Chomsky - Perle Debate - Part 4

[fLcGambit]

How would the U.S. as Perle claims, not benefit from the destruction of democracy in other countries? If they can circumvent independent nationalist movements who seek to gain control of their nations own resources, that would create a dire conflict between the two nations as the U.S. is interested in dismantling democratic movements and instituting authoritarian governments who will comply with their resource demands.

[Ryukikon]

In Perle's remarks to Chomsky is alot of distortion. He further misleads with the whole idea that powers disarming and rebuilding nations is anti-imperialistic move. I don't know what history books he's read but that is quite common. The military is costly, so you scale it to the size needed to get the job done. Also You do not need to overtly control something hegemony is the course most power esp imperial power takes.

[mcshobe2008]

not one bit of substance in this Perle character...

[fLcGambit]

@mcshobe2008 yeah its pure apologetics for neo-conservatism

[countertreason]

God I am glad you Chomskyites are never going to amount to anything and the only time I will ever have to hear your stupid, pious comments are just below a video I am trying to watch.

Seriously, you people need to think through what you are saying. Maybe find out what really worries you and makes you angry. Virtually every comment here is laden with emotion and trust in one man of a sort that only a Christian or Muslim or Buddhist has a somewhat legitimate excuse for.

[boriss4]

@countertreason

'I am glad you...are never going to amount to anything': Someone sounds really secure with themselves.

[countertreason]

@boriss4 Its amazing that whenever I argue with Chomskyites there are always comments made about insecurity... haha, actually, its not amazing at all. All Gnostic sects are full of ignorant people who want to sound like they are smart so they learn some simple 'truths', claim that this is all there is to know and go around telling everyone else that they just don't know 'the truth'.

Insecurity about intelligence fixed by zealous dedication to some persons words! Religion!

[boriss4]

@countertreason Who said I was dedicated to Chomsky's words? There are lots of things he says with which I disagree, and he himself encourages people to think themselves about things and research things independently (he encourages the latter in this debate, I think), over taking his word for everything. Nonetheless, you seem to have some problem with people listening to him if you say things like 'you...are never going to amount to anything'.

[countertreason]

@boriss4 Reread my message. You are saying I have a problem with people listening to him? I listened to him? Do I hate myself?

I am not sure if this is a misunderstanding or if you have an agenda that deserves scorn; but I was clearly talking about people who make 'stupid pious comments' and that I described as Chomskyites. If you think Chomsky is interesting and helpful, fine. I disagree with you, but you disagree with me too.

Fight and defend Chomsky against all criticism though? Disgusting

[ZakBrownrigg123]

Holy shit. This is why I like Chomsky but not Chomsky supporters. Disagree with them and you are an evil moron who is an ill excuse for a human being. Chomsky accepted funding from the Pentagan from his work.

[big3t]

Perle is a foul example of a human being. Yet a typical example of an American politician. 'Our standards of democracy', In other words, you do what we want our we arm and fund the death-sqauds. Misinformation is a terrible thing.

[44warjunkie]

Chomsky obviously hates capitalism in America and wants to change it or else he would have left this country decades ago.

[xlucim]

@44warjunkie He stays becaus elike a good capitalist he wants to sell his books to his loyal zombies.

[44warjunkie]

@xlucim and who is not a capitalist now a days? Even Chomsky is a capitalist. Even you are a capitalist.

[xlucim]

@44warjunkie I'm a capitalist but I am not writing books complaining about it.

[kubark123]

Perle immediately got off to a very shaky start by ascribing a quote to Machiavelli which is usually attributed to Voltaire. Machiavelli's last words quote:

"I desire to go to Hell and not to Heaven. In the former I shall enjoy the company of popes, kings and princes, while in the latter are only beggars, monks and apostles"

Machiavelli taught you well, Mr Perle. May you join him in hell.

[nblumer]

While Perle scores on his dismissal of state dept. documents (Chomsky perhaps opened himself up for this by giving them undue credence), Chomsky scores well when he cites historical examples of US deposed liberal/democratic/nationalist governments in Latin America and elsewhere. Perle did not address the Costa Rica case & his interpretation of the Sandinista episode is also weak for anyone with background knowledge & the Marshall Plan argument is a bit stale, since US interests were tied to it.

