scary

The British Army have 7 Panthers on trial at the moment but there is a batch of 50 due to arrive any time (allegedly) to complete mass trials and then be fitted with the operational whizz-bangs for them to be ready for service by the summer - assuming all the bugs have been ironed out. Rock Apes probably won't be too impressed with them though, as the roof prohibits sunbathing/posing possibilities and there aren't enough places to hang GPMGs. They are not, and never were, intended to be a patrol vehicle. As a support vehicle, weapons platform, mobile OP etc. they'll probably be very good, but for infantry patrols they're too bulky, de-busing is so slow you'd have to arrive at a contact 5 minutes early just to get everyone out and their complexity eliminates them from a lot of FR. Considering their size, they're also surprisingly cramped. In comparison with HMMWVs there is no contest, FCLV are better in all areas, Humvees are awful, which is why there are very few of them in AFG. For a single role infantry vehicle I would probably opt for RG-31 which is around 100,000 Euros cheaper, carries 11 and has better land-mine protection, but if a multi-variant vehicle is required then the LMVs are a good choice. In the same price range there is also the choice of 6x6 Pinzgauer PPV which are exceptionally good bits of kit. 2.5tn payload/14 man capacity, go like a well greased weasel and will happily drive over anything they're pointed at, all while being field maintainable and, if you install the extra fuel tanks, 2000+km range. We're using a cheaper unarmoured version with improved wading depth and the only complaint is the lack of a BV, but they do have a radio. BvS10 (Viking) is also available at that price with good armour, anti-personnel mine resistant undercarriage and a footprint light enough not to set off heavier mines, they carry four up front, eight in the back and are fully amphibious. Not that useful in an urban setting, though. All things considered, I would say the LMVs will be very good in their intended role and, as part of a complementary suite of vehicles, are a sensible purchase. The big problem with all this increase in armour, though, is providing suitably qualified drivers. Even some up-armoured Land Rovers are now so heavy as to need a C class license.

You do realise you are advocating treason, don't you? Â It is proven but: it is hugely expensive when de-commissioning costs are taken into account; there is a substantial security risk, both in the reactors themselves and in the storage of spent material; and, most importantly of all, there is only enough fissile material left in the world for one more generation of reactors. Nuclear can only be a stop-gap, another solution will have to be found within the next 25 years and we are at least 50 years away from fusion. As it is, nuclear only provides 3.1% of the worlds electricity. My vote is for a huge CSP farm in the Sahara connected to a HVDC grid covering Europe and North Africa. It's cheap, proven, reliable, safe and clean, plus the land is pretty much useless for anything else. You keep repeating that yet you will find yourself unable to back it up with a source as it isn't true. Most of the UK's economy is generated in Britain, a significant slice (but by no means most) comes from foreign entities investing within the UK - not the other way around. As for these arguments on what constitutes the UK's GDP, ask the people that calculate it. As you are not American you could have started by learning how to spell cheque. Now, repeat after me: Aluminium Rumour Humour Colour Defence Tyre Programme Normally I wouldn't grammar police, but I can't abide the badstardisation of the language, especially by a teacher. Banking is a sub-category of the 'Business services and Finance' category which, as a whole, provides almost 1/3 of GDP. Banking does not provide anywhere near that. The EU doesn't push anything. The member nations, of which the UK is one of the three most powerful, operate a democratic system economic and social co-operation and interdependence. It is not 26 nations trying to take control of Britain. The EU Constitution was poorly promoted and poorly named. It wasn't a constitution, it was a simplification of already existing laws that would have saved time and money. The newspapers that vilified the idea of the constitution were the same ones that complained about the bloatedness of the EU and its legislation, precisely what it was intended to combat. The EU foreign minister was intended to save money by not having to send a group of ministers from each country when all were in agreement. The post was not intended to replace each nation's minister. There is so much legislation because the Europhobes make any reform - e.g. the constitution - impossible. UKIP have stated that their sole intent is to disrupt the process. The EU is by no means flawless, but those flaws are not the imaginary ones touted by certain elements of the press. Of course, as a teacher you must be aware that Churchill was one of the earliest modern advocates of a united Europe and was actively promoting the unification of Britain and France as one country prior to WW2. Perhaps you could provide examples of where these things are happening within the EU?

You are pulling numbers out of the air. There is very little difference in real terms between a low wage job and state benefits. There is no reason for him to be looking for somewhere to live. He would presumably already had a home and the local council would pay either his rent or the interest on his mortgage. If Derek has lost his job it is his own fault. He should stop feeling sorry for himself, get off his arse and apply for one or more of the 600,000 vacancies that exist in this country every day. If those jobs didn't exist people wouldn't be coming from eastern Europe to do them. Net migration into the UK in 2005 was 185,000 - hardly an 'explosion'. Unemployed and claiming stands at just under 1 million; unemployed is 1.7 million - we're a long way from wading through rivers of the great unwashed stealing sandwiches and living in halfway houses. The only place the low paid jobs have been taken is in the skewed reality of the tabloid press. Unless you can provide irrefutable proof of this I am going to have to assume you are making it all up. The Government have absolutely nothing to do with EU migrants, they can live wherever the hell they like but they have to be self-supporting. They are not entitled to social housing, to be eligible to use state welfare they have to have been paying NI contributions continually for twelve months. And again you are concocting nonsense. National Insurance is not an insurance scheme and has bugger all to do with the NHS. National Insurance pays for social security. The NHS is paid for out of general taxation. Not that it makes the slightest difference anyway - immigrants pay NI. A NI number is required to get employment. Read again: "their education and primary healthcare has been paid for by another country." The tense is most definitely past-perfect. The expensive parts of a person's life to the state are the beginning and the end. Their birth, childhood immunisations, many check-ups and their education have been paid for by another country. As most immigrants are short-stay and intend on returning whence they came, said country usually also pays for the end. Stop regurgitating the Daily chuffing Mail. None of this is vaguely true. Bearing in mind the demographic of these migrants being young, healthy and reasonably educated how many do you actually think are using the NHS? An 18 year-old low wage worker from Poland contributes substantially more to the economy than an 18 year-old low wage worker from Plymouth simply because the state hasn't funded those expensive first 18 years of their life. Britain's GDP has grown therefore the economy is stronger now than it was 5 years ago. More made-up figures. 8% of the UK population is of an ethnic minority. Ethnic minority !=immigrant. And that was from the 2001 census, before the accession. Britain's economy has its fingers in many pies, finance being just one of them. While manufacturing may be worth less as a percentage now than it was 50 years ago it is worth more in real terms. Finance in itself does not make any money, it requires other industries and most of Britain's economy is not generated abroad. This is pretty much nonsense. Median direct taxation is around 6,000 pounds p.a., indirect taxation is roughly the same. Who the crap is using 12,000 pounds of public money a year? Is it all those 20 year-old immigrants taking up all the hospital beds getting their arthritis and varicose veins treated while simultaneously taking everyone's jobs - the swines? What an absolute crock. Most public transport is not subsidised. Subsidised services are usually the little used rural ones. There is no such thing as road tax, it is a vehicle tax and buses pay it too. They also pay tax on their fuel as do trains, this is factored in to the price of tickets. No tax is ringfenced for anything, if it was both vehicle and fuel tax would have to be increased as they do not cover the cost of the transport network. Oddly enough roads did exist before cars. Phrases like 'immigration explosion' and 'pensions crisis' but no credible accompanying numbers are typical tabloid fodder. As is blaming Johnny foreigner for every one of today's imaginary ills - 'immigrants coming over here, stealing our jobs, using our hospitals, sleeping with our women, eating our swans...' Anyone would think they all have chaufeur driven Bentleys, live in castles and eat gold-plated caviar while the rest of the population rumages through their diamond encrusted bins looking for the scraps of food that they haven't fed to their unicorns. EDIT- Board monged up the pound sign again. That really does need fixing. I blame the immigrants.

