This is what he means by ethical value of these judgments.
The argument from the beginning was not about where the U.S. ranks in goodness vs. evil compared with other countries.
Many people say Chomsky is full of it when he focuses his criticism on the U.S. for actions he believes to be state-level crimes because, these people say, other countries are the true evil ones.
Chomsky's response is that even if you think the U.S. government is responsible for only 2% of the crimes in the world, it is this 2% that falls on his shoulders (and yours, and mine) as a U.S. citizen. His efforts on that 2% can have meaningful impact that can't be had on the other 98%.
But I'd feel a lot better about saying that if I didn't expect that this isn't just a rhetorical gateway to turn around and ignore the high-body count crimes in favor of the politically-fashionable ones again, since "of course not" is the only dialectal response possible.
Is people being killed ever a good thing? Almost never. Human life is inherently valuable. But is it at least more understandable when it is done in the name of trying to rid the world of a dangerous and destructive ideology? Yes it is.
That depends on who wrote the history book you're reading. By the accounts of the millions of innocents slaughtered by both sides, neither side was in "the right".
This is factually wrong, the cold war was about imperialism and spheres of influence. The US was tearing down democracies and propping up dictators left and right to counter the Soviet Union.
From 1939-1945, we sent tons and tons of weapons, cars, and rolling stock to Stalin. Were we justified in supporting him?
If you say yes, then how do you decide which murderous dictators to be willing to support? Those who will oppose more powerful murderous dictators.