Toonpack

You could be wishing for for that Shickelgruber (sp) blokey

Height of arrogance. Ignoring the French's nuclear deterrent, Western Europe (not just us) is of huge strategical and political importance to the US, especially compared to places like Korea and Vietnam, which they wasted 1000s of lives on. Face it, had we disarmed, we would not have been speaking Russian now, guaranteed. And you know that as a fact - how ???? I said earlier - "although giving up the foothold would have been strategically disasterous" It is not inconceivable that the USA would have withdrawn, unlikely, absolutely, but not inconceivable. There were, periodically, stories at the time that the yanks were going to withdraw ground forces from Europe, caused a flap every time it reared it's head, and we had our deterrent, can't see why those reports would have been any less if we'd dissarmed. Given their actions in Korea and Vietnam - neither of which were of anything like the strategic importance of Western Europe - and their general post-war (or more specifically post-Iron Curtain) policy of opposing Communism spreading to any countries that weren't already Communist, I think the notion the US would have abandoned all of Europe to the Soviets over Britain getting rid of the bomb is extremely far-fetched. That's irrespective of whether or not it would have been the right thing to do. History shows it's far fetched, my point is that it is not inconceivable. I was around back then and several times there appeared a real threat that the US would withdraw it's land forces from Europe - those events/arguments really happened, usually over Europe not spending enough to defend itself from the "red menace", why is it so inconceivable that IF we'd dissarmed those events might have had a different outcome. The strategic importance of Europe is overblown, IMO, especially in days when you don't need to be within artillery range to strike devastatingly at an "enemy" Korea and Vietnam are not relevant to the argument IMO (which I can't be arsed to drag out much longer) The US has always had a huge interest in the asia/pacific theatre. Korea was partitioned at the end of WW2 between the USSR/USA, mainly because Stalin got in quick as Japan's empire crumbled, much to the disgust of the US. The north invaded the south (a US protectorate) and US troops were already there,it was a UN war (not specifically a US war). Vietnam started off as a French colonial war, US peacekeepers/advisers subsequently got involved and it snowballed from there, after terrorist attacks and US casualties. Neither were cut and dried cases of America going to war to confront communism, the yanks were already there and were to an extent attacked by communists.

just because someone doesn't agree with your anti west do gooder bollocks doesn't make them a right wing reactionary Touche

Height of arrogance. Ignoring the French's nuclear deterrent, Western Europe (not just us) is of huge strategical and political importance to the US, especially compared to places like Korea and Vietnam, which they wasted 1000s of lives on. Face it, had we disarmed, we would not have been speaking Russian now, guaranteed. And you know that as a fact - how ???? I said earlier - "although giving up the foothold would have been strategically disasterous" It is not inconceivable that the USA would have withdrawn, unlikely, absolutely, but not inconceivable. There were, periodically, stories at the time that the yanks were going to withdraw ground forces from Europe, caused a flap every time it reared it's head, and we had our deterrent, can't see why those reports would have been any less if we'd dissarmed.

As appeasers and loony lefties go, I suppose he was Appeaser? I think not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Foot He was also a founder member of CND, if thats what Toonpack is on about. He wanted a world without nuclear weapons, a bit naiive perhaps, but he had principles and was prepared to stick to them for better or worse. Can anybody tell me what David Cameron's principles are?.... Mid 30's outspoken against re-armament, war breaks out, oooh that Hitler was a cunt all along and me gaffer's just become head of aircraft production !! The consumate politician, and that's not a good thing And as for CND, thought they were stupid cunts at the time, nothing since has changed my mind. Once the genie's out the bottle you can't get it back in. At the time the USSR would have walked all over western europe given a sniff of a chance, nuclear weapons stopped that. That said Foot's politics probably would have got him the governer-ship of the USSRUK Doubt the American's would have allowed that to be honest. In fact in the grand scheme of things, if the UK had underwent unilateral disarmanent it might have speeded up the cold war a bit and saved us a few quid. I'd rather not have taken the chance like and support a continued deterrent. Hard to say, they could have gone all isolationist, they had polaris so didn't really need Europe as a launch platform, although giving up the foothold would have been strategically disasterous I reckon. All supposition though, if you've got your own deterrent you're not second guessing anyone's position. There's always been a question over how independent our deterent really is, maybe we should have built our own (which we had the capability to) rather than buy from the US. But howay man, as members of NATO etc, no way in a million years would the Americans have let Russia over run Western Europe. That's not a matter of supposition. If Western Europe (as in us mainly) had disarmed, I think the USA's commitment to Nato could have been sorely tested. Not so long before they let Hitler do it.

