JMS

Whatever team drafts Drummond needs to treat him like the Lakers treated Bynum. Go out and get him a one on one big man coach first thing. Lakers got Kareem to work with Bynum day one. Drummond needs someone like that to teach him to play.

I didn't realize Kareem was working with Bynum... Bynum is nearly 25... I'm not sure he still qualifys as a project. Lakers are going to have to punt him, trade him, or commit to him long term. I think the latter is not likely. Maybe we could get Kareem to work with Drummond... or maybe a home grown guy like Ralph Sampson, or Patrick Ewing.

But I agree we need to have a team of coaches focused on the babies...

If I'm a team like Portland, I wouldn't think twice about taking Drummond because there isn't an urgency for him to play a lot right away. He can sit and learn behind Camby/Aldridge.

We have Nene, and for as good as Seraphin might be...he's still a project. I'd much rather take someone like Thomas RObinson who'd be a threat to average something close to a double-double as a rookie. He's a polished scorer and the best rebounder coming out in the draft this year.

I hope Drummond turns out to be every bit as good as what the hype is....but DC is just not a good fit..

Again... if the wizards can't develop talent, and they can't... they have a proven track record they can't. then it really doesn't matter who they draft cause ultimately if the guy is good he will hang until his rookie deal is done and leave. If he isn't he is irrelivent.

I'm saying makes much more sense to take who youthink will ultimately be the best player even if you have to wait a few years.. Especially for the wizards who are not going to be a threat to win a championship in the next year or two. We are multiple pieces away from that.

Thus Drummand makes more sense cause he has a higher upside... Has the highest upside in the entire draft including Davis..

My biggest concern of pursuing this strategy is the Wizards inability to develop such prospects. That is an inherant weakness in this franchise and one which must be addressed moving forward. Take the best prospect with the highest upside, and give him the best chance of being sucessful.

In the last several decades the Wizards have only had half of that formula and we've suffered for it....

There is a HUGE difference between Kobe/Bird and Drummond. One, neither Kobe/Bird had as many red-flags as Drummond currently does. Two, neither Kobe/Bird were viewed as boom/bust type of players. Three, there are a handful of GMs around the league that if they take Drummond, their careers ride on the success/failure of how he does. Apples and oranges, IMO.

Yeah you are right. Frankly Drummond has a much higher up side than Kobe when Kobe came into the league in 1996.

I used Kobe and Bird because they are the yin and yang of NBA prospects who make a great impact eventually. Bird was a relitively old guy, very polished, who came in and made an immediate impact. Kobe was a young kid (17), who had great athletism, great talent; but was a guard who had ball handling problems and a suspect jump shot. Kobe was drafted in 1996 thirteenth over all by Charlotte. He was traded to the Lakers, who did a great job of developing him.

Drummond is likewise a freakish athlete who at 18 if developed correctly could be the center piece of a dynasty... He's going to be off the boards long before Kobe Bryant's draft position, 13th over all.

Like I said before, DC is not the right environment for Drummond. That's not to say that he can't become a good player, but there are better options that fill an immediate need for this team that we can take #3 overall.

.

Do you go for a known good player? Or dod you go for a potential Great player. I would argue in the NBA the great franchises go for great players. More so than any other sport 1 player can make or break your franchise, and thus having that 1 great player on your roster is a must. Most franchise's don't draft in the lottery every year, Most franchise can't relly on four or five top five picks over seven years. The really good franchise would take a lottery pick like Drummond, put their all into developing him; then ride him for a decade...

And great franchise develop their talent better than we do. That that's ultimately what we need to change about the Wizards, cause that more than any other thing is what is holding us back. That our youngun's aren't developing and that very high lottery picks are walking out of town annually and dowing well where they land.

We are NOT the Celtics or Lakers. Our situation is COMPLETELY different than them. If Drummond was being drafted into a vet-laden team which had the infrastructure to develop young talent, then DC would be ideal. With the NBA-ready talent available (yes, READY) between picks 1-5, passing on a sure-bet starter like MKG, Robinson, Beal, Barnes, etc would be foolish. We have holes to plug immediately, and the four guys that I mentioned above would be an instant upgrade to our rebuild.

