Gurometer: Noam Chomsky (Video)
Added 2023-08-19 04:41:36 +0000 UTCYou waited patiently for the episode now experience the joys of a fairly straightforward Gurometer.
How does Chomsky fair? Well, I think the episode makes it clear but remember this is a machine for detecting SECULAR GURUS and Chomsky is not exactly in that vein so y'know...
Let us know what you think!
Comments
Did I say NATO were the bad guys? You're full of garbage. Did Serbia invite NATO to bomb them? Was Serbia attacking any NATO country? If not, it was by definition an invasion. And in any war, both sides think the other side is the bad guys - I assure you, there are people in Serbia who think NATO are the bad guys, and others who don't. That doesn't mean anything with respect to invasions or not.
Kat
2023-08-24 01:06:35 +0000 UTCMe too, and I hope the next time the United States invades a sovereign nation our large media outlets will report civilian deaths.
Christopher McLaughlin
2023-08-23 22:43:00 +0000 UTCI doubt China will have nearly as many bases as the US does in the near future because rising powers tend to eschew alliances, and don't invest in infrastructure to protect an existing world order which they seek to disrupt. Perhaps in several decades, when China seeks to protect whatever world order it has established, it'll have myriad bases and facilities around the world. I hope when that happens, Chinese academics can freely criticize their countries foreign policy the same way those in American can today.
Mark
2023-08-23 18:35:12 +0000 UTCFair enough. I wonder how conservative we here in the US will be accounting for China’s planned overseas military bases?
Christopher McLaughlin
2023-08-23 16:12:33 +0000 UTCKat, if you think that NATO intervention in the former Yugoslavia was an invasion, we are living in different factual universes. 'Regardless of justification' - I know people who are still living with the effects of war crimes committed by the Yugoslav/Serbian government. And I assure you they do not think NATO are the bad guys.
Artemis Green
2023-08-23 13:22:36 +0000 UTCJust a heads up, that 750 US bases in 82 countries thing is based on some pretty dodgy accounting. If you look at David Vine's spreadsheet (where the figure comes from) he counts US overseas territories such as Guam, Puerto Rico and the uninhabited Johnston Atoll as not being a part of the US- which accounts for over 100 bases and several "countries". Similarly, overseas possessions of US allies such as Diego Garcia and Aruba are counted as separate countries. The number of bases is exaggerated too- Aviano Air Base in Italy, for example, is counted 7 separate times because munition storage, housing etc are counted separately. He also takes a liberal view of what constitutes a base- for example the US embassy in Kabul, Shannon Airport in Ireland and various unarmed radar stations, port facilities and civilian airports which are occasionally used by US forces are counted.
Mark
2023-08-23 10:42:54 +0000 UTCAlso not sure why you'd think that US forces would set up missiles targeted at Moscow within Sweden. The US already has dozens nuclear weapons targeted at Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Novosibirsk and so on, ready to launch at a moments notice from submarines hidden in worlds oceans. Russia has the same system, and together both parties know that an any first strike will be met with annihilation of their own civilian populations. Sweden is therefore of little use if the US wanted to launch a preemptive war against Russia, and Sweden joining NATO on it's own accord is not some conspiracy by a secretive American cabal to invade Russia.
Mark
2023-08-23 09:42:42 +0000 UTCThere were two choices faced by NATO / Europe in 1999: 1) let the state-sanctioned mass killings/rapes/displacements of Albanians within Kosovo (which Chomsky disgustingly minimizes) to continue. Consider that a few years earlier Serbian nationalists had carried out a genocide of Muslims within Bosnia which began in a similar fashion. 2) intervene with air strikes on Serbian targets to halt the operation. Arguably 2 was an act of imperialism, but frankly it's better than option 1.
Mark
2023-08-23 09:27:38 +0000 UTCYou don't know that NATO won't invade any country other than in self-defense. NATO has invaded countries not in self-defense, like Libya & Serbia. Regardless of justification, neither Libya nor Serbia were attacking any NATO countries. All that's needed is a good pretext, and with the U.S. in the lead, pretexts can surely be found. If part of joining NATO includes setting up military bases in those countries, with missiles pointed at the Russian capital, Russia has a very valid reason for regarding it as a threat.
