Balta1701

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ May 30, 2007 -> 11:25 AM) I guess I'm looking at it from a different perspective. In terms of the larger picture of liberating them and instituting a democracy, there were plenty of men and women to do the job. The violence that occurs there on a daily basis isn't stopping the bigger goal of creating a new, successful country. It sure isn't helping, obviously, but it's not stopping it. Yes, actually it is. The violence is preventing virtually every bit of reconstruction from happening and has been doing so for at least 3 years now since the explosions in early 04. The stuff we started to renovate has basically fallen apart of since been blown up, if a decent job was even done in the first place (which often was not the case). People who would have taken jobs rebuilding no longer will because they'll get killed. We can't ship spare parts and supplies into the country without heavy escorts. Oil supplies flowing out, which should generate revenue for rebuilding, are virtually strangled because of the bombings. Up and down the list, the things that would need to happen for that country to actually rebuild and grow into a functionning nation are totally strangled by the facts that our rebuilding efforts to start off were shoddy, poorly organized, and hampered by greed, slowed at the start by the looting, and then totally shut down by the rampant violence. And then to top that whole list off...thus far, roughly 500k or so Iraqis are dead, give or take a few hundred thousand either way, another 2 million are displaced within Iraq as refugees no longer in their homes, and another 2 million, including much of the professional, educated classes, have fled the country completely to escape the violence. Imagine 95% of the educated professionals, engineers, scientists, educators, managers fleeing the U.S within a few years - how much would that strangle everything else?

Maybe Dallas or Phoenix. But both of them are trying to deal with cap issues.

Dick Cheney, May 30th, 2005, on Larry King's show. Ah, memories.... And while we're on the subject of people making fools of themselves by saying things that are proven fundamentally wrong...

SI.com: ESPN Link

QUOTE(WSoxMatt @ May 30, 2007 -> 09:26 AM) I remember when we all HATED the Danks & Massett for BMAC trade, before 1 pitch was ever thrown I still think we probably could have gotten a little bit more for BMac. But hey, I guess I can't complain about being proven wrong.

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 30, 2007 -> 09:40 AM) I am still amazed we care more about minimum wage jobs being taken by workers than about workers coming in and taking high paying skilled jobs, or middle class jobs heading over seas. We have this elaborate H1B program to bring in skilled labor, but ignore where there is a greater need in numbers. The flaw here from a legal standpoint is there isn't a system in place for legal immigration for workers making minimum wage like the H1B program. And the cost burden was too high to track these workers. The other problem is these workers are low skilled, have poor language skills, and are not likely to become peers with the middle class voters who dominate this country. Instead many live in a manner we can not comprehend. High density, extended family, making little, saving much. You know one of the other remarkable little side points here Tex? There are an awful lot of companies who would be willing to import and hire foreign-born, highly educated workers, but because of the disaster that is our current Visa system, which has gotten much worse since 9/11, that can't happen. And even beyond that, a heck of a lot of people come from overseas to go to U.S. universities, because we happen to be really good at that, but then if those people want to stay and take some of these high-level jobs, the Visa system makes it so difficult that a lot of them just leave and go back to help build foreign economies. So in other words, we're shooting ourselves in the feet at every level.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ May 30, 2007 -> 09:30 AM) I say we just send Mexico a bill to cover any costs associated for caring and dealing with the illegal immigrants. And when they default on that bill, we just repossess the oil fields to cover the payment. Or, we could just tax the hell out of wire transfers from the US to Mexico. Well, unfortunately, there are probably WTO rules that would prevent that and would provoke a strong response from the rest of the world. And unfortunately, the rest of the world has us over a barrel economically given that they're holding several trillion dollars in U.S. debt, so they do have leverage. Especially taking over oil fields (How exactly are we repossessing them? doesn't that mean they were ours in the first place? When?) A wire transfer tax, if that was internationally legal (I dunno) might actually be something that could make sense.

