Park Life

I think Lampard deserves a bit of credit to be fair. With most players if they had a little arsehole like Fabregas garbbing them by the neck and pulling them all over they would have given him the kicking he deserves, Lampard did well not to swing an elbow and smash his face in IMO. It was funny though. I take your point about Lampard.

From what I saw Toure and Obi Mikel were the spark..With some shirt pulling and Obi had given Toure a little kick earlier...Mikel is quite a dirty player. Happy to see Fabergass pull Lumplard over by the neck... Resulting melee Bridge pretended to have been killed...and Henry came down from the stands to get Adebayor off as it was looking light he was going to lay the 4th official out or anyone within range.

We won't beat them, they have a proper manager for a start.

I rather had put the Zog in the middle or put on for Sibierski. Milner should have started anyway with Solano playing at right back. I really can't understand Roeder why he is insisting on playing natural centre halves on the full back positions when he has someone who really did play well there. I'm getting fucking sick of it as well. Nobby has shown he's comfortably our best RB and helps out the other younger defenders so continually dropping him or moving him from there is moronic. And Millner, whilst still needing to sort out his final ball has done a respectable job wide right so there was no need to play Nobby there when he's needed at RB. It's all about accommodating the wrong players in the wrong positions. It's ridiculous. In any sport one of the most basic things that leads to success is the simple playing of the best players in their correct/favoured position unless you have no other choice. Our best back four includes Nobby at RB now, everyone bar Roeder can see that as clear as day. The most worrying thought is that as soon as Carr is fit (and by fit i of course don't actually mean fit!) Roeder will have him straight back in at RB as he has every single time he's returned from injury despite him being utter shite! ^ totally. It is extremely annoying and frustrating to have to watch it every single week. This is just a repeat of the Fulham (A) game. It is worrying. Everytime we win a home game, or get a result in europe etc. Roeder has an away match against poor opposition that is definitely winnable and he makes basic errors in team selection and we see a poor performance and defeat when we should easilly have picked up 3 points. Whatever the rose-tinted spec-brigade is saying, but my major concern is still, that Roeder is absolutely unable to give the team any shape and style. We look distinctly ordinary and the poor team selection doesn't help at all. The first half was ok, but after the missed (ultra-soft) penalty it was utter garbage. Roeder just isn't good enough and never will be. I don't think you should ever start with 2 def mf against opp like Wigan.

I don't disagree. We could do with a useful creative midfielder though. Thirded. Wigan are really guff...5 points in the last 30 odd and look at the way we are struggling. Really pitiful.

I rather had put the Zog in the middle or put on for Sibierski. Milner should have started anyway with Solano playing at right back. I really can't understand Roeder why he is insisting on playing natural centre halves on the full back positions when he has someone who really did play well there. Agree with all of that. Milner should have started and Solano at RB.

Agree it was a pretty much telegraphed goal.

..our attacking play is too bitty..

Given too short fiasco... Even game should be 1-1..Duff had a good chance earlier. Sibi needs to get a bit closer to Martins, they are miles apart.

Good post. Bit late for a proper reply will get back later. I'm not overly optimistic but try and remain hopeful, the other way doesn't bear thinking about.

....not as if we didn't invent the game or anything..

