hypochondriac

I don't want nuclear armed and unstable extremist Islamist regimes with mad religious ideas who can oppress their own people with impunity free from any chance of being removed because they got world ending weapons. If the roles were reversed, would you be happy with Israel getting nukes to counter Iranian nukes? Would there ever be a number of countries with nukes where you would think there may be a few too many?

Keith loves Amy was the best thread on here. Just superb. What was the name of the poster with the learning difficulty who called the big black defender dominant? Was Rulebook Ric Asian? How long did StuRomseySaint have a gammy eye for?

"The damage in that region is and has been caused by allowing the Israeli regime to do wtf they like with impunity for 50+ years" Nothing to do with with anything I have read or heard elsewhere. I'm challenging you on what you actually said in your own words. In light of these and similar statements, it's absolutely incredible that you would accuse others of bias. No one else on here that I have seen have made similar statements to that or that they would be OK with Iran getting some nukes and that they wouldn't be an issue if Israel just cooperated. Quite astonishing statements to make.

Laying the blame entirely at the feet of Israel for the damage in the region is either the most stupid thing I've seen written on this thread or is just masking something a lot uglier. Either that or you're just saying ridiculous things to provoke reactions.

What does any of that have to do with being OK with them having nuclear weapons? I'm supportive of there being less world ending weapons in the world generally as there is then less chance of someone taking the wrong decision one time, accidentally causing a disaster or some rogue agent getting their hands on one and firing one off in the name of Allah to prove a point. If we take your point to its logical conclusion, should we be OK with every nation on Earth having a few nuclear weapons each? Clearly that's going to make the chance of something awful happening much higher, particularly when religion is involved. Are you seriously suggesting that you'd be OK with any nation that wants nuclear weapons from having them with the logic being that no one was fired one yet?

Not wanting extremist Islamist regimes to possess nukes and being happy if they are prevented from having them is swallowing propaganda according to you. I wouldn't be so quick to call others stupid.

But you're cool with someone like that having nuclear weapons because you don't like the opponent?

It may actually moderate Iran's response if they know their air defences are fucked and are effectively sitting ducks.

Indeed and with that pager operation from last year they really are the best in the world at this sort of thing. You could argue they've had a lot of practice.

Clearly. Almost certifiable to suggest that the damage in the region is solely down to Israel. I wonder if Mahsa Amini might have something to say about how evil Israel was really responsible for her death, Not a surprise that some posters on here would think that though!

The less nukes in the world the better. The less nukes in the world in the hands of Islamist extremists who hate my country and culture also good. The method of achieving that is not necessarily a good thing and may lead to very bad consequences. No one in the West should be happy with Iran having nukes and they will have known that they wouldn't be allowed to have them.

Difficult one this. Obviously good if we can eliminate the Iranian regime from the world and thwart their aims of getting nukes. Definitely a reckless act to strike without the approval of others and in such a manner though, particularly as it will affect other countries other than just Iran and Israel. Certainly not possible to support the manner that this has been done but hopefully it can still have a reasonable outcome.

Average goalscoring record for potentially 20 million is an absolutely huge amount of money.

If we do spend that amount then it has to really be a sure thing.

Lol. 0% chance we pay 30 million euros for anyone. We didn't even pay that in the prem.

It's either that or relying on Archer which is a risky strategy.

I'd expect £15 million. Either a striker or the Fernandes replacement. Both those positions really need to be amongst the best in the division.

Wikipedia must have it wrong then unless he scored all his goals last year?

Pretty crap scoring record. Just has to be better than Mara I suppose.

The fact they are even discussing if he is their best ever loan signing tells you a lot.

I don't remember people being underwhelmed. There was every indication that he was going to be a success. You could literally say about any player we sign that we would be stuck with them in the league below if they are crap, the point is we clearly were looking to make some signings to attempt to stay up rather than simply looking to sign players for the following season in the championship after having played together for a season. We know this primarily because most of the players next season will either have not been played much at all last year or will be sold so we won't benefit from them. Edwards and wood may well have been signed for the squad and to possibly utilise them this season but both barely played last year. Beyond that there's arguments that all other players had a reasonable track record of performance in the prem albeit some with relegated teams.

Caus Absolutely insane that you thought there was a chance we would sign Delap and then he'd stay if we got relegated.

Which players will have played together for a season and be unlikely to leave us? Wood was backup and hardly played, Edwards didn't play, BBD played a handful of times and then left. Only Archer is a possible from your list and even then he had performed well in the prem with a reasonable goals to minutes played ratio in a relegated team and was never settled in our team. So one player possibly meets your criteria of young player unlikely to leave who has played together with his other team mates. By all accounts, we only signed BBD because Delap turned us down and there's not a chance we were signing him for the championship this year.

Was Lavia? If I had to guess I'd say we'd get 40 for him.

I can't be bothered to trawl back months to the start of last year but if you had simply said that the club thought it likely that we might go down again and had made some signings with that in mind then it would have been an entirely non controversial statement that no one would have disagreed with. The fact that so many people took issue with what you said at the time is an indication that that isn't what you said.