Park Life

We've enetered what in the coaching manual is oft referred to as the tricky patch. But I am quite confident we won't get relegated.

alex, did you go/watch the match last week? i was there, and he was poor, to be honest the games hes played this season (not many i know) hes never had one good game, against chelsea (who played 4-3-3) toite covered for him quite alot i dont normally signal any player out but we cannot keep on giving players who dont perform a chance, if your main players are out injured/suspended then id rather give a youngster a chance like vuckic or donaldson, least they would run around and actually try, guthrie looked like a dead man walking today i agree alot of players had below par performances, apparently hughton kept them in the dressing room for over an hour, i feel sorry for hughton as he is trying his best with very limited players on a seperate note, what was it with Martin O'neil being a guest of the club at last saturday against chelsea? i know Martin O'neil dosent have any connections with the club, but im not sure if there is something possibly happening... i hope not as i hope hughton gets the full backing from the club Mmm tough one that...Hughton or MON..?

The ball always moves sideways an all.

What a load of rubbish. Desperate stuff by monkeys caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

He might be better than what we have but to all intents and purposes he's finished is why Slouch gets in the side before him. 2 years ago he was a fine player.

Yup. These fucking ratarse countries need to leave our twee pursuits alone.

LM has a point as it goes.

That's not actually my line on it exactly. Looking at the latest leak for instance, a lot of this information was widely known, and this knowledge went beyond a mere suspicion. Take the example of Pakistan's government allowing US drone strikes whilst outwardly protesting against them; this had been written about for a significant time in the press, by reporters who had privilege to sources from within the country's government; there was no revelation involved here. Whilst that's fine in and of itself, Wikileaks have been guilty of a severe over-egging of the quality of this latest content and the impact it will supposedly have. There will be no legal ramifications regarding a lot of these e-mails and leaks and so on, and this makes me question the direction of the site and also renders the question of 'suspicion vs proof' somewhat redundant. If their ultimate goal is to expose corruption and criminal acts that have been covered up, and to affect changes in legislation and law as a result of their leaks, then why bother with this sort of content? The only thing that will be prompted by publicly embarrassing several governments is the huge pressure we're now seeing applied to Wikileaks and Aflange. Is it really worth the possible death of the site just to expose Prince Andrew's toilet habits in a leaked email? I also have my problems with Aflange. His proposed goals toward the Iraq and Afghan wars were stupid, although the leaks on them have been very interesting and have helped to swing me in favour of the Iraq war. American troops have been guilty for a lot less civilian deaths than I had previously believed, and of particular interest are the details of the abuses and crimes of the Iraqi authorities - post-invasion. Aflange talks of ethics a lot and he has obviously absolved the Ba'athists, Al-Qaida, Iranian-backed militia and religious zealots for their part in destroying the society of Iraq. I can't take that step, and whilst the 'coalition of the good-guys' forces have not only made terrible errors, but been guilty of a flagrant lack of planning (although who could plan for the aftermath of such a thing?), I will not blame them for murders which they did not commit. The anti-war crowd - Aflange included - attribute the blame for Al-Qaida bombs in Iraq on the invading forces, though they cannot state with authority that Iraqi society wouldn't have descended into a scrofulous murder-zone had the war not taken place. Saddam Hussein had never been one to shy away from his genocidal proclivities, and he had proven effective in morphing Iraq into a fractious calamity, teetering on the precipice of a violent implosion. So, back to Aflange: stupid ethics, a preening mouthpiece for the hippy-hackers and a relentless sex-pest. Wikileaks have been spot-on with some of their leaks, but others have left a sour taste: the taste of a shit. It is sad to see 30-something year old men who display an embarrassing piety in their hero-worship of characters like Aflange; no man is without fault, as Zimmerman once said, "don't follow leaders, and watch your parking meters.' Ghandi was a shit also. Think you need to take onboard the fact that the ultimate goal is to break up Iraq as a soverign entitiy. The Kurds will get their own state and as we are beginning to see, their own oil (already with deals in place with foreign oil companies). Iraq will just be taken off the board. This has always been the goal and them main reason for the don't give a shit after conflit planning.

Lovely second goal.

