If I ever meet NPXMP in person I will politely spit fine wine in his silly face.
Having studiously avoided each other over the past 10 years, I consider any future meeting to be very unlikely.
We are deluded to be seeking to bomb the country while simultaneously trying to get rid of the government - it makes the Iraq intervention that I voted for look well-thought-through by comparison. If the negotiations reach an agreement on a postwar coalition after defeating ISIS, then I'd favour Britain taking part in a joint UN mission to drive ISIS out and end the war.
There's nothing wrong with bombing:as part of an overall strategy - it is important. But if that's the sum total of your strategy it will not work. IS is fighting Assad, so very few (if any) countries are going to gang up on eliminating IS if it means Assad will stay. So you need to get rid of Assad and then tackle IS, or as a questioner asked Obama in his amazingly hostile press conference today - 'why can't we just go and kill the bastards?'.
A more sensible strategy would be to give Assad the Alawite, Shiite part and the FSA the Sunni part
Can you do that using straight lines?
Sykes and Picot did
Which is why I asked, it having been so successful in the past
Stunning really, they were warned, they were told people even pleaded with them not to vote him in. They did. They now have to deal with the consequences of their folly. They have effectively destroyed their own party from within.
Suck it up.
I'm curious as to why those who voted for Corbyn feel let down by him. He's pretty much stayed true to the things he's always believed in.
Quite. The members who did vote for him whatever else did they expect? Everyone else saw it coming a mile off. One of the reasons that if he is removed Labour still can't be trusted to call it right because they may always do it again.
Another is an XMP on here than spins faster in the wind than Burnham which really is saying something.
This seems like a good reason to call Daesh, Daesh.
Well MPs did ask the BBC if they would and lots of foreign media organisations refer to them as that, but they said it was unfair to be seen siding with opponents of ISIS / ISIL / Daesh.
Stunning really, they were warned, they were told people even pleaded with them not to vote him in. They did. They now have to deal with the consequences of their folly. They have effectively destroyed their own party from within.
Suck it up.
DUJCA
Somehow I don't think even that is gonna help this turkey.
I'm not sure people quite get the situation in Syria:
Assad doesn't have the military numbers to control half the country never mind of all of it. Bearing in mind his opponents want his head on a platter, who exactly is going to provide the manpower for him to win anything considerable against anyone? Many of those shipped in to fight for him are not even fully controlled by his military but are Iranian proxies.
Quiz question for PB mob. Who has the largest single military ground force in Syria?
The obvious answer is the Syrian armed forces, but then there's the Iranians and Hezbollah. Or maybe all the combined opposition forces are bigger.
For all I know it could be the combined Celtic and Rangers humanitarian force.
I don't pretend to know.
Please feel free to enlighten me.
Its the Kurdish-led YPG.
The Syrian army as a singular force musters less, there are Syrian militia units but they seem to have strong elements of warlordism going on and have at times clashed with their own security forces, the Shite militias are a patchwork who come under a series of commands but usually Iranian proxies. IS is in the low-mid 10ks in Syria, the FSA again is a patchwork under all kinds of command structures.
No faction has a single unified command structure as large as the YPG.
Who is going to form a coherent government is Belgium is parhaps our most pressing security concern....
It doesn't really matter if none of them apply the measures and resources required.
Now Hollande is on a roll, he should just annex Belgium, gift the Dutch part to the Dutch, and pour in the necessary resources to retake control of the problem areas. Given the utter, shambolic ineptitude of the Belgian government, a healthy chunk of the population would probably be over the moon.
My cousins (by marriage) tried to set up a deal whereby their part of Belgium + Namurs + another bit (I forget which) was to merge with Luxembourg...
Another is an XMP on here than spins faster in the wind than Burnham which really is saying something.
Normally politicians released of their shackles of having to be seen to toe the party line 24/7 become much more interesting free spirits when they lost their seat. Unfortunately, not in this case.
I'm not sure people quite get the situation in Syria:
Assad doesn't have the military numbers to control half the country never mind of all of it. Bearing in mind his opponents want his head on a platter, who exactly is going to provide the manpower for him to win anything considerable against anyone? Many of those shipped in to fight for him are not even fully controlled by his military but are Iranian proxies.
Quiz question for PB mob. Who has the largest single military ground force in Syria?
The obvious answer is the Syrian armed forces, but then there's the Iranians and Hezbollah. Or maybe all the combined opposition forces are bigger.
For all I know it could be the combined Celtic and Rangers humanitarian force.
I don't pretend to know.
Please feel free to enlighten me.
Its the Kurdish-led YPG.
The Syrian army as a singular force musters less, there are Syrian militia units but they seem to have strong elements of warlordism going on and have at times clashed with their own security forces, the Shite militias are a patchwork who come under a series of commands but usually Iranian proxies. IS is in the low-mid 10ks in Syria, the FSA again is a patchwork under all kinds of command structures.
