OCinBuffalo

Bro-ken Re-cord clap clap, clap clap clap!

So did I. I hardly see how doing something useless, ducking and covering, is an excuse for doing something else that's useless, only talking to Iran and not attacking them covertly/using every SF/intelligence asset we have to subvert their government or at least their nuke program. I can't help but notice that you only said you wouldn't support McCain. That leaves Obama's "policy". So, which policy of Obama's do you support? The unilateral, no pre-conditional talking with Iran policy of 3 months ago, or the "I'm not sure what but certainly not what I said last time" policy he has today? You are using this as an example of "the most responsible way"? Really? You're sure this is how you want to present yourself to us? Oh, and unfortunately the way the game works is: you have to pick between the paragraph above and McCain. Somehow I don't think the debates are going to help Obama on this one. He better hurry up and settle on a policy quick or it's going to be very tough for him. Kerry all over again. Um, ours and other's Navies are on station right now, right there, as we speak, as they have been for years, to make sure that doesn't happen. The main reason you have a Navy is to prevent piracy. Perhaps you have forgotten, or more likely you have been lulled into thinking that piracy has gone away. If we took our Navy away tomorrow, there would be pirates all over the place in 4 months. There still are pirates, right now. The Navy's main job is to police trade routes, and always has been. You honestly think they are going to screw up something they have been doing for the last 200 years over a couple of speed boats? Iran has already been provoking action and our cooler headed commanders have prevailed. The bottom line is, since the Cole attack, the Navy is on guard and there ain't no way the Iranians get even one tanker. They'll be dead before they get anywhere close, especially since they have put our and every other Navy on alert with their recent foolishness. If they continue all they are going to get is a bombing of all the ports where their speedboats harbor. I don't see what else speculators could possibly find out of this. Besides sooner or later you hit the wall and that fear of prices dropping suddenly will end this speculation, and Iranian speedboats will have nothing to do with it. I think that the fact that Iraq just put 5 contracts for oil out to bid is going to do a lot more to the price of oil, sending it down very soon. Buddy, I don't sidestep ever. That's what you guys do. You want me to answer a question, I will answer it directly. N. Korea's neighbors have decided no such thing. I challenge you to provide me one link that supports what you are saying and/or that contradicts what I am saying. Edit: oh and here's the first link I found, right at the top of the list, that supports what I am saying right here. Here's what happened: Japan flat out told us, and everybody else, that if North Korea doesn't kill off it's nuclear program, that they would re-militarize and might even get nukes themselves(not to say that they don't have them secretly already, but this would be the best kept state secret of all time). This is a giant step for Japan because of there super-strong opposition to nuclear weapons. They are also pissed because N. Korea has been kidnapping their citizens so that they can use them to train their spies. They've had it and they said so, their response was going to be a military build up, not talk. China's, hell the whole far east's, ass still hurts from the raping Japan gave them last time they were a serious military power. Don't fool/lie to yourself, these cultures remember their history for 1000's of years, so they have no problem remembering 60 years ago. The minute Japan said this is the same minute that he Chinese said "enough" and told N. Korea to give it up immediately. If N. Korea loses Chinese support then they are truly alone and their government would topple in months. That's not to say that it won't soon anyway. The N. Korean's didn't "blackmail" anybody. Japan simply said they would smack them down, and nobody in the region can afford a Japan that can do that. We gave them a few trade incentives so they could "save face", and we just sent them 38,000 tons of food, and that's only the first shipment. Yeah, once again "evil America" doing terrible things like feeding the hungry. It's all Bush's fault, though right? All we have done is stop a nut's nuclear program and fed his people, which he should have been doing in the first place. That's all, that's it. No blackmail, no BS. In all honesty it's not like we don't have the extra food, so why do we care? We gotta do something with all that peanut butter and cheese, let them eat it.

