Here is -- or used to be -- the entire interview: link.

Between he and Hitchens, we lost the wrong one first...

At the risk of trying to be smarter than big Noam am I the only one not surprised that Obama can't control a multi-trillion dollar war machine that's been doing it's own thing since '45? The only president to ever really try was JFK..

Btw that's Jeremy Paxman interviewing, probably for BBC newsnight.

Yeah, I fail to see why not fixing everything is worse than starting two wars in the first place.

>> ^kymbos:

Yeah, I fail to see why not fixing everything is worse than starting two wars in the first place.


Can you also fail to see how making a bad situation much worse is a bad idea?

No, I can't fail to see that. Helpfully, I didn't say that I could. I said it is hard to view it as worse than starting two wars.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^kymbos:
Yeah, I fail to see why not fixing everything is worse than starting two wars in the first place.

Can you also fail to see how making a bad situation much worse is a bad idea?


So Obama inherited Iraq and Afghanistan from Bush, as Bush inherited them from Clinton, as Clinton inherited them from Bush, and so on.

Iraq was a bad situation, every time it was passed down it was still a bad situation.
Afghanistan was a bad situation, every time it was passed down it was still a bad situation.

Can we agree on that much?

I presume so, and would then ask, what step do you believe in each generation should have been taken to make the bad situation better instead of making it worse?

Would having the Taliban in power in Afghanistan today, with Al Qaeada as their guests be better or worse?
Would having Saddam in power in Iraq today be better or worse?

>> I presume so, and would then ask, what step do you believe in each generation should have been taken to make the bad situation better instead of making it worse?



Not support Saddam Hussein and his gassing of his own people as well as a brutal 8 year war with Iran? One of the many reasons Iran hates us with very good reason by the way.

Would having the Taliban in power in Afghanistan today, with Al Qaeada as their guests be better or worse?
Would having Saddam in power in Iraq today be better or worse?



There's way to much history you have to study before we can have this conversation. Let me just say, it's our fault as well that the Taliban and Al Qaeada have become anything of note.

Theres no way you can say Bush inherited Iraq from Clinton.

Iraq was "contained" (crippled militarily, economically and in terms of civilian infrastructure through sanctions), it was being bombed every other day by "coalition" forces and they gave Saddam the means to tighten his grip on the country after the rebellion (which they helped fail by allowing Saddam use his attack helicopters to crush it) through schemes like the oil for food program which gave Saddam plenty of things to dole out to supporters to keep them on side.

As we have seen the reason for the Iraq war was bullshit. They wanted Saddam gone and a friendly client in place so they could get that sweet, sweet oil revenue.

Same shit happening today "Iran is a threat" blah blah blah. When Iran was a democracy it had to be eliminated, cant let the natives get their hands on all that oil. So they put a bloody savage in power and were surprised when the people overthrew him.

Afghanistan is run by a hopelessly corrupt former oil executive. Coincidence? Anyone fancy a pipeline?

Nothing will every change until powerful countries stop looking at other countries resources' in terms of what they can loot.

</rant>


>> ^bcglorf:

>>
So Obama inherited Iraq and Afghanistan from Bush, as Bush inherited them from Clinton, as Clinton inherited them from Bush, and so on.
Iraq was a bad situation, every time it was passed down it was still a bad situation.
Afghanistan was a bad situation, every time it was passed down it was still a bad situation.
Can we agree on that much?
I presume so, and would then ask, what step do you believe in each generation should have been taken to make the bad situation better instead of making it worse?
Would having the Taliban in power in Afghanistan today, with Al Qaeada as their guests be better or worse?
Would having Saddam in power in Iraq today be better or worse?

>> ^Yogi:

>> I presume so, and would then ask, what step do you believe in each generation should have been taken to make the bad situation better instead of making it worse?


Not support Saddam Hussein and his gassing of his own people as well as a brutal 8 year war with Iran? One of the many reasons Iran hates us with very good reason by the way.


That's what I thought.

For the rest of us mere mortals who lack the ability to solve problems by using time travel, what should be done to make the situations better instead of worse?

