Jump to content

Soxbadger

Members
  • Posts

    19,754
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by Soxbadger

  1. Im gonna go with. 1. Manning 2. Palmer if he is healthy 3. Mcnabb 4. Culp
  2. I never said B-Mac was average, although I doubt he will ever be a 1 or 2 on a great team. I did say that on this team, B-Mac is the 6th best starter. B-Mac even if he was stretched out to begin the season would of at most been going 6-7 innings, it is clear that Ozzie wants more out of his starters. If he just wanted a guy who was dominant for 5-7 innings, he would pull Vaz before any trouble started. But Ozzie wants starters who go deep, and B-Mac is not there yet. This year would of been his first full season in the bigs and the Sox could not take a chance that he would start to lose it as the innings piled up. In retrospect, it seems that almost all of our pitchers, outside of Vaz, have suffered at some point from being overworked the last 2 years. They just do not look as sharp as they were last year, and it seems that fatigue is setting in. If anything this is why B-Mac is the most important guy to the Sox in the pen, because outside of Cotts and him, no one else can go out and pitch more than 1 inning on consecutive nights. The Sox do not have any rubber arm guys who can eat up pen innings. Therefore at this point, I do not see how you can put B-Mac in the rotation without severely putting this season in jeapordy. And I do not see any reason why if B-Mac was put in the rotation this year, he would all of a sudden be dominant. Perhaps next year, but I believe this year the ship has sailed.
  3. Fathom, If B-Mac's problem is the pen, then why are his stats basically the same this year as last year? It would seem that if the pen truely was a problem he would of tanked.
  4. Your right, Liriano, Santana, all the other saviors had real problems in the pen. Care to back up your opinion with any proof? From my experience, it is easier for a pitcher to go from the starting rotation to the pen, then vice versa. You have guys like Gagne, etc who have become dominant in the pen. Gagne was a SP prior to being converted btw.
  5. B-Mac is not the messiah. I can remember when these threads used to be about Cotts being in the rotation. If B-Mac was that dominant, he would have shown it in the pen. He has nice stats, but right now he is more important to the White Sox in the pen than in the starting rotation. Some times guys like B-Mac become relievers, but on the White Sox he is the 6th best starter, and therefore needs to be in the pen. If Ozzie puts B-Mac in the rotation and he gets shelled, the Sox are done. Our pitchers have the talent, its just time for them to buckle down and realize that they can not give anymore games way.
  6. Im member 14. Now if I can only erase everyone's memory who was around during the time where I some how went from member 100 or so to 17, then people will think I am one of the oldest members. And I think my register date is different, but Ill have to check this post. (Yep, my register date is Dec. 17, 2002, compared to August 31, 2002. Although my first post was something like "Long time reader first time poster". haha)
  7. I disagree. Why would have been over confident against a Badger team that was 9-3 going into that bowl game with losses to: PSU, Iowa, and one bad game at Northwestern. Auburn going into that game was 9-2, losing to GT and LSU. As to their ranking this year, maybe they will be that good, I just do not see it. They had serious problems facing a much more physical Badger offense. This year Auburn plays, Florida, LSU, South Carolina, Georgia, and Bama. I guess it is possible that they can win every one of those games, Im just saying that judging from the team I saw last year, I think that is doubtful. Maybe Auburn had a really bad game, I dont know and I honestly do not follow every single football program. I have seen Auburn a few times, especially when they had Caddy and Brown. Also saw the 2003 Auburn team completely dominate Wisconsin so I know what they are capable of. Anyway's just my opinion of course, I think that Wisconsin will do fine and that the fact only 3 starters returned is not as important as people make it seem. Calhoun was a big loss, but as a Wisconsin fan you have to have faith that they have some one ready to fill in, as they have had a lot of success with rb's. There are some questions at wr, but I would say the health on the defensive side offsets that.
  8. Im sure there is more than: This is purely on private land, being paid for by purely private entities. If that was the case, I doubt the ACLU would bother. They said its on public land, so either they are 1) liars, or 2) there is some other information that we do not know.
  9. That Arm-Bar routine was awesome. Jericho ruled.
  10. Pre-season predictions are a joke, no one really knows because its impossible to judge how replacements are going to do. Im not going to start opening my big mouth until I actually see a game or two and can judge what is going on. Right now my biggest shock is Auburn getting so much respect after they were manhandled by Wisconsin's offense last season.
  11. Wow, Zionist is an anti-semitic term? So I guess David Ben-Gurion was anti-semetic? http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts%20About%20...id%20Ben-Gurion Its sad how little people know about Jew's.
  12. Being anti-Israel and anti-semetic are very different things. One you disagree with the actions of a country. The other you dislike a certain religious group.
  13. Im some what confused. That left media not supporting Israel thing was sarcastic right? Its really hard to tell over the internet.
