Liverpool FC Forum

by **Lando_Griffin** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 4:06 am

No mate - the furthest he's travelled is to Tesco Express whenever he's run out of Vaseline and Kleenex.

by **Judge** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:00 am

peewee wrote:

FH, cant stop laughing

by **74-1160487249** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:21 am

Lando_Griffin wrote:
s@int wrote:
JBG wrote:I generally keep out of threads like this but the utter stupidity and naivety shown by many members in this thread absolutely beggers belief.

The lack of understanding of what is going on in the world astonishes me and its the kind of nonsense you might read in the General Chat section of an American football forum.

Somebody else comes on here and offers a different view to the others and he's automatically accused of being on a wind up.

Not on a windup?

There is little evidence to show that North Korea or Iran are producing nuclear technology and energy to construct missiles

This the day after Korea detonated a nuclear device!

If Korea or Iran use these missiles then I will agree with the US stepping in, but until then they should sort Iraq out and leave Korea and Iran to their own devices.

Bit late once they have used it

They tested a missile, so what? Did it kill anyone? I'm unaware of it killing anyone, therefore I don't see a problem with it

YOU dont see a problem with it, but China,Russia, Japan, Britain,USA,S.Korea and the whole of the UN apart from Iran DO!

JBG - He is a banned member, who was notorious for windup posts.Do you honestly think those are reasonable posts? I honestly thought I was discussing nuclear weapons with a young teenager.

And all of those comments coming from the same spoon who is totally against using nuclear power for energy!!!!
Oasis, Mudface, KArim, LiverpoolAnytime - the wannabe Gangster who jumps frail old Grannies and get's battered by a hail of brolly-blows.

The pathetic hoody said:

"It's sad because it will no doubt a) damage the environment, but oh well who cares? As long as your dead when the mother nature causes havoc, right? B) It will be abused to no end and will probably result in usage during war, so more people would die and land would become inhabitable, but who cares about that? As long as it's not you right?

I know enough about radiation and nuclear technology, thanks for you diagnosis of me and other people who aren't apathetic but it's wasted on me."

RIGHT after he'd said:

"They tested a missile, so what? Did it kill anyone? I'm unaware of it killing anyone, therefore I don't see a problem with it".

- The innermost workings of the feeble mind.

Karim welcomes you.

You've mixed up what I've said, swap the two quotes around and that is indeed correct. I am against nuclear weapons and energy, but seeing as every country well in the West is producing them, then I can't see why North Korea and Iran cannot? Is it one rule for the West and one rule for the East?

Why should America have nuclear weaponary and nuclear technology, yet North Korea and Iran can't?

That is what I am getting at.

Oh and I didn't know you were Karim. :;):

by **JBG** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:47 pm

Bamaga man wrote:
They did Pearl Harbor you know! without this event the U.S would have never entered the war

F.cking too right. We called in the yanks years before they got there @rses involved, if it directly effects them (pearl harbour) or they can get something out of it (oil) there not to quick into offereing a hand !

I don't think thats strictly correct.

The US was effectively at war since the summer of 1941 when Roosevelt extended US Navy protection to British convoys and American and German lives were lost before Pearl Harbour due to "unofficial" hostilities between the two sides. US troops replaced Canadian troops in Iceland in 1941 and were effectively in the European theatre of war before official hostilities broke out. US air men also flew with the RAF during the battle of Britain.

Roosevelt was itching to get into the fight for various different reasons, and while historical opinion differs on his motives, it was clear that since 1940 Roosevelt wanted to enter the European war, but his ambitions lacked popular support. Roosevelt had various motives which ranged from his desire to kick start the New Deal with the inevitable massive re-armament that war would have brought (and did, turning the US into an economic and military superpower) to geopolitical reasons in that he did not want the development of two new superpowers to his east and west. It must also be said that Roosevelt genuinely felt that it was a war worth fighting on moral grounds as well, although I do disagree slightly in how American historians paint their "Golden Generation" and how America was a peaceful and isolationist nation that wanted no part in the war until Pearl Harbour.
It is true that the American public and a large amount of its politicians wanted no part to play, but the Roosevelt administration was itching to get involved, and this can be seen by the start of massive US rearmanent as early as 1940, the US occupation of Iceland and Roosevelt ordering to fire on U-boats if they approached US shipping. Pearl Harbour became inevitable due to Roosevelt's partially conscious and partially reckless policy in the Pacific, with the economic sanctions and oil embargo imposed on Japan forcing the Japanese to turn their focus away from China and the Soviet Union towards the minerals in south East Asia and the need to confront the US Navy in the Pacific.

