NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Aug 9, 2006 -> 08:13 AM) Hardly. Your views were definitely Clear. Clearly unoriginal. Your the only one who calls anything out on me (and a certain cohort). Your views are nothing but negative, unimaginative, and without any thought. Id love to hear what you really think about anything, but unfortuneately, you sit by the keyboard ready for my next post. At least I have the guts to post what I feel, your nothing but the message board version of Jay Mariotti. My original thought stands, the SOX fanbase has always been "negative" because were more realistic, (for comparison, look at the other fanbase 8miles north to define realism) its just that the spotlight has shone on us now more than before. OK, so, I'm going to go way off topic here, but this question has been bothering me for a while... Why in the heck do you always CAPITALIZE SOX when you type it? Is it some sort of acronym you came up with or something? Just curious.

As previously stated by Rex, not more than a few days ago, we will NOT be having individual threads celebrating death in any form. If someone wants to DISCUSS the death penalty or other political issues, and use certain cases as examples, that is of course just fine. PM your favorite local Mod (Rex or myself) if you require further clarification. Thanks.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Aug 8, 2006 -> 05:35 PM) I believe it will be detonated, but not by the US. At worst, we may provide it to some third party in the Middle East, but I don't believe we will drop/detonate another one. We already HAVE provided some as a third party to at least one Middle East nation.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 8, 2006 -> 10:27 PM) No, not in the articles themselves, but CERTAINLY on what is CHOSEN to be reported on, there's bias. That is certainly possible. Hard to judge that, though, without being on the ground. Thing with that is, I actually happen to be close to someone who has spent a lot of time on the ground in Iraq as a journalist. I can't speak for Lebanon, but in the case of Iraq, I've gotten a strong impression that if anything, the picture we get from there is actually prettier than the reality.

Pretty good summary. Things are not so gloomy, at this point. We'll have a really good picture of the division at the end of August, I think.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 8, 2006 -> 03:57 PM) I ain't givin' up my four wheel drive, that's for sure! Some people don't want to think about the big picture.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 8, 2006 -> 03:37 PM) Our only short-term goal with Iran is to keep them from becoming a nuclear power. My point was this could be achieved without a ground troop invasion of the country. Any action that would be necessary, in those terms, would not overextend our military nor be impossible due to limitations in military resources. We have stockpiles of ready-to-use missiles all over the country. As far as any retaliation goes, that’s fine. Let the people in the Middle East fight THEIR war. So long as Iran poses no threat to our security via the nuke or ubber-long range missiles, I could care less what they do. In a scenario in which the US (or hopefully the vagina-laden UN) would need to strike Iran, the rest of the world would be waiting to pounce on them for any sort of retaliation. I don't care how strong their army is (which I can't imagine is all that powerful, but admittedly I don't know anything about it); sending a global taskforce to the region would quickly diminish any threat they may pose. I wasn't meaning their marketing of the war was bad, though admittedly the fear-factor was over played. I meant that they should never have coined the phrase “shock and awe.” As soon as they kept spouting that people were imagining some chaotic event whereby everyone in the world would be awed by what they saw. In reality it wasn't all that exciting unless you think about the logistics of the whole thing. Being able to send missiles from various points across the region and from different mediums (air, land, sea) and hit targets the size of a window was, for the lack of a better word, awesome. I still think the war, from a military perspective, was successful. And even though it’s still not going as everyone would hope (the instant-gratification that “hey we free’d you, go play nice”), the fact is we’re gaining much needed experience in street-to-street combat that is probably going to define the war against terrorism. And not to rehash old arguments, but your point of the Gulf War doesn't really apply. They could have said we were going after the stockpile of cheese in the middle of Baghdad and people would have been excited about it because Saddam attacked a defenseless country that happens to harbor an interest in every industrialized nation’s oil. No matter what the real purpose of this war was (I'd imagine any pro-war argument I'd give would be met with a ton of counter-arguments, so I'm not even going to bother…), marketing it would be much more difficult than the Gulf War. Your perception that Iran's distance from us would insulate us from the impact of retaliation isn't really realistic. They could do plenty - and they don't need missiles to do it.