Kat
2023-08-22 21:38:07 +0000 UTCIf you have any interest in learning what China’s current priorities are from an actual expert, please follow Dan Wang a visiting scholar at Yale Law School’s Paul Tsai China Center. He was a guest on the Ezra Klein Show on March 14 of this year and I Iearned more from him in an hour than I learned from all the non-area experts opining on China throughout my entire life.
Christopher McLaughlin
2023-08-22 18:08:28 +0000 UTCI’d like to dispel the myth that China is currently a greater threat to sovereign states than the United States of America. According to the Costs of War Project at Brown University the number of people killed directly in the violence of the wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and elsewhere are approximately 905,000-940,000. The number of people killed indirectly in post-9/11 war zones, including in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, are estimated at 3.6-3.8 million, though the precise figure remains unknown. This brings the estimated total of direct and indirect deaths to 4.5-4.7 million. The United States has about 750 overseas military bases in more than 80 countries, including a naval base and prison in Cuba. We should take China’s threats to Taiwan seriously, but if you compare China’s record with the United States record over the past 20 years I think the data speaks for itself.
Christopher McLaughlin
2023-08-22 17:09:37 +0000 UTCHmm, that isn't the point I'm making - the point I'm making is I don't think it makes any sense for Chomsky claim that Finland and Sweden joined NATO to buy weapons from NATO members, if he is also claiming that Finland and Sweden enjoy the protection of Art 5 of the NATO Treaty despite not being NATO members (which is an extraordinary claim btw). There is no threat to Russia from either Sweden or Finland because neither of those countries or indeed the rest of NATO will invade Russian territory other than in self-defence. NATO is a defensive alliance.
Artemis Green
2023-08-22 14:45:42 +0000 UTCNATO is a defensive treaty- it’s not making or planning any “moves” into Russia. Any action by the US against Russia outside of NATO command would require the consent of countries where it’s forces are based from, which I doubt Sweden or the Baltics would agree to. Unless your suggesting that the US is going to effectively militarily occupy those countries- which I suppose is on par with Chomsky’s perception of international relations.
Mark
2023-08-22 05:48:37 +0000 UTCAnd the Baltic states, also Ukraine etc., will be extremely useful if NATO (really the US) wants to make moves against Russia in general. All that's needed is an excuse.
Kat
2023-08-21 22:01:16 +0000 UTCYes, I agree, if Sweden & Finland are cooperating with NATO so much that their entry is unnecessary for their defense, then possibly the threat to Russia wouldn't increase with their entry. Russia may not see it that way, however. I don't know how much the threat to Russia would increase with Swedish and Finnish entry into NATO personally, perhaps it means more NATO/US bases very close to Russia, which could very well be a threat, not just a perceived one.
Kat
2023-08-21 18:06:52 +0000 UTCRussia has carried out much of the same menacing BS to Sweden as has with many other countries in Europe- i.e. flying military aircraft over Swedish airspace and escalation of Russian naval activity in the Baltic. Sweden is most concerned about Gotland- an island between Kaliningrad and the Gulf of Finland, which would be extremely useful to Russia if they wanted to make future moves against the Baltic states or NATO in general.
Mark
2023-08-21 15:18:34 +0000 UTCTell me if I'm weighing in unwanted on your conversation, but I really don't understand Chomsky's argument here. Let's assume that Sweden or Finland didn't need to join NATO because their current level of co-operation meant that NATO would respond to an armed attack against them as if Art 5 of the NATO Treaty had been engaged. To be clear I think this is a false claim. If Sweden and Finland are so integrated into NATO that membership isn't necessary to enjoy what I'd call something like NATO's most exclusive benefit - collective self-defence - why would Sweden and Finland need to join to shill their military tech to NATO members? Why couldn't NATO members buy them anyway - especially EU members given that Finland and Sweden are both part of the EU common market. There is a Swedish joke which dates (I think) at least as far back as WW2 - 'Sweden will fight russia to the last Finn'. A previous Swedish PM has claimed that Sweden was afraid that joining NATO during the Cold War would result in a russian invasion of Finland though I don't know the history well enough to comment - (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/03/16/are-sweden-finland-moving-apply-nato-membership/). And then of course there is Sweden, well before Ukraine in 2018, issuing pamphlets to its citizens on what to do in case of war - apparently a response to russian military activity in Swedish territory... https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/22/europe/sweden-security-war-brochure-russia-intl/index.html . Like I guess it could be argued the fear is unfounded but I think that concern over russian aggression is a pretty longstanding element of Swedish foreign policy - going back to (or pre-dating) the Napoleonic wars.
