legacyofCangelosi

Paved the way for the Bush legacy? Unless your referring to the fact that his most potent enemies in the Republican party at the time were George H.W. Bush and Dick Cheney, and both eventually made it to top spots, then yea he did pave the way for the bush legacy. But George W. is the anti-Reagan if anything.

Theres arguments as to why even castration wouldn't work, b/c of the mental aspect of the crime. And jus tfood for thought, one of the 'victims' was 16. I always have questions about that kind of thing. Seems to me the 16 year old is as much of a criminal and the 13 year old is the real victim.

Reagan didn't exactly reinvigorate the conservative movement for very long. The party has changed since 2000, which means that he may have helped the party for just over a decade, but that's about it. It seems to me that they peaked in 1994, and have been slowly losing power ever since, primarily due to (what else) corruption. Unfortunately this happens to all majority parties if they are in power too long, no matter if they are the GOP or the DNC. The DNC lost power in 1994 because of corruption, and the GOP lost it in 2006 because of corruption, complacency, and the most unpopular war since Vietnam. Because of Reagan you had a Democrat President like Clinton who moved to the right on many issues and you started getting more conservative Democrats especially on economic issues. Reagan had a big influence on American Politics. Not that I am a fan. This is my point exactly. Love him or hate him. Its the same argument I make for FDR, I'm definitely not a fan of his policies, but you can't deny that he had a tremendous impact on American politics and economic structure and as such he has to be a notable president.

We already have a tremendous military footrprint in the Persian Gulf, we don't need bases in Iraq to prosecute wars in that region. Your certainty in arguing that ,eans you haven't thought critically enough about the Iraq situation. It is a very viable and extremely credible position, much more credible than the we're in Iraq for oil position, that we're in Iraq to establish a military power zone between syria and iran. And that was one of biggest reasons we went into Iraq. Personally, I argue that the WMD intel was just a rationale for that true purpose and was not the purpose in and of itself. I dotn care to argue the ethics of that now, simply that your response to the quesiton is negating a great deal of intelligent debate and analysis into the true purpose of this war i nthe first place.

US softens on 'axis of evil' as it plans talks with Iran and Syria Thursday, March 01, 2007 By Rupert Cornwell in Washington Iran has agreed to attend this month's planned regional security conference on Iraq that will see its representatives sit down with US officials - a potentially groundbreaking departure, given the glacial state of relations between Tehran and Washington. US participation in the talks was confirmed by Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, to Congress earlier this week. Yesterday officials from the Iraqi government, which is organising the meeting, said that Iran too would be attending, although the immediate response from Tehran was more cautious, that it would attend "if it was expedient". A first session at the level of ambassadors is expected within the next 10 days. If all goes well, a full-scale ministerial conference will take place in April, probably in Istanbul. There, Ms Rice will sit down with her opposite numbers from Iran and Syria - with whom Washington has also refused to deal, accusing Damascus of supporting terrorism and meddling in Iraq. The very fact the US has agreed to take part marks an abrupt shift in policy by Washington after months of refusing to have any truck with Tehran - despite strong urgings to that effect by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group (ISG) and many Middle East policy experts. But officials here play down any expectations of major breakthroughs between the two rivals. US representatives for instance will not discuss Tehran's nuclear programme, the other big bone of contention. Washington remains firm in insisting Iran must first suspend uranium enrichment before any contacts can take place, and is keeping up pressure for tougher United Nations sanctions on Tehran to secure that. Despite Mr Bush's public commitment to a "diplomatic" solution to the nuclear crisis, he refuses to rule out air strikes against Iranian installations. Washington meanwhile accuses Iran of supplying sophisticated bombs to Iraqi Shia insurgents, used to kill US troops. Finally, administration officials stress these will be anything but direct bilateral talks. Not only will Iraq's other neighbours and regional powers such as Egypt take part, along with Iran, but the other four permanent members of the UN Security Council as well. As for Iran, its guarded formal response reflects a wariness bred by what happened the last time it engaged in serious talks with Washington in late 2001. Only a few weeks after those apparently constructive discussions on Afghanistan, Mr Bush used his January 2002 State of the Union address to label Iran a member of the "axis of evil" along with North Korea and Iraq. But the ground is shifting on both sides. By all accounts, the financial and banking quarantine imposed by Washington is being felt in Tehran. Despite the relentlessly defiant rhetoric from President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, he appears to be under pressure from parts of the regime to soften his stance. The US for its part seems to have woken up to the virtues of diplomacy. "Better late than never" was the reaction of Leon Panetta, a senior Democratic member of the ISG, whose recommendations were mostly brushed aside by the White House. In the past few weeks Ms Rice has thrown herself into a new round of Middle East diplomacy between Israel and the Palestinians, albeit with scant result. Then the White House agreed to a nuclear deal with North Korea not very different from the 1994 agreement reached by President Bill Clinton but criticised by the Bush administration. http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/wor...icle2316771.ece Discuss

