IlliniBob72

Yeah, if we just scored more points than them we would have won!

I think Augustine or Williams should have taken their fifth foul by punching that little puke in the face. Does Coach K search out the most obnoxious white kids in America to play for him? First Ferry, Laettner, Hurley, then Chris Collins, Wojo, Cherokee Parks, now Redick and Randolph. OK, Randolph isn't really obnoxious, but there's something about him I don't like. It's funny, I don't have a problem with other really good white ballers, but Duke's I can't stand.

Nick Smith is just awful. The jump shots just aren't falling, and Duke is just really really good.

The fact that the Illini are missing so many layups and gimmes and are only down by 4 is encouraging.

Kerry, as a member of the Senate, voted repeatedly to cut back funding for defense and the intelligence agencies. I never once said that the people serving in the armed forces wouldn't do their jobs to their utmost if Kerry were elected. It is my belief, based on Kerry's track record, that those servicemen and servicewomen will not receive the same support and means to do the job that they get from Bush. I have no reason to think otherwise. No reason that Kerry has given.

I wonder if Kerry would accept Gore's endorsement.

You guys need to chill out a bit. This took place at the Correspondent's Dinner, where things like this always take place.

I;ve got to mark this day in my calendar...Jimmy Carter being reelected as President would have been bad news for anybody not an American citizen, much less the Ayatollah. I never thought I'd see that thought expressed in my lifetime.

There is a colossal difference between going about our day to day business and blatantly ignoring a threat to our country's security. It seems like you are advocating pretending al Qaida doesn't exist. The fact that the way our country deals with terrorism is a factor in our election is not a victory for terrorists.

After the latest story about the boy manipulated into being a suicide bomber, you have to wonder who exactly these suicide bombers are who don't care about death. Are they terrorists or people duped into being suicide bombers? I've heard reports that only a few of the 9/11 hijackers knew they were on a suicide mission. Maybe death is a little more daunting than we thought. Osama seems to be doing his utmost to stay out of the Muslim Paradise.

Yes, I think that has been established. As for your last point, that's a good one. I feel some responsible judgment needs to be shown. The target needs to be important enough to warrant "collateral damage". I can't burn down an orphanage to get rids of the cockroaches inside. Let's pretend for the sake of argument that the Palestinians are a nation at war with Israel. I don't think it's acceptable to blow up a bus of civilians to kill one soldier, but if Rabin is on that bus and the Palestinian nation feels it would help them win the war to kill him, blow up the bus. If I'm a Palestinian and Yassin attended my mosque regularly, I find a new mosque.

How do you figure? If you are attacking a factory and you know there are civilians inside, how are you "targeting" the civilians? If you took away the factory and left the people, the attack wouldn't happen, therefore you aren't targeting them. The target is the motivation for the attack, in this case, the factory, not the civilians. If Yassin wasn't coming out of that mosque, the attack wouldn't have taken place, therefore the other civilians killed were not targeted.

Civilians getting killed in war is not illegal or unusual. Targeting civilians is also not unusual, though it's legality is not clear to me. As William T. Sherman said during the Civil War, his goal was to make war so terrible for the population that they would be loathe to ever return to it.

Right. And what better way to get Kerry elected than, as a terrorist and enemy of the United States, to support Bush. And you've fallen for it. Yeah, the Democrats that they claim to fear did a real bang-up job in the 8 years of power they had with Clinton in charge. You'd think they would have cancelled the 9/11 attack with their mortal enemy Democrats out of power. What pure bulls***.

Yeah, you've got to lay off the righteous indignation. You don't think the South viewed a vote against Abraham Lincoln as one vote closer to gaining their independence? You don't think the Germans were sorry to see Nevile Chamberlain get replaced by Winston Churchill? Enemies of the U.S. have always had a stake in war-time elections. Generals of the Confederacy had a policy of trying to drag the war out to the 1864 election to get Lincoln voted out of office. Pointing it out in this scenerio is hardly "disgusting". Polls show that Americans overwhelmingly believe that Bush will be better and tougher on terrorism than Kerry, so it is perfectly understandable to say that a Kerry victory is better for terrorists like bin Laden. At least I dare to say it.

