Chomsky vs Buckley

Oh mr. Chomsky we're talking there about American terror and I think you make a very accurate observation that we are responsible for what we do but hardly responsible for what other people do except insofar as we are in a position to influence them true for instance if there is a mass starvation in a by Afra even though we did not cause that there is a sense in which we are responsible if we don't do something to attempt to alleviate it now by the same token if we are prepared to agree that it is not always easy - taxonomy as military action into that which is terroristic and that which is purely military operation we are left with our with doubts for instance about the the bombing of Germany in 1942 43 44 you might contend that this was terroristic and unnecessary and you might be right although you're not a military act but not neither am i but I don't think there's a point to that yeah but I do judge that even if we all agree that what we did in Resident was inexcusable as a moral question it's got to be understood in context of what was it that brought us to Dresden in the first instance absolute and what brought us to South Vietnam in the first instance in my judgement was clearly a and uninterested or I should say disinterested a concern for the stability and possibilities of a region of the world what theory but what period do you feel that we had this disinterested relationship right now know at what period did we have it did it begin let's say 1951 for example when we when the State Department bulletin points out that we must help the French reconquer their former colony and we must eradicate all Vietnamese resistance down to its last roots and all respect i personally or was that peace my vulnerability I wish we had helped the French we did we we said well but it's no point I sufficient it was hardly disinterested when we attempted as you know with with tremendous support in fact to reinstate French imperialism in South Vietnam it was disinterested in this sense and I think there's an important distinction for you to touch on your book it's a disinterested act or if of my attempt to help or your attempt to help a particular nation is in order to spare you the possibility of a great ordeal in the future which will harm you your family or to know your public and in a sense not and Jeremy was also disinterested yeah in every old Nazi Germany was conquering Eastern Europe only in order to advance the values of short in spiritual civilization and to restore the slaughter there right well that's that's sort of it Holly I follow you but if you want me to pursue that digression I will okay but but let's suspend it for a moment I'm distinguishing that kind as interested this between the kind of weather that's not a kind of disinterestedness that you see that's that's something which includes as a special case every case of military aggression and colonialism in history it's all that's interested in your sense well I let me simply rest my case by saying that there is an observable distinction by intelligent man between a country that reaches out and interferes with the affairs of another country because it has reason to believe that a failure to do so will result in universal misery and that country which reaches out interferes with other country because it wants to establish coca-cola plants then chased national max and then whatever and exploit enough that is observable it's a conceptual it will distinguish between a conceptual gaining some actual interpretation to that it is a conceptual distinction but in actual fact the history of colonialism shows that these two motivations can coincide that is practically every there are exceptions you know they probably the Belgians in the Congo an exception but by and large the major imperialist ventures have been in the economic in the material interest or in a perceived material interested in mathematics but let me come you have already conceded that it's not merely from I say there are exceptions there are a few except we're talk about the exceptions that well nobody the exams are at the difference in the women the exceptions I mention for example the Belgians in the Congo there they didn't have they didn't pretend to have a civilizing mission there was pure material self-interest that these are the exceptions there are as far as I know no exceptions on the other side there are there are maybe I've left out a case of history but as I see the history of colonialism the great mass of cases are cases where a powerful country was working in its perceived material self-interest and was covering what it was doing to itself into the world with very pleasant phrases about the preserving Christian values or helping the poor benighted natives or one thing or another now there are a few exceptions where the pure predatory imperialism no not even any pretense of doing anything but these are quite rare but not we're in the memories and the predatory imperialist or the the history of the Roman Empire well let's take money since the Industrial Revolution since is Australia well you know if you say the people who will find the auto apologetics I don't know but it is it is also true and I think manifestly ain't true that there have been interferences with the affairs of other nations whose purposes were in my judgment manifestly benign for example or for instance the Truman Doctrine no I don't think there's manifestly benign at all that was an attempt to well the Greeks elihpa north and I think they were great literature tonight not at all we would say the Greeks testimony is more interesting to me than yours which creaked under the test with money of the thousands of people are thrown into jail and well no no not I I I grabbed not the testimony of the Greek communists who would be for the Greek peasants who were well I there again is it a conceptual difference that between the person who desires a life under some kind of freedom and one who desires life under some kind of was the communism well no for it because there's no there's no such opposition in Greek there were in Greece there was a distinction between a very repressive regime which we instituted in 1946 and another regime I don't know what it would have been that would have grown out of a victory of the so-called communists now if you see what we did was had nothing to do with freedom what we instituted was a absolutist argyll romantic I was I'm not just taking remember people who were slaughtered in Greece first by the communist insurgency then by the Nazis then again by the communists at an enormous insurgency before the night when autumn said is a conquest commies conquest before the Nazis insurgents prior to the night of the yes a civil war of the early forties my fate my voice your history is quite better there was no there was no communist insurgency prior to the Nazis there were communist resistance bands or against this is not a nomenclature the point is that the the forty-year-old of the the 45 year old Greek has fought three times in certain ventures they in one of which are they acknowledged we they all those day out who is they the ruler agree acknowledge they know those are the people oh I don't know quite unaware of it I'm quite unaware that the people of Greece have but even even happened real you like him I assume because he hates us no know how that happened not all George Papandreou was one of the people who was talking we India I'm talking about Andrea which makes it even under a spectacles they're both very both on records being grateful to President Truman for his intervention in that part of the world in 1940 with militia I really I think we have no right to intervene in Greece in 1947 now we're talking about rights and I don't sleep in today which gets his way from the discussion let's talk about right let's talk about weather question is whether or not whether or not there is there is such a thing as relatively disinterested international interference and since well then I reckon is rather good and we went to an imperative phase that we pulled out of it faster than any country in history of civilization I think we're very deep water we pull out of the Philippines for instance we pulled out of the Philippines because it became a bad investment why because American America if you look American agricultural interests were very much opposed to the back in the mid 30s they were very strongly opposed to the free trade relationships which allowed Philippine crops to compete with them that's why we pulled out in philippi why do they bother these agricultural interest authorizes to intervene in South Vietnam they did if you consider this is because we didn't intervene on the base critical dimension no I say that in the Philippines it was the critical develop the world is a complex place there are certain interests that were involved mozzie is a complex well there were certain interests that were involved in our Philippine venture their different interests that are involved in our Vietnam venture you see our Vietnam don't forget that with the Second World War America's imperial interests expanded enormous ly I mean prior to the Second World War we were sort of a marginal imperialist power except for Italy longer a doctrine but since the Second World War we became the world's major imperialist power and Vietnam is simply one piece of an attempt to construct a very large integrated world system of which Greece was another people we became an imperial policy chomsky in this sense in the sense that we inherited primary responsibility for any chain of action that might involve us in a third world war I don't and and something that might involve the entire world in Holocaust my circumstances well I know you don't believe it but but in fact I think that era rushing to listen to this point of view which is that there are people who do