Park Life

I try and drum this in whenever these debates occur. I've come to realise that people prefer a more easily definable bad guy.

Correctamundo.

Heard!! Heard!! I mixed the fucking thing!! :icon_lol:

Just pack it in, right? I can't get away with shit with you. :icon_lol:

This will be their best album.

As an book-balancing measure, yes absolutely. As a clinical judgement, meh. As a patient welfare issue, fuck off. Whichever way you look at it the name is spin at its worst, just ask any low grade dementia sufferer. The acronym comes from the 90's when it was an idea kicking about whitehall for introducing a body to 'advise' the NHS on cost-effectiveness and was originally the Nat Ins of Cost-effectiveness. The idea developed but the acronym changed. I dont think they meant it as spin at the time. The UK system is inefficient and wasteful and involves pre-planned annual spending. The system cant afford treatments and so needs to restrict and ration. Its a part of life, unless you change how its organised. Well National Institute of Cost-effectiveness is at least pretty much honest. But National Institute for Clinical Excellence is a complete lie. National Institute for Cheapest possible Elixirs maybe.

Post of the thread.

Well they had two issues to worry about, Saddam firing rockets guided by a lump of plasticine and 2 bits of string, and the US filling the air with missiles supposed to stop them.

The NHS should remain free at access to anyone who needs it. I shan't be moved on this Chez by any of your 'clever talk'. We'll see about that... Its not free anymore, there are people paying for drugs who can afford them and being treated normally for all other services and there are people dying who cant afford to pay for them. This is pragmatic not dogmatic. Well if that is the case it is a disgrace. If people are dying due to lack access to exotic drugs..I'm personally ready to lead a lynch mob and round up every hospital manager and MP involved or linked in such a matter. Furthermore the NHS should export free healtcare to other countries in need. YES YOU HEARD ME RIGHT! We are the 8th richest country on the planet. I accept no excuses and those in the way of our freedoms, rights and heritage will be hunted down.

The NHS should remain free at access to anyone who needs it. I shan't be moved on this Chez by any of your 'clever talk'.

No. I can just imagine how funny the rest of that sites content is I agree as scenarios go it is the worst case one, but don't imagine for a minute the Americans haven't evaluated that one. Day Five in the Big Brother house: The Sun explodes Miraculously however the blind man survives and lives on to start his own church in Mississippi. HF'll probably get that one anyway. Don't tell me you're watching that shite, are you? Strictly U-Tube highlights dear. I blame Mrs P as always.

No. I can just imagine how funny the rest of that sites content is I agree as scenarios go it is the worst case one, but don't imagine for a minute the Americans haven't evaluated that one. Day Five in the Big Brother house: The Sun explodes Miraculously however the blind man survives and lives on to start his own church in Mississippi.

No. I can just imagine how funny the rest of that sites content is I agree as scenarios go it is the worst case one, but don't imagine for a minute the Americans haven't evaluated that one.

No. But as you say defeating Iran militarily would only be the start. I totally agree.

