Chomsky: Hegemony or Survival

[LWolf]

Interesting, long interview with Chomsky in the Washington Post; be sure to catch the whole thing, 4 paragraphs won't do it justice!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4316-2003Nov21.html

<snip>

In his new book, "Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance," intellectual activist Noam Chomsky argues that U.S. policy -- the militarization of space, the ballistic-missile defense program, unilateralism, the dismantling of international agreements, and the response to the Iraqi crisis -- cohere in a drive for hegemony that ultimately threatens our survival.

<snip>

Washington, D.C.: I'm asking you this question sincerely: Why don't you direct your hatred of George Bush toward someone more worthy of such venom, such as Osama bin Laden?

Noam Chomsky: I don't recall having expressed any hatred for George Bush, though I have quoted people who expressed real fury at what he has done, and even compared him to the Japanese fascists who bombed Pearl Harbor: historian Arthur Schlesinger in this case. If what you mean is that I have criticized Bush's policies more than Osama's, that's because I take for granted, like everyone else, that Osama bin Laden is a murderous thug, who the current incumbents in Washington should never have supported through the 1980s, and who should be apprehended and tried for his crimes right now -- as I've written -- and don't see any point reiterating what 100% of us believe about him. But I am a citizen of the US, and therefore share responsibility for US government policies, and assume that one of the duties of citizenship is to live up to that responsibility -- by criticizing policies one thinks are wrong, for example.

<snip>

Jamaica, N.Y.: Sir, it is an honor to speak with you today, what is your view on the statement that since we are the sole super-power, the U.S. has an obligation,not only to itself for protection, but to the international community to act, even when our allies are unwilling or unable, case in point Iraq, though the U.S. was never in direct danger, our allies in the Middle East were. Thank you sir.

Noam Chomsky: The assumption behind your question is that the US is entitled to act in the name of the international community, to defend their interests. One could debate this question, but it doesn't seem relevant. Take your example. The US went to war against the objection of an overwhelming majority of the international community. In the international Gallup polls of last December, there was hardly a country where support for the US-UK unilateral attack reached 10%. In fact, opposition was entirely without historical precedent. And remains so. How, in that case, can we even raise the question of the obligation of the US to act in the interests of the international community? Are we to assume that WE know the interests of others, but they don't? I'm sure you don't mean that.

[bemildred]

1. Dang, I always wondered what intellectual disembowelment looked like. nt

[sablefish]

2. I like Chomsky.. however

He seems to mention that it is the U.S. that is to blame.. but in reality the FED and international bankers control everything that happens..and I'm sure there is an even more powerfull international entity that is allowing him to speak...

He pretends to be a leftist but what he really is ... is a shill for Globalism.. Where both the far right and the far left are both orchestrated to bring Global governance to us ..Whether we want it ot not.

When has he ever mentioned the Rothschilds?.. Never.