Russian-Belarussian Wargames - "West 2009"

[Ed Anger]

As for the gender makeup, if one of the Ms hadn't foolishly pissed his girlfriend off, we'd have had more balance and, indeed, I think things would have run more smoothly.

getting Korea's unattached friends would be easier. Just sayin'.

[Neil]

As for the gender makeup, if one of the Ms hadn't foolishly pissed his girlfriend off, we'd have had more balance and, indeed, I think things would have run more smoothly.

getting Korea's unattached friends would be easier. Just sayin'.

With kids these days, it's all easy.

[jimmy olsen]

So, was this going to be a MFF one (cool) or an MMF one (EWW!)?

MMMMFF

WTF? I hope there is at least one extra M in there.

You were hoping for a MMMMMFF?

I meant I hope she hit M at least one more time than she meant to, so MMMFF or MMFF.

[Ed Anger]

As for the gender makeup, if one of the Ms hadn't foolishly pissed his girlfriend off, we'd have had more balance and, indeed, I think things would have run more smoothly.

getting Korea's unattached friends would be easier. Just sayin'.

With kids these days, it's all easy.

All I had to do was treat my wife's (then gf) friend decently and wham bam, thank you ma'am.

God, easy 23 year old pussy. Those were the days.

[garbon]

Glad to see some members are making it a point to bring that hint of trash to the forum.

[Neil]

Glad to see some members are making it a point to bring that hint of trash to the forum.

And yet it's less irritating than any mention whatsoever of homosexuality.

[garbon]

And yet it's less irritating than any mention whatsoever of homosexuality.

Who said anything about being irritated?

[Neil]

And yet it's less irritating than any mention whatsoever of homosexuality.

Who said anything about being irritated?

I did.  Can't you read?  Are you retarded?

[garbon]

I did.  Can't you read?  Are you retarded?

Your comment was rather apropos of nothing.

[Josquius]

I think you are agreeing with me that the increase in security that was used to justify the "peace dividend" at the end of the Cold War was purely an illusion born out of an overly simplistic world view, and that we are paying now for the misplaced ideals of the politicians of 20 years ago.

Nope, the total opposite.
In internet pissing contests you do of course want your country to have wasted billions on all sorts of flashy military equipment its never going to use.
Internet pissing contests are not a valid argument for government spending however.

Unfortunately, most countries aren't as secure as Ireland is due to accidents of history and geography.

Very iffy.
Countrys just generally don't attack each other these days, Russia is one of the few exceptions of a country which could possibly do that.
And with the way the world works who cares if your neighbour invades and overruns you- the UN will bitch about it and the US will come swooping in to throw out your attacker.
I could well imagine some western European countries doing away with all but a token military quite easily (again ignoring economic effects and all that)

But anyway. My point there was 'if you can get away with it'. i.e. the less you can actually have in practical real world terms the better.

[Agelastus]

Nope, the total opposite.
In internet pissing contests you do of course want your country to have wasted billions on all sorts of flashy military equipment its never going to use.
Internet pissing contests are not a valid argument for government spending however.

I believe you could quite legitimately argue that your comment is invalid for the UK, given the history of the last two decades. Nor does it invalidate the fact that the world was not made significantly safer by the end of the Cold War, despite the rush for savings carried out by all western Democracies. What should have happened was a redirection of resources (less MBTs, more transport capacity etc.) not a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Very iffy.
Countrys just generally don't attack each other these days, Russia is one of the few exceptions of a country which could possibly do that.
And with the way the world works who cares if your neighbour invades and overruns you- the UN will bitch about it and the US will come swooping in to throw out your attacker.
I could well imagine some western European countries doing away with all but a token military quite easily (again ignoring economic effects and all that)

But anyway. My point there was 'if you can get away with it'. i.e. the less you can actually have in practical real world terms the better.

And when the "real world" comes a calling, who do you complain to?

You strike me as a hopeless optimist - yes, near neighbours in Europe are less likely to attack each other than ever before. This does not mean that only one or two nations in the world are likely to wage war - I can think of a dozen candidates off the top of my head.

And as for relying on the Americans, as an example they don't seem to be very interested in sub-Saharan Africa, where several invasions have happened in the last few years. The Western Powers don't even really notice them.

Incidentally, since viable defence industries really need a decent home market to develop in, I have to say that the Armed Forces have been fairly economically beneficial to the UK over the years, so I can't really agree with the "less you have the better" argument.

[Neil]

I did.  Can't you read?  Are you retarded?

Your comment was rather apropos of nothing.

Nevertheless, it was mine, and thus excellent.

[Alcibiades]

Swingers.   

[Barrister]

Swingers.   

Word.

[Ideologue]

Swingers.   

I thought it was a pretty good movie.