miked10270

Err... "A FRENCH-MUSLIM Skydiver was asked...." Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

But they make superb chocolate, right? Get your priorities right! What's more important to you'se Girlies?... Voting or CHOCOLATE? Mike. PS: What's the point of having girlies in politics in a country full of cuckoo clocks? Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

I guess that quoting PINK FLOYD Lyrics is about the best answer this thread's going to get! Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

This WAS going to be the: "LET'S POST GOOD THINGS ABOUT AMERICANS" thread... But the only thing I could think of was; "They buy up all the Burberry stuff our Chavs wouldn't be seen dead in!" So... WHY is "The American Way" so good that it's OK to force people to follow it, and kill folk who don't want to? Why is "The way of Islam" so good that those who don't want to follow it NEED to be killed? Should we be encouraging folk to kill for their beliefs? Why is video of one side being killed "Great" and video of the other side being killed "Awful"? Why is it OK for "Us" to have, say, Nuclear Weapons but so DANGEROUS for "Them" to have the same weapons? If we feel threatened, then can't we see how they also feel threatened? Why do "We" insist on stereotyping "Them"? And go on to take such offence when "They" stereotype "Us"? Does "Might-Make-Right"? If "We" are right to kill "Them", then are "They" just as right to kill "Us"? Is the invasion of Iraq still a "War of Liberation"? Or has it become something else? Should the end game in Iraq & Afghanistan have been to depose the regime & then withdraw to the start points ready to go in again if the old regime re-surfaced? Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

"What is Herceptin?" As I understand it, Herceptin is the latest in anti-breast-cancer drugs to be released by some drug company at MASSIVE cost (they want their profit and to fund their R & D). According to the company's research it's maybe 10% or 15% more likely to be effective than current treatments (but at over 50 times the cost). The problem is that the cost is pretty prohibitive & it's a case of whether our Socialised Medical System can bear the cost of giving it to EVERY patient who hears about it & demands it! Maybe it'd help if you thought of our medical system as like your private health insurer but writ large with the government as the insurer & with the premiums based on a percentage of income. In effect, just like your health insurer may decline to pay for a particular course of treatment, our NHS has a list of "approved" drugs & treatments based on costs versus benefits (& guess what getting a new & expensive drug onto the approved list means for a drug company). The difference is that while in America this woman would be fighting her health insurers for this, here she's fighting The NHS to get a particular treatment which in her particular case they believe isn't worth the cost for the benefit she'd gain. But she, having paid her "premiums" (taxes) wants it. Of course, while it'd be sort of accepted that a big private insurer would refuse to pay out, the NHS (& by inference the government) is expected to dig into it's bottomless purse and just pay up. What does she pay her taxes for!? Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

Hmmm... Apparently it was the 6-Year-Old "Victim" who complained that it was sexual harrassment! I think that the boy's lawyer made a telling point in asking how the victim knows about sexual harrassment. Maybe the "investigation" should also focus on the girl? Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

Perhaps he'll also tell us about Iraq's WMDs.... Would they be the Iraqi WMDs they found 4 years ago and secretly destroyed so as not to panic the population? The Iraqi WMDs that Saddam had cunningly hoarded away in an American Military Chemical Weapons Bunker? Damned cunning, these Muslims... It's a good thing we've got an intellect of Dubya's calibre to outwit them! Mike. PS: The Center for Disease Control has issued a warning about a new virulent disease. The disease is contracted through dangerous and high-risk behavior. The disease is called Gonorrhea Lectim and pronounced "gona-re-elect-im." Many victims contracted it in 2004, after having been screwed for the past four years. Cognitive characteristics of individuals infected include: anti-social personality disorders, delusions of grandeur with messianic overtones, extreme cognitive dissonance, inability to incorporate new information, pronounced xenophobia and paranoia, inability to accept responsibility for own actions, cowardice masked by misplaced bravado, uncontrolled facial smirking, ignorance of geography and history, tendencies towards evangelical theocracy, categorical all-or-nothing behavior. Naturalists and epidemiologists are amazed at how this destructive disease originated only a few years ago from a Bush found in Texas. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

