Damen

QUOTE(striker62704 @ Jan 5, 2007 -> 05:41 PM) How is this depressing? We get two pitchers for one, one of which is just as good as the one we got rid of. That sounds good to me. If we were going for the higher ceiling Danks, then I grudgingly agree with the trade. However, if Danks is due to be no more than a lefthanded version of McCarthy, I don't quite see the point. We're sacrificing our rotation in 2007 for what, exactly?

In the wake of Uribe's court appearance, which may have him sitting out the 2007 season, here's a somewhat depressing analysis of the McCarthy/Danks trade by Baseball America's Jim Callis. http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/askba/263050.html

The fantastic grammar really adds to the charm.

QUOTE(NUKE @ Dec 20, 2006 -> 11:29 AM) This remark is fraught with ignorance. Rummy's idea of a "modern military" was a lighter and more agile force that had less administrative fat and with equipment that was easier to deploy. The Cold War era force structure that existed before was too heavy and too slow to react to modern conflicts ( think of the 1991 Gulf War where it took 6 months to build up the necessary forces ). Nowhere was it implied that we were going to reduce troop levels. The idea was to contract out some support and administrative jobs and free up those slots within the authorized end strength for more "trigger pullers". This idea was outstanding in every respect, especially when you consider that the next time we go to war we may not have the months of prep time that we have in the past. I don't know if you can quite say it's been outstanding in every respect.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Dec 20, 2006 -> 07:48 AM) Kinda like David Duke, who seems to always pop up in the news even though he should be thrust off into obscurity, eh? Does he always pop up in the news? Outside of going to Iran, I can't think of the last time I saw him.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 19, 2006 -> 06:25 AM) You probably need to do a little bit of research on your ethnic breakdown numbers FWIW. They really aren't close. Yeah, you're right. 60% Shiite. It was late.

QUOTE(NUKE @ Dec 18, 2006 -> 02:48 PM) The goal is a stable democratic government and I believe it to be a laudable one. The biggest problem we have over there right now is Iran and Syria engaging us in a proxy war by stirring up sectarian violence. I agree that its time for us to step back into a training and backup role and let the Iraqi's pacify their own country but for us to up and leave now would be foolish. Even members of the Bush administration have backtracked from claiming that to be our goal. Here's the problem with that. 90% of Shiites have voted for religious Shiite candidates. 90% of Sunni's voted for religious Sunni candidates. 90% of Kurds voted for Kurdish candidates. But 80% of Iraq is Shiite. That's how you end up with a plurality made out of two Iranian-aligned parties, The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution and the Islamic Call parties. Yes, the Shiite Islamic fundamentalist governments of Iran and Syria are providing some support, but so is Saudi Arabia for the Sunni minority. But I think its a mistake to view their support as engaging us in a proxy war, and moreso capitalizing on the opportunity we provided for them to extend Shiite control from Iran across to Syria. Which is why Saudi Arabian clerics have called for support for Sunni militants, and the government has threatened to provide further monetary and military support if we leave. But, I don't see where our military comes into play anymore on a large scale. After 3 years of training, the Iraqi army has yet to take on Sunni militants without needing American troops to take over, and the day we ask the Iraqi army to engage with other Shiites in Al Sadr's militia is the day the army falls apart. The weapons we've provided for them find themselves on the blackmarket, to be used by the insurgency against us, likely purchased with smuggled oil profits we've been unable to control. Every "surge" we've had so far has failed to quell the violence. On the contrary, Anbar has all but been conceded to Al Queda connected Sunni insurgents and Baghdad is as violent as ever, despite the repositioning in June. Extending tours and reducing breaks to allow for 30,000 additional troops to get shot at will barely recover the troops in the "coalition" who are pulling out their troops, if they haven't already. It's nothing but an act of arrogance and vanity by men who have been wrong about everything so far, but still want to give one more CYA push on other peoples backs so they don't have to admit they were wrong.

QUOTE(NUKE @ Dec 18, 2006 -> 02:48 PM) The goal is a stable democratic government and I believe it to be a laudable one. The biggest problem we have over there right now is Iran and Syria engaging us in a proxy war by stirring up sectarian violence. I agree that its time for us to step back into a training and backup role and let the Iraqi's pacify their own country but for us to up and leave now would be foolish. I've got to get some work done, but I'll respond to this later.

