The response I see on this channel is somewhat absurd to be quite honest. It is being framed as this is a left vs right debate and when Chomsky wins (who actually holds that he is a conservative of sorts) and Perle (who holds views identical to Clinton/Obama/Bush) loses it is a victory for leftism. Hooorraaaayyyy.
The problem is that this is really an issue of a statist vs someone who favors localism and communalism of the sort any rational person would embrace in the form of Chomsky's.
I find it humorous and telling that the farther into this debate we go (part 7, 8, 9, etc.) the fewer the reactionist, Neocon comments in favor of Perle. It must be so demoralizing to the conservative mind to withstand the onslaught of pure reason presented here by Chomsky.
@brandnutopian I completely agree, though I don't see it as a liberal vs. conservative thing. I've tried to discuss this stuff with who I thought were like-minded, liberal individuals and they were about as close-minded as Glenn Beck. Okay, that's a hyerbole :P
But it would be nice to see more people turning against the whole corrupt system, instead of turning against those simpleton, greedy conservatives, or wacky nut-job leftists, or commies, whatever it is you want to label your opponent.
@praetorezekiel Perle is an arch-conservative, preemptive war type of guy, so yes, in this instance it is a partisan situation being that Chomsky is by all accounts more liberal than Perle. BTW, they're not labels that I gave to them, they're labels they actively promote. Kudos for attempting to agree!
@brandnutopian I think that's incorrect. I made a few comments addressing that in the last portion (part 10) so I won't repeat them. I'll just say I think it's reductive to draw such conclusions and polarize the debate. I'm also not sure how genuinely Perle's ideas can be linked to the concept of preemption, nor would I associate that concept with 'conservative' thought exclusively.
@brandnutopian The "conservative" mind of Perle? He bears little in common with classic conservatism to be honest. He is a statist, pure and simple. He is not entirely unlike Hillary Clinton.
@SoundCrusherPlanB Stalin was a statist. Mao was a statist. Hitler was a statist.
Perle's a self-described neoconservative and while I disagree with him politically, his manner of being an asshole is much more savvy than any of those listed above.
@brandnutopian Perle is also a statist in many ways and a "conservative" in very few if we actually care enough to define conservatism in it's true original sense rather than the recent manifestation which is an aberration.
I think Perle didn't want to comment because he knew full well what the administration at the time were doing and who they were doing it with and how they then exploited the domestic fallout
The book outlines ideas to abandon all Israeli-Palestinian peace processes, invade Syria, strict US domestic surveillance with biometric identity cards and public vigilance to hinder potential terrorist immigrant or terrorist sympathizer threats.
Wasn't the FBI investigating this joker for selling US nuclear secrets (to Turkey i think)? I shallow intellect and a lack of ethics. I'd kill myself if i were Ruchard Perle........
you should also understand that my criticisms of him are fairly weak and that in the paragraph of mine in which the word 'idiot' seems to have jumped out at u, i was defending him from those who were calling him a dictator and so forth. i have my own criticisms of chavez, but i will never call him a dictator or some stalinist-style communist.
i in fact agree that the corporate media stations were closed down legitimately - after all, if the new york times did what the venezuelan press did they'd be sent to guantanamo, as chomsky said. i agree with your remarks on qualified insults being counterproductive and will refrain from them in the future.
Perle simply cannot rebut Chomsky in a manner that appeals to objective and intelligent listeners of this debate. The background fuzz was no doubt inserted to try & dissuade people from continuing on & listening to this debate
Coincidentally Chavez and Castro have experienced a sentiment of paranoia due to either multiple targeted assassinations, crippling economic sanctions, support of anti-government factions and overthrows, all by American intervention, all covert in nature. However the result of the paranoia is made overt (i.e. Chomsky points out "..agents for the Russians" or Perle points out, with regards to the Sandinistas [but sentiment overall] "committing human rights violations and are undemocratic.")
Bin Laden is just tired of the West Israel bias with nukes illegal land occupation and terror, using the oil and Muslim countries as either proxies to either embarrass the Russians (Israel Wars in 67 and 73), force the Russians in bankruptcy (Afghanistan), or protection of petrodollar recycling which incidentally is partly responsible for world dollar hegemony and attributes to our $4 trillion in foreign debt...and we've used dictators to do it for almost 60 years
Hugo Chavez is no dictator he was elected in many times over he represents his fellow countrymen not big business that why he's so popular but then again so was Sadam but he was not democratic like Hugo Chavez.
