sadoldgit

You don't know unless you try.

He did. It doesn't mean that he would have rather have war than peace does it? Flailing?

I don't think that he felt the need to go to war. Wasn't it Chamberlain who gave Hitler the ultimatum? And I expect it was something that Parliament felt was unavoidable rather than one man deciding lets do it. No one in their right mind wants war. The First World War was ended by negotiations and there were negotiations at the end of the second war world. At some point people have to talk is my point. You say that they never will. I don't know how you can be so sure.

I don't advocate waiting around and I don't advocate doing nothing. I simply said that all we are doing at the moment is perpetuating the problem. Muslims are still being radicalised in this country and front pages like that of The Sun yesterday do nothing to help. All this talk of "crushing" is all very well but The West has to take some responsibility for what is happening. This is not just about us being the "Infidel." There are a body of people who clearly see The West as a threat and are taking steps to combat that threat. I hate what is happening just as much as the next person - the beheadings, the suicide bombs, the destroying of ancient monuments. But they didn't just wake up one day and say lets kill all the Infidels. The West has played into the hands of the religious fanatics and does so every time it launches missiles into populated areas. Collateral damage it is called when total innocents are blown apart. Doesn't that make us just as bad as them in terms of the moral high ground?

Churchill is famously quoted as saying "Jaw jaw, not war war."

You have totally missed my point.

It takes a lot more than one or two people to start and wage war. They need support. Those underlings you talk about were no less culpable or dangerous than Hitler, Goebells and Mussolini.

And what if, as quickly as we take out the main players, others take their place? Much of the organisation is an underground movement. How do you crush that? It sounds good in principle but I really cant see it working as long as you have the underground movement. You can crush people, cruising an idea is more difficult. Especially if part of the problem is a West that is just as entrenched in its own dogma and has sold its soul to oil.

There have been many regimes through history that have been strict in their dogma only to soften their stance in time. I am not saying it will happen, but I am saying that nothing is impossible.

Well, I guess we will see.

Quite right too. Although they seem to have forgiven Mel Gibson for the liberties he took with the William Wallace story in Braveheart!

An ex barmaid from my local has just started as trainee cabin crew for BA. She posted on FB this morning that yesterday they were trained on what to do if a fire broke out on board a 777 at Vegas. Spooky huh?

Play it down if you like sure, but this thread is about being bigger than that and saying well done for setting a new record. Hopefully he will do something about his record in Finals next year. At some point someone will set a new record, and people will be typing away on their keyboards slagging him off too (unless he plays for Southampton of course )

Yes I did. I used to work in London in the 70s when the bombings were going on. It wasn't very nice. I wouldn't advocate ignoring ISIS and clearly they arent going to go away, but at some point both sides are going to have to realise that constant strikes and counter strikes are not the answer. You are right, something will happen as a result of the recent drone strike, and that is my point. It doesn't actually solve anything. More beheadings and more drone strikes. When does it stop?

I know that they are not the IRA. I was just trying to explain that people, no matter how entrenched, can get to the point where they are prepared to give a little to get something other than death. I don't think for one minute that they would just stop - I am sure they are as suspicious of us as we are of them. But they are not going to win and nor are we (IMHO) so what is the alternative? We go on killing each other? Maybe we do?

So you are proposing a land war? Ok but how do you deal with the cells of terrorists scattered all over the place? I don't live in fear of an invasion by ISIS but I do live in fear of being blown up by a suicide bomber.

I don't disagree for one minute, but he has scored 50 goals for his country and none of them have, and that is what this is all about.

There are plenty of top people from the IRA who are now talking to us as politicians rather than terrorists.

I don't think that there is anything wrong in moral high ground. We can spend all day grubbing around in the low ground but with what end result? At some point someone has to be big enough to say that we can either go on killing each other or we can try and find a peaceful resolution. Can you really say that we in the West are squeaky clean? Do you really think that Desert Storm was all about the Moral High Ground, or was it about oil? I don't disagree that hands are going to be dirtied. goodness knows there has been plenty of killing on both sides so far with more to come no doubt. But it isn't going to end it one way or the other. You simply cant beat terrorists, this is nothing like fighting an army in the field. They will go on with their terrorist attacks and we will go on with our drone strikes until someone says this is enough, we need to find another way to deal with each other.

This helps.

If you say so.

Most people? I think that all of the other media outlets dealt with the news in a way that "most people" found respectful and acceptable. I think a lot of people would have found The Sun's front page crass but if you like it, fair dos. By the way, we used to hang women and put homosexuals in prison in this country not so long ago.

All of them? Really? What about the members of the IRA who now have tea with the Queen? Didn't they kill her husband's uncle? Well, good luck with killing everyone in ISIS. Lets see how that works out.

We still dealt with people that were are part of the aggression (or were they "only following orders") but we are going round in circles so I think it best that we agree to disagree.

You can only play what is in front of you. Hasn't he scored against Brazil and Argentina too? Would Eastleigh beat them? A record is a record. The history books wont bother about who Charlton, Rooney or Lineker scored their goals against. I prefer Charlton and Lineker but Rooney holds the record, so fair play.