The culture of fear instilled in the average American leaves the masses malleable and therefore open to influence. Chomsky loves America, despite what his detractors think. It's because he cares that he speaks uncomfortable truths. When he describes the Vietnam 'war ' it is hard for people to accept the unnecessary invasion that was the Vietnam debacle. Similarly the invasion of Iraq was based on lies, a tough thing to face up to. Ultimately it's the American people who suffer from being deceived by those they think are protecting them. Chomsky is a deeply moral human being - he teaches that the life of the Vietnamese peasant, or the struggling citizen of Cuba, has as much value as an American life. Long live Chomsky's words!
Chomsky loves that only in America can he make all that money writing & lecturing about fields that he has never had the guts to actually work in himself-Which is everything outside Linguistics! Instead of seeking an actual Policy-Making Position Himself, and-with his superior wisdom-Show he can do a better job, and get better results, than those he has spent his career merely criticizing from the sidelines, like the armchair critic that he is! And btw: We can debate the, ' morality ', of the Viet Nam Conflict, but in all the years since the Iraq War, no one-Not Chomsky-Not anyone else-Has ever produced any proof that the Bush Administration knew that the pre-war Intel about Iraq was not true at the time! No One! So please get your facts right on that point!
@@mck1972 Comrade, I read your comment with interest, and understand where you're coming from, I really do. However, your opinion on Chomsky - the man as you portray him - is yours to hold, wrong as it is. Firstly, when a mediator of a debate, television presenter, interviewer, documentary maker, whoever, describes Chomsky as a linguist, they use that term to say he is a man with academic credentials. His job at M.I.T., as distinguished professor, meant he couldn't be dismissed as just some nut. His lifes work was telling the people how they are consistently lied to and deceived by those who are supposed to have their best interests at heart. You may find truth uncomfortable but deny it at your peril. Secondly, we can't debate the morality (I know, a big word) of the firebombing of innocents in Vietnam because the whole assault was unquestionably on a scale immoral beyond debate. The lie spun to the American populous claiming 'weapons of mass destruction' in Saddam's Iraq in order to control oil resources in that country is a shameful thing for any decent American citizen to have to face. You seem to suggest that pre-invasion intelligence didn't show there were no WMDs in Iraq but surely the burden of proof works the orher way - intelligence sources should have shown there WERE weapons of mass destruction in that sovereign state in order to be mandated to attack Iraq to prevent possible aggression by Saddam. Facts, you say -those are worth a ponder! Chomsky's one hundred books are full of facts and he would laugh at any contention that his business is a money one. He is also a tireless activist - in three dimensions in protests on the street and through media work spanning 60 years. Thank you for reading this far.
@@robertthomas4234 , I have never denied Chomsky’s expertise in the one field of Linguistics. Yet Chomsky’s expertise in the one field of Linguistics is simply not relevant to any field outside Linguistics. Nor does Chomsky’s expertise in the one field of Linguistics grant him any expertise in properly establishing that people are, ‘ consistently lied to and deceived by those who are supposed to have their best interests at heart. ‘. Because establishing that anybody, ‘ lied ‘, or ‘ deceived ‘, anyone else, requires producing legitimate proof of what was in their minds at the time. Chomsky produces ZERO legitimate proof of what was in anyone’s mind at the time! Chomsky’s paranoid conspiracy theories about what HE THINKS anyone else’s motives were-Are NOT legitimate proof! And apparently I need to reiterate that the Worse that Chomsky THINKS that our Policy Makers have acted all these years, then the Worse that this makes Chomsky himself look, for never seeking an actual Policy Making Position Himself, and-with his superior wisdom-Show he can get better results! Instead of spending his life merely complaining from the sidelines about fields that he has never had the guts to actually work in, nor accept responsibility for, himself-Like the armchair critic that he is, and calling it, ‘ tireless activism ‘! And apparently I also need to reiterate that in all the years since the Iraq War-No One, Not Chomsky, not anyone else, has ever produced any legitimate proof that the Bush Administration knew the pre-war Intel to be untrue at the time! No One! Again, Chomsky’s paranoid conspiracy theories about what HE THINKS anyone else’s motives were-Are NOT legitimate proof! These are REAL, ‘ uncomfortable truths ‘, that both you and Chomsky need to, ‘ ponder ‘, until you face up to them!
