pap

There's a big difference between the Russia and the Western agitators. Only one group is looking to start a war. I completely accept that Russia will have its own motives here. It does business with Syria, and has been a long-time ally. We have no place in this conflict, which wouldn't exist without funding from other Arab states. I've been enjoying Dubai Phil's perspective on all of this. People talk of the war in Syria as if its just another spurt from the Arab Spring. The reality is that external powers have been seeking to effect regime change for the past two years. Seen in that context, we have every reason to question the responsible parties, particularly as the "Assad is undeniably guilty" ( even though we have no proof ). Syria was told in no uncertain terms that the use of chemical weapons was a red line that'd invite international condemnation and mobilisation. That it would choose to do so when it has the upper hand is a ridiculous notion. I'd like to think that the pair of us have more respect for each others' posts than perhaps has been the case in the past, and I'm not suggesting Assad is an angel. However, we will lose more moral authority through these actions. Anyone outside our Anglo-American bubble with a map can see what is happening here. Compare the stability of that region with what is was 20 years ago and ask yourself, is more Western intervention the solution or the problem? We need to get the f**k out of that region, get an independent foreign policy and act like the "been there, done it" mature nation we surely are. Hopefully, some future Prime Minister will have the balls to apologise for the hell we've helped to create in the region.

Adkins did very well in his time at Southampton FC and built a big part of his name with his achievements with the club. He left with a lot of kudos and a great deal of sympathy. It is up to him to capitalise on the good name he has built for himself. Personally, I don't think Reading was the right project for him, and that he should have waited for a better outfit. He must be kicking himself over McDermott being at Leeds now.

There's a big difference between Russia and the Western agitators. Only one group is looking to start a war. I completely accept that Russia will have its own motives here. It does business with Syria, and has been a long-time ally. We have no place in this conflict, which wouldn't exist without funding from other Arab states. I've been enjoying Dubai Phil's perspective on all of this. People talk of the war in Syria as if its just another spurt from the Arab Spring. The reality is that external powers have been seeking to effect regime change for the past two years. Seen in that context, we have every reason to question the responsible parties, particularly as the "Assad is undeniably guilty" ( even though we have no proof ) is being used to justify another attack on a country that hasn't attacked us. Syria was told in no uncertain terms that the use of chemical weapons was a red line that'd invite international condemnation and mobilisation. That it would choose to do so when it has the upper hand is a ridiculous notion. I'd like to think that the pair of us have more respect for each others' posts than perhaps has been the case in the past, and I'm not suggesting Assad is an angel. However, we will lose more moral authority through these actions. Anyone outside our Anglo-American bubble with a map can see what is happening here. Compare the stability of that region with what is was 20 years ago and ask yourself, is more Western intervention the solution or the problem? We need to get the f**k out of that region, get an independent foreign policy and act like the "been there, done it" mature nation we surely are. Hopefully, some future Prime Minister will have the balls to apologise for the hell we've helped to create in the region.

Russia are not standing by. They're simply not buying Hague and Kerry's proof-less assertions that the Assad regime was responsible.

We don't know in the judicial proof sense, I agree. However, there has been a massive rush to judgement on the whole issue and I simply don't understand how our foreign secretary, without any evidence, can continue to assert that Assad was responsible and that taxpayer money should pay to oust him. This was only ever going one way. It's a pre-meditated stepping stone on the way to Iran.

The problem with this kind of comment is that the person making it looks like a c**t as well.

Agreed. We were lied to then. I believe we're being lied to now. Every piece of information that comes out of Syria is being twisted into the "Assad did it" narrative. We have our foreign secretary spouting certainty about the events, when in reality, the only certainty is that we're going in. Everything else will be arranged to fit that reality. I've no doubt that something will be produced by the West to justify their pre-meditated plans. Almost every story on R4 at the moment is pure, unbridled propaganda. What amazes and encourages me is that very few people seem to be falling for it. According to a YouGov poll released last night, 2/3rds of Britons are against bombing strikes. Talk about troops on the ground and the proportion against rises to 90%. The point is the same as it ever was. Grab the vast majority of the world's natural resources and get them into the hands of Western corporates. It's going very well.

The hypocrisy is amazing. The US used white phosphorous in Fallujah, yet presently insists that anyone caught using chemical weapons should be invaded.

Another Angry Voice is on this; http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/william-hague-warmonger-syria.html Some very interesting questions raised here.

I'm a little surprised that this hasn't been discussed further, given recent news. Weapons Inspectors were granted access to the sites but came under unidentified sniper fire. Despite the unidentified part, the likes of William Hague and John Kerry are doing their very best to prosecute a war without any conclusive evidence, by using words like "undeniable" or phrases like "very little doubt". Would that stand up in court, I wonder? This is only heading one way.

Breaking Bad was very good this week. After something of a slow-burner last week (Bearsy hated it,yo) the plot lurches forward again, and at least one aspect of the flash forward is resolved. Entitled Confessions, this episode is mostly about the Pinkman - but I'd be remiss if I didn't mention Walt's own confession video. Pure genius, pulling strands from seasons back into the mix. It's nowhere near your Babylon 5 level of premeditation and payoff, but the writers did extremely well with what they had. Who knows? Maybe they're not actually making this sh!t up as they go along, after all Let's return to the Pinkman, a.k.a. Jesse. He's a bloke in his late 20s/early 30s that up until a couple of weeks ago, had five million in cash at his disposal. He decided to bung a fair bit of that out of a car window. The cops took the rest. Jesse has borne much of the burden of Walt's rise and has had to do some nasty wetwork as part of that process. Walt has always presented his paternal side to Jesse, but the truth is finally dawning. This episode could be one of the most important of the entire run. Won't say anymore, but once again, beautifully shot. The New Mexico location is a character in itself.

