Obama is worse than George Bush and Tony Blair says Noam Chomsky
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 сен 2024
- Look at the record, says Chomsky: Obama is in many cases worse than George Bush and Tony Blair -- on Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, Egypt -- and would be indicted for war crimes if the Nuremburg principles were applied.
1 year after this interview, Obama proved Chomsky right by invading Libya
Your name made me laugh 😂😂
@@date3462 K A?
But did it for Hillary, how nice
@@Dad-lu1oi Most likely changed it - it's a 2 year old comment
Obama didn't invade Libya, it was a popular uprising along with the Arab spring. How quickly people forget.
Too much truth for the salad. No wonder BBC never interviewed him again
Only they did
And the BBC hates Jews
And he got Nobel Peace prize.
How ironic
Completely delegitimizes the Nobels.
I want Noam Chomsky on a podcast with Joe Rogan
Murali N Obama himself was shocked he got the prize and admitted he didn’t think he deserved it. I have no idea why he got it. I’m not even an Obama hater, but their absolutely no reason why he got a Nobel Peace prize
Never trust those prices theyare biased.
Chomsky as always spot on in his assessment of Obama and when he was giving that interview the Libyan and Syrian fiascos were yet to take place!
They are more than "Fiascoes"
Those wars added something like a trillion dollars to the military kitty.
askjiir Libya was a tragedy and Syria has been a complete disaster (Still current)
Libya with very good help from the today leader of NATO using Norways F16 to bomb all over the country...
@@cliffsousa4184 they weren't 'wars', they were invasions/slaughters/desicrations.
I love how masterfully informed Chomsky is that Paxman's condescending attitude doesn't phase him.
Oxbridge twat Vs a true intellect
A good education doesn't mean you're educated or indeed a true intellect
@@jamesturner2914 He is though, it's just his job to play devils advocate for the people he interviews.
@Zachary Bushnell To be fair a strict "journalist" isn't allowed to interview or interact at all. Journalism specifically means recording what you observe, not what you instigate.
@Zachary Bushnell It is definitely is the job of an interviewer like Paxman to ask difficult questions and argue against the person he is interviewing. If you put Paxman in an interview with a somebody arguing 'murder is bad' it would be Paxman's job to challenge their position. If you don't do that you end up with the wishy-washy American style interviews that pander to the person being interviewed.
@@mujahidean exactly!
Chomsky: He asn't had the chance to invade anyone yet
Obama: Invades Libya
Ah, "no"...there are no, there hasn't been, any foreign troops in Libya - unless you count ISIS, of course....
@@MichaelJames-lz7ni You mean the ISIS that got recruited and trained by NATO and dumped into Libya as a practice for Syria? I guess that counts as "his" invasion.
@@MichaelJames-lz7ni there are US troops in Libya, yes
No, no, no....it was Elvis and the Aliens!
No, there are not....
American voters are given two choices in the voting booth: A) Increase funding and support for the military-industrial complex. B) Increase funding and support for the military-industrial complex.
and pharmaceutical fraud and murder
Basically, fight club
A) imperialism abroad B) imperialism here and abroad
Just to add to the term “military industrial complex”: actually as used by Eisenhower, he actually said “the military industrial congressional complex”. Spot on!
In retrospect, when Chomsky said “...he (Obama) hasn’t had a chance to invade anyone yet...” a great deal of insight is displayed, since Obama did invade and expand numerous countries and authorized the overthrow of at least two democratically elected Latin American countries. Hope and change, indeed.
Which?
@@sedargames8161 Venezuela is one . Brazil ....Honduras .... Guatemala....
He didn't mean Hope and Change for Latin America.
Chomsky is the most enlightened and open-minded intellectual in the history of America.
and you're David R.A, just another youtube commentator.
As are we damu
World would b a bttr place if he was president
Gerry Mannion Well, I'm writing him in again this year obviously...
David R.A. Noam Chomsky is as intelligent as a pile of dog poop.
Bless this man. One of the few who make us believe in humanity.
He's vile Marxist authoritarian. He hates America.
He was worse on the war in Afghanistan for sure.
“He’s only been in office for 2 years he hasn’t had the chance to invade anyone yet”
Oh shit this was before the invasion of Libya happened
"He's only been in office two years, so he hasn't had a chance to invade anyone yet."
So much for that.
