Plan B Forum

So, to learn as much as we can about what these candidates think and know about the world and national security, here are 10 suggested topic areas for the moderators of tomorrow night's debate.


1. The IAEA this week says that Iran more or less knows how to build a nuclear weapon. Assuming when you become president, there is not yet evidence of an actual weapon, what will your policy be? Will you continue to contain Iran and add pressure through sanctions until it is clear Iran is constructing a bomb? Or are you prepared to act preemptively to prevent Iran from acquiring a weapon?

2. The Bush administration invaded Iraq to eliminate suspected weapons of mass destruction. The Bush administration negotiated an end to the Libyan WMD programme, one of its signature achievements. You all have strongly indicated that Iran should never gain a nuclear weapon. Is the ultimate solution to declare the Middle East a nuclear-weapons-free zone, as called for under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?

3. Most of you have said that Libya was not a vital interest to the United States and that you would not have militarily intervened. Does that mean you would have preferred leaving Gaddafi in power? If not, then why was Obama wrong?

4. President Bush achieved regime change in Iraq, but at a cost of about $800bn (£502bn). President Obama's intervention in Libya, achieving a similar result, cost just over a billion. Keeping in mind our current financial situation, as President, what are the lessons learned from both experiences?

5. If the deficit super-committee fails, defence will take an even bigger hit than the roughly $430bn already planned. Congress may delay sequestration until after next year's election. In 2013, are you prepared to enact deeper defence cuts to balance the budget? If not, please explain how, if Ronald Reagan could not raise defence spending, lower taxes and balance the budget, results would be different in your administration?

6. Will any troops be in Afghanistan in 2016? If so, doing what?

7. You have all declared you are strong supporters of Israel. Are the foreign policies of the United States and Israel identical? If not, name one area where you believe Israeli actions are contrary to US interests. What will you do to encourage a change in Israeli policy?

8. Do you consider climate change a national security issue? If not, as president, what will you say to the president of the Maldives when he tells you that emissions of greenhouse gases by China and the United States threaten the very existence of his country because of rising sea levels?

9. Some of you have indicated a willingness to militarily intervene in Mexico to control violence perpetrated by drug cartels. Those cartels are battling Mexican authorities using weapons purchased in the United States, including combat weapons like the AK-47. If the war in Mexico threatens the United States, should we on national security grounds first restrict the sale of combat weapons that cannot be plausibly tied to individual security before putting troops in harm's way at significant cost?

10. Congress is considering legislation that would require all terrorism suspects to be tried in military rather than civilian courts. Do you support this legislation? If so, given the strong record of open trials and convictions in civilian courts, why do you think they are not the appropriate venue for at least certain kinds of terrorism cases?

Any candidate that credibly answers these questions will pass the proverbial 3am test.


PJ Crowley served as US Assistant Secretary of State in the administration of President Barack Obama between 2009 and 2011.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15687815

Cringe comedy

Cringe comedy is a comedy genre that uses awkward and embarrassing situations to cause audiences to feel uneasy. This genre is particularly prominent in British comedy and has been popularised by comic acts such as Rowan Atkinson, Harry Enfield, Steve Coogan, and Ricky Gervais.

Humour based on uncomfortable situations is not a new concept. One can point to black comedy as the likely origin of the concept, as it is often intended to provoke a similar response. A movement toward this style of comedy began in earnest with the television series Monty Python, and their film Monty Python's The Meaning of Life is generally considered to be a masterpiece of the genre. Countless films employing this style of comedy were made during the 1980s and 1990s (including There's Something About Mary). More recent examples include Sacha Baron Cohen's Borat and Bruno.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cringe_comedy

The eight contenders for the US Republican presidential nomination have debated foreign policy in the state of South Carolina.

They said they would stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, but differed over how to do it.

Mitt Romney, the front-runner so far in the Republican race, vowed to stop Iran by a pre-emptive military strike if needed.

Herman Cain said the only way to stop Iran was through economic means.

The businessman, whose campaign has been dogged by sexual harassment allegations recently, spoke about squeezing Tehran through sanctions and boosting Iran's opposition movement.

Mitt Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, said: "One thing you can know is if we elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon. If you elect me as the next president, they will not have a nuclear weapon."

Newt Gingrich, a former speaker of the House of Representatives, came to Spartanburg, South Carolina, riding a new wave of support as the conservative alternative to the more moderate Mr Romney.

He declared he would launch covert operations within Iran.

Mr Gingrich said: "There are a number of ways to be smart about Iran, and a few ways to be stupid. The (Obama) administration skipped all the ways to be smart."

Ron Paul, a congressman from Texas, wanted no part in a military strike. "It's not worthwhile to go to war," he said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15710323

Lord Jim wrote:The only real LOL moment came when Michelle Bachmann suggested the we should look to The People's Republic Of China as a model to follow for government social services....

dales wrote:Let Israel laucnh a pre-emptive strike against Iran.

We're already involved in a massive several trillion dollar fustercluck in Iraq and Afghanistan.

quaddriver wrote:So israel, is in a lose-lose position.
Dont strike, they lose when one gets lit off.
Strike and the entire muslim/arab/headress wearing population attacks en masse - a loss.

Sue U wrote: Horseshit. "The Arabs" (as a broad-brush whole) have no love for Iran or Iranians, .

Sue U wrote:It is further unlikely that Al Qaeda would do anything for Iran, since the religious zealotry that fuels Al Qaeda considers the Iranian Shi'a to be godless heretics.

.

quaddriver wrote:

Sue U wrote:Im sorta surprised you dont get this: no one is really making any effort at hiding their moves. In fact, each player, including the US is telegraphing thier position rather loudly. The only thing not decided is: when

Sue U wrote:Really, for Israel, what would be the downside of an attack that took out Iranian nuclear weapons facilities? Iran's direct retaliatory capabilities are extremely limited, and it's unlikely it could get Hezbollah or Hamas to do its work on this front -- too much risk for them. It's not like the Arab world is going to rally to the support of Iran (Saudi Arabia, for one, would undoubtedly be cheering Israel on). There will be a lot of hand wringing in Western capitals and votes of condemnation in the U.N., but frankly no one is going to be terribly sad about the result.

Making a lot of noise about it now is actually quite useful on the diplomatic front: for one, it lets Israel say it raised the issue and gave fair warning that it would take direct action against what it perceives as an existential threat; for another, it lets Washington distance itself from any action ultimately taken.

quaddriver wrote:I was contrasting the 2 schools of thought should a live nuke show up in someones hands. Let me be perfectly clear: if possessed by a country not called 'Israel', then it will be set off in, launched at, delivered to Israel.

If possessed by Al Q, Israel is actually SAFER as its intended destination will be the USA.

quaddriver wrote:Let me answer your post with this: [non-responsive nonsense].

Sue U wrote:

quaddriver wrote:Let me answer your post with this: [non-responsive nonsense].

So in other words, you cannot actually produce any coherent basis for your opinion other than "they're all crazy, them arabs or whatever."

As for being Israeli, I am an American, but a sizeable chunk of my close family are Israelis -- including some Jewish crazies living in West Bank "settlements." And if you don't think I know what "instant annihilation" is about, remember that all of my father's family still remaining in Poland in 1939 was never heard from again; try growing up with that parental perspective (in fact, I was named for one of these victims). In Israel, despite the wars and terrorism, most people have known more personal security than they ever did in their (or their families') countries of origin.