egg

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.

Can you translate this into an understandable point please. I'm really not sure whether or not you're trying to say that buying players represents an investment to the owner if it's the owners cash being ponied up. If that is your point, if it were Gao money that paid for Hoedt and Carillo please explain the investment part. To me it looks as though the money was spunked away.

There's no comparison between Vokins and Shaw whatsoever. Physically there's almost half a foot between them, and Shaw is as strong as an ox. Defensively Shaw is more solid. He also has more pace and better delivery. Apart from that they're just the same.

This. As an owner of our club he has done nothing wrong whatsoever. As you say he's binned off Les and Hockey Ralph ; binned Hughes decisively ; hired Ralph ; spent a load of cash last summer ; started spending this summer already. Judge the man based on his actions as our owner, not perceptions and amateur detective work.

So now your flapping cos based on your Web research, he's not as wealthy as the Bournemouth and some other owners, and that we're in a mess if we get relegated? Your fear of the latter seems to be based on the fact that we won't spend as much as you would like, ie we're back to the expectation that the owner plows cash into the club without any prospect of a return. Business doesn't operate in that way. You ask what has been sustained if we get relegated. If my house was or car was in danger of being repossessed I would fight to preserve my asset and avoid financial loss. Do you seriously think that Gao wouldn't do the same to preserve his? Of course he would - he won't sit back and watch us regress and see his investment diminish in value. You mention my optimism. That's based on a) the fact that I can't do feck all about our club and its ownership so I don't waste my energy flapping about stuff I can't contol, and b) there is no evidence whatsoever that Gao has done anything that could jeopardise our future. This thread began, and my initial position was and remains, that Gao's desire for us to be a self sustainable club is a reasonable desire. Its seems that you and many others think a) that's unreasonable (the verruca salt "daddy I want another pony" syndrome - just remember where we were a few years back - assuming you were dragging yourself to midweek winter games in the league 1 days) and/or b) unrealistic cos of your perception of Gao and his financial position, or whatever. I'll leave it here cos this has been done to death. If you want to have the last word, fill your boots but I'll relax and look forward to the season ahead.