Sad to see how the Right venerates Buckley even after he demonstrated his poor debate skills and ideological beliefs.
The right venerated Buckley because he was an effective apologist for the imperialistic (basically cold war) mindset which dominated American government during the cold war era.
The right continues to fault Noam because he can rather effectively counter the arguments of Buckley with his own take on what history meant and why it played out in the way it did, too.
Depending upon the (largely unspoken, but nevertheless critical) presuppositions which each listener starts out with, one will decide which player in the above debate is the "winner".
This was on Firing Line in the rearly 70s, wasn't it?
I think I saw this program when it was first broadcast.
FWIW I think Chomsky debates more honestly that Buckley does, but they are both world class debaters, without a doubt.
FWIW part II, I think the above debate is bearly relevant to today's news.
Sinc eht fall of the Soviet Union, the plan has changed considerable.
During the cold war the masters of the free world were all about defeating the superpower of the Soviet.
NOW, the masters of the free world are all about defeating the power of the American people. I say it that way because those masters have long controlled our government, but not our people.
But forty years of stripping the American people of their wealth through free trade has just about finished off any chance that the American people will ever wrest control of their own government back from the master class which dominate both our poltical parties.
I'm not sure that Chomsky has yet come to the realization yet, that the next victim of the new world order demands the end of American souvereignty, but that IS the plan and it seems to be going swimmingly.
Incidently, this world wide depression we are headed into does not SEEM TO BE part of their plan. In fact, I think this depression really is an unplanned unwelcomed outcome of that goofy notion that deregulation is a good thing, and nothing more than that
I could be wrong about that, of course, because these people are terrible clever and capable of thinking in long term ways that are difficult to fathom from the sidelines where I'm sitting.
But, were I developing a master plan to neuter the nation states, a world wide depression at this time would not have been part of my plan.
That world wide depression would come later -- much later.
I wouldn't create a world wide depression until the nation states were more firmly under the control of the international organizations.
THEN that world wide depression would starve about half the world's population, and give the masters that ever popular excuse that
"We didn't kill all those people...the invisible hand of the market did"
Hey, I'm not too paranoid or anything, am I?