tv Democracy Now WHUT October 31, 2012 6:00pm-7:00pm EDT
>> from portland, oregon, this is "democracy now!" >> in egypt, the united states followed standard operating procedure. standard procedure when one of your favorite dictators gets into trouble. first, the support him as long as possible. but if it becomes really impossible, say the army turns against him, then you send him out to pasture and get the intellectual quest to issue declarations about your love of democracy, then try to restore the bill system as much as possible. >> "who owns the world?" with the presidential election less than two away, we turn to a major new address by noam chomsky on pressing topics not addressed in the president to campaign -- climate change, latin america's break with the
united states, the arab spring, and the danger nuclear-weapons already pose in the middle east. >> israel refuses to allow inspections at all, refuses to join the non-proliferation treaty, has hundreds of nuclear weapons, advanced delivery system, and a long record of violence and repression. >> all of that and more coming up. this is "democracy now!," democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. we are broadcasting from portland, oregon. at least 40 people have been killed in a suicide attack on a mosque in northern afghanistan. the victims had gathered to mark the first day of the muslim holiday. another 70 people were wounded. violence continues in syria despite an informal agreement for four-day holiday ceasefire.
clashes erupted between government forces and rebel fighters earlier today near a northern military base. a number of anti regime protests have been held across syria, with troops firing tear gas and live rounds to disperse demonstrators in several areas. on thursday, a u.n. spokesperson for secretary- general ban ki-moon said the ceasefire marked a critical juncture for the syrian conflict. >> the secretary general welcomes the reported announcements about a suspension of violence during the eid holiday. obviously, the world is watching to see what will happen on friday morning. it is in everybody's interest, not least the long suffering syrian people, that the guns fall silent to our morning for the eid holiday.
>> 21 people are dead across the caribbean, including 11 in cuba, after hurricane sandy slammed the region with heavy rains and powerful winds. the late-season storm hit the bahamas late thursday and is now expected to head for the united states. forecasters are warning the storm could collide with another from canada, creating a potentially devastating hybrid that could ravage parts of the u.s. northeast early next week. president obama took a break from campaigning thursday to cast an early ballot in his hometown of chicago. speaking at the polling center, obama encouraged americans to take advantage of early voting. >> for all of you who have not yet voted early, i just want everybody to see what an incredibly efficient process this was, thanks to the outstanding folks who are at this particular polling place. obviously, folks in illinois and take advantage of this.
but all across the country, we are seeing a lot of early voting. it means you do not have to figure out whether you need to taint time off work, figure out how to pick up the kids, and still cast your ballot if something happens on election day, you'll have already taken care of it. and as bad weather, w you will weather,et. or in chicago, snowy. this was really convenient. >> campaigning in ohio, mitt romney predicted to supporters his election would mean an increase in workers' take-home pay. >> the president does not have a plan to get america working yet. with a five point plan that will get more jobs and more take-home pay and that is what america needs and that is why we are joined elected. >> as romney vowed to create jobs, workers at a freeport, illinois plant set for closure under ownership by his former company bain capital, staged a walkout thursday, one day after 14 people, including the
reverend jesse jackson, were arrested. workers have staged an encampment called bainport across from the sensata technologies plant to protest plans to move the factory to china, ending 170 jobs. a federal appeals court has rejected the group plan. his challenge of a funding ban in taxes. texas has sought to cut payments to planned parenthood and exclude it from a government funded health program for low- income women because it also provides abortions. the texas program offers cancer and health screenings as well as birth control to some 100,000 low-income women, about 40,000 of whom are served through planned parenthood. the court of appeals for the but circuit in new orleans declined to reconsider an earlier ruling upholding the ban. in response, texas governor rick perry immediately announced that texas will stop all payments to program participants affiliated with abortion providers. a recent george washington
university study has warned texas will be unlikely to provide adequate care to the patients currently served by planned parenthood. the supreme court is set to decide today on whether to hear a challenge to the conviction of five former top officials with the holy land foundation, once the nation's largest muslim charity. the five were convicted on charges of backing a palestinian group hamas, though there were never accused of supporting violence, instead for funding charities that aided palestinians in need. on thursday, supporters of the holy land 5 rallied outside a federal building in manhattan. michael ratner of the center for constitutional rights said holy land had given money to groups also funded by the u.s. state department. >> the foundation gave charity to committees -- charitable committees in palestine. they were given a by our own government. >> the government's case relied on israeli intelligence, as well
as disputed documents and electronic surveillance gathered by the fbi over a span of 15 years. the first trial ended in a hung jury, but prosecutors obtained convictions in a retrial the following year. seventeen people were arrested on thursday protesting u.s. drone warfare at the hancock field air national guard base near syracuse, new york. members of the upstate coalition to ground the drones and in the wars were detained after creating a blockade outside three of the base gates, holding signs and pictures of children killed by u.s. drone attacks overseas. it was the latest in a series of protests outside the base, where the drones are operated remotely. the late former democratic senator and presidential candidate george mcgovern was remembered thursday at a funeral service in his home state of south dakota. mcgovern, best known for running on an anti-4 platform against president richard nixon in 1972, died sunday at the age of
