BAH! Stop this rhetorical nonesense!<br><br>Boston Masacre:<br>-One could say the shot and killed civilians.<br>-One could counter that they were taunted into it.<br>-One could then say that the taunters were indeed taunted by the presence of militia.<br>-One could then counter that the militia was only there to stop the uprising.<br>-One could continue back that the uprising was based on unfair treatment and taxation...<br>Where it begins is imaterial to the context of the situation which is the desire for independence from a tyranical government. So, stuff the poopie-academic-moral-equivalency garbage!

<br><br>WWII: Scholars and historians, for the most part, should stick to the facts and not try to come up with unfounded (and unprovable) results. Russia beat no-one, mother nature combined with a penny-pinching hitler did. One could argue that it was Normandy that won the war. One could argue that it was Hitler's unwillingness to listen to Romel. One could argue that it was Hitler's unwillingness to allow his Luftwaffe generals to do what they wanted to do. (I have to stop the Hitler's Stupid Mistakes list, because it is too long). One could even say that France won the war for us for letting the German's march into Paris unchallenge (PLEASE PLEASE someone say Maginot), which caused the German's to leave an occupying force that spread them out too thin. What one cannot say is that the U.S. involvement did not directly and inseperably result in the victory over Europe. Timing, distance, fast-ramp-up, and lack of war-weariness gave a natural advantage to the U.S. I won't debate superior tactics and technology.<br><br>The best Junkyard wars, well my favorite (spelled correctly, only the sexually repressed put extra u's in their words), was the fire-fighting boats episode. Centrifugal pump! HA! AND IT WORKED...to bad they lost.
<iframe src="http://gamercard.xbox.com/RICoder.card" scrolling="no" frameBorder="0" height="140" width="204">RICoder</iframe>