Nah, it'll be just like the Syrian strike, only Iran will do much, much more with the PR spin from it. Probably, I can't really see them invading. They know they'll be obliterated. And whatever may be gained or may happen in the long run, the current rulers would almost certainly lose the one thing they hold most dear - their positions of power. Aye militarily they are much stronger than Iraq was in 2003, and probably 1990, but that's defensively, offensively is a different thing. Plus look at the distances involved, it's not like Germany invading Poland, it's more like Germany invading the USSR. It's a dangerous game the Israelis and US are playing though if they do go ahead with the strikes and the worst (and unlikely) should happen and Iran retaliate. Because defeating Iran militarily would (going by Iraq and Afghanistan for example) would only be the start of things. And no doubt we would get involved and become even more overstretched and even more vulnerable to reprisals. It's difficult to say what should be done for the best though because just letting Iran develop nuclear weapons is the greater evil for me. One scenario, although for us as onlookers seems unlikely, are these the risks we are being encouraged to entertain? "Sept 2004: Four Day War: Scenario of How War on Iran Would Go What follows is the unfolding of a worst-case scenario, an imaginary yet all-too-possible depiction of how events might develop if Israel were to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. Day One: Wednesday -- In a pre-dawn raid, undisclosed numbers of Israeli warplanes, taking off from military airbases in the Negev, destroy Iran’s main nuclear facility at Bushehr. ..During the one-hour raid, Iran claims to have shot down “several” Israeli fighters. Television images show pilots being lynched by furious mobs before Iranian authorities could reach them. The after-effects of the raid shake the Arab and Islamic world. Millions take to the streets demanding immediate action against Israel...American intelligence convinced Israel that as long as Musharraf remains in power, Pakistan does not represent an imminent threat. The decision was made not to hit Pakistan. Day Two: Thursday - Iran retaliates. Thousands of Revolutionary Guards are dispatched across the border into Iraq with orders to inflict as many casualties on American troops as possible. Iranian sleeper agents, who have infiltrated Iraq since the downfall of Saddam, urge Iraqi Shi’ites into action. Tehran orders the Lebanese Shi’ite movement, Hezbollah, into action against northern Israel. Hezbollah launches scores of rockets and mortars against kibbutzim, towns, and settlements. Israel retaliates. Crowds of gigantic proportions take to the streets, ransacking Israeli embassies in Cairo, Amman, and Ankara. American embassies in a number of other cities are burned. Day Three: Friday - Following Friday prayers across the Islamic world, crowds incited by fiery sermons in mosques from Casablanca to Karachi take to the streets in the worst protests yet. In Saudi Arabia, Islamist militants engage in open gun battles with security forces in several cities. In Indonesia, Malaysia, Egypt, and a dozen other countries, crowds continue to run amok, demanding war on Israel. Day Four: Saturday - A longstanding plan to overthrow Musharraf is carried out by senior Pakistani army officers loyal to the Islamic fundamentalists and with close ties to bin Laden. Within hours, and before news of the coup leaks out, Pakistan, now run by pro-bin Laden fundamentalists, loads two nuclear weapons aboard executive Lear jets [that] dive into the outskirts of the two [israeli] cities, detonating their nuclear devices in the process. The rest of this scenario can unfold in a number of ways. Take your pick; none are encouraging. Israel retaliates against Pakistan, killing millions in the process. Arab governments fall. Following days of violence, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt succumb to Islamist rebels who vow open warfare with Israel. The Middle East regresses into war, with the fighting claiming hundreds of thousands of lives. A much-weakened Israel, now struggling for its very survival, deploys more nuclear weapons, targeting multiple Arab capitals. The Middle East is in complete mayhem, as the United States desperately tries to arrange a cease-fire."

Good point. Infact they aren't that keen on many Arabs. Cuts both ways. Someone told me they had a war once. They also said Saddam was the good guy back then though so I doubt if it's true. Yup, it's yet another good reason for them to keep Iraq as weak and divided as possible (both as a direct neighbour and because it keeps Iran's influence higher in a wider area) - which is something I always find strange. People are quite willing to blame the USA for everything and anything, yet are unwilling to accept that other countries will happily play the self interest game as well. ALL countries play the self-interest game, that isn't even a debate.

No kind of surgical or other strike against Iran by Israel will stop there, it will result in a mammoth blood bath. I also can't see Israel even with their huge technological edge holding back swathes of Iraninans for long without the use of chemical or tactical nukes. I wish certain types in the Whitehouse and hawks in the Israeli leadership would stop pretending this is a sensible option.

Good point. Infact they aren't that keen on many Arabs.

