Obama is worse than George Bush and Tony Blair says Noam Chomsky
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лют 2025
- 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.
Too much truth for the salad. No wonder BBC never interviewed him again
Only they did
And the BBC hates Jews
This clown is clueless.
@@richardambrose7856 Liar
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.
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!
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.
"When it comes to foreign policy, there is only one party, '"The War Party'."
Jeremy Scahill
War is big business for the elites.
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!
We do have third party candidates, people don't vote for them.
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.
@@peterbartolomeo5542 ah yes venezuela the democratically elected country
"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: 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....
Bless this man. One of the few who make us believe in humanity.
He's vile Marxist authoritarian. He hates America.
I don't.
The ending says it all....he was commenting on this just two years into Obama's presidency. Noam, it got worse....
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.
"Cleared out Gitmo", LMAO!
“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 was worse on the war in Afghanistan for sure.
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.
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
Bless his soul for speaking the truth! ♥️
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?
Unlike most of us he actually keeps current on these matters.
Wow. He certainly doesn't pull any punches.
Love him.
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
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 know this is 6 years on, but no he does not. The interviewer falsely construes Noam's previous analysis (the one which you've shared) by inaccurately charged that Noam has said they, "effectively, should be hanged." Noam corrects him historically by noting that not everyone was hanged in the trials, or even killed, and also rejects his charge in principle, by stating that he said that IF the same laws were applied (as they should have been in Nuremberg, but were not always), to our same leaders, they all would have found themselves guilty and sentenced to hanging. This is exactly reflected in what you've shared.
@@SomeHeavensStation Sorry, this is not accurate. Noam mischaracterizes how the interviewer summarized what he famously said. The interviewer says, "You've famously said that every American president since the second world war would fail in the judgment as applied at Nuremberg, and therefore effectively should be hanged". Noam interjects with, "I didn't say - not everyone was hanged at Nuremberg", which is a total red herring and clearly not at all what the interviewer said he said (that's why the interviewer rightly interjected with "No!").
Noam then goes on to claim, "I said if we believed in the Nuremberg principles, every American president would be subject to them. What the outcome would be, we'd have to check. Notice this is the Nuremberg *principles*, not the trials". But this is blatantly false, as we can see from Noam's words in his 1990 speech I quoted above in the OP. There we can see that Noam says he *is* talking abut the (Nuremberg) trials, and he doesn't merely say "if we believe in the Nuremberg principles, every American president since the second world war would be subject to them," nor does he say, "What the outcome would be, we'd have to check." To see so, just focus on the first paragraph of the quoted speech in the OP:
"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."
@@maanelid No, you're still getting it wrong. The interviewer implies that Noam implied that they" *should* "be hanged (interviewer's words), and Noam corrects him by saying -- correctly -- that he never said that, but rather, if they were applied correctly then they *would* be hanged -- also noting that they were not applied correctly even in Nuremberg (as you quotes of his original 90s talk states).
@@SomeHeavensStation I'm not getting it wrong. Noam clearly does imply in his 1990 speech that they (effectively) _should_ be hanged. Please read the first paragraph of his speech more carefully. It's clear that that's his implication.
Also, Noam's "correction" of the interviewer was disingenuous because he first replies with "not everyone was hanged at Nuremberg", which has nothing to do with what the interviewer actually said he said. Also, he claims that what he really said is "If we believed in the Nuremberg principles, then every American president since the second world war would be subject to them" and "What the outcome would be, we'd have to check" and "Notice this is the Nuremberg *principles*, not the trials". But these are all falsehoods, as his words from his 1990 speech demonstrate---in that speech he says plainly that he's talking about the Nuremberg laws and trials, he says plainly that they would be hanged if said laws and trials were applied to said American presidents, and he plainly implies that this would be sensible and justified.
And he doesn't say in his speech that the Nuremberg laws were not "correctly applied"; he says that they were inconsistently applied, in certain cases. But that does nothing to detract from what he says about the American presidents.
There is no virtue in defending Noam by misrepresenting the facts of what he actually said and what the interviewer said he said. Noam either completely misremembered what he actually said, perhaps due to old age and memory loss (which the most charitable interpretation), or he was trolling the interviewer because he's a pathological liar. Either possibility is discrediting.
@@SomeHeavensStation The owner of this channel deleted my earlier response to this, so I'm trying again: No, I'm not getting it wrong. Noam mischaracterizes how the interviewer summarized what he famously said. The interviewer says, "You've famously said that every American president since the second world war would fail in the judgment as applied at Nuremberg, and therefore effectively should be hanged". Noam interjects with, "I didn't say - not everyone was hanged at Nuremberg", which is a total red herring and clearly not at all what the interviewer said he said (that's why the interviewer rightly interjected with "No!").
Noam then goes on to claim, "I said if we believed in the Nuremberg principles, every American president would be subject to them. What the outcome would be, we'd have to check. Notice this is the Nuremberg principles*, not the trials". But this is blatantly false, as we can see from Noam's words in his 1990 speech I quoted above in the OP. There we can see that Noam says he *is talking abut the (Nuremberg) trials, and he doesn't merely say "if we believe in the Nuremberg principles, every American president since the second world war would be subject to them," nor does he say, "What the outcome would be, we'd have to check." To see so, just focus on the first paragraph of the quoted speech in the OP. See above.
He’s so apolitical (in the sense of a party allegiance). I love that.
Nonpartisan is the word 👍
That's because the two parties have the same foreign policy. With only a rare exception
@@MrRedcarpet02 because US foreign policy is controlled by Israel lobbying them to endless wars in the middle east.
@@dustywaxhead
Yup. That’s the correct word.