believe that America unhappily and certainly not designed inherited the responsibility for trying to abort international Holocaust and has from time to time done so by such ventures is the Truman Doctrine Marshall II things like that I don't Marshall II hit Madison Oh Marshall aid is quite there first of all Marshall I'm sorry I interrupted you I'm sorry well first of all you've now mentioned Marshall aid for the first time and Marshall aid Marshall Plan aid has to be distinguished quite sharply from the Truman Doctrine but why because the Truman Doctrine was a doctrine of military intervention and the Marshall Plan was our first attempt at a major we do understand it sometimes just a soldier can be as useful as a bushel of wheat don't you know look nevertheless if we're going to be at all clear about the American role we're certainly going to distinguish between military intervention and economic intervention they're very different in the way they function now the fact the matter is that neither was disinterested in your sense I don't think but they're very different in the impact that they had the Truman Doctrine I think was a disastrous than sure I think the Marshall Plan was arguable I mean one understood well how do you explain the schizophonic Rhee with how do you explain the schizophrenia of a public of which we'll both more or less simultaneously however the one hand you later the public is in public didn't we lion is interested public then will either whether Robin together other government but because because both were the government backed by the public has a how do you explain that the same government on on Monday did the Truman Doctrine which you consider simply thought to be a projection of the evil impulses I made on Tuesday did something which you consider be very good I decided in London to use law I didn't say I consider to be very good I said it's very it's rather different and one has to bring different standards to bear and evaluating it but those files are different that giving examples suppose you are a farmer because and then temperatures anything you need agriculture you need fertilizer so you apply to me for fertilizer but just before I get it to somebody comes up with a bayonet and is about to it is about to make it impossible for you to cut informing now if your peg in that particular instance is there a strategic difference between by giving the fertilizer by giving the the soldier who writes so you're talking about in world the real world because the real world is one in which the alternatives were bringing coming with a bayonet which is on an American rifle held by an american-backed Greek soldier and the alternative to that was giving the kind of aid which was used in fact to construct the kind of society in Western Europe that we wanted to see developed there now these are two very different things it's a very different thing to introduce to run for the Greek army a counterinsurgency program with military support and many military men involved that's one kind of thing one sort of repression imposed on the Greek population through American intervention one might argue whether it's right or wrong but that's that's to be very sharp I distinguish hosed why do you say impose is it because your presumption here my thing here is is that the green let me tell you would like the kind of regime myself that my under my assumption is that is all intervention is imposed by any country that is NEC I'll leave it quite generally impose on the French when we liberated them from the Nazis was that an imposition we didn't conquer France we moved the right there no I didn't just from from an outside invading force we invaded but we didn't conquer it from its own people see in Greece we were trying to conquer a chromatin with the day you willing to credit the adding that is as their own people but you not in Greece what to credit the evidence the German army the German army was there but there was no outside army in Greece other than ours look there are modalities of observing but look there's a very sharp difference between it's very sharp turn Laval was not on that scene but I wouldn't have lasted for five minutes without the German army and know no wood no wood makarios have lasted for five minutes without the help of Russian aid but whenever the fact is you know no comment about high-risk Arecibo that a look now let's let's be careful again I mean there's a difference between a first long post military aid to other countries whether by us or by the Soviet line well let's come back to that because the more important thing and that is that I'm even far more opposed to the imposition of regimes by foreign troops now in the case of Germany let's in the case of France the the otago the canal de val governed the Vichy government was supported by German troops had the German military off the country necessarily because there was certainly indigenous support but there's no question that if German military force have been withdrawn to the other side of the Rhine then there would have been a an overthrow of the Vichy government and France would have had some different form of government now in that case our invasion of France was whether one likes it or not what is it was in reaction to an occupying external force it just pure confusion to identify that with the case of Greece when we were trying to liberate we were trying to select the kind of society the Greek Greece would have and we were trying to save the rulers that we had designated as appropriate from their own population there were no outside forces but don't utilize it in your book and that's why you're not willing to to be consistent in carrying out this argument you're constantly talking about our satellizer places like Cuba and the Dominican Republic and so forth and yet we have a occupy then no we sense in what you're talking about well we never occupy the Dominican Republic we sent 25,000 troops there in 1965 no not no I'm talking about pre the American marines were in their dozens of thousands I think you're being evasive I not only based out of it no let me ask you is it it is not invasive as you know we just simply repeatedly sent troops to is it possible American Republic Cuba tetra Tech is it possible to satellite a nation without having an occupying army there yes it is all right then there goes your friends your tedious French sex today so noticeable because that it doesn't happen to be you see we're talking about a real situation we could talk about some ideal situation and you know have an academic say therefore it is possible for France to satellite South Vietnam presumably without even it's logically occupying it literally and in a formal sense but it didn't happen though so the well the season argument considering which there's the two points of view let's discuss it and its target yeah in fact you see there's much more if you want to be serious about it there's more evidence that South Vietnam tried to colonize North Vietnam then conversely in fact south well look South Vietnamese commandos were going military forces regular military forces were going north considerably earlier than in the time when we even proclaim that the infiltration began from north to south did they bump into the refugees governs of the refugees were coming south and night were going in both directions in the backed in 1954 55 and according least according to Bernard fall the commandos began going north and 56 or 57 the first claimed infiltration from the north was in 59 and that was south hit and he's coming south so you know if one wants to talk about again the real world the first man that the trouble is you know yep difficulty the chance gives you in my judgment you never know Quinn neatly to begin your historical or secretly beginning but the point really is that if you if you starting to say that 1959 was a provocation because it will no it wasn't a provocation is going lame but I say well but how about the people who are going from north to south who were talking about the misery that it went what about which means out of it when we say I mean which people are you talking about I don't know well I'll do about Vietnamese North End and so you're good to be a property is neatly captured in the remark made recently by Czechoslovakia that chucks walk is after all the most neutralist country in the world since it declines the interfere even with its own and I don't see the relevance the relevance very simply that you you start your line of discussion at a moment that is historically useful for you you that landok that you get the beginning of the postgame whole world is that the communist communist Imperator's by the use of terrorism by the use of deprivation of freedom have contributed to the continuing bloodshed and the sad thing about it is not only the bloodshed with the fact that they seemed to dis possess you of the power of rational I say something sure I think that's about five percent true and about or maybe ten percent true it certainly is why do you give that may I complete a sentence it's it's perfectly true that there were areas of the world in particular Eastern Europe where us where Stalinist imperialism very brutally took control and still maintains control but there are also very vast areas of the world where we were doing the same thing and there's quite an interplay in the Cold War you see the what you just described is a I believe in mythology about the Cold War which might have been tenable ten years ago but which is quite inconsistent with contemporary scholars go check ask asked Aguada Mahlon ask a Dominican Republic ask you know asking you don't you a person from South Vietnam you know ask you my obviously away if you can't distinguish between the nature of our venture in Guatemala the nature of the Soviet Union's in Prague what's then we have real the plaintiff [Music]

