Questions for the candidates

[Gob]

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

I'd offer more simple questions like;

1) Where is France?

2) Who is the Prime Minister of Norway.

3) Chechens, friends or foes?

4) Should the US go to war with Iran? Yes, or yes please?

5) What is the currency of Vietnam.

6) Spell Romania.

7) Where did you last spend your last holiday abroad?

8) No. Abroad, overseas, outside the USA, in a different country.

9) No, Hawaii doesn't count, try again.

10) Canada, is a) North of the USA, b) South of the USA, c) Part of the USA.

[Lord Jim]

Tonight's debate is focused on foreign policy, which should make for particularly entertaining television when Perry, Cain or Bachmann are up at bat...

It starts at 5 out here; I think I'll try to make a point to catch it...

[Gob]

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

[dgs49]

First, ask POTUS these questions.

Game. Set. Match.

[Econoline]

Which of the questions do you believe Obama has not already answered? It seems to me that the BBC's questions were designed to elicit responses which would tell the public whether--and how--the Republican candidates differed from Obama on these foreign policy issues.

[Gob]

A respectable range of right wing sabre rattling.

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

BTW Dave, in political debate, to say; "ask the other guy first" makes you look clueless and devious, especially if he 'aint part of the debate.

[Lord Jim]

It is the policy position under the Obama Administration, (as it has been for several Administrations, of both parties) that permitting the current Iranian regime to develop nuclear weapons is "unacceptable"....

No US Administration, including Obama's, has ever taken the use of force off the table as a means of preventing this unacceptable outcome from occurring, should that need arise. (Nor should it.)

[dales]

Let Israel laucnh a pre-emptive strike against Iran.

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

[Lord Jim]

Last night's debate was somewhat disappointing from a humor standpoint...

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....

Bachmann has been the candidate most inclined to call Obama a "socialist" and then she turns around and suggests we use a communist country as a template for policy....

[Sue U]

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....

Jiang Qing has really let herself go.

[quaddriver]

Let Israel laucnh a pre-emptive strike against Iran.

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

If we did it, they (Iran, arabs in general) would just renew the lease on their hatred and continue as is: most of you think they harbor us no ill will, the planned attacked being thwarted as such

If israel did it, well that is something altogether different. Every muslim, arab in general, person wearing headress would march naked and unarmed on tel aviv.

we have seen enuf zombie movies to know that would be unstoppable.

Iran has this programme for only one reason: to deliver one to somewhere in israel.

Iran is a real piece of real estate with actual cities and trains and busses etc. Al Q is not. Al Q would deliver one to the US just to be assholes, or prove a point or both. Iran, and its leaders, batshit or not, knows that to deliver a weapon to a nato country (read: US, england, canada and most of europe except france) would guarantee Iranian DNA being removed from the planet.

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.

So they NEED us to do it. We know it. they know it. The only obstacle is the prevailing anti-semitism.

[Sue U]

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.

Horseshit. "The Arabs" (as a broad-brush whole) have no love for Iran or Iranians, and would like nothing more than to see Iran substantially weakened. An attack targeted against discrete military installations and not a population center likely would not even result in any particular outpouring of solidarity -- let alone sacrifice -- of Arabs for Iran. Even if such a response could be organized, aside from Egypt there is no Arab country with the military capability to seriously threaten Israel at this point, and if there were an all-out war it is quite possible that Israel would use its own nukes.

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.

In theory, Israel might see some retaliation from Hezbollah in Lebanon or perhaps (more remotely) from Syria, both of whom depend on Iranian support -- but despite Hezbollah's noise about a regional war if Iran is attacked, and despite the stalemate in 2006, it is still at much greater risk than Israel would be if such a conflict began, and Syria has serious problems of its own right now, as you might have heard.

[quaddriver]

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

I believe I qualified my 'broad brushes' quite well. I can further simplify it to: any one in the middle east NOT israeli.

They may not 'like' Iranians. But they truly hate Israelis. Jews. You wanna unify the whole place: nuke israel. Everyone will put aside the squabbles to appoint you god. they know it, which is why the started the programme in the first place. We know it, which is why 90% of our conflict games are based on a WMD delivery to israel by whomever be dammed

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

[quaddriver]

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.

.

and in addition: I implied no such thing. 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.

[Sue U]

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

As I said last week:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4694&p=55082#p55082

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.

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.

What "country not called 'Israel'" would launch a nuke at Israel, especially without provocation? The retaliation -- whether from Israel or the US -- would be certain and devstating. Even if some country were to develop a nuclear weapon, do you really think anyone could bomb Tel Aviv without consequences? (Hint -- that's not where the Israelis keep their nukes.) Exactly how do you see that scenario playing out?