I take it from that statement that you live in the S.E/commuter belt and your map has 'there be beasties here' north of Peterborough. Those immigrants are not 'heading for the money', they are going where the jobs are - jobs (and money for that matter) are available across the whole country. Most of those immigrants are here to do the low skilled, low paid work that the native population has no interest in. Who, with more than three working brain cells, would look for a minimum wage job in London where they'd have to pay around 700 pounds pcm for a grotty run-down bedsit when they could get a similar minimum wage job in Castleford and have a shiny new 3 bedroomed semi with garden front and back for 300 pounds pcm? I would hazard a guess that there is a lot more call for vegetable pickers in Staffordshire than in E15. The Government have absolutely no say on where they go, freedom of movement is enshrined in EU law. If Derek is stealing for food why is he in the pub? Regardless, your argument makes no sense. Derek is not going to be laid off from his job because Libor has just arrived from Ostrava and can do the same job for the same pay but with a limited grasp of English. It would be pointless, self-defeating and illegal. And if Derek can't get a mimimum wage job he's just applied for over Libor I suggest he finds a tall building, throwing off, for the use of - sharpish. I don't know if you've noticed, but this is an advanced, first world nation with a well developed welfare state. Derek would not be living in a halfway house and stealing for food. He would have his rent or interest on his mortgage paid for by the council, would be in receipt of enough unemployment benefit to put food on his plate and the heating on, offered adult education courses and assistance in finding alternative employment. Libor, however, would have no access to any of that. If, by that, you mean making up bizarre stories with no grounding in reality, then yes, they've been doing it for years. The Daily Wail is still a tabloid btw. There is a big difference in protecting the weak and babysitting. The state isn't there to tuck him in at night and tell him a bedtime story. If he is on incapacity benefit then he is incapable of work, the clue is in the name. In such case the existence or otherwise of immigrants has no bearing on his employment status. Healthcare is free at the point of use, not free of charge. Immigrants pay the same taxes as everyone else, so why shouldn't they have access to the healthcare they contribute to? Until they've got an NHS number they are only entitled to emergency treatment anyway. Not many 7 year olds are coming here looking for work, most migrants are 18-30 and single with no children and their education and primary healthcare has been paid for by another country. An 18 year old from Poland employed washing dishes has cost the state nothing, unlike the tens of thousands that would have been spent on an English 18 year old. How magnanimous of you. I could use a reasonable argument here but it doesn't deserve one, so - ballcocks. Where is the city the size of Birmingham that has been built since 2002? So where do you stop with that argument then? Someone from Gloucester cannot move to and work in Newcastle because they haven't contributed to the local services paid for out of council tax? Since when has Eastern Europe been the other side of the world? And you must have one hell of a christmas card list if most of the 60 million people in this country aren't strangers to you. Not London's population, Britain's. The world is overpopulated, not just Britain, no amount of border control will change that. Humans are like every other animal, they will go where the resources are. One day it will be Britons on the move.

None of which have anything to do with immigration. In fact, these are mostly only an issue in the South East and the London commuter belt. The roads are jammed because of a lack of investment in public transport, especially rail, in the 80s; hugely increased car ownership; the typical car has five seats but an average of 1.6 occupants; in most urban areas the streets were designed for pedestrians and the occasional horse/mule/cow - they are simply not capable of accommodating two lanes of traffic and on-street parking; Mummy insists on driving Jocinta and Tarquin to school in her Chelsea tractor instead of making the lazy twunts walk/cycle/get the bus. Reservoirs are drying up because of lack of investment in infrastructure in the 80s (again), resulting in much leakage; increased urbanisation and drainage into waterways reduces ground-soak resulting in the aquifers not being topped up; climate change - the wet stuff falling from the sky is notable by its absence. The current batch of generators are reaching the end of their service life. Degradation is the issue, not capacity. Lack of housing is the result of over-inflated property prices caused by the internal migration to the South East. That internal migration also compounds the other problems. More people live in London than live in Scotland and Wales combined, by the end of the decade it may well be possible to add Northern Ireland to that. York isn't suffering from a water shortage and the M1 is rarely jammed. Britain has one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the world and is currently around the lowest it has ever been. Most of those that are unemployed are not seeking employment - full-time carers, the medically unfit, etc. Moving away from a manual workforce seems to be resulting in a lot of people with back pain and living in a peaceful, affluent democracy is causing many to suffer from stress - there is definitely not a malingerer among them. At any one time there are around a million job vacancies in the UK, if there were no jobs for immigrants to come to they wouldn't bother. That figure completely disregards those emigrating from the country. The more important thing is the comparative demographics of those entering the country and those leaving - both are of great financial benefit to the UK. I'm not sure how you concluded that Britain has never had a higher level of immigration than this. The only natives of this isle are the Welsh and the Cornish, everyone else is of immigrant descent, and I highly doubt there are any Welsh and Cornish left that haven't had their native blood heavily diluted. The British are the mongrel population of Europe. I assume when you mention the Saxon invasion dividing the country in two you refer to Danelaw and Wessex? If you do that was the Vikings ~400 years after the Saxons, and it eventually brought a comparative period of peace to the region. Prior to that, post-Roman Southern Britain was divided into the various guises of the Heptarchy and spent most of its time in a perpetual state of war. Without the creation of the Danelaw it is unlikely Edward the Eldar would have been able to establish the Kingdom of England. The North/South divide still exists to some extent today and I would draw it roughly along the old Danelaw/Wessex border. Two World Wars are what kept the UK population in check, Governments like births to maintain a workforce large enough to support an ageing population. The immediate financial wellbeing of the country will always be put before the long-term physical wellbeing: the former gets a party re-elected, the latter gets them abandoned. Immigration is only an issue because the tabloid press makes it one. Personally I'd prefer it if Rupert Murdoch kept his nose out of the running of this country.

