Liverpool FC Forum

[metalhead]

You mean like in 1938 when Hitler said he had no more demands or plans for expansion. Why should one of the few countries in the world with enough oil to supply all their future needs want to invest in nuclear energy.Not only that, but why invest in the type of nuclear energy that produces as a by product plutonium.(which just happens to be the key ingredient needed for nuclear weapons?

Especially knowing that Israel would go to war before see an Arab nation have nuclear weapons.

But if you say trust him who am I to argue.

I'm not saying to trust him, I'm saying that Ahmadi Najad is no hitler and he doesn't need for expansion! You said it your self his country has alot of oil and rich! They want to get into the Nuclear program to make a much more powerful power source for the country. I was hearing about this water source being used for the uranium, can someone enlighten me with that? because I'm confused about it.

S@int, I agree nuclear energy is produced by the product of plutonium and a key ingrediant to making nuclear weapons. Time will tell if Iran's top priority is making an Atomic bomb and using it on countries, but IMO I don't think Iran are that stupid.

I think nuclear energy is a good thing personally, if of course its used in the right way. If Iran intend on using it in a way of energy rather than weaponary, then fine !
But with a country like Iran having all that oil, and as wealthy as it is, is their really any need yet to produce nuclear energy if they have fossil fuels ?

maybe enviromental reasons, isn't nuclear energy a more less pollutant source of power than oil?

[account deleted by request]

You mean like in 1938 when Hitler said he had no more demands or plans for expansion. Why should one of the few countries in the world with enough oil to supply all their future needs want to invest in nuclear energy.Not only that, but why invest in the type of nuclear energy that produces as a by product plutonium.(which just happens to be the key ingredient needed for nuclear weapons?

Especially knowing that Israel would go to war before see an Arab nation have nuclear weapons.

But if you say trust him who am I to argue.

I'm not saying to trust him, I'm saying that Ahmadi Najad is no hitler and he doesn't need for expansion! You said it your self his country has alot of oil and rich! They want to get into the Nuclear program to make a much more powerful power source for the country. I was hearing about this water source being used for the uranium, can someone enlighten me with that? because I'm confused about it.

S@int, I agree nuclear energy is produced by the product of plutonium and a key ingrediant to making nuclear weapons. Time will tell if Iran's top priority is making an Atomic bomb and using it on countries, but IMO I don't think Iran are that stupid.

I think nuclear energy is a good thing personally, if of course its used in the right way. If Iran intend on using it in a way of energy rather than weaponary, then fine !
But with a country like Iran having all that oil, and as wealthy as it is, is their really any need yet to produce nuclear energy if they have fossil fuels ?

Its not only why do they want nuclear power ,but why they want that type of reactor. There are breeder reactors(by product plutonium) and non breeder reactors( no plutonium by product) Iran has gone for the breeder reactor.

[Judge]

i declare myself world president. so do as i say peasants

[woof woof !]

I say this is another cold war, but this time its between the U.S and Iran.

Harry Truman used them during war, and he shouldn't have done that.

Metalhead ,  The battle for Okinawa, April-June 1945 resulted in estimated losses of 250,000 Japanese ,150,000 of which were civilians . American casualities were 72,000 .

After such desperate and fanatical fighting the Americans forcast that they could lose as many as 1 million troops in a conventional assault on the Japanese mainland ,with many millions of Japanese (soldiers and civilians) also being killed . The Americans therefore, rightly or wrongly, decided to use nuclear weapons against the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Estimates for casualties suffered in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are 105,000 dead and 74,000 injured .Less in fact than the Japanese losses on Okinawa.

It could be argued that by using the "bomb" America actually preserved lives .   

[metalhead]

I say this is another cold war, but this time its between the U.S and Iran.

Harry Truman used them during war, and he shouldn't have done that.

Metalhead ,  The battle for Okinawa, April-June 1945 resulted in estimated losses of 250,000 Japanese ,150,000 of which were civilians . American casualities were 72,000 .

After such desperate and fanatical fighting the Americans forcast that they could lose as many as 1 million troops in a conventional assault on the Japanese mainland ,with many millions of Japanese (soldiers and civilians) also being killed . The Americans therefore, rightly or wrongly, decided to use nuclear weapons against the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Estimates for casualties suffered in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are 105,000 dead and 74,000 injured .Less in fact than the Japanese losses on Okinawa.

It could be argued that by using the "bomb" America actually preserved lives .   

It could be argued that it preserved more American lives, but then it gave a huge blow to the Japanese side and killed many civilians.

[woof woof !]

It could be argued that it preserved more American lives, but then it gave a huge blow to the Japanese side and killed many civilians.

For christ sake , OK let me try and explain it in such a way that even you will understand.

Taking the casualties at Okinawa (the last major battle in the Pacific) as a template , the odds were approx 3.5 japanese casualties for each American casualty . Therefore with American losses for an assault on mainland Japan forcasted as high as one million, Japanese casualities could have been as high as 3,5 million . Significantly higher than the 179,000 suffered in Nagasaki and Hiroshima , don't you think ?

Certainly the American use of a nuclear weapon preserved American lives but the statistics suggest in the longer term they preserved even more Japanese lives .

Maybe you'll tell me next that Japan might have staged a magnificent recovery and won the war without suffering another scratch ?   

[account deleted by request]

It could be argued that it preserved more American lives, but then it gave a huge blow to the Japanese side and killed many civilians.

For christ sake , OK let me try and explain it in such a way that even you will understand.

Taking the casualties at Okinawa (the last major battle in the Pacific) as a template , the odds were approx 3.5 japanese casualties for each American casualty . Therefore with American losses for an assault on mainland Japan forcasted as high as one million, Japanese casualities could have been as high as 3,5 million . Significantly higher than the 179,000 suffered in Nagasaki and Hiroshima , don't you think ?

Certainly the American use of a nuclear weapon preserved American lives but the statistics suggest in the longer term they preserved even more Japanese lives .

Maybe you'll tell me next that Japan might have staged a magnificent recovery and won the war without suffering another scratch ?   

As Woof has said, many more Japanese would have died if the Atom bomb had not been used and the war had continued.

For example more people died in ONE NIGHT of firebombing (100,000+)on Tokyo, than in either of the nuclear blasts. This firebombing would have been used on a widescale before any invasion and ground war was considered.

[metalhead]

It could be argued that it preserved more American lives, but then it gave a huge blow to the Japanese side and killed many civilians.

For christ sake , OK let me try and explain it in such a way that even you will understand.

Taking the casualties at Okinawa (the last major battle in the Pacific) as a template , the odds were approx 3.5 japanese casualties for each American casualty . Therefore with American losses for an assault on mainland Japan forcasted as high as one million, Japanese casualities could have been as high as 3,5 million . Significantly higher than the 179,000 suffered in Nagasaki and Hiroshima , don't you think ?

Certainly the American use of a nuclear weapon preserved American lives but the statistics suggest in the longer term they preserved even more Japanese lives .

Maybe you'll tell me next that Japan might have staged a magnificent recovery and won the war without suffering another scratch ?   

sorry mate, no need to get hard on me, My language isn't english you know! 

Yeh ok thanks for clarifying it better!

[Lando_Griffin]

In a nutshell, if dickheads stop doing wrong, the USA won't have any reason to declare wars, will they?

oh but they will find a reason, just like they did in Vietnam, Iraq, Nicaragua, Grenada and countless other countries. If it suits them politcally and Economically, without to much loss of life to there military they will go for it.

Why do you think Iraq and Afghanistan got invaded but not the likes of N.Korea and Iran, who the Americans dislike just as much if not more.

I take it you were in a coma on 11/9 then?

What a stupid question to ask. 

Lando mate, many of the countries who dislike the U.S are fed up with the U.S policy on dealing international affairs, these countries are taking a stand against the U.S to stop them from controlling other countries and telling these countries what to do! Like Saudi Arabia for example! Iran are so tired of the threats it is recieving from the U.S about its Nuclear Enrichment! Thats why the Iranians are calling for negotiations but are the U.S doing the same?

I'm just saying if the U.S government won't interfere into other countries affairs I will be sure that the U.S would be everyone's friend.

I'm not entirely sure what your point is mate.

The USA go after the biggest threat to civilisation, hoping to ward off anyone else.

Whichever way you look at it, the war on terror is for the best.

Yes, innocent people have been and are being killed, but the consequenses of allowing numbnuts like Saddam and Bin Laden to continue their reigns of destructive terror would be far worse.

I know this will attract a lot of scorn, and I understand fully that other cultures see things differently, but the true fact of the matter is this:

Democracy (and the Western way of life) is better than the alternatives.

We have the medical care, the healthy living conditions, the social freedom, and generally speaking, a better quality of life.

How many people would choose to move out of their semi-detached (or whatever) house in the middle of a town, to live in a shack where everything is like a third-world country?

Not me.

And not you, either.

