Liverpool FC Forum

[74-1160487249]

Its you thats the liar Oasis ,you said :-

"Ok I admit it I am Oasis ,Karim and Mudface
I am sure Johnnymac,Supersub,Stmichael and LFC will confirm it.
I Pittyyou Lando you are a fool."


You added a few more insults but thats near enough. Try to remember Oasis only Barrybelfast and I replied but many will have read what you put.

I never said I saw it, you thick and uneducated fool, try reading before talking out you're a.rse. 

I already proved you were a liar in the advanced debate thread Oasis, this quote made by you ,was taken from the Sheff U thread ,made in reply to an innocuous post from Dawson.

I never put fool, I did however say I 'pitty Lando', that's as far as I went. I was also being highly sarcastic or that not occur to you?

I add no more insults other than the pitty one, but to me that's not an insult. Other people might find it insulting, I do not.

Oh dear digging up what I said over two months ago? I was actually referring to this account I have and not the Oasis, but do continue S@int. Why not dig up stuff I said a year ago on here as well?

I'm loving this, thanks for the attention. 

Will you just f.uck your mouth up?

Your arguing in almost every thread i read now.....Your a boring self obsessed cu.nt!
Its all me me me.
No one gives a fu.ck about you!
The reason everyone argues with you is cause you and your alter egos are annoying as fu.ck!

I didn't start any arguments, that was Lando and Saint and there little crusade. I have simply come to part take in some banter and I shall. I have a right to be here, I'm under a different name and since I joint about two days ago I have not put a foot wrong.

So no I will not shut up. I will say what I want and when I want to. I'm not breaking any rules.

[JBG]

In fairness Barry and Lando, while I was as big an "enemy" of LIVERPOOLANYTIME as anybody, I still have not received conclusive proof that Jerzy is him, but even if it is him I myself will not get re-involved with a personal spat with him.

However, if it is not him then I don't think its right or fair that he is hounded for his political views: I have similar (ish) views myself to what the poster Jerzy has made (on this particular issue) but I don't see anybody hounding me.

[66-1120597113]

In fairness Barry and Lando, while I was as big an "enemy" of LIVERPOOLANYTIME as anybody, I still have not received conclusive proof that Jerzy is him, but even if it is him I myself will not get re-involved with a personal spat with him.

However, if it is not him then I don't think its right or fair that he is hounded for his political views: I have similar (ish) views myself to what the poster Jerzy has made (on this particular issue) but I don't see anybody hounding me.

Thats because you dont do it in annoying way!
And you used to be a mod  

Im not hounding anyone JBG i just think he's a tw.at...aint getting involved though..i've been in newkit jail twice before,no more bans for me!

[74-1160487249]

You're a grown man, if you find what I say annoying, ignore it. It's as simple as that is it not? FWIW I also think you're a t.wat, but I don't hound you about being an alter-ego you're not, nor do I come out and personally insult your mother, father and background in the way people have done to me when I was Oasis.

I'll leave this debate now, I've said all I have to say, it's going off topic, feel free to call me a t.wat all you like in my inbox. Please refrain from ruining this thread.

[account deleted by request]

A man has pleaded guilty to conspiring to murder people in a series of bombings on British and US targets.
Dhiren Barot, of north London, planned to use a radioactive "dirty bomb" in one of a series of attacks in the UK, Woolwich Crown Court heard.

He intended to cause "injury, fear, terror and chaos", prosecutors said.

Just imagine what would happen if these people got their hands on a nuclear bomb. Then think about whether its OK for N.Korea to have nuclear weapons, especially with their record of selling to the highest bidder.

BBC LINK

[74-1160487249]

A man has pleaded guilty to conspiring to murder people in a series of bombings on British and US targets.
Dhiren Barot, of north London, planned to use a radioactive "dirty bomb" in one of a series of attacks in the UK, Woolwich Crown Court heard.

He intended to cause "injury, fear, terror and chaos", prosecutors said.

Just imagine what would happen if these people got their hands on a nuclear bomb. Then think about whether its OK for N.Korea to have nuclear weapons, especially with their record of selling to the highest bidder.

BBC LINK

I hope the lock this moron up and throw away the key. However is it ok for America to sell arms to countries like Israel and whoever will pay good money?