Documentary showing Commando section in FIWAF incident. Enjoy.

Don't over stretch before a run. Stretching actually temporary weakens a muscle slightly so make those stretches very short and gentle just to get the blood flowing to the muscles properly. Stretch fully after the run, however, it stops the muscle tightness from forming. A deep tissue massage works wonders on muscle pain. Rest days are important. It's not the running that improves fitness but the recovery from it so have two days off a week, e.g. Sundays and Wednesdays. Mix up your running, so have 3 or 4 days a week doing distance and 1 or 2 doing sprints/intervals. One very important thing is to make sure you get some hill running in at least once a week, preferably twice - even though it's only half the distance, the Great North Run is much harder than the London Marathon simply because of the hills. Beach running is very good for the leg muscles and is much more knee friendly than pavement pounding. Increase your distance runs by 500m every two weeks until 10k is easy then start mixing up the length and type of distance runs you're doing, e.g. 5k beach run, 10k hill run, 15k road, 20k cross-country. Don't just do the same thing every week and once you've got a good base level of fitness try doing a run in the morning and one in the evening some days. A couple of medium distance and intensity bike rides a week will strengthen your leg muscles. Do a bleep test once a month to monitor your progress; level 13 or higher is a good target to aim for. With regards to diet, most people eat the wrong way round. By this I mean that peoples' meals get progressively larger through the day. You don't need to think about it too much to realise why a large meal after you've woken up is much more useful than one before you go to sleep. A good breakfast would be: sausage and bacon sandwich, or scrambled egg on toast or a couple of mackerel fillets; a banana; a bowl of porridge (a spoon of muscovado sugar makes it taste good); half a grapefruit; and some bread or toast with jam. Balance is the important thing but try to swallow plenty of carbs through the day and drink plenty of water. And take a bag of jelly babies with you when running. Good luck.

Are you stupid or just full of democratic bull sh!t? Its been three years! do you think Iraq will be left if all the terrorists were domestic? NO! You honestly think that Iraqi people are picking up guns off dead terrorists to fight American and allied troops? For someone that alledgedly loves democracy, you sure do hate democrats. All those Democrat voting troops out there would be so happy to know you detest them so. Perhaps you should leave the rhetoric out of the discussion, like others are managing. "BUT HE'S A DEMOCRAT!!!!111!!1" is a poor debating tactic. Iraqi people have no need to take guns from dead terrorists when more Iraqis have guns than have microwaves. Also, they're primarily fighting each other, not the coalition. Iran does not like Iraq, they are not friends. Iran wanted the Ba'athists overthrown, but it has nothing to gain and plenty to lose from insurgency nextdoor. The cold war is over, Russia and China are not enemies of the West, they are trading partners, bringing down the West is not in their interest. Neither one of them trusts Iran any more than the West does. All against well-trained-battle-hardened troops. this is different, this is militiamen. Well-trained-battle-hardened militiamen. The only difference is that a large proportion of them have no fear of death. Great, one SNCO and three from the bottom of the ladder. My primary sources: Sgt. scary RM Thousands of my oppos. Do I win a prize? I notice that you left out the fact that it was a surprise flank-attack against a force equipped with ancient muskets by Americans equipped with modern rifles. Events like this show up through most nations' histories, the US doesn't have a monopoly on this kind of thing. Other nations, however, don't base current policy on past achievements. Money is a big thing... something the US provided. Neither Britain or France were poor, this was at the height of empire and either country could fart more money than the US had access to. All the artillery, tanks and other heavy equipment used by the Americans were provided by the British and French free of charge. When you're in a hole, stop digging. The American contribution to WWI was minimal at best. @1) I never knew the US was in engagement from the time it landed @2) "Open" means two large forces opposing each other. @3) Action in Vietnam was used to stop northern aggression, therefore it was a police action. @4) If your referring to base insurgency then that was a battle won too, they repulsed the VC. 1) The first American combat deaths were on July 8th 1959 at Bien Hoa Billets. The last were at the fall of Saigon, April 29-30 1975. There were American combat deaths in the first Indo-China War too, the first being Major(Lt. Col.) A.P. Dewey. 2) "Open" means two or more forces of indeterminate size opposing each other - openly. 3) Action in WWII was used to stop German aggression. Its status as a war is unaffected. Arlington Cemetary refer to Vietnam as "America's longest and most controversial war". Perhaps you would like to argue with them. 4) The US lost, you will not change that fact. The US went there to stop the North invading the South and failed. Not achieving your war aims while the opposition achieves theirs is a loss. The men involved there were Americans, yes they were under British "rule" but they were still living, breathing, and walking America. They were not Americans, nor were they under British rule as neither country existed in 1637. They were English colonists, born and raised in England, they considered themselves English, were wholly dependant on supplies from England and were bankrolled by England. They were there to set up colonies for England. They were no more American than Christopher Columbus. They were not American in the same way as Julius Caesar was not Italian. Quite frankly, I wouldn't give a toss - it was 200 years ago. It really is quite pointless trying to transplant 21st century international law onto the early 19th century. Of course, you do realise one of the things the RN were doing in US waters was stopping ships transporting slaves from the British empire. What do you think a suitable response should have been for Americans illegaly taking British subjects as slaves? No need to spell anything out, I get the point quite clearly: you're making it up as you go along. Impressment is just another word for conscription. The captains of American ships were complicit in assisting draft dodgers and deserters and they were most likely being paid by the French to do it. Try one of the best in the world, since America had different species of trees and an abundance of them, it was safe to say they were "top notch." Do i have to pull in the example of "Old Ironsides" to put you in your place about American Frigates? You've changed tack more often than the Chesapeake ever did. First of all you claimed that the HMS Shannon didn't have superior firepower, which it did, you also claimed that US frigates were 'the best in the world' because of their superior firepower, now you've changed that to 'one of the best' because of the timber used. The fact is that the best ships the US had were the 44 gunners it refered to as 'super-frigates'. It makes no difference if they were "top-notch", they were still only borderline fourth rates built to fight fifth rate and lesser vessels. The US had nothing that could match a RN fourth rate or a ship of the line. You just don't seem to have any concept of how overwhelmingly powerful the RN was. As for this different trees nonsense, Britain owned Canada. Any trees the US had access to Britain had a lot more of them, as well as its pick of South American, African, Asian, Indian, Australasian and European trees. Out of all these new superhero trees the US had, 'Old Ironsides' was made of oak. Trying to put me in my place could backfire especially if its the urban myth or the no holes, but you're welcome to try. Aside from issue of shells hitting the trees, as others have mentioned, how exactly do you think one can deploy field guns, self-propelled guns or tanks in an area no vehicle can access? Mortars can't be used with an overhead obstruction, before you mention them. So you're saying all it takes to defeat the US military is a college girl with a placard. Not very good then are they? You think was is a solution to raise an economy? well hell! lets all pick up the boxing gloves No. I know it was a solution to protect an economy. Saddam had the dollar by its reproductives. Iran is trying to do the same thing, only better. Rorke's Drift. 139 British, of which 104 were fit to fight, vs. 4-5000 Zulus. Along with their assegais, the Zulus did actually have a few thousand firearms, mostly 20-30 year old rifles and flintlocks purchased from white traders. Contrary to the film it is highly unlikely they had any Martini-Henrys at that time, although they did use them at Khambula two months later.

