vortexring

If you're bang on the cross hairs, surely that'd make you the most 'politically balanced'? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Economic Left/Right: -3.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.59 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Having to speak to a 5000-person audience!!!? That would cause me more nerves and anxiety than anything else I can think of. (within reason of course) I enjoy instructing/teaching subjects that I'm knowledgeable about, and therefore confident with - but public speaking? I have to get a grip of myself for such horrors! 30+ and the grey hairs start popping out. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Great post and link Hippy! Extroverts are wankers! 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Additional risks, known and unknown are facts? Smoking marijuana doesn't have the same risks associated with tobacco; you even said so yourself, as you mentioned 'with the additional risks, known and unknown.' Then you mention THC, the most psychoactive substance within the. . . . what? The Grass? The Ganja? The Resin? The synthetic THC such as Dronabinol? Do you smoke it? Eat it in a yogurt? In a cake? Mix it with tobacco? Without tobacco? Through a bong? A bucket? A pipe? The editing isn't redundant. I just don't think you've much knowledge or experience on the subject. edit: Would you mention this: Research indicating positive medicinal value A number of studies show that THC provides medical benefits for cancer and AIDS patients by increasing appetite and decreasing nausea. It has also been shown to assist some glaucoma patients by reducing pressure within the eye, and is used in the form of cannabis by a number of multiple sclerosis patients, who use it to alleviate neuropathic pain and spasticity. The National Multiple Sclerosis Society is currently supporting further research into these uses.[16] New scientific evidence is showing that THC can prevent Alzheimer's Disease in an animal model by preventing the inflammation caused by microglia cells which are activated by binding of amyloid protein.[17] Preliminary research on synthetic THC has been conducted on patients with Tourette syndrome, with results suggesting that it may help in reducing nervous tics and urges by a significant degree. Animal studies suggested that Marinol and nicotine could be used as an effective adjunct to neuroleptic drugs in treating TS. Research on twelve patients showed that Marinol reduced tics with no significant adverse effects. A six-week controlled study on 24 patients showed that the patients taking Marinol had a significant reduction in tic severity without serious adverse effects. Seven patients dropped out or had to be excluded from the study, one due to adverse side-effects. More significant reduction in tic severity was reported with longer treatment. No detrimental effects on cognitive functioning and a trend towards improvement in cognitive functioning were reported during and after treatment. Marinol's usefulness as a treatment for TS cannot be determined until/unless longer controlled studies on larger samples are undertaken.[18][19][20] In in-vitro experiments, THC at extremely high concentrations, which could not be reached with commonly-consumed doses, caused inhibition of plaque formation (which are associated with Alzheimer's disease) better than currently-approved drugs.[21] THC may also be an effective anti-cancer treatment, with studies showing tumor size reduction in mice conducted in 1975[22] and 2007[23], as well as in a pilot study in humans with glioblastoma multiforme (a type of brain cancer).[24] A two-year study in which rats and mice were force-fed tetrahydrocannabinol dissolved in corn oil showed reduced body mass, enhanced survival rates, and decreased tumor incidences in several sites, mainly organs under hormonal control. It also caused testicular atrophy and uterine and ovarian hypoplasia, as well as hyperactivity and convulsions immediately after administration.[25] Research in rats indicates that THC prevents hydroperoxide-induced oxidative damage as well as or better than other antioxidants in a chemical (Fenton reaction) system and neuronal cultures.[26] In mice low doses of Δ9-THC reduces the progression of atherosclerosis.[27] Research has also shown that past claims of brain damage from cannabis use fail to hold up to the scientific method.[28] Instead, recent studies with synthetic cannabinoids show that activation of CB1 receptors can facilitate neurogenesis,[29] as well as neuroprotection[30], and can even help prevent natural neural degradation from neurodegenerative diseases such as MS, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's. This, along with research into the CB2 receptor (throughout the immune system), has given the case for medical marijuana more support.[31][32] THC is both a CB1 and CB2 agonist.[33] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THC 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

That may be do-able... why do you think I want to get a 'plinker' and a 'hunting' rifle? Have you ever hunted pigs? If not, make it do-able! I use a Remington 721, .30-06 with a 3x9 scope. It's amazing, how fast those suckers are! They are sure a 'skill tester'. I hope, you get to do it! When you say pigs, do you mean Wild Boar? Or domestic type pigs that've gone wild? Only ask as freshly smoked Wild Boar is, well, beyond delicious!

