5 ms·

The United States has a variety of techniques for making sure its business interests get what they want. Aircraft carriers are one (see Iraq, and possibly Iran

The United States has a variety of techniques for making sure its business interests get what they want. Aircraft carriers are one (see Iraq, and possibly Iran if things go south), CIA-sponsored coups another (Guatemala, El Salvador), economic sanctions a third (Iran again, Russia, much of Latin America). Negotiation at gun point often takes the form of crippling sanctions until and unless a US-friendly regime is in power - there's no actual guns, but there's also no free elections. Noam Chomsky is a great resource if you want to go deeper on this topic.

tptacek 7y ago
This sounds like something a lot of people might believe.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
dash2 7y ago
Can I make a small counterpoint? I would say Noam Chomsky has very little credibility as a social scientist. (As a linguist is another matter.) He's tied himself in knots over Venezuela. Before that he disgraced himself by denying genocide in Cambodia (http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/wma.html http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/wma.html). His books are well-nigh unreadable rants, which substitute conspiratorial thinking for serious analysis. If you want to read a serious progressive economist, go for Dani Rodrik. Or hell, read Marx. Marx was a real social scientist. Chomsky, no.
prewett 7y ago
Why would a renowned linguist be a credible source of geopolitics? Especially when his wikipedia article starts off the section on political views by calling him a "dissident"? > Chomsky is a prominent political dissident. His political views have changed little since his childhood, when he was influenced by the emphasis on political activism that was ingrained in Jewish working-class tradition. If you want confirmation bias or arguments to feed your matching viewpoint, sure, but neutral, reasoned analysis? Not so much. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky#Political_views https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky#Political_views

tptacek 7y ago

This sounds like something a lot of people might believe.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

dash2 7y ago

Can I make a small counterpoint? I would say Noam Chomsky has very little credibility as a social scientist. (As a linguist is another matter.) He's tied himself in knots over Venezuela. Before that he disgraced himself by denying genocide in Cambodia (http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/wma.html http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/wma.html). His books are well-nigh unreadable rants, which substitute conspiratorial thinking for serious analysis. If you want to read a serious progressive economist, go for Dani Rodrik. Or hell, read Marx. Marx was a real social scientist. Chomsky, no.

prewett 7y ago

Why would a renowned linguist be a credible source of geopolitics? Especially when his wikipedia article starts off the section on political views by calling him a "dissident"? > Chomsky is a prominent political dissident. His political views have changed little since his childhood, when he was influenced by the emphasis on political activism that was ingrained in Jewish working-class tradition. If you want confirmation bias or arguments to feed your matching viewpoint, sure, but neutral, reasoned analysis? Not so much. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky#Political_views https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky#Political_views