Noam Chomsky on American Foreign Policy and US Politics

Noam Chomsky on American Foreign Policy and US Politics

49 thoughts on “Noam Chomsky on American Foreign Policy and US Politics

  1. Transcript of Noam Chomsky's explanation of why Iraq was invaded…

    "There were very solid reasons for invading Iraq. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. It's right at the heart of the Middle East region which is the main energy reserve of the world. Establishing a client regime and a major military base in Iraq and getting preferential access to its resources would be of great value to the people who are our counterparts to Adam Smith's merchants and manufacturers: energy corporations, industrial corporations, banks and so on.

    They didn't achieve it. Iraq is an interesting case because it was a defeat. US goals were defeated in Iraq, a very important fact.

    At the beginning of course there were all sorts of pretexts: they're tied up with Al Qaeda, weapons of mass destruction. When that collapsed there was a new pretext: we're bringing democracy. In fact the US fought democracy every step of the way. It tried to prevent elections. When it couldn't prevent them it tried to manipulate them and it kept going, right through to the end.

    At the very end, say by 2008, when it was pretty clear that the US was not going to achieve its goals, the Bush administration started talking pretty frankly about what they were. So, November 2007, January 2008, there were strong, significant declarations by the administration. They discussed what the outcome must be. They were then talking about a status of forces agreement, what it must include. And at that time they were demanding that what it must include is the US right to use military bases in Iraq indefinitely as a base for combat and other operations and privileged access to Iraqi energy resources for US corporations. At that point it was said very explicitly because they were getting desperate.

    Well, they didn't get either of those. The US has not been able to suppress Iraqi nationalism. The US could kill any number of insurgents, so that wasn't a big problem. But what they couldn't deal with was the mass popular non-violent resistance. And the US had to back down step by step. That's why the books on Iraq by the most serious analysts, people like Jonathan Steele, David Gardner of the Financial Times, and others, have titles like Defeat. The US was defeated.

    But it's clear what the war aims are and they were sensible aims."

  2. "Also a large part of their ego could depend upon them believing that they gained their position fairly due to their skill."

    It's a typical human bias. When we succeed, it is us. When we fail, it is outside forces. Everybody has it, not just rich folk. But the rich (especially the rentier rich) seem to possess it in droves, LOL.

  3. Why would anyone rich and successful complain about a system that they're doing well out of? Also a large part of their ego could depend upon them believing that they gained their position fairly due to their skill.

  4. This is the third time, I listen to this and it is so simple, obvious and logical. He is Anti-american, he simply states the facts.

  5. Thought everyone here who enjoyed this, might also enjoy this Chomsky video. Youtube Noam Chomsky answers questions from 6 personalities if you haven't already seen it.

  6. TYT, please
    More CHOMSKY
    More KRUGMAN

    They offer a comprehensive and honest "theory" of the world.
    We should hear from them weekly (at least)

  7. They invaded Iraqi cuz they know it will inflame the Middle East and push most the Arabs to become terrorist and that will give Israel reasons to bomb the Arab and kill most of them and that's ww3 and Europe going to be whipped of the map by Russia in that war

  8. Chomsky is inflammable. He says things that even the mainstream left, including Cenk, does not want to hear. He is the only one who tells it like it is.

  9. Chomsky goes on about the never-realized and non-declared super-power dreams of some long-gone policy maker. How is this relevant to anything? It represents little more than the day-dreams of single person, or at most a limited group. It never happened, and he doesnt even give any sources. Hes like a historian? no. Hes full of shit.

    And no, the U.S. does not spend as much on military as the rest of the world combined. Chomsky should stick to linguistics.

  10. I don't think that is has anything much to do with fighting extremist. Your right that they thrive off of unjust killings, part of their success is to recruit children from families that have absolutely nothing left and take care of them. In fact some of these religious groups garner support by offering social services to the population. If we were serious about ending Islamic extremism there are more sensible alternatives we could take, I think we just want to dominate the region for the oil.

  11. The greatest intellectuals are never recognized in their lifetime.. he speaks as if he's a historian 100 years from now. I will weep as you will.