@@Raz2000 , And so the more that Chomsky, ' loves his country and wants it to be better ', and the Worse that Chomsky THINKS that our Policy Makers have acted all these years, then the Worse that this makes Chomsky himself look, for never seeking an actual Policy Making Position Himself, and-with his superior wisdom-Show he can get better results! Instead of spending his life merely complaining from the sidelines about fields that he has never had the guts to actually work in, nor accept responsibility for, himself-Which is everything outside Linguistics-Like the worthless armchair critic that he is!
You can feel the rage in the questions from these students. Brings back the way I felt at the time. It’s a shame we can only think clearly like this guy after the fact.
This has aged incredibly well. A million dead Iraqs later, and 22 years of the war on “terror”, has left nothing but death and destruction in its path.
"What concrete steps would you advocate for the US to do as a superpower to combat terrorism, beside nothing?" "Well first of all, one easiest possible way to stop terrorism is to stop participating in it" So much truth in that small statement.
People should be very clear on the salient distinction between what a career Linguistics Professor THINKS is, ' Terrorism ', Vs What Actually is, ' Terrorism '. Because Chomsky himself has no clue of this salient distinction! SMH
@@KeithWilliamMacHendry , Really? So you value the opinion of a Linguistics Professor on this subject-Even though he has never actually worked in Government, Foreign Policy, Law, International Affairs, National Security, or any other related field, himself?
@@almo3250 , It does not make sense to state that a Career Linguistics Professor, who has never actually worked in any other field, is not qualified to judge those who have done so-Really???
@@mck1972 why are you shaking your head smart ass? In case you were unaware, everything is what everybody, individually, thinks it is. If you want to be pedantic, you can systematically deconstruct everything by saying there is no way to absolutely define anything with words. As if you had a better grasp of any concept than Chomsky.
This video kept me watching for the full length, and now I REALLY need my morning coffee. Thanks Mr. Chomsky, you are the best! (My first discovery of his writing was through linguistics at the University.)
Sorensen was spectacular in one regard; his adherence and blind loyalty to the Cult of Kennedy. Perhaps all apologists teaching at Harvard should be retired. Chomsky is justifiably laughing at the status-quo, while pointing the way towards WHY they would recklessly destroy almost everything. It's a shame he didn't have even more to elaborate.
@@robertbentley3589 …..with language and a setting as we have here, it’s best to give some context to your remarks. Isn’t it interesting that almost all members of the patriarchy are so immersed in their own thoughts and so solipsistic, and usually gun owners.
I would love to hold a binding referendum in the USA asking, "Do you want the USA to be the world's policeman?". The question should have been asked long ago.
It would pass overwhelmingly, haven't you been paying attention? People only oppose wars in the US vocally when 1) it involves conscription, 2) it is seen as a wedge to use for partisan purposes. The Bush administration benefitted from the Iraq war using the second condition, as the 'midterm' mentioned at the beginning here went in favor of the governing party for the first time since the Depression (even in WW2 the Democrats lost a significant number of seats in 1942), but eventually it turned against them the opposite way. The Afghan war never gained the same controversy & largely was just disregarded in most discourses, which is why it went 20 years before people pretended for a month they cared about the aftermath of the withdrawal before predictably forgetting it happened. Right now everyone claiming to be for Ukrainian direct intervention would disavow immediately & revise history when the body bags started showing up at Dover. Look how at the beginning Chomsky even considers Iraq had WMDs, which was the overwhelming consensus prior to the Iraq intervention even by opponents, it's revisionist history that the Bush administration was the lone voice selling a position that everyone else bravely opposed but was disregarded. The original opponents were claiming the worst case scenario was going to be fighting Ba'athists itself, I can only think of 2 people discussing the possibility of internicene tribal aftermath (1 of which was supporter Christopher Hitchens, making the argument it would be better for the US to be present in such an event than letting it happen upon self induced implosion of the regime, for regional stability). But no, people who think like Ron Paul or Kucinich don't really exist in America, people just say that when a war is unpopular & shamelessly shill for the next one unless they see a partisan disadvantage, which is why Republicans have beenp pretending to oppose war but all the neocons went back to their original positions in February when thinking about fighting a nuclear power.
52:03..the question was " elaborate on your simple ways to stop war" his answer was to support Iran..isn't this the exact type of policy that he says creates on going conflict and terrorism?
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?
