MacGyver for President! No? Then who? [Archive]

EuroTroll

2nd April 2012, 18:19

Just like our Premier Ansip promised, we now have television in Estonia in 2012! Great success.

I am now watching channel that show the documentary "MacGyver". Wowowia, he is great man! I think he should be next President of US and A.

Who do you think should next President of US and A? Osama? Rommel? No, they are pathetic. All they do is talk, talk, talk. Can they defuse a bomb at the last second? Ich don't think so!

What do you think?

Mark

2nd April 2012, 19:59

Jack Bauer is more likely. He's way more better than McGuyver.

BDunnell

2nd April 2012, 20:19

Jessica Fletcher represents an important American policy value to me — always interfering in matters that really ought not to concern her.

Eki

2nd April 2012, 20:49

Matlock

Tazio

2nd April 2012, 20:58

I'm thinking the best man for the job would be Charley Sheen
He has adonis DNA :cool:

A.F.F.

2nd April 2012, 22:26

Vladimir Putin. He doesn't give a f**k about anything!

schmenke

2nd April 2012, 22:41

Snooki :up:

Zico

3rd April 2012, 00:14

Clit Yeastwood..

Rollo

3rd April 2012, 05:20

Matlock

Maaaatlock!

If you name the new expressway, the Matlock Expressway, you've got yourself a deal Mister :D

EuroTroll

3rd April 2012, 10:05

These are all good suggestions, guys. :up:

But I read on CNN that none of the mentioned are actually in the race. :mad: :p :

To be a little more serious now, it seems that Romney will clinch the Republican nomination, which I think is a good thing. If it's Obama vs. Romney for the White House, I don't really mind who gets it. Both are sensible, very intelligent people IMO. Santorum I am not so crazy about. Something about ultra-conservative devout Christians that's not very attractive to me... :erm:

Today, the Republicans will hold the Wisconsin primary, which seems to be a bit of a milestone. Romney currently holds 571 delegates to Santorum's 264, with over 1100 required. Maryland and DC are held today as well.

I wonder what our American friends make of the race so far. After all, it concerns them as well. :p :

odykas

3rd April 2012, 10:08

Chuck Norris :D

EuroTroll

3rd April 2012, 10:22

Chuck Norris :D

He's going to be governor of Texas, I hear. ;) Why not, if Arnie was governor of California. :laugh:

Mark

3rd April 2012, 12:03

Father Jack would be awesome!

YES!

D-Type

3rd April 2012, 12:40

The trouble is that the candidate whose policies would be best for the USA would not necessarily be the best for UK, Estonia, Germany, Finland, Canada, or wherever

Mark

3rd April 2012, 12:53

The trouble is that the candidate whose policies would be best for the USA would not necessarily be the best for UK, Estonia, Germany, Finland, Canada, or wherever

That would be an ecumenical matter.

EuroTroll

3rd April 2012, 14:52

The trouble is that the candidate whose policies would be best for the USA would not necessarily be the best for UK, Estonia, Germany, Finland, Canada, or wherever

Well, I think we all (except Eki :p ) want the US to do well, and continue to be the dominant economic and military force in the world. So I think there is actually not much difference between what's good for the US and what's good for the Western world.

The issue where there might be disagreement is foreign policy, of course. The US is a guarantor of safety for Western nations through NATO, and it would unquestionably be better for other NATO allies if the US led them into fewer futile wars, and concentrated more on strengthening the defences of the alliance. I would think this would also be best for the US, but as I said, there might be some disagreement there.

BDunnell

4th April 2012, 00:15

Well, I think we all (except Eki :p ) want the US to do well, and continue to be the dominant economic and military force in the world. So I think there is actually not much difference between what's good for the US and what's good for the Western world.

The issue where there might be disagreement is foreign policy, of course. The US is a guarantor of safety for Western nations through NATO, and it would unquestionably be better for other NATO allies if the US led them into fewer futile wars, and concentrated more on strengthening the defences of the alliance. I would think this would also be best for the US, but as I said, there might be some disagreement there.

In that context, it will be interesting to see what the US does in terms of cutting further the numbers of military bases on European soil, as seems likely. The talk of using bases in former Warsaw Pact states on a permanent basis I don't believe will come to anything, personally, for the US would surely be better off remaining on the soil of more politically reliable nations like the UK where the US presence is better established, no matter what shorter-term strategic gains could be reaped.