As far as the OP goes: yeah whatever, they are digging their own graves and they better be prepared to fill 10 times that many if they are actually stupid enough to resist us in the field. This is a propaganda move, nothing more. Our combined arms in a set piece battle would literally destroy Iranian forces 10 times larger, as they have every time we have deployed them since 1980. Between the new things we have and our air power, never mind the basic soldier w/M16 and the rest of our conventional order of battle, this Iranian general is simply blowing smoke. "To be a good soldier, you must love the army. To be a good commander, you must be willing to order the death of the thing you love." Gen. Robert E. Lee It appears some of our commanders are struggling with this military "commandment" just as General Longstreet was when Lee said it to him. The simple fact that Lee said it to Longstreet shows this is nothing new. It's also important to remember the context of this remark: Lee was trying to end the war by sending Longstreet to attack the Union left at Gettysburg. He wanted the war to end, he was not glorifying war. He was trying to get Longstreet to commit fully to the attack, regardless of cost, because he knew that unless they won there, the war would continue, costing more lives and eventually leading to total war = what happened when Grant took over. Here's my quote: Nobody wants war except the insane, or those who have never picked up a rifle while wearing a uniform. At the same time, nobody thinks war is always avoidable except the insane, or those who have never picked up a rifle while wearing a uniform. No general ever wants war, because it means that they have fundamentally failed in their primary task: to create, train, and equip such a fearsome army that no sane individual or country would dare consider fighting against it. Unfortunately, this doesn't account for insane individuals and governments, who by definition are incapable of fear and reason. They must be dealt with as with any rabid dog, until sanity is restored. As further evidence about how to think about war from someone who actually knows, Lee also said: "It is well that war is so terrible - otherwise we would grow too fond of it", but he also said, "Never do a wrong thing to make a friend or keep one." I refer you to what I said above. Let me be clear: only the insane, or those who have never picked up a rifle, think war with Iran is 100% avoidable. Most importantly, the last thing you ever want to do is to take war off the table as an option while you are trying to negotiate a peaceful settlement. Only an insane person, or a kitty(hey, they changed my word! ), would limit his negotiating position. The fact that we went ahead in Iraq, right or wrong and despite the limp wrists in Europe, demonstrates our resolve to Iran and every other petty dictatorship. Why in God's name would we have spent all these lives, time and money, only to throw it all away and not keep the war option firmly on the table while trying to negotiate with them, especially when our proof lies right next door? We are in this for keeps, and it's time you woke up to that fact. We are talking nuclear weapons here, not a "difference of opinion" on some trade issues. The more we try to ignore that fact, the more trouble we will incur. We have been fighting a "war" against Iran since the Shah was deposed/since Jimmy Carter pussied out. As I have said since I have been on this board, I think the entire war in Iraq has been about establishing a supply line so that if a war with Iran becomes necessary our logistics are firmly in place. Wrong. It was worth getting China and more importantly, Japan, involved. Nobody, and I mean nobody in that part of the world, wants Japan to re-militarize. They are just recently recovered from the last time that happened. South Korea is now a real threat as well. And both represent the real deterrent for North Korea, and China for that matter. So let's not pretend that there wasn't a significant threat involved = Japan going nuclear and rebuilding it's armed forces, that got North Korea and their mommy, China, moving. Oh and btw, yeah, the 6 party talks that John Kerry wanted to get rid of, actually worked. We did what we needed to do, got what we wanted, and didn't have to go "hat in hand" to a guy who wears high heels and thinks he is a god. We gave up little and retained our place as the only super power. Beats the hell out of Madeline Albright diplomacy, now doesn't it? Are you going to admit that Kerry was flat wrong on this? I won't bother holding my breath..... Politics of fear? WTF? Are you trying to tell us that you don't fear nukes? This isn't about fear, this is about common f'ing sense. I don't fear the little kid on the block, but I do fear him if he gets his hands on a gun. Then I do whatever I have to do to take that gun away from him, because he can shoot me any time he wants to, especially when I am not looking. The first thing I would do is call the cops(call the UN and NATO), but if they won't do anything, then it's up to me. If I have to lay a severe beating on him to get that gun away, and even if I get shot in the process or even die, so be it, because the alternative - living in fear of what he might do, or having him shoot me anyway - is unacceptable, and he should have thought about that before he got the gun. Sorry if this little scenario doesn't play well in the suburbs, but this is reality, deal with it. The politics of ignoring the power of nuclear weapons gives me a hell of a lot more concern than whatever poorly executed preemptive politics does, and history proves that over and over. Iran cutting off oil lanes with their speed boats is laughable. Where do you get this stuff? You apparently forgot about our Navy and Air Force air power, to say nothing of the Navy's of the rest of the civilized world. The worst thing they could do would be to play games with the Strait because that would necessarily drag the rest of NATO, at the very least their Navies, into armed conflict with Iran, never mind the rest of the Navies of all the countries in the region. You think Kuwait or the Saudis are going to let that happen? You think their own speed boat Navies won't get involved? Prices might be affected for a few months, but after the severe beating is laid down and the attacks stop, they will go right back to where they were. In all cases, this is a stupid plan for Iran and let's all hope they are that dumb, and that we are that lucky. It makes everything easier for us. You are dreaming, sir. Time to wake up. We need to drill everywhere we can in this country, get oil right now, and give our alternative energy techs/plans time to develop. As soon as they can handle our energy demands, we start switching over. We should have been doing this all through the 80's and 90's, but we didn't and the Congress of the last 30 years is to blame. This is common sense and has nothing to do with the Iranian speed boat Navy. The alternative energy techs aren't ready yet and your lame attempt at holding this country hostage to prove your point is going to cost your party severely if you continue it. It's up to you, because this is your party's "Iraq war" issue. Do the right thing and learn from the Republican's mistakes. I would be shocked if you actually did, and I would be happy because it's the best thing for the country. Yeah, where exactly does it show that? Who said we are going to invade, when we can make our point with air and SF, and all we need is land bases in Iraq to do this indefinitely? "People" weren't saying any of the things that have come to pass in Iraq, at any point, ever. Surely "people" weren't saying that the surge would work, unless you are talking about me, or Senator McCain. Again, I refer you to the above comments I made about the insane wanting war vs. the insane thinking it can always be avoided. Get a clue, both are insane, and have nothing to do with one party or the other. The question is: have you exhausted all other options? If you honestly have, and if the threat is still real, then war is unavoidable and you have to make the call. This is how it goes in the big boy world. Denying that means you are a child and have no business leading this country as President or in Congress, regardless of which party you are in. You are right about one thing: We need to wake up and realize that this nation is at war, and we need to start acting like it. Pretending we are on some peace-keeping mission and then being horrified when we have casualties is the mark of an insane person. We are at war with any country who supports terror or is trying to give nukes to terrorists. We will remain at war until that threat has been permanently defeated. Pretending that we aren't merely prolongs the inevitable and wastes lives on both sides. Nobody is "innocent", and there is no such thing as "civilian" casualties when we are talking about nuclear war and/or terrorism. The terrorists, by definition, have taken away the term "innocent" by their very tactics and when they are supported by any government. If the Iranian government supports terrorism and/or wants to develop nukes with which to attack us or anybody else, then their citizens are no longer innocent civilians. They become enemy nationals and they risk death and destruction of their property as long as they allow their government to continue making the choices it has. These are the rules the terrorists and/or Iranians have laid out for us and our civilians, I see no reason why we shouldn't play by the same rules for them and theirs. You try to win war as quickly as possible, so that it's terrible consequences are not prolonged. You don't try to pretend they don't exist. Winning means the other side quits. It doesn't mean that we deny the war is happening, and then proceed to the soccer games you mentioned. Now, how we conduct the war is a separate issue, and if we do it poorly then we need to get rid of the problem people. Also separate is what kind of war we have to fight with each bad country involved. Clearly we aren't fighting openly against Russia and China, but we are fighting against their ability to supply nukes and other weapons to enemy countries, so we are fighting a covert war against them to a certain degree. For other countries like Iran, we may have to fight them openly, and now that we have a supply line through Iraq, we can if we need to. I don't want that personally, nobody does, especially not a General, because he has to order people to die, and see the results of his orders first hand. But that doesn't mean that we are absolved of the difficult but necessary task of halting nuclear proliferation and/or hope that a nuclear Iran will just "go away". It'll be a little late when a nuke gets touched off in LA, or DC. We've had our wake up call = 9/11, and that should be enough for anyone to see that this is real. It's far past time for some of you to grow up a little. This isn't about "fear", it's about accepting the realities we face. This isn't about George Bush, or Republicans, or Democrats, and it never was. It's not his fault that we are fighting a war against the clinically insane. No more than it would have been Al Gore's fault or John Kerry's or John McCain's if he had won in 2000. This is about us, all of us, against a bunch of turds. There is no doubt that this whole thing is a shitt sandwich, and none of us like it. But it's time to realize that all of us have to eat our share, and that the blame lies with the people who made the sandwich ---> the terrorists, the governments that support them, and the secret services/intelligence organizations of those countries.