No faction has a single unified command structure as large as the YPG.
Who is going to form a coherent government is Belgium is parhaps our most pressing security concern....
It doesn't really matter if none of them apply the measures and resources required.
Now Hollande is on a roll, he should just annex Belgium, gift the Dutch part to the Dutch, and pour in the necessary resources to retake control of the problem areas. Given the utter, shambolic ineptitude of the Belgian government, a healthy chunk of the population would probably be over the moon.
My cousins (by marriage) tried to set up a deal whereby their part of Belgium + Namurs + another bit (I forget which) was to merge with Luxembourg...
@DPJHodges: At the next election the Conservatives won't have to campaign. They'll just have to send every voter a DVD of tonight's 10 o'clock news.
In my lifetime i never thought to see such an appalling interview. The man is quite simply mad and the Labour Party and supporters are equally to blame for putting him there. This will never be forgotten whatever they do now. Labour are finished.
I'm just totally confused. Can JC really be that stupid? He is able to see the reaction that he gets by voicing his gut views and then goes on to ramp it up by being even more outlandish in terms of (what I believe must be as apparent to him as to me as) the views of Joe Public. I cannot fathom it and what I can't get anywhere near understanding is a bit frightening however comedic it appears to be on the surface. I hope Labour is not finished. There are many fine Labour politicians, though they will be severely diminished if they don't act NOW.
I do have the lingering suspicion that Labour's time may well have been and gone as a serious mainstream political party.
Labour are history. To round off a bad day You now have this , it just gets worse and worse.
Mr Corbyn was branded “a f****** disgrace” by one of his own shadow ministers tonight after a fiery meeting of Labour MPs
It was a different story for Shadow International Development Secretary Diane Abbott, who apparently sat writing Christmas cards during the 70-minute clash. “She wasn’t listening to the questions, just writing a big stack of Christmas cards,” said an insider. “It was deeply disrespectful.”
If I ever meet NPXMP in person I will politely spit fine wine in his silly face.
Having studiously avoided each other over the past 10 years, I consider any future meeting to be very unlikely.
We are deluded to be seeking to bomb the country while simultaneously trying to get rid of the government - it makes the Iraq intervention that I voted for look well-thought-through by comparison. If the negotiations reach an agreement on a postwar coalition after defeating ISIS, then I'd favour Britain taking part in a joint UN mission to drive ISIS out and end the war.
There's nothing wrong with bombing:as part of an overall strategy - it is important. But if that's the sum total of your strategy it will not work. IS is fighting Assad, so very few (if any) countries are going to gang up on eliminating IS if it means Assad will stay. So you need to get rid of Assad and then tackle IS, or as a questioner asked Obama in his amazingly hostile press conference today - 'why can't we just go and kill the bastards?'.
A more sensible strategy would be to give Assad the Alawite, Shiite part and the FSA the Sunni part
Can you do that using straight lines?
Sykes and Picot did
Which is why I asked, it having been so successful in the past
@DPJHodges: At the next election the Conservatives won't have to campaign. They'll just have to send every voter a DVD of tonight's 10 o'clock news.
In my lifetime i never thought to see such an appalling interview. The man is quite simply mad and the Labour Party and supporters are equally to blame for putting him there. This will never be forgotten whatever they do now. Labour are finished.
I'm just totally confused. Can JC really be that stupid? He is able to see the reaction that he gets by voicing his gut views and then goes on to ramp it up by being even more outlandish in terms of (what I believe must be as apparent to him as to me as) the views of Joe Public. I cannot fathom it and what I can't get anywhere near understanding is a bit frightening however comedic it appears to be on the surface. I hope Labour is not finished. There are many fine Labour politicians, though they will be severely diminished if they don't act NOW.
I do have the lingering suspicion that Labour's time may well have been and gone as a serious mainstream political party.
Labour are history. To round off a bad day You now have this , it just gets worse and worse.
Mr Corbyn was branded “a f****** disgrace” by one of his own shadow ministers tonight after a fiery meeting of Labour MPs
It was a different story for Shadow International Development Secretary Diane Abbott, who apparently sat writing Christmas cards during the 70-minute clash. “She wasn’t listening to the questions, just writing a big stack of Christmas cards,” said an insider. “It was deeply disrespectful.”
I have to point out that I didn't have Dianne Abbott in mind when I mentioned the existence of fine Labour politicians.
You know things are really in the shitter when the Daily Mirror is giving a Labour leader both barrels. Seems Labour MPs are not quite as convinced by Hug a Jahadi Jez's round of interviews today as NP exMP.
Bet they are also no longer on Dianne's Crimbo card list now.....
