O/T Reality Check Sad and Insane May be Hung Soon

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Hahahaa. Post of the day goes to Max. "Apostrophetically"? Mack's? haha.

Thanks for those. I laughed right out loud.

J

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Daniel, your sensitivity towards suicide bombers is really impressive. You are quite the sensitive man. I award you the Rachel Corrie Award for trying oh so hard to humanize those sad, suicide bombers. I guess Bin Laden and his bunch felt so unfairly treated by Americans that they thought it was simply a cry for freedom to kill 3000 Americans on 9/11. Also, your attempt to equate athletes' prayers before games to homicidal maniacs screaming "God is greatest" before cutting off the heads of innocents is also quite the impressive leap in logic.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Max,

My bad, but I was running out of room on the Topic space. Now, I'm starting to sound like Barry. Oh no.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Your reply.....
"But then we'd just anger the French and the apologists in America who actually can say with a
straight face that the hanging of Saddam is a bad thing."

Jeff, you will only become more frustrated in trying to convince a certain segment of this country of
your rational thinking with respect to the Middle East.

You will never be able to conduct a civil debate with 1/3 of the people who are diametrically opposed
to your thoughts. Another 1/3 don't give a crap, and 1/3 do AGREE with your thinking. This breakdown
is representative of human nature, today....as it was when George Washington fought the Revolution.

History books will tell you that only 1/3 of the Colonists were supportive of the Rev. War....1/3 were
loyal to England....and 1/3 could care less.

You just can't fight it, guy.....it's just the way people are constituted.

Have a very HAPPY NEW YEAR.....everybody.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Ted, can you email me your email address?

[Archive]

Posted By: Ryan Christoff

I'm with Jeff, it's amazing how many savants we have on this board who actually sound sane and intelligent when talking about baseball cards, but are apparently mentally challenged in non-card discussions.

America, f**k yeah!

-Ryan

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Max- you are correct...but if they do a good job would you then say Saddam was well hung? (sorry guys, I know it's bad but I couldn't resist. Please forgive me).

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Barry, no steak for you due to that last pun.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Do you remember the Crusades?
Do you remember the colonial occupation of the middle east?
Do you remember the arbitrary drawing of national borders and the propping up of despots as rulers?
Do you remember the American arming of Sadaam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War?('The enemy of my enemy is my friend' is a very dangerous foreign policy.)
Do you remember the CIA training of al-Quaeda in Afghanistan to help fight the USSR? ('The enemy of my enemy is my friend' is a very dangerous foreign policy.)

I could go on. Most Muslims in the Middle East hold these historical events quite clearly in their minds.

I would never claim that Muslim responses to Western actions have been ethical or appropriate. They have been aweful and condemnable! But it would certainly be a mistake to think that Muslim terrorist actions against the West have come out of nowhere or arose out of some historical void where there was no wrong committed to provoke anything.

JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

"Do you remember the Crusades?
Do you remember the colonial occupation of the middle east?
Do you remember the arbitrary drawing of national borders and the propping up of despots as rulers?
Do you remember the American arming of Sadaam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War?('The enemy of my enemy is my friend' is a very dangerous foreign policy.)
Do you remember the CIA training of al-Quaeda in Afghanistan to help fight the USSR? ('The enemy of my enemy is my friend' is a very dangerous foreign policy.)"

Jim, and what does any of this have to do with the daily slaughter of Muslims by Muslims in Iraq today? Or the fact that more Muslims have been killed by Muslims than those which were killed by Israel and America over the past 25 years?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Jim- I agree that it is a two way street and that the west has no concept of the Muslim world. But after 9/11 any hope of a mutual understanding vanished forever.

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Counts

So when do pitchers and catchers report? Late February? It won't be soon enough ... I guess it's just a matter of time before someone links Saddam's execution to the rise in prices of "E' cards ... I'm reminded of that wonderful saying by Rogers Hornsby when he was asked about what he does in the off-season ...