As appeasers and loony lefties go, I suppose he was Appeaser? I think not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Foot He was also a founder member of CND, if thats what Toonpack is on about. He wanted a world without nuclear weapons, a bit naiive perhaps, but he had principles and was prepared to stick to them for better or worse. Can anybody tell me what David Cameron's principles are?.... Mid 30's outspoken against re-armament, war breaks out, oooh that Hitler was a cunt all along and me gaffer's just become head of aircraft production !! The consumate politician, and that's not a good thing And as for CND, thought they were stupid cunts at the time, nothing since has changed my mind. Once the genie's out the bottle you can't get it back in. At the time the USSR would have walked all over western europe given a sniff of a chance, nuclear weapons stopped that. That said Foot's politics probably would have got him the governer-ship of the USSRUK Doubt the American's would have allowed that to be honest. In fact in the grand scheme of things, if the UK had underwent unilateral disarmanent it might have speeded up the cold war a bit and saved us a few quid. I'd rather not have taken the chance like and support a continued deterrent. Hard to say, they could have gone all isolationist, they had polaris so didn't really need Europe as a launch platform, although giving up the foothold would have been strategically disasterous I reckon. All supposition though, if you've got your own deterrent you're not second guessing anyone's position.

As appeasers and loony lefties go, I suppose he was Appeaser? I think not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Foot He was also a founder member of CND, if thats what Toonpack is on about. He wanted a world without nuclear weapons, a bit naiive perhaps, but he had principles and was prepared to stick to them for better or worse. Can anybody tell me what David Cameron's principles are?.... Mid 30's outspoken against re-armament, war breaks out, oooh that Hitler was a cunt all along and me gaffer's just become head of aircraft production !! The consumate politician, and that's not a good thing And as for CND, thought they were stupid cunts at the time, nothing since has changed my mind. Once the genie's out the bottle you can't get it back in. At the time the USSR would have walked all over western europe given a sniff of a chance, nuclear weapons stopped that. That said Foot's politics probably would have got him the governer-ship of the USSRUK

As appeasers and loony lefties go, I suppose he was Appeaser? Mid/late 1930's and that Austrian bloke with bad BO

As appeasers and loony lefties go, I suppose he was

Smoggies away, donkeys years ago when we scored twice in the last couple of minutes to draw 3-3, I was on my lonesome and had to walk halfway through smogville to meet my lift, should have won an oscar, on my walk, for my dejected expression whilst grinning broadly inside.

It's a bit too commercial for me, did go there from where we were staying to paraglide off the mountain though.

That would be the Western governments who needed a new bogeyman - you really need to watch The Power of Nightmares. So the "bogeymen" who commited Lockerbie, 9/11, 7/7 and the failed exploding undercrackers are figments of my government fuelled imagination, ah ok thing is it wasn't the fundamentalist clerics that deported him/them.......it was his/their own government But who created the climate in which, such a deportation was possible, that'll be the government I reckon you'll say

That would be the Western governments who needed a new bogeyman - you really need to watch The Power of Nightmares. So the "bogeymen" who commited Lockerbie, 9/11, 7/7 and the failed exploding undercrackers are figments of my government fuelled imagination, ah ok

I reckon they should just take him out. The judge? sorry, I meant those who think they can sue them The bloke wrongly arrested, jailed for 7 years, tortured throughout and released without charge is to blame and deserves to be punished? tell him he's lucky to be out and fuck off. If he wants to sue anybody, he should sue those who imprisoned him. Another example of how soft and stupid we are. He's part of a civil suit in the US too...that doesn't mean the UK shouldn't also be held account for the 7 years of inhumane treatment against a man who'd done nothing beyond surfing the web. Oh dear, how sad Omellete's/eggs etc etc He should sue the fundamentalist clerics, who by their actions have created the environment where "these things happen". Root cause analysis and all that

Only bit I know is that in the xx07 xxx - 07's the year, not sure about the area bit

You think you do, but you don't I understand the basic rules and the objectives of the game plus how the points are scored etc. It's not complicated tbh. Well there's your proof that you don't really understand it. It's an incredibly complex game. Like chess with HUGE violent athletic blokes. Anyway, it's all about opinions. No matter. It's a game that's fairly straightforward to pick up but I'd imagine it'd be pretty tricky to master. However it's not the worlds second finest sport. No sir. So what is ???

You think you do, but you don't I understand the basic rules and the objectives of the game plus how the points are scored etc. It's not complicated tbh. Well there's your proof that you don't really understand it. It's an incredibly complex game. Like chess with HUGE violent athletic blokes. Anyway, it's all about opinions. No matter.

completely shite. Utter shite in fact Actually it's the second finest sport on the planet. The "it's shite" merchants just don't understand it. Irrespective of the games merits, its organisation has a lot that could be learned from to the benefit of the PL. no it isnt So what is ??

