If the end of terrorism could be guaranteed... - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

If the end of terrorism could be guaranteed...

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby wkelly91 » Wed May 19, 2004 6:44 pm

Mookie4ever wrote:
Cornbread Maxwell wrote:As an American who is concerned specifically about America and my freedoms - why should I care what other people think in other countries


The US has tried isolationism before and it has failed miserably with disasterous results.


In Cornbread's defense I don't think he is advocating isolationism. I think he is saying that when it comes to putting American interests and it's citizens safety first, that is what must be the of primary importance, not world opinion.

Let's use this example:

You (America) come up to a crowd of kids on a playground. You wonder if the bully you've heard about is at it again. You have seen evidence of beaten children in the past so you know a beating is in progress. You push through the crowd and see a rather large bully (Sadam Huissein)beating the crap out of a smallish child (Iraqi citizens). You look around the crowd and see the faces of the boys looking on but doing nothing (France, Italy, Germany, Russia, on and on). You (America) jump in and stop the beating, all the while none of the others lift a finger to help. You get beat a little but you stop the beating of the small child. Then as the crowd disperses you hear the on-lookers complaining about how you (America) are a true bully and a cowboy for jumping in and beating the crap out of the bully who was beating up the defensless child.

Do you really care what they think? Did you help save the child? Shouldn't you be happy that you did the morally correct action irregaurdless of the consequences and beliefs of the on-lookers? :-?
wkelly91
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2796
Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Looking over your shoulder as you type.

Postby jeffc_76 » Wed May 19, 2004 6:56 pm

Valuing the opinions of people outside the country less is not isolationism, it's common sense. The USA is (by far) the wealthiest country and is the most powerful militarily and economically. It shouldn't come as a surprise that some people on the outside looking in will resent that. As an American, I like being at the top and I intend for us to stay there for all time. I'm convinced that many on the left here in the US would happily weaken America to appease the rest of the world. Clinton gave a speach a while back, and I'm paraphrasing, but he said something to the effect, "we need to be as nice as possible to our neighbors so we can hope for the same when we are no longer on top". While I'm all for being as nice as can be whenever possible, this statement absolutely disgusts me. Why is he conceding that somebody else will someday overtake us? This premace is unacceptable and for a recent president to say something so defeatist.....I'm simply revolted by it.
Image
jeffc_76
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 663
Joined: 1 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: NY

Postby Mookie4ever » Wed May 19, 2004 10:40 pm

wkelly91 wrote:Let's use this example:

You (America) come up to a crowd of kids on a playground. You wonder if the bully you've heard about is at it again. You have seen evidence of beaten children in the past so you know a beating is in progress. You push through the crowd and see a rather large bully (Sadam Huissein)beating the crap out of a smallish child (Iraqi citizens). You look around the crowd and see the faces of the boys looking on but doing nothing (France, Italy, Germany, Russia, on and on). You (America) jump in and stop the beating, all the while none of the others lift a finger to help. You get beat a little but you stop the beating of the small child. Then as the crowd disperses you hear the on-lookers complaining about how you (America) are a true bully and a cowboy for jumping in and beating the crap out of the bully who was beating up the defensless child.

Do you really care what they think? Did you help save the child? Shouldn't you be happy that you did the morally correct action irregaurdless of the consequences and beliefs of the on-lookers? :-?


My intention was to allow this thread to die for various reasons, not the least of which was that I know that I will make myself a target if I respond but the above response is so patronizing that I cannot let it pass.

Let me start off by saying that I believe Tillman is a hero, I believe that Hussein and bin Laden are monsters and I love the US.

Now that I have said that I ask you wkelly to be honest.

The US has seen any number of people oppressed without doing anything. Cries for the end of genocide in East Timor and by the Kurds have gone unanswered, Noriega could kill and torture whomever he pleased so long as he answered the phone whenever the CIA called and bin Laden got funding and training from the US so long as he practiced his terrorism on US directed targets.

The US went into Iraq supposedly to root out WMD (weapons of mass destruction). Bush said that he had evidence of WMD in Iraq - HE LIED. There were no WMD and he lied about evidence of WMD. He went into Iraq to protect economic interests and that is an immoral reason to start a war.
Image
Mookie4ever
Head Moderator
Head Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterHockey ModBasketball ModFootball ModMatchup Meltdown ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 19545
(Past Year: 280)
Joined: 17 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Hakuna, Montana

Postby Cornbread Maxwell » Thu May 20, 2004 12:43 am

Mookie4ever wrote:The US has seen any number of people oppressed without doing anything. Cries for the end of genocide in East Timor and by the Kurds have gone unanswered, Noriega could kill and torture whomever he pleased so long as he answered the phone whenever the CIA called and bin Laden got funding and training from the US so long as he practiced his terrorism on US directed targets.