[Ciggy]

Stop arguein everyone or GINLEY!! will sort yers out 

[afs66]

Pls excuse my ignorance. Really i did not understand this treaty...I think i must search on google Turkiye about this

I investigated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty(NPT) today.
I will write something about this issue with your permission.
First of all, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty have opened to signing in 1970s. If a country signs the Treaty, International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) can check the country's engagements about the treaty.
According to the NPT, only five countries on the world(USA,Russia,France,UK and China) can have nuclear wepons. But these five countries should decrease the nuclear wepons which they have.
Majority of countries all over the world has signed the NPT. But intersting point is that Israel and Pakistan who are allies of US, hasn't signed yet.-I don't know N.korea whether they have signed or havent signed.- And there is no international pressure to Israel and Pakistan.
Pakistan: They haven't been under strict international pressure about nuclear weapons. Pakistan say they are under the threatenings of India. Because of this Pakistan endeavors to produce nuclear weapons. Not officaly but all countries know about this.
Israel: They haven't been under strict international pressure about nuclear weapons anytime like Pakistan.And Israel declare that Iran threat. Because of this they endeavors to produce nuclear weapons unofficaly like Pakistan.
Iran:They had signed the NPT half of the 70s. They complain about Israel and Pakistan threats. They had recieved nuclear attacks from Iraq in 1980s. Iraq with USA SUPPORT(interesting) had used poison gas weapons on Iranian people for 8 years(Iran-Iraq War). And now, Iran want to save themselves against the possible nuclear attacks form Israel.

And i will mention about another interesting point.
Iran and UK-France-Germany has signed a treaty in 2004. According to this treaty:
*Iran wouldn't continue uranium development program anymore
*EU would allow Iran to get possesion of nuclear teknology. 
*Iran couldn't use this right crosswise the NPT.
*The economical,technological and political relationship between Iran and EU would develop.
Owing to the treaty,both Iran and EU wanted USA to restrain about Iran. But after this, G.Bush announced that Iran had to make their regime more democratic,Iran had to legitimate Israel, Iran had not to support Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. And he added that if Iran hadn't performed the conditions, USA would have attack... 
BTW: Sorry about bad English.

[woof woof !]

The whole point behind non profileration is not really to make the world a safer place, but to allow the existing nuclear powers to remain in their oligopoly and not allow any competitors to challenge them.

JBG , does that point of view not equate with , "The police and some criminals have guns , so why not give everyone the right to own and carry one " ?

[woof woof !]

What people seem to be forgetting here is that the US won't use it's Nuclear arsenal unless it is in direct retaliation.
All US administrations during the Cold War investigated the possibility of using a first
North Korea and Iran would happily use theirs, as they are both run by dickheads with no one to answer to.

For all Bush's faults, he will never EVER use a nuke unless someone fires one at the US (Or another country) first.

But Lando, where is the basis for that?

The only country that has ever deployed nuclear weapons has been the US. strike against the Soviet Union and President Kennedy deployed tactical nuclear weapons to Florida during the 13 day Cuban Missile crisis.

George Bush senior readied tactical nuclear weapons for deployment against Iraq in the first Gulf War had Saddam used chemical weapons against the Allies and Israel.

George W. Bush announced at Westpoint in the summer of 2002 that his administration would break from centuries old tradition of not firing first, and the US is far more likely to fire the first shot than any of its enemies, real or imaginable. The Pentagon is also developing mini bunker busting tactical and battlefield nuclear weapons which is believed may be used in any war against Iran.

My own belief is that North Korea are developing nuclear weapons both as a detterent against invasions (ironic, as their development will probably result in an invasion) and as a powerful bargaining chip which can be handed over in return for the lifting of sanctions.

Iran's nuclear ambitions are built as a detterent to Israel's own arsenal and also as a detterent against US invasion (again ironic, as their development will probably result in the exact opposite).

Mark my words, the US will deploy battlefield tactical nuclear weapons in a future conflict sometime over the next 10 to 20 years.

JBG, again I have to challenge your contribution to this "arguement"

You ask Lando on what he basis his arguement, but the points you use as a rebutal are slightly disingenuous .

ie "The only country that has ever deployed nuclear weapons has been the US."

Surely the reason for this was fairly well explored earlier in this thread . The US was looking to bring a speedy end to WW2  (not start WW3 ) and in the process limit the potential loss of life (admittedly their own first) that the protracted conventional battle for Japan would produce .