QUOTE(Queen Prawn @ Aug 8, 2006 -> 11:37 AM) Well, it happened. Brian is serious about trading in his Maurader he just got in February. He loves the car, but with the chance the gas prices are going to continue to rise rather than stabilize, he wants to get a 4 banger (likely either a Ford Focus or a Cougar I-4 if he can find it). I just hope he can be happy with the lack of get up and go most 4 bangers have (which is why I pretty much refuse to ever own one again - with all the highway driving I do, a 4 banger will make me lose it when I get passed, left right and sideways lol). Most hybrids outperform their regular gas-only counterparts on acceleration. Something to consider.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Aug 8, 2006 -> 11:24 AM) I think what Evil's talking about is Kofi's lack of outrage at the intentional bombing of the U.N. people by the Hizbollah terrorists. But the original posts that I was replying to were talking about media bias. I asked for evidence that the article in question contained such bias. There appears to be none.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 8, 2006 -> 10:38 AM) I'm failing to see why we couldn't stop Iran without using ANY ground troops. If the aim of the whole "war" is to stop Iran from building/using nukes, why couldn't we drop a few nicely placed 1000lb bombs on their plants/factories? We wouldn't have to invade them to reverse their nuclear capabilities. Just destroy any advancements they've made and it'll give the world another 10-15 years to deal with the crazy douche-bags hellbent on destroying anything anti fascist-islam. As much as most people think the Iraq war was a "failure," it was actually proven, militarily speaking, to be quite a success on most fronts. New technology, new tactics and new systems were all used for the first time in Iraq with a lot of success. The whole "shock and awe" campaign would have been an amazing story had they not chosen to publicize, with a ridiculous phrase, what they were about to do. I think that whole campaign proved that we have the capabilities to pinpoint a target as small as a person or as big as a building and destroy it from hundreds of miles away. We could use the same type of campaign against Iran and negate any threat they might pose without sending any ground troops into the country. First, what you are suggesting for Iran is exactly what Israel is likely to do, if they were to attack. But that is because Israel could only do just that. Here is the problem with just bombing Iran - they aren't Libya. Iran has a large military, and the resources and motivation to strike back - in many, many ways. If you just bomb them and hope all is going to be fine and dandy, you are dreaming. Iran will do anything it can in response to get the US - attack its neighbors, further destabilize Iraq, redirect the Hezbollah funding to go after the West, etc. You bomb Iran, you sentence yourself to a large scale conflict. That in itself may not be a bad thing anyway, and maybe its needed. But a simple bomb-and-run like we did in Libya is not in the cards here. As for the Iraq war's success, I would like to know what you think was successful. The fact that there was no military resistance to speak of? I think what is more telling is what you say about the miltary's marketing of the war. In the first Gulf War, Schwarzkopf and Powell talked up a long, involved war, how tough the Republican Guard were, etc. They played the worst case scenario in the press. Which is (duh) SMART. These bozos who planned this one were too busy telling people to expect parades in Baghdad to realize what an awful bog they were becoming mired in. They did the opposite, and sure enough, it bit them in the rear.