Probably, but the issue with Iran (and Syria to a degree) is that it is NOT like helping Turkey with a nuclear program (and Turkey still has plenty of problems), it's more like helping nazi germany with a nuclear program. Appeasement doesn't work, and there is nothing Iran needs but what it wants, it can never be a two way street with the regiem in power....... and there will never be a better regiem in power if all more liberal candidates are stopped from even standing for election YET AGAIN. It is massively naive to think that only the USA or the West is meddling in the area to reasons of their own advantage, look at Lebanon, that has as much to do with Islamic Imperialism as Isreal and the West. Iran has been "supporting" shia (who aren't actually very friendly with Iran despite both largely being shia), and Sunni and foreign fighters (basically everyone in what is in fact a 3-4 way civil war). Their objective there is NOT for any side to "win", but to concentrate and prolong the carnage for as long as they possibly can. Both for regional and domestic political gain, and for gain on the wider international stage and to rather cleverly weaken their biggest enemies with a form of political and military engagement that costs them nothing and gains them much. Like I said - masterful. I don't think it is as masterful as you say, but am in general agreement about your view of the strategy. It's logical that they would want to tie down the Americans in Iraq as long as possible. I emphasise yet again, the resistance (no matter how the media spin it) is predominantly local Iraqi's of whatever religion. Of course the invasion has amplified many unfortunate vectors for the West and us in general, there is no denying that. I would love we have a government that one day could de-link on some issues from America, but if Oba wins this might not even be necessary. An America without a renegade leadership does and should continue to play a major role in delivering stability, at the moment nearly everything they do is leading to the opposite. I wonder if one day soon we might see their very own version of the 'enemy within' card....Gosh they've tried almost everything else. I still feel the pieces of the puzzle haven't fallen so far from the table that some kind of friendly/peaceful picture might yet be possible. Edit: I notice Bush was freaked recently when Brown started making noises about a pullout timetable. I personally think we've done all we can there and need to get our soldiers out of harms way in which is increasingly looking like an armed to the teeth civil war.

The thing is it would be very, very difficult to get a nuclear weapon or nuclear material into the UK (impossible maybe), but get one into the English Channel, or off the coast? Much more likely. The fact is nuclear weapons as a genuine military option are almost obsolete - no country would use them pro-actively as they are a death wish. But using them in other more subvert ways is something I think we'll eventually see, much like 40 years ago islamic suicide bombers were practically unheard of. Frankly I'd always rather have a madman or a dim extremist in charge of a country than an intelligent person with an agenda and a plan. Not sure where you're going with this. Are you saying Muslim countries/ Arab countries are more likely to proliferate or use nukes? Historically of course that isn't the case. India, Pakistan, Israel and South Africa all developed their nukes with the help of the U.S.A, Russia and the U.K. No (although you're falling into your own trap by suggesting it). I am saying Iran (and possibly Syria) under the current regime might well have things to gain by using nuclear technology in such as way - and they are clearly perfectly willing to do so on a lesser scale as Iraq shows day in, day out. And that I think we may well see a nuclear terror attack "coincidentally" not that long after Iran gains the abilities. And your evidence for this supposition is Iran supporting the Shia in Iraq? The Shia in Iraq are Iraqi's it is Iraqi's that are fighting the American occupation. I think from this it is a quantum leap to suggest (and there is no evidence for it) that Iran will give nuclear material to terrorists IMO. America set the president btw we the long and well funded support of the Taliban against Soviet occupation. The same Taliban it is trying and failing to rail in now in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I have a clear line on this, ultimately it will be impossible as time goes on and geo-political alliances fracture to stop the Arabs in the middle east getting nuclear weapons. To think otherwise is a delusion. Better to get round the table with them now and law paths of dialogue and understanding and set up trip lines of communication against the ultimate mistake.

The thing is it would be very, very difficult to get a nuclear weapon or nuclear material into the UK (impossible maybe), but get one into the English Channel, or off the coast? Much more likely. The fact is nuclear weapons as a genuine military option are almost obsolete - no country would use them pro-actively as they are a death wish. But using them in other more subvert ways is something I think we'll eventually see, much like 40 years ago islamic suicide bombers were practically unheard of. Frankly I'd always rather have a madman or a dim extremist in charge of a country than an intelligent person with an agenda and a plan. Should we engage with Iran or should we continue to back them into a corner? One of the main reasons the Soviets fell is when we started offering financial and economic carrots and oking bank loans to Gorbachev iirc.

And quite some lobby it is too.

The thing is it would be very, very difficult to get a nuclear weapon or nuclear material into the UK (impossible maybe), but get one into the English Channel, or off the coast? Much more likely. The fact is nuclear weapons as a genuine military option are almost obsolete - no country would use them pro-actively as they are a death wish. But using them in other more subvert ways is something I think we'll eventually see, much like 40 years ago islamic suicide bombers were practically unheard of. Frankly I'd always rather have a madman or a dim extremist in charge of a country than an intelligent person with an agenda and a plan. Not sure where you're going with this. Are you saying Muslim countries/ Arab countries are more likely to proliferate or use nukes? Historically of course that isn't the case. India, Pakistan, Israel and South Africa all developed their nukes with the help of the U.S.A, Russia and the U.K.