Jump to content

Chilly

Community Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    12,485

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Chilly

    At what point do you...

    in The Stadium Wall Archives

    Posted

    Everyone's been saying that its on the coaches that the players keep making mental errors, but at what point do you finally say that the players on the team just don't have enough focus or intensity?

     

    Sure the coaching staff's job is to put an emphasis on focus, but in the end, after 2 coaches so far cannot correct these mistakes, and it obviously was a big focus by both coaches.

     

    I'm starting to believe its the players that we have, and not necessarily the coaching staffs.

    Poland to Bush: "Goodbye, Kerry's right"

    in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

    Posted

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/POL...EMPLATE=DEFAULT

     

    Poland Official: Troops Should Leave Iraq

     

    By MONIKA SCISLOWSKA

    Associated Press writer

     

    WARSAW, Poland (AP) -- Poland, a key U.S. ally in Iraq, should withdraw its troops from the Mideast nation at the end of next year, Poland's defense minister said in an interview published Monday. It was the first time a Polish official has indicated when Warsaw might end its presence in Iraq.

     

    Jerzy Szmajdzinski argued that 2 1/2 years in Iraq would be "enough" for the Polish military, and said his suggestion was aimed at countering "cheap populism" by opponents of the Polish presence. Prime Minister Marek Belka said he had not been consulted on the remarks and would meet Szmajdzinski later Monday, Poland's PAP news agency reported.

     

    "In my opinion, the deadline (for Poland's mission) should be the date of expiry of the U.N. Security Council's resolution 1546," Szmajdzinski was quoted as telling the Gazeta Wyborcza daily. That resolution provided for the handover of power to Iraqi authorities, with steps that run through the end of next year.

     

    Poland last year took command of a multinational security force in central Iraq that currently includes about 6,000 troops - among them more than 2,400 Polish soldiers. Leaders have previously said they hope to scale down the Polish presence significantly after parliamentary elections in Iraq scheduled for January.

     

    Szmajdzinski said a mission of 2 1/2 years in "such difficult conditions" was a major challenge for a former Warsaw Pact army that is still "reaching new capabilities and introducing new equipment."

     

    "It is enough," he said. "It is a rational period of time."

     

    Still, Szmajdzinski said that, if a new international mission is approved beyond December 2005, "a group of some officers would most probably remain in staff offices, in training centers, maybe also a group of observers."

     

    The Iraq mission has broad mainstream political support. However, a leading member of Belka's junior coalition partner, the Labor Union, has called on Belka to present a plan for the withdrawal of Polish troops from Iraq ahead of the vote.

     

    Jim Kelly at Republican Convention?

    in The Stadium Wall Archives

    Posted

    First of all, this might come as a surprise to you but Saddam had WMD's - that's right, he had them.  He actually used them on the Kurd's in the north.  This is a FACT.  It is also a fact that he KILLED thousands of people during his reign.  Heres a neat little equation for you:

    Saddam + WMD's = Mass Death

    Saddam - WMD's = Mass Death

     

    Secondly, for all of you political science majors from ECC...If we were to flip the "magical switch" and pull all of our troops out tommorow it would create a vacuum.  If this concept is foreign to you, watch the episode of Survivor where Rupert gets voted off - yes, the one you have on tape.

     

    Third, while you may have thought that everything was honky-dory during Clinton's reign, he and his administration were responsible for the demise of our human intelligence gathering capabilities.  This can be directly correlated to America's vulnerability to terrorists.

    13965[/snapback]

     

    Talk about an extreme oversimplification of the issues at hand.

     

    Would you support removing all of the current dictators that cause mass death throughout the world? I doubt Bush does, as we haven't even looked at anyone else besides Iraq, yet this is what you are arguing for. Logically, if we decided to secure every country and help every peoples by military might, we would have neither the resources nor manpower to do so, since the rest of the world has made it clear (besides Britain of course) that they will not support us.

     

    There were other, more important countries in the war on terror that we should have been dealing with in the middle east, such as Pakistan, and we should have been working harder to secure Afghanistan. There is much more then just military might to fight the War on Terror, it will take aggressive allying with other countries so we have the resources to fight it, we will have to infiltrate the Islamic non-extremists and make sure that the extremists are considered outcasts in the community and in the religion. We will need to infiltrate each individual terror network and disband that as well. The use of just military might will not work, we need MORE then just that, and I don't think Bush is handling that correctly, nor do I think Bush making Iraq his #1 priority at that time was the correct way to handle the war on terror and Iraq.

     

    I haven't read the entire thread, so I don't know who you are referring to when you are talking about pulling out troops. Kerry's platform however doesn't call for a complete removal of all troops from Iraq, but rather to attempt to have other nations realize that they need to help out in Iraq for their own good as well, and to internationalize the reconstruction and securing process. I think this is an important step that would allow us to allocate other resources to pursuing terrorists.

     

    To call intelligence directly responsible for terrorist vulnerabilities again is extremely oversimplifying everything. The terrorists are smart individuals who can find vulerabilities and are always pressing onward and looking for new, better ways to attack something. If you look at what Bush did before Sept 11, he took no steps in attempting to fix any so-called intelligence problems. Yet, he knew about Osama Bin Laden and how much of an impact terrorism could make. Both Clinton and Bush are at fault for not taking care of this problem earlier. However, if you look at what Bush is currently doing with the new Goss bill, its rather alarming.

     

    One of the things that has always worried me about the Bush administration is the extent to which his security acts have given them power. The Patriot Act could have been worded a lot better, and the administration could have chosen to not extend its use past its boundaries. Just six months after the Patriot Act, the Justice Department held seminars on how to stretch the new wiretapping provisions beyond terror cases. Another man was charged with "terrorism using a weapon of mass destruction" after he built a pipe bomb and injured himself with it. Other people have had files created on them by local police chiefs for just protesting the war.

     

    But the most disturbing misuse of the law came after telemarketers ran a scam on the elderly, collecting $4.5 million dollars and placing it in banks in Jordan and Israel. Instead of working with these countries to obtain the money, the United States simply seized the assets under the act. The reckless cause that the Bush administration has to simply bully other countries around is alarmful at best, and isolating at worst.

     

    Another bad choice Bush has made when trying to reform security is his nominee for the CIA and the Goss plan. While the country is changing, and I agree that some domestic levle iltelligence needs to catch up to our level of international intelligence, Goss and Bush (once again) take these powers too far.

     

    Goss' proposal is to allow the CIA basically unlimited operations within the domestic United States at the president's order.

     

    What does this mean? This is a very "out there" example, but the president would have the authority to wire tap any opponents in the race for president, and it would be legal. Yep, Nixon would have gotten away with it.

     

    However, in more practical cases, look for more misuses of this law by the CIA, just like the rest of the Bush administration proved with the patriot act. Its not that what Bush is doing is entirely bad, its just that the extreme lack of limits he sets is causing the government to have more power than it should, and in America, that is a bad formula for success.

    Ricky Williams

    in The Stadium Wall Archives

    Posted

    What a jerkoff. I hate the Dolphins, but this guy is obviously trying to pull some BS to be able to keep the dolphin's money. I highly doubt that he's actually bankrupt, and any smidget of morality would tell you this is a wrong thing to do (hopefully the law will as well).

    Madden

    in The Stadium Wall Archives

    Posted

    I've played both Madden and NFL2k5, and I must say I love Madden a lot more.

     

    The new franchise features are pretty cool, the defensive gameplay is a step up, and unlike stevestojan, if I throw off my back foot, most of the time its either intercepted or incomplete. The defenses in madden are excellent, and so is the running game.

×
×
  • Create New...