Oh I see the zeal and the fanatical elements at play in Shia and Sunni Islam, but I try and balance it although it is difficult as Iran is continually portrayed as a bunch bulging eyed savages...Where things are getting hazy in our ideation of Iran is that we aren't shown the rich Persian culture (not Arab)..Iran differs from Egypt and Syria and indeed the real brutal Wahabi regime of Saudi Arabia in many ways, but since the Khomeni revolution has become very tight knit and insular to some degree...Iran in the early years was very much recovering from the Shah and his predominantly American backers. I fundametally disagree that war with Iran is the way forward and we really have to look very hard at other means and to some respects the E.U. have been taking a lead as they know the Americans are itching to get in there. I have to be frank getting embroiled 'with the U.S.' in some kind of action in Iran will be a huge mistake. Our economy is not dependant on oil as the U.S. is and untill fairly recently we had very good trading with Iran and a reasonable relationship. If Iran and Israel get into summat we need to stay out of this one, not because we are absconding our responsability but mainly because Israel can defend herself....She has more nuclear weapons than we do, better submarines and actually an airforce as good if not better...Why would we want to be there? Non-proliferation is a goal and a good one and one that I agree with fully, but this must be measred with a degree of realism. There were times during the changeover of power from 'white' South Africa to 'black' South Africa, very similar issues and sentiments started appering in the international press along the lines of 'can we trust the wogs with these weapons' , as if somehow black people with a revolutionay background (the ANC) would be unreliable...But as time passed, these things were forgotten and Mandela got the Nobel peace prize etc.. The fact that Israel has armed itself to the teeth with nuclear, biological and chemical weapons has had a knock on effect in making its Arab neighbours demand and look for parity. Perhaps it would have been better if we had been forthright in stopping Israel acquiring such weapons, but of course we didn't hear a whisper about non-proliferation then and infact WE and South Africa and later the U.S. were on hand to help with technology transfer. No talk of non-proliferation whatsoever. General Lee Butler former head of SAC (Strategic air command) U.S.... "...it is dangerous in the extreme that in the cauldron of animosities that is the middle east, one nation has armed itself ostensibly with stockpiles of nuclear weapons. perhaps in the hundreds and that inspires the other to do so.." If you seriously want to talk genuinely about non-proliferation lets take the apparent John Wayne of this scenario in hand. The U.S has rejected all recent treaty talk, especially regarding the nuclear non-proliferation of space and has already declared its plans to widen its arsenal to develop the next generation of mini-nukes (there isn't much mini about them the smallest one is eqivalent to 3 Hiroshimas). And how about us committing to the next generation of nuclear submarines...YOu see WE can't have it both ways..If we and America and Russia and China are going to continue to develop our arsenals we shouldn't be surprised if others want a piece of the action. While time is on our side we need to keep talking to Iran and find other ways, one possibility was that of Russia offering them low grade fission material for their nuclear reactors, which was quite a clever move. Anyway that is my 10p worth.

Love this film. More Scorcese in it than anything else.

Considering it's Brian De Palma I was disappointed. This is the bloke that made Carrie, Scarface, Carlito's Way and Blow Out. Mind, he also did Mission To Mars and Snake Eyes so you can never be sure what you're going to get. While this wasn't anywhere near as bad as his turkey's, it wasn't close to his best either. The mumbling smoking characters I could barely hear didn't help when there are 50 odd names to remember. Only catching the odd word meant I was always waiting for later scenes to explain how the film got there, once comfortable that this plan of action would work it meant I could get lazy and just wait it out till the end for a full explanation rather than following what was going on as it happened. Very stylish though. Lemming – Excellent paranormal thriller about a perfect couple whose complacency is tested by the man’s boss and more specifically his desperately unhappy wife. 10 years ago I know I would have been bored shitless so I know it won’t be for everyone, but the slow build to a feeling of paranoia that is bred by mistrust between the previously happy couple is palpable. The fact that the mistrust is on the button thanks to the spiritual possession of the previously doting wife leads to a bit of an easily resolved copout; and the poorly contrived introduction of a flying machine that you’re just waiting to pay-off is cack handed, but it was still a great ride. Yes dissapointing considering the director.

yes because they don't believe in martyrdom do they... oh no wait.. Gosh that's stretching the mad mullah, every towel head is a terroist theme a bit...I don't think it would run to carrying out action that would guarantee the extinction of Iran...Nuclear winter etc...Do you really think everyone in the Iranian leadership is some kind of psychotic nutcase? I mean how do they manage to carry on world affairs and get China, Russia and India on their side in the U.N.? You want to take a look at the birth of Israel and who's soldiers they were killing.... If you think that affairs in the UN with the likes of Russia, China and India have more to do with "supporting Iran" (or anyone else) rather than looking after their own interests and/or pushing back the interests of the USA and/or EU then I just don't know what to say. You need to take a course in politics or something tbh. But yes unfortunately the Iranian regime is FULL of zealots and frankly probably a few psychotic nutcases, it doesn't take too many of them too cause problems, just ONE (or a few) in the right postion(s)...... just look at the early 2oth century or frankly look at Bush himself, both prove that point to a certain degree. They are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts..... Sorry I should have made it clear. America I suppose has 152 bases around the world cause it is interested in democracy.. That is a ridiculous statement.