venezuela's elections show no sign of fraud, though many of the countries america calls allies do, like pakistan and turkey, and i think colombia. if hugo chavez was a dictator, an amendment he tried to pass through which would've effectively made him one was defeated by a legit majority, and instead of imposing his rule with the army chavez capitulated and said sorry to the population. that's not a dictator, that's an idiot supported by the people, albeit an idiot who feeds the poor
For the leader of a weak nation to successfully stand up to the murderous thugs who've dominated the region is heroic indeed. I doubt you could do it, let alone without mistakes. Chavez has done better than any reasonable person could hope: the renewed life he's given to the region is awesome, and should earn him admiration from all who value help for the downtrodden; rather than silly insults.
i think you misunderstood me. i support chavez and venezuela's 'chavismo/bolivar' revolution. but i'm anarchist, you see, so i'm a bit suspicious of chavez. don't get me wrong, i love what venezuela's doing as a country, but that amendment where chavez tried to expand executive power made me very suspicious that he could move in a stalinist/leninist direction - which for an anarchist like me would be a nightmare. that's why i called him an idiot - b/c of that controversial referendum
I agree in principle that power grabs are wrong. However, when one is under continual assault from a powerful adversary, it is a forgivable sin, and some such acts, like shutting down papers calling for a violent counter-revolution, funded by a government bent on your destruction, I would say are correct. Also, in a climate of American hysteria, with a massive smear campaign against him, even a qualified and tepid insult seems counterproductive, given your general sympathies (imho).
i believe that under conditions of constant threat of harm, progressive forces can be destroyed from forces without and also from within. i think that the forces from within are more subtle - many wise men, after all, have stated that democracy and liberty cannot survive under constant war. so i believe that chavez should not do the americans' jobs for them and keep power in the hands of the legislature as much as possible.
Well said; I guess our responsibility then, is to put pressure on our government (assuming you're in the US), to stop the threat from without, and wish the Venezuelans the best, with the biggest threat removed. It's frustrating and shameful to hear people like Nancy Pelosi calling Chavez a thug. I think I recall Obama calling Venezuela a "rogue state" or something along those lines during the debates. Lots of work ahead, as always. Thank goodness we have Chomsky's help!
It is a good style to operate with slogans. It is known that Osama bin Laden was supported by CIA for many years, but that bin Laden supports Chomsky may be known only to the audience of the No Fact Zone.
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.
Chomsky makes it abundantly clear that capitalism, at the International level at least, is really criminal activity and it's purveyors are organized criminals who will stop short of nothing to acheive their objectives.
The simple fact is that Perle cannot openly state the basis of his political thought. You can read about it though in the Melian debate. The US is a nation state used by powerful interests to promote themselves and to maximize private gain. Statesmanship in Perle's worldview is about using power to exploit the weak.
This Perle guy, embarrassing.
He has no opinion on issues being asked (he admits it) but can respond only when someone speaks first.
How could he even decide to come up here?
allgoo19 2 months ago
sounds like a bounty hunter
NiceRoboT08 8 months ago
Perle couldn't score a point in this debate.
xknowledgeisfreex 10 months ago
The response I see on this channel is somewhat absurd to be quite honest. It is being framed as this is a left vs right debate and when Chomsky wins (who actually holds that he is a conservative of sorts) and Perle (who holds views identical to Clinton/Obama/Bush) loses it is a victory for leftism. Hooorraaaayyyy.
The problem is that this is really an issue of a statist vs someone who favors localism and communalism of the sort any rational person would embrace in the form of Chomsky's.
SoundCrusherPlanB 1 year ago
the best thing Pearle can do now is to sit with the audience
brianmoran1973 1 year ago 2
By this time Perle realises he should have prepared better.
nblumer 1 year ago
I think it very telling that Perle did not explain why he thought Chomsky was absurd for believing in ending the drug war.
sfmike20 1 year ago
I find it humorous and telling that the farther into this debate we go (part 7, 8, 9, etc.) the fewer the reactionist, Neocon comments in favor of Perle. It must be so demoralizing to the conservative mind to withstand the onslaught of pure reason presented here by Chomsky.
brandnutopian 1 year ago
@brandnutopian I completely agree, though I don't see it as a liberal vs. conservative thing. I've tried to discuss this stuff with who I thought were like-minded, liberal individuals and they were about as close-minded as Glenn Beck. Okay, that's a hyerbole :P
But it would be nice to see more people turning against the whole corrupt system, instead of turning against those simpleton, greedy conservatives, or wacky nut-job leftists, or commies, whatever it is you want to label your opponent.
praetorezekiel 1 year ago
@praetorezekiel Perle is an arch-conservative, preemptive war type of guy, so yes, in this instance it is a partisan situation being that Chomsky is by all accounts more liberal than Perle. BTW, they're not labels that I gave to them, they're labels they actively promote. Kudos for attempting to agree!
brandnutopian 1 year ago
@brandnutopian I think that's incorrect. I made a few comments addressing that in the last portion (part 10) so I won't repeat them. I'll just say I think it's reductive to draw such conclusions and polarize the debate. I'm also not sure how genuinely Perle's ideas can be linked to the concept of preemption, nor would I associate that concept with 'conservative' thought exclusively.
