|
|
Re: Iran War II
Bull_Dawg
05/25/26 09:11 PM
Once again even though you are ignoring it, the ability to produce a dirty bomb is not my issue. My issue is Iran having the ability to deploy it is.
You just brought up Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both of those weapons were launched via military aircraft. Once again, Iran lacks any long range ability to launch an attack on the U.S. You're trying to compare apples to oranges. Can you come up with some "remote possibility" of how that could happen? Sure. But if that's the criteria for war we should be making a list of all the nations we should go to war with. You may wish to consider this, or maybe not.
Because a dirty bomb does not require weapons-grade material, virtually any industrialized nation possessing standard radioactive isotopes used in hospitals, agriculture, or industry has sufficient materials to build one.
So that brings right back to them saying death to America for 47 years as the only real difference here.
And my whining comment went right over your head or at least you're pretending it did. That comment was in regards to you first launching a personal attack against me and then whining when you got a taste of your own medicine. Hopefully we're past all of that now. Do you think no one in Iran can fly a plane? Get smuggled across a border on foot? Purchase a commercial remote controlled drone in Canada and rig a bomb to it? Like I said, you don't seem to understand the modern "battlefield" or asymmetrical warfare. Once again, no one but you is focused on ICBMs as delivery systems. I commented on Nagasaki and Hiroshima because of the resultant devastation. Being in Japan and feeling the horror isn't the same as seeing a documentary. Yes, there are lots of possibilities of potential dirty bombs. But acting like members of a government chanting "Death to America for 47 years" isn't relevant is asinine. And there are "standard radioactive isotopes" in small quantities for specific civilian uses being properly monitored and there is HEU in massive quantities while now avoiding inspection in the hands of a government that supports terrorism. Those are different situations. Yeah, it didn't go over my head that you're projecting your whining and trying to twist things as usual. You even got mgh in on the act trying to attribute your words to me.
174
6,638
Read More
|
|
Re: What If?
Steubenvillian
05/25/26 02:02 PM
If Watson wins the starting spot, play him. He has been paid very well and is on the roster. If he is the best on the roster, make him earn some of the money he got. Shaduer would be the back=up, and Green can be #3. Sanders sitting and learning for another year would be beneficial to all. I don't think there is any scenario where Watson is resigned.
7
322
Read More
|
|
Re: Cleveland Guardians 2.0
Ballpeen
05/25/26 09:11 AM
From my perspective, Atlanta is a horrible place. Please clarify what you mean, because this can go many ways lol You can probably take it in all ways, but primarily traffic, sprawl, crime. Ah, ok. I didn’t know if you meant the city or the Braves Truist Park area. I like the Braves just fine.
172
14,016
Read More
|
|
Re: Cavs/NBA 2.0
Bard Dawg
05/24/26 08:50 PM
We are not. Sad to see the losses, especially for the same reasons. Lost some personal ground here. Disappointing it is.
410
57,323
Read More
|
|
Re: Fun with ai
PitDAWG
05/24/26 04:55 PM
In that case I wish you all the best moving forward with your consulting service. AI may help your business be much more profitable and efficient.
7
154
Read More
|
|
Re: Browns News 6.0
PitDAWG
05/24/26 03:18 PM
But you have to admit this is rather humorous in and embarrassing kind of way........
March of 2022 watson was signed by the Browns. They claimed they had their QB of the future and finally had a franchise QB.
March of 2025 Browns co-owner Jimmy Haslam said the team "took a big swing-and-miss" in acquiring QB Deshaun Watson.
May of 2026 watson is #1 on the QB depth chart.
It's as if this team has a bad case of being bipolar.
367
38,578
Read More
|
|
Re: Browns announce 2026 schedule
PitDAWG
05/22/26 07:41 PM
And the question could become, if Monkin doesn't develop some of that "1st round" talent will it be the fault of Monkin for not developing that talent or will it be the talking heads were wrong about their evaluations on some of those picks?
46
2,103
Read More
|
|
Re: How much money is enough?
Ballpeen
05/22/26 11:57 AM
If you eliminate major costs you foresee while working, then things are simpler, so I agree. We have set up savings and investments every pay. We "practiced" budgeting before retirement while we only received one payday a month. We are comfortably set. More than that, we are happy with what we have; my wife is a blessing because we share priorities. The Shaker motto was good advice that smacks of Transcendentalism: "Simplify, simplify." Control what you can. As I said earlier, simple is the name of the game, especially if you plan on doing most of it yourself. Leave the complicated to the people who can afford personal secretaries, a team of accountants, and lawyers. Complicated takes a mental toll if you plan to do it yourself.
32
1,187
Read More
|
|
Re: Our National Parks
mgh888
05/20/26 05:49 PM
888 keeps insisting tax payers don't pay anything for National Parks. Lies are lies even when one doesn't realize one is doing it. I made an error which I am happy to accept and acknowledge - something most won't do on here. And if anyone was to keep a score of the lies and the misinformation that is spammed on these boards, then one group of posters win by a land slide and it isn't the guys who don't like Trump.
120
3,902
Read More
|
|
|
|
|
|
