hypochondriac

I just wonder if poch would be a shout for the England job after the Euros.

Assuming McKenna goes to Chelsea and not Brighton, you'd have to think Martin would be high on the list for the Seagulls.

There's some truth to that.

Imagine sacking off Poch and going with Martin. Coocoo bananas. Luckily it's bollocks.

I think the Qaran might have something to say about that. Even in a few generations.

That's one of the points I was making too.

Indeed. He knows exactly what I'm talking about.

I disagree. Asking the Israelis to put themselves at greater risk of a repeat from an attack just isn't going to happen. Personally I would like to see Hamas destroyed for a generationx the hostages returned, the citizens of Gaza going down the route of removing Hamas and renouncing them (no chance of that happening I've seen no evidence that a majority did support them and their actions) and then I'd like to see international pressure from all sides on Israel to come to an arrangement which protects their security but which is humanitarian to the people who live in Gaza. If that's refused or ignored then Israel are clearly culpable and will have no reason not to come to the table so at that point culpability will be obvious. Too much of the current situation is muddied by tragedies and mistakes that happen during every war in history but after the fighting ends, Israel weren't going to soften their stance on allowing a Hamas led Gaza next door to them unless there is a confidence that they have been dealt with to the extent that they don't pose an immediate threat to the lives of their citizens. Personally If an equivalent amount of innocent people had been killed in my country that's what I'd be expecting my government to do to ensure my safety - that's not a comment on Israeli tactics, I'm just saying I can absolutely understand the reasoning behind the end goal they are looking for.

I struggle with you trying to create a false equivalence between the two and failing to understand how illogical it would be to require Israel to entirely change their attitude on Palestine prior to Hamas being removed. Israel will not budge on allowing an entirely hostile regime who are a proxy for Iran directly next door to them and in my opinion any country in that situation woiuld do the same.

I don't see why Israel would even think about allowing a state run by Hamas on their doorstep. They've already got iran to deal with and at the moment they would just be an Iranian proxy and a direct threat to their existence right next door. If there is ever to be any sort of resolution there would need to be the end of Hamas as a force in Palestine and a willingness from the the public to embrace a more moderate regime. Hopefully this would then lead to a deescalation and a more moderate leader in Israel.

Secured my three. Took a while but easy once through.

I'm genuinely not sure why. He's flavour of the month and may be amazing but it's undeniably a risk seeing as he has no track record of performance at that level. They'd no doubt have to pay hefty compensation as well and it could all go tits up. If he got Ipswich clear of relegation this season then you can see the appeal.

In a bloody hour long queue now. Pretty stressful...

Well I'll certainly be happy if he is dead because one less horrible extremist who subjugates others isn't a bad thing. You'll probably end up with someone worse though knowing how these things go.

He's not wrong.

I'm in the same position mate. I can book tomorrow morning but two mates can't get anything till 11. I'm weighing up what to do!

Good post. I wish people would take the correct lessons from Trump getting elected. If the Democrats did that they'd absolutely walk the next election but they don't due to a combination of ideology and a general dislike of the sort of voters that they need to ensure a decisive win.

That's very true I agree. There was a time though where there was more cooperation between Democrats and republicans about bipartisan issues. Now you have both sides voting down things for no other reason than it's the other side proposing it. It's a crap way to run a country.

What a nice bloke.

Chavs and low IQ. So probably most people on here.

Bunch of wankers on the pitch when we haven't won anything.

Good for him. If it makes him happy to get laughed at and mocked on here then he must feel happy most of the time.

"I would like three Kingfisher lagers please. I won't pay a penny less than £6 per pint and they best come from dirty pipes and be room temperature." Sounds perfect.

To be fair I don't think the likes of Hilary Clinton ever made any attempt to unite anyone when she was running. The problem is two increasingly polarised sides who disagree with each other often just because they are the other side.