Soxbadger

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 29, 2013 -> 04:36 PM) 2) References to Nazi Germany don't seem particularly relevant because Syria doesn't have concentration camps and that wasn't about foreign intervention, that was open warfare between numerous nation-states. You do realize that if it was today Germany would call the Jews "terrorists", "enemies", etc. Im not sure why it matters what the pre-text for killing civilians is. If Germans said they were killing Jews for trying to overthrow the govt, then its okay? No intervention because thats just a civil war? And so if Germany just used chemical weapons on the Jews in ghettos, that wouldnt be a problem either, because thats not a concentration camp? This is going beyond absurd. Either you protect people from regimes that kill them, or you dont. There is no "Well if the conditions are perfect then maybe well get involved." That line of thinking is what led to more than half the jews in the world being eradicated. ITS NOT OUR PROBLEM!!!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 29, 2013 -> 04:21 PM) How in the world can you actually project that? There is no way of being able to tell what would have happened if it was just let go. Even just thinking of a place like Rwanda where somewhere around a million people died, I can't see how you could project that 1.4 million would have died if there had been military intervention at some point. Its just made up bulls***. I hate to say it, but it is.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 29, 2013 -> 04:13 PM) Both options will result in death. Historically, at least according to some research Balta posted, intervention (aka bombing, which is the only option besides ground troops) leads to as much as 40% more deaths than non-intervention. The chances are at best 50/50 that bombing will kill less people than not-bombing. Why do you want to sentence the inevitable civilian casualties of interventionist bombing to death when there is no guarantee or even strong likelihood that the intervention will lead to less civilian casualties? That is where I stand and why I can't bring myself to support intervention. I want to minimize civilian deaths and humanitarian crises. I see no evidence that foreign military intervention will do such a thing in a situation like Syria. As I said to Balta, how can you get statistical evidence about things that didnt happen? How can you know what the casualty rate would be if there was no intervention. You cant. You can only compare pre-intervention to post intervention. But that is inherently flawed as intervention almost always comes when casualties are increasing, it very rarely comes when casualties are decreasing. Therefore it stands to reason that there will be more deaths after intervention, because the conflict was escalating. If they are comparing different conflicts, thats just a waste of time because they are unique. And because historically intervention has saved lives. Its indisputable. Or do you think we should have just let the IRC help the Jews? http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=...&b=394663#3 Because Im sure your aware ONLY 141k German Jews were murdered, so thats just like Syria, just send some aid and call it a day! Sad.

Intervention does not necessarily mean "bombing" people. But even if it did and its 50/50, does that mean those people should be sentenced to death because we dont want to take a risk that more people are going to die? I guess I just dont understand the logic. If you are into isolationism and dont believe that the US should get involved in other peoples business, I can understand that. I disagree, but I can understand. But if you think the US should help, I dont see how you can say that our hands are tied because the possibility of our help may result in death, when by all accounts it seems that us not helping will definitely result in death.

A lot of things have lead to horrible humanitarian crises in the past. That doesnt mean you just raise your hands to the sky and give up. It means you try and do better.

Yeah my money league is a keeper (you get to keep a maximum of 2 players, they count as whatever round you drafted them last year +1 and you can only keep for 3 years total), so its pretty difficult to try and guess what is going on. I have the 8th pick, so I am hoping that McCoy is there. The real fun is after the 2nd because I wont make another selection until the 6th round (3rd round was traded last year, 4th is RGIII keeper and 5th is AJ Green). Ive been going back and forth on the RGIII keeper all off season, but after crunching the numbers there may be 6-8 qbs kept, which means that things could get dicey at that position fast.

No one can tell you how to draft. There are different strategies, so your first round pick really dictates how the rest of your draft goes. If you want to take the most conservative approach, draft the best rb available. A likely option is Lesean McCoy. I think hes going to do great things under Kelly's offense.

Nice!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 29, 2013 -> 03:10 PM) What about jimmy graham with my second pick at 24? It really just depends. If your picking at 24, I assume that means you also have 25. Which means you are then going to have to wait about 20 more picks before your next pick. You basically have to calculate what tiers of players are going to be gone. But it wont be a bad pick, it just could make you reach a little further in rounds 4-5.