I've never really understood how Belgium exists. I mean, I understand that Catholic Flanders did not want to be incorporated into a Protestant Netherlands but why a chunk of France and a slither of Germany wanted to be part of this new "Belgium" concept doesn't make any sense to me.
This seems like a good reason to call Daesh, Daesh.
Well MPs did ask the BBC if they would and lots of foreign media organisations refer to them as that, but they said it was unfair to be seen siding with opponents of ISIS / ISIL / Daesh.
I've never really understood how Belgium exists. I mean, I understand that Catholic Flanders did not want to be incorporated into a Protestant Netherlands but why a chunk of France and a slither of Germany wanted to be part of this new "Belgium" concept doesn't make any sense to me.
The slither of Germany was transferred to Belgium in 1919 as part of the Versailles settlement. Southern Belgium (Wallonia) was never part of France, except during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic period.
I've never really understood how Belgium exists. I mean, I understand that Catholic Flanders did not want to be incorporated into a Protestant Netherlands but why a chunk of France and a slither of Germany wanted to be part of this new "Belgium" concept doesn't make any sense to me.
French and Germans needed a decent venue for their "regular meetings" so to speak.
This seems like a good reason to call Daesh, Daesh.
Well MPs did ask the BBC if they would and lots of foreign media organisations refer to them as that, but they said it was unfair to be seen siding with opponents of ISIS / ISIL / Daesh.
You're pulling our plonkers!
No it is official policy, along with not calling terrorists, well terrorists. I am not making this s##t up.
According to The Times, the director general has said that the broadcaster will not adopt the name 'Daesh' in place of IS as it was a 'pejorative' label used by enemies of the group, including Assad supporters in Syria.
Use of the name could be interpreted as support for those enemies, thereby damaging the BBC's impartiality, the DG reasoned in his response to an open letter from 120 cross-party MPs.
Stunning really, they were warned, they were told people even pleaded with them not to vote him in. They did. They now have to deal with the consequences of their folly. They have effectively destroyed their own party from within.
Suck it up.
I'm curious as to why those who voted for Corbyn feel let down by him. He's pretty much stayed true to the things he's always believed in.
Quite. The members who did vote for him whatever else did they expect? Everyone else saw it coming a mile off. One of the reasons that if he is removed Labour still can't be trusted to call it right because they may always do it again.
Another is an XMP on here than spins faster in the wind than Burnham which really is saying something.
Would this be the wind resulting from Corbyn being on the shitter and someone giving him both barrels?
Stunning really, they were warned, they were told people even pleaded with them not to vote him in. They did. They now have to deal with the consequences of their folly. They have effectively destroyed their own party from within.
Suck it up.
I'm curious as to why those who voted for Corbyn feel let down by him. He's pretty much stayed true to the things he's always believed in.
Quite. The members who did vote for him whatever else did they expect? Everyone else saw it coming a mile off. One of the reasons that if he is removed Labour still can't be trusted to call it right because they may always do it again.
Another is an XMP on here than spins faster in the wind than Burnham which really is saying something.
Would this be the wind resulting from Corbyn being on the shitter and someone giving him both barrels?
This seems like a good reason to call Daesh, Daesh.
Well MPs did ask the BBC if they would and lots of foreign media organisations refer to them as that, but they said it was unfair to be seen siding with opponents of ISIS / ISIL / Daesh.
You're pulling our plonkers!
Fraid not.....
"The head of the BBC rejected the demands, saying that using Daesh would not preserve the BBC’s impartiality as it risked giving an impression of support for the group’s opponents, the Times reports. He is said to claim that the term is used pejoratively by its enemies."
Stunning really, they were warned, they were told people even pleaded with them not to vote him in. They did. They now have to deal with the consequences of their folly. They have effectively destroyed their own party from within.
Suck it up.
I'm curious as to why those who voted for Corbyn feel let down by him. He's pretty much stayed true to the things he's always believed in.
Quite. The members who did vote for him whatever else did they expect? Everyone else saw it coming a mile off. One of the reasons that if he is removed Labour still can't be trusted to call it right because they may always do it again.
Another is an XMP on here than spins faster in the wind than Burnham which really is saying something.
Would this be the wind resulting from Corbyn being on the shitter and someone giving him both barrels?
LOL
Is that life imitating GOT? But surely Corbyn is no Tywin.
This seems like a good reason to call Daesh, Daesh.
Well MPs did ask the BBC if they would and lots of foreign media organisations refer to them as that, but they said it was unfair to be seen siding with opponents of ISIS / ISIL / Daesh.
You're pulling our plonkers!
Fraid not.....
"The head of the BBC rejected the demands, saying that using Daesh would not preserve the BBC’s impartiality as it risked giving an impression of support for the group’s opponents, the Times reports. He is said to claim that the term is used pejoratively by its enemies."
