pap

Yep, I'm for real. So Iran stirs sh*t. How is that any different from what Western intelligence agencies do? Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder.

How's about letting them get on with it and leaving them alone? I don't find the nature of their regime particularly pleasing - religious fundamentalism is completely at odds with the way I like to live, but that's really besides the point. Whatever you might want to say about the regime, it hasn't actually been an international aggressor. How did they get into the "Axis of Evil" club anyway?

You've hit the nail on the head with regard to what it's really all about, TDD - but I'd disagree with some of your conclusions. First, the actual problem is a potential energy crisis. There are better ways to address that than raiding countries rich with natural resources. The problem is that large business doesn't want to know. They've got far too much invested in oil as a commodity, and make money off it at every stage. Not a wind-up about North Korea. Just look at the situation with Iraq. There were unsubstantiated claims that Iraq had WMD, and that was enough to start a war. Yet NK can flout its miltary capability without getting invaded.

And er, just checked on Wiki. The Tunbs islands were occupied in 1971, when the US-backed Shah was still running the show. All the current regime are guilty of is not giving them back.

Ah, c'mon phil - The Tunbs are what, 4sq miles of island estate off the south coast of Iran? We're not even talking the same ball-park.

Nope, but that's not an argument. No-one uses nuclear weapons because the response would be devastating to their country. So why do you think Iran would be more likely to use them?

I know that the Iranians like to give it large, and they certainly don't have nice things to say about Israel. But the sort of thing they've been accused of what intelligence agencies do all the time. Certainly, the Israelis have never had a problem with assassinating people they don't like on foreign soil. And financing insurgents? You're not even a real intelligence agency until you've done that. I don't really think that the West can moan about this Saudi assassination plot with a straight face. Everyone's at it. That all being the case, Iran hasn't invaded anyone. Iraq, goaded on by the US, was the aggressor in the Iran-Iraq war - and I don't think they've had any wars since. Why is Iran, a country that might get the bomb, singled out for special attention? North Korea can fire missiles into the South China Sea, is further along the path to becoming a nuclear power and no-one bats an eyelid. Personally, I think Iran has been a long-term strategic objective for the US, a country that has much better form for starting wars than Iran. If there is to be a conflict, I'd expect the US to fire the first shots.

How do you work that out?

Dunno, India and Pakistan both got the bomb illegally too, as did Israel (if they do indeed have nukes). What about North Korea, who are rumoured to have it? Anyone messing around with them? In fact, there hasn't been a single member of the "Don't f**k with me club" that has ever been invaded by another nation state. At the moment, history would suggest I'm right.

Thanks for the list and some rather candid answers. As I said before, I have a lot of respect for the RN and a lot of sympathy with your view of being an island nation. If anyone should be able to do a proper navy, it should be us.

There has been a fair bit of sabre-rattling between the US and Iran over the last couple of days, over US claims that they foiled an Iran-led terrorist attack. Although the US has said it won't take military action over this particular plot, the incident is just another episode in a long-running series of heated diplomatic exchanges. The US has also claimed that Iran is trying to build the atomic bomb, a claim which Iran strenously denies. My view is that the US will go bundling into Iran within 2 years. First, Iran probably is developing the bomb, and who could blame them? Getting the bomb is like joining the "don't fu.ck with me club". Western nations voiced their indignation when India and Pakistan got the bomb, but we won't fu.ck with them; they've got the bomb. Second, Iran has an absolute feckton of oil and gas, second largest reserves in the world after Russia. Next, we've got the fact that the US Government really doesn't like Iran's government, and hasn't since the Shah was bounced in the late 70s. Add Iran's own sabre-rattling on the topic of Israel, or the claims that it is supporting insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. Finally, the US happens to have a military materiel and personnel on either side of Iran. It's geographically convenient. What about the rest of you? Is war with Iran inevitable? Would we be along for the ride if it came to that?

I'd agree with that. Cameron has been useless so far. How long did it take for him to get rid of Coulson? And I don't buy the feigned ignorance about not knowing that he'd been involved. They knew from the start, and just believed they'd get away with it. The Fox case comes down to two possible outcomes. Either he was ignorant of the rules, or knowingly contravening them. His exit is inevitable. I don't have a clue why Cameron keeps these people around when that becomes apparent.

