MLB player protests war by sitting out anthem

[Gordon Gekko]

Originally posted by Walla Walla:

Gekko, Come to las Vegas. I'll explain it. i won't be in las vegas. care to explain it on the MB? no need to be so cryptic. if you got something to say...say it. thanks.

[Walla Walla]

Gekko, 100,000 doesn't buy respect. I met you in Las Vegas during football and my thought was spoiled brat. Gekko your response proves that. Your a punk and I'm not going to let you try to sue me because of it. I'll let you live with the fact that your a coward trying to act brave.

[Leaderboard Sports]

Wow Wala why don't you just tell us how you really feel.



You sail along for awhile then bang out of the blue you go postal on us.



Frankly you scare me.



[ January 28, 2005, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: Leaderboard Sports ]

[Gordon Gekko]

Originally posted by Walla Walla:

Gekko, 100,000 doesn't buy respect. I met you in Las Vegas during football and my thought was spoiled brat. Gekko your response proves that. Your a punk and I'm not going to let you try to sue me because of it. I'll let you live with the fact that your a coward trying to act brave. you want to get personal, go ahead. i don't need to go to that level. obviously you have some deeper issues going on. in any event, please move along and go back to being the donation you are. no need to respond, you've lost my respect. thanks.

[Gordon Gekko]

Originally posted by Leaderboard Sports:

Wow Wala why don't you just tell us how you really feel. actually all of the people i met in vegas thought i was an okay guy (except walla walla). i didn't want to create any friction, so i played it low key....ahhhhh....i mean spoiled brat



[ January 28, 2005, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

[Walla Walla]

Leaderboard. Please allow some room for emotion when it comes to answering questions about war and those questioning it. This isn't about baseball and Gekko started this crap! Hey most of the readers can rag on me about my skills as a fantasy owner. But why do I have to listen to Gekko about his world views.

[Gordon Gekko]

Originally posted by Kevin D:

I was mad at what our goverment was doing and what it had put me through. BUT! I was more angry at the people who treated me like crap, called me names, and blamed the war and all the social upheaval on me.that is wrong. i wasn't a part of that, but i am sorry.

[Gordon Gekko]

********ALERT********

For people who don't want to know my views on fantasy sports and world events, don't read my posts. SIMPLE ENOUGH

********ALERT********

[Walla Walla]

Gekko you have no respect for any rules you don't like. Fair enough. Chicken sh*t! But fair enough.

[Gordon Gekko]

"I wouldn't call it politics, because I hate politics," Delgado said Thursday after finalizing his four-year, $52 million contract. "The reason why I didn't stand for God Bless America was because I didn't like the way they tied God Bless America and 9/11 to the war in Iraq in baseball.

[Walla Walla]

God bless you Gekko. Your the next Bill Clinton.

[Dyv]

There's nothing wrong with people having opinons. Blind support of Bush is just as bad as blind opposition.



Do all those opposed to war truly believe there has been NO benefit from the invasion of Iraq or are you stating you don't think the benefit has been large enough to justify the deaths? I'm trying to sort out what exactly people are objecting to and having a hard time of it. Objecting to people dying? Okay - that's not hard to figure out... does anyone here support people dying? Ok, apparently not... Bush was wrong about his initial claims of WMD? (There IS a point of calling it a lie that simply cannot be proven. A lie would be intentionally knowing it's not true and saying it anyway. The truth is if Bush lied, then so did the Democrats in congress. Either way - it's that all politicians are scum from both sides of the aisle [perfectly plausible] or that none of them are.)



So, let's set a number - if it had been 3 American lives that saved hundreds of thousands of future Iraqi deaths, would it have been worth it? Even if you can't see the benefit that a terror threat has been reduced... how about simply for the Iraqi people? (Ignore the part where anyone says they can understand it but Satan/Bush didn't do it for those reasons... just for the sake of argument, I don't care why Bush did it at this particular moment).



Dave

[Gordon Gekko]

Originally posted by Dyv:

So, let's set a number - if it had been 3 American lives that saved hundreds of thousands of future Iraqi deaths, would it have been worth it? Even if you can't see the benefit that a terror threat has been reduced... how about simply for the Iraqi people? Study puts Iraqi toll at 100,000

Friday, October 29, 2004 Posted: 1:10 AM EDT

LONDON, England -- Public health experts have estimated that around 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died since the United States invaded Iraq in March last year.



The experts from the United States and Iraq said most of those who died were women and children and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most of the violent deaths.



The study was designed and conducted by researchers at Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad.



Study puts Iraqi toll at 100,000

[Dyv]

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by Dyv:

So, let's set a number - if it had been 3 American lives that saved hundreds of thousands of future Iraqi deaths, would it have been worth it? Even if you can't see the benefit that a terror threat has been reduced... how about simply for the Iraqi people? Study puts Iraqi toll at 100,000

Friday, October 29, 2004 Posted: 1:10 AM EDT

LONDON, England -- Public health experts have estimated that around 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died since the United States invaded Iraq in March last year.



The experts from the United States and Iraq said most of those who died were women and children and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most of the violent deaths.



The study was designed and conducted by researchers at Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad.



Study puts Iraqi toll at 100,000 [/QUOTE]How many Iraqi's died during the last 10 years of Saddam's reign?



Site your source, please - make it a relatively factual data piece not some purely propaganda item?



Dyv

[Gordon Gekko]

Originally posted by Dyv:

How many Iraqi's died during the last 10 years of Saddam's reign?probably a lot. what's your point...we should make it a part of US foreign policy to invade a country if a "government" kills 'X' amount of its people? what about countries in civil wars? how about counties that have poor human rights conditions. my point is...where does it end? we don't even have adequate security in the US.

[Dyv]

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by Dyv:

How many Iraqi's died during the last 10 years of Saddam's reign?probably a lot. what's your point...we should make it a part of US foreign policy to invade a country if a "government" kills 'X' amount of its people? what about countries in civil wars? how about counties that have poor human rights conditions. my point is...where does it end? we don't even have adequate security in the US. [/QUOTE]The only point I'm making here is that you quote '100,000' as if it's some staggering number beyond belief or understanding, when the fact is 100,000 Iraqi's dying over the course of almost 2 years is about half the going rate when Saddam was in power. I've seen estimates of about 1,000,000 in 10 years under Saddam - tortured and murdered. So, at a rate of 50,000 per year conditions have improved greatly! It's not the 'number' of deaths in this case, it's the purpose and as hard as it is to believe... an improvement.



The cost of the war in Iraq is less than 1% of our budget... whoppee... that money couldn't have solved health care or fixed our public schools... or fix social security. It's a drop in the bucket compared to how much those programs would truly cost. I'm looking for facts and perspective not shocking numbers.



Same case here with deaths - you quote the 100,000 like it's the end of the world. Half as bad as it's been is the truth.



Dave

[Gordon Gekko]

Originally posted by Dyv:

The only point I'm making here is that you quote '100,000' as if it's some staggering number beyond belief or understanding, when the fact is 100,000 Iraqi's dying over the course of almost 2 years is about half the going rate when Saddam was in power. In a survey published on the Web site of the Lancet medical journal on Friday, experts from the United States and Iraq also said the risk of death for Iraqi civilians was 2.5 times greater after the US invasion.



Originally posted by Dyv:

The cost of the war in Iraq is less than 1% of our budget... whoppee... that money couldn't have solved health care or fixed our public schools... or fix social security. It's a drop in the bucket compared to how much those programs would truly cost. I'm looking for facts and perspective not shocking numbers.can i have your facts...how much money (dollar amount) has been spent on the war in iraq in the past two years.



Originally posted by Dyv:

Same case here with deaths - you quote the 100,000 like it's the end of the world. Half as bad as it's been is the truth.how did i make it seem like the "end of the world"? i simply quoted something from CNN. i guess i was wrong. sorry

[Gordon Gekko]

dyv,

any response...should we make it a part of US foreign policy to invade a country if a "government" kills 'X' amount of its people? what about countries in civil wars? how about counties that have poor human rights conditions?



btw, delgado will read this thread in the morning.

[Dyv]

1. I didn't read the entire report quoted on the website for Peace in Iraq, but in the Lancet report under the section titled 'Introduction' it clearly states that they use the Iraqi Ministry of Health's statitsics (the Ministry of Health presided over by Saddam) and they admit that only 1/3 of Iraqi deaths even occur in a hospital so (in summary) they are just making up the numbers that are the foundation of the report.



2. The U.S. Budget for 2005 is estimated at $2 Trillion at this point. The cost of the Iraq war at this point is under $200 billion (September estimates were $120 billion):



http://www.factcheck.org/article253.html



3. I may have exaggerated the 'end of the world' description - but I look at the same data and don't see what you see.

[Dyv]

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

dyv,

any response...should we make it a part of US foreign policy to invade a country if a "government" kills 'X' amount of its people? what about countries in civil wars? how about counties that have poor human rights conditions?



btw, delgado will read this thread in the morning. I don't have any interest in setting US Foreign policy... if I did you wouldn't like where I'd take us as it would look like a big old game of Risk.



I also have no care to defend why we invaded Iraq. I'm not sure we should have done it.



Dave

[Nevadaman]

Dyv, the cost of the war (according to your own figures) is 10%, not 1%. ($200 billion out of $2 Trillion. I use that figure rather than the $120B you mention because money is still being spent and it won't be long before we're at $200 Billion and beyond.) I think that IS a big deal. Our president should not attempt to be King of the World. I don't give a rat's ass whether any country in that region is a democracy or not. Besides, it's a complete pipe dream anyway. There is nothing in the traditions, cultures, or religions of those people to make them want our system and it's beyond crazy to send our troops over there to be killed for no good reason. If I had the choice between having that money back in my pocket or going through with this insane war, (which in my view accomplishes nothing except creating more enemies amongst the families we're murdering)I would want the refund. That's all I've got to say.



[ January 29, 2005, 03:15 AM: Message edited by: Nevadaman ]

[Gordon Gekko]

Originally posted by Nevadaman:

Dyv, the cost of the war (according to your own figures) is 10%, not 1%. ($200 billion out of $2 Trillion. I use that figure rather than the $120B you mention because money is still being spent and it won't be long before we're at $200 Billion and beyond.) I think that IS a big deal. it's always nice to see where people get their data and how they use it. remember this is only the monetary costs. it doesn't count:

1,584 coalition troop deaths, 1,423 Americans, 76 Britons, seven Bulgarians, one Dane, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Hungarian, 20 Italians, one Kazakh, one Latvian, 16 Poles, one Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 17 Ukrainians in the war in Iraq as of January 28, 2005.

AND

At least 10,622 U.S. troops have been wounded in action, according to the Pentagon. The Pentagon does not report the number of non-hostile wounded.



CNN



nice post nevada

[Dyv]

Originally posted by Nevadaman:

Dyv, the cost of the war (according to your own figures) is 10%, not 1%. ($200 billion out of $2 Trillion. I use that figure rather than the $120B you mention because money is still being spent and it won't be long before we're at $200 Billion and beyond.) I think that IS a big deal. Our president should not attempt to be King of the World. I don't give a rat's ass whether any country in that region is a democracy or not. Besides, it's a complete pipe dream anyway. There is nothing in the traditions, cultures, or religions of those people to make them want our system and it's beyond crazy to send our troops over there to be killed for no good reason. If I had the choice between having that money back in my pocket or going through with this insane war, (which in my view accomplishes nothing except creating more enemies amongst the families we're murdering)I would want the refund. That's all I've got to say. You make an excellent point - and I appreciate you explaining further. The $200 billion (why not just use $300 billion if you can inflate the $120 billion by a mere 66% to round up for your argument... lol) was also consumed over a number of years exceeding 1 and will be paid for with governmental loans (yes, deficit) for longer than that timeframe.



Additionally, some of that cost of $120 billion plus/minus is in military salaries that were going to be spent anyway and still other parts of that figure are for government contracts to companies such as Haliburton which will actually increase the economic impact in terms of profits brought home to the US... as well as pay for raw materials produced by other Americans and Haliburton employee's salaries.



If you take all of that into account, I think you'd find it's not as significant as you are claiming. Don't get all caught up in the sexy numbers because they are so big to you and me. A few billion here and there? The Big Dig, one of Ted Kennedy's projects, is estimated to cost $12 to 15 billion and won't even solve the traffic problems from what I've read.



The funny thing is... you think I'm defending Bush when I have no desire to do that. Government wastes money everywhere... Bush, Clinton... doesn't make any difference who is in office.



Dyv

[Dyv]

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by Nevadaman:

Dyv, the cost of the war (according to your own figures) is 10%, not 1%. ($200 billion out of $2 Trillion. I use that figure rather than the $120B you mention because money is still being spent and it won't be long before we're at $200 Billion and beyond.) I think that IS a big deal. it's always nice to see where people get their data and how they use it. remember this is only the monetary costs. it doesn't count:

1,584 coalition troop deaths, 1,423 Americans, 76 Britons, seven Bulgarians, one Dane, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Hungarian, 20 Italians, one Kazakh, one Latvian, 16 Poles, one Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 17 Ukrainians in the war in Iraq as of January 28, 2005.

AND

At least 10,622 U.S. troops have been wounded in action, according to the Pentagon. The Pentagon does not report the number of non-hostile wounded.



CNN



nice post nevada [/QUOTE]Was there ever a war that was justified based on number of people who died?

[Gordon Gekko]

The War In Iraq Cost the United States $152,210,115,991 and growing every second



Instead, we could have:

paid for 20,160,289 children to attend a year of Head Start or



hired 2,637,823 additional public school teachers for one year or



provided 7,378,825 students four-year scholarships at public universities or



built 1,370,512 additional public housing units or



ensured that every child in the world was given basic immunizations for 50 years



there are many others as well.



instead we found no WMD and are no changing the focus of the war to liberate iraq. there are other countries that could be liberated. are we going there next?