We are less then 24 hours from the start of the NFL draft. The NBA playoffs are in full swing. The baseball season is nearing the end of it's first month of the season. I really wanted to write about one of these topics today, but news has come out about the poster boy of the Atlanta Falcons and I need to speak my mind on this topic. Before I do, a couple quick thoughts on last nights Democratic Primary Debate.
Hillary Clinton was rather impressive. I am not a big Hillary fan, but I do believe she did the best in the debate out of the top three candidates. She gave a great answer on Walmart without a bit of hesitation. She sure did not hurt herself. The other person I think shined at the debate was Joe Biden. He didn't pussyfoot around the questions as much as other candidates, and showed a good sense of humor by using the one word answer of yes when asked if he could assure voters he wouldn't talk to much. O'Bama and Edwards were rather unimpressive, with O'Bama dodging a question about another 9/11 type attack and Edwards dodging a question about hedge funds. My guy Governor Richardson did good on some questions and not so good on others. He also didn't have the body language down like other candidates when he was not answering questions.
But the big winner of the night was Dennis Kucinich. And I am not saying it was his debate performance, because he is way to passive to ever win a primary or a general election. He won in my opinion because I saw his wife Elizabeth for the first time. All I can say is WOW. Dennis Kucinich is 60 year old man and his wife is a 29 year old stunning red head. If anyone out there loves red heads like I do, you need to check out a picture of the two of them together and you will be stunned by this pairing. Enough about the debate.
Michael Vick needs to be suspended for the entire season if the most recent story is even half true. For those of you who haven't heard yet, a drug task force raided a property in Virginia that is owned by Michael Vick. The person that lives in the house is a 26 year old nephew of Vick. When the police raided the property they found around sixty pitbulls that were wounded and malnourished. They found treadmills for the dogs, drugs to treat wounds on the animals, and many of them were chained to tires so they could get nose to nose with the other dogs without actually making contact with each other. The police believe that this was a dog fighting ring. According to David Stein of Sporting News Radio, an animal fighting task force had been investigating Michael Vick for this exact thing for a couple of years now.
Now I understand I stated that Michael Vick was not living at this property. But he had been to the property several times throughout the year. Can you really go to a house atleast once and not notice sixty dogs that are bleeding and malnourished. Even if he had no involvment in the actual ring, his negligence in not stopping it by either demanding his nephew get the dogs off his property or by informing the authorities is criminal. He needs to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
Fighting animals is a crime nationwide, and is a felony in 48 states( I heard Louisiana is one of the two where it is not a felony, I lived there and can believe it.) Any person that raises animals just to have them fight and die is a sick individual that has little morals in my opinion. If these accusations are true, Michael Vick does not only need to be suspended by the NFL for ATLEAST one season, but he needs to go to jail.
Adam "Pacman" Jones, a cornerback for the Tennesse Titans, was suspended for the entire season two weeks ago for a string of incidents in the last 18 months. Chris Henry, wide receiver for the Cincinnati Bengals, was suspended for eight games for four arrests over a twelve month span. Terry "Tank" Johnson, defensive tackle for the Chicago Bears, is currently serving a four month sentence in jail for a probation violation and will hear from Commissioner Goodell soon with some form of suspension.
Now players mentioned above were not first time offenders of breaking the law. Either is Mr. Vick. Just a few months ago he refused to surrender his water bottle to a security guard at a Miami airport, then tossed the water bottle in the garbage. When it as inspected by a guard that retrieved it from the garbage, a secret compartment was found on the bottle and it smelled like marijuana. It was tested, and came back negative for marijuana, so no charges were filed. Vick's excuse about the bottle: The compartment was for hiding jewlery. Great answer Mr. Vick. If you were travelling, why not just wear the jewlery.
If this was the only thing in his past, maybe I would consider a year suspension the maximum I would give him. But he was charged with another very disgusting crime while in college. He was charged with knowingly infecting a female friend with herpes. Anyone that wants to know the specifics can google the name Ron Mexico, the name he allegedly used to get medication for his condition. Infecting someone with a life long std is one of the worst things you can do to a person in my book.