by **66-1112520797** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:02 pm

JBG wrote:
Bamaga man wrote:
They did Pearl Harbor you know! without this event the U.S would have never entered the war

F.cking too right. We called in the yanks years before they got there @rses involved, if it directly effects them (pearl harbour) or they can get something out of it (oil) there not to quick into offereing a hand !

I don't think thats strictly correct.

The US was effectively at war since the summer of 1941 when Roosevelt extended US Navy protection to British convoys and American and German lives were lost before Pearl Harbour due to "unofficial" hostilities between the two sides. US troops replaced Canadian troops in Iceland in 1941 and were effectively in the European theatre of war before official hostilities broke out. US air men also flew with the RAF during the battle of Britain.

Roosevelt was itching to get into the fight for various different reasons, and while historical opinion differs on his motives, it was clear that since 1940 Roosevelt wanted to enter the European war, but his ambitions lacked popular support. Roosevelt had various motives which ranged from his desire to kick start the New Deal with the inevitable massive re-armament that war would have brought (and did, turning the US into an economic and military superpower) to geopolitical reasons in that he did not want the development of two new superpowers to his east and west. It must also be said that Roosevelt genuinely felt that it was a war worth fighting on moral grounds as well, although I do disagree slightly in how American historians paint their "Golden Generation" and how America was a peaceful and isolationist nation that wanted no part in the war until Pearl Harbour.
It is true that the American public and a large amount of its politicians wanted no part to play, but the Roosevelt administration was itching to get involved, and this can be seen by the start of massive US rearmanent as early as 1940, the US occupation of Iceland and Roosevelt ordering to fire on U-boats if they approached US shipping. Pearl Harbour became inevitable due to Roosevelt's partially conscious and partially reckless policy in the Pacific, with the economic sanctions and oil embargo imposed on Japan forcing the Japanese to turn their focus away from China and the Soviet Union towards the minerals in south East Asia and the need to confront the US Navy in the Pacific.

Not stictly true, but even after reading your enlightened post I was'nt far off.

by **66-1112520797** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:47 pm

Going back to that N.Korea thing, apparently they were testing out TNT as opposed to nuclear weapons. (cough cough) Anyone heard that ?

A friend of mine was telling me tonight that, the way each country developes their own nuclear power/energy is different. And he said the way Irans has been developed is almost similar to that of the way N.Korea's been developed which is highly unlikely.

by **JBG** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:53 pm

Apparently a lot of the expertise for North Korea's bomb came from a rogue Pakistani scientist.

The fact that they have a bomb is massively destablising. Japan's new Prime Minister has already indicated that he wants a redrafting of Japan's constitution which would allow a major re-armanent and would allow Japan the "legal" authority (in so far as it would be consitutionally legal within Japan, international law is another matter) to lauch pre-emptive attacks.

I doubt we'll ever see North Korea ever deploying nuclear weapons as it involve the utter destruction of that country by the US, Japan (in the future) and South Korea. I think the North have developed it as the ultimate bargaining chip which it can give away in return for lifting of sanctions.

by **Sabre** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:54 pm

Going back to that N.Korea thing, apparently they were testing out TNT as opposed to nuclear weapons. (cough cough) Anyone heard that ?

Yes, according to some experts, they might be bluffing.

Apparently underground nuclear explosions generate certain sismic wave patterns, none of which were detected. Experts doubt both their capability to develope a bomb of that kind, and also they doubt about if they have the technology to miniaturize that bomb to put in on a missile. Apart from that, long range korean missiles are not very accurate.

by **account deleted by request** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:01 pm

JBG wrote:
Bamaga man wrote:
They did Pearl Harbor you know! without this event the U.S would have never entered the war

F.cking too right. We called in the yanks years before they got there @rses involved, if it directly effects them (pearl harbour) or they can get something out of it (oil) there not to quick into offereing a hand !