If you REALLY want to be honest, then you best tell the kiddies that smoking marajuana carries the same risks associated with smoking tobacco, with the additional risks, known and unknown, the FACTS associated with THC. smoking marijuana.

I wonder how the situation would be if they'd the MANPAD capability(i.e. STINGER) that was used against Ivan aviation. . . Still, lucky the strategy isn't solely based on such methods as you mention. . . That we're making similiar mistakes as the Soviets? Well, for starters, they didn't pay enough attention to the Pakistan border either. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

"The principle of a free society is that people should be able to do whatever they like as long as they cause no harm to other people." Does that statement; in regards to the use of the drug, take into account the numbers of users who go on to suffer serious mental issues? Arguably it could be said certain users will go on to harm others directly through the use of the drug - if we use people who suffered paranoid schizophrenia or psychosis as examples. (Who then went on to harm people.) From a page on schizophrenia: "Use of street drugs (marijuana/hash - cannabis, etc.) have been linked with significantly increased probability of developing schizophrenia. Psychiatrists in inner-city areas speak of cannabis being a factor in up to 80 per cent of schizophrenia cases. Researchers in New Zealand found that those who used cannabis by the age of 15 were more than three times (300%) more likely to develop illnesses such as schizophrenia. Other research has backed this up, showing that cannabis use increases the likelihood of psychosis by up to 700 per cent, and that the risk increases in proportion to the amount of canabis used (smoked or consumed). Research also suggests that there is an increased risk of relapse (i.e. risk of significant worsening of the psychosis) associated with marijuana and other street drugs. The more relapses a person has, the worse the prognosis for people with schizophrenia. Today, there are over 30 published papers linking marijuana to schizophrenia or other mental disorders. The increase in evidence could be tied to the increased potency of marijuana. A review by the British Lung Association says that the cannabis available on the streets today is 15 times more powerful than the joints being smoked three decades ago" http://www.schizophrenia.com/...newpages/family.html Still, if we consider the issues surrounding alcohol? Everything in moderation, I reckon. Man. I suppose the main concern really is young teenagers using the stuff. It might not have caused any mental issues with any particular individual reading this but I'll bet you know someone where it did. Are youngsters more likely to develop mental issues through the use than adults? I think it more than likely. Which then leads us to the problem of protecting our youngsters from the drug, whilst avoiding the criminalisation of teachers and MP's who regularly use the waccy baccy.

Here's another interesting piece, from 2002, interesting in more ways than one: 'At that time, we set out a number of specific short- and longer-term campaign aims. These included preventing Usama bin Laden and Al Qaida from posing a continuing terrorist threat; breaking the links between Afghanistan and international terrorism; and reintegrating Afghanistan as a responsible member of the international community. Five months later, it is clear that this action has been remarkably successful. Afghanistan is now a very different country. The Taliban government, which harboured the Al Qaida terrorists, is no more. Terrorist training camps have been put out of action. The first steps towards recreating a functioning state have been taken. Aid agencies operate with increasing freedom. Refugees are beginning to return to their homes http://www.operations.mod.uk/veritas/statements/statement_18mar.htm 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Makes some sense. Which gets back to something I said earlier: 'Another was a statement alluding to 'a Generals' opinion that the Americans are at war, whilst we're on operations. That resonates; when you consider conviction; when you consider the number of British servicemen and women questioning the strategic objectives and reasons for why they're in Afghanistan in the first place.' Here's some articles, most from the same paper: 17/10/05 - Helmand is home to some of the biggest opium barons, and the Paras will be expected to launch operations against them as part of their mission. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article579388.ece 18/06/06 - 'Richards is a victim of Britain’s post-imperial romanticism. He must go back in. His plan is for “Malayan inkspots” across the country, holding isolated villages long enough for local leaders to win support against insurgents. There will be no more American-style bombing of villages and wedding parties. Taliban units will be pursued and destroyed, but anti-Taliban areas will be rewarded with dollops of money. British troops will not eradicate poppies, which is impossible, but eliminate the occasional shipment or middle-man (thereby making the crop even more valuable). Richards hopes this will bring the “lost” southern provinces over to Kabul’s side. He shrugs at how this can possibly work with just 3,300 British troops and some reluctant Canadians and Dutch. He is the boy on the burning deck' http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article675980.ece 02/07/06 - Back in the 19th century thousands of Englishmen split their blood on fields like this and I didn’t want to join them. I thought about John Reid, the former defence secretary, glibly saying he hoped to complete the three-year British mission to Helmand without a shot being fired. If this wasn’t a fourth Anglo-Afghan war, it felt very much like it. Why were we there? Why had we thought the Afghans wouldn’t fight — they defeated the Russians after all. And why did everyone in Kabul and London keep insisting that nobody in Helmand really wanted to support the Taliban but were being forced to? What if they were wrong? After all, almost everyone in the province now depends on growing poppies. Whatever the British commanders might say, villagers must see the presence of British troops as threatening the opium trade... ..Maybe they were coerced by the Taliban,” said Major Blair. The official British line is that 80% of the population of Helmand are “floating voters” stuck between a rock and a hard place of an evil Taliban and a government in Kabul that does nothing for them. It seemed more likely to me that they feared the British had come to take away their source of income, the poppy... ...I’m going to have to review our approach to villages,” said Major Blair. “We’re going to have to go in with far more security. It’s very annoying to think we were sitting there offering things and having a laugh and a joke with villagers who knew that five minutes later we’d be attacked.” MORE and more senior military officers are saying it has been an enormous mistake for British troops to move out of the main urban centres of Lashkar Gah and Gereshk and into outlying areas. They blame the Americans — and some over-enthusiastic British generals — for dragging British forces into Operation Mountain Thrust, a large offensive against the Taliban in which some 500 people have died across the south, creating much local resentment. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article681998.ece?token=null&offset=120&page=11 05/08/06 - "Peace support” is how the Ministry of Defence defines this, anxious not to expose the British public to the reality on the ground. But British officers here routinely refer to the operation as “war fighting”. 'The strategy now is to escalate the military campaign in southern Afghanistan, but at the same time to begin a massive reconstruction programme to win over the locals. And on top of that, ISAF also hopes to eliminate the poppy cultivation that is at the core of the local economy.' http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article700720.ece 07/09/07 - Disagreement has surfaced already over the US military’s desire to spray opium poppy fields from the air with herbicide, as well as to continue its bombing strikes on Afghan villages, which Britain complains undermines its strategy of “winning hearts and minds”. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2402986.ece 01/02/09 - Nor can they do it alone, Stirrup says: “Just as in Afghanistan, that kind of insurgency cannot be defeated by conventional military means. It can only be dealt with, in the long term, through politics.” Here’s the rub: there is a widely held perception in Pakistan that all would be well if only Nato troops were not in Afghanistan, a belief which grows stronger with every US Predator attack that kills innocent civilians. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5626682.ece Border security, a key component of ISAF’s strategic vision for Afghanistan http://www.nato.int/isaf/docu/pressreleases/2008/04-april/pr080420-152.html The American failure to understand the complexity of the Pakistan problem is perhaps one of the biggest strategic errors of the war in Afghanistan. President Pervaiz Musharraf reluctantly agreed to join the war on terror, and Washington was keen to take him at his word. But as the Taleban fell, the Pakistani security establishment opened an escape hatch for the enemy by removing their troops from the border of the Fata, allowing the Taleban to relocate. The jihadis now have bases, broadcasting stations and the protection of being in a territory that is part of a nuclear-armed state. The West invaded Afghanistan to stop terrorism being given a state home. Yet al-Qa’eda is alive, well and living in Fata. Just what to do about this is a source of deep division in Washington. Pakistan is deeply nervous about any American incursions into its territory — even if it is territory like Fata where the Pakistan army itself suffered heavy losses at the hands of the Taleban. Britain is pushing hard for a diplomatic solution, saying that no incursion can succeed without the backing of the Pakistani military, which is geared up to fight India, not to track down insurgents. And anyway, after years of failed policy, and being played like a fiddle by President Musharraf, America is losing patience. The Pentagon provided helicopter gunships to Musharraf that were intended for fighting the Taleban — only to see them used to mow down separatists in the Baluchistan province. (Couldn't find the link - soz...) Poppy eradication, whilst always being an objective of varying necessity, has never quite been the strategic objective. I'm not entirely sure what it is. Something like that Al Qaida does not return to Afghanistan, that Afghanistan remains a legitimate and increasingly effective state, able over time to handle its own security, to prevent the insurgency posing a threat to Afghan peace and prosperity. I'd imagine the ultimate strategic goal to be to enable stabiltity to prevail in the country in order to build gas pipelines?