Michael Vick has been the poster child for the Falcons since he was drafted, and one of the top five promoted players by the NFL. While the players that have been hit with major suspensions have not been "superstars", Vick is a top ten player in name( far from it in play on the field). The NFL needs to show that there is one policy for all players, no matter the amount of revenue they bring the NFL. You have set the example with Pacman Jones commissioner, now follow it.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Open Letter to all Cub Fans
Attention all Cubs fans. Please come off the ledge now. This is your final warning. Anyone that did not come off the ledge and are still really worried about this season, do me a favor. JUMP. I have no time for idiot "Cub" fans and their bitching and moaning about this, that and the next thing. So do real, knowledgable Cub fans a favor and just get it over with.
The Cubs are currently 8-13 and all over the Chicagoland area people are calling in to radio talk shows complaining about everything under the sun.. The Cubs can't hit. Soriano sucks. Pinella needs to show fire. Why is Howry still on the team. This team is not better then last year. These are some of the assanine things I heard in a one hour time frame yesterday, after they WON. All these people are a phrase I like to use, Baseball Retarded.
The 2007 Cubs will win the central division. In my opinion, either the Cubs or the Mets will represent the National League in the World Series. And this is not a delusional Cub fan who always says "this year has got to be the year." This team is a very good team, and in the next three to six weeks, people will see this and they will all be raving about this team and talking world series. Why is this going to happen? Glad you asked.
Let me talk about the pitching first. Ted Lilly will be atleast three games over .500 this year. Yes, every media person wants to talk about how Lilly's career win/lost record is one game over .500. But he was pitching in the American League East for the last few years. When you face a lineup of six hall of famers five times a year( the Yankees) and a team with two of the four top hitters in baseball five times a year ( the Red Sox) and your team was below average for every year except for last year ( Toronto Blue Jays), what do expect a pitchers win/lost record to be.
Just look at the last two pitchers that have made their way from the American League East to the National League Central over the last two years. Chris Carpenter was a .500 pitcher when he pitched for the Blue Jays early in his career, and now that he with the Cardinals he has won a cy young and a lot of people believe he is the best pitcher in the national league. Bronson Arroyo was an average pitcher at best with the Red Sox the last couple of years, then the Reds pick him up last year and he was a front runner for the Cy Young past the all star break last year. Ted Lilly will follow the standard these two have set.
Zambrano will return to being Zambrano. He always sucks in April. He didn't win a game last year in April. It is a contract year for him. Trust me, he will be just fine. Jason Marquis is pitching great at the moment, and while I don't expect him to be this good all year, three years ago with the Braves he was 15-7 with a sub 4.00 E.R.A. If he keeps his location down in the zone like he has been doing, those numbers are completely realistic.
And then at times when our pitching is not so good, our hitting will simply out slug the opponent. Soriano hit 46 homeruns last year. He has zero so far this year. Once he starts hitting, people will be out in flocks to stores all over the city grabbing his jersey off the rack. Derrick Lee finally hit his first home run of the year yesterday. So someone who hit 47 homeruns in 2005 is currently on pace for 8. Not to mention he is hitting .400 so far this year. The guy is an amazing hitter, and I think he will be in the running for the MVP. Ramierez is also hitting the ball well early in the year. He is a notorious slow starter, so anyone that is not encouraged by the way he is hitting in April needs to stop watching baseball and start watching cricket.
Lastly, we do not have Dusty Baker to ruin anything this year. An example of the "GREATNESS" of Dusty. Last year in a game there was a very close play at the plate. The Cub's runner was called out and the fans went nuts. Everyone in the park thought he was safe. Dusty didn't budge from the dugout. When asked after the game why he didn't go challenge the umpire, Dusty's response was "I couldn't see the play so I had no reason to argue." Yes, Dusty was not able to see the play at the plate. If he gets another managerial job in baseball ever I will be shocked, and will root against that team as much as the Cardinals.
