vortexring

hahahahaa! And obviously that too. '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 don't think John's being loopy - he's just trying to present the Iraq situation in a different prespective. As usual though, the portrayal of his opinion is designed to cause debate. And perhaps some serious thought. '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'm sure they'd love the security a gun might provide, but hopefully their greater concern would be how to address the 'ghetto' and crime issue. (Which I very much doubt.) '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 anymore than people get tired of rolling a big, black ball at a bunch of white pins or whacking a small white ball, with a stick, toward a hole in the ground. Most sports are about accuracy, to one degree or another. A lot of whuffos think jumping out of a plane over and over would get boring eventually, but I'm sure some people here would disagree. Jumping out a plane can eventually get boring. Firing at paper targets can be boring. 10 pin bowling is boring. Golf is outrageously boring. Of course, for some people it's their hobby. I've not jumped in a while - when I do I'm sure I won't be bored - but it won't take many to become bored again. As per 10 pin bowling. Firing on the range in a civilian context at paper targets would soon become boring. Essentially it's a fairly flippant question I asked. I'm aware some people go nuts for target shooting. But it's boring. Now, you might think what on earth do I do for my 'kicks' that doesn't eventually become boring? I play chess and paint landscapes for starters. How utterly boring!? '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.'

Has this come about from a recent label reading dilema in Tesco's?

A couple of weeks ago I was driving along a quiet road through Arizona, on my way to visit the Grand Canyon. Looking at the road ahead, which was a straight black line disapearing into the horizon (with no other cars), and virtually nothing else to see throughout a full 360 degrees, got me thinking. There was the occasional trailer and little wooden house around the area. I'd imagine were I to live in such a place the idea of buying some firearms might not be such a bad idea. Maybe there should be a new law in the US where only people living in very isolated areas may own guns! '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 was bored after about my third paper target. *YAWN* But shooting THINGS can be fun. Coconuts, watermelons, milkjugs full of water, propane canisters, cans of tomato sauce, etc, etc, etc. Yes, that's true enough. It just struck me as odd to purchase a handgun specifically for target practise. Why not just buy an air pistol? If it's not for personal defense why bother? '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.'

Don't people ever get bored firing at targets? Or am I just weird? '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.'

Well Dorbie, I think I've been able to extract at least the general meaning of your point, which, most unfortunately, comes to nothing other than your average speculation and dull, and supposedly educated, guesses. The intrinsic mystery of the problem is really quite unfanthomable by modern means. Anyway, I've been developing another theory in regards to yourself, and your recent posts. It's essential for my thesis to be published you stae your sex; male or female. I'm guessing male - confirm please.

You and me mate, should meet up for at least a pint an an arguement.

I didn't delete it because I was worried about the authenticity, but rather, because I'm disgusted by some of the replies. I'm removing myself from futher participation in this thread, which has just turned into yet another America-bashing frenzy. Aw, boo hoo!! Dry your eyes mate, and man the fuck up. Perhaps then your vision won't be so impaired and you might actually read there wasn't an America-bashing frenzy. Jesus. Why do I have this picture of Rumpilstiltskin stamping his foot on the floor? '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.'

Perhaps. I should also think that while they're at it, they could perhaps free up a few acres of land. (from the googles of acres they 'own', and do fuck all with.) I'd at least like to grow some over-ripe tomatoes, hahahaa. (That's Tuh - MAE - to's for all you Americans struggling with the mother tongue.) '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.'

Well Dorbie, I think I've been able to extract at least the general meaning of your point, which, most unfortunately, comes to nothing other than your average speculation and dull, and supposedly educated, guesses. The intrinsic mystery of the problem is really quite unfanthomable by modern means. Anyway, I've been developing another theory in regards to yourself, and your recent posts. It's essential for my thesis to be published you stae your sex; male or female. I'm guessing male - confirm please.

You know mate, regarding what you said here: "What would be the point of wasting time showing the Taliban the evidence against BIn Laden when they categorically stated they would not hand him over under circumstances?" I believe you'd develop your understanding of the Afghan situation, and perhaps even your own reasoning, were you to research that 'assertion' and delve into it a bit deeper. I'll provide you some links, later. Have a look about from whatever sources you have available. It should interest you. '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.'

Thanks for piping in with the bible Steve. Despite myself having a questionable faith in regards to parables from an ancient book written by an ancient race, it's always welcome to have points of wisdom from the book brought into modern debates. It certainly helps address and surprise the issue of ones faith.

Normally I'll read the rest of a thread prior to replying. I have to jump on this. It's hit a nerve, so to speak!

But surely then it wouldn't be a public opinion poll, would it? It would be a poll from a bunch of people who can correctly name the president, the vice president, etc, etc. '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 said it through what seemed to be a personal theory. I'll be more than happy to elaborate later. '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.'

Thanks for the replies.

Bollox to that - I seen the bastard and decided what a fantastic replacement to the little remote control Bi-plane (which cost a-lot!) that my son flew into the garden fence.