It's a slippery slope. The rights to the Italian league used to be sold on a club-by-club basis. Many teams were able to show every game live on their own channels. The result? Attendances fell, and it is not hard to see why when you factor in the financials. I'm taking my daughter to Derby on Saturday, and I accept that once everything is tallied up, I'm probably not getting much change out of a ton. A lot of people won't go to the games. Live games have got a lot going for them, but in many ways it's a totally inferior experience to watching it on the telly, especially in the DVR age. Bung in the value proposition, and attendances will drop. I can see why it makes sense for Liverpool. Save price-hikes, they can't really get any more cash out of Anfield, and they've got massive demand for their product. The waiting list for season tickets is over ten years, and they've got legions of foreign fans that'd go pay-per-view on every game. They would make a mint. Most other teams would suffer the "Sky effect" every weekend.

I count matloes among my friends. I've got a great deal of respect for the RN and the people who serve in it. Can any of you RN types give a clear indication to what the RN's mission is? Not trying to be funny, but with the likes of the US, it's obvious. They're using their fleet to project their power around the world - and they're number one in the ol' projection of power chart. What about us, or indeed, the rest of the world? In light of the US having the whole game sewn up, what is the role of a modern fleet that is in more-or-less permanent alliance with the US fleet?

It'll be the second game of the season for me. Never been to Pride Park before, although weirdly enough, worked about half a mile away from it and went past it every day. Train station is pretty handy for it, iirc. Couldn't pick a result. As others have pointed out - not so much wrong with our play - finishing has let us down. That said, I'd like to see an alert team before Derby get a goal.

I second that fair play to Gaz. McPap enterprises is going alright at the moment, but if I did have to go for something else, having someone sneer at your job is not helpful. True story. I kept my bar job that I had at Uni for five years after I'd graduated, even when I was making decent wedge outside. I liked the people I worked with, and more than anything, it was a seriously cheap way to have a good laugh on a Saturday night. I worked at Liverpool Guild of Students, and it always amused me when undergraduates walked through the door and assumed you were thick as pigsh*t because of the job you were doing. That attitude is rife, and needlessly so.

I used to work in Happy Shopper ( previously known as Budgens ) on St. Mary's St during my college years. It was an interesting place to work. The local under 10s used to think it was highly amusing to come in and shout ( "Happy Shopper, Crappy Shopper" ). To be honest, I did too - and got into bother a few times for not keeping a straight face. I also enjoyed people pulling up in knackered old motors at 7:01am to get 8 tins of Special Brew. One time, my supervisor feigned a bit of concern at this shopping pattern :- "I hope you're not going to drink and drive...." "No, I'm going to drive and drink"... Mercifully, I managed to get a job in ASDA in town chopping up meats and cheeses. I worked at TESCO during Uni years too, so either of those places are where I do my main shop.

They have done this sort of thing for years in Liverpool.

I'd actually suggest it is yourself that ****es you off. Everyone reads the same posts, Turkish. Not all of us get so upset, and some of us actually remember what it was like being young, and cut the younger nippers a bit of slack.

I give it a couple of thumbs up, cheers Chris.

Thanks for sharing. That is genuinely brilliant.

Not surprised. The very nature of being liberal involves having to juggle substantially more possibilities than "send them all back" or "re-open the workhouses".

Really? Somehow, I doubt it. We'll probably never know, because, as we've pointed out, we're unlikely to get a referendum on the EU. Anyways, are you saying that something is automatically better because more people choose it?

Decent article on The Register charting his time up until the introduction of the iMac. The life and times of Steven Paul Jobs. It's an interesting read.

Good post. If anything, the AV referendum confirmed my suspicion I might have placed too much faith in the British public's ability to see the merits of an argument. Genuinely gutted about it. It wasn't perfect, but it was a better deal for the people than what we have, and it was scuppered out of pure self-interest. The self-interest I expected, but I was truly surprised to see the British public vote in such numbers for something that wasn't in their best interests.