wulfen Forum Posts (810)

RE: Single personality

Isn't part of having a good relationship having common interests? I'm not saying a couple should enjoy doing ALL of each other's hobbies, but some common ground is indeed necessary.

RE: ENGLAND V SLOVENIA ???????????

Hehe, couldn't resist the pun at you anyways

As for the rugby vs football argument, I think the following quote sums it up perfectly:

Football, a game for gentlemen played by thugs;
Rugby, a game for thugs played by gentlemen.

RE: ENGLAND V SLOVENIA ???????????

Considering the Maltese league is a semi-professional one, and with a national population of 400,000, qualifying for the World Cup is an almost impossible shot for us

Even so, we do crop up the odd good player. Michael Mifsud was the last player to score 2 goals vs. Manchester United at Old Trafford a couple of years ago, when Coventry beat them in a League Cup tie

RE: Which football league is the best in the world?

Currently, they'd be in the following order:

English Premier
Serie A
Liga
Bundesliga
Ligue 1


The EPL has more money, so it's going to attract the best footballers. Managers wise, over the past few years we've seen the influx of more foreign coaches, and it's showing off on the playing style of the English sides lately. Quality wise it has improved dramatically since the early 90's, but at the cost of losing some of the English flavour to the game.

Serie A used to be top dog but with the financial crisis to their clubs & the Calciopoli scandal, they've yielded top spot. Italian teams are still a menace, tactically I'd say the Italians are still superior to anyone else but they don't have the top foreign players in their league anymore.

Liga is too much Real Madrid vs Barcelona which gets boring after a while. Personally I see the Liga as a way more glamorous version of the Scottish Premier league with the Celtic/Rangers battle. Playing style wise, it's a mix of English and Italian styles and Spanish sides are always a threat to face in Europe.

Bundesliga is rapidly gaining ground quality wise. It still is a few steps behind the top 3, but catching up, FAST.

Ligue 1 is the poor relation to the other leagues. At best, it's a good place for scouts to search for upcoming talent, as most African footballers start the European football careers here, and they can then be bought by the top clubs 'cheaply' once they start making a name for themselves.

RE: ENGLAND V SLOVENIA ???????????

That's the advantage of being a neutral spectator at the World Cup, I can have a dig at anyone

RE: BAN THOSE VUVUZELAS !!

Totally agree with you here mate. I really felt sorry for the South African players who were left to struggle on without any support by their 'fans'.

Sad to say, with that act South Africa really has shown it wasn't worthy of hosting a World Cup.

RE: ENGLAND V SLOVENIA ???????????

Well, I'll shoot an arrow in favour of England here.

Unlike Scotland, at least England DO qualify for the World Cup on a more or less regular basis

RE: ENGLAND V SLOVENIA ???????????

I don't think he's god, but he is one of the top managers. I actually can't stand him, he is very arrogant, and his playing style verges on the totally boring most of the time (very similar to Mourinho's), but his career record speaks for itself.

The man has won league titles practically everywhere he's gone, Milan, Real Madrid, Roma, Juventus, Real Madrid (once more), and I do think he was the right man to set the England team right.

Not liking somebody personally doesn't mean you can't respect them profesionally

RE: ENGLAND V SLOVENIA ???????????

Glad we agree mate

While I'm not an England supporter, I really did think that Capello was the right man for the England job. Love him or hate him (in my particular case more the latter), I have to give him the respect due that he usually manages to instil a winning mentality in any team he's managed in his career.

He even managed to bring the Serie A title to my favourite club AS Roma after a 17 year barren spell. So if Capello can't do it, I really don't see anyone who can with England.

RE: ENGLAND V SLOVENIA ???????????

Oh I do agree that there are plenty of non-English players who fall in this category too. My particular pet-hate was Cristiano Ronaldo!

The difference though is that the players of other nations do up their level when they play for their national team. Amongst the big football nations, I think that England has consistently come last as regards performance and results since 1966.

Virtually every other nation has won at least ONE major competition since, while England have what, the 1990 World Cup 4th place, and the Euro 96 (with home advantage) 3rd place to show. While for a minor football nation these might be good showings, for England these are quite abysmal results.

RE: ENGLAND V SLOVENIA ???????????

I don't want to start an argument with you, but who amongst these ex-England, English managers 'who understand English football and its players' was actually better than Capello as a manager?

Graham Taylor, Glenn Hoddle, Kevin Keegan, Terry Venables, Steve McLaren?

