Alright folks,

I’m about to flood my Goodreads and catch up on the books I’ve been devouring since the start of the school year. So, either grab some popcorn or keep scrolling!

This book is essential reading. It provides an incredibly clear, richly detailed, and absolutely damning portrayal of American foreign policy from post-WWII until now. What strikes me the most is the pure detachment and rationality with which Noam Chomsky writes about all of this. He is delving into truly abhorrent actions that the American government has taken over the past seven decades, taking countless innocent lives in the name of democracy and freedom. Often, these are thinly veiled attempts to gain an economic advantage over other nations. And he writes merely as a reporter of the facts. The most opinionated he gets is, I believe, in the second-to-last chapter of the book. There, he writes at length about the concept of terrorism and argues, at great length, that by any conceivable metric, the American military is truly the most widespread facilitator of terrorism in the modern world. Unless, of course, you define terrorism as an action of the weaker to harm the stronger through violence and claim that those in a position of power are incapable of committing terrorism because they are in power. Which may be the case functionally in culture but is absurd and disturbing. In this section, he presents his case as a simple, irrefutable logical syllogism, with little fire and passion. And it makes his cold assessment of the government’s actions even more compelling and disheartening.

So, yeah! Noam Chomsky is just the coolest and this is an amazing look at the public, widely known actions that the American government has taken to spread terrorism in the world, yet it is rarely covered in the country itself. I couldn't recommend it enough.

When I first picked up this book, I was truly astonished. How could a choice as seemingly absurd as the title be presented to humanity? I mean, it's obvious, right? Would you prefer hegemony or survival? I assume that most people here would agree with me that the correct answer to this question is as follows: Hegemony - as long as we are alive and there is no immediate threat to our survival. Survival - as soon as we realize that there is an imminent threat to our existence.

However, upon closer examination, there are one or two flaws in this approach. Firstly, how can we accurately determine when our survival is in danger and when it isn't? Secondly, would we be able to admit that the gravest threat to us is posed by ourselves or, more specifically, by the elected representatives we have chosen?

Mr. Chomsky has emphasized this very last part of the aforementioned question. To be brutally honest, this book is extremely disturbing, not because of any obscene language or described events, but because it forces us to recognize that we have been fed, if not lies, then very nuanced viewpoints regarding most matters of international importance. Some examples include:

1) When America invaded Iraq in 2002, they claimed that the Taliban faction was harboring Osama Bin Laden, who was the prime suspect in the world-famous 9/11 event.

2) America opts for the force/military option as a last resort after exhausting all diplomatic solutions.

3) America has been tasked by none other than God himself to liberate mankind from the clutches of barbarism through democracy (Wilsonian Idealism).

We accept all these statements as gospel truth, as if they are axiomatically true or true by default. What we fail to notice is that America might be the only power in world history to have a double veto. One veto is the famous UNSC veto that we are all aware of. The second is that if America vetoes any resolution or abstains from voting on any, it passes away unrecorded and unreported in the archives and the media. Hard to believe, isn't it? Let me point out a few things for you to research:

1) There is an organization, Gallup Poll International, which conducted an international survey in 2001 before the invasion of Iraq. The question was: "Once the identity of the terrorists is known, should the American government launch a military attack on the country or countries where the terrorists are based, or should the government seek to extradite the terrorists to stand trial?" The average percentage of people who supported war in Europe was 18%, 6% in Latin America, and 16% in Central America.

2) Not convinced yet? Let's look at the invasion of Afghanistan. There is a very important presupposition in this that the attackers were known. After 8 months of the commencement of bombing, in June 2002, FBI director Robert Mueller testified before a senate committee. The topic of discussion was the "Origins of the 9/11 attack." His statements were: "Investigators believe (emphasis) the idea of the attack came from Al-Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan." "We think (emphasis) that the masterminds were in Afghanistan." Let's assume that their hypothesis regarding both of these sentences was true in hindsight. How was Afghanistan supposed to know about its land being used for terrorist activities 8 months before the declaration precisely when the bombing started?

3) If these two examples are still not enough for you, let me provide you with a list of resolutions/conventions/treaties that the USA either vetoed/abstained from voting/simply disregarded as irrelevant to their case: Outer Space Treaty 1967, Chemical Weapons Convention 1997, Biological and Toxic Weapons Conventions 1972, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 1970, Kyoto Protocols, Paris Summit, JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, etc.

I don't claim that this list is exhaustive, but I think we can at least check the reportage of these events and start questioning why the role of America as a spoiler in maintaining international peace can't even be considered?

This is a question worth thinking about....

This book is okay.

I think it adds a great deal of detail that provides strong support for Chomsky's thesis. However, a significant portion of the time, this abundance of detail has the effect of overcomplicating what could otherwise be a simple and straightforward narrative.

In my opinion, if you have an interest in books that explore American imperialism, there are indeed better alternatives available. For example, "The Management of Savagery" is one such option. It offers a different perspective and approach to the subject matter, perhaps presenting a more engaging and accessible account compared to the book in question.

While the current book may have its merits in terms of the detailed information it presents, it also has its drawbacks in terms of the potential confusion caused by the excessive detail. Therefore, it is worth considering other books like "The Management of Savagery" to gain a more comprehensive understanding of American imperialism.

That's a collection of texts intended for conferences or articles that detail the global interventions of United States diplomacy.

At the very beginning, Noam Chomsky places the country in a state of imperialist hegemony. His entire argument will be firmly based on this hypothesis.

From Vietnam to Nicaragua, encompassing Iraq, Kosovo, East Timor, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and Afghanistan, all the armed conflicts since the end of the Second World War bear the distinct American imprint.

The contempt for international law, the concept of "enlightened states," the unrestricted right of aggression, and the doctrine of the state as the "policeman of the world" are meticulously studied. This is supported by documents from the international press and government administrations.

These texts offer a comprehensive and in-depth exploration of the United States' diplomatic interventions on a global scale, shedding light on the complex and often controversial issues surrounding them.