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Yogi:
>> I presume so, and would then ask, what step do you believe in each generation should have been taken to make the bad situation better instead of making it worse?


Not support Saddam Hussein and his gassing of his own people as well as a brutal 8 year war with Iran? One of the many reasons Iran hates us with very good reason by the way.

That's what I thought.
For the rest of us mere mortals who lack the ability to solve problems by using time travel, what should be done to make the situations better instead of worse?


OH you mean what could OBAMA Do. I don't know because I'm not an expert on Foreign relations. You'll have to read more Chomsky I guess.

>> ^Yogi:

Would having the Taliban in power in Afghanistan today, with Al Qaeada as their guests be better or worse?
Would having Saddam in power in Iraq today be better or worse?


There's way to much history you have to study before we can have this conversation. Let me just say, it's our fault as well that the Taliban and Al Qaeada have become anything of note.


Again, what would've been better?

Chomsky's normal advice, do nothing, would've left Russia holding Afghanistan.

Personally, I'd have preferred we done more rather than less. After getting the Russians out of Afghanistan, just leaving it to whichever war lords amongst the fighters there was strongest was the wrong approach, and foreseeably so. If nation building was too expensive, we at least could have used military muscle to knock of the least desirable candidates like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

Dismissing this as too much history is recusing yourself from the discussion. If you do NOT know of a better alternative, you don't get to say somebody is doing things all wrong. Well, your free to say it, but you just look like an idiot.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Yogi:
Would having the Taliban in power in Afghanistan today, with Al Qaeada as their guests be better or worse?
Would having Saddam in power in Iraq today be better or worse?


There's way to much history you have to study before we can have this conversation. Let me just say, it's our fault as well that the Taliban and Al Qaeada have become anything of note.

Again, what would've been better?
Chomsky's normal advice, do nothing, would've left Russia holding Afghanistan.
Personally, I'd have preferred we done more rather than less. After getting the Russians out of Afghanistan, just leaving it to whichever war lords amongst the fighters there was strongest was the wrong approach, and foreseeably so. If nation building was too expensive, we at least could have used military muscle to knock of the least desirable candidates like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
Dismissing this as too much history is recusing yourself from the discussion. If you do NOT know of a better alternative, you don't get to say somebody is doing things all wrong. Well, your free to say it, but you just look like an idiot.


No you're incorrect about Russia holding Afghanistan. Also you sort of sound like a Neo-Liberal the way you say we should do more around the world rather than less. Influence more, try and control people.

Also I have an extensive knowledge in this subject, I just thought I'd let Chomsky talk about it. I'm not going to hold a class in a comment section bcglorf. You can study this on your own.

>> ^moodonia:

Theres no way you can say Bush inherited Iraq from Clinton.
Iraq was "contained" (crippled militarily, economically and in terms of civilian infrastructure through sanctions), it was being bombed every other day by "coalition" forces and they gave Saddam the means to tighten his grip on the country after the rebellion (which they helped fail by allowing Saddam use his attack helicopters to crush it) through schemes like the oil for food program which gave Saddam plenty of things to dole out to supporters to keep them on side.
As we have seen the reason for the Iraq war was bullshit. They wanted Saddam gone and a friendly client in place so they could get that sweet, sweet oil revenue.
Same shit happening today "Iran is a threat" blah blah blah. When Iran was a democracy it had to be eliminated, cant let the natives get their hands on all that oil. So they put a bloody savage in power and were surprised when the people overthrew him.
Afghanistan is run by a hopelessly corrupt former oil executive. Coincidence? Anyone fancy a pipeline?
Nothing will every change until powerful countries stop looking at other countries resources' in terms of what they can loot.
</rant>

>> ^bcglorf:
>>
So Obama inherited Iraq and Afghanistan from Bush, as Bush inherited them from Clinton, as Clinton inherited them from Bush, and so on.
Iraq was a bad situation, every time it was passed down it was still a bad situation.
Afghanistan was a bad situation, every time it was passed down it was still a bad situation.
Can we agree on that much?
I presume so, and would then ask, what step do you believe in each generation should have been taken to make the bad situation better instead of making it worse?
Would having the Taliban in power in Afghanistan today, with Al Qaeada as their guests be better or worse?
Would having Saddam in power in Iraq today be better or worse?