QUOTE(NUKE @ Dec 18, 2006 -> 02:39 PM) What exactly is the obvious? Is it that our current strategy is not working? I agree with that, it is not. What is your solution then aside from turning tail and running? I don't see how keeping our military to support an Iranian-aligned fundamentalist Islamic government when most Iraqi's no longer want us there accomplishes anything for our country. If you believe in risking your life to support whatever goal it is we've got, then good for you. I don't. QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 18, 2006 -> 02:43 PM) I'll give you another tip. I'm pretty sure Kap isn't 17. He just said he was...that's kind of all I've got to go by at this point. When you say you're 17, and you write like you're 17, I'm going to take you at your word.

QUOTE(NUKE @ Dec 18, 2006 -> 02:35 PM) I agree with Kaps viewpoints and Ive already fought in this war and am preparing to go back for a second go around. Any questions? Nope...I'm glad you've got the balls to back up what you believe in unlike so many others these days. But it doesn't change anything else I've said.

QUOTE(NUKE @ Dec 18, 2006 -> 02:32 PM) Fixed for ya. There is no military solution. I'd rather we face the obvious rather than keep sacrificing more lives and more money just to save some egos. QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 18, 2006 -> 02:36 PM) Small note...you should make sure the person you're saying that to isn't in the military himself when you say that. 17?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 15, 2006 -> 04:23 PM) 17. I hope you'll soon be enlisting in this war you still believe so much in so my friends don't have to go back for their third and fourth tours.

At least we classified the number of attacks in Iraq. In the absence of any good news, just hide the bad news, and hope Rush convinces enough people this is all the media's fault.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 15, 2006 -> 01:58 PM) I'm soooooooooo sorry. We are the evil bastards of why the world is so wrong. My errors in thinking and judgements won't happen again... since WE have led to the killing of 600,000 plus people. How old are you?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 15, 2006 -> 09:35 AM) Yes, if said American kept company with folks who pledged his allegiance to killing innocents. What if he didn't, but they said he did? You'll take the foreign government at their word?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 15, 2006 -> 07:06 AM) Just like we're responsible for 600,000 deaths should be ridiculed, because Saddam killed that many Shias to keep them down. THEY are killing each other simply because they can now, not DIRECTLY by us. Here's the bottom line. These people have to WANT to grab their freedom. It's obvious that they can't handle it. That's Bush's miscalculation and where he went wrong. The resulting bloodshed is all about these people wanting to smoke each other at any cost more then us creating it. I know. We invaded their country, destroyed their infrastructure, and them damned Iraqi's can't handle their freedom. That in nearly 4 years we've unleashed the same amount of violence that Sadaam did in 20 doesn't seem to be a point you'd want to bring up. The resulting bloodshed was widely predicted. That Bush didn't see that was just one of many miscalculations.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 14, 2006 -> 09:14 PM) And before someone says "its war its going to be ugly", we all know that. And it is. But thats why its supposed to be a last resort, and only when dire threat to our national security is involved. There is no way (and never was) the Iraq war falls into that category. And of course that's why the same people who dismiss the terrible ramifications of this war now with statements such as that, were likely the same one's who eagerly bought the Bush/Rumsfeldian view that this war would be anything but. Now that it's become what anti-Iraq war proponents said it would become, and were ridiculed for it, its back to being a "war is going to be ugly" scenario. Yet I don't remember that phrase altered too often back in 2002-3. Back then, war was a cakewalk, to be paid for by the country we're to invade. QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 14, 2006 -> 09:16 PM) On a different topic...I think my mind just fell apart on this one. Either that or I just simultaneously unraveled every mystery of the universe at once. Possibly the single greatest argument as to why homosexual parents shouldn't be allowed, regardless of the data: Context and ID of speaker here. Still laughing. There's nothing Steven Colbert can do to satire Bill O'Reilly anymore than just repeating his broadcast verbatim.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 14, 2006 -> 06:18 PM) What's "violence"? Mom screaming at the kids? Seriously, there are good things happening over there too, but no one wants to look for it. Does the bad outweigh the good? Certainly. But you won't hear anything good because it doesn't sell TV ads or newspapers. Leading with a hit and run on the 10:00 news is about ratings. Reporting on the rampant violence of a civil war over some generic request for "good things happening" is assigning the events the proper amount of importance they require. There's a reason you don't here about the good things in Darfur. Doing anything less would trivialize the serious and tragic events that are occuring.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 14, 2006 -> 02:28 PM) It's certainly not all roses and flowery crap that the right wing blowhards like to say, but it's not as bad as the other side claims it is, either. It's war. It will suck. Of COURSE it's not that great over there. Hell, sounds to me like we should all pack up for a glory trip to Baghdad, don'tcha think? Riiight. We're not that dumb, Laura. You're right for the most part, but I also think that going around throwing 600,000 people killed around and generally insinuating that we're the single cause of it, is not correct, and I also think that number is inflated to gain more ammunition to "get out". Care to provide any examples of how it's "not as bad as the other side claims" it is? You do realize that the 600,000 number was reached using the same methodology as were used in Darfur, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Eastern Congo. It was even used by the US government shortly after the Afghanistan invasion. But now, because we are more directly involved, and the number is shockingly high, its 'inflated to make us get out.' Anything more to it than that, besides a reflexive dismissal of unhappy data due to partisanship?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 14, 2006 -> 02:11 PM) Your strawman argument is using 600,000 people killed and then saying in a round about way that it's our fault. Really? Is it? Is that what you think? There is a very real chance there could be 600,000 dead. I'm sure you've got valid reasons why you seem to dismiss it out of hand, please share them. I think it's our fault to the point that there wouldn't be potentially 600,000 dead had this administration not invaded a country with little thought of what to do next. If I believed "Amerikkkans killed all those people", I would have said so. But I don't, so I didn't. Why you felt the need to bring it up, I've got no idea. I do know that it was in response to my question about what the good news in Iraq is at the moment. I'm going to assume you disagree with me that there is very little good news to report in Iraq, that the media is making things worse than they actually are. If that's the case, good argument.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 14, 2006 -> 01:57 PM) Oh boy. Nice, sparky. And WE AMERIKKKANS killed all those people! *sigh* Now, again, comes the predictible response. You know, when you need to assign ridiculous strawman arguments instead of dealing with my own words, that only goes to show how weak your own views are. If you disagree with anything I see, feel free to point it out. But deal with what I say, not with some cartoonish version of what you'd like to think I say.