Unfortunately, and as I suspected, it's turned into a bit of an arguement. Fuck that for now - we can argue later - can we at least have some honest and individual opinions on the matter? There's numerous SC users not explaining their vote. Essentially, this poll is only beneficial to us all if people are willing to vote and give a brief explanation as to why. It's not really asking for a lot is it? Place your vote, give a brief explantion as to why, and perhaps we can see something of benefit to us all. Or are people being a bit shy or what? Do I smell? (Yes, you do, smelly........hahah) Vote - explain why, puh-leez. At the very least, with a reasonable broadbrush of votes, we can start talking about some interesting human psychology and basic reasoning. And it's got nothing to do with point scoring amongst individuals, or political parties. It's something we can all benefit from. It just requires a wee bit of cooperation. All it takes is a few minutes of your time. Please. '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.'

In light of that, here's an interesting link: http://newsbbc.co.uk/ you'll have to unfortunately piss around trying to find the article, so here it is; "The decision not to send Prince Harry to Iraq has to be seen through the prism of the long history of royal service in wars, says military historian Peter Caddick-Adams. The history of the concept of monarchy is inextricably linked with martial prowess. In the UK, these ties between the royal and military spheres have remained strong. After months of indecision, the British Ministry of Defence has announced that Prince Harry, third in line to the throne, is not to go to Iraq with his regiment. The moment Officer Cadet Harry Wales began his course at Sandhurst Military Academy in early 2006, it was inevitable that the question of his operational service in either Afghanistan or Iraq would arise. ACTIVE SERVICE ROYALS Prince Andrew Prince Philip Duke of Kent Prince Maurice At the eleventh hour, military - and one suspects, political - chiefs arrived at the curious decision to stop his deployment. In some eyes this will be seen as caving-in to insurgent threats to kidnap or target the prince. It seems curious, too, that the British military is admitting in effect that it cannot protect one of its own officers. Not that he would be easily recognisable in helmet and body armour, inside an armoured vehicle. In a wider context this may be seen as a break with a long tradition of British royals serving in the military in war zones. Both Harry's uncle Prince Andrew, who served in the Falklands as a helicopter pilot, and his grandfather, Prince Philip, who was decorated during World War II for his service with the Royal Navy, faced very real danger in different combat zones. Danger proximity Prince Harry's great uncle, King George VI's brother, the Duke of Kent, joined the RAF and was killed while flying in 1942. A more distant ancestor, Prince Maurice of Battenberg, a grandson of Queen Victoria, was killed near Mons in 1914 as an officer in the King's Royal Rifle Corps. Some scholars argue that it is the very proximity of the royal family to danger - sharing the suffering of their subjects and soldiers - that has won great respect for the institution of monarchy. Kingship hit a low point in December 1936 with the abdication of Edward VIII, but that credibility was restored during World War II, when King George VI and his family stayed in London and their residence of Buckingham Palace was bombed. Even the Queen donned uniform as Second Lieutenant Princess Elizabeth, in the ATS (Auxiliary Territorial Service, the women's branch of the Army during the war). Harry wanted to be treated like any other soldier By decreeing that Prince Harry should stay behind whilst the rest of his regiment departs on hazardous operations also creates a dangerous precedent. It creates a two-tier army, where the celebrities and famous avoid conflict, whilst the rest have to brave the bullets, something that the prince would not wish. In the US during the Vietnam war, there was evidence that exactly this happened - you could negotiate your way out of the draft, or to a less dangerous posting, if your family were well-connected, rich or famous, and this generated massive resentment. Commentators have suggested Harry's regiment, the Blues and Royals, will be breathing a collective sigh of relief that Harry is not joining them, supposedly because his presence would have made them more of a target. But I am reliably informed that they are all in fact most disappointed that this promising young commander will have to break the bonds he has forged with his men over the last few months. Surely this is the most valuable training a royal prince can receive. Operational service is a great social leveller and unlikely bonds are forged as service personnel face very real and constant danger. Royals have always appreciated the relative anonymity and freedom of the military. One might ask where the prince can serve. Afghanistan? The Balkans? They all have their own dangers, and once this decision is ratified, it may have to be repeated again and again for as long as the prince remains in the Army. It is indeed a shame that politics has got in the way of this young man's aspirations to serve his country and follow the tradition of military service that almost every generation of British royals has followed." '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.'

EVIL prehistoric barbarians. Sickening. '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 reminds me of the time he was caught smoking cannabis, several years ago. One of the headlines on a cheap UK tabloid read; 'HARRY POTHEAD' So I suppose he could always just float away, man. '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.'

Indeed, after the drop they RV'd with the LRDG and didn't 'exactly' return back to base as such. David Stirling got the idea to use this unit to launch his attacks, which he then did after a day or two. To be pedantic, the weaponary was primarily the Lewes bomb (invented by Jock Lewes) & Vickers K .303 on the wagons. They'd also captured a Lancia truck armed with a 20mm rear Breda gun. '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.'