"I sit and stare out the window and wait for spring to come ..."

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

"Jim, and what does any of this have to do with the daily slaughter of Muslims by Muslims in Iraq today? Or the fact that more Muslims have been killed by Muslims than those which were killed by Israel and America over the past 25 years?"


Jeff,
Nothing other than that the brutality that is commonplace in that part of the world seems to fly in every direction. In no way do I condone any of the attrocious actions that have taken place in the name of Islam - either towards Americans or other Muslims. I find them utterly appalling and I wish there were some Muslim leaders with enough courage to stand up and condemn them, but I have seen far too little of it. At least in America you find people who are willing to voice dissent. That is one of the great things about democracy. In fact, that is what makes democracy work. I think most people in most Middle Eastern countries are so afraid that if they did voice dissent, they would lose their lives and the livelihoods for their families. Transition to democracy will be very slow there, if it every takes off. We would be naive to think otherwise - though I think our rulers expected there to be a democratic party in the streets of Bagdad about three years ago when our mission was accomplished.

Though I teach a bit on Islam in my World Religions class, I am no Islamic/Quaranic scholar. My impression however is that the extremists like al-Quaeda are twisting the message of Islam. But I think that twisted message is unfortunately becoming more broadly accepted. When we continue with the sorts of policies in that region that we have, it only encourages it.

JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: ScottIngold

Your reply.....
"But then we'd just anger the French and the apologists in America who actually can say with a
straight face that the hanging of Saddam is a bad thing."

Jeff, you will only become more frustrated in trying to convince a certain segment of this country of
your rational thinking with respect to the Middle East.

You will never be able to conduct a civil debate with 1/3 of the people who are diametrically opposed
to your thoughts. Another 1/3 don't give a crap, and 1/3 do AGREE with your thinking. This breakdown
is representative of human nature, today....as it was when George Washington fought the Revolution.

History books will tell you that only 1/3 of the Colonists were supportive of the Rev. War....1/3 were
loyal to England....and 1/3 could care less.

You just can't fight it, guy.....it's just the way people are constituted.

Have a very HAPPY NEW YEAR.....everybody.

TED Z


Wow talk about hitting the nail on the head Ted.
As usual "we" seem to be outnumbered.
But i think most of our peers just choose not to get into an impossible argument with the libs and lefties.

Jeff.

As usual i am in complete agreement. Please keep up the good fight. I just don't have the time right now.

......Wow, to think i agree with a lawyer.... See anythings possible.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Koteles

there isn't any reason to be in Iraq ,one of our soldiers life is
worth more then Bin Laden's period ! Sad situation.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Jim, well-said. And I agree with everythng you've said. I think the problem is that there is only a limit to how long you can sit idly by while the Muslim fanatics go about trying to destroy us. Consider what is going on in Israel and Gaza now. Israel has agreed to a ceasefire only to be bombarded by Muslim rocket fire every single day. Indeed, the rocket launchers have said that they are simply trying to goad Israel into attacking them and scotching the ceasefire. One party to the cease fire, Hamas, is taking no action in stopping the launching of rockets from its side. Should Israel move out of the West Bank completely probably 75% of all surrounding Muslims will not stop their daily attacks until Israel ceases to exist. Should Israel cease to exist, it is fairly clear that the various sects of Muslims contained in that area will then turn their weapons on each other. The sad solution is to either build a wall to contain the homicidal maniacs on the other side or obliterate them all.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Jeff,
I agree with you and I have no idea what the solution, if there is one, to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is. Unfortunately I think it is going to continue for a very long time. As long as there is a significant group of Palestinians who sabotage all efforts at cease-fires and a peace process out of conviction that Israel has no right to exist at all, there will be no peace. It is a very sad situation.
Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian

I am still trying to figure out what is wrong with subscribing to the NY Times. Is this code for something--perhaps a liberal left-wing conspiracy? I don't get that comment.....
Oh, by the way, I am a subscriber. Best newspaper around.

Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Some people feel that if you read the NY Times you are a liberal, a communist, or god knows what. The fact that they have the best reporters in the world doesn't seem to matter much.

[Archive]

Posted By: Max Weder

Barry

I thought it was the fact that the Sunday edition is really heavy, and the ink got on your hands. Who knew the real reason?

Max

[Archive]

Posted By: Brett

Joe,

I don't think you understand...

If the Americans leave Iraq, they'll have a civil war. When Iraq has their civil war, the country might end up with a "dictator" thats even worse than Hussein. He'll most likely be anti American because im betting most of the people in Iraq hate the Americans... He'll then let in as many terrorists into the country as he can... then Iraq will be the headquarters for Al Qaeda... planning more attacks against the western world ( mainly the US ) They'll smuggle WMDs into the country and thats the ball game.

But then again, according to Joe "who cares?"

Also, the Americans were the ones responsible for Hussein taking power, so basically, blame your own government.

I could go on more of a rant, but I don't feel like getting into a useless flame war.

Have a good night.

[Archive]

Posted By: anthony

do you remember ty cobb 1911?
do you remember joe jackson 1919?
do you remember cy young 1905?
do you remember walter johnson 1904?
do you remember christy mathewson 1910?
do you remember the last time we talked about these guys?
hehehehe
this is/was a good o/t post...it is obvious that there is a wide variety of opinions on this subject and it seems that the majority of us support our troops which is always good.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

Some of you are too young to remember but Ronald Reagan gave Iraq a huge military arsenal to use against our "enemy" Iran. Old Teflon Ronnie got a pass when it all blew up in his face and Saddam was no longer our "buddy."
I vote we get out now, we shouldn't have gotten in in the first place. Bush said there were "weapons of mass destruction" despite all the observers who said there weren't. We "had" to do something after 9-11 so we lashed out at GW's dad's enemy under the pretense of destroying those WIMDs which were proven never to have existed. Once he had egg all over his face, GW conveniently turned the war from a preventive strike and punishment of Saddam to a war to free Iraq and democracize Iraq.
What bull hockey. We need to quit trying to be the world's policeman and turn our attention to all the problems which exist here.
I thought we learned our lesson from Vietnam but apparenlt the old idiom "those who can not remember history are doomed to repeat it" is never so true.
If we offered huge financial incentives, which would be a drop in the bucket compared to what we have spent in Iraq, to develop non-gasoline powered automobiles, we would no longer need to be dependent on mideastern oil or need to rape the environment in Alaska. I guarantee if the incentive were great enough, the technology would be found, but the corporate powers who make so much money off petroleum based products will fight it tooth and nail...

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I'm with Tbob. We need to leave and let them decide how they want to run their own country. We shouldn't have been there in the first place. We've done more harm than good.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve M.

Some of you are too young to remember but Ronald Reagan gave Iraq a huge military arsenal to use against our "enemy" Iran. Old Teflon Ronnie got a pass when it all blew up in his face and Saddam was no longer our "buddy."
I vote we get out now, we shouldn't have gotten in in the first place. Bush said there were "weapons of mass destruction" despite all the observers who said there weren't. We "had" to do something after 9-11 so we lashed out at GW's dad's enemy under the pretense of destroying those WIMDs which were proven never to have existed. Once he had egg all over his face, GW conveniently turned the war from a preventive strike and punishment of Saddam to a war to free Iraq and democracize Iraq.
What bull hockey. We need to quit trying to be the world's policeman and turn our attention to all the problems which exist here.
I thought we learned our lesson from Vietnam but apparenlt the old idiom "those who can not remember history are doomed to repeat it" is never so true.
If we offered huge financial incentives, which would be a drop in the bucket compared to what we have spent in Iraq, to develop non-gasoline powered automobiles, we would no longer need to be dependent on mideastern oil or need to rape the environment in Alaska. I guarantee if the incentive were great enough, the technology would be found, but the corporate powers who make so much money off petroleum based products will fight it tooth and nail...

