glunn

Moderator note -- I came close to deleting a few of the posts above, but have decided to see how this plays out. PLEASE be sensitive to the fact that people passionately disagree about some of these issues. That's good for the forums up to a point, but when people become dismissive of other people's ideas, and the discussion turns into feuding, we will delete the offending posts and possibly hand out infraction points. Continue to disagree as vigorously as you want, but please follow the rules. http://twinsdaily.com/topic/8228-twins-daily-comment-policy-latest-revision-september-2013/

Let all of the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out?

Great article, Seth. Mitch sounds like he has a great mindset. I hope that he continues to work hard enough to advance.

Moderator note -- please stop using derogatory nicknames, such as "Gomer" and Voldemort.

I really enjoyed Jessica Jones and agree that Killgrave was an amazing villain.

This could be a good thread if people can stay on topic.

Moderator note -- these threads labeling Ryan as a failure tend to result in trolling and squabbling. The moderators will be watching this thread closely and infractions will be issued if we see violations of our posting policy. http://twinsdaily.com/topic/8228-twins-daily-comment-policy-latest-revision-september-2013/

Welcome cmoss. Maybe we can meet the next time the Twins play in Anaheim.

Maybe there are potential silver linings here. If Sano makes an error at 3B this could get in his head and affect his hitting. If Sano makes an error in the outfield, then he will have a great excuse and it may be easier to shake it off. Maybe it is karmic that Sano will follow in Killebrew's footsteps, starting at OF and moving to 3B while hitting towering home runs along the way. This is not scientific, but it seems to me that the great players of all time can sometimes thrive under adversities like position changes, like the time that Kareem was injured and Magic played center. Also imagine Sano using his rocket of an arm to nail baserunners from 350 feet away. Sano in the OF could be bad, but it also might be good.

I think that we will get to see Sano at third base once Plouffe is elsewhere. In the meantime, I am hopeful that, as in the case of Killebrew, Sano's natural focus and tenacity will allow him to be decent in the outfield. Sight unseen, I would expect that he could be better out there than Arcia.

I don't think that it's pointless, but there are so many guns now in circulation that it may take decades to make it difficult for bad people to get them. Also, guns are not the only way to commit mass murder. I think that we should come at this from every direction.

Query why this happens so much more in our country than other countries. I believe that the answer lies there. We have the technology and resources to provide every child with a great education, to nip problems in the bud while people are children and part of the school system and to provide counselling to anyone who needs it. Instead, we spend outlandish amounts on "defense" and inefficient social programs, and much of the world fears/hates us. There are millions of Americans who are unemployed or underemployed. Many of these people could be trained to become good social workers, counselors, caretakers for the elderly and disabled. Instead, we squander trillions of dollars on stupid wars and weapons systems that will not be effective. I am happy to pay huge amounts in taxes so that people have food and housing, but I would rather see them have jobs that will make everyone's lives better. I think that we should cut the defense budget, root out other government waste and offer a new deal to all Americans. If you are willing to work hard, then we will guarantee you a job that will allow you to have a decent and safe place to live, healthy food, health care and a basic cable. We have plenty of work that needs to be done and plenty of people who need work. Instead, we waste hundreds of billions of dollars every year and tens of millions of people live miserable lives. I see bits on TV where they ask young people questions like "who was Abraham Lincoln?" Some of them have no clue. Maybe technology has made our people stupid, but I think that we should insist that every school district add a class where kids are taught about violence and the consequences of violence. It could start with cave people and cover all of the worst incidences of violence over history, including genocides, conquests and religious persecutions. It could also teach how violence begets violence and tends to pass from generation to generation. It could include exercises where students act out scenarios to test nonviolent solutions to conflicts. I am not saying that such classes would eliminate all violence, but it seems to me that we should try something like this. Or we could hope for the asteroid.

Harmon Killebrew was able to play 3B and outfield. Sano seems at least as athletic as Harmon.

"What exactly are our interests in Syria or Iraq at this point?" You are asking a question that demands a complex answer.

I feel sorry for all of the innocent people who live in ISIS territory. I also feel sorry for the hundreds of thousands of veterans who suffer PTSD from the recent wars. http://www.politifact.com/iowa/statements/2015/nov/14/bernie-s/sanders-says-500000-troops-came-back-ptsd-tbi/ I oppose any further boots on the ground, mainly because I don't want to sacrifice more soldiers (and civilians) on an effort that seems doomed to fail. I admit to being callous about people who remain in ISIS territory, because I see no clear path to helping them, because many of them don't want our help and because I think that we should be devoting most of our effort to feeding starving children, not invading in the Middle East.

I am not in favor of rounding anyone up, but I would happily pay for their one way airfare.

I would like to rewrite borders (and build them an airport) to get as many of them as possible in the same place (and away from us). And I want boots on the ground only in a conventional battle that fulfills their prophecy -- on an open plain between conventional armies (with us having our best tanks as well as control of the air). I don't want to lose tens of thousands of troops fighting village to village and building to building. Their religion predicts the major battle on open plains between large armies. They think that Allah will help them win this. I would like to get them all there then roll those dice. It seems like a win-win that they might be crazy enough to accept.

I suspect that Graham would deploy some neutron bombs if he could get them.

We subscribe to the Atlantic and for the most part I believe that this article is instructive. On the other hand, it seems to me that the article fails to adequately address the consequences of boots on the ground in a war against a religious caliphate. Even if we win the war, there will be some religious nutcases who will then have nothing to live for except maybe terrorist suicide. Better to get them all in one place, preferably on the plains of northern Syria. Then we can all find out if Allah is going to help them defeat a modern army.

