Although I am British I follow US politics as it is somewhat interesting and the debates which occur are to me, very alien. This is of course considering the candidates answer questions in absurd ways, have very little knowledge about most of the subjects which are brought up and to me, their views are skewed.
For example the leading candidates other than Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman (Although I wouldn’t consider a leading candidate), support water boarding, even though it goes against international, and get this, American law.
Just watching the full segment of the debates which occurred with Ron Paul also pointing this out, it seemed it didn’t bother them.
Then you had Mitt Romney saying that if terrorists go beyond the rule of law then they should be tried in such a way. But to me, when I first thought of that, I was thinking that doesn’t make sense. If anyone breaks the law, they are technically going beyond the rule of law and they are tried in a civilian court for that. Ron Paul even pointed out that terrorists have in the past been tried in a civilian court of law. So why is it any different in this case?
Perhaps before giving judgment, being for such a heinous method of trying to gain information from someone, perhaps candidates should undergo the same treatment. Then they would really know whether dousing someone with water and giving them the idea and feeling of drowning is torture or not. There is also actually no sound proof that torturing people gains valuable information. I knew if I were under the same conditions, I would lie in the best way I could. What advantages would you actually get by telling the truth? You know they aren’t going to let convicted terrorists (In their eyes) go free.
But it just isn’t this issue which gets me as well. The issue of Israel comes up and with the recent news from the IAEA suggesting that Iran could be developing nuclear weapons this places a few worries on Israel. Although I’m not sure what to believe when it comes to the President of Iran when he stated he would “wipe Israel off the map”, that is still subject to debate over the translation of what he meant.
However the thing about Israel is that it is strong enough nowadays to protect itself. They have a large army, advanced military gear, apparently they have nuclear weapons, although don’t admit that, and only hold the position of ambiguity. But they have a much more advanced army which can actually attack Iran with a decently sized and modern air force and they can protect themselves with ease. But the question remains whether they attack. However if you saw the debates last night, most of the top-tier candidates (Withstanding Ron Paul) openly stated they would join in an attack with Israel. Or would assess the situation however it pretty much looked like what they were saying is, if Israel thinks so, then it must be a good idea.
The one question, which people need to keep posing for it to come up at-all, is whether or not these candidates are being paid off with large sums of money to support a certain view. Are they being bought essentially?
They can deny it, but this question needs to be said at some point, as the truth will always come out and having evidence on the side would never hurt.
I mean my god; apparently Herman Cain is the forefront candidate of the seat for the republican nomination for presidency. If you have seen his view on foreign policy, he has no knowledge on that subject at-all, especially so if you saw his stance on Libya. This guy was denouncing what President Obama did with the situation which occurred in Libya however he didn’t have the slightest clue as to what he was denouncing let alone what happened. It seems as if at any point he can denounce Obama he will do it, even if he doesn’t know what he is actually denouncing. – It’s just the cool thing to do. This guy is clueless and could be the next president of the United States, it makes me shudder.
But to be honest, from the looks of it, it seems that the Republican’s don’t want a candidate who can win. According to a poll done by Rasmussen Reports, the poll concluded that Ron Paul would score 41% against Barack Obama’s 42% in a hypothetical 2012 election. Although Ron Paul has suggested doing some pretty radical things in America, which includes closing down a lot government, stopping all foreign aid and has suggested $1 trillion dollars in cuts in his first year; he has risen recently in polls.
I just don’t see any other candidate out there which will be able to beat Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential race. Ron Paul has a pretty wide view and I think possibly he is the only consistent and truthful politician in America; I can see. I’m sure there are others; however he is the only candidate which has consistently asserted his view. If given the chance he could possibly beat Obama. As I think Obama would literally slaughter any other candidate, they are not presidential material. I mean, who doesn’t like Ron Paul? This is the guy who said he would slash the president’s wage from $400,000 per year to around $30,000 per year. Should money for running a country you supposedly love not be the deciding factor as to how you run it, or why you want to run the country?