Great franchise don't rely on veterans to develop their talent.

You are right one way to develop talent is to have a veteran team. Vets who are professional and who have a motive to help youngsters along... Len Bias was going to go into such a situation in boston when MVP Larry Bird said he woudl attend Rookie camp in order to get more time with Len on the court before Len's terrible accident occured... I agree we aren't a veteran team like that....

Only it's more than that... When Bird went to the Celtics they sucked... When Kobi went to the Lakers, again they weren't a great team.. Yet in both cases the franchises were able to develop those players... In both cases the franchise had great GM's who took the long view and personally involved themselves (dictated to the coaches) how the players would be used. Great franchises don't rely on vet's to develop their youngsters. Vet's don't really have any interest or motivation to develop a player. Think Charles Oakley cared two nickles if Kwami Brown developed into a good/great player. Nope... All Charles Oakly cared about was that Charles Oakly got another year or two in the NBA.. If Kwama developed it would almost certainly take away playing time from him... It was actually in his interest to keep Kwama from developing...

Remember when George Allen took Dave Butz in the first round? Dave was the #5 player taken that 1973 Draft by St Louis. A can't miss player.. We gave up two #1's and a #2 for to get Dave that year. Only Dave didn't start his rookie year, or the next year and folks were starting to say Dave was a bust.. Then he wins Defense MVP awards in 78 and 81.. What happenned? Veterans prevelent on George Allen's defensive squad sabataged him, gave him the wrong snap count, made him look bad as a rookie. All in the name of trying to get a few more years in the league.

Great Franchise don't rely on Veterans to develop there projects.. Not even good ones do.. pathetic franchises do that.

Drummond.

I really think it's between MKG and Robinson. If MKG is gone at #2, there isn't any way Ted is going to let a DC native slip by. Robinson would help this team immensely.

You think the Celtics or Lakers would pass on Drummond, potentially the center piece of a championship team in order to play it safe and get an immediate starter who may develop into a "good" starter who can contribute immeidately?.

Part of me says go safe with Robinson, we are the Wizards after all.. The other half of me says, keep swinging for the stars with Drummond; one of these days we are going to connect.

If I was Ted thouth, I would overhaul my organizations player development staff.... Or creat one because really it doesn't seem like one exists. Ernie finds these guys, but doesn't seem to be able to shepard them into being productive players. The coaches really are concerned with the games and productive players and are judged on W&L's. Seems like our young-uns are always left to their own devises, ridiculed in the press for being knuckle head 18 yo's, loose faith and confidence and ultimately slep out of town to the jeers and booing of our fans. This hasn't happenned once, or twice; this happens about every year.

That's not on the players; because it hasn't been just one player. That consistancy really points to our organization. It's the only think constant... I would hire a big named vet ( maybe Karem Abdul Jabbar who has been looking for an NBA job, and who is respected, thoughtful, and knows what it takes to be sucessful in this league; a true professional ) and have that guy work with Drummond and my developmental projects. I would dedicate 8-10 minutes of playing time a game to them; such that they would get that time weather they sucked or not.

I would commit the organization to developing them by creating a parrellel track for my 18-20 year olds, so my crusty vets don't destroy their confidence, so my coach with one leg out the door doesn't throw them to the wolves too early, so the organization can start to build the ability to develop great prospects into great players and good prospects into good ones.... If Kwame Brown had Karem to tutor him and deflect Jordan and Charles Oakly's mental and physical abuse, he would not have been a bust in the NBA. I've always believed that.

I think in the NBA anytime you can get a difference maker, you have to take that chance because the difference makers in this league just don't come around that often. The can't miss difference makers like Dunken come around even less. Your Organization must make the most of every opprotunity... Ours just hasn't done that.

Everybody needs to calm down.