  12. "Well, first of all it's not that I'm not a fan of American exceptionalism. That's like saying I'm not a fan of the moon being made out of green cheese. It doesn't exist. "

  13. I hate that just because I would like each nation to have control over its own resources and independent from global business interests that I am "un-American."

  14. @al5mnd9trnksdr745bi And if he was dirt poor, you would be saying: "Chomsky is just a whiny loser who is envious of the rich and successful".

    Critics of capitalist literally can't win. Their socio-economic status is always used against them, one way or another, in a vile and dishonest ad-hominem.

  15. Those who insist on military might are neo-cons.
    Those who think neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised are neo-cons.
    Many news media outlets have a neo-con agenda.
    Are you a neo-con?
    Ron Paul says neo-cons are NOT CONSERVATIVES!
    Definition and names of neo-cons: /watch?v=nuefjIYKkjE
    Christian Right Most Anti-Semitic People In The World /watch?v=CXpDPbA-nMo
    More on the history of neo-conservatism vs libertarianism /watch?v=45JSYIuTk0Y

  16. @BadHabit202 He was one of the first academics in the United States to speak up against the Vietnam War and has made tireless efforts since then to American imperial policy. One man is not an island….

  17. @TechnoDevotee Just because America has had certain successes in the past with being altruistic, doesn't mean all of (or even most of) its current and future actions will also be ethically and altruistically justifiable. that's like saying: yea this leader helped us for 2 years, so i think it'll be wise to re-elect him. what about Mao, was he evil from the start? NEWS FLASH: corruption in politics is common and usually has, you know, a beginning and a cause (maybe many). it's not timeless.

  18. Now, that we've killed Bin laden I like other ppl think we shouldn't be in Afghanistan any longer. The best way for us to defeat some of our enemies is to let them destroy themselves. Like, Russia, when they fought in Afghanistan. Everybody knows Communism is a shitty system and we didn't have to fund Bin laden and his crew because communism was going to give out any way. That's why China is getting ahead ppl. We need to focus on our economy fuck Afghanistan and fuck Iraq.

  19. 'Noam chomsky forgot about the US controlling the drug trade in Afghanistan in which the drug money is laundered through Wall st banks & taking control of that hugely profitable business from the Taliban who will not launder that money into Wall St. Plus other important resources being extracted by mega corporations that the US sends our military to protect, like the massive natural gas pipeline being builet across Afghanistan. Also the creation of a client state & permanent military bases

  20. @wizemanful "My breakfast is highly class conscious. The sausages are engaged in a bitter class war against the ham and eggs, both ruled by hawkish oligarch dentures, with a highly aggressive foreign policy (i.e. the sausage class is always sent into my mouth first to be chewed, crushed and viciously dissolved by the totalitarian choppers with corrosive stomach acid)."

  21. @BadHabit202 He does offer an alternative and he's written about it at length. It's called anarcho-syndicalism.

    Anyway, there's little point you and I having this discussion as we're talking past each other. Congratulations about all your power. Hope you enjoy it. Bye.

  22. @BadHabit202 War = peace, eh? You'd do Orwell proud. I don't think the atrocities that USA and its friends commit across the globe leads to peace in any way. You probably feel very smug sitting at your computer talking about the ethics of the balance of power when your country is one of the powerful, and you have such a great life in the west. Let's see how you'd feel if you were on the receiving end of crushing power.

  23. @BadHabit202 What would Chomsky have us do? He wants to inspire the people of various countries, through activism, to put pressure on their repacious governments to stop raping, plundering, opressing and pillaging. Its such activism that led to the abolition of the slave trade, the collapse of the South African aparteid, womens rights, rights for blacks, rights for the working man, constitutional checks on states, the resignation of war criminals like Tony Blair, the list goes on.

  24. @AudioForAnarchists lol, I should comment less but I don't know when to shut up. Ron Paul libertarians just frustrate me too much.

  25. @dorkydevil Good for you. I feel the same way. I read my first Chomsky book (Hegemony and Survival) about 4 years ago and my life has never been the same. I'm now an active member of the anti-war movement here in London. Chomsky = truth

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *