egg

Is there any news on McQueen recovery?

Jeez, 60k a week I can believe, but 15m transfer fee doesn't seem likely. That said, we'll have to supplement his wages to move him on. Same will apply to fraser, probably carillon, hoedt and others. I think it unrealistic to expect the club to spend much this summer, we'll be spending a fortune shifting on deadwood. It says it all when selling players costs the club money rather than generates revenue coming in.

Because America is the only country to have used a nuke; because its post ww2 foreign policy has been international dictatorship and domination; because it has lots of form for seeking regime change; because it's now run by a lunatic who has threatened to the World at large that it would destroy in Iran - a tweet by a man in charge with the capacity (mentally I'd guess, and militarily) to act on threat is a bit different to the few words on the side of a bomb; etc. North Korea didn't want a nuclear bomb to destroy anyone. They are being destroyed by sanctions and millions of their people were killed by America in the Korean War. They need a deterrent. Iran see America led/sponsored action all over the Middle East/Afghanistan with regime change / control behind it. They have a deal with the west that as far as we know they comply with but the US unilaterally withdraw from, they then face awful sanctions, christ knows what threats and intimidation behind the scenes etc etc. We are a small country close to the more (historically at least) Russia. The fact that we have nuclear weapons meant that we were never realistically in danger of a Russian nuclear attack. Iran and North Korea want a deterrent for obvious reasons. Your point seems to be that the world is safer with less countries having nuclear weapons. I'm of the view that both sides of a potential war having equality of arms makes a nuclear confrontation less likely. Example, India and Pakistan both having them keeps a lid on their tension. If one of them had it I'd be much more concerned about it being used than I am in the knowledge that India firing would likely lead to Pakistan retaliation, and vice versa. Nobody wants mutual destruction which is evidenced by the last 70 years or so.

I understood. It was a daft analogy. A persecuted and threatened country seeking a deterrent to reduce the prospect of it being attacked (whether by conventional or nuclear warfare) is in no way akin to some kid wanting sh1tloads of ice cream. What kind of attack does the kid need the ice cream to fend off?! Ridiculous.

That's the worst analogy ever. Chocolate ice cream to a kid and nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Jeez.

That's about it! On that note I'm getting back to fathers day sweets and cake.

No wonder - it was lighthouse! Apologies.

I'll take that as you have no credible point to make. If you do, let me know the basis of your fear that a country may attack Israel with a nuclear weapon, and why a nation or its leader would expose its people to the inevitable retaliation.

Its simple enough, or are you acting daft as its obvious that there's no credible reply?

Its still your point that apparently a nation Iran or an unspecified other I think you wrote) may wish to attack Iran with a nuclear weapon which they may or may not have and/or want. I'm asking a) the basis of that fear, and b) why any nation or its leader would do that knowing the inevitable response and the damage to its nation and its people. The correct answer is a) none and b) they wouldn't but I'm intrigued to know your opinion...

You're talking countries using nuclear weapons. Don't change your own subject when asked about it!!

What's the basis of your fear? Does the leader of such a nation hate his people so much that he'd expose them to US (and/or Israeli) nuclear retaliation? Be realistic, no nation has ever done that, and the main nation dictating who can and cannot have nuclear weapons is the one country who has used two, and are controlled by an idiot.

Can you translate? I get the wish to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons so they can be pushed around/attacked without fear of equivalent armed response, but what of you mean?

If that's the case, and as we are told that there's video evidence (Hunt) and Iran are denying any involvement on the world stage, I'm struggling to understand why the video evidence is not being shown. After all they've shown the video of the boat apparently removing a mine. If the Iranian's have done, show the world and show them up.

Do you honestly believe that any country would use a nuclear weapon against a country who has nuclear weapons of its own, or close allies who do? To do so would spell self destruction. Countries only have them as a deterrent, although the most vocal opponent to other countries having nuclear weapons is the most financially and militarily strong nation of course who know a thing or two about using such weapons.

As before, I have no interest in discussing all manner of geo politics. You may nothing better to do on a Sunday, but I do.

There's no analogy to be had between footy and geo politics / justification for military action. Focusing on just this case, there's no evidence we've been told that Iran were behind it. None. On the other hand as Buctootim points out and links to, the account of those on board supports that what we are told is boll0cks. The US has always had an appetite to flex its muscles on the world stage, supply protagonists in a conflict, then support the rebuilding and financing after the destruction.

Like the Iraq wmd evidence you mean? That was spin/lies to justify action. It happens and may be happening here. For me I fail to see why Iran would do this, but can understand that the US would.

Cheers, that's a cracking interview. Old school football management at its best.

"Opinions" Shurlock, opinions are what I said I'm interested in. I've not espressed mine, nor will I, but off you go with your opinion of my opinion. Jesus wept.

Mate, I'm not interested in a pointless debate about recent geo political history. Whilst I'm always interested in opinions on what actually hit the pentagon that day, and how the 3rd tower fell down, but I'm more concerned about what's happening in the Middle East and the all buy inevitable conflict to come. To answer the inevitable next question, no I don't swallow the boll0cks the media feed us without thought or investigation.

This could be the start of a keeper clear out. We have 8 Pro keepers I think which is nuts. Lewis has shown potential but I doubt he's seen as a number 2. Ditto Rose. It may be that we ship loads out, Mccarthy included, and bring in competition / cover for Gunn. Wtf we do with Fraser is another matter.

No idea mate, I rely on facts and evidence before I take a view and I'm unaware of the facts there. She may well be guilty but I have no opinion on it.

Do I have to go go there to understand how to view a map and understand that Iran is on one side of the ship? Jesus. I see that you boldly proclaim that "Iran did it". Please link me to the evidence to that?

Agree with this. The anti Iran rhetoric is being ramped up big time. The damage being on the starboard side is telling - even more so is the evidence of those on board saying what hit the boat. There's no evidence it was lympet mine from Iran or anyone, but evidence it was a fired weapon of some sort that struck from the non Iranian side of the strait. America will either go to war with Iran, or encourage and arm others to do so. All that's needed is an excuse that can be dressed up as justification.