Rex Kickass

Watching the game on DET tv and 2 pitches, 2 bases. Go Sox!

The way Iraq treated everyone was terrible. However, mistreatment of foreigners usually isn't a justification for war. In states where access is restricted, this kind of hidden story isn't that uncommon sadly. Journalism can be dangerous. In other news, I like this smiley. :finger

Hey, Im from Indiana originally. You know what that means. Red Necks, White Socks and Blue Ribbon Beer! Actually, I just forgot what beer they sell at the Cell. I like Labatt's though. I'd buy Warsteiner, but I havent found a park that sells em.

Baggs, Even for being completely wrong (j/k) you do argue your points extremely well. If I ever make it to the Cell this year, the first PBR is on me. Or Labatt's if we watch the Sox destroy Detroit.

I've found that the best, most balanced news coverage comes from Newsworld Int'l because the viewpoints arent just Canadian. They also show several other newscasts from other countries in English (Japan and Germany for example). If the WMD were passed on, then this war was not justified because it only hastened the threat posed by these WMD rather than keeping them in Iraq. However, if they were simply moved to Syria, I'd feel relatively safer. The Syrian regime isn't nearly so careless politically, nor is it as apt to do anything at all with the WMD it posesses. Baggs: consider this, the Turkish parliament rejected the US plan in part because popular opinion against the war ranged in the 90 to 97% range. The slightly Islamist party controlling the secular Turkish parliament risked alienating its base by totally supporting the US position. Even though a liberated, unified Iraq would ultimately be in Turkey's best interest, the way the US went about regime change made enemies. In retrospect, I wish that we had gone about getting to this point in a different fashion. There were opportunities to build a better consensus for regime change, the Bush administration just chose not to build it. Here's to hoping that they will have the foresight to mend fences and be magnanimous.

Lets look at what's happened so far. 1. Iraq has been liberated from despotic rule by the Hussein/Baath regime. Good, no matter how you slice it. 2. No WMD have yet been used by Iraq. Good, no matter how you slice it. 3. Thousands have people died in the invasion of Iraq. Bad, regrettable, saddening. 4. The US has yet to find WMD/NBC material in Iraq. Both good and bad. Good that the stockpile may not have been as large as assumed. Bad in that the US may have fought a war under a non-existent threat if none or found. Or worse if the invasion compelled Hussein to pass his NBC material to other hostile states or NGOs. 5. A burgeoning humanitarian crisis is rapidly showing up in Iraq. Sad, but expected given the way the regime fell. 6. The US, through its actions, has created a world which is fearful and angry at its foreign policy. States such as Turkey who have supported every US military action since WWII chose not to support this war, mainly because of the political doctrine used to justify it. Some political thinkers say that this is the only way to consolidate hegemony for any consistent length of time. Others, myself included, feel that this misguided policy that may indeed do more damage physically to this country and in international stature than we may realize. I hope they find that large pile of WMD necessary to justify this invasion. Even though I disagree with the policy completely, I think its necessary for the US to find and have independently verified in order to mend the fences we damaged in this conflict.

Baggs, They found nuclear waste that's not weapons grade. From a nuclear power plant. It was not a violation of UN resolutions. It was sealed off. The US military broke those seals.

Five run first. Damn.

AP News Story 6:02 PM EDT U.S. `discovery' of nuclear materials said to be breach of U.N.-monitored site (Vienna, Austria-AP) -- U-S troops in Iraq may have unknowingly broken U-N seals meant to control radioactive material. Some Marines have suggested they uncovered evidence of an active nuclear weapons program in Iraq. But today, officials said they may have unwittingly stumbled across known stocks of low-grade uranium. This week, leaders of a Marine combat engineering unit said they found a network of laboratories beneath a nuclear research center south of Baghdad. But an expert familiar with U-N nuclear inspections told The Associated Press it was implausible to believe that U-S forces had uncovered anything new at the site. The official says the Marines apparently broke U-N seals designed to ensure the materials aren't diverted for weapons use -- or end up in the wrong hands. (Copyright 2003 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

I'd like to point out this graph from the foxnews.com story. "They went through that site multiple times, but did they go underground? I never heard anything about that," physicist David Albright, a former IAEA Action Team inspector in Iraq from 1992 to 1997, told the Tribune-Review. "The Marines should be particularly careful because of those high readings," he told the paper. "Three hours at levels like that and people begin to vomit. That leads me to wonder, if the readings are accurate, whether radioactive material was deliberately left there to expose people to dangerous levels. "You couldn't do scientific work in levels like that. You would die." Nobody else has picked this up as of 6:30p. CNN radio wasnt carrying it, it isnt on CNN or BBC or even the Drudge Report. I wouldnt be surprised if its true. But I hope it isn't.

I'd love nothing more to feel that the intentions are the best... but when I see reports coming out of think tanks, both liberal and conservative... and see international relationists who I respect, both liberal and conservative questioning the real motive about what this war means and its underlying foreign policy... its hard for me to think this president is being genuine. This dissent at an intellectual level is something that Clinton did not have to face in his presidency. Maybe its because Bush said in an interview that he doesn't feel he has to explain anything to anybody. Or that he's said repeatedly he feels that he was born to serve in this time (called by God). Maybe its because the Bush administration have had different stories on why this war has to take place every week. First it was because of a nuclear capability that didn't exist. Then it was because of a link to Al-Qaeda that has never been proven, or for that matter convincingly argued. The it was about WMD which we have yet to find (which calls into question how much of a threat his stockpile really is) Then it was about the liberation of the Iraqi people. The last one has seemed to be the only valid one. But the question was never answered "Why is the noble goal of Iraqi liberation considered to be a serious enough threat to national security that it would require massive invasion and long term occupation." Maybe its because he promised long term help for Afghanistan that has already disappeared. Last year, he signed a law allocating over 3 billion dollars for Afghani aid over four years. In his budget submitted to Congress earlier this year, it was listed as unfunded. I don't know if he's actually lied. But it seems that way. And over things far more important than personal behavior.

I hope they stay safe.

The bombing of Iraq took place as a response to the breakdom of UNSCOM. The bombings in the african and asian countries took place because of intelligence on the whereabouts of BinLaden and other Al Qaeda operatives. Kosovo was done in conjunction with other European states, with the understanding that the genocide of a people is inherently wrong. Here genocide can be properly used because there was indeed a push in Kosovo to kill off non-Serbs. We had the backing of NATO, our military goal was limited, clearly stated and transparent. Maybe you didn't see it that way and I can understand that. A lot of people were under the impression the Clinton had something to hide. Perhaps he did, but the Republican push to delegitimize the presidency, and there was a genuine push in the last three years, made it seem as if anything Clinton did was a reaction to moves by Congress. I'm pretty sure, given his foreign policy team that this wasn't true.

Bad ownership always trumps good GMs. It's been the problem with the Tigers, Cubs, Sox, Tampa Bay, Montreal for years.

Bagg - Thanks for the kind words. Nice to see that people do recognize a middle ground sometimes :-).

Isn't he still a relatively young arm? Maybe some more bullpen seasoning would do him good.

It makes me laugh. Thanks. Oh and thanks to everyone for not making me feel totally ignorant of the Sox world, even if I do live in Michigan and can hardly ever get to Chicago. *sniff*

It's two outings at the beginning of the season. Maybe he'll warm up as the weather does. Or maybe he'd fit better in long relief?

Here's to hoping for some kind of recovery. And some kind of success, preferably for a team other than the Twins, Tribe or Cubs

I'll be honest with you. The mid-90s Jordan worship and Bulls fanaticism turned me off the NBA completely. The only team I still enjoy at all is Dallas. And only because of Mark Cuban. So as long as whatever the Bulls do isn't to the ultimate detriment of the Sox, it's all good with me

In Michigan, there have been two "Support The Troops" rallies that attracted a total of 1,750+ people on very bad weather days. In contrast, the Anti-War protests climaxed in February with 2000-2500 people in attendance. It was the largest protest at the state capitol since Vietnam. However, the argument could be made people don't protest what they support if it isn't in danger of disappearing.

Salon had a very good article on what's happened in Afghanistan since its liberation. I hope and pray we don't do the same in Iraq that we've done in Afghanistan.

Apu, Just curious, are you a student? What do you study?

Apu, With all respect - being the first generation of my family born in this country. Having family members from my french side live in German labor/concentration camps, and having family members fight in the Third Reich army... comparisons of Bush or anyone else to the special evil that was Hitler is, in my opinion, insulting to the memories of the millions of people who died in that war. I spent four months studying the holocaust and practices of the Third Reich. What happened in Germany was the culmination of a systemic process of anti-semitism present throughout Europe for generations.George HW Bush and George W Bush are not the same people who, in their family, dealt with the enemy. That's like accusing me of being a Nazi sympathizer because my Grandfather fought in WWII on the wrong side. Deep in my heart, I don't believe that Bush has the same goals or motivations as Hitler or the Third Reich. So lay off the nazi bull s***. History is not taught by analogy. Listen, if you oppose the Bush presidency, that's cool. But if you want to make someone actually listen, understand or agree with your point - don't take the easy way out and make lame, untrue comparisons. Because they don't work.

I think this column is powerful, honest and important. More so than the videos. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/09/opinion/09FRIE.html