90. speakers at thursday's service included vice-president joe biden. students at wesleyan university in connecticut continue to protest against the school's decision to change its admission practices by ending what is known as need blind admissions. qualified students face possible rejection if they're deemed unable to pay full tuition, now around $60,000 a year, making it one of the most expensive schools in the country. students said the new policy will target the poor and middle- class. >> we're standing in opposition to proposed cuts to the need blind financial aid policy. >> it allows the admissions office to actively discriminate against people based on the social economic class. it was made behind the backs of students, behind closed doors when most of the students were not even on campus to know about it. >> on saturday, "democracy now!" felony not allen attempted to interview wesleyan president
michael roth about the policy change after the school's football game. roth refused to answer questions and then grabbed the mall alan's microphone and walked away with it. total lack ofn a transparency with this decision being made. president michael roth could why has there been a total lack of transparency? >> [indiscernible] >> there has been? give it back. that belongs to "democracy now!" >> you have to give it back. >> i will. >> was then president michael roth eventually returned the microphone after banks instructed to do so by police officer. those are some of the headlines.
this is "democracy now!," democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. the road in portland, oregon. we are here as part of our 100- city silenced majority to wear. on this week when president obama and republican presidential hopeful mitt romney debated issues of foreign policy and the economy, we turn to world-renowned political dissident, linguist, author, and mit professor noam chomsky. in a recent speech, professor chomsky examined topics largely ignored or glossed over during the campaign -- from china to the arab spring, to global warming and the nuclear threat posed by israel versus iran. he spoke last month at the university of massachusetts in amherst, at any event sponsored by the center for popular economics. his talk was entitled, "who owns the world?" >> when i was thinking about these remarks, i had two topics in mind. i could not decide between them.
pretty obvious ones. one topic is, what are the most important issues that we face? the second topic is, what issues are not being treated seriously or at all in the quadrennial frenzy now under way called in election? but i realize that there is no problem. it is not a hard choice. they are the same topic. there are reasons for it, which are very significant in and of themselves. i would like to return to that in a moment. first, a few words on the background beginning what the announced title -- "who owns the world?" a good answer but this was given years ago by adams met, someone we're supposed to worship but not read. [laughter] he was referring to the most
powerful country in the world in his day, in the country that interested him, namely, england. and he pointed out in england, it's all architects of policy are those who own the country. the merchants and manufacturers in his day. and he said, they make sure to design policy so that their own interests armas particularly -- our most procure lead attended to. however, the impact on others, including the people of england, but he was an old-fashioned conservative with moral principles, so he added victims of england, the victims of what he called the savage injustice of the europeans, particularly in india. he had no illusions about the owners, so to quote him again,
"call for ourselves and nothing for other people seems in every age of the world to have been the lilac some of the masters of mankind." it was true then, and it is true now kept its position as the dominant world power -- britain kept its position on the dominant world power despite the steady decline. by the end of world war ii, the dominance had shifted decisively into the hands of the upstart across the sea, the united states, by far the most powerful and wealthy society in world history. that britain could only aspire to be its junior partner, as the british foreign office recognized at that point in 1945. the united states had literally half the world's wealth, incredible security, controlled
the entire western hemisphere, both oceans, the opposite sides of both oceans. there is never been anything like that in history. planners understood it. roosevelts planners were meeting to the second world war, designing the post world war. they were quite sophisticated about it in their pens for pretty much implemented. they wanted to make sure the united states would control what they called a grand area, which would include routinely the entire western hemisphere. the entire far east, the former british empire -- which the u.s. would be taking over -- and as much of eurasia as possible as well, crucially, its commercial and industrial centers in western europe. and with this region, they said, the united states should hold and questioned hour with
military and economic supremacy while ensuring the limitation of any exercise of sovereignty by states that might interfere with these global designs. and those were pretty realistic plans at the time, given the enormous disparity of power. the u.s. had been by far the richest country in the world, even before the second world war, although, it's not yet the major global actor during the second world war, the honest it's gained enormously industrial production and almost quadrupled, goddess of the depression. meanwhile, industrial rivals were devastated or seriously weakened. so that was an unbelievable system of power. the policies that were outlined in still hold. you can read them in government pronouncements. the capacity to implement them