Establishing permanent long-term bases in Iraq is going to make things worse. Not to mention, those facilities will become high-value targets for anyone wanting to attack American interests abroad. No b/c NOT having bases in Iraq means it would be a total defeat in that war. I agree on your point that they will be high value targets but theres absolutely no evidence as to why permanent bases will 'make things worse'

Reagan didn't exactly reinvigorate the conservative movement for very long. The party has changed since 2000, which means that he may have helped the party for just over a decade, but that's about it. It seems to me that they peaked in 1994, and have been slowly losing power ever since, primarily due to (what else) corruption. Unfortunately this happens to all majority parties if they are in power too long, no matter if they are the GOP or the DNC. The DNC lost power in 1994 because of corruption, and the GOP lost it in 2006 because of corruption, complacency, and the most unpopular war since Vietnam. Except that the conservative movement is still invigorated. The fact that the party leaders are currently from a different arm on the party does not mean the conservatives within are not strong. In fact, I'd argue Guiliani is the true conservative now. So regardless, the movement is still strong, just that the neoconservative movement gained strength after 9/11 but that segment has now began to fade again for the reasons you stated above.

Reagan is certainly very very overrated. However, he was not a bad President. I would put him somewhere between Average and Above Average. Of course you say this bc ur a liberal democrat. But looking at the overlal objective reality, reagan is clearly above average. Thats like people who argue clinton is above average, if your a republican you disagree with that. The truth is that Reagan's foreign policy will historically be remembered as a key reason in ending the cold war. Like everything there will be controversy, same as people argue FDR didnt end the depression. But for anyone who ranks FDR on top of the lsit, reagan must follow closely. However, if the argument is that the best presidents were the ones who did least to alter the world system or the countrys system, then u mihght have a clinton or maybe a coolidge on the top of the list. My politics have only a little to do with my view of Reagan. I just think that his policies were bad overall. If you look closely at the USSR through insider history accounts, only the insistence of the Soviet government kept that country alive. Their economic numbers were always inflated way beyond the reality. I watched a good program once about how the USSR repeatedly tricked the US into believing that they had developed new aircraft that were much more advanced in anything the US had. The reality was, the Soviets used deception to make it appear that they were more powerful than they actually were. My biggest problem with Reagan is that he ballooned the federal budget way beyond what was necessary. I think he gets too much credit for ending the Cold War, when I think the USSR was going to collapse anyway regardless of what we did in the 1980s. It's remarkable that the Soviet government lasted as long as it did. Part of it had to do with their citizens' fear of the Soviet military, which was no longer justified anymore by the Reagan presidency. Richard Nixon did a lot more to stop the arms race with the USSR when he signed the SALT treaties than Reagan did. If anything, he may have extended the Cold War with his hard-line attitude towards the Soviet government at that time. Reasons like this are why he is an average President. I would also say, for the record, that Clinton was about the same overall. He wasn't amazing, just average. However, he certainly didn't make the country worse off by the time he left office, the way Bush is heading. I would agree that Clinton is going to slip into obscurity over time, but it's unfortunate that Reagan will continue to get too much credit for ending the Cold War. The problem is theres plenty of evidence pointing i nthe other direction that Reagan's polciies were a major factor in ending the cold war. Same as there are conflicting accounts of the economic impact of reagan policies. But like always causation is the hardest thing to prove. I must say however, that Reagan reinvigorated the 'conservative' movement. In fact, it was the first and I'd argue, only time a Goldwater conservative won the presidency. So, in that way he was revolutionary the same way FDR was revolutionary by changing the political landscape of the democratic party. So thats where Reagan is owed his dues if nothing else.

