Just for fun, I'm gonna try one of those "quote the other guy" formats that people like to use so much. I'm not sure why, but I've never liked that approach ... but what the heck.

quote:
There are those who whimper and whine even after the burden of proof has been met that a conspiracy did NOT take place. I believe that's what you'll continue to do here, in your unwarranted self-righteous zeal, no matter what evidence is presented to the contrary.
You're applying a far stricter burden of proof to yourself than you are to me. I'm not sure what you think you've proven, but I haven't read a convincing statement from you yet. Most of the time, I read your posts and I find myself flabbergasted. I don't know which flaw to point out first. It's a remarkable debate tactic, but it certainly doesn't make you right.

So far, all you've done is respond to "the world is round," with "no, it isn't."

quote:
Similar to how so many newspapers investigated the November 2000 Presidential election, and found after months of investigation that if the Supreme Court ruling had not ended the election, that G.W Bush would have actually won by even more votes.
Conservatives remain their own best argument against vouchers for private schools. Lots of them went to private schools, and they still can't read. Only the headlines on those articles claimed that the Shrub had the majority of votes in Florida. Toward the end of the article -- almost universally contained in the third paragraph from the last for some reason -- it was made clear that the Shrub only had the most votes if only the recounts that Gore had asked for had been counted. Had every vote been counted, or had the normal counting prodedures for the state been followed, Florida would've gone to Gore.

quote:
And similarly, the PLO's (and Arafat's) direct involvement in suicide bombings and terrorism, even though they claimed these charges by Israel were false. But Israel found documents that prove this PLO involvement absolutely, documents confiscated when Israeli troops invaded the Jenin and Ramallah offices of the PLO. And now, in a last ditch of spin-control, the PLO says that this proof was falsified by Israel.
See, this is what I'm talking about. You assume out of hand that the documents found by Israel were genuine. This is Israel we're talking about, here. I don't exactly favor the PLO, but let's get real. Israel is pretty under-handed. Then again, you probably think that photo floating around of a baby-bomber is genuine, too.

quote:
I tried to be gracious the first round, despite the unprovoked rancorousness of your post.
No, you tried to be condescending during the first round, but I can understand how you have difficulty knowing the difference.

quote:
It doesn't specifically advocate the U.S. wiping out the Taliban (although the pre-9/11 Al Qaida terrorism against the U.S. from Afghanistan warrants invasion regardless). The report also said that the current (1998, Taliban) Afghan leadership was agreeable to the pipeline and seeing the obvious benefit to their country, had already agreed, at the time of Unocal's study, to cooperate in its construction.
Yes, it does state that the Taliban was agreeable to the pipeline, but it then goes on to state that the Taliban couldn't be trusted with the responsibility because they didn't have a firm enough grasp on the area. That pesky Northern Alliance, y'know? And all those tribes ... all of which would want a piece of the pie, especially the ones whose territory the pipeline would go through. Guess the Taliban wasn't quite dictatorial enough for the Oil Boys.

quote:
There's nothing in the report you can look at and say this advocates the U.S. military conquest of Afghanistan.
No, it just says, "We can't do it until the Taliban is gone." And then they talk about their plans for doing it anyway. You know another way they were planning to oust the Taliban? Maybe that military planning that the Shrub was doing, the stuff you mentioned yourself ... maybe that was just for show?

quote:
As I said just a paragraph or two above, the U.S. has been involved in a number of previous police actions without requiring an allegedly staged bit of terrorism to whip the masses behind supporting it.

There was some public apprehension about our initially sending troops into Bosnia (and Kosovo, and Somalia, and Rwanda, and Haiti...) but once the decision was made, the public was behind it.
In the case of Somalia, where troops were quickly withdrawn, I think it was more Clinton's perceiving that bailing out would be more popular with the public, and withdrawing troops pre-emptively before there was any potential for a public outcry, than any widespread outcry to get our troops out.

Vietnam is the only war where there was widespread public rally to get our troops out.
Okay, now you must know you're full of it. There were demonstrations and marches. It was a heated topic on every single news channel. Maybe you missed them in Republican brown-nosing class?

Seriously, you guys need to work on your attention spans. It's hard to get you to remember anything from five months ago, let alone five years ago.

There has not been a popular war in America since World War II. Technically, there hasn't even been a war in American since World War II.

quote:
I wonder if any Americans in December 1941 were saying "Gee, maybe the Imperial Japanese are RIGHT..."
quote:
It scares me, the lack of will to defend the United States, by some of its citizens, despite the clear rightness of our actions, and the clear source of the threat.
These would be the lines that pissed me off and made me realize that I wasn't conversing with a rational person ... I was conversing with just another goose-stepper. And yes, as a matter of fact, I do use that term quite deliberately. You seem to know your history reasonably well. What color is your shirt these days, Dave? I'm thinking brown.

Excuses. You're nothing but a child trying to make excuses. You're like the mob in an old monster-movie, chasing the monster with torches into the castle, not really caring whether or not the monster has actually done anything. You just want to hurt something, to make yourself feel a little safer. You aren't interested in justice, or even vengeance. You're just interested in a parade. A long, bloody, freedom-ending, kid-killing, bomb-dropping parade.

Meanwhile, the real evil gets away ... and assures you that it'll do everything in its power to keep that bad, nasty monster from you.

I'm embarassed that I was starting to think you were an okay guy, Dave. But I guess I should've known ... after all, look at the general level of intelligence displayed by the people on your side. Is Britney helping your cause, or is he just demonstrating the intellect required to march in rhythm?

[ 07-16-2002, 05:14 AM: Message edited by: Jack, the Little Death ]