Pinella, on the other hand, has challenged the umpire almost every day on the something. Yesterday he came out after Theriot was called out to LEAD OFF the game. Pinella has been really disappointed with losing, and has been benching players that were supposed to be starters like Cezar Izituris and Jaque Jones. He will play the best line up no matter what higer ups want. That is only good for Cub fans.
The team is going to hit. They will be in the top three in the National League in runs by the end of the year. Their starting pitching will be ranked in the top five in National League by the end of the year. And if they need to make an acquisition at the trade deadline to better the club to wrap up a playoff spot, we have a general manager who could lose his job if this team falters. So give the Cubs until June 15th to make judgments about them. I will revisit this article then, and hopefully I do not have to label myself a baseball retarded, idiot Cub fan.
The Cubs are currently 8-13 and all over the Chicagoland area people are calling in to radio talk shows complaining about everything under the sun.. The Cubs can't hit. Soriano sucks. Pinella needs to show fire. Why is Howry still on the team. This team is not better then last year. These are some of the assanine things I heard in a one hour time frame yesterday, after they WON. All these people are a phrase I like to use, Baseball Retarded.
The 2007 Cubs will win the central division. In my opinion, either the Cubs or the Mets will represent the National League in the World Series. And this is not a delusional Cub fan who always says "this year has got to be the year." This team is a very good team, and in the next three to six weeks, people will see this and they will all be raving about this team and talking world series. Why is this going to happen? Glad you asked.
Let me talk about the pitching first. Ted Lilly will be atleast three games over .500 this year. Yes, every media person wants to talk about how Lilly's career win/lost record is one game over .500. But he was pitching in the American League East for the last few years. When you face a lineup of six hall of famers five times a year( the Yankees) and a team with two of the four top hitters in baseball five times a year ( the Red Sox) and your team was below average for every year except for last year ( Toronto Blue Jays), what do expect a pitchers win/lost record to be.
Just look at the last two pitchers that have made their way from the American League East to the National League Central over the last two years. Chris Carpenter was a .500 pitcher when he pitched for the Blue Jays early in his career, and now that he with the Cardinals he has won a cy young and a lot of people believe he is the best pitcher in the national league. Bronson Arroyo was an average pitcher at best with the Red Sox the last couple of years, then the Reds pick him up last year and he was a front runner for the Cy Young past the all star break last year. Ted Lilly will follow the standard these two have set.
Zambrano will return to being Zambrano. He always sucks in April. He didn't win a game last year in April. It is a contract year for him. Trust me, he will be just fine. Jason Marquis is pitching great at the moment, and while I don't expect him to be this good all year, three years ago with the Braves he was 15-7 with a sub 4.00 E.R.A. If he keeps his location down in the zone like he has been doing, those numbers are completely realistic.
And then at times when our pitching is not so good, our hitting will simply out slug the opponent. Soriano hit 46 homeruns last year. He has zero so far this year. Once he starts hitting, people will be out in flocks to stores all over the city grabbing his jersey off the rack. Derrick Lee finally hit his first home run of the year yesterday. So someone who hit 47 homeruns in 2005 is currently on pace for 8. Not to mention he is hitting .400 so far this year. The guy is an amazing hitter, and I think he will be in the running for the MVP. Ramierez is also hitting the ball well early in the year. He is a notorious slow starter, so anyone that is not encouraged by the way he is hitting in April needs to stop watching baseball and start watching cricket.
Lastly, we do not have Dusty Baker to ruin anything this year. An example of the "GREATNESS" of Dusty. Last year in a game there was a very close play at the plate. The Cub's runner was called out and the fans went nuts. Everyone in the park thought he was safe. Dusty didn't budge from the dugout. When asked after the game why he didn't go challenge the umpire, Dusty's response was "I couldn't see the play so I had no reason to argue." Yes, Dusty was not able to see the play at the plate. If he gets another managerial job in baseball ever I will be shocked, and will root against that team as much as the Cardinals.