I must be missing something. What did he say that was outrageous? And what is the Hitler reference that is being talked about? It sounds like the only one being compared to Hitler is bin Laden. People have to stop being so hypersensitive about Hitler. Hitler is an historical figure that has...gasp...existed. To refer to him as such is not a crime.

I am all for military action in retribution and as a deterent, but is your statement true? It doesn't seem like these rocket attacks have accomplished anything other than adding to the body count. I fully support the U.S.'s actions in fighting terror, but if after killing terrorists for over 30 years as Israel has done (I'm dating from the 1972 Olympics. Maybe it's longer or shorter than that. Either way, it's been a long time), there are still terrorist attacks, I think I'd be calling for a change of plan. Not negotiation, by any means, but something else. Cut off their manpower supply by making their supporters lives worth something more than being a carrier of suicide bombs. Either go a route like that or go the opposite direction. Make the response so horrific and so overwhelming as to make the Palestinians a rumor. Of course, this will never happen in today's world, but that is what would have happened probably as recently as the 1800's. A solider of yours is shot from a house window...burn the town down. You find a soldier of yours hanging from a tree, you gather every farmer within 5 miles and hang them from trees. You pull a Tamerlane and build a pyramid of skulls. Go Vlad the Impaler and leave a forest of corpses on pikes for your enemy to see. Of course, those were less civilized times, but in the scheme of world history, not so long ago. Bottom line though...the current course of action is not working.

You didn't answer the question at all.

My question for I4L would be, is what Israel is doing working? Other than gaining vengeance, what is accomplished by these assassinations? If Israel is looking for revenge, it's a good tactic, but if it is looking to effect change, then I doubt it's working. Israel has taken this hard line approach for decades and nothing has changed. Is it time to come up with a new gameplan?

Actually, above is a direct quote to my question. I was wrong when I said 99%. It's actually 90%, but the gist is still the same.

I asked Apu that question once before. He said he would offer a great big apology, cut the U.S. defense budget to 1% of it's current level and give the other 99% to anyone who has been treated unfairly by the United States. So, an "I'm sorry" and a cash payment to what I'm sure would turn out to be every citizen of a third world country. That is what I find frustrating. Nothing but complaints and no solutions that are remotely feasible.

Wow, if not for the mention of Iraq, I wouldn't know if you meant Hussein or Stalin. The United States will support whomever is in it's best interests, whether it be Stalin or Hussein. Concerning Iraq, you are considering this in a vacuum. The major concern of the time was the spread of fundamentalist Islam. Iraq, being a secular government, was supported as a bulwark against the spread of fundamentalist Islam. Not to mention the fact that Iran had just held 40-some U.S. hostages. The support of Iraq is understandable as the best of two bad options. I've never made this argument. Ask someone else.

You avoided my main point and decided to latch onto a throw away sentence at the end. Typical. Right out of a debate handbook. I'm not a murderer's apologist. I'm saying that if the U.S. gives a guy weapons to fight a common enemy, they can't be held liable for the fact they are put to other uses. If I give you an attack dog to protect your home and you use it to attack neighborhood children, that's not my fault. But no, focus on the analogy and not the point being made.

Exactly right. It is irrelevant. The fact that 20 years ago the United States supported the regime of Saddam Hussein has no bearing on what our actions of today should be. In WWII, the Soviet Union and Stalin were allies of the U.S. and Roosevelt gave the Red Army a s***load of war materiel. The Soviet Union emerged from WWII as a superpower and the Cold War began. But what was the alternative? Was Hitler taking over Europe seen as a better option? Decisions need to be made when they need to be made. And having made the decision to support Stalin versus Hitler, should the United States have not opposed the Soviet Union in the Cold War because hey, if we hadn't helped them out in 1940 they'd be no threat to us in 1960? And Apu, our weaponry did not make the Hallabjah attacks happen, Hussein made that happen. You don't blame the car when the drunk driver behind the wheel runs someone down. And just for my own knowledge. Apu, when you say the United States sells torture equipment all over the world, how do you mean? Does the United States government actually manufacture the equipment and sell it, or do companies in the U.S. manufacture and sell it? If the actual government, what department is in charge of the torture devices? Just curious.