Strictly speaking it's still an 11pm rush everywhere in the UK. BUT... Individual pubs can apply for what's called "Regular-Extensions" to their licensing hours, which are looked at on a case-by-case basis. Most pubs seem to go for midnight or 1am, a few go for 2.30am. The odd one goes for 4am or 4.30am, and I know of one that's went for a 4.45am OPENING!!! with a few going for a 6am opening. At the end of the day, the individual licensee has to decide that it makes commercial sense to be open and to put his case to a Licensing Board. The usual applications seem to centre around "FOR THE BENEFIT OF TOURISTS & SHIFT WORKERS." What seems to be happening is exactly what every Street-Cop" in The UK predicted (based on years of not interfering with licensee's lock-ins): folk can now stay out and socialise until they get tired and WANT to go home, rather than everyone being TOLD to go home before they were ready! What's wrong with allowing a little self-determination? If you treat people like adults then they'll generally act like adults. If you treat them like children, then they'll act like children. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

Ah!... "GB" as in Great Britain. For a minute i was thinking "George Bush"! No. I'm basing my views on historical precedent. On what EVERY national leader (see previous caveat regarding truman), even the US-Hating-Psychopaths, have done once they gained nuclear weapons. Would Hitler have used one? Yes, if he were first to have one then I think he'd have acted as Truman did. Otherwise, only if he'd already been pushed into a position where he had nothing to lose. You see, what nuclear weapons DO is prohibit any aggressor from completely defeating you. They make Clausewitz's hypothesy of a completely total & therefore pointless war a real possibility. "Everything is destroyed and so nothing is gained". Because the war is pointless, there's no point is starting it! We've already discussed Stalin's view on nuclear war. Let's look at some more... On ascending to The Presidency in 1953, Eisenhower actively sought a way to bring atomic weapons onto the battlefield: "In any combat when the things can be used on strictly military targets and for strictly military purposes, I can see no reason why they shouldn't be used just exactly as you would use a bullet or anything else." By 1956, Eisenhower was saying: "War implies a contest.... (but what kind of contest is it when) ... the outlook comes close to destruction for the enemy and suicide for ourselves." By 1959, Eisenhower was saying: "You might as well go out and shoot everyone you see and then shoot yourself." The result of 8 years of study of nuclear war options by the greatest military strategist of the 20th Century (Eisenhower) resulted in a single plan for nuclear weapons which consisted basically of: "1; If war starts, use them all. 2; So DON'T let a war start!" Churchill (who counselled America to provoke a military confrontation with The Soviet union when America had an atomic monopoly) & Malenkov came to the same conclusion at almost the same time: "The implications of "Equality in Annihilation" are clear. because a war fought with nuclear weapons would destroy what it was intended to defend, such a war must never be fought". In EVERY case, a common sense of nuclear danger has transcended differences in cutlure, nationality, ideology, morality, and even character. If you look at the people who HAVE had their fingers on the Nuclear-Button since 1945 (or should that be 1949), then Ahmadinejad actually fits in at the safer end of the spectrum. Far worse than him have quailed at the prospect of nuclear war and changed their attitude. The only reasonable result of Iran obtaining atomic weapons is that an American/European coalition invasion would be precluded. The "Non-Invasion" scenario works for the Iranians, why doesn't it work for The Coalition? Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

I'm not wrong. That's that! Sorry for attacking your question, but since Stalin wouldn't start a nuclear war when he had nuclear parity with America (despite having a degree of personal power in Russia which simply couldn't be duplicated today), Mao wouldn't start a nuclear war, Kruschev was deposed by his own politburo for being too "adventurous" & risking a nuclear war, Pakistan & India STOPPED fighting wars once they had nukes.... WHAT makes you think that Iran will act any differently? Psychosis? Hatred of America? The ability to? (Stalin had that in droves.) Religious war? (Pakistan was fighting one against Indian unbelievers). Like I said before, obtaining Nukes changes a countrys foreign policy. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

Hmmm... Who said that? The reason I ask is twofold: 1: If you stepped back in time, wouldn't you have heard similar statements about The Soviet Union? China? The reason there wasn't a war was that they were nuclear powers. Both sides suddenly found that going to war meant that both sides had too much to lose! The result was Detente, and Communism collapsed because the western mix of Capitalism with a soupcon of Socialism was shown to be superior to Autocracy. NOT BY DRIVING ARMOURED DIVISIONS TO MOSCOW! 2: Imagine you're an Iranian listening to that statement! You face a technically & numerically superior force who has stated it's intention to invade & subjurgate you in the near future! You KNOW you'll lose a conventional war, so how can you defend your nation. Your choices are either "Guerilla-War" (terrorist attacks?) or "Nuclear-Deterrent". Incidentally, speaking as the potential invader, would you prefer being unable to conquer Iran because they had nukes, or conquering Iran and their fighting back using Guerilla/Terrorist tactics? Remember that throughout history, countries with "comfortable" populations haven't gone to war. Countries in EXTREME situations have resorted to extreme measures! Because of all the historical precedents, I'd prefer Iran to feel secure & comfortable, and I understand their beliefs that they need nuclear weapons to feel that. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