[kappy0405]

..because it's not necessarily American 'control', Mr. Perle, it's Anglo-American corporate-banking control, or more accurately, 'influence'. America is/was the vehicle for establishing that power structure throughout Europe and beyond, hence the current corporate-banking control over the EU, & all the other continental/global trade agreements set up to evolve into continental parliaments on behalf of the CFR & other corporate-banking thinktanks.

[kappy0405]

Ultimately, America post-WW2 was merely the vehicle to spearhead & continue the already present quest for imperial domination by the corporate-banking world, which evolved out of Rhodes' Round Table.

Unfortunately, even Chomsky leaves that part out.. Grr..

[MikhailSilverwood]

Humans gain their consciousness from their external world: you learn about where you live and it shapes the way you live.

This means that humans, by their design, are vulnerable to propaganda, because their brains are naturally inclined to believe what they're told.

That's why breaking free of propaganda, and ignoring the mainstream tabloid media, is crucial to learning the truth.

[Davemanz]

I have a hard time understanding how Perle can be so confused about what Chomsky said about Nicaragua.

[polymath7]

An apocryphal quote from Machiavelli, no less.

That remark is traditionally attributed to Voltaire.

[fightforyourrights9]

Perle is so full of shit it makes me sick. The US never intended to have unprecedented control over the world? So I guess that it just happened by accident, despite the US putting military forces in 70% of the countries of the world. Oh yeah, our policies never intended on world domination... Hell, Chomsky directly quotes them as saying they intended on doing what they wanted regardless of what sovereign nations or their people wanted. Refuting facts with bullshit only fools morons.

[ZakBrownrigg123]

@fightforyourrights9

As for your last argument, I guess you didnt listen to Pearle's retort of that from 2:13 to 2:38. So much hate...I pity you.

[ConsuescoCoaegresco]

what eloquent bullshit, mister perle.

[TBlake34]

I actually agree with Perle about the documents. You can go through archives and read all manner of insane ideas that were documented by various officials. Recently the 9-11 conspiracy nuts used some Cuban-missile crisis-era plan about a false flag attack to support their paranoid fantasies.

But Perle is either lying or stupid when he says that only democracies would benefit US foreign policy. Kissinger was proud of dealing with autocrats instead of popular leaders.

[ConsuescoCoaegresco]

the doc. your referring to is "project northwoods" and it wasn't exactly the work of a fringe crackpot bureaucrat, which never saw the light of day. it was a serious proposal approved by all joint chiefs of staff, but rejected by kennedy.

[TBlake34]

I don't doubt the documents were intended to be serious, but there were serious Cold War Era documents that outlined a ground invasion of Russia.

Look, I agree with about 90% of what Chomsky is saying here, I am just skeptical that 1) beaurocratic documents are the best way to prove the point and 2) that our government (whatever the administration) has ever been competent enough to lay out such a long-term, detailed plan and then actually executed it.

[TBlake34]

And as for Northwoods itself, it was presented to Robert MacNamara as 1 of 30 plans for invading Cuba on March 13, 1962. Three days later Kennedy told Lyman Lemnitzer, the person who developed the plans, "there was virtually no possibility of ever using overt force to take Cuba".

So the level of "seriousness" wasn't all that high. But nevertheless, it was a document considered at the highest levels, and nothing came of it. That's exactly the point, people produce stuff like that constantly.

[oli90]

Democracies, as defined by the US government, which in fact aren't democracies at all. And Chomsky hasn't misquoted anything, he just repeated what was blatantly stated. There's no interpreting it, it's simply just looking at the literal meaning of what was said. Something like that cannot be simply ignored.

[TBlake34]

Well, you've missed the point completely, impressively.

I'll give you a hint: I never said Chomsky misquoted, I never said he misrepresented.

Now try again.

[oli90]

I'm afraid you've missed the point of what he was saying then. If such ideas are able to be presented and approved by that many influential people, then you can try and think again about what that means. Thanks for the help, but I really don't have any use for your "hints".

[TBlake34]

You can't MAKE use of my hints, that doesn't mean you don't need them.