I would have loved to see Laura pressed on explaining some of the great things that are happening around Baghdad today. That talking point would go away if those who used were ever asked about that. Potentially up to 600,000 dead. Millions flooding Syria and Jordan to escape the violence. Dozens of bullet-ridden bodies piling up daily. An entire providence conceeded to Al Queda connected Sunni insurgents. The most popular and powerful political figure in Iraq, by far, is the one fighting against US troops. What's the good news that should be reported in the face of that? That we were never able to restore power to pre-war levels? That we stopped focusing on opening schools long ago because security spiraled out of control? It's a joke that even in this stage someone like her will try and say the media is making things worse out than they actually are.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 13, 2006 -> 05:02 PM) Link But the reporter who pushed this story, leaving out key elements exonerating Reid, got promoted in a gig at the Washington Post.

Speaking of 'opinions' disguised as news, from those communist manifesto-spouting liberals at CNN, apparently if you have any sense of fashion, you're trying to evoke images of Iranian fundamentalist Islam (or the allies of the Iraqi parties we're upholding to 'win') Thank god the liberals at liberal CNN could draw such intriguing and important comparisons. Fortunately, there is another liberal on liberal CNN that may ask Obama what we're all thinking, by dressing business casual, can you prove you're not the enemy? What would we do without the balance Fox provides?

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Dec 11, 2006 -> 03:59 PM) "While many feel the situation in Iraq is an unwinnable one, the President still stands firm in his belief that the United States will prevail. However, his view may be in the minority when compared to the rest of the country." There was a different way to say it without trying to slam the President. We get it, you don't like Bush, think he is dumb, think he is the devil, Hitler, whatever. Actually, that's decent, although it doesn't encompass all of what the reporter was trying to say. Up until the Baker Commission report came out, the Bush Administration had consistently peddled an image of Iraq that couldn't have been further from the truth. It wasn't until the past week, that there seemed to be any semblance of a public acknowledgement of reality. Its not that Bush just thinks its "winnable", whatever that means at this point, when others don't. I don't see why a reporter shouldn't be able to acknowledge that reality without being biased, although it should have been done without the kool-aid reference.