Lord Do We Really Miss These Voices *That Used To Hear Coming Out Of America* God Only Knows Why We Hear *NOTHING But HYPOCRISY From Our Old Friends In US Medias & Goverments*
27:50 to the end of his talk he eludes to having simple measures to meet the goals of the war on terror but does he state the simple goals to end war? Nope times up, the agreed time limit for TALKING stopped Noam for explaining how his ideas could stop war, but happy to keep taking questions.
Why Iraq? Well oil of course, but also Syria. Having control over those 2 countries creates a land bridge between the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf. Also protects Saudi Arabia and contains Iran. Oil, power, politics.
Hes very loose with the term.. " with our support" this implies encouragement or willingness. Really its just that no sanctions had been put in place. Noams criticism is in retrospect
The unemployed and disabled Man raised quite probably one of the most important Questions of the day. How Massachusetts Republicans seemed to have a similar Attitude towards bilingual Education to Franco and Mussolini. This was on the day before an Election. He was rebuffed for not being a Student at the College. Would they do the same thing to him now if he asked similar about Zelenskiys Policy towards the Russian Language?
Sorensen really was a close advisor of Kennedy. Kennedy is documented as authorizing and centrally controlling Operation Mongoose. Acheson ran a private law firm blocks from the White House, and was not formally employed as a Kennedy advisor, yet is also documented as having directly advised Kennedy on key issues and even acted as an emissary internationally on his behalf. Acheson must know this, why dispute it?? It's amazing to see a misinforming apologist of such stature, so prominently on display.
You know that one important goal of USA to invade Iraq is mainly divide that country and put the minority Shi'a sect to the power and of all with entire partnership with Iran. By the way the same plot is ready is slowly cooked in other parts of Muslim countries, and of course you know how they do this. They use different tactics, creating and financing NGOs, pushing and forcing their dictators in the regions to recognize tribe dialects as languages, promote so called human rights and gender equality, creating conflicts and civil wars and then asking for so called self-determination and so forth
All praise to Almighty God ; victory through truths , by the force of Almighty God . Patience’s under the attacks of evil. “ Evil “ . Knowledge that evil must be conquered . The truths will manifest itself against all dough’s, and the world will see. All praise to Almighty God amen .
the shadows disappear when you shine the light, without and within. When the masses of the world become aware and equanimous, compassionate opposition will liberate humanity from the grips of ignorance.
He's talking about humans as a species (the biology's experiment with higher intelligence) and about actions that will lead to our extinction, perpetrated by our own hands.
I'll answer myself...because nothing anybody says in public discourse or anywhere else can possibly make a difference, because all they were fighting about during and after WWII was who was going to be top of the Fascist heap. Its a fait accompli.
@kimshaw-williams not true, talking to the masses is exactly what the media does to propagate. he is a danger to _them_ . fortunately, he is so good in his field of linguistics that his benefits outweigh the truths he spreads. if he was not an immensely successful scientist, he would have disappointed already.
LOL The real reason is that anyone who lives in reality, knows the trith that Chomsky actually has NO Idea WTF he is talking about when it comes to any field outside Linguistics! 😀😀😀
Sorensen really was a close advisor of Kennedy. Kennedy is documented as authorizing and centrally controlling Operation Mongoose. Acheson ran a private law firm blocks from the White House, and was not formally employed as a Kennedy advisor, yet is also documented as having directly advised Kennedy on key issues and even acting as an emissary on his behalf. Acheson must know this, why dispute it? Crazy stuff.
He was underestimating Noam Chomsky's ability to recall the specifics of such an obscure document that had nothing to do with the topic at hand. The only thing Noam couldn't recall was the page number of the declassified document, which Sorrenson asked for. I had secondhand embarassment for him-he didn't even want to do the follow up, but was forced to by the presenter.💀@@Anttys_WeyTua_CTa_Eu986
Once again, Chomsky presumes to judge others in (Yet Another) field that he has NEVER actually worked in himself! And yet some people take this ridiculous old man seriously! 😀
'Why Iraq? That's an interesting question and I'm glad you asked it. The US Military only does hot countries with natural resources who pose a threat to us. Iraq fits this demographic.'
the fact that he made this speech in 2002 is very impressive of both his intelligens and courage.
The sad thing that Iraq and Iraqis had nothing to do with 9/11.