Almost forgot...! At some point, someone HAS to post some "on-Topic" NWS pics! Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

At least 2 to try & hijack the thread into a private chat! And at least One to highlight his point by using too many colours including [brown]non-available[/brown] ones! Mike. (waiting for: 1 to point out that's already been covered in the original post & didn't need to be repeated!) Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

Eh!? Sorry mate, but you've lost me there. My posts were about justification for Iran to obtain atomic weapons, not about blaming America for all the world's ills... Well... Not EVERY single one of them. I'm pretty sure I accused America of being instrumental in ousting a democratically elected socialist government & putting The Shah into power in Iran. But in fairness, that's exactly what you did! Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

I also forgot: 1 to point out missing information in the original post! Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

How many SC members does it take to change a light bulb? 1 to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been changed. 14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light bulb could have been changed differently. 7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs. 1 to move it to the Lighting section. 2to argue then move it to the Electricals section. 7 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light bulbs. 5 to flame the spell checkers. 3 to correct spelling/grammar flames. 6 to argue over whether it's "lightbulb" or "light bulb" ... another 6 to condemn those 6 as stupid. 2 industry professionals to inform the group that the proper term is "lamp". 15 know-it-alls who claim they were in the industry, and that "light bulb" is perfectly correct. 19 to post that this forum is not about light bulbs and to please take this discussion to a lightbulb forum. 11 to defend the posting to this forum saying that we all use light bulbs and therefore the posts are relevant to this forum. 36 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this technique and what brands are faulty. 7 to post URL's where one can see examples of different light bulbs. 9 to point out that European Light Bulbs are different.... Another 3 to point out that in this case different equals inferior. 4 to post that Europeans know $hit about lightbulbs anyway. 4 to post that the URL's were posted incorrectly and then post the corrected URL's. 3 to post about links they found from the URL's that are relevant to this group which makes light bulbs relevant to this group. 13 to link all posts to date, quote them in their entirety including all headers and signatures, and add "Me too". 5 to post to the group that they will no longer post because they cannot handle the light bulb controversy 4 to say "didn't we go through this already a short time ago?" 13 to say "do a Google search on light bulbs before posting questions about light bulbs" 1 forum lurker to respond to the original post 6 months from now and start it all over again! Names have been obscure the guilty.... But Y'All know who Y'All are! Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

the french have nukes but if a war broke out they would say: I am le-tired so I will drink some wine take a nap and chew on my smelly socks...THEN WE LAUNCH THE MISSILES! Clive Cussler (The author) tells a superbly funny true story of his brush with France's "Force-de-Frappe". If you haven't read it, I'll only say that it involves the French Secret Service, the CIA, Pirate Costumes & Potatoes! If war does break out, the British first strike is ready! We've got us a Mercedes truck and 2 guys who'll call themselves Karl & Hans all ready to drive into the French Nuclear Arsenal shouting "Fur You Ze Var Ist Offer! Giffen Sie uz Der Bomben Jetzt!" and there you are! No more French Nukes. What really worries us are the American Nukes! Still, there's every chance that they're too heavy to actually get off their fat exhausts & out of the launch tubes! Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

Nuclear Terror State? Like The Soviet Union (?) that "Evil Empire" who occupied half their country and stood poised with a nuclear arsenal on their borders for 40 years? Or were we supposed to have forgotten about that already? Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

Henry Bigglesworth! Henry Bigglesworth!!!!! And Y'All take it seriously!? It's kind of obvious (at least to me) that this is a wind-up. Then again, maybe Capt. W. E. Johns is penning a new book.. BIGGLES TRASHES THE YANKS! Yep... "Henry Bigglesworth" is the hero of The "Biggles" Books! Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

"America has only been following what the Brits originally taught them on how to exploit underdeveloped countries with their colonial endeavors." No need to thank us. If it weren't for Americans supporting The PIRA for years, our troops wouldn't be the experts they are at counter-terrorist work in Southern Iraq & Afghanistan! "Jihad" is great rhetoric. It's not Nation talk (look at how Hamas is changing now that it's actually governing Palestine) "Holy-War" sounds great - but it's not "Atomic-Power" talk - look at Pakistan as an Islamic Nuclear Power. Michelle. I see your point, but consider how those countries which have obtained atomic weapons have changed once they obtain them. Possession of atomic weapons forces massive changes to their foreign policies - invariably for the better in every case. The fears I've seen expressed here at the prospect of Iran obtaining atomic weapons seem the same as when Russia, China, India, Pakistan, etc... obtained atomic weapons. I think these fears are as groundless now as they were then. Incidentally, there are rumours in a wikapaedia article that The Saudis are a nuclear power! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons "Saudi Arabia - In 2003 members of the government stated that due to the worsening relations with the USA, Saudi Arabia was being forced to consider the development of nuclear weapons. However, so far they have denied that they are making any attempt to produce them. Rumor has it that Pakistan has transferred several nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia, but this is unconfirmed." Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