That's a bit of a strech. Not really, self-interest is amoral. There is no right and wrong. But he ability to depluy such self interest with regard to economic and military might modulates the behaviour. Dont know how that changes the moral conclusion. There is no 'right' when self-interest governs policy. This undermines the justification used for their policies. Its clear as day to me. Self interest in the case of the US is primarily 'might is right', where I'd argue that this avenue is not open to the Palestinians, hence their intermittent and often desperate attempts to build a coalition of thought (that sometimes goes against their absolute self interest). Self interest in this sense is only a starting point for them, whereas with America and generally the Western powers, self interst is more of a departure point (it is a totality). These are two very different kinds of self-interest and one of them allows for little or no negotiating space, it is absolute and pre-defined (the U.S.). More often than not the Palestinians as a whole have to go along with things in the short term which I would argue is against their self-interest in the long term (due to lack of military and economic power). Hence I speak of modulation. Well you're now making my point for me by characterising it as 'might is right'. This is the amorality i am talking about, a value system based on self-interest that derives its mandate for action from strength goes against every form of justice known to man. If 'might is right' then the terrorist who wants a force out of his country (there based on nothing other than this 'might is right' principle) has every right to blow American's up any which way he can, wherever he can because he is following the same moral framework. In fact, he doesnt need the excuse of them being in his country, he can choose to blow whoever he wants up, whenever he wants. Principles of justice, law, equity etc, are the building blocks of civilisation. My point is actually cloaked in simplicity. 'Self interest' is modulated by the ability to pursue it. I know exactly what your point is and I broadly agree with it, but you're missing an adjunct. Of course self-interest is limited by power, thats why you need international law and actions based on principles of justice so that super-powers dont abuse those with less power. The question i guess is whether any of this actually reveals this amorality in US foreign policy. Some people would argue that their principles came first and then the morality of their actions abroad were compromised by circumstances. This is fair enough tbh but history tells us otherwise imo. This is precisely what makes the Wikileaks spectacle such an interesting cultural mirror. Historically this is a very important moment for Western democracy as the layers fall away and the mask momentarily slips.

I deleted the post cause it was fatuous and playful. Relax bro.

That's a bit of a strech. Not really, self-interest is amoral. There is no right and wrong. But he ability to depluy such self interest with regard to economic and military might modulates the behaviour. Dont know how that changes the moral conclusion. There is no 'right' when self-interest governs policy. This undermines the justification used for their policies. Its clear as day to me. Self interest in the case of the US is primarily 'might is right', where I'd argue that this avenue is not open to the Palestinians, hence their intermittent and often desperate attempts to build a coalition of thought (that sometimes goes against their absolute self interest). Self interest in this sense is only a starting point for them, whereas with America and generally the Western powers, self interst is more of a departure point (it is a totality). These are two very different kinds of self-interest and one of them allows for little or no negotiating space, it is absolute and pre-defined (the U.S.). More often than not the Palestinians as a whole have to go along with things in the short term which I would argue is against their self-interest in the long term (due to lack of military and economic power). Hence I speak of modulation. Well you're now making my point for me by characterising it as 'might is right'. This is the amorality i am talking about, a value system based on self-interest that derives its mandate for action from strength goes against every form of justice known to man. If 'might is right' then the terrorist who wants a force out of his country (there based on nothing other than this 'might is right' principle) has every right to blow American's up any which way he can, wherever he can because he is following the same moral framework. In fact, he doesnt need the excuse of them being in his country, he can choose to blow whoever he wants up, whenever he wants. Principles of justice, law, equity etc, are the building blocks of civilisation. My point is actually cloaked in simplicity. 'Self interest' is modulated by the ability to pursue it. I know exactly what your point is and I broadly agree with it, but you're missing an adjunct.

That's a bit of a strech. Not really, self-interest is amoral. There is no right and wrong. But he ability to depluy such self interest with regard to economic and military might modulates the behaviour. Dont know how that changes the moral conclusion. There is no 'right' when self-interest governs policy. This undermines the justification used for their policies. Its clear as day to me. Self interest in the case of the US is primarily 'might is right', where I'd argue that this avenue is not open to the Palestinians, hence their intermittent and often desperate attempts to build a coalition of thought (that sometimes goes against their absolute self interest). Self interest in this sense is only a starting point for them, whereas with America and generally the Western powers, self interst is more of a departure point (it is a totality). These are two very different kinds of self-interest and one of them allows for little or no negotiating space, it is absolute and pre-defined (the U.S.). More often than not the Palestinians as a whole have to go along with things in the short term which I would argue is against their self-interest in the long term (due to lack of military and economic power). Hence I speak of modulation.

The whole wikileaks 'hapenning' has made surfing the web for off radar information exciting again.

That's a bit of a strech. Not really, self-interest is amoral. There is no right and wrong. But he ability to depluy such self interest with regard to economic and military might modulates the behaviour.

That's a bit of a strech. I don't know. Self interest ? Why not. Who doesn't ? There's a huge gulf in the abilities of the two parties to enact their strategic footprints clearly.

That's a bit of a strech.

European fa's should get out of fifa and the Champions League (uefa). Both organisations have become ridiculous, bloated caricatures of themselves.

You're a fuckin idiot. Do one. This post to me is like what the Satanic Verses was to your parents. You ignorant cunt. I hate it when you sit on the fence Stevie.

http://www.find-book.co.uk/ Good site that.

Yeah but they are the bad guys, but so is everybody else.

Chez the pukka Vietnamese food in Paris is the best in Europe. Quarter Latin iirc.

haha I've had no complaints. Few drunken people on here last night by the looks of things. You must be as hungover as me today then? I'm going out again tonight as well, it's 942am and I'm craving Chinese food. Had a few pints myself last night, then a had a 'Korean' which is basically not that different in this country from chinese food. Coincidentally, woke up thinking 'i fancy another one'. Was drinking Grolsch and Talisker. I bet you feel a bit rufffff though.