has significantly decline. there is a major scene now in foreign policy discussion, journalism, and so on. it is called "american declined." for example, in the most prestigious establishment, international relations turn, foreign affairs, there was an issue in which a hat on the front cover and big, bold letters -- is america over? that is announcing the theme of the issue. there is a standard corollary to this and the power is shifting to the west, to china and india, which are going to be the hegemonic states of the future. i think the decline is quite real. some serious qualifications are in order. first of all, the corollaries highly unlikely, at least in the
foreseeable future, that china and india are very poor countries. china is around 90th i think ian india is around 120th. they have demographic problems, extreme poverty, hopeless inequality, ecological problems. china's great manufacturing center, but it is action mostly in assembly plants. so would assembles parts and components, high-technology that comes from surrounding industrial japan, taiwan, south korea, singapore, the united states, europe. basically, then assembles them. so say you buy one of these i- things, an ipad from china
pretty the parts and components come from outside. the value-added in china is as minuscule. they will move up the technology ladder, but it is a hard climb. i think one should be skeptical about the corollary. there is another qualification that is more serious. the decline israel, but it is not new. it has been going on since 1945. in fact, it happened very quickly. in the late 1940's, darrius and event known here as the loss of china. china became independent. that is a loss of a huge piece of the grand area of asia. it became a major issue in american domestic policy, who is responsible for a loss of china? the phrase is interesting.
like, i cannot lose your computer, right? because i don't own it. i could lose my computer. the phrase "loss of china" presupposes that deeply held principles of american elite consciousness. we own the world. and if some piece of it becomes dependent, we have lost it. it is a terrible loss. we have to do something about it. it is never questioned, which is interesting in and of itself. what about the same time, about 1950, concerns developed about the loss of southeast asia. and that is what led the united states into the china wars, the worst atrocities that post -- in the postwar period. partly lost, partly not read significant event in 1965
when indonesia, which was the main concern, the country's southeast asia with most of the wealth and resources, there was a military coup in indonesia. it led to extraordinary massacre, what "the new york times" called a staggering mass slaughter that killed hundreds of thousands of people, mostly landless peasants, destroyed the only mass political party, and open the country up to western exploitation. euphoria in the west was so enormous that it could not be contained. so when "the new york times" describing the suffering mass slaughter, they called it a gleam of light and asia. years later, the national security advisor for kennedy and
johnson, in retrospect, he pointed out it probably would have been a good idea to end the vietnam war at that point fall out, contrary to a lot of illusions, the vietnam war was fought primarily to ensure an independent vietnam would not develop successfully and become a model for other countries in the region. not to wrote henry kissinger's terminology, speaking about chile, we have to prevent what they called the virus of independent development from spreading contagion elsewhere. that is a critical part of american foreign policy. britain, france, others to a lesser degree. and by 1965, that was over. vietnam, south vietnam was virtually destroyed in the war
could spread to the rest of indochina. it was not one to be a model for anyone. the contagion was contained. there was the regime that major indonesia would not be infected. pretty soon, the u.s. had dictatorships in every country of the region. marcos and philippines, dictatorship in thailand, china, and south korea -- it was no problem about the infection. that would have been a good time to end the vietnam war, he felt. well, that a southeast asia. the decline continues. in the last 10 years, there is been a very important event, the loss of south america. for the first time in 500 years, the south american countries had begun to move toward independence and a degree of integration, typical structure of one of the south american countries was a tiny, very rich
elite. a huge, massive, horrible poverty. countries separated from one another or the lit-either europe or the u.s. the last 10 years, that has been overcome significantly. integrate, a prerequisite of independence, even facing internal problems. that is a loss of south america. one sign is the united states has been driven out of every single military base in south america. they are trying to restore a few, but right now there are none. >> mit professor noam chomsky. coming up, he discusses global warming, nuclear war, and the arab spring. in a minute. ♪ [music break]
week at the age of 62. this is "democracy now!," democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. portland,he road in oregon. the part of our 100-city tour. today we're spending the hour with world-renowned political dissident, linguist, author and an eye to professor noam chomsky. as election day comes closer, chomsky examines topics largely ignored or glossed over during the presidential campaign, including the threat posed to us power by the arab spring. >> moving on, to just last year, the arab spring is another such threats. it threatens to take that big region out of the grande area. that is a lot more significant than southeast asia or south america. you go back to the 1940's, the
state department recognize that the energy resources of the middle east are what they called one of the greatest material prices in world history. spectacular source of strategic power. if we can control middle east energy, we can control the world. take a look at the u.s.-british coup in iran in 1953. a very important event. shadows cast over the world until today. that was a pretense, was part of the cold war but had nothing to do the cold war. it had to do with fear. it was not even concerned with access to oil or profits. it was concerned with control. control of the oil resources of iran, in fact, the region.