Stunning really, they were warned, they were told people even pleaded with them not to vote him in. They did. They now have to deal with the consequences of their folly. They have effectively destroyed their own party from within.
Suck it up.
I'm curious as to why those who voted for Corbyn feel let down by him. He's pretty much stayed true to the things he's always believed in.
Quite. The members who did vote for him whatever else did they expect? Everyone else saw it coming a mile off. One of the reasons that if he is removed Labour still can't be trusted to call it right because they may always do it again.
Another is an XMP on here than spins faster in the wind than Burnham which really is saying something.
Would this be the wind resulting from Corbyn being on the shitter and someone giving him both barrels?
Nah.. Corbyns against a "shit to fill " policy don't you know?
Stunning really, they were warned, they were told people even pleaded with them not to vote him in. They did. They now have to deal with the consequences of their folly. They have effectively destroyed their own party from within.
Suck it up.
I'm curious as to why those who voted for Corbyn feel let down by him. He's pretty much stayed true to the things he's always believed in.
Quite. The members who did vote for him whatever else did they expect? Everyone else saw it coming a mile off. One of the reasons that if he is removed Labour still can't be trusted to call it right because they may always do it again.
Another is an XMP on here than spins faster in the wind than Burnham which really is saying something.
Would this be the wind resulting from Corbyn being on the shitter and someone giving him both barrels?
Nah.. Corbyns against a "shit to fill " policy don't you know?
They think there's money in it. 3 words - Jar Jar Binks. Made a fortune.
Hitchcock made 2 versions of both 'The man who knew too much' and 'The thirty nine steps'.
I do not see how there could be money in it.
Much of the beauty of the film rests in the ending, which significant numbers of people will know. Anyone who has already seen the originally is likely to be very unsympathetic to a remake, let alone consider watching it.
It is also not the type of film that even could be a mainstream, big budget film. It is, by its very nature, an arthouse film.
Stunning really, they were warned, they were told people even pleaded with them not to vote him in. They did. They now have to deal with the consequences of their folly. They have effectively destroyed their own party from within.
Suck it up.
I'm curious as to why those who voted for Corbyn feel let down by him. He's pretty much stayed true to the things he's always believed in.
Quite. The members who did vote for him whatever else did they expect? Everyone else saw it coming a mile off. One of the reasons that if he is removed Labour still can't be trusted to call it right because they may always do it again.
Another is an XMP on here than spins faster in the wind than Burnham which really is saying something.
Would this be the wind resulting from Corbyn being on the shitter and someone giving him both barrels?
Nah.. Corbyns against a "shit to fill " policy don't you know?
Would that be the excremental improvement policy?
That's the one ! Only when Corby has this agreed at legal "Pees talks" between the relevant 'members' of course.
This seems like a good reason to call Daesh, Daesh.
Well MPs did ask the BBC if they would and lots of foreign media organisations refer to them as that, but they said it was unfair to be seen siding with opponents of ISIS / ISIL / Daesh.
You're pulling our plonkers!
No it is official policy, along with not calling terrorists, well terrorists. I am not making this s##t up.
According to The Times, the director general has said that the broadcaster will not adopt the name 'Daesh' in place of IS as it was a 'pejorative' label used by enemies of the group, including Assad supporters in Syria.
Use of the name could be interpreted as support for those enemies, thereby damaging the BBC's impartiality, the DG reasoned in his response to an open letter from 120 cross-party MPs.
They think there's money in it. 3 words - Jar Jar Binks. Made a fortune.
Hitchcock made 2 versions of both 'The man who knew too much' and 'The thirty nine steps'.
I do not see how there could be money in it.
Much of the beauty of the film rests in the ending, which significant numbers of people will know. Anyone who has already seen the originally is likely to be very unsympathetic to a remake, let alone consider watching it.
It is also not the type of film that even could be a mainstream, big budget film. It is, by its very nature, an arthouse film.
I can't speak to Memento per se as I have not seen it.
There is only 1 reason to remake a movie - money. If you're not going to make money on it, why would you do it?
Stunning really, they were warned, they were told people even pleaded with them not to vote him in. They did. They now have to deal with the consequences of their folly. They have effectively destroyed their own party from within.
Suck it up.
I'm curious as to why those who voted for Corbyn feel let down by him. He's pretty much stayed true to the things he's always believed in.
Quite. The members who did vote for him whatever else did they expect? Everyone else saw it coming a mile off. One of the reasons that if he is removed Labour still can't be trusted to call it right because they may always do it again.
Another is an XMP on here than spins faster in the wind than Burnham which really is saying something.
Would this be the wind resulting from Corbyn being on the shitter and someone giving him both barrels?
Nah.. Corbyns against a "shit to fill " policy don't you know?
