A book that delves into and elucidates more philosophical rationales and their application of the control and dispersion of media towards anti-imperialist states from the imperial core through very material means.

To fully fathom the book, a deeper comprehension of American policy, as exemplified in the books, might be requisite. There are also some more intricate parts that can be thoroughly relished with a more profound experience in US foreign policy from 1960 to 2000.

This book offers a unique perspective on how the imperial core utilizes media as a tool to exert control and influence over anti-imperialist states. By examining the philosophical reasoning behind these actions, readers can gain a better understanding of the complex dynamics at play in international relations.

The examples provided in the book serve as valuable illustrations of how American policy has evolved over time and how it has been shaped by various factors. Through a closer examination of these examples, readers can develop a more nuanced understanding of the role that the media plays in promoting or hindering American interests abroad.

Overall, this book is a must-read for anyone interested in understanding the intersection of media, politics, and international relations. It provides a thought-provoking analysis of a complex and often overlooked topic, and offers valuable insights into the inner workings of the imperial core.

There is a great deal to process here, yet it is of utmost importance to read. We should express our gratitude to Chomsky for conducting the research that the rest of us simply do not have the time to undertake.

In this era of short attention spans, he reminds us of our very recent political history. His work serves as a valuable resource, shedding light on events and issues that might otherwise be overlooked or forgotten.

By delving deep into the research, Chomsky provides us with a more comprehensive understanding of the political landscape. This knowledge is essential for us to make informed decisions and engage in meaningful discussions about the future of our society.

We should not take his efforts for granted but rather appreciate the significance of his work and use it as a catalyst for further exploration and learning.

From reading this book, I would divide it into two distinct sections.

The first section consists of chapters 1-5. In this part of the book, the author contends that American foreign policy is, in a nutshell, bad. On one hand, the author is completely successful in persuading me that very little, if any, good is achieved by American foreign policy in practice, and there is scant evidence that any effort is made to act on its ideals.

However, I absolutely loathed the writing style employed. Perhaps it makes sense if I regard each chapter as a transcribed lecture or an independently published essay. Nevertheless, within the context of the book, I found it extremely difficult to follow. The author fails to provide a framework for his arguments and instead bombards you with examples. In the absence of a clear structure, the examples seem repetitive and superfluous.

Bear in mind the acknowledged irony that in this section the author convinced me of almost everything he was attempting to!

The second section of the book, chapter 6, critiques the application of democracy in the USA. Even though the writing style was no different in this section, I found it far easier to read and contemplate. I'm not entirely certain why I felt this way. If I were to rate this section independently, I would definitely award it 3 stars. However, since the previous section constitutes the vast majority of the book, my rating is 2 stars.

Despite my enjoying this chapter much more, I found it less convincing than the previous chapters. The author still persuaded me of at least 90% of what he was trying to convey, but that remaining 10% was irritating.

For example, the author spends a significant portion of the chapter criticizing the way that US democracy is structured so that most decisions are made by a few elites, and those decisions are often contrary to the will of the people. Later in the chapter, he criticizes a viewpoint held by two-thirds of the population as being undemocratic. To me, this seemed hypocritical.

Another point to note that I greatly appreciated about the book is how the author's criticism is independent of political party. While most criticism is directed at Bush, that is because he was the president at the time. Previous presidents received their fair share. It made it much easier for me to consider the ideas put forward by the author since he was criticizing the USA as a whole, rather than simply trying to make me vote for the correct party.

While this book is now fairly out of date today,

a great deal of what it states remains highly relevant. It is meticulously well-researched,

concise, informative, and often captivating. There are indeed no superfluous words within it.

However, this is also a bit of a drawback to Chomsky's writing, as you are continuously bombarded with information,

hardly having any time to catch your breath and properly absorb it. Consequently,

there is a significant amount to learn here, but not much opportunity for it to truly sink in,

especially if you are inclined to put it down after remembering the details. Unfortunately,

this made reading this more of a chore than an enjoyable learning experience for me.

So, while awarding 3 stars might seem a bit harsh,

I do still wholeheartedly respect the man's dedication to his work,

and I'm certain I'll refer back to sections of the book for specific information in the future.

