david_carnell

Cake - I Will Survive

Sure thing Sean... May I present Angus and Julia Stone - Private Lawns.

It's that damnable dihydrogen monoxide they use as the main ingredient. It is a mix of a high-energy fuel that is explosive, and an accellerant. Ban it!

On Thursday last week, The Guardian published a travel blog buy a 19-year-old gap-yah student called Max Geraghty. He writes for Skins don't you know. It's awful. Beyond bad. The worst type of journalism and middle-class pretentiousness. It is worth reading for amusement, but, for true hilarity the vitriol from the comments have to be seen to be believed. It gets better. The following day, an editorial appeared defending the blog and Max. Cue more hilarious comments. Finally, on Sunday, The Observer ran an article on the whole thing with brilliantly OTT comments from Max's father (oh, did I mention he is also a writer at the Grauniad? Coincidence, non?) about how poor little Max is now deeply hurt and will not be blogging any more about his f**king boring gap year travels. The world can sleep safely once again. hat-tip: Mr Eugenides

Given the current sunny weather we've been having, this is one of my favourite summer songs:

Could someone post some details of what the pubs in Nunhead are like please. Quality of produce, atmosphere, normal stuff really. I've been to Ye Olde Nunshead and what used to be Page 2 (although I've not been back since it had its makeover) but none of the others. As far as I know there is also the Man of Kent, The Pyrotechnicists(?) Arms and the Golden Anchor. If I've missed any please let me know. Cheers.

Google the original title (which you'll find locked in the main part of the forum) and read the cached version if you're really that interested. Freedom of speech 'n' all.

SimonM Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > >>Blackwell!?! ahahahahahaha Oh my sides. We'll > being passing each other at the end of the season > now, Simon! > Interesting reaction. The guy who took Leeds to > within 90 minutes of the Premiership with, > financially, both hands tied behind his back? He > was assistant to Colin the season we were 3rd and > made it to two semi-finals. He is only apppointed > until the end of the season, so we shall see. I'd > be amazed if we get relegated though because he > will have the crowd on his side supporting the > team, which was hardly ever the case with Robson. > > Was in the "Blades Superstore" on Friday - 2 piles > of unsold Robson autobiographies :)) > > Oh and I'd not be too sure about Leeds going up > either! Good old Donny are looking pretty good > just now >:D< Ah, I was yanking your chain to a degree. I'm undecided over Blackwell tbh. That play-off season was great although we barely won a match in the final two months meaning we went from automatic promotion to barely scraping the play-offs. Watford played us off the park at Wembley. Next season the team were awful although rumours persist that he was never given any money and told Bates the team were shit to which he was basically told "tough luck - deal with it". Bloody Donny! That's what happens in Div 3 - no undersoil heating in all these "little" teams. You'll be fine this season. I'm now having doubts about our promotion chances. Yet another season down here will be hard to stomach. Still, it's great to have the Mac back. Hope he can do the business.

I don't have much sympathy with the shareholders, I'm afraid. It's a known risk ("value of shares can fall as well as rise..." etc) and this time they lost out. The people I feel sorry for are those whose pensions may be affected. As for the success of nationalised industries...50/50. Some do well, some private comanies make a cock-up of it and its worse than before. Time will tell, I suspect.

Awesome cover, not heard of those guys before. Here you are, you big ol' pacifist, you.... Edit: Just googled and you-tubed(sp?) Breeders. Hadn't realised they were a Pixies spin-off. And the guitar riff to Canonball is instantly recognisable - just didn't know who it was before now. Thanks for enlightening me.

SimonM Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I did say "possibly with a new first team coach" > :)) > > (Edited later) - or indeed, perhaps not! :)) Oh, dear Lord, you're f&*ked! Blackwell!?! ahahahahahaha >:D< Oh my sides. We'll being passing each other at the end of the season now, Simon!

Ta. And just for you MP, given our last discussion:

Good stuff with the embedding. I'm loving the new track by Welsh girl, Duffy. White soul.

Hmmm, yes on reflection you're probably right on that issue MP. If I continued to argue with you onthis it would be for the sake of it rather than a genuine belief. On a wider scale, I think we shall have to continue this further. Scruffy Mummy - I'm multi-tasking!

So the tyranny of the majority should have been allowed to prosper in Vietnam? I've already given you examples of what happened when the Viet Minh came to power - do you have any reason to believe that they wouldn't have continued to massacre their political opponents in the rest of the country should they have succeeded in early 60s?

