Power and Terror, by Noam Chomsky: on War & Peace

John F. Kennedy: In early 1960s, nobody protested US attacks in Vietnam

Noam Chomsky: 1966: protests against Vietnam met with extreme hostility

A: Things began to heat up again in the early 1960s. By the time the beginnings of the Vietnam War were coming along, it was just impossible not to become involved.

Q: And during those early years, what was the response to the work that you were doing?

A: Mostly it was total incomprehension. Through the early 1960s, you couldn't get anybody to sign a petition. By 1965 or 1966, Vietnam was becoming a big issue. But protests were met with extreme hostility. Take Boston, right here. This is a pretty liberal city, but we couldn't have public protests against the war. They would be violently broken up. The speakers would be saved from being murdered only by hundreds of state police. And the attack on the protesters would be praised in the liberal media. It was considered right. It wasn't until late 1966 that there was enough of a change for you to see substantial public opposition.

Bill Clinton: OpEd: Aided Saddam even after he gassed the Kurds

When you read George Bush, Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, or all the rest of them, they tell you, "We have to go after Saddam Hussein; this guy is such an evil monster that he even used chemical weapons against his own people. And how can we let someone like that survive?"

It is true. He used chemical weapons against his own people, but there is a phrase missing: "with the aid and support of Daddy Bush," who thought that was just fine. He continued to provide aid and support for the monster, and so did Britain. Long after the worst atrocities that Saddam carried out, including the gassing of the Kurds and the rest, the US and Britain happily gave him aid and support, including aid that enabled him to develop weapons of mass destruction.

George Bush Sr.: OpEd: Aided Saddam even after he used chemical weapons

It is true. He used chemical weapons against his own people, but there is a phrase missing: "with the aid and support of Daddy Bush," who thought that was just fine. He continued to provide aid and support for the monster, and so did Britain.

At that time he was far more dangerous that he is today. Iraq was then a much more powerful state. And nothing was considered wrong with this. In fact, in early 1990--a couple of months before the invasion of Kuwait-- President Bush #1 sent a high-level senatorial delegation headed by Bob Dole, later the Republican presidential candidate, to Iraq to convey his greetings to his friend Saddam Hussein.

George Bush Sr.: OpEd: Authorized Saddam to crush 1991 Shiite resistance

They didn't ask for any aid from the US. The most they asked for was that the US allow them access to captured Iraqi equipment. George Bush the 1st had a different idea. He authorized his friend Saddam Hussein to use air power to crush the Shiite resistance.

Jimmy Carter: Admired the Shah of Iran until his overthrow in 1979

Then for the next 26 years it was good. The Shah compiled one of the worst human rights records in the world. President Carter particularly admired the Shah. Just a couple of months before he was overthrown, he said how impressed he was by the Shah's "progressive administration," and so on.

In 1979, Iran became evil again. They pulled out of the imperial system. And since then they have been evil. They haven't been following orders.

Noam Chomsky: US declared independent Iran as evil in 1953 & in 1979

Then for the next 26 years it was good. The Shah compiled one of the worst human rights records in the world. President Carter particularly admired the Shah. Just a couple of months before he was overthrown, he said how impressed he was by the Shah's "progressive administration," and so on.

In 1979, Iran became evil again. They pulled out of the imperial system. And since then they have been evil. They haven't been following orders.

Noam Chomsky: US opposes Iraqi democracy because they get closer to Iran

There is a reason for that. If there is any element of democracy in the new regime, the population will have some voice in what is happening. That is what the democracy is. But the problem is that the majority of the population is Shiite, which means that to the extent that the majority of the population has any voice, it is going to move toward relations with Iran, which is the last thing the US government wants. Furthermore, the Kurds in the northern part of Iraq, who are another big part of the population, are on a quest for some kind of autonomy, and Turkey will go berserk if that happens, as will the US.