Artemis Green
2023-08-21 13:28:24 +0000 UTCWell you are right then about Finland and NATO. Chomsky's argument though is that Finland and Sweden already had so much cooperation with NATO that their joining was unnecessary. Now it is phrased as a critique, I'm sure, and as such, maybe not warranted or something. I read the thing about Stimson a little differently. Chomsky was not rephrasing the Stimson doctrine. Stimson did say something along the lines of what Chomsky says he said, the quote on it I found from https://www.encyclopedia.com/education/news-and-education-magazines/world-war-ii-mobilization-1939-1943: '"If you are going to try to go to war, or to prepare for war, in a capitalist country, you have got to let business make money out of the process or business won't work." Secretary of War Henry Stimson made this comment in 1940 as preparations for World War II' I just think he threw in the Stimson doctrine reference, just talking along & that's how brains work sometimes. The whole section is about capitalism, not really the Stimson doctrine. PS Thank you so much for digging up the quotes! That's a lot of work.
Kat
2023-08-20 20:23:59 +0000 UTCOn Finland... "Finland and Sweden is different issue. They have absolutely no reason to join nato, and they know it perfectly well. Their reason for joining NATO is they have advanced military systems. They've been pretty well integrated into NATO operations for many years. Joining NATO officially opens up new markets for their, in, for their military industry, uh, uh, new potential for obtaining advanced equipment and so on. There hasn't ever been, and they know it, the slightest threat to Sweden or Finland from Russia." Stimson Doctrine... "It had to observe what was called the Stimson Doctrine, very critical principle. Henry Stimson was the Secretary of War. He was in charge of the mobilization of the economy for war, and he explained virtually in these words, He said, look, in a capitalist society if you want to get anything done, you have to make sure the business world is happy. That's the nature of a capitalist society. So you guys out there like my family, can have your victory guard, stop driving and have wage controls. Meanwhile, we have to have cost plus contracts for the business world, or they're not gonna cooperate. So you can reinforce the power of capital in order to get anything done. Stimson doctrine is very significant, holds very clearly today, and the Biden administration tries to push through some climate programs. They have to be based on bribery of the. Fossil fuel companies at the banks. You can't just push through, uh, programs to cut back emissions, have to follow the Stimson doctrine to see if you can bribe the rich by subsidies credits."
Christopher Kavanagh
2023-08-20 19:32:54 +0000 UTCAll better, he has the constitution of an Australian athletic swimmer.
Christopher Kavanagh
2023-08-20 19:29:10 +0000 UTCI don't know. Did I hear you say Chomsky said Finland had nothing to fear from Russia? I thought he said Sweden. But I could be wrong. I'd have to listen again to the clips, and I probably won't. Finland has a lot to fear from Russia & therefore every reason to join NATO after the invasion of Ukraine, Sweden not so much & Chomsky could be right about what he said. If he included Finland I agree that's wrong. Also, I'd have really like to hear what Chomsky says about Stimson, as compared to your take, so I could judge. I probably won't waste any more time trying to dig that one up either. The Chomsky contrarian view might very well be a better assessment, or at least a reasonable one. Good review otherwise. But I have this to say, Chomsky may be blinkered in downplaying/whatabouting atrocities such as those by the Khmer Rouge. I have to agree, it's inexcusable. But it's kind of interesting that those by the U.S./west's "enemies" are so much of the U.S./west's conscious, in movies & featured in ads from human rights organizations & such, whereas comparable ones by the U.S./west's "allies" are virtually unheard of, except in very leftist circles. Is it a conspiracy? Who knows.
Kat
2023-08-20 17:00:01 +0000 UTCIt’s good to see that Matt is better. I was worried.
Linda Sears
2023-08-19 13:46:53 +0000 UTCI remember it. I think Chomsky handled it well.
Christopher Kavanagh
2023-08-19 06:14:10 +0000 UTCYou guys forgot about the Ali G episode with Chomsky!
Jake Lawrence
2023-08-19 04:47:36 +0000 UTC
