ChiSox_Sonix

The situation in Pakistan is quickly becoming one that is getting closer and closer to being a big mess. It's not even so much that Pakistan can't or won't do anything about it, it's that their leaders don't believe that it is that big of a problem.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 11:28 AM) I disagree here. I see no stabilization related to the events. India went nuclear some time in the 80's by most accounts, and wars continued. Paki went more recently, and they still nip at each other. The lack of all out war in recent years is more a factor of lack of central military control in Pakistan, its own fights in the north with Taliban and other tribes, and an economy that was collapsing some time ago. I kinda see what he's saying. But that's a unique situation. Pakistan and India have long been at odds and if only one power had the bomb it could be a situation where the country was more aggressive and hostile towards the other. But, that isn't the case so it's just guesswork. That being said, Pakistan is slowly (picking up the pace though recently) becoming more and more regionalized internally amongst warlords and clans, and if that government ever topples, the fact that they and India both have the bomb could be cause for extra worry in that region.

QUOTE (JuiceCruz16 @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 09:20 AM) Jeremy Tyler out of San Diego will forgo his senior year in HIGH SCHOOL to play pro ball in Europe. He says he will earn his diploma on line, but intends on getting paid while he does that. Wow. He'll still have to wait until the '11 draft though, so he'll have to spend 2 years over there until he could play in the NBA

This is so stupid. There shouldnt be voting 15 games into the season Predictions: C - Posada 1B - Teixera 2B - Pedroia 3B - ARod SS- Jeter OF - Ichiro OF - Vlad OF - Swisher (Yankee fans seem to be enthralled with him right now)

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 22, 2009 -> 02:09 PM) After looking at various civilizations throughout human history nothing is unimaginable to me. You used to think about people hijacking planes for the sole purpose of crashing them into buildings in largely populated cities?

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 22, 2009 -> 02:02 PM) I am saying the United States caused a chain reaction that has lead to the current situation. The argument I have been trying to make is that America has not been all innocent in all this. of course we never wanted the leaders of Iraq and Iran to torture and kill innocent life. that's just silly. But like it or not, 9/11 has its root in out middle east meddling. but we find it MUCH easier to just say "it's those crazy turban wearing Muslims that caused all this." It's not that simple, but it's taboo to say otherwise. Anything we've done over there doesnt make them any less crazy. They are doing things on proportions and on scales no one in the world ever thought imaginable.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 22, 2009 -> 01:55 PM) Sure we did. Ask my native american friends about that one. Not to mention the way we treated black people during the first half of the 19th century. The actions of people here 200 years ago directly correlate to actions taken against us by different people halfway across the world 200 years later!!!

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 22, 2009 -> 01:57 PM) um yea. A lot of the $h*t that has happened int he middle east does have roots in American involvement. True. But most of it doesn't

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 22, 2009 -> 01:56 PM) But we did make it official policy to support people like Saddam and the Afghan government which lead to the killing of hundreds of thousands. We were for them, before we were against them. John Kerry says hi

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 22, 2009 -> 01:44 PM) You know for a fact that McVeigh planned to retire if he was never caught? Maybe he had bigger plans for a 2nd incident. Maybe, but there is nothing to suggest he was part of anything even 1/100th the size of Al-Qaeda or any other terrorist ring out there.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 22, 2009 -> 01:39 PM) So we had to torture people to justify a war where we tortured people so we could get somebody else to stop torturing people. No we didnt.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 22, 2009 -> 01:26 PM) Torturing will not solve any problems just create more. That's debatable. Exposing what happens in CIA interrogations in the media for the world to see certainly doesn't help though. But since we've "tortured" three people, that surely must mean the terrorists won't stop their beheading of innocent civilians now! You can't really be that naive that you actually think that would work? Because in the past 1400 years it's been just fine? There is no reasoning with those people, none. They will not compromise. If it is ingrained in you that if you walk into a street full of innocent people and blow yourself and all of them up, that you will be rewarded in Heaven with some number of virgins, you can't combat that. The root causes of this extremism has many heads and there is no way to ever truly stop that. You can work on future generations, but for those currently alive who believe this, you will not change their mindset.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 22, 2009 -> 01:21 PM) How many people in U.S. history have died from terrorism on our soil? Too many. How many lives are you willing to sacrifice? Since the current number isn't really that big of a deal apparently. Yes, because otherwise we could just sit down with them over a nice cup of tea, talk about our differences and they would just stop.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 22, 2009 -> 01:14 PM) I refuse to sell my soul. If we are willing to do ANYTHING to get what we want, that makes us no better than those we wish to torture. I refuse to sell my soul as well. But I also refuse to bend over while there are people out there who are willing to actually do ANYTHING to get what they want, which is at our expense.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 22, 2009 -> 01:12 PM) I think the focus on preventing terrorism is a joke compared to health care. How many tens of thousands of people have died from cancer and other diseases in the past 10 years? How many Americans died from terrorist acts in the last 10 years? That's why millions (billions?) of dollars a year are poured into cancer research. Trying to compare the two, however, is comedic, yet not unexpected.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 22, 2009 -> 01:07 PM) This is the "war on terror", right? So, it's a war, we just never officially declared it. Ok, so for the purposes of this argument it's going to be a war then? Just checking because it often isnt. Fair enough. Didnt realize you were going off to other topics with it. He was a US citizen. He was held in federal custody and was not part of an organized terrorist group whose main goal in life was to wipe out the United States. Not the same thing.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 22, 2009 -> 01:04 PM) How would you all feel if one day America became a Muslim majority nation and Christians were being detained and tortured because it was feared they might be terrorists? How many American lives would you be willing to trade for the right to say "we do not waterboard in the United States"? 1? 50? 5,000? How would you feel if you lost someone you loved as a result of a terrorist attack on this country that could have been avoided if we were able to gain enough information to stop it ahead of time?