Pinella, on the other hand, has challenged the umpire almost every day on the something. Yesterday he came out after Theriot was called out to LEAD OFF the game. Pinella has been really disappointed with losing, and has been benching players that were supposed to be starters like Cezar Izituris and Jaque Jones. He will play the best line up no matter what higer ups want. That is only good for Cub fans.
The team is going to hit. They will be in the top three in the National League in runs by the end of the year. Their starting pitching will be ranked in the top five in National League by the end of the year. And if they need to make an acquisition at the trade deadline to better the club to wrap up a playoff spot, we have a general manager who could lose his job if this team falters. So give the Cubs until June 15th to make judgments about them. I will revisit this article then, and hopefully I do not have to label myself a baseball retarded, idiot Cub fan.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Supplemental Spending Bill
The Congress of the United States is acting like a mentally disabled child. I was going to say they were acting retarded, but I didn't want to offend anyone. Either way the House and Senate are not serving their country responsibly.
Both the Senate and the House have each passed bills for supplemental funding of the current situations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Once these two seperate bills come out of conference they will become one bill and be sent to the President for his signature or veto. While President Bush has only vetoed one, yes you read right, ONE bill( that is a whole different topic) he will veto this bill and I will actually agree with him on this one.
The reason for the veto will be because of timelines for withdrawal of troops from Iraq that will be in the bill. One of the bills states a date of March 2008 and one calls for a date of September 2008. So lets assume in conference they set a middle ground of July 15th 2008. Is this a reasonable date to start withdrawing troops from Iraq?
Now I am far from a republican, and I believe President Bush 43 is the worst president since the do nothing presidents of the late 1800's. But when it comes to announcing future dates of withdrawal from Iraq, that is something idiotic that can not be tolerated. Here is why.
Lets say you rob houses for a living. Sure, not a very honorable profession, but it pays for your child's milk and your meth habit. Now let us assume that you have a house on your radar for a possible heist. You know there is a ton of valuable stuff inside, but have no idea when to break in. Then the owners of the house give you a call and tell you they are going on vacation next week. You would be quite ecstatic wouldn't you?
This is the problem of announcing a set date for withdrawal. Anyone that wants to cause trouble in the region can just lay low and then pounce on the country once soldiers and marines are in their rear view mirror. This goes for terrorists and the country ofIran as well.
The election of 2006 was a strong vote against the current situation in Iraq. Democrats won six seats in the Senate and over thirty in the house because of the American public's feelings over soldiers and marines paying the ultimate sacrifice on an almost daily basis in Iraq. So people all over the country want our troops out of harms way. I am one of those people. But to be frank, the United States will have troops in Iraq for atleast five to ten years. And those numbers are optimistic.
Iraq was a stable nation before the invasion. It wasn't a poster child for humanitarian rights, but it was not a breeding ground for Al Qaeda and other terrorists. Now the country is a lawless wreck, and has become a safe haven for ruthless killers and thugs. So until Iraqis can take full control of their borders and police their own streets, Americans will be inside Iraq.
My belief is American forces should not be involved in patrolling the streets of Baghdad and other chaotic cities in the country. Place troops on the border to prevent foreign fighters from entering Iraq. Have troops in heavily fortified bases to train Iraqi military and police forces. Also use troops to repair important infrastructure like power plants and public transportation. But anytime a car bomb goes off in a crowded market, no soldier or marine should be in that area.
Congress is aware that President Bush will veto the bill they are planning on sending him. So instead of trying to gain political points by saying that "I voted for withdrawal but Bush vetoed it," the men and women of Congress need to fund the troops without a date for withdrawal. The situation in Iraq is bad right now, but it could actually be worse. If the country does not improve, we may need to rename it. How does Afghanistan of 2001 sound?
Both the Senate and the House have each passed bills for supplemental funding of the current situations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Once these two seperate bills come out of conference they will become one bill and be sent to the President for his signature or veto. While President Bush has only vetoed one, yes you read right, ONE bill( that is a whole different topic) he will veto this bill and I will actually agree with him on this one.