EuroTroll

4th April 2012, 08:14

In that context, it will be interesting to see what the US does in terms of cutting further the numbers of military bases on European soil, as seems likely. The talk of using bases in former Warsaw Pact states on a permanent basis I don't believe will come to anything, personally, for the US would surely be better off remaining on the soil of more politically reliable nations like the UK where the US presence is better established, no matter what shorter-term strategic gains could be reaped.

It'll be interesting indeed, and if the US curtails its European presence significantly, it will be watched with a certain amount of trepidation in countries who are unfortunate enough to have a border with Russia. There's still quite a lot of fear here, especially considering the events in Georgia in 2008.

I also don't believe the US will ever have bases in former Warsaw Pact countries, simply because it would be too difficult politically. I know US bases would be very warmly welcomed in the Baltics and Poland, but that counts for little.

The really interesting question is: Why should the US care about Eastern Europe at all? Out of the goodness of their hearts? Or is there a strategic imperative to keep Eastern Europe democratic and away from what Russia likes to call its sphere of influence? I'd like to think we make good allies as well, of course, fighting and losing men in Iraq and Afghanistan.

schmenke

4th April 2012, 16:25

...The really interesting question is: Why should the US care about Eastern Europe at all?...

Eastern European air bases puts countries like Iran and Iraq with range of US B2 bombers.

EuroTroll

4th April 2012, 16:40

Eastern European air bases puts countries like Iran and Iraq with range of US B2 bombers.

But according to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases#Overseas_4), the US already have air bases in Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, UAE...

Gregor-y

4th April 2012, 17:27

Not to mention leasing Diego Garcia from the UK. And I think we already have detention and interrogation facilities in former WP countries.

donKey jote

4th April 2012, 17:46

Mariano Rajoy :andrea:

EuroTroll

4th April 2012, 17:58

Mariano Rajoy :andrea:

Who? :confused: :p :

schmenke

4th April 2012, 18:13

But according to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases#Overseas_4), the US already have air bases in Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, UAE...

Ah good point. I dunno then, perhpas the US military personnel like cabbage :p :

BDunnell

4th April 2012, 18:16

Eastern European air bases puts countries like Iran and Iraq with range of US B2 bombers.

Iran and Iraq are within the range of B-2 bombers flying direct from the USA, as has been proved on many previous occasions. There is no need for them to be based in eastern Europe; indeed, there are no bases in eastern Europe capable of functioning at present as B-2 operating locations. Nor, as far as I know, are there any plans to create any, so well-practiced are long-range 'Global Power' sorties by these aircraft.

BDunnell

4th April 2012, 18:17

But according to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases#Overseas_4), the US already have air bases in Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, UAE...

Again, in the context of the previous point none of them are B-2 operating locations.

schmenke

4th April 2012, 18:37

Iran and Iraq are within the range of B-2 bombers flying direct from the USA, as has been proved on many previous occasions. There is no need for them to be based in eastern Europe; indeed, there are no bases in eastern Europe capable of functioning at present as B-2 operating locations. Nor, as far as I know, are there any plans to create any, so well-practiced are long-range 'Global Power' sorties by these aircraft.

I didn't realise the B2 had an operational range for a round trip from the U.S. mainland to the middle east. Thanks for the clarification.
I thought all US bombing during gulf wars was performed from either bases in the area or aircraft carriers.

Apologies for the diversion.

BDunnell

4th April 2012, 18:48

I didn't realise the B2 had an operational range for a round trip from the U.S. mainland to the middle east. Thanks for the clarification.
I thought all US bombing during gulf wars was performed from either bases in the area or aircraft carriers.

In the first Gulf War, for example, B-52 missions were mounted from the UK, Diego Garcia, Spain, Saudi Arabia and the US, so this capability has long existed.

donKey jote

4th April 2012, 19:04

Who? :confused: :p :
precisely! :p

Rollo

4th April 2012, 22:28

Vermin Supreme!