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 30, 2007 -> 09:13 AM) But there will be someone to take her place, there always is. Don't want any more Cindy Sheehan's? Stop invading countries.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ May 30, 2007 -> 06:33 AM) (a) How would more troops help? Pointing a gun at someone screaming "Hey, you better like that guy over there or else!" doesn't work with one troop, let alone 500k of them. The problem is that we aren't utilizing the forces that we have there. We're trying to make an impact while staying out of the way. We're walking the fine line of trying to make a strong presence while also building up the Iraqi army and police force and their presence. I think the number of troops was more than adequate for what was needed.When we went in, we clearly did not have enough strength to deal with the country from the second its administrative abilities collapsed. The ideal example of this is the giant looting spree, which we still never recovered from. We did not have the ability to impose martial law from the second we went in, keep the people calm, and hold together the facilities that were already there. Everything, from vital equipment to munitions was out in the open for those first months, and much of it just vanished. That is one key area where 500k troops could have made a difference. (Although, as I just pointed out, even then, I think the breakup of the country was inevitable, it would have just taken longer).

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 30, 2007 -> 09:17 AM) You have no peers Bottom line it is going to cost money to fix the problem. Based on emotion, we will spend more than the problem costs, but it's only money. We'll have direct costs in deporting people, building fences, court proceedings, removing the working illegal and leaving behind his legal spouse and kids, we'll need to import more workers which will cost employers, we will be paying more for food and other items that relied on cheap labor. But we'll be safer. Unsurprisingly, I'm pretty much in agreement with Tex on this one. Is this bill going to be the perfect bill? No. Is it going to please everyone? No. But does it at least make an effort to deal with the problem as it currently stands and attempt to prevent it from getting worse? I think it does. Someone once said in support of the constitution that America should support it because he was sure they would get no better, and that he was also not sure it wasn't the best. This bill acknowledges that there are tens of millions of people here already and does something about it, it acknowledges there's a demand for these workers and does something about it, and hopefully it does so in a way that prevents the problem from continuing to grow from here on out. If nothing else, it slaps a band-aid on there that hopefully minimizes the problem for the near future, and that's something.

Boy, could we ever use Willie right now. Even if he were just hitting .262 a-la 04. That .343 OBP from that year would actually look good in our lineup.

ARod's May Splits: .235 .359 .429 .788 A little lower slugging and that'd fit right in with the Sox. If nothing else...this month may well be the last straw on his opt-out.

QUOTE(SoxAce @ May 29, 2007 -> 08:02 PM) Boone Logan pwns. 2 straight days where I think Booney is the only man on the team we can give legit props to. He's a legend.

So, does anyone else think that this will actually be the game that ignites our offense?

QUOTE(RockRaines @ May 30, 2007 -> 06:44 AM) Boy you would think we are mathematically eliminated by the talk on this board. This team isnt supposed to lose a single series I take it? So, here's my counterpoint. The White Sox will by no means be mathematically eliminated when the trading deadline rolls around. This exact same argument can be made then. So the question must be posed...at what point do we decide to do something major? This team seems like they can probably hang around at a little bit above .500 as they currently stand, especially with Thome back. But we've seen too many different bursts of struggles, from the lineup to the defense to the bullpen, to think that they're suddenly going to hit a 12 game winning streak and surge back up with the Tigers and Indians. Right now, those other teams are simply better. KW has shown a proclivity, and an intelligent one at that...to make his moves early, well before the trading deadline. IIRC, Garcia was a June pickup, Alomar and Everett were first-of-July pickups, etc. That way, KW gets an extra month with anyone he picks up. So in other words, based on Kenny's past, if we're going to make moves to try to make a run at the Tigers and Twins, the time is rapidly approaching. And if we're deciding to sell on someone, say Mark for example...his value might well be higher now than 1-2 months from now (Dye I think you hold onto for at least another month to see if he keeps improving). So in other words...yes, the Sox aren't mathematically eliminated. But they're not putting themselves in a position to win as currently constructed, and the time for making decisions on what to do about this is rapidly approaching.

QUOTE(NUKE @ May 29, 2007 -> 07:02 PM) You're forgetting something. We WERE treated as liberators in the 1st days after we toppled Saddam. I should know because I saw it 1st hand. And IMO, there was absolutely no way it was going to last when the people got down to the business of trying to build a country. The flaws were simply too deep to overcome. The Sunnis were never going to accept being a minority, the Shia were never going to accept the Sunnis as an equal partner, and no one was going to let the Kurds secede from the country with all of the oil in the north. The whole country was set up to fall apart, and the only thing holding it together was the strongman. The people might have celebrated that day, but the real issues began when the celebration ended, and there is simply no military way to prevent that.

