what country does not reconstruct with control that is the basis of direct imperialism. I am not going to leave you to go and build up a military or something else for you to drive me out or pay the maximal cost to re-control you. I mean Perle thinks this is not common or logical, he knows better.
Chomsky, a linguist, often uses words in a way that posits an equivalence that is simply not there. In this sense, he purposefully uses semantics to advance an argument rather than reason. Their is only one form of Imperialism when it comes to America with no distinction made between conquest to stay and conquest to remold sick cultures like Japan and Germany and go home. Control of Japan to not be warlike is not naked conquest.
Perle is an example of placement of amateurs in high places based on the buddy system and willingness to have rubber-stamping colluders do the bidding of the hidden corporate/banking puppetmasters. His responses sound like they come from a playbook of which he has little deep understanding. Chomsky's knowledge & intellect bring this to light brilliantly.
I think I previously suggested that Chomsky's beat down of Pearle was on the order of what Sonny Liston did to Floyd Patterson. This was an understatement. It's more like what Sonny Boy did to Albert Westphal. "Mr. Pearle, how many fingers am I showing you." They should have a mercy rule, like in Little League. When one sides is getting its ass kicked too badly, they call the game. I think someone should take Pearle out for an ice cream sundae to cheer him up.
Mr Pearl might want to look up the word empire - as he claims to have absolutely no notion why a country might want to control others. Alternatively he might like to desist from being a patronizing, incredulous simpleton...
Perle asks why would the US wish to control other countries? It sounds rather naive, doesnt it? I think, at this point, Chomsky should have given the history lesson a rest and ridiculed this notion.
Ghandi once said that the purpose of politics isn't to get people to change their principals/opinions, but to ACT on what people unanimously and fundamentally believe to be wrong. This is why the agenda-setting media cannot allow actual issues to be explained as to how we would see them, because people would be able to decide for themselves what action to take.
I like what you wrote here, its beautifully written. I would love to share this with my friends by reposting it, with you as the credited source. I am asking you for your clearance. Again beautifully written.
I'm still pretty sure I'd be watching the news (if Americans were even privy to debates like this) and the media would spin it into a Pearle win and I'd be sitting there thinking "wtf?". Kind of like Palin. Of course, after you watch Chomsky enough, you can stop asking wft, since everything's so transparent now. I can't believe all the US has been spending our money on. I think if more people knew how bad we are, people wouldn't stand for it.
Is Perle listening to himself? I doubt it or he'd be shocked at how much diarrhea he is spewing. "...as though somehow we benefit from control..." Really? So what drives US foreign policy? He has lied so much he has actually started believing himself.
Perle keeps trying to insinuate that Chomsky is a Communist sympathizer, because in Perle's violently simplistic views, the world is divided into those who are right (because they uncritically adopt neoliberalism and American hegemony) and those who oppose what is right. Perle just doesn't know how to hear, let alone understand, any viewpoint that cannot first be pounded down into one of these two extremes. Kind of reminds one of George Bush Jr. Scary stuff.
my god. i can't believe it. this is part 12 and Perle *still* doesn't understand Chomsky's point regarding the relationship between Nicaragua and the USSR. Not only that, but he continues to flaunt his misunderstanding when he didn't have to. How thick could you get?
Mr. Perle it is not bizarre for people to clearly see that pushing a small defenseless country into the arms of the soviets so that we have the excuse to legitimize the use of force with which we already the intent on using. Namely, Central American countries and south American countries. It is not bizarre at all... it is cold and calculated.
I agree. The same argument has been used for the potential takeover of Iran by the Communist Tudeh Party in the 1950's, prompting the UK and US overthrow of the government. It's absurd, considering the UK took over and controlled Iranian oil industry 43 years prior and essentially left the Iranians with the Russians as the only alternative to counterbalance the UK dominance, given that every other power was devastated after WWII. Fear of Communist takeover enticed the US to be involved.
Perle cant even defend the foreign policy of the government for which he is employed?? he pointed out several times that a guy like Chomsky who hasnt worked in the government would not know much about what he is talking about...Whats HIS excuse??????
