1984Echoes

Chafin opted out last year. Was it a mutual option or player-only? I can't seem to find that...

The "should do well" part could have a pretty wide variation though... The high upside is if our pitching "whisperers" can really coax the max ability/ velocity/ pitchability out of him... With their track record... that's a major reason why I think Flaherty chose us and went with the 1-year bet on himself. For Detroit... It's all good, nothing but upside potential. The downside is he's a 5th starter innings eater which, as you've pointed out, we needed anyways.

Also... BOTH Olson and Mize are starters for now, even if one is pushed to Toledo to start the season... and NOT piggy-back relievers... PBRelievers TM would be Faedo, Wentz, maybe Montero, etc... IMO.

Is Brieske locked into being a reliever? I know Faedo is, and Montero and Flores and Wentz most likely are/ look better there/ or will end up there... But I didn't think Brieske was there (locked in) yet...

Too late... the Rays just traded Glasnow to the Dodgers...

This is my thinking as well. It's a frugal offseason... I would've liked one high-end starter added but am now doubtful we'll get that. We'll see about that surprise...

German and Danish police just foiled Hamas plot to murder Jews in Europe: (Just in case anyone still thinks Hamas is sweet and innocent...): https://www.yahoo.com/news/hamas-plot-attack-jewish-sites-163943338.html Hamas plot to attack Jews across Europe is foiled by police James Rothwell Thu, December 14, 2023 at 3:38 PM EST

None. I'm done.

Why does Israel have to drop an atomic bomb in order for the comparison to be apt?

I still think you're searching for an exact match by using "not apt". IMO... It is "apt" meaning they most closely resemble each other. But "not apt" means they do not closely resemble each other (they do) and the way that you are using it is "demanding" an exact match. Not that you are "demanding" anything... I'm just sayin'... I'm looking at this from a "similarity" versus "difference" perspective. Similar: Dec 7th and Oct 7th were sneak attacks. Difference: Dec 7th was militarily strategic, even if the strategy ultimately failed... and Oct 7th was pure butchery against a civilian population, with almost no attacks against the military of the same population. Similar: Number of casualties: Dec 7th ~2.4K; Oct. 7th ~ ~1.2K Similar: Disproportionate response Similar: Civilian casualties from the response vastly outnumber the original casualties from the sneak attacks. Dec 7th: 500K to 1M versus 2.4K. Oct 7th 10K+ and counting versus 1.2K. Difference: Dec 7th led finally to using atomic bombs to end the war. Oct 7th - no possible way. But as to how it actually ends... ???

PS: I thought Oppenheimer was great. Very complex matching the complex ideas inside Oppenheimer's mind. I bought the Blu Ray so I can watch it whenever I want... I'm up to 4 times so far... I love this movie. Very difficult story.

??? What's with the "not apt"? Are you trying to get an EXACT MATCH of one war to another? Because that's just not possible. The criteria should not be "exact", it should be "most closely resembles". You're even trying to bring in "an argument to be made that Israel should drop hydrogen bombs to limit civilian and military casualties?"... atomic bombs... seriously? The "most closely resembles" matches are a sneak attack with a certain number of casualties in the low 1,000's. A major war effort follows, with nothing but "unconditional surrender of the enemy" as the goal. These two match Dec. 7th and Oct. 7th. A disproportional response. Match. A large number of civilian casualties disproportional to the original sneak attack casualties (and despite Tater's efforts to list 20,000+ casualties as a top end acceptable number... the CURRENT 18,000 includes around 8,000 Hamas terrorists, not just civilians only (since Hamas refuses to delineate between the two as it is a propaganda victory using the higher number... even though the higher number DOES include a significant number of militants deaths...)). Match. Efforts to reduce civilian casualties. Match. (Even with G2's point that the atomic bombs were to reduce US military casualties estimated to be around 5 mill to conquer the Japanese main islands... I'm stealing this one). But I'll go to my earlier point which is, civilian casualties are NOT the main concern. Match for both. Elimination of the enemy threat IS the Primary Goal. Match. And even though different methods were used - Israel is NOT going to use an atomic bomb... they would basically be bombing THEMSELVES... and they are not that stupid - this alone does not say that these too are so dissimilar that the comparison is "not apt". IMO: quit searching for an "exact match". That just does not exist.

On the other hand... If you use Pearl Harbor and the US Military response: There were 2,403 military and civilian (68) deaths at Pearl Harbor, and an estimated 500K to 1 Million Japanese civilian casualties, basically in response. Plus 2.1Mill Japanese military casualties. How does that proportionality work out...?

Excellent point on proportionality!