The reason for the veto will be because of timelines for withdrawal of troops from Iraq that will be in the bill. One of the bills states a date of March 2008 and one calls for a date of September 2008. So lets assume in conference they set a middle ground of July 15th 2008. Is this a reasonable date to start withdrawing troops from Iraq?
Now I am far from a republican, and I believe President Bush 43 is the worst president since the do nothing presidents of the late 1800's. But when it comes to announcing future dates of withdrawal from Iraq, that is something idiotic that can not be tolerated. Here is why.
Lets say you rob houses for a living. Sure, not a very honorable profession, but it pays for your child's milk and your meth habit. Now let us assume that you have a house on your radar for a possible heist. You know there is a ton of valuable stuff inside, but have no idea when to break in. Then the owners of the house give you a call and tell you they are going on vacation next week. You would be quite ecstatic wouldn't you?
This is the problem of announcing a set date for withdrawal. Anyone that wants to cause trouble in the region can just lay low and then pounce on the country once soldiers and marines are in their rear view mirror. This goes for terrorists and the country ofIran as well.
The election of 2006 was a strong vote against the current situation in Iraq. Democrats won six seats in the Senate and over thirty in the house because of the American public's feelings over soldiers and marines paying the ultimate sacrifice on an almost daily basis in Iraq. So people all over the country want our troops out of harms way. I am one of those people. But to be frank, the United States will have troops in Iraq for atleast five to ten years. And those numbers are optimistic.
Iraq was a stable nation before the invasion. It wasn't a poster child for humanitarian rights, but it was not a breeding ground for Al Qaeda and other terrorists. Now the country is a lawless wreck, and has become a safe haven for ruthless killers and thugs. So until Iraqis can take full control of their borders and police their own streets, Americans will be inside Iraq.
My belief is American forces should not be involved in patrolling the streets of Baghdad and other chaotic cities in the country. Place troops on the border to prevent foreign fighters from entering Iraq. Have troops in heavily fortified bases to train Iraqi military and police forces. Also use troops to repair important infrastructure like power plants and public transportation. But anytime a car bomb goes off in a crowded market, no soldier or marine should be in that area.
Congress is aware that President Bush will veto the bill they are planning on sending him. So instead of trying to gain political points by saying that "I voted for withdrawal but Bush vetoed it," the men and women of Congress need to fund the troops without a date for withdrawal. The situation in Iraq is bad right now, but it could actually be worse. If the country does not improve, we may need to rename it. How does Afghanistan of 2001 sound?
Friday, April 20, 2007
Steroids in Baseball
Barry Bonds should be in the hall of fame after he retires. Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire should also. Three of the top seven home run hitters of all time played in the late 90's, and I enjoyed watching them swing the bat. Now people are kicking and screaming how these three players tarnished baseball and it's hallowed records by using steroids. I think everyone needs to shut the hell up.
Am I stating that no one has been found guilty of steroid use so they belong in the hall because of lack of evidence. NO. I think you would have to be a moron to believe that the three of them did not take any performance enhancing drugs. Barry Bonds became a more powerful hitter at the age of 37, not an age most people are known for hitting their prime. McGwire was 255 pounds during his playing career, and now he plays golf six days a week at a weight of 200.
The thinking that these three players put up incredible, Ruthian numbers because of steroids is partly correct. Without steroids or HGH, Sosa may not have become the ONLY person in the history of baseball with three 60 plus home run seasons. McGwire may not have hit 70 home runs in 1998 without a little chemical enhancement and the same goes for Barry Bonds and his 73 home runs in 2001. But that doesn't mean what each player did was any less then hall of fame caliber.
Was every player in the league putting up numbers like them? Not even close. So were they the only three players using drugs to help them perform. Not at all. Steroids have been linked to power hitters in the last several years, but since baseball implemented steroid testing, 80 percent of the players that have tested positive have been pitchers. The late Ken Caminiti told sports illustrated around 2000 that he believed fifty percent of baseball players were on steroids. He recanted that statement after he was ripped in the papers for it, but knowing what people know now, do you think he was making it up.