"President Kennedy deployed tactical nuclear weapons to Florida during the 13 day Cuban Missile crisis."

You say "Cuban Missile crisis " when a plainer way of speaking would be to say

"President Kennedy deployed tactical nuclear weapons to Florida when the Russians shipped nuclear missiles to Cuba ,giving them a delivery time to the eastern seaboard of the US that could be measured in a few minutes"

By all means we can debate the issues but lets not blur the truth by viewing history with one eye closed .

[account deleted by request]

What people seem to be forgetting here is that the US won't use it's Nuclear arsenal unless it is in direct retaliation.
All US administrations during the Cold War investigated the possibility of using a first
North Korea and Iran would happily use theirs, as they are both run by dickheads with no one to answer to.

For all Bush's faults, he will never EVER use a nuke unless someone fires one at the US (Or another country) first.

But Lando, where is the basis for that?

The only country that has ever deployed nuclear weapons has been the US. strike against the Soviet Union and President Kennedy deployed tactical nuclear weapons to Florida during the 13 day Cuban Missile crisis.

George Bush senior readied tactical nuclear weapons for deployment against Iraq in the first Gulf War had Saddam used chemical weapons against the Allies and Israel.

George W. Bush announced at Westpoint in the summer of 2002 that his administration would break from centuries old tradition of not firing first, and the US is far more likely to fire the first shot than any of its enemies, real or imaginable. The Pentagon is also developing mini bunker busting tactical and battlefield nuclear weapons which is believed may be used in any war against Iran.

My own belief is that North Korea are developing nuclear weapons both as a detterent against invasions (ironic, as their development will probably result in an invasion) and as a powerful bargaining chip which can be handed over in return for the lifting of sanctions.

Iran's nuclear ambitions are built as a detterent to Israel's own arsenal and also as a detterent against US invasion (again ironic, as their development will probably result in the exact opposite).

Mark my words, the US will deploy battlefield tactical nuclear weapons in a future conflict sometime over the next 10 to 20 years.

JBG, again I have to challenge your contribution to this "arguement"

You ask Lando on what he basis his arguement, but the points you use as a rebutal are slightly disingenuous .

ie "The only country that has ever deployed nuclear weapons has been the US."

Surely the reason for this was fairly well explored earlier in this thread . The US was looking to bring a speedy end to WW2  (not start WW3 ) and in the process limit the potential loss of life (admittedly their own first) that the protracted conventional battle for Japan would produce .

"President Kennedy deployed tactical nuclear weapons to Florida during the 13 day Cuban Missile crisis."

You say "Cuban Missile crisis " when a plainer way of speaking would be to say

"President Kennedy deployed tactical nuclear weapons to Florida when the Russians shipped nuclear missiles to Cuba ,giving them a delivery time to the eastern seaboard of the US that could be measured in a few minutes"

By all means we can debate the issues but lets not blur the truth by viewing history with one eye closed .

Good post Woof

[JBG]

What people seem to be forgetting here is that the US won't use it's Nuclear arsenal unless it is in direct retaliation.
All US administrations during the Cold War investigated the possibility of using a first
North Korea and Iran would happily use theirs, as they are both run by dickheads with no one to answer to.

For all Bush's faults, he will never EVER use a nuke unless someone fires one at the US (Or another country) first.

But Lando, where is the basis for that?

The only country that has ever deployed nuclear weapons has been the US. strike against the Soviet Union and President Kennedy deployed tactical nuclear weapons to Florida during the 13 day Cuban Missile crisis.

George Bush senior readied tactical nuclear weapons for deployment against Iraq in the first Gulf War had Saddam used chemical weapons against the Allies and Israel.

George W. Bush announced at Westpoint in the summer of 2002 that his administration would break from centuries old tradition of not firing first, and the US is far more likely to fire the first shot than any of its enemies, real or imaginable. The Pentagon is also developing mini bunker busting tactical and battlefield nuclear weapons which is believed may be used in any war against Iran.

My own belief is that North Korea are developing nuclear weapons both as a detterent against invasions (ironic, as their development will probably result in an invasion) and as a powerful bargaining chip which can be handed over in return for the lifting of sanctions.

Iran's nuclear ambitions are built as a detterent to Israel's own arsenal and also as a detterent against US invasion (again ironic, as their development will probably result in the exact opposite).