Would that be the excremental improvement policy?
That's the one ! Only when Corby has this agreed at legal "Pees talks" between the relevant 'members' of course.
- and we hope there would be no unauthorized leaks
This seems like a good reason to call Daesh, Daesh.
Well MPs did ask the BBC if they would and lots of foreign media organisations refer to them as that, but they said it was unfair to be seen siding with opponents of ISIS / ISIL / Daesh.
You're pulling our plonkers!
No it is official policy, along with not calling terrorists, well terrorists. I am not making this s##t up.
According to The Times, the director general has said that the broadcaster will not adopt the name 'Daesh' in place of IS as it was a 'pejorative' label used by enemies of the group, including Assad supporters in Syria.
Use of the name could be interpreted as support for those enemies, thereby damaging the BBC's impartiality, the DG reasoned in his response to an open letter from 120 cross-party MPs.
They think there's money in it. 3 words - Jar Jar Binks. Made a fortune.
Hitchcock made 2 versions of both 'The man who knew too much' and 'The thirty nine steps'.
I do not see how there could be money in it.
Much of the beauty of the film rests in the ending, which significant numbers of people will know. Anyone who has already seen the originally is likely to be very unsympathetic to a remake, let alone consider watching it.
It is also not the type of film that even could be a mainstream, big budget film. It is, by its very nature, an arthouse film.
I can't speak to Memento per se as I have not seen it.
There is only 1 reason to remake a movie - money. If you're not going to make money on it, why would you do it?
They think there's money in it. 3 words - Jar Jar Binks. Made a fortune.
Hitchcock made 2 versions of both 'The man who knew too much' and 'The thirty nine steps'.
I do not see how there could be money in it.
Much of the beauty of the film rests in the ending, which significant numbers of people will know. Anyone who has already seen the originally is likely to be very unsympathetic to a remake, let alone consider watching it.
It is also not the type of film that even could be a mainstream, big budget film. It is, by its very nature, an arthouse film.
I can't speak to Memento per se as I have not seen it.
There is only 1 reason to remake a movie - money. If you're not going to make money on it, why would you do it?
If you haven't seen it, you should. It is a truly magnificent movie and quite unique.
Yes money is the only reason to make a movie but in this case, if they think buying up the rights and remaking it will actually make money, I think they are wrong.
The originally actually pulled in $40m in 2000 which is quite phenomenal for an arthouse picture. I just don't see how there would be any potential market for a remake.
They think there's money in it. 3 words - Jar Jar Binks. Made a fortune.
Hitchcock made 2 versions of both 'The man who knew too much' and 'The thirty nine steps'.
I do not see how there could be money in it.
Much of the beauty of the film rests in the ending, which significant numbers of people will know. Anyone who has already seen the originally is likely to be very unsympathetic to a remake, let alone consider watching it.
It is also not the type of film that even could be a mainstream, big budget film. It is, by its very nature, an arthouse film.
I can't speak to Memento per se as I have not seen it.
There is only 1 reason to remake a movie - money. If you're not going to make money on it, why would you do it?
They think there's money in it. 3 words - Jar Jar Binks. Made a fortune.
Hitchcock made 2 versions of both 'The man who knew too much' and 'The thirty nine steps'.
I do not see how there could be money in it.
Much of the beauty of the film rests in the ending, which significant numbers of people will know. Anyone who has already seen the originally is likely to be very unsympathetic to a remake, let alone consider watching it.
It is also not the type of film that even could be a mainstream, big budget film. It is, by its very nature, an arthouse film.
I can't speak to Memento per se as I have not seen it.
There is only 1 reason to remake a movie - money. If you're not going to make money on it, why would you do it?
Heaven's Gate Waterworld
Actually, by the time it was being sold into syndication, Waterworld was profitable.
The best comparison is probably Gus Van Sant's shot for shot remake of Psycho, $60m budget (in 1998) for a $37 box office which would mean it was about $50m loss by the time it finished its cinema run. I doubt it ever turned a profit based on that scale of first run losses.
They think there's money in it. 3 words - Jar Jar Binks. Made a fortune.
Hitchcock made 2 versions of both 'The man who knew too much' and 'The thirty nine steps'.
I do not see how there could be money in it.
Much of the beauty of the film rests in the ending, which significant numbers of people will know. Anyone who has already seen the originally is likely to be very unsympathetic to a remake, let alone consider watching it.
It is also not the type of film that even could be a mainstream, big budget film. It is, by its very nature, an arthouse film.
I can't speak to Memento per se as I have not seen it.
There is only 1 reason to remake a movie - money. If you're not going to make money on it, why would you do it?
If you haven't seen it, you should. It is a truly magnificent movie and quite unique.
Yes money is the only reason to make a movie but in this case, if they think buying up the rights and remaking it will actually make money, I think they are wrong.
