Soxbadger

Not according to Ross. According to Ross, 100k was the worst case scenario. The only thing I saw misleading was the article and the headline. The quote is clear: The article read that sentence as if it said: AT LEAST 100k. Im sorry the only person trying to mislead people is the article you quoted. When you read the quote, there is absolutely no way to come to the conclusion that 100lk was anything more than a worst case scenario estimate.

You cant say Im wrong when I never mentioned anything about transparency. The end goal of the sanctions were to stop the production of WMD and facilitate the destruction of WMD. The only reason for the need for transparency was that the international community didnt trust him. The mere fact he wasnt transparent, does not mean that the sanctions didnt work. That NYT article is horrible, I cant believe people get paid to write that nonsense. Ill add some emphasis so that people can see just how horrifically jaded this piece was: Oh damn, 100,000 wasnt the estimate? It was the ceiling placed on the estimate?? Damn from the article youd think that the 100,000 was the floor. But the quote is clear, they said UP TO, meaning that in the absolute worse case scenario 100,000 would be the highest number. That does not mean that there was a prediction 100.000 would die, quite to the contrary it means that they predicted less than 100,000. If I say some one could lose up to $100, that doesnt mean I think theyll lose 100, it just means Im giving them the worst case scenario. The only person who suggested this is the author, who is clearly twisting the quote to mean something that it didnt. I already commented on the LA Times piece, no one responded. Actually that isnt entirely true. The UN is trying to stop Gaddafi's forces from taking over cities, the UN so far has not provided tactical assistance to Revolutionaries during Revolutionary advances on Gaddafi force positions. I dont mind people who have a different opinion, I just mind people who blatantly use quotes incorrectly to try and make an argument that just isnt there.

If Wisconsin could shoot at all this would be a game.

I would give anything for over time, just over time is all I ask.

What sucks the most is that had Wisconsin just played slightly better at things they always do well, free throws, they would be within 2 possessions. Just a total mental let down this game.

Just not their night. Feel bad for Leuer 1-11 in his last college game, never seen him this off.

Frustrating year, some times great, other times this. If you cant shoot you cant win.

I tried to warn people that Wisconsin can have really cold games. 25% shooting isnt going to beat anyone.

Unfortunately the answer so far has been no. The other players wont take shots, Leuer and Taylor are ice cold. Just a terrible performance on a big stage.

You knew a bad shooting night was coming. Its just a question of can the other Wisconsin players step up and take shots, they cant hesitate as leuer and taylor are both playing terrible. 9 points is only 3 possessions, there still are 25-30 left, Wisconsin left a lot of points out there on missed free throws. Just not playing well under pressure, hopefully they shake it off in the second half, but they cant let it get it higher than 12 or else that will be really difficult.

That is actually a good point. The sanctions were in place to prevent Saddam from creating more WMD, it seems that he did not make more WMD, which suggests that the sanctions worked...

Boo people shouldnt be free to contract their own dispute procedures. Booo letting people contract! Yay for more govt interference in contract! I

The US has been accused of doing the exact same thing as the Council in Benghazi. I am not going to comment on whether it has happened because the article is entirely speculative. But if the US found a list of 8,000 Soviet Operatives in the US during the Cold War, do you think that we would have round them up and interrogated them? My guess is that there are abuses, but that is the reality of war. Even the US has done terrible things in that regard, but just because a few people in position of power abuse the system, does not mean that the civilians of Libya should suffer. No more than the people of the US should suffer if our troops go over the line. I would hope that once Gaddafi's forces have been pushed back, international agencies could get access to these prisons and give us independent reports. Right now you cant trust anything coming out of Libya, on either side.

Haha I almost said if they make it there.

If any team shoots 2-21 from 3 and 15-51 from 2, they are going to lose. As I said, first team to 70 is the team who likely will win.

Im sure the implication was that instead of spending $1bil on Libya, why not spend $1bil on the US.

From most advanced statistics Wisconsin is more than a +4.5 favorite, but they are a really hard team to bet on (or predict). If they shoot well they likely win, if they shoot bad they lose. Wisconsin is going to get its fair share of open 3 looks and its just a matter of how many go in. As a Wisconsin fan you couldnt ask for more than getting a chance at being in the Elite 8 by beating Butler. I know Butler has magic and all that jazz, but Id still rather be facing them than OSU, Kansas, etc. Should be a good game, my prediction is team to 70 first wins.