First, your response in no way explains your vacuous first response that accused me of claiming Chomsky misquoted the documents. That was stupid and obviously false.

Secondly, whether those documents actually were approved by many "influential" people is exactly the point at issue. What does that mean?

All governments produce massive amounts of documents. 99% are meaningless paperwork, Like the infamous Northwoods.

[oli90]

You are clearly in no position to judge what I NEED. Clearly I misinterpreted what you said, and thought that you were trying to imply a misquotation. Yes that is the point at issue, but none of the documents are meaningless, because they show opinion and planning, of the group of people running the country. And yes they were approved, Kennedy solely dismissed them. This is just one small example, there are massive amounts of documents which did go through which implement similar policies.

[TBlake34]

Well, I'd rather you just apologized right off the bat, then, instead of trying to shift to argument, but whatever.

And the point is that Kennedy NEVER saw project Northwood. It NEVER reached his desk, he NEVER considered it. A lower level bureaucrat concocted a bunch of plans to invade Cuba, ranging in levels of insanity. They were never even read by anyone able to make a decision on them.

Can you prove the documents cited by Chomsky weren't similarly impotent?

[oli90]

Its easy to dismiss something as meaningless. But how when government officials agreed with the policy, is it meaningless?

[TBlake34]

Once again, the very question is whether they did agree with the policy.

Look, I'm more or less sympathetic to Chomsky's worldview. Setting aside the stupid stuff he wrote about the Khmer Rouge and his stubborn refusal to just say he was wrong, the most consistent weakness in his work is the desire to make everything a conscious conspiracy of elites.

Our elites are fucking dumb. They can't hatch plans like that. It's natural capitalist exploitation, not Bond-villain scheming.

[oli90]

His works aren't conspiratorial in nature. It may seem so if you take a look at his stance on foreign policy, but if you look at his other views he's aware of all of the factors that come into play. You can't possibly believe that he looks at the world in such a simple way. It is natural capitalist exploitation, that's why Chomsky's political views don't agree with capitalism. But the elites aren't dumb, maybe their figureheads are, but mostly the elites are comprised of intellectuals.

[TBlake34]

Again, I'm sympathetic to his views, but the places he goes wrong he does so because he intensely wants to show conscious malice. Sometimes he's right--Cheney, Kissinger, and others--sometimes he gets caught up in irrelevant minutia, as in these documents.

He also does oversimplify a great many issues when he tries to frame them into his propaganda model.

As for the elites being dumb or smart, I submit the housing bubble, George Bush, and the Star Wars program.

[oli90]

I disagree that he wants to show conscious malice. I think he realizes that these people are acting in their own self-interest, and the byproduct is immoral action. I have noticed that he oversimplifies issues, but that's mainly in interviews where he doesn't have time to go into massive explanation. I haven't found this in his books, where he usually goes into extensive detail.

George Bush was a figurehead, and the Star Wars program was the product of a very right wing administration.

[oli90]

I mean they put the idea out there, but they couldn't handle it technologically. They're still pursuing it, and it would give them another advantage over the world, so I don't know why you think its dumb. The housing bubble I haven't really researched enough to give a credible opinion.

[TBlake34]

Look, a Star Wars program that worked would be great, I was referring specifically to Reagan's version of it in the 80's. Tough to go into detail with the character count, so the vagueness was my fault.

But in the 80's when they found out the lasers weren't working they wanted to put a shitton of gravel in orbit above the united states so ICBM's coming back to earth would, i guess, blow up in the atmosphere.

That's pretty fucking dumb.

[oli90]

Hahaha, yeah but they didn't do it. It's as you pointed out before with the documents. Honestly I've never heard of this either, but I'll take your word for it. I'm sure it was put down rather quickly?

[TBlake34]

It was a last ditch effort to produce SOMETHING after the tens of billions of dollars they spent on a completely failed program.

That's one of the things that becomes obvious when you read about the cold war: for all the spy vs. spy, doomsday movies and books written during that era, the Soviet Union was basically a failed state from the early 70's on, and we were doing all kinds of goofy stuff as well--our economy was just better.

The Manhattan and Space projects were the exceptions.