DemilichFan 1 year ago
@brandnutopian The "conservative" mind of Perle? He bears little in common with classic conservatism to be honest. He is a statist, pure and simple. He is not entirely unlike Hillary Clinton.
SoundCrusherPlanB 1 year ago
@SoundCrusherPlanB Stalin was a statist. Mao was a statist. Hitler was a statist.
Perle's a self-described neoconservative and while I disagree with him politically, his manner of being an asshole is much more savvy than any of those listed above.
brandnutopian 1 year ago
@brandnutopian Perle is also a statist in many ways and a "conservative" in very few if we actually care enough to define conservatism in it's true original sense rather than the recent manifestation which is an aberration.
SoundCrusherPlanB 1 year ago
@SoundCrusherPlanB Name a few ways in which Perle is a statist.
brandnutopian 1 year ago
The sound has a delay effect that is about an octave lower. It's fucking annoying. I like hearing Perle whine like a defeated little bitch, damnit.
mistermoen 1 year ago
I think Perle didn't want to comment because he knew full well what the administration at the time were doing and who they were doing it with and how they then exploited the domestic fallout
KentAllard 2 years ago
And a few years later Noriega was removed.
Arkinight 2 years ago
why is the sound messed up on this video
doyleistre 2 years ago
Wow, Perle sounds like a defeated man. What an awful answer, he didn't even try.
TBlake34 2 years ago 2
Am I the only one experiencing miserable sound?
fruitsofnews 2 years ago 6
perle is such a stupid fool. didn't he write some book about expanding the war on terror or something, backing all of bush's policies and more?
johnnondrowsyd 2 years ago 7
yeah he was one of the backers of Bush and neo-cons
Perussaataja 2 years ago 3
the book was "the end of evil". i can't even conceive of reading such a stupid book. the guy is fat idiot.
johnnondrowsyd 2 years ago 4
The book outlines ideas to abandon all Israeli-Palestinian peace processes, invade Syria, strict US domestic surveillance with biometric identity cards and public vigilance to hinder potential terrorist immigrant or terrorist sympathizer threats.
KentAllard 2 years ago
Wasn't the FBI investigating this joker for selling US nuclear secrets (to Turkey i think)? I shallow intellect and a lack of ethics. I'd kill myself if i were Ruchard Perle........
krock8705 3 years ago 4
This should show why it's near impossible to find anyone willing to debate Chomsky. Thanks for posting, in spite of the audio problem.
Gregorypeckory 3 years ago
you should also understand that my criticisms of him are fairly weak and that in the paragraph of mine in which the word 'idiot' seems to have jumped out at u, i was defending him from those who were calling him a dictator and so forth. i have my own criticisms of chavez, but i will never call him a dictator or some stalinist-style communist.
boing3887 3 years ago
i in fact agree that the corporate media stations were closed down legitimately - after all, if the new york times did what the venezuelan press did they'd be sent to guantanamo, as chomsky said. i agree with your remarks on qualified insults being counterproductive and will refrain from them in the future.
boing3887 3 years ago
"keep the price market high and.."
-bunkrupt 2-3 % of the population ;cronic drug addicts.
-force a lot of them in criminal activities.
-be thenuymber one reason for disfuctional families partly due to addiction partly due the social consequences of prohibition.
-finance a 500 billion industry of organized crime.
-create a social const of 200-300 buillions(dea,legal system, prisons etc)
-cost ten of thousands of deaths from contaminated drugs.
-not reduce drug uset be the slightest.
amet1980 3 years ago
Perle simply cannot rebut Chomsky in a manner that appeals to objective and intelligent listeners of this debate. The background fuzz was no doubt inserted to try & dissuade people from continuing on & listening to this debate
acbla3 3 years ago 5
This debate ended looooong ago.
DisidenciaTricolor 3 years ago
Richard Perle is a corrupt opium thug.
The background noise of this recording sounds like intermmittant farts though.
ludachris475 3 years ago 9
Perle must be BEGGING for that bell!
