Balta1701

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Nov 7, 2005 -> 03:33 PM) You're correct about that. WP is commonly found in artillery smoke rounds and Ive also seen it used as an incendiary. I believe the question here is what happens when it is fired directly on people. Just because it is used as smoke rounds doesn't mean that in a more concentrated form and applied directly to the skin its won't give dramatically different results. Either way, I'm not sure whether or not any of the things we're talking about exposing people to would count in my mind as a chemical weapon attack. But then again, I also don't know enough about "White Phosphorus" and how the body reacts to it. The EPA lists it as an air pollutant, but and limits exposure per day, but gives no strong guidelines about what would happen if it were used as an anti-personnel weapon. And also Kip, is the U.S. a signatory to whatever treaty it was that banned the use of Napalm? The Wikipedia page you linked to did not say. And from what I've read, I'm not convinced that the U.S. is a signatory to that treaty.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Nov 7, 2005 -> 03:31 PM) Are you sure about that? http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterror.html How many of those people died in the year or two leading up to the war, and how many of them died in the massive attack by Hussein on the Shia during 1991 or before that, when a strike on them might have prevented the deaths? We had no fly zones in place over Iraq in 2003. We had constant patrols over both the north and south. Iraq's army was not moving. There was no genocide in progress. If there had been, do you think Bush would have been forced to cite 1988's events as evidence for invading Iraq for humanitarian reasons? Your example is something different from invading to stop a genocide. Your example is invading to punish a leader for a previous one.

QUOTE(The Ginger Kid @ Nov 7, 2005 -> 03:14 PM) Look, I don't like the idea of innocent people getting tortured, no one does. But 9/11 changed a lot of things. And this is one of them. I actually agree with Bush's polilcy of pre-emptive strikes in our nation's defense See, here's the odd thing, I think there's hardly a person out there who wouldn't agree with that statement. Take for example, the Israeli preemptive strike on Egypt in 1967. How many people here would argue that Israel wasn't justified in striking Egypt preemptively? Look at the situation: Repeated skirmishes between the Isrealis and the Syrians throughout 1966 and 1967 (Including air battles) Shelling of Israeli targets by Syria An alliance pack signed between Egypt and Syria in 1966 Withdrawal of the U.N. forces from the Suez region (basically in place since the 50's as a buffer between Egypt and Israel) at the request of the Egyptions Closing of the Straits of Tiran by Egypt (cutting off several Israeli ports) Signing of a mutual defense treaty between Egypt and Jordan in 1967 Repeated statements by Egyptian President Nasser suggesting war with Israel. It is possible to argue that the Egyptians weren't really prepared for war in 1967. Part of their army was bogged down in fighting a civil war in Yemen. One could suggest they were merely rattling the sabre to try to get concessions from Israel without war. But given the situation Israel was in, I find it impossible to disagree with their decision to launch a preemptive strike. However, this situation is totally different from the sort of preemptive strike that Bush has made. I even really don't like the idea of using the same term - preemptive strike. Because in the Israeli case, they were faced with what seemed to be a clear and growing threat. In the Iraqi case, we were faced with no threat, but only a dictator who did not like us. He had not acted on those instincts in years, and in fact was backing down in front of every U.S. demand - i.e. dismantling of missiles, acceptance of total inspections, etc. Bush's preemptive war doctrine basically said that we'll go to war against people who don't like us because they might threaten us in the future. The way Israel used it, they used it against a nation that was threatening them with war in the immediate future. There is a profound difference between those 2 cases. If you asked someone if in 2000, they would have supported a preemptive strike against the folks that attacked the U.S.S. Cole, would you have supported it? I think I would have...because we'd know beyond a shadow of a doubt that we were facing people who could threaten to do more in the future. I don't see how anyone could disagree with a preemptive strike in the face of a direct threat. I could even understand an Israeli strike on Iran after the words of the Iranian leader right now (that doesn't mean the strike would be the right strategic decision, only that it could be justifiable).