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Saddam Hussein has just been executed. He is dead and gone. Good riddance.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dylan

Jim we are all aware of the arming of Afgahnistan taliban and Iraq during the Iran Iraq war but lets not forget the context of those agendas. There was a much larger threat looming that took priority over all other and that was the cold war with the Soviet Union. U.S. priorities and interests change with are enemies. These shifts in policy are a neccesity to balance power in regions of instability. Now in hindsight perhaps the soviets would have failed in Afgahnistan without covert CIA weapons and perhaps Iraq and Iran war would have ended in a stalemate without our intervention, but what if they didnt? What if most of the middle east oil production was under the control of the Iranians? Or the Soviet Union prevailed in Afgahnistan? Sometimes the end result justify the means.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

......??? (oops, that was a few years ago.)

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

Any suggestion that all Muslims are fanatics who only refrain from killing each other because they can kill Israelis seems a gross oversimplification to me.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ryan Christoff

Again, I'd like to recommend the excellent documentary "Team America - World Police" which chronicles our country's righteous history of democratizing the planet.

A must-see for anyone interested in U.S. foreign policy.

-Ryan

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

America F*ck Yeah!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjQYSIoU4-k

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

why is it that every 30 days or so we have to have a 5000 post thread on Iraq? worse part of it is that nobody has anything new to say. I already know what jeff, barry, tbob, scott, peter and pretty much everyone else has to say about the matter (hey all). opinions havent changed since the first time this topic was debated and are unlikely to have changed three years from now. can we please get back to baseball - this thread has really run its course (for about the 10th time).


oh, and barry, that post about the NY Times having the greatest writers - man that was funny. of course, if you were referring to the greatest writers of fiction, I guess then I would agree.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Smith

Did Saddam have any cards in the Desert Storm series???? Better start selling them now if he did...

See, that post was card related.


David

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Dylan said,
"What if....the Soviet Union prevailed in Afgahnistan?"

Uh, there would be no Taliban, no al-Quaeda, and probably no 9/11. You can't honestly be arguing that we would be worse off if we had not funded and trained al-Quaed in Afghanistan.

As for Iran controlling all the oil in the middle east, it is quite a leap to presume that if they had won the Iran-Iraq War that the world would have just stood by as they rolled over other countries in the region. You prefer the Bush-backed Saudi royal family - those great voices for moderation and liberal democracy in the middle east? Did you happen to notice that most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia but we have not so much as waved a disapproving finger at them? I wonder if the Bushs have any oil relationship with the Saudi Royal Family.
JimB

edited for grammar

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

[Archive]

Posted By: Dylan

Bin Laden hand picked those terrorists from saudi arabia in the hope it would fragment are relationship with the Saudis. Had the U.S. done what you suggest it would have played right into Bin Laden's hand. no Iran would not have rolled over the entire middle east but if they controlled both their own and Iraqs oil reserves they would have massive power in the energy market. And are you so sure the Afgahns would have been better off with the Marxist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan(a soviet puppet state) which was pretty much ran by terrorists too btw. I dont agree with the Bush doctrine. I also dont agree with the idea that the reason terrorism exists in the form it does today is simply because of who weve given weapons and aid too in the past either.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Josh- Could you please elaborate on your comment that the NY Times has the best writers of fiction? And if you feel that's true, could you kindly recommend a new newspaper for me so that I can really know what is happening in the world? I could switch to the NY Post- at least that way I can find out where Paris Hilton partied the night before. That would be useful information. Thank you in advance for your help. Barry

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Barry, the New York Sun, of course!

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

My grandmother used to read the Forward, but it was written in Yiddish and they went out of business. As such, I'll have to cancel my subscription.

[Archive]

Posted By: steve f

Barry, Like our old beloved Boston Herald, seems that Murdoch "Enquired" the Post too.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

When I lived in Boston during college, I read the Globe. Seemed like a good paper, but I'm not sure I got too much past the sports section in those days.