that is a theme that runs right through policy decisions not discussed much, but very important to have control. as advisers pointed out in the 1940's, if you can control the oil, you can control most of the world. and that goes on so far, the threat of the arab spring has been pretty well contained in the oil dictatorships, which of the most important ones for the west, every effort to join the arab spring has just been crushed by force. saudi arabia was so extreme that when there was an effort to go out into the streets, the security prisons were so enormous that people were even afraid to go out. there was little discussion of what goes on in bahrain, where it is being crushed, the eastern saudi arabia it was much worse. we managed to ensure the threat of democracy would be smashed in
the most important places. egypt is an interesting case. it is an important country. it is not an oil producer -- it is a small one. in egypt, the u.s. followed the standard operating procedure. many of you are going into the diplomatic service, you might as well learn that. there is a standard procedure when one of your favorite dictators get into trouble. first, you support him as long as possible. but if it becomes really impossible, say the army turns against him, then you send him out to pasture and get the intellectual quest to issue a ringing declaration about your love of democracy, then try to restore the old system as much as possible. there is case after case of that. in nicaragua, haiti, the philippines, south korea, the
congo -- over and over. it takes a genius not to see if it [laughter] that is what was done in egypt and france, not quite as much success in tunisia. the threat of democracy so far is contained. it is a real threat. also import to recognize the decline over the past 50 years, to a significant extent, self- inflicted. particularly since the 19 seventies. let me first a couple of things about the issues that are most important today and that are being ignored or not dealt seriously -- dealt with seriously in the electoral campaigns. let me start with the most important issues. there are two of these. overwhelming significance because the fate of the species depends on them.
the one is environmental disaster and the other is nuclear war. i'm not going to take much time reviewing the threats of environmental disaster. there on the front pages almost daily. for example, last week, "the new york times" had a front-page story with the headline -- ending its summer melt. arctic sea ice sets a new low that leads to warnings. the melting the summer was far faster than was predicted by the sophisticated computer models and the most recent united nations report, that has now predicted the summer ice might be gone by 2020. it was assumed before it may be 2050. they quoted scientists who said -- this is a prime example of the built-in conservatism of our climate forecasts. as dire the warnings are about the long-term consequences of
heat trapping emissions, many of us fear they may still be under estimated the speed and severity as the impending changes. climate change study program at mit where i am now, have been warning about this for years. repeatedly have been proven right "the times" report discusses briefly the severe attacked and the impact of all of this on the global climate. and it adds -- but governments have not responded to the change with any greater urgency about limiting greenhouse emissions. it to the contrary, there may response has been to plan for explication of newly accessible minerals in the arctic, including drilling for more oil. that is, to accelerate the catastrophe. that is quite interesting. it demonstrates an extraordinary willingness to sacrifice the
lives of our children and grandchildren for short-term gain or perhaps equally remarkable willingness to shut our eyes so as to not see the impending peril. something you find in infants. if a close my eyes, i won't look at it. there is another possibility. maybe humans are somehow trying to fulfill its prediction of great american biologists that died recently, who argued years ago that intelligence seems to be a lethal mutation. he had some pretty good evidence. the notion of biological success, which is, how many of you are there are around? that is biological success. he pointed out if you look at the tens of billions of species
in world history, the ones that are very successful are the ones that mutate very quickly, like bacteria. they are the ones that have a fixed ecologicalniche, like beetles. if you move up the scale of what we call intelligence, success declines steadily. you get to mammals, it is very low. there are a lot of cows, but only because we domesticate them. when it to humans, it is the same. until very recently, much to recently, time to show up in the evolutionary accounting. the humans were very scattered. there were plenty of other hominids, but they disappeared, probably because humans exterminated them. no one knows for sure. maybe we're trying to show him as just fit into the general pattern. we can exterminate ourselves, too.