He promises free ponies for everyone and that he will lie to you, just to be voted into office.

anthonyvop

6th April 2012, 06:17

How about Bozo The Clown for U.N. Secretary General?

http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/040527/040527_bozo_ccol.grid-4x2.jpg

Can't do any worse than the "Bozo" in that position now

http://nimg.sulekha.com/others/original700/ban-ki-moon-raul-castro-2009-7-15-19-41-33.jpg

http://cdn9.wn.com/ph/img/69/41/fb2581ddc521dd17bd909f30c8a8-grande.jpg

EuroTroll

6th April 2012, 07:52

How about George W. Bush for UN Secretary General?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_zlQH3hY9j-E/Sd4ijbIiesI/AAAAAAAABc0/fmNUL0zBCEM/s400/bush-king.jpg

Or maybe Donald Rumsfeld?

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg

DexDexter

6th April 2012, 11:02

The next president of US and A? Sylvester Stallone! Adriaaan!

Rocky is calling Adrian - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1yzIeBRh5o)

BDunnell

6th April 2012, 19:33

Tazio

6th April 2012, 19:43

Excellent counter punch most learned one. That's the way to use the old one two :up:

EuroTroll

6th April 2012, 20:36

Excellent counter punch most learned one. That's the way to use the old one two :up:

If you mean me, kind Sir, thank you. :cool: But I'm certainly not the most learned one. ;)

EuroTroll

11th April 2012, 11:31

So, Santorum is out of the race! I guess it can only be Romney now for the Republican nomination, although Gingrich and Paul haven't officially given up yet.

Good news, I think.

Gregor-y

11th April 2012, 16:32

It'll be Romney. As the Republican primary loser in 2008 it's his turn to be the party's national loser for 2012. In 2016 it'll be Santorum.

EuroTroll

11th April 2012, 16:42

It'll be Romney. As the Republican primary loser in 2008 it's his turn to be the party's national loser for 2012. In 2016 it'll be Santorum.

Do you think, then, that he stands no chance against Obama? I'm hoping for a tight race, myself.

Dave B

11th April 2012, 16:49

So, Santorum is out of the race! I guess it can only be Romney now for the Republican nomination, although Gingrich and Paul haven't officially given up yet.

Good news, I think.

Personally I think Santorum should stand by his words and carry his unwanted campaign to full term.

EuroTroll

11th April 2012, 17:03

Personally I think Santorum should stand by his words and carry his unwanted campaign to full term.

Not a fan of the Republican cause? ;)

janvanvurpa

11th April 2012, 18:43

Do you think, then, that he stands no chance against Obama? I'm hoping for a tight race, myself.

Why do you hate us so?
What has America done to Estland that you wish us so much ill will that you wish for a close race and thereby a chance for the same characters who stole the election in2000, who twisted reults in 04 and backed and controlled the previous religious airheaded puppet and cause so much death and destruction and wasted over a trillion dollars in wars of choice, another shot at ruining my country?

Why?

EuroTroll

11th April 2012, 18:48

Because a close race would amuse me, John. :) I know I'm a selfish, bad, bad man. ;)

Also, isn't Romney pretty centrist for a Republican? I don't think he's actually miles apart from Obama.

janvanvurpa

11th April 2012, 19:38

Because a close race would amuse me, John. :) I know I'm a selfish, bad, bad man. ;)

Also, isn't Romney pretty centrist for a Republican? I don't think he's actually miles apart from Obama.

What "center"? In USA the "Center" is far to the right of any major party in any part of the civilised world....and has been moving that way since at least 1964...

And whatever he may have done, as far as I can tell it was not from any conviction or ideals or vision, but simple political expediency.
In other words, he'll say, "support' vote for anything as long as it will get him votes---then (poof) completely gone from his empty head...to the point he forgets even HIS programs.

He seems to essentially be just another privileged, out of touch---to the point of delusional---"born on 3rd base but thinks he hit a home run" son of a rich and powerful executive/politician.

Further---and this is a off topic one-two punch---he claims to be a "faithful" Mormon. I have to presume that means "I believe all the "stuff" in the central pillar of my faith: the Book of Mormon"

If that is what he means when he says he's a "faithful" Mormon, then that means there is an internal contradiction of disqualifying level in his brain....

