the channel has come a long way

Transcript of Noam Chomsky's explanation of why Iraq was invaded...

"There were very solid reasons for invading Iraq. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. It's right at the heart of the Middle East region which is the main energy reserve of the world. Establishing a client regime and a major military base in Iraq and getting preferential access to its resources would be of great value to the people who are our counterparts to Adam Smith's merchants and manufacturers: energy corporations, industrial corporations, banks and so on.

They didn't achieve it. Iraq is an interesting case because it was a defeat. US goals were defeated in Iraq, a very important fact.

At the beginning of course there were all sorts of pretexts: they're tied up with Al Qaeda, weapons of mass destruction. When that collapsed there was a new pretext: we're bringing democracy. In fact the US fought democracy every step of the way. It tried to prevent elections. When it couldn't prevent them it tried to manipulate them and it kept going, right through to the end.

At the very end, say by 2008, when it was pretty clear that the US was not going to achieve its goals, the Bush administration started talking pretty frankly about what they were. So, November 2007, January 2008, there were strong, significant declarations by the administration. They discussed what the outcome must be. They were then talking about a status of forces agreement, what it must include. And at that time they were demanding that what it must include is the US right to use military bases in Iraq indefinitely as a base for combat and other operations and privileged access to Iraqi energy resources for US corporations. At that point it was said very explicitly because they were getting desperate.

Well, they didn't get either of those. The US has not been able to suppress Iraqi nationalism. The US could kill any number of insurgents, so that wasn't a big problem. But what they couldn't deal with was the mass popular non-violent resistance. And the US had to back down step by step. That's why the books on Iraq by the most serious analysts, people like Jonathan Steele, David Gardner of the Financial Times, and others, have titles like Defeat. The US was defeated.

But it's clear what the war aims are and they were sensible aims."

bill hicks brought me here

"Also a large part of their ego could depend upon them believing that they gained their position fairly due to their skill." It's a typical human bias. When we succeed, it is us. When we fail, it is outside forces. Everybody has it, not just rich folk. But the rich (especially the rentier rich) seem to possess it in droves, LOL.

Why would anyone rich and successful complain about a system that they're doing well out of? Also a large part of their ego could depend upon them believing that they gained their position fairly due to their skill.

Just nothing but good ol' fashioned honesty and logic :)

Not Marxist you asshole.

This is the third time, I listen to this and it is so simple, obvious and logical. He is Anti-american, he simply states the facts.

fuck all of you trashy marxists. you are cockroaches.

Thought everyone here who enjoyed this, might also enjoy this Chomsky video. Youtube Noam Chomsky answers questions from 6 personalities if you haven't already seen it.

TYT, please More CHOMSKY More STIGLITZ More KRUGMAN More FERGUSON etc. They offer a comprehensive and honest "theory" of the world. We should hear from them weekly (at least)

They invaded Iraqi cuz they know it will inflame the Middle East and push most the Arabs to become terrorist and that will give Israel reasons to bomb the Arab and kill most of them and that's ww3 and Europe going to be whipped of the map by Russia in that war

More Chomsky please...more More MORE MOAR

Well done, they interviewed Chomsky better than anyone else I've seen.

Chomsky is inflammable. He says things that even the mainstream left, including Cenk, does not want to hear. He is the only one who tells it like it is.

It's because Noam Chomsky is an idealist and Cenk is a realist. We need both.

The Young Turks should interview Noam Chomsky again!

Chomsky goes on about the never-realized and non-declared super-power dreams of some long-gone policy maker. How is this relevant to anything? It represents little more than the day-dreams of single person, or at most a limited group. It never happened, and he doesnt even give any sources. Hes like a historian? no. Hes full of shit. And no, the U.S. does not spend as much on military as the rest of the world combined. Chomsky should stick to linguistics.

I don't think that is has anything much to do with fighting extremist. Your right that they thrive off of unjust killings, part of their success is to recruit children from families that have absolutely nothing left and take care of them. In fact some of these religious groups garner support by offering social services to the population. If we were serious about ending Islamic extremism there are more sensible alternatives we could take, I think we just want to dominate the region for the oil.

The greatest intellectuals are never recognized in their lifetime.. he speaks as if he's a historian 100 years from now. I will weep as you will.