we're hellbent on it right now. let's turn to the elections. both political parties demand we make the problem worse. in 2008, book party platforms had some space about how the government should address climate change. today, the republican platform, the issue essentially has disappeared. but the platform does demand that congress take quick action to prevent the environmental protection agency from regulating greenhouse gases. so let's make sure to make it work. it also demands that we open alaska's's arctic refuge to drilling. "in order to take advantage of all of our american god-given resources. cannot disobey god, after all. on environmental policy. the problem -- programs as "we
must restore integrity to our public resource institutions and remove political instanceincent" that is all code word for climate science for it stop funding climate science. romney himself says there is no scientific consensus so we should support more debate and investigation within the scientific community, except no action but to make problems worse. what about democrats? they conceded there is a problem and advocate that we work toward a problem -- program to set limits with other emerging powers. but that's it. no action. in fact, obama has emphasized, we have to work hard to gain when because 100 years of energy independence by exploiting
domestic or canadian resources by fracking and other elaborate technologies. it does not ask what the world would look like in 100 years. so there are differences. the differences are, basically, about how enthusiastically the lemmings' should march toward the cliff. [laughter] the second major issue, nuclear war. it is also on the front pages daily. but in a way that was seem outlandish to some independent and fervoobserver. it does seem outrageous to many around the world. the current threat, not for the first time, is in the middle east, focusing on iran. the general picture in the west is very clear. it is far too dangerous to allow iran to reach what is called nuclear capability.
that is, the capability enjoyed by many powers. as to whether they have decided to develop nuclear weapons, u.s. intelligence says it does not know. the international atomic energy agency, its most recent report a couple of weeks ago, concludes -- a cannot demonstrate the absence of an undeclared nuclear material and activities in iran. that is, it cannot demonstrate something which cannot -- a condition that cannot be satisfied. there is no way to demonstrate the absence of work. that is convenient. therefore, iran must be denied the right to enrich uranium. that is guaranteed to every power that sign the non- proliferation treaty. that is the picture in the west. it is not the picture in the
rest of the world. i am sure -- there's just a meeting of the nonaligned movement's, which large majority of the countries in the world and representing most of the world's population, meeting in tirana. once again, not for the first time they issued a ringing declaration of support for iran's right to enrich uranium, a right that every country has the sign the nonproliferation treaty. pretty much the same is true in the arab world. i will return to that in a moment. there is a basic reason for the concern. it was expressed succinctly by general lee butler, the former head of the u.s. strategic command, which controls nuclear weapons and other strategy. he wrote that it is dangerous in the extreme that in the cauldron of animosities that we call the middle east, one nation should
arm itself with nuclear weapons, which may inspire other nations to do so. general butler, however, was not referring to iran. he was referring to israel. the country that ranks highest in european polls has the most dangerous country in the world. right about iran. not incidentally in the arab world, where the public regards the united states as the second most dangerous country right after israel. in the arab world, it ranks far lower as a threat among the populations that is not the dictatorships. with regard to iranian nuclear weapons, nobody wants to have them -- nobody wants them to have them, but in many polls, sometimes considerable majorities have said the region would be more secure if iran had nuclear weapons to balance those of the major threats.
there is a lot of commentary in the western media, journals about our attitudes towards iran. what you read, is the arabs want decisive action against iran. which is true of the dictators. it is not true populations. but who cares about the populations? what are called the spiritually the arab street? that is a reflection of extremely deep contempt for democracy among western elites. i mean, so deep that it cannot be perceived. it is just reflecting it. the study of popular attitudes in the arab world -- and there are extensive reviews, it shows why there is the threat of democracy by the u.s. and other countries and doing what they can to prevent it.