haway man Parky it's not a fucking stretch is it? Even if it isn't the government itself I'm sure there are a plethora of zealots fizzing at the slit to get their hans/hooks on the launch codes so they can wipe these pesky Jews (who bang on about a genocide that never happened... honestly ) off the face of the planet. Israel has over 100 warheads - dozens of which are submarine based...Iran would be toast. I don't think they would really want go ahead with a strategy which would be the extinction of their country. They wouldn't (if you remember before they realised what a mire Iraq would become for the USA they were running scared of actually being physically invade by the USA, since that is now out of the question their postitions have changed considerably), but IF they could get away with it they would. At present highly unlikely, but as I've said much more unlikely things have come to pass. So infact in essence you're saying it's highly unlikely.. In fact in essence and reality THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE SAID RIGHT FROM THE START. i.e.: So I don’t see what you’re getting at tbh, oh no I’ve said WHAT I SAID ALL ALONG… how terribly “silly” of me. Yup again that’s been the case for a while, but pre-Iraq and in the early days of Iraq (before the quagmire of the insurgence and security issues – remember the military part of the operation went quite well, this issue as ever is in the peacekeeping), Iran was very concerned about the USA having the both the might and the will to invade them. Israel won’t, they tend to mostly only massively overreact to aggression, but the recent Lebanon conflict has likely put a curb on that as they didn’t exactly lose, but didn’t win militarily and hugely lost politically and in standing in the eyes of their enemies. Erm…. you think using nuclear devices in anger is something NOT to be concerned about? For a start it would kill a LOT of people directly, and a lot more indirectly (and not necessarily in that specific area either). Secondly it could well trigger a much wider conflict, especially if Iran trades nuclear capability with its close allies. You’ve lost the plot here IMO. Well nuclear proliferaton ie India, Pakistan, Israel, South Africa, N.Korea, the odd left over nuke in Azerbiajan or Uzbekistan...Are you seriously saying that the U.K should be ready to intervene in these kind of theatres...There is a big difference being concerned (the both of us and no doubt the public at large are very concerned) it is another thing being drawn into a 20 year war with Shia Islam cause they attacked (although highly unlikely ) Israel. If Iran trades nuclear capability? It is at even worse case estimates 8/10 years from having ONE bomb of their own. If OUR neighbour had a 100 nuclear warheads....Would you not want US to aquire some measure of response?

yes because they don't believe in martyrdom do they... oh no wait.. Gosh that's stretching the mad mullah, every towel head is a terroist theme a bit...I don't think it would run to carrying out action that would guarantee the extinction of Iran...Nuclear winter etc...Do you really think everyone in the Iranian leadership is some kind of psychotic nutcase? I mean how do they manage to carry on world affairs and get China, Russia and India on their side in the U.N.? You want to take a look at the birth of Israel and who's soldiers they were killing....

haway man Parky it's not a fucking stretch is it? Even if it isn't the government itself I'm sure there are a plethora of zealots fizzing at the slit to get their hans/hooks on the launch codes so they can wipe these pesky Jews (who bang on about a genocide that never happened... honestly ) off the face of the planet. Israel has over 100 warheads - dozens of which are submarine based...Iran would be toast. I don't think they would really want go ahead with a strategy which would be the extinction of their country. They wouldn't (if you remember before they realised what a mire Iraq would become for the USA they were running scared of actually being physically invade by the USA, since that is now out of the question their postitions have changed considerably), but IF they could get away with it they would. At present highly unlikely, but as I've said much more unlikely things have come to pass. So infact in essence you're saying it's highly unlikely.. Btw..USA don't have the troops, will/popular support or now the balance of congress has changed techinical ability to invade Iran. Just summat I picked up on my scouring of 'world affairs'. My main concern is that Israel will do something, inevitably drawing America in and us in to some degree. In the 'highly unlikely event' Iran attacks Israel.....Tell me why are we to be so concerned about it? Is Israel national security our concern....?

haway man Parky it's not a fucking stretch is it? Even if it isn't the government itself I'm sure there are a plethora of zealots fizzing at the slit to get their hans/hooks on the launch codes so they can wipe these pesky Jews (who bang on about a genocide that never happened... honestly ) off the face of the planet. Israel has over 100 warheads - dozens of which are submarine based...Iran would be toast. I don't think they would really want go ahead with a strategy which would be the extinction of their country.