❓
@@DrJones20 I say "so much for that" but even louder. 1 year after Chomsky said this Obama invaded Lybia. He massively expanded the immoral drone program.
Chomsky right as usual.
yea except he is clearly lying here. Not speaking about his opinions but he was lying when he said that only US and only few Pacific islands opposed this resolution back then. And this is something that i noticed just because i know about this one case.. probably lot of his "facts" and reliable sources are lies as well.
+technokokos
Enlighten us.
Explain how he was wrong and provide evidence.
If you do not, "assertions made without evidence are dismissed without evidence." C.H.
Travis Carver Did he provided any sources? No. So It means everything that he said is not valid by your logic? But i will find you report from the General assembly mate just please wait few days i dont have acces to pc now and it would be pain to look it up on mobile. Thanks!
Lying is a strong word to use. But it is half-truth said in a way so it will match better to what he was stating and then it sound really different from how this voting went. It was really complicated and kind off "shit-show" ( sry cant find better word) at least when it comes to deciding in European union what stance it will take towards this voting.
So even if it was true ( which is not) that only US and Pacific islands voted against it would still be demagogic statement when you dont state the wider context of this voting.
"wait a few days"
3 months later, still no sources provided.
Chomsky is doing an interview. To expect him to provide sources is a bit stupid he's being asked questions he doesn't know in advance he can't be keeping all his papers around to pull them out as he speaks. Though he does have a reputation of strong rigor and his books are copiously documented.
When writing online and accusing someone of lying then yeah, providing sources to back your accusation seems like an obvious thing to do.
So i'm pretty much the only one who cannot make out any sense in what Chomsky is saying. How is Obama making Afghanistan more dangerous worse than Bush starting the war? How is he making it more dangerous anyway? how does making one country more dangerous lead to the other one falling apart?
Noam, haven't you learned yet that you can't think about things too deeply. It is unfitting for modern living and international decision-making, to think through several steps and the consequences afterwards.
But Montesquieu said that that's exactly how lawmaking works. Foreign policy runs along similar lines. Look at the Bay of Pigs debacle, the Gary Powers embarrassment, and the Cuban strategic missile crisis. We didn't think very clearly or far about the consequences of our actions, and it raised global tensions.
@@HuntingTarg r/whoooooooooosh
Noam's response to the interviewer regarding Nuremberg contradicts his own words from a 1990 speech, "If the Nuremberg Laws were Applied...":
"If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged. By violation of the Nuremberg laws I mean the same kind of crimes for which people were hanged in Nuremberg. And Nuremberg means Nuremberg and Tokyo. So first of all you’ve got to think back as to what people were hanged for at Nuremberg and Tokyo. And once you think back, the question doesn’t even require a moment’s waste of time. For example, one general at the Tokyo trials, which were the worst, General Yamashita, was hanged on the grounds that troops in the Philippines, which were technically under his command (though it was so late in the war that he had no contact with them - it was the very end of the war and there were some troops running around the Philippines who he had no contact with), had carried out atrocities, so he was hanged. Well, try that one out and you’ve already wiped out everybody.
But getting closer to the sort of core of the Nuremberg-Tokyo tribunals, in Truman’s case at the Tokyo tribunal, there was one authentic, independent Asian justice, an Indian, who was also the one person in the court who had any background in international law [Radhabinod Pal], and he dissented from the whole judgment, dissented from the whole thing. He wrote a very interesting and important dissent, seven hundred pages - you can find it in the Harvard Law Library, that’s where I found it, maybe somewhere else, and it’s interesting reading. He goes through the trial record and shows, I think pretty convincingly, it was pretty farcical. He ends up by saying something like this: if there is any crime in the Pacific theater that compares with the crimes of the Nazis, for which they’re being hanged at Nuremberg, it was the dropping of the two atom bombs. And he says nothing of that sort can be attributed to the present accused. Well, that’s a plausible argument, I think, if you look at the background. Truman proceeded to organize a major counter-insurgency campaign in Greece which killed off about one hundred and sixty thousand people, sixty thousand refugees, another sixty thousand or so people tortured, political system dismantled, right-wing regime. American corporations came in and took it over. I think that’s a crime under Nuremberg.