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 22, 2009 -> 12:50 PM) Here's what kinda pisses me off about the whole thing. Cheney keeps saying "but look what info it got us". So, basically, he is saying the ends justify the means, which is NOT what we stand for as a country. We are against torture... no matter what the results. So, for Chaney to say what he is saying, says he doesnt give a rats ass about the constitution, the Geneva conventions, or the rights of humans. As long as we get what we want, the rules be damned. -The Geneva convention treaties were designed to protect prisoners of war and innocent civilians. These terrorists technically are neither. -Does our constitution even mention torture? -People like Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Muhammad lost their right to "human rights" the second they agreed to help orchestrate and contribute to the murder of thousands of innocent Americans. An act that they also have no remorse for and undoubtedly would support the repeat of if they were ever released. And in certain cases the ends may very well justify the means.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 22, 2009 -> 10:05 AM) Gotcha. Europe has a wonderful system. Speaking of which, airfare to Germany from Dallas ROUND TRIP is $360. If I were working, I would be there next weekend for a weekend trip with that kind of price. NYC to Zurich is $425 in late July. I'm looking into that and then I'd just take a train to where I'd actually wanna go. It's odd b/c that trip is hundreds of dollars less than any other city in Europe i've compared it to.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 22, 2009 -> 10:24 AM) Bringing him to trial in the US is wrong, I know that much. This was an international civilian incident and should be tried in international court. I disagree. He attacked a U.S. ship and took hostage of a U.S. citizen. IMO, they have every right to bring him to trial in the U.S. That being said, despite my initial reaction of being glad he'd have to face a U.S. judge for his actions, I am now kind of feeling bad for him. He is only 16-18 years old, appears to have little education, knows no English, is thousands of miles away from home in a country that is nothing like his homeland - he must be terrified. He needs to answer for his actions, but I do feel kind of bad for him. Especially if he was only doing this because he was somewhat manipulated into doing so as his father says (which could very well be false).

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 22, 2009 -> 08:57 AM) Fixing Somalia is a huge, expensive and dangerous undertaking, and I am not sure we could even do that right now if we wanted to. Better to do an amalgam of other things: --Make sure the coalition vessels are flagged with countries with the right laws, as I said --Work with the Somali interim government to do land raids, as they have proposed, by providing some guidance, equipment and money --Special Forces units to go in and start picking off these guys on land --Work with shipping companies to get them to either not go into this area, or be required to have armed security on board --Establish some very specific paths through the area, like flight paths, that the coalition recommends ships stay within - this will dramatically reduce the amount of sea space the coalition ships need to patrol I don't understand why ships don't do this now. From all accounts, these pirates usually attack with just a handful of people. If ships would have 2-3 paid, armed security personnel on board or even a small cache of weapons they could bring out on their own, wouldn't that be enough of a deterrent to cut down on some of this hijackings? I was thinking, an organization like Blackwater, who is a private military contractor could make some money here. They arent exactly beloved in Iraq right now (if they're even still allowed to be there) but I'd think they could make some money here if they offered to "police" this region a little bit

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 21, 2009 -> 01:07 PM) Here's a statistic for you. AT-BATS where the count reaches 2 strikes (0-2, 1-2, 2-2, 3-2)....performance from 2006-2008. Brian Anderson 142 K's/253 chances=57% chance of a strikeout Josh Fields 142 K's/233 chances=61% chance of a strikeout Does that mean that Brian Anderson is a better hitter than Josh Fields? What does this have to do with anything? Adam Dunn struck out 195 times in 568 at bats in 2004. Does that mean he was the worst hitter of anyone with 568+ at bats in 2004? That is just ridiculous logic (having nothing to do with the topic aside)

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 21, 2009 -> 11:47 AM) Don't they have a monster of a ballpark though? Ya whether we have pitching talent or not there, they always seem to have pretty decent pitching statistics.

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Apr 21, 2009 -> 12:32 PM) So now that you have proved that your point cannot truly be proved, what is your point? I think it is that it can not be disproved either

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 21, 2009 -> 10:14 AM) You're right, but the US, Canada, SE Asia, hell even India were not administered anywhere near as half-assed as South America was... and Africa, well that's another story entirely, Europeans basically irreversibly shafted that continent to hell. IMO the British were much better at colonialism because they tended to focus on building up the local economy and showing them to govern rather than just raw exploitation (with the exception of the Middle East, the British f***ed that one up). So when they ended British rule, they at least had a clue about government and how to function. Not so much the case with South America, as you've said. You're right, but it's not even the Europeans here. It was pretty much just Spain and Portugal.