It's there that the current Iranian governement have played a masterstroke, in 1998-2000 there were genuine rumbles of discontent and pro-true democrasy movements within Iran. They masterfully quashed this and then followed it up with an amazing campaign of spin on nuclear options.... there is no CND in Iran, broadly their is nothing but support for nuclear power and to a slightly lesser degree nuclear weaponary. Arguably if there was more freedom of information in Iran this wouldn't be the case, but currently that's a pretty moot point. Interestingly it's not been the USA that's taken the lead on Iranian nuclear weapons, but the EU, which broadly IMO suggests this is an issue to be concerned about, it's not cowboy Bush rushing in where he probably should not, so much as a genuine danger that concerns most right thinking governments. I would actually put Iran with weapons ahead of North Korea in terms of potential danger (and N Korea is by far the most dangerous of the nuclear capable states), simply due to the zealot mentality that pervades that countries ruling powers, pretty much across the board. If Iran thought they could get away with droping a nuclear weapon on Isreal I am pretty sure they would, of course them being in a postion to do that is another issue, but not beyond the realms of possibility. Also I wouldn't put it past them to supply other groups with if not nuclear weaponary, at least dirty bomb type material, as they are currently supplying factions in Iraq. 1. Do you have evidence for this? 2. Pure supposition.....Albeit the current propaganda.

Are people also against Pakistan having nuclear weapons...Argually a regime just as unbalanced (if not more so) than Iran? From the New Yorker article: The rationale for regime change was articulated in early March by Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert who is the deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and who has been a supporter of President Bush. “So long as Iran has an Islamic republic, it will have a nuclear-weapons program, at least clandestinely,” Clawson told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 2nd. “The key issue, therefore, is: How long will the present Iranian regime last?” When I spoke to Clawson, he emphasized that “this Administration is putting a lot of effort into diplomacy.” However, he added, Iran had no choice other than to accede to America’s demands or face a military attack. Clawson said that he fears that Ahmadinejad “sees the West as wimps and thinks we will eventually cave in. We have to be ready to deal with Iran if the crisis escalates.” Clawson said that he would prefer to rely on sabotage and other clandestine activities, such as “industrial accidents.” But, he said, it would be prudent to prepare for a wider war, “given the way the Iranians are acting. This is not like planning to invade Quebec.” I personally think it will be utter madness invading or attacking Iran...Might as well kiss goodbye to having any kind of peace in the next 20 years.

I just think a guy posting on an internet message board going on about things being nerdy is hilarious. The moment you pressed 'add reply' the first time you were forever made a nerd. And it's something you have done over 4000 times. haha, nerd. I never said I wasn't tbf. I'm a total film geek and a football bore to boot. But I admit it. I don't claim I'm at a sophistated dinner party when I'm on a forum full of nerds. Comic book nerds are trying to repackage themselves as high brow literary specialists. When even the most adult oriented 'graphic novels' are still just tits and violence. I'll vouch for HP on the first two sentences. Bet that makes him feel a lot better that the resident forum crackpot is vouching for him. It wasn't easy I had to beat off some stiff competition.

Excellent post Fish. If I could expand a touch. Iran is a special case - compared to Iraq there are far greater military perils and of course the key differance is a Govt with broad civilian support who are well versed and politicised in the threat America poses. Iranians also have very long memories with regard to Yankee meddling in their affairs. Iranians remember Savak the former interior security organisation set up by the Shah with help and support from the CIA. Favourite tortures inc strapping the hapless victims to a bed of wires which was then electrifyied till it became red hot. Films Savak made of their torture of Iranian women include the burning of nipples with cigarettes. At the height of the backing of the Shah 'Savak' had 60.000 officers. The CIA made the mistake of distributing such films to other puppet Govt, operatives to show them 'how things were done'. One can say these were the 'bad old days of the CIA', but the seeds of the birth of the new revolutionary Iran. The Shah in the 60's continued to be portrayed as a Western friendly leader and some kind of policeman against Shia Islam. On June 3rd 1963 and to mark the day of martyrdom at Kerbala - Khomeni finally denounced the Shah publicly and of course the rest is history. The Shah desperate at the time passed a new law giving American 'personnel' inside Iran immunity from prosecution for any acts they might commit. This became a blunder of some comical proportions that finally gave the average Iranian the signal that their country was moving to the endgame.

I just think a guy posting on an internet message board going on about things being nerdy is hilarious. The moment you pressed 'add reply' the first time you were forever made a nerd. And it's something you have done over 4000 times. haha, nerd. I never said I wasn't tbf. I'm a total film geek and a football bore to boot. But I admit it. I don't claim I'm at a sophistated dinner party when I'm on a forum full of nerds. Comic book nerds are trying to repackage themselves as high brow literary specialists. When even the most adult oriented 'graphic novels' are still just tits and violence. I'll vouch for HP on the first two sentences.

In this instance your father should follow your advice HP.