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.
@@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.
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
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.
@@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.
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.
@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.
Actually later Obama said that Israel should not get a blank check and the settlements are not ok. He also got Bin Ladin and pulled out of Afghanistan and cleared out Gitmo. So this is republican blindness here. On 9/11 the country agreed to go after the killers...Bush did start it but in this case, I don't agree with Chomsky fully. I think if someone flies into our buildings like that, presidents on both sides of the isle should try to finish the job. I don't like war either, but doesn't mean we bend over!!! ..You're a "sheeple". I like Chomsky because I may not agree with everything he says but he calls out most everyone except those in what he thinks is his populist or progressive movement.
I see you're half digesting the mainstream opinion of Obama. Bin Laden? Give me a break. Bin Laden was a goddamn caricature to justify wars and the big brother state. I don't disagree, Bush started this shit, but Obama's goddamn message was "hope and change", not; "I will make amplify the current problems".
I don't buy any of the political slogans and I certainly don't buy Trump's slogan and not necessarily going on the slogan here but the what was done and what wasn't done. Obama was the one who started removing the troops from both the wars as well as the Gitmo detainees. Maybe you missed that because you're a blind republican or crying progressive. These things don't happen overnight but it could have been faster. Gitmo is now down about 40 detainees who ARE detainees that their home countries don't want. So they do have to be found a home before being let go. Doesn't mean other issues didn't start and there weren't bad decisions along the way like some of the policing and "snooping" of our own people in the name of terrorism....put in place under Bush and kept under Obama. You seem like a blind follower instead of looking at the information provided.
a blind republican? lol, firstly I'm a Brit. 2nd I think the Republicans are bunch of hypocrites, although if they were true to their actual message then I would be more sympathetic to them than the Democrats. Also, FYI, i don't at the moment give a shit about Gitmo. Yes it's unconstitutional, but I'm not an American. The Constitution of the United States means jack shit in Europe, although I envy the 1st Amendment. All i'm saying is Obama get so much praise and yet he's just as bad as Bush. That's the goddamn point of what Noam is saying - same shit different name.
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/
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.
Sometimes it's good to let your enemy speak. Make the people who follow him question him and themselves rather than removing all doubts by killing him.
@@latenightlogic Tell that to the families of Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi and Alexander Valterovich Litvinenko. FOIA releases have verified the many attempts at assassinations by the CIA, and at this point you either understand that's how governments work or you're hopelessly naive.
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?
But Noam, Obama was given the nobel peace prize 2 months into his presidency before he did anything, to bring up facts hurts the feelings of all the people who voted for him and frankly hurting peoples feelings by bringing up facts is just mean!
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.
@@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
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.
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.
When he vetoed the Security Council resolution, that was a bit of a turning point for me. The man I thought I voted for wouldn't have done something like that.
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.
Recommendation: About 4 years ago i made a video on here called 'War is not heroic' Please give it a watch, hopefully the audio that goes with it will play ok, as it might be blocked in some countries,to see it simply just type in.......War is not heroic
yes Patricia ...I think he is...American people extremely brainwashed ...but so many peace loving Americans who truly want peace, and don't want to sacrifice their sons and daughters for wars which are about profits and power not what the people want.. these people are NOT leaders ...
Brida McGarbheith ppl need tae strike whatever stop wall st fir few days things il happin that's what finally got Blair talkin tae pira the bombed docklands an London lost billions in 3 days 🍀✌peace out x
yeah he said hillary is like obama and more militant. what sucks about trump is that he doesnt believe in global warming. America makes everyone's life miserable.
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 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.
To his credit, Paxman is one of the few BBC journalists who is in agreement with Chomsky a lot of the time and strives to give him air time on BBC television. If you actually listen to his questioning, he's setting up right wing questioning to enable Chomsky to rebuttal. His questions are not representative of personal views but good aggressive questioning. Leaving Chomsky every opportunity to come out on top.
@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.
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.
Many people have healthcare because of Obama, and the Paris accords gave people hope that humanity would recognize the dangers of climate change and work to mitigate it. Iran was 2 months away from having a nuclear weapon, Obama stopped that. Any military options Trump has today in Iran are owed to Obama's actions in signing the nuclear deal. Because if Iran got nukes, the middle east would be a totally different place right now. America could not risk retaliating against Iran for fear of a nuclear holocaust.
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.
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.
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.
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
I'll admit It, don't normally agree with Chomsky but on this he's right. When critics on the right called out Obama they were branded racist but when Chomsky dose it people listen. Just listen to the surprise in the Paxman's voice. It pisses me off that Obama gets a free ride!
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.
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.
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.
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.
''He hasn't had a chance to invade anyone yet''...two years later we've had Libya, increased drone attacks in Yemen+Pakistan, troops sent to Uganda. Not a bad prediction.
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?
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.
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!
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.