Noam Chomsky is a highly productive scholar who has written dozens of books over several decades. In this particular work, he, as always, exposes the hypocrisy of the US government. The US claims to promote democracy, yet its actions tell a different story. For example, while ostensibly trying to install a democratic regime in Iraq, there is a desperate need for genuine democracy within its own borders. Chomsky makes this hypocrisy so blatant that it would almost be laughable if it weren't for the tragic consequences.

However, it must be noted that Chomsky does have a tendency to repeat himself. The fact that the US is the only country ever condemned by the World Court is a point he has made numerous times. While this is undoubtedly an important fact, the frequent repetition gives the impression that it is being used as filler material. On a more positive note, he presents a wealth of interesting facts and opinions that are new to many readers. Overall, this book is a fascinating read and is highly recommended for anyone with even a passing interest in international politics.

It should be cautioned, though, that like most, if not all, of Chomsky's books, this is not what most people would consider light reading. It requires a certain level of intellectual engagement and a willingness to grapple with complex ideas.

The basic premise of this book is that the United States should hold itself to the same standard that it asks other countries to uphold.

Chomsky uses this book to point out how the United States is failing to live up to those standards. He delves deep into various aspects of the country's actions and policies, highlighting the disparities and shortcomings.

I'm of the opinion that it's healthy to criticize the actions of government since it often leads to improvements. By shining a light on the areas where the government is falling short, we can encourage them to make positive changes.

While Chomsky makes a lot of good points, he doesn't provide any concrete advice on how the United States can be put back on track. This lack of practical solutions can be frustrating for readers who are looking for ways to effect change.

In fact, this is a book that is devoid of hope. It presents a rather bleak picture of the United States and its future. As such, it's a depressing book to read. It may even lead some people into cynicism, causing them to lose faith in the ability of the government to make things right.

Don't worry. I still have hope. I believe that despite the challenges and problems that we face, there is always the possibility of positive change. We just need to be willing to work towards it and hold our government accountable.

HEAVY DUTY READING

This piece is chock full of incrementing facts regarding how the US of A has conducted itself towards the other nations of the world and its own citizens ever since its inception.

Thoroughly documented by Noam Chomsky, an insightful and accurate scholar, it reveals that seemingly nothing has changed in the foreign and domestic chicanery since 1776.

Americans are still living the same lies and deceits today.

It is a wonderful and clear read that serves as a warning for those Americans who think for themselves about their American Empire.

Chomsky's work provides a comprehensive look at the actions and behaviors of the United States, shedding light on aspects that may have been overlooked or ignored.

By presenting these facts, he challenges readers to question and reevaluate their understanding of American history and its impact on the world.

This heavy-duty reading is not only informative but also thought-provoking, urging Americans to take a closer look at the true nature of their country and its role in the global community.

Scholarly yet highly readable, this work demands the reader's full attention as the author, the inimitable Chomsky, expects a close following. Given the amount of effort he has put in, this is a reasonable expectation. Essentially, it delves into why the United States of America can be considered a failed state. The lengthy argument, well-supported by notes and an index, can perhaps be best summarized by referring to Chomsky's own summary in the Afterword.

He points out that critics who present solutions are often accused of only complaining. But the real translation of that charge is that the solutions presented are not liked. Besides familiar proposals for dealing with crises at the survival level, he has mentioned several simple suggestions for the US. These include accepting the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and the World Court, signing and implementing the Kyoto protocols, letting the UN take the lead in international crises, relying on diplomatic and economic measures rather than military ones to confront terror, adhering to the traditional interpretation of the UN charter, giving up the Security Council veto and showing "a decent respect for the opinion of mankind" as the Declaration of Independence advises, and sharply cutting military spending while increasing social spending.

These suggestions are very conservative for those who believe in democracy, as they seem to be the opinions of the majority of the US population, often the overwhelming majority. However, they are in radical opposition to public policy. We cannot be very confident about the state of public opinion on such matters due to another aspect of the democratic deficit: these topics scarcely enter public discussion and the basic facts are little known. In a highly atomized society, the public is largely deprived of the opportunity to form considered opinions. It is a fact that unless one is inclined to investigate this kind of information, it can be easily overlooked entirely. As of July 2013, this still seems to be the case for the vast majority of the American population, which is living in a land of wishful hopes and patent fantasy.