I don't know if you are at all familiar with the almost hilarious "obviously written by somebody with a 1820s 7th grade level of education" stories in the "Book of Mormon" but they're bad..as in a sloppy bad B-grade movie bad...and IF ANYBODY claims they believe in the stories in that book there is not a lot of ways to conclude about their mental state OR capacities...(hard to say which is defective).

But IF he says he "believes the stories in the Book of Mormon" he is either a) stupid or b) insane or c) a cynical liar...

And thus unfit..
We've had enough mayhem from privileged airhead sons of old school power.

You ever read anything about what's in that book?

It IS hilarious...there's this angle hilariously named "Moron-i" (we know I and y are same thing, right? so moron-y, or moroni-c) It will give you hours of fun reading that stuff....and critiques.....

Roamy

11th April 2012, 23:06

So JanVan are you concluding that Obama is the answer for our country? We know how you feel about the GOP but why not way in on your opinion on the Dems. Matter of fact include Nancy and Harry in your evaluation.

Brown, Jon Brow

11th April 2012, 23:39

The Book of the Mormon that would see Obama as 'an inferior creation' due to the colour of his skin.

Roamy

12th April 2012, 02:52

The Book of the Mormon that would see Obama as 'an inferior creation' due to the colour of his skin.

link please

Tazio

12th April 2012, 03:29

Link please

On one occasion my son asked his seminary teacher about some of Brigham Young's statements on race. He mentioned that Brigham Young said that the punishment for mixing your blood with the seed of cain (blacks) was that the curse of cain would come upon you and your future generations. It always had been and always would be. (I think he actually said that it was death by stoning, but racism is just as blatent.) His teacher responded, "I hate to say it, but that's true." I said, "Oh my gosh! She actually said that?" "Oh yeah." I found myself saying, "Were there any black people in the room?" My son said, "No. Thank God!"

The Mormon Curtain - MORMON RACISM (http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_racism.html)

Tazio

12th April 2012, 04:26

Roamy, I ran a branch office of a building company in Las Vegas that was owned by Mormons (Las Vegas was on the "Mormon Trail" as a mid-point between Salt Lake City, and Southern California) and I believe they are still largest organized religion in that city. I had numerous members of the Church of Latter Day Saints that worked under my supervision, and as higher ups. I found these guys to be very good spirited, friendly, and industrious. The word was out that I was not a candidate for their religion and it did nothing to diminish our relationship, working or social, except I couldn't have a "cold one" with any of them. I think they viewed me as a loose cannon, and admired this in a backhanded kind of way. They openly admitted that dark skin was considered evil in the earlier years, but that things had changed (probably due to their need for blacks to keep BYU a football powerhouse). :p :
As far as I know they don't carry this conviction any longer. But I believe that there is a hierarchy that Blacks are still excluded from in the church but I may be wrong.

airshifter

12th April 2012, 05:13

Do you think, then, that he stands no chance against Obama? I'm hoping for a tight race, myself.

I think quite a few people are still brainwashed into thinking Obama is actually going to give them something to make life better. The scary thing is it isn't all just the people that never voted before, or the people that always vote Democrat, or even just the people with less money. There are hard working educated people that actually think ideas such as Obamacare will mean they will get "free" health insurance.

I personally think that the US needs to clean house, as there are only a small number of honest politicians in office. After doing so, force campaign reform and a number of other issues to make it possible to pass laws without pork all over the bill.

Tazio

12th April 2012, 05:25

I think Obama will win in a landslide.

Roamy

12th April 2012, 07:22

I think quite a few people are still brainwashed into thinking Obama is actually going to give them something to make life better. The scary thing is it isn't all just the people that never voted before, or the people that always vote Democrat, or even just the people with less money. There are hard working educated people that actually think ideas such as Obamacare will mean they will get "free" health insurance.

I personally think that the US needs to clean house, as there are only a small number of honest politicians in office. After doing so, force campaign reform and a number of other issues to make it possible to pass laws without pork all over the bill.

I will probably take total collapse to finally rid ourselves of the white house crooks. That will be at least 4 more years of whoever gets elected. the problem is who will lead the change.

