TrevorOfCrete

England, Â Wales, Â N. Ireland and Scotland use to take part in a tournament similar to the six nations rugby, Â just the 'home' nations. Â wiki I believe there was muttering of including Ireland and 'guests' such as the USA. it would be great to get your view as a scot, Â seeing as you would probably win it. Â (btw most english wanted scotland to go through, is it the same vice versa?)

what do you think about the revival of the home team competition. to me it just sounds like a glorification of british isle failings.

i agree to a certian extent, england simply tried too hard, and didnt play with there head (intelligent football), like a caller on 606 pointed out. The annoying thing is England always revert to the hoofing of the ball up the pitch instead of keeping the ball on the flaw. The result, the one good performer Peter Crouch was left isolated. Also i fell Beckham came on and actually did somthing well. That cross to Crouch for the goal was brilliant.

JdB your arguamnt is flawed. Â You argue the lack of English players in the premiership is the reason behind englands failure. Â This is untrue as England have been awful since 66, winning nothing. Â the major foreign invasion of the Premiership came in the late 90's. Â Also look at the England squad. Â All players play for top premiership clubs (except Beckam). Â These players play quality football for there clubs week in and out. The problem is not English talent or the state of the premiership, the cream of English talent will always break out , Â look at rising stars such as Micheal Johnson, Micah Richards, Â Abgonlahour and Young. Â All regular starters for there clubs. The problem with England is the mickey mouse FA, Â The managment and , Â tactics used are poorthe players have no faith in a manager appointed only as a last resort to a prefered Scalari. Â It was cocked up from the start. A manager for England is always doomed becuase of our media.

since Norway is not in the European Union, has anyone else noticed what this makes Sweden and Finland look like on the coins?

brilliant find deadeye, i was just in que and the car ran out of battery.

Wrong time to slip on a banana skin.

theres always a drawback, dont they have the problem that they have a pretty insignificant payload? i may be wrong.

what puzzels me is how some people (im my experiance most) supporting communism take the works of Marx and Engels (great peaces of indivudual philiosophy dont get me wrong - and worth a read) and argue them to be dead on fact, when they are just individual peoples philispohical ideals and beliefs. Â It also really bugs me when becuase people disagree with there 'facts' they are dismissed as either being lurred into the Capitalis propaganda and therefor unable to construct there own viewpoint, Â or somhow less enligtened as they do not see things your way and as a conciquence unable to contruct there own viewpoint. come on guys, get a grip. Â really.

i think you have lost the point of speed. Â Its just as much a counter-measure as chaffs. Â Even the Taliban could bring down a Cessna 320 with ease, nevermind if we had a full scale developed nations conflict. Â And with a range of 2,520 km a relativly long runway (its dosnt need that big of a runway) is always going to be in easy reach. Â Aircraft dont operate from aerodromes any more, Â an international airport is always at hand. For Aircraft with ground attack capabalities speed really is not important. Â Attack runs are normally taken out in a vertical dive from high altitude, not flying over and dropping ordenance which most people are acustomed too from hollywood. Â Aircraft with low stall speeds are all but redundant, Â Look what happened to the Stuka, Â its just not important in a time of guided weapons and close ground-air communication. Â In most cases Aircraft no long need to look for targets, there dirceted to them. Â In this day and age most aircraft wouldnt even fly if they werent being controlled by multiple computers. Even the Hawk is really not needed at the moment, Â there just is not a gap. Â RAF air support is hitting its targets in Afganistan and Iraq, be under no illusion. Â I saw a interesting documentary last night which shows just how acurate the air support is, Â operating several hundred yards from British Troops and hitting its target on the second attempt.

the Apache is already in active service in Afganistan and is operated by the British Army, Â not the RAF, which every newspaper in Britain seems to forget. Â Its doing a pretty good job, Â including being used to ferry troops back from the front line in several emergency incidents. That aircraft would be a waste. If it was seen that there really was a hole to fill coversions of the BAE Hawk would be the best option.

really interesting link. The main cause of deaths in the armed forces is road accidents. amazing really.

well i disagree on the capitalist anarchist, again i see it slightly different, its not really a set ideology but there will be people who see it like you do, and people who do not. I just take an interest in it becuase its a really qwerky ideology and seems a bit contradictory when you first see it. Personally i dont really believe it is a form of Anarchy. The only similarity is the call to rid of the state. My car example, what i mean is not owning a car, but purchasing a car of a certian quality. Â I dont want to be bogged down in the car the state distributes to me. Â I want the freedom of choice to go out and buy a expencive car, Â because to me thats important. Â I think in certian respects communism stops people being what they want to be. Â Ofcourse all idiologys do this, they have to. Â Also just to set thing straight, im not talking like i know everything, Â and i know what is right, Â i dont. Â Im just giving how i see it. I take an interest in your views and fully respect them. Â That in my view is the only way to deal with politics in order to prevent angry confrontation.

i know the RAF is particularly short on officers. Â I believe the army has ample, and alot do end up doing 'desk jobs'. Not sure on the Navy.

well i would disagree, i would argue its brutally free. Â Make your own way in life or perish. Â Its freedom to the extreme. Â But its a political view i could never believe in, but i dont think there worse than Nazis, Â Not caring if people starve is not as bad as purposly starving them. Â Millions of people die in africa from starvation, Â and many people in developed countries dont really care, but i wouldnt say they were Nazis, just pretty ignorant. Personally i think if communism is ever to get a proper grip there needs to be absolutely massive international economic crash. Â Otherwise there too much for people to loose out of it. Â That includes myself, Â im not rich by any means, but i quite like the car i bought through my labour so i would quite like to keep it. Â However we have also seen from history that economic crashes turn people to the right aswell as the left, so to me there will always be a pointless a futile struggle neither side will win. It will only bring death and destruction, for a percieved view of freedom.

