Bill Moyers And Jeremy Scahill Discuss Obama Foreign Policy 2 Of 2 June.05, 2009

[smellyfooty]

Hallelujah! Holy shit!

[JimmyeDallas]

Scahill is right, if NATO's only asset against insurgents is air strikes that kill hordes of civilians, then the war is lost. This is bad military strategy and every participant nation in the ISAF is paying dearly for it.

[chevydriver1123]

A journalist that makes sense, how long has it been since we had one of those?

[LeGioNoFZioN]

Moyers did an excellent job, Scahill, not so much. he has a wealth of infor, but his conclusions are specious.

[lezlitaz]

how so?

[LeGioNoFZioN]

watch the whole thing again you will see.  I'm not saying he is full of shit or deosn't raise important questions, but if you examine his use of language, some of his conlusions are questionable. his argument implies that the only two logical options are to unilaterally withdraw or glass an entire country to scare the rest away from fighting. I'm not sure either option is feasible in the current political climate.

[lezlitaz]

unfortunately, it is all political. i like to hear all sides of an argument, usually there are more than 2 sides. i think also it is worth noting, he seems to see that there are real people involved in pushing a button. i agree moyers did a good job.

[LeGioNoFZioN]

I agree, bu his ideas about sanitizing war don't take into account the fact that many that participate dehumanize their enemies themselves, its a natural part of war, the whole us vs them paradigm. I know I don't have the answers, but I'm not on TV arguing any points.

[drphonic7]

Na, I don't agree. I don't think that's what he's saying at all. On the contrary, he's very articulate in his arguments, and what he's saying is pretty simple: Obama is continuing Bush's disastrous "foreign policy" of occupying Afghanistan and Iraq and indiscriminantly killing civilians. And that is creating more terrorist.

[LeGioNoFZioN]

his articulation belies his problem. his use of language is evidence of his lack of understanding, because he used loaded language as opposed to neutral language that would be the mark of a professional. It's not that I disagree completely with him, but by his argument the polar opposite of glassing, or nuking an entire country should be an option. Its all in the language. Agreeing isn't important, its the door you leave open by your use of language. Lazy thinking & orating

[drphonic7]

So you think he comes off as bias? That's what you're claiming is his problem?

[LeGioNoFZioN]

no, its that his bias lead him to a conclusion that without weighing the logical inferrance of what he was saying, sets him up for an easy takedown , and that is unprofessional. He thought he was right, so he didn't weigh the results of what he proposed, any the flipside is something none of us want, except maybe the few war mongers and anarchists who revel in such distruction.

[gunner23]

great video but these guys need to be sent the nano thermite paper.

[katey1dog]

Good work. Favorited.