Mundaka

Dont ignore my argument of the single DM btw with you going for a 4-2-3-1 with nice Mikel protection... Next to this, wow , really wow, he will become the best DM ever then if he's already good enough without playing a game against strong oposition in a role like that...

Just read my full sentence.... And to point it out: The defensive part, interceptions, gamereading & actiontaking at specific situations (aka experience) is not that good already @ chabolah who's just 18 and hasn't played a decent oponent yet, you cant be serious to want him to be a DM in a 4-3-3 with 1 DM (which is what most of us are aiming for no?).

Chabolah is not ready yet to run things in a midfield like that and it would be the worst position to have someone unexperienced playing. Toure is 29, which means Chabolah can easely succeed him, when he's 32 Chabolah is 21, in meanwhile he can also learn of one of the best in that position so great no?

Then on this very moment: Courtois Ferdinand-Kompany-Vertonghen Gerrard-Witsel Mirallas-KDB-Hazard Rooney-Benteke

Yeh ok , i'm also quite fond of Hart, but i do understand if harneth already thinks hes better, stats will prove they are pretty close anyways

Prolly because he has the most clean sheets in the primera division (at the age of 20 which is very young for a goalie...) or he has the clubs record of longest clean sheet? Is a decent reason to think he's better, i'm not claiming he already is for the record.

Mata's conversion rate is high...

Winger: Walcott/Lennon Walcott/Lennon over Hazard/DeBruyne/Mirallas/Mertens?

Yeh well the general stuff about the cold war i know more or less (it's pretty vague i learned about it in highschool , but well i didn't know it came that close to a nuclear war. But i think the US wouldn't have attacked russia, it was more of a big boy's action to show their muscle i think... kinda like the "war" between the sovjet and US to be first on the moon. Also they would've lost Europe's support with such an action if they would initiate something like that, doubt they wouldve found that worth it. Thanks for the intel by the way!

And well i like to discuss about things, hear about different opinions, reflective reasoning about beliefs and actions with people from around the globe is why i dont mind discussing this.

Your quote: "It's funny how most people so quickly believe that those who oppose them politically are the root of all evil. If you really think there are people who sit around planning the destruction of the world and torture of innocent people just for the heck of it then you really need to cut down on watching cartoons!" Mundaka, on 20 Mar 2013 - 20:13, said: So you dont think there's something like terrorism, nuclear treats from iran/n korea,..? CHOULO19, on 20 Mar 2013 - 20:26, said: Funny how you mention Iran first when they don't even have a nuclear weapon yet while the countries with the most nuclear heads in the world, i.e Israel and the US don't make your list.. Anyway, my point is that no one starts a wars, kills people and creates nuclear weapons because he wants to be a super villain. Every country has been through its own circumstances in history that has created a certain mentality and belief that forces to act in they way it does atm. Ultimately everyone just wants power and what's in his best interest and each tries to get that in his own way. CHOULO19, on 20 Mar 2013 - 23:20, said: There's nothing wrong with not knowing, but just don't be so defensive about your opinions if they are not based on many facts. I'll gladly discuss anything with you if you are open minded even if you do not know much about the subject. But I have to ask, why do you want a discussion about something you don't know or care about? I didn't start this discussion, i was just asking you a question why you thought , and quoting you again: "If you really think there are people who sit around planning the destruction of the world and torture of innocent people just for the heck of it then you really need to cut down on watching cartoons!" Which was more a general question instead of one about a specific war. "but just don't be so defensive" Ive not been defensive... or at least didn't intend to, you are being the defensive one

First of dont expect me to know everything about wars, i dont care about them, its not my field... at all. But im trying to have a decent discussion here. 2nd, i wasn't born then so I would only know the details IF like i said, was interested in that stuff, which im not. 3rd, i didnt know in the cold war it came (rather) close to an nuclear fight, but after browsing & reading about that stuff it was the sovjet union treatning with nuclear weapons, why do you take this as example? We were talking about the US, im beginning to think and correct me if im wrong, your hatred for the US is blinding your usual neutral sight on things.

Next to the point, you said I <---- (not some random person listening to western media without being critical) was mislead.

Why head to head? I like to think of us as england 2 Anyways on topic: I would only pick their backs over ours.

That's an assumption... And one that would be wrong since i'm not someone who watches news at tv day in day out brainlessly. Heck couldn't even care less since 90% is crap.

The war you are referring to wouldnt have been a nuclear war. Explaining this any further would take hours of time, but the fact that they don't call this world war 3 says enough of the difference between now and 50 years back. (if it was like this , europe would go all out instead of being neutral in all this, again simply put else it takes to much time) I guess Europe is lucky then, because overall i think the people here arent interested in power/war.

No you are not, you are asumming that i would be biased while thats not the case. How would you know why i think of them first because of the media, i really doubt your a jedi.

"I have other things to do during my weekends," says he. "But it so happens that last week, I saw two Chelsea matches. "

Should slap him for not including me

Not really, and it was prolly because its the biggest country of the lot? Dude why you focus on that... stay on topic... That was during a war in a time where people had a total other mindset as they have now, hence why i made the "this aint 50 years ago comment", and i havent seen them using them after that. If they really wanted to they couldve bombed us all. That's a simple reason why not. Kinda sad to think that really... and no if that was true we wouldnt exist anymore by now. And will give an example, our country, Belgium, actually spends more in peacekeeping forces/projects than our army... how can that be possible following your logic?

Iran came to my mind first.. USA doesnt make it to my list because they develloped those in WW2 and already proven it to be responsible with them, there is no reason whatsover to start developing them now like Iran is doing (will continue with them i guess, since north korea is too obvious). That is exactly what made this a different time compared to 50 years ago... now not everyone wants power.

Well we already passed the time set on that one, which was to be expected http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/9341645/The-Rio-Earth-Summit-is-it-destined-to-fail-the-world.html but we are working towards it at least, and Obama said he regretted USA's ignorance towards this so who knows, comming years...

So you dont think there's something like terrorism, nuclear treats from iran/n korea,..?