Happy Face

Indeed. They threw millions at Afghanistan to defeat the Russians. And then nothing whatsoever to rebuild the country after the ravages of war. I don't see how Clinton could have forced this through 2 presidents before he even got into office. The Taliban were just a symptom of this root failure that grew and fed on the anger of US abandonment. Clinton could have done a lot, he didn't (which generally was his policy). But frankly much like Obama, whatever he'd done would have caused issues, doing the "right thing" by Afghanistan would not have been an easy course, nor would it have been without cost or a lot of criticism. So he stuck his head in the sand and dodged the bullet that Bush caught smack in the face. It would have been a FAR easier course for Reagan or Bush Snr at the end of the war with Russia though. It would have been a lot cheaper too. They made a similar mistake in Iraq with debaathification. Sacked an entire nations army and hoped they'd give the weapons back and go home quietly. Nice move Bemmer, created an armed militia in one fell swoop. They were in a no-win situation there too, which was the biggest mistake anyone make over Iraq, not realising that Saddam had keep the lid on an all out civil war for 20 years. Retaining the status-quo was unacceptable to the majority of the population (but it would have been the most sensible course never the less). Add to that the HUGE influx of Bin Lardinists looking for a cause/fight, and Syria and Iran's interests in a nice destabilising rukus and you get what we have. Again no win, and more importantly no easy solution for anyone that takes over now. I think it had less to do with what was right for Iraq and far more to do with who got paid for doing it. Paying a US corporation to control the country is far more desirable than supplying Iraqi people with jobs. Course it's not just Iraq where that shit happens, they did it after Katrina too. I read an old article this morning which pointed out rather than paying locals, the contract for tarping over roofs was tendered out to the Shaw group at $175 per square, it was subcontracted to such a degree that in the end the men doing the job got $2 per square. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060410/davis ...and the tarps are provided by FEMA.

Never thought you'd ever make such an admission. kudos.

That's complete ASS though. So you believe that terroristas aren't in some way motivated by the murder of their family and friends and that nuking Afghanistan on 9/12 would have sorted this whole mess? I don't know about terroristas , but 9/11 or the 1998 or 1993 attacks (or any of the others) had sod all to do with anyone's family (terrorists or otherwise) being murdered. It did have a lot to do with the rise of islamofacism which broadly came from a sudden lack of an enemy to fight. Aye, they all hate us for our freedom . There'll always be some fundamentalist of who the bold statement is true. The rise in popularity needs a lot more than some nut jobs convincing others to be nut jobs too. It feeds on the perceived evils performed by western governments in response. Osama played a blinder. Again, I have no qualms with going into Afghanistan and getting anyone involved with 9/11. But that's nothing whatsoever to do with the overreaction I'm talking about. I'd like to know where I said that was "wrong" Keep making assumptions and building straw men though. Keep backing away from arguments you know you cannot win, after getting yourself in way over your head, and you might make a decent politician one day. Until then: I'm not going to start arguing about the argument. As usual, we broadly agree anyway.

Indeed. They threw millions at Afghanistan to defeat the Russians. And then nothing whatsoever to rebuild the country after the ravages of war. I don't see how Clinton could have forced this through 2 presidents before he even got into office. The Taliban were just a symptom of this root failure that grew and fed on the anger of US abandonment. They made a similar mistake in Iraq with debaathification. Sacked an entire nations army and hoped they'd give the weapons back and go home quietly. Nice move Bemmer, created an armed militia in one fell swoop.

Anyone getting the feeling MA wants to stay? The feeling among our group has swung from "he has to go" to "he can stay as long as we're winning". That's what only losing one in five can do for your popularity.

That's complete ASS though. So you believe that terroristas aren't in some way motivated by the murder of their family and friends and that nuking Afghanistan on 9/12 would have sorted this whole mess? Again, I have no qualms with going into Afghanistan and getting anyone involved with 9/11. But that's nothing whatsoever to do with the overreaction I'm talking about. I'd like to know where I said that was "wrong" Keep making assumptions and building straw men though.

