UK_Widowmaker

We also invented Rugby and Cricket...which explains why we are s**te at all three!

Football..was invented in the UK..in the Middle Ages..it's always been football...soccer is a much newer term, which we frown upon in the UK...so sorry Yanks..WE invented the original football..and YOU stole the term!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwvVh0_ZelI always cracks me up

What film is that??

Well..I'm not biased...I hate Football and Rugby equally. And dont even get me started on bloody Cricket!!!!

Great commercial..on a serious topic!

Yeah..some more German 2 seaters would be nice to shoot down

It IS possible to 'go off' people y'know! :suicide2:

Count me in...My son has all the gear!

SOPWITH SNIPE

OMG!..The ultimate insult!...calling a Lanc man a Yorkie!...Slapped around face with leather glove..pistols at dawn!..sorry m8

Can't beat a pint of Newkie Broon!

Haha..the Million $ Question...just a case of wait and see!..the devs are taking a well earned breather..but if they move on to another phase...it will be damned good..rest assured

The whole argument surrounds UN resolutions..Bush and Blair would not get the OK from the UN..and knew they wouldnt...but they did it anyway!..THATS the crux of the matter!!..the UN was set up to stop megalomaniacs from invading a sovereign country..whats the point if they do it anyway?? Well, my old man was an MI-6 operative for 25 yrs, until his retirement in 1975...and we (Joe Public) no nothing of what goes on...he never even told me anything to do with his Job. But, I am of the opinion that, the West often sits on it's high horse...telling the rest of the world how they should or shouldn't run their country. Yes..when that country is a real threat to world peace, we need to occasionally be 'proactive'..but Iraq?... Hardly a World Player. I am sure there were reason's for invading...but the stupid reasons given by those two ex-idiots in charge, were at best, wildly innacurate..and at worst (which I strongly suspect)..out and out lies...and the Human Suffering of the Iraqi people is a piss poor excuse for toppling Saddam.... but, they cannot be honest about the reasons for invading (and it was an invasion)..so they use 'Suffering and Regime Change' to make it sound acceptable to the Voters. Of course, as per usual..it's the Innocent who suffer.... We have much more justification now for invading Iran, than (imho) we ever had for invading Iraq....so, with conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq still not stabilised..whats next?..are we going to invade Iran next?...madness...No-One can convince me this is not about Oil, at it's heart..the idea that Iran would use nuclear weapons offensively just isn't going to wash. The Arab nations huff and puff continuously...but they aint totally stupid It's all very Dirty, underhand...and it stinks to me...but like most people..I don't have any answers..only more questions

Aha!... I stand corrected by a true Yorkshireman! :drinks:

hahaha...I'm fine now m8..and the World is a lovely place

and some classic Python

My first quick comment (pre-Coffee) Yes, we went to War based on Bullsh*t...the 45min WMD crap...all gibberish! I agreed with the War based on those points...I would not have agreed, if Blair had told the Truth....So, that being now proven, that he lied...one has to ask the question "Why did we go into Iraq?" Regime Change?...affinity to the Poor Iraqi People? (hardly..when we happily starved approx 500,000 people with our Sanctions) so best not go on the Humanitarian route eh?...We dont worry too much about ousting other despots...unless they have rescources we want to take for ourselves....and one despot Dictator will soon be replaced by the next...so Regime Change is temporary in a Place Like Iraq. No...Like it or not...we went there for Oil.....and To have a base close to Iran (so, when we invade them next..we can use their 'Nuclear Weapons programme' as an excuse to whoop their asses...or is that another US/UK spun lie?...who knows. One thing is for sure Never Believe anything your Government tell you, until it has been officially denied!

Bloody Hell!..it must be friday!...that Woman is talking at us again! (that question is far too Philisophical for my tiny Male Brain Hotness...but good luck with it!)

I dunno...I think that having two MG's in front of you would have been a pretty obvious choice, rather than outboard guns. If you listen to the accounts of airman,(one of the pilots in the OFF credits mentions it) a dogfight is all about snap shooting...quite often, there would be no time to line up through a sight...I suspect that it was as much about instinct as it was a good aim...having outboard guns would (I suspect) make it harder to indulge in snap firing. With WW2 fighters..lets face it...6 sometimes 8 guns..huge rate of fire in comparison..you can fill the sky in front of you with a virtual wall of lead Just my thoughts :)

Not my favourite aircraft in OFF..But I have been trying to like it, by flying it occasionally...sadly, up to now..I have failed to be inspired at all

Everything you wanted to know about WW1 aviation...but were too afraid to ask!..hahaha...brilliant read guys..thanks!

Have you heard about the trucker who has painted his cab and trailer with the names of all those who lost their lives on 9/11? The trucker's name is John Holmgren from Shafer, Minn. He has been 'pulled over' numerous times just so the troopers can get their picture taken with the truck. Respect!

It's been copied and printed..and now holds pride of place on the Fridge door... Mrs Widowmaker..TAKE NOTE! Great post!

Yes Jedi...it Must have been a long time in the paint shop that one!