Noam Chomsky on Failed States (2006)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2017
- Noam Chomsky talked about his book Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy.
Join us on Patreon! / manufacturingintellect
Donate Crypto! commerce.coinbase.com/checkou...
Share this video!
The book is about just war theory and the invasion of Iraq. During the talk, Professor Chomsky criticized the work of Michael Walzer, an influential proponent of just war theory and the author of the popular book Just and Unjust Wars. Following his remarks, Professor Chomsky took questions from the West Point cadets in the audience about international law and the Bush administration’s foreign policy. 
Развлечения
Join us on Patreon! www.patreon.com/ManufacturingIntellect
Donate Crypto! commerce.coinbase.com/checkout/868d67d2-1628-44a8-b8dc-8f9616d62259
Share this video!
I feel his invitation to talk and answer questions at a military academy points to an openness to debate all sides in an academic way that you wouldn’t expect from a us military appendage. It’s a win for civilized discussion and the questions the cadets posed were thoughtful and showed a genuine interest of the subject matter.
Chomsky at West Point, that's an interesting combination.
Worth noting the warm applause rendered by the audience of cadets at the conclusion of the speech
thank you for giving me a free education on YOU TUBE
A talk given 17 years ago...posted 5 years ago here...taking the audience into consideration, and the speaker; i am shocked that there are only 15 comments.
48:15 things got a little too real
Chomsky approaches this talk from the perspective of an intellectual who is trying to find a justification for the war but cannot. He attempts to form the best rational, grounded case for the war and the best he can come up with is simply a declaration of opinion without any evidence. Note he does not try to prove the war was unjust. He offers no argument against the war, provides no evidence that would easily show how unjust it was. His point here is that the burden is on the aggressor to prove necessity. Or, if not prove, as he shows, at the very least come up with any coherent argument for it that doesn't simplify to an opinion that lacks factual evidence.
This is the brilliance of Chomsky, he is willing to temporally accept, or adopt, the opposing perspective and try to make the best possible argument for it. And in failing to make any reasonable argument he demonstrates what cannot be demonstrated simply by stating the opposing opinion.
"Do the human rights violations have anything to do with the invasion? No, nothing!"
"And with that Mr. Chomsky we're going to have to ask you to leave, as I think you've offended everyone in the room"
I love hearing Noam Chomsky speak. But I it's time for me (27:30) to cut out of here. In case there is to be a Q and A. I know Prof. Chomsky will handle it admirably. But I'm not fair minded enough to listen with equanimity.
I wonder, if just one of the attending cadets will ever refuse a order, to invade another country on ethical and moral reasons? Is an individual American soldier allowed to refuse an order without being thrown in jail?
Why is everyone just adoring Noam and no one is talking about how they are planning to organize and challenge the State Capitalism that is ruling the world? I, for my part, go to every City Council in my little town and demand a resolution to stop military aid to apartheid state of Israel! What do you do?
"Questioners won't be filmed so you can feel free to talk. "
That's entrapment.
Anarchy is not a failed state... any more than a nuclear razed Hiroshima is now a forest. But if someone insists on calling a failed state anarchy, can i call statism failed anarchy?
4/20 lol
Ha! Look at the slack-jawed jar heads! Cadets busily scribbling unintelligible observations! Expressions ranging from mystification to contempt.
Disagree. The guy who corrected himself when he said "it seems to me" definitively showed some were not only listening but actually understanding, even if they didn't agree.
@@CIARUNSITE Cool. Glad you replied. You must have guessed I was being goading. And I respect that they were listening and that that individual picked up on that crucial element of comprehension and critical thought. That cadet has maybe had his future altered for whenever he reads and interprets propaganda. Maybe. And I appreciate all the other comments. (Here comes the "but".) But, that is a far cry from understanding Chomsky review the available, relevant literature on just war theory. I think we need to bear in mind that cadets are monitored in their ability to pay attention. Even enlisted weenies - such as I was once - are observed as they sit in classrooms and are duly evaluated and accordingly sorted. What I am getting at is: even in order to be considered for admission to West Point, a cadet has to exhibit a deep and enduring indoctrination into the prevailing social system which rests on capitalist relations under US/Western military dominance. I do not doubt that they have sharp minds and natural curiosity as intelligent young adults. However, they cannot possibly understand and appreciate what he is transmitting because they are hopelessly brainwashed before they get there. Chomsky makes this point in "Manufacturing Consent" and elsewhere. All their mental faculties are geared and directed to the opposite of what is being presented in this lecture. If their brains were other-directed, they would not be suitable for West Point. Chomsky might have introduced a slight apprehension into their minds that, perhaps, what they read as fact should be analyzed critically as mere claims. But the extent of their ability to use critical analysis all takes place within a narrow, circumscribed framework of the needs of the US Army officer corps. I mean just LISTEN to the garbage they continue to spew at him. He spells out elementary moral principles in clear, concise terms with uncontroversial historical examples, to the point of painful embarrassment, to the cadets. Then, on the next question, he is asked the identical question with different words. One of the little brats even tries to instruct him in history over Israel-Egypt and he patiently deconstructs it to the point that they even allow some laughter out - derisive of their foolish compatriot. Then, AGAIN, the very next guy asks the same question a different way. It all boils down to an inability to grasp elementary moral concepts because their minds are hopelessly warped. Now that I think of it, it's actually an example of someone trying to teach a room full of psychopaths to have compassion.