The US went into Iraq supposedly to root out WMD (weapons of mass destruction). Bush said that he had evidence of WMD in Iraq - HE LIED. There were no WMD and he lied about evidence of WMD. He went into Iraq to protect economic interests and that is an immoral reason to start a war.


Quite terrible really. Its a shame there are such evil people in this world that would torture, mame, and kill others for the purpose of power, but sadley, this is the case. As an American and belonging to the wealthiest, most powerful country in the world, I feel it is our duty to help the helpless when we can. Using the examples you set up, there are numerous instances where the American government has been duped and used by unscrupulous people. Its a shame too. I think the proverb that suits best is: the path to hell is lined with good intentions. In an effort to make sure these sort of abuses of our generosity become less frequent, we are establishing a way for foreign nations to qualify for our help by making them understand they have to show certain signs of good faith and progress - especially regarding human rights violations - before funding will begin or resume. Again, this is in recognition of past failures, and as a means of controling future breakdowns of our generosity. Hopefully we can once again come to the rescue of the helpless, that we can resume our duty. Unfortunately, we are not everywhere at all times, and genocide - as sick and evil as it is - is rarely stoppable unless we have a strong presence in the region to begin with. My prayers go out to those we cannot help.

Your second paragraph sounded like the bleating of the left. Say it until its the truth, right?
The montra of the left: We went to Iraq to find WMD.
The reality: Rooting out WMD was not the reason we went into Iraq - yes, it was A reason - but not THE reason. Another reason we went in there because was because our intelligence has credible information that he supplied help to terrorists. Something I believe to be true. Again - the left would like you to think of this as a court of law - innocent until proven guilty. In reality, our intelligence has narrowed the probability that it happened to such a strong degree that to look at the evidence and think otherwise you would have to have blinders on - however, since we dont have a transcript of the meeting, we cant prove it 100%.
The montra of the left: Bush Lied!!! There were no WMD.
The reality: its only lying if you know what you are saying to be false. Its truly a shame our intelligence wasnt as accurate as we would have liked, but Bush went on what he, the majority of his staff, and the majority of congress thought was accurate information. Also - to conclude that they never had WMD is erroneous as well - once again this isnt a court of law where a person is innocent until proven guilty argument - he could just as easily have moved them to a friendly nation or group of people. We know for a fact he had them in the early 90s. We have no proof they were ever destroyed. Why would one conclude they just disapeared?

The montra of the left: We went to war to steal their oil.
The reality: If we went there for oil, its a shame. I would feel sick to my stomach to learn we actually decided to kill innocent lives rather than go into ANWR. The consensus of the geologic community is that the Coastal Plain of ANWR represents the highest petroleum potential onshore area yet to be explored in North America. If this cause for war was a reality it certainly would be ironic, wouldnt it? That the same people who are anti war - and believe we went into Iraq for oil - also think that we shouldnt drill in ANWR. All this while complaining about free trade and the loss of jobs to other countries while driving their SUVs and wearing $5 T-shirts made in China.
But, in my jab I digress, Iraq will control their own oil production. No longer will it go to pay for Saddam and his palaces. No longer will it be used to buy the support of well placed government officials in places like Britian, France, and quite possibly here in the US. Hopefully the Iraqi people will use this opportunity to become a free nation and develop a strong economy with the help of its oil reserves.
Image
Cornbread Maxwell
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertPick 3 ChampionSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 5694
Joined: 7 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby jeffc_76 » Thu May 20, 2004 2:31 am

I have to laugh at the claims that we went to Iraq for their oil. If that's the case, where is it? Certainly, I wouldn't be paying $2.30/gallon if all of a sudden we were pillaging Iraq of it's oil for ourselves. Why do so many people insist on searching for a paranoid ulterior motive in our foreign policy. The same crowd was saying the same exact thing back in '90 and last I checked, we've still been buying a ton of oil from OPEC countries as opposed to stealing it from Kuwait. This war had nothing to do with taking oil for ourselves and everything to do with 1) elliminating a threat; and 2) setting an example to other Saddam Hussein wannabes that we will not be handcuffed by the United Nations if it is too pathetic to enforce its own resolutions. We got our nose bloodied pretty bad a couple years ago and quite frankly, to hell with anyone in France, Germany, etc. that thinks we're too bold to act on our own. Last time someone sucker punched us like that, we dropped a couple nuclear bombs on them.
Image
jeffc_76
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 663
Joined: 1 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: NY