If everyone pulls out of Iraq now, what do you thin will happen? Al-Qaeda will want to cease violence and enter into negotiations with the west? This is a major victory for radical islam world wide. Because as you recall things starting goign south after the sunni radicals began destroying shiite holy sites. This is the major victory of radicalism over the West. And apparently people are ok with that. We should not have ever gone itno Iraq, to put ourselves in this position where we can allow our weaknesses to be exposed by radicalism. But now that we're there a defeat, which has not happened yet, would be catastrophic. A near equivalent of USSR's pull out in afghanistan. Al lthats left after we pull out is to let Iran nuke Israel. General statements like "we can't leave or else the terrorists win" and "we have to stick it out and be patient" don't actually address how this approach is going to resolve the myriad of problems that exist. It is not just the Sunni radicals. It is the Shi'ite radicals. It is the legitimate Shi'ite radicals that play a role in assisting the radicals. It is the battle for power that always exists in a vacuum of power. How exactly is our troop presence going to resolve this? This is not even close to a conventional army based war. We have little to no clue as to who is good, who is bad, who is corrupt, who is taking advantage of power. The police there are terrible. I seriously need an explanation as to how a traditional military approach is going to resolve the myriad of problems in that country. Shiites are starting to rape Sunni women and retribution has been promised. How is our military presence going to resolve this? Sunnis refuse to surrender power to Shiites. How is our military presence going to resolve this? Id love an answer for these and many questions. Of course I don't expect one. Because all we ever here is that if you don't do this, the bad guys win. How many people predicted this nightmare? Go look back 2-3 years ago and you'll see the so called "just hate Bush" crowd was absolutely right. Anyone could predict a civil war could erupt in a power vacuum. And how were these concerns addressed? With the same old platitudes we hear today. The fact is we have created an out of control beehive that we are trying to stop with handguns. All the while the terrorists are hiding amongsts the beehive we have created. Well done. The problem is your questions only address strategic concerns. The fact is lets say the anti war people were right since the beginning. Great. Does nothing to alter my point. The reality is that if the U.S. pulls out, every radical faction that has contested us there will declare victory. And that victory is detrimental to curbing the spread and 'sexiness' of fascioislamic terrorism acroos the globe. No matter what questions you ask about the role of our military in the conflict, it doesnt change the fact that the pull out will be victory. Perhaps the best way to resolve the issues is through other avenues, but if for nothign else the military needs to stay in to curb the influence of a perceived radicalist victory in that region. So your post does not adress my point at all. Thats the practical reality, we stuck ourselves in a messy situation where staying may nto resolve anythign, but neither will leaving. So we leave our troops in the middle of a civil war solely for symbolic purposes? If you agree that leaving the troops there doesn't resolve the problem, then how long should we expect to keep them there? Do we wait 5 years or 10 years just so that the islamofacists can be precluded from any victory? If the entirety of our armed forces being present after an invasion and before any civil war could not stop the islamfacists from gaining the foothold they have now, they how is waiting and waiting for years down the road going to do anything? The problem with stopping the removal of any troops solely to prevent some symbolic loss is that it refuses to take into account the practical middle ground. How about we remove a large amount of troops and leave enough to train the military and prevent the islamofacists from getting their symbolic victory? In the meanwhile, we refocus those freshly available resources into actually trying to calm the hornets nest down with some diplomacy. Then maybe when they stop killing each other, they can turn on the outside forces trying to destroy their own nation. The dems have proposed keeping troops for counter-terrorism purposes and training purposes only. What is wrong with that? And yes, I am trying to get at strategic concerns. Don't you think we need an actual strategy to resolve this problem beyond broad and speculative phrases like "surge." Isn't this the military equivilant of demanding that a failing program be kept in place and more money be placed into it? Frankly I think this is a further indictment of the Bush administration and those that choose to support its policies through anything. They have absolutely no clue how to be administrators or develop good strategy. But they do know that they can create strawman arguments and accuse others of being in favor of surrender(the new relative of being unpatriotic). And you also MUST reconcile the position we are in right now. You demand victory over islamofacists. Ok, sounds good. So do I. But where does victory come when Islamofacists have established themselves in the very government we have created and are now defending? Al-Sadr is one of the people who is engaging in terrorism. He is not AQ. He has the support of a strong contingency of the Iraqi people. How do we beat him in the traditional sense of a military victory? We keep the troops there for his benefit so that he can say he has not won? I don't disagree with anything you've stated. However, it is undenialable that there are negative consequences to a troop withdrawal. Al-Sadr is also backed by Iran, which increases the problem. But another factor beign ignored is the why we went into Iraq. The problem is, as I've said since 2003 when it all started, that regardless of the reasons given, the truth is that what we wanted was to have a military presence in the region. Which a large scale withdrawal would reverse. However, that doesn't mean we there is no middle ground. Open a base, train the Iraqi's and get our boys out.