News flash. Players used illegal drugs in the late 90's. Want another news flash. Players are using illegal drugs today. Just because baseball is testing for steroids does not mean players are not using them. First of all, HGH is undetectable in any test major league baseball gives. So what is in the way of athletes taking HGH. Nothing. If a drug can not be tested for and it will help a player perform better, thus enabling them to get a richer contract, do you think a player will use it. If you could take something that would make you twice as effective at your job and help you earn twice as much, would you take it.
Secondly, not all steroids are detectable. That was the beauty and the reasoning behind BALCO. It was founded to create steroids that were undetectable, and would probably still be in business if it wasn't for a former client turning on them out of fear for his own athletes. The two major steroids BALCO sold were unknown until a sample was analyzed by UCLA. So if there were two undetectable steroids almost ten years ago, do you think there might be a couple more out there.
For every person out there trying to invent a test for a drug, there are two others trying to find a new undetectable one. Scientists interested in steroids will always stay ahead of the curve. And the same goes for athletes. Take football for example. They have been testing for steroids for twenty years, yet only a handful of players get caught every year. So is the NFL telling me that every person that can run a 4.2 forty, bench press 400 pounds at a weight of 180 and is three percent bodyfat did it without the use of drugs. Steroid use in the NFL is a whole different article.
Bonds, Sosa and McGwire put up stats that boggle the mind. If someone told you in 1990 that someone would break Roger Maris's homerun record by 12, you would have escorted them to the nearest asylum. On the other hand, people in Boston believed Roger Clemens was on the downside of his career when they traded him to Toronto. How did he regain his 1986 form in 1997? How did he have a sub 2.00 ERA at the age of 42. The booya network will never throw a single stone at a living legend, but was he doing it without the aid of any chemicals. I am skeptical.
The bottom line is that steroids and other performance enhancing drugs are part of baseball now and they are not going anywhere. And that question I have for you is this- If a player is using drugs to make them better and their competitors are also taking similar drugs, does that give anyone an unfair advantage?
Am I stating that no one has been found guilty of steroid use so they belong in the hall because of lack of evidence. NO. I think you would have to be a moron to believe that the three of them did not take any performance enhancing drugs. Barry Bonds became a more powerful hitter at the age of 37, not an age most people are known for hitting their prime. McGwire was 255 pounds during his playing career, and now he plays golf six days a week at a weight of 200.
The thinking that these three players put up incredible, Ruthian numbers because of steroids is partly correct. Without steroids or HGH, Sosa may not have become the ONLY person in the history of baseball with three 60 plus home run seasons. McGwire may not have hit 70 home runs in 1998 without a little chemical enhancement and the same goes for Barry Bonds and his 73 home runs in 2001. But that doesn't mean what each player did was any less then hall of fame caliber.
Was every player in the league putting up numbers like them? Not even close. So were they the only three players using drugs to help them perform. Not at all. Steroids have been linked to power hitters in the last several years, but since baseball implemented steroid testing, 80 percent of the players that have tested positive have been pitchers. The late Ken Caminiti told sports illustrated around 2000 that he believed fifty percent of baseball players were on steroids. He recanted that statement after he was ripped in the papers for it, but knowing what people know now, do you think he was making it up.
News flash. Players used illegal drugs in the late 90's. Want another news flash. Players are using illegal drugs today. Just because baseball is testing for steroids does not mean players are not using them. First of all, HGH is undetectable in any test major league baseball gives. So what is in the way of athletes taking HGH. Nothing. If a drug can not be tested for and it will help a player perform better, thus enabling them to get a richer contract, do you think a player will use it. If you could take something that would make you twice as effective at your job and help you earn twice as much, would you take it.
Secondly, not all steroids are detectable. That was the beauty and the reasoning behind BALCO. It was founded to create steroids that were undetectable, and would probably still be in business if it wasn't for a former client turning on them out of fear for his own athletes. The two major steroids BALCO sold were unknown until a sample was analyzed by UCLA. So if there were two undetectable steroids almost ten years ago, do you think there might be a couple more out there.
