Dishonest cherry-picking. Ever hear of Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge?

FR - I did not claim Eastern Europe was a paradise. I claimed you were personally better off (as in, both wealthier and less likely to die) living in a typical Soviet satellite in Eastern Europe (Hungary or GDR) than in an American warzone (Vietnam, Nicaragua). That was the point Chomsky was making. One can accept it without endorsing Soviet imperialism.

One of the first things that led me to the right was watching the fall of communism. The captive nations' regimes all collapsed like a house of cards and it was so obvious that the people living under them just loathed them. It utterly gave the lie to the excuses made by the likes of Ombrageaux which I had previously and foolishly fallen for myself.

I still haven't seen any criticism from you about anything from Chomsky, beyond the biting suggestion that he is sometimes, maybe, "utopian". What gives? You do manage to congratulate yourself by recommending to others your own "critical" thought, supposedly taught to you by Chomsky. So share some of that critical thought about Uncle Noam.

You assert: "Generally, Chomsky limits himself to fairly modest claims". The assertion is plainly false upon reading this thread.

This complete unwillingness on your part to write anything substantively critical of Chomsky is a demonstration that he is not merely some writer whom you believe should be consulted and considered on various subjects. You treat him as if he is a prophet, above criticism,...and therefore demonstrate my point.

I am also impressed that you so easily change your earlier emphatic assertion, "No one in the White House, Pentagon, State or Langley has any reason to do anything except in the interest of the U.S. as they see it." to: "But indeed, often U.S. foreign policy is not even done in American interests, but the narrow selfish interests of national security, political and corporate elites.", without acknowledging that this contradicts your own previous assertion. You have the intellectual dishonesty of an ideologue.

Further, your incorrect observation that my mention of the revolving door phenomenon is part of a "radical" interpretation of US foreign policy also demonstrates your unfortunate tendency to project your own assumptions upon others. I do not see the "revolving door" as part of some "class struggle" of "elites" against the "common man". I see the "revolving door" as the demonstration of individually repeated greed and stupidity.

You, like Chomsky, ignore the massive repression and violence by which Communist Rule was brought about and sustained in Eastern Europe. If you read the quotations cited you will find the relevant bodycount. Only a blinkered ideological fanatic would contrast this favorably with "US Tyranny and Violence".

The first "lie" cited:“in comparison to the conditions imposed by US tyranny and violence, East Europe under Russian rule was practically a paradise.”

Besides not providing any context, one can be fairly clear what is being referred to is:

1) The grey, oppressive peace that settled into Eastern Europe after World War II, notwithstanding occasional uprisings.

2) The "tyranny and violence" of American wars in Southeast Asia and Central America.

In the 1970s or 1980s, day to day life may have been grey and poor. But it was predictable and "life went on" in Eastern Europe. You would not be better off being a Nicaraguan or Vietnamese peasant caught in the crossfire of the Americans, seized by their made crusade.

These critiques of Chomsky are likely to remain at this misleading, "gotcha" level, than criticism that might involve serious engagement with his work. Again, I contrast the no-nothing unthinkers of the American Right today with the distinguished anticommunists of the 20th Century - Hannah Arendt, Raymon Aron, Lezsek Kolakowski. These were thinkers who could critize the thing - and draw good elements from it - because they had actually taken it seriously and thus really understood it.

Even better is "Let people in other countries solve their own problems."

Seriously, there is one problem to the "Do no harm" agenda of international policy, it leaves states nearly impotent. In the end it comes down to cost/benefit analysis, cynical as that may seem. Better guidelines would propably be "Do more good than harm" and "Beware of Greed".