pap

We'd have all taken a point from this fixture, but I'd agree that it was 2 points lost. Derby were not a good side yesterday - we dominated pretty much from their goal onwards. They did look dangerous from corners, etc - but we were just about equal to the task of defending them. Bit concerned at the number of chances we squandered - I'd agree with previous posters that we need more options up front. Lambert is already a Saints legend as far as I'm concerned, but it'd be nice to have a taller/faster option than Connolly when the situation warrants it. That said, we looked strong, played well and bossed most of the game. The only pride felt coming out of that park was from Saints fans. Fair play to Derby for turning up in such numbers, but their team let them down. Comes to something when you hear the fans getting excited just because one of their midfielders gets possession and has a little bit of space. A draw is not a fair result but I'll take it, especially as it really could have gone either way. I love our away support too, with the possible exception of the bloke standing immediately behind me who was screaming at the players and gobbing on our heads as he did so. He even lumped me over the head after a contentious refereeing decision. Brilliant support, boys and girls. Need a few more songs though.

That's an interesting read, especially the part about the Israelis assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists with the tacit approval of the US. Genuinely the first I've heard of that. I hear sabre-rattling.

In those particular circumstances, you'd be f*cking nicked, me old beauty. However, most street altercations favour conventional fisticuffs over nuclear weapons. If they did, my answer would have to be that neither of us would be prosecuted. We'd both be dead on account of the nuclear weapon going off. As I've said before, the only reason countries get the bomb is because it confers unofficial membership of the "don't fu.ck with me club". You get the bomb, and other countries tend to look the other way on a lot of things. Since the Cuban Missile Crisis, we've only had one genuine scare, when Matthew Broderick almost destroyed the world by playing "Global Thermonuclear War". Even that evidence is disputed - several of my close friends and family have reassured me that "WarGames is just a film"

Mark the day. Lord D and I are in agreement. I went to Uni. Needed to go for what I wanted to do, which is **** around with computers. I took the whole thing completely seriously, handed everything in on time and to a high standard. Though I can't say that I've used everything they ever taught me, I got a lot out of it and am pleasantly surprised when concepts that used to be restricted to academia surface in the professional world. That has actually happened a lot lately. But (you knew there was a 'but' coming)... Many of the people on my course were shiftless feckers with no interest in the subject whatsoever, merely killing a couple of years before they'd eventually have to get a job. No word of a lie, I walked into a tutorial once to see a classmate with his feet on up on the desk reading a copy of the Daily Express, overtly oblivious of anything that was being said. Group projects were a complete nightmare, as you'd invariably end up with someone who didn't give a feck, or as happened to us, completely absent throughout the entire process. What do you do in that situation? Point out that "actually, such-and-such did absolutely feck all"? We ended up pretending he was an integral part of the project. That's probably not a unique example. I went to a former poly, and wouldn't recommend it to anyone who is geeky about their subject. A lot of students there are "insurance jobs", either having the place as a second choice after failing to make the grade, or brought by the wonder of clearing. So yep, too many kids go to University. They study crap subjects, don't have a plan, think it'll all work out and end up doing 12K admin jobs in insurance companies, which they could have got without going to Uni.

I think I've seen this video before. The whole thing is a good watch, but its clearly the result of some selective editing. I'm sure that a few of their people could conjure up a country beginning with "U" But for the record, I've met Americans who had an inkling of what was happening overseas, but I've seen the attitudes in the vid first hand too.

Mass immigration backed with billions of dollars of aid and expertise, to be precise. I can understand why the Arabs would be upset. I certainly sympathise with the plight of the Palestinians. Imagine how we'd feel if were displaced from our homes by force of arms, then had to live under the conditions they did.

There is no left or right anymore, at least not in Government. Grow up.

I'm with alps on this point, at least. I don't get the distinction between the two cases you've made.

Interesting, because most Israelis in Israel are descended from people who did exactly that. Just for the record, are you trying to prove your own point or doddisalegend's?

Well, on that, we're agreed. Problem is that elements of both sides just don't want it to happen, and the lunatics seem to be running the asylum.

General principle. Your claim is that the Israelis have a right to their own state because they've had some of their number in parts of the region since time immemorial. How is that any different from the situation with the Native Americans?

Yes, just as the US has been continously populated with Native Americans. Do you expect them to get their land back?

No, I mean something that makes sense.

Millions of Israelis did vacate their ancestral homeland over the course of centuries, so yes, they did vacate it. It's called the Jewish diaspora. Small numbers of Jewish people did persist in areas like Galilee, but the place was under Islamic rule for 1300 years. Who would actually make the claim? Palestine was never a sovereign state - always part of some empire or another. No matter - it's not germane to the argument. Still doesn't explain why the Israelis have a right to land that they vacated ( and they did vacate almost all of the country ). Your last point, which I presume refers to the Balfour accords, doesn't make a lick of sense either. Our empire did a lot of stuff when it was the foremost world power. Was all of it right?

No, what I said was this:- You're having enough problems conjuring up words to explain your own point of view. Don't stretch yourself by deciding what I've said too, particularly when what I've actually said is the complete opposite. When you actually arrive at a point that you can successfully defend, I may be able to prove it. Til then, you're out of luck.

C'mon alps, doddisalegend makes a perfectly good point and you're asking him to think about it? The Falklands might be a bad example, as they've never actually belonged to the Argies, but the rest of his argument still stands. Why do the Jewish people have an automatic claim to a land long abandoned and settled by others?

No, the people who don't want to hear that Israel constitutes one of the largest problems in the region are those that would slavishly defend that state's behaviour.

Good read that, Phil. Basically backs up a lot of what we've both said; you rightly brought Saudi front and centre. I've made points that we, or our allies, have been doing exactly the same things that Iran has been doing.

Sorry, but I don't buy that the Iran's religious fundamentalism is enough for them to effectively commit self-genocide, particularly when the country has so much going for it ( see previous posts about sitting on large amounts of liquid or gaseous gold ).

So the exception proves the rule, does it? Continue the strategy of cherry-picking individual events to distort the overall picture, though. It's extremely impressive, and I'm sure hundreds are flocking to your point of view because of it.

It's because they're "evil". George W Bush even put them into the "Axis of Evil", so it must be true. But really, that's the real question. The answer, US-supported Israeli aggression in the region, is not something that most people want to hear.

By that logic, all the Celts that used to live in Britain before being pushed westward by invading forces have just as much right to Britain as we do.

First of all, the quote "wipe Israel of the face of the Earth" gained a considerable amount in the translation from Farsi to English. The actual quote, from scripture, is that "Israel will disappear from the page of history". Not quite the same thing, is it? And of course Israel should be able to defend themselves. The problem is that their responses are completely disproportionate.

And they also spend their time shooting Arabs, assassinating people in foreign countries, effectively practising apartheid, building settlements where they are not supposed to and generally causing a huge amount of shyte and tension that'll end up dragging us all into war. Most sensible people rightfully acknowledge the horrors that Jews went through in the Second World War. That does not give Israel carte-blanche to do whatever it likes forever.

I don't trust either nation, but Israel has got more form for aggression.