QUOTE(joeynach @ Aug 8, 2006 -> 09:12 AM) Yes it is Uribe they were talking about. When they said back trouble and possible DL i thought they were talking about Crede but it is actually Uribe. We will see what happens. We have some viable backups there in cintron and ozuna. Ozuna at SS is not what I would call viable. He can play 3B, but at SS he looked awful when he played last year.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 8, 2006 -> 08:38 AM) Show you what? The lack of screaming headlines as Hebollah hits a UN site? The lack of screaming headlines when Hezbollah fires missles at Israel from too close to UN positions, full well knowing that that Israel will target those missle fire sites for retailiation? The lack of front page headlines over the one line retraction associated with a death toll dropping from 40 to 1 in one incident, when the incident itself provoked front page outrage itself? The lack of calls for Hezbollah to quit violating the Geneva conventions by being ununiformed and hiding in civilian areas, while showing repeated scenes from southern Lebannon taking Israel to task for their violations of the same treaty? Its hard to "show you" something that doesn't exsist. See this is the hard thing. I believe Israel has a lot of fault for what is happening today. I believe they have overreacted in a lot of what they have done, but at the sametime I feel like an Israel apologist because I feel like very few are telling the whole story here. Now, I do agree that Kofi, and many countries in that region and elsewhere, do indeed have a definite dislike of Israel. But in regards to the things you see as lacking, many of those things sound like normal war reporting to me. Of course death tolls drop precipitously in areas with no government in place. How do you think they get the estimates of 40 to begin with? Those people on the ground are clueless, and have every reason to exagerrate, but they are the only source available (since the Lebanese government is pretty much worthless at this point). Is that media bias? No, its pandemonium combined with biased locals being the only data source. And as for where are the "screaming headlines as Hezbollah hits a UN site", maybe you aren't looking for them - because I see them. Hezbollah isn't being looked at as much more than a terrorist organization outside the Arab world, which is as it should be. Not exactly big news that they are firing rockets indiscriminately, which has been reported DAILY. There is also another dynamic at work here, one more insidious. Ironically, those who claim to be semi-neutral in all this or even those who support a democratic Lebanon and/or want a ceasefire, are all displaying an underlying core of hatred and bigotry of all things Arab or Islamic. How, you might ask? Part of it is exactly what you pointed to - there is a higher level of expectation of conduct from Israel than from other nations in the region. The EXPECTATION is that, whether it be Hezobollah or any nation or sect or group in the region, they will behave in an inhumane, illogical fashion. In the case of Hezbollah, part of that (the inhumane part) is often true. But not so of the others, necessarily. That expectation is also centered on the absurd technological superiority of Israel's weaponry. The end result may indeed be more international outrage at Israel's conduct - which we are seeing. But the MEDIA is reporting what is going on - including all the world's biases, their reactions, etc. - which are news. All that aside though, I was referring to THAT article, which you and SC expressed in one way or another was biased in some fashion. I want to see that bias.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Aug 7, 2006 -> 09:37 PM) oh i know the article isnt on their frontpage right now. ive been saving it for a while because its so rediculous. guess i shoulda put it in green, but it was a good opportunity to drop it in (at least i thought it was). i guess we disagree as to the content. i think the article a joke. reading that title for the first time...all i could say was wow. the bbc is terrible. just my opinion. I'm going to pry on this one. Where in that article do you see anything remotely resembling bias? This chorus of whining from the right is seriously getting on my nerves. SHOW ME in the article what is said that is slanted, untrue, exagerrated, doctored or otherwise altered due to bias of any kind. I think you are confusing media bias with media reporting things you don't like. Now, the Reuters photos discussed elsewhere is another story. That is just slimey as hell, you don't have to sell me on that. Its embarrasing journalism, and it shows a clear bias. Case closed. But I want you to tell me that you think Hezbollah isn't winning hearts and minds. 'Cause I'll guaran-goddamn-tee they are. QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 8, 2006 -> 07:25 AM) I'm just shocked... no wait... You too. Show me.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 7, 2006 -> 09:50 PM) CONVENTIONAL warfare, on a mass scale (not carpet bombing, even) is all it would take. But, again, we still don't have the wherewithal to do it. We don't have the resources for war on a mass scale in any case.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Aug 7, 2006 -> 09:28 PM) im sure this will be all over the BBC, as soon as their Hezbollah Wins Hearts story isnt current anymore. what news bias? 1. That article is from July 21st. 2. I've read it previously, and frankly, I fail to see the bias. You may not LIKE what is reported there, but I saw nothing in the article that falls under the category of media bias. Hezbollah is indeed winning the hearts and minds of many in the Gaza, right or wrong aside. It is reality.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 7, 2006 -> 09:05 PM) I am NOT calling for a draft. We have the technology to destroy stuff but good with little man power. But. as I said, half (at least) of Americans couldn't stomach a real ass-kicking war "without justification". THESE PEOPLE WANT TO KILL US. Is that justification enough? ohhhhhhhhh, THAT'S what you meant. Yeah, I'd be in the 50% that say no. Probably more than 50% of us, too. No to nukes, no to indescriminate carpet bombing, no to erring on the side of s*** goes boom.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Aug 7, 2006 -> 04:57 PM) Well if we arent going to fight this war conventionally, we will be fighting it later with nukes. Because nutty that runs Iran, wants to see mohammed. And he figures if he makes Tel Aviv glow in the dark, that his buddy is on his way back. You are fighting this now or later. Later releases a lot more radioactive dust into the atmosphere than now. And how long before Al Queda or some other nutty islamofacist organization gets their hands on one of the iranian nukes. Nice shipping container with a 300 kiloton weapon in it would make for a big bang on the east or west coast. The time to stop these morons is now. Not after they have the weapon. We tried this approach of using the UN, giving in to some of their demands and look where it got us with North Korea. Clinton gave them an appeasement, and he was getting the bird from them and didnt know it. Look at North Korea, at what point do you think that they decided to invade South Korea and hold the west hostage saying well if you respond we will nuke Los Angeles. I hope all of the liberals have the stomach for what is about to happen. Because if a nuke goes off in the US, that country needs to be destroyed, no ands ifs or butts on the matter. If we pussy foot around this, every country will have a nuke and will hold us hostage. I actually tend to agree with you, for the most part. Iran is a fairly large threat - and I don't see a lot going well there. What I was actually addressing, though, was Lebanon - and how we don't have the available military resources to act in force there. But true, the same goes for Iran. Forget the UN for the moment. How about real coalition building? Use the UN or don't, but a truly multinational force (not the farce in Iraq that is 99% 2 countries' forces) means no one country needs to send tens of thousands of troops. Its about efficiency. Call Iran's proxy bluff. Show them we have the balls to act for real peace, even if it means a long term commitment to a multilateral peacekeeping mission in Lebanon. Heck, that might even result in some good will in the Middle East, translating to less support for the extremists.

