nfreeman

Sir: either tone down the name-calling and converse like a grown-up, or keep quiet.

I appreciate the usage of "arguendo." As for your question: the US implemented the surge in Iraq in early 2007, following a couple of years of stasis featuring regular IED and other attacks and related casualties. It was highly effective. I assume what you're really alluding to is the decision to embark upon the Iraq war, and that you think doing so was a poor decision. If my assumption is correct, I don't agree, but you're probably in the majority. Here's an unimpeachable source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

Leaving aside the snark in the 2nd sentence, because we're trying to have a reasonable conversation here -- yes, I agree with the GWB approach. The world, the US and the ME were all much safer places in 2008 than they are now.

You're right -- "win quickly" was a poor turn of phrase. I meant that the war should be fought with ferocity, so that battles are won quickly and decisively -- so that the bad guys see there is no hope of winning. But it is and will remain a long war. Operationally, I think the US needs a large and permanent military presence (between 50K and 100K troops) in the ME from which to project power, and it needs to exercise that military presence frequently and determinedly. When there are no safe havens from which Islamists can plan and operate, and when they lose battles decisively and often, their ability to execute and their appeal to prospective recruits will be substantially impaired. The president has been trying to avoid offending Islam for 8 years. This policy can't be described as anything other than a crashing failure. I've said this before, but there is a notion in Islam of respecting "the strong horse." That means, as mentioned above, that militancy attracts support and volunteers when it appears to be working, and loses support and manpower when it is clearly not working. At this point in time the average disaffected loser Muslim youth sees ISIS as the strong horse and the US as the weak horse -- and part of the reason the US looks like the weak horse is that the president continuously seems afraid of offending Islam. Until that changes we won't be able to win this war.

I'd say the war has been ongoing since the 1970s. I didn't say Obama was a pacifist -- just an incompetent, and someone incapable of realizing that he has erred. It's always someone else's fault. Do you think Obama's strategy for dealing with militant Islam has been effective?

Do you prefer the president's approach, in which he pretends that Muslim acts of bloodthirsty mass murder are "workplace violence" incidents and, after the latest horrific incident, cannot bring himself to say the words "Islam" or "jihad" and instead says that "we need to do better in our attitudes towards the LGBT community?" I'm inferring (perhaps incorrectly) from your posts the notion that words don't really matter. I agree that if words are completely empty or insincere, they matter much less than real actions do. In this case, I think words matter because (i) they are 100% indicative of the president's views on how to deal with militant Islam and (ii) the public needs to be convinced by its commander-in-chief that we are in a war that will require patience, sacrifice and determination to win.

I thought this was pretty interesting: Matt Larkin @THNMattLarkin Past five Cup champions' rankings in score-adjusted Corsi: 2nd, 3rd, 1st, 2nd, 2nd. Tough for even greatest skeptics not to see correlation. 12:30 AM - 13 Jun 2016 So I guess we need to figure out what kinda players get you there in score-adjusted Corsi.

11, I appreciate the kind words, as well as your apology (to others) for getting heated up, but I will note again, for the record, that I am a proud independent. I usually vote Republican because I think the Democrats are completely out to lunch on the key issues of the day, but I would greatly prefer a situation in which both parties offered clear-eyed, prudent solutions to the nation's pressing issues, and were led by serious, honorable people. Instead, IMHO, only one party has prudent policy proposals to the country's major issues (and far less than all of the time!), both parties are littered with greedy, dishonest careerists, and none of the final 4 candidates this year has any business near the oval office. Because he's the commander-in-chief, and we're in a war, and to win a war, it's first necessary to admit that we're in a war, and it's then necessary to identify the enemy -- not just internally, but openly, so as, among other things, to build popular support for the war. And then it's necessary to fight the war in a manner that is designed to win quickly and convincingly. This president has failed miserably on all accounts.

It's good to have the Hound back. "There was a time when I would've killed all 7 of you just to gut these 3." How close is the Hound to Winterfell? Probably close enough to meet Arya there when she arrives from Braavos, right? Cersei has a big problem. I wouldn't be surprised if Margaery works out some kind of trade in which the Tyrells get Loras back and Cersei ends up in a dungeon. Jaime is a great character (among many others), written and acted amazingly well.

Well played.

I wish Kaleta would stop dangling so much and hit someone already.

Apples and oranges IMHO.

Well done PA. I run fairly regularly and I am a firm believer that there is nothing that is as good for stress release, sleep, other bodily functions (ahem!) and generally feeling like a million dollars as a long run is. Just stay at it and increase your distance in small increments every 2 or 3 runs -- you'll be at 5 miles before you know it. As for the mental aspect: there is NFW I could pull off a long run without listening to podcasts. Otherwise I'd be saying "are we there yet" to myself every 15 seconds.

It's an interesting question, to be sure. All 3 are GMTM's kinda guys. OTOH, I can see him bloodlessly including any of them in the next big trade he puts together. As for highest potential, I'd guess Bailey based on production in juniors and AHL, plus what I thought was pretty good speed and strength shown in his limited NHL minutes last year, but that's just a guess.

Out of those 16 years, how much time do you think she's spent in NY?

Of course you are technically correct, but I want to make it clear that there is about as much truth and accuracy in her association with NYS as there is in any other statement or action she undertakes.

She's not from NY.

Very nice.

This is a very good point. I would like be interested in fundamental changes, such as restrictions on shotblocking and/or having the "long change" in the first and third periods. However, I think calling more penalties and reducing the size of goalie equipment would be a good start.

Well, there's a lot of room below $1.6B. For example, $1B is 37.5% below $1.6B (which is what the new Giants stadium, which is open-air, cost), but is still a huge freaking number. As for the poll reliability question: if Rasmussen was the only poll using likely voters before the mid-August swap, then doesn't that mean that it was superior to the other polls? It's a fine idea in the abstract, but it still requires an owner to accept a less attractive economic proposal than he would get elsewhere, and is thus an unlikely scenario.

It didn't make any sense at all. I'll say it again: Brooksie is a bozo.

I liked the Revenant, but my wife did not. She inflicted some payback last weekend when we saw "The Lobster." As for the bolded -- I thought that scene was incredible, especially the part when the Indians (and it was great to see Lizzie Warren's grandpa in his glory days, innit?) were all around him. I felt like I was in the scene.

Leaving aside your questionable, and frequent, reliance on a 4-year old series of my posts as a rejoinder to a much more recent series of your posts regarding stadium costs -- just for the record, is it your position that polls of likely voters are NOT more reliable than polls of registered voters? As I posted multiple times, that was the reason for my preference for Rasmussen -- and by November 2012, most of the polls had shifted to likely voters, and none of them had Romney winning (and the country has reaped the "fruits" of that decision, but that's another conversation).

Good post. I think the NHL has done a lot of smart things since the 2004 lockout, but I continue to be dismayed by its unwillingness and/or inability to adjust the rules to enhance offense.

Good post. It really does come down to whether a city is willing to pay what it costs to keep a team in town. I agree with the bolded, although I hope it takes a long GD time to get there. OK. If the result is that the team leaves for greener pastures, are you OK with that? I think you're right, especially in corrupt, union-run NYS. But there's someone on this board who thinks you can get one for $200MM and a "pretty please."