[berntb]

>> one's own nation and government first, because that is where you have the highest possibility of influence.

(Chomsky is probably bigger outside USA. E.g. the Milosevic regime was a big fan.)

I don't really care why an analysis have very different standards for different countries/companies/etc, that just isn't a quality sign... It doesn't seem more serious if the double standards are motivated by "Hey, I'm a self-hater..."

[lukifer]

Criticism is not hate. It is criticism. It can come from friends, enemies, or yourself.

Also, Chomsky has always been severely critical of authoritarian and violent regimes across the world; the reason he has focused disproportionally on American regimes is due to the moral principle I referenced above.

[berntb]

A recap seems correct here:

1. I point out that Chomsky's motivation for not engaging in Sudan's problems (no influence) are just not serious; his involvement would have very probably made a big difference and potentially saved many lives.

2. You claim that Chomsky think it is more important to complain about USA. (+)

3. I answer that I don't really care why someone has double standards for different groups/countries/religions/etc.

4. You play linguistic games with half of a term I use ("self-hater").

5. I say bye bye.

(+) Not relevant anyway, except as a form of explanation of why, not an argument Chomsky's position was serious.