Play Ozuna at 3rd, occasionally spelled by Mack. People may forget, but Ozuna got to a point where he didn't do that bad over there last year. Obviously nothing like Crede, but passable. Play Mack as 4th OF ALL positions more often (though less in CF), no more Ozuna in the OF. Call up a 12th pitcher, especially in this long stretch w/o a break. Tracey would be best.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 7, 2006 -> 03:00 PM) Funny, but you miss the point (well, you probably didn't but the conversation moved away from it, imagine that). The military can win any war it wants to, but 50% of Americans wouldn't stand for it. Except that if you institute the draft as you hint at here, you will NOT have the same capabilities. Drafted soldiers and volunteer soldiers are not interchangeable - they aren't pods. There is a difference. Besides, you need a lot more than bodies, training and knowledge as well - you also need a ton of hardware that we don't have yet. We aren't ready.

Sweet!!! Thanks, SF1. That's great. I'll use the 2nd one.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 7, 2006 -> 07:27 AM) So far in the conflict we have seen -casualty totals exaggerated or lied about. -photos doctored -Hezbollah controlling access to attack zones -Evidence of Hebollah trying to blend in with civilains in violation of the Geneva Conventions, which has been barely reported. -Firing on Israel systematically from civilian areas, which has also been very underreported. And people wonder why the MSM's credibility is doubted... And to be fair, only one of those five points has ANYTHING to do with the MSM - the doctored photos. You can blame Hezbollah for the rest.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Aug 6, 2006 -> 01:05 PM) This is so frustrating. I'm not blaming anyone. I'm simply trying to say this. Within 48 hours, there was definitely an opportunity in the beginning stages of this conflict to not only keep this situation from spiralling out of control as well as acheiving Israel's goal of disarming Hezbollah. But world powers chose not to exercise diplomatic leadership. This doesn't involve military forces. This doesn't involve assigning blame, or yelling at one country to do something. This simply involves powerful governments in the world to be aware of the goings on within certain hotspots of the world. And that's something that powerful governments in the world chose not to do. It involves talking to both the Lebanese and Israeli governments immediately following the start of such a conflict and working quickly toward a resolution for both sides. Only one government stood up to lead any kind of diplomacy in the region. That was France. However, they don't have the influence in the region that a Russia, US, UK or even China would have. So their initiative ends up in a broadly worded call for a ceasefire that isn't really a ceasefire to begin with because the language is so broad and loose that it basically binds Israel to no terms of ceasefire whatsoever as long as they claim it to be a "defensive action." With that kind of language, its no wonder why Lebanon rejects it out of hand. I agree. There was a golden opportunity for the US and other powers here, and they chose not to take it. Probably, at least in the case of the US, because they realize that it would take years of commitment - beyond the current term of politicians. I am not sure why samclemens thought that "the left" in the US would be against a peacekeeping operation either - I think they would in fact support it.

Ha!!! When I saw the thread title, I thought you were suggesting that Ozzie PLAY for a week.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 03:22 PM) Sorry, I don't buy that. Do you actually not believe that Iran is funding Hezbollah? 'Cause I'd bet the farm they are.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 02:52 PM) Thank you email is pretty clutch. Also maybe a follow up call in a week if you havent heard anything. People love when you follow up. It makes you seem organized and motivated. It depends on the job, but sometimes 1 week, sometimes several months. definitely - the thank you email or letter is huge, and don't be bashful about following up (just don't do it RIGHT away).