The American Political Spectrum-N.Chomsky and C.Hitchens (4)

[munkdo3]

wieerdo callers

i guess that's NRPs audience, a shame that only they will represent chomsky

[majordbag2]

7:02 wait there was an opposition movment to the first Iraq war? That doesn't even have a wikipedia page and they have pages on crap like a cheeseburger that's served between two donuts!

That goes to show how strong the propaganda in favor of the war was, that the opposition has been more or less fogotten!

[diceyLee]

amazing,,, a quality question,,,

[Packitlikesardines]

Gosh, I wish Christopher would just sit down and listen to himself.. I mean, in present day (should I say 'state'): "the administration and many of its partisans believes that the press is a determined anti-imperialist critic and has always been trying to lose america the war..."

[wog7]

This was back when Hitchens was actually worth listening to.

He cashed in after 9/11.

[mgm8822]

cha-ching hahaha

[QwidgyboMan]

What a load of crap.

[F33bs]

@wog7 Idiot.

[DancinJim]

@wog7 With a name like 'wog', how do you expect anyone to take you seriously? Secondly, with opinions like yours, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

[biglimes]

Hitchens and Chomsky? Youtube truly is the future.

[t0kt0k]

These callers are so obnoxious. Let them email their questions in rather than ramble on and waste valuable time.

[clevelandrwellson]

Email wasn't exactly commonplace in 1992. But I do think most of these callers called in just so they could try to cut in a conversation with Chomsky--while contributing nothing too substantive.

[t0kt0k]

True, true.

[lGnossos]

LOL joke or not that was very ballsy of that guy to say the shot dead bit ahaha

[colombian18]

"I think you should all be shot dead" this is another reason why the USA has to tighten its gun laws. If anything happens to Noam, may god help America.

[grgz]

he was joking.

[cfotoole]

Plus, Noam gets FBI protection almost everywhere he goes.

[Gregorypeckory]

Are you on acid?

[paganiniGOGO]

he does get protection - although he's opposed to it.

He used to get is mail checked for explosives too.

He was one of the targets of the unabomber and on Nixon's enemy list - albeit a lot of peopel were on the list.

[Meibukan]

This is true, actually--he's admitted it himself. He doesn't ask for or desire the protection, but he receives it anyway because of the furor that is occasionally created by his speeches and lectures.

[Psycarne]

The US murdered around four million people in South East Asia through mass bombing. But that's ok, so long as you are fighting 'communism' eh?

Such a bizarre logic on behalf of most people, that the response to atrocities should be worse atrocities.

Should there be a mass bombing campaign against Washington because the US is denying people's right to habeas corpus?

[eoghanhickey]

The americans didn't deserve to win. They were destroying Vietnam and it's good they were driven out.

[Elasaltaculos]

and thousands upon thousands of south vietnamese put to death as a consequence, but who cares about that as long as one antagonizes the Americans, eh?

[CIACoupsofTerrorism]

The US never should have cancelled elections in the beginning. Vietnam was not being helped by the US with it puppet Deim. Ho Chi Minh's forces did commit atrocities but that is hardly a case to say we should have stayed. When never should have cancelled elections or entered with our military.

[AlanCom1]

Hitchens is wrong here. US tied with Vietnam because of the media. More military info came out in the last 15 years that supports this opinion.

[Jonty1969]

Yes, its true that the US tired with Vietnam because of the media - because the media (eventually) showed truthfully what was going on and exposed it as a pointless and futile exercise causing imense suffering and loss of life to both sides. But even if there had been no media coverage there is no way the US would have achieved any victory over there.

[AlanCom1]

Jonty, what about the suffering and loss of life under the communist regime in Cambodia, Laos, Mynamar and Vietnam.

You were sitting by the fire watching TV while millions were slaughtered by the Khmer Rouge. I see that your moral compass is well aligned.

US troops should have never left South Vietnam, but you can't reason with Democrats.

[Jonty1969]

Excuse me, but where in my comment did i make any appology for communist atrocities in those countries? I don't and i wouldn't. My point was merely that American involvement in Vietnam did not stop these taking place and in fact probably lead to many of them e.g the secret bombing of Cambodia (540000 tons of bombs dropped) weakening the govt of Cambodia & allowing the Khemer Rouge to rise up and take it's place.

[Jonty1969]

Not forgetting of course atrocities carried out by US troops e.g. My Lai massacre, napalming of villages etc. South Vietnam was not some freedom loving democracy before the communists took over you know. It was a dictatorship that committed many human rights abuses and atrocities, but it was an anti-communist regime - that's why the US came in on it's side.

[Jonty1969]

You have just drifted away from my argument that there is no way America was going to win or improve the situation in Vietnam, the public could see this as a result of honest reporting in the media rather than the usual biased and one-sided propaganda, so the American govnt made the rational decision of pulling the troops out and avoiding any further unnecessary loss of life. It was an inevitability that was best done sooner rather than later.

[AlanCom1]

Jonty, actually all historians show that US did not lose the military battle in vietnam.

It was the media that got sick and tired of staying there that convinced the american public to withdraw. Please read John Keegan.

My point is that US troops shouldn't have withdrawn. They should have stayed (at least to defend the border w N Vietnam).

[Jonty1969]

You are right in saying that the US did not lose the military battle in Vietnam. My point was that there is no way they were going to win an outright victory - the vietcong would have just kept coming and coming and the body count just risen higher and higher. And for what? to defend one morally bankrupt regime in the South against another morally bankrupt regime in the North.

[AlanCom1]

Hi Jonty. I agree with your point that there was no way to win outright. I don't really think that was the point. My impression is that they fought just to show US determination to fight communism and to send a signal to USSR.

[Jonty1969]

You haven't addressed my point in your comment; you've just resorted to making an unfounded accusation that i don't care about commie perpetrated atrocities.

[janeleone]

HOLY CRAP> Did you hear Hitchens at the very end starting at 8:30, talking about why the US gov. left Saddam in power and employment, who was such a useful ally, and his assumption was "Because (the gov.) might need him again",

and if this is true, it would be bad, because it means people could be fooled'.

NOw, Hitchens knowing this, backed the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam, completely ignoring in the public forum the gov.'s past.

WHY?

[stifmeizter]

Because they didn't need him anymore.

[ouchmycrank]

Thank you, AGAIN YouTube for posting these kind of discussions.