Soxbadger

Another oddity is that Wiki is inconsistent on the numbers, from its article "Gulf War": That number has Iraqi forces at 550k, not even close to the 1mil number in the other article. I tried to locate both books, but have been unable to. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/...ersian-Gulf-War Encyclopedia Brittanica puts the number at: The coalition that fought it also most likely outnumbered it: It is my belief that the North Korean army outnumbers the Iraqi army even in 1991 after further review of the facts.

Well statement number 1: You really believe this? Do I really believe what I typed, yes. Do you think criminals should be allowed to carry guns just because the police can? Well that obviously depends. I believe that the current interpretation of the US constitution guarantees that US citizens have the right to bear arms. Therefore I believe that citizens have the right to carry arms. As to the "criminal" that suggests that they have been found guilty in a court of law. Once they have been found guilty there rights may change, I personally think that conviction of a felony should probably bar future gun ownership. The problem is that the situation is completely distinguishable. The US are not "police" and NK are not criminals. Both countries are "citizens". So if the US, one citizen, can have nuclear weapons, then NK, another citizen, should be able to as well. Now I know most will argue that NK is a bad guy and the US is a good guy, but unfortunately in the case of nukes, it isnt so clear, as we are about to find out in your next line of questioning. 1 by the United States of America Right now countries believed to have nuclear weapons are: US, Russia, UK, China, France, India and Pakistan (arguable NK and Israel). http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/thir...d_countries.htm And if you are counting by country it would go: First World: US, France, UK Second World: Russia Third World: China, India and Pakistan So to answer your question, 3 First World Countries have Nukes, 1 Second World Country and 3 Third World. So Im not sure what this means, other than to show that at the end of World War II people thought there were 3 worlds. The First was the US sphere, the Second was USSR sphere and the third was everyone else. Well I think that countries have the right to be treated equally and the right to defend themselves. So as long as certain countries can have nukes, then all countries should be able to have them. Your speculation about Australia, just proves my point. Why should Australia get nuclear weapons? No one should have them is my opinion. Is it because Australia is white? Because they speak English? What exact metric are we using to decide who can have them and who cant? Its certainly not, "What countries have used nukes to kill people." because if that was the standard than the US would not be allowed to have nukes. People act like Western countries are some how incapable of being the bad guys, that as long as nukes are in "our hands" the world is fine. But Germany prior to Hitler, was considered one of the most forward thinking and technologically advanced nations. They are the ones who produced Hitler, not some Third World country. I guess its just this idea that the US and Western nations are some how the "police" and are the ones who are always in the right. Im not exactly going to get into speculation about what might have happened. I will say that I would expect a North Korean war to be very different from an Iraq war and that I would expect casualties to be considerably higher. I doubt that it would be as bad as Vietnam, but would be some where between the 2 conflicts.

Im leaving work, Ill post more later. But in the original Gulf War, the US did not penetrate to Baghdad, nor did it destroy the weapons capability (unless you dont believe George W. Bush). So what would be the point of another Gulf War where you just have to fight a second war 9-10 years later? I was comparing the forces of the second Gulf War, when they were actually able to get rid of Saddam and theoretically destroy the weapon making capabilities. (Ill comment more later, just wanted to clarify that I was exclusively referring to the second Gulf War).

SS2k, Who in the world said the same thing about the Iraq army? (I know not to trust Wikipedia, but Im lazy and I dont get paid for this) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...f_active_troops North Korea is #5. Iraq is #21 (although it says under Saddam they had 400k). 1.19mil is a lot larger than 400k The US active army is only 1.4mil, Russia 1.2mil US had approximately 3x the army of Iraq. US would only have 200k more army than NK. Not to mention the US army is around the world, the NK army is located in one area, which means that the US could actually be outnumbered in a fight against NK. Unless you want to draft people, because NK most certainly would institute a draft possibly swelling the numbers of their army to close to 2mil+.

Alternative is to not be hypocrites in the idea that the US and other Western Countries can have nuclear stockpiles that can destroy the world, but NK and other countries cant even have one. Absent actually taking over a country, it will be impossible to prevent that country from obtaining nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are almost "old" technology at this point in that they were invented 50 years ago, to believe that other countries will not independently create nuclear weapons (or worse) is silly. Pandora's box is open, you cant just stuff the nuclear weapons back in. The best thing to do would be to tell countries, they can have nuclear weapons, but by choosing to have them they are going to suffer the following consequences (or reap the following incentives). That way they can make the decision for themselves. Some countries will want the nukes, others will want to avoid the consequences or gain the incentives. Either way it puts an end to the notion that some how the US can stop other countries from technologically advancing. It would have been like the German's trying to prevent other countries from creating rockets.

What army is going to be the first into NK? The estimates are NK has a 1mil+ standing army. They may not have the most sophisticated weaponry, but its still a lot of manpower.

