PIW

Its not just a NATO role in Afghanistan though. Yes its NATO led but since 1999 they changed their outlook to broaden their horizon further afield than Europe alone. (Washington Treaty) But they can't/won't act unilaterally without support from other allies outside of NATO. NATO is effectively used by the US to avoid any unnecessary calls to the UN to get things done by themselves. It has become a show of force. When NATO are involved it conveys more lrgitimacy for a conflict. or, it conveys more blood lust and wanting to restore the Western world order. "Dusky types"? I presume you're being ironic but yes a flow of refugees is a concern. But I'm not too sure of your figures and i doubt you are. what are the basic assumptions about the EU that you refer to? Going back a paragraph...Europe can't get the political will and military might? Why should we? Slap Gaddafi's 3rd world rabble? Are you a Sun reader? If you are going to attempt a grown-up debate I recommend you either become better read, or increase your circle of friends.

Although you're mostly right why would the NORTH ATLANTIC treaty Organisation get involved in a dispute that is too far out of the their geographical jurisdiction? Libya is on the Mediterranean sea and any refugees flood straight into Europe at the first opportunity (not all admittedly but enough to make it a cause for concern). But, I'm not trying to deflect the point from the fact that this was a poorly judged intervention (Libya).

I don't even find it painful any more. I'm just desensitized to it all. End the season as crap a season as we can have without being relegated put it behind us and lets start again next season.

You'd happily shoot children? How old are you? Do you have children of your own? If so is that what you teach them?

There's a wealth of difference between knowing what they were doing and being aware, or responsible, for the consequences of what they did. Children know the difference between right and wrong but can't always follow the right decision because they are children. They are immature and they haven't developed a foresight that allows them to be responsible. Obviously what they did was wicked and the horror of what they did is still raw to this day. But they were treated as children and given the chance to be rehabilitated and try and make lives for themselves. Yes, I know that that was something they didn't allow poor Jamie Bulger but blood lust and mob type revenge won't change that. I think they were dealt with correctly and it is quite ironic that the previous poster calls children scum (however dislikable they may be) and talks about our messed up society. maybe we should look at Venable's and (the other one)'s parents and point the finger at them. Children are just a reflection of their upbringing at that age. If they were from a stable, loving background I'm not convinced they would be walking around a shopping centre unaccompanied whilst deciding to hurt and kill.