QUOTE(caulfield12 @ May 29, 2007 -> 05:19 PM) Ah yes, Jason Dellaero taken before Lance Berkman, and Garland ended up being the only major "impact" player of that draft, and he wasn't even a Sox pick. Well, the Sox also drafted Jim Parque and Rocky Biddle with 2 of those picks, and spent another one trying to steal Jeff Weaver with a 2nd round pick to see if they could sign him it appears. If we really want to talk about picks I wish we could do over, the one single pick is the Rogowski selection.

QUOTE(fathom @ May 29, 2007 -> 04:20 PM) They develop a few good relivers every couple of years. I can't think of the last guy who contributed to our bullpen that was from within. They also have Nathan sitting at the back end who was acquired via trade, and 1 reliever who has some, let's say, chemical enhancements, helping out. They also have a former Sox castaway in there in Guerrier. Hopefully Logan winds up fitting the bill pretty soon.

QUOTE(BearSox @ May 29, 2007 -> 04:13 PM) Oh, I know, but for a while there it seemed to be a bad trade because of how bad Koch pitched, but Koch likely sucked because of that mysterious disease he had http://www.ktvu.com/news/9264350/detail.html I dunno, I totally understand Mr. Koch's condition...but i'm still uncertain as to how exactly that leads ot you losing 7-8 mph off your fastball in 1 summer.

QUOTE(BearSox @ May 29, 2007 -> 04:04 PM) Another questionable one was Foulke for Cotts and Koch trade. There were some other minor prospects who sucked in that deal also. I dunno, we lost 1 year of Foulke before he hit FA right? Yes, Koch sucked. But Cotts had a dominant 05 to help us win a ring and has been turned into another hard thrower who may well wind up being another good releiver.

Well, if you're coming back to save a pitching staff, you might as well start against the weakest offense you can find, right?

QUOTE(BearSox @ May 29, 2007 -> 04:00 PM) Todd Ritchie and Kip Wells for Todd Ritchie Um...man, that is the single most 1-sided deal ever.

QUOTE(TitoMB345 @ May 29, 2007 -> 03:15 PM) I know I'll probably take a lot of flack for this, but Sammy Sosa to the Cubs for George Bell. Bell sucked, while Sosa... well, you all know the story. I understand what you're saying on paper...but I will add...at least we kept our souls.

So, here's my whole take: The whole reason why you would want to get Kobe Bryant is because you want to bundle him with the pieces you already have. It doesn't do you much good to put a lineup of Bryant, Duhon, Sweetney, Khryapa, Wallace out there, because we've already seen what that does in L.A. If you can't pair Kobe with Deng, Wallace, and probably Hinrich, then the motivation for this deal is pretty low, because all you're doing is setting up exactly the situation LA is in now: 1 great star who puts you in the playoffs if he's healthy but who isn't good enough to win the whole thing but is also too good for you to get a great draft pick. The only way this type of deal makes sense either for Kobe or for the Bulls is for the deal to not make sense for the Lakers. In other words, it winds up being 1 guy, like Hinrich, thrown in with maybe Nocioni, to cover the salary. Then the Bulls hold on to Deng, Wallace, and probably a TT or something like that and that looks like a championship lineup, especially if you can draft a point guard. The only way this type of deal happens is if Kobe requests it and the Lakers take back only enough to match the salaries. Because for equal talent, it basically takes the whole Bulls starting lineup...which is of course why it's so difficult to trade a superstar.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ May 29, 2007 -> 09:56 AM) Nuke: You're right. We could have won this war pretty easily, and we could have even made the right case to get into Iraq in the first place. But as the execution of this war shows, priorities have been in wrong places since day one of planning. Sadly, I think this is actually incorrect. I think that the idea of launching a humanitiarian war in the middle of this powderkeg of a region was bound to wind up this way. No matter what we did, eventually, there were going to be people out of work and unhappy about it who decided to turn to violence, and eventually it was going to get out of control no matter what happened, IMO. You just can not expect the United States Army to be greeted as liberators and worshipped as freedom-givers in the middle east these days, and that is one of the key flaws. Of course, I can't prove that, and neither can anyone else, because we only have the scenario which actually played out. But I can add that no matter what, it could have and probably should have been pretty obvious that even if this war was a great idea on paper, the people who would be running it were not at all the sort of people who should be trusted with something of this magnitude.