I think 75% of us want "progress", but we choose to use the literal definition of the word, because words are supposed to mean what they say in the USA. Progress means "get better". Progress doesn't mean "get closer to socialism in all things, regardless if it makes things worse" or "why can't we be more like Europe?". Also, you gotta love her calling the middle stupid, again, explicitly in the last line, and implying it throughout the article. What a shocker. "Pulling it off the shelf and replacing it with a political product geared to pleasing America's vacillating swing voters -- the ones who will be most susceptible to the fear-mongering avalanche that has already begun -- would be a fatal blunder. Realpolitik is one thing. Realstupidpolitik is quite another." And they wonder why we don't trust them to think rationally and not ideologically. They just can't seem to grasp why they lose elections when they try to depend on the middle to win. Somehow I think calling those of us in the middle stupid has something to do with that. They do it so often, they must believe that we are really that dumb. That world view is fundamentally flawed, yet they chose to blame us instead of themselves for their lack of success in convincing us that they know what they are doing? Now that's stupid, but at least they are being consistent.

The fact that we even get to have fun asking this question shows a significant improvement, which means I am already happy with whoever starts. I agree that McCargo has more potential, but Williams is the better player right now. I think Stroud is a starter for right now. This camp is going to be huge for all of our DTs because all of them have something specific to prove, and individual questions to overcome, Stroud=injury?, Williams=is their another level?, Johnson=Backup or Starter? But, I think this applies especially for McCargo = 1st Round Stud or J.A.G? Hopefully this turns into a significant motivation factor for all 4 of them, and we see them busting their humps to get ready for the season. If that happens, we will know that whoever is starting earned his spot, and that can only be a good thing. It'll be great if all of them can do the job well, and they keep pushing each other throughout the season. It would also be nice to game plan their specific strengths against our opponents. For example, if Williams/Johnson are faster off the line, then use them more in passing situations, however, if we need size, then use Stroud/McCargo in running situations. It doesn't have to be that arbitrary, but I wouldn't mind seeing us trying to exploit a weakness of a particular O lineman we face with a strength of one of our DTs, and make the other team adjust because of it. That can make a huge difference on D.

