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

481–490 of 500 posts

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

#481

Post by riehwvfbk »

_djo_ wrote: post #479
riehwvfbk wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That particular Security Council decision was entirely driven by the US though, including getting the Saudis to pay 1B USD to the ailing Soviet Union to buy their Yes vote (and by then it was already in the final stages of Perestroika). I wonder what your justification for Saddam's invisible WMDs is. That lie was not invented by someone at the Pentagon?

Again, such an arrogant US-centric view. You do realise that other countries have agency too, right? The idea that the US drove the Saudis to lobby the Soviets is absurd: The Saudis were independently lobbying everyone they could because all signs were that the much more powerful Iraqi military would invade them next in order to gain control of much of the world’s oil supplies. That’s why the first coalition response…

I'm not that crazy yet, I am aware that the two Iraq wars were separately wielded by father and son.

Kind of funny that you accuse me of a US-centric view. Usually I get told I am a paid Russian troll. One last question: how long do you think the Ukraine war would last if the US decided to pull out? Other countries having agency? I'm just not seeing it. Looks like they just do what they are told from where I am sitting.

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

#482

Post by _djo_ »

riehwvfbk wrote: post #481
_djo_ wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, such an arrogant US-centric view. You do realise that other countries have agency too, right? The idea that the US drove the Saudis to lobby the Soviets is absurd: The Saudis were independently lobbying everyone they could because all signs were that the much more powerful Iraqi military would invade them next in order to gain control of much of the world’s oil supplies. That’s why the first coalition response…

I'm not that crazy yet, I am aware that the two Iraq wars were separately wielded by father and son. Kind of funny that you accuse me of a US-centric view. Usually I get told I am a paid Russian troll. One last question: how long do you think the Ukraine war would last if the US decided to pull out? Other countries having agency? I'm just not seeing it. Looks like they just do what they are told from where I am sitti…

US-centric doesn’t mean that you like the US, it means you speak and act like the US is the sole or primary cause of everything that happens in the world, is the only country with grand plans, and that other countries have no agency and can merely react to it. It’s a refusal to believe that much of the time the US is reacting to plans set in motion by other countries.

Ukraine is a key example: The US (and the rest of the West) clearly didn’t want Russia to invade. They used every diplomatic means at their disposal to convince it not to. But once Russia did, and once Ukraine’s resistance was successful, they reacted by supporting it.

So, no, the idea that only the US has agency is patently absurd. Do yourself a favour and go read some autobiographies, biographies, and history books that focus on the leadership of other major powers and how they acted and thought during various crises. It’ll open your mind as to how the world actually works.

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

#483

Post by AnimalMuppet »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #467
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I don't think you're right about Korea though.

Fine. Don't take my word for it. Go look.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War:

"The Korean War was fought between North Korea and South Korea; it began on 25 June 1950 when North Korea invaded South Korea and ceased after an armistice on 27 July 1953. North Korea was supported by the People's Republic of China and the Soviet Union while South Korea was supported by the United Nations Command (UNC) led by the US."

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

#484

Post by riehwvfbk »

_djo_ wrote: post #482
riehwvfbk wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not that crazy yet, I am aware that the two Iraq wars were separately wielded by father and son. Kind of funny that you accuse me of a US-centric view. Usually I get told I am a paid Russian troll. One last question: how long do you think the Ukraine war would last if the US decided to pull out? Other countries having agency? I'm just not seeing it. Looks like they just do what they are told from where I am sitti…

US-centric doesn’t mean that you like the US, it means you speak and act like the US is the sole or primary cause of everything that happens in the world, is the only country with grand plans, and that other countries have no agency and can merely react to it. It’s a refusal to believe that much of the time the US is reacting to plans set in motion by other countries. Ukraine is a key example: The US (and the rest of…

Thanks for the high brow dismissal (hey, it's better than low brow). I do quite a lot of reading; I also know that Americans like telling everyone how they are the only ones with the truth and their world view is gospel. I think you guys believe in your own version of history so deeply yourselves that not only do you never question it, you are very effective preachers.

And there, there. You are smarter than anyone foreign. You read more, your mind is more open, and you are always right.

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

#485

Post by DSingularity »

dotancohen wrote: post #404
DSingularity wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably precludes him from accepting the invitations. You cant be anti-imperialist and accept a dinner invitation where you will inevitably be forced to smile at and rub elbows with the same men you critique as war-criminals. The man is principled. I hope he recovers. He would be sorely missed.

Why not? He's supposedly anti-imperislist yet had no problem living in their society.

Where would you have him live? In an apartheid nation that rejects him so thoroughly that he might get assassinated by some right-wing hardliners for speaking out against the oppression?

Seems that by your logic one who disagrees with an evil he sees in his society should leave immediately or commit to silence.

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

#486

Post by tremon »

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.

the wars started by "the West" (US and allies)

How many wars post-WWII can you name that were started by US allies? Other than Israel, and excluding domestic terrorism issues (Italy, Germany, UK), I'm drawing a blank here.

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

#487

Post by dragonwriter »

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.

> 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.

Korea was started by a USSR ally (North Korea invading South Korea), the UN Command (led by the US) was a defensive response.

Vietnam is...well, the whole post-WW2 situation in the region is complicated, but it's reasonable to view it as started by Western allies of the US, particularly France.

Iraq 1990- was started by Iraq. Iraq 2003 was started by the US.