[apostolostv]

@TBlake34

You must be blind and deaf.  Chomsky's repeatedly stated that the "manufacture of consent" in our society is carried out "quite openly and consciously." Chomsky is far from a conspiracy theorist. Elite power will try to preserve their power as best they can from the "bewildered herd" that Madison described over 2 centuries ago. That's painfully obvious to any casual observer of human affairs.

[ddaly1]

I agree & that is a fine notion, but try applying it in the REAL WORLD. I think, for example, private property should be abolished but that doesn't mean that, under today's world paradigm, I would support some country annexing or claiming to want to "share" territory with another nation state. If Russia came into US territory & started drilling for oil not only would it lead to huge problems but [under the current global order] i don't think it is justifiable (& I hope you would agree)

[Caty25cat]

Mr Perle , Do you really believe what are you saying ?! You want us to believe you too?!

Some open minds who takes time to reseach for truth should be appreciated, one of those great minds is Prof Chomsky.

USA is creating a EMPIRE!!

[livluv44]

what's wrong with that?

[DemCatBo]

Perle contradicts himself time and time again. Aside from that, everything he says, Chomsky denounced in his opening statement, thereby making Perle's entire arguement obsolete.

[ThrasybulusBrig]

Wow, what an idiotic post. Name a single contradiction please.

[NoodlemanNO1]

lol chomsky is teh sexy lol roflcopter he is teh epic sexy

[CapitalistHolocaust]

When I first started reading Chomsky & he said that America had overthrown 50 governments in the World since WWII, inc many democracies, including Iran in '53, Guatemala in '54, Brazil in '64, Indonesia in '65 (the CIA sending death lists to help slaughter up to a million people), Greece in '67, Chile in '73, etc. etc. I thought he was lying.

So I did my own research & found it's nearly all backed up with irrefutable evidence. Check out my videos for declassified CIA docs acknowledging it all.

[KapitanHaddock]

Great you did this effort!

I'll check your site.

[daz19nz]

Chomsky cites all his work in his book. Its like perle doesnt know what footnotes

[emahunn]

Perle, in this audio clip, undermines his argument. Wow!

[ddaly1]

'This idea we would somehow benefit from undermining democracy is a totally unproven assertion'- OH REALLY, so what do YOU call it when the CIA overthrows democratically-elected Mossaddegh and installs a dictatorship under the Shah b/c Mossaddegh tried to get a share of HIS OWN country's oil resources by partly nationalizing the oil industry. (+numerous other examples)

PLEASE stop being intellectually dishonest you worthless scumbag

[livluv44]

why should iran get to nationalize the oil industry? usa built the infrastructure, usa invested, usa supplied technical training and support? by what right should iran have been allowed to nationalize it? what did you say? because they happen to be sitting on oil it there's? no ethnic group has an inherent right to any territory, their rights are only construed by the degree that they enforce it.

[ddaly1]

So because the US and Britain previously had imperialist ventures there in which they took control of the countries infrastructure it somehow justifies taking control of the country's resources later on? Really, no country has a right to the resources within their own territory, so everyone can just violate any country's sovereignty whenever they feel like it? what do you think the response would be like in the US if Iran overthrew OUR government based on its perceived right to OUR resources?

[ddaly1]

Also, what is this fear you seem to have of an industry being nationalized; nationalized industries exist in countries all over the world. First of all, Mossadegh only wanted to partially nationalize the oil industry. Second, the decision to nationalize or privatize an industry is the decision of the people and govt of Iran. Maybe the fear you have is that a nationalized industry may actually help people (through social programs w/ revenue from oil sales for ex.) instead of big oil companies.

[fearnoevilexceptbush]

@ddaly1: right on!

[Meibukan]

I have to admit, I've never seen so much hate, racism, immorality and ignorance distilled into a single braindead YouTube comment.

[CapitalistHolocaust]

The oil industry was built up in Iran by the British. Anglo-Iranian. They only got to invest & build the infrastructure because they crushed the democracy that was emerging in the early 1900s & installed brutal regimes like the Reza Shah.

The British gave colonial conditions to Iran & Anglo-Iranian became the most profitable British company, whilst the Iranians got almost nothing.