I know Bill. And if Whitner and McCargo have great years this year, you will owe many of us a beer. The simple fact is that I don't think any of us really knew how bad this team really was when Marv took over. Or, perhaps we did but we didn't want to admit it. With so many holes, and so many self-inflicted holes, the entire strategy seems to be clear now: 3 year, team-wide overhaul project, with a priority on getting rid of our "stars" who hadn't done enough to get to the playoffs for 5 years, and drafting their replacements. Also, most of the FA Marv singed immediately when he took over are already gone. I look at them as stop-gap players whom Marv had every intention of chucking/drafting their replacements unless they did something extraordinary. But, at the same time, we could get rid of the Tim Anderson's and the Shaud Williams quickly and at least get the team competitive until the drafts had their chance to work. Who's left from that? Fowler and Royal? Unless things change drastically, 90% chance Fowler is gone after this year and 60% chance that Royal is(-->as cool as he is, he's really gotta step up on the field, and no more f'ing fumbles). More evidence of the 3 year plan. I do not include the O line or D line moves of last year and this year for obvious reasons. So, with so many holes to fill, but also stop-gap players brought in, it didn't really matter where they started WRT the draft. And that's the point: this isn't and never was about "recycling". This was about getting rid of our entire 2005 roster with a very few exceptions(Evans, Crowell, McGee) as fast as possible. Marv had to start with the worst hole we had on the team and the one that was the most surely filled by a rookie, and that was at SS, hence Whitner. The entire O line was a hole, as you have reminded us on multiple occasions , and therefore we needed the drastic moves last year to fix it and right the ship. Drafting the first 4 picks in 2006 all O line would have done nothing but put 4 rookies on the field and get our QB killed. So, we had to do something big to get things back to at least average. Now that things are relatively "fixed", going forward will be the real test. Now, because we can, we should be following your advice and drafting a good amount of O line early on next year and in the following years, giving them a chance to develop for a year or two, and then getting them in as replacements one at a time, over a long period of time. This is a sound and safe approach that maintains the continuity of the line as well as doesn't place too much risk on any one player. We also need to do the same thing with D line, but also take the star skill player when our draft position calls for it. This of course assumes that we don't end up with immediate holes/needs at QB, WR, RB, CB, S for the next few years. Edit: So what I am saying is: going forward, for each draft spot, if the value is equal we should be taking the big guys on both sides of the ball over the skill players. It' not only smart, it's safe. But, always remember that the only reason Trent Edwards is on this team is because of the Bill's draft value board. I suppose we would rather have him right now than some 3rd round Center who was the 8th best at his position. Right?

This all boils down to retribution. Retribution for Bledsoe's actions and words, and especially for losing to the Steeler's backups the last game of the season. I freely admit as I watched the final seconds of the game, I said "cut his ass tomorrow". I think that's what we all were thinking, and, having dropped the draft picks we had, we expected the FO to know what they were doing, so we wanted JP, the "non-project", immediate starter, to get in the game. I think many of us thought that no matter what, JP couldn't possibly be as bad as Bledsoe. In hindsight, I suppose we were wrong, in that it probably would have made sense to let JP develop one more year. It's not like our 2005 team was going to be much better anyway, so rationally it probably would have made sense to keep Bledsoe another year. But, once again, I think this whole thing comes down to the utter weakness of Donahoe as a person. He's supposedly a football guy, and therefore he should know better than us, and better than to listen to us. But, he got rid of Bledsoe in a bid to save his job. He figured that appeasing our call for Bledsoe's head would take the attention away from his utter lack of ability with regard to the draft, or hiring head coaches for that matter, and that the appearance of "doing something" would let him continue his folly. We'll never know if that extra year would have helped. We'll never know if JP had been given a chance to start a few games in 2005 without the pressure being on him from day 1 to be great would have changed things. We do know that this is what happened to Edwards last year, and I think he's going to be better for it. I agree that if JP is the biggest bust, we are doing OK. The last three non-Donahoe drafts have helped this along mightily as well.

It would probably require something like our 1st, 2nd, and next year's 2nd as well, based on this draft chart. 14 spots is no joke, especially moving into the top 10. Edit: However, the 2nd 2nd(tee hee) would probably be conditional. It might be a third based on how well the kid plays or where we are drafting that next year.

