StrangeSox

I don't think our intelligence agencies have a whole lot of information on NK, either. That study covers both that aspect and the hypothetical fading away of the NK army as well, finding it much less likely than what we saw in Iraq.

This analysis seems legit: http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic...ce-on-the-kore/

I'm trying to find someone who actually knows what they're talking about discussing likely scenarios and outcomes and not coming up with anything worthwhile.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 05:35 PM) Thinking about how effective the Iraqi military of the 90's was, with tons of more capital to invest in their military, I really get the feeling that NK is a paper tiger. That's not a gamble I'm willing to make on behalf of Seoul.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 04:52 PM) Yeah. I just find it odd that we don't negotiate with terrorists, but we do negotiate and pay off state-sponsored terrorist leaders. Real politik (also we have a good history of both negotiating with and funding/sponsoring terrorists!)

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 04:51 PM) Yeah I wasn't assuming nuclear. I was assuming thousands of tomahawk missiles exploding wherever the batteries are located, with the hope you knock out 75% of them in the first hour or whatever and then make another strike after that. Again, no idea if that's feasible or not. As soon as the first strike is detected, the missiles are going to be launched. You need to wipe out a hell of a lot more than 75% within maybe a minute if you want Seoul to be left standing.

I don't know why you're assuming nuclear, but either way, there's little to no chance that you get everything in the first wave. edit: x-post but still works! I'm sure Seoul, Japan and the US all have numerous weapons pointed at known NK military installations and facilities. It's the same MAD strategy from the Cold War, only we're not talking about global annihilation. But there's no way you get everything at once.

Because a preemptive strike will directly lead to Seoul getting obliterated? That's exactly why they have that s*** aimed at Seoul in the first place. How cool would you be with this first-strike policy if it was Chicago (and thus, you) that was facing obliteration if a move was made?

whew

ugh

mlb's gameday is not working very well so far this year.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 01:48 PM) Yeah, because Eric Gordon and Rudy Gay are amazing. The wings are pretty damn thin right now beyond like 6 guys. At this rate we're going to prove that NBA basketball is and always has been terrible!

That's a shame. Too bad he didn't take that advice when he was an employee of the University of Iowa and publicly shamed a student who was a sexual assault victim. But I don't know what legal consequences would be at issue there. He's apologized for other things like yelling at people before. You'd think this guy who "just made a mistake" in trusting one student over another and publicly calling the victim a liar would feel some remorse and publicly apologize for his actions.

Has Alford ever apologized for his "mistake" of trusting Pierce and for the statements he made to the press at the time that amounted to calling the victim a liar?

I don't think there's any dispute of Alford's involvement there. Trying to arrange a "prayer session" where you force the victim to confront her attacker directly is f***ed.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 12:30 PM) One other thing to consider is the girl was a student/athlete. Not sure how this is relevant beyond Alford maybe having even more leverage, at least from the girl's perspective, if she's there on scholarship. Maybe, maybe not. Irrelevant to Alford actions. Well, by definition, yeah, I'd think they were lying. But that wouldn't justify me taking any actions similar to Alford's, especially when there's such a huge power imbalance as there was there. Stop trying to make Alford's actions here, actions meant to silence an alleged sexual assault victim, as the outpouring of some bleeding-heart coach who's the real victim here for his misplaced, naive trust. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe he's even more of a terrible person than I'm giving him credit for and was just looking to sweep this under the rug. It's certainly happened before. Don't know, not relevant to your continued excuse-making for Alford's s***ty, inexcusable actions.

Wouldn't tehre be some sort of "witness intimidation" protection for a victim?

S3 was probably the slowest up to that point but it was still good and S4 is some of the best TV ever.

how is that not a crime though? it's pretty clearly intimidation.

I don't know how he didn't get charged with obstruction of justice, to be honest.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 12:15 PM) And why did he pressure the girl? Because he trusted and believed Pierce which turned out to be a huge mistake. Right, so trusting Pierce was a mistake that is completely forgivable. Issuing a statement that you support your players, believe he is innocent and that an investigation will clear him is a 100% reasonable thing to do. But, uh, you keep forgetting a critical part. You know, the part where Alford decided to pressure the girl into silence. The part where he tried to prevent a legitimate investigation into a sexual assault from taking place. The part where he abused his power and position to attempt to silence the voice of a victim. The part where he was a moral monster. That is his mistake, not trusting Pierce. Plenty of people believe friends and family members to be innocent without trying to silence the alleged victims, because that is an unquestionably s***ty and immoral thing to do. I really hope you have some sort of blinders in this case and don't actually think Alford's actions are legit simply because he "trusted the wrong person" when applied broadly. Because that's a pretty f***ed view.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 12:07 PM) No one has tried to justify it. That is exactly what I am talking about with weak arguments. Quit making stuff up. Questioning the Berstein is not excusing anything. Oh shut up. Dick is not "questioning Bernstein" here, he's trying to make excuses for Alford's actions. He's trying to tell me his only mistake was trust. I don't even have to bother to find a post a page or two back to quote because he does it right after yours! QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 12:08 PM) I'm not trying to justify it, and as I stated if you asked Alford to give you an honest answer, he would regret having any role in that, but Alford believed his player was being accused of something he didn't do. Hard to believe I'm sure. Only time it's ever happened, I'm sure. If believing someone who turned out to be lying to you makes one a scumbag, everyone is a scumbag. Bulls***. You said his mistake was trusting Pierce. When I called you out on that, you stood by it. No, his major mistake was pressuring the girl to keep quiet. Not that he trusted the player until proven otherwise--I don't think anyone would really give one s*** about that. This is specifically about his actions to cover this up. Regardless of whether or not he believed Pierce or now regrets the incredibly s***ty actions he took is not relevant to your claim that "the only" mistake was trusting Pierce. You only confirm this again with your last line, as if the only reason he's criticized is for believing his player. Even when denying that you're excusing his actions, you can't help but try to excuse his actions.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 11:46 AM) Considering how Bernstein himself treats other people in his professional work, he just isn't the best person to be carrying forth this particular message. He isn't simply reporting this. He is using his forum to obsessively pound on Alford in the face of plenty of other things to report. Fine, that is great, I recognize his right to do so. But he's doing so partially for his own agenda, and folks are simply pointing that out. But other folks like Dick Allen are trying to justify actions taken to silence a rape victim because 'trust'

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 11:53 AM) False accusations, especially college-aged women for that particular crime are pretty common. Nah, but this sort of assumption gets into an entirely different issue which I've intentionally avoided. Yeah, it was a hypothetical to illustrate the absurdity of your argument that the ONLY thing he did wrong was trusting the wrong guy. This is apologia straight from the PSU playbook. Even if he did believe Pierce (because he was also under the false victim-blaming assumption that many of them aren't really victims at all!), it still doesn't come close to excusing his efforts to silence the girl. I guess that means he couldn't possibly cover up for a rapist? Joe Paterno had kids who were little boys once, too, but that didn't stop him and the rest of the PSU apparatus from protecting Sandusky. I know he made an effort to cover up the allegations of a rape. I don't care if he trusted Pierce, he never, ever should do that. It's disgusting that you think trusting the accused justifies using behind-the-scenes pressure to silence an alleged victim.

if you outlaw high capacity magazines, only gay-married cousins in polygamous marraiges with their dogs will have high capacity magazines