The culture of fear instilled in the average American leaves the masses malleable and therefore open to influence. Chomsky loves America, despite what his detractors think. It's because he cares that he speaks uncomfortable truths. When he describes the Vietnam 'war ' it is hard for people to accept the unnecessary invasion that was the Vietnam debacle. Similarly the invasion of Iraq was based on lies, a tough thing to face up to. Ultimately it's the American people who suffer from being deceived by those they think are protecting them. Chomsky is a deeply moral human being - he teaches that the life of the Vietnamese peasant, or the struggling citizen of Cuba, has as much value as an American life. Long live Chomsky's words!
Chomsky loves that only in America can he make all that money writing & lecturing about fields that he has never had the guts to actually work in himself-Which is everything outside Linguistics!
Instead of seeking an actual Policy-Making Position Himself, and-with his superior wisdom-Show he can do a better job, and get better results, than those he has spent his career merely criticizing from the sidelines, like the armchair critic that he is!
And btw: We can debate the, ' morality ', of the Viet Nam Conflict, but in all the years since the Iraq War, no one-Not Chomsky-Not anyone else-Has ever produced any proof that the Bush Administration knew that the pre-war Intel about Iraq was not true at the time!
No One!
So please get your facts right on that point!
@@mck1972 Comrade, I read your comment with interest, and understand where you're coming from, I really do. However, your opinion on Chomsky - the man as you portray him - is yours to hold, wrong as it is. Firstly, when a mediator of a debate, television presenter, interviewer, documentary maker, whoever, describes Chomsky as a linguist, they use that term to say he is a man with academic credentials. His job at M.I.T., as distinguished professor, meant he couldn't be dismissed as just some nut. His lifes work was telling the people how they are consistently lied to and deceived by those who are supposed to have their best interests at heart. You may find truth uncomfortable but deny it at your peril.
Secondly, we can't debate the morality (I know, a big word) of the firebombing of innocents in Vietnam because the whole assault was unquestionably on a scale immoral beyond debate.
The lie spun to the American populous claiming 'weapons of mass destruction' in Saddam's Iraq in order to control oil resources in that country is a shameful thing for any decent American citizen to have to face. You seem to suggest that pre-invasion intelligence didn't show there were no WMDs in Iraq but surely the burden of proof works the orher way - intelligence sources should have shown there WERE weapons of mass destruction in that sovereign state in order to be mandated to attack Iraq to prevent possible aggression by Saddam.
Facts, you say -those are worth a ponder! Chomsky's one hundred books are full of facts and he would laugh at any contention that his business is a money one. He is also a tireless activist - in three dimensions in protests on the street and through media work spanning 60 years. Thank you for reading this far.
@@robertthomas4234 ,
I have never denied Chomsky’s expertise in the one field of Linguistics.
Yet Chomsky’s expertise in the one field of Linguistics is simply not relevant to any field outside Linguistics.
Nor does Chomsky’s expertise in the one field of Linguistics grant him any expertise in properly establishing that people are, ‘ consistently lied to and deceived by those who are supposed to have their best interests at heart. ‘.
Because establishing that anybody, ‘ lied ‘, or ‘ deceived ‘, anyone else, requires producing legitimate proof of what was in their minds at the time.
Chomsky produces ZERO legitimate proof of what was in anyone’s mind at the time!
Chomsky’s paranoid conspiracy theories about what HE THINKS anyone else’s motives were-Are NOT legitimate proof!
And apparently I need to reiterate that the Worse that Chomsky THINKS that our Policy Makers have acted all these years, then the Worse that this makes Chomsky himself look, for never seeking an actual Policy Making Position Himself, and-with his superior wisdom-Show he can get better results!
Instead of spending his life merely complaining from the sidelines about fields that he has never had the guts to actually work in, nor accept responsibility for, himself-Like the armchair critic that he is, and calling it, ‘ tireless activism ‘!
And apparently I also need to reiterate that in all the years since the Iraq War-No One, Not Chomsky, not anyone else, has ever produced any legitimate proof that the Bush Administration knew the pre-war Intel to be untrue at the time!
No One!
Again, Chomsky’s paranoid conspiracy theories about what HE THINKS anyone else’s motives were-Are NOT legitimate proof!
These are REAL, ‘ uncomfortable truths ‘, that both you and Chomsky need to, ‘ ponder ‘, until you face up to them!