This is the problem: that guy will probably go in the top ten. I don't think we will be picking in the top ten, or the top 20 for that matter. So do we trade up?

This is the first season in a long while when I haven't felt like we still have big holes and we need to hide players/positions with our scheme, or pray that rookies or 2nd hand free agents make a huge splash. Last year it was all about hoping that McCargo and Williams could unseat Triplett and dominate, and it was also about hoping that Peerless would actually do something, Lynch wasn't a bust, and that Poz could actually learn fast enough. This year, the only position where I have a serious question is TE. We absolutely need Royal or "good ole shoe"(beans ) to step up. I also think that Fowler will benefit from playing with the same guys again this year, and that continuity will play a large factor in getting things going, so I am not as worried as I was about him. If everything pans out, I think next year's draft priorities barring serious injuries and in order are: OL-->possible replacement/backup that can learn for a year or two, for Fowler if there's a center rated high enough and our draft pick is in the right place to take him. I'd take this as our #1. TE-->depends on a lot so it's hard to say, I'd move this to first if we clearly needed it again, rating of player, and draft spot made it make sense. DT/DE-->depends on where we draft and how well the guys we have play this year OL-->get some depth, if for nothing else than to give us peace of mind QB-->we will need a replacement for JP and somebody who can come in and start, not merely carry the clipboard WR-->depends on whether we re-sign Evans, also depends on whether Josh Reed(can't believe I am saying this) finally steps up as a true #2 WR with #1 potential, and/or Hardy shows his ability But really, I'm fairly certain that we will be looking at who's the best available for most of our picks next year, rather than frantically filling holes. I also think we will see some of our later picks on the practice squad next year, rather than coming in as starters. Hell, that's a probability this year, and that's pretty encouraging...for us, not them. Also, keep in mind that the top 10 teams have been drafting O line/D line like crazy recently. I don't expect us to be that bad = probably picking someplace in the low/mid 20's, and by that time, you are looking at the 5th best LT, 3rd best guards, 5th best DE, and 4th best DT. I will never understand why someone would be happy with 5/6th best at one position, when they could have gotten the #1 guy at another.

These are pros, and seeing Ko play 2 years ago and in camp this year so far, I don't think there are many skills he is lacking. And, we want be able to blitz from anywhere on the field, like Chicago/SD can. We don't want the QB to know who is going to do what based on reading a jersey #. We want to be able to disguise defenses, and having 2 interchangeable safeties goes a long way to helping that happen. Ko Simpson is a ball hawk. Every college tape out there shows that. He showed it when he played as a rookie, he just showed it in the mini-camps, again. He just got hurt, that's all that happened. I look for him to have a breakout year as much, if not more, than Whitner. Of course I am an optimist, but the same benefits we get from the players we added/get back, if they are real, apply to Simpson as much as Whitner, if not more so. The best news is: I don't think anybody can say that we have a bad secondary right now. There are players who would make and even start for other teams that have a pretty good chance of being cut from our secondary. That's important when you have to play the Pats* twice. It's even more interesting if the additions/returns to the front 7 mean a better pass rush. The Pats* absolutely killed us with crossing routes last year, and they got that because they had time for those routes to develop. So, I look for Simpson/Whitner to surprise us, if the front seven performs as advertised. Specifically, if both safeties are less concerned about being "perfect" and can roam a little more, look for a lot more Whitner pounding Chad Johson-type hits in the middle of the field.

What's exciting and daunting, at the same time, is the additions and players we get back from injury. This is a whole new team. Similar to last year, and that means we really have no idea what to expect. At this point, saying we will do well or saying we will do poorly is more about the personality of the speaker than it is about the reality of this team. Negative people will find the bad, Positive people will find the good. And what do you know? As I was writing this, this guy comes along and proves my point: ....thank you, keepthefaith. Moving on.... The trouble is: most of the arguments I am hearing here and around town, are based on INDIVIDUAL players vs. other individual players. I.E., Poz is better than Digiorgio, has had a year to learn, and is gonna come in and dominate. I would say that's got about a 75% chance of being true. However, what that doesn't take into account is: how much will the MLB position in general benefit from guys like Stroud, Mitchell, Johnson, and if McCargo continues, etc.? It's really impossible to say at this point, and until we see everybody on the field it's kinda pointless to speculate. It seems obvious that the main reason that we had such conservative, and therefore a lot of times bad, game management and play calling, is that DJ, and especially Fairchild, didn't trust these young players to get it done on pure effort alone. He wanted to take the path of least resistance and hope that the other team screwed up and beat themselves, rather than taking any risk and trying to have our guys beat them. The best example of this is the Dallas game. It only got worse as the season went on, and more were injured, and once the QB thing was settled. What we don't know is: do the additions and returning injured players really mean we can take more chances? and, even if that's true, will DJ recognize it and take more chances/trust his team more? Chandler's is the best question: Is this about DJ, or about not having the players/bad play calls from Fairchild, thereby forcing DJ's hand?

