Soxbadger

Hasnt always been pretty but Edwin through 5.

Its his first start of the season, he clearly doesnt have his rhythm. But thankfully he has good enough stuff to hopefully keep the Sox in a game when hes not 100% on.

Were up 6 runs and only need 3 outs, could be worse.

Its actually not the worst time to test out Ohman. Rather have him suck now then in a close game.

Mark is a great pitcher with a lead because he is going to force the other team to have to hit for 14 runs. Id imagine he goes 6-7 depending on his pitch count and then we get some mop up action.

Its a lot easier to hit when you arent pressing to score runs. Hopefully the Sox continue to put up runs early, because that immensely helps the offense.

For those not watching on tv, MLB game day now has some video clips that update during the game. Id guess the Dunn HR is up in an inning or 2.

Good luck!

Now CIA operatives in another country are "intervention", so is the US intervening in China, or the hundred other countries we have CIA operatives in. There is absolutely reason for a covert operation, its called gathering intelligence for the US govt so that we know who we are dealing with. One on hand people say we dont know who the revolutionaries are, on the other they say we shouldnt do whatever it takes to get that information. That is just strange. I would expect that the US has a CIA presence in almost every single foreign nation, just like I suspect the FBI has an FBI agent in every state in the US. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...0,3375554.story Like I said previously the headline: US gathering intelligence so that it can weigh options in Libya Just doenst sell newspapers. The truth is often much less exciting than fiction.

You do realize that the article clearly states: This is a necessary legal step before such action can take place but does not mean that it will. Newspapers sell on sensationalism, so far there is no concrete evidence that the US has actually armed the rebels (at least that I have seen as of right now). There has been talk that the US may do it. And I agree that giving out weapons is a really dangerous situation.

In 2003 we declared victory in Iraq. Its taken us how long to remove ourselves from that situation? In 1945 victory was declared in Japan and Europe, it took us ___ years to remove ourselves from that situation? Even when "victory" is achieved, there are generally substantial obstacles that still exist. Not to mention as I said before, just because we stopped Gaddafi today, does not mean he wont come back tomorrow. At the time there were no active Iraqi protests and there was no quasi-govt. Furthermore, Iraq was divided by religious beliefs (Sunni/Shia) with Saddam receiving substantial support from his group. I do have a basis, its called my interpretation of the events. Other people are spending money and resources, the US isnt acting alone. Why did the US take charge? We have certain weapons and technology that no one else has. Would you prefer that we gave other countries access to our top secret technology, or would you prefer we use it and not let others have access? I prefer the later, Id rather we use our own technology. Irrelevant, we both know it. We can act any way on any given day, depending on the facts of the specific circumstances, not bound by other action that is based on different circumstances. Maybe that happens. If it does, Ill be glad that the US spent $100 of my taxes to help. I dont think the US will be worse off though, I think that in the end, we will be vastly better off. And that by spending a little money here, we will have saved spending money in future events. No way to prove it, but just my opinion. Unfortunately that was not the entire objective. http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsd/nsd_45.htm There were 4 objectives: -- the immediate, complete, and unconditional withdrawal of all Iraqi forces from Kuwait; (S) -- the restoration of Kuwait's legitimate government to replace the puppet regime installed by Iraq; (S) -- a commitment to the security and stability of the Persian Gulf; and, (S) -- the protection of the lives of American citizens abroad. (S) Did we really achieve 3? If we had to invade Iraq a decade later, did we really stabilize the Persian Gulf? Did we really save more American lives? This is exactly what I mean about uncertainty. The idea that security and stability can be achieved through military means is shortsighted. While the US certainly was able to remove Saddam from Kuwait (capturing territory exception) there was no way to believe that the US could secure and stabilize the Persian Gulf by merely forcing Saddam out of Kuwait. This is why many people believed that the US should have gone further to remove Saddam, due to section 3. Furthermore many people argued that Iraq had terrorists that contributed to 9/11 or deaths of Americans, wouldnt that mean its uncertain if the first gulf war really protected lives of American citizens? So im not sure how you can say there was a certain goal, when part of the goal is always going to be uncertain. Im not sure that selling weapons to a foreign entity is considered a military operation the way we were using the term, military operation. I was defining military operation as open involvement in hostilities against Libya. I would not consider funding or arming, a per se military operation. Now I am just taking it for fact the US may actually arm rebels (its unproven speculation) and even if they do, there is no clear cut evidence that the UN has not said they could. It would be a real gray area because I could easily make the argument both ways.

