Who Supports the War(s)

[jaguar]

And thus he demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the nuances of diplomacy, or at least is trying to rabble rouse, one of the two, I'm leaning towards the latter. Its teh difference between diplomatic niceities, America follows the One China Policy for example and realpolitik on the other, America sells advanced weapons systems to Taiwan and keeps a fleet in the reigon.

If you disagree with a specific comment I've made, feel free to ask for sources. I provide them when I think they’re necessary, such as the analysis about the reactors being offered to the DPRK. I assume your comment about snap judgments is based on my opinion of the supporting article you posted about the Iraq/OKC link. That was made after skimming most sections of the site it came from, and reading 3 other articles on the site, as well as reading the main articles on the reporters page and skimming the other information on there and some of the links on the site as well.
I wouldn't call it a snap judgment but either way his writing style was decidedly unprofessional, I'm suspicious of any published material that is because it suggests the source of not particularly credible. Other articles on the site too were of a very amaturish nature, which suggested a writer who had little or no professional training or experience.

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say in the first sentence. That I'm full of bullshit I guess. The communist links to Clinton that I have researched show no conclusive evidence that WJC is a communist sympathizer. And , in these examples, I look like an ass. That isn’t to say that other events couldn't lead one to believe that he's a little too cozy with the communists.

So what you are actually saying amongst that wonderful load of circumlocution is that you hold an opinion without any factual basis whatsoever, and thus don't feel safe about expressing your bias on here because you cannot support it.

Glad we cleared that up.

As for the Iraq/OKC thing, as I posted earlier, the Bush admin is desperate for anything to link Iraq to terrorism against America, while Occam’s razor would put that down to incompetence, i find it hard to believe there is not a better reason. There is quite possibly something in it, but it's not the most likely not the obvious answer.

I'm not providing my "other side of the UN" post for you Jag. When I make a case, you spike it immediately and discredit it by either saying the writing to support the argument is bad or that you "get feelings" that it's false or invalid. You also totally ignore the fact that tens of millions of people also have opinion as I do and that there must be something that led us to a given conclusion. I don't post for you. That's an exercise in futility.

I covered why i thought that article was unreliable at best, either way it was second teir information, more of a footnote than anything else. The case is interesting, but I'm going to attack any flaw I find, I intend to go into journalism, I’m naturally cynical of *everything*, often not entirely equally, but we all have our biases. I supported why I felt the article was dodgy, and received no reply, for you to then argue i based my attack on emotional denial is therefore an incompetent fallacy at best and a deliberate attempt to discredit though misrepresentation of the truth. by the way using the bold tag doth not make your points any more valid.