A. When the hell did Wes Unseld average 20 points per game? His career high was 16.2. He averaged 13.8 as a rookie. His career average was 10.8. Seriously' date=' who are you thinking of?

[/quote']

I didn't say he averaged 20 points per year his rookie season... I said he was MVP of the league his rookie season one of only two players to achieve that.... Thus Wes wasn't a project. He was a beast. Which refutes the guy who said nobody comes into the leage and dominates immediately, aka beast immediately... Wes, Karem, Bird, and Wilt all did this.

A. You can't extrapolate numbers from college to pros. The college game is 40 minutes with a 35-second shot clock. The pro game is 48 minutes with a 24 second shot clock. Pros get a lot more opportunities for blocks and rebounds

I think you can saftly say that davis has a lot of work to do before he is an elite center or power forward... He's got the athletism' date=' and he's got some polish, but the boy needs to get alot stronger.

.

B. You can't compare numbers from the 70s to today. In 1978, the average NBA team scored 110 points per game. In 2006-2007, it was 98.7 per game. I can't find last year's numbers (which I believe were slightly up but I know the numbers collapsed this year).

You absoltely can say that some great players come into the leage ready to contribute at an elite level. Just like you can say some don't. Davis is one who won't. It's not a knock on his long term potential. It's just a reflection on the fact that he is an 18 year old kid with 1 year of college and is more potential and project than finished package. Which was my point from the beginning.

C. You can't compare anyone to Kareem. Kareem was the perfect center. This is like looking at Steven Strasberg and comparing him to Cy Young or something. "Oh' date=' he's not as good as the single greatest offensive force in the history of basketball. Therefore, he stinks."[/quote']

Granted... but you can say, which I did say, Kareem came into the leage with everything... He like Wes contributed at an elite level from the very first. Which was the only point I was making. That won't be davis's track. Maybe it would have been if Davis stayed in college for 4 years like Kareme did. But that's not how the nba works today.

---------- Post added June-2nd-2012 at 11:32 PM ----------

I'm still trying to process this Unseld thing. I have extremely vague memories of 70s basketball. (Though' date=' apparently, my dad like to put my baby swing in front of NBA games. It apparently soothed me. On a related note, I like falling asleep to games broadcast by Marv Albert. I'm also almost 40). Wes was famous for rebounds, outlet passes, setting picks, and being awesome despite weighing 300 pounds and not being able to jump over a deck of cards.

Are you guys thinking of Elvin Hayes? I think you dudes might be thinking of Elvin Hayes.

Hayes averaged 28.4 as a rookie. That would have won the scoring title this year and last year.[/quote']

Wes was famous for several things. Defense, rebounding, bone-jarring picks and ability to ignite a fast break with his crisp, accurate outlet passes, Unseld made up for his lack of size (6’7”) with brute strength and sheer determination. Unseld took the Bullets franchise to four NBA Finals, and won the championship in 1978 over the Seattle SuperSonics, in which he was named the Finals MVP.

Wes was famous for being a tough guy. So tough he could play center in the NBA at 6'7" and dominate inside.. averaged 18.2 rebounds a game his rookie year and becoming the second player ever to win the League MVP his rookie year... He was a bad man...

I now have an obsessive cause to root for next season.

Oh I'll do it, coarse not next year cause I'll still be paying for my last such bet for the next few years....

---------- Post added June-1st-2012 at 03:54 PM ----------

Guys we are forgetting he is only 18 timmy and Kareem had college experience.

We aren't forgetting that. That's our entire point.

He is a kid in a grown mans body.

No, he is a kid in a giant kids body.. He's 6.10" 220, and dohy..... which is hugely undersized for an NBA center or powerforward.

Wow how the standards have changed. If I get the #1 overall that is a big man and he averages 15-18 ppg, I'd officially call him a bust. Like JMS said above, Kareem and Wes averaged in the 20s their "rookie" year. Davis better average 20 ppg at least for his career or else he's a bust IMO. He can get his 15-18 his rookie year, but then the ppg has to go up.