Well, what about Eisenhower? You could argue over whether his overthrow of the government of Guatemala was a crime. There was a CIA-backed army, which went in under U.S. threats and bombing and so on to undermine that capitalist democracy. I think that’s a crime. The invasion of Lebanon in 1958, I don’t know, you could argue. A lot of people were killed. The overthrow of the government of Iran is another one - through a CIA-backed coup. But Guatemala suffices for Eisenhower and there’s plenty more.
Kennedy is easy. The invasion of Cuba was outright aggression. Eisenhower planned it, incidentally, so he was involved in a conspiracy to invade another country, which we can add to his score. After the invasion of Cuba, Kennedy launched a huge terrorist campaign against Cuba, which was very serious. No joke. Bombardment of industrial installations with killing of plenty of people, bombing hotels, sinking fishing boats, sabotage. Later, under Nixon, it even went as far as poisoning livestock and so on. Big affair. And then came Vietnam; he invaded Vietnam. He invaded South Vietnam in 1962. He sent the U.S. Air Force to start bombing. Okay. We took care of Kennedy.
Johnson is trivial. The Indochina war alone, forget the invasion of the Dominican Republic, was a major war crime.
Nixon the same. Nixon invaded Cambodia. The Nixon-Kissinger bombing of Cambodia in the early ’70’s was not all that different from the Khmer Rouge atrocities, in scale somewhat less, but not much less. Same was true in Laos. I could go on case after case with them, that’s easy.
Ford was only there for a very short time so he didn’t have time for a lot of crimes, but he managed one major one. He supported the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, which was near genocidal. I mean, it makes Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait look like a tea party. That was supported decisively by the United States, both the diplmatic and the necessary military support came primarily from the United States. This was picked up under Carter.
Carter was the least violent of American presidents but he did things which I think would certainly fall under Nuremberg provisions. As the Indonesian atrocities increased to a level of really near-genocide, the U.S. aid under Carter increased. It reached a peak in 1978 as the atrocities peaked. So we took care of Carter, even forgetting other things.
Reagan. It’s not a question. I mean, the stuff in Central America alone suffices. Support for the Israeli invasion of Lebanon also makes Saddam Hussein look pretty mild in terms of casualties and destruction. That suffices.
Bush. Well, need we talk on? In fact, in the Reagan period there’s even an International Court of Justice decision on what they call the “unlawful use of force” for which Reagan and Bush were condemned. I mean, you could argue about some of these people, but I think you could make a pretty strong case if you look at the Nuremberg decisions, Nuremberg and Tokyo, and you ask what people were condemned for. I think American presidents are well within the range."
chomsky.info/1990____-2/
I am so worried - who do we have to step into this great man's shoes when he passes. I cant think of any researcher/intellect who comes close to his vigilance.
Ari Shlaim, Norman Finkelstein. But they're passing in the years too....
The age of intellectual political analysis is over. Everything is emotion now.
He is truly unique.
Russell Brand, J Rogan, and some less prominent journalists are doing a pretty good job. E.g., Geoffrey Sachs
@@macrumpton No, Russell Brand and Joe Rogan have shelved their liberal stance and are forensic now, in the stuff they research and the interpretations they give - especially brand, has become truly objective! This is also verifiable by critical reasoning, so if people put their bipartisan minds aside and look back, particularly at brands coverage, they will see that he's very fair and is doing very dangerous and Important exposes
Unlike most of us he actually keeps current on these matters.
He said he hasn't had any chance of invading any country in just 2 years and now we have Syria and Libya.
So out of touch. It's been decades snice this guy has been relevant.
😆 “Should we go through the details?” LOL so true
He's scared, because he knows Chomsky's lightyears ahead of him intellectually, and also because Chomsky is an interviewee who actually thinks for himself.
Chomsky is one of the great scientist of this century
And one of the greatest philosophers
Chomsky bravely telling the truth. Why did I not have a Noam Chomsky class at school ?
As a democrat, I feel like a lot of people in my party just continuing to paint all of the complexities of Obama's presidency as just being good. 2020 politics now just fucks so much with the truth.
with all due respect, how does one continue to support one of the two war parties?
I have so many mixed opinions on obama
I wish everyone were like you and saw things this way
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free"
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Shall we go through the details? The evil empire never wants to go through the details. The devil is in the details. And discussing the details will always reveal the devil. Noam is a truly wise man.
