NJS

If the latter stuff is true, I don't get why the lad has been nicked if it was a stupid tragedy though - it would be harsh if he threw the bin in the air and the lad ran under it.

I'm the last patriot on the planet but I still naively think being England Captain should mean something - the only problem is that the alternatiives (apart from Lampard imo) are all just as scummy.

I still think cheap, efficient solar panels are the future - though I wouldn't be surprised if there was a conspiracy theory type cover-up like the electric car that's stopped us having them already. I also have hopes for fusion

Whereas the Yanks invaded Korea, Vietnam, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Grenada and funded Bin Laden in Afghanistan alond with dozens of other terrorist groups around the globe - if you want to keep score I think the west "wins".

I think you did but anyway... You've just said people could support CND on its own merits without supporting Soviet Russia even if the organisation may have had links - so which way round is it? Its obvious to me that Benn is a pro-democracy socialist who supported CND - I think he can be any of those things and still dislike the actual regime in the Soviet Uinion (much like myself) - is there anything wrong with that statement?

Funnily enough there is a parallel with the "war on terror" - I always thought it was over-hyped to ensure a docile populace. I remember when the Russians downed a US jet over Korea when I was still at school (about 79?) and people being a bit worried and a teacher telling us that if it hadn't happened over Cuba it was never really going to happen.

TBF I agree with that - though I'd say it was never going to happen because the British establishment wouldn't let it happen rather than for any reason to do with Russia. There's nothing wrong with having ideals or targets that you know deep down will never happen - expecting NUFC to win something comes to mind - but dismissing people like Tony Benn as Soviet sympathisers is still pathetic. it is not, he marched with CND and was a spokesman at some of their rallies. Supporting the organisation does not make him a Soviet spy though - that's the point - Benn was/is very much in favour of democracy.

TBF I agree with that - though I'd say it was never going to happen because the British establishment wouldn't let it happen rather than for any reason to do with Russia. There's nothing wrong with having ideals or targets that you know deep down will never happen - expecting NUFC to win something comes to mind - but dismissing people like Tony Benn as Soviet sympathisers is still pathetic.

I'm anti-everything that I see as wrong - no matter what the side or politics. I'm especially not blinded by patriotism.

They didn't invade anywhere post 1945 - they just stayed in the countries theyd liberated from Gemany are you real ? Seriously. Give examples then. oh dear. Are you pretending the old eastern bloc didn't exist now. http://www.upi.com/Audio/Year_in_Review/Ev...03153093431-10/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/s...000/2739039.stm Perhaps one of our German based posters can enlighten you on the plight and history of Berlin ........ and East Germany....... staggering you are even asking this. Hungary was putting down an uprising against a puppet regime which was just like the one in Eastern Germany - if you count that as an invasion then the US have invaded about 20 countries in the last 50 years. East Germany was a spoil of war - you can thank your no doubt hero Churchill for giving them that.

They didn't invade anywhere post 1945 - they just stayed in the countries theyd liberated from Gemany are you real ? Seriously. Give examples then.

So why weren't the US deterred by the Russian weapons? - the point is the deterrent was a lie. is this your anti west stance kicking in again ? No - both sides were idiotic. However the US entered more wars post 1945 than the Russians which I don't mind pointing out.

So why weren't the US deterred by the Russian weapons? - the point is the deterrent was a lie.

They didn't invade anywhere post 1945 - they just stayed in the countries theyd liberated from Gemany

Some did - some just thought they wera a waste of money which was proven the case.

CND certainly was politicially influenced Stevie. Lots of gullible people jumped onto it but it contained lots of Soviet Russia sympathisers and supporters, including Russian ones...... Soviet Russia would have been very pleased if we had dropped all our nuclear weapons ....... Just as we'd be pleased if Russia dropped all of their surely? Surely the aims of CMD were unilateral disarmament. I don't know why we'd have supporters of USSR here, was a bit of a boom the late 80s here, and they were queuing for stale bread for hours. The world could see socialism in their form was never working. of course we would, but witness Russia's continued and expanding presence in europe resulting in the old eastern bloc and spread of their communist regime.......we needed weapons to defend but they were only too happy to use their military offensively and had shown it many times. The unilateral disarmament was the key phrase. CND supporters thought if we laid down our weapons, the Russians would have laid down theirs BTW mate, this started from the end of the 2nd world war and effectively ended in 1985 ie "perestroika" - it was the beginning of the end anyway. Where when and how did they use military force after WWII? Then compare that with US military operations post WWII.

CND certainly was politicially influenced Stevie. Lots of gullible people jumped onto it but it contained lots of Soviet Russia sympathisers and supporters, including Russian ones...... Soviet Russia would have been very pleased if we had dropped all our nuclear weapons ....... If you think for one nanosecond that but for british nuclear weapons, the Soviet Union would have invaded or done anything different ever then I think you're daft. The reasons the cold war ended was economic - on both sides - it was all just a complete waste of time in the end.

Thanks I know you're a little bit younger than me Stevie and I would say it would probably be less likely in recent years. I think the rise of the "mackem" identity has intensified the rivalry to a certain extent - when I was a kid even though I didn't know anyone from Sunderland I just thought of them as supporting a different team, not as a politcally different species as is the view nowadays. For the record everyone I would call a mate up until I was about 16 were NUFC fans - I do have a couple of good mates who support Sunderland (and who incidently don't call themselves Mackems) but they came a bit later and anything you say isn't going to change that. As for being a different type of fan than "purebloods" perhaps you're right - I've always thought the fact that we mix with and know SAFC fans actually makes the rivalry more intense and to some degree enjoyable - whats the point of beating the twats if you can't brag to any of them?

British Soldier - Heroic Angel beyond reproach Gays - canny lads but not appropriate shower buddies/soldiers/parents/role models. Anyone who ever said nuclear weapons weren't a good idea - Soviet spy. are you referring to my post about Clare Short ? I'm right you know. Again, although you may not "agree" Tony Benn as well - which really shows your ignorance.

I've often wondered whether his intention was to spend big if the debt hadn't been there. Then again I can't understand if that was the case why he didn't just bite the bullet and spend anyway. NOt making excuses for him, but if the 100m or so liabilities hadn't been there I'm sure there would have been more money available. The other thing is, the pay-off clause on the mortgage was only £45m - he only paid the other 55m/65m out pf choice.

I've often wondered whether his intention was to spend big if the debt hadn't been there. Then again I can't understand if that was the case why he didn't just bite the bullet and spend anyway. Wasn't his stated intention always to put in another £20m each season? Which he claims to have stood by even having paid off the debt. He would say the additional £20m a season has gone on running costs. The argument against that is that he's only loaned the club money and so shifted the debt and gone on to increase it even further. The 20m was part of his infamous first sale statement and looked like shite made up just for that imo.

I could see them going to meet up with Mackems they knew (sorry Stevie it happens) but the on spec/supporting them part of it was bollocks and always struck me as such.

I've often wondered whether his intention was to spend big if the debt hadn't been there. Then again I can't understand if that was the case why he didn't just bite the bullet and spend anyway.

What are the stats for replacing the £10bn with tax from legalised narcotics?

In a roundabout way that's what made me think about it - a conversation at work which involved Fritzl which somehow make me think of why they didn't use "Fritz".