If Davis averages 20 pts per game next season I'll strip off my clothes and walk backwards around the Washington Monument naked until the police take me away...

It's a different NBA from when Wes and Karim broke into the league. Karim had one of the best coaches of all time and stayed in school 4 years each year dominating his opponents and polishing his game. That just doesn't happen anymore. Today any kid who shows any promise is immediately snapped up. If he goes to a good team like the Lakers they set aside 10 minutes a game and allow him to work regardless of whether he's good or bad. He learns like Kobe did coming off the bench his first few years. Contrasted with the Wizards who put Kwame under the tender tutaledge of Charles Oakley who berated, bullied, and generally intimidated the kid in practice, then the Wizards ignored him during the games giving him no opprotunity. The kid basically implodes.

Davis will probable get about 8pts per game and maybe that many rebounds.... He won't dominate, he likely won't even be competent... But the team he goes too won't have anybody else so at least he will get playing time, and two years down the road we will know if he will be a bust...

In order to play in the NBA Davis is going to have to do what Karem did and dedicate himself to his fitness. Davis won't be able to get along or develop in the NBA without disipline and commitement to developing his strength and endurance. Coarse he will be a multi millionaire long before that occurs so all we will have driving him is his pride.

I think Davis will immediately grab double digit boards for the Hornets and he will probably challenge for the league title in blocks.

So in his college career ( 1 year ) he averaged 10.4 rebounds per game facing off against power houses like Marist' date=' ODU, SAMFORD, and OLE Miss. You think he'll basically get the same rebounds per game as he got in college last year, his first year in the NBA? 14.2 points per game last year in college. You think he's improve on that?

I don't... I think he'll take a step backwards before he moves forward.... He's very young. look for 8 rebounds and maybe 10 points, if he works really hard.

The only thing I don't disagree with you on is shot blocking. I think he could compete with anybody in shot blocking maybe... if he get's the minutes.

I think defensively he could be more impactful... only at 220 lbs he will just get pushed around. If he was my #1 I would crindge everytime he got in the low paint... Somebody might break him in two... That size is a liability in the NBA defensively.

To compare, I don't think Drummond will get more than 12 minutes a game as a rookie. He just doesn't understand the game well enough.

Drummond is also young 18... averaged 10pts and 7.6 rebounds per game.. but he's a little bigger

6'10" 250. Least he has an NBA body and is still super athletic.

Where'd I suggest that KG was better than Lebron? Read.

You said something like scouts were calling Davis the next Lebron and you even thought he could be the next KG..Like that was even better than what the scouts were saying. I calculated thay hypothisis by the transitive property of basketball comparisons. My bad if that's not your intent.

Also, I don't think LKB was suggesting he is a finished product. NO ONE in entering the NBA is a finished product. Shoot, there are 10 year vets in the league who aren't finished products. There's a big difference between being a RAW project (Drummond) and a prospect who has areas to improve in (Davis).

Well I defintely don't think that's true... Karem was very athletic and very polished when he came out and averaged 28 pts a game in his rookie season. Wes Unseld came out and won rookie of the year and MVP his rookie season, Wilt did the same. Bird's impact on the Celtics was immediate. The Celtics were 29–53 during the 1978–79 season, but with Bird the team improved to 61–21 in the 79-80 season.

Oh and I don't think Davis is going to get either 18ppg or 11 rbs per game his rookie season.. He's an undersized athletic doh boy. He's not going to be mussling folks out of the lane with his 220lb 6'10 frame

You act like he's not going to be able to bulk up once he hits the pros. As a matter of fact, I just saw a Slam Magazine cover (with Davis on it), and it looks like he has put on more muscle since his last game at UK. He's not going to stay at 220.

No that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying he's a project. That you are counting on him getting bigger and stronger and keeping or even improving his athletism. He's a very young kid with only one year of college. LKB was suggeting he was a finished product, all I'm saying is he's a project. We don't know if he will be a kwami brown type of project or a Kobe Bryant type project. Obviously there are a lot of smart people thinking he'll be the latter. But a project non the less.

