Chomsky: History of US Imperialism -2/7

Noam Chomsky - arguably the most famous Western intellectual and dissident alive today - interprets former President Bush's foreign policy actions (such as the Iraq war) in the long history of American Imperialism. He points out how the US was founded as an Empire -contrary to popular perception - and has been driven since inception again, contrary to popular perception - by an "expansion is the path to security" strategy. This lecture was delivered at Boston University in the United States on April 24th, 2008 under the title of "Modern-Day American Imperialism: Middle East and Beyond".

PLEASE READ MY COMMENTS ON THE VIDEO BEFORE WATCHING.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Noam
• Chomsky
• Modern
• Day
• American
• Imperialism
• Middle
• East
• and
• Beyond
• US
• geopolitics
• geopolitical
• full
• spectrum
• dominance
• history
• militarism
• foreign
• policy
• hubris
• expansion
• empire
• superpower

[KashifHKhan]

PART VIII:

One of my favorite Chomsky moments is his dissection of former US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice's conditions for withdrawal from Iraq: "stop the flow of foreign arms and stop the flow of foreign fighters". US is the biggest "foreign fighter" as it is the invader and occupier. Similarly, it represents the largest flow of "foreign arms" to maintain occupation. Media cannot point this out as US policy presumes that US "owns the world" and only "acts with best intentions."

-Kashif

[KashifHKhan]

PART VII:

Finally, I believe it is important to note the role played by the powerful US media in helping US maintain and execute its hegemonistic policies. The media - including major left-wing papers - tightly control discussion and never point out any contradictions between US policy and its public proclamations.For instance, in Iraqi natives fighting US occupation are described as "insurgents" or "renegades" who are committing "aggression"! Never mind that US invaded their country.

-Kashif

[KashifHKhan]

PART VI:

Given above-noted US historical policy, is it any wonder that neo-cons demanded "full spectrum dominance" (over land, sea, air, and space!) for America after collapse of Soviet Union? As Chomsky points out, the Cold War was nothing more than a tacit agreement between US and Soviet Union to not interfere in each other's areas of influence. With all checks on US power gone with the collapse of Soviet Union, the US was free to attempt to extend its hegemony to the entire world.

-Kashif

[KashifHKhan]

PART V:

Keenan further strategized that Africa would be given to Europeans to exploit for post-war reconstruction while European colonial powers would be paid in US dollars for resources so that dollars could be recycled back to US via purchase of goods. The US policy explicitly called for it to "ensure limitation of exercise of sovereignty" by any state that might resist US plans. In plain English, this meant that there would be no free, democratic states in resource rich regions.

-Kashif

[KashifHKhan]

PART IV:

As another illustration of US empire-based expansionist strategy, consider US's central policy after WW II as enunciated by State Department's George Kennan. According to him, the US - which had 6% of the world's population and 50% of the world's wealth at that time - would focus on how to maintain this disparity! In practical terms, this meant that US would secure access to oil in Middle East and resources in Southeast Asia. (It already had access to Latin and South America).

-Kashif

[KashifHKhan]

PART III:

As an illustration of expansionist access to resources beyond US borders, consider America's hold on Latin and South America. US President, James Monroe, in his famous "Monroe Doctrine" stipulated that any attempt to influence Latin and South America by an outside power would be viewed by the US "as dangerous to our peace and safety" and would be checked with force. This meant that the US was free to set up pliant dictatorships in Latin and South America to do its bidding.

-Kashif

[EndWesternTyranny]

@RPenta you're right in that there is more to the JFK assassination than the official story. listen to Michael Parenti explain the assassination and the "gangster nature of the state." however JFK being killed doesnt make him a hero. he started the vietnam war that killed millions. chomsky has no bias. i believe that you have a bias toward JFK thinking that just because he was killed by those with power, he must be good. 1 assassination is nothing compared to what chomsky talks about

[EndWesternTyranny]

Michael Parenti, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Christian Parenti, Naomi Klein, David Ray Griffin, Arundhati Roy, Robert Fisk, Michael Ruppert, Ward Churchill, Gore Vidal, Jason Burke, Edward Herman, etc... You're welcome :)

[RPenta]

Too bad Chomsky has such antipathy for JFK and is basically hysterical about "conspiracy theories"; no Noam, we are not crazed with conspiracy theories but real criminal conspiracies involving the military-intelligence-congress­ional-financial-industrial complex. The Brits and the Israelis also have a hand in it.

[marcosramosmarin]

chomsky 4 president!!!!!!!!