Second that. I generally don't work with clothes on either....

This is the best example of "pulling a hamstring" or "pulling up lame" I have ever seen. All the worse that it's actually in print and now permanently resides in a place I keep treasures like these. I think I'll file it right next to my Sean Salisbury clips. Such losers. I think it's going to be fun listening to them in denial all season. I have to go to Boston multiple times coming up this fall and I will be enjoying myself fully. Especially when the Yanks catch the Sox. I don't care about the NBA until they show me the Gold, so I don't care who won this year. While we are on the topic....I have never heard or seen a Bills fan or a reporter try to make excuses like this for our team, especially when we lost the Super Bowls. To be sure they said it sucked, and that they wish it didn't happen, and when they said we got jobbed by the refs, it's usually true, but I have never heard us say "yeah, but we were hurt". Then again, the Pats* tools have no class in victory, why should we expect them to have any in defeat?

No I didn't say that, but thanks for providing an object lesson to others on what it's like to ride the European propaganda wave. Just pickin' While you're at it: do you know that we actually have war plans on file right now to attack Canada with nuclear weapons? The HORROR! I know because I know. So there it is. We plan for everything so that we don't make shitt up as we go along. And that's funny , because looking back that's precisely what Rumsfeld appeared to be doing. Unfortunately, somehow the "attack Iraq" plan must have gotten chucked or misplaced. Anyway, I said that the objective was to be able to apply significant land force threat to Iran in such a manner that no one could do much to change it, short of another Russian invasion from the North. That's obviously a far cry from taking over the entire Middle East. The reason is: Air Strikes are easy to deal with = hide, get bombed, come out, move on. Some 18-year old with an itchy trigger finger and an M16, standing on your street, is not. That's an every day, all the time thing, and the only thing that saves you is the SD_Jarheads of the world, because the guys like me are too busy with their cigars and brandy. If your objective is a landlocked country, it makes military sense to take over the country by the sea that's next to it so as to supply your army. It's as simple as that. It's the same reason that the early Crusaders kept conquering the Byzantines/sacking and taking over their ports = base of supply and communication. I see this as exactly what I said, nothing more, nothing less. And no, Jarhead, I don't see this as a play for Syria, (not to say that it couldn't have been an add-on at some point) otherwise we would have done a lot more with Turkey...as in promise to suppress all Kurd activity. The Turks think of themselves as Europeans, not Arabs, always have, and they would have let us seal the entire Iraq border if we promised to permanently solve their Kurd(Arab) problem. We didn't, so they didn't. The good news is that we are not the Persians, Romans, Huns, Mongols, Turks, Spanish, British, Germans, or Soviets, all of whom would have had no problem liquidating of an entire population merely to serve a military goal, as they have demonstrated on multiple occasions. We're still kicking our own asses over the Native Americans, as we should. But compare our behavior in total to the Empires I listed above. It ain't even close. The key in any war plan, or for that matter any plan at all, is to provide for contingency, and that's precisely what we didn't do with regard to Iraq. There should have been a good, better, and best approaches, and plans to match, because it's not like we had the surprise thing going for us. Also, given the variables that, by definition, are politicians and diplomats, you need to make sure your plan limits its dependency as much as possible on variables you can't control. My biggest question to Tommy Franks/Donald Rumsfeld is this: A Blitzkrieg style attack strategy is employed primarily when you don't want to go toe to toe with your enemy, and instead want to get behind him and attack his supply, cut his communication, marginalize his leadership, and destroy his retreating Army in pieces, rather than facing them all at once. We wanted to do the exact opposite in Iraq: = we wanted go toe to toe and destroy as many fighters in the field as possible, and kill them BEFORE they become insurgents = we wanted to secure each province and stabilize it before we moved on = Castling from province to province, which is also what would have been the exact right approach for that culture, as it perceives and distributes power along a regional, but centralized and therefore local structure = tribes = historically best reason for a castle. = we wanted to use our "castles" to continuously draw their army into pitched battles that we were 100% going to win = we didn't care about cutting his supply, communication, or his leadership-->so bad that the more of this, the better = we wanted to destroy his army in the desert all at the same time, and that's just the Army doing it, never mind the friggin' Zoomies(Air Farce) and the completely unfair ass-whipping they get to lay down. (I simply cannot imagine being on the other side of that, and as much as I make fun of them, thank God they are on our side) .... and, given all of that, why in the hell did we employ a strategy that was diametrically opposed to the obvious military objectives, and our tactical strengths? The only thing I can think of is: to save money. History has punished a ton of generals/leaders for trying to fight a half-ass war, and apparently we didn't get past 9th grade history class regarding Iraq.