Pretty much decisive I would say, the influx of fresh manpower ended the stalemate, was how i understood it. The US military hierarchy seriously screwed over their men. They entered the war with a heavy dose of arrogance and decided they didn't need the advice of the British and French militaries. Pershing insisted on using frontal assaults, a tactic both the British and French had abandoned because of its ineffectiveness and the obscene attrition rate. It didn't take very long for the Americans to be switched from an independant force to being reinforcements for the British and French. The British naval blockade of Germany which started in 1917 was beginning to bite by early 1918 and the German industrial machine slowed to a crawl. It was this that ended the stalemate. By the time the Americans arrived Germany's best soldiers were gone and they were rapidly running out of equipment. There was also severe internal unrest in Germany. I'm not dodging it because it isn't a fact. It was not A vs. B. A and B were playing solitaire, trying not to be the first to lose. Being abstract constructs, neither communism nor capitalism can have a view on anything. The economic system of Russia had no impact on the US other than having one less potential trading partner. It was a choice to have them as an enemy, communism was the excuse. Incidentally, I never could see how the HUAC harassing suspected communists was itself not "un-American" - political freedom and all. 1) It lasted 16 years. That is prolonged. 2) Open does not refer to strategy and tactics, it means not clandestine. It was not clandestine. 3) I've never seen the NYPD fighting in the jungle, or trying to stop an invading army. You cannot use more explosive than was used in WWI and WWII combined and say it wasn't a war. 4) Not every contact was a battle. All battles can be won and a war lost. Not to worry there, my finger is very much on the pulse. It would take a lot of head stomping to turn it around and nothing anywhere near stompy enough is ever going to be authorised. Nope, two English colonies and some local tribes vs. Pequot Indians. The only way Americans were involved is if there was some use of time travel. The British were impressing British seamen on American vessels, something they were within their rights to do. They were not taking Americans. The issue was spun as a reason by those with a vested interest. Those same people were the ones antagonising the situation with forged or illegally issued citizenship certificates. America wanted to move its borders in order to gain more land and kill a few Indians, not strengthen them. They wanted to repulse the British from the whole of the American continent, not just the US. There were no trade rights to gain, Britain had already decided to lift the blockade stopping the US trading with France but the Americans didn't hear about it until after they declared war. The Royal Navy (not HMN) was, by far, the worlds most powerful navy from the 17th century through to the inter-war years when it was overtaken by Germany. HMS Shannon was a 38 gun frigate, USS Chesapeake was a 36 gun frigate. Also, while the cream of RN ships and crews were busy fighting in the Napoleonic Wars and elsewhere leaving lesser vessels and overstretched, under-trained crews patrolling N. America, Capt. Brook had an excellent, well drilled crew. The best ships the US had were its super-frigates which were fourth/fifth rate. The US only used them against RN fifth rate frigates and sixth rate sloops. The RN had 60 gun fourth rates that made US frigates look like canoes. The ships of the line would make them look like flotsam, shortly before turning them into it. The RN had 97 vessels operating around America, the US had 22. They were not told not to engage US ships. Artillery doesn't work very well in the jungle. And students protesting 9,000 miles away don't affect a military's effectiveness. but considerably more fragile too. all it takes is a nuclear state to withdraw and the whole thing collapses. No, the EU economy is not based on two states' nuclear arsenals. The US economy is in such dire condition as to need a war to stop it from collapsing and is now sabre-rattling with Iran for the same reason.

