Liverpool FC Forum

by **Ciggy** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 4:04 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.

Oh our friend Liverpool Anytimes back again.

by **74-1160487249** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 4:05 pm

I see the classic "wind up" card is being placed on the table. There is no difference between testing one missile from another missile. Sure it had nuclear energy within the warhead, but it was tested under ground. I don't agree with Noth Korea or any other country testing out missiles with or without a nuclear war head, but they have and it's up to the United Nations to deal with it in a diplomatic nature.

Not the US who take the undiplomatic approach and start launching their own missiles into a country. As for their "crazed" dictator, that is a matter for the North Korean people to deal with isn't it? If Russian peasants can over thow the Tsar and the Hungarian people manged to over thrown the Russian communists, I'm sure the Korean people can over throw their current dictator. However that is not what the topic is about.

All I'm saying is this business with North Korea is something for the United Nations to sort out and not the "great" United States of America, but I have no doubt that they'll take it upon themselves to involve themselves in another countries business.

by **74-1160487249** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 4:12 pm

Ciggy wrote:
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.

Oh our friend Liverpool Anytimes back again.

Nope, I'm not Liverpoolanytime, Karim or Mudface (who are the same people). I'm simply Oasis, who has decided to come back after hearing Lucas Neill will be signing us in January.

by **JBG** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 8:35 pm

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. :no

by **mitch22** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 8:41 pm

is a manc

by **74-1160487249** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:49 pm

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.

Spot on, what gets my goat as well is when people will defend America's actions till they are blue in the face because they are a Western "democracy", but yet when an Eastern country or any other country opposes them on something most people brand those countries as being "evil", "corrupt", "un-democratic".

"America is not the world"

by **Sabre** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:33 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.

I hate nuclear weapons, I'm proud Spain have decided not to have those. Testing successfully a nuclear bomb proves they have the capability to develope those weapons. I admit it's a bit hypocrital to blame them for developing those and understand that Japan develops his own programme and we say nothing. I'd simply combat this kind of weapon everywhere.

As for the fision energy, I think it's going to be necessary. All the studies say, that with the lack of petroleum we cannot maintain the current consumption rate and not using nuclear energy. The alternative sources of energy such as the eolic one, are not powerful enough. Until science develops the fusion energy (estimated 2050) fision energy will be necessary.

I think it's pretty safe energy. What happened in Chernobil was a chain of unbelievable errors and careless actions that provoked the accident, but with the proper modern measures, it can't happen again.

I think it's not a matter of liking or disliking nuclear stations, those are necessary. I'd like to have a non residual source of energy, but right now we can't afford that without lowering the energy consumption, and with China consuming more and more, to lower that consumption is difficult.

by **74-1160487249** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:41 pm

I don't buy that, you can use other non-polluting natural resources to generate energy. Wind turbines are one method, water is another method. There are inventors developing cars that run on substances such as cooking oil.

So there are natural and non natural resources available to humans when oil does eventually run out and these methods and resources do not pollute the atmosphere, therefore delaying the evolution of planet earth.

However what Government and country isn't power driven and power hungry? Governments live for today and not for tomorrow. Then they make out that the environment is a big issue to win a few votes.

Sadly nuclear energy seems to be the only way forward at this present time. It's a man made resource which can be supplied to the masses, therefore you can't expect countries like Iran and North Korea developing this technology to both aid their defence and domestic issues.

As for Spain it will no doubt make nuclear arms and develop nuclear technology soon enough. I'm pretty sure they probably do, it's just not well documented, but be sure if you do Mr America will be knocking on your door.

by **Sabre** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:55 pm

I don't buy that, you can use other non-polluting natural resources to generate energy. Wind turbines are one method, water is another method. There are inventors developing cars that run on substances such as cooking oil.

Yeh new ways creating energy are being researched everyday, some of them very interesting like using the rubbish of the cities as they emanate metane (I think) and are creating ways to create clean electricity with that. The problem is, the AMOUNT is not enough.

As for the nuclear weapons, every single european country have the technology to develope his own program. In our country it's the people who voted to avoid those, and it's going to be that way always.