Reagan is certainly very very overrated. However, he was not a bad President. I would put him somewhere between Average and Above Average. Of course you say this bc ur a liberal democrat. But looking at the overlal objective reality, reagan is clearly above average. Thats like people who argue clinton is above average, if your a republican you disagree with that. The truth is that Reagan's foreign policy will historically be remembered as a key reason in ending the cold war. Like everything there will be controversy, same as people argue FDR didnt end the depression. But for anyone who ranks FDR on top of the lsit, reagan must follow closely. However, if the argument is that the best presidents were the ones who did least to alter the world system or the countrys system, then u mihght have a clinton or maybe a coolidge on the top of the list.

If everyone pulls out of Iraq now, what do you thin will happen? Al-Qaeda will want to cease violence and enter into negotiations with the west? This is a major victory for radical islam world wide. Because as you recall things starting goign south after the sunni radicals began destroying shiite holy sites. This is the major victory of radicalism over the West. And apparently people are ok with that. We should not have ever gone itno Iraq, to put ourselves in this position where we can allow our weaknesses to be exposed by radicalism. But now that we're there a defeat, which has not happened yet, would be catastrophic. A near equivalent of USSR's pull out in afghanistan. Al lthats left after we pull out is to let Iran nuke Israel. General statements like "we can't leave or else the terrorists win" and "we have to stick it out and be patient" don't actually address how this approach is going to resolve the myriad of problems that exist. It is not just the Sunni radicals. It is the Shi'ite radicals. It is the legitimate Shi'ite radicals that play a role in assisting the radicals. It is the battle for power that always exists in a vacuum of power. How exactly is our troop presence going to resolve this? This is not even close to a conventional army based war. We have little to no clue as to who is good, who is bad, who is corrupt, who is taking advantage of power. The police there are terrible. I seriously need an explanation as to how a traditional military approach is going to resolve the myriad of problems in that country. Shiites are starting to rape Sunni women and retribution has been promised. How is our military presence going to resolve this? Sunnis refuse to surrender power to Shiites. How is our military presence going to resolve this? Id love an answer for these and many questions. Of course I don't expect one. Because all we ever here is that if you don't do this, the bad guys win. How many people predicted this nightmare? Go look back 2-3 years ago and you'll see the so called "just hate Bush" crowd was absolutely right. Anyone could predict a civil war could erupt in a power vacuum. And how were these concerns addressed? With the same old platitudes we hear today. The fact is we have created an out of control beehive that we are trying to stop with handguns. All the while the terrorists are hiding amongsts the beehive we have created. Well done. The problem is your questions only address strategic concerns. The fact is lets say the anti war people were right since the beginning. Great. Does nothing to alter my point. The reality is that if the U.S. pulls out, every radical faction that has contested us there will declare victory. And that victory is detrimental to curbing the spread and 'sexiness' of fascioislamic terrorism acroos the globe. No matter what questions you ask about the role of our military in the conflict, it doesnt change the fact that the pull out will be victory. Perhaps the best way to resolve the issues is through other avenues, but if for nothign else the military needs to stay in to curb the influence of a perceived radicalist victory in that region. So your post does not adress my point at all. Thats the practical reality, we stuck ourselves in a messy situation where staying may nto resolve anythign, but neither will leaving.

As a published author, I'd love to expand my work to baseball. Ill be submitting an article soon.