Well that statement doesnt even make sense. I never said anything about a war being waged and us not knowing why we decided to do it. That is completely different than having fake victory conditions. The reason we got involved was to stop Gaddafi from advancing on Benghazi. We have done that. As for the end game, I wish that I could see into the future and give you precise details on what will happen when. But until I can get my Oracle of Delphi working again, Ill have to live with my own limitations and state that I dont believe you can ever have an absolute end game. You can have scenarios, you can have options, but to limit your plan to a single end game, with no contingencies, would be foolish in my opinion. We know the basic endgame, stop the slaughter of civilians. The question is under what conditions will that happen. The answer unfortunately is impossible because even if the Revolutionaries are successful in deposing Gaddafi, that does not mean the Revolutionaries wont kill civilians. You have to keep all options open, you have to consistently prepare for the worst, while at the same time hoping for the best. Just because the Revolutionaries appear to be some one that we should work with, does not mean that I am going to blindly believe that nothing can go wrong by supporting them. The US and other countries have been burned far to many times backing Revolutionaries to believe that it has to end well. I was against Iraq because I thought that unilaterally deposing a dictator without popular support from the people in the country would result in a fractured country that the US would have to try and hold together. It had nothing to do with the planning, it had everything to do with the blind belief that if you give people freedom it always will end well. There was absolutely no reason to believe that the toppling of Saddam would result in a smooth transition, quite the contrary it appeared that a serious power vacuum would ensue and that the US would be forced to stay in Iraq until the country could figure out its own inner problems. Compared to Libya this is entirely different. Libya already has a quasi-established revolutionary govt. I am hopeful that this govt will be able to bridge the gap from the fall of Gaddafi to the eventual new Libyan govt. But my main problem with Iraq was that the US did not seem to have a fundamental grasp on the landscape of Iraq or how well our "freedom" would work. I have consistently been against outside govt trying to unilaterally remove dictators unless there is significant popular support at the time of the action (see Libya). They are valid questions, but they dont really apply to the situation at hand. Because this is not US unilateral action, this is UN action. if you are arguing that the US should have vetoed the UN action, that is one thing. But if we were not going to veto it, we are a part of the UN, so if the UN asks for our assistance, we should give it. Basically the US was put in the worst possible position, the UN security council was brought a resolution, we had 3 options: A) Support B ) Veto C) Abstain We choose option A, and I think we did it for a good reason. The UN was brought compelling action that a humanitarian catastrophe was imminent (days), the UN had to act swiftly (in its opinion) to prevent the crisis. If Libya was Iraq, a situation that was in stasis, I could see why people would question our actions. But this was a situation where death was imminent (allegedly) if the UN didnt act then, it may have been to late. In fact some people are arguing the US should have gotten involved weeks earlier. The good news is that unlike Iraq, this is UN action. If the worst occurs, it is the UN's fault, it will be up to the UN to clean up the mess. That is quite different than Iraq. As for the victory part, its absolutely true. Look at Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, they all had uncertain political objectives that mainly led to either stalemates or wars that could not be won. The idea that a goal was to "Stop the spread of Communism" is as foolish as a goal being to "Stop the spread of Terrorism". Wars after World War II have been mired in uncertainty.

Ive outlined what I hope to occur, but I do not believe I have ever used the term "victory", which suggests that there is some absolute condition that we must achieve. The situation is fluid, what may be a victory one day, could be a defeat another. Part of the reason I would never commit to what victory is that this is not my battle. This is the battle of the people of Libya, while I may want a secular capitalist democracy, they could decide on a religious socialist democracy. I dont really believe that I have the right to say which is the right answer nor to force my own political views on people. In my opinion the use of force to stop the advance on Benghazi was the condition. The UN stopped the advance. After the UN stopped the advance, anything else we can do to help the people of Libya is icing on the cake. That is why victory conditions are so silly, had Obama been more of a weasel he just would have said that victory was achieved, but now we are just enforcing the conditions of our victory. Its all hollow, we may as well get back to real discussion about how to end the fighting in Libya, instead of arguing about changing a history that has already happened. If I actually believed that any of those politicians cared, instead of just political posturing, maybe it would mean more, but at this point most politicians are too biased in their opinions.

Because there is no such thing as "victory", if you want clear cut answers politics isnt going to be for you. The idea that war has a victory condition is some what antiquated in a post WWII society. When you are talking about military objectives that do not include capturing territory for your own nation, you are always going to be left with very uncertain goals. Some of the other questions are also hilariously bad: "didn’t answer every question" Unless he was on tv for the next 2,000 years he wasnt going to be able to answer every question. Historians still havent answered every question about the cause of the Civil War and lets not even get into the Vietnam war. We will be lucky if one day people could answer half the questions, let alone all of them. I guess maybe they just want some hollow victory parameters established so that we can pretend that we won the war, regardless of what happens and how long we have to stay in a variety of differently named roles after the declaration of victory is made. I have a hard time taking most of these politicians seriously because their so biased I cant trust them. And that goes for both Democrats and Republicans.