DanLackey 3 years ago 4
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
Coincidentally Chavez and Castro have experienced a sentiment of paranoia due to either multiple targeted assassinations, crippling economic sanctions, support of anti-government factions and overthrows, all by American intervention, all covert in nature. However the result of the paranoia is made overt (i.e. Chomsky points out "..agents for the Russians" or Perle points out, with regards to the Sandinistas [but sentiment overall] "committing human rights violations and are undemocratic.")
thomasst2 3 years ago
Bin Laden is just tired of the West Israel bias with nukes illegal land occupation and terror, using the oil and Muslim countries as either proxies to either embarrass the Russians (Israel Wars in 67 and 73), force the Russians in bankruptcy (Afghanistan), or protection of petrodollar recycling which incidentally is partly responsible for world dollar hegemony and attributes to our $4 trillion in foreign debt...and we've used dictators to do it for almost 60 years
thomasst2 3 years ago
Hugo Chavez is no dictator he was elected in many times over he represents his fellow countrymen not big business that why he's so popular but then again so was Sadam but he was not democratic like Hugo Chavez.
Hugo Chavez is great he feeds the poor
Zoidborg1 4 years ago 16
all dictators are "elected" (including George W. Bush). but none of the elections are fair
RedIce08 4 years ago
venezuela's elections show no sign of fraud, though many of the countries america calls allies do, like pakistan and turkey, and i think colombia. if hugo chavez was a dictator, an amendment he tried to pass through which would've effectively made him one was defeated by a legit majority, and instead of imposing his rule with the army chavez capitulated and said sorry to the population. that's not a dictator, that's an idiot supported by the people, albeit an idiot who feeds the poor
boing3887 3 years ago 5
For the leader of a weak nation to successfully stand up to the murderous thugs who've dominated the region is heroic indeed. I doubt you could do it, let alone without mistakes. Chavez has done better than any reasonable person could hope: the renewed life he's given to the region is awesome, and should earn him admiration from all who value help for the downtrodden; rather than silly insults.
Gregorypeckory 3 years ago
i think you misunderstood me. i support chavez and venezuela's 'chavismo/bolivar' revolution. but i'm anarchist, you see, so i'm a bit suspicious of chavez. don't get me wrong, i love what venezuela's doing as a country, but that amendment where chavez tried to expand executive power made me very suspicious that he could move in a stalinist/leninist direction - which for an anarchist like me would be a nightmare. that's why i called him an idiot - b/c of that controversial referendum
boing3887 3 years ago
I agree in principle that power grabs are wrong. However, when one is under continual assault from a powerful adversary, it is a forgivable sin, and some such acts, like shutting down papers calling for a violent counter-revolution, funded by a government bent on your destruction, I would say are correct. Also, in a climate of American hysteria, with a massive smear campaign against him, even a qualified and tepid insult seems counterproductive, given your general sympathies (imho).
Gregorypeckory 3 years ago
i believe that under conditions of constant threat of harm, progressive forces can be destroyed from forces without and also from within. i think that the forces from within are more subtle - many wise men, after all, have stated that democracy and liberty cannot survive under constant war. so i believe that chavez should not do the americans' jobs for them and keep power in the hands of the legislature as much as possible.
boing3887 3 years ago
Well said; I guess our responsibility then, is to put pressure on our government (assuming you're in the US), to stop the threat from without, and wish the Venezuelans the best, with the biggest threat removed. It's frustrating and shameful to hear people like Nancy Pelosi calling Chavez a thug. I think I recall Obama calling Venezuela a "rogue state" or something along those lines during the debates. Lots of work ahead, as always. Thank goodness we have Chomsky's help!
Gregorypeckory 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
shut it you dirty tart
kmarkymark 4 years ago
It is a good style to operate with slogans. It is known that Osama bin Laden was supported by CIA for many years, but that bin Laden supports Chomsky may be known only to the audience of the No Fact Zone.
suvorov4 4 years ago 4
please fix the sound, I'm beginning to believe in conspiracy.
bronstoll 4 years ago 4
zing!
4ourthofjuly 4 years 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
Chomsky makes it abundantly clear that capitalism, at the International level at least, is really criminal activity and it's purveyors are organized criminals who will stop short of nothing to acheive their objectives.
fruglescot 4 years ago 15
The simple fact is that Perle cannot openly state the basis of his political thought. You can read about it though in the Melian debate. The US is a nation state used by powerful interests to promote themselves and to maximize private gain. Statesmanship in Perle's worldview is about using power to exploit the weak.
annarboriter 4 years ago 5
same thing chomskys saying except chomsky is not in favor of it
embeuu 4 years ago
Well for a high powered policy maker Richard Perle surely knows how to advertise what it is to be intellectually bankrupt.
To think he has or had serious input into the policy making process which affects us all is about as scary as it gets.
Telcontar1962 4 years ago 2
Agreed.
GuamIsGood 4 years ago
whats up with the sound bovall? its not clear as it was before
lowrebav 5 years ago 4
It was like this on the original. Unfortunately it is nothing I could do anything about.
bovall 5 years ago 8
There is some problem with the sound - can it be fixed?
walkingone 5 years ago