Bush Jr. inherited Iraq from Clinton the same way Clinton inherited Iraq from Bush Sr.

While Clinton was in office, Iraq was still a major problem. You are very right about Clinton inheriting a mess from Bush Sr., and you hit the biggest point in how Bush Sr. failed to push into Baghdad the first time and instead allowed Saddam's gunships to gun down the Shia rebellion. Let's remember though it was the likes of Chomsky that were demanding that Bush Sr. stop short of Baghdad. In fact, if Chomsky's crowd had their way, Bush Sr. would've left Saddam in control of Kuwait as well. Under Clinton's administration, Saddam was still actively refusing to allow inspectors to ensure his compliance with not pursuing WMD programs. Under Clinton's administration, Saddam was routinely violating the no-fly zone over northern Iraq, and actively firing on the aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone. Clinton ignored the problem of Saddam, and largely hoped that sanctions would just make the problem go away. The same sanctions you rightly condemn. But what alternative do you propose? I prefer removing Saddam to maintaining sanctions that are crushing Iraqi's and if anythings, strengthening Saddam's local control. Chomsky seems to think just removing the sanctions and trying to be friends with Saddam was a better idea, I disagree. Clinton tried that with Kim Jong-Il, and tried to dissuade his nuclear ambitions by gifting him a pair of nuclear reactors if he'd just be nicer and not continue pursuing a nuclear program. That went just peachy.

Nothing will every change until powerful countries stop looking at other countries resources' in terms of what they can loot.

It's not just powerful countries, it is all countries, and history teaches that this never has happened so you need to consider that it likely never will happen. With that reality, I'm content to settle for encouraging the special times when nation's selfish interests actually happen to coincide with the better interests of the local people as well. I think it very hard to argue that the absence of Saddam and the Taliban has not been such a gain. I think it even harder to argue that Libyan's haven't seen a similar gain. At the very least, I find those actions plainly and blatantly better than Clinton's era of doing nothing being in his national interest, while watching 800,000 Rwandans butchered while America had the resources to easily cut that death toll to almost nothing. Of course, if he had acted and only 200,000 Rwandans had died, Chomsky would be here today telling us why the blood of 200,000 Rwandans was on Clinton's hands...

Also I have an extensive knowledge in this subject,

Bull.

Watching a bunch of conspiracy theory videos that talk about history does NOT give one an extensive knowledge in a subject. The depths of the ignorance of the subject in your comments and your abject refusal to back up even the most basic of statements makes the large gap between what you know and what you think know very clear.

>> ^bcglorf:

Also I have an extensive knowledge in this subject,
Bull.
Watching a bunch of conspiracy theory videos that talk about history does NOT give one an extensive knowledge in a subject. The depths of the ignorance of the subject in your comments and your abject refusal to back up even the most basic of statements makes the large gap between what you know and what you think know very clear.


Have you seen all my comments on this site? No you haven't. I used to provide very long explanatory comments. I've given that up because frankly it doesn't matter no one reads them.

I don't sit an watch videos...Noam Chomsky is one of the most respected intellectuals on the planet and not a conspiracy theorist. I had over 30 of his books that I recently gave away to the Library of the OWS movement.

>> ^Yogi:


Have you seen all my comments on this site? No you haven't. I used to provide very long explanatory comments. I've given that up because frankly it doesn't matter no one reads them.
I don't sit an watch videos...Noam Chomsky is one of the most respected intellectuals on the planet and not a conspiracy theorist. I had over 30 of his books that I recently gave away to the Library of the OWS movement.
I've seen enough to permanantly dismiss you as a poser with self-delusions of grandeur. The length of your "explanatory comments" seem to be directly proportional to the amount of foot in your mouth, and, when confronted with disagreement, you have a tendency to profess bona fides that said comments clearly demonstrate you don't possess. Gave 30 Chomsky books to OWS? Yeah... ok, doctor.

