Sure, you can and should answer as you see fit, but on the other hand, a discussion is not just the participants saying whatever they feel like. If we're not responding meaningfully to one another, then it's not a discussion, it's two people talking at each other. Case in point: At the heart of what? It has nothing to do with the claim which I'd questioned and to which you offered it as part of a response: that Donald Trump intends to close overseas military bases. Maybe you mean it's at the heart of the conflict in Syria? I'm no expert, and wasn't even alive at the time of the Crisis, but that seems like a pretty overblown claim. In any case, the idea that Donald Trump has acted effectively to defuse the risk of nuclear war is bizarre. I mean, tweets like "Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nicer and new and ‘smart.’" aren't putting out fires - they're fanning the flames[*] - and, again, assuming the chemical attacks were faked, then the less risky choice would have been to have said so, not to have mounted an attack in a situation you believe to be as unstable as that of the Cuban Missile Crisis. You can't have it both ways: that this situation is as precarious as that of the Cuban Missile Crisis, yet at the same time that it is reasonable to mount an attack (however "symbolic") in the situation. [*] Not to mention being disappointing and pathetic coming from a world leader. It's hard to imagine how anybody could respect this type of dick-waving.