Just no. You are calling for the elimination of aid to Israel which is a dramatic departure from current policy and a decidedly anti-Israel policy shift. Most of that aid is in the form of military assistance and it is arguable that Israel would have no chance of attacking the Iranian nuclear installations without that aid in the first place. It is not costing us too much and doing us too little good. In the grand scheme of things it costs us very little and serves to make our only solid ally in the region much stronger militarily.
But it’s a whole lot better than what the present administration is doing and Romney is likely to continue: stringing us along and trying to make our decisions for us, and delaying any action until it’s too late.
That's really not what he said. For the most party Romney's position is the boiler plate Republican position, NOT the current Obama policy. Romney claims he would take the Iranian nuclear threat much more seriously and while he isn't advocating a military attack, it is pretty clear he would be more sympathetic to Israel than the current administration would be. Romney is a flip flopping RINO, but there is no indication he would be weak on Israel.
Neither of them are any good, really. I’d rather hear: We’ve already scrambled the USS Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln to the Persian Gulf. They’ll pick up your guys on the way, have them assembled in Eilat within a week.
That you may ultimately hear from any of the Republican candidates at some point with the exception of Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is a kook on foreign policy and defense issues. He is in NO way better than any of the other Republican candidates in this area.
“Most of that aid is in the form of military assistance and it is arguable that Israel would have no chance of attacking the Iranian nuclear installations without that aid in the first place. It is not costing us too much and doing us too little good. In the grand scheme of things it costs us very little and serves to make our only solid ally in the region much stronger militarily.”
That aid amounts to three billion dollars given to us on condition that we spend it on American-made military equipment. Three billion does buy us a plane or two, or it does buy us a lot of M-16s. But “much stronger”? It costs you too much, and helps us too little. If you’re talking about selling us spanking new state-of-the-art planes under favorable terms, that we pay for cash on the barrel-head, and get delivery...eventually. That’s not “military aid” per se, but a straight transaction. If you’re talking about joint research and development of new armaments, that benefits both of us.
“For the most party Romney’s position is the boiler plate Republican position, NOT the current Obama policy. Romney claims he would take the Iranian nuclear threat much more seriously and while he isn’t advocating a military attack, it is pretty clear he would be more sympathetic to Israel than the current administration would be. “
I don’t think we had a more sympathetic president since Reagan than George W. Bush. Yet he insisted on the forced evacuation of Gush Khatif in Ghaza, and also pushed for the inclusion of Hamas in Ghaza’s election. He was a lot more sympathetic than the Obama administration as well. But we’re talking about one main topic here: Iran. Really, it’s a moot point, because by the time you have a new president, Iran will be unstoppable, to quote Ehud “dingbat” Barak. But I 100% believe that more sympathic than Obama or no, he or any other “boilerplate Republican” will continue to pull our strings about Iran and prevent decisive action of any kind. Why? Inertia. It’s been going on long enough that it will be comfortable to let it continue until somebody, either Israel or the US, maybe both, receives a nuclear Pearl Harbor wake up call.
“Ron Paul is a kook on foreign policy and defense issues. He is in NO way better than any of the other Republican candidates in this area.”
I know that. I’m being facetious, because right now I see the US’ role as obstructing any timely action against Iran, whereas Ron Paul would at least let go of our strings so we can act independently. That is the full extent of my comment.
It’s like a broken clock, though. He’ll let go of our strings because he doesn’t give a damn what happens, so long as Iran gets to go nuclear and throws him a doggy biscuit while a mushroom cloud forms over Tel Aviv, Jerusalem or Eilat. But that way we at least have a fighting chance, if not a good one.
Right now, however, I can’t see how a strike on Iran is possible without a carrier to deliver air power that will cover a ground invasion. This isn’t there and back again, like Iraq was. Since Israel has no carriers or naval pilots, only a joint strike together with the US is doable, and that’s not forthcoming any time soon. Perhaps the UK would be willing to fill the gap? They have carriers, I think.