I Agree with you there, man. I live in Washington (a predominantly blue state) so the way I see it, my vote won't technically contribute to anyones being elected. But to me, that's not the point. When someone doesn't vote, or votes for a third party, it's a protest to the two party system. 46% of those eligible to vote in 2008 didn't vote at all. That should tell you something about what the population thinks of our political system.
Superb and soft spoken analysis. Why don't they employ this guy as an adviser in the State Department.
Well he is Jewish so he passed that requirement. A good one, not like the usual ones in there.. evil Zionist war monsters
Increased Drone strikes that killed many civilians
@Handiman544
Chomsky is one of the sanest people I have ever seen and heard.
Unbelievable that paxman was totally incredulous to such a claim
I was just gonna comment the same thing! Imagine Chomsky's frustration at having his predictive powers be utterly useless in preventing these atrocities, time and time again.
maybe with a proper media and democracy. What we have is an oligarchy where big business controls the politicians through the media
Interesting people's blind spots. The number of people who hear "in SOME ways (Obama's) worse", when Noam clearly says "in MANY ways he's worse"
Chomsky is a legend but it doesn’t matter who the president is. They don’t decide on war.
oh look all the conservatives now agree with chomsky
Chomsky is more of a shameless provocateur than Milo Yiannopoulos . . . and is taken equally as seriously. . . LMAO
Noam Chomsky is one of the Greatest intellectuals in the World!
Simple facts and the questioner reacts in predicable ways; truth and real world facts are bewildering to comprehend or consider. Thanks for posting.
I could have sworn that was Hitchens asking the questions
Paxman
Sounds nothing like Hitchens.
It seems everyone only chooses the positions that support their POV.
I love Noam Chomsky everything he says when I can figure it out 🇺🇸😛 I'm against Democrats, I'm against Republicans.
I don't like the western imperialism leaders
you do know that noam is a socialist right?
@Flamminio Di Sera Well clearly neither are democratic or republican in reality. they're imperialists.
the two could merge to become the imperial party but then there's a chance that a genuine opposition could rise.
And chumski is worse than all of them
Obama does not make me wish that Bush was still president.
The debt actually quadrupled under Reagan and Bush Senior; it nearly tripled under Reagan alone. Clinton turned the record deficits that he inherited and turned them into surpluses in his second term, before the GWB came along.
And this is why I don't vote. Until corporate funding is out of politics Americans will never have a real choice.
The fact the people hail and adore Obama as some saint is sickening.
Paddy Magenis misinformed theta why
I was talking about the Bush's attacking Iraq, which strengthened Iran greatly. Bush started the Iraq war. Obama ended it. The fact that the giant corps and their representatives ALL supported Romney says Obama is better for us.
Noam Chomsky has such a great mind and amazing ideas
Paxman, of course, arrogant enough to laugh at Noam Chomsky.
More people do everyday friend. Humanity IS awakening.... Let's just hope it is not too late.
I concur.
In the 6 years since this clip the completion for worst ever president is really hotting up
Competition darn spellcheck
I agree. Obama may have continued Bush's shit and possibly worsened the situation, but it was Bush who started these things in the first place.
Well said, I agree.
The interviewer saying What? how can he be worse? Please explain(sarcastically). This is an example of something he's trying to stop, that being blind faith Ina leader who only speaks the opinion of the highest bidder.
+trollcommentsinc I don't know if it's blind faith so much as just remembering what Bush was like. He's a pretty tough act to follow in terms of sheer malevolent fucking stupidity.
It was like lobbing a soft ball at a great batter; a great set up to show off his skill. I think the interviewer did well to ask his question like that.
trollcommentsinc
This is the bbc.
Got to addmitt it , most liberals would give democrat presidents a pass , Chomsky doesn't
Watching this video and others concerning Obama tends to strengthen my belief that each American President, upon attaining office, discovers that he doesn't actually have real power. Dubbya always sounded to me like a puppet, and Obama sometimes does and says things that he doesn't seem to believe in.
I know little about politics. But surely I'm not the only one who wonders if U.S. Presidents owe too many favors to actually wield the power they'd expected to have.
Yeah, I think this is evident in the whole flint water situation. If Obama stayed true to his principles then that whole fiasco would be very different. Very dodgy stuff going on there
Thank God we learned valuable lessons in Vietnam about the futility of interventionist policy. Let countries sort out the messes they create.
Thank you, sir.
