[nicky g]

I don't see many reasoned arguments in the article. What he does over and over is quote a Chomsky idea, and the say an equivalent of "Just how ridiculous is that!?!" Anything he believes is "clear", while anything Chomsky says is patent nonsense. For instance he makes no attempt to deny Chomsky's statements about US terror in pre-Castro Cuba, and is simply astonished the ideas behind the war on terror could ever be used against the US itself, even when the US justification for attacks is terrorism and he doesn't deny that it has sponsored terrorism. He takes the idea that the US is the be-all-and-end-all of all possible good so completely for granted that he thinks merely ridiculing any anti-US arguments is an effective response, and that it should be obvious that any anti-US foreign policy articles must necessarily be false. I'm sorry MMMMMM, but it really comes across as a rant rather than a reasoned debate. I think you make your points much better than this guy does. I also take exception to his suggestion that Harry Belafonte should leave the US for daring to criticize Colin Powell.