Page #6
Pages: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 ...#82
New Comment Rating: 0 Similar topics: 1.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF 2.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF II 3.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF III 4.Be honest!! 5.Is this about you 🤷♂️, those that live in glass houses should not throw stones. Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
only registered users can see external links
But, it's not really my style. If I had that kind of money, I would buy something else.
It's a gimmick for wealthy people, not a serious EV to compete with others.
There's several other great EVs you can buy for that money and fill a big garage.
It's twice the price of a Lucid Air Sapphire.
They are trying to build a Rolls-Royce, Bugatti or Spyker,
cars that will be cherished for ever.
They might succeed, but that's a useless concept for us mortals.
It's not economical/cost-effective to design a car to last for ever.
I'm trying to be maximally cost-effective, at my personal level of comfort and luxury, which is increasing with my accumulation of wealth. 20 Years ago, I could not afford a car with the level of comfort and luxury of the car that I bought next.
9 Years ago, I could not afford a car with the level of comfort and luxury that I will likely buy in a few years, when my current car is economically obsolete.
That's because the advancement of technology renders cars obsolete too quickly.
A car that's cutting edge today, is standard in 5 years and outclassed in 10 years.
Of course there are also environmental considerations. Replacing a car too soon will be a waste of it's construction resources. However, newer cars are more efficient, which means using cars too long is also a waste of resources. Cars can be recycled for up to 95% of its weight today. The resources to build a new one is mostly energy. That is still different for the batteries of an EV, but there is also a environmental optimum for their life-span. That's because their energy density is continuously improving. It's not environmentally friendly to keep driving around with heavy old-fashioned batteries,
when newer types are much more energy dense, because that's a waste of energy too.
just as with the trip i will be making next week. towing about 3 tons, that knocks the range of a ford lightning down to about 80-90 miles. i would have to recharge halfway where i am going for hours.
batterys cost so much to replace ,even with todays tech. i can feed a hemi a couple gallons of gas once in a while cheaper than i can replace a ev battery
for hiding in underground bunkers, in civilian areas?
Netanyahu is doing the same thing, right now:
using his own civilians as human shields.
only registered users can see external links
Israel attacked Iran. Is Iran now allowed to completely destroy Israel?
of Iran. They probably don't have nukes, but they have around 610.000 active soldiers, while Israel only has about 170.000. You're making a big mistake, if you allow Israel to pull you into a war with Iran. Do you want to sacrifice American soldiers for them?
Iran is a big country, with 88 million people and a military about half as strong as Russia. Iran is stronger than Iraq and Afghanistan put together, when Bush attacked them.
Those wars cost you about 4.2 Trillion dollars and about 6,900 American soldiers.
War with Iran will cost you more. You don't owe that to Israel. They are genocidal maniacs, who you shouldn't defend, when they start a war. They owe you, for always looking out for their interests, over your own.
By the way, wasn't Trump the anti-war candidate? It's now clear that he sanctioned
the Israeli attack on Iran.
--------------------------------------- added after 7 minutes
The u.s lost 4400 in the war with Iraq, but 140, 000 Iraq solders were estimated killed.
It will be over when Iraq is as stable as under Saddam Hussein again.
Here is what ChatGPT has to say about that:
The statement "180,000 American soldiers beat 900,000 Iraqi soldiers in 2 weeks" is a dramatic oversimplification. While it reflects some numerical contrast and the speed of the 2003 invasion, it misses critical context. Let’s break it down fairly:
✅ What’s True:
The U.S.-led coalition (mostly American, about 180,000 troops) invaded Iraq in March 2003.
The Iraqi military was large on paper, with several hundred thousand troops (including army, Republican Guard, and paramilitaries).
Baghdad fell within 3 weeks (April 9, 2003), and the Iraqi government collapsed rapidly.
The conventional war was won very quickly.
❗️Why That Statement Is Misleading:
1. Iraqi Forces Were Severely Weakened:
Iraq's military strength was a shadow of what it was in 1991.
Sanctions, no-fly zones, desertions, and corruption had eroded readiness and morale.
Much of the Iraqi army didn’t resist or deserted quickly.
2. Coalition Superiority Was Overwhelming:
The U.S. had air superiority, precision weapons, night vision, electronic warfare, and logistics dominance.
It wasn't a head-to-head manpower war—it was an asymmetric technological fight.
The war plan ("Shock and Awe") aimed to paralyze Iraqi command structures, not engage in trench warfare.
3. "900,000 Soldiers" Is Inflated:
Estimates of Iraq’s active, combat-ready forces in 2003 are closer to 350,000–400,000, including regular army, Fedayeen Saddam, and Republican Guard.
The 900,000 figure may include reserves or inflated claims.