BZZZT Wrong Answer http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/shahab-4.htm BEEP! Iran has any of these tested & working?... OR are we still at the Iraqi Al-Husayn stage where they really need more Duct Tape? If you're going to deliver a nuclear weapon, you NEED a reliable system - The Scud-B is known to work. Regardless of the delivery system, The question is whether Iran would use atomic weapons offensively? Has anyone? (Caveat: I know that the answer to "Has Anyone?" is simple... Only America has! However, at the time Truman authorised its use believing it to be no more than a Bigger-Better-Bomb. Once faced with what happened at Hiroshima & Nagasaki he immediately & permanently removed atomic weapons from military control, and even offered America's atomic arsenal to The UN provided that other nations did likewise or did not pursue atomic weapons.) Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

"... these people (who we obviously know little about) ... " America only governed them by proxy between 1953 & 1979! "... I don't hate muslims, I just don't understand their lack of respect for life ... " Like the Chinese? Their mass human wave attacks during the Korean war when only 1 in 10 attackers had a rifle? the remainder were to arm themselves from their dead comrades and continue the attack? With their lack of respect for life it's a good thing the Chinese don't have nuclear weapons... "... many Islamic clerics are calling for Jihad? They want their holy war and they want it now... " Rhetoric is easy! The thing is that in considering actually using atomic weapons offensively, you have to then consider your enemy's response. From an Iranian point of view... Is the obliteration of The State of Israel, or the destruction of say 5 major US cities worth the destruction of Islam? Once Iran acquires nuclear weapons, then they must consider the consequences of their use! This is the same situation that America & The Soviet Union, America & China, India & Pakistan, China & Taiwan, have all had to consider with ALL of them coming to the conclusion that a nuclear war is unwinnable. Iran knows that Islam won't win if all its followers are in paradise! If that weren't true, then why hasn't Pakistan nuked india? They were fighting virtually non-stop before they obtained nuclear weapons! Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

Is Iran a most active state sponsor of terrorism? Thus far in the "War-On-Terror", we have invaded & subjurgated Afghanistan & Iraq. Libya had changed it's stance. There has been no mention of invading Iran & causing regime change. Would they make a nuke then give one to a terrorist for use? That's an act of war with pre-emptive use of WMD! At present, their "plausible deniability" would last around 4:15 and America, or any victim would be seen as fully justified in its reaction. Nation states just don't lose nukes! Urban legends & hollywood scripts notwithstanding, no one leaves them lying out in the rain! Demanding the destruction of another state is easy to say - particularly if you lack the ability. It makes nice rhetoric. The question is whether such rhetoric would be maintained once Iran were a nuclear power!? The point I'm trying to make is that nuclear powers KNOW they can't win a nuclear war. That was the core of Mutual Assured Destruction, and historically, every nation which has obtained nuclear weapons has realised this in very short order. Nuclear weapons are not an offensive weapon. They are a defensive weapon in that they go a long way to guaranteeing national security. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

I think that we already discussed the "Fedex-Bomb" scenario. the alleged "Suitcase-Nukes" that allegedly went missing & never ever turned up? Even Joseph One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic Stalin wouldn't countenance the use of nukes! A nuke ISN'T "just another weapon" It ISN'T just a "Bigger-Better-Bomb". It's a massive change of policy from "attack" to "national suicide". Will terrorists ever get an atomic weapon? I don't know, but I'd say it's unlikely. Of course some terrorist may one day steal a bomb, maybe an American one. The real question: "Will Iran make (several) atomic weapons and then give one or more to terrorists?" No way! That's tantamount to national suicide. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

So let them have nukes, but control how far they can shoot them? That's already done - Atomic weapons are now a fairly complex engineering challenge. Long range delivery systems are effectively a spin-off from a full blown space program (or is that the other way around?). Iran is NOT going to have a capability to deliver atomic weapons further than around 100 miles (Scud-Range). Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.