  14. 6. Auburn (1) 0-0 1,206 Wisconsin 37 I guess that is what I expect though as Wisconsin is dicked in the preseason rankings ever year. I mean when Auburn and Wisconsin played, Auburn was ranked 7, Wisconsin was ranked 21. End result, Wisconsin 24 Auburn 10. I can understand the loss of Calhoun and most of the WR making it so that Wisconsin is in the low top 25, but how they justify not even putting Wisconsin in the top 25 is mind boggling. In that game with Auburn, Auburn failed to rush for 100 yards and only passed for 137. Compared to Wisconsin who ran for 247 yards (more than Auburn gained) and passed for 301.
  15. I cant believe people are actually trying to compare the trade and aid agreement between 2 sovereign nations, and the agreement between a sovereign nation and a terrorist organization. Im sorry but if Israel was a terrorist organization, I would not accept the US giving them any aid.
  16. Pratt, Nice job of avoiding the question, again. How is it a false comparison? Prior to Pearl Harbor, Japan and Germany had not "fired a shot" (to use your terminology) against the US. (Although they had sunk some ships, but lets just say that Iran has probably done about the same.) So would you or would you have not declared on Germany, had they never fired on America nor declared on America? Why is that so hard to answer, is it because you know the answer is: Yes, there becomes a point in time when a country is such a menace to the world, that even if your own nation is not directly threatend, that for the good of mankind the nation must step in. (Edit) As to the supply at war thing. It depends, does the US exert the same amount of control over Israel as Iran does over Hezbollah? Can the US determine Israeli policy and objectives? Or is the US merely selling weapons through a bi-lateral contract, in which Israel agrees to pay money for the goods?
  17. Pratt, You didnt answer the question. If Japan and Germany had left the US alone, would you have agreed that we should not have entered the war.
  18. Pratt, Your right, Iran has never threated the US. But prior to the declaration after Pearl Harbor, Germany had never threated the US either. So if Germany had never declared on the US, we should of just stayed out because they only wanted to kill "Every Jew", "take over Europe", but never had any specific statements on eyeing the US?
  19. Balta, There are a lot of problems with why Saddam should be in prison. For the greater part of human history, what Saddam did not only would not have been something he could have been imprisoned for, the world community would have thought it completely unbeliavable that a sovereign could be held accountable for actions done purely within the sphere of their own power. But unfortunately for Saddam we are living in a post WWII era. Now anyone who "committs a crime" regardless of status in their country may be held accountable on the world stage. Had Saddam handled his "insurgents" in a way that was more palatable to the west, aka putting them in prisons, hiding them away, etc, instead of using chemical weapons on them, he probably would not be on trial right now. And another problem for him is that his country was really weak with a vast amount of the worlds most prescious resource. China gets away with all sorts of spiff, but then again who is going to do anything to China? Might makes right.
  20. Pratt, I do not believe its "pre-emptive" when the other said says: "We are going to destroy you when we get the chance."
  21. Pratt, I disagree, with most of those analogies. So I guess I have to go through 1 by 1. Cuba 1963, Bay of Pigs invasion. Historical context: Cold War, nuclear proliferation. The invasion of Cuba was 1) to prevent the spread of nukes, 2) to prevent the spread of communism. Unlike Iran, Cuba had not done 1 provacative action towards the US. Cuba was not saying "When we get the nuke we are going to destroy the US." Had Cuba said that, I believe the US would have fully engaged Cuba. The difference between the 2 is the lack of threat, Iran has made threats, Cuba has not. Soviet Union, Cold War. Historical Context- After World War II, the world was split between the communist and democratic blocs. This is a far different scenario than Iran, and one where it was best that no military force was ever used. This was a war about spheres of influence and portraying yourself as the alpha. The US and USSR both wanted to be the top dog on the world stage, and therefore kept engaging in limited confrontations to try and show their backers how strong they really were. The war itself was most likely a result of the backwards nationalism that had developed in the USSR, and the terror of WWII on the Russian landscape. This conflict vastly differs from Iran in that USSR and USA never made threats of destruction. Both played the role of trying to be "innocent" on the world stage. Using small conflicts like Veitnam and Korea, as a stage for their ideological ambitions. NK- I assume you mean Kim, and not the previous NK war. Simply put, NK has not gone as far as Iran. NK to my recollection has not called for the destruction of a people, has not through back channels funded and constantly supported the war against said people, and used terrorists to promote their goals. Iraq- I assume you mean Persian Gulf here. This war can simply be put as, "What we have here is a failure to communicate." Iraq, more specifically Saddam, believed that the US had given him the go ahead invade Kuwait. At this time, Saddam was good friends with the US and a powerful political ally in the Mid-East (see Iraq v Iran war). Unfortunately after Saddam invaded, the US changed its position and stated that it did not approve of Saddam's ambition. This is one of those wierd events in history, where I think everyone involved ended up being losers in the end. Saddam lost the war and the US support. Kuwait got ravaged, and the US lost one of its few allies in the Mid-East and set the stage for the events that are transpiring now. France during the early 1800's, I guess you mean Napolean. Not really sure what that has to do with anything, as 1800 is completely different than 2000. England 1812, well this was just the continuation of revolutionary war. Not exactly sure how it has anything to do with the Iran, as it is factually completely different. Now the only war you did mention, WWII, is the most recent conflic that has the same global implications. Iran, like Germany pre-WWII, is starting to assert its dominance in its region. Iran is trying to develop better arms and weapons to create a sophisticated military. Iran, like Germany, is using the threat of terror and violence to force the west to appease it. This is why Iran must be stopped, because it is following in the footsteps of Germany. The Iran president is saying things that have to remind you of Hitler, he is using the Israeli's/Jews as scapegoats so he can promote his own political agenda. It is no accident that the attacks on Israel have escalated so quickly. Do you really think that Hezbollah had thousands of rockets stored away for all this time and never had been using them? Does it not strike you as odd, that all of a sudden the Hezbollah military equipment has drastically improved from what it was just a few months ago? It would have been like Hitler arming the Germans in Poland and Czechoslovakia, and then complaining when the armies of Poland and Czech started to fight back against the German militants. The west can never forget WWII, and whenever a leader of a country advocates the destruction of a people or country, it is our duty to make sure that it never happens. And to show the world that we will never accept that type of ideaology, the threat is enough to warrant harsh and swift action in my opinion. That is the difference between the conflicts you listed and Iran. Iran wants to eradicate a people from the face of the earth, just because they believe in a different religion. I find that belief to be repuslive, and any country who stands by such a belief, unfit to exist.