The originally actually pulled in $40m in 2000 which is quite phenomenal for an arthouse picture. I just don't see how there would be any potential market for a remake.
The terrorist who arrived on a rubber boat from Syria on Leros on Oct 3rd and blew himself up in Paris 6 weeks later bought tickets for 2 on the ferry to the Greek mainland.
Stunning really, they were warned, they were told people even pleaded with them not to vote him in. They did. They now have to deal with the consequences of their folly. They have effectively destroyed their own party from within.
Suck it up.
I'm curious as to why those who voted for Corbyn feel let down by him. He's pretty much stayed true to the things he's always believed in.
Quite. The members who did vote for him whatever else did they expect? Everyone else saw it coming a mile off. One of the reasons that if he is removed Labour still can't be trusted to call it right because they may always do it again.
Another is an XMP on here than spins faster in the wind than Burnham which really is saying something.
Would this be the wind resulting from Corbyn being on the shitter and someone giving him both barrels?
Nah.. Corbyns against a "shit to fill " policy don't you know?
Would that be the excremental improvement policy?
That's the one ! Only when Corby has this agreed at legal "Pees talks" between the relevant 'members' of course.
- and we hope there would be no unauthorized leaks
If they don't tell us then No harm in flushing out the information.
Stunning really, they were warned, they were told people even pleaded with them not to vote him in. They did. They now have to deal with the consequences of their folly. They have effectively destroyed their own party from within.
Suck it up.
I'm curious as to why those who voted for Corbyn feel let down by him. He's pretty much stayed true to the things he's always believed in.
Quite. The members who did vote for him whatever else did they expect? Everyone else saw it coming a mile off. One of the reasons that if he is removed Labour still can't be trusted to call it right because they may always do it again.
Another is an XMP on here than spins faster in the wind than Burnham which really is saying something.
Would this be the wind resulting from Corbyn being on the shitter and someone giving him both barrels?
Nah.. Corbyns against a "shit to fill " policy don't you know?
Would that be the excremental improvement policy?
That's the one ! Only when Corby has this agreed at legal "Pees talks" between the relevant 'members' of course.
- and we hope there would be no unauthorized leaks
If they don't tell us then No harm in flushing out the information.
The terrorist who arrived on a rubber boat from Syria on Leros on Oct 3rd and blew himself up in Paris 6 weeks later bought tickets for 2 on the ferry to the Greek mainland.
CNN
He was just being a friendly guy. Helping out a fellow brother who needed help with the cost of a ferry ticket...Just like according to one of the terrorists mothers he didn't mean to blow himself up, he just got stressed.
The terrorist who arrived on a rubber boat from Syria on Leros on Oct 3rd and blew himself up in Paris 6 weeks later bought tickets for 2 on the ferry to the Greek mainland.
CNN
He was just being a friendly guy. Helping out a fellow brother who needed help with the cost of a ferry ticket...Just like according to one of the terrorists mothers he didn't mean to blow himself up, he just got stressed.
She's got a point. Shooting people in a concert hall, followed by a SWAT team entering the facility would do that. He took the easy way out.
I've never really understood how Belgium exists. I mean, I understand that Catholic Flanders did not want to be incorporated into a Protestant Netherlands but why a chunk of France and a slither of Germany wanted to be part of this new "Belgium" concept doesn't make any sense to me.
Belgium exists at the whim of @Charles ' cousins apparently
I've never really understood how Belgium exists. I mean, I understand that Catholic Flanders did not want to be incorporated into a Protestant Netherlands but why a chunk of France and a slither of Germany wanted to be part of this new "Belgium" concept doesn't make any sense to me.
Belgium exists at the whim of @Charles ' cousins apparently
Technically it was one of his ancestors whose approval was the critical factor
Discussions this evening on how the French got their target coordinates for the training ground, the command and control center etc. for Saturday's air raid.
From the US.
If these were significant targets, why had they not been destroyed already?
The US apparently launches, on average, 7 sorties a day. On average, 45% of sorties come back without having dropped their bombs, due to rules of engagement limitations.
In Kosovo for example over 1,100 sorties were launched each day,and virtually all returned with empty bomb racks.
You cannot bomb an enemy into submission, but at 7 sorties a day it isn't even going to disturb their lunch.
It was revealed publicly today that IS did not fire any anti-aircraft fire at the French planes, all 10 of them.
I've never really understood how Belgium exists. I mean, I understand that Catholic Flanders did not want to be incorporated into a Protestant Netherlands but why a chunk of France and a slither of Germany wanted to be part of this new "Belgium" concept doesn't make any sense to me.
Belgium exists at the whim of @Charles ' cousins apparently
He got drunk at a dinner party and suggested it as a joke... Picked up a bit of momemtum
They took it seriously enough that they sent the Duke of Brabant to talk him out of it.