I don't see America as my enemy. They started a war with Spain in 1898 by sinking the "Maine" an american vessel and blaming us (this is american history, easily found in internet, just for the doubters), a tactic that they seemed have to used afterwards again. They do have a dark history of bad actions, but it's not all evil about them, me thinks:

I preffer the europe we have after their intervention in the WWII rather than the Europe we might have if they didn't. Hitler might have lost the war eventually but we would have had more communist countries probably in Europe, mine would be one of those. I'd say that the occidental countries in Europe had a better development than the communist block, so I have to thank the Americans for kicking some nazi asses and keep us away from Stalin. Yep we had to suffer Franco the fascist here (Churchill and Europe preffered a fascist Spain rather than a Communist Spain, that's why they allowed Franco to be in power) but I don't envy the fate of any of the communist block countries.

by **metalhead** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:59 pm

Sabre wrote:
I don't buy that, you can use other non-polluting natural resources to generate energy. Wind turbines are one method, water is another method. There are inventors developing cars that run on substances such as cooking oil.

Yeh new ways creating energy are being researched everyday, some of them very interesting like using the rubbish of the cities as they emanate metane (I think) and are creating ways to create clean electricity with that. The problem is, the AMOUNT is not enough.

As for the nuclear weapons, every single european country have the technology to develope his own program. In our country it's the people who voted to avoid those, and it's going to be that way always.

I don't see America as my enemy. They started a war with Spain in 1898 by sinking the "Maine" an american vessel and blaming us (this is american history, easily found in internet, just for the doubters), a tactic that they seemed have to used afterwards again. They do have a dark history of bad actions, but it's not all evil about them, me thinks:

I preffer the europe we have after their intervention in the WWII rather than the Europe we might have if they didn't. Hitler might have lost the war eventually but we would have had more communist countries probably in Europe, mine would be one of those. I'd say that the occidental countries in Europe had a better development than the communist block, so I have to thank the Americans for kicking some nazi asses and keep us away from Stalin. Yep we had to suffer Franco the fascist here (Churchill and Europe preffered a fascist Spain rather than a Communist Spain, that's why they allowed Franco to be in power) but I don't envy the fate of any of the communist block countries.

Yeh, very much agree with you Sabre...but

you should thank the Japanese not the Americans

They did Pearl Harbor you know! without this event the U.S would have never entered the war :eyebrow

and it was a terrible tragedy too

by **66-1112520797** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 11:01 pm

Sadly nuclear energy seems to be the only way forward at this present time

Why is that sad ?

Nuclear energy when contained properly is non-hazardous, I seem to remember Blair wanting more plants in Britain built so we didnt have to fork out ridiculous prices of oil from Russia and the middle-east.

There is a new phobia in the world today called Radiophobia or something like that, bascily its a phobia of people with an uneducated fear of nuclear energy and more so radiation.

by **74-1160487249** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 11:02 pm

Sabre, I was referring to nuclear technology and the other ways of supplying enough energy for usage. I'm not sure where Franco the fascist or Stalin come into it? I also don't see America as my enemy, I like America, I just dislike their foreign policy.

Oh and Stalin's version of "Communism" isn't communism at all, if you want pure Communism I suggest you read Karl Marx's Marxist theory, that is pure Communism, which would actually work if it was implemented properly. None of this Leninism and Stalinism nonsense.

by **66-1112520797** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 11:05 pm

They did Pearl Harbor you know! without this event the U.S would have never entered the war

F.cking too right. We called in the yanks years before they got there @rses involved, if it directly effects them (pearl harbour) or they can get something out of it (oil) there not to quick into offereing a hand !

by **Sabre** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 11:05 pm

Oh and Stalin's version of "Communism" isn't communism at all, if you want pure Communism I suggest you read Karl Marx's Marxist theory, that is pure Communism, which would actually work if it was implemented properly. None of this Leninism and Stalinism nonsense.

I know, we have to read Marx and Engels in secondary school, we like it or not, but the truth is that there hasn't been a succesful implementation of this philosophy in the world, not sure if it's possible (would be a deep debate) due to the very nature of mankind.

Countries like Sweden have developed some interesting socialist concepts (they pay lots of taxes but the state provides many needs). I think it's not all about of saying capitalism is bad we need a revolution and class fight, there must be some middle point.

by **74-1160487249** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 11:06 pm

Bamaga man wrote:
Sadly nuclear energy seems to be the only way forward at this present time

Why is that sad ?

Nuclear energy when contained properly is non-hazardous, I seem to remember Blair wanting more plants in Britain built so we didnt have to fork out ridiculous prices of oil from Russia and the middle-east.

There is a new phobia in the world today called Radiophobia or something like that, bascily its a phobia of people with an uneducated fear of nuclear energy and more so radiation.

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.

Liverpool FC Forum

Bin laden

Who is online