I still say this is the original objective, and the big mistake was not telling us this. It's the only thing that makes sense(um, Axis of Evil), for many reasons and on multiple levels. Please keep in mind that I am just stating what I see, I don't support it necessarily, but it seems fairly obvious to me. If you look at a map with a military eye, you see that you have to invade Iraq in order to get after Iran. Logistically, strategically, everything points to establishing a base of operations in Iraq after establishing a foothold in Afghanistan, if the strategic goal is ultimately military and economic suppression of Iran. By deploying our forces as we have, and once stability was accomplished in the two countries, we would have the strategic conditions set to deny Iran's economy pretty much everything, with an unlimited and unbreakable land supply train of gas, ammo, food, and water linked from the sea straight to the border(or, hopefully not, front). While at the same time, we would have a presence on their other border that they would have to deploy resources to defend against. This essentially creates a two front war for Iran, which would significantly reduce their #s advantage, and would also allow us to harass their rear areas and infrastructure with air/SF from two sides. Their only means of outside resupply would be through mountains in the North, which is slow and therefore easily smashed by air. Is this a provocation of war? Sure. So what? That's for politicians and diplomats. I am only talking in terms of a strategic plan here. If this strategy was carried out: there's nothing anyone, especially Europe, China and Russia, could do about it. As it stands right now, European banks are still extending credit to Iranian businesses and banks, despite all their BS about "sanctions" and "pressure". China and Russia are selling arms. So their "opposition to the war" is about money, not some phony "moral superiority". What's worse, if these two countries were to stabilize themselves, their own armies/security/intelligence force's #1 priority will be to counter Iran, and to a lesser degree Pakistan. This means that regardless of whether we have troops there or not, Europe's interests and influences are significantly reduced. A strong case can be made that this is precisely why European politicians are against both wars, or at least the one in Iraq, and this is why they have fired up their respective citizens. Big surprise that the far-left socialists in this country who "don't understand why we can't be more like Europe" were quick to pick up on this. Of course they weren't smart enough to see through the Duke case, so why should we expect them to see through this one? Christ most of them still think we attacked ourselves on 9/11, so what do you expect? If we can stabilize our position, and if we can hold real influence with both new democracies, it basically makes Europe's activity on any level and in any discipline significantly less relevant. They don't like that on multiple fronts: pride, business, relevance, and influence world wide. That's what this is all about. Say whatever you want but whenever you get done, these facts will remain. I am not saying that either war was a good idea, and I am especially not saying that either was carried out properly. I am saying that it appears that the Bush admin people thought that Iraq would be over before it started and that they could move on to Iran quickly, which obviously was a significant error in judgment.

Yeah but somehow I feel better going into this year than the "show me" year for Mularkey. As you say, the first step towards being great is beating the winning teams. However, before you can do that, you have to start by consistently beating the teams you are supposed to beat. Sweeping the Dolphins the last 4 and going 3-1 against the Jets is not bad at all. Hell even the SB teams would lose that 1 off annoying game against some lowly team every year. Here's my early take on the schedule in terms of teams we should beat Miami x2 = not a threat until 2 years from now Jets x2 = I'm not buying the off-season moves, besides, isn't this the Jets we are talking about? Offseason, good, and Jets haven't belonged in the same sentence since I have been alive. Who is their QB? Does anything Faneca does stop said QB from sucking? Especially giving us Stroud, which basically cancels him out? Please start Pennington again and continue that farce. Raiders = mess Chiefs = mess 49ers = mess Rams = mess Cripes, that's 8 right there, looking at this seriously for the first time, that's pretty darn encouraging. But this is what it comes down to for me. On paper we should kill all of these teams. I bet DJ's Bills future is much more tied to beating these teams than losing to the last list below. Middle teams that could go either way Seahawks = this is probably a good test but their division hasn't been serious for the last 4 years. They have won it twice in that time with a 9-7 record, and the other teams have only managed an 8-8 record twice in that time as well. Easily the worst division in football. Strong paper tiger potential out of this team. Cardinals = barely in this group, who plays QB again? Got taken to OT by the 49ers and Falcons? Lost the 49ers twice? 8-8 in the NFC last year Browns = good test Broncos = barely in this group, who plays Dline again? The only reason I put them here is they found a way last year against us. The only real "winning" teams here are the Browns and Seahawks, but neither are teams I think of when I think of the best teams or "winners" this season. Games we are supposed to lose Pats* x2 = I honestly believe that this is the year that we do something stupid like beat the Pats but lose to the Dolphins or something similar, but we are "supposed" to lose both of these San Diego = good consistent team, Pats only got by them due to injuries Jacksonville = good consistent team I think it's reasonable to say that we are underdogs in all of these games. So, based on what you are saying, we have to win at least one of these last for games to call ourselves a good team. But, we really only have 4 "good" teams on the schedule. If we win all but those 4, I think it's gonna be kinda hard to not call this a good team, but then the paper tiger thing is built in. Therefore, in addition to 1/4 from the last list, I would say that we need to win 3/4 of the middle games as well, while allowing for the sure to happen, 1-2 dumbass losses to the Raiders or whoever from the first list. So that's around 10-6, which btw, is what I think we are gonna do every stupid season. But, if we can do that, then yeah, we are a good team, and DJ is a good coach.