Channel: Patrick Steinkuhl

Views: 1,003,980

Rating: 4.8797512 out of 5

Keywords: Politics, Debate

Id: Dt-GUAxmxdk

Length: 18min 24sec (1104 seconds)

Published: Fri Feb 10 2006

Reddit Comments

[u/Caca_Refrescante]

Buckley is an interruptasaurus.

[u/NavinJohnson]

We are so much the poorer that right vs left has collapsed into a shouting match between relative intellectual lightweights. By that I mean, fuck off Fox and msnbc!

[u/ratvomit]

'May I finish my sentence?' - classic. TIL Young Chomsky resembles George McFly.

[u/chemguy]

hmm... I agree as well; shallow and pedantic.

[u/woodsywoods]

This isn't a debate. It's a one way tirade on the part of Buckley in defense of downright imperialism. Chomsky systematically refutes each point and is then promptly ignored.

Does anyone else think that Buckley is throwing out willfully ignorant points of view simply to derail Chomsky and then interrupt him time and again? It's an age old debate tactic and you still see it on TV all the time.

[u/thisisnotmax]

Where can I see more of this?

[u/tehflash]

They act civil for the camera, but Buckley did threaten to punch Chomsky "in the goddamned face."

[u/_yourekidding]

Buckley got PWNED.

Love the way Buckley keeps backtracking, dodging, ducking and diving the points interjected by Chomsky.

[u/[deleted]]

His son's book Thank You for Smoking is amazing.