The Real PapaBear
-
Posts
2,366 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by The Real PapaBear
-
and where was the problem with medieval islam before 1989, say? If you want to suggest that Islam is the problem (rather than the occupation of Islamic countries) why did we have no problem with Islam before the fall of the Soviets? I would not rather say that NATO got involved in any war - and I'm at a loss as to why you would say that or how you can reach that conclusion. As to the drugs issue, it's interesting that you ignore the facts of Western involvement resulting in more drug production, but rather that prefer to harp on about how drug money funds the Taliban. Initially you claimed that drugs money funded "much" of Taliban weaponry. Now, you've moved on to saying that they don' "solely" rely on drugs money. Face facts. 'Eure', nicht 'deine' - a reference to American style adverts. Quite.
-
The forum? I think the only thing the forum can agree on is a love of Rangers and what day of the week it is; Everything else is up for debate.
-
TOM ENGLISH - Brian Stockbridge improves home security
The Real PapaBear replied to ian1964's topic in Rangers Chat
King represents the opportunity of a generation for Rangers. Tom disnae like that. Tom disnae like that at all. Tom will be doing what he has been bidden to do by his employer or his bank account. Stir up as much shite as he can, no matter how contrived or invented. -
To the extent that you're inventing things and putting statements into his mouth.
-
TOM ENGLISH - Brian Stockbridge improves home security
The Real PapaBear replied to ian1964's topic in Rangers Chat
Mr English has not come out of this well. His recent attack on Walter Smith was just the arrival point in a journey he's been on for some time. Since then, he's made little or no attempt at objectivity. -
True dat. Our armed forces are quite simply an economic tool and you might as well have a parade of Keynsian economists marching up and down the Ibrox pitch.
-
Sorry BH, but that is an utterly bizarre thing to say. Look. Here's the thing about Western Democracy. Nobody is forced to do anything at the point of a gun. We *all* have personal responsibility for our actions - and that includes people who decide to join the army and invade other people's countries. So let's not get fooled by the flag waving hysteria that demands we 'support' our troops come what may - particularly when this 'support' disappears like snow off a dyke when these soldiers leave the forces and are unable to receive the treatment or support they need to cope with the stress and trauma they suffered whilst service. A wee google on ex-military homelessness, mental illness and alcoholism might be eye opening for many. Have a read about that, then get back to me about 'supporting' the troops.
-
And why is that? Don't get me wrong. I detest the medieval barbarism of the Taliban - but there is a reason that Afghan men are drawn to them. Interesting that you should mention drugs. In July 2000 the Taliban enforced a ban on poppy farming. The result was a 99% reduction in the area of opium poppy farming in Taliban-controlled areas In December 2001, a UN meeting Bonn, decided to reestablish the State of Afghanistan. The UK was designated the lead country in addressing counter-narcotics issues in Afghanistan. In 2004, Hamid Karzai became president of Afghanistan. Two of the following three growing seasons saw record levels of opium poppy cultivation. Under the Western occupation, drug production has soared. If the West is ensuring that drugs are being produced, then drugs are being sold. Who do you think is making the money from the sales of these drugs? Clue; it isn't some guy wearing sandals and a rag on his head, who lives in a house made of mud. Another Incovenient Truth, brought to you tonight by your sponsors NATO. "NATO....hey!, what's in a name?" OK, you've said *what* they do there, but *why* are they there? (Clue: See above.) What Timothy thinks or doesn't think about the armed forces, or indeed any subject under the sun, is of supreme indifference to me.
-
yeah, no worries mate. People usually bail out when they have to explain why we're in Afghanistan; You're not alone.
-
Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on the value of the armed forces compared to the NHS or to the Police and Fire services. And even if one were to accept your argument that the AF deserve special recognition, then that is something for wider society to do, not a football club. Football is a tribal, divisive hobby and seeking to align ourselves so closely with something that belongs equally to every citizen of this country is as inappropriate as it is undignified. If, as I suggested, we were to have a Public Service Day or as barca72 suggested a series of days throughout the season recognising the contributions of the public services, I'm fine with that. That would be a legitimate thing for a club to do. But trying to wrap the military in the Rangers flag? No thanks. As for fighting the Taliban, I'm not at all sure what we're even doing in Afghanistan - are you? is anyone!? - but it sure as hell isn't defending our freedom.
