danny

I dont deny it. But i just think there campaign for independance is comical (yes it is very small and not like the scotish question). I think it would be comical to let them have independance and see how long it lasted. As apart from tourism Cornwall does not have a great deal. My point was for the comedy value. And in reality i could do without good beaches, personally.

Im totally against it. But cornwall can sod off we really dont need them. As for the oil i think most of it is neither scottish or UK oil. Most of it is more than 11 or 12 miles off the coast so its no ones oil. It just comes ashore in scotland.

It was said in jest.

Well i havent smoked mountains of drugs and i have no urge to wear a dress and put my balls in a jar. So out a sample of two people i would say yes the drugs fucked you up!!!!!!

Im talking like a fascist? Because i think THE LAW (and thats what it is) should be enforced more. If there were harsher punishments people would not do it, not to the extent that they do. I suggest if you are going to start banding the F word around you go and inform yourself as to what the hell it means. But it was quoted as being the most over used word in modern times, something you have carried on i think.

My theory isnt that everyone who takes its an idiot. Just stated that there were risks. FFS all i stated was my opinion

There are health risks attached to it mental health issues etc. Smoking anything is not good for anyones health. I know if it was legalised the crime element would be removed but until that ever happens it funds organised crimes. A large amount of weed (although not all) comes from places like afghan and thus funds the killing of british servicemen and women. For this reason i would increase sentances. As rockhead says hes smoked loads of it and hes a well rounded human being :indeed:

Im not blinkered. My eyes are wide open when it comes to this sort of thing thanks.

£3 zavvi awesome film, and billy from eastenders looks just the same as 20 years ago haha £3 each from tesco.

I have a clue and an opinion. Get a grip (and i mean that in everysense)

No and there should be more harsh sentances for users and dealers.

Conscientious objectors still served. They knew they had a duty to serve there country. But they did not want to be involved in killing. They were normally drafted to medical units. People who refuse to go still get drafted just to millitary prison. And trust me after a few days there you would be dieing to be sent to the front line so you could be taken as a POW. The enemy would treat you better.

No i wasnt saying it should be just that it could be. The armys did matter as neither side are likely to use the nukes. If in the 60s the ruskies had corssed over in to western europe. NATO probably would not have hit back with nuclear weapons. As they would not want to be hit back with them. This is why huge, huge numbers of troops from Britain, America, France etc were posted there. Even today the british army still has 20,000 troops posted to Germany. So yes armys do still have a huge part to play.

What is this summer you talk of?

All smack heads this idiot espessialy Only a punch in the face mite not be enough.

Yeah i coudnt beleve it myself. Just had a look it was a nokia N 73

Well if its not true that nuclear weapons are used as a detrerant. Why have we never opted to use them? Say against Argentina. They invaded british soil. It was not clear who wold win a conventional campaign. They did not have nuclear weapons to fire back. So Why didnt we just nuke them. Rather than commit to a massive conventional campaign in which we were far from certain of wining?

Im not forgetting how powerful they are. But the millitary planners (in this country at least) do not plan on using them. there name in this country is not nuclear weapons but a Nuclear deterant. (That isnt just a bit of PR either) They do have a secondry role that they could be used to blow things up. but there primary role is that no one will use nuclear weapons against us. if we ahve nuclear weapons to fire back at them. That is in respect to any hostile nation. Clearly it dosent work against some lunatic or terrarist cell.

Thats debatable. Nuclear weaopons ahve only been used twice in anger. Nuclear weapons played there part in the cold war deffiantly a masssive part. But the armys did just as much. Nuclear weapons are employed by nations not to be used to blow other countrys up. But to stop other countrys using nuclear weapons agaisnt them.

Yes but i would expect in this day and age they would have you do an MOD civilain job for 2 years or something. If you were not fit to fight.

When i was in training, one friday nite we all went out got hammered came back. I get up at about 4 to go to the toilet and find my mates phone glowing in the bottom of it. Find him slumped snoring away in the corridor he takes phone out of toilet and amazingly it still worked perfectly fine lol.

Its not scaremongering. Just a situation that could be enviasged. Ie the cold war. War never happened (hence the cold war). the only reason it did not happen though was both sides USSR in the east and NATO in the west both ammassed huge armys to the point each side was far to scared to go to war. Hence hwo we could end up back in that same situation again.

More flawed than being over run by a foregian agressor? Im guessing not.

Im not talking about conscription ala WW2 im talking about national serivde which ran from the end of the war until 1960. The troops were not always used. But often just held as a standing force etc. If a new cold war does start it may have to happen. As all 3 forces have been reduced to such an extent under mostly labour but also the conservatives before them.

OK so we are involved in two wars (the subject of which does not need to be discussed in this thread) aand Russia seems to be ever intent on bringing back the cold war era. The combination of the two could bring the UK to a situation where we have such a requirment for troops national service needed to be reinstated. For those of you whpo are unaware national service required all men aged 18 to join the forces (normally the army). Although if training at uni to be something such as a dr etc this could be waived until you had finished. Also certain aprentaships were the same. Now the year is 2008 and with equal rights and all i would imagine they would have to call up women as well now. What would your feelings be. And you cant simply say you woudnt go. As you would go one way or the other, millitary law is not a nice thing and shares little with civilian law ie, you are guilty until you prove your self inocent.