View Single Post
Old 04-03-2003, 08:19 PM   #18
Count Zero
Colloquialist
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 75
Quote:
Originally posted by Undertoad
Instead of documenting what's wrong with the essay, try to find things that are accurate and correct that she doesn't say by accident.

Let's see...

Nope. Not one thing. The whole thing is a big ol' stinking steaming turd.
Wow, that's certainly convenient for you.

Try debunking this then:

Quote:
Ramachandran :You have written that this war of aggression has dangerous
consequences with respect to international terrorism and the threat of
nuclear war.

Chomsky : I cannot claim any originality for that opinion. I am just
quoting the CIA and other intelligence agencies and virtually every
specialist in international affairs and terrorism. Foreign Affairs,
Foreign Policy , the study by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences,
and the high-level Hart-Rudman Commission on terrorist threats to the
United States all agree that it is likely to increase terrorism and the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The reason is simple: partly for revenge, but partly just for
self-defence.

There is no other way to protect oneself from U.S. attack. In fact, the
United States is making the point very clearly, and is teaching the
world an extremely ugly lesson.

Compare North Korea and Iraq. Iraq is defenceless and weak; in fact, the
weakest regime in the region. While there is a horrible monster running
it, it does not pose a threat to anyone else. North Korea, on the other
hand, does pose a threat. North Korea, however, is not attacked for a
very simple reason: it has a deterrent. It has a massed artillery aimed
at Seoul, and if the United States attacks it, it can wipe out a large
part of South Korea.

So the United States is telling the countries of the world: if you are
defenceless, we are going to attack you when we want, but if you have a
deterrent, we will back off, because we only attack defenceless targets.
In other words, it is telling countries that they had better develop a
terrorist network and weapons of mass destruction or some other credible
deterrent; if not, they are vulnerable to "preventive war".

For that reason alone, this war is likely to lead to the proliferation
of both terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.
While you're at it, try debunking the rest of the text :

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...15&ItemID=3369

And good luck !
Count Zero is offline   Reply With Quote