I was speaking of Putin, but often a bully in most senses doesn't give you much choice. It's either be harmed by them or fight back to stop it. Sure, you could walk away and be the better person, but alot of people who are bullied don't get that choice. They are harmed physically and perhaps mentally from bullies who keep attacking them. I am not one who believes violence is ever a first option. It's a last option for me, but sometimes necessary. Bullies project their shit on others. They are often abused at home. Could fighting them do them worse harm? It could. It could also help them potentially. It sure helps those who are bullied. I had bullies try and mess with me in middle school. I tried to be the better man and walk away several times, but it doesn't always work that way. I had to end up kicking some ass. No one messed with me again after that.
I’m ready to call his bluff. I’m ready to tell him Russia will be carpet bombed if he doesn’t pull out and if he threatens to push a button tell him “Your Fucken Choice” He will flinch first! He’s already getting his ass handed to him. Why are we afraid of this man anymore?
Chomsky drives me crazy. His criticism of the US is often dead on...but then he turns around and defends people like Pol Pot. I just don't respect that kind of hypocrisy.
He could give a shit about Ukraine being invaded and their freedom challenged. He's an anarchist that he doesn't want any government rule. And its ok for him to be worth millions.
Advocating for rules for the rich doesn't mean one hates money or the ability to become wealthy. It just means they believe there should be rules to prevent the rich from being too powerful. If he were to give up his fortune he'd would be less capable of furthering the goals he's advocated for. Makes no sense to hold that against him, IMO.
Im 100% for people prospering and using the freedom we have in this country to do so. IMO, thats why people from all walks and location want to come to America. I have immediate family members that just just became citizens and I witness their happiness to be able to explore, work hard and achieve their goals. Hell no were not perfect as a country but we have the ability to choose and be free. Chomski has the freedom to say what he wants, as I do. Ive never heard him say a positive thing about our country and people, yet he chooses to live here and prosper here. He could come down hard on Russia for invading their neighbor, but he doesnt, he'd rather lint out that its NATO's fault and Putin is just naturally reacting. He could a peace maker but I see him as a anarchist against our government.
Glad to see @SlyPokerDog recognizing women also serve. My mother, in the United States Navy, World War II.
I'm also 100% for people prospering in this country, and I think Chomsky is as well. I've never heard him say otherwise. Understanding both sides of the disagreement, looking at ourselves and how our actions help lead to situations like these, isn't a bad thing. Of course he is opposed to the Russian action, but to imply we aren't somewhat at fault for the situation as well is intellectually dishonest. Chomsky makes some good points, but I agree, his perspective isn't the only one that matters. He's advocating for ideals that if followed to the nth degree may be more predictable or put us at a disadvantage in respect to the despots of the world (Xi, Putin, Trump, etc). But I don't think advocating for a more moral stance from our government (and wealthy) is a bad thing. Our leadership and NATO are quite hypocritical as well.
Majority of Americans Fear Nuclear Weapons Use After Russia's Ukraine Invasion. Nearly nine in 10 people in a new poll said they fear the U.S. could be drawn into Putin's war in Ukraine, and 75% said they are worried the U.S. will be targeted in a nuclear attack. https://www.commondreams.org/news/2...ar-weapons-use-after-russias-ukraine-invasion
Not off the top of my head. This was years ago (obviously), but he went through the classic progression: 1) "it didn't happen", 2) "OK, it happened but it was exagerated". 3) "it happened and it was bad, but the US made him do it".
This seems out of character to what I know of Chomsky. Without the ability to review what exactly was said, I'm reminded of something Chomsky said, which may (or may not) be relevant. --Noam Chomsky https://chomsky.info/reader01/
Roman Abramovich ‘poisoned during Kyiv meeting with peace negotiators’ The Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich was poisoned along with Ukrainian negotiators, it has been claimed. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the Vladimir Putin ally and Chelsea FC owner was hit by symptoms after a suspected poisoning at a meeting in Kyiv earlier this month. Abramovich, and two senior Ukrainian officials, are said to have developed peeling skin on their faces and hands, red eyes, and constant and painful tearing, the paper reported. Quoting ‘people familiar with the matter’, it added that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who has met with Abramovich, was not been affected. https://metro.co.uk/2022/03/28/russ...ed-along-with-ukrainian-negotiators-16359662/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial There are some sources here to follow up. I see this as a case of Chomsky not being willing/able to admit that 2 different things were both true at the same time. He was not the only anti-war activist to question the initial reports of Khemer atrocities. I can't blame him for being leery of propoganda. The difference is that when confronted with solid proof others changed their minds while he clung to the notion that even if it happened he was fundamentally correct. Sometimes there are no "good guys" in a conflict.
