
Noam Chomsky: American Power Under Challenge - chishaku
http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176137/
======
JonathanMoirth
From the number of comments commited so far, I realise that Americans don't
want to touch the subject because it hurts. Noam's book should be read along
with all the articles written by Paul Graig Roberts. In the end, the average
American will realize that she/he complicit to the warmongering attitude of
the United States and how it treats the entire world with 1000+ military bases
around the world "spreading freedom". If you ask where the word complicit fits
in, then look no further to the average American not voting or voting for
politicians who have committed crimes against humanity (Clintons, Bush, Kerry
etc) or the ones who will eventually commit (Trump) Good night America.

~~~
dbcurtis
Well, but let's talk about the collapse of Yugoslavia for a while and the
subsequent genocide in Bosnia. Here was something in Western Europe's back
yard, and they were totally impotent, letting genocide happen right before
their eyes. If US citizens are "complicit" in "crimes against humanity", are
not European citizens complicit in the genocide that they let happen? Standing
by and wringing your hands until the skin rubs off does not stop genocide. It
took the US to get involved with a military deployment for any effective
action to be taken.

I'm sick to death of being lectured by Europeans who can't be bothered to do
anything beyond writing scolding editorials in newspapers.

~~~
uola
Well, at least we didn't start the war, not even under false pretenses, we
welcomed a lot of refugees, held real trials, didn't torture or assassinate
anyone and sent countless of soldiers on peacekeeping missions. And it wasn't
like the US one day got involved and saved the day. NATO and the UN (Yes, the
air strikes were UN sanctioned) was involved from the beginning of the war.

~~~
fit2rule
Its shocking that the "eurofag" crowd don't seem to get this aspect of the
Bosnian conflict: Europe was _definitely_ involved. European troops got there
first.

~~~
uola
Mostly "I don't know too much about the world, but the white house said they
did great". If Europe had any larger responsibility for the conflict, it was
probably that it couldn't stop the war from happening (even though this is a
complex topic as well). Of course this is also one of the motivations behind
the EU.

~~~
fit2rule
It is rather shocking that the propaganda defeats peoples willingness to
investigate the truth for themselves - especially with regards to a topic that
is, quite literally, extraordinarily inflammatory. Europe, having suffered two
major world wars as a result of countries thinking they should just intervene
whenever/wherever/for whatever reason, has reason to be cautious whenever
someone starts a fire in the Balkans. American nationalists attempting to
defend their country's honor don't seem to factor in this key value in their
analysis: European leaders have learned to be cautious when it comes to making
a case for multi-national warfare. America, having gone into the great dark
void it current inhabits, for the most part alone (albeit with a collection of
puppet states for the sake of keeping up appearances), seems all too
boisterous when it comes to just sending military resources and assets across
multiple borders.

This was all factored into place when Europe responded - before the US - to
the Bosnian crisis. Very definitely, mistakes were made - but the
conflagration was defused and there is now - relatively speaking - a peace in
the area. Bosnia could've been Europes' Syria/(Israel,Palestine). However, it
isn't today - and the reason for this is the cool headedness of European
leadership. Not the arrogant bragadocio of American militarism.

------
stcredzero
_Chinese leaders understand very well that their country’s maritime trade
routes are ringed with hostile powers from Japan through the Malacca Straits
and beyond, backed by overwhelming U.S. military force. Accordingly, China is
proceeding to expand westward with extensive investments and careful moves
toward integration._

Expanding into the vastness of central Asia is a raw deal, historically. It's
much too hard to secure borders, so security becomes a huge drain on
resources. China would probably do better to increase trade with its
neighbors, and lose some of its identity to a regional economic association.
If China's trade routes become the mutual interest of her neighbors, being
ringed by powerful neighbors goes from a detriment to an advantage.

The U.S. is suffering under the burden of maintaining overwhelming military
superiority. The British Empire mortgaged world domination for help in WWI,
then defaulted to the US for WWII and gave up many of her global network of
naval bases to the US. The 1st half of the 20th century bankrupted the British
Empire. Now the latter half of the 20th century and the first part of the 21st
will be seen as the same process happening to the U.S.

------
x5n1
Good unilateralism is a stupid idea. May they all succeed and distribute power
far and wide.

~~~
littletimmy
There is strong evidence to suggest that without the hegemony of the United
States, there will be more war in the world.

There will certainly be more war in the Middle East (Iran vs Saudi Arabia,
Israel vs Arab World), more war in Eastern Europe (Putin expanding into
Crimea), more war in the Indian subcontinent (Pakistan is unstable), and so
on. Is that the sort of world you want?

~~~
x5n1
Strong evidence where written by whom? Do I want more war, no I don't. But I
also don't support hegemony. Most of Islamic fundamentalism would not be
possible with the Saudis and the Saudis would not be possible without the US.
Israel would have to make better peace with its neighbors without the backing
of the superpower. Pakistan would probably be less fundamentalist had it not
been for the 70s CIA plots to fund Jihadism in Afgahnistan. America is the
only big player on the board, it can make all sorts of justifications for its
political moves. And there is no way of knowing what the world would look like
without them. Only rhetoric and theory.

What the world needs to do, what Europe needs to do, is stand up on its two
feet and quit being America's puppet. The same goes for pretty much everyone
in the world. It is not good to rely on anyone else to represent your people
and your economic interests in the world. Trusting other people's leadership
is not a smart move, it keeps you incompetent.

edit: replying to the comment below.

So your point is that there is only enough room in the world for one ultra-
national anti-internationalist country and the US is it. The end state of the
game is when there is no such country in the world. That includes the US.

~~~
emblem21
> "Strong evidence where written by whom?"

> "What the world needs to do, what Europe needs to do, is stand up on its two
> feet"

Advocating ultra-nationalist, anti-internationalist policies is, precisely,
what leads to the mass conflict the grandparent was talking about.

~~~
tremon
Europe is not a nation. Arguing for Europe to stand up is very much
internationalist.

~~~
emblem21
Stand up against whom?

~~~
krapp
The United States, obviously. The US is still occupying Europe with hundreds
of military bases, it supports and funds terrorist groups and drug cartels, it
undermines democratic governments and threatens the security of Europe's
people through NSA and CIA sabotage.

There's no reason for the US to maintain the overwhelming global military
presence that it does, particularly in Europe. World War 2 is over, and the US
will never actually go to war with an enemy like Iran, Russia or China, or any
country that might actually pose a legitimate threat to global security, so
why keep up the pretense of being the "world's policeman?"

------
polshaw
.

~~~
Jtsummers
It's a combination of flagging and flame war detection. While I'm
participating here, politics really aren't a good fit for this forum. The
discussions tend to get too heated to be productive and brings out the worst
in people.