THAT is why we are right and Bin LAden is a pr*ck.

We know what's best, and he is an idiot, basically. 

[account deleted by request]

I think the sh1ts really going to hit the fan now, N.Korea has tested a nuclear device today. N.Korea has a history of selling its technology to the highest bidder, usually Syria ,Iranand Iraq. If it sells a nuclear device to Bin Laden, Syria or Iran the scene will be set for a tragedy of monumental proportions or even all out war.

[Lando_Griffin]

I think the sh1ts really going to hit the fan now, N.Korea has tested a nuclear device today. N.Korea has a history of selling its technology to the highest bidder, usually Syria ,Iranand Iraq. If it sells a nuclear device to Bin Laden, Syria or Iran the scene will be set for a tragedy of monumental proportions or even all out war.

The burning question is:

Will the human race survive if that utter lunatic Bin Laden gets his grubby hands on Nuclear weapons?

The stupid b*stard and his minnions have made it quite clear that they see death as some short-cut to their heaven's upper echelons, so they won't fear a revenge attack from the USA or any other nation.

I really think that the majority of the World is unaware of the great peril we find ourselves in, should these fanatics have access to this technology.

All we can hope for is that none of the interceptor pilots have an off-day.

People - World War III is on it's way. It own't be today, it won't be tomorrow.

But it's closer than we ever imagined.

Mark my words.

[woof woof !]

People - World War III is on it's way. It own't be today, it won't be tomorrow.

But it's closer than we ever imagined.

Mark my words.

F'uckin' DOOM MONGER !



(you are however just about right .  )

[66-1112520797]

In a nutshell, if dickheads stop doing wrong, the USA won't have any reason to declare wars, will they?

oh but they will find a reason, just like they did in Vietnam, Iraq, Nicaragua, Grenada and countless other countries. If it suits them politcally and Economically, without to much loss of life to there military they will go for it.

Why do you think Iraq and Afghanistan got invaded but not the likes of N.Korea and Iran, who the Americans dislike just as much if not more.

I take it you were in a coma on 11/9 then?

What a stupid question to ask. 

Lando mate, many of the countries who dislike the U.S are fed up with the U.S policy on dealing international affairs, these countries are taking a stand against the U.S to stop them from controlling other countries and telling these countries what to do! Like Saudi Arabia for example! Iran are so tired of the threats it is recieving from the U.S about its Nuclear Enrichment! Thats why the Iranians are calling for negotiations but are the U.S doing the same?

I'm just saying if the U.S government won't interfere into other countries affairs I will be sure that the U.S would be everyone's friend.

I get your drift Metalhead this peeves me off with the yanks aswell. They're always at the forefront of poking there noses in, and telling nations how it outta be done. Also the way they they try and police the world gets up my hooter too.
It wouldnt be so bad if say the Germans, French lol, Russians, Spanish or the Japanese stood up and took the mantle from time to time. There's no point in asking the Italians, as they'll just bottle it. 
But FFS! the concoction (sp) of Bush and Bin is a terrifying won for the world, and throw in N.Korea on top of that and as lando said doomsday certainly looks closer. 

[metalhead]

Lando I understand your point, Bin Ladin is a ! everyone knows that and everyone wants him dead or locked up in cell that has huge electric wires transmitting 5000 volts of electricity.

What I'm trying to say is that the U.S has a tendency to use its policy on other countries, i.e right now in Iraq. This is what is making other countries like Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, etc... fed up and tired of the U.S policy being used everywhere! right now the U.S is trying to implement its policy on Lebanon, which is making Hizballah   angry because they don't want any American rules and interference into the country, what Hizballah wants is a government unity based on LEBANESE policies.

Democracy is good.

Bin Ladin doesn't live in a shack, he lives in a cave and takes a camel to his work place 

I heard about N.Korea yesterday, it is freaky and if they tend to sell nuclear weapons to Al-Quada then it becomes really serious! Syria won't get a Nuclear weapon, they do not have a large sum of money to do so. Iran might get a weapon from North Korea, but will not use it unless it faces violent aggression from any country.Al-Quada is a huge threat to Iran, if anyone knew that. So if Al-Quada do buy a nuclear bomb then also Iran is in danger!

[account deleted by request]

The USA is the worlds police force whether you like it or not. Just like the real police force they are interfering no good busybodies, until someone breaks in your house (Kuwait) or starts threatening you with a big stick(N.Korea). Like all police they over react when attacked or threatened (Iraq and Bin Laden), but at the end of the day who else is going to do anything?