There was no opposing faction as such. It was not one side versus the other, but rather two sides playing against themselves. The arms and space races were just dick measuring contests with the two sides trying not to be the first to defeat themselves. The Soviet Union was never going to bring down the USA by throwing a monkey into space and the USA was never going to bring down the Soviet Union by building an aircraft carrier 47 tonnes larger than the last one. Either side could have pulled out of the race at any time. The Soviet Union's ideology is irrelevent as to their status as an enemy. The Soviet Union trying to impose its ideology on the US would have made it an enemy but that was never going to happen, nor was the US about to invade the USSR and impose capitalism. Sometimes a country likes to have an enemy and both sides found one where there wasn't. The point is that religion, or race for that matter, should not be a matter of preference, it shouldn't be a matter at all. From a European perspective - countries like Italy and Ireland aside - it is somewhat archaic, a person's religion was an issue in the 19th century, not the 21st. Although I would say that Europe is no different a position than the US on race. While that Shawnee may be able to get votes at a lower level, perhaps in a Shawnee community, he would never get support at the higher state or national level. I think it's safe to say there'll be a black president long before there'll be a native American president because religion is even more devisive an issue than race in the US. Connecticut isn't really religiously conservative America, nor is there any great divide between Christians and Jews. A Sikh Senator in a bible belt state would be a step forward. Personally, I would no more vote for someone for a shared religion than I would for having a comparable pair of socks. If I wanted a candidate similar to myself, I'd vote for myself. In the real world such a man could find himself out of his depth. Said man should put more energy into finishing puberty, accept the fact that people will poke fun at him, get over it and move on. War (wôr) n. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. Vietnam was a war. It was called a war at the time and it is still a war now. All services of the US military fought against another nations military. A nation doesn't resort to conscription for a police action. You cannot change the terms of the conflict just because you lost, even if you do use quotation marks. You lost to some chaps in pyjamas, it happens. Accept it and move on. Somalia, warlords defeated, humanitarian crisis resolved, democracy restored, job done. Lovely place, I was thinking of wintering there. Jolly good show chaps. Are you questioning my sexual morals, or did you mean lose? I haven't had the need to listen to any bullshit, Democratic or otherwise. I have been on a whistlestop tour of the place courtesy of Telic holidays, though. Found it very sandy. I may even get to win the grand prize of a return trip, lucky me. Thanks for the sitrep, most informative, clearly someone has been spinning me a dit. Quite so. Seems to be getting less and less of a US problem every day. Been reading the Bumper Book of American Revisionist History, haven't you? Pequot War of 1637, you say. Correct me if I'm wrong but was that not the first war involving time travel? The War of Independence was technically a civil war and the British only put up a token fight, having bigger fish to fry. The important fighting was done by the French anyway. The War of 1812 - The war aims of the US were the conquest of Canada. British war aims were the retention of Canada and keeping open trade with New York State. Since I don't see Ottawa as a state of the union, and British trade with NY continued unabated the war was a British Victory. The unpleasantness was swiftly concluded after chasing some of those upstart colonials, the burning of some downtown shebang in Washington DC by a shore party from the besieging RN force and a ship-to-ship clash between HMS Shannon and the USS Chesapeake...which, ahem, the RN naturally won by virtue of superior firepower and the innate unquenchable spirit of Jolly Jack...HUZZAA!! It was also more of a side issue between Britain and France than America. World War I (1917-1918) - I couldn't help but giggle at those dates. Remind me, how important was the US contribution to that scuffle? Vietnam - Victory??? So it goes: achieve none of your war aims; retreat; claim victory. Interesting. Kosovo War - Ahh yes, sunny Kosovo, so many memories, so very few involving the Spams - apart from that wedged HMMWV. It always amuses people around here when Americans take credit for that. You'll find the important stuff had already been done while the American troops were busy posing for the news cameras at the border. So, your list contains: wars fought by the US before the US existed; wars fought primarily by other countries; internal conflicts, usually with the natives; wins that were losses; some tiffs with banana republics and second-world non-entities; and quite bizarrely, victories in ongoing conflicts - the Allies should have just declared victory in 1940, it would have saved a lot of bother. You missed the Aroostook War which the US lost without a shot being fired. Even though you conceeded Eagle Claw a failure you concluded no losses. 27 wins, (3 ongoing) - there are 4, 1 draw and 0 losses from a list of 34. It seems neither maths nor history is your forte. I suggest you recalculate. US wars fought and won alone.

I don't know if this was meant to be obscure, but as best I can tell it is either infering that Denoir is soon to be killed by a besmirched Priest or will be suffering a fate of Hell and damnation. As the former is a somewhat unlikely occurence and Hell and damnation isn't much of a threat to someone that doesn't believe in Hell and damnation, perhaps you could elucidate. According to all relevant literature the God you refer to has never interacted with anyone or anything outside of the Middle East. What makes you think that the 300m people in the US are now more important than the other 6Bn people in the world? What elevates US citizens above all others? US not losing a war? What was Vietnam? The US didn't do too well in Somalia either. Try making a list of all the wars the US has fought and won on its own. You're about to lose in Iraq and have abandoned most of Afghanistan for everyone else to deal with. The US military record is rather poor. I doubt the non-white population would agree with you about not being oppressed. It was only forty years ago that the US was under apartheid. Ask some of the black WWII veterans about the difference in treatment they recieved from the British than from other Americans. 200 years of prosperity is hardly anything to boast about. There are tortoises nearly as old. It's also not true anyway, 60 years is closer. No one defeated the Soviet Union, it collapsed due to the costs of the space and arms races while simultaneously having to administer a huge land mass with a comparitively small population. And they were only an enemy because people wanted them to be. There is nothing wrong with you having a religion and no one is trying to deny you that right. The problem is when a country and government have a religion and when a prospective politician's religion is a voting issue. What chance is there of a Shawnee that mentions Kokumthena of getting anywhere in US politics? In reality there is virtually no chance of anyone becoming US President unless they at least appear to be practicing Christians. And I wonder for how many of them it has only been an appearance. Religion isn't required for leadership of a country, nor is it required for morals. Who is more moral, the atheist Swede that gives money for tsunami victims because they believe it is the right thing to do, or the Christian American that gives money to tsunami victims because they believe it will give them a better afterlife? You are proving other peoples' point of how overly religious the US is compared to Europe when you say you are trying to get people to regain their faith. Most Europeans will point and laugh at anyone that says such things.

It could be interpreted that way, but I started the reply before he got banned*. Besides, it wasn't just to him *yes I do realise how much time has elapsed since then but I was responding in very short bursts as a distraction while building my boat. Steaming timber two pieces at a time is fecking dull.

