vortexring

Is the Friday clocking off time been avoiding you today?

Never give up on your focus mate. You have to make it work! '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.'

Here's a chap from Florida's opinion I picked from the BBC website: The US needs to focus less on whether the Iraqi military will be ready to police the country. It never will be, since insurgents are usually not defeated by an organised army - a lesson learned by the Soviets in Afghanistan. Instead, the focus should be on social advances, such as getting power plants, hospitals and schools back up and running, reducing unemployment, and increasing oil exports. Tangible social gains will provide the US with a reason to engage other parties and hopefully begin to disentangle itself from the mess it finds itself in.(ends) It certainly makes sense. He also suggested the inclusion of Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia in this process. Lets face it, at the moment, they're not exactly uninvolved are they? But whilst America has to untangle itself from this almighty balls up, how it does so will be critically important to all our future international stability. '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 read this article, initially feeling it might actually make some sense, but it doesn't go into some of the other main problems; namely Iranian and Syrian interference. Anyway, felt it might be of interest: A quick look at Iraq’s history reveals that government intervention, beginning with the British government’s meddling after World War I, is primarily responsible for the country’s current problems. The British created the artificial state of Iraq from the rubble of the Ottoman Empire. Throughout its history, Iraq has been held together only by brute force of authoritarian power. Although the various ethnic and religious groups in Iraq traditionally have lived in peace, during Saddam’s rule, he deliberately stoked ethnic and religious cleavages in a “divide and conquer” strategy. After the naïve U.S. invasion removed the only brake on Iraqi centrifugal forces, Saddam’s earlier fueling of sectarian animosities has come home to roost in the current civil war between the Sunni and Shi’a. Even though the interventions of governments have caused most of Iraq’s current difficulties, the Bush administration and other conservatives, such as George Will, apparently believe that somehow stronger government is also the answer. Quite the contrary. Will argues that in the absence of a strong central government “sectarian clustering” will occur. Sectarian clustering is not necessarily a bad thing unless compelled by force of arms. People should be allowed to live freely where they want. The problem in Iraq was that the Sunni insurgents deliberately struck Shi’ite targets to provoke Shi’ite militias into the civil war that has already begun. And the Sunnis began their insurgency for three reasons. The first was to oust the U.S. government’s occupation of their homeland and later the Shi’ite/Kurdish interim government that it was propping up. The second was to avoid paybacks for the excesses of the Saddam era by that and future Iraqi Shi’ite/Kurdish central governments. The third was to prevent the Shi’ite/Kurdish government from controlling all of Iraq’s oil wealth—which lies mainly in the northern Kurdish and southern Shi’ite regions of the country—and perhaps leaving the Sunnis without any if those regions decided to become autonomous or secede from Iraq, as seems increasingly likely. In fact, perhaps the solution to Iraq lies in such sectarian clustering. Instead of fighting the powerful centrifugal forces in Iraq, perhaps the United States and the Iraqis should embrace them. A grand conclave of all Iraqi groups should be held to negotiate the decentralization of Iraq. Such an arrangement would probably entail a very loose confederation with a weak central government or an outright partition (with each group not necessarily inhabiting contiguous areas) with no Iraqi central government. Minimizing or eliminating the central government would eliminate the fear by Iraqi groups that the central government would be taken over by one group and used to oppress all others. To get the Sunnis to agree to such decentralization and to quell their fears that they would be left with only a rump state devoid of oil revenues, the Shi’a and Kurds would need to reach an oil revenue sharing agreement with them or actually give them territory containing oil wells. To encourage the Shi’a and the Kurds to make such concessions, the United States should announce a rapid withdrawal of the U.S. forces that are now artificially propping up the Iraqi central government. The reality is that Iraq is already effectively decentralized. Numerous militias control large areas and cannot be disarmed. Also, the Bush administration makes the questionable assumption that the Iraqi security forces will remain national and not break up to match the sectarian divides in Iraqi society. Yet the administration and many other conservatives, who would never embrace big government solutions at home, are proponents of strengthening the Iraq government. But to really be effective in holding the fractious Iraqi society together, the central government would probably have to resume Saddam-like dictatorial powers—something that no one wants. The United States should attempt to spur peaceful negotiations to codify the de facto decentralization on the ground rather than continuing its bid to impose an unworkable U.S.-style federation on Iraq. Current U.S. policy will continue to exacerbate, rather than dampen, the ongoing civil war. (ends) Withdrawal, and leaving the factions to themselves (and Iran, and Syria, etc) is beyond stupid. So I'm suspecting this to happen in the not so distant future. '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.'

