Liverpool FC Forum

by **metalhead** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 1:33 pm

s@int wrote: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?

So the U.S are police force you say, a question, so how come the U.S let Israel bombard Lebanon and massacre all these Children living there? sure you will say to get rid of hizballah, but they didn't get rid of them, instead they killed many women, men and children, destroyed 50 schools, 10 factories, over 30,000 homes and and sent Lebanon back 20 years before. so the U.S, a police force should have stopped such an act, right?

by **account deleted by request** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 1:48 pm

Sometimes the police have to turn a blind eye to crimes, when to do otherwise would cause even more harm and injury. If the USA had stepped in it would have been to defend Israel not Lebanon, as it was the Hezballah that started the conflict. Rightly or wrongly if you throw the first punch in a dispute you are the one the police arrest.

The USA did apply pressure to Israel to pull out, which I believe is now nearly completed.

by **metalhead** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 1:53 pm

s@int wrote:Sometimes the police have to turn a blind eye to crimes, when to do otherwise would cause even more harm and injury. If the USA had stepped in it would have been to defend Israel not Lebanon, as it was the Hezballah that started the conflict. Rightly or wrongly if you throw the first punch in a dispute you are the one the police arrest.

The USA did apply pressure to Israel to pull out, which I believe is now nearly completed.

For all I know, the conflict didn't end! plus there are still cluster mines that will take a decade to remove from the south of lebanon, saint if you check my thread i posted a week ago on cluster mines you will understand that right now Israel have broke the 1701 rule by putting these cluster mines, hence harming innocent children and adults or killing a few children in the process.

The aggression is still there, the cluster mines were made by the U.S and sent to Israel.

by **account deleted by request** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 2:06 pm

metalhead wrote:
s@int wrote:Sometimes the police have to turn a blind eye to crimes, when to do otherwise would cause even more harm and injury. If the USA had stepped in it would have been to defend Israel not Lebanon, as it was the Hezballah that started the conflict. Rightly or wrongly if you throw the first punch in a dispute you are the one the police arrest.

The USA did apply pressure to Israel to pull out, which I believe is now nearly completed.

For all I know, the conflict didn't end! plus there are still cluster mines that will take a decade to remove from the south of lebanon, saint if you check my thread i posted a week ago on cluster mines you will understand that right now Israel have broke the 1701 rule by putting these cluster mines, hence harming innocent children and adults or killing a few children in the process.

The aggression is still there, the cluster mines were made by the U.S and sent to Israel.

The USA will not sign a treaty to ban mines or cluster bombs. I presume Israel havent signed the treaty either. Until pressure is put on the USA to sign the treaty mines and cluster bombs are "A legitimate option" even though they are an abhorrent and evil weapon more likely to kill innocent civilians.

Princess Diana before her death fronted a campaign to outlaw mines, but sadly it was never pushed through, and since her death its lost momentum and publicity.

by **112-1077774096** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 2:09 pm

ah well, it seems the doomsday clock might move forward from '7 minutes to'

by **74-1160487249** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 2:50 pm

s@int wrote:So what you are saying Metalhead is that the US should allow any country, no matter who runs it ,that wants to make nuclear weapons to have them, and not interfere?

If the US can have nuclear technology, then why can't Iran or North Korea?

by **account deleted by request** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 2:55 pm

Jerzy wrote:
s@int wrote:So what you are saying Metalhead is that the US should allow any country, no matter who runs it ,that wants to make nuclear weapons to have them, and not interfere?

If the US can have nuclear technology, then why can't Iran or North Korea?

No-one should have nuclear weapons, but its the proliferation of nuclear weapons thats the immediate problem. Not whether the USA should give up their nuclear weapons.

by **74-1160487249** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 3:16 pm

I understand what you mean, I too agree that no country should have nuclear technology, but in this day and age countries feel the need to have this technology for defence and industrial reasons.

I do not like the US condemning the likes of North Korea and Iran for developing Nuclear technology when they produce it themselves.

It's hypocritical.

by **account deleted by request** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 3:20 pm

I think you will find its the nuclear bomb technology and capability thats causing the problem not nuclear energy.

by **metalhead** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 3:21 pm

s@int wrote:
metalhead wrote:
s@int wrote:Sometimes the police have to turn a blind eye to crimes, when to do otherwise would cause even more harm and injury. If the USA had stepped in it would have been to defend Israel not Lebanon, as it was the Hezballah that started the conflict. Rightly or wrongly if you throw the first punch in a dispute you are the one the police arrest.

The USA did apply pressure to Israel to pull out, which I believe is now nearly completed.

For all I know, the conflict didn't end! plus there are still cluster mines that will take a decade to remove from the south of lebanon, saint if you check my thread i posted a week ago on cluster mines you will understand that right now Israel have broke the 1701 rule by putting these cluster mines, hence harming innocent children and adults or killing a few children in the process.

The aggression is still there, the cluster mines were made by the U.S and sent to Israel.

The USA will not sign a treaty to ban mines or cluster bombs. I presume Israel havent signed the treaty either. Until pressure is put on the USA to sign the treaty mines and cluster bombs are "A legitimate option" even though they are an abhorrent and evil weapon more likely to kill innocent civilians.

