hypochondriac

My preference would be that no one has nuclear weapons but I'd certainly not be advocating for anyone else to get more. In particular a brutal, unstable Islamist extremist regime who thinks nothing of murdering people in service of their ideology.

Can you quote where I said that?

It's an opinion that juche ideology differs greatly from suffi extremist interpretations from Islam? That the ideologies that drive them mean that their risk of using a nuclear weapon won't be different? That there isn't plenty of documented evidence of jihad is being willing to destroy themselves and their things in service of their ideology because they believe that their earthly body is temporary and they are going to end up in heaven? Which part of that is opinion?

But quite prepared to dismiss the iaea report and believe brutal Islamist dictatorships that murder children.

No serious attempt to engage on the clear differences I outlined then? Just blindly asserting that they can be compared despite the clear differences?

Because if you don't agree with Israel or the US striking to prevent nukes then that's de facto support for Iran developing nuclear weapons.

On this issue it's a clear binary choice between the two.

No. Extremist Islamism as practised by Sunnis is something entirely different from the political ideology of juche which is essentially about being left alone. Kin Jong Un has shown on many occasions that his priority is the continued survival of his regime. Not so for many extremist Islamic nutters where there will be some who would be quite happy to have their earthly body destroyed in order to destroy Israel because they are off to meet a bunch of virgins in heaven. It's absolutely insane that any sensible Westerners would advocate for a country like Iran to obtain nukes.

I trust the IAEA and their reporting. I'm also clearly going to take more seriously in general things coming from America and Israel over despotic religious death cults running countries like Iran. That doesn't mean blindly believing anyone clearly but some people hate certain characters or countries to such an extent that they will even side with the likes of Iran. A regime that has sent young boys to die running into minefields to glorify Allah.

Yes.

All of them have nuclear weapons which is obviously a consideration. Yet another reason to prevent Iran from gaining them.

Also an authoritarian religious fundamentalist regime who oppress and murder their own people particularly minorities and women, has been attacking Israel via proxies for years, funds terrorism around the world, refers to America as the great Satan and has declared their intention to destroy Israel if ever given the opportunity to do so. Oh and they breached their agreements around nuclear energy according to the IAEA and enriched uranium to really high levels. So seems like quite a lot of reasons to strike their nuclear sites and call for regime change then.

Form is temporary and all that. Has all the attributes to make the step up. He's one I'd like to see given a go.

Who knows. Maybe it's wrong

Fair enough if true. If not though not a chance are they getting that for him

I'm still holding out hope for Richard kone from Wycombe. Can score goals in English football, big strong and pacy and won't cost much at all. To my mind that's a much safer bet than some others mentioned.

Alfie house emphasising we are looking for someone with a bit of pace though and the koln forum and player profiles sort of confirm he doesn't have much of that so not sure it is him.

I don't think most people will moan about signing youth unless we don't get enough experience to complement it. One thing we do know about this league is how important it is to have people with experience in it who can navigate the highs and lows of the season. I accept some of or players can do that but I'd prefer some fresh blood from elsewhere.

Here's a good and short video about why Iran should never get a nuclear bomb:

Miles better than soggy biscuit Lallana. Would get some real excitement at the club too.

OK so as far as I'm aware there are no alternative reasons for enriching uranium to that degree. Agreed?

1) Right so they have the capability to produce a nuclear bomb but there's no evidence at all that Japan have the intention to do so. As opposed to Iran who actually have highly enriched uranium that only has one use as far as I am aware which is to use it to produce a nuclear bomb or as you claim to make people think they want to produce a nuclear bomb. 2) I isn't understand your point. There's no reason to enrich uranium to 60% other than to build a bomb or to pretend that you want to build a bomb which I agree is absurd. The act of enriching uranium to that percentage is evidence enough of their intentions. There's no other plausible explanation for them doing it.

1) You made the claim and then tell me to look it up. I haven't seen any claims either online or offline that Japan have enriched uranium to a high degree. Where is the evidence that they are further down the road to a nuclear bomb than Iran? 2) All Iran have succeeded in doing is getting their regime destroyed. I haven't seen the theory outside of this forum that Iran were just pretending to attempt to build a nuke. I don't see why that would be more likely or more beneficial for them than to actually just go ahead and try to get away with actually building one given the leverage and strength it would give their regime.

Think I've said before that I'd like Sargent.

Come on saints. Get Tadic in. You know it makes sense.