Walsingham

I've always wanted to see India before I die, so... *pshoom*

I've had more than a handful of friends and colleagues with similar problems. They also (rather predictably) didn't liike taking anything, even aspirin. But the fact is that a strained mind is not a headcold. It's like having a broken leg. You need a cast if it's oing to heal. You can't just grit your teeth and hope for the best!

No primary studies read Drug treatment effective in socialising individuals without addressing underlying malady Cognitive behavioural treatment more effective at addressing underlying malady Not clear whether rise in diagnoses is misdiagnosis; it being easier to tell parents their son has ADHD than tell them their son is a selfish moron.

I'm no expert, but I DO read clasical history now and then. I've \lso read Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Strikes me that the melting pot period was the one when the Empire was strongest. It fell apart when the nobles stopped paying taxes and sending sons to the military. In fact in the earliest most vigorous part of the Empire going into the Army was a privilege mainly for the wealthy!

Why shouldn't US citizens, who've lived and enjoyed the country put forward their time? I think all i'm saying is that volunteering for the Forces should aid citizenship, alongside other key areas of need. but making obligatory sounds like a damned silly idea. Quite apart forom the complex philosophical questions arising, what on Earth makes you guys think the army wants thousands of unenthusiastic non-English speaking 'draftees' when it is trying to fight a smart counter-insurgency campaign?

I agree, with reference to your last point. I agree. But that's not really ever going to change. Firstly the rich and successful are already employed (with the exception of our old officer class), and secondly the poor are simply better soldiers. They are tougher, more resourceful, and more used to people being mean to them. Combat useful skills. I agree up to a point. but soldiering cannot be a matter of personal whim on the day. Nonetheless your basic point is merely echoing Gen. Mike Jackson. he argued society was ignoring its obligations to its defenders viz housing, healthcare, and recognition. As I said in point one, society has a great many needs unrelated to warfare. Moreover, not every immgrant would make a good soldier.

We already do it in the UK. the last man to win a Victoria Cross, pte Johnson Beharry, was originally from Grenada. The real problem/danger is that we ignore the fact that people within the country don't consider military service worthwhile. Where the social contract is so degraded then all walks of public life suffer, not just the Army. Poor enlistment is just a symptom.

I ain't saying nuttin'.

I am what I eat. So just to clarify, you're saying your a fat nutter? I have to say it?

Thanks for explaining, Brdavs. Your position makes more sense to me now. I guess all I'd come back with is: 1) There had been discussions between Mush and Bhutto. Yes they were instigated by the US, but the gen I had was that Mush genuinely felt the two could work together. 2) Your angle on how Mush gains makes sense, but is only superior to a Bhutto alliance if US backing alone could hold his position. This is almost certainly not the case, and I think Mush knows that. An alliance with Bhutto could be expected to work because she needed him as an ally within/against the Army. 3) I think it's a mistake to view Mush as a US puppet in the old Cold War sense. It obfuscates some of the subtleties in his power base and objectives.

I managed one of those half angel thingies with these unearthly pale violet eyes. The cold mad eyes of a remorseless killer. gave me the creeps.

Aren't they related?

I'd forgotten how much I like succubi.

Brdavs, help me out a little here. you're saying Mush is crying crocodile tears, but he's royally screwed now. He had been making progress with Bhutto at a personal level for months; hence her return. He desperately needed to forge a workable alliance with progressive pro-democracy elements in the country against the Islamists. A fact commented on for at least the last three years since TIME did their feature on him. How does her dying help him out?

I'm windproofing the folk's home.

I only regard foreign wars as a bad idea when we start them. Afghanistan government, and their proxy Al Qaeda, attacked us therefore we had the right to annihilate them. We should have brought our full military power against the Taliban and Al Qaeda and focused on them till everyone in those organizations was nothing but a smoldering corpse. Iraq was no threat to the US therfore any military action against them was unjustified. You stole my biscuits! I annihilate you! *chases offender around with nuke on a stick*

Sorry. My sloppy language. I meant the their privacy policy. In short you hand Facebook complete license to: 1) Gather as much information on you as they deem fit 2) Gather information on you by any means they see fit (even outside facebook) 3) Sell said information to any third party they see fit I don't consider this approach to be justifiable by any wholesome business model. Nor does it fit within Parliament's guidelines of what constitutes legal behaviour in the UK*. It's insanely intrusive, and why I will NEVER open a facebook account. *Facebook isn't UK based, but the guidelines are intended to reflect best practice also. Data gathered by any organisation should be specified, and limited to pre-defined and reasonable areas of interest. Your doctor can note how many hours of exercise you do, but not jot down what brands you're wearing so they can sell on the information.

I thought you regarded all foreign wars as evil, including Afghanistan? Anyway, Jags, you're ignoring my central point, either because I haven't explained it properly, or deliberately. None of those methods you mention would seriously hamper an assassination attempt. Re-read my post: "Jags, the jammers are for IEDs not suicide bombers. And even then they don't work against command wires (obviously). I don't think he was remiss to not provide them. I mean it's the kind of trash you could foist on a corporate client as a sort of comp on insurance, but it's just fluff. as for bomb detection equipment, anyone who tells you they have some is selling lead to gold. "But for the denial of the detonation jammers and bomb detection equipment requested, her death would not have occurred." Is completely false." the point is that bomb jammers don't jam, and bomb detectors usually fail to detect. The simple fact of the matter is that just about anyone can be killed if they don't practice a variety of security precautions too long to list in entirety, but very few of which seem to have been actioned. She chose to maximise political effect while running a risk. If it had paid off I've no doubt it would have paid handsomely. However, I believe the odds were extremely poor, and she made a bad choice. If she was indeed shot by a sniper then this opens the floor slightly to other candidates. It could have been govt with an insurance explosion. However, it doesn't change the fact that she was deliberately exposing herself to harm in a predictable slow-moving mass rally. At the very least she was inviting the slaughter of her own supporters!

Jags, the jammers are for IEDs not suicide bombers. And even then they don't work against command wires (obviously). I don't think he was remiss to not provide them. I mean it's the kind of trash you could foist on a corporate client as a sort of comp on insurance, but it's just fluff. as for bomb detection equipment, anyone who tells you they have some is selling lead to gold. "But for the denial of the detonation jammers and bomb detection equipment requested, her death would not have occurred." Is completely false. You correctly say that Musharraf would have to be an idiot to not do all he could to protect her, since it was in his interests. But you conclude this makes him an idiot. I suggest that his continued survival in the toughest political position in the world indicates he is not an idiot. I conclude that in fact he did everything he could, bearing in mind he can't trust his own security intelligence service.

I agree. I get no sense of adventure in most recent games. You may as well be playing whackamole in Jersey.

When young, roast em. When old, stew em.

Following this with interest. I'm sure I speak for all of us in a hearty welcome to the Chinese language fans, and fully support getting this fixed.

As long as you voted you can sleep at night. I only get really annoyed at people who think not voting is a protest. It's not an economic boycott, you dimlows!

Jags, this article argues two points that she was surrounded by her own supporters. The only way she could have avoided suicide bombing is the same one everyone has to use, varying her routes, and applying total secrecy. But she was clearly ignoring the risks in order to raise her profile. Stratfor.com: "Musharraf on his own is unable to deal with a growing crisis of governance in the country, much less with Islamist militancy. The solution was to bring Bhutto