I see a few important differences from appeasing Hitler. First, Iraq was controlled by the Sunnis until we took out Saddam, then they had to endure brutal repression and humiliation at the hands of their most hated enemies, the Shiites. Unlike Germany, the Sunnis actually had their backs against a wall. Second, I see little reason to worry about ISIS scientists developing modern weapons and ISIS factories churning out much more than swords. ISIS believes in science less than the Republicans, whereas Hitler was developing atomic bombs. Third, ISIS believes that there will be a climactic battle in the plains of northern Syria. If we can get them out in the open, this is a battle that we will certainly win. The only way that we could lose that battle will be if Allah intervenes, as ISIS believes. I am more than willing to take my chances on that. I understand the problems that arose from putting Native Americans on reservations and from the State of Israel, but it seems to me that there have also been benefits from giving people a homeland. It also seems to me that after the fall of Saddam we should have done what a lot of smart people suggested -- divide Iraq in to three countries, one for the Sunnis, one for the Shiites and one for the Kurds. These groups are mortal enemies and in hindsight it seems foolish that our experts expected that they could overcome the level of hatred that exist. I am also not worried about ISIS taking Mecca. I blame the Saudis for a lot of this and if Mecca gets taken or is destroyed, then only Muslims will be to blame, and I am sick of our troops getting killed and getting PTSD from Muslim civil wars. I acknowledge that there are holes in my proposal. The biggest hole is that ISIS will probably be unwilling to negotiate a deal that involves fixed borders. In that event, I would still like to provide one way air fare to anyone who wants to move to the caliphate. I would rather have them there than here, and ideally we can have as many of them as possible on the plains of northern Syria on a day where the world will learn whether Allah is really going to help them defeat a modern army in open battle.

If the shoe was on the other foot, I would be glad for the fact that I am well armed and a very good shot. Why can't people understand why they want to kill us?

I see your point about barbarism, but more than 10,000 children die every day of starvation. Why not focus on feeding them? These children are unarmed and are not capable of terrorist activity. Feeding starving children does not cause our people to suffer PSTD. From this perspective I see no close call. Feeding starving children would relieve a lot more suffering at a much lower cost. I still think that we should give ISIS their own country then enforce the borders. A prerequisite would be an embargo on weapons and ammunition. They could live within their borders in the 7th century and all radical Muslims around the world should be given free airfare to join them. They should have water, building materials and other 7th century technology and we should live with the fact that they choose to be barbaric to their own people. I don't see us invading Africa to stop genital mutilation, so why are we so focused on the middle east? I am seriously committed to cut the number of children who die from starvation, and it seems to me that a trillion dollars spent on this is would yield better results than another war.

Moderator note -- please be gentle in holding other posters accountable for posts that they made in the past. I am glad that Dave took this in stride, but such exchanges sometimes lead to bickering.

It's good to have you aboard. We can never have enough stat mavens.

I think that any solution must come from the answer to that question. It seems to me that terrorism is hard wired into our DNA. Please ask yourself whether you would ever join a terror group that is planning to kill millions of people. Then please consider what you would do in the following scenario. Radical Muslims develop a virus that kills 99% of all Americans. Your loved ones all die and you are one of a few million survivors. The Radical Muslims then take control of the United States and enslave almost all of the survivors, raping the women and castrating the men. You manage to hook up with a resistance cell, and they have a plan to release a virus that will cause most of the Muslims to die horrible deaths. You can help in this effort, knowing that you will be killed during the mission. Would you participate? When I think about this scenario my sense is that I have an innate impulse to get revenge and my heartbeat increases and I feel good about dead Muslims. I see two ways to go here. We can ask France to join us and twenty or thirty other countries in sending 5,000 troops apiece to wipe ISIS from the map. Countries that come immediately to mind include England, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Russia, Ukraine, China, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Iran, Pakistan, India, and Turkey. With enough allies, this should be a piece of cake, and ideally this would promote good feelings among countries who have bad relationships, such as Russia and the Ukraine. History shows that nothing brings countries together as quickly as a common enemy. One very bad thing about this plan is lots of people would die, including innocent women and children. Another bad thing is that it would likely result in more terrorism. These killers in Paris were not cowards -- they knew that they would die. If we wipe out ISIS, it seems inevitable that their brethren will seek revenge. That leads to the other way to go, which is the path of peace. I think that such path requires dropping any pretense that the Western powers are innocent in all of this. Let's face it. The record of the Western powers in the middle east has been abysmal. To name a few of many examples, we put the Shah in power, we sold chemical weapons to Saddam that he used to kill a lot of people, and we are the main prop for the disgusting Saudi regime. More recently, the war to remove Saddam cost hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives. It seems obvious why are we hated. It's human nature for people to want revenge when their countries are invaded and occupied and their loved ones are wounded/killed and they see pictures of their countrymen being tortured in a prison like Abu Grabe? Summing this up, if I were an Iraqi and my family was wiped out by a stray American drone, my first thought would be how can I kill as many Americans as possible. And it would take a lot to restrain that primal impulse. However, it seems indisputable that violence begets violence. Consider Rome versus Carthage, England versus France and the Crusades -- humans are capable of carrying on wars for decades and sometimes centuries. Each group sees itself as the good people and their enemies as the bad people. How do we break this cycle? Peace is hard. It requires admitting past mistakes. It also requires compromise and accommodation. My experience in making peace is that it is critical to address the core interests of each side. In this case, ISIS wants its own country -- a caliphate that would be a theocracy. I think that we should put this on the bargaining table. Frankly, I like the idea of having as many of these radical Muslims in one place as possible and I can live with the fact that they will oppress their own people (who choose not to get out while the getting is good). Thus, I would let them have their caliphate, subject to an agreement of all civilized countries not to sell them any weapons or technology. Let them live in the 7th century and leave them alone as much as possible.