EuroTroll

12th April 2012, 09:59

Further---and this is a off topic one-two punch---he claims to be a "faithful" Mormon. I have to presume that means "I believe all the "stuff" in the central pillar of my faith: the Book of Mormon"

I think that on this issue, we should give him the benefit of the doubt and hope he is lying. :D

I think it was Alexamateo on the God thread who posted a link to a study that indicated that it's virtually impossible for an atheist to be voted into office in America, because people wouldn't trust him/her. That's just the way American politics are, and anyone wanting into office has to take that into account. You have to be religious, or you have to pretend to be religious.

And if he was lying on this issue, I honestly wouldn't hold it against him.

EuroTroll

12th April 2012, 10:08

I personally think that the US needs to clean house, as there are only a small number of honest politicians in office. After doing so, force campaign reform and a number of other issues to make it possible to pass laws without pork all over the bill.

Yeah, but that's talked about before every major election, isn't it? GWB promised a clean house, Obama promised a clean house... It's never achieved though, because the inertia of the existing system is too strong. Things are just carried out as before, despite the lofty promises.

ioan

13th April 2012, 00:13

I think Obama will win in a landslide.

Even GW Bush managed to get re-elected, so the odds are on Obama's side. Which means that Romney will never be the president of the USA.

ShiftingGears

13th April 2012, 01:34

I think Ron Paul is the best republican candidate by some margin. Say what you like about his policies, at least he has an unwavering dedication to his principles. Unlike, say, Romney or Obama.

airshifter

13th April 2012, 04:01

I think Ron Paul is the best republican candidate by some margin. Say what you like about his policies, at least he has an unwavering dedication to his principles. Unlike, say, Romney or Obama.

In this day and age, the Republican and Democratic parties want dedication to party, not principles. Sad but true.

At this point I'd vote "ABO" = Anyone But Obama

Other than having to guts to call a go on the Bin Laden raid without 100% rock solid intel, I can't think of anything he has done to better the lives of anyone in this country. So far he's been mostly lip service and false promises.

EuroTroll

17th April 2012, 09:15

According to the latest poll by Reuters/Ipsos, if the election was held today then Obama would get 47 and Romney 43 per cent of the votes.

Looks like the race is getting closer. :cool:

Mark

17th April 2012, 10:46

Even GW Bush managed to get re-elected, so the odds are on Obama's side. Which means that Romney will never be the president of the USA.

It's got to be difficult running against an incumbent going for a second term, odds are against you, some may be tempted to wait for another 4 years.

BDunnell

17th April 2012, 14:07

Other than having to guts to call a go on the Bin Laden raid without 100% rock solid intel, I can't think of anything he has done to better the lives of anyone in this country.

And you think that did anything to better the lives of anyone in the US?

EuroTroll

17th April 2012, 15:01

And you think that did anything to better the lives of anyone in the US?

I think it might have done, actually. It probably gave friends and relatives of victims of 9/11 peace of mind.

BDunnell

17th April 2012, 18:09

I think it might have done, actually. It probably gave friends and relatives of victims of 9/11 peace of mind.

That, in my book, does not equate to an act of good benefiting the whole country. Britons certainly didn't seem to feel that bin Laden's death was of national benefit, in spite of the way in which al-Qaeda's actions hit British soil.

Firstgear

17th April 2012, 19:04

And you think that did anything to better the lives of anyone in the US?
There's been talk/promises of bringing the troops home for quite some time now. Bin Laden's death makes it easier for those making the decisions to claim "mission accomplished" and actually act on the promises.
Troops at home instead of abroad has multiple benefits to many (cost, family relations, to name two).

BDunnell

17th April 2012, 19:59

There's been talk/promises of bringing the troops home for quite some time now. Bin Laden's death makes it easier for those making the decisions to claim "mission accomplished" and actually act on the promises.
Troops at home instead of abroad has multiple benefits to many (cost, family relations, to name two).

Very fair points.

janvanvurpa

17th April 2012, 22:30

According to the latest poll by Reuters/Ipsos, if the election was held today then Obama would get 47 and Romney 43 per cent of the votes.

Looks like the race is getting closer. :cool:

The Lib'ral press hasn't asked Romney if he ALWAYS wears his Mormom Super-Underpants (suit) and what Super powers he believes the Super-underwear gives him....that ought to widen the gap just a weee bit.