this certainly don't want attitudes like a just indicated to become policy. while issuing rousing statements about our passionate dedication to democracy, there are relayed obediently by commentators and reporters. unlike iran, israel refuses to allow inspections at all. it refuses to join the non- proliferation treaty, has advanced deliver systems for its many nuclear weapons, and a long record of violence and repression. it has conquered territories illegally, a violation of security council orders, and many acts of aggression. five times against 11 on alone with no credible pretax. yesterday "the new york times" said the golan heights are disputed territory. there is the u.n. security
council resolution 497, which is unanimous at declaring israel's annexation of golan heights illegal and demanding it be rescinded. in fact, disputed only in israel and "the new york times," which is reflecting actual u.s. policy, not formal u.s. policy. iran has a record of aggression, too. in the last several hundred years, it has invaded and conquered a couple of arab islands. that was under the shah. it is actually the only case in several hundred years. meanwhile, the severe threats of attack continued. you have just been hearing them at the u.n. from the u.s., but particularly, israel. there is a reaction to this at the highest level, leon panetta,
secretary of defense said we don't want to attack iran. we hope that israel will not attack iran. but israel is a sovereign country, and have to make their own decisions about what they will do. you might ask what the reaction would be if you reverse the cast of characters. those of you who have antiquarian interest, you may remember there is a document called "the united nations charter" foundation of modern international law, which bars the threat or use of force in international affairs. there are two rogue states, the nine states and israel, which for him or which regard the charter and international law is just a boring relevance, so do what they like. and that is accepted. these are not just words. there is an ongoing war
including terrorism, assassination of nuclear scientists, economic war, u.s. threats which have cut iran out of the international financial system. western military analysts identify what they call weapons of finance as acts of war, the justify violent responses when they are directed against us, that is. the united states is openly carrying out extensive cyber war against iran that is praised. the pentagon regards cyber war as equivalent to an armed attack, which justifies military response. but of course, that is when it is directed against us. the leading liberal figure in the state department, state
department legal adviser, says cyber war is an act of war if it results in significant destruction. like the attacks against iranian nuclear facilities. and such acts, he says, justify force in self-defense. but of course, he means only attacks against the united states for his clients. well, israel's lethal armory, which is enormous, includes advanced submarines, recently provided by germany. these are capable of carrying is your's nuclear-tipped missiles. these are short of the deployed murdered -- or to try to set up conditions in which the united states will do so. and the united states, of course, has a vast array of nuclear-weapons all over the world, surrounding the region
from the mediterranean to the indian ocean, including enough firepower in the persian gulf to destroy most of the world. another story that is in the news right now is the israeli bombing of the iraqi reactor, which is suggested as a model for israeli bombing of iran. it rarely is mentioned as the bombing of the reactor did not end saddam hussain's nuclear- weapons program, but initiated it. the was in a program for. the reactor was not capable of producing uranium for nuclear weapons. but after the bombing, saddam hussein's turn to developing a nuclear weapons program. if iran is bombed, is almost certain to proceed, just as saddam hussein did after the post-iraq bombing. >> mit professor and author, noam chomsky, continues in a
moment. if you like a copy of today's show, go to democracynow.org. professor tom ski will next look at the nuclear-weapons raise as this marks the 50th anniversary of the cuban missile crisis, often referred to as the most dangerous moment in u.s. history -- in human history. back in a moment. ♪ [music break]
>> this is "democracy now!," democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. we are on our 100-city tour, today, in portland oregon. as we continue our hour today with world-renowned political dissident, linguist, author, professor americas at the massachusetts institute of technology, known chomsky. his recent talk entitled, "who owns the world?" >> in a few weeks, we will be commemorating the 50th
anniversary of the most dangerous moment in human history. those are the words of historian kennedy adviser arthur schlesinger, referring to the october 1962 missile crisis, the most dangerous moment in human history. others agree. at that time, kennedy raised the nuclear alert to the second- highest level, just short of launching weapons. he authorized nato aircraft with turkish or other pilots to take off and fly to moscow and drop bombs, setting off a likely nuclear conflagration. at the peak of the missile crisis, kennedy estimate the probability of nuclear war, perhaps 50%. it is a war that would destroy the northern hemisphere. president eisenhower warned. facing that risk, kennedy