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > If Gerry feels I owe him an apology then I'd like > to hear him say it (just edited this bit because I > reread it and it sounds threatining - What I meant > was rather than have Alan stir up trouble, if > Gerry et al are genuinely upset I'm sure they will > make it known! phew!) > > - bless Keef for EVER for reminding me of how > ridiculous this can be. And seriously Gerry + any > other Americans - PM me, come up to me at a forum > drinks or let me know in public on here if you > think I have been anti-American > > I have on this very thread stood up for Americans > AND put the stereotypical Brit abroad into the > same category. But the sheer power and size of > America, with some attendant scariness (the rise > and influence of fundamentalist Christians for > example) was the inspiration of the song title in > the thread's...erm, title. That doesn't make > anyone anti-American on a wholesale basis > > My initial post was about AN arrogant American who > represents a swathe of opinion of his countrymen - > that people then turned the thread into this > ridiculous "racism" is solely down to you Mr Dale. > I should know better than to rise to your bait but > our relative absence from these shores blunted my > defences. I thought that incident worthy of > comment... > > I feel no need whatsoever to compare American, > British, European or Irish (that's me) to the > likes of Pol Pot, Stalin et al. I'm able to make > up my own mind about the why's and wherefores of > "our" actions. As the supposed good guys, I hold > our standards to much higher critical standards > than the aforementioned. However - as soon as some > people on here got a whiff of "anti-Americanism" > they have straw-manned the thing to f***ing death > > People seem to be either a) shit-stirring or b) > unable to listen to any criticism of western > policy. As westerners it's that policy we have to > defend and stand by (or amend) - not anyone elses. > Someone said on here they would, on balance prefer > to live in a capitalist country than a communist > one - if someone suggested or even intimated > something to the contrary on here than I missed > that meeting - but that doesn't give capitalism a > blank cheque to do what it will. > > There has been a whole load of other arguments > thrown into the mix, which Mockney has largely > dealt with heroically but some are amazing. For > starters if ANYONE mentions "6th form debate" - > they ARE John Gaunt and need not be listened to > (give or take! ;-) ) > > The whole "would Iraq be better off if Saddam was > still in power?" - seriously - the guy just > magicked up from somewhere did he? And we fixed > it? And we are so righteous we shall now move > forward and fix the world remaining trouble spots? > Does anyone, from any country, seriously believe > this is Western policy? Well fuck me Sean...if most of that polemic wasn't dumped squarely at my door! 1) "I would rather live in a capitalist country than a communist one". Yeah, I said that. And I stand by it. No, it doesn't mean that anyone had expressed the opposite - I wasn't aware that had to happen for me to voice my own opinion. No, it doesn't mean we don't need to hold ourselves to account when wrong had occured but if you think for one minute there wasn't a real chance of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe if it wasn't for the actions taken by the US then you are living in cuckoo-land. This is about pragmatism. Do you think you can conduct a cold war against a foe who is prepared to let millions of their own citizens die, without occasionally committing sin yourself? 2) I can listen to criticism of the west. I've already said I found the whole post-invasion plan ((or lack of) for Iraq ridiculous and unforgivable. 3) "Would Iraq be better off with Sadaam"...that was my point too. Unless you want to have discussion on the entire history of UK involvement in the middle east it is quite a valid question. Should we allow dictators to have free reign? He was a de-stablising influence on the region. The fact that it has now descended into chaos is another issue. Should we go galavanting around nobbling all dictators...I don't know. I'd get rid of Mugabe like a shot. It's our own mess...we should clear it up. And Mockney is more than capable of standing up for himself, in fact if anything, I'm the one in the minority here, not you two.

All well and good MP, but Chinese and Soviet military support to the Viet Minh was crucial in their successful struggle against the French. Secondly, after the French withdrawal and partition, the Viet Minh established a social-ist state and engaged in a land reform program in which the mass killing of perceived ?class enemies? occurred. Hardly the actions of a forward thinking regime. Genocide was one of the issues you maintained was acceptable for intervention over. I don't have figures on how many were killed....this time ;-) Not only that, but in 1957 the Viet Minh embarked on a whole scale terrorist campaing in the South. Four hundred government officials were assassinated in 1957 alone. While the terror was originally aimed at local government officials, it soon broadened to include other symbols of the status quo, such as school teachers, health workers, agricultural officials, etc. One estimate purports that by 1958, 20% of South Vietnam's village chiefs had been murdered by the insurgents. See any similarities to China? The greater affect on the US war effort in Vietnam was not the defeats in military terms, but growing discontent back home. With mass protests and burning of draft papers the US government recognised the war was unwinnable from a domestic POV rather than a military one. A similar situation is occuring in Iraq now. If the US administration really wanted to, they could flood the country with troops and make militia attacks alomost impossible. The problem is not only the logisitics of this, and the fact that those forces would need to remain in place indefinitely but the lack of support for such measures back home. Hence the Obama and Clinton "bring the troops home" spiel.