-
tell you what mate; you do me the common courtesyy of formatting your post properly and I'll respond to it.
-
His shot stopping was the equal of Schmeichel, for sure but he didn't command the box nearly as well and his positioning was sometimes open to question. For me, Schmeichel is about the best I've ever seen and a level above Goram
-
There is a world of difference between respecting what these guys do and believing that they are somehow more deserving than many other professions and that we should hold military parades at Ibrox.
-
You are confused between making a point in a reasoned argument, all of which I address, and making statement a priori, based on no more than your personal prejudice and unfounded opinion. I'm certainly not going to address each of those. In what way is that statement denigrating the armed services? The work of a cancer nurse, something that the vast majority of us will have some experience of unfortunately, is far, far more valuable to society than that of a squaddie. Not all jobs are of equal value - which is presumably why you chose the ludicrous example of "secretaries day". You clearly can't see how your beatification of the military is disturbing to others. And what was the celebration I proposed, exactly? And so we come full circle and you've had your fingers in your ears all the way round. I have told you that imho there are other professions far more worthy of celebrating than soldiers, professions which are of greater value and contribute far more to society. You, otoh, have not made any case as to why the armed forces are deserving of their own day other than to claim that somehow they allow all the other professions to go about their business. Yet, when pressed for any evidence of this, you could give none. The only reason, as far as i can see, that we celebrate our own special little AFD is to wind up Timothy. And that really is denigrating and demeaning to the armed forces.
-
really? In what way?
-
That kinda depends on how you define 'supporting' your country. Some people think that spending billions of pounds we don't have in order to fight a pointless war we don't understand and which we can't win whilst wasting thousands of lives doing so is actually damaging to our country. I'd also be keen to know who it is that's denying you your right to an opinion. Let me know and i'll have a word with them.
-
If we think of World Class as being Zidane, Messi, Maradona, Henry, Cruyff etc, then really the only players who were world class and could have played in a team with the aforementioned when they were at Ibrox were Baxter, Numan and Gough in the early 90s. Gazza and Goram could have been world class with more professionalism, Laudrup was a very good player and maybe European class, but no more. His brother was the real world class player. Cooper in a different team at a different time would/could/should have been an all time great.
-
apropos mock offended
-
Ref your post 26, shortly after you had begun the exchange by asking if I was "for real". I happened upon this article on another site this morning and I thought I would post it for the edification of yourself and the rest of the hoi polloi. By the way, it's "hoi polloi" not "the hoi polloi" since hoi is already a definite article. Now, what were you saying about condescension? As to the post above, you've really just made a series of statements, many if not most of them erroneous, without anything to back them up and which, in themselves, don't support or advance an argument. The central point however is that your initial posts were full of assertions as to how our armed forces guarantee our freedoms and yet, when questioned, you admit you are unable to back this up in any way. The remainder of your post about 9/11 and invading countries to prevent terrorism is (and I'm mindful of my resolution to try to be as respectful as I can at all times, here) at the very least the product of an unenquiring mind.
-
Soldiers can, if they wish, refuse to take part in illegal wars. They can, if they wish, refuse to follow illegal orders. You may be happy to applaud and cheer people who are "just following orders" and are willing to invade countries that pose no threat to us. Me? I'd host a parade for somebody like Flight Lieutenant Malcolm Kendall-Smith. Google him. Actually, strike that. I'd put him in charge of the MoD.
-
That's kinda what i was alluding to - we badly need people of that calibre now; ideally bluenoses, but if not, so be it - as long as they are men, or women, or integrity and ability.
-
Because there is no point. You have no concept of what bravery is and a football discussion forum is not where you'll learn.
-
I should have known better. OK, let's leave it there.
-
I heard that he was actually a Morton supporter
-
Indeed they don't and that's kinda why there shouldn't be soldiers marching up and down the pitch at Ibrox.