The CIA crushing of democracy in Iran in '53 (at the British request) simply meant the U.S. got a share.

[rgman268]

It was a British Private Company that invested into the Country. The US acted at the request of the British and overthrew the Iranian Regime after an agreement had been reached.

[ShahidMiller]

I do believe you are thinking of the United Kingdom, when you are referring to the nation that initially invested in and helped develop Iran's oil fields. The U.S. was convinced to topple the democratically elected leader of that nation in favor of a dictator by the U.K. (the venerable Mr.Winston Churchill) on rather spurious grounds.

[TBlake34]

Yes, that's why we diposed Mossadegh, a very popular, democratically elected Iranian president. Churchill tricked Eisenhower into believing Iran was going communist (after Mossadegh nationalized the oil fields which were owned by British companies). That's when we put the Shah in power, which worked out AWESOMELY!

[ShahidMiller]

As to your main point, sovereignty means, among other things, exercising complete legal authority over the territory controlled by one's country. On those grounds, they have the right to nationalize -- and in fact "enforced" their sovereignty through the nationalization itself. As to the legitimacy of agreements made by some form of colonially dependent government and its master, they are invalid. Valid agreements require two equal partners; otherwise, it is a form of corruption.

[Struckgold]

I wonder who Perle thinks he is talking for when he says 'we'. Fucking, inciter to mass murder, fantasist, utopian, war profiteering, treasonous, Ultra-Zionist, megalomaniac (Perle!)

[andystokie]

hahahaha Perle is pure comedy : )

[JackDangles]

Everyone laughs at him. I like how everyone laughed at Perle when tried to falsify the documents that Chomsky was quoting LoL Of course the elite and rich corporations that control America benefit from systematically destroying democracy and disallowing the public to play any role in changing policies in the U.S. Obviously Perle has a very twisted view of what democracy means if he doesn't realize that America constantly violates and tries to undermine democracy all the time.

[tchoco]

WHAhaha,, the whole debate is entertaining.. Poor chanceless Perle Whahaa

[cuantrail]

Perle says you have to work inside the government to know anything, yet you can't believe government documents...nice...

[PlasticJesus341]

Hey Perle want to try and actually fill your opening speech with, stop me if this sounds crazy, facts and examples?

[brucel1234]

Everything perle says is a fuckin lie. This man has no conception of reality, although he has the art of bullshit and deception down pretty good, i must admit. He talks like he's the fuckin pope.

[henjokongo]

He doesn't even realize how much of what he says walks right into Chomsky's critical; like Perle's comment on the difference between propaganda in the US and what was the USSR. Chomsky's would say, I think, the difference is in fact only apparent but not substantive.

[CallUmHowISeeUm]

"He doesn't even realize how much of what he says walks right into Chomsky's critical; like Perle's comment on the difference between propaganda in the US and what was the USSR. Chomsky's would say, I think, the difference is in fact only apparent but not substantive."

Can you explain what you mean?

[ARTAUDIOJOTA]

I think he means that from a typical American view point, under an american propaganda umbrulla, it would appear that there is a difference between American/Soviat propaganda. But it doesnt hold water, because if the techniques of propaganda are isolated, and measured against the facts, it becomes obvious that what is publicly displayed is heavily influenced by the interests of those in power. Make sense?

[CallUmHowISeeUm]

"I think he means that from a typical American view point, under an american propaganda umbrulla, it would appear that there is a difference between American/Soviat propaganda. But it doesnt hold water, because if the techniques of propaganda are isolated, and measured against the facts, it becomes obvious that what is publicly displayed is heavily influenced by the interests of those in power. Make sense?"

I'M SORRY, BUT WHAT QUESTION OF MINE ARE YOU ANSWERING?

[gjsterp]

The only truthful and useful info Mr Perle related was that we should not "trust documents of the state."

Thanks for admitting it.

Now we have it on tape.

[8Marx8]

"I would only caution you as a practitioner who has worked inside the government, not to trust too much on every piece of paper that is produced in the department of state".

Tragically Hillarious!! What is on paper does not count, and what is not on paper does not exist!

The spate of deception and propaganda is grotesque.