I dont know Dick Cheney and I really couldnt tell you what his motivations are for anything to be honest. I assume that he is like most humans in that his interests are self-serving (like Obama), so maybe its fame, fortune, religion or who the hell knows. Bottom line is that if Cheney and I were to be sitting in a room together, I doubt we would agree on most things.

Where have I ever said that it had anything to do with his speech? My comments are about what he believes and what makes him as a person, not about some speech. I really dont believe I have even used the word "speech" in any of my posts, and to be honest I didnt even see the speech (or Obama's). I could not care less about either Obama's or Cheney's speech. Talk is cheap.

QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ May 23, 2009 -> 01:32 AM) Ummmm, I kind of think Cheney is a little loonie, but jeeze... I don't think that's got a darned thing to do with it. And SS2K, well played on Al Gore. I happen to think Gore's cause is more just but I feel you. EDIT: And do you have a source for Cheney even being an evangelical? Cheney is listed as Methodist. http://www.adherents.com/people/pc/Dick_Cheney.html George Bush is also listed as a Methodist. http://www.adherents.com/people/pb/George_W_Bush.html From what I can tell methodism and evangelicalism have similar roots. http://master.umc.org/interior.asp?mid=1648 But then again, I already covered all of this by saying: I personally dont believe he actually believes in it, and I think that he is using it to get support. But thats just my personal opinion, there really is no way to prove what he actually believes as he does not speak much on the subject. Ive tried to find information, its just not there (or I dont want to put in the necessary time as I really dont care that much.) So if you can find something that says Cheney is not a Methodist and does not believe in Methodism, feel free Id be interested to read it. Now from a Methodist Website: The problem is that it is inconclusive. It does not say one way or the other, just that its not central. So is it possible Cheney believes it? Yes Is it possible Cheney doesnt believe it? Yes What is my opinion? Cheney doesnt really believe in it, and is just using religion to get people to support him. Not sure what is so controversial about that.

Are you sayiing that Cheney is not an evangelical? Because thats fine if you just believe that he is using the term to get votes and that he doesnt really believe in it.

Stay Puft Marshmallow man was completely plausible.

Kap, I mean i hate to say it, but Cheney is an Evangelical. (Unless you are denying that he is one.) And part of that belief is the Rapture, Armageddon and the coming of the anti-christ. Now whether or not Cheney is actively trying to create those things is unprovable. But the fact he belongs to the religion, suggests that he wants them to happen and in order for them to happen there have to be certain occurrences (many of them extremely violent and brutal.) I have never seen him speak against any of these things.

Both sides may just be playing hard ball. Its May 22, no where near the trade deadline. Peavy has no real incentive to accept a trade, its up to the Padres (and Sox if this is the Padres preferred offer) to change his mind. Its business. Some times you need to walk away to get the offer you want.

Saw Star Trek last night (first time ive ever seen any Star Trek movie of tv show) and I thought it was good. Obviously a lot of Star Trek fans are going to disagree for various reasons.

The opt out kills the deal, unless the Padres were willing to send back spects if he opts out. The reason the Sox are paying the price in terms of spects is that he would be under contract for a few years.

The hold up may be the NTC. Peavy doesnt want to go through this again, and he knows that this may be his only chance to rework the NTC so its for the full deal.

This thread has everything, penguins, life lessons. It should be required reading for all new soxtalk members.

Well its high school not college, so not sure he should stay longer. But in college I suggest the 8-10 year plan if possible.

So its good that school is over in less than a month so theyll have the whole summer to relocate? I mean its not like he was born in SD and his whole family is there. Everyone is willing to agree to this, Peavy just wants to make sure that he gets some "consideration" for his waiving of the NTC. This is standard stuff, even if Peavy told his agent: "Do the deal" Im sure his agent said: "Jake we can probably get you that 20mil guaranteed, lets just hold out for a few hours." There is no incentive for Peavy to accept it this instant, its not like every hour he waits a million comes off the salary. So he is putting the Padres and the Sox behind the 8ball, as both of them want the deal done and all they need to do is give him something. At least thats my opinion on this whole subject.

Why does he have to be away from his family? Is there some reason why his family cant have a home in Chicago? Or at least have a home in Chicago for the summer when Peavy is playing. His kids are in school in April, May and August/September. The rest of the year he can be with them as much as any other team hed ever go to.

There wouldnt still be talks if Peavy wouldnt accept the deal. At this point Peavy is just trying to get something for himself out of this whole charade. Its gone on to long for there to be no hope, so Im saying slightly over 50% chance he accepts.

Why dont they take off the Penguins back pack before they hose him down?

Is the place called "Market"? If so I was told by an acquaintance it was started by a guy who went to my HS. (principal owner) The guy was lame as hell.

Rock, I agree completely. The more it becomes contract talk, the more of a reality it is.

There also is a San Diego Wild Life place, where the animals roam freer. Its a pretty cool place. And for some reason I think the more the talk becomes about the "contract" the closer it is to reality. Money can be negotiated.