No he's not, but how strongly he denies this or lets it flow depends on the target audience. Given how instrumental Afghanistan was in the US plan to bankrupt the Soviet Union, I'd have tried the best I could to steer well clear. So you'd have just left the Taliban in charge and allowed them to continue training ad infinitum then? Or would you have just nuked Afghanistan to a glass wasteland? (this is exactly what I mean by Obama probably not being able to sort things out tbh) Amongst other things it's the nuking that motivates evermore suicide bombers to give their lives. The notion that wiping out afghanistan would bring an end to islamic extremism I find hard to go along with. That's complete ASS though. The issues with Afghanistan built up in the Clinton era, if anything it was a lack of interference that allowed them to build up and set the foundation for the 9/11 attacks, so in an indirect way those attacks are laid directly at Clinton's door (and without Afghanistan being what it was in the late 90's there'd not only likely not have been any 9/11 attack, but probably no Madrid attack, Bali attacks, London attack, nor many of the attacks in Iraq). No President could have just left Afghanistan as it was post-9/11, and if they did they would have simply encouraged more and more extreme attacks coming from there. There was no diplomatic solution (the complete disregard for diplomatic issues there was largely what lead to the Taliban being able to take over in the first place). So again what would have been the solution? Leave Afghanistan as it was, ignore the 3000 dead, and turn the other cheek, and allow them to continue to train people and spread hate across the world? (that worked SO will in the 1990's didn't it ) Or nuke Afghanistan into a glass wasteland, killing millions, just to remove a threat that should never have been allowed to develop in the first place? Or something in between? Which is what is happening now, which is not, and could never be anything but a very long term problem that would cost a lot of lives. So what was, or is, the "magic" solution? Or will you just continue to whinge without accepting there is none? What exactly was complete Ass? If you're going back to the root of the problem, there were 6 years between Russia initiating a withdrawl from Afghanistan and Clinton getting into office. Reagan and Bush had already spent a lot of time doing sweet fuck all to help the country that helped them kick captain communisms arse. It was that complete abandonment that allowed the Taliban to get a foothold. It's that kind of failure that makes it such an almighty fuck up with no easy solutions now. Doing the wrong thing at a pivotal moment. I never mentioned Afghanistan though why's it up to me to come up with a magic solution? I've only claimed that the Bush response to 9/11 has been excessive (Iraq, civil liberty erosion, homeland security spending etc). Are you saying it was proportionate?

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Aye EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Aye EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Aye Oh! Up the premier league we go In the Intertoto this is what we'll sing We are Geordies Super Geordies Kinnear is our King

I'd imagine the FA await the referees report on EVERY game though don't they?

I thought you were in college.

I fucking hate O'Neill. I reckon Kinnear should drop him if we get beat.

It's because she can't defecate on the track in the olympic stadium. Puts her off, not being able to squat as she sees fit.

Given how instrumental Afghanistan was in the US plan to bankrupt the Soviet Union, I'd have tried the best I could to steer well clear. So you'd have just left the Taliban in charge and allowed them to continue training ad infinitum then? Or would you have just nuked Afghanistan to a glass wasteland? (this is exactly what I mean by Obama probably not being able to sort things out tbh) Insofar as no one ever can? Agreed. Agreed. After all war and tribal conflict is a way of life and money making. ...but enough about America.

Given how instrumental Afghanistan was in the US plan to bankrupt the Soviet Union, I'd have tried the best I could to steer well clear. So you'd have just left the Taliban in charge and allowed them to continue training ad infinitum then? Or would you have just nuked Afghanistan to a glass wasteland? (this is exactly what I mean by Obama probably not being able to sort things out tbh) Amongst other things it's the nuking that motivates evermore suicide bombers to give their lives. The notion that wiping out afghanistan would bring an end to islamic extremism I find hard to go along with.

Given how instrumental Afghanistan was in the US plan to bankrupt the Soviet Union, I'd have tried the best I could to steer well clear.