  22. Now your arguing semantics. My statement was: Israel has given back land. And if you read UN 242, you will know that it was not binding on any party. The Israeli's still needed to make their own peace treaty with Egypt in 1979, where as 242 was adopted in 1967. That means it took a full 12 years before Israel, followed resolution 242, and shows that Israel could have chosen not to do it if they wished. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nation...t_of_Resolution And how wasnt it their land to give back? Is New Mexico not the US because we took it from Mexico? After a war that you win, when you acquire the land, it is yours. The only way that the land goes back is; 1) it is recaptured, or 2) there is a peace treaty in which part of the terms cede back the captured land. In this case, Israel captured significant territory and then as part of an agreement for peace, gave it back. That seems to be exactly what I said Israel has done in the past.
  23. At this point the US and other Western European countries have to ask themselves: "Do we want to fight this war today, or in the next 50 years." There comes a point where it is clear that peace and time will not heal certain wounds. Right now, the West has a clear advantage. Iran, even if it can get support from all Middle East nations would have no chance in a war against the United States. This is not Vietnam, it has a similar population, but not nearly the military skill. Iran has not beaten a major military force in it's history, and if it's war with Iraq is any indication, it lacks the sophistication of a modern army. The question is, do we fight now, when we know Iran does not have nuclear capability, or do we wait and let Iran keep trying to build a nuke? Some times you just have to nip it in the bud, and at this point it seems like Iran has gone over a line. The unfortunate part of being a western society, is that you want to give countries and people a chance. You want to let them do it on their own, and become peaceful nations. But at some point, when a nation shows no courtesy or respect to its neighbors, and has shown a disposition for violence and terror, you have to say enough is enough.
  24. Pale Hose Jon, If you look even further back to the wars since 1950, the Israeli's have given back even more land. They had parts of the Sinia Peninsula... http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/golnpc.htm People have already correctly mentioned the more recent ones. Its not a crime to sleep during class, but it is just lazy to not do the research on the internet.
  25. Balta, That argument is flawed. It suggests that the people in Lebanon who blame the Israeli's would have ever sided with the Israeli's. I do not agree, if you had any inclination to side with the Isreali's, you would still side with them. Israel was attacked by Hezbollah, not the other way around. I do not understand how you can blame the country who was attacked for responding. There is nothing that Israel can do. Israel has sat on its hands for decades as the powers that be around them try and come up with plans and strategies to ensure their destruction. The Israeli's have bent over backwards to create stability by handing over prescious land to various middle east countries, and in the end it does nothing. There is no good will created. the people do not say "Wow, Israel got attacked and then gave the land back, what an honorable country." Instead they want more, more land, more power, they want there to be no Israel. So in the end, the position Israel has to take is; Who the f cares what the countries that surround us think? When they (Lebanon and other Middle East countries) actually do something, not just placate western society with their words about how they are going to stop terrorism, how they are going to work towards peace, then maybe they should be given some credibility. But right now, they have 0. So I do not believe the Lebanese, if they truely wanted this to stop, it would stop. This is all about the freing of terrorists, something that the US and the rest of the world has to stand strong on. You can not give into releasing terrorists by the threat of more terror. If anything you must take that threat, and show the terrorists that you have no fear. That any threat they make will be retaliated against far worse than anything they can imagine. Either they all live in peace, or they all live in fear. The Lebanese, Hezbollah, and many other would love Israeli's to live in constant fear. And now the Israeli govt is letting them walk a mile in their shoes.
×
×
  • Create New...