Postby DieHardCubbie » Thu May 20, 2004 2:55 am

jeffc_76 wrote:I have to laugh at the claims that we went to Iraq for their oil. If that's the case, where is it?
..... I had to laugh that we went there for the Weapons....that is what Bush told us....Where are they... :-?
jeffc_76 wrote:Certainly, I wouldn't be paying $2.30/gallon if all of a sudden we were pillaging Iraq of it's oil for ourselves.
...I wouldn't either...but some one thought going into Iraq was a good idea... :-/
jeff_76 wrote:Why do so many people insist on searching for a paranoid ulterior motive in our foreign policy.
....Paranoia in foreign policy....WMD...Osama= Saddam...Muslems are the enemy...democrats are not the ones with the paranoia...
jeff_76 wrote: The same crowd was saying the same exact thing back in '90 and last I checked, we've still been buying a ton of oil from OPEC countries as opposed to stealing it from Kuwait.
..in the first war...we were defending a soverign nation....not invading one...like this time...

Jeff_76 wrote: Last time someone sucker punched us like that, we dropped a couple nuclear bombs on them.


and I am sure the 180,000 civilians that died during that had justice... :-o

Come on jeff..we all have opinions... :-/
[b]Useless Trivia of the day[/b]

England's Worcester Canoe Club set the world record for paddling a hand-propelled bathtub. The 25 man team covered a distance of 55 miles, 425 yards in 24 hours on September 28 and 29, 1979.
DieHardCubbie
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeInnovative MemberPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 13084
Joined: 13 Feb 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: floating around on the 3rd rock

Postby Cornbread Maxwell » Thu May 20, 2004 9:27 am

DHC - Reread my last post - we didnt go into Iraq JUST because of WMD. Once again, this is the mantra of the left, our government made it clear from the start that it was one of many reasons.

Whats your take on the roadside chemical bomb that went off last week btw?

I think going into Iraq was a good idea as well as millions of other people across this nation.

Osama and Al Quida did have ties to Saddam. The evidence is too strong to think otherwise. The only thing we havent proven for a fact is what was said at the meeting between Saddam's cabinet member and the leader of the 911 terrorists. We know they met. What was the purpose of the meeting between a known terrorist and a member of a group who gave financial support for terrorists?

Muslems are the enemy - not all or the majority of them of course, but the terrorists we are currently fighting are muslems. Do you disagree?
Image
Cornbread Maxwell
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertPick 3 ChampionSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 5694
Joined: 7 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby Absolutely Adequate » Thu May 20, 2004 11:18 am

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on. "
Paul Wolfowitz
May 28, 2003
Absolutely Adequate
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe RankerMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 5000
Joined: 6 Jan 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Not here.

Postby Cornbread Maxwell » Thu May 20, 2004 11:50 am

Thats a great quote, but this is the reality - take your time, read it thoroughly if you really want to know why we went to war in Iraq. I appologize for the length, but I believe its intent is to inform, and with such a complicated issue a sentence or two without explanation makes for uneducated ideas like "Bush lied to us - we went to war because Saddam had WMD and he didnt". If you choose not to read it, I understand - but please dont repeat the left's montra about WMD being the only reason we went to war because thats simply false.

Given that we're more than a year out from the start of the war in Iraq, fighting has flared up recently, and opponents of the war have been trying rewrite history to take advantage of the fact that our intelligence estimates about WMD in Iraq have proven to be inaccurate, it's important to remind people why we went to Iraq.

To begin with, it's important to put the war in context. We must remember that we have been trying to remove Saddam Hussein from power since the Gulf War. Here's David Frum on that subject,

"In the 2000 election, both candidates spoke openly about the need to deal with Saddam Hussein. Al Gore was actually more emphatic on the topic than George Bush was. In 1998, Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act. Just to show how conspiratorial they were, they put it in the Congressional record. In 1995, the CIA tried to organize a coup against Saddam Hussein and it failed. The coup was secret, but it has been written about in 5 or 6 books that I know of. In 1991, representatives of President George H. W. Bush went on the radio and urged the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam Hussein. So America's policy on Saddam has been consistent. What we have been arguing about for years are the methods. First, we tried to encourage a rebellion in Iraq, that didn't work. Then we tried coups; that didn't work. Then in 1998, we tried funding Iraqi opposition. That might have worked, but the money never actually got appropriated. Then, ultimately we tried direct military power. The idea that Saddam should go has been the policy of the United States since 1991."