[MegaLotusEater]

@8Marx8 It's also deeply ironic because his admonishment not to trust representations of govermental officials relates precisely and exactly to him

[Evangelander]

@8Marx8 : This man is a well-trained one-worlder, who was educated for the express purpose of maintaining and sustaining the propaganda of the New World Order.

[hailtotheking324]

@8Marx8 that is coming from a man who signed dozens of policy papers regarding our attack on the middle east, and our plan for the "new century".

[dojinho]

As someone suggested previously, Mr. Perle is not saying much, talking real slow to make up is 10 min. But what he is saying, above all carries no information. Mr. Chomsky made his points by quoting people, and quoting the whole sentences, not just a few words taken out of context. Mr. Perle is shamelessly asking the attendance to believe on pure faith every word he is saying (or rather to disbelieve everything Mr. Chomsky said!) A liar would never blatantly admit he is lying, would he?

[JamaicaGR10]

So true. I'd like to see the how many more words chomsky got out. Less words x Less substance = Shitty Debating squared.

[8Marx8]

Quotes from the series of memoranda of the War and Peace Studies Project on the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR):

requires"an integrated policy to achieve military and economic supremacy for the US..","must cultivate a mental view toward war settlement after this war enabling us to impose our own terms amounting perhaps to a pax-americana","access to resources","the british empire as it existed will never reappear and the US may have to take its place"

Faced with those facts,P opted disguise

[ARTAUDIOJOTA]

How does chomsky memorize everything, I need a few pages from his book.

[Quietlydoesit]

"..we assisted in the transition to what we thought would be a democratic revolution.." Bullshit. It was a democratic revolution and America hated it because funds were siphone off into education and healthcare which is anathema to elites in America....they don't even want their own people to have healthcare. The richest country on earth and your own people are terrified of getting sick for fear of the personal cost. Hypocrite.

[Quietlydoesit]

Pearle says "The notion that the united states would somehow benefit from the destruction of democracy is a totally unproven assertion" But the control of other countries economies for the benefit of US corporations is exactly what has occurred in developing nations. Using whole nations to service the requirements of wealthy investors is exactly what has happened. The evidence for this is overwhelming.

[AbdulDukhirahiq]

The problem is not even that Perle is using a counterargument that is false, but that hw ia aimply saying everything Chomsky said isn't true. The only justification for his objection is that he as a "State Department Insider" should know. "Trust me, it isn't true," essentially.

[ARTAUDIOJOTA]

Yeah, and "Chomsky is no one YOU would like to be associated with."

[n8glenn]

I think it's pretty obvious with the benefit of hindsight that what Perle is saying, almost all of it, is absolutely false. Chomsky's remarks are accurate and truthful. I think it's pretty telling that Perle opens with a quote from Machiavelli.

[8Marx8]

You want him to open with P Carter in 1977, when he was giving one of his sermons about human rights. He was asked, what about Vietnam? He replied: "we owe Vietnam no debt because the "destruction was mutual."

[ARTAUDIOJOTA]

This guy is a gem

[efabri]

Perle is just obfuscating and talking slowly - he's really not saying anything

[Irondukesteve]

Richard Perle is one ugly mofo

[urmomma158]

lol

[tharnax]

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)

[4ourthofjuly]

thats an invalid argument form known as "guilt by association"

and youve already used the ad hominem.

and its repeated ad infinitum.

youre the propagandist youre talking about.

are you chomsky? hello, sir.

[tharnax]

Yes, these dictators and fanatics are guilty by their association with the crackpot ideas of Noam Chomsky !

[4ourthofjuly]

you accuse chomsky of guilt by assoc. then use the term repeatedly.

thats silly.

youre like the pope of sillytown.

[tharnax]

Deluded One.

I gave you a few days to come up with a better argument against America, you failed again.

If you keep reading Chomsky, that painful feeling of losing arguments with democratic capitalists actually gets worse! Smarten Up!

[4ourthofjuly]

youre telling me youre aware of some objective standards for a debate?

yet you spam all night in your underwear?

[mattvansickle]

I'm sure there is a reason why this will not download?!!

[majjee]

Unfortunately, they seem to work on a lot of media consumers (read: us) as well.

Read books! Do research! Make a good argument!

PEACE!