If everyone pulls out of Iraq now, what do you thin will happen? Al-Qaeda will want to cease violence and enter into negotiations with the west? This is a major victory for radical islam world wide. Because as you recall things starting goign south after the sunni radicals began destroying shiite holy sites. This is the major victory of radicalism over the West. And apparently people are ok with that. We should not have ever gone itno Iraq, to put ourselves in this position where we can allow our weaknesses to be exposed by radicalism. But now that we're there a defeat, which has not happened yet, would be catastrophic. A near equivalent of USSR's pull out in afghanistan. Al lthats left after we pull out is to let Iran nuke Israel.

Five Best Presidents of All Time Abraham Lincoln Franklin Delano Roosevelt George Washington Theodore Roosevelt Harry S. Truman With the exception of Washington, that list is terrible. Then again, like I had already been getting at, historian lists are skewed towards meddling President as opposed to Presidents who presided over peace/prosperity and knew better than to screw a good thing up. Exactly. One can argue Lincoln was the worst president in this nation's history. Ruled by decree, and used military force to violate the sovreign rights of states to chose make laws at they please. Closest thing to a monarch/dictator we've ever had in this country. So it depends what makes someone 'good' or 'bad'

Its definitely interesting. I have questions as to why harding is considered a failure and nixon isnt, but oh well. My top 3 are Jefferson, Truman, Reagan.

Just one problem: Russia is a member of NATO now. Only in Clancy novels. Russia is most certainly not in NATO, and the French and Germans would never be in favor of that. Exactly. So I repeat, Putin is still cautious about NATO

Putin is afraid of NATO. Why? B/c NATO was created to defend against the USSR. So, it seems certai nthat Putin who is in the middle or possibly near the end of a power grab, would be concerned about NATO expanding its military actions outside of its original sphere of influence.

This is what DPRK wanted all along. The nukes were a bargaining chip, and wisely so. A diplomatic agreement where they get something in return for the dismantling of the weapons seems like the best scenario right now. Its been criticized by conservatives as an incentive for nations with nuclear ambitions to continue production. What is missed in that criticism is that Iran is creating them for different reasons than the DPRK was, Iran wants to use them to wipe out Israel, DPRK was/is strengthening their global bargaining position.

Well nolasco is what? 21? I mean his gf being 18 or so wouldnt be that unusual.

The argument about the last 3 hitters beign free outs was only true against lefties, because amezaga was a decent hitter against righties. The strongest argument for acquiring a legit CF is the defensive necessities of patrolling cf in dolphin stadium. But to continue my point, with a good bullpen we can contend (assuming similar production from the batting order), but without the solid bullpen, we can have andruw jones in CF and we'll struggle to crack .500. I also wanted to add to tswift's earlier point about the decline of jacobs and uggla at the end of the season, and a likely scenario was left out. 'Tiredness'. There are certain players around the league that tail off near the end of seasons for no apparent reasons. For most of his career, Lowell always had better first halves than second halves. It didnt mean he was 'figured out', he merely got 'tired' As for Jacobs, he was playign hurt for most of the year, so theres no reason why a healthy Jacobs wont put uo similar or better numbers.

With the exception of a few teams in the league, bullpen is a toss up. We don't know how ours will perform, we dont know if it will be in the bottom of the league again.

Theres no question that the more position yo ucan fill with solid players, the better the team is. But my argument is just about the 'need' for one.

I always point this out on the threads, but I wanted to open the floor for discussion on this matter. As someone who watched most of the games last year, it seems clear that the biggest weakness was the bullpen. If, our bullpen improves the CF issue is moot. In other words although it does help to have a better CFer, or even a real CFer, it isnt essential for the team's success or contention. Wiht someone like amezaga there, we can win. Bullpen is what the focus should be on, even though everyone seems to care more about the Cfer.

There was also no bargain OFers available in FA that could play CF. Which is something else we could have done, no need to overpay or trade too many good players away for a mediocre CF. When the reality is we dont really need a mediocre CFer. If the bullpen loses 50% less games than it did last season we can probbaly win the wild card. The pen is the weakness that can kill us, CF is a luxury.

I met Cabrera's dad once, talked to him for like 10 minutes, seemed to be a pretty nice guy. Hope everything is well with him.