All Titans offensive players go in the "I guess Ill draft them if I have no other choice" category.

I like Eddie Lacy. I think hes going to make some people very happy.

0 But its a longstanding tradition that my college roommates and I create madden franchise teams and then play them. Playing online isnt the same.

Yeah i was looking for her articles because those were kind of the rage when expansion was being discussed.

Does it have multiplayer offline franchise, thats all I want to know.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 29, 2013 -> 01:38 PM) As I stated, typically those numbers do not count the cost of the stadium or bonds on the stadium, which are considered university resources, among the many other things on campus they may use. Thats pretty much the opposite of what Ive read. When you look through the numbers they almost always include those type of things in the budget. http://www.uwbadgers.com/genrel/021213aab.html UW Athletics is requesting a budget of just over $133 million for 2013-14. The figure includes a one-time, $30 million expense for construction costs related to the department’s Student-Athlete Performance Center. {edit} http://www.blackheartgoldpants.com/2011/4/...partments-books That is Iowa from a few years ago. It goes over the $14mil building related expenses and how everything you listed is part of it. The donations basically make most big10 schools profitable.

If you want to save as many as you can, then you have to directly intervene. Humanitarian aid wont save the maximum amount possible, it just hopefully will limit the amount of casualties. And even then its no guarantee as military intervention could kill 1million people, but maybe 10mil would have died without intervention. After WWII I believe that my people have an obligation to protect those from govts who can not protect themselves. I know that most people dont feel that way, but sometimes you have to swim upstream.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/colle...sidies/2142443/ http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/ OSU made $17mil last year. Most Big10 schools either break even or make a slight profit.

So we only save those who are fortunate enough to get out? Leave the rest to their own devices? That just doesnt sit right with me. I dont believe its an acceptable solution. But I will admit that I am likely more interventionist than others, even if it is means intervening on behalf of people who may one day want to kill me.

So what? I dont really get where you are going with this. You act outraged that 100k people are dead, then you turn around and say that bad things can happen with interference. At some point you need to make a decision and stand by it. Bad things are going to happen, no matter what we do, no matter how good our intentions may be. But you cant let the possibility of bad things dissuade you from doing what you believe is right. Now that is up to every individual, if you dont think its right to interfere, thats your call.

I dont know where that line is. I do think evidence of chemical weapons being used against civilians is probably a "strong case", considering that weve attacked countries just because they allegedly had chemical weapons.

Im quietly optimistic about Wisconsin this year. I think people are going to find out real quick about Gary Andersen.

I dont know Im kind of sick of the defeatist attitude. Just because bad things have happened in the past, doesnt mean that they will happen in the future. You cant let people be purposefully murdered just because there may be some collateral damage if you try and stop it. We get to worked up about looking through crystal balls to try and guess what will happen. Sometimes you just need to do the right thing, and then let the chips fall where they may. You may not always be the hero, but it doesnt mean you shouldnt try. Maybe we are damned if we do and damned if we dont, but id rather be damned and do.

lulz The conversation is about Jerusalem being attacked. I dont know (nor claim to know) anything about Sunni/Shiite inter-fighting, which is completely unrelated to threats against Israel/Jerusalem. Unless you are now saying that threat was to attack Muslim holy sites? Point remains, historically speaking Muslims have not gone out of their way to target holy sites in Jerusalem. Even though they have had ample opportunity, they have specifically chosen against this. Ill just believe you were uninformed about the Saddam issue.

He never targeted Jerusalem. It was Tel-Aviv and Haifa. Targeting Jerusalem is off limits, even Saddam knew that. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...y/Gulf_War.html The more you know.

If you are going to hate on Muslims thats fine, but attacking holy sites isnt there MO. Thats just a historical fact. I also dont believe Saddam fired scuds at Jerusalem. I can remember that day very clearly because I was in Hebrew school and my teacher was from Israel. He fired at Tel-Aviv and Haifa. http://www.jpost.com/Features/In-Thespotli...rrorizes-Israel http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/s...000/4588486.stm So yeah, the last thing we need is a bunch of saber rattling Americans to claim that Muslims are attacking Jerusalem.