He's critical because he loves his country and wants it to be better. I have infinite respect for Noam and people like him.
@@Raz2000 ,
And so the more that Chomsky, ' loves his country and wants it to be better ', and the Worse that Chomsky THINKS that our Policy Makers have acted all these years, then the Worse that this makes Chomsky himself look, for never seeking an actual Policy Making Position Himself, and-with his superior wisdom-Show he can get better results!
Instead of spending his life merely complaining from the sidelines about fields that he has never had the guts to actually work in, nor accept responsibility for, himself-Which is everything outside Linguistics-Like the worthless armchair critic that he is!
You can feel the rage in the questions from these students. Brings back the way I felt at the time. It’s a shame we can only think clearly like this guy after the fact.
Sorry? A million people marched through London to oppose the invasion of Iraq.
@@Johnconno key word: London
This has aged incredibly well. A million dead Iraqs later, and 22 years of the war on “terror”, has left nothing but death and destruction in its path.
And we clap for George Bush instead of bringing him to the International War Court
And billions in war pigs pockets.
"What concrete steps would you advocate for the US to do as a superpower to combat terrorism, beside nothing?"
"Well first of all, one easiest possible way to stop terrorism is to stop participating in it"
So much truth in that small statement.
People should be very clear on the salient distinction between what a career Linguistics Professor THINKS is, ' Terrorism ',
Vs
What Actually is, ' Terrorism '.
Because Chomsky himself has no clue of this salient distinction! SMH
@@mck1972 In your opinion that is. Big deal!
@@KeithWilliamMacHendry ,
Really? So you value the opinion of a Linguistics Professor on this subject-Even though he has never actually worked in Government, Foreign Policy, Law, International Affairs, National Security, or any other related field, himself?
@@almo3250 ,
It does not make sense to state that a Career Linguistics Professor, who has never actually worked in any other field, is not qualified to judge those who have done so-Really???
@@mck1972 why are you shaking your head smart ass? In case you were unaware, everything is what everybody, individually, thinks it is. If you want to be pedantic, you can systematically deconstruct everything by saying there is no way to absolutely define anything with words.
As if you had a better grasp of any concept than Chomsky.
He’s very good at seeing the bigger picture and pointing it out to people such as me.Who needs a bit of help.
"The so called war on terror"Yup you got THAT right!
Thankfully they left in three and a half minutes of noise before the presentation started.
That cop in the back is probably having one hell of an evening.
Dr Chomsky is s LIVING LEGEND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Chomsky was highly celebrated
in the 1970s and 80s in my University in Paris, France, he was considered to be Star of Linguistics.
My modern-day hero.
This video kept me watching for the full length, and now I REALLY need my morning coffee. Thanks Mr. Chomsky, you are the best! (My first discovery of his writing was through linguistics at the University.)
Man is a legend
Dude at 57:17 is a distinguished fellow but can't hold a mic right???
Sorensen was spectacular in one regard; his adherence and blind loyalty to the Cult of Kennedy.
Perhaps all apologists teaching at
Harvard should be retired. Chomsky is justifiably laughing at the status-quo, while pointing the way towards WHY they would recklessly destroy almost everything. It's a shame he didn't have even more to elaborate.
Sorenson was an inveterate Kennedy fluffer with a vested interest in perpetuating the Kennedy mythology.
Wonder just how stupid he felt after that?
@@robertbentley3589 …..with language and a setting as we have here, it’s best to give some context to your remarks. Isn’t it interesting that almost all members of the patriarchy are so immersed in their own thoughts and so solipsistic, and usually gun owners.
I would love to hold a binding referendum in the USA asking, "Do you want the USA to be the world's policeman?". The question should have been asked long ago.
that would be real democracy
@@Raz2000 You must be a troll.
It would pass overwhelmingly, haven't you been paying attention?
People only oppose wars in the US vocally when 1) it involves conscription, 2) it is seen as a wedge to use for partisan purposes.
The Bush administration benefitted from the Iraq war using the second condition, as the 'midterm' mentioned at the beginning here went in favor of the governing party for the first time since the Depression (even in WW2 the Democrats lost a significant number of seats in 1942), but eventually it turned against them the opposite way. The Afghan war never gained the same controversy & largely was just disregarded in most discourses, which is why it went 20 years before people pretended for a month they cared about the aftermath of the withdrawal before predictably forgetting it happened.
