Fan in Chicago

The winner writes history. There are several countries who could justify use of nukes. We simply made it the 'right' decision because of the war's outcome and resulting economic prosperity in our country.

I think you read my logic differently from what I intended. I am neither on a liberal campaign, nor 'comparing' the US to Iraq or about their way of living. Let me try: - If you threaten and follow through with all of them, you are considered a bully and also thought to be open for a retaliation. However, if there is a credible threat and we respond, then we have political support (Afghanistan). This is not a credible threat ! - I question why do we feel the compelling need to ban others from pursuing a nuclear program. Nuclear program = nuclear weapons is conjecture first of all. Secondly, by engaging in a hawkish stand, we tend to provoke those interests that do own WMDs. What I am really trying to say is that we should push for UN-led oversight of their nuclear program. Also, our nuclear deterrent is so strong that even should weapons be developed, those countries well know we will annihilate them before they can do so. By attacking first, we lose a significant amount of support from the rest of the world. - I did not compare Iran & Iraq to the US but simply pointing out that there are two points of view. As of now, we are threatening them for what they believe is a legitimate program for their own good. I always like to think from the reverse viewpoint to make an opinion of right and wrong - Why do we care about the poor oppressed folks worldwide ? Don't we have enough of our own troubles ? Let countries and their leaders take care of their own problems, or not, as the case might be. What makes us want to impose our view of society, living and values on other countries ? - lastly, if I am not treated well as an American, it is the net sum of all actions we have taken in the past. I do realize we cannot be liked by everyone, but heck our haters outnumber our allies and that is entirely a failing of our foreign policy.

What exactly is Iran doing to be labelled as irrational or behaving provocatively ? They want nuclear technology to perhaps generate electricity. So do we. Why are we any better than Iran ? And if we indeed take out their subterranean nuclear plants using nuclear weapons, who exactly has the itchy finger here ? And if anybody points out Iran's past history, we have to remind ourselves of the only country to have used nuclear weapons on an enemy.

To get this thread back on topic. The threat of using nuclear weapons is okay if it is only a threat (deterrent). But the administration has a penchant for following through with its threats (Iraq). First of all, I do not subscribe to the theory that if you think differently than me, you are wrong and I am going to punish you for that. What makes Iran's thinking irrational ? Just because we think so ? If I see someone walking on the street with his hands in his pockets, should I shoot him because he may have a gun and he may point it at me and then use it ? This is a plainly ridiculous way to interpret pre-emption. Secondly, if we use nuclear weapons, how stupid would we be to point the finger at someone else and say they are not ratonal enough to not push the nuclear button ? We would be the ultimate irresponsible party for using nuclear power to enforce what we believe is right. Lastly, right now would be the perfect time for Iran to attack the US, using our administration's logic. Think about it, we invaded Iraq because we believed they had WMDs and though they would use them against us. Aren't we the equivalent of Iraq and Iran is the US ? This entire situation makes me mad to the point of pulling my own hair out. When will this ultra-conservative agenda stop ? Anger only breeds further anger.

I agree. No point in trading him away - better a known devil than a draft day crapshoot pick. I also think we should get McGahee's contract extended during this offseason. Start locking up the players we will need during the SB run in a couple of years.

When Fez included that in the body of his post, you knew it was a satirical article.

Saw this movie last night not knowing what to expect. Must say I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. Smart, witty dialog (I may have to see it again to make sure I caught everything), excellent performances and well developed story line.

I would hope so !! What is a wide receiver without perception of depth ? Heck, a player in any position for that matter...

You mean you did not think much before suggesting Huff ?

Thanx, Lori. I hope the local media will post an update in the coming days.

I think if the resume has a birthdate prior to 1976, it gets caught in Marv's spam filter.

Why can I not find anything on this 'eye problem' that is being mentioned on this board ? How serious is/was it anyway ? I think this is a good signing* (Not knowing how much we paid for him) *EDIT: not for $10MM !!!!!

Shameless self promotion here ..... See my post about 1/4th way down. http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=44731&st=20

Stay on topic. He meant to ask who will be playing QB in a football game.

I did not know that. With all the vision correcting procedures now available, I wonder what it is that cannot be cured.

I like your optimism !

Am I only one who thinks that PP may not be a bad addition ? Yes he really sucked after leaving Buffalo with EM on the other side. But if LE really takes on the #1 role, PP may shine yet again. If he is still out there, vet minimum may be enough to get him. Let camp decide which of the receivers gets canned.

hang on there - how does buying the Bills cut his net worth to half ? Net worth is a sum of all assets owned. He would be trading his cash (or debt) for the Bills asset. If done correctly, his net worth would stay same or go up.

Thanx for pointing it out - I was not aware of the stadium ownership. In which case, the original point may be correct in that any new owner needs to be able to finance this deal from a combination of his own money and debt. Not having the stadium essentially means that the amount of debt that could be borrowed is less (not technically but for sound financial reasons). Whether the Bills as an organization can be considered a fairly liquid asset, I don't know. Perhaps yes, because we need to make a basic assumption that the Bills will not go away from the NFL. Hence, if the new owner were to get rid of it, he would get a fair amount of his/her money back. The point of all this rambling is that the new owner must first figure out if the Bills make financial sense, if he/she can do a good job owning and managing it. If the answer is yes, how to finance the deal is a secondary matter. In any M&A, the first question is strategy and second is finance.

Couple of things on corporate finance. First of all, taking on debt is not entirely a bad thing as the interest is tax deductible. The problem is how much debt. Start up companies can take on no debt as they have no tangible assets. For the Bills, the stadium can be considered a tangible asset and hence he can take some level of debt (if company goes under, can liquidiate this asset and re-pay the senior holders). Secondly, interest is one of the items subtracted to get net income so the $36 million number, if true, is fairly healthy. Not sure how much debt RW has taken on, if any.

That practice can work both ways - NC knows how EM plays too so it will come down to whoever is the better player (duh !). My personal thought is that if we get a good DT next to Triplett, our LBs will bring enough pressure that Carr won't have time to throw well. The EM-NC match up may well become a non-contest.

Line help is critical, but we also need to keep one eye on the future - possible loss of Clements next year, Troy Vincent getting old(er), Spikes not 100%. So if there are good players at these positions earlier in the draft, we should go for them.

Exactly what I was thinking. The only consolation for him might be the fact that he wanted out and did get out for no financial loss, probably some gain.

Time I can understand, secrecy ? Not sure if there is or will be an official BB announcement. if so we will get it. The story was just confirmed today so lets wait till tomorrow

Land is the only measure we have for now. He will walk on water after being coached by Belichick.