So the idea that we should go after Saddam Hussein was nothing new. But after 9/11, removing Saddam Hussein suddenly became an essential part of the global strategy in the war on terrorism. Why so?

Well, after September 11th, it became apparent that simply going after Al-Qaeda was not going to be enough to prevent future attacks. First off, if you simply target Al-Qaeda, what happens if the core of group simply changes its name or groups with other anti-American terrorists? Furthermore, how can you effectively target terrorists protected by the power of a rogue state? The answer is, "you can't". In addition, the training, resources, & protection provided by those rogue states is the very thing that enables a group like Al-Qaeda to become capable of pulling off the sort of attack we saw on 9/11. So in order to prevent future 9/11s, you have to go after not just Al-Qaeda, but all terrorist groups with global reach and the rogue states that support them.

George Bush made that clear in his Sept 20, 2001 speech to the nation when he said,

"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated....

And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

Without question, Iraq was a nation that provided "safe haven" for terrorists with "global reach". Among them were terrormaster Abu Nidal, Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the conspirators in the 1993 WTC bombing, "Khala Khadr al-Salahat, the man who reputedly made the bomb for the Libyans that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over...Scotland,"Abu Abbas, mastermind of the October 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking and murder of Leon Klinghoffer," & "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, formerly the director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan" who is now believed to be leading Al-Qaeda's forces in Iraq. Quite frankly, any war on terrorism that didn't tackle that nest of vipers would have been a war in name only.

Moreover, as devastating as 9/11 was, a terrorist attack featuring weapons of mass destruction could be infinitely worse. Much has been made of the fact that we have not found the stockpiles of WMD that we expected in Iraq. But, there are three points worth making about that.

First of all, there simply was no significant difference between the position the Bush administration had on Iraq's WMD and the position held by prominent Democrats like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, or John Kerry. In short, the overwhelming majority of Democrats & Republicans in Washington believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

Secondly, given the size of Iraq and the fact that Saddam Hussein's totalitarian regime was not cooperating with the UN inspectors, there was no way, even had they been there for a hundred years, that Hans Blix and the rest of the UN inspectors could have confirmed to anyone's satisfaction that Iraq was not producing WMD. Even a year after the war, when our inspectors have had the run of the country, access to "secret documents", and have been able to interview Iraqi scientists without Saddam's"minders" being present, our WMD teams have still not been able to definitively say there are no remaining stockpiles of weapons in Iraq although we certainly suspect that to be the case.

Third, it isn't as if our intelligence agencies and the politicians citing them were totally wrong about WMDs and Iraq. As David Kay revealed, Iraqi scientists were working on weaponizing anthrax "right up until the end" and had restarted a rudimentary nuclear weapons program in 2000 & 2001. Furthermore, Kay said,

"Even those senior officials we have interviewed who claim no direct knowledge of any on-going prohibited activities readily acknowledge that Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed. Several of these officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam or his sons about how long it would take to either restart CW production or make available chemical weapons."

Those are not comforting words given that an "Iraqi chemical weapons expert" told "Uday Husayn" that mustard gas could be produced for Saddam's Fedayeen in two months.

After 9/11, anyone who doesn't see the potential danger of allowing terrorists like Abdul Rahman Yasin & Abu Abbas to be sheltered by an America hating regime that was working on weaponizing ricin and that could produce mustard gas in two months has an insufficient understanding of the peril facing in our country in my opinion.

Furthermore, there were certainly many other reasons to go to Iraq. Saddam Hussein was an avowed enemy of America who had started two wars of aggression in the region, was steadfast in his support for Palestinian suicide bombers, and brutally oppressed his own people. That last point is especially salient since we justified sending troops to Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, and Somalia almost solely because of "humanitarian reasons". Personally, I believe in using our military to further American interests, but if "humanitarian purposes" floated your boat in Kosovo or Haiti, I see no reason why it shouldn't still work for Iraq.

Similar arguments could be made about the UN. The UN Security Council averaged better than a UN Resolution per year for over a decade, the last of which was approved unanimously, demanding that Saddam fulfill the obligations he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War. While I have an extraordinarily low opinion of the United Nations, there are many people who hold the UN in high esteem and regard it as an essential part of the world order. But, why should anyone take the UN seriously when even a despised dictator can simply thumb his nose at the UN year after year with no response other than impotent new resolutions?

