Liverpool FC Forum

[LFC2007]

No, research from institutions who compile these stat's for a living.

Oh yeah, and they'd never be misleading would they, so naive.

Like I said, and have been saying all along. There will always be a margin for error, and the sources may or may not be correct. However, I would trust those who study the issue for a living ahead of individual press reports, or pure speculation.

There may well be another conspiracy involving international research institutes, but I would make a considered judgement, that not everybody in this world is corrupt.

So fair enough.

Only when it suites you though people are or are not corrupt.

I see.

No, but it's difficult to see how an independent research institute of no affiliation would have any reason to be corrupt.

I can't think of a motive for someone within such an organisation to lie about these stat's.

[112-1077774096]

No-one can or will ever have any real knowledge concerning illegal or unregistered arms deals that may or may not have taken place, that would be speculating.

how strange, i said that half an hour ago while you were telling us how your information came from your source, when i said its mere speculation you tell us its from research, only when i show you that research is probably flawed and doesn't give you the full story you turn to this comment that i gave you earlier.

come on, i know personally i will think better of you if you just come out and say you were arguing a moot point rather than carrying it on now and acting as though the idea you have now was your idea all along

No, on the one hand you have unregistered or underhand arm's deals. On the other, you have registered arm's deals.

The first type of transfer is largely indeterminate, and immeasurable.

Of the second type, it is possible to ascertain a rough idea of who supplies more than others.

I have always maintained that illegal and underhand deals are indeterminate, they may or may not have happened.

The research is based on registered deals, as I'll repeat it again, it is virtually impossible to ascertain substantive information regarding any potential unregistered or underhand deals.

not worth discussing it with you anymore mate, it changes every time you post and therefore it would be a never ending discussion as per usual where you are concerned. never mind any educated reader can read the thread and make up their own mind on the subject.

[112-1077774096]

No, research from institutions who compile these stat's for a living.

Oh yeah, and they'd never be misleading would they, so naive.

Like I said, and have been saying all along. There will always be a margin for error, and the sources may or may not be correct. However, I would trust those who study the issue for a living ahead of individual press reports, or pure speculation.

There may well be another conspiracy involving international research institutes, but I would make a considered judgement, that not everybody in this world is corrupt.

So fair enough.

Only when it suites you though people are or are not corrupt.

I see.

No, but it's difficult to see how an independent research institute of no affiliation would have any reason to be corrupt.

I can't think of a motive for someone within such an organisation to lie about these stat's.

ah so now you know for a fact that they have no affiliation or is this more speculation.



   i have to go now before my sides split

[babu]

If you guys are interested this is a US government report of arms deals to developing nations. Only up until 2004.

China's is quite low compared to the rest, but i guess you can take that with a pinch of salt.

this is a table of agreements in place and matches value of actual trade closely



this is the pdf report:
Coventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1997-2004

Interesting report, but hasn't got anything about football in it.

[66-1112520797]

No, research from institutions who compile these stat's for a living.

Oh yeah, and they'd never be misleading would they, so naive.

Like I said, and have been saying all along. There will always be a margin for error, and the sources may or may not be correct. However, I would trust those who study the issue for a living ahead of individual press reports, or pure speculation.

There may well be another conspiracy involving international research institutes, but I would make a considered judgement, that not everybody in this world is corrupt.

So fair enough.

Only when it suites you though people are or are not corrupt.

I see.

No, but it's difficult to see how an independent research institute of no affiliation would have any reason to be corrupt.

I can't think of a motive for someone within such an organisation to lie about these stat's.

Not them though LFC, the facts handed over to them. They wouldnt head count every bomb being sold, they'll only get the information given to them that the governments want them to get.

Then ontop of that, you have the unregistered sales, which IMHO would generate as much if not more money than those registered.

But I could be wrong, I did not research this, this is what I think. 

[Emerald Red]

Whatever way you look at it, it's the arms dealers that are getting rich from the misery of poor people in the likes of Africa and parts of the middle east. They are guilty one way or the other of fueling  wars that are causing the displacement of innocent civilian refugees all over these conflicted regions. If they are all of a sudden banging on the doors of richer nations for asylum, then I think it's partly that nations duty to help them in one way or another. Of course, I'm assuming that the said country they turn up at has anything to do with what's went on in their homeland in the first place.

[account deleted by request]

No, research from institutions who compile these stat's for a living.

Oh yeah, and they'd never be misleading would they, so naive.

Like I said, and have been saying all along. There will always be a margin for error, and the sources may or may not be correct. However, I would trust those who study the issue for a living ahead of individual press reports, or pure speculation.

There may well be another conspiracy involving international research institutes, but I would make a considered judgement, that not everybody in this world is corrupt.

So fair enough.

Only when it suites you though people are or are not corrupt.

I see.

No, but it's difficult to see how an independent research institute of no affiliation would have any reason to be corrupt.

I can't think of a motive for someone within such an organisation to lie about these stat's.

ah so now you know for a fact that they have no affiliation or is this more speculation.



   i have to go now before my sides split

[LFC2007]

listen LFC2007 or whoever you are really, i have noticed may times that when people pick holes in your argument you choose to continue it hoping that your grasp of grammar will let you whittle your way out, when that fails you pop in the 'joke' comment as a way of backtracking.

you don't do yourself any favours mate, wouldn't it be much nicer of just once you say 'ah yes you are right, i have misunderstood something', or said oh my opinion is just speculation based on things i have read that may not be correct'

LFC2007 will do fine, not Karim or Oasis as you constantly suggest.

Bamaga chose to mock my post, I chose to mock his.

There are no 'holes' in my argument.