[crnogoracz]

and finally, regarding Perle's arogant statement that unless you worked in gov. you cannot understand all the documents and inner workings of the state department: how many times do politicians talk about things they have no clue about - remember Bush and steroids or hydrogen fuel cells? Anyone can be a politician, Regean and Arnold were/are actors! So to claim that Arnold can understand politics and gov. better then one of the leading intelectuals of the world is simply preposterous!

[4ourthofjuly]

hes making the obvious point that no citizen who has not worked in govt has the right to discuss or criticize its policy.

obviously.

[crnogoracz]

Sources-wise: please do not make judgements about the worth of Chomsky's quotations without actually reading them. I actually read several of his books and went searching for the large number of the quotes/sources. I found all of them except one (website was down).

[crnogoracz]

Ok, I don't understand ppeople that critisize Chomsky... Before we even start with the sources, the question is does he actually make sense? Who trully believes that Cheney is trying to promote peace and democracy around the world rather than amassing a huge wealth for his oil company? Or Bush Senior? (I'm not even mentioning Bush Junior, as he is only a marionnete)

cont...

[4ourthofjuly]

well played, sir.

[lmb193]

Amen, god bless... Why is there only one Chomsky, but so many Bushies??

[foecunditatis]

the money my friend.. money

[Psycarne]

Those specific documents just happened to perfectly describe US foriegn policy following World War II.

[romodel]

haha you guys are silly. the world is so simple isn't it?

Perle devastated Chomsky with the remark about state department documents being composed by individuals and having a multiplicity of individuals that contribute documents and hence quoting one document is not representative of the whole.

[BBOYMONI]

"...hence quoting one document is not representative of the whole."

You are either really stupid or delibrately trying to distort the issue. Chomsky cited many sources and documents, not just one. So according to you documents produced by the Gov are made to be ignored. Genius.

[crnogoracz]

Last comment I promise:

Chomsky never tells you to believe him. He tells you to search for yourself and make your own judgments. Romodel, when was the last time you made a conclusion on your own, after hours and days of research, without someone else actually inserting it in you from media?

[tommienogo]

Perle: the US benefits from international "stability and prosperity," and "democracy" best produceds both. Q: So why, he asks, would we want non-democratic regimes elsewhere? A: Because it's easier to pay off a foreign dictator for a country's resources than to pay off a whole voting population demanding a good standard of living for those resources. Duh.

[chewbaca1989]

Richard Perle blows chunks, big chunks.

What a cold blooded son of a bitch.

[TeamCannabis]

How can Perle seriously insinuate that the vast U.S. military and economic resourses dont influence,intimidate,cajole,or attack for that matter, anyone outside of its own realm,including friend or foe? ridiculous!

[arturohd]

People like Perle talk as if communism was still a threat. When the neo-cons lost their traditional pretext to intervine in other nations, they have found a new excuse: The cruzade against terrorism.

But no-one outside of the U.S. belives the Americans any more.

[z8it]

This debate took place in '88 The Soviets were the other big dog at the time.

but your point is well taken; the Hegelian Dialectic requires a dicotomy to control Humanity. What do you think these social engineers will do when they find out that we (the people.) are hip?

[arturohd]

All the "democracies" america has put in place in other countries have been at gun-point and without the support of the mayority of those countries populations. ¡¡¡¡Please don´t bring democracy to my country!!!!! I leave in a poor country but I rather not see it as Irak.

[arturohd]

Who can still believe Perle´s points, other than ignorant redneck nationalistic, fanatic christian fundamentalist americans. Of course, educated americans and all of the people outside of the U.S. don´t believe that neo-con crap. I´m surprised that most americans still believe that the U.S. really wishes to help to spread democracy around the world or that people in other countries want their "help".

[annarboriter]

It's the notion of fair and balanced. Facts never seem to tilt that set of scales in the minds of msm journalists. That would require lots and lots of thinking.

According to Perle, documents are made to be ignored btw.

[miscreant2001]

i love how perle arrogantly denies assertions for which chomsky has provided numerous specific examples. perle doesn't provide any examples of his own and simply ignores chomsky's while repeating propagandistic platitudes. it's amazing how these tactics actually work.