Also, as I mentioned earlier, Iraq is an essential part of the war on terrorism. That's not just because we were able to go after the terrorists mentioned earlier, but because terrorists are coming to Iraq to fight our soldiers. Some people see that as a bad thing, but as Christopher Hitchens recently wrote,

"(I)n my experience, dud theories die only to be replaced by new and even dumber ones. The current reigning favorite is that fighting al-Qaida in Iraq is a distraction from the fight against al-Qaida."

Indeed, we are fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq. And while none of us are happy that our military is risking their lives fighting against terrorists in a foreign land, it could be worse. Instead of fighting the finest soldiers in the world in Iraq, Al-Qaeda could be murdering unarmed American civilians here in the US, at a time and a place of the terrorists' choosing. Iraq has turned out to be irresistible flypaper for terrorists and quite possibly, we here in the US may have been spared terrorist attacks because of it.

It's also worth noting that after Saddam was gone, we no longer had a need to keep troops in Saudi Arabia, which was something Al-Qaeda had used as a recruiting tool. Furthermore, we were able to lift the sanctions which had given Saddam an opportunity to starve his political enemies to death while shifting the blame for his murderous actions to the United States. Moreover, if as expected, we can actually help the Iraqis achieve Democracy, it has the potential to be the most significant thing to occur in the Middle-East since the Mamelukes effectively ended the Crusades with their victories in 1291.

If a beachhead of democracy can be established in Iraq, there's an excellent chance that we'll see Democratic reforms start to sweep across the region where anti-American tyrants are keeping their populations in control by the skin of their teeth. The influence of a free Iraq could in time help lead to a free Iran, a free Syria, a free Lebanon, a free Saudi Arabia, a free Egypt, etc, etc. We're not just shooting for an Iraqi Democracy, we're hoping to see freedom spread across the entire region.

In summary, what we must remember about Iraq is that it's not simply an optional war like Bosnia or Haiti, it's an essential part of the war on terrorism and the linchpin of our efforts to help bring democracy to the Middle-East. Potentially, what we're doing in Iraq could be as important as the work the "Greatest Generation" did in Japan and Germany after WW2, perhaps more so. The Bush administration's decision to take down Saddam and help the Iraqi people build a better, freer country was not just the right thing to do, it is without question in America's interests.
Image
Cornbread Maxwell
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertPick 3 ChampionSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 5694
Joined: 7 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby Absolutely Adequate » Thu May 20, 2004 12:17 pm

Well, I think that is where we disagree. My main problems with your post:

1. David Frum is a conservative Hack. If you want to convince me that you're right, I would start by not quoting Frum at length. Frankly, I've got more respect for Ann Coulter.

2. Al Qaeda and Iraq had no ties. Saddam was afraid that Osama's religious fervor would sweep him out of office. Osama thought that Saddam was an infidel. For a nice illustration of how well they got along, I refer you to the classic 1971 film "Dracula Vs. Frankenstein." Sure, they were both bad guys, but trying to paint them as cronies insults both my intelligence and yours.

2b. Since there was no tie between Osama and Saddam, and since we have only destabalized a country where 60% of the citizens want the US to go home right now, we are actually working on the other side of the war on terrorism.

2c. The Bush doctrine of "you're either with us or against us" is no way to run foreign policy. Think back to our invasion of the USSR in 1918-1921. It didn't make our history books for the most part, but they sure remembered it. And they hated us for decades thereafter.

3. There was a significant difference between the positions of John Kerry, Al Gore, and Bill Clinton in regard to the Bush administration. Try me and see.

I could go on, but I don't think that it's germaine. My main point is the same one that the Army College came to. Instead of being a part of the war on terror, the war in Iraq has actively undermined our goals and has created far more terrorism than it has destroyed.
Absolutely Adequate
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe RankerMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 5000
Joined: 6 Jan 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Not here.

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Sunday, Sep. 21
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Toronto at NY Yankees
(1:05 pm)
Washington at Miami
(1:10 pm)
indoors
NY Mets at Atlanta
(1:35 pm)
Boston at Baltimore
(1:35 pm)
Milwaukee at Pittsburgh
(1:35 pm)
Chi White Sox at Tampa Bay
(1:40 pm)
indoors
Cleveland at Minnesota
(2:10 pm)
Detroit at Kansas City
(2:10 pm)
Seattle at Houston
(2:10 pm)
LA Dodgers at Chi Cubs
(2:20 pm)
Texas at LA Angels
(3:35 pm)
Philadelphia at Oakland
(4:05 pm)
Arizona at Colorado
(4:10 pm)
San Francisco at San Diego
(4:10 pm)
Cincinnati at St. Louis
(8:05 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact