(I'm merely implying it! Draw your own conclusions!)

<a href='http://www.counterpunch.org/chomsky0530.html' target='_blank'>Noam Chomsky vs. Bennett</a>

Looks as if Bill kicked Noam's ******. Typical of Chomsky to bring up the World Court...something we, and no OTHER sovereign nation, abides by. Joe, you seem to think that other countries should dictate policy to us and you FAIL to realize that it IS the United States that has it right as we ARE the beacon of freedom...something that can be see merely by looking at our immigration records.

On another note.....you and Noam(Nope, not calling him Mr. or anything else as I don't, nor have I ever, respected that piece of liberal garbage) can always find your little socialist utopia and migrate there. Nothing is preventing you. Buh bye.

One pathology that seems to be common in the leftists is a strange need or drive to take a set of facts, impress their own fevered opinions or conclusions upon them, and treat the resulting state of psychosis as "truth". Here we had an instance of this when this leftist accused the United State of having been charged with "terrorism" in Central America,when in fact it had not. In this deranged fool's mind we were guilty of terrorism, but this was not a fact.

So, JBR, could you perhaps send some more leftist rants on? I know I should feel guilty about it, but I rather enjoy a lunatic's gibberish.

Wry, do you have proof that the U.S. government and military has not engaged in terrorist acts in our history?

I've read two West Point military historians and ethicists who claim our gov. and military HAS engaged in terroristic acts. In fact, the whole basis of Arafat's strategem in propagating terrorism was inspired by the U.S. and British military (and Hitler's blitz on London) methods for winning the war in Europe and the Pacific from 1939-45!

See Sidney Axinn and Michael Walzer. there's also alot of criticism devoted to them on the web.

KlutzDio I Wrote:Wry, do you have proof that the U.S. government and military has not engaged in terrorist acts in our history?

Remember the Maine!

I dunno, somehow that seemed relevant.

Isn't it the accuserer's responsibility to prove guilt, not the accused's responsibility to prove innocence?

I won't say the US has been perfect...far from it. But, I challenge you to find a nation which has had so much power and has abused it less (or done as much good as the US has).

Remember the Maine is relevant, Professor.

It was yet another manufactured "attack" to justify a war on Country Holding Resources We Need.

See also: 9-11 and its ties to Iraq.

Wryword Wrote:Here we had an instance of this when this leftist accused the United State of having been charged with "terrorism" in Central America,when in fact it had not. In this deranged fool's mind we were guilty of terrorism, but this was not a fact.

Don't take Chomsky's word for it. Look it up yourself. We use the World Court only when it suits our needs. Otherwise, we dismiss it with contempt.

Is the reason that we fought the Contra War underground further evidence that we were guilty of terrorism, or innocent of it?

And one thing we can always be sure is that the pathology of the Right will disavow evidence presented to them with "justified."

Has there ever been anything this country done of which you people are ashamed?

CHOMSKY: Do I understand? Yes, so does the U.S. intelligence
services, so does all of scholarship. I mean, we can ignore
it if we like, and therefore lead to further terrorist
attacks, or we can try to understand. What Mr. Bennett said
is about half true. The United States has done some very
good things in the world, and that does not change the fact
that the World Court was quite correct in condemning the
United States as an international terrorist state, nor do
the atrocities in Turkey in the last few years -- they are
not obviated by the fact that there are other good things
that happen. Sure. That's -- you are correct when you say
good things have happened, but if we are not total
hypocrites, in the sense of the gospels, we will pay
attention to our own crimes. For one reason, because that's
elementary morality -- elementary morality. For another
thing, because we mitigate them.

RebelKev Wrote:Looks as if Bill kicked Noam's ******. Typical of Chomsky to bring up the World Court...something we, and no OTHER sovereign nation, abides by. Joe, you seem to think that other countries should dictate policy to us and you FAIL to realize that it IS the United States that has it right as we ARE the beacon of freedom...something that can be see merely by looking at our immigration records.

Dear Yahoo!:
What is the World Court and where is it located?
John
New York, New York

Dear John:
The "World Court," officially known as the International Court of Justice (ICJ), is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Its seat is at the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands.
We found the information by simply typing "world court" into the Yahoo! search box and making our way to the resulting International Court of Justice Yahoo! category. There we found the official ICJ site.

The ICJ began work in 1946 when it replaced the Permanent Court of International Justice. According to the site, its functions include:

Settling in accordance with international law the legal disputes submitted to it by States.
Giving advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by duly authorized international organs and agencies.
The Court is composed of 15 judges and can't include more than one judge of any nationality. The judges are elected to nine-year terms by the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council.
Check out the web site for some of the ICJ's most important decisions and its current docket. In addition, the web site features a comprehensive guide (based on a booklet prepared for the Court's 50th anniversary in 1996) to the history, composition, jurisdiction, procedure, and decisions of the ICJ.

<a href='http://212.153.43.18/icjwww/idecisions/icasesbycountry.htm#UnitedKingdom' target='_blank'>http://212.153.43.18/icjwww/idecisions/ica...m#UnitedKingdom</a>

Sure looks like the U.S.A. has used the world court before, Kev. So what do you mean?

And how does saying "no they didn't" constitute a "arse kicking"? Bill Bennett was completely outmatched, as usual.

You want to get some real yucks in, check out _Manufacturing Consent_ on DVD. In the extras section, there's Chomsky and Bill Buckley getting it on on Buckley's late 60's TV show. Really good debate between two sharp minds.

DrTorch Wrote:Isn't it the accuserer's responsibility to prove guilt, not the accused's responsibility to prove innocence?