Right now everyone claiming to be for Ukrainian direct intervention would disavow immediately & revise history when the body bags started showing up at Dover. Look how at the beginning Chomsky even considers Iraq had WMDs, which was the overwhelming consensus prior to the Iraq intervention even by opponents, it's revisionist history that the Bush administration was the lone voice selling a position that everyone else bravely opposed but was disregarded. The original opponents were claiming the worst case scenario was going to be fighting Ba'athists itself, I can only think of 2 people discussing the possibility of internicene tribal aftermath (1 of which was supporter Christopher Hitchens, making the argument it would be better for the US to be present in such an event than letting it happen upon self induced implosion of the regime, for regional stability).
But no, people who think like Ron Paul or Kucinich don't really exist in America, people just say that when a war is unpopular & shamelessly shill for the next one unless they see a partisan disadvantage, which is why Republicans have beenp pretending to oppose war but all the neocons went back to their original positions in February when thinking about fighting a nuclear power.
@@intagliooglethorpe8434 I like Ron Paul. He mentioned allot of things that the public wasn't aware of.
@@Monica.. I voted for him & donated money.
That still is not where most Americans are before hot potatoes become a thing.
the discussion is wild. lol
Time traveling and hearing this plain speaking educates as nothing else can. Now i see why Irán is now on the agenda.
52:03..the question was " elaborate on your simple ways to stop war" his answer was to support Iran..isn't this the exact type of policy that he says creates on going conflict and terrorism?
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?
Lord Do We Really Miss These Voices *That Used To Hear Coming Out Of America* God Only Knows Why We Hear *NOTHING But HYPOCRISY From Our Old Friends In US Medias & Goverments*
Golden! He's top form
Mr Chomksy 4 President-of the world!!.
Yanis Veroufakis is another good candidate
Chomsky has had his entire life to seek any actual Policy Making Position.
Yet instead he chose to merely complain from the sidelines!
SMH
27:50 to the end of his talk he eludes to having simple measures to meet the goals of the war on terror but does he state the simple goals to end war? Nope times up, the agreed time limit for TALKING stopped Noam for explaining how his ideas could stop war, but happy to keep taking questions.
There’s literally hundreds of talks he’s given on this subject
Why Does 2002 look like 1985?
Why Iraq? Well oil of course, but also Syria. Having control over those 2 countries creates a land bridge between the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf. Also protects Saudi Arabia and contains Iran. Oil, power, politics.
Good insight. Tell us more.
Excactly the kind biased paranoid rant, about fields that you have never actually worked in, that Chomsky has been spouting his entire career! SMH
This would be right if he used the word Jewish instead of White.
Cry nazi
Tony Blair, what a walaper!
A psychopath of the darkest order.
Hes very loose with the term.. " with our support" this implies encouragement or willingness. Really its just that no sanctions had been put in place. Noams criticism is in retrospect
نهاية اسرائيل حتميه هذا الشخص كل العرب تحترمه يوسف نعوم
The unemployed and disabled Man raised quite probably one of the most important Questions of the day. How Massachusetts Republicans seemed to have a similar Attitude towards bilingual Education to Franco and Mussolini. This was on the day before an Election. He was rebuffed for not being a Student at the College. Would they do the same thing to him now if he asked similar about Zelenskiys Policy towards the Russian Language?
Sorensen really was a close advisor of Kennedy. Kennedy is documented as authorizing and centrally controlling Operation Mongoose. Acheson ran a private law firm blocks from the White House, and was not formally employed as a Kennedy advisor, yet is also documented as having directly advised Kennedy on key issues and even acted as an emissary internationally on his behalf. Acheson must know this, why dispute it?? It's amazing to see a misinforming apologist of such stature, so prominently on display.
..........(he DOES have much more to elaborate upon, but never enough time to do so).
Correction: 22 years ago 🤔("Green Fire", UK ) 🌈🦉
Would you prefer Afghanistan?
When you're a Kennedy lover, always a Kennedy lover.... I guess!...
You know that one important goal of USA to invade Iraq is mainly divide that country and put the minority Shi'a sect to the power and of all with entire partnership with Iran. By the way the same plot is ready is slowly cooked in other parts of Muslim countries, and of course you know how they do this. They use different tactics, creating and financing NGOs, pushing and forcing their dictators in the regions to recognize tribe dialects as languages, promote so called human rights and gender equality, creating conflicts and civil wars and then asking for so called self-determination and so forth
Everything what you're saying is the promotion of the New World Order.