Sack Robbo and get Chris Coleman. Top manager IMO. Hey, SimonM, the merry-go-round at Elland Rd never fails to drive me to despair. Welcome to the mad house.

Rock Star by sodding Nickelback....Virgin Radio seem to play just as I'm going out the door each morning and it's sending me bonkers. And it's rubbish!

Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Care to offer something more mature and > constructive then? > > > Not really but as you've asked, and as it wasn't > aimed at you anyway, I'll chip in...... I find > Mockney's formula for attributing 20 million plus > deaths (almost worked out to the nearest 100) > solely down to the USA's foreign policy, without > any other contributory factors whatsoever, a > little lacking in sophistication. For > example....Did they start the Vietnam War? Was the > Cold War entirely down to them? Were other NATO > countries complicit? > > Also loved the line about sanctions hurting > babies. So if military intervention = bad, and > economic sanctions = bad, exactly how do you > enforce international law. Sorry, that was a bit aggressive on my part, unintentional I assure you. Glad you pitched in though. Mainly because I agree with your post entirely.

Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bloody hell! I've stumbled accross a 6th Form > Common Room! Care to offer something more mature and constructive then?

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If I'm so dependent on that Oil, I wouldn't be > trying to get hold of it from a pipeline in a > dodgy state for starters, and if I was that stupid > then that would explain why I'd be stupid enough > to invade said state for my energy needs. > And why do my energy needs supersede the rights of > the iffy state to run it's own affairs. OK, not the best example. How about an economic blockade? Could the UK use military force to end one? I'd say yes. You will, no doubt, disagree. I have a feeling we may go round in circles to a degree. Perhaps my views are better encapsulted by the Henry Jackson Society. > Israel does have a right to defend itself (lets > just leave it there, we don't want to complicate > this thread any more than it is) and does so > without our intervention. Likewise France is big > enough to look after itself, except when it > depends stupidly on a big wall, and yes, that's my > number 2 reason, defending a nation incapable of > doing so alone. How about a smaller ally? New Zealand? I'd not hesitate to help defend them using military power. France have nukes so they can probably look after themselves...for once in their lives! > The League of Nations *sighs nostalgically* ;-) There is a great quote from an episode of the West Wing that goes something like this: "Democrats want a small military and want to use it everywhere; Republicans want a big military and never want to use it." It's not quite a truism but I like it.

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "to defend national security or the security of > your allies > to protect the economic security of nation" > > you see I wouldn't. They amount to a carte blanche > to basically do whatever you want. I'd > categorically oppose both, but most particularly > the latter. Really? So, Israel isn't allowed to defend itself then? If France was the victim of an unwarranted attack you wouldn't spring to their defence? I'm not having you in my League of Nations. ;-) And if an oil pipeline running through an unstable state into your own is threatening your economic security, you're not allowed to take military action to secure it. Bugger that. I'm sending in the troops rather than plunge my country into an energy crisis. > "The roots of the current problems go back to > Britain's carve up of the middle-east a long-time > before Blair." > Indeed the roots were sown a long time ago, as > every middle east expert told him before he > ignored them all "because the man's uniquely evil > isn't he". > > Exactly Atila. > It takes a deft touch to steer a country through a > transition like that (see post Franco Spain), not > an invasion with no post invasion plan. Agreed. The lack of post invasion plans is a mistake of cataclysmic proportions. I'm not disagreeing with you there.

Exactly. And that's a fairly modern European country with a mixed economy. Transplant the whole thing to a mono-crop economy (oil) in a 2nd world country and the whole thing gets multiplied three-fold. Should the UK/US/EU/NATO/West go around the world sorting out any regime it doesn't like or isn't democratic? I'd say no initially, but try telling that to a Zimbabwean economist an I'd hazard a guess he'd beg you to wipe out Mugabe and his thuggery of a govt. How long would that take? Best part of a week with Britain's armed forces. But then that is Africa, so we just ignore it and hope it'll go away.

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot where I defended that piece of foreign policy?! Ah, that's because I didn't. Anyway, I would extend your list of two, to include: to defend national security or the security of your allies to protect the economic security of nation And if I'm being facetious, MP, do you think Iraq would be better of now under Sadaam? The roots of the current problems go back to Britain's carve up of the middle-east a long-time before Blair. Kurd, Shias and Sunnis in one nation-state? Great idea! It took a dictator to stop the killing each other. Now it's truly up shit creek.