Princess Diana before her death fronted a campaign to outlaw mines, but sadly it was never pushed through, and since her death its lost momentum and publicity.

ofcourse the U.S won't sign a treaty to ban them, but why use it to harm innocent people or harm humanity?

by **74-1160487249** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 3:25 pm

There is little evidence to show that North Korea or Iran are producing nuclear technology and energy to construct missiles . If Iran and North Korea are, then that is entirely up to them, I don't see why the US feel the need to involve themselves in another countries domestic affairs. Especially seeing as the US are producing nuclear energy for missiles themselves.

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.

by **account deleted by request** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 3:27 pm

metalhead wrote:
s@int wrote:
metalhead wrote:
s@int wrote:Sometimes the police have to turn a blind eye to crimes, when to do otherwise would cause even more harm and injury. If the USA had stepped in it would have been to defend Israel not Lebanon, as it was the Hezballah that started the conflict. Rightly or wrongly if you throw the first punch in a dispute you are the one the police arrest.

The USA did apply pressure to Israel to pull out, which I believe is now nearly completed.

For all I know, the conflict didn't end! plus there are still cluster mines that will take a decade to remove from the south of lebanon, saint if you check my thread i posted a week ago on cluster mines you will understand that right now Israel have broke the 1701 rule by putting these cluster mines, hence harming innocent children and adults or killing a few children in the process.

The aggression is still there, the cluster mines were made by the U.S and sent to Israel.

The USA will not sign a treaty to ban mines or cluster bombs. I presume Israel havent signed the treaty either. Until pressure is put on the USA to sign the treaty mines and cluster bombs are "A legitimate option" even though they are an abhorrent and evil weapon more likely to kill innocent civilians.

Princess Diana before her death fronted a campaign to outlaw mines, but sadly it was never pushed through, and since her death its lost momentum and publicity.

ofcourse the U.S won't sign a treaty to ban them, but why use it to harm innocent people or harm humanity?

Whats the difference between indiscriminate use of a mine or a bomb they both kill innocent people including children, especially when they are strapped to peoples backs ,or fired into towns and citys.

by **account deleted by request** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 3:31 pm

Jerzy wrote:There is little evidence to show that North Korea or Iran are producing nuclear technology and energy to construct missiles . If Iran and North Korea are, then that is entirely up to them, I don't see why the US feel the need to involve themselves in another countries domestic affairs. Especially seeing as the US are producing nuclear energy for missiles themselves.

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.

Little evidence? N.Korea exploded a nuclear bomb yesterday! and have been testing missiles for the last year.

Its a bit late for the USA to step in once they have used the bomb in anger!

I think you need a reality check!

by **74-1160487249** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 3:37 pm

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 UK tests missiles and bombs in places such as Dorset, the US waltz into the Middle East and use their weapons there.

I disagree with nuclear power used as energy, so I'm dead against it being used to manufacture weapons of mass destruction.

However it cannot be one rule for one group of people and another for another set of people.

by **account deleted by request** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 3:46 pm

Jerzy wrote: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 UK tests missiles and bombs in places such as Dorset, the US waltz into the Middle East and use their weapons there.

I disagree with nuclear power used as energy, so I'm dead against it being used to manufacture weapons of mass destruction.

However it cannot be one rule for one group of people and another for another set of people.

You are obviously just on a wind up, theres a difference between testing conventional weapons and testing nuclear weapons. Especially when the person testing them is a power crazed dictator who's people live in fear and abject poverty.

They didnt test a missile yesterday they tested a nuclear bomb.

Go and read the BBC news then maybe we can have an intelligent conversation. I know you are new and I am taking that into consideration but FFS try talking sense.

As you seem to have trouble grasping the problems of nuclear weapons proliferation this is the Wikopeadia definition

Nuclear proliferation is the spread of nuclear weapons production technology and knowledge to nations that do not already have such capabilities. It has been opposed by many nations with and without nuclear weapons, who fear that more countries with nuclear weapons may increase the possibility of nuclear warfare, de-stabilize international or regional relations, or infringe upon the national sovereignty of individual nation-states. Other nations have pursued their own independent weapons development, calling into question the authority of some countries being able to specify who can or cannot have their own defensive nuclear weapons.

Earnest international efforts to promote nuclear non-proliferation did not begin until the late-1960s, after five nations had acquired nuclear weapons (see List of countries with nuclear weapons for more information). Since then, the primary focus of anti-proliferation efforts has been to maintain control over the specialized materials necessary to build such devices because this is the most difficult and expensive part of a nuclear weapons program. The main materials whose generation and distribution is controlled are highly enriched uranium and plutonium. Other than the acquisition of these special materials, the scientific and technical means for weapons construction to develop rudimentary, but working, nuclear devices are, although non-trivial, considered to be within the reach of most nations.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been the primary international anti-proliferation organization since it was established in 1957 by the United Nations. It operates a safeguards system as specified under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968. It has involved cooperation in developing nuclear energy while ensuring that civil uranium, plutonium, and associated plants are used only for peaceful purposes and do not contribute in any way to proliferation or nuclear weapons programs.

Most countries have renounced nuclear weapons, stating that possession of them would threaten rather than enhance national security. They have therefore embraced the NPT as a public commitment to use nuclear materials and technology only for peaceful purposes. A number of other countries, and individuals within countries, have been suspected of encouraging nuclear proliferation for either national or personal gain.

Liverpool FC Forum

Bin laden

Who is online