The pattern is NATO expands. The preponderance of evidence in the NATO response to the Ukraine invasion - and the flow of history - suggests that the US has its sights on integrating Ukraine into NATO and was probably in the process of it.

> Yes, the coalition attack on Iraq in 1991 to repel its forces from Kuwait is one example

The audacity. You spend a thread whinging about Russia panicking because the US is organising all of Europe against them [0], then as a counterexample you pick one of the US's invasions of the Middle East (of Iraq no less, those poor people) as your example of a justified war?

What is the criteria here? US aggression is OK? A quorum of European interests justifies any invasion? It is OK if we do it to brown Muslims but not white Christians? There is no jus ad bellum to be found in the US expeditions into the Middle East; they've been a disaster for the region and the world. And any time you end up siding with the Saudis it is bad news for any sort of principled approach.

[0] Which, I mean, fair enough what Russia is doing is awful but let's aim for some consistency here.

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#469

Post by _djo_ »

riehwvfbk wrote: post #457
_djo_ wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which part was a lie? Here's the UN Security Council resolution that authorised the invasion. It's quite clear on the reasoning, the justification, and the mechanisms. https://undocs.org/Home/Mobile?FinalSymbol=S%2FRES%2F678(199...

The whole "babies thrown out of incubators" thing for one. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony This was the basis for manufacturing consent for the invasion. What you are linking is simply the after-the-fact legalese.

It’s a remarkably insular and US-centric view to believe that that story was the reason the United Nations Security Council voted to eject Iraq from Kuwait. It was a piece of propaganda that merely had some air play in the US and which, while it may have been convenient to the US and Kuwaiti governments for the support of the US population, was not the strategic reason for any of the nations involved.

Fortunately we have plenty of primary sources to validate this, from the minutes of UNSC minutes to statements by various heads of government at the time. All make it clear that the war was authorised because Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait was not only blatantly illegal but destructive to the international system. That story didn’t form any part their rationale.

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#470

Post by mopsi »

roenxi wrote: post #468
_djo_ wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're mixing up cause and response, once again, and ignoring the timeline of events. > There has been order-of-magnitude 100 billion dollars worth of NATO gear provided to Ukraine with the express purpose of killing as many Russians as possible, let alone the intangible value of various forms of aid provided (things like intelligence are hard to assess). "Hehe, well we didn't file the proper paperwork" isn't exactly…

80s? NATO expands. 90s? NATO expands. 00s? NATO Expands. 10s? NATO expands. 20s? NATO expands. Russia at peace? NATO expands. Russia at war? NATO expands. Russia tries anything, including diplomacy? NATO expands. Only the neutrality of Switzerland prevents me from drawing a line through NATO from the Russian border to Spain. The pattern here is not "oh Ukraine wasn't going to join up until the Russians invaded". The…

> The pattern is NATO expands.

NATO is not a loaf of rising bread that expands on its own when left on a windowsill. My country is in NATO because I voted for successive governments that set it as their top priority, because I believed then and I believe now that tight cooperation with likeminded countries is the best way to deter another Russian invasion (we've had 40+ of them in recorded history).

And this is the universal view in Europe as of 2024. No country in Europe can afford on their own what Ukraine has been through, and this makes military alliances essential for national security. Even Sweden with its 200+ years of neutrality ditched it as soon as Russia invaded Ukraine. Ukraine is by now a cautionary tale of naive belief in diplomacy (Helsinki Accords; Budapest memorandum; etc) without a big stick to back it up.

Conspiracy theories about the US turning Europe against Russia are completely redundant. When it comes to national security, no responsible government in parts of Europe closest to Russia can afford to stay out of NATO. If you were the prime minister of Finland, why would you not do everything you could to join NATO and enter the mutual defense pact seeing how Russia behaves in Ukraine?

For a very long time, both Finland and Sweden had a deep belief that skillful diplomacy could prevent a war with Russia, but what do you do when Russia starts blasting that your country doesn't exist?

Post reply on HN