Afghanistan 1980 was started by the USSR Afghanistan 2001 was started by the al-Qaeda, a force intimately connected to and defended by the Taliban and based in Taliban-held territory, attacking the US.

Your list of examples doesn't really make a strong case for your thesis.

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

#488

Post by dragonwriter »

slantedview wrote: post #270
phatfish wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is still annoyed communism failed so epically. In his mind the Soviet satellites were to blame for wanting independence. It can been seen again with Ukraine, it's not that the Ukrainians are standing up for their independence, it is somehow NATOs fault. He has made some good points about western politics from time to time. Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.

> it is somehow NATOs fault. NATO continued to expand right up to Russia's doorstep despite repeated promises not to, and refused to rule out expanding to Ukraine. Russia clearly called this out as a problem for years. Whether or not this is "NATOs fault", it's clear that the Ukraine invasion was motivated, in part, by NATO expansion.

> NATO continued to expand right up to Russia's doorstep

NATO was literally founded on the USSR's border ("Russia", as a top-level sovereign, did not exist), it had nothing to "expand up to", on either the Eastern or Western side.

> despite repeated promises not to

Assuming any such promises were made (which only one dubious alleged instance is ever pointed to, so hardly "repeatedly" in even the best case), they were personal guarantees between individual leaders of the USA and USSR, not durable binding commitments (note the absence of a treaty, executive agreement, public document or even mere joint contemporaneous oral statement of any kind) binding governments to their terms beyond the term of individual officials and heritable after the fall of one of the involved states by some successor regime.

And even had such an undocumented commitment existed and had validity, it was implicitly nullified by Russia's attempts to join NATO.

> Whether or not this is "NATOs fault", it's clear that the Ukraine invasion was motivated, in part, by NATO expansion.

It's not clear at all that it was. For one thing, Georgia was invaded immediately after NATO complied with the Russian request in 2008 not to extend Membership Action Plans to Georgia and Ukraine, and Ukraine subsequently abandoned efforts to join NATO until after Russia invaded and purported to annex much of the country in 2014. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has been the cause of, rather than a response to, recent NATO expansion.

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

#489

Post by dragonwriter »

hughesjj wrote: post #434
EthanHeilman wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. The US told Ukraine it was never going to happen. Originally Ukraine had wanted neutrality but Russia kept making territorial claims on Ukraine land pushing Ukraine to seek protection from Russian imperialist ambitions. If Ukraine eventually gets NATO membership it will be because of Russian's invasion.

Heck Crimea basically guaranteed ukraine couldn't be admitted because of the whole no territorial disputes clause, and they were (nor are they now) nowhere near ready to acquiese on that.

> Heck Crimea basically guaranteed ukraine couldn't be admitted because of the whole no territorial disputes clause

There is no such clause in the North Atlantic Treaty, and many NATO members (including founding members) were admitted with territorial disputes, including with other NATO members, either admitted earlier or simultaneously admitted.

NATO members are required to pledge to resolve disputes of any kind in accordance with the principles of the UN, endeavouring to do so by means which are both peaceful and not disruptive of international peace and security, but without prejudice to any of their rights under the UN Charter including those of individual and collective self-defense, and to declare that at the time of their accession to the treaty none of their existing "engagements" violate those principles. (See, particularly, Articles 1, 7, and 8 of the North Atlantic Treaty.)

There is no reasonable reading of the Treaty which would prohibit a new member from being admitted while while some of its territory is under hostile occupation or while engaged in a defensive war on its won territory against an aggressor; it may make it more difficult to achieve the required unanimity, but there is no "territorial disputes clause" preventing it.

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

#490

Post by racional »

dragonwriter wrote: post #488
slantedview wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it is somehow NATOs fault. NATO continued to expand right up to Russia's doorstep despite repeated promises not to, and refused to rule out expanding to Ukraine. Russia clearly called this out as a problem for years. Whether or not this is "NATOs fault", it's clear that the Ukraine invasion was motivated, in part, by NATO expansion.

> NATO continued to expand right up to Russia's doorstep NATO was literally founded on the USSR's border ("Russia", as a top-level sovereign, did not exist), it had nothing to "expand up to", on either the Eastern or Western side. > despite repeated promises not to Assuming any such promises were made (which only one dubious alleged instance is ever pointed to, so hardly "repeatedly" in even the best case), they were…

NATO was literally founded on the USSR's border ("Russia", as a top-level sovereign, did not exist), it had nothing to "expand up to", on either the Eastern or Western side.

Well that's not a fair assessment. It's technically true that NATO was founded on the USSR's borders via Norway. But there's not doubt that the expansion east of Germany, to include not just nearly all of Eastern Europe but a much more sensitive position directly on Russia's border (talking about the inclusion of the Baltics here) was hugely significant, and let's face it, also clearly a snub to Russia (despite their also wanting to join at one point; but that in no way mitigates the fact that NATO being expanded to their other countries was a move fundamentally aimed at Russia from the very start).

Not that this supports Russia's "because NATO" argument in any way; it's just pure garbage, of course. One can even argue that the expansion up to countries (such as the Baltics) that have been historically victims of Russian aggression is an intrinsically good thing. But there's no reason to attempt to water down the fact that the post-1990 expansion of NATO was hugely significant, and intrinsically meant as an anti-Russian manouevre (one can argue with perfectly good cause, in retrospect -- but there's no denying that import was there).

The fact that Norway and Russia shared a tiny border that most people don't even know about is entirely incidental to all of this.

Post reply on HN