sotonjoe

mixed feelings, but still maintain he's about as big a name with about as much of a 'proven' record as we can hope for in our current position.

Or simply somebody with a little bit of literacy?

and I still love this one too.

found on related vids

No, they are worried IF he comes back. There's a difference.

I'm not sure what / who else we can reasonably expect to be honest. If we ignore the unrealistic / outlandish appointments of people such as WGS, Keegan, Hoddle or Donal Duck, who are we actually left with? You've got Tisdale, Boothroyd, Pardew, Curbishley, Wise, Coppell and a few others... Tisdale is apparently messiah number 2 but after that there can't be much in it. As I said after Liebherr took over, I fear for him, knowing the weight of our fans' expectations, I really do.

Been through this many times with many people but FWIW I think people of your age are mad paying that much for insurance just to drive round in a car that you think is the bees knees. You'd be surprised at just how quickly your premiums drop if you stick with a low group car for four years or so. You obviously think it's worth it but I just can't see it myself; I think the money would be much better spent on all manner of other things.

bargate is trendy with the kids. Surprised east street stays open. As someone said, must be the offices and car park attached that bring the rent and other cash in.

i can't help wishing that some of my teachers had been abducted by aliens as well.

more radioactive material on ours ... simple.

Our 'boys' will sort them out etc....

source?

All sounds a bit wishy washy to me but beggars can't be choosers.

In that case, perhaps it is worth considering getting rid of the armed forces then?

there was a piece on south today about how he has become the favourite after being nowhere in the odds

I'm not sure of your point. I have enough of an idea of how they work. What do you mean 'how'? Are you tying to emphasise the harsh conditions of staring death in the face. Perhaps you'd like to to expand on what i don't know that will change my views wholeheartedly. To be honest, I think you've misread much of what has been said. Equally, if you'd read what I said clearly, you'd see that 'HATE' isn't a particularly apt description. I shan't be going over it all again though. And I can't remember saying we should get rid of all the armed forces either.

Believe me, I've sat through presentations given by returning millitary personnel in which they've gone into great detail about their work, including the showing of their home video style footage of various conflicts. It doesn't change my opinions wholesale. There's no chance of getting me in a warzone to see first hand what goes on! I've no intention of endangering myself as part of some morally murky conflict.

As I said, I agree it could have been seen as inflammatory, hence why I'm happy to explain, but I'd genuinely hope that more people were capable of reading an argument and trying to appreciate the gist of it as opposed to stampting up and down because they think a word has simply and intentionally been used in a pejorative sense. Puppets would certainly have been less inflammatory though yeh. But the subect is as emotive for me as it for you.

Actually, I've just explained that Delldays. Perhaps puppets would have been less inflammatory though eh?

I clearly meant 'muppets' more literally than you realise, not simply in the pejorative sense. A muppet is a puppet, controlled by somebody else, either by strings or by inserting a hand up said puppet's backside. I think that is a pretty apt way for describing a soldier (not the backside bit). They knowingly sign up for a job which could see them sent to some hellhole with some piddly gun for protection. They have no right to say "I don't fancy that" thanks and have to do as they are told. They allow their lives to be completely dictated and controlled by some government minister sat in Whitehall. Hence, they could be described as puppets, i.e. muppets. You say that's heroic, I think it's craziness. I'm also capable of putting my point of view across without resorting to insults. I hope you understand what I meant by the word now anyway! To be fair, I agree the word has dodgy connotations and I could have inflamed less if i'd stuck with puppets but there we go.

I think some people do yes. The way any anti-soldier comments are twisted to make people seem morally and emotionally bankrupt is a sure fire sign of that in my opinion. I think the way whoever it was on here chipped in with the initial comment I took umbridge with is also a clear sign. As I said, you get into a discussion about people doing something good or deserving of some recognition and there's always somebody trumpeting "what about the soldiers". I think people should be able to have their own moment, in this case we should be able to acknowledge how sad it is that Hartson has been diagnosed with cancer, without some smart arse shouting " but what about the soldiers". Then as soon as somebody says anything to the contrary, there are always a few willing to get all macho and say "criticise the millitary? you should be ashamed of yourself", often without paying too much attention to what has actually been said! And firemen? well, I'd be slightly more surprised at a firemen dying that a soldier, as I think statistically it is less likely. However, I can't say that it would come of much of a surprise. All in a day's work as they say. Actually, I probably respect firemen more than soliders tbh .. but that's an entirely different discussion!

None of that makes squaddies the 'sooper dooper heroes beyond all reproach' that some make them out to be and you've squirrelled the argument in a very off tangent direction to be fair. It was certainly better than your early attempt which just consisted of abuse though.

Unless Liebherr has been at the 'just for men', it wasn't him then.

I don't think he was saying that the job spec for a squaddie says 'a love of plastic guns'!?!?!?! He's saying that boys are programmed from a young age to think that wielding guns and fighting baddies is heroic. He's suggesting that this conditioning goes some way to explaining why a large proportion think that solidiers are heroic and that this conditioning could prevent some from stepping back and considering these sorts of discussions as objectively and dispassionately as they perhaps should do.

Shouldn't somebody be suggesting this is a waste of our money and that we should be donating it all to some war related charity instead?