That is definitely what some people think, I dont necessarily believe it follows good logic, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. Many of the EU members were pretty friendly with Gaddafi (before the Revolution), had they sided with Gaddafi he likely would have made sure that they got all the oil they needed. Not sure why they would want to pick the unknown Libyan govt compared to Gaddafi. Generally its easier to deal with dictators because they care about money and power, and will make deals that make them rich at the expense of their people. Dealing with an unknown Democracy wouldnt be my first choice to guarantee an oil supply, but I think because people used the oil argument in Iraq, others feel the need to use it in Libya. Both in my opinion dont really make a lot of sense, but they are easy ideas to throw around and cant really be refuted (in both Iraq and Libya), because no matter what anyone says, you can always say "The real reason is oil" and no way to disprove it.

Conspiracy talk is always fun. Im just not sure why the US would be training a guy form 1991-2010 for a revolution that we had no idea was going to take place. Unless the US has access to a time machine, and we sent back an operative to tell the US in 1990 that we would need to train this man for the war that would happen in 2010. Man that sounds like some sort of movie I saw one time. (Edit) The reason I post this is that the Finance Minister is also some one who moved from the US back to Libya after the revolution. Just a possibility that people who Gaddafi didnt like moved to the US for safety. http://www.mail.com/business/economy/29345...s-mistakes.html

Are they changing away from Bobak's sausage. I stopped getting Italian's last year because they were not good.

The US can say anything that it wants, but the UN never approved a NFZ. Now I purposefully asked the question to elicit the answer I wanted. I could have asked the question, another way: Did the US believe that the UN authorized a NFZ? Yes In the end I do not think its that complicated. UN approved a NFZ in Libya, NFZ was a gray area not explicitly approved, while at the same time seemingly not condemned.

Unfortunately there are people who are actually using that line of argument.

Yay for webanimation that tries to make a factual point ridiculous! Its as if the person who wrote the script for the girl in red, actually doesnt believe that position and was trying to purposefully look stupid! If you cant see the difference between Iraq (unilateral action) and UN (international action), it just isnt worth discussing. Once again, I think if you looked at Iraq in terms of "ends justifying the means" then its one thing, but to argue that you couldnt be against Iraq because it was based on misleading or blatantly false evidence because you support international action in Libya, is preposterous. In fact the reason that person made a webanimation instead of debating is that hed get rocked: Did you know that there were 17 UN resolutions? Yes Did any UN resolution authorize what is commonly known as a NFZ? No Was the US acting within the scope of the UN resolutions during Iraq? No This isnt about Obama, because well, it was the French and British who asked the UN to intervene. This isnt about Iraq, because well, the UN never authorized the type of force used by the US. The difference is so apparent, that anyone who acts like its similar is either a) completely disingenuous to attack Obama or B ) has no clue about Iraq or Libya. Iraq- US action that went beyond the scope of the UN mandate, based on faulty logic and bad intelligence. Saddam was a bad guy, no one denies that, but the main argument for war was that Iraq posed a legitimate threat against the US. Libya- US action is limited to UN mandate, based on UN security council resolution. No argument being made about US national security or that Libya poses any significant threat to the US. Its almost like arguing that if I like White Sox, I must like the Red Sox because they both have "Sox" in the name and play baseball. Unfortunately the facts would show that the Red Sox are a bunch of tools and the White Sox rule. That we can all agree on.