I put forward a list from a reasonably credible source, accepting at the same time that there is of course a margin for error, just one smaller than press reports alone.

constantly?  once since you joined the forum does not constitute 'constantly' my friend, just as citing your anonymous sources does not make it correct.

seems you have a problem with 'truth', it seems your honesty changes to suit you and suit your argument. the fact is during this discussion your knowledge has been shown to be lacking and when pushed you have failed to answer questions.

i can easily say "i read once in a report that there is a six foot 8 legged chicken in mongolia"  it doesn't make it true because i read it in a report mate and if i carried on saying it was right because its my source then i would look foolish

Constantly yes, the same people, every time. It's incessant.

I have no idea what you are even getting at, I've answered all your questions. I haven't lied, I've given you honest answers

I have never claimed to know more than anyone else on the issue. I have given, what I believe, and from the sources I have seen that the list I put forward to be correct, or to have a reasonable level of accuracy to it concerning registered arm's deals. You can believe what you like, I'll believe what I like.

I have never said what I have read is categorically true, I have maintained throughout your inquisition, that it may be wrong. Like anything in life, there is a margin for error.

The margin for error in this instance is IMHO, lower than that of an individual press report.

I have never 'backtracked' on this issue.

[LFC2007]

No-one can or will ever have any real knowledge concerning illegal or unregistered arms deals that may or may not have taken place, that would be speculating.

how strange, i said that half an hour ago while you were telling us how your information came from your source, when i said its mere speculation you tell us its from research, only when i show you that research is probably flawed and doesn't give you the full story you turn to this comment that i gave you earlier.

come on, i know personally i will think better of you if you just come out and say you were arguing a moot point rather than carrying it on now and acting as though the idea you have now was your idea all along

No, on the one hand you have unregistered or underhand arm's deals. On the other, you have registered arm's deals.

The first type of transfer is largely indeterminate, and immeasurable.

Of the second type, it is possible to ascertain a rough idea of who supplies more than others.

I have always maintained that illegal and underhand deals are indeterminate, they may or may not have happened.

The research is based on registered deals, as I'll repeat it again, it is virtually impossible to ascertain substantive information regarding any potential unregistered or underhand deals.

not worth discussing it with you anymore mate, it changes every time you post and therefore it would be a never ending discussion as per usual where you are concerned. never mind any educated reader can read the thread and make up their own mind on the subject.

Okay mate, as far as 'any educated reader' can see, I have answered every part of your little inquisition quite comprehensively.

I have stayed consitent throughout, read it back if you like.

But Like you said, it's not worth discussing with you any longer.

Tara.

[babu]

United Nations General Assembly, speech and disscussion on illicit arms trading - october 2006

UN Assembly Notes

[66-1112520797]

Whatever way you look at it, it's the arms dealers that are getting rich from the misery of poor people in the likes of Africa and parts of the middle east. They are guilty one way or the other of fueling  wars that are causing the displacement of innocent civilian refugees all over these conflicted regions. If they are all of a sudden banging on the doors of richer nations for asylum, then I think it's partly that nations duty to help them in one way or another. Of course, I'm assuming that the said country they turn up at has anything to do with what's went on in their homeland in the first place.

In saying that though Emerald it wasnt thepublic of the richer nations" that fuelled arms trades.

[Emerald Red]

Whatever way you look at it, it's the arms dealers that are getting rich from the misery of poor people in the likes of Africa and parts of the middle east. They are guilty one way or the other of fueling  wars that are causing the displacement of innocent civilian refugees all over these conflicted regions. If they are all of a sudden banging on the doors of richer nations for asylum, then I think it's partly that nations duty to help them in one way or another. Of course, I'm assuming that the said country they turn up at has anything to do with what's went on in their homeland in the first place.

In saying that though Emerald it wasnt thepublic of the richer nations" that fuelled arms trades.

I know. It's always the public that pays for the governments mistakes. It should be the other way round. It's like when they f*cked up building that daft Millenium Dome thing, when they could have built 6 hospitals instead or whatever. No. It flopped big time, and the tax payers had to pay for it and then some. Other amenities like health care and transport as well took a hit, I'm sure.

[66-1112520797]

I have no idea what you are even getting at, I've answered all your questions

You still havent answered my question about 'to your knowledge we've havent sold arms in Burma'

Waiting.

What is your knowledge, and show us your source then, we may agree with you. But playing all this secret squirrel stuff makes me even more intrigued of your wealth of knowledge.


Waiting ?

[LFC2007]

No, research from institutions who compile these stat's for a living.

Oh yeah, and they'd never be misleading would they, so naive.

Like I said, and have been saying all along. There will always be a margin for error, and the sources may or may not be correct. However, I would trust those who study the issue for a living ahead of individual press reports, or pure speculation.

There may well be another conspiracy involving international research institutes, but I would make a considered judgement, that not everybody in this world is corrupt.

So fair enough.

Only when it suites you though people are or are not corrupt.

I see.

No, but it's difficult to see how an independent research institute of no affiliation would have any reason to be corrupt.

I can't think of a motive for someone within such an organisation to lie about these stat's.

ah so now you know for a fact that they have no affiliation or is this more speculation.



   i have to go now before my sides split

No, they are declared a 'politically independent institute for conflict and peace research’.

If you have no trust whatsoever in society, then what any person in a position of authority says will automatically be disregarded.

In this instance, there appears to be no motive for anyone to corrupt the figures.

Of course, they may well have a political affiliation but I consider it unlikely.

Of course, fairies may be waltzing in your garden right now. We have no way of proving it, but I consider it unlikely. This is an obvious exaggeration, but you get my point.

[Emerald Red]

Well, fellas - it's been real. Nice talkin bollox with yez for one night, but I gotta shoot the crow (gotta see an arms dealer about that one first). Adios.

Be interesting to read how this debate I've stirred has developed by tomorrow.