The US is in political bed with Saudi
And your source for that claim is?
US is in bed with Saudi. Not good.
@@joelwest5396 ,
Monday Morning Armchair Quarterbacks like Chomsky complaining from the sidelines.
Way Worse.
Kansas boy Dan Glickman 💪🌾🌾🌾
War makes everything rich men richer
The old potus money whores.
He always apologizes for terrorist countries. I dont get it. Never once says anything good about America
Unemployed disabled with an aversion to bright lights lmao
sounds like he has a pretty flippant attitude to the idea of a nuclear mushroom cloud in an american city
All praise to Almighty God ; victory through truths , by the force of Almighty God . Patience’s under the attacks of evil. “ Evil “ . Knowledge that evil must be conquered . The truths will manifest itself against all dough’s, and the world will see. All praise to Almighty God amen .
the shadows disappear when you shine the light, without and within. When the masses of the world become aware and equanimous, compassionate opposition will liberate humanity from the grips of ignorance.
Thanks
Why Iraq? Israel and ZOG of course
Sorensen is feeling uncomfortable. His whole life he thought he was fighting the good fight, and then he hears this.
Cognitive dissonance.
He definitely knew.
@@xx133 did you notice his state of arousal? Why the need to defend himself? He still lives in the lie it seems.
Young Ronald Clark Mary Garcia Steven
the audience at the beginning sounds like a murmuring insect hive
1:21:58 "oppose an experiment with higher intelligence" - WTF!!??
“End biology’s only experiment with higher intelligence.” It’s a point he’s made before about nuclear war.
What did he mean by this?
He's talking about humans as a species (the biology's experiment with higher intelligence) and about actions that will lead to our extinction, perpetrated by our own hands.
Martinez Robert Young Michelle Garcia Larry
Lee Carol Thomas Edward Clark Sandra
Wow. How come THEY still allowed him to live? Blows me away.
I'll answer myself...because nothing anybody says in public discourse or anywhere else can possibly make a difference, because all they were fighting about during and after WWII was who was going to be top of the Fascist heap. Its a fait accompli.
@kimshaw-williams not true, talking to the masses is exactly what the media does to propagate. he is a danger to _them_ . fortunately, he is so good in his field of linguistics that his benefits outweigh the truths he spreads. if he was not an immensely successful scientist, he would have disappointed already.
LOL The real reason is that anyone who lives in reality, knows the trith that Chomsky actually has NO Idea WTF he is talking about when it comes to any field outside Linguistics! 😀😀😀
Noam Chomsky is GOAT
Actually the Isreal has to do with the everything with invade irag
that "you know better than I do" in reference to CIA activity was legendary
Search : ' Noam Chomsky : US Is The World's Biggest Terrorist '
Dr Chomsky is GREAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How did it take me so long to watch this one?! It's so illuminating
Its amazing how Noam Chomsky effortlessly dunks on Ted Sorensen.
Sorensen really was a close advisor of Kennedy. Kennedy is documented as authorizing and centrally controlling Operation Mongoose. Acheson ran a private law firm blocks from the White House, and was not formally employed as a Kennedy advisor, yet is also documented as having directly advised Kennedy on key issues and even acting as an emissary on his behalf. Acheson must know this, why dispute it? Crazy stuff.
He was underestimating Noam Chomsky's ability to recall the specifics of such an obscure document that had nothing to do with the topic at hand. The only thing Noam couldn't recall was the page number of the declassified document, which Sorrenson asked for. I had secondhand embarassment for him-he didn't even want to do the follow up, but was forced to by the presenter.💀@@Anttys_WeyTua_CTa_Eu986
Question who is this CAPITAlism & USA .and Communism & so on . and are they married and with whom ?
Once again, Chomsky presumes to judge others in (Yet Another) field that he has NEVER actually worked in himself!
And yet some people take this ridiculous old man seriously! 😀
Why are questions of China almost always dodged?
'Why Iraq? That's an interesting question and I'm glad you asked it.
The US Military only does hot countries with natural resources who pose a threat to us.
Iraq fits this demographic.'
Shame on us uk and usa blair and Bush war criminals should have been prosecuted!
THANKYOU for this history
Iran can't fight