Graeme got the right book for me at last. Hehe.

And Lams is correct. Reading this book might indeed make me feel depressed. As Chomsky stated in the Afterword, one often hears the accusation that critics only complain about what's wrong and don't offer solutions. But the accurate translation of that charge is: "They present solutions, but I don't like them." Besides the familiar proposals for dealing with crises that have reached a survival level, a few simple suggestions for the United States have already been mentioned.

For example, (1) accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and the World Court. (But in my opinion, it seems impossible as long as the World Court doesn't follow their wishes.)

(2) Sign and advance the Kyoto protocols. (But lately, they even demand that such things must be done by China first. *This makes me even more stressed*.)

(3) Let the UN take the lead in international crises. (But why does it sound so impossible?)

(4) Rely more on diplomatic and economic measures rather than military ones when confronting terrorists. (Then the arms business of certain parties will go out of business and they won't be able to use the excuse of "war against terror" anymore.)

(5) Adhere to the traditional interpretation of the UN Charter. (*Suddenly having amnesia* Which charter is it?)

(6) Give up the Security Council veto and have "a decent respect for the opinion of mankind," as the Declaration of Independence advises, even if the power centers disagree. (Hahaha *Can only laugh and roll on the floor*.)

(7) Sharply reduce military spending and sharply increase social spending. (*This makes me even more stressed because it's clearly becoming more and more impossible to happen*.)

For those who believe in democracy, these are very conservative suggestions. They seem to be the opinions of the majority of the US population, in most cases, the overwhelming majority. They are radical opposition to public policy. To be sure, we can't be very confident about the state of public opinion on such matters because of another aspect of the democratic deficit: these topics hardly enter public discussion and the basic facts are little known. In a highly atomized society, the public is therefore largely deprived of the opportunity to form opinions.

Note: Chomsky also saw the rise of Asia in this book, especially the increasing concerns of the US about China. Not to mention the prospect of Europe and Asia moving towards independence from US interference. Wonder where Indonesia is? Nowhere. Still busy with the Century case. Hehe.

Noam Chomsky is a renowned linguist and political analyst. He has written many influential books over the years, and one of them is this great work that is already a few years old (almost 10), but still remains completely relevant.

So, what is a Failed State? And who is the main Failed State in the entire history of humanity? These questions are answered in this book, with each response being thoroughly justified by solid and clear arguments.

As always, it is highly recommended. It can be found in used bookstores at a good price. Whether you are interested in political science, international relations, or simply want to gain a deeper understanding of the world we live in, this book is definitely worth reading. It offers valuable insights and perspectives that can help us make sense of the complex and often chaotic global landscape.

Failed States presents an extremely bleak portrayal of what is allegedly the sole remaining superpower in the world. It is Chomsky's perspective, and I, for one, have faith in him, and it is truly astonishing.

When I was younger and more innocent, during the era of the Iron Curtain when my world was more straightforward, it was a binary choice between them and us, the Warsaw Pact against the supposed good guys of NATO, led, of course, by the world's leading democracy.

However, I no longer view it in that manner. I firmly believe that this book offers very, very useful and terrifying reading material for anyone who is becoming increasingly concerned about the state of affairs in the largest "democracy" that money can purchase.

It forces us to reevaluate our assumptions and question the true nature of power and governance in this so-called superpower.

Chomsky's analysis challenges us to look beyond the surface and consider the deeper implications of the actions and policies of this supposed democratic giant.

Failed States serves as a wake-up call, urging us to take a closer look at the world we live in and the role that the most powerful nation plays within it.

Noam Chomsky is regarded as one of the last of the Marxist historians who were highly prominent in the early half of the 20th century. Their perception of the world was mainly shaped through the lens of class conflict and the paranoia of corporate interests in public life.

In "Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy", Chomsky provides a platform to look back at least to the 1960s and around the world, demonstrating that little has changed. United States foreign policy remains in the hands of corporate interests, and these interests prevail over noble goals such as democracy and self-determination.