Mark my words, the US will deploy battlefield tactical nuclear weapons in a future conflict sometime over the next 10 to 20 years.

JBG, again I have to challenge your contribution to this "arguement"

You ask Lando on what he basis his arguement, but the points you use as a rebutal are slightly disingenuous .

ie "The only country that has ever deployed nuclear weapons has been the US."

Surely the reason for this was fairly well explored earlier in this thread . The US was looking to bring a speedy end to WW2  (not start WW3 ) and in the process limit the potential loss of life (admittedly their own first) that the protracted conventional battle for Japan would produce .

"President Kennedy deployed tactical nuclear weapons to Florida during the 13 day Cuban Missile crisis."

You say "Cuban Missile crisis " when a plainer way of speaking would be to say

"President Kennedy deployed tactical nuclear weapons to Florida when the Russians shipped nuclear missiles to Cuba ,giving them a delivery time to the eastern seaboard of the US that could be measured in a few minutes"

By all means we can debate the issues but lets not blur the truth by viewing history with one eye closed .

No, I was rebutting Lando's point that George Bush would never use nuclear weapons but loonies like the leaders of North Korea or Iran would.

You say that I am looking at history with half an eye closed. Well, if that is said, then objectively, it must be pointed out that the US had placed nuclear missiles in Turkey, a similar proximity to the Soviet Union as Cuba was to the US.

The Soviet Union did not blockade Turkey as a result of that nor threaten its invasion. In the lead up to the Cuban missile crisis Kennedy moved lage forces to Florida armed with tactical nuclear weapons and the US military were prepared to undertake the invasion of Cuba, and the use of tactical nukes if necessary, a country which was not at war with the US.

My arguement against Lando's point is that the US is just as likely to use nuclear weapons than the men at the helm of North Korea and Iran. I personally don't see the US using nuclear weapons against cities anytime in the future but I think the deployment of battlefield nuclear weapons by the US cannot be ruled out.

[JBG]

The whole point behind non profileration is not really to make the world a safer place, but to allow the existing nuclear powers to remain in their oligopoly and not allow any competitors to challenge them.

JBG , does that point of view not equate with , "The police and some criminals have guns , so why not give everyone the right to own and carry one " ?

No, I don't mean to take you short but I think you are twisting my logic here.

I am very much against the spread of nuclear weapons. In my view the world is a much more dangerous place now that North Korea has nuclear weapons, and that Iran is developing them.

As I said elsewhere, as frightening the prospect of thermo nuclear war was during the Cold War, at least there was a logic to what was going on and MAD ensured a deterrent against world war.

Nuclear proliferation is hugely dangerous to the world in general - the fact that Pakistan and India have them is absolutely frightening.

My point is that the Non Profileration Treaty is just as much about preserving the existing nuclear status quo and oligopoly as maintaining world peace.

I in no way think that nuclear weapons should be handed about like sweets.

[woof woof !]

You say that I am looking at history with half an eye closed. Well, if that is said, then objectively, it must be pointed out that the US had placed nuclear missiles in Turkey, a similar proximity to the Soviet Union as Cuba was to the US.


My arguement against Lando's point is that the US is just as likely to use nuclear weapons than the men at the helm of North Korea and Iran.

I didn't say " I am looking at history with half an eye closed."

something wrong with your eyesight perhaps   

I said quite plainly  "lets not blur the truth by viewing history with one eye closed " The key words there being blur and truth.

As for your reference to Turkey ,  It wasn't part of the original post , by all means lob it in ,who's denying it ? just bear in mind as you apparently seek to justify the Soviet action.

Ankara - Moscow 1107 miles
Havana - Miami 90 miles 

The Soviets already had nuclear subs operating within a few hundred miles of America's east and west coasts , why decide to  park some nuclear warheads in Cuba if it wasn't just to test America's resolve ?


As for your assertion that the US is just as likely to use nuclear weapons as the men at the helm of North Korea . I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree ,otherwise I can see this turning into another pointless round of futile pontificating on the charater of George W and Kim Jong ll .

imo one's a retard the others just a headcase. 

[Lando_Griffin]

I bet you George Bush doesn't sanction the use of a Nuclear bomb as anything other than a retaliation.

I f*cking BET you. He may be an idiot, but he's not THAT stupid.

The USA dropped two bombs in WWII, and they had no real idea of the scale of the destruction they would cause.

Jerzy - stop talking b*llocks.