There's nothing great about Chomsky. He just tells people who don't understand the world what they want to hear.
You are delusional. You are in the "herd of pigs" Goebbels pointed out
@@MrQalinle ,
Actually this OP is correct:
Chomsky is a Linguistics Professor who has spent his career criticizing other in fields that he has never actually worked in himself-Which is everything outside Linguistics!
So believing that Chomsky is qualified to judge the actions of Presidents, just because Chomsky can recite selected data about those Presidents that happens to be accurate, is just as preposterous as believing that Chomsky is qualified to coach an NFL team, just because he can accurately recite last season's pro footbal stats! 😀
What a man!
does that man ever have any thing good to say about his country?
Well, looking at it in the 21st century, is there anything good to say anymore?
Highest overall debt, highest percentage of incarcerated people, the biggest divide between the rich and the poor, crime rates that exceed a good 50% of 3rd world countries, hegemonical military ambitions that kill thousands every month, racial conflicts, a two-party system, enforcing its ideals of good and bad on the entire world etc. etc. you get the point.
You have plenty of boot licking intellectuals already.
have you ever travelled to a third world country my friend? even a second ? the us is far from perfect... but in terms of what this world has to offer i wpuld say its the best! i think part of the problem in america today is the self hating western guilt type philosophy that people like chompsky are vomiting over the masses. for God sake be proud of your country and instead of moaning about its flaws try to be the change it needs.
What Chomsky argues is pretty reasonable I’d say. He basically just states that we have to look at our own faults before accusing others of doing the same.
That’s what Chomsky argues when he says to “define hypocrisy”.
You can’t prevent some dictator across the globe to commit some atrocity, but you can and you should prevent the atrocities committed by your own government.
@@SoulRippster ,
Which is all the more reason for Chomsky to get involved in Government himself, and-with his superior wisdom-Show he can do better!
Instead of spending his life merely criticizing everyone else from the sidelines, and with the great luxury of 20/20 Hindsight, and becoming a multi-millionaire doing so!
Noam Chomsky in 2008: "Vote for Obama, with no illusions."
Watching this, a question comes to mind: How did this happen? How did we go from World War II and the Nuremberg trials to up until now where the United States (and other countries) have engaged in so many atrocious activities and wars that go unchecked, ignored, twisted and even embraced? How did we get here?! It's so sad. We simply accept these things now. Why? Why do we continue to accept these things, these actions, these ideologies?
He's my favourite straight white man.
Agreed.
We get so hung up on names like Bush or Obama when they make no difference at all. Bush may sound like a moron, Obama may sound classy, but the same old endless war machine charges forward no matter which effigy's name it's being done in.
No one is worse than Bush or Blair. NO ONE.
haha "why is he.. WUUUUUUHHHHS?"
The indignation in this interviewer when he's fully aware he's talking to one of the greatest minds of the 20th century. Incredible. Why bother to even have the interview.
Hind sight is 20/20. Bin laden was found in Pakistan and Pakistan is still a country.
I feel very sorry for you people that Noam destroys your symbolic dream where everything was just so perfect. That's what academic usually do when they confront facts and reality. You really did not deserve to be stripped away from your comfort zone.
Well, that doesn't exactly make the case for "Trickle Down" any better.
Believe it or not, all leaders are involved. It's very hurtful and disturbing to know but it's the truth
I don't know why people think he is so controversial. I see nothing wrong with what he says. He's just telling the truth.
IF your definition of, ' telling the truth ', is merely exploiting 20/20 Hindsight in fields that Chomsky has never actually worked himself-Which is everything outside Linguistics-
-Then yes, Chomsky is absolutely, ' telling the truth '!
-Nothing, ' controversial ', about it!
Agreed. You can influence people outside of politics. You were complaining about government, and I pointed out that in gov, not corp, you can work your way into the inside. But totally agree that there are other ways you can have influence. In another direction, you could be a research scientist who cures prostate or breast or another killer cancer.
I think Noam went a bit far with this one, Obama has maintained the status quo, thats true but that doesn't make him worse. The Afghan war was there before he came, its stupid to blame him for that and support for Israel and Egypt has been going on for decades. If there had a Republican president the US would have troops in Iran, Syria and Iraq, does anybody remember McCains Bomb Iran song, and look how many Republicans wanted troops on the ground in Syria. Obama is a mild version of the same hot sauce, but I think we all rather mild.