Yeah, and he attacked Chomsky for having all the answers and lots to say about it. I was willing Chomsky to suggest that it would be much better if the govt reprasentative had all the answers and the critic had very little to say. But Chomsky seemed so much more comfortable, and didn't have to resort to personal abuse. In fact he stopped the audience clapping his points twice in the debate (so far). A thoroughly proffessional assassination of Perle. Made him look childish and confused.
I used to be really disturbed by the far Left, they were always so strident, and so wrong. I thought that they might actually gain some real political power in the US. Then I realized with comfort and satisfaction that these Marxist lefties are almost never elected to any office in government. That's why the moderate left distances themselves from this nonsense; they want to be taken seriously and thereby elected to office.
Rather than back his statements up with facts, Perle tried (until he failed repeatedly) to appeal to the standard US story line which, Chomsky often says, one doesn't need to prove in normal conversation. The burden then is on Chomsky to bring facts to overcome this pervasive bias.
Crowd was not necessarily on his side, they applaud him in the beginning as a sign of welcome and respect, not support. (just like they did for Chomsky)
The U.S. does NOT benefit from controlling countries??? Ah, I see, it just *happens* to be the richest country in the world because it's really, really, really, really lucky. And it spends trillions of dollars on its military because it just really, really, really, really wants to help people spread democracy.
I almost feel sorry for Perle who must console himself with his undisclosed salary as a Pentagon consultant in his French villa. His only skill seems to be able to talk out of both sides of his mouth. I hope he finally serves his time as a war criminal next to Rumsfeld etal.
Perle sounds like he really doesn't want to be there at this point. He must be aware that calling Chomsky's well-supported and cogently reasoned arguments "bizarre" and "absurd" is kind of facile.
"Perle sounds like he really doesn't want to be there "
I dont know about you, but at this point the "debate" sounds to me like an old picture of Muhammed Ali after beating a guy who is defenseless in the floor...Perle is down, 1,2,3,... K.O.
what country does not reconstruct with control that is the basis of direct imperialism. I am not going to leave you to go and build up a military or something else for you to drive me out or pay the maximal cost to re-control you. I mean Perle thinks this is not common or logical, he knows better.
Ryukikon 7 months ago
Chomsky, a linguist, often uses words in a way that posits an equivalence that is simply not there. In this sense, he purposefully uses semantics to advance an argument rather than reason. Their is only one form of Imperialism when it comes to America with no distinction made between conquest to stay and conquest to remold sick cultures like Japan and Germany and go home. Control of Japan to not be warlike is not naked conquest.
James2010May 1 year ago
@James2010May Come again?
BCsJonathanTM 1 year ago
@James2010May
Hegemony is a form of Imperialism. you may personally think theirs only one form of Imperialism. but don't confuse your opinion with facts.
nasri1011 8 months ago
@James2010May lol and that must be why perle gave up. Whatever
thesparitan 8 months ago
Perle is an example of placement of amateurs in high places based on the buddy system and willingness to have rubber-stamping colluders do the bidding of the hidden corporate/banking puppetmasters. His responses sound like they come from a playbook of which he has little deep understanding. Chomsky's knowledge & intellect bring this to light brilliantly.
SIMKINETICS 1 year ago
I think I previously suggested that Chomsky's beat down of Pearle was on the order of what Sonny Liston did to Floyd Patterson. This was an understatement. It's more like what Sonny Boy did to Albert Westphal. "Mr. Pearle, how many fingers am I showing you." They should have a mercy rule, like in Little League. When one sides is getting its ass kicked too badly, they call the game. I think someone should take Pearle out for an ice cream sundae to cheer him up.
drjimiboy69 1 year ago 3
@drjimiboy69 lol true
thesparitan 8 months ago
@drjimiboy69 I'm thinking Tyson-Spinks. This is easily, without a shadow of a doubt, the most comprehensively one-sided debate I have *ever* seen.
polymath7 8 months ago
Mr Pearl might want to look up the word empire - as he claims to have absolutely no notion why a country might want to control others. Alternatively he might like to desist from being a patronizing, incredulous simpleton...