The sad truth for England is that since Italia 90 each successive England team has failed to impress on the international stage. I believe the causes for this are not only attributable to the manager, but to the players themselves.

Most of today's English players are spoiled brats more interested in posing for the latest ad or fashion shoot, showing off their latest hairstyle, date the latest tv starlette, wear the latest multi-coloured football shoes etc rather than do what is necessary to win when representing England, i.e. run faster and harder than your opponents, tackle with determination and be not be afraid to get the odd kick in the shins for your troubles.

Once they turn up for the clubs, these same players 'magically' transform themselves into world class players again and do all of the above mentioned stuff to win both in the EPL and the Champions' League.

Capello was brought in primarily to bring in more discipline as the England national team was akin to a wild party under previous managers, with reports of drunen binges filtering each time the England team was called up for a match. I find it shameful that these multi-millionaires treat repesenting their country in such a manner.

RE: The consumership of 'relationships'.

I think you hit the nail right on the head here

The attitude of 'instant happiness with no sacrifice or hard work' is way too prevalent in all aspects of our lives nowadays. Maybe it's because I'm still old fashioned in many ways (or maybe because I'm a fitness freak, lol) that I prefer 'no pain no gain' as a motto.

RE: Israel attacks Gaza aid fleet

Finally someone who makes a post with SENSE. Good writeup Lillylady

RE: the IDF video is a fake

Hate to admit it but I couldn't have answered him better myself. Ray could write a never ending X-files series with little trouble.

RE: NKorea warns of war if punished for ship sinking

There's some interesting points raised in this thread.

From the North Korean point of view, I think their sabre rattling is more aimed at keeping their own people in line. They've been going at it since the end of the Korean War, presenting an image of 'the rest of the evil world against us'. These continuous border tensions help divert the people's attention from the real issues which are affecting North Korea, mainly successive poor harvests in their country, endemic poverty, poor education. Without them the regime would probably be facing an ever increasing risk of internal coups and revolts.

Apart from that, if war becomes a reality, what is NK really going to fight with? Sure they have a lot of manpower, but their equipment is totally obsolete. They may (probably would) overwhelm South Korean border defences till American troops could arrive in sufficient force, and the mountainous terrain in the region would probably hamper the US from pushing back NK troops out soon, but it would happen nonetheless. America excels at open battlefield type armoured warfare (as the two Gulf Wars show), mountain warfare would hinder American armour, but I can't see NK defeating the US in any set piece engagement.

As regards China, I think they prefer having a weak North Korean 'semi-puppet' state on their backdoor than an economically strong and democratic unified Korea. As another poster has already stated, NK is only willing so far to toe the Chinese line however, and while accepting supplies and armaments, it's not a 'puppet state' in the real sense of the word.

From the American point of view, having a 'bad guy' state like NK is a boon. America knows that NK is probably all bark and little or no bite, which is preferable from having to face another superpower. This still gives the American defence industry a raison d'etre to get new contracts & supply deals, especially in the general public's eye. (Ok, no country would be daft enough ever to disband its own military, that would be total suicide, but trumpeting up the strength of a foe which is in reality VERY VERY weak helps keep those military budget cuts away).

RE: Who deserves the european best player award?

I'd say Milito, if for nothing else, he's scored the decisive goals in both the Coppa Italia Final, and in the final league game that gave Inter the title this year.

He's a very under-rated striker with great ball skill and lethal in front of goal. Certainly not as flashy as some of the other names on your list, but I think as a team player on Wayne Rooney is in Milito's category.

RE: EATING NUTELLA STRAIGHT FROM THE JAR

Seems we share a common indulgence

RE: Relationship and Religion

I think it depends on the people involved, and on how 'fanatical' they are in their beliefs.

Overall I think that 2 people with similar beliefs are more liable to get along in that regard (at least from my own personal experience).

RE: For those of you who say that there is no God!

I agree with your point. Well said

RE: For those of you who say that there is no God!

If you really think that about those ancient cultures, then it is you sir who is the true barbarian. Those cultures were responsible for some of the greatest achievements in terms of art, culture and science in human history.

It was when your christian religion came to the fore that western civilization descended into the 'dark ages'.

It is obvious that you are just a religious fanatic totally blinded by his superstitions.

RE: For those of you who say that there is no God!

It's obviously useless trying to have an intelligent discussion with you.