Why aren't we spraying the fields with herbicides then? p.s. When were you over there? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2402986.ece 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Oh fucking really. Why's that? Bend over and cough. . . . 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Natterjacks are best - give 'em a try gad demit! 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Like your delicious & traditional American dishes? Like Hotdogs and Burgers and Freedom fries? I imagine you a bit like the attached pic: 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Try them made locally for yourself - live a little! 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

That was sharp!

Oh fucking really. Why's that? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I think you'll find you're referring to baklava: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baklava 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

That's fair enough - I've some doubts towards the groups goal though. I'm sure there are some with honourable intentions (despite the balaclavas), as I'm equally sure there are some with the simple intention of doing over someone else. Would a rapist deserve being done over? Indeed. Do I want gangs of dickheads going out looking for them with the intention of doing them over? No. And any vigilante gang of teenagers in tracksuits, wearing balaclavas, carrying machete's, whilst posing to the press are dickheads in my book. Sounds good to me. I'd get medieval myself - and he wouldn't be safe inside his secure prison wing either. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Completely agree Marg, although the article deals with the effect on the Army of a political environment which has caused all the issues it mentions. Rather than question the Soldiers and Generals, it should be blasting B'Liar, whose cynical exploitation of the resources available for his own glorification has caused the situation. Hence the reason for sticking it up. In almost every paragraph of that article there are statements worthy of recognition and action. Whilst I may disagree with some, such as: "The British army is like an engine running without oil. It is still going, but it could seize up at any moment” it still brings to attention a serious issue within the army - one that can be no longer brushed under the carpet. Another was a statement alluding to 'a Generals' opinion that the Americans are at war, whilst we're on operations. That resonates; when you consider conviction; when you consider the number of British servicemen and women questioning the strategic objectives and reasons for why they're in Afghanistan in the first place. The article brings to attention the Governments chronic under-investment in their armed forces whilst also questioning our policies with America; not just what we might want, but what we might only be capable of. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Just for the sake of historical completeness, there were also 649 Argentines killed and have been 454 suicides among the Argentine veterans. A total of 1,625 human lives, and counting. Which then makes your flippant statements even worse, although I'm sure they were simply an attempt at humour. Just a bit too disrespectful for me. WTF are you blethering about now Andy809? Don't you think I'm aware which political party was in power in 1982? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Sure, tell that to the families of the 258 killed in the conflict, to the families of the 264 veterans who later committed suicide. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Not to worry - as long as there are plenty of hapless sheep islands in the middle of nowhere to conquer, that's unlikely to happen. If you still think we've the capability of conquering hapless sheep islands in the middle of nowhere. . . 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'