Steven P

Yes, but he didn't do it in every thread available. Ever.

Yes, but in the future you know we'll all just log onto the internet and watch mind numbing pap with that power in our laptops "we could go to the moon with less power than what is in our phone" "why don't you" "Because I am watching cats hit other cats in funny ways" Might be able to suggest Husky vs Stihl... but I doubt it

Not yet, but if I was guessing I'd be saying their last incarnation got flushed down the WC

It would also be a recycled car tyre which I suspect much more durable. (I started resoling some trainers with a bike tyre, then life got in the way so paused that project - it was a 'can it be done' job)

Putin has had a few body doubles in his time, not all assassins do their homework well.

"To go to war", only the Russians went to war, The Ukraine didn't go anywhere outside their borders, they were invaded and defended themselves - as any country would and do. "MISSING" money - is that the 100 billion dollars that haven't reached The Ukraine... because they are being spent in the US... giving wages to US citizens to manufacture goods (arms and so on) to send there? That is well documented as accounted for Approval rating, in 2019 (Before Covid which warped things) Trump had a disapproval rating of about 55% Refuses to have elections.. I suspect that there is another reason why The Ukraine has not had elections last year when they were due Millions being killed - best reports suggest about 60,000 Ukrainians have been killed so with Trumps Russia hotline they have lost at least 1,900,000 (millions is more than 1 million of course).. or that 'Millions' is not correct.

4m 'hit and miss' fence at the weekend, reusing the boards with new posts (3"), cross members and top rail and a couple of new boards, postcrete £120 for supplies. Labour costs were endless tea, biscuits, dinner B&B (but it was for mum).

Not on a moral high ground, looking pragmatically, 3 years ago if the deal was "Ukraine give Russia the Donbas region and they will stop fighting for now" as you suggest... would that deal actually have been agreed and signed off? No moral high ground to say at the time that would not happen, not a deal that would ever be given credibility. If that deal was not possible - at the time - and I think we all know that The Ukraine would never have agreed to that - then with all of Trumps superior world political knowledge - what was the deal he is thinking that could have been done.

Going back to where we were this morning, Trump is saying to The Ukraine that they should have done a deal 3 years ago. The deal you are thinking of was not acceptable to the Ukraine 3 years ago, and in fact while Russia was making advances into the country they were not looking for a deal either - brute force tactics from them. So Trump saying "You should have done a deal 3 years ago" are just empty words. I'll fire it back to you, do you think that 3 years ago The Ukraine would have settled to hand over the Donbas region? Do you think that was the deal to be done?

Ahh so the aggressor, Russia wins, the victim, Ukraine looses? Do you think that is acceptable to all sides and it is a deal that would have been achievable 3 years ago when Russia was controlling much more land... that would appease them so they don't take any more, ever. I don't. Pretty much, "Roll over Ukraine, surrender" and all is good in the world?

You're distracting yourself from my musings though, what kind of deal would Trump be suggesting that could have been done 3 years ago that would be acceptable to both sides? Let's assume we take out the EU, NATO and Afghanistan (?) from the equation, Ukraine phones up Russia "Lets do a deal, you feck off out of Ukraine and Russia ..... ? " - that last part I am struggling with, a deal acceptable to both sides.

However with Afghanistan, 'we' didn't cross our borders, walk in there and say "all this is ours now", 'we' went in with a very different mission to the Russians in the Ukraine, so I don't think the 2 are directly comparable. Back to Trumps suggestion that the Ukraine could have done a deal 3 years ago, I am very much interested to know what that deal could have been and could have been acceptable to the victim on the piece. I suspect that Trumps idea of a deal would have been conceding a defeat, and a loss of more territory. I might be wrong but suspect I am not, and such a deal is only giving power to the aggressor.

Go on then, how? So if I read this right (and I did read the article), Trumps idea is that The Ukraine - in the middle of an invasion, an act of aggression against it - wanted them to phone up Russia "you're invading our country, feck off" and a deal is done. I am not sure how such a deal is possible without them rolling over and conceding land losses and setting a precedence for future invasions and land grabs. So... what would this deal be? How would it work to see Russia withdrawing and returning all the territory grabbed back to their rightful owner?

But this story should be a star to make you happier, a £20 billion budget New weapons tsar will have £20bn budget to rearm Britain UK.YAHOO.COM A new weapons tsar will be given a £20 billion budget to rearm Britain, the Defence Secretary has announced.

The Boys have 'pizza toast' all the time. Bit bored of it now so are going onto toasted wraps (Stromboli pizza apparently, posh)