I read your stuff Yogi!

FWIW Involving the US in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan is all about money and power. Oil, minerals, rate earth shit etc etc.

In Iran they got rid of a benevolent democratically elected progressive who tried to return the oil wealth of the country to its people and replaced him with a foreign sponsored greedy foolish puppet.
When it swung back the other way the clerics took over. Doh!

They used Afghanistan as a proxy war with the soviets, training the mujahideen / aka Taliban fighters in improvised explosives, insurgency warfare and basically how to fuck up a mechanised invading army. Then they invaded. Doh!

In Iraq they supported Saddam despite his demented paranoid savagery until the Iraqi oilfields became too tasty to ignore.

Duck Cheney said it couldn't be done:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I&sns=em

But they upped his end via massive Haliburton projects and installed a puppet moron to keep blaming Iraq for the Saudi attacks on 9/11.
Then they invaded, killing thousands of civilians, and dismantled the police and social services while fucking up the food and water supply. Just for good measure they disbanded the army and sent 375,000 heavily armed young men off to find food for their own families. Doh!

Never mind about panama, chile, Vietnam, Cuba, Russia, Pakistan etc etc.

>> ^cosmovitelli:

I read your stuff Yogi!
FWIW Involving the US in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan is all about money and power. Oil, minerals, rate earth shit etc etc.
In Iran they got rid of a benevolent democratically elected progressive who tried to return the oil wealth of the country to its people and replaced him with a foreign sponsored greedy foolish puppet.
When it swung back the other way the clerics took over. Doh!
They used Afghanistan as a proxy war with the soviets, training the mujahideen / aka Taliban fighters in improvised explosives, insurgency warfare and basically how to fuck up a mechanised invading army. Then they invaded. Doh!
In Iraq they supported Saddam despite his demented paranoid savagery until the Iraqi oilfields became too tasty to ignore.
Duck Cheney said it couldn't be done:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I&sns=em
But they upped his end via massive Haliburton projects and installed a puppet moron to keep blaming Iraq for the Saudi attacks on 9/11.
Then they invaded, killing thousands of civilians, and dismantled the police and social services while fucking up the food and water supply. Just for good measure they disbanded the army and sent 375,000 heavily armed young men off to find food for their own families. Doh!
Never mind about panama, chile, Vietnam, Cuba, Russia, Pakistan etc etc.


I'd pretty much agree with your facts. I'm a little less sure on your point.

America helped train and support the Islamic fighter in Afghanistan to chase out the Soviets. America supported Saddam while he was using chemical weapons against Iran and even Iraqi Kurds. America propped up a strong man of their choosing in Iran which backfired and led to the current theocracy.

You needn't look far or very hard to find examples where almost any and every nation has selfishly done very bad things, or things with terrible consequences. America, Russia and China being such large nations, the examples for them are much bigger and numerous. It makes for great propaganda, and all 3 continually make heavy use of it to tarnish each other. America is characterized by the genocide of native americans and Vietnam, Russia by Stalin and China by Mao. It's great propaganda, but it's not insightful or helpful analysis.

Pretend you get be President when Bush Jr. was president. America's narrow self interests are being threatened by terrorism. Bin Laden has extremely close ties with Islamists not only in Afghanistan, but throughout nuclear armed Pakistan. AQ Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear program, is going around selling nuclear secrets and equipment to the highest bidder. That's an uncomfortably short path from Pakistan's nuclear arsenal to the hands of a very credible terrorist network. Do you demand Pakistan break it's ties with the Taliban, or just let it slide? Do you demand the Afghan Taliban break ties with Al Qaeda, or just let it slide? I think selfish American interest DID dictate making those two demands, and being willing to launch a war if they were refused.

I think that is a strong argument that the Afghan war was indeed a good thing from the perspective of America's narrow self-interest.

What about the Afghan people though? Their self interest depends on what the end game is, and nobody can predict that. What we DO know is that the formerly ruling Taliban hated women's rights, and we fought against them. What we DO know is that the formerly ruling Taliban burnt off more of Afghanistan's vineyards than even the Russians had, because making wine was anathema to their cult. What we DO know is that the Taliban was one of the most brutal, backwards and hateful organizations around.