StunnedByStupidity 1 year ago
Perle asks why would the US wish to control other countries? It sounds rather naive, doesnt it? I think, at this point, Chomsky should have given the history lesson a rest and ridiculed this notion.
nblumer 1 year ago
Ghandi once said that the purpose of politics isn't to get people to change their principals/opinions, but to ACT on what people unanimously and fundamentally believe to be wrong. This is why the agenda-setting media cannot allow actual issues to be explained as to how we would see them, because people would be able to decide for themselves what action to take.
apostolostv 1 year ago
@apostolostv
I like what you wrote here, its beautifully written. I would love to share this with my friends by reposting it, with you as the credited source. I am asking you for your clearance. Again beautifully written.
Ryukikon 7 months ago
I'm still pretty sure I'd be watching the news (if Americans were even privy to debates like this) and the media would spin it into a Pearle win and I'd be sitting there thinking "wtf?". Kind of like Palin. Of course, after you watch Chomsky enough, you can stop asking wft, since everything's so transparent now. I can't believe all the US has been spending our money on. I think if more people knew how bad we are, people wouldn't stand for it.
doston1 2 years ago
Is Perle listening to himself? I doubt it or he'd be shocked at how much diarrhea he is spewing. "...as though somehow we benefit from control..." Really? So what drives US foreign policy? He has lied so much he has actually started believing himself.
fightforyourrights9 2 years ago 4
Perle keeps trying to insinuate that Chomsky is a Communist sympathizer, because in Perle's violently simplistic views, the world is divided into those who are right (because they uncritically adopt neoliberalism and American hegemony) and those who oppose what is right. Perle just doesn't know how to hear, let alone understand, any viewpoint that cannot first be pounded down into one of these two extremes. Kind of reminds one of George Bush Jr. Scary stuff.
fanniterrette 2 years ago 4
"he makes it sound as though somehow we benefit from control" wtf? ...uh duh
acapeson 2 years ago 4
my god. i can't believe it. this is part 12 and Perle *still* doesn't understand Chomsky's point regarding the relationship between Nicaragua and the USSR. Not only that, but he continues to flaunt his misunderstanding when he didn't have to. How thick could you get?
jlToolfan 2 years ago
Hey 1980's! Buy a new microphone.
GorgonLuvs8008135 2 years ago 3
YES! although i don't think they were all using the same mic... amplifier maybe?
tragictravisty 2 years ago
Anyone know how to get a copy of this debate that doesn't have static?
galtyyy 2 years ago
He keeps bringing up the nicaragua issue that chomsky already owned him on. This douch was a part of the bush administration. Fuckery.
gsg831 3 years ago 3
BRAVO CHOMSKY!!
ARTAUDIOJOTA 3 years ago
from 12 onwards the sound quaity is barely audible
me1you 3 years ago
huh, 10 onwards for me. very strange.
intrepgun 3 years ago 3
Mr. Perle it is not bizarre for people to clearly see that pushing a small defenseless country into the arms of the soviets so that we have the excuse to legitimize the use of force with which we already the intent on using. Namely, Central American countries and south American countries. It is not bizarre at all... it is cold and calculated.
Lawlow1978 3 years ago 2
I agree. The same argument has been used for the potential takeover of Iran by the Communist Tudeh Party in the 1950's, prompting the UK and US overthrow of the government. It's absurd, considering the UK took over and controlled Iranian oil industry 43 years prior and essentially left the Iranians with the Russians as the only alternative to counterbalance the UK dominance, given that every other power was devastated after WWII. Fear of Communist takeover enticed the US to be involved.
thomasst2 3 years ago
Perle cant even defend the foreign policy of the government for which he is employed?? he pointed out several times that a guy like Chomsky who hasnt worked in the government would not know much about what he is talking about...Whats HIS excuse??????
Lawlow1978 3 years ago 5
haha foreal!
wmirza89 2 years ago
Yeah, and he attacked Chomsky for having all the answers and lots to say about it. I was willing Chomsky to suggest that it would be much better if the govt reprasentative had all the answers and the critic had very little to say. But Chomsky seemed so much more comfortable, and didn't have to resort to personal abuse. In fact he stopped the audience clapping his points twice in the debate (so far). A thoroughly proffessional assassination of Perle. Made him look childish and confused.
Tasbo1982 2 years ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
10 . . . 9 . . . 8 . . .!