Apolitical is the opposite of Chomsky
Everytime I watch one of his interviews or statments I wonder why he hasn't died in an "accident".
Chomsky is too smart. He would be far too powerful as a martyr.
@@joeyjo-joshabadu9636 not over
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.
Perhaps because that far out scenario isn’t really how the world operates
@@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.
😆 “Should we go through the details?” LOL so true
He said he hasn't had any chance of invading any country in just 2 years and now we have Syria and Libya.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free"
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
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!
He recently got the JFK Prize as well
Obama bomb Libya illegally without congressional approval. A war crime. 🤮
Talk getting anything becouse of "race...🙊🥴🤔
Nobel peace was gave the wrong one...
F-ck your feelings.
I am so glad a smart, inteligent person is brave to tell the true. I have your books Professor.
Increased Drone strikes that killed many civilians
He’s honest
He’s smart
He’s well read
He’s also extremely gay
@@carlmarston1687 ugh
@@carlmarston1687I know you are, but what is he?😎
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
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.
That has happened at least 42 times! Resolutions against US blockade of Cuba at least 25 times!
When you consider their intent, those US Presidents did not fail. They did exactly what they intended, they succeeded
With your logic, someone who was hired to kill an innocent woman succeeded when he killed her.
Are you an idiot or a complete moron?
I wish everyone were like you and saw things this way
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 remember a lot of republicans I knew hated that another democrat (obama) was in office.
I tried to explain to them that he was in fact, doing many things that Republican presidents would do, but that fell on deaf ears.
A lot has fallen on deaf ears. It may look like there are two parties in the game but those above the sphere are all in the same objective.
Chomsky is one of the great scientist of this century
And one of the greatest philosophers
Well said.
Noam rocks!
Unbelievable that paxman was totally incredulous to such a claim
This man is simply awesome
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.
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.
Chomsky is a legend but it doesn’t matter who the president is. They don’t decide on war.
And some people still dont know the truth.
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.
One of the few times I ever agreed with Noam Chomp-at-the-bit. 😂
@Handiman544
Chomsky is one of the sanest people I have ever seen and heard.
Obama did not lie or deceive the American public. He was very clear in his run for office , exactly what he wanted his vision of America to represent. He wanted to build on our democracy to help struggling nations gain a bit for themselves. It's fine that you disagree with that philosophy, but he was direct and honest with the public. That fact alone raised him up in my humble opinion. It kicked the selfish demeanor of politics today. The sharp contrast has created such division and hatred, I feel horrified by today.
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.
Noam Chomsky is one of the Greatest intellectuals in the World!
Looking back at this after Obama finished his second turn as well... and no real change nor hope.
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.
@@Morawka1 but iran never had nukes
@@samuelthornton9179 theres proof that it was building nukes
@@selahanany5645 that was made up by the us government
@@samuelthornton9179 is there proof of that?
Well said, I agree.
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.
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"
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
This guy's a genious.
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.
Noam Chomsky has such a great mind and amazing ideas
Brilliant.
I'm not an anarchist or anything near it but I respect Chomsky simply because most anarchists would be to afraid to openly critise Obama for fear of looking racist. Most anarchists I know also don't advocate for freedom of speech which I've always thought is strange but Chomsky does, even if it means he faces criticism from the left. He's capable of having independent thoughts not just saying what the sheep want to hear.
Simple facts and the questioner reacts in predicable ways; truth and real world facts are bewildering to comprehend or consider. Thanks for posting.
Noam is absolutely right. He also states that Hillary will be "Obama on acid" (well, maybe not in those exact words, but...) HE IS RIGHT!!
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 the whole global system needs an overhaul
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.
Excellent points
People outside the US definitely know how undeserved that Nobel prize was.
Thank you, sir.
I think there's a very important point to be made that without Bush in the first place, Obama couldn't be argued as worse in the middle east.
As much as I dislike Obama's presidency, good point.
I hated this man - both his politics and his bogus linguistic theories! May he walk the streets as a hungry ghost in search of salvation!
Wow this man said this so many years ago and I've only woken up to the truth this year. Obama is a monster
oh look all the conservatives now agree with chomsky
"If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged." - Chomsky
What a man!
More people do everyday friend. Humanity IS awakening.... Let's just hope it is not too late.
Paxman, of course, arrogant enough to laugh at Noam Chomsky.
The fact the people hail and adore Obama as some saint is sickening.
Paddy Magenis misinformed theta why
"Should we go through the details?" 💯🔥🤣
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.
Absolutely, sir, absolutely.
He's my favourite straight white man.
Agreed.
Remember that peoples likeliness to call you a conspiracy theorist is a learned response. Noam has said this before in a few interviews, that our education and media industry has been instilling us with these responses for decades, it would be worthwhile reading up on his reasoning for that, its an extremely good way to get people to listen.
haha "why is he.. WUUUUUUHHHHS?"
So true!
Noam Chomsky in 2008: "Vote for Obama, with no illusions."
He gave green light to Saudi Arabia to invade Jemen, one of the poorest countries in the world.
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
Obama, the world's greatest disappointment in politics.
And chumski is worse than all of them
I concur.
So out of touch. It's been decades snice this guy has been relevant.
Worse than George Bush and tony Blaire is still a strech IMO.
americas' most over-rated douche of a president, and possibly one of the worst when it came to foreign policies! Chomsky is never wrong!
He was definitely wrong about vax seen mandates and all that. Besides that I agree
Well Said!
Chomsky is more of a shameless provocateur than Milo Yiannopoulos . . . and is taken equally as seriously. . . LMAO
Chomsky is the prophet of USA 🇺🇸
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.
There is and old saying in romanian " The dogs bark, the bear keeps walking "