I don't think thats strictly correct.

The US was effectively at war since the summer of 1941 when Roosevelt extended US Navy protection to British convoys and American and German lives were lost before Pearl Harbour due to "unofficial" hostilities between the two sides. US troops replaced Canadian troops in Iceland in 1941 and were effectively in the European theatre of war before official hostilities broke out. US air men also flew with the RAF during the battle of Britain.

Roosevelt was itching to get into the fight for various different reasons, and while historical opinion differs on his motives, it was clear that since 1940 Roosevelt wanted to enter the European war, but his ambitions lacked popular support. Roosevelt had various motives which ranged from his desire to kick start the New Deal with the inevitable massive re-armament that war would have brought (and did, turning the US into an economic and military superpower) to geopolitical reasons in that he did not want the development of two new superpowers to his east and west. It must also be said that Roosevelt genuinely felt that it was a war worth fighting on moral grounds as well, although I do disagree slightly in how American historians paint their "Golden Generation" and how America was a peaceful and isolationist nation that wanted no part in the war until Pearl Harbour.
It is true that the American public and a large amount of its politicians wanted no part to play, but the Roosevelt administration was itching to get involved, and this can be seen by the start of massive US rearmanent as early as 1940, the US occupation of Iceland and Roosevelt ordering to fire on U-boats if they approached US shipping. Pearl Harbour became inevitable due to Roosevelt's partially conscious and partially reckless policy in the Pacific, with the economic sanctions and oil embargo imposed on Japan forcing the Japanese to turn their focus away from China and the Soviet Union towards the minerals in south East Asia and the need to confront the US Navy in the Pacific.

This is quite correct JBG . Infact in November 1941 (a month before the USA entered the war) British troops were transferred and transported in US ships from Halifax Nova Scotia to Singapore via Cape Town and Durban.

The all American escort of an aircraft carrier, 2 large cruisers and 9 destroyers had implicit instructions to sink any German ships that attacked the convoy.

by **66-1112520797** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:05 pm

The all American escort of an aircraft carrier, 2 large cruisers and 9 destroyers had implicit instructions to sink any German ships that attacked the convoy.

Thats great they helped us out in a convoy, didnt they also help out the IRA with the supply of weapons etc in another instance .?

Lets be fair, if any army came under threat from someone would'nt they be instructed to retaliate ?

Also didnt the war start in 1938 ?

On another note

I know it seems "fashionable" to get riled by the yanks these days, but to the more Eastern countries is it any wonder why they rebel, when they see the likes of the western nations holding nuclear weapons yet demanding them to abolish any plans or plants because they fear them. Dont get me wrong I'd feel much less worried about the yanks having nuclear weapons than some evil dictator from N.Korea, but in there eyes they have a fair point.

by **account deleted by request** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:09 pm

The war as far as Britain was concerned started in 1939 the yanks came in Dec 7 1941.

by **Lando_Griffin** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:22 pm

Britain and France declared war on Nazi Germany on 3rd September 1939 - two days after they invaded Poland.

by **66-1112520797** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:22 pm

s@int wrote:The war as far as Britain was concerned started in 1939 the yanks came in Dec 7 1941.

Could you imagine if we went in the Kuwait/Iraq war two years after it started, I think that would of held a few implications on our behalf with relationships between us and the U.S.

I maybe wrong on this, but as I said before the U.S arent renound for getting involved in a war unless there is something to be gained from it by them, obviously most countries wouldnt, but they can't be labelled as the protectors of the world when they pick and choose what to get invloved in.

Take Congo as a prime example.

by **Lando_Griffin** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:26 pm

Jerzy wrote:
Lando_Griffin wrote:
s@int wrote:
JBG wrote:I generally keep out of threads like this but the utter stupidity and naivety shown by many members in this thread absolutely beggers belief.

The lack of understanding of what is going on in the world astonishes me and its the kind of nonsense you might read in the General Chat section of an American football forum.

Somebody else comes on here and offers a different view to the others and he's automatically accused of being on a wind up.

Not on a windup?

There is little evidence to show that North Korea or Iran are producing nuclear technology and energy to construct missiles

This the day after Korea detonated a nuclear device!

If Korea or Iran use these missiles then I will agree with the US stepping in, but until then they should sort Iraq out and leave Korea and Iran to their own devices.

