Noam Chomsky's reputation as one of the major liberal authors drew me to this book. While I agreed with most of the arguments made in this book, I was still disappointed. My biggest complaint was the documentation of his sources. They were all in found in endnotes, not at the end of chapters, but at the end of the book. That placement makes it ever so frustrating to just flip back and check the citation (why I personally always prefer footnotes). When I did flip back to check some rather outrageous quotes, I was disappointed to see another book or article cited. When using such shocking quotes as part of his support, I felt it would have been more credible to cite the actual place and date it was said. Not that I feel Chomsky didn't do his research, but the chain could have been clearer. In general, I felt the book missed the chance to make strong arguments--it seemed to be written for people who already agree with him, and therefore wouldn't care as much about where he was getting his information. ( )

http://pixxiefishbooks.blogspot.com/2...
One of the more rational, clear-headed thinkers out there. Chomsky's book is well-thought out and, in my opinion, fairly uncontroversial - just because you might not agree with him doesn't make him wrong - everything he says is backed up with real evidence, and he's pretty good about showing the evidence in the other direction, too. A must-read.

Noam Chomsky was one of those authors who would show up from time to time on my undergraduate mass communications degree reading lists. Though a linguist and philosophy professor at MIT, he has written many works that also lie firmly in political science and media studies. At the time, however, I remember dreading the Chomsky readings. However, I have grown to truly appreciate much of his work, mostly because I have learned more since then and am now more ready to understand and engage with his work.*

In this book, Chomsky outlines the tactic of 'full spectrum dominance' pursued by the American government in its international relations since at least the end of WWII. From the Bay of Pigs, through Nicaragua, Cuba, the Middle East, Afghanistan, and, most recently (at least at the time the book was written, in 2003), Iraq, the U.S. has followed policies and practices geared toward global control, a new kind of colonialism. At the same time, it has fairly consistently worked to undermine certain principles of international law, and refused to recognize many instruments of international justice, such as the World Court and the International Criminal Tribunal.

I'm going to leave the review at that, closing off with a blurb from author Arundhati Roy on the book, because she says it better than I could:

'If, for reasons of chance, or circumstance, (or sloth), you have to pick just one book on the subject of the American Empire, pick this one. It's the Full Monty. It's Chomsky at his best. Hegemony or Survival is necessary reading.'

For more on this topic, see the American Empire Project.

* Sometimes I feel that university is wasted on 17-21 year old students. Better we all go at 32, no? ( )

This was very enlightening. I truly appreciate the writings of Chomsky. ( )

while Chomsky tends to ramble about all that he is knowledgeable about, I found that this book really had a wealth of thought provoking ideas, but were sometimes lost in the words. I get a little bored reading it at times, but it's well worth the read. ( )

n De arrogantie van de macht geeft Noam Chomsky een scherpe analyse van het Amerikaanse streven naar hegemonie en de catastrofale gevolgen daarvan voor onze planeet. Meer dan een halve eeuw lang hebben de Verenigde Staten een expansieve strategie gevolgd in hun buitenlandse politiek. Op dit moment gaat de regering-Bush daarin verder dan ooit, in het besef dat zij de enige overgebleven supermacht ter wereld is.
Chomsky onderzoekt hoe het zover heeft kunnen komen, welke gevaren er dreigen en waarom de machthebbers bereid zijn de toekomst van onze soort in de waagschaal te stellen. Met de nietsontziende logica die hem eigen is, analyseert hij de agressieve politiek van de Amerikaanse regering die uit is op 'de heerschappij op elk gebied', koste wat het kost. ( )