He hasn't even scratched the surface as far as his potential goes.

Yes that's what I've read too.

There's a good reason why many people consider him to be the best prospect to come along since Lebron. The KG comparisons are not far-fetched, IMO.

You think KG is better than Lebron?

Davis will be. ( a force from day one' date=' not a project)..

I seem to be higher on MKG than most, but I think he would either be a starter or a 6th man on 20+ teams.[/quote']

I disagree.. even Davis ( projected #1 pick overall ) is a project. At C or PF he's still undersized 6'10", 220 pounds, he is very young and you are definitely hopeing he grows and get's thicker too. His greatest assets are #1 his shot blocking, and #2 his athletism..

You don't spend a #1 overall for a shot blocker, and even mentioning his athletism in the second breath says the guy needs to develop his offense and doesn't have a mid range jumper to speak of.....

Dude is a power player in college but won't be able to rely on power in his undersized body in the NBA. He is definitely a project. TR to me seems to be the best balance of polish, NBA Body Type, and potential... But since in the NBA one player can make your team, it's understandable how great athletism and potential seems to be weighted so highly.

I wore out my 101 dalmations vcr tape so I had to resort to plan B last Saterday night.

Well, as a practical matter, the USA tends to support despots in the Middle East who support us and our goals (and Mubarak is one of those guys). Meanwhile, we tend to be afraid of democracy in many Middle East countries because we know that if they are allowed to vote freely, the people there are very likely to elect governments who are hostile to the USA (and Israel), or even elect hardline Muslim theocracies.

Exactly right. Not just in the ME too. Also in Central and south America and Africa. Depots are more predictable and much easier to deal with. Very short sited of us, but it's also been something we have done consistantly over decades.

In the long run, democracy is a good thing, but in the short run, it's going to lead to a lot of countries run by guys like the Muslim Brotherhood. It's not an easy call from the USA point of view.

Yep, significant near term challenges.

Hrmm... not sure what to say here other than I wasn't trying to rip off anyone.

Sorry I wasn't implying you were. George W. Bush famously made that claim as a justification for the Iraq invasion. GW was ripping off Immanuel Kant, who first proposed that democracies would never fight each other in 1795. Problem was Kant lived in a time when there was only one democracy/ ( really a republic) that was the United States. So Kant's work was very theoretical.

I think its pretty apparent that democracy for all is better for everyone (al be it maybe from a long term perspective), and that's all I was saying. Which is also what you seemed to say later on, so I think we're in agreement, no?

My caviot is with the claim that democracies don't go to war with each other. Democracies are very good at going to war with each other if the people want war. Which is a short term problem with democracies in the middle east. I would not make that an insurmountable problem or a argument against a ME wide democratization project; mostly because democracies are more stable and are better allies too.

I'm just noting that when all the attrocities occured in france with the french revolution; they were a republic. And that their very well might be short term bumps for the US and our allies in such a democratic wave

Its true that you can find an example of democracies that fight, but the point is about self determination in general. People(s) who have peaceful outlets for dissatisfaction are generally less likely to blow them selves up to make a political statment.

Yes, but such suicide bombers are not a major issue in Egypt or Tunisia. The big issue for Egypt is while they currently enjoy a long lasting and benificial peace treaty with ISrael; that treaty is not all that popular with the Egyptian people. A more representative form of government could cause problems there and really across the ME; where Israel has been traditionally used as a whipping boy to stir up nationalism benifiting the dictaros and despots in control of these countries.... Anyway just saying.

---------- Post added January-27th-2011 at 02:58 PM ----------

Two think Israelis shot their own leader for making peace in 90's

In the 80's the US was helping the Taliban

Groups can change

(1) I don't think the groups which shot the Israeli prime minister have changed much. They are a big part of the problem too.

(2) America never supported the Taliban, we supported the Mujahadine; which was a broader coelition than the taliban.