Here you go: A quick look at Iraq’s history reveals that government intervention, beginning with the British government’s meddling after World War I, is primarily responsible for the country’s current problems. The British created the artificial state of Iraq from the rubble of the Ottoman Empire. Throughout its history, Iraq has been held together only by brute force of authoritarian power. Although the various ethnic and religious groups in Iraq traditionally have lived in peace, during Saddam’s rule, he deliberately stoked ethnic and religious cleavages in a “divide and conquer” strategy. After the naïve U.S. invasion removed the only brake on Iraqi centrifugal forces, Saddam’s earlier fueling of sectarian animosities has come home to roost in the current civil war between the Sunni and Shi’a. Even though the interventions of governments have caused most of Iraq’s current difficulties, the Bush administration and other conservatives, such as George Will, apparently believe that somehow stronger government is also the answer. Quite the contrary. Will argues that in the absence of a strong central government “sectarian clustering” will occur. Sectarian clustering is not necessarily a bad thing unless compelled by force of arms. People should be allowed to live freely where they want. The problem in Iraq was that the Sunni insurgents deliberately struck Shi’ite targets to provoke Shi’ite militias into the civil war that has already begun. And the Sunnis began their insurgency for three reasons. The first was to oust the U.S. government’s occupation of their homeland and later the Shi’ite/Kurdish interim government that it was propping up. The second was to avoid paybacks for the excesses of the Saddam era by that and future Iraqi Shi’ite/Kurdish central governments. The third was to prevent the Shi’ite/Kurdish government from controlling all of Iraq’s oil wealth—which lies mainly in the northern Kurdish and southern Shi’ite regions of the country—and perhaps leaving the Sunnis without any if those regions decided to become autonomous or secede from Iraq, as seems increasingly likely. In fact, perhaps the solution to Iraq lies in such sectarian clustering. Instead of fighting the powerful centrifugal forces in Iraq, perhaps the United States and the Iraqis should embrace them. A grand conclave of all Iraqi groups should be held to negotiate the decentralization of Iraq. Such an arrangement would probably entail a very loose confederation with a weak central government or an outright partition (with each group not necessarily inhabiting contiguous areas) with no Iraqi central government. Minimizing or eliminating the central government would eliminate the fear by Iraqi groups that the central government would be taken over by one group and used to oppress all others. To get the Sunnis to agree to such decentralization and to quell their fears that they would be left with only a rump state devoid of oil revenues, the Shi’a and Kurds would need to reach an oil revenue sharing agreement with them or actually give them territory containing oil wells. To encourage the Shi’a and the Kurds to make such concessions, the United States should announce a rapid withdrawal of the U.S. forces that are now artificially propping up the Iraqi central government. The reality is that Iraq is already effectively decentralized. Numerous militias control large areas and cannot be disarmed. Also, the Bush administration makes the questionable assumption that the Iraqi security forces will remain national and not break up to match the sectarian divides in Iraqi society. Yet the administration and many other conservatives, who would never embrace big government solutions at home, are proponents of strengthening the Iraq government. But to really be effective in holding the fractious Iraqi society together, the central government would probably have to resume Saddam-like dictatorial powers—something that no one wants. The United States should attempt to spur peaceful negotiations to codify the de facto decentralization on the ground rather than continuing its bid to impose an unworkable U.S.-style federation on Iraq. Current U.S. policy will continue to exacerbate, rather than dampen, the ongoing civil war. '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.'

But they're not cars mate, they're SUV's

Sod the MDX - I'm on about when I borrowed my mates X5 a couple of days after my neighbour bought an X3......... '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 the BMW X5 - awesome. '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.'

Wonder what planet your administration's on to think any differently? '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.'

Very well said - I think a significant difference is the nature of the enemy too. Who exactly are the enemy? Terrorists? Muslims? Islamic militants? Iraqi's? How exactly did they come about? Why? '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.'

Also the fact his neighbour in London was - I believe - the Chechen President in exile. And it seem's Litvinenko had a few issues with certain people, to say the least...... According to his Father he will have had a muslim burial. Also; (!) Litvinenko contact Kovtun critically ill 07/12/2006 19:15 MOSCOW (Reuters) - Dmitry Kovtun, a contact of dead Russian ex-spy Alexander Litvinenko, is in critical condition in hospital from radiation poisoning, Interfax news agency quoted an unnamed source as saying on Thursday. "Doctors have classified Kovtun’s condition as critical," Interfax quoted its source as saying. Kovtun met Litvinenko in London on November 1, the day the former spy fell ill. Interfax also reported that Kovtun fell into a coma after British and Russian investigators working on the Litvinenko case had finished questioning him in a Moscow hospital. However, it gave no source for the information on a coma. A spokesman for Russia’s Prosecutor-General’s office said he had no information about Kovtun’s health. Russian prosecutors earlier opened a criminal investigation for the attempted murder of Kovtun, a businessman. They said Kovtun was displaying symptoms of radiation poisoning. Litvinenko, a Kremlin critic who was buried in London on Thursday, was killed by a lethal dose of polonium 210, a radioactive substance. British and Russian authorities have opened murder investigations. The plot thickens. '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 amazed you can't drink alcohol in Clark County Rick - hopefully it's a small enough county to nip off somewhere else for a pint down the local. Nightmare! '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.'

Thank you for deciding on my behalf what I should eat, since I'm incapable of making such decisions for myself. And if they can ban certain products because they might kill you decades later from the long-term effects, then how come they haven't outlawed cigarettes? I hear that skydiving can kill you too - perhaps the government should ban that too - for our own good, of course. Your so predictable - cigarettes are addictivley enjoyable and increase Government coffers. Skydiving is hugely enjoyable. They are incomparable to trans-fats. You would not notice the difference from trans-fats being removed from your food item. There are numerous cheaper alternatives. As mentioned earlier I have no doubts you'd be rather surprised to find out how often they appear in foods, even the foods marketed as being healthy and slimming. But I've not decided on what you can or cannot eat. In fact John, fill your boots mate

National identity cards and even the Litvinenko murder have a lot in common with what your saying '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.'

Tell me you didn't eat the bones mate....... '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.'

Bloody hell! What county is 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.'

Me neither, but it seems the Governments are putting some serious thought towards this. I also think they might be wanting to pull out sooner rather than later, and peoples opinion will naturally influence this decision. I'm also thinking we need far more countries willing to give a helping hand. I know the UK/US won't solve the issues on their own. Can't see this happening any time soon though. And I also suspect Afghanistan may well go along similiar lines to Iraq. '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 thinking along the lines of further de-stabilisation. I'm also thinking of those other axis of evil 'baddies' and their involvement too. But perhaps more importantly, it's a stinking mess. It needs cleaned up. Withdrawal can't do this. '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.'

Fair enough, but I think the potential of further de-stabilisation of the country (and hence the region) through withdrawal could be disastrous. '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'd agree on fatty food being addictive. Normally I'll enjoy the occasional 3 piece Colonel meal or Whopper meal. Perhaps once or twice a month. When I'm away for a month or two, inevitably on the way home I'll visit BK or the Colonel, because that's what I'll have cravings for (). Didn't someone once claim to 'hate' the Colonel because he put an addictive chemical in his chicken which made you crave it fortnightly??? ('...with his wee beady eyes...') '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.'

My neighbour bought a BMW X3. 'Very nice' was my comment as I got in my own car as he was busy finishing off cleaning his vehicle one Sunday afternoon(Polishing the tyres I may add). One of my mates in work recently bought a BMW X5. Eventually he let me borrow it for an hour. Ah, the look on neighbours face as I pulled into the driveway!

We will mate, ask David Shayler. '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.'

Because they're found in so many food stuffs today people often buy and eat them without realising. And not everyone is aware of them, or the dangers. And then they feed their children.......... '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.'

Course it does - these fats are utter crap. They serve no purpose towards a healthy diet - only the opposite! This is getting hilarious - they don't even taste good! There is no reason to keep them unless your a crap food producing company and you want to maintain your products shelf life, despite the proven health risk to the consumers. BAN THEM!!! '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.'

Nah, it's got nothing to do with the poor not looking after themselves. These trans fats, or hydrogenated vegetable oils are so common place that to check every item of your weekly shop takes a very long time. I've done so myself, being naturally concerned about my childrens health. I drive my Mrs mad sometimes, as she generally does the weekly shop, with me gobbing off about all the items she picked with the trans fats and E numbers! There everywhere!