Al Qaeda would be happy to set off a nuke in almost any Western country -- or Israel, or downtown Tehran, probably -- not only the U.S. But they're not going to get their nuke from Iran. As things are today, it will come from Pakistan, if anywhere. Which, unlike Iran, already has a bomb, and has had for more than a decade.

[quaddriver]

Let me answer your post with this: Since when, has anyone in the middle east, not named israel, given a flying you know what about consequences?

For over 50 years the CIA has referred to those groups, countries, tribes - whatever - generically as 'the crazies'. they didnt do this because they were bored.

In the US we half jokingly refer to people in the 'other party' (depending on your point of view) as getting their marching orders from (insert left or right radio personality here).

Like we knew what that actually meant.

Over there, it is literally true. Only Al Q seeks to separate itself from pure religious guided fanaticism at the command and control level - which is why they are quite successful beyond their 'borders' so to speak. That by the way does not imply that they will not use religious guided fanaticism on the foot soldiers. After all it takes a pretty good disconnect to strap on C-4 underwear.

I suspect, from things you have posted that you might be jewish. But I know you are not israeli, and do not know what it means to be israeli, and it has nothing to do with how pure your sefer torah is. Instant anihilation is part of every Israels thought process from birth. It has been long declassified that the IDF had the safeties removed on the nukes once that we can prove, twice that we suspect. they know full well that should said 'craziness' become the standard, rather than the exception (outside of rhetoric) they are gone and there is nothing thier arsenal can do to prevent it.

[Sue U]

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.

[Long Run]

Good questions for any candidate to a position with foreign affairs responsibility.

I don't know if Israel has enough capability to neutralize Iran. The analysis I read was that because the elements of Iran's nuclear program are so spread out, it could take 1,000 fighter missions to do the job. This is not the single strike to blow up the nuclear plant in Iraq.

If Israel were to act, I can't see other Arab countries coming to the support of hated Iran. Most would be quietly cheering Israel as they issued serious sounding proclamations of censure. Plus, they all need the Israel get of jail free card -- any time things are going sideways in their respective countries they can blame the Jews for the suffering among the Arab masses.

[quaddriver]

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.

Now you are mishmaching events.

I stand on my statement: since when has any nation in the middle east considered the consequences of an action. I will let you provide *1*. Just one.

I am an american too. And a sizeable chunk of my close family are Israelis - by marriage of course. I too have aunts and uncles with quaint little tattoos on their forearms.

that being said, it is QUITE different living in a town where a bomb MIGHT go off, where a missle MIGHT fall - and you have the option to retaliate, vs one living in a villigage where you will MOST likely be carted off to be murdered with the complete acquienscence of the rest of the world.

Israeli security is an illusion and any one of them will tell you that. I know this because some have told me this and I didnt corner the market on family in Israel.

the muslim, palestinian, arab (whatever term you desire) message has been clear: there is no peace while one jewish heart beats on arab, palestinian, muslim, middle eastern, desert (again whatever) soil. they have never wavered one iota from that message. If you recall your RECENT history, in the Gulf war 1 when Saddam was launching scubs towards israel, of all the things the US and the coalition were allowed to do, position anti-missle batteries in a way to intercept them was NOT it. Why that?

Edited to add since I forgot as I am multitasking....
Yes, Crazies. Fundamental fanaticism. If they experts dont have a term for them that pleases you, why should I?

This is not a harvard law school debate. This is a bunch of illiterate dirt poor sand herders who believe emotionless mass murder gets them 72 virgins, clean water and a flushing toilet.

How do you debate with them? Negotiate? It is NOTHING like your (excuse the expression) lily white american upbringing has brought you up to comprehend. In fact, your schooling has put you at a gross disadvantage as you now think the rule of law applies.

[Lord Jim]

Sue and Long Run's analysis of the reaction in the Arab world to an Israeli attack to take out is right on the money...

The one thing in terms of retaliation that does have to be taken into account is what Iran itself might do....

Trying to launch a counter attack on Israel with their small, antiquated air force would be extremely fool hardy; the Israeli's would have a 100% kill rate on them within seconds of their entering Israeli air space; (or before if they chose)

However, Iran does have a number of intermediate range missiles with conventional war heads they could launch, (similar to Saddam's SCUDS, but a bit more sophisticated) so ideally these launch locations would be taken out as well.

You also obviously have to take out their anti aircraft capability to protect your strike force. (Unless the attack is carried out entirely by cruise missiles, which is a possibility...recon flights also aren't strictly speaking necessary, since the US can provide advanced satellite intel that can judge the effectiveness of the strikes, and whether follow up strikes are necessary)

Long Run is also right on one other point; because the situation has been allowed to metastasize to the level it has, this is nowhere near as simple an operation as the strikes in Iraq and Syria...

But it's still entirely doable, given good targeting intel.