Shinzon should have just replicated the actual Picard a few times. Once you've got them in your transporter buffer it's trivial, innit? If they managed to pull Scotty out of a transport buffer, sure they can make a few copies. Patrick Stewart is great at playing tormented. I'm sure he'd have loved a crack at playing a series of decreasingly coherent clone Captains being harvested for spare parts.

Indeed. I only hope that a new site, SaintsPieWeb, will emerge phoenix-like from the ashes, forever welcoming those who want to discuss Saints and pies, and perhaps how those two concepts interplay. It's a huge story. All this focus on football, players and trolls means that sadly, its rich tapestry has never been unfurled here.

Placing myself firmly under the bridge, I like to think of this place as a virtual pub. If someone had come through the doors of a pub complaining about the state of pies at SMS, there'd be a bit of ribbing and banter about it. I remember one bloke at college being fixated with the cost of bread rolls, proudly announcing when he'd found them at a lower price. The p!ss was duly taken. Most people who post here are aware of the posting culture. You don't like it? Give it back, with pie-shaped f**king bells on. Problem with this place is there's too many vegetables and not enough red blooded p!ss-steak in the SaintsWeb pie.

Can someone tell me how people got crisps into their hands before "grab bags" were invented?

I'm surprised that John Boy Saint has decided to go public with his pastry nightmare. First, under the terms of the Ramirez Treaty, all happy clappers got to "own" a poster from the no brigade following the successful completion of the transfer. I "own" John Boy Saint. As someone who champions freedom of speech, I'd never use such ownership to curtail JB's chatter, but I do wish he'd kick a couple of these ideas upstairs before unleashing them on the general public. No one ever says "want a good pie or pint? Visit your nearest large football stadium". I appreciate that a pie and a pint are part of matchday tradition, but I'm with the majority on this one. I'd never take the hump because the coffee in McDonalds is crap, because I'm going there for the burgers, not the coffee. Same thing, innit?

No, it's fair enough Charlie. I appreciate that people are going to have different takes. It's good to see them listed out. I'm not suggesting that every outrage is manufactured, btw - but an exceptional event is always the catalyst for shifting democracies onto a war footing.

I do wonder precisely what degree of certainty we can place on Assad refusing access. The area in question is under rebel control, is it not? That being the case, can the regime guarantee safety? Also, even if the inspectors do discover evidence of chemical weapons, how likely are they to be able ascribe guilt as to who deployed them? The simplest and easiest answer is the one we're getting now. The agent used is one that Assad is known to have. That's it. There is no hard evidence to support the notion that the Assad regime was responsible either, and common sense, inasmuch as any of us can put ourselves in the shoes of an autocrat, suggests that this is the one cause of action that would bring about international intervention, and ultimately the end of the regime. If this attack was conducted by the Assad regime, it's suicidal quality is matched only by its gratuitousness. I ask you, in all seriousness, what the regime has to gain from this outrage. This is where we differ most. I don't see the motive. In fact, this is the last thing the regime needs. You're a student of history, Charlie. You'll be aware that most conflicts that involve democracies begin with some kind of outrage that inflames public opinion. Sarajevo, Gleiwitz, Pearl Harbor, Tomkin, false accounts of babies being turfed out of incubators by Iraqi soldiers prior to Desert Storm and 9/11. I don't see a great deal of public appetite for further conflict in the Middle East. The problem is that the plan is far from complete. I've said before that Iran is the endgame. Syria is not only in the way; it also happens to be Iran's biggest ally in the region. In many ways, I'm reminded of the island hopping Pacific Campaign of the Second World War. Though we don't have troops on the ground in this instance, the strategy, to take down a country by taking out the logistical and strategic stepping stones along the way, seems very similar. Keep an eye on that "red line" term. I suspect we'll be hearing it in the next few years, only with a nuclear qualifier.

Remember that too. Semi-final. Wasn't it Adrian Heath who broke hearts?

I thought we'd turned a corner under Bally when we finished 10th, only for him to bugger off to City afterward. This season, eighth might be a good shout. The missus used to wind me up about us being a one-man team. That's not remotely true, but with Rickie getting most of the goals, you can see how it might appear that way. I think we've relied on certain players in the past and were weak past the first team, especially last year. Apart from Cork being out at the start of the season, we were quite lucky with injuries. We've brought in three major signings, have three young players who look at home on a Premier League pitch, our established performers that propelled us up the leagues, and most importantly, no f*ckery on the goalkeeping berth. There's also no question of who is going to be managing the team. I think we're set for a good season.

Yeah, but the funny thing is, in the world Roddenberry created - in which excellence, not commercial consideration was the primary motivator, Into Darkness would have been laughed out of the Federation Film Board They can do what they want with Sh!t Trek. Just give me a new series and they can get on with it.

Leave it out Kraks. I'm old enough to remember our near miss in 84. The city was buzzing. Would love to see that again.

I'd agree with this. I can never remember us being so well-equipped, on paper at least, at the start of any season in the Premier League era.

Pretty much exactly why it needs lambasting then. Didn't buy the first reboot and won't be getting Into Darkness. I honestly won't entertain watching another one in the cinema, and I reckon a lot of fans will feel the same. Then you'll just be left with the people looking for an action movie, thinking this is Trek. Watching TNG after watching that was like being in the second year of University again Completely agree with the checklist complaint.

As I said, devil's advocate. Think you're probably right. It's disappointing, and he'd be sh!tting on those films from a high height if he wasn't personally involved. I'm just glad they put all that stuff in its own timeline.