Maybe if the Lib'ral Press we're to dig and ask why child neglect, child physical and sexual abuse his significantly higher where 3/4 of the population are faithful Mormons, why Utah is second in the country with 20.9% of women reporting they have been raped (second to Alaska which we know if full of alcoholic Texans living in their own Fundy-evangelical fantasy world) and if he thinks it's just a coincidence where his faith is dominant, violence against women and children is a good 20-25% higher---as is divorce.

It May Look Good on Paper [Mormonism] (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2851952/posts)
Seems vicious right winger kooks are reporting all this, where's the Lib'ral press when ya need 'em?

donKey jote

17th April 2012, 22:45

Might as well vote Tom Cruise for president. :bandit:

Oh wait, wrong "sect" :andrea:

Mormon Underwear (http://www.mormon-underwear.com/)

There is also a historical precedent for wearing religious clothing. In fact, Adam and Eve wore clothing that was made for them by God before they left the Garden of Eden.

donKey jote

17th April 2012, 22:48

Common Misconceptions (http://www.mormon-underwear.com/misconceptions.html)

First of all, young boys wouldn't be wearing garments. Garments are only worn after attending the temple which happens as an adult (see FAQs (http://www.mormon-underwear.com/underwear_faq.html)). In addition, while mormons believe that masturbation (http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/sexuality/overcoming_masturbation.html) is not an appropriate activity, they learn this in their church classes, not through their underwear.
I say, what exactly do they learn in their church classes? :laugh: :arrows: :s ailor: :andrea:

janvanvurpa

17th April 2012, 23:59

According to the latest poll by Reuters/Ipsos, if the election was held today then Obama would get 47 and Romney 43 per cent of the votes.

Looks like the race is getting closer. :cool:

Read, you'll like the layers of contradictions and intrigue:
We’re going to be seeing a lot of this for the next seven months: Mitt Romney is “overheard” by reporters explaining new details of his economic plan and a million bloggers immediately pull out their calculators and scream “argh!”

Specifically, Romney suggested that he would be able to pay for his planned 20 percent tax cut for everyone by eliminating the mortgage tax deduction for second homes as well as deductions for state and property taxes. Matthew Yglesias, Kevin Drum and James Kwak all quickly pointed out how the numbers don’t add up. Romney’s tax cut proposals still cut far more revenue than his targeted tax code tweaks add to the ledger. That means that under Romney, without extraordinary, economy-killing government spending cuts, the U.S. federal deficit would balloon even faster than it is now.

The most systematic demolition of Romney’s arithmetic comes courtesy of the Atlantic’s Matthew O’Brien, who also points out that even though the plan won’t work, it still might be considered good politics.

So far, Romney has only shown a willingness to upset a small group: rich people in blue states. After all, state income and property taxes are generally higher in Democratic states than in Republican ones. Ditching the deductibility of these taxes will mostly hurt a minority of voters in states Romney isn’t going to win anyway. The politics of it are genius. The economics, not so much.

Again, we’re going to be seeing a lot more of this between now and November. But a much more revealing insight into the potential nature of a Mitt Romney presidency came in his offhand comment at the same fundraising event that he might “eliminate” some Washington departments.

“Things like Housing and Urban Development, which my dad was head of, that might not be around later.”

Romney trashes his dad - Mitt Romney - Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/2012/04/17/romney_trashes_his_dad/)

airshifter

18th April 2012, 02:10

And you think that did anything to better the lives of anyone in the US?

I didn't state, suggest or even imply that killing Bin Laden made any persons life better. I was simply giving Obama credit for having the backbone to call the raid when the intel wasn't 100% certain. Many others might have missed that opportunity.

I actually sort of liked the fact that Bin Laden had managed to stay alive. Instead of the bold cocky man he once was, he had been reduced to a scared little man in fear for his life every day. Killing him let him off easy.

Gregor-y

18th April 2012, 17:40

Bin Ladin's survival was a blatant reminder of Bush's failure since Afghanistan and the war on terror somehow turned into an invasion of Iraq. So we really had a nine year pause in Afghanistan while we floundered about elsewhere wasting huge amounts of money and killing thousands of our own troops - and that's before we look at the cost to the local population.

And in the meantime Afghanistan's turned into a big mess that's going to result in an embarrassing departure. We may have been there longer and probably spent more money, but at least we didn't lose as many troops as the Russians.