[Archive]

Posted By: Andrew Parks

1) We know he had weapons of mass destruction. He used WMD's on the Kurds, against the Iranians and against his own people. The UN found them after the Gulf War in 1991 all the way up to 1998 when Saddam threw them out. In fact, to support his impeachment-day bombing, Bill Clinton cited the Iraqi regime's "nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs." If there were no WMD's then why did Hussein continue to dodge the weapons inspectors?
Yet certain people continue to say they had no WMD's when we KNOW they had them! Bush and his administration were right!

2) We know that Saddam had a working relationship with bin Laden, too. The London Telegraph reported that documents were found linking bin Laden to Hussein. They had a working relationship as far back as 1998 based on their feelings towards US and Saudi Arabia. The files showed that the Iraqis were working hard to establish a "future relationship" with Osama and to set up a "direct meeting with him". Yet people say Saddam and 9/11 are two seperate issues. Not so. Hussein may not have planned the 9/11 attacks, but all evidence points to Hussein and bin Laden eventually joining forces to take out Americans. The war allowed us to get the demonic dictator before that happened!

3) Now we have to stay and finish the war as well as get bin Laden. If we get out now, civil war breaks out and some other demonic-possessed soul gets into power and its Saddam Insane all over again. Some of you ask, why should we worry about them killing each other? Let's get out now and just let them do it. Because not only do they enjoy killing each other, but they also have a strong affinity to killing people who look a lot like us and live between these borders. *They believe they will be rewarded in the after-life if they take out Christians. Although the majority of the people in this country are not Christians, they are either too stupid to know or to lost to realize it. And since they can't tell who's a Christian and who isn't, they just try to kill as many as white people as they can.

(*-Not all people who claim to be Muslim believe this)

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

I would have preferred if each member of his victim's families had a chance to come by and kick him in the nuts. One by one, kick by kick.... and then hang him.

just my opinion.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Joe, I think I saw that on South Park.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Joe- good idea, but that line would be longer than the one at my post office. Besides, if you were at the end of it he'd be dead before it was your turn.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Excellent post Andrew......well stated......

And, as far as Bin Laden is concerned.......he may be dead already.

We have not seen his gaunt-looking, evil face since Oct of 2004.....

His cohort, Al Zawhari, has for the past 2 years done all the talking for these terrorists.
And, he too, looks like he is in bad shape. He used to have a robust-look about him,
but now he is quite gaunt looking, himself. They are all dying a slow and tortuous death.

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Barry,

While I think the times is very heavily biased, my comments were really a tongue and cheek (as should have been apparant from the ) reference to the Jayson Blair plagiarism debacle.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian

Good, then we all agree that the NY Times is the best newspaper around.

Brian (aka, that commie-liberal-NY Times reading guy)


PS How about those Caramels in the Mile High Auction!

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

"Some of you ask, why should we worry about them killing each other? Let's get out now and just let them do it. Because not only do they enjoy killing each other, but they also have a strong affinity to killing people who look a lot like us and live between these borders. *They believe they will be rewarded in the after-life if they take out Christians. Although the majority of the people in this country are not Christians, they are either too stupid to know or to lost to realize it. And since they can't tell who's a Christian and who isn't, they just try to kill as many as white people as they can."

You don't REALLY believe it's this simple, do you? I mean seriously, have you read books on this subject? Or even newspapers?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Hey Josh- I saw the smiley face but didn't make the Jayson Blair connection. Yes, he was a bad egg and he destroyed his career. Hey, every industry has a few scoundrels, except amazingly, the baseball card hobby. Somehow we have managed to remain scoundrel free. Edited to add of course the Times is biased, it is written for a mostly liberal audience. All papers are biased. The Daily News caters to Republicans, and the Post writes for the lightheaded (and I believe it is "tongue in cheek"- I'm a stickler for those things).