Living on the edge with your predictions as ever. I imagine most thinking Americans are just delighted at the prospect of having an articulate and intelligent man in charge of their country again. (Even if he's not "really" in charge - and hopefully he'll be intelligent enough not to be. After all, even Dubya knows the value of having a strong team around you.) And following his successful candidature, it's only natural that the sheer relief has snowballed into a degree of hyperbole over time. That said, Obama has taken a real chance with his fairly low-key, Kerry-esque campaign - relying on McCain screwing up enough (which I think he may have done, even if I'll lose a whole ten pounds at Paddy Power if he loses) to outweigh the obvious disadvantages of the way he's played things. If everything goes to the formbook tomorrow then Obama will win fairly comfortably, but the combination of voting scams and what I suppose we'd know as the "Shy Tory Factor" inevitably loom on the horizon. And there's still 24 hours or so for a new Bin Laden tape to materialise. Aye, but you're still assuming he's not going to make some royal mess, or in fact that he's going to be able to sort out current messes (withdrawing from either Iraq or Afghanistan may well result in more long term problems than staying, but equally staying is obviously no bed of roses). Take Clinton, he made some mistakes (mostly inaction, which is always more deniable ), but broadly didn't have anything too directly terrible to deal with (except Hilary - who frankly has already been the first female President of the USA IMO). How would he have reacted to 9/11? No one, including himself I suspect, has a clue. But Obama is definitely been seen as some White (or Black - which is ironic in itself given his actual genetic make up) Knight riding to the rescue to bring peace to the kingdom. The WTC was attacked on Clinton's watch too you know? Yes, with a slightly different outcome however. Aye, the perpetrators were treated as the criminals they are, rounded up, given a fair trial and sentenced to life imprisonment. That kind of inaction is dangerous like, the President needs to be a doer like Bush who can blame the concept of terror for such an attack and create perpetual war from that notion. Nice little earner.

Living on the edge with your predictions as ever. I imagine most thinking Americans are just delighted at the prospect of having an articulate and intelligent man in charge of their country again. (Even if he's not "really" in charge - and hopefully he'll be intelligent enough not to be. After all, even Dubya knows the value of having a strong team around you.) And following his successful candidature, it's only natural that the sheer relief has snowballed into a degree of hyperbole over time. That said, Obama has taken a real chance with his fairly low-key, Kerry-esque campaign - relying on McCain screwing up enough (which I think he may have done, even if I'll lose a whole ten pounds at Paddy Power if he loses) to outweigh the obvious disadvantages of the way he's played things. If everything goes to the formbook tomorrow then Obama will win fairly comfortably, but the combination of voting scams and what I suppose we'd know as the "Shy Tory Factor" inevitably loom on the horizon. And there's still 24 hours or so for a new Bin Laden tape to materialise. Aye, but you're still assuming he's not going to make some royal mess, or in fact that he's going to be able to sort out current messes (withdrawing from either Iraq or Afghanistan may well result in more long term problems than staying, but equally staying is obviously no bed of roses). Take Clinton, he made some mistakes (mostly inaction, which is always more deniable ), but broadly didn't have anything too directly terrible to deal with (except Hilary - who frankly has already been the first female President of the USA IMO). How would he have reacted to 9/11? No one, including himself I suspect, has a clue. But Obama is definitely been seen as some White (or Black - which is ironic in itself given his actual genetic make up) Knight riding to the rescue to bring peace to the kingdom. The WTC was attacked on Clinton's watch too you know?

Wasn't the use of his arms was tortured out of him? He's like Cotton off King of The Hill.

Aye, Palin needs to win like. You need comedy gold like this.... Which Obama's too intelligent to provide.

Is that real? They're just there to see The Boss.

He had tbh.

David Byrne in session http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0074...ns_David_Byrne/ Hope you can get access.

Yet we are consistantly second. I reckon there maybe something in it. Seriously? You actually think this has some value? Some scientific merit? Just taking it at face value. Come on Danny, stop lying. It's from the professor Plum school of product placement research. I wouldn't even use it try winding up a mackem.

Yet we are consistantly second. I reckon there maybe something in it. Seriously? You actually think this has some value? Some scientific merit?