I won't say the US has been perfect...far from it. But, I challenge you to find a nation which has had so much power and has abused it less (or done as much good as the US has).

Do you want me to prove my claims in the previous post I made? If so, I cannot do that anymore than you can prove whatever it is you think about terrorism and whatnot. I did, however, claim that two very well respected authors and military historians employed at some of our military academies have made arguments to the effect that the U.S. sponsors terrorism, has used terrorism as a strategy of war and peacetime, have intentionally targeted civilians in order to compel a nation's people to force their government to change its current policies. These are just arguments and they are not proof. Their research in this area, to me anyway, is quite convincing that our gov. is responsible for some wicked things, the same things that we detest--and that is dishonorable strategies for fighting people, when doing the actual fighting is dishonorable in and of itself.
Our American leaders have, for a long time now, claimed we are a great nation with great ideals of benevolence and good will toward others and democracy is great, but do we actually back up our leaders' rhetoric with action? Are our gov.'s policy consistent with our values?

Axinn, one of the West Point scholars (and former active duty Army brass), wrote a long book in the late eighties talking about how the U.S. is part of various international agreements on how to conduct warfare. He documents how we violate the same agreements we try to force onto other nations. So, why do we agree to these rules of warfare? The whole process is an absurdity! Lately, however, Bush and some of our ambassadors have made the U.S. completely above many of these agreements. The U.S. is no longer bound to international laws of warfare, and probably never have been bound to these rules. But now, it's in writing.

But on proof , guilt and innocence, I made my earlier comments because terrorists don't hate us just because we exist, they hate us because we do bad things. If we cease doing bad things, maybe they won't hate us. This may be ad hoc, but every action has a cause. The 9/11 attacks had a cause and we are, in some ways, responsible for that. We brought it on ourselves because the terrorists are trying to compel Americans to reign in our government, specifically our military,NSA and CIA guys going around the world twisting arms and supporting evil statesmen who do bad things to their nations' people. [when I say 'we' above, I mean our gov.]

As for your challenge, I don't think that is relevant because the discussion is not about what nations have been badassess in the past and how does the USA's badassness compare with those badasses that preceded us, the question is: what did we do to make the terrorists hate us so much. We need to figure out why terrorists want to kill Americans. We need to figure out how we, as Americans, can make our government see the fruitfulness of exacting an even handed foreign policy and work toward making friends with other cultures, nations and people.

You mention that we've done good. Can you give any examples? Without knowing what you will refer to, but I have an idea of what you might say is our "goodness" to others, but without really knowing, I bet our gov.'s bad deeds out-weigh any sort of benevolence by our gov. toward other nations. And, while it may have been a good thing to drop foodstuffs and supplies into Berlin and help those poor people, very few terrorist Arabs realize that. I mean, how does that help Arabs? How does that help Indonesian school kids making nike shoes for a living? And why is it we rush to help Europe and turn a blind eye to the suffering of Arabs under the Saudi ruling gov. that is decidedly anti-democratic and representative?

I look forward to your reply.

RebelKev Wrote:Looks as if Bill kicked Noam's ******. Typical of Chomsky to bring up the World Court...something we, and no OTHER sovereign nation, abides by.

Not true.

I can't tell you how many of the world's nations abide by the World Court. But I can say we aren't one of them.

This is a link to all World Court cases:

<a href='http://212.153.43.18/icjwww/idecisions.htm' target='_blank'>http://212.153.43.18/icjwww/idecisions.htm</a>

The case that appears to be in question is Case Concerning Military And Paramilitary Activities In And Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), listed in the 1984 section.

This is a lesson plan at George Washington University based on the case:

<a href='http://www.gwu.edu/~jaysmith/Nicaragua.html' target='_blank'>http://www.gwu.edu/~jaysmith/Nicaragua.html</a>

This is a summary by the Max Planck Society:

<a href='http://www.mpiv-hd.mpg.de/en/wcd/dec0102.cfm' target='_blank'>http://www.mpiv-hd.mpg.de/en/wcd/dec0102.cfm</a>

In the simplest possible terms: The court determined that the United States, working through intermediaries, was directly responsible for all sorts of acts of war against Nicaragua, such as mining harbors. On its face, these acts would violate all sort of international law and conventions. After all, the United States was neither under attack or under threat of imminent attack from Nicaragua.

The U.S. argument was that we had a right to collective self-defense, and that our actions amounted to a defense of El Salvador because the Sandinsta government was helping supply Salvadoran rebels with arms.

(Incidentally, in siding with the Salvadoran government, we were in bed with an incredibly repressive, thuggish regime that appeared to be connected to the murder of thousands of civilians, including the assassination of a Roman Catholic archbishop and the rape and murder of four nuns. Reagan's fear was the leftist nature of the rebel movement.)

Anyway, the court didn't find an whole lot of evidence that the Nicaraguan government was supporting Salvadoran rebels, in part because the United States never offered a defense in the case. When it became clear the case might go against the U.S., the Reagan administration withdrew recognition for the court.

Nicaragua won and potentially could have received a judgement of billions of dollars. But, years later during the first Bush administration, Nicaragua withdrew its case -- and any claim to that kind of judgement -- so that it could begin receiving foreign aid from the U.S.

Quote:Joe, you seem to think that other countries should dictate policy to us

The issue, really, is whether or not we as a nation are willing to consent to live by the same set of rules as everyone else.

Why does the lack of a defense by the neo-con nation not surprise me?

I'm assuming your silence means you concede the point, Cons?