Toonpack

Industry rag which I get to see through work said at the time of the original stories: "Wildcat-ing of the type not seen since the early days of the North Sea, no-one benefits but the speculators" Original stories start = share price up, some sell make some dosh Reality strikes share price drops. What a surprise

this But he had a chance, albeit truncated, in the PL and was utter cuntwash. Aye in a period of utter carnage, most managers have to "learn their trade", he deserves the chance.

Lake Superior...more of an Inland sea than a lake really, Lake Ontario is thsmallest or second smallest. I grew up on the shores of Lake Ontario in St. Catharines, any RUSH fans on here? Lakeside park is a killer song and home to most of my underage drinking debacles. but I digress, Superior is HUGE , if your spread all the water out evenly you could cover the entire North and South American continents to a depth of one foot (10% of worlds fresh water) Been out fishing on Lake Michigan, that's awfully big an all, you know you're going "out on a lake" but you don't appeciate how big it is until you turn around and can't see land. As an aside, my brother in law was shipwrecked on Michigan (on a proper ship!!!) met his future wife (now my sis in law) when the locals rallied round to feed/clothe etc. the stranded sailors.

Long story, short version: I rent my house to NUFC via a letting agent who house the younger non-mansion owning players, in discussions with said agents they mentioned there's one "horrible" player they won't touch with a bargepole, was not named directly, but at the time I had little doubt it was Carroll.

I did, at SJP, they were shit

Booyaka!! The Green party are the least flexible and most dogmatic party of all. Take their stance on nuclear power. Idiots. I don't for one second think that the Green party would get in though, that's the point. A vote for either of the main two parties or not voting at all is the same thing. It shows support or indifference towards their almost identical approaches. An increased vote for extreme left and right wing parties will both pull the main parties out of the centre towards opposing extremes as well as increasing the flexibility of the extreme parties who will push to increase their vote by becoming more centerist. The greens time has come and gone. People are too busy struggling to make ends meet to worry about green issues. Unfortunately for the Greens, the mainline politico's have gazumped them by embracing the man-made global warming myth.

True but the yanks are a very, very distant third in all of that. So far distant that you'd need a train to reach where they are. Russia and Britain won the war. Agreed us and the Russians took the brunt of it, while American war profiteering was rampant. The American people didn't even want to come into the war which says all you need to know about their commitment. Some Americans didn't. Have you two forgot the Americans had to deal with the Japanese ffs? They weren't a distant third by any margin, and we are endebted to them as much as the French are to us. You are a nob. That's all I need to say. Cheers. That reminds me, did you ever find any evidence that the Japanese could have taken the entire Western seaboard and mid-West of America if they had wanted to? Also if this is true, then the Americans did quite well in their war against them, didn't they? I'm sure you can find a link to the Russian Doomsday weapon while you're at it. You've got less evidence to back up your ridiculous opinions than Parky has man. And when you can't, its the usual childish insult routine with you. We owe the Americans as much as the French owe us?????? You are a disgrace, a clueless pseudo-intellectual. I'll reply properly later. Your letting your irrational dislike of virtually all other nationalities get the better of you as usual. What do you think would have happened to the UK had the American's stayed truly neutral - i.e. not supplied us and the Russians with arms etc (albeit at a price). We'd have been fucked. Then they lost thousands in Normandy and beyond fighting a war that wasn't even directly involving their continent - and helped liberate France amonst others. Do you not think they deserve a bit more respect for that? Because I do. As for this pseudointellectual jibe - what complete bollocks. I'm no historian but I know enough to know when you talk shite like this. You got the last bit right I'll give you that. We gave them all of the tools to win the war in the fuckin first place, for free, absolutely fuck all it cost them. You can't definitively say we wouldn't have won the war on our side without their rag tag army coming over anyway. Who's to say we wouldn't have mobilised people from other parts of the empire. America had the industrial might to arm us, and we were still fucking paying for it 50 years later. They are a disgrace of a nation, had we joined forces with Hitler we'd have taken America without doubt in my mind. We and our stance in world war two was utterly and convincingly pivotal in to which way the world went, and you your bollocks can say what you like, read balanced books on world war 2 and you'll see. I've always been interested in the second world war. Your viewpoint is utterly contrary to everything I've seen or read on it though, and there's a prevailing element of xenophobia in it. Tell you what though, direct me to some 'balanced' books and I'll take a look. Btw, none of this takes away anything that the British did which was simply amazing. We had to pay a heavy price though - the loss of our empire, and the Americans naturally loved this. But in a way they were right, the age of empires had ended - we just have found it hard to accept it - some more than others. As yours is to mine. 30m I've read yank troop numbers who joined the western front as numbering between 1.5m and 3m. Sizeable but no more than us. It doesn't take 28.5m to make a nuke as well. The American Army have suffered more defeats and embarrassments on their own than Sunderland AFC in 05/06. i knew you'd contest that....... .......let me see if i can dig it up. World War II (1941-1945) Total Servicemembers (Worldwide).............16,112,566 Battle Deaths................................................291,557 Other Deaths in Service (Non-Theater).............113,842 Non-mortal Woundings..................................671,846 Living Veterans (note 5)................................2,498,000 source.... http://www.veteranshour.com/facts_of_the_matter.htm Ok, so I was a bit high, maybe they meant after the war as well to garrison all the places they now had bases....anyway Stevie...errr...Barrack, you never answered my question...who else from the Commonwealth could have responded to a call to arms? All manner of cunts. You're like Uncle Sam T Brockheimslapper. Those figures Would be interesting knowing their distribution, only a fraction of them were involved in the war proper. IE where it was going on. No ones interested in the Pacific. are you not interested in the Pacific b/c the brits had their asses kicked by the Japs in the Pacific? Can't let thyat one pass, he's not interested because he is sooo wrong US Battle caualties by theatre of war: European Theater 586,628 Mediterranean Theater 175,107 Pacific area theaters 169,635 And on Churchill etc The Battle of Britain was the defining moment for Churchill and gave him the platform for “popular” continued resistance. If a group of German bombers hadn’t got lost and bombed London we wouldn’t have immediately retaliated by bombing Germany (might have been Berlin can’t recall exactly) and Hitler wouldn’t have ordered the change of policy from bombing the RAF to the flattening British cities into rubble. At the time the RAF was about 48 hours away from ceasing to be a viable force, they were nearly at the point where they had nowhere to fly from, and were getting destroyed on the ground (some pilot memoirs I’ve read in the past stated a day) the change of policy gave them the respite they needed. If the Luftwaffe had gained total air superiority I find it hard to believe we wouldn’t have either been invaded, or sued for peace. We were “lucky” but we had the right man at the head of the country to capitalise on that “luck” – and that is not to denigrate in any way the “few” – several of who were my boyhood heroes. We held out long enough to become a viable second front (once Adolph decided to invade Russia) and when the US entered the war. I wonder if they would have intervened in Europe if Adolph had chosen not to declare war on them with Japan, Germany got nothing out of that deal, the Japanese never contributed in the west and didn’t even attack Russia in the east, if they had it could have been Russia with the two fronts to deal with.

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 ??