Scale doesn't count. What was our response to 3K dead on 9/11? A Global War on Terror? And...? The rest of it is... you going down some rabbit holes. I'm not trying to be mean... it's just that you're going into what you believe we should/ should not have done, you'd do things differently, were we justified or not, etc., etc. I'm taking a much simpler approach: If my country is subjected to a terrorist attack, I am going to respond. If it entails a military response to the inclusion of an invasion, civilian casualty count is not the primary concern. I'm not saying that it's NOT a concern, it is, hence measures to mitigate civilian casualties. But the PRIMARY concern is to eliminate the threat. I brought in Hitler and Japan only for that point. Obviously, the scale of the threat as well as the scale of casualties were exponentially higher. But the simple matter was to stop them, regardless of casualty counts. Am I right? Same with Bin Laden, regardless of whether we took over Afghanistan or sent search & destroy teams... the PRIMARY concern is to stop the threat, no matter what it takes. The firebombing of Tokyo? Estimated 100K dead. Was that justified as a proportional response? How many dead in the fire bombing of Dresden? These aren't even nuclear attacks, which you mentioned with Japan... right? But let's not go down a rabbit hole again. The simple answers are: Israel is justified in responding to Hamas's terrorist attack. That came from GAZA. And Hamas (in Gaza) is made up of 100 (99?) % GAZANS. So GAZA made a terrorist attack against Israel. And... despite all the upset over Gazan civilian casualties... it's war. The NUMBER of casualties is NOT the primary concern. Israel protecting itself from further terrorist attacks from GAZANS IS the primary concern. And Israel HAS taken measures to reduce casualties, and open up humanitarian corridors, and a temporary ceasefire to allow in humanitarian aid... even if it was from US pressure... And... there are TWO simple and EASY remedies to reducing Gazan civilian casualties: (1) Hamas unconditional surrender. Or (2) Egypt opening up its border to Gazan refugees. Which would HAVE to be TEMPORARY in that Israel must complete it's military goals and then the international community needs to step up and rebuild Gaza, allow all the refugees to return, and then some governmental form needs to be implemented that allows Gazans to live normal lives, without being blockaded (I don't believe this is truly realizable... there will still be Gazan/ Hamas (or otherwise) terrorists and it's not just Israel... Egypt is just as reluctant to open its border to Gaza specifically because of this) AND Israel must get some guarantee or control (their demand) that terrorism will not be supported (by the government in Gaza specifically) or exported to Israel again. This obviously complicates things a lot. But if Gazans would just quit with the terrorism... Doesn't that open them up to more international relationships/ trading/ etc. then if Hamas is actively planning a terrorist attack against Israel? Isn't that planning the reason for a fence at the border with Israel/ a closed border with Israel/ etc.? That last part is very simple, at least it is to me anyways, as well: Stop terrorizing Israel = lead an independent and normal life in Gaza. In other words: Hamas blew it. I think I just went down some rabbit holes there...

I have no problems with that whatsoever.

It allows International aid to GET to the Gazan refugees, which is currently a problem with the closed border. And as far as having a million Gazans in the Sinai, the problem for Egypt would be one of security I believe, as a few terrorists would slip out of Gaza along with the innocent. But outside of that, I don't think Egypt would be in it alone in supporting the refugees. I think the world would come together and do everything possible to assist. IMO.

PS: One further point: I am not being unsympathetic to Gazans here either. Egypt MUST open its borders to allow in temporary Gazan refugees. It, mostly, solves the humanitarian crisis, reduces (I won't say eliminates) civilian casualties, etc. So... my choices are: a full-blown pressure campaign on Egypt to open it's border with Gaza, on an unconditional surrender by Hamas, and NOT on support of Israel. I am simply making different choices than you are.

That's a really good point. I didn't look at it from that view...

Also: Guess what WE demanded of Germany and Japan? Unconditional surrender. Until that happens, I give full support to Israel, and they've done nothing so far to break me away from unconditional support. I want an unconditional surrender by Hamas.

The easy solution, and I've already stated as such: Unconditional surrender by Hamas. You say that that will never happen...? Guess what? Impasse.

One further example: If Bin Laden were hiding in Gaza instead of Afghanistan, and he was hidden somewhere in the tunnels underneath a mosque or a hospital and Hamas was shooting at us during our military search in Gaza, to find him... Would you expect to see anything different? I guess I could answer that myself in that I think we would DEMAND Egypt to open its borders to Gazan refugees until we found and arrested/ killed Osama, reducing civilian casualties. But... I don't think Israel is capable of putting the same amount of pressure on Egypt that we can. In fact, I KNOW that they can NOT. Hence, Egyptian borders are CLOSED to Gazan refugees.

0. But this is war. Expecting 0 or any targeted number thrown out just to be "smart" doesn't change the fact that... This is war. I'll turn the tables on you: What was the acceptable amount of innocent German civilian casualties we should have allowed when we were trying to defeat Hitler? Please give me a number. What was the acceptable amount of innocent Afghani civilian casualties we should have allowed when we were trying to get Osama Bin Laden? Please give me a number. What was the acceptable amount of innocent Japanese civilian casualties we should have allowed when we were trying to defeat Hirohito (actually the Japanese Military Industrialists but, Hirohito for brevity if not accuracy)? Please give me a number.

Gotcha... I thought your statement was leading somewhere but it was a simple statement instead, basically: "We've done it before, we can do it again."

You think that Hamas entering Israel and murdering babies and families is "conversation"? That's on you, not me. If you are unable to be honest that Hamas went into Israel and committed butchery, then you're not an honest person and we can't have an honest "conversation". Because that's EXACTLY what Hamas did. Like it or not.