You think you do, but you don't

completely shite. Utter shite in fact Actually it's the second finest sport on the planet. The "it's shite" merchants just don't understand it. Irrespective of the games merits, its organisation has a lot that could be learned from to the benefit of the PL.

But is that a desire for a particular outcome or is it a desire for the actual format? How would you feel if Liverpool finished 7th but won the play off thus qualifying them for the CL when 3 teams who finished above them don't....? It's not often I agree with Collymore but he was ranting about it on Talksport this evening. His basic argument was what was the point in having a league if come the end of it, you have a lottery to see who finishes where. He also said that the Champions League should be for the League Champions and them alone claiming that Arsenal and Liverpool have developed squads in order for them to finish in the top 4 rather than aiming necessarily for the title. What Toonpack said earlier in the thread is spot on - divide the money up equally and there's no need for any of this carry on. The NFL in the US have it spot on....equal share for all and the worst clubs get the best kids. They don't have relegation though, but that would make the league a true test of managerial skill iof teams were on a lot more of an equal footing..strange that the country who virtually invented global capitlism should be so "socialist" when it comes to sport. Also the "Superbowl" is just the "Superbowl", not the "Superbowl in association with eon, or doritos, or pepsi etc etc".... They sell everything else, but the name of the main title is sacred...not like the FA cup... I don't think that's true. The worst team gets 1st pick but better teams trade off older players for the prospects and that's why the new franchise teams don't suddenly challenge for the title the following year. Draft picks benefit the top tier who trade out their "Teddy Sheringham"s for "Wayne Rooney"s and the middle tier who trade out Kevin Phillips for Gabriel Agbonlahor but the meek shall never inherit a God damn thing. The Americans have got a shit sport. That's all That couldn’t be more wrong if you’d tried. The draft is a lottery, you never know with kids, coming out of college (with a few exceptions), whether they’re going to be able to adjust to the pro game. The best teams are the ones with the best talent evaluation (scouting) groups and the best coaches, who can identify a player and then develop them, as well as identify an existing older player, who’s maybe not pulling up trees on his current but can do a serviceable job in their system. Many players, who were nobodies on one team, become stars on another. With regard to your second point, the Sheringham/Rooney analogy, reality is more like the actual reverse of what you state. Because of the salary cap ramifications teams are more likely to trade away/cut/let go a Rooney (towards the end of his first contract) and replace him with a Sherringham, see New England as the example, they cycle older proven players, getting a couple of years out of each, rarely do they ever compete for one of the true marquee talents. They leave that to the likes of Washington. Teams simply can’t afford to keep all their stars and are often faced with very hard decisions about who to release. The point at which players become “available” to the open market is mandated by league rules as well. Of course a player can be traded (transferred at any time) but a huge megastar trade is exceptionally rare, most teams wait until they can battle for free agents. All the teams get the same revenue from the League (TV) and are allowed to spend exactly the same on salaries and have exactly the same size of squad. They keep their own gate receipts and corporate stuff which is the owners “surplus”. Outside of a last minute deal, next season will be uncapped due to the expiration of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the League and the players union. Even without the cap it’s unlikely a “rich” team will saddle itself with a host of mega stars, more likely is that teams will dump a lot of high paid players because the cap had a minimum spend as well as a maximum spend. The pressure is on for salaries to be forced down. The whole argument that’s stalled a new CBA is about player share of the revenues, which is currently at about 52%, the owners want that dropped significantly. There are a significant amount of good things that could be learned from the NFL, it’s a club of 32 mega-rich owners (well 31 plus Green Bay which is publicly owned) who have realised that uncontrolled spending to dominate isn’t in anyone’s long term interest. The stagnating Premier league should take notice.

Revenue sharing is the way to go, all revenues from TV for all competitions should go to the league which then distributes equally to the clubs, clubs can keep their own off-field commercial revenue's but all other dosh should get equally divied up. The way it's structured now teams qualifying for the champs league is a self fullfilling prophecy

Probably best to stop antagonising the kid, you never know they may be a real nutter and track you down, could be a cyclepath or a homicycle maniac for that matter !! I wouldn't worry about him, he is a right bell! I'd imagine he's tyred of this now. Poor lads had his thread dérail(leur)ed. Had a spoke put in it, even

Probably best to stop antagonising the kid, you never know they may be a real nutter and track you down, could be a cyclepath or a homicycle maniac for that matter !! I wouldn't worry about him, he is a right bell! So unlikely to Sir Chris Hoy a wobbler then

Probably best to stop antagonising the kid, you never know they may be a real nutter and track you down, could be a cyclepath or a homicycle maniac for that matter !!