Liverpool FC Forum

Lando_Griffin wrote:

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.

Yes, you finally have something on me Lando, you're correct, I have been contradictory in this topic, which is why I'm staying out of it, I can accept when I've confused myself or tripped oevr my own ideas. Thanks for the heads up. 

Oh and when did I ever say I was more intelligent than anyone else? I've never once claimed to be a Mensa certificate holder, I've never once said I'm extremely intelligent, I believe you're making stuff up now Lando.

I don't agree with nuclear testing, but if the US are trying their new weaponary out on insurgents than why can't North Korea test their missiles and weponary out? Albeit, the North Korean testing can have a much more devestating effect on the environment and planet than a few US Missiles, but the fact remains is America is not the world, therefore they shouldn't have special privledges upon any other nation.

I came into this topic to discuss my argument, which is that the US should not be interfering in other countries affairs.

I have discussed this point and now I shall leave.

JBG wrote: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.

Jerzy wrote:

Lando_Griffin wrote:

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.

Yes, you finally have something on me Lando, you're correct, I have been contradictory in this topic, which is why I'm staying out of it, I can accept when I've confused myself or tripped oevr my own ideas. Thanks for the heads up. 

Oh and when did I ever say I was more intelligent than anyone else? I've never once claimed to be a Mensa certificate holder, I've never once said I'm extremely intelligent, I believe you're making stuff up now Lando.

I don't agree with nuclear testing, but if the US are trying their new weaponary out on insurgents than why can't North Korea test their missiles and weponary out? Albeit, the North Korean testing can have a much more devestating effect on the environment and planet than a few US Missiles, but the fact remains is America is not the world, therefore they shouldn't have special privledges upon any other nation.

I came into this topic to discuss my argument, which is that the US should not be interfering in other countries affairs.

I have discussed this point and now I shall leave.

In several of your guises you have claimed to be superior.

I never even mentioned Mensa, so I believe it is YOU who is making things up. 

s@int wrote:Oasis doesnt help himself by calling everyone halfwits, fools and uneducated idiots. Especially when he cant even spell half the words he uses. He was calling Lando in a post earlier today (since deleted) and couldnt even spell the words he was using to insult him 

Really!?!

Fancy PMing me the details?   

Lando_Griffin wrote:In several of your guises you have claimed to be superior.

I never even mentioned Mensa, so I believe it is YOU who is making things up. 

s@int wrote:There are currently eight states that have successfully detonated nuclear weapons. Five are considered to be "nuclear weapons states", an internationally recognized status conferred by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In order of acquisition of nuclear weapons these are: the United States of America, Russia (formerly the Soviet Union), the United Kingdom, France and the People's Republic of China. Since the formulation of the NPT, three non-signatory states of the NPT have conducted nuclear tests: India, Pakistan, and North Korea. Additionally, Israel is also strongly suspected to have an arsenal of nuclear weapons though it has refused to confirm or deny this, and there have been reports that over 200 nuclear weapons might be in its inventory. This status is not formally recognized by international bodies; none of these four countries is currently a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

5 countries have signed the non proliferation treaty, and are thereby official, the others havent and are deemed to be unofficial.

I suppose if an unofficial country signed the treaty they would become official

I don't see why the US are still allowed to build nuclear weapons when they wanted to wipe Japan off the face of the map some sixty years ago. This treaty seems incredibly elitist. 

Jerzy wrote:

s@int wrote:There are currently eight states that have successfully detonated nuclear weapons. Five are considered to be "nuclear weapons states", an internationally recognized status conferred by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In order of acquisition of nuclear weapons these are: the United States of America, Russia (formerly the Soviet Union), the United Kingdom, France and the People's Republic of China. Since the formulation of the NPT, three non-signatory states of the NPT have conducted nuclear tests: India, Pakistan, and North Korea. Additionally, Israel is also strongly suspected to have an arsenal of nuclear weapons though it has refused to confirm or deny this, and there have been reports that over 200 nuclear weapons might be in its inventory. This status is not formally recognized by international bodies; none of these four countries is currently a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

5 countries have signed the non proliferation treaty, and are thereby official, the others havent and are deemed to be unofficial.

I suppose if an unofficial country signed the treaty they would become official

I don't see why the US are still allowed to build nuclear weapons when they wanted to wipe Japan off the face of the map some sixty years ago. This treaty seems incredibly elitist.