I can not say that the Afghan war ensured a better future for Afghanistan's people. What I CAN say is that leaving the Taliban in power in Afghanistan ensured a dark, bleak and miserable future for Afghanistan's people. I would modestly propose that a chance at something better was a good thing.

the establishment is the establishment. doesn't matter who is at the wheel of a ship that don't turn.
and the only way it's gonna is if we the people turn it.

@bcglorf
I think it's about where you start from. Without opportunistic pillaging in these countries they wouldn't be a threat at all.
In fact they wouldn't have gunpowder let alone stinger missiles.

Obviously you can't unscramble the pudding and those now involved have to deal with it every day until the empire collapses under the weight (and this is the reason they all have sooner or later, ask the Brits, ottomans, romans etc). Still at least a couple of hundred fat families got a bit fatter - and will be able to buy large stakes in what comes next..

Btw as for Pakistan there was a whistleblower about nuclear secrets leaking who got totally crushed by the US gov a few years back. Pakistan going nuclear was a VERY shady episode that no-one seems to be free to speak about yet. Or maybe it's just slipped into the national ADHD..

>> ^cosmovitelli:

@bcglorf
I think it's about where you start from. Without opportunistic pillaging in these countries they wouldn't be a threat at all.
In fact they wouldn't have gunpowder let alone stinger missiles.
Obviously you can't unscramble the pudding and those now involved have to deal with it every day until the empire collapses under the weight (and this is the reason they all have sooner or later, ask the Brits, ottomans, romans etc). Still at least a couple of hundred fat families got a bit fatter - and will be able to buy large stakes in what comes next..
Btw as for Pakistan there was a whistleblower about nuclear secrets leaking who got totally crushed by the US gov a few years back. Pakistan going nuclear was a VERY shady episode that no-one seems to be free to speak about yet. Or maybe it's just slipped into the national ADHD..


I agree with it being where you start from, or with how you see our world. When I look at human history, I don't see any point in it where opportunistic pillaging wasn't the order of the day for whomever was strongest or able to. Perhaps that's why my bar for calling a national action 'good' is different, my view of history leaves me with extremely low expectations.

Pakistan has slipped into the national ADHD on the commoner level. At the decision making level, there has appeared to be a coordinated effort to say very little about Pakistan. I think largely due to the (IMHO correct)belief that Pakistan's current political environment is a giant house of cards being kicked at from all directions. Mark my words, by the end of this year I expect to see Pakistan once again under military rule. Currently it looks like the guise will be court appointed military rule to restore order and enable democratic elections in the near future.

The military leadership has consistently benefited from maintaining a degree of internal conflict and instability between the tribal regions and the government. Using the age old tactic of having a common enemy/opponent to unite the rest of the country behind. Of course, the military doesn't want a long term solution to that conflict, they want the conflict to go on forever as it is in their interest. The downside for us was that the Taliban gained enormous power and influence throughout the tribal regions in all that. They gained enough that they were a bigger challenge than the tribal regions themselves, as unlike the tribes the Taliban could hit back deep into Pakistan proper. Until the events of 9/11, the military(Musharaff at the time) handled this by having a pseudo alliance with the Taliban, basically allowing them to govern the tribal regions of Pakistan. After 9/11, American leadership decided they weren't comfortable with the Taliban by and large controlling large swathes of a nuclear armed state and maintaining an alliance with them of undetermined strength.

Of course, nobody in America is able to talk about it that way, because it would further strengthen the deeply anti-American sentiments in Pakistan already, maybe enough to tip the scales towards siding with the Taliban instead of America.

I know my history. I know who fought for the Taliban against the Russians: Rambo.>> ^Yogi:
Would having the Taliban in power in Afghanistan today, with Al Qaeada as their guests be better or worse?
Would having Saddam in power in Iraq today be better or worse?

There's way to much history you have to study before we can have this conversation. Let me just say, it's our fault as well that the Taliban and Al Qaeada have become anything of note.