I don't believe in religions and superstitions. Evil as in evil actions, sick and twisted minds exists, and there can be myriad logical reasons for it to occur.

Don't confuse not believing in fairytales with not believing in scientific FACTS.

RE: For those of you who say that there is no God!

Morality existed long before you christian religion. Or are you implying that the ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Sumerians, Babylonians and the myriad civilizations that existed before christianity didn't have morals and ethics to guide them?

People invented religion to try to give a higher meaning to these values, and in an effort to explain the natural phenomena to which they have no answers.

Things such as why do the seasons change, why do we die, why are we born etc. I don't blame ancient peoples to try to answer that through religion, but what bugs me is that now in the 21st century we have people who still follow such superstitious dogma without bothering to think with their own brains.

RE: For those of you who say that there is no God!

Of course morals are man made, as is any religion and god/s.

Morals do tend to change with society's values as well. That doesn't mean some of them aren't good, while others may seem fine in one epoch, but brutal in another.

Ethics and morals are intertwined, even though on occasion you may have to make choices in life that aren't 'good', but the lesser evil in a situation.

RE: For those of you who say that there is no God!

Are you even being serious?

Not believing in a god, spirit or other such fanciful fairytales does not mean you don't have a moral code by which you live your life.

RE: For those of you who say that there is no God!

The right or wrong factor comes into fact from morals, which has no issue with religion, though religions like to maintain that morals exist because of them.

As regard killing enemies, are you referring to killing in combat or in cold blood? There is a HUGE difference there.

Killing in combat or self defence is not murder, and is justified. Killing in cold blood is murder and therefore detestable.

I don't need any priest or god to teach me that.

RE: For those of you who say that there is no God!

Believing in god or not has no influence on whether you committ murder. Are you implying that I as an atheist (and atheists like me) would not think twice about committing murder and not consider it wrong?

On the other hand, how do you explain committed by believers throughout history because of religion?

RE: For those of you who say that there is no God!

So you're saying that your god loves people who play puppy and perform tricks for him for his amusement, and will instead go into a tantrum if there are people who don't believe in him?

Further proof that religion got one thing right at least, believers are really sheep and deserve to be a flock. I'll leave it to those with intelligence to see the reasoning behind this pun.

RE: War crimes

Your point of view often comes up in such a discussion, usually as a reply to those who quote Von Clausewitz in 'On War', that 'war is diplomacy conducted through other means'.

While in theory your point may seem valid, you have to remember that even on a battlefield, soldiers are still human, and though feelings of what we term 'humanity' may be suppressed, they are still there.

I think you'll agree with me that killing an enemy soldier in the heat of combat is a totally different kettle of fish from shooting a wounded enemy prisoner in cold blood. In the former case you are fighting in defence of yourself and that of your comrades, while in the latter it is murder pure and simple.

Besides, it is a historic fact that countries at war that share a common racial/cultural background are more liable to observe the 'unwritten' rules of war (e.g. accepting temporary truces to collect the wounded/dead, treat prisoners in a civilized manner, offer medical treatment to captured enemy wounded etc.).

Brutality is more liable to occur in conflicts where the combatants come from totally different backgrounds, and which are being fought for ideological/racial/religious hatreds.

These differences can spring up even in the same war. Taking WW2 as an example, although exceptions occurred, the Allies and Axis forces usually adhered to the rules of war (the North African theatre is often cited as an example of 'chivalry' in modern war), while the same cannot be said to have happened in the Eastern front, or between American & Japanese forces in the Pacific. (Colonel Hans von Luck's 'Panzer Commander' is an excellent read for those with an interest in the war in North Africa by the way)

A notable example is that fact that while American/British & Germans respected the rule not to shoot at medics wearing the red cross, the Japanese made these into preferred targets as they knew the Americans would take more risks to rescue their medics.

Wars that last into many years tend to engender a feeling of desentization where even if the 'rules of war' may be observed at first, these start to be ignored as time wears on. The Western Front in WW1 being such a situation.

RE: For those of you who say that there is no God!

If you were trying to kill him, I'd expect him to fight back at the very least. I doubt I'd stop to try to discuss the matter if I saw anyone coming at me with a gun or knife. Self preservation would take over civlized discourse in such a situation.

Whoever is in the right or wrong in the matter would take pretty much 2nd place.

RE: For those of you who say that there is no God!

Well put

Drat, now I'm agreeing with a Manchurian, the world is truly coming to an end!