Case in point. Tool behavior once again. Tell me you aren't this stupid, please.

No, and I also don't act like a tool when somebody points out a set of rational points. Still waiting on you for anything that even approaches a rational counter to any of my points.

Fixed it for ya!

Right so you did that even though you knew that the media would be following you around incessantly every minute of the day, and that you are such a public figure that everybody would be asking/talking about it, and people at work would potentially suspend you for a month or so....come on, it's not the same thing and you know it. There is no comparison between you and Marshawn, other than perhaps $$$(I dunno, can't say there isn't and good for you if there is ), so why even bother playing the card? This is ridiculous on it's face, therefore my response to it ends here. Also, separately from that, I asked about kids, not wives. And I wasn't asking about what happens if your kid, or wife, had stayed, I was asking about happens if your kid had panicked, or was drunk/high, or whatever, and left the scene, as IN THIS CASE? Then, what you do?

Maybe, but please, tell me how that refutes my point in any way, shape or form.

Does it even matter that with things like: 1. The Duke Lacrosse lack-of-a-case fiasco 2. The Media attitude, especially Nancy Grace's, immediate and final judgment on that and other matters 3. The massive amount of money that trial lawyers make over trumped up injury cases....as if that isn't the #1 advertisement that one cannot hope to get away from in this town, not matter where you go, watch, listen, etc. 4. The fact that we still only know 2 facts 5. The simple reality that any rational person would immediately engage a lawyer, especially if they have significant financial consequences to face 6. The obvious lack of evidence, and therefore the willful playing of the media by the DA, um ah er um ah, "we don't know where Lynch is", phony crap happening that no one is even surprised by these events turning out the way they are? Seriously? If they can bum rush a bunch of college kids at a house party and turn it into a national saga for a year, doesn't it make sense that all defense attorneys, or any rational person, are now on permanent notice not to trust any DA or media person, regardless of circumstance? Especially on the heels of the recent, multitude of examples of DAs/media trying to use the hype to further their careers? People, these are the rewards we get to reap for sowing 1-6. You don't like the music? Change the f'ing tune. Any lawyer in this day and age that doesn't enforce a media/DA blackout in a matter like this should be sued for malpractice. Sorry that you don't like the fact that Lynch isn't talking. Sorry that you don't get your Hot Pockets(been saving that for a long time) solution to this situation, and where in the hell does something that happens in June effect what happens during the season? Especially given this coaching staff? Sorry that you don't get the facts right now. Tough shitt, deal with it. Where in the hell does it say that anyone is entitled to any of that? If you want to B word or hold somebody accountable, start with the trial lawyers, the media salaciousness in the last few years(bitching about not being able to show dead troops comes to mind), the grandstanding DAs/politicos out there, and the contentious environment they have conspired to create. This isn't about "holier-than-thou", this is about "not-seeing-what's-actually-happening-here-and-blaming-a-guy-for-listening-to-his-attorney". Sorry, just bringing the reality and killing the phony theoretical, as usual. I don't have kids, but I'd like to hear any parent here tell me that if their kid was involved in something like this that they wouldn't immediately engage a lawyer first, and have them "man up"(so gay) second. Especially if it was their car, and therefore now their house, savings, assets now on the line. Give me a f'ing break. I have seen this many times before and the parents are batting 1.000 on lawyering up. I have tried to stay out of this but after reading this entire thread I gotta say enough is enough.

I know. I just enjoy taking my twice a year shot at BlueFire for criticizing my emoticon usage, or lack thereof, so many years ago. It was really quite gay, as is my making any kind of big deal about it. However, it does bug BlueFire, and that's the fun!!! Besides, he lays down a lot of good stuff normally, so we have to find little ways to pick on him, so that he doesn't get a big head.

Do I even need to mention that 75% of the current Federal Budget is spent on entitlement programs? As in Medicaid, Medicare, what's left of Welfare, and all the rest of the Bad Old Days, Great Depression beating programs that have clearly outlived, and outgrown, their usefulness? So yeah, within the remaining 25%, we have determine things like science grants vs. DOD spending on the wars and every other thing they need vs. Educational grants, and basically the rest of everything the Federal Government does. I love this pissing and moaning about what we do/don't do with the 25% while we are blatantly ignoring the 3 ton elephant in the room. Fellas, the 75% is going to do a lot more to make us insolvent than the relative drop in the bucket that = the 25%. Iraq spending is essentially = to less than 3% of of the original 100%, but somehow we are supposed to be more worried about that? WTF? Can we at least put things into some kind of rational perspective here? Perhaps that is possible now in a Molson_Golden-free environment.