Many Iraqi units were undermanned or ill-equipped.
4. War Didn’t End in 2 Weeks:
The conventional phase ended quickly, but the insurgency and occupation dragged on for years.
The post-invasion phase killed more U.S. troops than the initial war.
Iraq was not "defeated" in the traditional sense—it collapsed and descended into chaos, which led to civil war and later the rise of ISIS.
Better Way to Say It:
"In 2003, a highly advanced U.S.-led coalition of about 180,000 troops quickly dismantled Iraq's weakened and demoralized military in a few weeks—thanks to overwhelming technological and tactical superiority, not sheer manpower."
-----------------------------------------------------------
In short: No, the U.S. could not overwhelm Iran in 2025 as easily or quickly as it did Iraq in 2003. While the U.S. would retain technological and air superiority, Iran presents a vastly more difficult military, geographic, political, and societal challenge.
Let’s break this down in key categories:
🪖 1. Military Capability: Iraq 2003 vs Iran 2025
Factor Iraq (2003) Iran (2025)
Combat troops ~350,000 demoralized, poorly equipped ~600,000+, with hardened IRGC & paramilitary units
Air defenses Obsolete SAMs, no air force effectiveness Dense, layered modern air defenses (Tor, Bavar-373)
Ballistic missiles Very limited Massive arsenal, regional reach (1,000s of missiles)
Navy Minimal, outdated Fast attack craft, mines, anti-ship missiles
Proxy network None Strong (Hezbollah, militias in Iraq, Yemen, Syria)
Cyber warfare None Advanced cyber capability
👉 Iran’s military is more prepared, modernized, and decentralized. It has invested heavily in asymmetric warfare.
🌍 2. Geography
Iran is ~4x larger than Iraq, with rugged, mountainous terrain that favors defense and insurgency.
Iraq was largely open desert, ideal for rapid U.S. armor and air movement.
Iran’s terrain would slow ground invasion and stretch logistics.
🧠 3. Political & National Cohesion
Iraq’s regime in 2003 was a fragile dictatorship, with weak internal loyalty.
Iran’s government, while authoritarian, has stronger nationalistic support—especially in the face of foreign attack.
A U.S. invasion would unify many factions against an external enemy, even among anti-regime Iranians.
💣 4. Technological Asymmetry
The U.S. would maintain dominance in airpower, surveillance, naval capability, and precision strikes.
However, Iran has adapted to U.S. military doctrine and built a doctrine of missile saturation, proxy retaliation, and denial zones.
Iran can strike U.S. bases across the Middle East (Qatar, UAE, Bahrain), and has anti-ship missiles threatening the Strait of Hormuz (20% of global oil supply flows there).
🧨 5. Occupation & Aftermath
In Iraq, regime change led to chaos, insurgency, and civil war.
In Iran, occupation would likely be bloodier, longer, and far more expensive, with urban warfare and national resistance.
Iran's population is ~90 million—compared to Iraq’s ~25 million in 2003.
📈 6. Strategic Risk
War with Iran would:
Destabilize the region
Trigger proxy retaliation (Hezbollah, Houthis, Iraqi militias)
Potentially spike oil prices globally
Fracture alliances, depending on how the war is framed
✅ Conclusion:
A U.S.-led coalition could defeat Iran militarily, but not quickly, cheaply, or cleanly. It would be nothing like Iraq 2003. The U.S. would win the initial fight but face a deep quagmire, especially in any attempt at occupation or regime change.
Oh I know you could be both I bet you write perverted nursery rhymes for children
You don't have to be a sex addict, to be on this site.
Iran has been a thorn in the United States side since the 1970 when they would not let Israel tanker’s through to deliver fuel to the United States causing gas shortages and gas rationing i think it was 1978 we should have fucked them up then already
--------------------------------------- added after 3 minutes
But we had a democrat president that left Iran walk all over us
What a coward jimmy carter was
Isreal bombed iran before it's nukes were completed because it knows iran will use them to kill innocent people as soon as they get them viable.
It's all a lie, every specialist says Iran is not working on nukes.
Even Trump's own people said that Iran was not working on nukes.
Israel has been saying for decades that Iran was weeks off from having nukes.
So fuck Israel, they have always been lying, so I dismiss them 100%.
Even if Iran would have nukes, they would not use them, because that's suicide.
So stop parroting that dumb-ass lie.
Honestly, I trust Iran more with nukes than the US.
You manage to be more crazy than Muslim extremists. How do I know that?
Trump just started a war without one vote from congress, which is unconstitutional.
Every reaction from the Iranians was agreed on by their Parliament.
That makes them more democratic on that point, than your criminal regime.