Your previous assertion was that Hamas is a death cult because they teach children to shoot. You moving the goalposts was predictable but pointless. When was it you attended one of these camps to discover this information? The ACF are taught to defeat any potential enemy by whatever means are at their disposal and that there is no greater honour than to die trying. Palestinian children do not need to be brainwashed to consider Israelis a potential threat and enemy. Israelis are a threat to Palestinians and some of them may be willing to oppose that threat by whatever means are at their disposal. Every nation revers its war dead. Why is it so repulsive when Palestinians do the same? Could you possibly show what bearing a persons economic stance, whether right, left or centrist has on this. Preferably without linking to any wing-nut blogs. So much evidence that you can never show any. Nice loading of the question there. It's about time you learnt that most people here are not stupid enough to fall for it. The kidnapping was not an attack on the country. When an Israeli kidnaps or kills an Israeli is it an attack on Israel? Your last sentence make no sense - whether you agree with it or not, you've got to agree with it??? And Lebanon didn't pull anything. Israelis would be better off teaching that to their own population first. Israel kidnaps foreign nationals on a regular basis. Are you saying that Israel regularly commits acts of war? Those countries are not friends of Iran, they are trading partners. The cold war is over, by the way - enemy of my enemy, indeed. The only one of those that is anyone's enemy is NK. Iran has made no indications of it wanting to destroy Israel - and don't bother quoting any of MEMRI's deliberate, out of context mis-translations to show that they have, someone will make you look rather silly. Perhaps you could remind everyone of the last time Iran attacked another country? Unlike you, I have listened to Ahmadinejad, to what he actually says and not the MEMRI translations you are clearly using. It is mostly just political waffle, and no threats. If the rest of the world hadn't been vilifying Iran, he would never have been voted into power, anyway. Israel has average pilots that never have to do anything difficult. No matter how good a pilot is there is no weaving in and out of the AAA and banking at the last moment while the missile crashes into the side of a mountain. Hollywood is a poor source for information. An Israeli pilot was shot down by Israeli air defence when he strayed too close to Dimona, you know. No doubt Israel has test launched its submarines' missiles, but that does mean they had a nuclear warhead on the pointy end. Precisely how did you come to the conclusion that three submarines keep the German ship building industry alive? Don't forget to include in your calculation Germany donating the first two for free and paying for half of the third. Where would ThyssenKrupps 184,000 employees be without Israel? I'm quite sure there are other navies than the US and Israeli using German boats. Germany's springs immediately to mind. I find facts much better than wild speculation, myself. The land based missiles would be taken out before they got anywhere near the launch stage. Oddly enough, I think most militaries would be able to figure that one out quite easily. Before destroying the Jericho launch pads they could have a pop at nearby Tel Nof on the way, thus taking out the planes as well. Bio and chemical weapons are much easier to deploy than nuclear. I think you'll find you come to a conclusion first - usually involving the words 'Israel, only defending, death cult, Holocaust, anti-Semitic', with a smattering of capitalisation and exclamation marks - then try to find as many websites as possible that support that position, no matter how spurious they are. When people then post genuine evidence that contradicts your position, emotional outbursts ensue, followed by some foot-stamping, then you hide until the next issue comes along and the cycle starts again.

There are a couple of possibilities. Israel has two nuclear capable planes, F4Es and F16s, although the F4Es are deprecated so the role would most likely be taken by the F16s. The problem with fast jets as a delivery system is that they are fairly easily defended against. Even high-level bombers specifically designed for the role are at significant risk from modern air-defense systems. While there have been rumours of Israel having nuclear artillery it is extremely unlikely due to their wastefulness in plutonium. Theoretically it is possible for Israel to have modified some of its Harpoon missiles on its Dolphin class submarines to carry nuclear warheads, but it would be a very expensive way to get a not very useful weapon. Plus, if Germany found out they had there would be serious repercussions. Israel's best delivery system are its Jericho missiles. However, small countries and land-based missile systems don't go very well together, they're too easy a target. France and Britain are both substantially larger than Israel but don't have land-based missiles for precisely that reason. Of course, there is also the possibility that it's all just a ruse by Israel to make the world believe they have nuclear weapons when they don't. After all, they are awfully expensive things to maintain. In any case, Israel's chemical and biological weapons are much more of a threat. You are mistaken, it wasn't at all hard. Personally, I would be indulging in some serious introspection if so many people believed I were in any way racist. Iran has no friends anywhere, it just has a handful of trading partners, and many enemies. I suggest you put your reading glasses on, I said LOCAL too. By the way, I know it's not been in the news much, but the US had been nextdoor for the last three and a half years. Just in case you missed it: nuclear weapons are not for use against a local enemy. Could you show the evidence that Israel is the most likely target of an attack? Perhaps no one touched Iran because not only is there no evidence that Iran had anything to do with that war, but also that Hizballah didn't actually attack Israel - kidnapping is not an attack on a nation. Because they are not breaking any laws, they are doing exactly what they are entitled to under the non-proliferation treaty. If the IAEA told the US not to enrich uranium, do you honestly think that the US would comply? Britain sends it children to camps to learn not only how to use <s>guns</s> rifles, but to operate in a military unit, it's called the Army Cadet Force. The US has military schools where similar things happen. Clearly death cults. There is no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, it is just a red herring created by the US in order to protect the mighty dollar, just like the war in Iraq. But that is for a whole other post.

Is this a new record? It only took you 29 minutes to contradict yourself with this: And what are West Bank settlements if not Israeli expansion? Well, that's a self-defeating argument. Nuclear weapons aren't for use against a local enemy - the effects don't stop at the border. That is one reason why Israel had never used them, another is that their delivery system is rather poor, they'd be better off sending them by UPS. Israel's nuclear weapons are for posturing, they are quite useless. And you're not going to make anyone feel sorry for tiny Israel by the use of emotive polemic. Israel is not the plucky David against the big scary Goliath, so there is no point in representing it as such. As for Iran not having any local enemies, surely you jest? Perhaps you could remind me how the war went with Hizballah? As well as them all thinking the same, I guess Arabs all look the same to you too, huh? When does Kritallnacht start?

Today is the day to put all differences aside, to remember all those to have fallen in war regardless of nationality, politics or religion. With that in mind, please add your own commemoration. I thought I would start with the obvious poem and this video: Here If you can, try to observe the two minute silence and for all those to whom it applies, please wear your poppies with pride. To all those that stood with honour and gave their todays for our tomorrows, those I have known and those I will never know, wherever you are from, I salute you. Sgt. C. RM

Whilst I agree that a difference in scale and success isn't indicative of US empirical intent, I cannot agree that the US has that intent or capability. The US military has its strengths and areas where it excels but is structurally still designed for WW2 style conflict. It is left somewhat lacking when it comes to the low level conflict necessary for empire building and maintenance. Empires also come with an attrition rate that the US populous would not accept. The US military budget is a very misleading indicator of its comparative strength. Much of it is directed at maintaining a shop window on the US defence industry and shiny but ultimately useless things with which to dazzle the electorate rather than an effective fighting force. The US has half the world's military budget but falls an awfully long way short of having half the world's military. Administering an empire requires a certain level of frugality the US doesn't have; of all the major militaries the US gets by far the least bang for its buck. Political power is the most important one for empire and while the US has some, it is in no way comparable to that of the great empire nations. The problem there is that that zone of influence is fairly limited to those countries, although they may be able to exert some influence on minor nations. The US is reliant on other major nations for much of its influence, when one of them withdraws its support the US falters and its influence is diminished - France is the obvious example. The great empires were never reliant on other nations, they were usually in competition. I fully concur on those two points. I would have to say that the US falls a long way short of having the power necessary for empire building. I think the age of empire has passed, at least for now, I don't believe it is possible for one nation to aquire that much power. Of course, that may change in the future.

Scribus is a free DTP program that can export to PDF. pdftk is a free command-line tool for merging/splitting etc. and should do what you want to do. Multivalent is similar to pdftk. hth.