Bit late once they have used it

They tested a missile, so what? Did it kill anyone? I'm unaware of it killing anyone, therefore I don't see a problem with it

YOU dont see a problem with it, but China,Russia, Japan, Britain,USA,S.Korea and the whole of the UN apart from Iran DO!

JBG - He is a banned member, who was notorious for windup posts.Do you honestly think those are reasonable posts? I honestly thought I was discussing nuclear weapons with a young teenager.

And all of those comments coming from the same spoon who is totally against using nuclear power for energy!!!!
Oasis, Mudface, KArim, LiverpoolAnytime - the wannabe Gangster who jumps frail old Grannies and get's battered by a hail of brolly-blows.

The pathetic hoody said:

"It's sad because it will no doubt a) damage the environment, but oh well who cares? As long as your dead when the mother nature causes havoc, right? B) It will be abused to no end and will probably result in usage during war, so more people would die and land would become inhabitable, but who cares about that? As long as it's not you right?

I know enough about radiation and nuclear technology, thanks for you diagnosis of me and other people who aren't apathetic but it's wasted on me."

RIGHT after he'd said:

"They tested a missile, so what? Did it kill anyone? I'm unaware of it killing anyone, therefore I don't see a problem with it".

- The innermost workings of the feeble mind.

Karim welcomes you.

You've mixed up what I've said, swap the two quotes around and that is indeed correct. I am against nuclear weapons and energy, but seeing as every country well in the West is producing them, then I can't see why North Korea and Iran cannot? Is it one rule for the West and one rule for the East?

Why should America have nuclear weaponary and nuclear technology, yet North Korea and Iran can't?

That is what I am getting at.

Oh and I didn't know you were Karim.

Put them in the order you said them and they're equally as stupid.

You say "I don't see a problem with it" ("It" being Nuclear testing.)

Then you go on to spout about the environmental damage caused by Nuclear energy.

Newsflash, thicko - a Nuclear bomb does a whole bundle's worth of damage to the environment, whereas Nuclear energy is virtually harmless.

It's only a Nuclear fallout which effects the Earth. Even THAT is nowhere near the damage a Nuclear BOMB causes.

You reckon you're above everyone in the intelligence stakes, but then post contradictory trash.

Imbecile.

by **JBG** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:45 pm

America's position in the world should be a stabilising influence but George W. Bush's speech at Westpoint in the summer of 2002 in which he broke from America's historical tradition of "never firing the first shot" is dangerous, reckless and sinister.

America's overwhelming miliatry power should be a stabilising influence in the world as it effectively rules out any future Great Power war as we saw during Napoleonic times, World War One and World War Two. America's military power is so vast and the gap between them and the next strongest miliatry power (China) is so great that any Great Power would be utterly mad to attempt military adventurism akin to that of the Nazis, as the US could ruin any future rival through air, sea and missile use alone. The thought of any future power attempting to confront the US with nuclear weaponry is also preposterous, because the US's nuclear deterrent could whipe the other country off the map.

It should be stabilising as many of the world's strong countries know that confronting the US or its allies through conventional military power is utterly pointless and while we might get the occasional looney like Saddam invading a tiny and powerless neighbour, there is no possible way for another country to upset the balance of power, not within the next 30 or 40 years at least. For example, if there was no US (or at least, no American military superpower) a dictator in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, the Far East or South America could gamble on challenging its neighbours without the fear of a massive US conventional and nuclear deterrent.

The dangerous new phase of American foreign policy is potentially catastrophic as it allows the use of US military power to "protect America's national interest" which means that the world is at the mercy of whoever sits in the White House. While people in the West have nothing to fear directly from American military expansionism, desperate dictators or rogues like Bin Laden may attempt to hit the US where it is weak, by attacking its "soft" allies in Europe or elsewhere through terrorism, and hitting other US interests where they are exposed. Another danger is that if the US becomes bogged down in the long term fighting insurrection in the Middle East (particularly if it goes into Iran), we could see the gradual erosion of US military power through over extension, allowing other rivals (such as China or even a resurgance of Russia) to engage in military adventures overseas while America is distracted and tied down.

Liverpool FC Forum

Bin laden

Who is online