I've never really understood how Belgium exists. I mean, I understand that Catholic Flanders did not want to be incorporated into a Protestant Netherlands but why a chunk of France and a slither of Germany wanted to be part of this new "Belgium" concept doesn't make any sense to me.
Belgium exists at the whim of @Charles ' cousins apparently
He got drunk at a dinner party and suggested it as a joke... Picked up a bit of momemtum
They took it seriously enough that they sent the Duke of Brabant to talk him out of it.
I've never really understood how Belgium exists. I mean, I understand that Catholic Flanders did not want to be incorporated into a Protestant Netherlands but why a chunk of France and a slither of Germany wanted to be part of this new "Belgium" concept doesn't make any sense to me.
Belgium exists at the whim of @Charles ' cousins apparently
He got drunk at a dinner party and suggested it as a joke... Picked up a bit of momemtum
They took it seriously enough that they sent the Duke of Brabant to talk him out of it.
Discussions this evening on how the French got their target coordinates for the training ground, the command and control center etc. for Saturday's air raid.
From the US.
If these were significant targets, why had they not been destroyed already?
The US apparently launches, on average, 7 sorties a day. On average, 45% of sorties come back without having dropped their bombs, due to rules of engagement limitations.
In Kosovo for example over 1,100 sorties were launched each day,and virtually all returned with empty bomb racks.
You cannot bomb an enemy into submission, but at 7 sorties a day it isn't even going to disturb their lunch.
It was revealed publicly today that IS did not fire any anti-aircraft fire at the French planes, all 10 of them.
presumably they try avoid civilian casualties, or some other inconvenience.
Suppose if you bomb them harder, the refugee flow will likely increase?
But probably you are right when you hint that there is no political will to actually destroy IS. Seems like they still have power, mobile phone networks and customers for their oil (and presumably contractors who can maintain their refineries?).
If govts wanted it, presumably they could disrupt all of these things?
Discussions this evening on how the French got their target coordinates for the training ground, the command and control center etc. for Saturday's air raid.
From the US.
If these were significant targets, why had they not been destroyed already?
The US apparently launches, on average, 7 sorties a day. On average, 45% of sorties come back without having dropped their bombs, due to rules of engagement limitations.
In Kosovo for example over 1,100 sorties were launched each day,and virtually all returned with empty bomb racks.
You cannot bomb an enemy into submission, but at 7 sorties a day it isn't even going to disturb their lunch.
It was revealed publicly today that IS did not fire any anti-aircraft fire at the French planes, all 10 of them.
presumably they try avoid civilian casualties, or some other inconvenience.
Suppose if you bomb them harder, the refugee flow will likely increase?
But probably you are right when you hint that there is no political will to actually destroy IS. Seems like they still have power, mobile phone networks and customers for their oil (and presumably contractors who can maintain their refineries?).
If govts wanted it, presumably they could disrupt all of these things?
Avoiding civilian casualties is no bad thing - but these rules are paranoid.
Bombing alone is pointless. You can't capture ground, gain cities by bombing. Guys on the ground with guns win wars, not bombing. To Obama, that's not negotiable.
A combination of bombing plus guys on the ground with guns is optimal.
Political will is coalescing around eventually having to put guys on the ground - but Obama will never agree to it.
If I ever meet NPXMP in person I will politely spit fine wine in his silly face.
Having studiously avoided each other over the past 10 years, I consider any future meeting to be very unlikely.
We are deluded to be seeking to bomb the country while simultaneously trying to get rid of the government - it makes the Iraq intervention that I voted for look well-thought-through by comparison. If the negotiations reach an agreement on a postwar coalition after defeating ISIS, then I'd favour Britain taking part in a joint UN mission to drive ISIS out and end the war.
There's nothing wrong with bombing:as part of an overall strategy - it is important. But if that's the sum total of your strategy it will not work. IS is fighting Assad, so very few (if any) countries are going to gang up on eliminating IS if it means Assad will stay. So you need to get rid of Assad and then tackle IS, or as a questioner asked Obama in his amazingly hostile press conference today - 'why can't we just go and kill the bastards?'.
The problem is that there is no overall strategy for Syria.
At its heart, this is probably because the actual solution required is not politically acceptable to the West.
Syria need a similar policy to De-Prussification after WW2. In this example Syria needs wiped from the earth and the population groups ethnically cleansed into coherent individual states.
There is absolutely no chance of the West going with this solution. It makes any military action in Syria utterly futile. It is a perfect example of the Politicians Fallacy.
You'd do well to investigate a little about what Syria was. A total multi-faith melting pot where the President says prayers in Mosques and Churches, where there was a degree of freedom and secularism virtually unknown in the Middle East. Also one of the most patriotic countries in the world, where being Syrian came first to the vast majority. Something that should interest you as a nationalist. Why do you think Assad is still going after 5 years?
