Control = access; basically what I was getting at before.
hmm, again not really. well, if you really did understand what he means by this, tell me why has this policy been implemented primarily?
Britain manipulated the Middle East right after WWI so it could divide the area between itself and France. The Sykes-Picot Agreement being an example of a treaty born out of false promises.
I'm guessing he's trying to say that the U.S. is doing the same thing as Britain when it comes to securing its goals - lying through its teeth.
which is what every major power does. nothing spectacular in my opinion.
He makes this point in We must act now to prevent another Hiroshima (2005), saying that the U.S. invents the right to wage war by coming up with a doctrine of "anticipatory self-defence". Basically "self-defence" = bombing the shit out of Iraq, not "defending" the U.S. heartland per se.
he is talking about the concept of "preventive" wars introduced by the bush administration a few years ago and subsequently adopted by russia as well. the purpose of the iraq war in this context would be to establish a legal precedent for future wars based on potential rather than real threat. and i think we all know there was no real threat. there was some discussion about this in "foreign affairs" if you happen to ever read stuff like that. i think this aspect of the war was neglected by most people. consequences could be serious, this is true.
Of course not. There's plenty of left-wing authors who see the U.S. as the ultimate evil. Tariq Ali being one of them.
neither of them sees the us as the ultimate evil. that's just a vulgar insult being thrown at them.
Chomsky's famous because he's written so much (tabloid) and again the amount of work he does should be recognised.
My beef with his work is that when he tries to explain WHY the Middle East is in such chaos, he points the finger squarely at the U.S. instead of accounting for other things that have just as much impact.
he does account for other things. it should be also noted that he believes that as an american his own country should be his primary concern. this is his "moral truism" - we are responsible for predictable consequences of our own actions. he does occasionally mention "evil" deeds of other countries, but he feels as an american he should clean his own backyard first. for that he deserves respect, not abuse.
of course there are limits to his arguments, but i seldom see honest criticism of his work. and i still don't have the impression you understood him correctly.