Liverpool FC Forum

BarryBelfast wrote:

Jerzy wrote:

s@int wrote: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!

JBG wrote: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!

s@int wrote: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

JBG wrote: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 wrote:

Lando_Griffin wrote: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.

woof woof ! wrote:

JBG wrote:

Lando_Griffin wrote: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 .

woof woof ! wrote:

JBG wrote:

Lando_Griffin wrote: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 .

woof woof ! wrote:

JBG wrote: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 " ?

JBG wrote: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.