The only thing you are doing is encouraging Iran to start making nukes,
because that's the only thing that protects them from you.
only registered users can see external links
these are the folks you are concerned about.
that video is 2024 by the way.
If your own CIA, just a few months before, said they were no were near developing
a nuke, then I don't believe Israel or Trump saying the opposite.
I'm sure they are working at it, but that's your fault for breaking the deal.
Them working at it, is not the same as them being close at succeeding.
They were not working at it, when the deal was still standing.
You are forcing them into needing nukes, because they are not safe without them.
Do you find it strange that they hate you? That's naive.
You have broken every deal you ever made with them.
When you had a deal, their part of it was getting their OWN money back.
Your country is helping Israel do a genocide of Muslims.
When any country does something to address that genocide, you bomb them.
Your country is a much more evil actor on the world than Iran.
And that's saying something, because Iran is legitimately horrible.
But your actions are encouraging their citizens to support that horror.
It's all the US's fault that I have to worry about the Middle East again.
We have enough going on with Russia, for which you are not much help either.
You should search for some videos of what Russians are saying in their parliament
and on their TV channels, it's about the same as what Iran is saying. They are grooming every citizen to love death, starting in the schools. It's a DEATH CULT. Maybe it's not yet working for all their citizens, but it's working for enough of them.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
so you wreck your car, and you cut up the woman who was riding with you and put her in some plastic bins and tape the lids shut. then you sit on the couch among the smell of rotting flesh. sounds like a real hero that folks like leo would put back out on the street on a 100 dollars bail.
That police can search any house, without reason, because they might find crimes?
I'm not against police doing their job. I'm against them fucking with our FREEDOMS!
police find a wrecked car, and locate it's owner to do a welfare check and find him in his stinking house with a womans rotting flesh in crates, if you think that is a violation of something, you are wrong, i know for a fact wellness checks save lives around here.
here is a google search of what is a wellness check and what can be done, not all of it but enough to explain it for you.
During a wellness check, police can legally enter a residence without a warrant if they have a reasonable belief that someone inside is in danger or needs immediate assistance. This is often referred to as the "community caretaking function" of law enforcement. They can also ask questions of the individual and others on scene, and document their observations and actions, including taking photos or videos with consent or if something is in plain view. If they determine that the individual requires further help, they may call for emergency medical services, transport the person to a mental health facility, or even detain the individual under certain circumstances.
Legal Basis:
Community Caretaking Function:
Police have a responsibility to protect public safety and welfare, which includes responding to calls for wellness checks.
Exigent Circumstances:
If there's a reasonable belief that someone is in imminent danger, officers can enter a property without a warrant. This is a legal exception to the usual warrant requirement.
Reasonable Suspicion:
While a wellness check doesn't require the same level of suspicion as a criminal investigation, officers must still have a reasonable basis for believing that someone is in need of assistance.
What Police Can Do:
Enter a Residence:
If there's no response at the door and officers have a reasonable belief that someone inside is in danger, they can enter the property.
Speak with the Individual:
Officers can attempt to communicate with the person to assess their well-being and determine if they need help.
Observe and Document:
Officers can note the individual's behavior, physical condition, and living environment. They can also document their observations with photos or videos, with consent or if something is in plain view.
I'm not OK with any crime, but I'm also not OK with people like you wanting to live in a police state, for the idea that it would stop all crime.
I don't have to worry about crime and I don't have to worry about the police.
Now why do I get to live like that, while you have to worry about both?
Hey, dumbass, who the f..k are you? I don't ever remember having any contact with you (and now I'm glad, your stench offends a skunk). How about growing a set and telling me face to face what your beef is with me. 🖕👿
Just my opinion, the last paragraph is over the top and totally not necessary.
Again, because I'm too stupid to take the hint, I'm sorry I posted on your thread. I should have posted it in my thread. I'm taking valuable space in this.......exiting...... thread.
The guy blacklisted you and apparently you feel justified in calling him a “dumbass” and make reference to stench. I wonder whether you talk like a hood rat in real life or if that’s the persona you like to project in the Forum? Just my opinion and/or observation, I find that quite often you come across like an angry old lady that wants to start a fight.
And, yes, I am an angry old/young lady but not for what happens here in Showitoff. I’m dealing with some heavy heartbreak in my personal life and it’s spilling into everything I get involved in although, an Internet forum has provided me with the ability to say exactly what I feel. Please note that that is only in the forums. In private chats with most other members I’m much more loving or understanding.
This time around I have not tried to amass a large number of friends even though many old friends still seek me out to chat. I’m just coasting day to day.
So, do I get it? More than you think.
I'm sorry. I know you mean well, but, you know what they say about a leopard's spots. This old cougar is too far gone to change.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
New Comment Go to top