Well the difference in Iraq was that the UN didnt authorize the use of force (whether or not that was a good or bad thing can be debated). Id be in favor of massively cutting the Defense budget so that we had a lot more money for social programs. But if we have a massive Defense budget, we may as well use it for good. Tomahawk missiles and F-15s arent going to stop gangs, or feed the hungry. Those are entirely different issues that (imo) need to be solved in entirely different ways, many of the solutions involving policy changes, not throwing more money at the situation.

Sovereignty is a tricky issue, if Libya was not part of the UN, I think you would have a great argument that Libya has the right to treat criminals however they want. But once Libya voluntarily joined the UN and accepted the Geneva Convention, they were bound to that rule of law. In essence they voluntarily contracted away their rights to certain sovereignty issues. Thus when the UN passes a binding resolution on Libya, Libya is bound by their own agreement with the UN. Once Libya refused to accept the terms of the UN, the UN was free to enforce the terms as it saw fit. Here is an article about one of the new cabinet members for the revolutionaries, Ali Tarhouni http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/world/af...tml?_r=1&hp That is one of the first articles that has come out about who will be part of the new Libyan govt. Obviously we must look at it with a little suspicion, as Im sure they wanted their first representative to seem extremely West friendly. But it seems hopeful that if Libya can successfully bring down Gaddafi, that they have a chance for a freer future.

I would say that it is never okay to allow dictators to kill innocent people. But the reality is that we cant intervene in every situation for a variety of reasons.

I couldnt find the affidavit, so I dont know whether or not thats true. Actually I would not agree. I have been involved in cases where police officers have flat out lied to get "probable cause". Most of the time the police will see 2 young people and just start searching. I had one case where a Police Officer stated that he could see the marijuana inside a closed backpack. Needless to say none of these cases ever result in convictions (Ragone pleaded innocent). That is an extreme amount of speculation. Was Ragone charged with DUI or DWI or OWI? I believe the answer is no, so that to me suggests that there was not evidence that he was operating a vehicle impaired. You dont need a field test to charge for DWI or OWI, all you need is suspicion. Bottom line is that they were charged with entirely different crimes and that generally have pretty different consequences. Misdemeanor possession is not close to DUI (imo), but everyone is entitled to their own.

Um driving drunk is illegal per se, as it is a statutory crime. Even worse for your argument is that Ragone was arrested under the following circumstances: So you are really saying that driving drunk is a lessor crime than having some one in your car who is carrying marijuana?

Yes they actually did. On March 8, the spokesman for the Benghazi Council asked for No Fly Zone: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-14/l...at-qaddafi.html On March 12, the Arab League asked for a No Fly Zone (im just pulling the first articles I find): http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeas...one_over_libya/ On March 17, (9 days after officially being asked for a No Fly Zone) the UN voted to approve a No Fly Zone. So these requests were made prior to the UN involvement, and the UN basically limited involvement to that which was requested by the revolutionaries.

You can bring as many articles as you want, they all say the same thing: 1) Heavy armor and heavy weaponry are not the same thing. Heavy armor refers to tanks, etc. While mortars and machine guns are bad, they are not heavy armor. 2) The articles misstate the facts, look at the quote, not at the article: He did not spell out what stronger action he wanted the world body to take. First, the quote clearly states that they have to pass a resolution to ask for more serious steps in Ivory Coast. This has not happened. Second, this is an article from March 23, 2011, which means that as of today, they have not passed the resolution to ask for more UN intervention. So until they actually come up with a resolution that specifically asks the UN for involvement, how can the UN act? What the headline of the article says is not really truthful. From the same article: Oh so as it turns out, the African nations have been hemming and hawing over what to do, with some of them actually supporting Gbago (Angola). Seems that everyone is telling the African nations to ask the UN for more help, but the African nations are reluctant to do it. So people are trying to make the UN bad guys for the Ivory Coast, but up until recently no one wanted more than what the UN was already doing.

From your articles: If that isnt being done, then the UN has some serious questions to answer. The problem is that not one article has actually shown "IMMINENT" threat that would need to be responded to with a No Fly Zone. Ive read that there maybe heavy armor, but so far it appears to have not been used. Conversely, it was only AFTER Gaddafi used heavy armor that the UN voted to enforce the No Fly Zone. Im not saying that what we are doing is right in Ivory Coast, or that maybe we should be doing more. But every single fact suggests that the UN is acting in a similar manner in Ivory Coast as it is in Libya. The difference is that a No Fly Zone is more spectacular in the media, than peacekeepers on the ground. If I saw a single article that suggested that tanks in Ivory Coast were marching on towns, I think wed have a much different argument, but from what I can tell, the Ivory Coast and Libya are 2 different scenarios.