(3) Yes groups can change. But I have not heard the Moslem brotherhood renounce violence specifically towards Israel; which is where they have directed violence in the passed. As such they very likely could become part of the problem rather than part of a solution if gaining power.

Again I'm not arguing against a democratic movement anywhere. I'm just saying Americans should have their eyes open when it happens. Long term it's very much in everybodies favor. Short term it presents some real challenges.

The Brotherhood has also renounced violence. The stuff you are citing was 30 or so years ago and even farther back from that (also Sadat wasn't killed by the Brotherhood it was an offshoot), a hell of a lot has changed since then. The Muslim Brotherhood is a social organization through and through there is no militant wing or terrorist wing or whatever. They are basically a political party that is banned in Egypt.

Basically the oldest and most influential Arab Nationalist politcal party, which conducted a string of murders in Egypt after WWII while the country was seeking independence from Britian and thus got itself banned in Egypt. Then their role in the assasination of Sadat also got them into more trouble in the 1980's. Then of coarse their is their open call for violence against Israel and that business in Syria the (Hama massacre).

They are a very controversial group. It's true they have renounced violnce since they were created in the 1920's. But it's also true they are associated with violence and violent groups over the years. Most consistantly against Israel.

Everything before the mid 1980's is pretty irrelevant because they took a major change in direction when the majority of their leadership was imprisoned.

Yeah imprisonment will do that to you. I think they also lost Kadafi in the 1980's who was one of their big supporters. When Reagan droped that bomb on his tent he too took a major turn of direction.

Overall you sound more knowlegeable and up to date on the brotherhood than I. If you are saying they have reenounced violence including against Israel; then I'll take your word on it.

---------- Post added January-27th-2011 at 12:51 PM ----------

What do you think are their goals?

They are the oldest and most influencial multi national arab nationalist party. Their stated goal is to instill the Qur'an and Sunnah as the (*)"sole reference point for ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community and state".

(*)The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood, Robert S. Leiken & Steven Brooke, Foreign Affairs Magazine

The Muslim Brotherhood condemns in the strongest possible terms this example of terrorists' cynical and callous disregard for human life. It stresses that nothing justifies terrorism, which is aggression against Islamic values which forbids any act of violence and does so without distinction of language, culture or religion.

It calls on the authorities to step up and assume its responsibilities in providing the necessary security around all sites of worship and premises and demands those responsible for this heinous crime be immediately brought to justice.

http://www.islamopediaonline.org/news/muslim-brotherhood-condemns-attacks-against-coptic-christians-egypt

The moslem brotherhood was the organization which assasinated Anwar Sadat for the crime of making peace with Israel in 1981.

Ayman al-Zawahiri of the moslem brotherhood was imprisoned for 3 years and deported by Egypt for his role in that assasination, and subsequently became the #2 man in Al Quada behind Osama bin Laudin.

The brotherhood is among the oldest arab nationalistic groups which pioneered the use of terrorism as an instrument to further the organizations goals. Today Al Quada has made inroads into egypt and the Gaza strip because of the groups roots with the brotherhood.

---------- Post added January-27th-2011 at 10:28 AM ----------

Democratic countries generally don't fight one another, and generally don't product terrorists en mass. People who can vote out their officials have a peaceful outlet for dissatisfaction. Democracy in the middle east = safer world.

:doh: any time you want to quote George Bush on history; check yourself before you wreck yourself.... This is basically a rip off of Immanuel Kant's Perpetual Peace, published in 1795. Now Kant was a smart guy, but kant had the problem that he lived in a time where their weren't many democracies to test his theory out on. Today we know better.

• The Mexico American War in 1848,
  
• the American Civil War,
  
• the Boer War
  
• World War I.
  

Overall I would applaud more democracies in the middle east. But I don't think they would be benificial for the United States near term. Democracies are stable, and they give the most rights to their people; all good things which in the long run would benifit everybody. In the short run however Democracies are messy and subject to being manipulated by charletons. In the short run a pan arab democratic movement could spell trouble for us interests and us allies in that region..

So while long term they are definantly adventagous; their will be challenges for us short term.

