[Whit]

     Debunking??? Oh boy! Let's go with the whole thing from the beginning shall we?

Iraq is a trial run Chomsky interviewed by Frontline by Noam Chomsky and VK Ramachandran

     This is kinda neat, the interviewee get's top billing for writing the interview? I like this, let me try.
Me: This seems like a ridiculously one sided conversation to everyone capable of thought, would you agree?
Myself: Of course, by asking questions with a ludicrous slant I can sound much more reasonable with silly-ass responses.
     Hey, I like this... Oops, I haven't actually gotten to the, heh,"interview" yet.

The trial run is to try and establish what the U.S. calls a "new norm" in international relations. The new norm is "preventive war" (notice that new norms are established only by the United States).

     Go us! Um, by the by, has anyone actually heard any references to the "new Norm" or is it just him? Seriously though, bare with me on this one.

This is not pre-emptive war; there is a crucial difference... The doctrine of preventive war is totally different; it holds that the United States - alone, since nobody else has this right - has the right to attack any country that it claims to be a potential challenge to it. So if the United States claims, on whatever grounds, that someone may sometime threaten it, then it can attack them.
The doctrine of preventive war was announced explicitly in the National Strategy Report last September...

     Really? Let's see this explicit "doctrine of preventive war." In fact, here's a quote from it. Quote taken from here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss5.html

The United States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging threats, nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression.

     Ah but Chomsky read that, see?

The National Strategy Report said, in effect, that the U.S. will rule the world by force, which is the dimension - the only dimension - in which it is supreme. Furthermore, it will do so for the indefinite future, because if any potential challenge arises to U.S. domination, the U.S. will destroy it before it becomes a challenge.

     Hey, that's virtually a direct quote of the same words... Oh wait no it's not...It's virtually the opposite.

It is important to establish such a norm if you expect to rule the world by force for the foreseeable future.

     Rule the world? But wasn't the point of what did get posted directly onto the Celler amount to "The U.S. doesn't have the nut's to attack people with nukes or effective terrorism, so you better get 'em quick?" Maybe I misread, because that contradicts. Run with one or the other, but we can't be intending world domination and be to afraid to attack these other country's. So which is it?

Acheson said that "no legal issue arises when the United States responds to challenges to its position, prestige or authority", or words approximating that.

     Approximating?I like this too. Hey, didn't UT say that the original piece was aromatic and warm? Or words that approximated that? Hmm, stinking and steaming, that's close enough.

That is also a statement of the Bush doctrine.Although Acheson was an important figure, what he said had not been official government policy in the post-War period. It now stands as official policy and this is the first illustration of it. It is intended to provide a precedent for the future.

     That's the statement? Where? Damn, I must be getting old 'cause I just read that boring ass paper and I didn't see that. Wow, official policy. I guess it's been openly claimed though, since it's official. I wonder where?
     Holy morning sunshine, it almost 3:30 am here. I need to get some sleep. I could go on if anybody wants to read more of these stupidly long posts though.
     Oh yeah, one more thing. Sorry, UT, I know what you said about how to handle this kind of thing earlier, but please forgive me on the grounds that I really did have fun doing this.