A 'grand plan' to divide Syria's people into tribes is an incredibly colonial and patronising suggestion. It also happens to be what Syria's less savoury neighbours want because it will favour the enlargement of their spheres of influence.
Did you ever visit Syria to see that's the case? If not, where's your evidence for this 'multi-faith melting pot' ?
I mean, it was obviously such a cohesive society that civil war would never start there, right?
We are indeed in new territory here to some extent following the FTPA - but I would expect those parties opposing the Queen's Speech to do likewise if a Vote of Confidence was required. In a 650 House of Commons - 262 Lab + 50 SNP + 3 SDLP + 3 Plaid + 1 Green + Lady H gives 320. That should be enough given that LibDems are unlikely to support the Tories
You are forgetting the boundary changes and your numbers are still short and the fact that in no circumstances will the PLP attempt to form a government reliant on the SNP, they loathe them even more than the Tories at the moment
I am not forgetting the boundary changes - it's just far from clear that they will go through. Re- the SNP Labour would certainly not enter a deal with them but dare them to bring down a minority Labour Govt.
Comments
Another is an XMP on here than spins faster in the wind than Burnham which really is saying something.
According to The Times, the director general has said that the broadcaster will not adopt the name 'Daesh' in place of IS as it was a 'pejorative' label used by enemies of the group, including Assad supporters in Syria.
Use of the name could be interpreted as support for those enemies, thereby damaging the BBC's impartiality, the DG reasoned in his response to an open letter from 120 cross-party MPs.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ariel/33362843
Instead the comprise is to call them "so called Islamic State".
https://twitter.com/Zap2it/status/666416755326218241
What the hell. Utterly insanity.
"The head of the BBC rejected the demands, saying that using Daesh would not preserve the BBC’s impartiality as it risked giving an impression of support for the group’s opponents, the Times reports. He is said to claim that the term is used pejoratively by its enemies."
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/02/bbc-rejects-mps-calls-to-refer-to-islamic-state-as-daesh
Hitchcock made 2 versions of both 'The man who knew too much' and 'The thirty nine steps'.
But this... this is just ridiculous. Memento is still probably my number one film of all time and one of the true classics of cinema.
Much of the beauty of the film rests in the ending, which significant numbers of people will know. Anyone who has already seen the originally is likely to be very unsympathetic to a remake, let alone consider watching it.
It is also not the type of film that even could be a mainstream, big budget film. It is, by its very nature, an arthouse film.
Only when Corby has this agreed at legal "Pees talks" between the relevant 'members' of course.
Can you think of a good reason why the BBC should not want to disassociate itself from a bunch of murderous, criminal, sub-human bastards like Daesh?/
What a bunch of arrogant, self righteous, smug gits BBC brass (extraordinarily appropriate) are.
There is only 1 reason to remake a movie - money. If you're not going to make money on it, why would you do it?
Waterworld
Yes money is the only reason to make a movie but in this case, if they think buying up the rights and remaking it will actually make money, I think they are wrong.
The originally actually pulled in $40m in 2000 which is quite phenomenal for an arthouse picture. I just don't see how there would be any potential market for a remake.
The best comparison is probably Gus Van Sant's shot for shot remake of Psycho, $60m budget (in 1998) for a $37 box office which would mean it was about $50m loss by the time it finished its cinema run. I doubt it ever turned a profit based on that scale of first run losses.
CNN
From the US.
If these were significant targets, why had they not been destroyed already?
The US apparently launches, on average, 7 sorties a day. On average, 45% of sorties come back without having dropped their bombs, due to rules of engagement limitations.
In Kosovo for example over 1,100 sorties were launched each day,and virtually all returned with empty bomb racks.
You cannot bomb an enemy into submission, but at 7 sorties a day it isn't even going to disturb their lunch.
It was revealed publicly today that IS did not fire any anti-aircraft fire at the French planes, all 10 of them.
They took it seriously enough that they sent the Duke of Brabant to talk him out of it.
Suppose if you bomb them harder, the refugee flow will likely increase?
But probably you are right when you hint that there is no political will to actually destroy IS. Seems like they still have power, mobile phone networks and customers for their oil (and presumably contractors who can maintain their refineries?).
If govts wanted it, presumably they could disrupt all of these things?
Bombing alone is pointless. You can't capture ground, gain cities by bombing. Guys on the ground with guns win wars, not bombing. To Obama, that's not negotiable.
A combination of bombing plus guys on the ground with guns is optimal.
Political will is coalescing around eventually having to put guys on the ground - but Obama will never agree to it.
The hell he will !!
I mean, it was obviously such a cohesive society that civil war would never start there, right?