DanLackey 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Noam Chomsky is a Propagandist. He has the right to be one. He has three very prominent supporters:
1. Hugo Chavez. (would-be dictator)
2. Fidel Castro. (Communist dictator)
3. Osama Bin Laden. (Al-Qaeda fanatic)
Yesterday's failures: Trotskyites.
Today's new-and-improved failures: Chomskyites!
tharnax 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Noam Chomsky is a Propagandist. He has the right to be one. He has three very prominent supporters:
1. Hugo Chavez. (would-be dictator)
2. Fidel Castro. (Communist dictator)
3. Osama Bin Laden. (Al-Qaeda fanatic)
Yesterday's failures: Trotskyites.
Today's new-and-improved failures: Chomskyites!
tharnax 4 years ago
Yeah, it's pretty disgusting when someone advocates freedom, independence and peace. What a monster - he reminds me of Goebbels!
Necrovore666 4 years ago 15
hahaha, seriously.
brucel1234 3 years ago
@Necrovore666
In that the ACTIONS Perle supported were IN OPPOSITION to the values he SAID he supported?
Or are you talking about Chomsky?
BCsJonathanTM 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I used to be really disturbed by the far Left, they were always so strident, and so wrong. I thought that they might actually gain some real political power in the US. Then I realized with comfort and satisfaction that these Marxist lefties are almost never elected to any office in government. That's why the moderate left distances themselves from this nonsense; they want to be taken seriously and thereby elected to office.
tharnax 4 years ago
marxist lefty? is there a marxist right?
4ourthofjuly 4 years ago 5
I take it you prefer to breathe through your mouth, Mr. Tharnax, if that is your real name?
Necrovore666 4 years ago
Rather than back his statements up with facts, Perle tried (until he failed repeatedly) to appeal to the standard US story line which, Chomsky often says, one doesn't need to prove in normal conversation. The burden then is on Chomsky to bring facts to overcome this pervasive bias.
tommienogo 4 years ago 3
Really? What was Perle thinking? He started with the crowd on his side and toward the end he just bumbles his way through.
vicnameless 4 years ago
Crowd was not necessarily on his side, they applaud him in the beginning as a sign of welcome and respect, not support. (just like they did for Chomsky)
crnogoracz 4 years ago
The U.S. does NOT benefit from controlling countries??? Ah, I see, it just *happens* to be the richest country in the world because it's really, really, really, really lucky. And it spends trillions of dollars on its military because it just really, really, really, really wants to help people spread democracy.
Davey1977 4 years ago 5
notice how Perle is not able to back up his statements with facts unlike Chomsky
Andoseroby 4 years ago
I almost feel sorry for Perle who must console himself with his undisclosed salary as a Pentagon consultant in his French villa. His only skill seems to be able to talk out of both sides of his mouth. I hope he finally serves his time as a war criminal next to Rumsfeld etal.
annarboriter 4 years ago
"His only skill seems to be able to talk out of both sides of his mouth."
lol. nice euphemism to say he speaks from his mouth and ass, i'll use it in my next debate ^_^
kubikmaster 4 years ago
Yes, he makes it sound as though we benefit from controlling other countries. How "bizarre".
LaoTsu82 4 years ago
"Yes, he makes it sound as though we benefit from controlling other countries"
Agreed. I think Chomsky could have said "It all depends in WHO is WE".
kubikmaster 4 years ago 4
"WE" IS THE MONEY!
Who else would have or could afford control - the guns, Air-craft carriers, cluster bombs, apache heliocopters, and lets not forget WDM.
"WE" control by force or threat of force.
We ARE the terrorists.
gjsterp 3 years ago 2
Bravo
k1a1t1h1y1 3 years ago
One of them keeps farting.
babyfennel1000 4 years ago
Perle sounds like he really doesn't want to be there at this point. He must be aware that calling Chomsky's well-supported and cogently reasoned arguments "bizarre" and "absurd" is kind of facile.
tchicherine 4 years ago
"Perle sounds like he really doesn't want to be there "
I dont know about you, but at this point the "debate" sounds to me like an old picture of Muhammed Ali after beating a guy who is defenseless in the floor...Perle is down, 1,2,3,... K.O.
kubikmaster 4 years ago 16
Perle: "The buzz-words are starting to come out at this debate continues" -- oh, like calling someone a Marxist?
KentAllard 4 years ago