Anarchy does not necessarily mean lack of all government. Many theories of anarchy merely call for an end to borders and states and other forms of un-natural divisions of humanity. A form of "statelessness" if you will. Many also understand the need for a form of government, but that the government would be disbanded after its business done (and reformed if business is needed). The government would not be a permanent entity, nor would it be controled by career politicians. I voted that a radical change is needed, and in my view some form of stateless socialism would be the best. In my view capitalism does far more to divide humanity than it does to bring us together. I also find the sole purpose of life being to collect and amass wealth to be nonsensical at the least and contemptible with the extremes that some people go to. Course realistically I know that won't happen anytime soon, nor any other form of change. As through most of human history, some form of cataclysmic event would have to proceed any radical cultural change as that. indeed, anarchy is one of the most mis-understood politiocal ideologies. Â People seem to automaticly assosiate it with 17 year old kids who have mohawks and masturbate over the sex pistols, or rogue nations like Afganistan prior 9/11. Â Neither is true anarchy compared to Proudhon's anarchaic principles. I think capitalist anarchists are quite fun. Â They believe everything will be run through capitalism, so basicly the private sector is everything. Â For example the Police would be a privatly run company, and would operate similar to recovery companies like the AA, you would have to be a member. Â Also every piece of road would be privatly owned and tolled, meaning there would be no need for a central 'road agency' etc etc...

There is no living example of a class less communist society. Â Members of the Communist Party in the soviet union lived lives of luxary, Â Generals in Cuba share a similar treatment, Â and dont even make me go in to the 'class less' societys of the 'communist' south east asia nations. I understand in theory its meant to be equal. But even marx recognised the need for the dictatorship of the proletarian in the early stages. Once you give people that sort of power, unless they have a heart of gold, there not going to swap it in for a life among the masses.

ask the middle class of the nation. Â There the people who are most likely to be politicaly active. Â I hasten to guess most would say they were content with the current system. But Democracy/Capitalism wont be everlasting. Feudalism lasted alot longer so far, do you really believe this is the system we will have till the end of human-kind?

and you can never tell. Small tentions that definatly still exist would suggest maybe.

thank you for giving such a well constructed post. I agree 100% absolutly with everything you say, and i stand corrected on the CAS RAF situation.

i dont want to get into this argument but ill give my opinion, then i think we should leave it at that.  The army has spent millions in recent times.  The Apache Longbow was purchased specificly for close air infantry support.  The Snatch Landrover may not be armored enough, but one advantage is that it is fast.  Ive talked to many of my friends who have served in Iraq and they have mentioned how they have managed to get out of sticky situations by stepping on it.  Also we have all seen the vidios of what can still happen to armored veicles, eg.  The Warrior.  The strange thing is, this general view of the army is poorly equipped,  led by incapable leaders and is failing its job is not the general view of the people who serve in it,  the people who know it best. A word on the Navy,  Frigates are increasingly important in modern warfare.  What ships do you think are protecting the sea bound oil platforms off the coast of Kuwait,  or carrying out searches on ships smuggeling drugs.  What is the point in purchasing extremely expencive ships to combat submarines when a conflict where that is percivable simply dosnt yet exist.  That would be a real waste of money  (particlularly when much cheaper air alternatives are available and just as capable at doint the job : EH-101 Merlin).  To me the Navy has done EXACTLY what your complaining is not being done,  its adapting itself to the modern world, and its modern roles. The navys job is not to deal with Urban Conflicts, thats not a fair comment.  That is specificly for the Army and to a degree the RAF (though with US air support there protity in iraq is logistical sorties).  That is the equivilant of having a boiler break down and complaining that a bricklayer dosnt have the skills to fix it.  Better still its like complaining that the Army does not have the capability to quickly lauch a task force half-way across the earth.  Alas the navy does. There are two sides to every argumant.  One thing i will say that i believe needs to be done.  I think the RAF is failing in one of its roles.  I believe it can no longer provide effective close air support.  It has the swankie jet power for strategic strikes,  or dealing with enemy armor positons, however it has nothing to help the infantry in the modern conflict.  As a result the army air corp's resorces are stretched to the max in the operation theatre.  I think the purchase of a new attack helicopter would be a positive move.

not sure if anyone has seen this one

i think however alot of soldiers would also agree with Baff1. Â The armys shape is not brilliant, but its also not as bad as the major newspapers like to make out. Â Everyones open to there view, theres no point arguing on a forum, and there is especially no point in petty insults (in my view theres no such thing as a fool with a vote, only fools who dont use votes), your point is valid, as is his. Â anyway i wanted to talk a little on Turkey. Â Personally i think there perfectly entitled to protect there borders, Â afterall they are definatly facing 'terrorists' or itleast gurilla style fighters. Â However i also think if Turkey want to actually solve this problem they need to start treating the kurds a hell of alot better. Â Whats your guys take?

my main complaint about ArmA is the 8800 reliability, but thats not really BI's problem i guess.

stunning pictures above Coast of Belgium, 1917