|
Nuclear military option on the Republican table
The third Republican debate was still no more than a prelude to the real show - the one including not just Thompson the governor, but also Thompson the actor. Nevertheless, It provided for some interesting moments related to issues of concern to this blog. My notes from the second Democratic debate, earlier this week ("Mr. Baker, your services no longer needed"), can be read here.
Iran
Rudi Giuliani questioned the strange declaration by Joe Biden in the Democratic debate about the number of years before Iran has a useable nuclear device ready. Biden said there's still a decade before Iran has the lethal capability, Giuliani begged to differ.
Other than that, the tough rhetoric from the first Republican debate repeated itself with even more zeal. The candidates, well, some of them, are not just leaving the military option on the table - but rather the tactical-nuclear option. Four of the ten candidates were asked, all four said yes. Hunter, Gilmore, Giuliani, Romney will consider using tactical nuclear weapons, or so they say. Republicans, generally speaking and in theory only until proved otherwise, are ready to talk to Iran but also ready to bomb it.
Israel 1
My beloved country was first mentioned less than ten minutes into the debate. The Middle East, explained former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore is an important region the US should take care of because of "our interest in Israel, our interest in energy". What's that supposed to mean? I don't exactly know (to be fair, here's the full quote: I think the true business is this: The interests of the United States is in creating as much stability as possible in the Middle East. There is a very great danger to this country: our interests in Israel, our interests in energy and in other ways. There is a giant danger of the Middle East becoming an unstable place). Two minutes following Gilmore it was Senator McCain mentioning Israel by way of explaining why the US should not abandon Iraq. Five minutes later, it was Senator Brownback reminding the viewers that Israel was the country threatened by Iran (Ahmadinejad just this past week called for the destruction of Israel).
Bottom line: too much, too soon. As I already wrote, Israel gains nothing by being mentioned constantly in this race.
Israel 2
What's with this question about "Britain and Israel" letting homosexuals serve openly in the army? Do they want to ruin Israel's reputation in the eyes of its great right-wing-evangelical-Christian-Republican supporters?
Why not a question about "our great ally Israel who does not have a separation of church and state and does have mandatory bible classes at its state-run schools"?
|
