Zathras

Nah, I'd been home for about ten minutes. And yeah, I got right into the shower and then to the laundry room.

God I fuckin' hate Frings.

Weren't Brazil no.1 at the last World Cup despite struggling to qualify (by their standards at least) and France being the reigning World and European Champions? 147054[/snapback] Yeah, France did very well at that cup too The ranking are full of shite, and everyone knows that. At least they say they're 'fixing them.' OTOH, every win that the US gets against Jamaica, Mexico, Costa Rica, etc. counts only for 75% of the number of points that England gets for beating the Faroe Islands or Andorra. There's at least an attempt to make things even, but without any worthwhile universal measuring stick, world wide ranking are fairly impossible. If you look into the ELO ratings, they are a bit more realistic, but again, worldwide ranking is fairly impossible. http://www.eloratings.net/ Brazil Netherlands France England Czech Republic Spain Italy Argentina Germany Portugal Denmark Sweden Uruguay Romania USA Iran Mexico Croatia Ireland Australia

No joke! These fucking allergies are murder!

B/c with the money he became a bad person.

That was me btw.

Not worth the effort of clicking on the link tbh.

Did that yesterday

Sounds amusing enough for headphones at work.

Not gray; it's blue, I assure you. I own one. Here's another winner from '96:

What are you talkin' about?? BEST KIT EVER!! (Though the gold stitching would have made it even better) How it didn't make the Football365 list of worst World Cup shirts I'll never know. I think they left it off in favor of the Mexico '98 one which I actually kind of like:

No I think Touchy is closer. 146017[/snapback] It's touchy to point out that you're behind the times? It would be much more apt to make fun of the fact that Nike is marketing the away kit as "retro" as it's a throwback to their first USA shirt which is as old as... 1996

This is news? It was pointed out when Nike debuted all of the shirts for the cup. And it's actually a throwback to the 1950 shirt which we wore when we beat England 1-0 in Belo Horizonte.

Good comeback.

Probally blame souness tbh. 144330[/snapback] Shepherd, tbqfaphtvm

Whereas you neatly sidestep it by pointing this out. Have you ever considered reading an entire thread before posting LM? 144334[/snapback] Have you ever considered thinking I just don't agree...and I haven't sidestepped anything, what I think is quite plainly stated in this thread. The military are trained to obey orders, and the buck stops with the people who give the orders, however Bush Snr, or whoever decided to allow Saddam to escape the first time was a stupid arsehole. It is easy to understand the panic of a life or death situation, but the one time they should have been trigger happy, they weren't. I have met some Americans in my time, so if now and again you make a dumb comment like you have just done, I know they aren't all like that. 144340[/snapback] You missed the point.... again. I pointed out that you made a comment about the answers that would be forthcoming from Lazarus' post, despite there being 2-3 below that post and above yours in anticipation of those anwers. And you still didn't answer the question in Lazarus' post, only made a comment about others sidestepping it, which to me means that you sidestepped it.

Whereas you neatly sidestep it by pointing this out. Have you ever considered reading an entire thread before posting LM?

Someone who is an immediate threat? Given officer training, I would shoot immediately; as I am now, I would likely be unable to fire at all, let alone without hesitation.

That says more about the country than the man. 144254[/snapback] Not necessarily. Carter got himself elected by displaying himself as an outsider to the political landscape--this was true, however due to that outsider situation, he didn't know how to get things done in that same political landscape. While that may say more about the political landscape than him, it doesn't make him a good president. IMO, if you want a good president you have to go back.... let's see. Bush I Reagan Carter Ford Nixon Johnson Kennedy Eisenhower Truman F. Roosevelt 10 presidents back to the 1930s. Damn. I suppose an argument could be made for Kennedy (D) Johnson (D) Eisenhower (R ) or even Nixon (R ) if you exclude the Watergate incidents and just focus on what he accomplished as a president. However, IMO if you want a truly great president, the last was was James K. Polk in the 1850s.

Probably the peanut farmer. 144244[/snapback] Good ex-President, crap President tbh.

Deserve it for that avatar, tbh.

Wierd, but I thought the do gooders don't pay any attention to anyone else either. It's not difficult to try to understand the realistic point of view from that of a soldier or someone in a life or death, stressful and panic situation, I have said that if the upper people are incompetent, they should rightly take the rap. These type of comments crop up regularly on here whenever something happens, and the hand wringers think the world is a wonderful place where everybody plays by boy scout rules. However, what would YOU say, if I thought our soldiers could probably handle that situation in question a million times better than the Americans ? 143872[/snapback] I would first yawn at the blatant fishing and attempt to change the topic from the questions that you have ignored thus far, and then point out the several British atrocities e.g. Jallianwala Bagh.

Wow; up until this thread, I'd not really paid too clost attention to LM's debates; just assumed he believed the other side of things; but in this thread I realize that he really doesn't read what the other people are saying.

Only in Britain could such a list contain not one but two Oasis albums.

While I think it's clear that atrocities will happen in war, this particular example is of a rarely seen especially brutal and barbaric type. This type of atrocity cannot and should not be expected.