Thread: MacGyver for President! No? Then who?

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

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

Matlock

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

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

Snooki

Clit Yeastwood..

Originally Posted by Eki

Matlock

Maaaatlock!

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

These are all good suggestions, guys.

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

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...

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.

Chuck Norris

Originally Posted by odykas

Chuck Norris

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

Father Jack would be awesome!

YES!

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

Originally Posted by D-Type

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.

Originally Posted by D-Type

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 ) 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.

Originally Posted by studiose

Well, I think we all (except Eki ) 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.

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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.

Originally Posted by studiose

...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.

Originally Posted by schmenke

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

But according to this, the US already have air bases in Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, UAE...