refused to agree publicly to an offer by khrushchev to end the crisis by simultaneous withdrawal of russian missiles from cuba and u.s. missiles from turkey. these obsolete missiles. there were already been replaced by an vulnerable -- in vulnerable submarines. it was necessary to firmly establish the principle that russia has no right to have any offensive weapons anywhere beyond the borders of the u.s.s.r., even to defend them allied against u.s. attack. it is now recognized to be the prime reason for deploying missiles there, and a plausible one, actually. meanwhile, the u.s. must retain the right to have them all over the world, targeting russia or china or any other enemy. in fact, in 1962, the -- we just
recently learned the united states had just secretly deployed nuclear missiles to okinawa, aimed at china. it was a moment of a limited regional issues. all of that is very consistent with grande area conceptions, the one a mansion with roosevelt's planners. in 1962, khrushchev back down but the world cannot be assured of such sanity for ever. particularly threatening my view is that intellectual opinion and scholarship hiled hannity's behavior as his finest hour. in my view, it is one of the worst moments in history. the inability to face the truth about ourselves is all too common feature of the intellectual culture and personal life as ominous
implications. 10 years later, in 1973 during the israel-arab war and henry kissinger called a high-level nuclear alert, the purpose was to warn the russians to keep hands off while he was secretly in forming israel that they were authorized to violate the cease- fire that had been imposed jointly by the u.s. and russia. when ronald reagan came in office a couple of years later, the united states launched operations probing russian defenses, flying into russia to grow up defenses, and stimulating air and naval attacks. meanwhile, placing missiles in germany that had a five-minute flight time to russian targets. there were providing what the cia called a super sudden for strike capability. the russians, not surprisingly, were deeply concerned.
that led to a major war scare in 1983. there have been hundreds of cases when human intervention aborted the first right launch -- first strike launched just minutes before. there is no doubt their systems are far more accident-prone could actually, it is a near miracle that nuclear war has been avoided so far. india and pakistan have come close to nuclear war several times. the crises that led to that, especially kashmir, remain. but india and pakistan have refused to sign the non- proliferation treaty with israel and both of them have received u.s. support for development of their nuclear- weapons programs. action, until today and the case of india, which is now u.s.
ally. more threats and the middle east, which could become reality very sen. once again, escalate the dangers. is a way out of desperate and simple way. there is a way to mitigate, maybe end, whatever threat iran has alleged to pose. very simple. move toward establishing a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the middle east. the opportunity is coming again this december. there is the international conference scheduled to deal with this proposal it it has overwhelming international support, including a majority of the population in israel. that, fortunately or unfortunately it is blocked by the united states and israel. a couple of days ago, is renounced it is not going to participate in it will not consider the matter until there
is a general, regional peace. obama takes the same stand. he also insists that any agreement must exclude israel. and even must exclude calls for other nations, meaning the u.s., to provide information about israeli nuclear activities. the united states and israel can allay regional peace indefinitely. they have been doing that for 35 years on israel-palestine, a virtual international isolation. it is a longer important story that i do not have time to go into. therefore, there is no hope for an easy way to end with the west regards as the most severe current crisis. and in no way, unless there is large-scale public pressure. but there cannot be large-scale public pressure and the people at least know about it. and the media have done a
stellar job in averting that danger. nothing recorded about the conference or about any of the background. no discussion, apart from specialist arms control journals where you can read about it. so that blocks the easy way to end the worst existing crisis, unless people somehow find a way to break through this. >> mit professor noam chomsky spoke on september 27 of this year the university of massachusetts in amherst. his talk was entitled, "who owns the world?" if you like a copy of today's broadcast, you can go to democracynow.org. i will be speaking along with professor chomsky and juan cole in princeton, new jersey on november 11 at 1:30. you can go to democracynow.org for details.
we have an immediate opening for lenox systems administrator. democracynow.org for more information. we continue our 100-city silenced majority election 2012 tour today in washington state. tonight we will be in seattle. on saturday, and everett at average committed to college. then in spokane, washington as 7:00 p.m. sunday, bend, oregon. democracy now! is looking for feedback from people who appreciate the closed captioning. e-mail your comments to email@example.com or mail them to democracy now! p.o. box 693 new york, new york 10013. [captioning made possible by democracy now!]