Well we've had an actor as President, another as governor. A pimp was in serious contention for governor of Nevada at one point. There's been a WWF wrestler as a governor, now a reality show host and conspiracy theorist as president. Comedians have held office. Only a matter of time before an influencer gets a high ranking position, I'm sure you're right.
Correction. Pimp wasn't running for governor. Just for House of representatives... And he did actually win ,despite being dead at the time. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-hof-idUSKCN1NC1YT
Yeh very much so. And the more powerful, more established seem to be the ones that always come around every 4 years winning the primaries. It seems to be occurring more and more, recently and holding back progress and a degree of higher standard setting. In the end the result is that the quality of the person at the very top is coming from a small pool. It's the presidential equivalence of inbreeding.
A UK company used to have a monopoly on their oil. They had an election for the first time ever and the new guy kicked that company out. The UK and US responded by backing a coup which got rid of him and replaced him with a puppet. A few decades of that resulted in a revolution and the Ayatollah Khomeini took over. Saddam went to war with them and the west backed him. There's also been a lot of **** with sanctions, fatwas issued on Salman Rushdie and the like. They don't trust us, rather understandably and they keep trying to get nuclear weapons.
They're also tight with Russia post-communism and hate Israel, so the US really, really don't like them. I think that's most of it.
Don't forget the Saudi's. There's always the Saudis. U.S. likes them too, I wonder why! And they've fallen out a tad with Iran too lol
So we hate them because we couldn't keep our noses out. I forgot actually that Iran would probably be a sanctioned country. The nuclear bit could be a concern but we did all this 20 years ago with WMD, and we can see today how well that didn't go. Salman Rushdie is 74 so within a couple of decades he'll no longer be a concern either.
With regards to the debacle of Afghanistan, it's funny we're being reminded by the government that its great success was that we've not had any attacks on British soil from terrorists based in Afghanistan since. Someone needs to remind them we never had any attacks from them prior to it either
Wondering if any boffins on here canexplain to me why there does not appear to be a problem with Covid in afghanistan ? Been watching all this unfold and at no point has there been quarantines, social distancing, hand washing etc But covid seems to have missed the country out ?
Not sure i follow ? Are you saying there is no covid ? Genuine question ? I just think its really odd, no matter which country we get reports from there is usually a nod to the pandemic somewhere in the major cities But literally nothing here ? I dont understand?
Well Aber our resident boffin has given his answer. But for the facts you might want to look at this https://covid19.who.int/region/emro/country/af The population is 38m so the above link gives you some perspective. It hasn't missed the country but the levels are probably dependent on other factors such as population density, way of life and climate.
Cant get that link to load up guessing its a report on covid and afghan. I know there are reports out there but the live shots of the city and the report are what i am talking about. You look at reports in china, japan, brazil, india, britain, us,australia, anywhere really, you get some sort of nod eventually when the coverage is persistent. Not seen one reference to the pandemic in Afghanistan on the coverage I think its just weird No real view on it Just don't understand it
Covid is very selective....knows time and distance and targets audience's who's freedoms haven't already disappeared
I looked at Trebles link but that was just numbers from WHO I was looking more at the visuals Even when you look at those getting off the plane - they now have masks whereas getting on they didn’t which again infers it isn’t really prevalent in Afghanistan I understand the concept of some areas being remote but Kabul certainly looks like a densely populated city so again it doesn’t make sense Anyway sorry for troubling you people Just seemed an easy way to get a few opinions on it. cheers
I'm not sure why you are being pedantic and constantly defending terrorists. al-Qaeda were supposed to have a stronghold in Afghanistan. It was al-Qaeda that were responsible for the London Bombings as well as many others around the world. Not sure why you find events such as this funny... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings https://2001-2009.state.gov/s/ct/rls/wh/6947.htm Began to destroy al-Qaeda’s grip on Afghanistan by driving the Taliban from power.
