@Existence Is Everything No, there are plenty of rich white people that are also profiting off of all these wars that cause nothing but pain and suffering.
"If you can have your hand on the spigot, you control .... " That's the kind of simply clear, plausible analysis Chomsky often brings to the discussion. Love it.
Hey I've got an idea. What if we tried to secure strong oil reserves in other countries by being friends with them, aiding the development of their societies, and generally benefitting their people so that they give us oil out of friendship? Just an idea. Or maybe the oil companies that run our policy wouldn't be able to get all the profits from the two nations interactions that way? Quite a conundrum, Chomsky.
I thought the interviewer sounded a lot like Cenk Uygur from TYT, but he seemed too reasonable, so I thought that couldn't be right. But then I checked the source, and it turns out that it is Cenk, although the interview is from 2010. That makes sense, 2010 was a much more stable and reasonable year than either 2016 or 2017. Almost everything is dumb nowadays.
As H.I.M. said: Until the philosophy which hold one race superior and another inferior will be war Until theirs no longer first class or second class citizens of any nation will be war Until ........
I’m not doubting the man, he’s a genius. but I would like to see sources for his claim around 4:10 about how the Bush admin was honest and open about its actual goals in Iraq
@@DinoDudeDillon Well then the American public must be calling for bloodshed in Iraq to enrich private speculators. No, he means that the W Bush was honest to his special interest groups and published the documents publicly, making him transparently corrupt instead of secretly corrupt (as Nixon chose to try and make himself and was the last president to dignifiedly step down after public discovery of his proclivity to dishonesty to try save face) - however being honest to private interests is not the job of a politician, a politician's job is to be honest to the whole general voting public. ''Nation building'' was the term given to the general public, it was a war to spread the American revolution to Iraq, after a perceived humiliation at the twin towers of American idealism, to prove to the world, that the American way of life, was the right life, such a good one, that it could be brought by force to anybody anywhere with American measures and policies and American armies, that were the opposite, humane good, counter-force to the backward, brutal and backward mentality represented by people who were of different, origin, race, culture and religion to them in the ''backward'' parts of the world that the terrorists, who bombed the twin towers, were seen as originating from. The exact opposite to the intent of non-racism Bush W proposed in his speeches, due to his limited intelligence about human behaviour, or perhaps his shrewdness of disguising racism under good ideals. Remember the election of Obama after him as his successor, was supposed to serve as a representative of America getting past its perceived latent hidden racism, that has been supposed to be behind Bush W's ability to turn a blind eye to part of America celebrating the murder of people in other countries as justified by their backward national status and racial culture. Obamaa was the magic bullet and solution to racism in public discourse. The majority of the public believed they were invading Iraq to save America from an existential democracy risk posed by extremists abroad, not because of oil, they never believed that and those that said it was so were generally looked upon as outlandish conspiracists, although their enumerations of accusations of wrong doing by private special interest groups were far more tame and sane, democratic and decent than that which is almost accepted into the mainstream of political discussions today. Chomsky doesn't mention racism being a part of the motivation and cause of the Iraq war, but it may have been, which means the Americans electing Obama was seen as such a positive phase by so many around the world since it represented freeing America from a type of attitude responsible for its violence towards smaller nations of different races, since Vietnam had also incurred a rise in racism and as a war against South East Asians brought out elements of racism and both extreme civil rights and extreme domestic conspiracies of various different racial terrorist groups coming home from the Vietnam war of principles or ideals of democracy against what used to be the prior threat to world democracy before the smaller backward extremist peoples living within our own were, that is the Communists, but there was also through to be a latent racial element to the violence abroad and domestically, as was well enumerated by Martin Luther King Jr in his speeches about war, militarism and times of national decay in politics.
You can go to the archives of president George W Bush’s website and see all of their official releases on the invasions. One Chomsky has mentioned in his book, who rules the world? (2014), the United States of America and Iraq’s promise of friendship or something like that
4:00 And at the end, the USA lost the war in Iraq and retreated. So, there is not always the big business who wins....but the normal US-citizen is always losing, because they payed the bill with money and blood.
Yes when he wasn't as nearly left wing as he is now. Listen to Cenks interview with Howard Zinn. Before Obama was elected Cenk was pretty mainstream (right wing, at the time).
The idea that Cenk Uygur is "Left Wing" is a little silly. He's firmly in the Center with Bernie Sanders. He's a Social Democrat who openly identifies as a "Capitalist."
As center as Denmark and Sweden... Scandinavia tends to lean heavily toward social democracy and democratic socialism. However, I doubt any of us would consider these countries anything beyond center-left. Anarchism (Bakunin, Emma Goldman, Antifa, Chomsky) and Communism (Marx, Lenin, Mao, Trotsky) are far-left. The both of these philosophies literally propose abolishing the State, Capitalism, Hierarchy, and Private Property. The only reason Bernie Sanders appears to be anything other than centrist in America while proposing national health care and tuition free college (despite the fact that these things are already a Reality in poorer countries) is because the political paradigm set in the US is further to the right than elsewhere. And America hasn't seen any large Anarchist movement since the 20s, so... yeah, Bernie Sanders is center-left. Liberalism is both center-left and center-right. On the social scale, Liberalism agrees with the social democrats and democratic socialists. On the economic scale, Liberalism agrees more with the Capitalists in that, in their view, "Capitalism is a net-benefit to society." Where they disagree with the extreme-right (Libertarian-Right, Ancaps) on economics is degree of regulation. Like the social democrats, liberals want some degree of regulation, as opposed to laissez-faire, casino Capitalism; however, they aren't willing to limit the economic power of the bourgeoisie in any significant way like social democrats maybe inclined to. Liberals can be bourgeois. Liberals and what is today called "Progressive" in America are not far-left on the social scales, as I have already stated. This is also the territory of Anarchists and Communists - Anarchists probably being a little further left than Communists in this regard. For example, the whole idea of sexism and patriarchy as negative concepts came largely from Anarchists. Opposition to voting and party politics was and is a far-left position held by Anarchists. For example, Emma Goldman opposed woman suffrage and equality in the workforce on the grounds that it missed the entire point; basically, she saw it as a watered-down version of progress. She argued women were not freeing themselves from oppression, but rather, they were merely getting themselves into the same oppression, manipulation, and exploitation men were already at the hands of the bourgeoisie. Her actual argument is a little more complex than that, but I think you get the point. The political spectrum is much more complex than you think. Most of the spectrum has no power in America, consequently leaving only a slither of it with a voice. Bernie Sanders isn't remotely radical when you consider the political spectrum as a whole.
Chomsky describes US power grabs as though they occur in an enemy-free vacuum. ‘No big deal’ he says about Russia, China, and various Mideast theocracies. If we just let them have their cake, everything will be fine.
So after the Iraq war the price of oil dropped precipitously. Who's interests did this serve? Certainly not the major oil companies, one would think. Chomsky always seems to have a theory which is infinitely adjustable. No matter what happens in the world, it's always a matter of "Blame America!" I'm not saying that there is no truth in the idea that America is complicit in a lot of bad shit that goes down. But they are not the cause of all the bad shit that happens in the world. America is not one set of interests. Even the ruling economic/state apparatus contains a diversity of conflicting groups with a variety of disparate interests.
It was never about oil. It was about breaking up Iraq and it's army. It was a war for zionist state. PLANNED BY ZIONISTS since 90s. Clean Break strategy.