Chomsky makes many valid points. One point that he is often unjustly criticized for but handles well is his primary focus on US foreign policy. To him, even if the USSR or the rest of the world committed worse atrocities, it is all immaterial. The first and most crucial atrocities that one should be aware of are those that one can control the most. As American citizens, those atrocities are mainly those committed by the United States. "Failed States" is a masterpiece that exposes our worst human rights abuses.

My favorite aspects of "Failed States" include Chomsky's discussions on the threat of nuclear war, a topic that demands more attention. He also takes the concept of "pre-emptive war" to its logical extremes and argues that one could make the case that the Japanese, during World War II, engaged in pre-emptive war by attacking Pearl Harbor. He shows that Iraq is too important to be left to "democracy" from a US interest perspective. He elucidates how, throughout the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israel has conveniently expanded its territory. Most importantly, he clarifies how US foreign policy actions appear to the rest of the world and how those actions could incite violence against us.

However, Chomsky's book has three significant shortcomings. Firstly, he fails to recognize the multifaceted nature of US foreign policy. Foreign policy has several overlapping elements. For example, a President will consult with various Cabinet members regarding whether or not to go to war with Iraq. One Cabinet member may favor war purely for self-interest reasons, such as the importance of foreign oil to our economy. Another may be motivated by altruistic reasons, like promoting democracy in the Middle East. A third may focus on pragmatic reasons, such as having military bases near Iran and fighting terrorism on their territory. These Cabinet members' views are not mutually exclusive. Yet, Chomsky would take the quotes of the purely self-interested person and give the impression that this is the only or even the primary reason for favoring war, when in reality, the decision could be a combination of all three Cabinet members' views. The same Cabinet member could hold all three views to varying degrees. To say that a foreign policy goal has a self-interest reason does not mean that its altruistic or pragmatic reason is invalid. Chomsky, like most leftists, fails to understand this. For example, a doctor can be motivated by both greed and altruism, and the two are not mutually exclusive. I believe that both motivations combined make for better doctors.

Secondly, Chomsky does not understand that foreign policy is highly contextual. He cites the United States' positive relationship with thugs such as Saddam Hussein and Pablo Escobar, only to later turn on them when it suits their self-interest. This about-face should not be a problem. For example, we aligned with the communist Soviet Union to defeat Nazi Germany. Who would argue that this was a moral error? The more important question has always been: what is the greater threat?

Thirdly, there are several examples of Chomsky's failure to fully contextualize the situation. In his discussion of US engagement in Latin America, do not expect a fair treatment of the communist influence in the region. Chomsky also prefers to focus on countries that were poor before the US got involved. He then persuasively argues that they were poor after and makes the dubious implication that their poverty is because of US involvement. Inconvenient countries such as Chile, which is both the richest country in Latin America (by far) and was so influenced by US economics that the Chicago boys, with Milton Friedman himself, advised the government on how to prosper, are quickly dismissed. Chomsky focuses on the selfish motivations behind the Marshall Plan but ignores the fact that the two countries most influenced by the US, Germany and Japan, are very wealthy. Both countries are the richest in their respective regions. In the discussion of the Vietnam War, Chomsky excludes comparisons to an eventual outcome like in South Korea, which has become a productive country in contrast to North Korea. Finally, in his take on the "Washington Consensus", Chomsky prefers discussions of countries that support his contrarian viewpoint and says little to nothing about countries that pose problems to that viewpoint. For example, Hong Kong is completely absent from his discussion, despite the fact that it was a textbook case of the "Washington Consensus" and also exhibited the quickest alleviation of poverty in the history of man.

In conclusion, one should appreciate "Failed States" for what it is: a major work from a left-wing perspective. One should understand that Chomsky will exaggerate, omit, or even mislead to maintain consistency with the worldview he favors. If taken at face value, the reader will walk away with a grossly inaccurate impression. After reading "Failed States" and other Chomsky works, the reader would never know that over the past 30 years, precisely when neoliberalism was spreading, the world has become substantially richer. World inequality has decreased, and the growth is particularly显著 in developing countries. In addition to an increase in GDP, there have also been increases in life expectancy and a decline in infant mortality rates. Chomsky, typical of Marxist historians, is stuck in 1968 politics. He has not changed, and neither have his viewpoints, yet the world has changed dramatically for the better. And this is his greatest weakness.