1 thing I haven't been able to figure out about these reports: When the Heck did Napalm get classified as a chemical weapon?

If it makes anyone else feel better, there was an anti-Cubs insult in the opening of The Simpsons last night. Kang & Kodos basically suggested that the universe would end before the Cubs won a W.S. Don't remember the exact line, but enjoyed it thoroughly.

QUOTE(qwerty @ Nov 7, 2005 -> 02:20 PM) No one here even says why they think they are unbeatable. They just are? I don't know if I'd say they are unbeatable. But right now, who in the Western conference is not at least 1-2 steps below them? The key players from the championship team last year are all back. And Tony Parker looks like he's j ust getting better with time. On top of that, through the additions to their bench, they have the ability to give guys like Duncan and Ginobili more rest without killing them in ballgames. This may help keep guys healthy for longer. Yes, there are teams in the East that can beat them in a 7 game series. But they only play those teams a handfull of times during the regular season, and half of them will be at home. Barring major injuries, I don't see anyone in the Western Conference that can truly beat them. Maybe Houston or Denver could pull something together, but the Spurs are well coached, talented, and deep, and that will drag them through the regular season in veyr good shape.

QUOTE(The Ginger Kid @ Nov 7, 2005 -> 02:15 PM) I'm a lefty, but if torturing some terrorist is going to prevent a future attack then so be it. Former CIA Guy Larry Johnson.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2005 -> 02:35 PM) You are absolutely right. We should have stood by and let genocide happen, like we did in Africa. Of course, you're forgetting 1 thing...there was no genocide in progress in Iraq. Nothing even resembling one. Had there actually been an actual active campaign against the people, you'd have heard me changing my tone rapidly. But that was not the case at the time we invaded. Iraq was roughly stable, with a dramatically weakend army, and with a regime in charge that while not even remotely good on the question of human rights, was no worse than a dozen other nations in the world.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2005 -> 02:31 PM) Not to mention the people that had been killed in between the first and the second gulf wars, or were still going to be tortured and killed, or would have been victims of Saddams next war. Yeah, man, thank goodness we invaded and put a stop to the torture of Iraqis.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Nov 7, 2005 -> 01:44 PM) Aside from the headress deal have there been any peaceful demonstrations by these people to call attention to their situation? That's one I'm afraid I cant' tell you. Don't know internal French Politics regarding minorities that well.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 7, 2005 -> 01:40 PM) Right now, the only thing Saddam Hussein's lawyers need to do is read a transcript of the Senate the last two weeks to get him cleared of all charges, and to swing him right back into power. It's great!! Would that bring the 2000+ American soldiers, 200 or so foreign soldiers, 200 or so U.S. contractors, and various few thousand other Iraqis back to life? Would that also cut off the ample supply of recruits the war has given Al Qaeda? Would that give us our $250 billiion back?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 7, 2005 -> 01:41 PM) And I thank you. At least you have some common sense, even if we disagree on things. But I guaran-damn-tee you that somewhere in the media, George Bush will be at fault for this. Well, you could probably find some way to make a link through either the war on terror or the war in Iraq to it, but that'd just be a stupid diversion. This is what happens when you treat a minority like sh*t for decades. Eventually, they lash out.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 7, 2005 -> 01:37 PM) This is no joke, I'm waiting for this to turn into George Bush's fault. How long will it take? You won't hear that one from me. This one is the fault of the French, and they've had it coming for a long, long time.

Does anyone here think the Spurs have a shot at 70 this season?

QUOTE(Steff @ Nov 7, 2005 -> 01:27 PM) Sadly, they didn't kill the kid so they'll be out in 18 or so months. What they should do to ANYONE that commits a crime against a child is "fix" them so they can no longer reproduce, and place their children in NO INFORMATION foster/adoptive homes. Give the kids a shot at a normal life. Break the cycle. Of course, the counterpoint to this is the question...how do you know that their time in prison won't rehabilitate them, to the point where they could actually build a normal life for a kid?