So reforming healthcare(6 presidents over a century failed), Reforming wall street, aiding in the passing of marriage equality, normalizing ties with Cuba, reached a peaceful deal with Iran and enacted toughest climate change policies so far.... so what change is lacking? If Obama was a white guy he would be loved by all.
So now you change the definition of "change" so you can make a point lol Ok sir, tell me which enemies the US has made recently and how does lil old Cuba and Iran help those enemies? Please enlighten this naive child.
Well I want to know what new enemies has OBAMA created, and how restoring ties with Iran and Cuba makes the world less safe? I have given 8 policies which make him better than Bush, you put have not only put change into quotations but also bolded it.
Since my comments were on OBAMA and the video is on OBAMA, your comment about making enemies should be on OBAMA. If you are going to criticize the Iran Cuba deal then it should mean that you make the world or US less safe, if not then thats a success for OBAMA and the "changes" he made.
Do you have any points to make, otherwise Noam and you are wrong, and probably just hate Obama because hes black. Im sure you're just like Noam and predicted Obama would be worse than Bush before he ever took office, making predictions that never came true.
Yep not a single point has been made by you, if Noam doesn't make a point you can't think of one for yourself. Noam made predictions on future events and was WRONG, its that simple. You believe everything he says so even when his predictions are wrong you cant think of anything. But yes this has been a shit conversation, but very funny for me, bye from one idiot to another.
I think banks - and everyone else - must not be allowed to take risks with OUR money - they took enormous risks, made enormous profits, then when their risks failed, they said "if we go down we take the economy with us" so taxpayers had to bail them out. Either they should not be allowed risks, OR they should not be so big that they take the economy down if their risks go bad.
Watching this in 2016 really shows the real flaws in Chomsky's analysis here. Obama should be criticized for his Administration vetoing a U.N resolution on settlements and also continuing the drone program in Pakistan and Yemen. But worst than Bush? That makes no sense. That's like saying Carter was worst than Nixon because of Operation Cyclone in Afghanistan. Each American President has huge faults they need to be critiqued for but there are clearly ones that are better than others.
Obama did the Iran Nuclear Deal(multilateral agreement backed by the P 51). Bush wanted to invade Iran. Obama has begun normalizing relations with Cuba, something no American president has done in 50 years. On Egypt Chomsky's just flat out wrong because Obama actually support the Arab Spring and the Muslim brotherhood. When Morsi was overthrown the U.S actually placed an arms embargo on Egypt. Obama has restored Multilateralism to a central position in American foreign policy whereas Bush as a very unilateral president.
Even in the areas where Obama is flawed the scale is not the same as Bush. Obama has issued about 2-3 U.N vetoes over the Palestine question(which is bad). Bush issued about 8 and Reagan 18. Drone Strikes under Obama have resulted in 1000 civilian deaths. That is nothing compared to Bush's invasion of Iraq which resulted in half a million deaths 33% of which stemmed from the U.S military. And funny enough Drone strikes are used as a tactic because they are less likely to commit civilian casualties compared to other modes of warfare that were used in the War on Terror such as mass troop deployments, fighter jets, etc.
+tyuga jettison Ok sure I get what you're saying. On Drones of course Obama is worst than Bush because he has tripled the amount of drone attacks from the Bush years. But on every other issue he is clearly the lesser of two evils by a massive landslide. Iran......Bush wanted to bomb Iran, Obama reached a historic nuclear deal. Unilateralism, Bush and the neocons push an "us v them" go it alone attitude in the world. Obama has revived multilateralism on multiple fronts whether it's the Iran Deal, or the Deal on Syria's Chemical Weapons stockpile, or the Climate agreement.
Just point this out because you have something on the left who seem to think that because all presidents engage in imperialism of some kind that there aren't differences between any of them.
+JANHOI MCCALLUM I lost alot respect for Obama when he appointed a
neo-conservative war hawk run his foreign policy. Clinton has destabilized the entire middle-east more than it already was. Libya is a complete failure and if John Kerry hadn't taken over and Hillary Clinton hadn't resigned to run for president Syria would literally be Libya 2.0...By allowing that cheating..lying... corrupt corporatist Hillary Clinton into that cabinet will haunt Pres Obama's legacy.