I was in Tahrir square all day, just returned home but there are thousands still in there. Streets are on lockdown. The protests were peaceful until the government ran through with a water cannon on top of a troop carrier someone jumped on the roof and ripped it off which just made the protests that much more intense. Then the troops boxed us in shot tear gas. When I left it had been subdued after an attempt to storm the Parliament building was put down with what must have been 30 or 40 rounds of tear gas. Seems like both sides were regrouping for the night.

Dude, you could be sitting on history right there... I always remember an old chinese curse in cases like this... "May you live in interesting times". To quote Sgt. Phil Esterhaus. "Be careful out there"...

I am sorry but I don't really see a situation where an Islamist group that isn't moderate think Muslim Brotherhood not al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya comes to power.

Did you notice that Hezbollah just determined who the next PM or Lebonon will be? Signaling perhaps a historic turning of Lebonon away fromo a western and Saudi Arabian alliance in favor of a more pro Iran and Syria alliance. Not sure Hezbollah's new prominence in Leboonon is directly tied to Tunisia, but I do think it's part of Arab nationalism. I also think it's pretty easy for any popular Arab nationalist movement to be co-oped to work against both the United States and Israel. It's not like either one of us is very popular with the Arab man on the street.

Also I think at least for the United States the biggest risk is an Iran situation where we burned ourselves badly by supporting a dictator over democracy.

Isn't that our history across the middle east? From Morroco, Egypt, Jordan, Iran and Saudi?

If a moderate Islamic party comes to power so be it, look at the AKP in Turkey right now I think anything is better then the situation right now where the government suppresses the ability of moderates from playing a role in the political process to prevent Islamization but instead gives the radical and the violent factions more power because they can see that the political path isn't working so they try another path.

I tend to agree with you. Democracies are messy and we must be willing to accept and work with that messyness. In the long run democracies are much more reliable allies and friends than monarchies and dictators. Although that's going to be a tough sell if one of those new democracies takes a pot shot at Israel and Israel is forced to mop up the floor with them; using US weapons.

---------- Post added January-25th-2011 at 07:58 AM ----------

The Muslim Brotherhood are moderates?

Compared to Al Qaeda maybe

The Muslim Brotherhood are the grandaddies of all radicals in the ME. They are the ones who inspired AQ. They are the ones to killed Anwar Sadat. They are also in favor of Arab unity. That's where Saddam, Nasser(Egypt), and Asad(Syria) got the idea from wasn't it?

---------- Post added January-25th-2011 at 08:02 AM ----------

Interesting article on this in the Economist. Tunisia is far from the poorest country in the Arab World, and its people were not particularly oppressed - as long as they didn't say anything political or challenge the status quo of kleptocracy by the ruling family. It's odd that Tunisia would be the one to rise up.:

It kind of shows you how potentially unstable the entire ME is doesn't it. It if could happen in tunisia as it happenned in Iran before; It could really happen anywhere given the right spark.

Naked man found in rainforest near Cairns

A NAKED man was found in dense rainforest south of Cairns in a bizarre rescue that has searchers scratching their heads.

The man, 27, spent a cold night huddled among the trees on a steep ridge behind Bingil Bay at Mission Beach after losing his way, and his clothes, in the rainforest.

He was found sitting on a log in the nude.

Rescuers hauled themselves up a steep rainforested hill to get to him in territory they yesterday called "billygoat country".

"He was sitting there with scratches all over him," teenage searcher Brad Figallo said.

"We saw him and it was like, oh geeze. He'd said he needed some help. But we weren't expecting that.

"But he was more relieved than embarrassed to see us … he told us he thought he was going to die up there."

Police described the man as disorientated, scratched but otherwise not hurt when they found him about 10.30am on Saturday.

Sen-Constable Tony Cliffe said the man told searchers, police and ambulance officers he had no idea how he got up the ridge or where his clothes were.

He said he had been fishing near the spot the previous afternoon.

Click on the link for the full article

It's Bruce Bannor..