For every person out there trying to invent a test for a drug, there are two others trying to find a new undetectable one. Scientists interested in steroids will always stay ahead of the curve. And the same goes for athletes. Take football for example. They have been testing for steroids for twenty years, yet only a handful of players get caught every year. So is the NFL telling me that every person that can run a 4.2 forty, bench press 400 pounds at a weight of 180 and is three percent bodyfat did it without the use of drugs. Steroid use in the NFL is a whole different article.
Bonds, Sosa and McGwire put up stats that boggle the mind. If someone told you in 1990 that someone would break Roger Maris's homerun record by 12, you would have escorted them to the nearest asylum. On the other hand, people in Boston believed Roger Clemens was on the downside of his career when they traded him to Toronto. How did he regain his 1986 form in 1997? How did he have a sub 2.00 ERA at the age of 42. The booya network will never throw a single stone at a living legend, but was he doing it without the aid of any chemicals. I am skeptical.
The bottom line is that steroids and other performance enhancing drugs are part of baseball now and they are not going anywhere. And that question I have for you is this- If a player is using drugs to make them better and their competitors are also taking similar drugs, does that give anyone an unfair advantage?
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Welcome to a MUST read!
Hello ladies and gentlemen. I am glad that you have wandered over to read the very first installment of Sports and Politics. Before I write my first post, I would like to inform you of what you should expect from this site.
As the name states, every article will revolve around sports or politics in some way. I am a sports and political junky. I have so many thoughts that differ from the mainstream. While I watch ESPN( from now on ESPN will be refered to as the back back back or the booya network), I can not stand how they have such a bias for the east coast. While I watch MSNBC and CNN religiously( sorry but I am too independent to watch the right wing crap of the "fair and balanced" network) I feel that the real story about such issues as gun control, abortion, immigration and most of all, Iraq, is not being stated because of political correctness. I will try and correct this.
I am a registered independent, die hard Chicago Cub, Bulls and Bears fan and despise the Cardinals, White Sox( they will be called the SUX from here on out) and Packers. I say what I think and will never apologize for my thinking unless it was written in a drunken stoopor and made no sense. Some thoughts here will anger people, but hopefully a lot of articles will make people smile, laugh, or more importantly..............THINK. Enjoy the column.
WAR IN IRAQ???
What is going on in the middle east at the moment is bad. Bad for every soldier serving, bad for every family member worrying about their loved ones, bad for the citizens of Iraq that just want a normal life. But what is going on is not a WAR!
Yes, you read right. I said the military is not involved in a war in Iraq. The brave men and women of the armed forces are fighting, killing and unfortunately sometimes dying in Iraq. But the term war does not fit the engagement in Iraq.
When the 1st Marines and the 3rd Infantry Division invaded from the south and the 173d ABN BDE jumped into the north, the country was at war. When the capital city of Baghdad fell, along with other major cities like Mosul, Kirkuk and Ramadi, the war was over. The government of Iraq was gone, no longer in power of the country. The military was gone as well, either shedding their uniforms for civilian attire or being killed or captured by the U.S.
By overthrowing the government and decimating the military, the United States won the war. By mid April 2003, the US war victory total was upgraded by one. Think about it. What were the objectives laid upon the military. 1) Kill or capture Saddam Huessein. CHECK. 2) Rid the country of WMD's. CHECK. Bring democracy to Iraq. CHECK( since the country has had elections three different times I consider democracy brought, security is another discussion.)
The military did exactly what was expected of it. It came, it saw, it kicked ass. And it only took about a month to do it. The United States has the best trained and equipped military in the world. A country that was considered a top 20 military power in the world in 2002 was destroyed in a month. What is going on now in Iraq has never been a strong point for the Army and Marines however. The term I like to use is "peacekeeping."
That is my belief on what the military is doing in Iraq at the moment. And to be honest, the military is not very good at it, but the reason for their lack of peacekeeping skills is because they are such a good fighting force. Read me out. Infantry battalions are trained for what? To converge on and kill the enemy. Nothing less then total victory in battle. Are they trained to police an entire nation? Unless you are an MP that is not your job description.
So we currently have upwards of 165,000 soldiers and marines in Iraq playing traffic cop to a bunch of people who have seen their country lose stability, seen relatives and friends die prematurely, and don't see the situation getting better anytime soon. So maybe it should be called crisis keeping or dire straights management. But it is not a WAR.
Hope this made you think. I have many thoughts on the middle east and will share them in future articles. I would ramble on more but the Cubs game is starting in two minutes so I need to wrap this up. Take care and I hope you stop by tomorrow for another column.
As the name states, every article will revolve around sports or politics in some way. I am a sports and political junky. I have so many thoughts that differ from the mainstream. While I watch ESPN( from now on ESPN will be refered to as the back back back or the booya network), I can not stand how they have such a bias for the east coast. While I watch MSNBC and CNN religiously( sorry but I am too independent to watch the right wing crap of the "fair and balanced" network) I feel that the real story about such issues as gun control, abortion, immigration and most of all, Iraq, is not being stated because of political correctness. I will try and correct this.
I am a registered independent, die hard Chicago Cub, Bulls and Bears fan and despise the Cardinals, White Sox( they will be called the SUX from here on out) and Packers. I say what I think and will never apologize for my thinking unless it was written in a drunken stoopor and made no sense. Some thoughts here will anger people, but hopefully a lot of articles will make people smile, laugh, or more importantly..............THINK. Enjoy the column.
WAR IN IRAQ???
What is going on in the middle east at the moment is bad. Bad for every soldier serving, bad for every family member worrying about their loved ones, bad for the citizens of Iraq that just want a normal life. But what is going on is not a WAR!
Yes, you read right. I said the military is not involved in a war in Iraq. The brave men and women of the armed forces are fighting, killing and unfortunately sometimes dying in Iraq. But the term war does not fit the engagement in Iraq.
When the 1st Marines and the 3rd Infantry Division invaded from the south and the 173d ABN BDE jumped into the north, the country was at war. When the capital city of Baghdad fell, along with other major cities like Mosul, Kirkuk and Ramadi, the war was over. The government of Iraq was gone, no longer in power of the country. The military was gone as well, either shedding their uniforms for civilian attire or being killed or captured by the U.S.
By overthrowing the government and decimating the military, the United States won the war. By mid April 2003, the US war victory total was upgraded by one. Think about it. What were the objectives laid upon the military. 1) Kill or capture Saddam Huessein. CHECK. 2) Rid the country of WMD's. CHECK. Bring democracy to Iraq. CHECK( since the country has had elections three different times I consider democracy brought, security is another discussion.)
The military did exactly what was expected of it. It came, it saw, it kicked ass. And it only took about a month to do it. The United States has the best trained and equipped military in the world. A country that was considered a top 20 military power in the world in 2002 was destroyed in a month. What is going on now in Iraq has never been a strong point for the Army and Marines however. The term I like to use is "peacekeeping."
That is my belief on what the military is doing in Iraq at the moment. And to be honest, the military is not very good at it, but the reason for their lack of peacekeeping skills is because they are such a good fighting force. Read me out. Infantry battalions are trained for what? To converge on and kill the enemy. Nothing less then total victory in battle. Are they trained to police an entire nation? Unless you are an MP that is not your job description.
So we currently have upwards of 165,000 soldiers and marines in Iraq playing traffic cop to a bunch of people who have seen their country lose stability, seen relatives and friends die prematurely, and don't see the situation getting better anytime soon. So maybe it should be called crisis keeping or dire straights management. But it is not a WAR.
Hope this made you think. I have many thoughts on the middle east and will share them in future articles. I would ramble on more but the Cubs game is starting in two minutes so I need to wrap this up. Take care and I hope you stop by tomorrow for another column.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)