No the key difference is factual, not based on moral equivalences. The factual difference between Syria and Bahrian is that the UN has not authorized intervention. In my opinion, I have not seen anything in those 2 situations that would warrant UNILATERAL US intervention. Do you disagree? Do you think that the US should intervene unilaterally? Because if the answer to that question is yes, then what is your problem with the US intervening non-unilaterally in Libya? If the answer to the question is no, then there is no moral equivalence because you wouldnt support intervention in either case. You are merely using a terrible debate tool to try and confuse people who cant stay on topic and instead get into a moral equivalence debate that can never be won. Now there is also a factual difference between Ivory Coast, in that the UN is actually intervening, just differently than in Libya. In fact the US is also part of the UN action in Ivory Coast. So there once again is no moral equivalence here (unless you completely avoid facts which most moral equivalences do) as the UN is intervening in Ivory Coast. To put it in perspective, the UN has 7k-10k troops on the ground. The Libyan Revolutionary army is believed to have about 1k professional troops. If the UN intervened on the same level in Libya, the UN would have authorized a force troop force 7k larger than the current Revolutionary army. To me that is a far bigger intervention than merely destroying Gaddafi's tools of war. As Ive already said a NFZ is not practical in the Ivory Coast atm, because Gbago is not using heavy machinery. You cant target gunmen in the streets with F-15s, thats just not how it works. So now instead of using the completely false moral equivalency of: U.S. is justifying a war based on humanitarian concerns in the case where other, much more dire humanitarian situations exist at the exact same time. Why not bring some facts to the party, and argue: 1) Why the UN should impose a NFZ over Ivory Coast, and what would be the effectiveness. Furthermore, why should the US intervene directly in the Ivory Coast or exceed the scope of the current UN mandate? 2) Why should the UN impose a NFZ over Syria or Bahrain, when there has been no request made to the UN for a NFZ by the people of those countries? I have yet to see any footage of protesters asking for UN support or any cries to the UN for support. I try to let countries solve their own problems, before I start sticking my nose into their business. Now if things keep going down the road they are on, and the govts begin to further escalate their suppression, including the use of tanks and heavy weaponry, I would start to believe the UN sua sponte could vote and approve intervention, but I am not sure we are there yet (situation changing rapidly). So no, the reason I dont like moral equivalences is because while in my example I took it to a silly extreme to make it easy to see why they arent valuable, you keep thinking that there is such a big difference between my use when it was: you're judging future/current actions based on past actions. compared to youre use: youre judging factually distinguishable actions and completely disregarding the factual distinctions. In my opinion, my use is actually better at least I am comparing similar facts that occurred at different times. You are comparing different facts and acting like they are the same thing. That is a pretty disingenuous debate tactic if you ask me. I have no problem if you think that the US should intervene more in Ivory Coast and go past the UN mandate. I have no problem if you believe the US should put 50k troops there to protect the people. But if you dont really believe that the US should do more on its own in Ivory Coast, than you dont really have a moral equivalence.

Because if you have followed this at all you know what we are doing in Libya. We are part of the UN. The people of Libya requested UN action. The UN approved the action. The US as part of the UN has given support. The reason I am so in favor of our helping in Libya, is because this isnt about the US. This is about helping people in their time of need, hopefully showing the rest of the world, that we will not sit silently if they reach for the stars and dream of democracy and peace. That the world hears them, that they are not alone. If that isnt enough for you, if you must have some concrete reason why the US will gain before you believe the US will help, than you will never support this action. But if you are like some, and you believe that the good of the action in and of itself is enough to help, then you will support the action. Its like helping a stranger. You may never gain anything, but there are still some people who choose to do it. Why? Because some people want to help others, not for any particular gain, but just because helping some one else is often the right thing to do. As for removing moral equivalences, I do it because they are a cheap argument technique that serves no real purpose. It presupposes that all action is equivalent and that you therefore must be bound by previous action or non-action. To show the ridiculousness of moral equivalences you just have to use it in argument. For example, the US had Japanese internment camps in World War II, therefore the US can not stop other countries from having internment camps. Or, the US killing of the Native American's was the equivalent of another foreign country killing off an indigenous people and therefore the US cant stop them. Those are ridiculous and unsupportable positions, yet if I was to use moral equivalences I could legitimately make those arguments. So its not about moral equivalences in this argument, its about them in every argument. They are only useful for creating context, they are terrible for trying to make real arguments.

Im on the other side completely. I believe that history will not be a kind judge to those who opposed the UN intervention. Thankfully we will have a record of people's positions, but my instincts tell me that the success of Libya is going to be extremely important to the Democratic movements of the Middle East and beyond. I assume that you consider Iraq a debacle as well.

Refs have to call it that way to start otherwise Kentucky wont have a starting line up by the 2nd half.

No the reason that number was mentioned is that is how you talk about bad news. I mean he could have been more clear and said: That is what the quote really says, the word UP TO implies a end limit, meaning that their expectation was any number between 0-100. I just assume that Ross didnt consider that people would completely twist his quote to something it never meant. (Edit) I dont see why comparisons to Kosovo or Iraq are at all comparable. Itd be like saying that 100,000 is a low number compared to Pol Pot. Ill tell you what I do know, Ross had a million times more information than the guy who wrote the NYT article. Not to mention the NYT article coudlnt even understand his quote. Id trust Ross more than Id trust a guy who purposefully misled readers.