Fine values they are. However, they are only shown by actions, not a piece of bunting. Greatest nation known to which man? Does he only have one page in his atlas? Oddly enough, that arrogant and patronising statement is rather insulting to the 6bn people in the 200 other countries in the world, most of whom don't find the USA at all superior. It also has no basis in reality: Norway tops the HDI, Hong Kong is ranked highest for economic freedom and the happiest place in the world is Vanuatu. Despite some clear misconceptions, the USA doesn't have a monopoly on those values listed, other nations had them before the USA even existed, even more have them currently and many countries have them now to a greater extent than the USA. Besides, the idea that there is a greatest nation is quite absurd. And contrary to that commonly peddled statement there are quite a few superpowers. The USA doesn't make it into the top 10 of warfaring nations and probably never will. Most people save such reverence for leaders that deserve it. The USA has had some truly great leaders, but he isn't one, he is an imbecile and a coward, installed in power by a flawed electoral and judicial system. Do you think Bush has regard for them? And the United States Military is duty bound not to obey any illegal order, regardless who makes it. Saying something doesn't make it true, despite any wishful thinking you may have. China is a superpower because of its economic stranglehold on the world, its military is irrelevant. And you may wish to do some research on how the economy of a communist country works before waffling about tax and China running out of money. If they were still using the old ways of the Soviet Union there would be no news for you to see. 12.5% of the US population live in poverty, it's still a superpower though. Seeing as the British handed over control of Amara to the Iraqis in August, it would be rather difficult for the British to come under fire there, don't you think? No they don't. MND(SE) is a larger area than MND(CS) and Poland's remaining 900 troops are in the process of changing role from sector command to training Iraqi forces. The US has already taken over in some areas. Yes. If only some countries had decided to act in, say 1939, perhaps it would have all been different. And your list of countries for which the Geneva Conventions are optional is made up. Most other countries would just call them 'the enemy' and treat them as such, in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, rather than pulling a new category of people out of their bovril locker in order to bypass the rules of war. One would think if what these people were doing was so obviously illegal there would be no difficulty giving them due process, surely they'd be found guilty. Other apparently inferior nations have managed to go to war without feeling the need to abandon the Geneva Conventions, yet 'the greatest nation known to man'(sic) can't manage a bitch fight in the desert without changing the rules mid-way. Personally I would be ashamed at such a blatant display of cowardice that puts every member of the world's militaries at increased risk.

Before considering the material properties of dU ammunition, of which you are clearly ignorant, for a ~70g round travelling at 854m/s on muzzle exit to penetrate 9 metres of tank would require some serious re-writing of the laws of physics. For it to be possible the muzzle velocity would have to be increased substantially - we're talking tens of thousands m/s - and the recoil be restricted enough for a human to control it - perhaps by the use of a 70tn counterweight or bolting the rifle to the bedrock. I'll come back to the dU issue later. Aside from the fact that the US military do not have 'the actual specs of basically everything that every military uses', if you genuinely had access to such sensitive documents you would not be advertising it or their contents on the Internet. Of course, to gain that kind of access would require a certain level of lexical adeptness you seem to be lacking. Gunpowder? You call yourself an expert but think gunpowder is used as a propellant. Not in this century. Unless the US is fielding an M82 Flintlock. You also appear to not know what a chaingun is. Tensile, compressive or shear/torsional strength? Actually there is no need to answer, it's not the strongest thing on the face of the Earth in any way. DU, or for the pedants, staballoy, is used because it is dense, self-sharpening, cheap, east to cast and pyrophoric. When a dU round impacts a hard object it fractures. By the time it has penetrated the object it has disintegrated to dust, at which point its pyrophoric properties cause it to explode and ignite. So even given high enough KE - which the M82 isn't capable of providing - a dU round, by design, can only penetrate one layer of armour. TC, however, is not pyrophoric and can penetrate more than one layer. Well that's everyone put in their place, never mind all the military experience and research among the forum members, you've got cable. So you are saying it's nothing to do with the increased KE then. You still appear to not know what a chaingun is, nor do you show any understanding of ballistics. Perhaps you should pay more attention next time you are watching Battleplan, and don't presume to be knowledgeable never mind an expert.

Is that from the book "The Art Of War" ? Yes it is. A suspected terrorist can be held for seven days without charge for questioning, after which the police must either charge them, release them or apply to the courts for another seven day extension, for this they have to convince a judge that there is merit and progress in their investigation. After 28 days there are no more extensions available, a suspect must either be charged or released. Unless you are arresting people having escaped prison then you are arresting suspected terrorists. They are not terrorists until they have been convicted as such by due process. Most sane people rely on evidence, not your diatribe on the Internet. I'm not aware of anyone on here denying that Iran and Syria support Hizballah, but supporting them and controlling them, as you have asserted they do, are not the same thing. Unless you have some evidence that the world's intelligence organisations don't then you are making things up. Hizballah have also been using British, American and Israeli equipment. So, do you actually have a point to make? Israel has the image it deserves, the image it has created all by itself. What are settlers if they're not human shields? Why does Israel place military bases next to hospitals and schools if not for human shields? How can you say that the bbc and afp and bbc are portraying  the middle east in a bias that shows isreal in a bad light,when you yourself do the same on these forums,to show the arab world (almost), to be blood thirsty terrorists ? Dude, are you that oblivious? That was just me pulling one out of the bag. Do you really want me to start pulling out examples untill you start attacking me personally again? Dude, do you think people on here have the memory of a goldfish? Or do you think the poor search function will stop them from bothering? That example is not one you just 'pulled out of the bag' it is one you used back on page 198, one that I dismantled for you on page 198. Seeing as you like to repeat yourself, I shall do likewise: It still is not a news program, she still wasn't crying for Arafat and, even if that had happened, one person in the BBC's 27,000+ employees crying is in no way indicative of bias. As for your other links: the first one is a blog you have used before and it has been refuted; the second is Israeli flag waving dressed as a critical study; the third, rather embarrassingly for you, no longer exists - it's good to see you are researching and not just copy/pasting from your bookmarks; the fourth, apart from making my eyes hurt, is the rantings of a homophobic, xenophobic Tory that begrudges the licence fee and really needs a good kick in the teeth. Do you plan on submitting a cognitive argument one day or are you going to continue embarrassing yourself with such nonsensical drivel?