???Really? I mean Libya was a disaster and an act of Imperialism but what about the START Nuclear Treaty(which has cut the nuclear arsenals of America and Russia by 60%)? What about the Iran Nuclear Deal and Cuba? What about ending the Monroe Doctrine which is hugely consequential? What about the fact that according to Pew 69% of people across the world support American leadership and that support is strongest in Latin America, Africa and Asia? Obama is flawed on Drones and Libya as i have admitted but compared to most American Presidents he's pretty good.
JANHOI MCCALLUM I was specifically pointing out his poor choice for Secretary of State. Obama has done amazing things I'm with the man on a majority of his choices and policies....And I think what happened in Honduras was a major Blunder as well...but again that directly goes back to Hillary Clinton. Someone that he appointed. The man fucked up on that and made a very poor choice with making her his Secretary of State...which is why I say his legacy will suffer from that...I'm not denying the positives. I'm just criticizing the negatives...know what I mean my brother?
I don't disagree in terms of some of the negatives you listed there. Libya and Drones as I mentioned are my biggest criticisms of him. Not prosecuting the Bankers and the Torturers from the Bush Era. I will slightly disagree with you on 2 things. (i) Hillary can definetly be blamed for the Libya intervention and(something not a lot of people talk about) the wiretapping of U.N negotiators and diplomats revealed courtesy of Wikileaks. On Honduras though it's a bit of a myth that the U.S was behind that. The Wikileaks cables specifically show U.S diplomats condemning the coup. Obama himself condemned the coup and they actually suspended cooperation with the Honduran government until the coup was over.(ii) Clinton did have her positives as well from the START Treaty to normalizing relations with Burma. So it wasn't all bad.
"His political views are no more informed nor relevant than yours or mine". That has to be one of the most ignorant statements I've ever heard, assuming you are serious.
Stalin's regime was one of the most oppressive in history.
I'm not saying that the US doesn't have its problems, but what Stalin did to the Polish, Finnish, Germans, and his own people is inexcusable.
Hitch didn't see that one coming.
Absolutely, sir, absolutely.
There is a old movie called "judgement at Nuremberg " that clearly explains Chomsky 's position"
I can't argue with that.
This, of course, doesn't mean that he's neccessarily right.
after one has seen obama at the aipac "conference" before the elections 08, one knew that he is someone who practices appeasement
There is and old saying in romanian " The dogs bark, the bear keeps walking "
He escalated the war in Afghanistan
He authorised drone strikes in Pakistan which killed thousands of people - including over 600 innocent women and children and America is NOT at war with Pakistan. He promised to close down Guantanamo and stop the torture - he did NOT close Guantanamo and the torture continued. He supported the break up of Syria and armed the 'rebels' - and more than 600,000 people have been killed there. He tried to invade Syria but Congress said 'No!'
Chomsky's criticism of Israel is puzzling.
Look for the men behind the curtains.
Why?
Pakistan's government doesn't like it either. Nor did I realise that the ISI and Pakistani military were so vulnerable to public opinion.
Of course it is extremely rare for one vote to control an election. But how many can you influence if you are running for office?
Don't lose confidence, most of the people are aware of the fact that your government is only playing this game in the sense of serving special interest. Have no doubt when I tell you that a revolution is near, people will eventually get fed up with this and bond together.
We may not live in eutopia, but we do live in a world with dictionaries.
Don't agree with Chomsky on much, but he's right about this one. I believe Obama's more dangerous than Bush was. People and the media rightly slammed Bush for his foreign policy. But then we have Obama carrying out the same policy and even EXPANDING on it in some cases, yet the criticism falls silent. People are complacent now because we have a cool celebrity president who looks and sounds good on TV. At least with Bush we didn't turn a blind eye to the crimes being committed.
i think what puzzles people in the USA is that intellectuals, i mean REAL intellectuals, actually can pinpoint good and bad decisions in people without applying a consistent lable to them.
meaning: just because you disagree with most of what donald trum (e.g.) does, you do not necessarily worhip what obama did, or vice versa.
to a great number of US americans it's strictly either/or. you can not hold a position that is not entirely in favor or entirely against.
never thought about relating Nuremberg trials to post-modernism, so true, the war in iraq 70 years ago would of seen Blair/bush hanged
"Why is he wuss?" Sez the Brit. I didn't know we shared THAT slang.