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Nov 7, 2005 -> 01:23 PM) Step 1. Take the kid(s) away. Step 2. Toss these scumbags in jail for a nice long time. People who harm children are the lowest form of life on earth. There's another of those places where Nuke and I find ourselves in complete agreement.

QUOTE(mreye @ Nov 7, 2005 -> 01:22 PM) What are you doing? He's trying to parody those evil, sadistic, Jesus-hating Democrats who blame everything in the world on George W. Bush. Since more than a handful of those people actually exist.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Nov 7, 2005 -> 01:14 PM) I blame George W Bush... he invented shock collars Do you seriously think those are amusing?

Here's something I've been unclear on...could the White Sox even offer arbitration to Frank after choosing to buy his contract out? They'll certainly offer it to Konerko...no reason not to. If memory serves, they have to offer it to Konerko in order to get draft picks in return if he leaves, and normally when people go through arbitration their salary does not change much from the previous year. It's for this last reason that I can't imagine the Sox offering Thomas arbitration. If he were to accept, it'd probably cost the Sox a lot more than if we just signed him to a 1-2 year incentive laden deal.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Nov 7, 2005 -> 12:15 PM) Is it me or did they drastically overpay and overrate Westbrook. Westbrook is a solid all around back, but he's slated to make quite a bit of money now (i'm assuming the deal is backloaded and that he'll make somewhere around 3-4 million the first few years and will never reach the latter part of the deal). Personally, I think that they gave Westbrook what was needed. Especially with TO now out, that team has exactly 1 very good weapon other than their QB, and it's Westbrook. Last year the guy was a marvel; both catching passes and in running the ball. He really did make a major difference on that team. This year they have had tons of problems getting the ball to him, and they've been worried about him getting hurt if they run the ball. I think that right now, the best thing that team can do is focus in on going McNabb to Westbrook as often as possible. Maybe not as often as Brees to Tomlinson should happen, but very close to that.

Maybe Juggs can correct me on this one, but I was under the impression that Arizona was facing a fairly decent log jam on the infield, much like we have on the outfield, and that was for 1 why they were moving Tracy around to different positions - because they have more players than playing time. Even if Glaus were moved, I think they still have a fairly hefty number of people waiting in the winds to fill those slots, and that might reduce the amount they'd be willing to pay Konerko. I mean, if they're willing to part with Glaus after 1 year... Also, the Diamondbacks aren't without their share of bad contracts (Ortiz) that might saddle them a little bit in any negotiation.

Woo-hoo...got an 86/120 on my complex analysis midterm! (This is actually good, I'm told the average was somewhere in the 70's). If I pass this class, and finish off the field trips for 1 other class, then I will officially be done with actual graded classes for the rest of my life.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2005 -> 12:08 PM) Hey Rex, I saw a Turkish religious leader tie the French headscarf ban into all of this, any insight? Rex could disagree with me, but think of it this way...if we look at these riots as the violent outburst of an oppressed minority, then the headscarf ban is just another piece of the puzzle. It's an example of one of the many ways that this particular minority has been oppressed by the larger majority over there. For some people, they may be furious and angry because of economic opportunities, for others they may be motivated by the limits the government has placed on their freedom to express their religion.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2005 -> 12:11 PM) NO big suprise here if this is true. Low level military people don't just do things willy nilly. They follow orders, as they are trained from day one. You might have a rouge person or two, but when it becomes a pattern, there is a reason for that. As I said after Abu Grahib, someone told them to do this, and that person has to be found. Which is why the Democrats need subpoena power. Just 1 house of Congress in 06 is all I want. Y'all can have the rest. Just give the other side of the aisle subpoena power. Btw, welcome back to regular posting. Now get your fingers workin and get up to 120 posts today!

This is what happens when the IRS is casually instructed to give equal weight to prosecuting any tax frauds, no matter how large the problem is. Now, let's just think for 1 second about who might be the biggest beneficiary of the time that these IRS agents have spent on the case of the person who owed $1. There is a reason for this.