I have a suspicion France was a little worried about the potential consequences of taking some 'accidental' casualties in one of the IDF's trigger happy moments. It is you that is obsessed with me and my occupation, not me. You must get over this infatuation, I'm quite happily attached, thanks. And don't past tense me, my stripes are still firmly stitched. How your army works is irrelevent. The debate was in reference to the responses of the people on the receiving end of the IDF. But if you would prefer to discuss military strategy; the basic premises haven't really changed since Sun Tzu; for example: Hizballah managed all five, the IDF has repeatedly failed in all five. Israel controls all of Gaza's borders, even the one with Egypt. Israel controls Gaza's air and sea space. The IDF makes regular incursions into Gaza. Removing settlements does not mean that Israel has left Gaza, and Gaza is only a small part of Palestine. Erm, anyone suspected of any crime can be arrested, same as in most, if not all, countries. They are then either charged and tried or they are released. They don't arrest people in, for example, Germany. Israel has been arresting and assassinating people in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon, not to mention occasional trips further afield. Israel also has this bizarre reversal of burden of proof, in which, to be released, a prisoner must prove their innocence of a crime that Israel will not tell them they are accused of. No I didn't. No, it is not ironic, it is sensible; I refer you again to Sun Tzu: Well I'm not going to argue that war is futile, because that is nonsense, but your examples are rather poor. The American Revolution was mostly about money, so was hardly important in the grand scheme of things and if it hadn't occured America would have remained part of the British Empire. Slavery was abolished in the British Empire - without a war - long before the American Civil War took place. A bit of revisionist history there, I think. As FDR didn't get the US into the war against either the Nazis or Japan at any time, he couldn't have got it in any earlier. The US was forced into the war. Actually, there is no evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. It requires a whole lot of technology and time that they just don't have. Standing up to the US is what got Ahmadinejad the presidency. It's all just a show, the US isn't going to be invading any other countries anytime soon and Ahmadinejad knows it. Could you try to restrict yourself to one stupid comment a week? Almost every country is in the UN, it is not an omnipotent organisation bent on world domination; you must be confusing it with SPECTRE. Post some evidence and maybe people will. Until that happens I'll carry on believing that Hizballah controls Hizballah. The Geneva Conventions apply to members of the military; militias, including organised resistance movements; civilians and civilian agents of the military; and: I'm also quite sure that members of Hizballah have a name, probably a rank and it's not beyond reason that they have a serial number. There is no such thing as an 'unlawful combatant' and the Geneva Conventions always apply.

The reasons many Jews use are fairly irrelevant as they didn't create Israel That means you're claiming my country Well, I've changed my mind about the state... it's a Kingdom instead. It'll be good, a Kingdom for the people of the old Northern European religion. Anyone that can prove their Heathen roots can claim Teutonian citizenship. Non-Heathens - those of Middle Eastern religions like Christianity, for example - already living in it will be fine, they just won't be Teutonians so will have access to a few less things and, for security reasons, may be 'monitored'. They'll be similar to non-Jews in Israel, so it won't be an apartheid, honest Some settlements will have to be built in the rest of Scandinavia, England, Frisia, etc. it's not a land-grab, it's security. Obviously, the TDF will have to be sent in to protect them and put down any resistance, sorry, I mean terrorists. At least once a week every Teutonian will be able to smite an enemy, there's nothing like a good smiting, it'll be fun. And if your going to spell everything correct[...] I spelt 'sympathiser' correctly. The language is called English, not American. I used the correct English spelling, the same spelling the majority of the English speaking world uses. If Americans wish to spread their spellings around the world perhaps they could begin by creating their own language to do it with. Colour, colour, colour  Umm, I don't know if you've noticed but you are, in fact, a school-child. You're not Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller. Then again, the way the IDF hands ranks out like lollipops, you'll probably be a General before you've cut all your teeth. Or it may be that Israel is nothing on the world stage. How many World Trade Centers or buildings of similar standing are there in Israel? Have you ever considered that these are the reasons that terrorism exists in Israel? Even people with dark skin don't like being treated like vermin. I'll remember that next time you're wailing about all the terrorists - which, incidentally appears to be anyone that disagrees with anything Israel does. What do you think gives you the right to have control over someone else's borders? Perhaps if Israel paid more attention to its own borders and less to other people's a few less people would hate it. Well good for them. And in the mean time, Israel continued getting hand-outs from the US. Isn't it about time Israel let go of Uncle Sam's hand and started taking care of itself? Again, see the bit about paying more attention to your own borders. Why should you have control? It's not your country. No, that is how to occupy and oppress. Israel has never managed to stop terrorism, other countries have and didn't follow those ideas. You don't have "major" bombings because Israel is insignificant on the world stage. The US and the UK are important nations on the world stage so are prime targets. Wanking about in Gaza will not stop a plane from being hijacked and flown into a building in Israel, nor will it stop an Israeli from making a bomb out of household chemicals and detonating it on public transport, it does, however, make many Gazans want to do things like that. Do you have the first clue about war and can you actually tell the difference between terrorism and insurgency or are you under the impression that every country follows the Israeli idea of refering to every enemy as terrorists? What, precisely, needs to be seen about 'the mighty USA & Coalition in Iraq'? When Israel has got around to fighting a large-scale war or a war away from its borders perhaps you'll be in a position to provide advice on how these things are done, but as the IDF couldn't mount an invasion of Malta you may wish to leave it out. What are you waffling about 'blown to pieces' - I've seen higher casualty rates on a skiing holiday. In war people are killed, outside of Israel people understand that. I don't see the current KiA having any affect on the fighting ability of the coalition nations, they're hardly devastating losses. As the coalition aren't there to occupy, subjugate and humiliate and wish to be out of there at the earliest opportunity it would not be a good idea to start camping along the borders. To follow your solution though would also require invading Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Iran. Of course, then arms flow into those countries would need to be stopped... I think we'll pass on your strategy.

Quoting myself for the first time... hmm.. I believe the phrase you like to use is 'terrorist sympathiser'. Why do you consider it acceptable for the Israelis to use terrorism to 'drive out the British' yet condemn Arabs as backward religious zealots for using it to drive out the Israelis? In fact, in that post you equated the Arab desire to expel Jews as 'an ongoing massacre against all Jews'. Double standards?

Precisely. There were two reasons for the creation of Israel. One was the Holocaust, but the main reason was the large number of Jewish refugees. The UK wasn't capable and didn't want to take them in, and the US just didn't want to. Israel was essentially a large refugee camp. Still a crap location though. Well, 8 million Northern Europeans were killed in the Christian conversion so I claim Iceland, Norway and Milton Keynes in the name of the Heathen state of New Teutonia.